Oakley City Council
March 12, 2024

AGENDA

REGULAR JOINT MEETING OF THE OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY

COUNCIL ACTING AS THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY/OAKLEY PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
6:30 PM
Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California 94561 Unless stated otherwise on the agenda, every item on the agenda is exempt from CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c), 15061(b)(3), 15273, 15378, 15301, 15323 and/or Public Resources Code Section 21065.

MISSION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley will create a resilient future that fosters and attracts a vibrant and evolving community that welcomes and values all people.

VISION STATEMENT: The City of Oakley celebrates our unique Delta lifestyle and small-town feel where we Live in a safe, dynamic community, Work together to build the future, and Play in our own backyard.

Agendas are posted in Oakley at Oakley City Hall-3231 Main Street, outside the gym at Delta Vista Middle School-4901 Frank Hengel Way and outside the Library at Freedom High School-1050 Neroly Road.

Agendas are also posted on the City’s Internet Website www.ci.oakley.ca.us.

A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each item is available for public review prior to an Oakley City Council and/or City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority meeting at Oakley City Hall, 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Oakley City Council, Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency or Oakley Public Financing Authority regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection, during regular business hours, at the front counter in the Main Lobby of the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561. Agendas may be picked up at the Oakley City Hall located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 for no charge. To request information regarding placement on the City’s agenda e-mail distribution list, please contact us at (925) 625-7000.

The City of Oakley provides social media options to stay connected to City Hall through Facebook, Twitter, Next Door and Instagram. Other opportunities to connect with City Hall include Engage In Oakley, Oakley OnDemand on the City's website, and by emailing [email protected]. 1 If you have a physically challenging condition and require special accommodations, please call the City Clerk’s office at (925) 625-7000.

Please keep cell phones/electronic devices turned off during the meeting. Please be advised that City Council meetings are video recorded and attendees may appear on video.

Information Regarding Public Comment
Members of the public may address the Council on items of interest that are within the City’s jurisdiction. In compliance with State law, the council may not take actionor have discussion on any item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. Public comment on items not listed on the agenda will be heard under the Public Comments section of the agenda. Public comments on items listed on the agenda will be heard as the Mayor calls the items. In compliance with State law, the Council may not take action on an item that is not specifically listed on the agenda. If you would like to speak on any agenda item, please fill out a public speaker card available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk seated in the Council Chamber prior to the agenda item being called. The Mayor will call you by name to the podium to hear your comment.

PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE LIMITED TO THREE (3) MINUTES. Online public comments are accepted until 5 p.m. the day of the meeting and can be submitted at
https://www.ci.oakley.ca.us/online-public-comment-card/.

1.OPENING MATTERS
Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Ariana Mesa and Briana Hernandez, Oakley Elementary School Students)

1.3 Recognition of Hector Espinoza, Senior at Freedom High School and finalist in the Contra Costa Shark Tank (Mayor Williams)

1.4 Proclamation Proclaiming March as Red Cross Month (Stephen Griswold, Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of Supervisor Diane Burgis, and Contra Costa Red Cross Leadership Council)
Proclamation

2.PUBLIC COMMENTS
2 At this time, the public is permitted to address the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority on non-agendized items.

3.COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS

4.CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically non-controversial in nature and are considered for approval by the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority with one single action. Members of the audience, Staff or the Oakley City Council/ Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority who would like an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purposes of public input may request the Mayor remove the item. The public may request to remove an item(s) to provide input by completing a public speaker card and submitting it to the City Clerk prior to the item(s) being called by the Mayor.

4.1 Approve Minutes of the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency and Special Public Financing Authority Meeting held February 27, 2024 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk) Minutes 02-27-24

4.2 Waive the Second Reading and Adopt an Ordinance Regarding Administrative Fines for Unlicensed Commercial Cannabis Activity Including Cultivation, Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution or Retail Sale of Cannabis and Declaring Such Activity a Public Nuisance (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk/Paralegal) Ordinance

4.3 Adopt a Resolution Approving the City of Oakley Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Local Roadway Safety Plan

4.4 Adopt a Resolution Accepting as Complete Capital Improvement Project Number 286 – City Hall Rooftop Solar Power Project as Constructed by Sun Light & Power (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Notice of Completion

4.5 Adopt a Resolution Accepting as Complete Capital Improvement Project Number 187 – Main Street Bridge Rehabilitation Project at Contra Costa Canal 3 Project as constructed by TNB Construction (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Notice of Completion

4.6 Adopt a Resolution Accepting the subdivision improvements associated with the Pheasant Meadows Subdivision 8736 and Vintner View Subdivision 8836 located along the east side of O’Hara Avenue south of Grapevine Lane and west of the Cinnamon Ridge Subdivision (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Staff Report

1. Vicinity Map - Pheasant Meadows & Vintner View.pdf

2. Resolution

4.7 Adopt a Resolution Appointing Kai-Christian Torf to the Contra Costa Transportation Authority Citizens Advisory Committee for the Remainder of the Current Four-Year Term Expiring August 11, 2025 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk) Staff Report

1. Application

2. Proposed Resolution

4.8 Adopt a Resolution Approving Contract Amendment Number 1 with HMH Engineers, Inc. for On-Call Consulting Services Related to Development Engineering Support Services for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 and Award of Contract for Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Development Engineering Support Services with HMH Engineers, Inc for Fiscal Years 2024/25 and 2025/26 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. HMH Engineers Inc. On-Call FY 23-24 Amendment 1 Agreement-revised.docx

3. HMH Proposal

4.9 Adopt a Resolution Approving Contract Amendment Number 1 with Park Engineering, Inc. for On-Call Consulting Services Related to Inspection Support Services for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 and Award of Contract for Professional Services Agreement for On-Call Inspection Support Services with Park Engineering, Inc for Fiscal Years 2024/25 and 2025/26 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Amendment Agreement No. 1 for FY 2023/24
4 3. Park Engineering, Inc. Proposal for Contract FY 2024/25 and 2025/26

4.10 Adopt a Resolution Awarding a Construction Contract to R&R Pacific Construction Inc. for the construction of Fiscal Year 2023/24 Curb, Gutter & Sidewalk Repair and Replacement Project, Capital Improvement Project Number 295 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Staff Report

1. Resolution

2. Bid Summary

4.11 Approval of the Special Event Beverage Concessions Non-Profit Selection and Vendor Selection Criteria (Jeri Tejeda, Administrative Services Director, Troy Faulk, Recreation Manager)
Staff Report

1. Events Beverage Concession Request for Proposal

2. Adventure Therapy Foundation Proposal

3. Be Exceptional Proposal

4. East County All Star Fundraising Proposal

5. Pillars of Hope Proposal

6. Rotary Club of Oakley Proposal

7. Internal Selection Criteria - Vendors

5.PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Approve the Project titled The Village at 2092 Oakley Road Subdivision 9634 (GPA 01-22, RZ 03-22, FDP 01-22, TM 04-22, DR 07-22) – Request for approval of a General Plan Amendment, Rezone, Final Development Plan, Tentative Map, and Design Review for a 9.99 acre, 83 unit single family residential subdivision project. APN 037-110-031. (Ken Strelo, Planning Manager)
California Environmental Quality Act determination: Recommend that the City Council adopt a Negative Declaration finding the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.

Suggested Action: Staff Recommendation: 1) Receive the Staff Report, 2) Receive Questions from the City Council, 3) Open the Public Hearing, 4) Receive Comments from the Applicant, 5) Receive Public Testimony, 6) Close the Public Hearing, 7) Deliberate, 8) Summarize the Deliberation 9) Introduce the Ordinance 10)Adopt the Resolutions
Staff Report

1. Vicinity Map

2. Notice of Public Hearing

3. Applicant's Plans

4. City Council Minutes from March 22, 2022 - Excerpt of Project’s Preliminary General Plan Amendment Work Session (Item 7.2)
5 5. Planning Commission Staff Report from February 6, 2024

6. Planning Commission Minutes from February 6, 2024

7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2-24

8. Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration

9. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

10. Proposed Ordinance (Rezone)

11. Proposed Resolution (General Plan Amendment)

12. Proposed Resolution (Final Development Plan, Tentative Map, Design Review)

12.a. Exhibit "A" Mitigation Monitoring Program

6.REGULAR CALENDAR

7.REPORTS

7.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
(b) Business License Update
(c) Commercial and Industrial Development Project Update (b) February 2024 New Business Licenses

7.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
(b) Requests for Future Agendas

8.WORK SESSIONS

9.CLOSED SESSION

10.ADJOURN
6 PROCLAMATION
AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH, 2024
WHEREAS, March is American Red Cross month, when we recognize the compassion of people in Contra Costa County and reaffirm our commitment to care for one another in times of crisis; and
WHEREAS, this generous spirit is woven into the fabric of our community and advances the humanitarian legacy of American Red Cross founder Clara Barton — one of the most honored women in our country’s history — who nobly dedicated herself to alleviating suffering; and WHEREAS, people have counted on the American Red Cross for the information and skills they need to be safe at home, at work, at school, and at play, training people in lifesaving skills in CPR, first aid, fire prevention and water safety; and
WHEREAS, with 1,032 volunteers in Contra Costa County, the American Red Cross assisted or responded to 115 disasters; and through our Sound the Alarm program, the American Red Cross installed 583 smoke alarms, making 205 homes safer, and trained 577 individuals and families about fire prevention; and trained 617 youth through the Pillowcase Project and Prepare with Pedro; and
WHEREAS, Contra Costa County residents donated nearly 16,736 units of lifesaving blood; hosted 538 blood drives; and trained 6,522 citizens in first aid, CPR and AED; and 3,803 in Water Safety; and 756 military members and their families received support and services; and humanitarian aid was provided internationally; and
WHEREAS, we hereby recognize this month of March in honor of all those who lead with their hearts to serve people in need, and we ask everyone to join in this commitment to strengthen our community.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT I, Anissa Williams, Mayor of the City of Oakley, on behalf of the City Council, do hereby proclaim March 2024 as Red Cross Month.

March 12, 2024
___________________
Anissa Williams, Mayor
7 Minutes of the Regular Joint Meeting of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency and Special Meeting of the Oakley Public Financing Authority held
February 27, 2024
1) OPENING MATTERS

1.1 Call to Order and Roll Call of the Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency/Oakley Public Financing Authority
Mayor Anissa Williams called the meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. in the Oakley City Council Chambers located at 3231 Main Street, Oakley, California. Vice Mayor Shannon Shaw and Councilmembers Hugh Henderson and Aaron Meadows were also present. Mayor Williams announced that Councilmember Dr. George Fuller is joining by teleconference and provided his location, the DoubleTree by Hilton, Pakalana Room, 1956 Ala Moana Bl, Honolulu, HI 96815-1897.

1.2 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag (Heritage High School JROTC) The Heritage High School JROTC led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.

1.3 Proclamation Recognizing February as Prescription Drug Abuse Awareness Month (Danielle Aubin, BAART Programs)
Mayor Williams presented the proclamation to Danielle Aubin with BAART Programs.

Ms. Aubin thanked the Council.
2) PUBLIC COMMENTS
Online public comments were submitted by Katie Patterson, Angela Lanuza, Michele Duran, Michele D, Jennifer Barajas, Jennifer Carper, Michelle Meade, Erin Mass, Sean Mass, Sandy Whiting, Jennifer Greene, Jennifer Emmons, and Justin Ashford to request that the Council consider the City providing financial support toward the Freedom High School Grad Night.
8 3) COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Dr. Fuller thanked the City Clerk and City Manager for their efforts in regard to the minutes, item 4.1.

Mayor Williams commented that the Freedom Parents Club is trying to pull off Grad Night and she has contact information if anyone can help. 4) CONSENT CALENDAR

4.1 Approve Minutes from the Regular Joint City Council/City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency/Public Financing Authority Meeting Held February 13, 2024 (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk)

4.2 Accept Report Out of Closed Session Memo (Derek Cole, City Attorney)

4.3 Award of Construction Contract to sofSURFACES for the Daffodil Park Playground Surfacing Project - Capital Improvement Program (CIP) No. 307 (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.4 Approval of Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Final Map for Summer Lake North Subdivision 9307 (Located at the northeast corner of East Cypress Road and Bethel Island Road) (Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer)

4.5 Approval of the Final Agreement for the Purchase of Portions of Contra Costa Assessor Parcel No. 034-090-022 from the Del Barba family for the Laurel Road Widening (Cloverbrook Avenue to O’Hara Avenue) ProjectCapital Improvement Project (CIP) Number 280 (Derek Cole, City Attorney and Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer) Vice Mayor Shaw pulled item 4.4.

Mayor Williams pulled item 4.5.

It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to approve the remainder of the Consent Calendar. A roll call vote was conducted by the City Clerk. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Item 4.4
Vice Mayor Shaw shared that she pulled the item for staff to highlight the history and what the agreement and final map do for the process.

Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani shared that the Summer Lake development began before the City of Oakley incorporated and at that time, the developer was Shea Homes, and in the early 2000s, it completed Summer Lake South and owned the Summer Lake North property of which a tentative vesting map was 9 approved by the Council in 2011, creating one of the largest subdivisions. He mentioned Civic Summer Lake North LLC purchased the property in July 2021, actively began working on it, and since then levee work was completed on the property and they are now ready to begin infrastructure. He explained this agreement and map are a formality of that process. He mentioned the development could take 10 years before all homes are built and the E. Cypress Road project will be completed over the next 3 years, extending to the frontage of this subdivision, so the road will be completed before the homes are built.

Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned that she wanted to highlight it to make sure people are aware that the road will be complete before the homes are built, and that this is a formality for the homes that will be built, but that the E. Cypress Road expansion is in the forefront.

Mr. Rohani explained that the road improvements are forefront and happening and these will be separate but parallel projects.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Shaw and seconded by Councilmember Henderson. A roll call vote was conducted by the City Clerk. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) Item 4.5
Mayor Williams shared that she pulled the item for staff to highlight the history and next steps.

Public Works Director/City Engineer Kevin Rohani shared that staff has been working on this portion of Laurel Road for many years, other parts of Laurel Road have been expanded, and this portion was left out because the City did not have the right of way to execute the project. He mentioned staff has been in contact with the property owners over a number of years and in December 2022, they came to an informal agreement.

He shared that once the right of way is acquired, an item will come before the Council in April to consider granting an easement to WAPA to move the poles on the property, to allow the City to proceed with the road expansion. He thanked the City Attorney for his work to help get to this point of the final agreement. He mentioned the road design should be completed by summer and the award of a construction contract should come before the Council in July, with construction beginning late August, and completion of the project occurring in mid-2025. He thanked all the parties involved for their work to make this happen.

Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned the City is spending money on this. She inquired if in the event the rest of the property sells, if the City can recuperate some cost for improvements it is making.

Mr. Rohani explained that is correct; the vineyard may eventually be sold and once a developer acquires it, as part of the developer’s conditions of approval, the frontage improvements will have been completed by then so the City will know its cost and keep that on file, and when the developer comes in, the developer will have to pay the City for the cost of the frontage improvements.
10 Councilmember Meadows referred to section 5.1 in the Agreement and mentioned the days appear to need correction. He requested clarification on the timing of the due diligence period (60 days) and closing of escrow (30 days).

City Attorney Derek Cole mentioned it is the intent to have a 30-day escrow and staff can make the appropriate changes to section 5.1 to clarify the language.

Mr. Rohani explained there has been a lot of last-minute back and forth between the parties to wrap this up and staff will ensure that Councilmember Meadows’ comments are incorporated.

Dr. Fuller thanked staff and the Del Barba family. He commented that it has been many years and he is glad it is wrapping up as he believes the road will improve safety, convenience, and happiness for the community.

It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement with a 30-day close of escrow and clean up revisions to section 5.1 to reflect a 30-day close of escrow. A roll call vote was conducted by the City Clerk. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0) 5) PUBLIC HEARINGS

5.1 Consideration of a Resolution Establishing a Master Fee Schedule and Updating Certain City Fees (Jeri Tejeda, Administrative Services Director) Administrative Services Director Jeri Tejeda presented the staff report and provided a handout for a change to the last page of the fee schedule. She requested the fee schedule be considered with the following amendment to correct clerical errors: Account Reinstatement Fee $35.00 (not $75.00), Go Back Service Fee $35.00 (not $75.00), and the Cart Service Per Cart Charge $75.00 (not $40.00). She mentioned that all noticing requirements were met for this public hearing and if approved, the fee schedule will be effective April 28, 2024.

Mayor Williams called for questions of the Council, including Dr. Fuller joining remotely.

The Council had no questions.

Mayor Williams opened the public hearing and called for public comments; there being none, she closed the public hearing.

Dr. Fuller commented that staff did fantastic work on the master fee schedule. He mentioned there are a couple of items he disagrees with, one being the increase of the after-school fee from $4 to $10 which provides a 150% increase. He explained that he doesn’t want to request each item to be considered separately so he will vote ‘no’ for the entire item.
11 It was moved by Councilmember Henderson and seconded by Vice Mayor Shaw to adopt the resolution with the amendments. A roll call vote was conducted by the City Clerk. AYES: Henderson, Meadows, Shaw, Williams. NOES: Fuller. (4-1) 6) REGULAR CALENDAR

6.1 Waive the First Reading and Introduce an Ordinance Regarding Administrative Fines for Unlicensed Commercial Cannabis Activity Including Cultivation, Manufacturing, Processing, Distribution or Retail Sale of Cannabis and Declaring Such Activity a Public Nuisance (Libby Vreonis, City Clerk/Paralegal)
City Clerk/Paralegal Libby Vreonis presented the staff report. She recommended clerical revisions to the ordinance to reflect that Chapter 41 of Title 4 is being added, that there are amendments to Oakley Municipal Code Sections 1.5.022 and 1.5.207, and that the definition of “Distribution” in Oakley Municipal Code Section 4.41.104(d) read as follows: “refers to the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis related products between persons or entities.” Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if there is a cap with the $100, $200, $500 escalating fees.

Mr. McMurray explained that there is not; it is per violation, per day.

Dr. Fuller expressed his strong opposition to cannabis operations within the city as it doesn’t fit our lifestyle, safety plans, or needs, he is glad the City is taking measures to ensure there are no rogue marijuana operations, and that it is being handled in a professional manner.

No public comments were submitted.

It was moved by Vice Mayor Shaw and seconded by Councilmember Meadows to waive the first reading and introduce the ordinance with the stated amendments. A roll call vote was conducted by the City Clerk. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)

6.2 Adopt a Resolution to Establish a Library and Community Center Project Specific Sub-Committee (Joshua McMurray, City Manager)
City Manager Joshua McMurray presented the staff report. He recommended that two sub-committee members be nominated, and that the sub-committee terminate at the end of 2024.

Councilmember Meadows commented that he also likes the end of this year to terminate and nominated Mayor Williams and Vice Mayor Shaw to serve.

Vice Mayor Shaw and Mayor Williams both confirmed they would like to be on the committee.

Mayor Williams called for comments from Dr. Fuller. He had none. 12 Mayor Williams called for public comments. There were none.

It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to appoint Vice Mayor Shaw and Mayor Williams to the sub-committee and for the subcommittee to terminate 12/31/24. A roll call vote was conducted by the City Clerk. Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)

6.3 Resolution of the City Council of Oakley Declaring the Existence of a Local Emergency Due to the City's Sustaining of a Cyberattack on February 22, 2024 (Derek Cole, City Attorney)
City Attorney Derek Cole presented the staff report. He explained that the City is requesting the declaration of emergency to ensure the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) is activated. He explained that it is out of an abundance of caution, and it is not a traditional emergency such as during COVID or a natural disaster. He explained that legally, the City is not likely to get reimbursement from the state for declaring the emergency such as during the COVID era, but the City wants to make sure emergency operations are in place and purchasing powers are available.

City Manager Joshua McMurray added that they need to declare a local state of emergency as it is necessary to activate the EOC and for staff to have the ability to purchase. He mentioned knowing that the City Council meeting was just days away and is within the 7 days that the Oakley Municipal Code requires to ratify the declaration felt appropriate, he plans to keep the EOC open through the length of the investigation, and as the City is under an active investigation, he is not at liberty to disclose publicly where they are at with the investigation, but the City is actively working through it and trying to restore all of its systems so it is fully operational, and he would expect that the EOC will be operational for at least 1 more week, possibly 2 weeks.

Dr. Fuller commented that he appreciates staff’s response and professionalism and he supports it so they can conclude the investigation.

Vice Mayor Shaw thanked staff for working on this all weekend while also attending the governance meeting.

Councilmember Meadows echoed her comments.

Mayor Williams commented that they all appreciate the work of staff, being kept up to date, and believes it is in good hands.

Mayor Williams called for public comments. There were none.

It was moved by Councilmember Meadows and seconded by Councilmember Henderson to adopt the resolution. A roll call vote was conducted by the City Clerk.

Motion was unanimous and so ordered. (5-0)
13 7) REPORTS

7.1 CITY MANAGER
(a) City Manager
(b) New Rail Platform Safety Plan Memo
(c) Police Department Annual Update
(d) Fireworks Update
(e) School Resource Officer Update
(a) City Manager Joshua McMurray reported Friday Night Bites will be held March 1st in Civic Center Plaza and Oakley’s Got Talent will be held at the Recreation Center March 9th, 1 p.m.-4 p.m.
(b) Mr. McMurray mentioned this item was requested as a future agenda item and he has provided a memo.

Mayor Williams mentioned there was a public comment submitted a few Council meetings ago and it might be something to look into--a quiet zone similar to that in Downtown Martinez near homes for the area in proximity to the platform.

Mr. McMurray suggested a future agenda item request can be made to direct staff to research.

Dr. Fuller commented that he has researched trains blowing horns and discussed the matter with federal and railroad officials; it is his understanding that the train engineer must blow the train horn as loudly as possible approaching intersections pursuant to federal regulations.
(c)-(e) Chief of Police Paul Beard presented a PowerPoint presentation. Lt. Robert Roberts and Lt. Logan Cartwright were also present for any questions. (c) Police Department Annual Update
Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if the staffing numbers reflect that the K-9 officer is assigned to something else but also has K-9 duties.

Chief Beard mentioned the K-9 officer is currently in the patrol unit but once there are enough bodies in that unit, he will transfer out.

Dr. Fuller inquired if we pursue retail theft as a burglary.

Chief Beard requested clarification if “we” refers to Police or the retail establishment.

Dr. Fuller clarified that he was referring to the City/Police when he said “we”.

Chief Beard explained that Police responds to every call they are called to and takes appropriate law enforcement action; he is aware some retail establishments in some extreme circumstances have policies where employees will not confront thieves, and 14 some retail stores have stopped calling when theft occurs, but Police will respond and take action when called.

Dr. Fuller mentioned that he understands the policies, He used an example when $1,500 of property is taken. He inquired if there is any reason Police cannot arrest in these situations for burglary.

Chief Beard mentioned if they have identification of the person committing theft by the retailer, it can be turned over to Police to pursue.

Dr. Fuller inquired if Police can pursue it as burglary.

Chief Beard explained that they can pursue it as burglary if they have enough evidence and information, and they do follow up on leads to try and bring it to successful prosecution.

Dr. Fuller mentioned he see the citation level increase is working and he is glad to see it; he sees it as an enhancement of driving behavior and he is seeing enforcement.

Regarding the school resource officer, he mentioned the state wants to take over and have it in every school but have the cities provide it; he hopes that the City can continue making the decision. He expressed his preference is for the high school and middle schools to budget and handle situations themselves and for the City to assist them to maintain campus decorum. He thanked Chief Beard for his presentation and efforts.

Mayor Williams inquired if Chief Beard could provide context how the 84 training courses over the previous year relates to other agencies.

Chief Beard mentioned he did not have that information available.

Mayor Williams called for public comment.

An unidentified member of the public inquired if particular cars are being stolen; i.e., KIA and Hyundai. She mentioned it is a problem is several cities and inquired if there is any way for reimbursement from manufacturers for patrol, etc. She also mentioned considering the growth in the area, they may wish to apply growth per citizen/per capita because they may find that the numbers are down in some areas.

Chief Beard mentioned no movement has been made at this time regarding manufacturer reimbursement for Police response services for what some may think is a faulty starting system or something similar.
(d) Fireworks
Chief Beard mentioned fireworks is an issue statewide and within our County. He shared that he plans to meet with Fire Chief Broussard ahead of 4th of July to discuss a joint effort and he would like the plan to include education, enforcement efforts, preevent planning, intelligence gathering, post-event debriefing, and evidence disposal after the fact which Lt. Roberts will oversee developing and deploying. He mentioned 15 the fireworks suppression period will begin several days early in July and with July 4th falling on Thursday, they will be anticipating when the heaviest days will be and discussing it with their Fire partners. He mentioned overtime will be paid to officers during the suppression period to patrol streets, identify violators and issue administrative citations.

Councilmember Meadows commented Police had a good year last year and thanked him.

Vice Mayor Shaw commented she likes the idea of having a bigger plan, that they are considering the potential timing of the suppression period, and she looks forward to seeing the collaboration with Fire.

Mayor Williams inquired if Dr. Fuller has anything to add. He had no comments.

Mayor Williams mentioned the City has an incredible PIO. She suggested more social media outreach to address for example, fireworks purchased in a county where it is legal but used here, to get the word out. She mentioned Oakley did better last year than places that held firework shows. She mentioned the extra communication could provide the education Chief Beard mentioned.

Chief Beard mentioned they have used social media in past years and can tap into it and magnify/spotlight it even more.

Vice Mayor Shaw mentioned County dispatch is servicing so many cities at the same time and she mentioned before and would like to bring it back now for staff to look into a local number for reporting, if possible. She mentioned she feels like a lot of residents don’t call because when they have they have experienced being placed on hold for a long time.

Chief Beard mentioned County dispatch has been overwhelmed on July 4th for a long time. He mentioned he will look into an internal number; but the reason they use County dispatch is because he has to have a record of the call. He mentioned he would have to look into if they could take 50 calls (random number) and later create a record. He mentioned he would also be looking at skills set and whether an officer would have ability to intake information and dispatch it out and keep track of where all the other cars are. He mentioned this might be a good topic to bring up with Chief Broussard if he can meet with him.
(e) School Resource Officer
Chief Beard mentioned the City has had a longstanding relationship with the high school for a school resource officer (SRO) and in 2023, he was approached by the middle schools to have 1 SRO for both middle schools. He mentioned the conversations are exploratory and when there is more firm information and the district demonstrates it is truly engaged, they will discuss further and bring it to Council, but they cannot staff now for an SRO at the middle schools. He explained that they are short 4 officers due to injury, 2 have pending retirements, and has 1 potential injury. He mentioned it is an 16 endeavor he would like to explore as an SRO at the middle schools is the right service to provide in this day and age, and whether it is this year or next, he believes they will get there, and everyone will be better served.

Vice Mayor Shaw inquired if this would include an additional officer hired.

Chief Beard mentioned if he had all the bodies allotted now and they were healthy, he could fill this position without hire.

Dr. Fuller commented that an SRO can be of value to the educational system, but he would like the schools to budget money for it and the City can assist them with maintaining safety and also ensure they have a close working relationship to share information on cost and expenses incurred.

Vice Mayor Shaw commented that there were incidents at the middle schools over the past year and the kids are growing up so much faster than they used to, so she sees the benefit of it but when it comes down to talking about schools handling things themselves, there certain trainings that come along with policing and they don’t expect Police to be teachers so she does not expect teachers to do some of the things that only officers have training to do. She mentioned she looks forward to seeing this and believes many communities will move toward it.

Chief Beard commented that each school has a school safety plan which is reviewed by Police on an annual basis which he believes is normal in most jurisdictions. He mentioned the school safety plan places expectations on school staff for what to do in ‘X’ situation and Police attend lock down drills to see how the schools handle certain emergencies, one of which they will attend tomorrow. He added that he feels like the schools are taking steps in the direction of being self-reliant and handling certain tasks on their own and it will be always will be a conversation between Police and school staff who is expected to handle what and under what circumstance, so the key is to keep open dialogue between the entities.

Dr. Fuller agreed with Chief Beard. He mentioned saying teachers can’t handle anything and only using Police would be a costly use of City personnel. He mentioned if the school wants it secure, they need to train teachers and hire enough security staff to handle situations in the schools to ensure halls are properly monitored and that administrators are handling situations appropriately. He suggested the City augment school safety, but that the schools take responsibility to maintain a safe environment, hiring of personnel, and provide enough training from their budget, not necessarily ours.

7.2 OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL/OAKLEY CITY COUNCIL ACTING AS THE

SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE OAKLEY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
(a) Reports from Council Liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards AND Oakley City Council/Oakley City Council Acting as the Successor Agency to the Oakley Redevelopment Agency
(b) Requests for Future Agendas
17 Vice Mayor Shaw reported they all attended the governance meeting and she attended the Affordable Housing Ad-Hoc Advisory Committee meeting. She thanked the Council for extending the Committee and shared that during the last meeting, there were some hard truths for the management and owners, and that an owner showed up and told her she was blunt. She shared that the meeting had a bigger crowd, expectations are on management and the owners, and the management and owners have goals that residents can hold them accountable to which should allow the city to step back with reporting guidelines.

Councilmember Meadows concurred. He mentioned she may have said they are blunt, but he doesn’t think the things they mentioned were things that she didn’t already know.

Vice Mayor Shaw agreed.

Councilmember Henderson reported he had initiated and attended the governance meeting. He thanked staff and the facilitator and expressed that he hopes it makes them all work better together in the future.

Councilmember Meadows reported that since the last meetings, he attended the CCTA meeting, he was placed on the power purchase agreements committee at the MCE meeting he attended, and he will attend the Mokelumne Trail grand opening on March 20 at 10:00 a.m.

Dr. Fuller reported he also attended the MCE meeting where he was sworn in as an alternate and he attended the Diablo Water District meeting which due to length, he will report on next time when he is back in the Council Chambers.

Mayor Williams reported she attended the governance meeting, a meeting today with staff from Lori Wilson’s office regarding small business support for Oakley, a 25th City Anniversary planning meeting, and she will attend a Tri-Delta meeting tomorrow.

Mayor Williams asked the Council, including Dr. Fuller joining remotely, if anyone had any future agenda items and they did not.
8) WORK SESSION
None.
9) CLOSED SESSIONS
None.
18 10) ADJOURN
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.

Respectively Submitted,
Libby Vreonis
City Clerk
19 Ordinance No. 5-24 Page 1 of
5 4883-9477-
5709.1
ORDINANCE NO. 5-24

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY ADDING CHAPTER 41 TO TITLE 4 OF THE OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING

ADMINISTRATIVE FINES FOR UNLICENSED COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY

AND DECLARING IT A PUBLIC NUISANCE, AND AMENDING OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 1.5.002 AND 1.5.207 TO REFERENCE SAID FINES WHEREAS, AB 1684 was approved and codified as Government Code §53069.4 on October 8, 2023, and
WHEREAS, effective January 1, 2024, the statute allows for immediate imposition of administrative fines or penalties for all unlicensed commercial cannabis activity, including cultivation, manufacturing, processing, distribution, or retail sale of cannabis through adoption of an ordinance and authorizes the ordinance to declare unlicensed commercial cannabis activity a public nuisance, and
WHEREAS, the statute allows for administrative fines for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity not to exceed $1,000 per violation or $10,000 per day, and WHEREAS, the administrative fine may be imposed on the property owner and each owner of the occupant business entity engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity and hold them jointly and severally liable, and WHEREAS, agencies that have adopted an ordinance with these provisions can refer matters involving unlicensed commercial cannabis activity to the Attorney General.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE.

Oakley Municipal Code Section 1.5.002 is amended as follows:

1.5.002 Violations as Misdemeanors or Infractions; Public Nuisances. a. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Code or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to any City ordinance or the provisions of any Code adopted by reference by any City ordinance, or any condition of an approval, permit or license granted pursuant to any City ordinance. Any person violating any of such provisions or failing to comply with any of such requirements shall be guilty of a misdemeanor or an infraction if so specified. Each such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, and shall be punishable accordingly.
20 Ordinance No. 5-24 Page 2 of
5 4883-9477-
5709.1
b. Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section or any other provision of any City ordinance, any violation constituting a misdemeanor may, in the discretion of the enforcing authority, be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. c. Where no specific penalty is provided therefore, any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of a City ordinance shall be punishable by a fine of not more than $1,000, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
d. Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of a City ordinance shall be punishable for a first conviction by a fine of not more than $100, for a second conviction within a period of one year by a fine of not more than $200, and for a third or any subsequent conviction within a period of one year by a fine of not more than $500. e. Notwithstanding § 1.5.002(d), any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of an ordinance of this city for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity shall be punishable by fine not to exceed $1,000 per violation and shall not exceed $10,000 per day. This section does not limit immediate imposition of larger fines otherwise authorized by law and does not limit administrative fines or penalties imposed after notice and a reasonable time to correct when the violation pertains to building, plumbing, electrical, or other similar structural or zoning issues that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety.
e. f. In addition to the penalties by this section any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to any City ordinance, or the provisions of any Code adopted by reference by any City ordinance, or in violation of any condition of an approval, permit or license granted pursuant to a City ordinance, shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be abated by the City in a summary action pursuant to this Title, or any civil action, and each day such condition continues shall be a new and separate offense.

SECTION 2. AMENDMENT OF OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE.

Oakley Municipal Code section 1.5.207 is amended as follows:

1.5.207 Amount of Civil Fines.
a. The amount of the fines for violating particular provisions of this code shall be set in a schedule of fines adopted by resolution by the City Council and shall be consistent with the fine amounts authorized by Government Code Section 36900 or successor legislation. The schedule may include escalating fine amounts for repeat code violations occurring within specified periods of time.
b. Notwithstanding §1.5.207(a), fines for violating provisions of this code relating to unlicensed commercial cannabis activity may be assessed as authorized by Government Code Section 53069.4 or successor legislation. 21 Ordinance No. 5-24 Page 3 of
5 4883-9477-
5709.1
bc. The schedule of fines may also specify the amount of interest and late payment penalty owed for any fine not paid when due. A late payment penalty and interest shall be owed for fines not paid within 30 days of their due date. cd. Fines are due on the day the citation is issued, except that fines for building violations shall be due on the day the Notice of Non-Correction is issued.

SECTION 3. ADDITION OF CHAPTER 41 TO TITLE 4 OF THE OAKLEY MUNICIPAL CODE.

Chapter 41 to Title 4 of the Oakley Municipal Code is added as follows:

CHAPTER 41

UNLICENSED COMMERCIAL CANNABIS ACTIVITY

4.41.102 Purpose.

The intent of this chapter is to allow imposition of fines related to unlicensed commercial cannabis activity as authorized by Government Code Section 53069.4, notwithstanding Government Code Section 36900, and any other fines allowed by law.

It is also the intent of this chapter to declare such activity a public nuisance. This chapter is not intended to and does not authorize any commercial cannabis activity, whether by license or otherwise.

4.41.104 Definitions.

For purposes of this chapter:
a. “Cannabis” refers to any type of Cannabis plant, including Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, Cannabis ruderalis, and any hybrids of different types of Cannabis plants. Hemp plants and cannabidiol (commonly referred to as “CBD”) products, are not included in this definition and are subject to Oakley Municipal Code §4.12.110.
b. “Commercial cannabis activity” includes the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery, or sale of cannabis.
c. “Cultivation” refers to any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of cannabis.
d. “Distribution” refers to the procurement, sale, and transport of cannabis and cannabis products between persons or entities.
e. “Manufacturing” refers to creating cannabis products through cannabis that has undergone a process whereby the plant material has been transformed into a concentrate, including, but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or 22 Ordinance No. 5-24 Page 4 of
5 4883-9477-
5709.1
topical product containing cannabis or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients.
f. “Processing” refers to trimming, drying, curing, grading, packaging, and labeling of cannabis products.
g. “Retail sale” refers to any transaction whereby, for any consideration, cannabis or cannabis products is transferred from one person or entity to another.

4.41.106 Unlicensed Commercial Cannabis Activity.

Unlicensed commercial cannabis activity is unlawful and a public nuisance.

4.41.108 Violation for Unlicensed Commercial Cannabis Activity. a. Administrative fines or penalties for persons or entities engaging in all unlicensed commercial cannabis activity, including cultivation, manufacturing, processing, distribution, or retail sale of cannabis may be immediately imposed. b. Notwithstanding Government Code Section 36900, or any other provision of law, administrative fines for unlicensed commercial cannabis activity shall not exceed $1,000 per violation or $10,000 per day.
c. An administrative fine under this chapter may be imposed on the property owner and each owner of the occupant business entity engaging in unlicensed commercial cannabis activity and hold them jointly and severally liable.

4.41.110 Referral of Matters to Attorney General.

Matters involving unlicensed commercial cannabis activity may be referred to the Attorney General.

SECTION 4. CEQA FINDING.

The City Council determines that the provisions of this ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because the instant ordinance involves continuing administrative activities and thus is not a project, as CEQA defines, pursuant to Section 15378(b)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines. To the extent the adoption of this Ordinance constitutes a project, the City Council finds pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061(b)(3) that the project is exempt from environmental review because it can be seen with certainty that the adoption of the ordinance would not have any significant impact on the environment.

SECTION 5. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction, the holding shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining provisions, and the City Council declares that it would have adopted each provision of this ordinance irrespective of the validity of any other provision.
23 Ordinance No. 5-24 Page 5 of
5 4883-9477-
5709.1
SECTION 6. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after adoption.

SECTION 7. PUBLICATION.

The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be printed once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Oakley.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of March, 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Anissa Williams, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________ ____________________
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
24 STAFF REPORT

City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us DATE: March 12, 2024
TO: Joshua McMurray, City Manager
FROM: Kevin Rohani, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer SUBJECT: Adopt a Resolution Approving the City of Oakley Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
Background and Analysis
The City of Oakley is a recipient of Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding and the One Bay Area Grant (OBAG), both of which require the City of Oakley to complete a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

The preparation of the City of Oakley Local Roadway Safety Plan is funded from Measure J funds. The goal of LRSP is to reduce collisions and enhance the safety of City of Oakley streets. The LRSP is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety issues at high-risk locations and recommend safety enhancements.

Adoption of the City of Oakley LRSP will allow staff to seek future funding opportunities for the recommended safety improvements.

The preparation of the City of Oakley LRSP began in July 2022 with the project team made up of staff from the Police and Public Works Departments, as well as consultants who collected historical collision data, conducted extensive community outreach, held several virtual meetings with stakeholders, identified, analyzed, and prioritized roadway and intersection safety improvement elements that are suitable for future Highway Safety Improvement Programs and other safety-related grant opportunities.

The above work included review of the City of Oakley General Plan, Contra Costa County Transportation Authority Comprehensive Transportation Plan, East Cypress Road Specific Plan, City of Oakley Capital Improvement Program, Contra Costa Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan, and Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Safety Policy and Implementation Guide. The analysis included pre-pandemic historical collision data to have a full understanding of travel and accident patterns on Oakley roads.

A total of five (5) types of safety projects, as listed below, were developed for high-risk intersections and corridors. Safety improvement measures and project locations for Approved and
Forwarded to the
City Council
25 STAFF REPORT
City of Oakley | 3231 Main Street, Oakley, CA 94561 2
O (925) 625-7000 | F (925) 625-9859 | www.ci.oakley.ca.us each safety project were identified based on data analysis, staff, stakeholder and community input as follows:

Project 1: Signalized Intersections: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation), Install raised pavement markers and striping through intersection.

Project 2: Unsignalized Intersections: Install signals (subject to Signal Warrant Study), Upgrade intersection pavement markings, Install raised median on approaches.

Project 3: Unsignalized Intersections: Add intersection lighting, Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersections, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles).

Project 4: Roadway Segments: Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning), Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone.

Project 5: Roadway Segments: Install edge-lines and centerlines, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes, Install edge-line rumble strips/roadway stripes.

Consistency with the Oakley Strategic Plan 27+
This item is consistent with the Strategic Plan 27+ Community Health and Safety goals.

Fiscal Impact
The preparation of the City of Oakley LRSP was funded from Measure J funds and the proposed safety improvements in the City of Oakley LRSP will be implemented as part of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.

Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution approving the City of Oakley Local Roadway Safety Plan.

Attachments

1. Resolution

2. Local Roadway Safety Plan
26 Resolution No. XX-24 Page 1 of 1
RESOLUTION NO. XX-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLEY ADOPTING THE

CITY OF OAKLEY LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
WHEREAS, the City of Oakley is a recipient of the Highway Safety Improvement Program and One Bay Area Grant, both of which require the City of Oakley to complete a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP); and
WHEREAS, the City Council awarded a contract to TJKM Transportation Consultants in July 2022 to prepare the City of Oakley Local Roadway Safety Plan; and WHEREAS, Staff from Oakley Police, Public Works Department and Contra Costa County Transportation Authority; along with other stakeholders, worked on the preparation of the LRSP over the past year, and the document was successfully completed; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of City of Oakley approves the adoption of the Local Roadway Safety Plan.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Oakley this 12th day of March 2024 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

APPROVED:
___________________
Anissa Williams, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______ __
Libby Vreonis, City Clerk Date
27 Prepared for:

City of Oakley
OAKLEY

LOCAL ROAD

SAFETY PLAN
February 2024

28 1 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................ v Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................................................. ix Glossary......................................................................................................................................................................................... x

1. Project Background...................................................................................................................................................... 11 What is an LRSP? ............................................................................................................................................................ 11 Process................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Goals and Objectives..................................................................................................................................................... 12 Study Area......................................................................................................................................................................... 15

2. Safety Partners.................................................................................................................................................................... 18

3. Existing Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................................................. 20

4. Collision Data and Analysis............................................................................................................................................ 24 Data Collection................................................................................................................................................................ 24 Collision Classification .................................................................................................................................................. 26 Killed and Severe Injury (KSI) Collisions................................................................................................................. 34 Geographic Collision Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 39 Collision Severity Weight............................................................................................................................................. 46 High Injury Network ...................................................................................................................................................... 48 Intersection Ranking ..................................................................................................................................................... 50 Corridor Ranking ............................................................................................................................................................ 51

5. Emphasis Areas................................................................................................................................................................... 52 The FIVE E’s of Traffic Safety ...................................................................................................................................... 53 Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Oakley ........................................................................................... 54 Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas....................................................................... 55 Emphasis Area 1 – Improve Intersection Safety ................................................................................................. 56 Emphasis Area 2 – Address Rear end Collisions................................................................................................. 57 Emphasis Area 3 – Reduce Unsafe Speed Violations ....................................................................................... 58 Emphasis Area 4 – Address Broadside Collisions............................................................................................... 59 Emphasis Area 5 – Improve Nighttime Collisions.............................................................................................. 60 Table of Contents
29 Emphasis Area 6 – Address Head-On Collisions ................................................................................................ 61 Equity .................................................................................................................................................................................. 62

6. Countermeasure Selection............................................................................................................................................. 68 Identification of Countermeasures .......................................................................................................................... 68 Countermeasure Toolbox............................................................................................................................................ 69 What You’ll see In this toolbox ................................................................................................................................. 69 A. Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections......................................................................................... 70 B. Countermeasures for non- Signalized Intersections.............................................................................. 71 C. Countermeasures for Roadways .................................................................................................................... 72

7. Viable Safety Projects....................................................................................................................................................... 73

8. Implementation and Evaluation................................................................................................................................... 77 Implementation............................................................................................................................................................... 77 Monitoring and Evaluation......................................................................................................................................... 80 LRSP Update..................................................................................................................................................................... 80 30 Figure 1 Study Area: City of Oakley................................................................................................................................. 16 Figure 2 Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting #1.......................................................................................... 18 Figure 3 Oakley Local Roadway Safety Plan: Project Website .............................................................................. 19 Figure 4 Injury Collisions in the City of Oakley (2017-2021) ................................................................................. 25 Figure 5 Collisions by Severity (2017 -2021)................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 6 Five Year Collision Trend.................................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 7 Intersection vs Roadway Collisions - Total Collisions and KSI ............................................................ 28 Figure 8 Collision Type......................................................................................................................................................... 29 Figure 9 Primary Violation Categories............................................................................................................................ 30 Figure 10 Motor Vehicle Involved with.......................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 11 Transportation Modes...................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 12 Lighting Conditions........................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 13 Weather Conditions .......................................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 14 Time of Day .......................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 15 Intersection vs. Roadway Segment Collisions – KSI Collisions ......................................................... 34 Figure 16 Citywide Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions.............................................................................................. 35 Figure 17 KSI Collisions: Collision Type ......................................................................................................................... 36 Figure 18 KSI Collisions: Violation Category Type..................................................................................................... 36 Figure 19 KSI Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved With............................................................................................ 37 Figure 20 KSI Collisions: Lighting..................................................................................................................................... 37 Figure 21 KSI Collisions: Time of Day ............................................................................................................................. 38 Figure 22 KSI Collisions by Gender and Age ............................................................................................................... 38 Figure 23 Citywide Rear End Collisions.......................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 24 Citywide Broadside Collisions........................................................................................................................ 42 Figure 25 Citywide Unsafe Speed Violations ............................................................................................................... 43 Figure 26 Citywide Nighttime Collisions ....................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 27 Citywide Head-On Collisions ......................................................................................................................... 45 Figure 28 Citywide Equivalent Property Damage Only............................................................................................ 47 Figure 29 Citywide High Injury Network (HIN) ........................................................................................................... 49 Figure 30 Equity Priority Communities and High Injury Network ....................................................................... 64 Figure 31 Equity Priority Communities and KSI Collisions ..................................................................................... 65 Figures
31 4 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Table 1 Oakley Commute to Work Data ....................................................................................................................... 17 Table 2 Collisions by Severity and Facility Type ......................................................................................................... 27 Table 3 EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 11.................................................................................................................. 46 Table 4 High Collision Intersections................................................................................................................................ 50 Table 5 High Injury Corridors............................................................................................................................................. 51 Table 6 Existing Programs Summary .............................................................................................................................. 54 Table 7 Emphasis Area 1 Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 56 Table 8 Emphasis Area 2 Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 57 Table 9 Emphasis Area 3 Strategies ................................................................................................................................ 58 Table 10 Emphasis Area 4 Strategies.............................................................................................................................. 59 Table 11 Emphasis Area 5 Strategies.............................................................................................................................. 60 Table 12 Emphasis Area 6 Strategies.............................................................................................................................. 61 Table 13 Breakdown of crash types occurring at high injury locations in the EPC using TIMS data..... 66 Table 14 Recommended Safety Project Cost Estimates with Equity Analysis................................................. 66 Table 15 List of Viable Safety Projects for Signalized Intersections ................................................................... 75 Table 16 List of Countermeasures used in the Safety Projects............................................................................. 76 Table 17 List of Potential Funding Sources .................................................................................................................. 78 Appendix A: Summary of Planning Documents
Appendix B: Consolidated High Injury Collision Database Appendix C: Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) Excerpt
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix E: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Analyzer (B/C Ratio Calculations) Appendix F: Ongoing/Proposed Roadway Safety-related Improvements in the City of Oakley Appendix
Tables
32 5 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Oakley’s Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and address safety issues prevalent to the City of Oakley. The analysis of crash history through the City's transportation network allows for opportunities to improve safety and develop safety measures aligning with the five E's of safety.

The LRSP takes a proactive approach to learn and reduce traffic accident fatalities (killed) and severe injury (KSI) on public roads. It will be a living document, one that is routinely reviewed and updated by City staff and their safety partners to reflect evolving collision trends and community needs and priorities. With the LRSP as a guide, the City will be able to apply for grant funds, such as the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The process and analysis performed in development of the City's LRSP, including an analysis of collisions that occurred in Oakley, high-injury locations, and recommended countermeasures at each of these high-risk locations, are summarized in this LRSP.

GOALS OF THE LRSP
• Systematically identify and analyze active transportation problems and recommend improvements.
• Improve the safety of all road users by using proven effective countermeasures.
• Coordinate with key stakeholders to implement roadway safety improvements and response within Oakley.
• Continually leverage existing resources to secure additional funding for safety improvements. Seek consistent funding until the vision is fulfilled.
• Assist in prioritizing investments in traffic safety for all Oakley residents.

PROCESS
The guidelines on the LRSP process is provided at both FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) and Caltrans (California Department of Transportation) level. The systemic approach in preparing the LRSP involves the following steps:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
33 6 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n • Develop plan goals and objectives
• Analyze collision data
• Meet with stakeholders/safety partners
• Determine focus areas and identify crash reduction strategies • Prioritize countermeasures/projects
• Prepare the LRSP

COLLISION DATA
Collision data for a five year period spanning from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021 was collected from the University of California at Berkeley SafeTREC’s Transportation Injury Mapping Service (TIMS) and the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). For the purpose of this report the data was analyzed to identify top collision trends such as location type (Intersection vs Roadway Segment), injury severity, collision type, traffic violations, mode of transportation, lighting and weather conditions etc.

COLLISION TREND
Below is the summarization of key findings on collision patterns and trends. The detailed information is provided in the Chapter 4. • A total of 217 injury collisions occurred between 2017 and 2021. • Of those collisions, 24 resulted in a killed or severe injury, 57 resulted in a visible injury, 136 resulted in a complaint of pain injury, and 787 resulted in PDO.
• The year 2017 had the highest number of total collisions with 288 collisions, and 2020 had the lowest number of total collisions with 132 collisions.
• The highest number of KSI collisions occurred within 250 feet of an intersection (83%).
• Rear-end and broadside collisions for 32% and 20% of total collisions, respectively. 38% of broadside collisions were KSI collisions, the highest among any type of KSI collisions.
• Unsafe speed accounted for 28% of total collisions, followed by improper turning (13%) and the wrong side of the road (11%). • Most of the KSI collisions occurred between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.
34 7 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n • 58% of total collisions were motor vehicles involved with other motor vehicles followed by motor vehicles involved with fixed objects (21%) and parked motor vehicles (10%)
• There were a total of 44 bicycle and pedestrian collisions during the study period, of which 21 were bicycle and 23 pedestrian collisions.

HIGH RISK LOCATIONS
The collision analysis was performed on all city streets. The corridors were ranked to show the top 12 high-collision intersections and top 9 highcollision roadway segments.

Key findings of identifying high-risk intersections are as follows:
• There were a total of 40 injury collisions that occurred at the intersections
• 14 collisions led to KSI
• The intersection of O'Hara Avenue and Laurel Road had the highest number of injury collisions overall (6)
Key findings of identifying high-risk roadway segments are as follows:
• There were a total of 61 injury collisions that occurred on the roadway segments
• 9 collisions led to KSI collisions
• Main Street within the City Limits had the highest number of injury collisions with 21, followed by E Cypress Road from Main Street to the East City Limit with 12 injury collisions

EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas are focus areas for the LRSP that are identified through the comprehensive collision analysis of the identified high injury locations within the City of Oakley. The six emphasis area identified for the City of Oakley are:
• Improve Intersection safety
• Address Rear-end collisions
• Address Broadside collisions
• Reduce Unsafe speed violations
• Address Nighttime collisions
• Address Head-on collisions
35 8 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

VIABLE SAFETY PROJECTS
A set of five safety projects were created for the high-risk intersections and roadway segments. These safety projects are:
• Project 1: Signalized Intersections: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation), Install Raised Pavement Markers and Stripping Through Intersection
• Project 2: Unsignalized Intersections: Install Signals (subject to Signal Warrant Study), Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.), Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
• Project 3: Unsignalized Intersections: Add intersection lighting, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop- Controlled Intersections, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
• Project 4: Roadway Segments: Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning), Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone
• Project 5: Roadway Segments: Install edge-lines and centerlines, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes

IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides the 5 E's of safety; Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Equity and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce KSI collisions. It is recommended that the City of Oakley implement the selected projects in high-collision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City’s infrastructure development in their future Capital Improvement Plans. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing KSI collisions throughout the City. If the number of KSI collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluated.
36 9 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Ruta Jariwala
(Principal / Project Manager)
Utsav Domadia
(Transportation Engineer)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Oakley (City) developed a plan to evaluate transportation safety for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians within the city. Input was sought from several groups consisting of Oakley City Staff, Oakley Police Department, Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Oakley Union Elementary School District, Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), and Oakley residents. Community engagement and stakeholder outreach were held with opportunities to provide online feedback to solicit feedback from the community at large. A consulting team led by TJKM Transportation Consultants assisted City staff in preparing the plan.

Note: Throughout this plan, reference to the “City” refers to Oakley government.

City of Oakley Staff Consultant Team
Kevin Rohani
(Public Works Director/City Engineer)
Jason Kabalin
(Capital Projects Engineer)
37 10 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

GLOSSARY
5 E’s – Abbreviation for Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Equity and Emergency Medical Services (EMS): A traffic engineering approach for improving safety on the roadways.

ACS – Abbreviation for American Community Survey: A U.S. Census survey that helps local officials, community leaders, and businesses understand the changes taking place in their communities.

ADT – Abbreviation for average daily traffic: Refers to vehicle traffic volumes.

BCR – Abbreviation for benefit-cost ratio: Indicator used to quantify project benefits in relation to project costs.

LRSP – Abbreviation for Local Road Safety Plan. A document that provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads.

CRF – Abbreviation for crash reduction factor: The percentage of expected effect of a countermeasure or safety project to decrease collisions.

Collision Severity – Defined as the intensity of collisions typically in the following categories: killed and severe injury (KSI), other visible injury and complaint of pain (other), and property damage only (PDO).

EMS – Abbreviation emergency medical services.

EPC - Equity Priority Communities
EPDO – Abbreviation for equivalent property damage only.

FHWA – Abbreviation for Federal Highway Administration: The federal agency responsible managing the nation’s highway system, including bridges and tunnels.

HSIP – Abbreviation for Highway Safety Improvement Program: A roadway safety funding program managed by Caltrans, California State Department of Transportation.

KSI – Abbreviation for killed and severe injury collisions.

LRSM – Abbreviation for Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners.

MTC - Metropolitan Transportation Commission: MTC is the transportation planning, financing and coordinating agency for the nine-county San Francisco Bay Area.

Primary Violation Factor/Primary Collision Factor – Defined as contributing causes of collisions.

SWITRS - Abbreviation for Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System: A database managed by California Highway Patrol that collects and processes data gathered from collision scenes.

TIMS - Abbreviation for Transportation Injury Mapping System: A collision database managed by UC Berkeley SafeTREC system
38 1. Project Background
WHAT IS AN LRSP?
The LRSP is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique roadway safety needs and reduce the number of KSI collisions. The LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues, and recommend safety projects and countermeasures. It facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in the development of a prioritized list of improvements that can qualify for HSIP funding.

The LRSP is a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and is viewed as a living document that can be constantly reviewed and revised to reflect evolving trends, and community needs and priorities.

PROCESS
The systemic approach in preparing the LRSP involves the following steps:
 Develop plan goals and objectives
 Analyze collision data
 Meet with stakeholders/safety partners
 Determine focus areas and identify crash reduction strategies  Prioritize countermeasures/projects
 Prepare the LRSP
1 PROJECT BACKGROUND
39 12 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
GOAL 1: SYSTEMATICALLY IDENTIFY AND ANALYZE ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION

PROBLEMS AND RECOMMEND IMPROVEMENTS
Objective 1: Use the Systemic Safety Analysis data-driven process to identify traffic collisions in Oakley, (with an emphasis on KSI collisions); where, when, and how they are occurring, and implement appropriate and proven countermeasures.

Objective 2: Improve roadway planning, design, operations, and connectivity to enhance safety and mobility for all modes, and for users of all ages and abilities.

Objective 3: Implement traffic calming strategies to discourage speeding and other unsafe driving behaviors on residential streets.

Objective 4: Ensure that all recommended improvements are consistent with City of Oakley goals, as well as State and Federal plans and goals (such as, but not limited to: California Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and the FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Program).

Objective 5: Review existing City policies and recommend improvements to ensure that they meet current best practices in the realm of traffic safety.

GOAL 2: IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF ALL ROAD USERS BY USING PROVEN EFFECTIVE

COUNTERMEASURES
Objective 1: Identify safety issues and locations/hot spots where bicycle and pedestrian collisions occur in Oakley, and treat with appropriate and effective engineering countermeasures.

Objective 2: Provide educational programs for bicyclists, pedestrians, and motorists to inform on how to be safe in the public right-of-way; either through after-school programs, law enforcement programs, or other public/private sponsored programs.

Objective 3: Improve sidewalks, walkways, and crossings to be free of hazards and to minimize conflicts with vehicular traffic.

Objective 4: Prioritize improvements that promote Safe Routes to School efforts or are located near schools.
40 13 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n GOAL 3: COORDINATE WITH KEY STAKEHOLDERS TO IMPLEMENT ROADWAY SAFETY

IMPROVEMENTS AND RESPONSE WITHIN OAKLEY
Objective 1: Coordinate between City Departments, Police Department, Fire Protection District, School Districts and EMS agencies to ensure a coordinated response to traffic safety, including:
 Implementation of safety improvements
 Public education on safely traveling in the public right-of-way, regardless of mode  Enforcement of traffic safety laws in the public right-of-way  Minimizing impacts to emergency response times.

Objective 2: Coordinate with local, regional, and state partners (such as CCTA, Tri-Delta, BART etc.), to identify and address traffic safety issues and ensure a coordinated response.

GOAL 4: CONTINUALLY LEVERAGE EXISTING RESOURCES TO SECURE ADDITIONAL

FUNDING FOR SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Objective 1: Ensure the LRSP meets HSIP guidelines in order to apply for funding for identified countermeasures.

Objective 2: Provide a list of prioritized locations and improvements that guide City investments and grant funding applications.

Objective 3: Identify and prioritize specific types of countermeasures to address identified safety issues, for systemic implementation citywide
Objective 4: Continually seek funding sources to implement engineering, education, enforcement, equity, and emergency response solutions to roadway safety issues in Oakley.

GOAL 5: ASSIST IN PRIORITIZING INVESTMENTS IN TRAFFIC SAFETY FOR ALL OAKLEY

RESIDENTS
Objective 1: Utilize public input to identify traffic issues and locations and inform prioritization based on community desires and needs.

Objective 2: Provide a forum for residents to submit traffic safety related concerns; and for City staff and officials to respond to such concerns.

Objective 3: Where feasible, implement community outreach to inform the public about upcoming safety improvements and seek input regarding viability and impacts while building trust and confidence to actively participate in such decisions. 41 14 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Objective 4: Ensure the consideration of equity when selecting where to make traffic safety improvements and establish metrics by which to make equitable decisions.

Objective 5: Identify groups with a special interest in roadway safety and help build their capacity to support the city in outreach efforts, including Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes for Seniors Programs.
42 15 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

STUDY AREA
The City of Oakley, located in Contra Costa County, California, covers a total area of 16.2 square miles.

Located in the East Bay region of the San Francisco Bay Area, the City’s estimated population is 43,357 (US Census 2020). Main Street, Oakley Road, Empire Avenue, O’Hara Avenue, and Cypress Road are main thoroughfares that connect Oakley with nearby cities, State Route 4 (SR 4) and SR 160. The study area is mapped in Figure 1 below.
43 Figure 1 Study Area: City of Oakley
44 17 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n According to the five-year estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS) 20211from the U.S.

Census, 75% of Oakley commuters get to work by driving alone, more than both the Contra Costa County and State percentages of driving commuters. The second most common method of commuting to work in the City is carpooling at 10%. The different modes of transportation used by Oakley residents to commute to work are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1 Oakley Commute to Work Data
Commute to Work Oakley Contra Costa County California
Drive Alone 75% 57% 64%
Carpool 10% 9% 8%
Public Transportation 4% 3% 2%
Walked 0% 2% 2%
Work from Home 10% 28% 21%
Other 1% 2% 2%
Source: Data from the Census Bureau ACS 5-year Estimate 2021

1 https://data.census.gov/table?q=Oakley+city,+California&t=Transportation&tid=ACSDT5Y2021.B08141 45 18 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

2. SAFETY PARTNERS
Safety partners are vital to the development and implementation of an LRSP. For the City of Oakley, these included: City Staff, City Police Department, Contra Costa Fire Protection District, Oakley Union Elementary School District, CCTA (Contra Costa Transportation Authority), and Oakley residents. These stakeholders attended two virtual stakeholder meetings, held on April 6, 2023, and May 31, 2023, to review project goals, findings, and solicit feedback and comments. Figure 2 illustrates the power point presentation for the virtual Stakeholder Meeting held on May 31, 2023.

Figure 2 Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting #1
This stakeholder outreach was supplemented by a project website with an interactive platform. The interactive map was used to solicit input from City of Oakley residents and stakeholders outside the confines of traditional meetings. Figure 3 illustrates the landing page of the Oakley LSRP Project Website.
2 SAFETY PARTNERS
46 19 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 3 Oakley Local Roadway Safety Plan: Project Website 47 20 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

3. Existing Planning Efforts
This chapter summarizes the planning documents, projects underway, and studies reviewed for the City of Oakley LRSP. The purpose of this chapter is to ensure the LRSP vision, goals, and the 5 E's strategies (Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Equity and Emergency Medical Services (EMS)) are aligned with prior planning efforts, planned transportation projects, and non-infrastructure programs for the City. The documents reviewed are listed below:
• Oakley General Plan (2022)
• Oakley Downtown Specific Plan (2010)
• East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan (2006)
• Oakley Neighborhood Traffic Management Program Policy (2014) • City of Oakley Capital Improvement Program (2021-22)
• Contra Costa Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (2018) • CCTA Transportation Expenditure Plan (2020)
• Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Safety Policy and Implementation Guide (2021) • CCTA Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2017) • Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (2020) The following sections include brief descriptions of these documents and how they inform the development of the LRSP. A detailed list of relevant policies and projects is listed in Appendix A.

CITY OF OAKLEY GENERAL PLAN (2022)
The General Plan circulation element identifies seven mobility goals including policies and implementation programs for each goal. These mobility goals focus on all major modes of transportation within Oakley.

The goal of traffic safety informs City's Local Roadway Safety Plan to monitor, improve, and enhance traffic safety to eliminate traffic fatalities and reduce the rate of injury collisions in Oakley.

OAKLEY DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (2010)
Oakley Downtown Specific Plan compiles Revitalization Strategy recommendations, clarifies revitalization objectives, and defines the programs and capital improvements the City and Redevelopment Agency will pursue to realize the community’s vision for Downtown.

Projects and improvements identified in this plan for the downtown area will inform pedestrian safety improvements and strategies to be recommended in the City's Local Road Safety Plan.
3 EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS
48 21 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EAST CYPRESS CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN (2006)
The purpose of the Specific Plan is to provide the City of Oakley with a comprehensive plan that controls development within the East Cypress Corridor Area, ensuring the creation of a livable community designed as a group of compatible neighborhoods with connectivity to parks, open space, schools, and commercial services. The plan reinforces the concept of traditional neighborhood design to provide not only safe and efficient movement of vehicular traffic through the project, but also provide a safe environment for pedestrian movement and bicycle traffic, reducing the reliance on the automobile as a means of travel. The improvements identified in this plan will inform the safety strategies to be recommended in the City's Local Road Safety Plan.

OAKLEY NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
POLICY (2014)
The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for neighborhoods and City staff as they work together to address various types of traffic conditions, such as speeding, cut-through traffic, truck intrusion, and commercial parking spill-over. This policy informs the procedure to implement certain potential safety improvements to be recommended in the City's Local Road Safety Plan.

CITY OF OAKLEY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(2021-22)
The City of Oakley’s 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning instrument for constructing new facilities and infrastructure and for expanding, rehabilitating, or replacing existing City- owned assets. The 5-Year CIP is developed by City Staff and adopted by City Council as a guide for prioritization of various projects to accomplish community goals. The CIP is updated regularly to reflect changing priorities and funding availability, and to remove projects that have been completed. These improvements influence Oakley's built and natural environment and help guide the trajectory of future growth or change. The improvements identified in this plan will inform the safety improvements to be recommended in the City's Local Road Safety Plan.
49 22 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN (2018) Revised in 2018, the Contra Costa Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan entails new policies, best practices, and standards developed over the last decade as well as newly-adopted local active transportation plans. This plan highlights the need of increased interest and support for walking and bicycling. The plan also includes the pedestrian and bicycle collision density, design for pedestrian facilities, pedestrian priority area, level of traffic stress for bicycle users, and existing and proposed bicycle facilities.

The improvements identified in this plan will inform the safety improvements and strategies to be recommended in the City's Local Road Safety Plan.

CCTA TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN (TEP) (2020)
The 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan (TEP) is a carefully curated set of solutions designed to bring Contra Costa's transportation system into the future by moving more people efficiently, encouraging mode shift, and promoting shared mobility options for all. The TEP is intentionally designed to be equitable across the entire County based on population.

This plan reflects the current progress of transportation projects in Contra Costa County and the commitment to pursuing transportation policies, planning, and investments.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY POLICY
AND IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE (2021)
This report outlines a framework for Safety Policy and implantation in Contra Costa County. The Safe System Approach integrating multimodal equity supports the Vision Zero goal of eliminating severe injuries and fatalities. This approach is especially critical for people using non-vehicular transportation modes who lack the physical protection provided to people traveling in multi-ton vehicles, which require compliance with carefully designed and regulated manufacturing requirements. CCTA launched its Vision Zero Framework & Systemic Safety Approach effort to serve as the basis for transportation planning, policy, design, construction, and funding throughout Contra Costa County.
50 CCTA COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
(2017)
The 2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP) provides the policy framework and steps necessary for the CCTA to achieve its vision. It includes an analysis of challenges and opportunities; a definition of the vision, goals, and strategies; and defines how the CTP will be carried out through a Long-Range Transportation Investment Program and an Implementation Program, with defined responsibilities and a schedule of activities. The CTP outlines the various strategies for addressing transportation and growth management issues within Contra Costa County.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS
GUIDELINES (2020)
The Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (TAG) are provided to aid in the preparation of traffic analysis for project applicants and staff. The purpose of this document is to establish a uniform approach, methodology, and toolset to evaluate the impacts of land-use decisions and related transportation projects on the County's transportation system. This is a living document and is updated periodically to reflect newly acquired data and relevant policies. Capital Road Improvement and Complete Streets policies mentioned in this document will serve as a reference while developing a City's Local Road Safety Plan.
51 24 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

4. Collision Data and Analysis
A primary component of the LRSP is the identification of locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations that have more active collision patterns. A summary of the collision data utilized and key findings is included in this chapter.

The LRSP focuses on systemically identifying and analyzing traffic safety issues and recommends appropriate safety improvements. The chapter starts with a comprehensive analysis of collisions of all severity types in Oakley and compares this with the KSI collisions. Collision trends such as collision severity, type of collision, primary collision factor, lighting, weather, and time were analyzed. Following this, a more detailed analysis was conducted for KSI collisions that have occurred on the city’s roadways, including analyzing intersection and roadway segment collisions separately.

DATA COLLECTION
Collision data helps to understand different factors that might be leading to collisions and influencing collision patterns in a given area. For the purpose of this analysis, five-years of jurisdiction-wide collision data (January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2021) was retrieved from Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The collision data were analyzed and plotted in ArcMap GIS software to identify high-risk intersections and roadway segments.

Figure 4 illustrates all the injury collisions that have occurred in the City of Oakley from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2021.
4 COLLISION DATA AND ANALYSIS
52 Figure 4 Injury Collisions in the City of Oakley (2017-2021) 53 COLLISION CLASSIFICATION
There were a total of 1,004 collisions reported on the City of Oakley roads from 2017 to 2021. Out of these, 787 were property damage only collisions (78%). 136 collisions led to a complaint of pain injury (14%), and 57 collisions (6%) led to a visible injury. There were 24 KSI collisions, of which 19 collisions (2%) led to a severe injury and five collisions (less than 0.5%) led to fatalities. Figure 5 illustrates the classification of all collisions based on severity.

Figure 5 Collisions by Severity (2017 -2021)
The analysis first includes a comparative evaluation between all injury collisions and KSI collisions, based on various factors including (but not limited to): collision trend, primary collision factor, collision type, facility type, motor vehicle involved with, weather, lighting, and time of the day. Following this, a comprehensive analysis is conducted for only KSI collisions. KSI collisions cause the most damage to those affected and to infrastructure. Aside from the human toll exacted against the crash victims, emotional impacts are endured by family and friends, by witnesses, and by first responders. There are also financial burdens endured by victims and their families as well as by the community and society as a whole. The LRSP process thus focuses on these collision locations to proactively identify counter safety issues leading to these KSI collisions.

The collision data was separated by facility type, i.e., based on collisions occurring on intersections and roadway segments. For the purposes of the analysis and in accordance with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) guidelines, a collision was designated to have occurred at an intersection if it occurred within 250 feet of it. The reported collisions categorized by facility type and collision severity are presented in Table 2.

Fatal

0.5%
Severe Injury
2% Visible Injury
6%
Complaint of
Pain
14%
Property
Damage Only
(PDO)
78%
54 27 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Table 2 Collisions by Severity and Facility Type
Collision Severity Roadway Segment Intersection Total
Fatal 1 4 5
Severe Injury 3 16 19
Visible Injury 7 50 57
Complaint of Pain 18 118 136
Property Damage Only 105 682 787
Total 134 870 1004

YEARLY TREND
The number of reported total collisions decreased overall between 2017 and 2020, with a sharp increase in 2021 compared to the previous year. The year with the highest number of collisions was 2017 (228 collisions), while the year with the lowest number of collisions was 2020 (132 collisions). It was observed that the collisions percentage dropped significantly during the pandemic year of 2020 due to the lesser number of vehicles within the city roads system. The least number of KSI collisions occurred in 2018 (3 collisions), while the most occurred in 2017 and 2021 (6 collisions).

Figure 6 illustrates the five-year collision trend for total collisions (including Property Damage Only collisions - PDO), all injury collisions, and KSI collisions.

Figure 6 Five Year Collision Trend
228 226
216
132
202
38 51 47
36 45
6 3 5 4 6
0 50
100
150
200
250
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Total Collisions All Injury Collisions KSI Collisions
55 28 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Collision types describe how a crash is reported by law enforcement based upon the parties who were involved and generally describes the manner in which contact was made between the involved parties.

ROADWAY SEGMENT VS. INTERSECTION
When evaluating the locations of collisions, most collisions occurred at intersections and not along roadway segments. In the City of Oakley, 87% of total collisions (870 collisions) occurred at intersections, whereas 13% (134 collisions) occurred on roadway segments. The proportion of roadway segment collisions is slightly higher (17%) when looking only at KSI collisions. This classification by facility type is illustrated in Figure 7.

Figure 7 Intersection vs Roadway Collisions - Total Collisions and KSI

COLLISION TYPE
Collision types describe how a crash is reported by law enforcement based upon the parties who were involved and generally describes the manner in which contact was made between the involved parties.

For total collisions, the most commonly occurring collision types were rear-end collisions (32%) and broadside collisions (20%). The collision type trend for all injury collisions remains the same for the top two categories. However, the collision types for KSI collisions follow a different pattern, where the most commonly occurring collision type was broadside collisions (38%), head-on collisions (17%), and vehicle/pedestrian (13%). Figure 8 illustrates the collision type for total collisions, injury collisions as well as KSI collisions.

Roadway
Segment
17%
Intersection
83%
KSI Collisions
Roadway
Segment
13%
Intersection
87%
Total Collisions
KSI
56 29 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 8 Collision Type
10%
15%
32%
20%
15%
2% 2% 2% 2%
13%
7%
32%
27%
4% 4%
8%
3%
1%
17%
8%
4%
38%
4% 4%
13%
8%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Head-OnSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle/PedestrianOtherNot Stated Total All Injury KSI
Sideswipe collisions are between vehicles,
typically traveling the same direction, where the
primary point of contact was the side of the
vehicles.

A Rear-end collision is between two vehicles
traveling in the same direction where the front of
one vehicle contacts the rear of another.

Broadside collisions are between vehicles on
conflicting paths where the front of one vehicle
contacts the side of another.

Unknown/Other/Not Stated collisions describe
any reported collision that was not consistent with
one of the primary collision types above or where
collision type was not coded into the collision
database.

Vehicle-Pedestrian collisions are any crash
involving both a motor vehicle and a
pedestrian.

An Overturned collision is any type of crash
that results in at least one vehicle rotating 90
degrees or more side to-side or end-to-end.

A Head-on collision is between two vehicles
where the primary point of contact was the
front of both vehicles.

Hit Object collisions are between a vehicle and
non-vehicular object in or near the roadway
57 30 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
For total collisions, the top two primary violation categories were observed to be unsafe speed (28%), and improper turning (13%). For all injury collisions, the top two primary violation categories were unsafe speed (29%) and traffic signal and sign violations (13%) while for KSI collisions, the top categories were driving the wrong side of the road (25%), and automobile right of way (17%). Figure 9 illustrates the violation category for total collisions, all injury collisions, and KSI collisions.

Figure 9 Primary Violation Categories
Auto Right-of-Way (R/W) Violation refers to a
driver infringing upon the right-of-way of another
party in violation.

Improper Turning identifies a collision where a
party made a left or right turn in violation.

Unsafe Speed refers to a collision where a party is
identified to be traveling at a speed exceeding that
deemed reasonable or prudent for conditions.

Traffic Signals and Signs describes a party
disobeying a traffic control device such as a traffic
signal or roadside sign.

Driving under Influence (DUI) identifies a collision
where a driver is found to have been operating a vehicle while impaired by a substance – typically alcohol.

Unsafe Lane Change describes a collision where a party
moves between two lanes or deviates course in a
hazardous manner and/or without signaling
appropriately.

Following Too Closely refers to a driver of a motor
vehicle driving behind another vehicle at distance that is too short to be reasonable or prudent for conditions.

Pedestrian Right-of-Way Violation refers to a collision when a driver fails to yield the right-of-way to a
pedestrian in a crosswalk.
11%
28%
3%
11%
1%
4%
13% 11%
1%
7% 8% 9%
29%
3%
11%
1% 1%
8%
13%
4%
13%
9% 9%
13%
0%
26%
4% 4%
0%
17%
4%
13%
9%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
DUI
Unsafe Speed
Following Too Closely
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Passing
Unsafe Lane Change
Improper Turning
Automobile Right of Way
Pedestrian Right of Way
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other
Total All Injury KSI
58 31 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH
Figure 10 Motor Vehicle Involved with
MODES
Figure 11 Transportation Modes
1% 2%
58%
3%
10%
0% 2%
21%
2% 1% 1%
7%
64%
4% 5%
0%
6%
10%
0% 2% 1%
13%
50%
4% 4% 4% 4%
17%
0%
4%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Non-Collision
Pedestrian
Other Motor Vehicle
Motor Vehicle on Other
Roadway
Parked Motor Vehicle
Train
Bicycle
Fixed Object
Other Object
Other
Total All Injury KSI
2%
71%
1%
13% 12%
6%
69%
4%
13%
8% 8%
63%
8% 13% 8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Total All Injury KSI
KSI
59 32 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

LIGHTING
For total collisions, 64% of collisions occurred in daylight, while 26% of collisions occurred in the dark on streets with streetlights. A nearly similar trend was observed for all injury and KSI collisions.

However, 13% of KSI collisions occurred in dark conditions on streets without streetlights.

Figure 12 illustrates the lighting condition for total collisions, all injury collisions, and KSI collisions.

Factors that may contribute to the quality of streetlights include lights being insufficiently bright, placed too widely apart, or poor quality of lighting for people walking on the sidewalk, as streetlights are often designed primarily for vehicles in travel lanes.

WEATHER
For total collisions, the vast majority occurred during clear weather conditions (87%). For all injury and KSI collisions, similar trends have been observed, with 86% and 88% of the collisions have occurred during clear weather conditions respectively. Figure 13 illustrates the percent distribution of weather conditions during the occurrence of collisions.
64%
4%
26%
4%
66%
6%
20%
5%
1% 1%
63%
4%
21%
13%
0% 0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights
Fog Not Stated
Total All Injury KSI
87%
6% 4% 3%
86%
7% 4% 3%
88%
4% 4% 4%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Clear Cloudy Raining Other
Total All Injury KSI
Figure 12 Lighting Conditions
Figure 13 Weather Conditions
60 33 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

TIME OF THE DAY
For total collisions, the time period with the most number of collisions was between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. (9.5%), while the time period with the fewest number of collisions was between 4:00 a.m. to 5:00 a.m. (1%). For all injury collisions, most collisions have occurred between 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. (12%).

For all KSI collisions, the maximum number of collisions occurred between 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., and 7:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., while the time period with the fewest number of collisions was between 1:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Figure 14 illustrates the percentage of collisions occurring during each hour of the day for total collisions, all injury collisions, and KSI collisions.

Figure 14 Time of Day

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%
Total All Injury KSI
61 34 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

KILLED AND SEVERE INJURY (KSI) COLLISIONS
This section describes a detailed collision analysis performed for KSI collisions occurring at roadway segments and intersections in the City of Oakley. Of the total 24 KSI collisions that occurred during the study period, 20 collisions (83%) occurred at intersections and 4 collisions (17%) occurred on roadway segments. This distribution is illustrated in Figure 15.

Figure 15 Intersection vs. Roadway Segment Collisions – KSI Collisions Figure 16 maps the KSI collisions that occurred in the City of Oakley during the study period.

Roadway
Segment
17%
Intersection
83%
KSI Collisions
62 Figure 16 Citywide Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions 63 32 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

COLLISION TYPE AND LOCATION TYPE
Figure 17 KSI Collisions: Collision Type

VIOLATION CATEGORY AND LOCATION TYPE
Figure 18 KSI Collisions: Violation Category Type
4% 4%
0% 0% 0% 0%
4% 4%
13%
4% 4%
38%
4% 4%
8% 8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Head-OnSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle/PedestrianOther Roadway Intersection
0% 0%
4% 4% 4%
0%
4%
0% 0% 0%
8% 8% 8%
21%
0%
4%
13%
4%
13%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
UnknownDUIUnsafe SpeedWrong Side of RoadImproper PassingUnsafe Lane ChangeAutomobile Right of WayPedestrian Right of WayTraffic Signals and SignsNot Stated Roadway Intersection
64 37 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n 33 | P a g e O a k l e y R o a d w a y s a f e t y P l a n

MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH AND LOCATION TYPE
Figure 19 KSI Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved With

LIGHTING AND LOCATION TYPE
Figure 20 KSI Collisions: Lighting
4%
8%
0% 0% 0%
4%
0%
8%
42%
4% 4% 4%
13%
4%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
PedestrianOther Motor VehicleMotor Vehicle on Other
Roadway
Parked Motor VehicleBicycleFixed ObjectOther
Roadway Intersection
4%
0%
8%
4%
58%
4%
13%
8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
DaylightDusk - DawnDark - Street LightsDark - No Street Lights Roadway Intersection
65 38 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

TIME OF DAY AND LOCATION TYPE
Figure 21 KSI Collisions: Time of Day

GENDER VS AGE
Figure 22 KSI Collisions by Gender and Age
2 2
1 1
1 3 3
6 4
1 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 0-3 AM3-6 AM6-9 AM9 AM - 12 PM12-3 PM3-6 PM6-9 PM9 PM-12 AM Roadway Intersection
50%
33%
0% 0%
13% 17%
27%
40%
13%
0% 0%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
15-20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79
Female Male
66 39 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

GEOGRAPHIC COLLISION ANALYSIS
This section describes a detailed geographic collision analysis performed for injury collisions occurring on roadway segments and at intersections in the City of Oakley. The collision analysis of all injury collisions was used to identify five main collision factors that highlight the top trends among collisions in the City of Oakley. These five collision factors were identified to rear-end collisions, broadside collisions, unsafe speed violations, nighttime collisions, and head-on collisions.

REAR END TYPE COLLISIONS
Rear End collisions represented the highest proportion of total collisions (32%) and a similar trend for all injury collisions (32%). However, it represents only 4% of KSI collisions. Figure 23 shows the distribution of rear-end collisions throughout the City of Oakley between 2017 and 2021. Main Street, Cypress Road, and Laurel Road have a higher concentration of rear-end collisions.

BROADSIDE TYPE COLLISIONS
Broadside collisions represented the highest proportion of KSI collisions (38%), while 20% of total collisions and 27% of all injury collisions are broadside. Figure 24 shows the distribution of broadside collisions throughout the City of Oakley between 2017 and 2021. The intersections on Main Street at Big Break Road, Nelroy Road, and SR 160 on/off ramps observed a higher concentration of broadside collisions.

UNSAFE SPEED VIOLATIONS
Unsafe speed contributed to 28% of total collisions in Oakley. A similar trend of 29% was observed for all injury collisions. However, 13% of all KSI collisions were due to unsafe speed violations. Figure 25 shows the distribution of unsafe speed collisions throughout the City of Oakley between 2017 and 2021. Main Street, Cypress Road, Empire Avenue, and Laurel Road have a higher concentration of unsafe speed collisions.

NIGHTTIME TYPE COLLISIONS
Collisions occurring during dark lighting conditions represented 34% of total collisions, and 31% of all injury collisions but rose to 38% for KSI-only collisions. Figure 26 shows the distribution of nighttime collisions throughout the City of Oakley between 2017 and 2021. Main Street, East Cypress Road, and Laurel Road have a higher concentration of nighttime collisions.

HEAD-ON COLLISIONS
Head-On collisions accounted for 10% of total collisions, 13% of all injury collisions, and 17% of KSIonly collisions. All head-on KSI collisions were due to driving on the wrong side of the road. Figure 27 shows the distribution of injury collisions due to improper turning throughout the City of Oakley 67 40 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n between 2017 and 2021. Main Street, East Cypress Road, Francisco Villa Drive, and Laurel Road have the highest concentration of head-on collisions.

The following figures detail concentrations of each of the above five collision factors on roadways throughout Oakley. All injury collisions, whether they occurred at an intersection or roadway segment, are considered in these maps (for example, roads where a particular collision factor is more concentrated may have collisions that occurred at an intersection within the segment, or along the segment itself away from an intersection). Note that the below maps were created using all injury collisions and does not include PDO collisions.
68 Figure 23 Citywide Rear End Collisions
69 42 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 24 Citywide Broadside Collisions
70 43 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 25 Citywide Unsafe Speed Violations
71 44 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 26 Citywide Nighttime Collisions
72 45 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 27 Citywide Head-On Collisions
73 46 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

COLLISION SEVERITY WEIGHT
The Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) method was used to identify the high severity collision network. The EPDO method accounts for both the severity and frequency of collisions by converting each collision to an equivalent number of property damage only (PDO) collisions. The EPDO method assigns a crash cost and score to each collision according to the severity of the crash weighted by the comprehensive crash cost. These EPDO scores are calculated using a simplified version of the comprehensive crash costs per HSIP Cycle 11 guidance. The weights used in the analysis are shown below in Table 3.

Table 3 EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 11
Collision Severity EPDO Score
Fatal and Severe Injury Combined 165*
Visible Injury 11
Possible Injury 6
PDO 1
*This is the score used in HSIP Cycle 11 for collisions on roadways segments, to simplify the analysis this study uses the same score for all KSI collisions regardless of location.

EPDO is used because it provides a methodology for the project team to understand the locations in Oakley that are experiencing the most severe crashes. Because of the high score given to fatal and severe injury crashes, locations that have these types of crashes are more likely to receive a higher EPDO score than other locations that may have more collisions, but fewer killed or severe injury collisions. Locations that have the highest EPDO scores are selected for inclusion in the high collision network, shown in the next section. Identified intersections are scored based on collisions occurring at or within 250 feet of the intersection, while roadway segment locations are identified based on collisions that occur along the segment, except directly at an intersection (0 feet from intersection). Identifying the locations with the most severe crashes allows the team to focus recommended solutions and countermeasures at these locations.

The EPDO scores for all collisions can then be aggregated in a variety of ways to identify collision patterns, such as location hot spots. The weighted collisions for the City of Oakley were geolocated onto Oakley’s road network. GIS is then used to calculate the EPDO score for each roadway segment and intersection citywide, which is then ranked according to its score. Figure 28 shows the location and geographic concentration of all collisions (those that occurred at intersections and along roadway segments) by their EPDO score.
74 47 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 28 Citywide Equivalent Property Damage Only
75 48 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

HIGH INJURY NETWORK
Following the detailed collision analysis, the next step was to identify the high-injury roadway segments and intersections in Oakley. The methodology for scoring the high-injury locations is the same method that used in the collision severity weight section. Figure 29 shows the top 9 high-injury roadway segments and the top 12 high-injury intersections.

For the purposes of the high injury network analysis, intersections include collisions that occurred within 250 feet of it, and roadway segments include all collisions that occurred along the roadway except for collisions that occurred directly at an intersection. Such collisions are assigned a 0 value in distance from the intersection value column in the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).
76 49 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 29 Citywide High Injury Network (HIN)
77 50 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

INTERSECTION RANKING
12 intersections were identified as high collision intersections. There were a total of 40 injury collisions and 14 KSI collisions that occurred at these intersections during the five-year study period (2017-2021). The intersection of O'Hara Avenue and Laurel Road had the highest number of severe collisions.

Table 4 lists the top 12 identified high-risk intersections along with the number of injury collisions, the number of KSI collisions, and the severity weight for each intersection.

Table 4 High Collision Intersections
ID Intersection Total Injury
Collisions KSI Collisions Severity Weight
1 O'Hara Ave and Laurel Rd 6 2 354
2 Main St and Sandy Ln 2 2 330
3 Empire Ave and Laurel Rd 6 1 195
4 Carol Ln and Main St 5 1 194
5 Main St and Vintage Pkwy 4 1 188
6 Main St/Brentwood Blvd and Delta Rd 4 1 183
7 Live Oak Ave and Nelroy Rd 3 1 177
8 Brown Rd and Neroly Rd 2 1 171
9 E Cypress Rd and Bethel Island Rd 2 1 171
10 Francisco Villa Dr and O'Hara Ave 2 1 171
11 Oakley Rd and Neroly Rd 2 1 171
12 Live Oak Ave and Laurel Rd 2 1 171
78 51 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

CORRIDOR RANKING
Nine corridors were identified as high-injury corridors. There are a total of 61 injury collisions and nine KSI collisions on these corridors during the five-year study period (2017-2021). The Main Street corridor had the highest number of KSI collisions with 21 collisions.

Table 5 lists the top nine identified high-collision corridors along with the number of injury collisions, the number of KSI collisions, corridor length, and the severity weight for each corridor.

Table 5 High Injury Corridors
ID Corridors Total Length (miles) Severity Weight
A Main St: West City Limit to South City Limit 21 5 474 B E Cypress Rd: Main St to East City Limit 12 3.8 400
C Laurel Rd: West City Limit to Teton Rd 11 3 230
D Neroly Rd: Main St to Silverspur Ln 7 4 216
E Beechnut Ln: Cashew Ln to Almondtree Cir 1 0.1 165
F Bethel Island Rd: E Cypress Rd to North City Limit
(Sandmound Blvd)
1 1.1 165
G Francisco Villa Dr: O’Hara Ave to Cul-de-sac 1 0.15 165 H Empire Ave: Main St to South City Limit 4 1.9 29
I O'Hara Ave: Main St to Nelroy Rd 3 2 23
79 52 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

5. Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Areas are focus areas identified through analyzing the characteristics of collisions that have occurred in the City of Oakley within the last five years (2017-2021). Emphasis Areas help in identifying appropriate safety strategies and countermeasures that have the greatest potential to reduce collisions occurring at roadway segments and intersections. This chapter summarizes six emphasis areas identified for the City of Oakley. These emphasis areas were derived by focusing on the collisions that have occurred on the high-injury network identified in collision analysis for the City of Oakley.

There are a number of different approaches to traffic safety studies. Some methodologies focus more on a reactive and responsive approach and others focus on a more proactive systemic approach to traffic safety data.

A reactive approach to road safety is based on the analysis of existing crash data. Road safety improvements proposed are considered in reaction to identified safety problems brought to light by crashes that have occurred after the road has been designed, and built, and opened. Traditional reactive road safety engineering processes include such activities as information collection and management (crash information systems), identification of problem locations on the road network, analysis, development, and implementation of countermeasures. The Hazard Elimination Program or a jurisdiction’s high crash location list are examples of reactive approaches to crash frequency and/or severity reduction. A proactive approach focuses on the evolving "Science of Safety", that is, what is known about the evolving specific safety implications of highway design and operations decisions. The proactive approach applies this knowledge to the roadway design process or to the implementation of improvement plans on existing roads to diminish the potential of crashes occurring prior to the road being built or reconstructed. The Empirical Bayes method is an example of such proactive traffic safety approach that attempts to predict future crashes based on roadway typologies. Most methodologies use a balance of both reactive and systemic safety approaches.

Based on the systemic safety analysis that helped identified high-injury intersections and roadway segments, the top risk factors and emphasis areas determined for traffic safety in the City of Oakley are as follows – • Improve Intersection safety
• Address Rear-end collisions
• Address Broadside collisions
• Reduce Unsafe speed violations
• Address Nighttime collisions
• Address Head-on collisions
The consolidated high-injury collision database can be found in Appendix B. 5 EMPHASIS AREAS
80 53 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n THE FIVE E’S OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
The LRSP utilizes a comprehensive approach to safety incorporating “5 E’s of traffic safety”: Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Emergency Medical Services (EMS), and Equity. This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the 5 E’s of traffic safety is often required to ensure successful implementation of significant safety improvements and reduce the severity and frequency of collisions throughout a jurisdiction.

Some of the common violation types that may require a comprehensive approach are speeding, failure-to-yield to pedestrians, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to arrange visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes and injuries.

To improve safety, education efforts can be used to supplement enforcement and improve the efficiency of each strategy. Education can also be employed in the short-term to address high crash locations until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented. Similarly, Emergency Medical Services entails strategies around supporting organizations that provide rapid response and care when responding to collisions causing injury, by stabilizing victims and transporting them to facilities. Equity refers to examining the impact collisions have on disadvantaged communities and allocating resources to address them. 81 54 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

EXISTING TRAFFIC SAFETY EFFORTS IN THE CITY OF OAKLEY
The City of Oakley already has implemented safety strategies corresponding to the 5 E’s of traffic safety. The strategies detailed in this chapter can supplement these existing programs and concentrate them on high injury collision locations and crash types. These initiatives are summarized in Table 6 below:

Table 6 Existing Programs Summary
Document/
Program Description E’s Addressed
Oakley
Neighborhood
Traffic
Management
Program Policy
(2014)
This document establishes guidelines for neighborhoods and City staff as they work together to address various types of traffic conditions, such as speeding, cut-through traffic, truck intrusion, commercial parking spill-over, reduce number and severity of collisions and preserving emergency vehicle’s response time .

Engineering,
Enforcement
Street Smarts
Diablo Region
and 511
Contra Costa
Programs
Street Smarts Diablo delivers bicycle and pedestrian safety programs at no cost to qualifying public schools in Central and East Contra Costa County. 511 Contra Costa is a county-wide program that strives to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality by providing the public with information, resources, and tools that promote mobility options beyond driving alone which includes bike and pedestrian safety resources.

Education
Contra Costa
County Vision
Zero (2018)
CCTA developed a Countywide Vision Zero Framework, which was a key implementation recommendation of the Countywide Bike/Ped Plan adopted by the CCTA Board in July 2018. This effort is focused on bicycle/pedestrian safety and developed a countywide "high-injury network (HIN)", collision typologies, and a Vision Zero Transportation Safety Policy and an Implementation Guide for Local Agencies. This Guide also includes a Toolbox to improve the safety of people walking and biking.

Engineering,
Education,
Enforcements,
EMS
82 55 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

FACTORS CONSIDERED IN THE DETERMINATION OF EMPHASIS AREAS This section presents collision data analysis of collision type, collision factors, facility type, and roadway geometries, analyzed for the various emphasized areas. Emphasis areas were determined by factors that led to the highest amount of injury collisions, with a specific emphasis on killed or severely injured (KSI) collisions. The City of Oakley experienced a total of 93 injury collisions at high injury network locations during the 2017-2021 study period, including 20 killed or severely injured collisions. The data presented in each emphasis area is based on these collisions. This section also presents comprehensive programs, policies, and countermeasures to reduce collisions in specific emphasis areas.

Note: Engineering countermeasures are based on the Caltrans LRSM and are used in HSIP calls for projects.

They are categorized as follows:
 S = Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
 NS = Non-Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
 R = Roadway Segments Countermeasures
An excerpt of the Caltrans LRSM providing additional details on each countermeasure is included in Appendix C.
83 56 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EMPHASIS AREA 1 – IMPROVE INTERSECTION SAFETY
Intersection collisions made up the vast majority of collisions occurring on the Oakley high injury network during the study period, with a total of 76%. The 80% of killed or severely injured (KSI) collisions also occurred at intersections. The following collision data is based on only intersection collisions on the high injury network in the City of Oakley, followed by 4 E’s strategies selected to address intersection collisions.

Table 7 Emphasis Area 1 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of KSI collision at intersections.

Strategy Performance Measure Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for
intersection safety laws regarding traffic signals, stop signs, and turning left or right.

Number of education
campaigns or residents
reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury intersections to monitor rightof-way violations, speed limit laws and other violations that occur at intersections.

Decrease in number of
citations and/or
warnings issued over
time due to increased
driver compliance.

Police
Department
Engineering
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• S03, Improve signal timing
• S09, Install raised pavement markers
• S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop
signs or other intersection warning/regulatory
signs
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
• NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections • NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning
(Non-Signalized Intersection) (NS.I.)
• NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
• NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
• NS13, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches • NS14, Install raised median on approaches
• NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
• Automated Red-light Enforcement
Number of intersections
improved. City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites. Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined EMS vehicle response
time.

City/Fire
Department &
EMS Response
Teams
84 57 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EMPHASIS AREA 2 – ADDRESS REAR END COLLISIONS
There were 33 (35%) high injury network collisions classified as rear-end collisions, including one KSI collision.

The following is based on only rear-end injury collisions on the high injury network, followed by 4 E’s strategies to address them.

Table 8 Emphasis Area 2 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of rear end KSI collisions.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding unsafe speed and improper turning and its dangers.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents
reached.

City/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury locations where unsafe speed violations and improper turning are more common.

Deploy a radar trailer at locations where instances of unsafe speed is more prevalent
Decrease in
number of
citations and/or
warnings issued
over time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police
Department
Engineering
• S02, Improve signal hardware
• S07, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) • S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
• S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) • S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections • R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) • R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting • R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers • R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
• R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
• Decrease width of travel lanes.
• Simplify turn configurations.
• Decrease curb radius of intersections.
• Traffic calming strategies where appropriate.

Number of
locations
improved.

City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites. Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire
Department &
EMS
Response
Teams
85 58 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EMPHASIS AREA 3 – REDUCE UNSAFE SPEED VIOLATIONS
A total of 34 (37%) high injury network collisions were due to unsafe speed, including seven KSI collisions. The following is based on only unsafe speed injury collisions on the high injury network, followed by 4 E’s strategies to address them.

Table 9 Emphasis Area 3 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of KSI unsafe speed collisions.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding unsafe speed and its dangers.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury locations where unsafe speed violations are more common.

Deploy a radar trailer at locations where instances of unsafe speed is more prevalent
Decrease in number
of citations and/or
warnings issued
over time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police
Department
Engineering
• S02, Improve signal hardware
• S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
• S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
• R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting • R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers • R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
• R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
• Decrease width of travel lanes.
• Simplify turn configurations.
• Decrease curb radius of intersections.
• Traffic calming strategies where appropriate.

Number of
locations improved. City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined
EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire
Department &
EMS Response
Teams
86 59 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EMPHASIS AREA 4 – ADDRESS BROADSIDE COLLISIONS
Broadside Collisions made up 23 (25%) of the high injury network collisions, including eight (KSI) collisions. The following collision data is based on only broadside injury collisions on the high injury network of the City of Oakley, followed by 4 E’s strategies to address them.

Table 10 Emphasis Area 4 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of KSI broadside collisions.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaigns for intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs and turning left or right.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury locations where violations that lead to broadside collisions are more common, such as automobile right of way and traffic signal/stop sign violations.

Decrease in number
of citations and/or
warnings issued over
time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police
Department
Engineering
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
• S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists)
• S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) • S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
• S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
• NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)
• NS03, Install signals
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• NS08, Install flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections • NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) • NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
• NS13, add splitter-islands on the minor road approaches • NS14, install raised median on approaches
Number of locations
improved to mitigate
broadside collisions.

City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites.

Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined
EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire
Department &
EMS Response
Teams
87 60 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EMPHASIS AREA 5 – IMPROVE NIGHTTIME COLLISIONS
Night or in low light (dawn/dusk) conditions totaled 27 (29%) of high injury network collisions, including nine KSI collisions. The following collision data is based on only nighttime injury collisions on the high injury network of the City of Oakley, followed by 4 E’s strategies selected to address nighttime collisions.

Table 11 Emphasis Area 5 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of KSI collisions that occur at night or dawn/dusk.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Develop an awareness program to inform motorists of safe nighttime driving habits and the dangers of drunk driving, as well as high-injury collision locations and the most common violations/collision types occurring at night.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury intersections and roadway locations where nighttime collisions are more common.

Establish DUI checkpoints at night and enforce over speeding where appropriate.

Decrease in number
of citations and/or
warnings issued over
time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police
Department
Engineering
• S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) • S02, Improve signal hardware
• S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) • NS01, Add intersection lighting
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections • NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) • NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) • R01, Add Segment Lighting
• R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone
• R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
• R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
• R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) • R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers • R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
• R31, Install edge-line rumble strips/stripes
Number of locations
improved. City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites. Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire
Department &
EMS Response
Teams
88 61 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EMPHASIS AREA 6 – ADDRESS HEAD-ON COLLISIONS
A total of ten (11%) high injury network collisions are classified as head-on collisions. However, of these ten collisions, none of them led to a fatality or severe injury. The following collision data is based on only head-on injury collisions on the high injury network of the City of Oakley, followed by 4 E’s strategies selected to reduce head-on collisions.

Table 12 Emphasis Area 6 Strategies
Objective:

Reduce the number of KSI head-on collisions.

Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaigns on risks that can lead to head-on collisions, such as driving on wrong side of the road, distracted driving, driving under the influence, disregard of lane markings and signs.

Number of
education
campaigns or
residents reached.

City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-injury locations where wrong side driving violations are more common.

Decrease in number
of citations and/or
warnings issued over
time due to
increased driver
compliance.

Police
Department
Engineering
• S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
• S06, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no leftturn lane or phase before) • S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) • S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection)
• S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) • S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
• NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) • NS14, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
• NS18, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) • R01, Add Segment Lighting
• R08, Install raised median
• R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
• R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
• R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
Number of locations
improved. City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Improve resource of deployment for emergency responses to collision sites. Ensure emergency routes are clear and well defined Increase the number of EMS personnel taking Traffic Incident Management Training
EMS vehicle
response time.

City/Fire
Department &
EMS Response
Teams
89 62 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n EQUITY
This section discusses opportunity areas to facilitate safety improvements with a focus on MTC (Metropolitan Transportation Commission) Equity Priority Communities (EPC) and SS4A (Safe Streets and Roads for All) Historically Disadvantaged Communities.

Equity Priority Communities
The Equity Priority Communities data for Plan Bay Area 2050 was obtained from BayViz. This data identifies neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area designated as Equity Priority Communities (EPCs), previously known as Communities of Concern. EPCs are classified into three classes - High, Higher, and Highest - representing their priority status for investments. The EPC data was mapped to visualize the different EPC tiers within the City of Oakley.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has developed criteria2to identify Equity Priority Communities (EPCs) in the San Francisco Bay Area. EPC status is based on demographic and socioeconomic factors from Census data measured at the census tract level.

Specific factors and thresholds used by MTC to designate highly disadvantaged tracts as EPCs include:

1. High concentration (70%+) of people of color

2. High share (28%+) of households below 200% of the federal poverty level

3. High share (12%+) of individuals with limited English proficiency

4. High share (15%+) of zero-vehicle households

5. High share (8%+) of adults over 75 years old

6. High share (12%+) of people with a disability

7. High share (18%+) of single-parent families

8. High share (14%+) of severely rent-burdened households (paying 50%+ of income on rent) As per MTC, a census tract is designated an Equity Priority Community (EPC) if the tract has high percentages of both low-income households and people of color OR the tract has a high percentage of low-income households AND high percentages in at least three of the following categories: limited English, no vehicles, seniors over 75, disabilities, single parents, severe rent burden.

SS4A Underserved Communities
The US Department of Transportation (USDOT) has developed a list of SS4A Underserved Communities Census Tracts (historically disadvantaged communities). The disadvantaged census tracts identified in this list exceeded the 50th percentile (75th for resilience) across at least four of the following six transportation disadvantaged indicators. Each of the six disadvantage indicators are assembled at the census tract level using data from the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index, Census American Community Survey,

2 https://bayareametro.github.io/Spatial-Analysis-Mapping-Projects/Project-Documentation/Equity-PriorityCommunities/#summary-of-mtc-epc-demographic-factors--demographic-factor-definitions 90 63 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Smart Location Map, US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Location Affordability Index, EPA Environmental Justice Screen, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool, and FEMA National Risk Index.

1. The Transportation Access disadvantage indicator identifies communities and places that spend more, and longer, to get where they need to go (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, EPA Smart Location Map, HUD Location Affordability Index).

2. The Health disadvantage indicator identifies communities based on variables associated with adverse health outcomes, disability, as well as environmental exposures (CDC Social Vulnerability Index).

3. The Environmental disadvantage identicator identifies communities with disproportionate pollution burden and inferior environmental quality (EPA EJ Screen).

4. The Economic disadvantage identicator identifies areas and populations with high poverty, low wealth, lack of local jobs, low homeownership, low educational attainment, and high inequality (CDC Social Vulnerability Index, Census America Community Survey, FEMA Resilience Analysis & Planning Tool).

5. The Resilience disadvantage indicator identifies communities vulnerable to hazards caused by climate change (FEMA National Risk Index).

6. The Equity disadvantage indicator identifies communities with a high percentile of persons (age 5+) who speak English "less than well" (CDC Social Vulnerability Index).

For the following analysis, Equity Priority Communities indicators within the City of Oakley are utilized to identify and prioritize the safety improvements within Oakley.

Overlay of Equity Priority Communities with High Injury Network Eight of the 21 high risk locations identified in the LRSP are within an EPC which includes four high-injury intersections and portions of four high-injury roadway segments. Examples include Main Street, Neroly Rd, Empire Avenue and Francisco Villa Drive.

Figure 27 illustrates overlay of EPC census track over the identified high injury network of Oakley LRSP. Nearly 30 percent of citywide KSI collisions occurred in EPCs, though EPCs account for approximately 10% of the City’s total area. Figure 28 illustrates EPC overlay on KSI collision within Oakley. Table 15 lists high injury locations within EPC and injury collision types.
91 64 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 30 Equity Priority Communities and High Injury Network 92 65 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Figure 31 Equity Priority Communities and KSI Collisions 93 66 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Table 13 Breakdown of crash types occurring at high injury locations in the EPC using TIMS data Location Summary of Injury Collisions (2017 -2021)
Main St and Sandy Ln 1 severe injury broadside, 1 severe injury pedestrian Carol Ln and Main St
1 severe injury broadside, 2 complaint of pain broadside, 1 complaint of pain rear end
Main St and Vintage Pkwy
1 severe injury pedestrian, 1 visible injury pedestrian, 2 complaint of pain rear end
Oakley Rd and Neroly Rd 1 severe injury bicycle, 1 complaint of pain broadside Main St: West City Limit to 2nd St
6 severe injury, 10 visible injury, 22 complaint of pain, 15 Rear End, 12 Broadside, 4 Vehicle/Pedestrian , 3 Hit Object, 2 Head-On, 2 Sideswipe Empire Ave: Main St to Cypress
Ave
1 severe injury, 2 visible injury, 15 complaint of pain, 9 Broadside, 6 Rear End, 1 Sideswipe, 1 Hit Object, 1 Vehicle/Pedestrian
The countermeasures proposed at the high injury locations within Oakley’s EPCs address the crash trends described in the table above. For example, for broadside collision within Oakley’s EPCs, LRSP identified countermeasures to address these crash trends include: signal hardware and signal timing upgrade, raised median on intersection approaches, and raised pavement markers. The detailed list of countermeasures are included in the Chapter 6.

Table 14 shows the cost estimates for individual safety projects recommended in the LRSP. The table also breaks down the aggregate investment amount by whether projects are located in Equity Priority Community (EPC) census tracts versus non-EPC areas of the city. Splitting the total estimated safety project costs into those two geographic allows for a comparison against the population percentages in EPC tracts and the rest of the city, providing an equitable breakdown of safety project spending. A detailed information of each safety projects, and benefit cost ratio is included in the Chapter 7.

Table 14 Recommended Safety Project Cost Estimates with Equity Analysis Safety Projects
Cost Estimates of
recommended
improvement in EPC
Cost Estimates of
recommended improvement
in Non EPC area
EPC Non EPC
Project 1 $ 70,000 $ 163,100 30% 70%
Project 2 $ 210,000 $ 2,330,300 8% 92%
Project 3 $ 615,000 $ 237,900 72% 28%
Project 4 $ 140,000 $ 264,000 35% 65%
Project 5 $ 23,500 $ 192,300 11% 89%
TOTAL $ 1,058,500 $ 3,187,600 25% 75%
As of 2020 census data, Oakley has a total population of 43,357 residents. Of those, 7,290 people (17% of the total) live in EPC tracts. When looking at the recommended safety project investments, projects in EPC tracts are being allocated approximately $1,058,500 out of the $4,246,100 total. That means EPC tract residents are receiving approximately 25% of the investment dollars, despite only being 17% of the population. Comparing these population and investment proportions shows that EPC communities are receiving a fair proportion of 94 67 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n safety project funds in relation to their share of Oakley's population. The EPC investment percentage is slightly higher than the population percentage, demonstrating equity in the allocation. 95 68 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

6. Countermeasure Selection

IDENTIFICATION OF COUNTERMEASURES
Following the identification of high-risk locations and emphasis areas was the identification of appropriate safety countermeasures. The Caltrans LRSM provides 82 countermeasures, of which 21 are eligible in the current HSIP call for signalized intersections, 23 for un-signalized intersections, and 38 for roadway segments. The LRSM provides guidance on where to apply the countermeasures including the crash types each countermeasure would address, and a Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for each countermeasure. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) CMF Clearinghouse and published research papers were reviewed by the project team to gain additional insight on CRFs and effectiveness of specific countermeasures.

The project team reviewed the high-injury locations (intersections and roadway segments) using aerial photography, Google Maps Street View software, and in-person site visits. Crash characteristics of all injury collisions occurring on the High Injury Network were considered. After combining the physical and collision characteristics, the project team developed a table of preliminary countermeasures that address each of the five identified Emphasis Areas. Below are countermeasures for each high-risk location that were most commonly recommended among all Emphasis Areas. By doing this, the project team was able to identify countermeasures with the greatest opportunity for funding and systemic implementation. 6 COUNTERMEASURE SECTION
96 69 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-risk locations and for the emphasis areas.

These were based on approved countermeasures from the Caltrans LRSM used in HSIP grant calls for projects.

The intention is to give the City potential countermeasures for each location that can be funded and implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the City’s Capital Improvement Program. Non-engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 5 E’s strategies, and are included with the emphasis areas. The countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D details the draft countermeasures for each high-risk location and emphasis area, separated by intersections and roadway segments. While some of these countermeasures might not be ideal for some safety projects, they are included to give the City a toolbox for implementing future safety improvements through other means, such as the Capital Improvement Program (CIP).

The countermeasures listed below are recommended countermeasures for high injury intersections and corridors. This list below provides a description of each countermeasure along with the CRF, federal funding eligibility, and opportunity for systemic implementation. An excerpt of the LRSM, detailing each available HSIP countermeasure referenced in the recommendations tables, are included as Appendix C.

WHAT YOU’LL SEE IN THIS TOOLBOX
Safety Research Sources
Application of Pedestrian Crossing Treatments for Streets and Highways, NCHRP, 2016.

California Local Roadway Safety Manual, Caltrans, FHWA & SafeTrec, 2020.

Development of Crash Modification Factors for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Treatments, NCHRP, 2017.

Evaluation of Bicycle-Related Roadway Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2014.

Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center, 2014.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: S03
Leading Pedestrian Interval
CRF 60%
CRASH
TYPE
Gives people walking a head start, making them more visible to drivers turning right or left. “WALK” signal comes on a few seconds before the cars get their green light. May be used in combination with No Right Turn on Red restrictions.

Countermeasures
in the LRSM
CRF 60%
CRASH
TYPE
Countermeasure
title
Countermeasure
icon
Countermeasure
description
Countermeasure
title
Crash reduction
factor or efficacy
Crash reduction factor
Mode (s) this
countermeasure affects
97 70 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n A. COUNTERMEASURES FOR SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: S02
Improve Signal Hardware
Includes New LED lighting, signal back plates, retroreflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.

CRF 15%
CRASH
TYPE
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: S03
Improve Signal Timing
Includes adding phases, lengthening clearance
intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk
movements, and coordinating signals at multiple
locations.

CRF 15%
CRASH
TYPE
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: S09
Raised Pavement Marking & Striping
CRF 10%
CRASH
TYPE
Adding clear pavement markings can guide
motorists through complex intersections and
approach and traverse through complex
intersections.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: S12/NS14
Raised Median on Approach
CRF 25%
CRASH
TYPE
Raised medians next to left turn lanes at intersections offer a cost effective means for reducing crashes and
improving operations at higher volume intersections
98 71 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n B. COUNTERMEASURES FOR NON- SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: NS01
Intersection Lighting
Intersection lighting improves the ability of drivers to see pedestrians and cyclists, thus decreasing accidents involving them during nighttime. Additionally, it
enhances driver awareness and response time.

CRF 40%
CRASH
TYPE
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: NS06
Large or Additional Stop Signs
New stop signs at uncontrolled intersections with
patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning
collisions related to lack of driver awareness of
the presence of the intersection.

CRF 15%
CRASH
TYPE
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: NS07
Intersection Pavement Marking
CRF 25%
CRASH
TYPE
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections will provide approaching motorists with additional information at these locations.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: NS09
Flashing Beacons as Advance warning
CRF 30%
CRASH
TYPE
Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be
related to lack of a driver's awareness of approaching
intersection or controls at a downstream intersection.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: NS03
Install Signals
CRF 30%
CRASH
TYPE
Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe
type crashes (right-angle, left-turn).

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: NS20PB
Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled
Location
CRF 25%
CRASH
TYPE
Intersections where pedestrians are known to be
crossing intersections that involve significant
vehicular traffic.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: NS08
Flashing Beacons at Stop Controlled
Intersection
CRF 25%
CRASH
TYPE
Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the NonSignalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: NS11
Sight Distance to Intersection
CRF 20%
CRASH
TYPE
Non-signalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside
obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway. 99 72 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n C. COUNTERMEASURES FOR ROADWAYS
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: R32PB
Install Bike Lanes
CRF 45%
CRASH
TYPE
Bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high
volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike-vehicle
collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: R21
Improve Pavement Friction
CRF 55%
CRASH
TYPE
Areas as noted having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is
significantly less than actual roadway speeds; including but not limited to curves, loop ramps, intersections, and areas with short stopping or weaving distances.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: R22
Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting
Intended to get the drivers attention and give
them a visual warning by using fluorescent yellow
sheeting (or other retroreflective material).

CRF 15%
CRASH
TYPE
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: R27
Reflectors and Object Markers
CRF 15%
CRASH
TYPE
Delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are
intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or
fixed object that cannot easily be removed.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: R28
Edge-line and Centerline
CRF 25%
CRASH
TYPE
Installing edge-lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines
COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: R30/R31
Centerline/Edge-line Rumble Strips
CRF 15-20%
CRASH
TYPE
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are
drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: R26
Dynamic Speed Warning Signs
CRF 30%
CRASH
TYPE
A roadway treatment that uses radar to alert drivers to their actual speed relative to the posted speed limit, encouraging drivers who exceed to the speed limit to slow down.

COUNTERMEASURE LRSM CODE: R02
Relocate Fixed Objects
A clear recovery zone should be developed on every
roadway, as space is available. Relocate fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands.

CRF 35%
CRASH
TYPE
100
73 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

7. Viable Safety Projects
This chapter summarizes the process of selecting safety projects as part of the analysis for Oakley’s LRSP. The next step after the identification of high-injury locations, emphasis areas and applicable countermeasures was to identify location specific safety improvements for all high-risk roadway segments and intersections.

Specific countermeasures and improvements were selected from the 2022 LRSM from Caltrans, where:
 S refers to improvements at signalized locations,
 NS refers to improvements at non-signalized locations, and  R refers to improvements at roadway segments.

The corresponding number refers to the countermeasure number in the LRSM (2022). The countermeasures were grouped into safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments. A total of five safety projects were developed. All countermeasures were identified based on the technical teams’ assessment of viability that consisted of extensive analysis, observations, City staff input, and stakeholder/community input. 7 VIABLE SAFETY PROJECTS
101
74 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n The most applicable and appropriate countermeasures as identified have been grouped together to form projects that can help make high-risk locations safer.

Table 14 lists the safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, along with total base planning level cost (2022 dollar amounts) estimates and the resultant preliminary Benefit-Cost (B/C) Ratio. The “Total Benefit” estimates were calculated for the proposed improvements being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. This “Total Benefit” is divided by the “Total Cost per Location” estimates for the proposed improvements, giving the resultant B/C Ratio. The B/C Ratio Calculation follows the methodology as mentioned in the LRSM (2022).

Appendix E includes HSIP analyzer sheets which contains detailed methodology to calculate B/C Ratio for each project, as well as the complete cost, benefit and B/C Ratio calculation.

These safety projects were chosen based on the previously completed collisions analysis, which was used to identify main collision attributes that were found to be leading factors of fatal and severe collisions in Oakley.

These collision factors are shown below, as well as viable safety projects that can help address these factors.

Rear End Collisions: 32% of collisions of all severity were rear end collisions. It also makes up 4% of KSI collisions. Rear end collisions can potentially be mitigated through upgrading signal hardware or adding retroreflective borders, improving signal timing, upgrading/adding intersection warning signs, or adding flashing beacons in advance of intersections. Methods to reduce speeding, such as traffic calming, can also help to address rear end collisions.

Broadside Collisions: For KSI collisions in Oakley, 38% of collisions were broadside collisions. This is higher than its share of collisions of all severity (27%). Broadside collisions can potentially be mitigated by increasing the visibility of an intersection through updated pavement markings, new or updated signage, lighting, advance flashing beacons, and improving sight distance.

Unsafe Speed Violations: 12% of KSI collisions in Oakley were due to unsafe speed violations, compared to 29% of collisions of all severity. Countermeasures such as traffic calming, dynamic speed warning signs, road diet can all help to address unsafe speed violation collisions.

Nighttime Collisions: 38% of KSI collisions in Oakley were nighttime collisions, compared to 31% of collisions of all severity. These collisions can potentially be mitigated with installing or upgrading street lighting with higher lumen, installing delineators, reflectors and object markers, adding fluorescent sheeting to traffic signs, and installing flashing beacons.

Head-on Collisions: 17% of collisions of all severity were head-on collisions. It also makes up 13% of KSI collisions. Head-on collisions can potentially be mitigated through installing raised median, centerline rumble strips, upgrade pavement markings and striping, widening medians and adding curve warning signs at horizontal curves.

The next step in the process will be to secure grant funding for the recommended safety projects. One of the grant program for the recommended projects is through the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program 102
75 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n (HSIP). It should be noted that while the LRSP projects were based on high-risk locations, HSIP applications can be expanded to include many locations across the city. TJKM can work with the City to identify additional locations that may be beneficial to add to future HSIP applications and calculate the B/C Ratio.

Below is the list of identified projects for the City of Oakley, with a preliminary cost estimate for each location and the resulting benefit-cost ratio of the project (the title of each countermeasure is located in a separate table below):

Table 15 List of Viable Safety Projects for Signalized Intersections Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Total Benefit Total Cost B/C Ratio Project 1: Signalized Intersections: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation), Install Raised Pavement Markers and Stripping Through Intersection
O'Hara Ave and Laurel Rd S02 S03
$10,023,620 $233,100 43.00
Empire Ave and Laurel Rd S02 S03
Carol Ln and Main St S02 S03 S09
Main St and Vintage Pkwy S02 S03
Brown Rd and Neroly Rd S02 S03
E Cypress Rd and Bethel Island Rd S02 S03 S09
Live Oak Ave and Laurel Rd S02 S03 S09
Project 2: Unsignalized Intersections: Install Signals (subject to Signal Warrant Study), Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.), Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) Main St and Sandy Ln NS07
$18,311,644 $2,540,300 7.21
Main St/Brentwood Blvd and Delta
Rd NS07 NS14
Live Oak Ave and Neroly Rd NS03
Francisco Villa Dr and O'Hara Ave NS03
Oakley Rd and Neroly Rd NS07 NS14
Project 3: Unsignalized Intersections: Add intersection lighting, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Main St and Sandy Ln NS01
Live Oak Ave and Neroly Rd NS08 $7,333,938 $852,900 8.6 Oakley Rd and Neroly Rd NS08 NS11
Project 4: Roadway Segments: Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning), Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone Main St: West City Limit to South
City Limit R22 R27
$28,863,685 $404,000 71.44
E Cypress Rd: Main St to East City
Limit R22 R27 R02
Laurel Rd: West City Limit to Teton
Rd R22 R27
Neroly Rd: Main St to Silverspur Ln R22 R27 R02
Beechnut Ln: Cashew Ln to
Almondtree Cir R22
Bethel Island Rd: E Cypress Rd to
North City Limit (Sandmound Blvd) R22 R27 R02
Francisco Villa Dr: O’Hara Ave to
Cul-de-sac R22 R27
103
76 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Total Benefit Total Cost B/C Ratio Empire Ave: Main St to South City
Limit R22 R27
O'Hara Ave: Main St to Neroly Rd R22 R27
Project 5: Roadway Segments: Install edge-lines and centerlines, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
E Cypress Rd: Main St to East City
Limit R30
$6,797,021 $215,800 31.5
Neroly Rd: Main St to Silverspur Ln R31
Beechnut Ln: Cashew Ln to
Almondtree Cir R28
Bethel Island Rd: E Cypress Rd to
North City Limit (Sandmound Blvd) R30
Francisco Villa Dr: O’Hara Ave to
Cul-de-sac R28
Table 16 List of Countermeasures used in the Safety Projects Countermeasure Name
S02 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow or operation) S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) NS01 Add segment lighting (NS.I)
NS03 Install Signals
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) NS14 Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
R02 Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R27 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines
R30 Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
R31 Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
*Note: S refers to improvements at signalized locations, NS refers to improvements at non-signalized locations, and R refers to improvements at roadway segments.
104
77 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

8. Implementation and Evaluation
This chapter describes the steps the city may take to evaluate the success of this plan and steps needed to update the plan in the future. The LRSP is a guidance document and requires periodic updates to assess its efficacy and re-evaluate potential solutions. It is recommended to update the plan every two to five years in coordination with the identified safety partners. This document was developed based on community needs, stakeholder input, and collision analysis conducted to identify priority emphasis areas throughout the city. The implementation of strategies under each emphasis area would aim to reduce KSI collisions in the coming years.

IMPLEMENTATION
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service-related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce KSI collisions.

It is recommended that the City of Oakley implement the selected projects in high-collision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City’s infrastructure development in their future Capital Improvement Plans. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated periodically. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing KSI collisions throughout the City. If the number of KSI collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluated.

Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, there are numerous other funding sources that could be pursued for such projects. (See Table 15 below). In addition, Appendix F includes the list of ongoing or proposed roadway safety related projects in the City of Oakley.
8 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
105
78 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Table 17 List of Potential Funding Sources
Funding Source Funding Agency Amount
Available
Next Call
for Projects Applicable E’s Notes
Active Transportation
Program
Caltrans,
California
Transportation
Commission,
MTC
~$450
million per
cycle (every
two years)
2024 Engineering,
Education
Can use used for most
active transportation
related safety projects as
well as education
programs? Funding
available through
Caltrans or MTC
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
Caltrans Varies 2024 Engineering
Most common grant
source for safety
projects
One Bay Area Grant
(OBAG) Cycle 4
MTC (Combines
various federal
funds)
TBD
County &
Local
Program:

TBD
Engineering
Distributes federal
funding to cities and
counties in MTC region
Office of Traffic
Safety Grants
California Office
of Traffic Safety
Varies by
grant
Closes
January 31st
annually
Education,
Enforcement,
Emergency
Response
10 grants available to
address various
components of traffic
safety
Affordable Housing
and Sustainable
Communities
Program
Strategic Growth
Council and
Dept. of Housing
and Community
Development
~$10-15
million per
award
TBD; most
recent in
2023
Engineering,
Education
Must be connected to
affordable housing
projects; typically
focuses on
bike/pedestrian
infrastructure/ programs
Urban Greening
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
$28.5 million
TBD; most
recent in
2022
Engineering
Focused on
bike/pedestrian
infrastructure and
greening public spaces
Local Streets and
Road Maintenance
and Rehabilitation
CTC (distributed
to local agencies)
$1.5 billion
statewide
N/A;
distributed
by formula
Engineering
Typically pays for road
maintenance type
projects
RAISE Grant USDOT ~$1.5 billion 2023 Engineering Typically used for larger infrastructure projects
Sustainable
Transportation Equity
Project
California Air
Resources Board
~$19.5
million
TBD; most
recent call in
2023
Engineering,
Education
Targets projects that will
increase transportation
equity in disadvantaged
communities
Transformative
Climate Communities
Strategic Growth
Council
~$105
million
TBD; most
recent call in
2022
Engineering
Funds community-led
projects that achieve
major reductions in
greenhouse gas
emissions in
disadvantaged
communities
Safe Streets and
Roads for All (SS4A) USDOT $200k - $50 million 2023 Engineering Two types of SS4A
grants available: Action
Plan Grants and
Implementation Grants
106
79 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n Clean California Local
Grant Program Caltrans
$100 – 5
million per
award
2023 Engineering
Funding for local
communities to beautify
and improve local
streets and roads, tribal
lands, parks, pathways,
and transit centers
Reconnecting
Communities:

Highways to
Boulevards
Caltrans $200,000–
$2,000,000
September
20, 2023 Planning
The goal of the RC:H2B
Pilot Program is to
reconnect communities
harmed by
transportation
infrastructure,
Promoting Resilient
Operations for
Transformative,
Efficient, and CostSaving Transportation
(PROTECT) Program
USDOT Min Award:
$100,000 August 2023 18, Engineering
107
80 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n

MONITORING AND EVALUATION
For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the 5 E-strategies continuously. Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensures the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help making decisions on the need for new strategies. The process would help the City make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan.

After implementing countermeasures, the strategies should be evaluated annually as per their performance measures. The evaluation should be recorded in a before-after study to validate the effectiveness of each countermeasure as per the following observations:
 Number of Injury collisions
 Number of police citations
 Number of public comments and concerns
Evaluation should be conducted during similar time periods and durations each year. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reduction in injury collisions throughout the City. If the number of injury collisions doesn’t decrease initially, then the countermeasures should be evaluated as per the other observations, as mentioned above. The effectiveness of the countermeasures should be compared to the goals for each emphasis area.

LRSP UPDATE
The LRSP is a guidance document and is recommended to be updated every two to five years after adoption.

After monitoring performance measures focused on the status and progress of the E’s strategies in each emphasis area, the next LRSP update can be tailored to resolve any continuing safety problems. An annual stakeholder meeting with the safety partners is also recommended to discuss the progress for each emphasis area and oversee the implementation plan. The document should then be updated as per the latest collision data, emerging trends, and the E strategies’ progress and implementation. 108
81 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS
109
7 Table 1: Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects Document Highlights
City of Oakley General Plan
2022
GOAL 3.5 TRAFFIC SAFETY
 Policy 3.5.1: Provide consistent, comprehensive traffic safety law enforcement throughout Oakley.
 Policy 3.5.2: Design a roadway system that maximizes safety for all users and results in safe speeds on city streets.
 Policy 3.5.3: Maintain roadway facilities to maximize safety, including use of traffic-calming measures where appropriate.  Policy 3.5.4: Incorporate mountable medians, shoulders to bypass queued vehicles, emergency signal preemption, and other features to improve emergency response times as
appropriate and feasible on new roadways and on existing roadways.

Implementation Programs:
 3.5.A. Allocate adequate resources for traffic enforcement activities.
 3.5.B. As part of the Capital Improvement Program, identify and prioritize projects that enhance and improve vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian safety, including traffic-calming measures in areas with high accident rates.
 3.5.C. Ensure that new roadways are designed to minimize conflicts due to driveway access and parking.
 3.5.D. Ensure that adequate funding is available to maintain roadway marking, signs, and striping in optimal condition.  3.5.E. Enhance safety at railroad grade crossings, including coordination with Contra Costa Water District, Diablo Water District, East Bay Regional Park District and Iron house Sanitary District in the construction at no cost to the City of a new controlled, at-grade crossing on the BNSF tracks by the northward extension of Rose Avenue.
 3.5.F. Coordinate with local fire protection and law enforcement agencies on emergency response routes and plans.
 3.5.G. Consider adoption of a Vision Zero Action Plan (or strategy) that prioritizes a systems-based approach to
preventing traffic fatalities, focusing on the built environment, systems, including traffic-calming measures in areas with high accident rates, and policies that influence behavior as well as 110
8 Document Highlights
messaging that emphasizes that these traffic losses are preventable.

Oakley Downtown Specific Plan
(2010)
Capital Improvement Projects in Downtown Area

1. Highway 4/Main Street Realignment: The Bypass is designed to encourage trucks and through-traffic to circumnavigate the core blocks between Vintage Parkway and Second Street, and allow the core to be revitalized as a pedestrian-oriented commercial district.

2. Main Street Frontage and Streetscape: Frontage curbs, gutter, and walks will be constructed where they do not exist, and street trees, pedestrian-oriented street lights, and enhanced pedestrian street crossings will be installed between Vintage Parkway and Fourth Street.

3. East Main Street Widening and Streetscape: Widen the street to four lanes between the bend at Second Street and the Contra Costa Canal. Install landscaped median islands and frontage street trees and street lights.

4. Downtown Side Street Improvements: Install Street trees, pedestrian-oriented street lights, and enhanced pedestrian street crossings between Main Street and Acme Street along Hall, O’Hara, Second, and Third Streets.

5. Building Facade Improvements: Assist property and business owners to upgrade the appearance of buildings along the Main Street frontage.

6. City Gateway Signs
Priority Projects for Capital Funding to increase the Pedestrian Safety:

1. Main Street-Vintage to Second

2. East Main Street-Second to Fourth

3. East Main Street-Fourth to Rose
Revitalization Goals

1. Improve Main Street’s Overall Appearance

2. Enhance the Pedestrian Environment

3. Facilitate Realignment of Main Street/Highway 4

4. Promote Higher Density Infill Development
111
9 Document Highlights
East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan
(2006)
Goal: Plan for a Circulation System Serving Motorists, Bicyclists, Equestrians and Pedestrians:

The circulation plan for the East Cypress Corridor Specific Plan provides for comprehensive circulation through a system of arterial, collector and local streets which accommodate bicycle and pedestrian travel as well as the safe and efficient movement of automobiles. The Specific Plan accommodates equestrian travel as well.
 Bethel Island Road will be extended south from the intersection of East Cypress Road to Rock Slough. Bethel Island Road improvements will include a crossing at Rock Slough to be constructed in phases pursuant to the requirements of the City.

The crossing at Rock Slough will be funded by the development and by mitigation funds collected by Contra Costa County.  Arterial and collector streets will include landscaped parkways and pedestrian walkways separated from the street to create an intimate environment promoting social interaction.
 Streets will be designed to slow vehicular traffic through the use of traffic calming devices such as roundabouts, open space, landscaped areas and narrowed intersections to influence a driver’s peripheral vision to encourage drivers to proceed more slowly.
 A system of bikeways will be integrated into the design of the community to encourage bicycle travel as an alternative to the automobile.
 A system of equestrian and multi-use trails will be built on top of the proposed engineered levees.

Oakley Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program Policy
(2014)
The applicable streets are local neighborhood streets with the goal to address community needs by:
 Improving neighborhood safety for vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists
 Reducing the number and severity of vehicle related accidents  Maintaining the speed of motor vehicles to the posted speed limits
 Preserving emergency vehicles’ response times
 Decreasing the volume of extraneous/cut-through traffic  Maximizing the community participation and support in the program
112
10 Document Highlights
 Limiting the impact on adjacent local streets and neighborhoods City Of Oakley Capital
Improvement Program (2021-22)
List of Street Improvement Projects:
 Main Street/Rose Avenue Intersection Improvement Project:

This project will construct signalization and the reconfiguration of the Main Street/Rose Avenue Intersection
 Sellers Avenue Improvements and Widening Project: This project will construct the section of Sellers Avenue from the intersection at Riverrock Drive, to the gate at the Oakley Regional Community Park site.
 East Cypress Road Widening (Knightsen Avenue to Jersey Island Road): This project will install a signal at the intersection of East Cypress Road and Knightsen Avenue in addition to widening and improving this intersection and East Cypress Road
 Laurel Road Resurfacing Project (Empire Avenue to O'Hara Avenue): This project will repair and resurface Laurel Road from O'Hara Avenue to Empire Avenue.
 FY 2021/22 Street Repair and Resurfacing Project: This project will repair and resurface streets in Oakley.
 FY 2021/22 ADA Implementation Plan Project: This project will begin the implementation of the City of Oakley's ADA
Transition Plan.
 FY 2021/22 Street Restriping Project: This project will restripe major streets in Oakley.
 FY 2021/22 Traffic Calming Project: This project will construct traffic calming measures.
 FY 2021/22 Traffic Signal Modernization Project: This project will rehabilitate existing traffic signals.
 O'Hara Avenue / Carpenter Road Intersection Improvement Project: This project will improve the traffic operations at this intersection by constructing dedicated left turn lanes on Carpenter Road on either side of O’Hara Avenue, installing video detection system and reconfiguring the striping at this intersection.
 Main Street / Cypress Road Intersection Improvement Project:

The scope of this project include addition of a dedicated right turn lane from Main Street into East Cypress Road, asphalt resurfacing of the intersection and striping after the paving work has been completed.
113
11 Document Highlights
 Main Street / Delta Road Intersection Signalization Project: This project will install a traffic signal at Main Street / Delta Road intersection along with lane widening and intersection
improvements.
 Main Street / Brownstone Road Intersection Signalization Project: This project will install traffic signal at Main Street/Brownstone Road intersection.
 Hall Street Extension Project: This project will extend Hall Street north of Main Street to provide direct connection to the new parking lot that is constructed as part of the Downtown Gateway Plaza Roadway and Parking Lot Project.

Contra Costa Countywide Bike and
Pedestrian Plan (2018)
Goals
 Encourage more people to walk and bicycle
 Increase safety and security for pedestrians and bicyclists  Create a safe, connected, and comfortable network of bikeways and walkways for all ages and abilities
 Increase the livability and attractiveness of Contra Costa's communities and districts
 Equitably serve all of Contra Costa's communities while ensuring that public investments are focused on projects with the greatest benefits
Objectives
 Increase the share of trips made by walking and bicycling in Contra Costa
 Reduce the rate of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and injuries per capita
 Increase the number of miles of low-stress bikeways in Contra Costa
 Increase the number of jurisdictions in Contra Costa with bicycle, pedestrian, or active transportation plans
 Integrate complete street principles and best practices into Authority funding and design guidance
CCTA Transportation Expenditure
Plan (2020)
Goals
 Relieve Traffic Congestion on Highways and Interchanges  Make Bus, Ferry, Passenger Train, and BART Rides Safer, Cleaner, and More Reliable
 Provide Accessible and Safe Transportation for Children, Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities
114
12 Document Highlights
 Improve Transportation in Our Communities
Projects
 Enhance I-80, I-580 (Richmond-San Rafael Bridge), Transit, and BART Corridor
• Improve Transit Reliability Along the I-80 Corridor
• Relieve Congestion and Improve Local Access Along
the I-80 Corridor
• Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads in West County
• Enhance Ferry Service and Commuter Rail in West
County
• Improve Traffic Flow and Local Access to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Along I-580 and Richmond Parkway
• Seamless Connected Transportation Options
Contra Costa Countywide
Transportation Safety Policy and
Implementation Guide (2021)
 A. SIGNAL TIMING & PHASING
o Additional Signal Heads
o Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
o Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
o Leading Pedestrian Interval
o Pedestrian Phase Recall
o Replace Permissive with Protected Left Turn
o Pedestrian Scramble
o Reduce Cycle Lengths
o Coordinated Signal Operation
o Extend Green Time for Bikes
o Extend Yellow and All Red Time
 B. INTERSECTION & ROADWAY DESIGN
o Close Slip Lane
o Raised Intersection
o Convert Two-Way Stop to All-Way Stop
o Install Sidewalk
o Protected Intersection
o Raised Median
o Lane Narrowing
o Road Diet
o Widen Shoulder
o Roundabout
o Signal Head Improvements
o Traffic Circles
115
13 Document Highlights
o Programmable Signals/Visors/Louvers
o Edge Line/Center Line Rumble Strips
o Hardened Centerlines
 C. BIKEWAY DESIGN
o Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
o Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
o Bike Detection
o Class I Bicycle Path or Mixed Use Trail
o Bike Box
o Class II Bike Lane
o Class IV Separated Bikeway
o Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Markings
o Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
 D. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
o Install Pedestrian Countdown Timer
o Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
o Curb Extension
o High-Visibility Crosswalk
o Pedestrian Median Barrier
o Raised Crosswalk
o Pedestrian Refuge Island
o Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
o Reduce Curb Radius
o ADA-Compliant Directional Curb Ramps and Audible
Push Buttons
o Extended Time Push Button
 E. SIGNS & MARKINGS
o Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
o Advance Yield Markings
o Advance Stop Markings
o Pedestrian Signs
 F. OTHER
o Access Management
o Intersection & Street Scale Lighting
o Remove Obstructions for Sightlines
CCTA Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (2017)
 GOAL 1: Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes
 GOAL 2: Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy, preserve its environment and support its communities
116
14 Document Highlights
 GOAL 3: Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle
 GOAL 4: Maintain the transportation system
 GOAL 5: Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding
Contra Costa County
Transportation Analysis Guidelines
(2020)
Transportation Policy Framework
 Senate Bill 743 – California Environmental Quality Act  County General Plan
• Growth Management Element
• Transportation and Circulation Element
 Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
 Complete Streets
• Contra Costa County Complete Streets Principles
• Contra Costa County Complete Streets Implementation
Measures
 Vision Zero Contra Costa County
 County Ordinance Code
• Section 74-4.006 – Electric Vehicle ("EV") Charging
• Chapter 82-16 – Off-Street Parking
• Chapter 82-32 – Transportation Demand Management
• Title 9 - Subdivisions
 Contra Costa Transportation Authority
• CCTA Technical Procedures
• CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
• CCTA Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance 117
82 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n APPENDIX B: CONSOLIDATED HIGH-INJURY COLLISION DATABASE 118
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRICT 8715293 2018 20181115 700 20181016 1515 OA030 2234
8317998 2017 20170309 700 20170203 823 OA028
8803250 2019 20190222 700 20190113 1157 OA OAK
8424913 2017 20170816 700 20170801 1854 OA034 OAKLE
8911126 2019 20200604 700 20191127 1756 OA029 2264
8682574 2018 20181005 700 20180815 1249 0A009 59
8743478 2018 20181217 700 20181114 1721 OA036
8922483 2019 20190905 700 20190817 1059 OA321 OAK
9206888 2020 20210202 700 20201126 2115 OA040 59
9281700 2021 20210625 700 20210530 1324 OA032 OAK
9281879 2021 20210728 700 20210604 513 OA032 OAK
9288538 2021 20210910 700 20210616 1406 OA030 2252
9320356 2021 20220208 700 20210920 439 32 OAKLE
9356948 2021 20211109 700 20210919 2109 41
9385476 2021 20220125 700 20211203 744 32 OAKLE
8461676 2017 20171025 700 20170915 648 OA009 59
9056955 2020 20200703 700 20200304 1354 OA009 59
8322940 2017 20170314 700 20170124 1526 OA013 DELTA
8663345 2018 20180718 700 20180525 1658 OA036
9041612 2020 20200228 700 20200116 1421 OA009 59
9027522 2020 20200304 700 20200131 1519 OA032 OAK
9041616 2020 20200302 700 20200126 1418 OA032 OAK
9074357 2020 20200715 700 20200315 1340 OA032 OAK
9069561 2020 20200703 700 20200301 1106 OA032 OAK
8529543 2017 20180117 700 20171218 1916 OA034 DELTA
8657677 2018 20180829 700 20180709 654 OA009 59
8620491 2018 20180530 700 20180507 1058 OA009 59
8682562 2018 20181005 700 20180808 859 OA030 2239
8755110 2018 20181227 700 20181121 1108 OA030 2206
8715289 2018 20181115 700 20181004 518 OA037 2239
8868576 2019 20190606 700 20190521 1636 OA030 2206
8755421 2018 20190125 700 20181129 1840 OA036
9186315 2020 20210202 700 20201110 1905 OA019 OAKLE
8776224 2018 20190130 700 20181227 1717 OA036
2021 44526
8895413 2019 20190715 700 20190616 520 OA032 OAK
8995731 2019 20200109 700 20191122 1533 OA032 OAK
8995804 2019 20200206 700 20191201 702 OA032
9282267 2021 20210713 700 20210612 1320 OA032 OAK
9370524 2021 20211227 700 20211123 1536 30 2235
8344382 2017 20170418 700 20170319 1741 OA030 2227
8463206 2017 20171030 700 20170918 1105 OA030 2246
8510347 2017 20171214 700 20171031 2050 OA027 OAKLE
8529531 2017 20180117 700 20171226 1136 OA030 2204
8575292 2018 20180321 700 20180223 1707 OA018
8612448 2018 20180430 700 20180411 1255 OA009 59
8658090 2018 20181005 700 20180720 2339 OA034 DELTA
119
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE 2 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
6 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
6 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
120
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER PRIMARY_RD 0 53 OHARA AV
0 OHARA AV
0 53 OHARA AV
0 52 BRAZIL CT
0 52 BETHEL ISLAND RD
0 52 EAST CYPRESS RD
0 52 MAIN ST
0 52 EAST CYPRESS RD
0 52 EAST CYPRESS RD
0 52 EAST CYPRESS RD
0 52 BETHEL ISLAND RD
0 52 CYPRESS RD
0 52 EAST CYPRESS RD
0 BETHEL ISLAND RD
0 52 CYPRESS RD
0 52 EAST CYPRESS RD
0 52 EAST CYPRESS RD
0 53 NEROLY RD
0 3 EMPIRE AV
0 53 NEROLY RD
0 53 EMPIRE AV
0 53 EMPIRE AV
0 53 EMPIRE AV
0 53 OHARA AV
0 2 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 51 MAIN ST
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 51 MAIN ST
0 51 LAUREL RD
0 51 MAIN ST
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 51 MAIN ST
0 53 LAUREL RD
2190 MAIN ST (STARBUCKS PLOT)
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 51 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 51 MAIN ST
0 52 MAIN ST
0 1 MAIN ST
0 51 MAIN ST
0 52 MAIN ST
0 53 MAIN ST
0 51 MAIN ST
121
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION INTERSECTION TJKM_Intersection WEATHER_1 WEATHER_2 LAUREL RD 600 S N N A ‐
COVERED WAGON RD 68 N N Y B ‐
ACME ST 44 N N Y A ‐
BEECHNUT LN 321 S N N A ‐
EAST CYPRESS RD 93 N N Y C ‐
MACHADO LN 530 W N N A ‐
EAST CYPRESS RD 22 S N Y A ‐
KNIGHTSEN AV 116 E N Y A ‐
KNIGHTSEN AV 186 E N Y A ‐
BETHEL ISLAND RD 2112 W N N A ‐
CYPRESS RD 2112 E N N A ‐
SELLERS AV 164 W N Y A ‐
JERSEY ISLAND RD 3115 E N N A ‐
CYPRESS RD 2000 N N N A ‐
FRANK HENGEL WY 30 E N Y A ‐
BROADWAY 186 W N Y A ‐
KNIGHTSEN AV 299 E N N A ‐
NEROLY RD 1050 0 Y Y A ‐
TRUMAN LN 18 S N Y B ‐
BROWN RD 214 W N Y C ‐
NEROLY RD 305 N N N A ‐
NEROLY RD 282 N N N A ‐
OAKLEY RD 274 S N N C ‐
FRANCISCO VILLA DR 17 S N Y A ‐
CREEKSIDE WY 123 E N Y A ‐
WOODHILL DR 154 E N Y A ‐
CAROL LN 0 Y Y A ‐
EMPIRE AV 670 E N N A ‐
CAROL LN 106 S N Y B ‐
EMPIRE AV 452 E N N A ‐
CAROL LN 0 Y Y B ‐
ROSE AV 44 W N Y B ‐
CAROL AVE 0 Y Y A ‐
BROWN RD 127 W N Y A ‐
0 YA
MELLOWOOD DR 480 W N N A ‐
ROSE AV 50 W N Y A ‐
EMPIRE AV 55 E ‐ Y C ‐
EMPIRE AV 137 W N Y A ‐
ROSE AV 14 W N Y A ‐
OHARA AV 48 E N Y A ‐
OHARA AV 119 E N Y A ‐
LIVE OAK AV 713 W N N ‐ ‐
LIVE OAK AV 197 W N Y A ‐
MALICOAT AV 124 S N Y A ‐
VINTAGE PKWY 363 W N N A ‐
LIVE OAK AV 1792 E N N A ‐
122
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
STATE_HWY_IND CALTRANS_COUNTY CALTRANS_DISTRICT STATE_ROUTE ROUTE_SUFFIX N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N   0 0
N   0 0
N
N
N   0 0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
123
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
POSTMILE_PREFIX POSTMILE LOCATION_TYPE RAMP_INTERSECTION SIDE_OF_HWY TOW_AWAY Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
0 0  Y
0 0  Y
Y
Y
0 0  N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
124
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUNT PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR 4 0 13 A
4 0 12 A
3 0 11 A
2 0 11 A
1 1 22 A
4 0 33 A
4 0 11 C
4 0 22 A
2 0 22 A
4 0 13 A
4 0 11 A
3 0 12 A
1 1 02 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 11 A
3 0 12 A
2 0 32 A
3 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 32 A
4 0 12 A
2 0 11 A
4 0 12 A
3 0 13 A
2 0 22 A
4 0 22 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 23 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
3 2 0 22 A
4 0 23 A
4 0 22 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 11 A
3 0 11 A
2 0 12 A
3 0 22 A
4 0 14 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 21 A
125
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
PCF_CODE_OF_VIOL PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN ‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 8 22107 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 7 21658 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 18 N
‐ 9 21801 A N
‐ 1 23153 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 5 21650 N
‐ 4 21703 N
‐ 6 21750 N
‐ 1 23152 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 9 21804 A N
‐ 8 22105 N
‐ 11 21955 N
‐ 3 22350 M
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 9 21804 A N
‐ 5 21650 N
‐ 5 21460 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 8 22107 N
‐ 4 21703 N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
16 ‐ 5 21650 N
‐ 3 22350 M
‐ 1 23152 A N
‐ 8 22107 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 9 21801 F
‐ 8 22107 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
126
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING C CA A H ‐ A
‐ ‐A B H ‐ A
F JA A H ‐ A
H IA A H ‐ A
B CA B H ‐ D
C CA A H ‐ A
F AA D ‐ ‐ C
A CA A H ‐ A
‐ ‐A A H ‐ C
C CA A H ‐ A
H JA A H ‐ B
C CA A H ‐ A
B CA A H ‐ D
A CA A H ‐ C
C CA A H ‐ A
F AA A H ‐ B
C CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ A
G BD B H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
D CA B H ‐ A
A IA A H ‐ A
A CA A H ‐ C
C CA A H ‐ A
D DA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA B H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ C
D CA A H ‐ A
C CA B H ‐ C
D CA A H ‐ C
C CA A H ‐ E
GB B
A CA A D ‐ C
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA B H ‐ B
D CA A H ‐ A
B DA A H ‐ A
E IA A H ‐ A
E IA A D ‐ A
G BD A H ‐ C
C EA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
E IA A H ‐ C
127
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
CONTROL_DEVICE CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT A0
‐0
A0
A0 Y
D0
A0
A0
A0
‐0
A0
A0
A0 Y
A0
D0
A0
A0
A0
D0
D0
A0 Y
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
D0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
D0
A0
A0
A0
A0 Y
A0
D0
D0 Y Y
D0
A0
A0
A0
128
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERTY ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT YA
YA
YA
YC
YA
YA
Y‐
YA
YA
YD
YA
YC
YA
YY A
YD
Y D
Y A
YA
YA
Y N
Y‐
YA
YA
YA
YA
YA
YD
YA
YA
YA
YA
YA
YA
YA
YA
YA
YY A
YA
YC
YA
YA
YN
YA
YA
YD
YA
129
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN 7 00 1
1 00 1
1 01 0
2 10 0
1 00 2
1 00 3
‐  0 0 1
1 00 2
1 11 0
22 0 0 1
1 00 1
2 01 0
1 00 0
1 00 1
22 0 0 1
22 0 0 1
1 01 0
7 30 0
7 01 0
60 0 0 1
00 1
1 00 3
1 00 1
1 10 0
1 00 1
1 01 0
22 2 0 0
1 00 2
1 00 1
1 00 1
7 00 2
1 00 1
8 00 1
1 00 1
1 11 0
1 00 2
1 00 2
1 00 1
2 00 1
1 00 1
1 01 0
60 1 0 0
1 01 1
1 00 1
22 0 0 1
1 00 2
130
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED 00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
01 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
01 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
131
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090
COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED PRIMARY_RAMP SECONDARY_RAMP LATITUDE 0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98154692
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98946409
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99721981
0 1 ‐ ‐ 37.98741945
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99180165
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99063
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.9905371
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99062174
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99062226
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99066969
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99143216
0 1 ‐ ‐ 37.99072168
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99055
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99134
0 0 CO ‐ 37.99079
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99064004
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99062161
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.96892315
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98724802
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.9688082
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.97484478
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.97478519
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99694915
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99227716
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98337736
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98328179
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00214
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98317255
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.0018258
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98315506
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00213812
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98325203
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00266686
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.9831656

38.002667
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98327895
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98325256
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98315536
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98302317
0 1 ‐ ‐ 37.98322
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.9978088
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99780233
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00516
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00511087
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.97628352
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99773057
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00505429
132
CASE_ID
8715293
8317998
8803250
8424913
8911126
8682574
8743478
8922483
9206888
9281700
9281879
9288538
9320356
9356948
9385476
8461676
9056955
8322940
8663345
9041612
9027522
9041616
9074357
9069561
8529543
8657677
8620491
8682562
8755110
8715289
8868576
8755421
9186315
8776224
8895413
8995731
8995804
9282267
9370524
8344382
8463206
8510347
8529531
8575292
8612448
8658090

LONGITUDE
‐121.7141545
‐121.7140985
‐121.7139548
‐121.6991853
‐121.6413027
‐121.68397
‐121.6970245
‐121.6679043
‐121.6676575
‐121.6484663
‐121.633874
‐121.6780206
‐121.65926
‐121.6411
‐121.6896
‐121.665882
‐121.6672707
‐121.71999
‐121.7324614
‐121.722527
‐121.7322971
‐121.7322928
‐121.7322741
‐121.7140704
‐121.690925
‐121.7178659
‐121.73241
‐121.7300234
‐121.7322153
‐121.7308639
‐121.7322306
‐121.70521
‐121.7322364
‐121.723645
‐121.7321688
‐121.7021544
‐121.7052476
‐121.7321528
‐121.7328342
‐121.70502
‐121.7137976
‐121.7135579
‐121.74394
‐121.7421621
‐121.6959579
‐121.7200857
‐121.7352451
133
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRICT 8682373 2018 20181008 700 20180815 837 OA009
8682566 2018 20181005 700 20180802 1603 OA030 2257
8803251 2019 20190225 700 20190202 1315 OA032 OAK
8819089 2019 20190423 700 20190315 1311 OA032 OAK
8847359 2019 20190516 700 20190503 1023 OA032 OAK
8903096 2019 20190802 700 20190714 1542 OA032 OAK
8922519 2019 20190905 700 20190808 746 OA030 2244
9056947 2020 20200703 700 20200320 1712 OA036
8819093 2019 20190502 700 20190226 804 OA009 59
9242047 2021 20210415 700 20210221 1730 OA039 OAKLE
9272871 2021 20210804 700 20210617 1124 OA030 2227
9322634 2021 20211102 700 20210912 710 32 OAKLE
8661004 2018 20180813 700 20180604 1916 OA031
9110130 2020 20201102 700 20200519 1234 OA009 59
8370107 2017 20170522 700 20170509 800 OA009 59
8444061 2017 20170914 700 20170802 1318 OA009 59
8661327 2018 20180719 700 20180601 1031 OA030 2246
8876836 2019 20190618 700 20190608 908 OA032 OAK
8878180 2019 20190617 700 20190531 1509 OA032 OAK
9356715 2021 20211110 700 20211014 856 13 DELTA
8625233 2018 20180530 700 20180506 1416 OA032 OAK
8755090 2018 20181227 700 20181129 1354 OA009 59
9074356 2020 20200715 700 20200315 1959 OA019 OAKLE
9205824 2020 20210212 700 20201219 1729 OA032 OAK
9100156 2020 20200804 700 20200413 1252 OA009 59
8682477 2018 20180907 700 20180725 1416 OA032
9282060 2021 20210722 700 20210614 1548 OA030 2204
8871057 2019 20190611 700 20190508 722 OA303 2237
9027530 2020 20200303 700 20200129 1641 OA034 DELTA
8358820 2017 20170510 700 20170407 1727 OA029
8465599 2018 20190208 700 20180417 510 OA030 2234
8881861 2019 20190711 700 20190523 1922 OA029
9198226 2020 20210204 700 20201127 1846 OA028
9322533 2021 20211027 700 20210907 1835 13 DELTA
9164473 2020 20201007 700 20200714 1058 OA015
9023042 2020 20200514 700 20200103 1755 OA032 OAK
8336133 2017 20170626 700 20170226 29 OA020` 59
8847122 2019 20190514 700 20190415 935 OA009 59
9162263 2020 20201024 700 20200826 1542 OA017 57
8661000 2018 20180717 700 20180526 2212 OA029
8819085 2019 20190408 700 20190323 1549 OA032 OAK
9248286 2021 20210415 700 20210311 1954 OA032 0AK
9385480 2021 20220125 700 20211223 1353 13 DELTA
8895449 2019 20190814 700 20190701 1949 OA029
9028580 2020 20200310 700 20200102 1444 OA029
9378249 2021 20220113 700 20211223 1729 13
134
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE 3 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
6 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
6 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
6 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
2 5 3 734 0 0 0
5 5 3 734 0 0 0
7 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
3 5 3 734 0 0 0
6 5 3 734 0 0 0
6 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
1 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
4 5 3 734 0 0 0
135
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER PRIMARY_RD 0 MAIN ST
0 52 MAIN ST
0 51 MAIN ST
0 52 MAIN ST
0 51 MAIN ST
0 53 MAIN ST
0 52 MAIN ST
0 3 MAIN ST
0 52 EAST CYPRESS RD
0 1 MAIN ST
0 53 MAIN ST
0 51 MAIN ST
0 51 MAIN ST
0 52 MAIN ST
0 53 NEROLY RD
0 51 NEROLY RD
0 53 NEROLY RD
0 53 NEROLY RD
0 53 NEROLY RD
0 51 LAUREL RD
0 51 LAUREL RD
0 51 EMPIRE AV
0 51 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 OHARA AV
0 51 MAIN ST
0 51 VINTAGE PKWY
0 51 MAIN ST
0 52 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 53 LAUREL RD
0 51 OAKLEY RD
0 51 LAUREL RD
0 51 LAUREL RD
0 51 LAUREL RD
0 52 MAIN ST
0 51 MAIN ST
0 52 MAIN ST
0 52 DELTA RD
0 51 LIVE OAK AV
0 LIVE OAK AV
0 LIVE OAK AV
136
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION INTERSECTION TJKM_Intersection WEATHER_1 WEATHER_2 NORCROSS LN 324 W N N A ‐
BROWNSTONE RD 90 N N Y A ‐
CAROL LN 680 S N N A ‐
DOUGLAS RD 80 S N Y A ‐
BIG BREAK RD 15 E N Y A ‐
VINTAGE PKWY 40 E N Y A ‐
RAYE AV 35 N N Y A ‐
NORCROSS LN 239 W N Y A ‐
EMERSON LAKE DR 0 Y Y B ‐
VINTAGE PKWY 330 E N N A ‐
VINTAGE PKWY 155 E N Y A ‐
SANDY LN 100 W N Y A ‐
NEROLY RD 168 W N Y A ‐
BROWNSTONE RD 103 N N Y A ‐
OHARA AV 547 W N N A ‐
OAKLEY RD 116 S N Y A ‐
STONECROP DR 166 W N Y A ‐
EVERLASTING WY 155 E N Y A ‐
BROWN RD 345 E N N A ‐
LIVE OAK AV 171 E N Y A ‐
EMPIRE AV 0 Y Y A ‐
LAUREL RD 0 Y Y B ‐
EMPIRE AV 0 Y Y C ‐
EMPIRE AV 0 Y Y A ‐
EMPIRE AV 0 Y Y A ‐
FRANCISCO VILLA DR 0 Y Y A ‐
SANDY LN 0 Y Y A ‐
MAIN ST 0 Y Y A ‐
VINTAGE PKWY 0 Y Y A ‐
OHARA AV 0 Y Y A ‐
OHARA AV 0 Y Y A ‐
OHARA AV 0 Y Y A ‐
OHARA AV 0 Y Y A ‐
OHARA AV 0 Y Y A ‐
OHARA AV 0 Y Y A ‐
NEROLY RD 0 Y Y A ‐
NEROLY RD 0 Y Y A ‐
LIVE OAK AV 0 Y Y B ‐
LIVE OAK AV 0 Y Y A ‐
DELTA RD 0 Y Y A ‐
NEROLY RD 0 Y Y A ‐
DELTA RD 0 Y Y A ‐
DELTA RD 81 0 Y Y A ‐
NEROLY RD 0 Y Y A ‐
NEROLY RD 0 Y Y A ‐
NEROLY RD 0 Y Y A ‐
137
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
STATE_HWY_IND CALTRANS_COUNTY CALTRANS_DISTRICT STATE_ROUTE ROUTE_SUFFIX N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N   0 0
N   0 0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N   0 0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N   0 0
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
138
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
POSTMILE_PREFIX POSTMILE LOCATION_TYPE RAMP_INTERSECTION SIDE_OF_HWY TOW_AWAY N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
0 0  N
0 0  Y
Y
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
0 0  Y
N
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
0 0  Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
139
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUNT PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR 4 0 24 A
4 0 12 A
3 0 12 D
4 0 13 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
3 0 23 A
4 0 43 A
4 0 32 A
3 0 12 A
4 0 13 A
2 0 12 A
3 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
3 0 22 A
2 0 12 A
3 0 11 A
3 0 11 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 22 A
2 0 13 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 32 A
4 0 23 A
4 0 12 A
2 0 12 A
3 0 12 A
2 0 12 A
4 0 22 A
1 2 12 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 12 A
2 0 23 A
4 0 12 A
4 0 22 A
2 0 33 D
4 0 12 A
2 0 11 ‐
4 0 52 A
4 0 33 A
2 0 22 A
4 0 22 A
2 0 22 A
4 0 13 A
4 0 12 A
140
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
PCF_CODE_OF_VIOL PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN ‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 8 22107 N
‐0 N
‐ 5 21650 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 5 21650 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 6 21755 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 5 21650 N
‐ 8 22107 N
‐ 3 22350 F
‐ 9 21802 A N
‐ 5 21650 1 N
‐ 8 22107 N
‐ 5 21650 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 9 21453 C N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 10 21950 A N
‐ 9 21804 A N
‐ 10 21950 A N
‐ 10 21950 A N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 9 21802 A N
‐0 N
‐ 21 22106 N
‐ N
‐ 5 21460 A N
‐ 12 21453 A N
‐ 9 21802 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 1 23152 A N
‐ 3 22350 N
‐ 5 21651 A N
141
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING C CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ A
D GA A H ‐ A
A CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
B CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
G BE A H ‐ B
D GA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ A
A GA A H ‐ A
E IA A H ‐ A
E IA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
C CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ A
C CA B H ‐ A
C CA B H ‐ C
D CA ‐ H ‐ C
D DA A H ‐ A
A BB A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ A
G GA A H ‐ A
G BB A H ‐ A
B CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ C
B CA A H ‐ A
B CA A H ‐ C
D CA A H ‐ A
B CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ D
D CA A H ‐ C
C CA A H ‐ A
E IA A H ‐ A
A CA A H ‐ D
D CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ D
C CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ A
D CA A H ‐ A
A CA A H ‐ D
142
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
CONTROL_DEVICE CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT A0
D0
A0 Y
D0
A0
A0
A0
D0
A0
D0 Y
D0
A0 Y
D0 Y
D0
D0
A0 Y
D0
A0 Y
A0
D0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0 Y
D0
A0 Y
A0 Y
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
A0
D0
A0
A0 Y
D0
D0
D0
A0
143
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERTY ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT YD
YA
Y‐
YA
YA
YD
YA
YA
YY A
YC
YA
YA
YY F
Y A
YA
YL
YA
YC
YA
YA
YA
YD
YA
YA
Y A
YA
YA
YA
YD
YI
YA
YA
YI
Y‐
Y A
YY A
Y‐
YA
YA
YD
YD
YA
YA
YY A
YA
YA
144
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN 22 0 0 2
1 00 1
‐  0 1 0
1 00 1
8 00 1
22 0 0 1
8 01 1
8 00 4
1 00 3
2 01 0
1 00 1
1 10 0
25 0 1 0
1 00 1
1 01 1
4 10 0
1 01 0
2 01 0
1 00 1
7 00 1
1 00 2
22 1 0 0
7 00 1
1 00 3
7 00 2
1 00 1
1 10 0
7 01 0
22 1 0 0
11 0 0 2
1 10 0
7 00 1
11 0 0 1
‐  1 0 1
7 00 1
1 00 2
‐  1 0 2
7 00 1
1 10 0
22 0 0 5
22 0 0 3
1 11 0
1 00 2
1 11 0
1 00 1
1 00 1
145
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED 00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 1
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
01 0 0
00 0 1
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 1
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
01 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 1
01 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
00 0 0
146
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249
COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED PRIMARY_RAMP SECONDARY_RAMP LATITUDE 0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99776
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.97159609
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00031951
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.97549604
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00442022
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99783158
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.97757816
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99783853
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99183357
0 1 ‐ ‐ 37.99776798
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99776586
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00516
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.00514345
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.97160632
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.96898
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99745
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.97041274
0 1 ‐ ‐ 37.9733393
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.96892316
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.9811
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98314811
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.9831238
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98314531
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98314531
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98314287
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99232503
0 0 ‐ ‐ 38.0051943
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99779542
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99781606
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98317962
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98317962
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98317962
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98317962
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98327
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98317471
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.99783604
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.9810318
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98253618
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98253618
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.9688736
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.96885641
0 1 ‐ ‐ 37.9688736
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.96883357
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98326789
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98327233
0 0 ‐ ‐ 37.98329
147
CASE_ID
8682373
8682566
8803251
8819089
8847359
8903096
8922519
9056947
8819093
9242047
9272871
9322634
8661004
9110130
8370107
8444061
8661327
8876836
8878180
9356715
8625233
8755090
9074356
9205824
9100156
8682477
9282060
8871057
9027530
8358820
8465599
8881861
9198226
9322533
9164473
9023042
8336133
8847122
9162263
8661000
8819085
9248286
9385480
8895449
9028580
9378249

LONGITUDE
‐121.71735
‐121.6959987
‐121.73236
‐121.6959872
‐121.7329134
‐121.7186517
‐121.6959644
‐121.7169869
‐121.637596
‐121.7176469
‐121.7183128
‐121.7473
‐121.7514621
‐121.6959987
‐121.71611
‐121.75064
‐121.7266644
‐121.7291796
‐121.7205547
‐121.7411
‐121.7323554
‐121.7323529
‐121.7323473
‐121.7323473
‐121.732356
‐121.7140573
‐121.7474532
‐121.7188564
‐121.718841
‐121.7141855
‐121.7141855
‐121.7141855
‐121.7141855
‐121.71413
‐121.7141571
‐121.750783
‐121.7407351
‐121.738502
‐121.738502
‐121.6960142
‐121.6960375
‐121.6960142
‐121.6939826
‐121.7415047
‐121.7415002
‐121.74159
148
83 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n APPENDIX C: LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY MANUAL (LRSM) EXCERPT
149
3/30/2018 Local Roadway Safety - (Version 1.4)
Version 1.6
April 2022
150

Document History
Version 1.0: 4/20/2012
The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance developed the first version of the Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.0) in 2012 to support the Cycle 5 HSIP call-for-projects.

Version 1.1: 4/26/2013
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 5, Caltrans updated Appendix B: “Table of Countermeasures and Crash Reduction Factors” to better clarify text in “Where to use”, “Why it works”, and “General Qualities” for several of the countermeasures included in the original manual.

No other changes were made to the Local Roadway Safety Manual as part of Version 1.1 Version 1.2: 03/10/2015
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 6, Caltrans made minor updates to the text of the document as needed for achieving consistency with overall Caltrans local HSIP guidance documents. The following sections were updated: 1.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.2, and Appendix B, E, F & G.

Version 1.3: 04/29/2016
Caltrans made updates to the text of the document as needed in the following sections: 4.2, 5.1 and Appendix B.

Version 1.4: 06/08/2018
3/30/18 - Caltrans made updates to the crash costs in Appendix D, some of the website links in Appendix G, and some other texts of the document.
6/8/18 - Countermeasure S22 (“Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)”) is added.

Version 1.5: April 2020
Caltrans added a few more countermeasures (e.g. Pedestrian Scramble, Install Separated Bike Lanes, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections, and Curve Shoulder widening), renumbered the countermeasures and updated the crash costs in Appendix D.

Version 1.6: April 2022
For Cycle 11 Call-for-projects, Countermeasure S04 (Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches) was deleted and Countermeasure NS05mr (Convert intersection to mini-roundabout) added. The HSIP Funding Eligibility was changed to 90% except for S03, of which the HSIP Funding Eligibility stays at 50%. The crash costs in Appendix D were updated.

Future Updates:

In the future, Caltrans anticipates that additional changes will be needed to keep the Local Roadway Safety Manual consistent with future Calls-for-Projects’ Guidelines and Application Instructions. In addition, new local HSIP programs, improvements to California data on local roadways, data analysis tools, and the latest safety research and methodologies may give rise to the need to make more significant changes to this manual. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | i 151

Table of Contents
Foreword....................................................................................................................................................... 1

1. Introduction and Purpose...................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities .................................................. 3

1.2 Safe System Approach .................................................................................................................. 3

1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety..................................................................................... 4

1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem...............................................................................................5

1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification......................................................................... 6

1.6 Implementation Approaches ........................................................................................................ 7

1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies.................................................................................10

1.8 Summary of information in this Document................................................................................11

2. Identifying Safety Issues......................................................................................................................15

2.1 State and Local Crash Databases ................................................................................................16

2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)...........................................................................18

2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports.................................................................................................19

2.4 Observational Information..........................................................................................................19

2.5 Public Notifications .....................................................................................................................20

2.6 Roadway Data and Devices.........................................................................................................20

2.7 Exposure Data .............................................................................................................................21

2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits.................................................................................22

3. Safety Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................23

3.1 Quantitative Analysis ..................................................................................................................23

3.2 Qualitative Analysis.....................................................................................................................25

4. Countermeasure Selection ..................................................................................................................28

4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors ..........29

4.2 List of Countermeasures .............................................................................................................30

5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects .............................................................................36

5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements...............................................36

5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements ...................................................38

5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio ...............................................................................................................38

5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements ..........................39

6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements..............................................................................40

6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures........................................................................40

6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources ................................................................................................40

6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations ............................................................41

7. Evaluation of Improvements...............................................................................................................42 Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Process ................................................................................................43 Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures .....................................................................................44 B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized ...............................................................................47 S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) ............................................................................................. 47 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number .................. 47 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) ..................................................................... 48 S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems....................................................................................................... 49 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | ii 152

50 55
60 65
70 75
S06, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) ....................................... 49 S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists).............................................................................

S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)....................................................................................................

S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted).................................................................................................. 50 S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) .......................................................................... 51 S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.).................................................................................................... 51 S11, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................. 52 S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) ................................................................................................................ 52 S13PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches................................................................................................ 53 S14, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) ...................................... 53 S15, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)......................................................................................................... 54 S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads .......................................................................................................... 55 S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)................................................................................................................................. 56 S19PB, Pedestrian Scramble............................................................................................................................................... 56 S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)..................................................................................... 57 S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) ......................................................... 57 B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized........................................................................58 NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2-way stop or Yield control) .............................................................

NS14, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) ...........................................................................................................

NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) ......................................................

NS01, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) .............................................................................................................................. 58 NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) ........................................................................... 58 NS03, Install signals ............................................................................................................................................................ 59 NS04, Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop)....................................................................................... 59 NS05mr, Convert intersection to mini-roundabout.......................................................................................................... 60 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs...................... 61 NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections .................................................................................... 62 NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) .............................................................................................. 62 NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches..................................................................................................... 63 NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)............................................................................. 63 NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) .......................................................................... 64 NS13, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches........................................................................................... 64 NS15, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) ................................. 65 NS16, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) ................................................................................................... 66 NS17, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.).................................................................................................................................... 67 NS18, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) ............................................................................................ 67 NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands) .............................................................................................................. 68 NS20PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only)........................................... 68 NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) ................. 69 NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)........................................................................................... 69 B.3 Roadway Countermeasures........................................................................................................71 R01, Add Segment Lighting................................................................................................................................................. 71 R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone.......................................................................... 71 R03, Install Median Barrier................................................................................................................................................. 72 R04, Install Guardrail .......................................................................................................................................................... 72 R05, Install impact attenuators .......................................................................................................................................... 73 R06, Flatten side slopes ...................................................................................................................................................... 73 R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail ................................................................................................................. 74 R08, Install raised median .................................................................................................................................................. 74 R09, Install median (flush) .................................................................................................................................................

R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing......................................................................................................................... 75 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | iii 153

R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes .................................................................................................................... 76 R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) ......................................................................................................................... 76 R13, Add two-way left-turn lane ........................................................................................................................................ 77 R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) ........................................................ 77 R15, Widen shoulder........................................................................................................................................................... 78 R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) ................................................................................................................. 78 R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) ........................................................................................................ 79 R18, Flatten crest vertical curve......................................................................................................................................... 80 R19, Improve curve superelevation................................................................................................................................... 80 R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic................................................................................................................. 81 R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................ 81 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) .................................................... 82 R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves ............................................................................................................... 83 R24, Install curve advance warning signs.......................................................................................................................... 83 R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) ........................................................................................... 84 R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs......................................................................................................... 84 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers .............................................................................................. 85 R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines .............................................................................................................................. 86 R29, Install no-passing line................................................................................................................................................. 87 R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes .................................................................................................................... 87 R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes....................................................................................................................... 88 R32PB, Install bike lanes..................................................................................................................................................... 88 R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................. 89 R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) ............................................................................ 89 R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) .............................................................. 90 R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing ......................................................................................................................... 91 R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)............................................................................................. 91 R38, Install Animal Fencing ................................................................................................................................................ 92 Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”...................................................................................93 Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations.....................................................................................97 Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS ..............................98 Appendix F: List of Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................99 Appendix G: References............................................................................................................................100 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | iv 154

Foreword
Why was this manual developed?
The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance’s goal in developing this manual is to maximize the safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to proactively identify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively in Caltrans’ statewide, data-driven call-for-projects.

This goal is complicated by California’s wide variety of local agencies, roadway types, and project types, including: rural vs. urban, low-volume vs. high-volume, and intersection vs. roadway segment vs. network-wide. This variety makes it difficult to administer a single program and provide one set of guidelines that meets the needs of all California’s local roadway owners and users. Many of California’s local agencies are also challenged by the lack of a basic safety analysis framework and analysis tools specifically designed for local roadway managers with widely varying responsibilities and safety training.

Currently, there is a vast range of safety documents, program guidance, and analysis tools with a wide variety of complexity and applications. Without clear and simple safety guidance for locals, many agencies take a ‘reactive’ approach to safety, even when research has shown ‘proactive’ safety analysis of roadways is more effective in making system-wide safety improvements.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety provides national leadership in identifying, developing, and delivering safety programs and products to local governments to improve highway safety on local and rural roads.1 In 2010, FHWA published a set of three manuals designed specifically for rural road owners; Roadway Departure Safety, Intersection Safety, and Road Safety Information Analysis.2 These manuals present a simple, data driven safety analysis framework for rural agencies across the nation. These manuals, in conjunction with Caltrans’ ongoing short-term research and development contract with the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, provided a unique opportunity for Caltrans to pursue development of this document as a mirror of FHWA’s new Manuals for Local Rural Road Owners. Much of the wording, formatting and references from these FHWA manuals have been directly incorporated into this manual for California’s local road owners. Individual references to the FHWA manuals have not been included; instead these documents are intended to be referenced on a wholesale basis.

With FHWA’s and SafeTREC’s support and expertise, Caltrans was able to expedite the completion of this manual and can now offer California’s local agencies a new tool intended to provide focused roadway safety information in one manual.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 1 155

1. Introduction and Purpose
The information in this document is geared towards local road managers and other practitioners with responsibility for operating and maintaining local roads, regardless of safety-specific highway training.

The primary goal of this document is to provide an easy-to-use and comprehensive framework of the steps and analysis tools needed to identify locations with roadway safety issues and the appropriate countermeasures. For novice practitioners, the concepts and framework will be new, while experienced safety practitioners may find this manual to be mostly review. In both cases, the manual will provide the practitioners with a good understanding of how to complete a proactive safety analysis and ensure they have the best opportunity to secure HSIP safety funding during Caltrans calls-for-projects.

It’s expected that novice and experienced practitioners will utilize this manual to help position their local agency to better compete in future Caltrans’ calls-for-projects for safety programs. Inexperienced local roadway practitioners are also a target audience for this manual to gain exposure to the basic concepts that make up a proactive safety analysis of a local agency’s roadway network.

The intent of this manual is to focus on key safety activities that every local agency should conduct on an annual basis (or as established by the agency) with the objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes within their jurisdiction. This manual defines this overall process as a “proactive safety analysis” approach to roadway safety. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM), documents a very similar process and refers to it as the “Roadway Safety Management Process.” While the process in this document is similar and suggests the same primary elements, the HSM goes into significantly more detail, focuses more on scientific and mathematical equations behind the process, and intends to provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall processes to be applied by individual agencies across the nation. In contrast, this manual attempts to streamline the discussion; and make accommodations for the more novice safety practitioners, provide an adequate understanding of the process to complete an initial safety analysis of their roadway network, and instruct them on how to prepare applications that will compete well in Caltrans’ statewide calls-for-projects. In general, this manual is intended to follow the research and methodologies presented in the HSM; however, to support Caltrans’ statewide calls-forprojects process, it is important to note this manual deviates from the HSM in areas related to countermeasure selection and benefit / cost calculations. The logic behind these deviations is explained at the specific topic sections.

This manual is not intended to cover many of the day-to-day basics of traffic engineering including:
maintain standard signage per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; maintain sight distance (cut vegetation, remove parking); maintain a recovery zone; work with local traffic law enforcement; monitor collisions; address complaints; and manage litigation. These activities are understood to be critical elements of a local agency’s traffic engineering responsibilities, but are not within the intended scope of this document.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 2 156

1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities California’s local roads are managed by more than 600 local agencies, including: cities, counties, and tribal governments. These local roads vary from flat multi-lane urban arterials to rural gravel roads in mountainous areas. California local agencies invest extensive resources on roadway safety every year, yet many roadways operate with outdated or insufficient safety features. A portion of these roadways even lack basic signing, pavement markings, alignment, and traffic control devices. Limited funding often prevents agencies from constructing safety projects, which can be expected. At the same time, the lack of safety data, design challenges, and lack of adequate training also hinder local agencies’ accurate evaluation of their roadway network safety issues, which is more preventable.

Many small California local agencies are challenged by a lack of crash data. Without data, they have no way to identify High Crash Concentration Locations (HCCLs) or high risk roadway features, which can leave them “flying blind” with respect to the safety of their overall roadway network. Without data and analysis results, local officials may overreact when a tragic crash occurs, resulting in resources being spent in areas that will not maximize the overall application of safety funds. In conjunction with the collision mapping and analysis tools developed by UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC, this document helps ensure all California local agencies have direct access to data on fatal and injury crashes within their jurisdictions and the analysis tools to effectively assess and prioritize future safety projects.

1.2 Safe System Approach
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law on November 15, 2021. Under IIJA, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), codified as Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C §148), is a core federal-aid program to States for the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The IIJA emphasizes the “safe system approach”:

Safe system approach means a roadway design that emphasizes minimizing the risk of injury or fatality to road users; and that (i) takes into consideration the possibility and likelihood of human error; (ii) accommodates human injury tolerance by taking into consideration likely accident types, resulting impact forces, and the ability of the human body to withstand impact forces; and (iii) takes into consideration vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)).

FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation’s roads. The Safe System approach addresses the safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. It involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 3 157

to reduce crash severity and save lives. FHWA encourages States to prioritize safety in all Federal-aid investments and in all appropriate projects, using not only HSIP funding but also other Federal-aid funding.

The IIJA emphasizes the importance of vulnerable road user ( non-motorized road user) safety in the HSIP by adding a definition for vulnerable road users, creating a vulnerable road user special rule, and requiring States to develop and update a vulnerable road user safety assessment. All of these provisions address the increasing number of fatalities involving vulnerable road users on U.S. roads. It is imperative that States consider the needs of all road users as part of the HSIP. Investment in highway safety improvement projects that promote and improve safety for all road users, particularly vulnerable road users, aligns with the IIJA and will help Build a Better America. States and other funding recipients should prioritize projects that maximize the existing right-of-way for accommodation of non-motorized modes and transit options that increase safety, equity, accessibility, and connectivity. Projects that separate users in time and space, match vehicle speeds to the built environment, and increase visibility (e.g., lighting) advance implementation of a Safe System approach and improve safety for vulnerable road users.

1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s HSIP safety funding intended for local roadway safety improvements. This funding primarily comes to the state through two federal programs: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)—a federal-aid program focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and the Active Transportation Program (ATP)—a federal aid and state funded program focused on improving safety and the overall use of non-motorized, active transportation modes of travel. Under SAFETEA-LU, High Risk Rural Roads Program (HR3) was established to focus on addressing rural road safety needs but in MAP-21 and FAST, it is now a ‘special rule’ under HSIP that if triggered, directs that a certain amount of HSIP funds will need to be allocated for those rural roads that meet the definition.

Caltrans’ administration of these programs encompasses many responsibilities, including: establishing program guidance; reviewing applications for improvements on local roadways; ranking applications/projects on a statewide basis; selecting projects for funding based on the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and injuries; programming the selected projects in the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP); and assisting with programming and delivery issues throughout the delivery of the local agency projects. One goal for developing this document is to improve Caltrans’ overall data-driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and to maximize the long-term safety improvements across California. To show the relationship between Caltrans’ project selection process and this manual, a diagram showing the HSIP Call-for-Projects Process is provided in Appendix A.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 4 158

Many State Departments are also actively engaged in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Caltrans developed the SHSP in a cooperative process with local, State, federal, and private sector safety stakeholders. The SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive plan that established statewide goals, objectives, integrated the five E’s of traffic safety— engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. This manual directly supports many of the emphasis areas of the California SHSP. Local agencies are encouraged to participate in ongoing SHSP update efforts and can find more information on the SHSP at the following website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safetyprograms/shsp.

Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) The state-funded Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) was established in 2016. The intent of the SSARP was to assist local agencies in performing a collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway networks, and developing a list of systemic low-cost countermeasures that can be used to prepare future HSIP and other safety program applications. Late 2019, the program was evolved to Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) so that the focus is not just engineering solutions but also include safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, Education and emergency response.

The state funding for the LRSP/SSARP program is made available by exchanging the local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funds for State Highway Account (SHA) funds.

For more information, please visit the LRSP/SSARP webpage at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans.

1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem
Approximately 3,000 people die in California traffic crashes every year, representing nearly 10% of all traffic fatalities in the United States. Fifty-seven percent of these fatalities occur on local roadways, while only forty-three percent occur on the California State Highway System. A comparison of rural and urban roadways shows that local rural roadways have fatality rates 2 to 3 times higher than urban roadways per vehicle miles traveled. Based on these statistics, the total annual cost of local roadway fatal crashes to California is over $6 billion, while only $100 million is available annually in HSIP safety funds.

These statistics demonstrate the large and complex safety issues facing California. Through the development of this document, Caltrans is striving to help local agencies proactively identify high risk roadway features, roadway network locations/corridors with the highest safety needs, and encourage them to select effective low-cost improvements, whenever appropriate. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 5 159

1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification
Safety issues are identified on local roadways through a wide range of approaches. Although no single approach works best for all local agencies, some are far more effective at improving long-term roadway safety. Many agencies, often larger ones, have staff whose full-time job is dedicated to roadway safety; allowing them to focus on safety initiatives, be trained in the latest safety research, and have access to safety analysis data, tools and procedures. These agencies often utilize a ‘proactive’ approach to analyze their roadway network and identify safety issues.

At the same time many agencies, often the smaller ones, lack the financial ability to dedicate large portions of their staff resources to analyze safety issues and their staff has limited access to roadway safety training, safety expertise, and the latest safety analysis tools and procedures. Unfortunately, this can often result in identifying their safety issues in ‘reaction’ to tragic events.

The following is a basic outline of the differences in proactive vs. reactive identification approaches used by local agencies:

Reactive Approach
For this document, an agency is considered to be utilizing a reactive approach to roadway safety if they primarily identify safety improvements in reaction to:
• Recent crashes triggering safety investigations
• Specific crash concentrations triggering safety investigations • Stakeholder identification of locations with safety issues and requests for improvements • New funding becoming available
Crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort. They may also miss many opportunities to effectively utilize low-cost, systemic type improvements. This document encourages local agencies to adopt a more proactive approach to their roadway safety.

Proactive Approach
An agency is considered to be using a proactive approach to roadway safety if they go beyond the elements of a reactive approach and identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of their entire roadway network, in one of the following ways:
• One-time, network-wide safety analysis of their roadways driven by new source of funding. • Routine safety analyses of the roadway network (Preferred Approach!) Agencies with a proactive approach utilize both systemic and spot location improvements (as defined in section 1.5 below). Applying improvements systemically across an entire corridor or network allows an agency to proactively address locations that have not had crash concentrations in the past, but have 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 6 160

similar features as those currently experiencing high levels of crashes. In addition, even though a spot location improvement may be based on ‘past’ crashes, agencies making improvements based on countermeasures with proven crash reduction factors at their highest crash locations often have the best chance of proactively reducing future crashes.

This document encourages safety practitioners to pursue a proactive approach and routinely analyze the safety of their roadway networks to yield the best overall safety results.

1.6 Implementation Approaches
When an agency proactively identifies their safety issues throughout their roadway network, it is likely they will find high crash concentrations at intersections, roadway segments, and corridors. The safety practitioner should consider which implementation approach to utilize. Typical approaches include:
• Systemic Approach
• Spot Location Approach
• Comprehensive Approach incorporating human behavior issues Each of these approaches has benefits and drawbacks. As Local agency practitioners identify their safety issues and analyze the data for crash patterns, they should be open to implementing a combination of these approaches, as documented in Sections 2 and 3 of this manual.

Systemic Approach
The Systemic Approach is primarily based on application of proven safety countermeasures at multiple crash locations, corridors, or geographic areas. Implementation of the Systemic Approach is generally based on ‘system-wide’ crash data with the estimates of the impacts being made in terms of benefits measured in traffic crash reduction and deployment cost. Identified locations experiencing high levels of crashes and locations with similar geometric features can be treated systemically with low-cost, proven safety countermeasures. Note: The term “Systemic” used throughout in this manual is often exchanged with the term “Systematic” in many national safety documents and research studies. In general, safety practitioners will find these terms interchangeable. This manual uses “Systemic” to match the new HSM and the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse.

Benefits of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Widespread effect. The Systemic Approach addresses safety issues at a large number of locations or on an entire local roadway network. It can also generate projects that combine HCCLs and locations with the potential for crashes and still have high Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratios. An example of this type of project could be upgrading pavement delineation and warning signs along a rural corridor:
crashes may not have occurred on every curve or segment along the corridor, but all of the corridor’s pavement delineation and warning signs can be upgraded at one time. For urban applications, an example could be protecting the left-turn phase of signalized intersections with 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 7 161

existing left-turn pockets: severe crashes may not have occurred at each of the left-turn movements, but with minor changes to the signal hardware and signing, all or many of a city’s unprotected left-turn phases can be protected with one safety project. • Crash type prevention. By focusing on a predominant crash type, an agency can address locations that have not experienced significant numbers of these types of crashes, but have similar characteristics or conditions as existing HCCLs. The resulting B/C ratios for these types of projects will be less than if only HCCLs are included; but by using low-cost countermeasures and including as many high crash locations as possible, the resulting B/C ratios should still be high enough to allow agencies to proactively address locations that have not experienced high numbers of these types of crashes. For urban areas, projects improving pedestrian crossings can be good examples of the Systemic Approach. By applying the countermeasures systemically, the agency can often justify these projects based on relatively high B/C ratios, even though some of the improvement locations have not experienced enough crashes to yield moderate-to-high B/C ratios on their own. • Cost-effectiveness. Implementing low-cost solutions across an entire system or corridor can be a more cost-effective approach to addressing system-wide safety issues. Even though this approach does not address all (or total) safety issues for a given location, the deployment of low-cost countermeasures often result in the highest overall safety benefit for an agency with limited safety funding. An example of this would be an agency choosing to install rumble stripes along an entire corridor for equal or less money than realigning a small portion the roadway to fix a single curve. • Reduced data needs. The Systemic Approach can be used without a detailed crash history for specific locations, thereby reducing data needs. For example, consider a long rural corridor, which includes a section that passes through an Indian Reservation: Even if there is no documented crash data for the portion of the corridor that passes through the reservation, the entire limits can be treated with the same low-cost improvements. As long as there are sufficient past crashes documented for the entire corridor, the project will still have a reasonably high B/C ratio.

Drawbacks of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Justifying improvements can be difficult. Because this approach does not always address locations with a history of crashes and active stakeholders, it can be difficult to justify the improvements. The Systemic Approach will rarely include a recommendation for a large-scale safety improvement at a single location. Since large-scale projects usually garner attention from decision makers, the media, elected officials, and the general public, safety practitioners often need to make additional efforts to explain the Systemic Approach and its benefits to those groups. Safety practitioners can utilize the high B/C ratios of these systemic projects to convey their benefits compared to high-profile, single location projects with lower B/C ratios.

Spot Location Approach
The Spot Location Approach is typically based on an analysis of crash history to identify locations that have significantly higher crashes and treat them accordingly. It is important to practitioners to 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 8 162

understand that for many locations, safety issues can be complicated and sometimes the most appropriate fixes are not quick, easy or cheap.

Benefits of the Spot Location Approach may include:
• Focus on demonstrated needs. The Spot Location Approach focuses directly on locations with a history of crashes and specifically addresses those crashes. Intersection improvements are some of the most common spot location projects. Intersections tend to have higher concentrations of crashes resulting from opposing traffic movements. These high crash concentrations often require stand-alone improvements to adequately resolve the safety issues. • Justifying improvements can be easy. Because this approach addresses locations with a history of crashes, it is usually easy to justify improvements. For urban areas, reconfiguring/ reconstructing an entire intersection can be a good example of an effective Spot Location Approach. Large urban intersections can have extremely high crash concentrations, making major changes to the intersection the only way to significantly reduce future crashes. With these types of scenarios, even the highest cost countermeasures can be cost effective. • If low-cost countermeasures are used, this approach can prove very cost effective. The Spot Location Approach does not always have to include moderate or high cost improvements. It is often appropriate for local agencies to make low-cost improvements at one location at a time. Ongoing maintenance and development projects offer great opportunities for these low-cost improvements to be constructed with no additional expense to local agencies.

Drawbacks of the Spot Location Approach may include:
• Assumption that the past equals the future. This approach assumes locations with a history of crashes will continue to experience the same number and type of crashes in the future. When agencies do not account for the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean), moderate to high cost projects can be erroneously justified. Practitioners can mitigate this by using 5 years of crash data when analyzing their roadways. In addition, significant changes to land use or roadway characteristics in or around proposed projects can either increase or decrease the expected number of future crashes.
• Minimal overall benefit to the roadway network. Some local agencies use this approach with medium and high cost improvements at locations which do not represent their worst high crash concentration locations. The result can be projects with low B/C ratios and overall safety benefits that are not as high as if they utilized a Systemic Approach. This drawback can be minimized by safety practitioners who analyze their entire roadway network, propose spot location fixes only at their highest crash locations, and utilize lower cost countermeasures wherever appropriate.

The Spot Location Approach to traffic safety is ideally implemented along with the Systemic Approach to provide the best combination of safety treatments. For instance, the Spot Location Approach can be applied at locations where low-cost countermeasures are not expected to be effective in significantly 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 9 163

reducing future crashes or at those locations that have had low-cost countermeasures previously installed systemically but, after an assessment, continue to show a higher-than-average crash rate.

Comprehensive Approach
The Comprehensive Approach introduces the concept of the “5 E’s of Safety”: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies. This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the “5 E’s of Safety” is often required to achieve marked improvement in roadway safety. For instance, some roadway segments will be identified for which targeted enforcement is an appropriate countermeasure. Some of the most common violations are speeding, failure-to-yield, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to deploy visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes. To improve safety, education and outreach efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement efforts. Enforcement and/or education can also be effectively utilized as short-term ways to address high crash locations, until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented.

1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies
Caltrans, FHWA and Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) “challenge” local agencies to initially commit one or more days to understanding and applying the concepts and tools outlined in this manual. Experienced safety practitioners working in agencies currently using a proactive approach can quickly review the topics in the manual and consider/test some of the new tools (e.g., TIMS) identified within it. In contrast, novice safety practitioners may need several days to better understand the underlying concepts in this manual to be able to complete the basic elements of a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network. In these situations, the room for knowledge growth, internal process improvements, and expected safety benefits will be even greater, which should more than offset the additional time invested.

By utilizing this simple framework for identifying, analyzing and implementing a proactive approach for improving safety on their roadways, practitioners will have a better understanding of their agencies’ unique safety issues, the proven low-cost countermeasures that can reduce crashes, and the existing and future funding to implement the projects. This small investment of time will help local agencies achieve significant reductions in future fatalities, injuries and overall crashes. We believe these local agencies may also gain the added unexpected benefit of improved job satisfaction of those involved, as there are few more rewarding tasks than knowing that your efforts will result in future roadway users arriving safely at their destination instead of becoming statistics. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 10 164

1.8 Summary of information in this Document
This document provides information on effectively identifying California’s local roadway safety issues and the countermeasures that address them, ultimately leading to the effective implementation of safety projects that improve safety on local roadways. The document is not intended to be a comprehensive guide for roadway design and improvement or the only guide local agencies utilize for their safety analysis of their roadways.

Caltrans also expects this document will directly support its efforts in selecting local agency safety projects. The expectation is that as local agencies throughout the state utilize the proactive safety analysis approach outlined in this document, their applications for HSIP, and ATP projects will include lower cost improvements at locations with the highest safety needs. This will improve Caltrans’ datadriven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and maximize the safety benefits across California.

The proactive safety analysis framework incorporated in this document is summarized in Figure 1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 11 165

Figure 1
Calculate the Project’s B/C Ratio
-HSIP Analyzer -Locally preferred methods -HSM methodology 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 12 166

The above flowchart illustrates how each of the individual sections of this document work together to make up a proactive safety analysis approach. These sections are briefly outlined below:

Section 2 of this manual provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used.

Section 3 summarizes the types of analyses that can be conducted to determine what roadway countermeasures should be implemented. This section is the link between the data (Section 2) and the selection of appropriate countermeasures (Section 4). It provides definitions and examples of the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be considered when evaluating roadway safety issues.

Section 4 provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown to improve safety on local roads. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). The interrelationship between CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are defined and used interchangeably throughout this document.

Section 5 defines a methodology for calculating a B/C ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects’ overall cost effectiveness at this point in the safety analysis, including: refining the project’s costs and/or changing the mix of countermeasures and locations.

Section 6 identifies existing and new funding opportunities for safety projects that local agencies should be considering. This section also briefly discusses some unique project development issues and strategies for safety projects as they proceed through design and construction.

Section 7 presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well as those that should be limited or discontinued.

Appendix A presents a flowchart of the HSIP call-for-projects process. This flowchart demonstrates how this document interacts with these Caltrans calls-for-projects.

Appendix B contains Detailed Tables of countermeasures discussed in Section 4. This table includes detailed information about each countermeasure, including: where to use, why it works, general qualities (time, cost and effectiveness), crash type(s) addressed, crash reduction factor, and specific values for use in Caltrans HSIP calls-for-projects.

Appendix C includes a summary of “recommended actions” involved in a proactive safety analysis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 13 167

Appendix D contains the formulas used to calculate the B/C ratio of safety projects.

Appendix E presents TIMS tutorials that are available to assist local agencies in completing Caltrans callfor-projects application requirements and attachments. The tutorials include examples for Spot Location projects and systemic projects.

Appendix F presents a list of the abbreviations used in this document.

Appendix G presents a list of references.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 14 168

2. Identifying Safety Issues
This document encourages local agency safety practitioners to proactively analyze their roadway networks with the intention of yielding the best overall safety benefits. When utilizing a proactive safety analysis approach, practitioners need to consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs.

There are a number of information sources that can be accessed to get a clearer picture of the roadway safety issues on the roadway network. These can be formal or informal sources, including:

Formal sources:
• State and local crash databases
• SafeTREC’s TIMS website (or locally preferred mapping software) • Law enforcement crash reports and citations
• Field assessments
Informal sources:
• Observational information from road maintenance crews, law enforcement, and first responders • Citizen notification of safety concerns
Examining crash history will help practitioners identify locations with an existing roadway safety problem, and also identify locations that are susceptible to future roadway crashes. In addition to location identification, this data can provide information regarding crash causation that ultimately provides insight into identifying potentially effective countermeasures.

Emphasis on data-driven decisions is indicative of reliability and efficiency. The more reliable the data, the more likely the decisions regarding safety improvements will be effective. However, detailed, reliable crash data are not available in all areas. Under this circumstance, the practitioner should use the best available information and engineering judgment to make the best decisions. In an effort to mitigate these situations, UC Berkeley SafeTREC has developed the TIMS website, which includes GIS mapping tools to access fatal and injury crashes statewide. This site is now available to all California local agencies. See Section 2.2 for more details on TIMS.

It is generally accepted that at least 3 years, or preferably 5 years, of crash data be used for an analysis; additional years of crash data can provide better information. For low volume roadways and/or when only severe crashes are analyzed, more years of crash data may be necessary for an effective evaluation.

Due to the randomness of crashes in a given year, a multi-year average of safety data will smooth outlier years of relatively high or low roadway crash rates. This concept is commonly referred to as “regression to the mean” and is critical in helping safety practitioners avoid making wrong inferences as they analyze their roadway network data. An example of this is an agency making a high-cost improvement at 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 15 169

a location in response to one or two tragic crashes. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) includes more details on regression to the mean and methods to reduce the random nature of crashes.

There are some circumstances where additional years of crash data may not always be advantageous.

First, it’s important for practitioners to recognize that as more years of crash data are used, they need to consider changes in traffic patterns, physical infrastructure, land use, and demographics that may affect their projection of future crashes. Second, if practitioners only focus on many years of past crash data, they could miss emerging safety issues and crash trends. For these reasons, if practitioners sense one or more factors affecting crashes have changed or may be changing, they should consider looking at the crash data for the specific area on a yearly or 3-year moving average to expose any changes and crash trends that are occurring.

2.1 State and Local Crash Databases
California has a central repository for storing crash data called SWITRS, which stands for Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. SWITRS is a comprehensive data source for doing roadway safety analysis that includes almost all public roads in the database except tribal roads which are currently not included. SWITRS information is available to California’s local agencies, although many agencies have had difficulty identifying, extracting and utilizing their crash records from SWITRS. All California local agencies, especially those that currently have difficulty accessing and mapping crash data, are encouraged to utilize the SafeTREC TIMS website to access and map SWITRS data.

This document focuses on the SafeTREC TIMS website as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. At the same time, this document also acknowledges that TIMS currently does not offer some of the features currently available in some of the commercially available crash analysis software packages. For this reason, local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor supplied crash analysis software. See section 2.2 for more details on TIMS.

Many agencies utilize one of several crash analysis software packages (e.g., Crossroads) to manage and access their crash records. Their use can be costly, but allows local road practitioners to identify locations with multiple roadway crashes, conduct an analysis that can produce predominant crash types, and identify associated roadway features that may have contributed. One drawback to agencies managing and updating their own individual databases is that the statewide database may become outdated and may not include the updated crash details like geo-coded locations. Agencies that manage and update their own individual databases are encouraged to share all updates, including any geocoding information, with the SWITRS data managers at the California Highway Patrol. This will allow updated geo-coding and other crash features to be available on a statewide basis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 16 170

Recommended Action: Obtain at least 5 years of network-wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This data will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics.

As practitioners gather formal and informal information relating to the safety of their roadway network, they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin-maps to help track and manage this data. (These spreadsheets/pin-maps should capture much of the data gathered in each of Sections 2.1 through 2.8). A spreadsheet and/or pin-map can serve as a database to help an agency identify locations and crash characteristics representing their greatest safety issues and guide them in identifying appropriate countermeasures.

The following spreadsheet is offered as an example, but each agency’s spreadsheet should be reformatted to include data to meet their needs. Agencies should consider printing their spreadsheets on ‘legal’ or ’11 x 17’ paper for easy review of their data.

General Information Crash Information Evaluation / Action Location &
Date
Source/Type
of
information
Safety
Issue/Problem
Nature of
Crashes
Time
of
Day
Weather/Traffic
Conditions
Staff
Evaluation
Recommend
Action
Resolution
1) Intersection “X”
1) Feb 7, 2010 Input from law
enforcement
Clearance Intervals
need adjustment
V1-WB V2-SB
Side-swipe
21:30 Dry, Night,
Free-flowing
R. Jones
2/26/10
Increase allred interval
Completed
2/26/10
1) Mar 9, 2010 Citizen
Complaint
Ped Crossing unsafe
due to RT turns
N/A N/A N/A R. Jones
3/12/10
No RT on Red
(Need study)
2) Intersection “Y”
2)
3) Roadway Segment
(PM 5.3 to PM 7.8)
PM 6.4 to 6.8
Sep 29, 2011
Maintenance
data
Extensive skid marks.

Speed of Travel?
General WB:

ROR
N/A Dry
Free-flowing
J. Smith
10/1/11
High Friction
Overlay
Preparing
HSIP App.

PM 7.1
Jan 5, 2011
Input from law
enforcement
Stop Sign missing N/A N/A N/A J. Smith
1/5/11
Informed
Maintenance
New sign
1/5/11
An example of a pin-map, which could be modified to capture much of the data gathered in Section 2, is shown in the following section as part of the TIMS output. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 17 171

2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
The Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, has developed a powerful website with tools for California’s local agencies to gather data for their safety analyses. Their Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) website provides safety practitioners with California crash data (SWITRS, i.e. Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) and collision mapping and analysis tools. California local agencies are encouraged to utilize TIMS at:
https://tims.berkeley.edu/
Site Features:
• Applications to query map and download geo-referenced SWITRS data. • Summary tables based on data included in SWITRS individual crash reports. These summary tables can be generated based on specified data fields or spatial limits. • Virtual field review by connecting the crash location to Google maps and Google Street View, allowing the examination of the existing roadway infrastructure and dimensions. • A ‘Help Tab’ that provides step-by-step instructions.

Please note that SafeTREC is not able to incorporate all SWITRS crashes into TIMS due to poor crash location descriptions in the crash reports. Currently, TIMS includes the majority of California fatal and injury crashes but does not include Property Damage Only collisions.

Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency’s data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or purchased software applications) can help the safety practitioner complete or assist with each of the actions in Sections 2.1 through 2.8. This website includes several tutorials specifically designed to support the individual sections of this document. Local practitioners may find the TIMS output files as a great starting point to build their tracking spreadsheet discussed in the recommendation of Section 2.1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 18 172

2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports
Both State and local law enforcement officials can be an important source of roadway crash data. The actual law enforcement crash reports can be valuable in identifying the location and contributing circumstances to roadway crashes (e.g., did the highway hardware and features operate as intended:
end treatment worked, no barrier in the passenger compartment, pavement not slippery when wet, signs visible, signal timing, etc.). The following variables can and should be extracted and compiled from the crash reports:
• Location • Lighting conditions
• Date and time • Sequence of events and most harmful
• Crash type events
• Crash severity • Contributing circumstances
• Weather conditions • Driver Variables: age of driver, DUIs, use of seat belt, etc.

Similar to the crash database, the information in the crash reports can be used to assist in the identification of potential infrastructure and non-infrastructure safety treatments and the deployment approach.

Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data.

2.4 Observational Information
Law enforcement officers, local agency maintenance crews, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can serve as valuable resources to identify problem areas. Since they travel extensively on local roads, they can continuously monitor roads for actual or potential problems (e.g., poor delineation, fixed objects near the roadway, missing signs, signs of vehicles leaving the road). Law enforcement observations of driver behavior and roadway elements can provide valuable information to the local road agency. Additionally, law enforcement officers are sometimes aware of problem areas based on citations written, even if crashes related to the violations have not yet occurred. Road maintenance crews may keep logs of their work, including sign and guardrail replacements, debris removal, and edge drop-off repairs. These logs can provide supplemental information about crashes and HCCLs that may not have been reported to law enforcement. Finally, Emergency Medical Service Crash Reports can provide an entirely different perspectives and set of observations relating to crash occurrences. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 19 173

Information obtained from road maintenance crews, law enforcement officers, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can help support all three methods of implementation approaches: Spot Location treatments, systemic deployments, and the Comprehensive Approach. Often, traffic violations such as speeding and impaired driving lend themselves to education and enforcement solutions to address these behaviors and supplement the intended infrastructure countermeasures.

Recommended Action: Add information received from law enforcement, road maintenance crew, and Emergency Medical Service observations to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet and/or pin-maps. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them.

2.5 Public Notifications
Occasionally, when unsafe situations are observed, local citizens may notify the local government by email, letter, telephone, or at a public meeting. Information identifying safety issues on local roads may also come from community or regional newspapers, newsletters, correspondence, and from local homeowner and neighborhood associations. These sources can serve as indicators that a safety issue may exist and may warrant further review and analysis to determine the extent of the issues. Citizen reports can be tracked along with official crash data; however, safety practitioners should not regard these reports as factual, unless proven by other methods. Local safety databases should only contain objective and verifiable data.

Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited. Add information received from public notifications to tracking spreadsheets and/or pin-maps once confirmed.

2.6 Roadway Data and Devices
It is also valuable to obtain information about the existing roadway infrastructure. Currently, many local agencies have few of their roadway characteristics in a database. For these agencies, the establishment of a roadway database could be a long-term goal. The following roadway characteristics are often used to assist practitioners in safety analyses of roadway segments:
• Roadway surface (dirt, aggregate, asphalt, concrete)
• Roadway geometry (horizontal, vertical, flat)
• Lane information (number, width)
• Shoulder information (width, type)
• Median (type, width)
• Traffic control devices present (signs, pavement marking, signals, rumble stripes etc.) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 20 174

• Roadside safety hardware (e.g., guardrail, crash cushions, drainage structures) The TIMS site, described in Section 2.2, can provide safety practitioners with much of this roadway data virtually by using Google Maps and Google Street View. By utilizing TIMS (and/or private for-profit vendors), safety practitioners can save hours and even days of driving during the initial steps in the safety analysis of their network. Once agencies start to define individual safety projects for funding and future construction, actual field reviews are needed to ensure a complete understanding of the project location and context.

As local practitioners gather information about their existing roadway infrastructure, they need to determine whether it complies with the minimum standards for signs, breakaway supports, signals, pavement markings, protective barriers, etc. Practitioners should use the most current California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), which provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel.
6 In addition to ensuring compliance with the MUTCD, geometric standards for sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation should also be evaluated.

Roadway information can be combined with crash data to help local practitioners identify appropriate locations and treatments to improve safety. For example, if a local rural segment is experiencing a high number of horizontal curve-related crashes, analysis of the inventory of roadway elements could reveal that the roadway does not have sufficient signage installed in advance of many of those curves to give motorists warning of the pending change in roadway geometry.

Recommended Action: Identify and track roadway characteristics for the intersections, roadway segments, and corridors, including compliance with the minimum standards. At a minimum, this should be done for locations being considered for safety improvements, but ideally agencies would establish an extensive database of roadway data to help them proactively identify high risk roadway features.

2.7 Exposure Data
The number of crashes can sometimes provide misleading information about the most appropriate locations for treatment. Introducing exposure data helps to create a more effective comparison of locations. Exposure data provides a common metric to the crash data so roadway segments and intersections can be compared more appropriately, helping local agencies prioritize their potential safety improvements.

The most common type of exposure data used on roadway segments is traffic volume. Ideally, volume would be broken down by pedestrians, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, and large trucks. A count of the number of vehicles and non-motorized users can provide information for comparison. For example, if 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 21 175

two roadway segments have the same number of crashes but different traffic volumes, the segment with fewer vehicles (i.e., less exposure) will have a higher crash rate, meaning that vehicles were more likely to experience a crash along that roadway segment. In situations where traffic volume is not available, segment length or population can serve as an effective exposure element for comparison.

Recommended Action: Consider the availability of exposure data and track it along with the other crash data to help prioritize potential locations for safety improvements.

2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits
Local road practitioners should always consider conducting field assessments in conjunction with their collection of crash data to help identify problem locations. An assessment can be as informal as driving, walking or virtually viewing the road network looking for evidence of roadway crashes. Ideally, informal field assessments are to be performed by multidisciplinary teams that include a traffic safety expert, law enforcement personnel, and others. The team can visit several sites and document evidence of crashes or deficiencies on the roadway or roadside, including: damaged trees or fences, skid marks, ruts on the shoulder, car parts on the shoulder, and/or pavement drop-offs. This information, along with observations of actual driver-behavior, can be used to develop recommendations for improvement.

Field reviews can also be more formalized such as in conducting a Road Safety Audit (RSA). A RSA is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road by an independent, multidisciplinary team. The team examines and reports on existing or potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for safety improvements for all road users. Agencies considering RSAs for the first time are encouraged to consider requesting support from FHWA. For more information on FHWA’s free RSA support, go to their website at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/.

Informal field assessments and more formal RSAs provide an opportunity for local safety practitioners to gather and summarize all of the information sources discussed in Section 2. They can also be used to identify potential project delivery obstacles. The field assessments/RSAs should identify major environmental, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational issues that need to be considered when applying countermeasures.

Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identify the most appropriate countermeasures. It’s recommended that local agencies develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken. The information gathered during the assessments should be added to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet, as discussed in section 2.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 22 176

3. Safety Data Analysis
Proactive safety analysis will assist in making informed decisions on the type, deployment levels, and locations for safety countermeasures. This builds on the previous discussions on information sources that identify safety issues. ‘Safety Data Analysis’ is one of the most critical steps in an agency’s overall proactive safety analysis approach. Ideally, agencies regularly analyze the safety data for their entire roadway networks to identify and prioritize the locations with the most severe safety issues. This step is often skipped by agencies reacting to a recent tragic crash and the corresponding public outcry, which may leave their most critical safety locations undetected.

As agencies analyze their safety data, they will need to select the implementation approach that most effectively address the safety issues identified; Systemic Approach, Spot Location Approach, Comprehensive Approach, or a combination of these approaches. For example, if a high number of crashes are occurring at a particular curve or along a short segment of roadway, a spot treatment may be appropriate. However, systemic treatment of multiple locations experiencing similar crash types may be necessary and most beneficial for reducing overall fatalities and injuries. These implementation approaches were described in Section 1.5. With all of the approaches, safety practitioners should be looking for patterns in the crash data and not just the total number of crashes. These patterns include:
types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, time of day, etc. Identifying and analyzing the patterns in the crash data will help ensure the most appropriate countermeasure is selected and the safety problems are effectively addressed.

3.1 Quantitative Analysis
Crash data analysis is used to determine the extent of the roadway safety issues, the priority for application of scarce resources, and the selection of appropriate countermeasures. The two main quantitative analysis methods for roadway crashes are crash frequency and crash rate.

Crash Frequency
Crash frequency is defined as the number of crashes occurring within a determined study area. A practitioner can determine crash volumes using methods discussed in Section 2, including: State crash database (SWITRS), TIMS, local agency crash databases, law enforcement crash reports, pin-maps, etc.

The practitioner should analyze the data to identify locations and crash characteristics with the highest frequency. There are numerous methods to assist practitioners in this process. Each agency will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples of the methods used to determine Crash Frequency:
• Summarize the crashes by attributes such as type, severity and location to identify patterns in the crash data and the most significant problem locations.
o Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments. It is common to weight more severe crashes higher in this process.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 23 177

• Spatially display the sites on a pin-map or a GIS software package. o For small or rural agencies with lower volume roadways, network-wide pin-maps may be all that is needed to identify the highest priority locations. • Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles, types of crashes, and pedestrians involved in the crashes.

As stated earlier, this manual acknowledges many local agency safety practitioners may have their preferred methods for completing these analyses. For those agencies that do not and for those willing to try something new, Caltrans recommends using the TIMS website along with the processes outlined in this document to complete these analyses.

Once the crash frequency information is collected and displayed, the practitioner can complete a methodical analysis by geographic area, route, or a cluster analysis to determine which locations have experienced a high or moderate level of crashes. The resulting crash information can be further analyzed for recurring patterns or events. As agencies consider their locations with high levels of crashes, they should understand the overall random nature of crashes and the concept of “regression to the mean”, as discussed in Section 2. Otherwise, if the natural variations in crash occurrence are not accounted for, a site might be selected for study when the number of crashes is randomly high, or overlooked when the number of crashes is randomly low.

Crash Rate
Crash rate analysis can be a useful tool to determine how a specific roadway or segment compares with similar roadway types on the network. A simple count of the number of crashes can be inadequate when comparing multiple roadways of varying lengths and/or traffic volume. Local agencies are also encouraged to compare their crashes with those occurring in similar areas around the state; doing so will help in determining just how severe the number and types of crashes are in the local area. When working with limited budgets, Crash Rates are often used to prioritize locations for safety improvements that will achieve the greatest safety benefits with limited resources. Where traffic volume data is unavailable, other information can be used to provide exposure information. One often-used factor is the length of the roadway segment on each route studied. Comparing the number of roadway crashes per mile or per intersection can help an agency identify potential opportunities to improve safety. The FHWA Roadway Departure Safety and Intersection Safety manuals include the following formulas for calculating crash rates on roadway segments and intersections:
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 24 178

The crash rate for crashes on a roadway is calculated as:

R = (C x 100,000,000) / (V x 365 x N x L)
Where:

R = Crash rate for the road segment expressed as crashes per 100 million vehicle-miles of travel, C = Total number of crashes in the study period
V = Traffic volumes using Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes N = Number of years of data
L = Length of the roadway segment in miles
The crash rate for crashes at an intersection is calculated as:

R = (1,000,000 x C) / (365 x N x V)
Where:

R = Crash rate for the intersection expressed as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) C= Total number of intersection-related crashes in the study period N = Number of years of data
V = Traffic volumes entering the intersection daily
Similar to Crash Frequency, there are numerous methods for local safety practitioners to utilize Crash Rate in their safety data analysis and each will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples:
• Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments with the highest crashes in relationship to roadway length, traffic volumes, and/or population density.
• Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate. • Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate.

Even though crash frequency and crash rate are helpful for local agency safety practitioners to effectively rank their most critical locations for improvements, the lack of reliable statewide traffic volumes for all roadway types precludes Caltrans from using the crash rate methodology in their statewide project scoring and ranking processes for the HSIP (discussed in more detail in Section 5).

Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of the roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies. Safety practitioners should look for patterns in the crash data, including: types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, roadway characteristics, time of day, intersection control, etc.

3.2 Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis considers the physical characteristics of the roadway network, through the examination of maps, photographs, and field assessments. Certain roadway infrastructure characteristics relate to design standard and compliance issues and should continually be identified and upgraded on a network-wide basis (e.g., signing and pavement delineation characteristics relating to CAMUTCD compliance as discussed in more detail below). Other roadway characteristics are more important as they relate to locations with high crash frequencies and rates (e.g., well defined pedestrian 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 25 179

paths crossing the roadway or a high number of utility poles/fixed objects adjacent to the edge of travel way). All of these characteristics should to be accounted for in an agency’s proactive safety analysis.

Ensuring Compliance with CA-MUTCD and Design Standards
It is important for local agencies to continually evaluate their roadways for compliance with the minimum safety standards. The CA-MUTCD provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. In addition to ensuring compliance with the CA-MUTCD, geometric standards should be evaluated as they relate to sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation. Many local agencies have their own specific roadway design standards, while others rely on Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual 7 , FHWA’s “Green
Book” policy manual8 and PEDSAFE guide9
, and AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide10. If the traffic control devices or roadway geometry are not in compliance, appropriate devices/countermeasures should be installed. Non-compliance is an important consideration that can affect road safety and may have liability implications for a jurisdiction. Using CA-MUTCD compliant devices results in uniformity among California roadways and serves to meet road user expectations.

Field Assessments
While the qualitative analysis of compliance issues should continually occur on a network-wide basis, a qualitative analysis should also occur for each of the locations and corridors identified as a result of a ‘Quantitative Analysis’. The consideration of roadway infrastructure characteristics in conjunction with crash frequency or crash rate gives a more complete picture of overall safety and should be used in an agency’s identification and prioritization process for locations needing safety improvements. The qualitative assessment of HCCLs can be completed through the examination of maps and photographs, but the importance of in-field assessments by multi-disciplinary teams should not be underestimated. In some cases, field reviews of all potential project locations may not be practical, so safety practitioners are encouraged to utilize internet-mapping tools to view maps and photographs and virtually visit these sites from their offices.

Actual field visits or RSAs can be done at the highest priority locations before or during the countermeasure selection process. In many cases, field assessments are often the only way for practitioners to identify potential countermeasure implementation and project delivery obstacles.

Without in-field assessments, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational constraints can be overlooked, including: sensitive environmental resources (widening may not be feasible next to wetlands), roadway users (rumble strips may not be feasible on roadways with high bicycle volumes and narrow shoulders), or nearby roadway stakeholders (flashing beacons may be problematic for adjacent residents.) Assessments can provide critical information for local practitioners as they prioritize their crash locations and select countermeasures with the greatest potential for cost effective deployment.

Recommended Action: Incorporate qualitative analysis elements into agency’s proactive analysis approach. Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify locations with roadway 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 26 180

infrastructure characteristics that relate to both compliance issues and high crash frequencies/rates. As part of field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures. Rather than reviewing all crash sites individually, agencies may find the use of Internet mapping tools offers significant time savings. For agencies without a preferred virtual field review method, the SafeTREC TIMS website automatically links the SWITRS crash locations to Google Maps and Google Street View.

Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin-maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 27 181

4. Countermeasure Selection
Once locations and crash problems are identified as illustrated in Sections 2 and 3, the safety practitioners will need to select the set of proposed safety improvements to reduce the likelihood of future crashes. Individual elements of standard safety improvements are referred to as countermeasures and most countermeasures have corresponding Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).

When applied correctly, CMFs can help agencies identify the expected safety impacts of installing various countermeasures to reduce crashes. CMFs are multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the lower the CMF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes the countermeasure is expected to reduce. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as (1 – CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). NOTE: Given that CRF values can be more intuitive when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes; this document shows CRF values in the countermeasure tables. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout the text of this section and in other sections of this document.

In an effort to stretch the limited highway safety funding, local transportation agencies are encouraged to identify and implement the optimal combination of countermeasures to achieve the greatest benefits. Combined with crash cost data and project cost information, CRFs can help safety practitioners compare the B/C ratio of multiple countermeasures and then choose the most appropriate application for their proposed safety improvement projects.

As agencies consider the overall scope/cost of their projects, they also need to consider the number of locations to which each countermeasure may be applied in order to maximize the B/C ratio and the overall effectiveness of their limited safety funding. For HCCLs with varying causes, the Spot Location Approach may be the most appropriate. In contrast, the Systemic Approach should be considered where a high proportion of similar crash types tend to occur at locations that share common geometric or operational elements. In these situations, installing the same low-cost safety countermeasure at multiple locations can increase the cost effectiveness of the safety improvement, allowing an increased number of treatments to be applied.

It is important to note that there are many safety issues and corresponding countermeasures that are more “maintenance” in nature (e.g., visibility issues relating to the need for brush clearing and roadway departure issues relating to the need to replace shoulder backing). As these issues are identified when investigating crash locations, it’s expected that the local safety practitioners would take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in the short-term. For this reason, most of the common maintenance-type safety countermeasures are not included in this document. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 28 182

4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors
Selecting an appropriate countermeasure and corresponding CMF is similar to choosing the right tool for a job. In some cases, a countermeasure and CMF may not be perfect, but will still work well enough to get the job done by providing a reasonable estimation of the countermeasure's effect. In other cases, using an improper countermeasure or CMF may do more harm than good. Applying a CMF that does not fit a specific situation may give a false sense of the countermeasure's safety effectiveness and may result in an increased safety problem.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is leading a concerted effort to develop information on CMFs and makes it available to State and local agencies to assist with highway safety planning. The CMF Clearinghouse, a free online database introduced in 2009 and accessible at http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/, details the varying quality and reliability of CMFs available to transportation professionals.

FHWA has identified three main considerations to assure appropriate selection of CMFs for a given countermeasure: the availability of relevant CMFs, the applicability of available CMFs, and the quality of applicable CMFs. The following sections detail these considerations and describe how Caltrans recommended CRF and service life values meet these criteria.

Availability: The availability of a CMF that applies to a specific situation depends on whether research has been conducted to determine the safety effects of a particular countermeasure or combination of countermeasures, and whether researchers have documented it. The CMF Clearinghouse contains more than 2,900 CMFs and receives quarterly updates to include the latest research.

At this point, Caltrans has established a small subset of 82 countermeasures and a single CRF for each of these countermeasures that must be used when submitting applications for Caltrans statewide calls-forprojects. This methodology allows for a statewide data-driven process that facilitates a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. (The reason for limiting the number of countermeasures is further explained below under “applicability”).

Applicability: In general, once a local safety practitioner determines that one or more CMFs exist for a specific countermeasure, the next step is to determine which CMF is the most applicable. Applicability depends on how closely the CMF represents the situation to which it will be applied. Safety practitioners should evaluate the potentially applicable CMFs, eliminating any that are not appropriate for the situation. Practitioners should only choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project based on factors including but not limited to: urban areas vs. rural areas; low vs. high traffic volumes; 2-lane vs. 6- lane roadways; individual vs. combination treatments; signalized vs. non-signalized intersections; and minor crashes vs. fatal crashes. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect will likely be over or underestimated. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 29 183

The mix of countermeasures and CRFs included in this document is intended to meet Caltrans’ goal for a data-driven award process for local agencies to follow that allows for a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. Where possible and appropriate, the CRF value intended for use in statewide callsfor-projects is based on research studies that specifically established the CRF to be used for ‘all’ project areas, roadway types, and traffic volumes. Where not all applicability factors have already been established by prior research, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to approximate CRFs for countermeasures often utilized by local agencies.

Quality: Often a search of the CMF Clearing House results in multiple CMFs for the same countermeasure. A practitioner needs to examine the quality of each CMF. The quality of a CMF can vary greatly depending on several factors associated with the process of developing the CMF. The primary factors that determine the quality of a CMF are the study design, sample size, standard error, potential bias, and data source. The CMF Clearinghouse provides a star rating for each based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 indicates the highest quality. The most reliable CMFs in the HSM are indicated with a bold font.

Wherever possible, the CRFs included in this document are based on research that has a CMF Clearinghouse star rating of 3 or more. For countermeasures that do not have corresponding research of a star rating of 3 or more but were deemed important to provide flexibility to local practitioners, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to establish CRFs based on the best available research.

4.2 List of Countermeasures
The list of countermeasures discussed in this section is not an all-inclusive list, and only includes those available in the Caltrans’ HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. Only thoroughly researched countermeasures with a readiness to be applied by local agencies on a statewide basis are utilized. In addition, the California Local HSIP program places further restrictions on the eligibility of some countermeasures to meet the most critical needs on California local roadways. Practitioners are encouraged to utilize the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse for a more comprehensive list as they establish their local agency specific set of proposed improvements and prioritize their projects.

The countermeasures listed in the following three tables have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories, as the consideration of non-motorized travel is important for all roadway classifications and locations. The countermeasures included in these tables are also used in the HSIP Analyzer. When selecting countermeasures and CMFs to apply to their specific safety needs, local agency safety practitioners should consider the availability, applicability, and quality of CMFs, as discussed in section 4.1.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 30 184

Only Crash Types, CRFs, Expected Lives, and HSIP Funding Eligibility of the countermeasures for use in Caltrans local HSIP program are provided in this section. Fields in the countermeasure tables are:
• Crash Types - “All”, “P & B” (Pedestrian and Bicycle), “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”. • CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Funding Eligibility – the maximum HSIP reimbursement ratio for HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. o Eighty-one (81) countermeasures: 90%
o One (1) countermeasure: 50% (CM No. S03: Improve signal timing, as this CM will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.) • Systemic Approach Opportunity - Opportunity to Implement Using a Systemic Approach: “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” or “Low”.

The list of countermeasures presented in this section is intended to be a quick-reference summary.

Appendix B of this manual provides more details on each of these countermeasures including Where to use, Why it works, General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness), and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse (Crash Types Addressed and range of Crash Reduction Factor).

Recommended Action: At this point, agencies should use all information and results obtained by completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic ‘engineering judgment’ is required and that this manual should not be used as a simple cheat-sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 31 185

Table 2. Countermeasures for Non-Signalized Intersections No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expecte
d Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium NS02 Control Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) All 50% 10 90% High NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 20 90% Low
NS04 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05mr* Control Convert intersection to mini-roundabout All 30% 20 90% Medium NS06 Operation/ Warning Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs All 15% 10 90% Very High
NS07 Operation/ Warning Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 10 90% Very High NS08 Operation/ Warning Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 10 90% High NS09 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% High NS10 Operation/ Warning Install transverse rumble strips on approaches All 20% 10 90% High NS11 Operation/ Warning Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 10 90% High NS12 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium NS13 Geometric Mod. Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches All 40% 20 90% Medium NS14 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium NS15 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and uturns (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS16 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS17 Geometric Mod. Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 20 90% Low NS18 Geometric Mod. Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low NS19PB Ped and Bike Install raised medians / refuge islands (NS.I.) P & B 45% 20 90% Medium NS20PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90% High
NS21PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium
NS22PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium NS23PB Ped and Bike Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% Low *CM NS05mr is a new countermeasure added for HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 33 186
Table 1. Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
S01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium S02 Signal Mod. Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number All 15% 10 90% Very High
S03 Signal Mod. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High S04* Signal Mod. Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed approaches All 40% 10 90% High S05 Signal Mod. Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Emergency Vehicle 70% 10 90% High
S06 Signal Mod. Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) All 55% 20 90% Low
S07 Signal Mod. Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% High S08 Signal Mod. Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium S09 Operation/
Warning Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High S10 Operation/
Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 10 90% Medium S11 Operation/
Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium S12 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium S13PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low S14 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
S15 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium S16 Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low S17PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian countdown signal heads P & B 25% 20 90% Very High S18PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) P & B 25% 20 90% High S19PB Ped and Bike Pedestrian Scramble P & B 40% 20 90% High S20PB Ped and Bike Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) P & B 15% 10 90% Very High S21PB Ped and Bike Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P & B 60% 10 90% Very High *CM S04 has been deleted in HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 32 187

Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium R02 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone All 35% 20 90% High R03 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Median Barrier All 25% 20 90% Medium R04 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Guardrail All 25% 20 90% High R05 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install impact attenuators All 25% 10 90% High R06 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes All 30% 20 90% Medium R07 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail All 40% 20 90% Medium R08 Geometric Mod. Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium R09 Geometric Mod. Install median (flush) All 15% 20 90% Medium R10PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low R11 Geometric Mod. Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes All 25% 20 90% Low R12 Geometric Mod. Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) All 25% 20 90% Medium R13 Geometric Mod. Add two-way left-turn lane All 30% 20 90% Medium R14 Geometric Mod. Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) All 35% 20 90% Medium
R15 Geometric Mod. Widen shoulder All 30% 20 90% Medium R16 Geometric Mod. Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) All 45% 20 90% Medium R17 Geometric Mod. Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) All 50% 20 90% Low R18 Geometric Mod. Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 20 90% Low R19 Geometric Mod. Improve curve superelevation All 45% 20 90% Medium R20 Geometric Mod. Convert from two-way to one-way traffic All 35% 20 90% Medium R21 Geometric Mod. Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% High 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 34 188

Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways (Continued)
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R22 Operation/ Warning Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High
R23 Operation/ Warning Install chevron signs on horizontal curves All 40% 10 90% Very High R24 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs All 25% 10 90% Very High R25 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 10 90% High R26 Operation/ Warning Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs All 30% 10 90% High R27 Operation/ Warning Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers All 15% 10 90% Very High R28 Operation/ Warning Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High R29 Operation/ Warning Install no-passing line All 45% 10 90% Very High R30 Operation/ Warning Install centerline rumble strips/stripes All 20% 10 90% High R31 Operation/ Warning Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R32PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 20 90% High R33PB Ped and Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes P & B 45% 20 90% High R34PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 20 90% Medium R35PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R36PB Ped and Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R37PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R38 Animal Install animal fencing Animal 80% 20 90% Medium 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a g e | 35 189

5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects
Practitioners need to consider the expected B/C ratio of their proposed projects. This is an important step in a proactive safety analysis process because it provides two key pieces of information: First, it defines the cost effectiveness of the proposed projects; and second, it gives the safety practitioner a means to help prioritize their safety projects both inside the agency’s traffic safety section and against other proposed operational and maintenance projects competing for funding.

5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Sections 2 through 4 provide the practitioner all the information needed to calculate the expected ‘Benefit’ of the proposed safety projects. The resulting expected benefit value is derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding CMFs to the expected crashes. It is of critical importance for the practitioner to understand that misapplication of a CMF will lead to misinformed decisions. Four main factors need to be considered when applying countermeasures and CMFs to calculate the expected benefit value: (1) how to estimate the number of expected crashes without treatment, (2) how to apply CMFs by type and severity, (3) how to apply multiple CMFs if multiple treatments are to be included in the same project, and (4) how to apply a benefit value by crash severity. The following text explains how these factors affect the expected benefit value in more detail.

Estimating expected crashes without treatment: Before applying CMFs, local safety practitioners first need to select countermeasures and CMFs. The CMF is applied to the expected safety performance (expected crashes) without any treatment in order to estimate the expected crashes with the treatment.

The reduction in expected crashes multiplied by the expected costs per each crash gives the practitioner the expected benefit.

As mentioned earlier in this manual, the random nature of roadway crashes suggests that over time the number of crashes at any particular locations will change. This concept is known as “regression to the mean” and it gives rise to the concern that a site might be selected for study when the crashes are at a randomly high fluctuation, or overlooked from study when the site is at a randomly low fluctuation. The HSM presents several methods for estimating the expected safety performance of a roadway or intersection including the Empirical Bayes method, which combines observed information from the site of interest with information from similar sites to estimate the expected crashes without treatment.

Another common way to minimize the impact of regression to the mean is to increase the number of years of crash data being analyzed.

For statewide calls-for-projects, Caltrans strives to ensure that all projects are fairly ranked based on a consistent statewide approach. Given this, Caltrans has avoided using methodology requiring agencies to mathematically adjust their crash data (e.g., Empirical Bayes) and instead has opted to use 5 years of “observed crashes” in estimating “expected crashes.”
Applying CMFs by type and severity: Section 4.1 of this manual discusses the application of CMFs and the need for them to represent the situation to which they will be applied. It also stresses the need for 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 36
190

practitioners to choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project. In many circumstances, estimating the change in crashes by type and severity is useful; however, local safety practitioners only can use this approach when CMFs exist for the specific crash types and severities in question. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect may be over- or underestimated. (For example: past research relating to installing a channelized left turn lane, has estimated CMFs as high as 68% for Right-Angle crashes of all severities and as low as 11% for Rear-End crashes with severities of only fatal and injury).

Applying multiple CMFs: In real-world scenarios, transportation agencies commonly install more than one countermeasure per project as part of their safety improvement program. This leads to the question, "What is the safety effect of the combined countermeasures?" The calculation methods that Transportation agencies use include: applying the CMF for the single countermeasure expected to achieve the greatest reduction, applying CMFs separately by crash type and summing them to get a project-level effect, and applying CMFs based on a review of crash patterns, etc. Regardless of the specific method employed, “engineering judgment” is required when combining multiple CMFs and it is important for local agencies to apply their method consistently throughout their analysis to ensure a fair comparison of projects.

One common practice is to assume that CMFs are multiplicative when they are applied to the same set of crash data. In other words, each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit when implemented in combination with other countermeasures. The multiplicative method is a common, generally accepted method and is presented in the HSM and in the CMF Clearinghouse. This method is also used in the HSIP calls-for-projects.

To allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis, Caltrans only allows up to three (3) individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project location site. The CMFs are multiplicative if there are multiple countermeasures, i.e. each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit based on the remainder of the crashes after the effect of the prior countermeasures, not the original number of the crashes.

More information on these requirements and procedures are provided in the documents (Application Form Instructions, etc.) for each call-for-projects.

Applying benefit value by crash severity: The last step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is to multiply the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the “cost” of crashes. In other words, the expected “benefit” value for a project is actually the expected “reduction in costs” value from reducing future crashes. There are many sources for the costs of crashes (e.g., HSM, FHWA & National Safety Council) and some of the sources vary widely depending on how they account for the economic value of a life and when the numbers were last updated. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 37
191

When calculating the “benefit” to be used in calculating an improvement’s B/C ratio, it is important for the practitioner to consider whether a total benefit value for the “life” of the improvement is needed or if the benefit value should be annualized (i.e., benefit per year). Whichever method is used to calculate the overall cost of the improvements must also be used for calculating the benefit.

Caltrans has currently chosen to use published Cost-of-Crash values from the first edition of the HSM and increase the values by 4% annually. These values may be updated in the future, when updated costof-crash values are published by FHWA or another national source. The specific values for each of the crash severities and the formulas uses to calculate the total benefit are shown in Appendix D.

Recommended Action: Prepare Total Benefit estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements After calculating the expected benefit of the proposed safety projects, the next step for the practitioner is to develop an estimate of the Total Project Costs. These costs need to include both the construction costs and the project development and administration costs. The most common approach to estimating construction costs is through an “Engineer’s Cost Estimate.” A Template for Detailed Engineer’s Estimate and Cost Breakdown by Countermeasures is included in the HSIP funding application website. When calculating the administration costs for a project, the complexity of the improvements must be accounted for: Low-cost countermeasures, typically used in the Systemic Approach, often have minimal environmental and right-of-way impacts and require minimal design effort. In contrast, many medium to high cost improvements tend to have greater impacts to the environment and right-of-way and require significant design efforts. It’s crucial to account for these differences to accurately determine the true B/C ratio of the projects and prioritize them correctly.

When an agency is initially evaluating several potential locations and countermeasures as part of their proactive safety analysis or in preparing for Caltrans call-for-projects, they should consider first using rough ‘ballpark’ cost estimates using previous projects that had similar scope, if possible. Ballpark cost estimates can allow the practitioner to quickly establish B/C ratios for all of their potential projects and identify the projects with high cost effectiveness and with a reasonable chance of receiving HSIP funding in a Caltrans call-for-projects.

Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Project Cost’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio
In general, the B/C ratio is calculated by taking a project’s overall benefit (as calculated in Section 5.1) and dividing it by the project’s overall cost (as calculated in Section 5.2). There are, however, several 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 38
192

methods and input-factors available for calculating a project’s B/C ratio and practitioners may want to consider other methods as defined in the HSM.

Based on Caltrans’ need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-forprojects, Caltrans requires the B/C ratio for all applications to be completed using the same process.

Applicants must utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. Additional details and formulas included in the calculation are included in this document as Appendix D.

Recommended Action: Calculate the B/C ratio for each of the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements
By implementing a comprehensive proactive safety analysis approach, agencies will likely identify more potential safety projects than they can fund and deliver. It will be important for an agency to prioritize their projects internally before funding is sought. It is not uncommon for projects to have a B/C ratio as low as 0.1 or as high as 100. Once the relative cost effectiveness of an agency’s potential projects has been established, the projects with low to mid-ranged B/C ratios should be reassessed. Projects with very low initial B/C ratios may be dropped while projects with low to mid ranged B/C ratios may be redefined by changing the limits of the proposed improvements to focus on higher crash locations or incorporating lower-cost countermeasures. This reiterative process is illustrated in Figure 1 in Section 1 of this document.

At the conclusion of this step, the local agency should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. Ideally, there will be a variety of low cost safety projects and potentially a few higher cost roadway reconstruction projects. How each local agency prioritizes their list of safety improvements will vary, but projects with the highest B/C ratios should generally have a high overall priority. It should be understood that available funding will play a key role in local agency prioritization (e.g., higher-cost projects may have to wait for funding to become available while low-cost improvements with lower B/C ratios can be constructed with in-house maintenance crews), but in the goal of maximizing overall safety benefits, the role of politics and public influence should be minimized.

Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits to maximize the number of fatal and injury crashes addressed within the limits. Consider lower cost countermeasures in areas where high and medium cost countermeasures resulted in low B/C ratios.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 39
193

6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements
Funding strategies for implementing safety projects need to vary as widely as local agency’s roadway types, project costs, and proposed improvements. At this point in the proactive safety analysis process, local agencies should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. There are likely a wide range of ‘approaches’ to fund each of these projects.

This section of the document discusses some of the most common approaches.

6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures
For projects utilizing low-cost countermeasures, the total project cost may be low enough that the agency can construct the project using its existing roadway funding by utilizing the ongoing activities of their roadway maintenance staff and equipment. Other low-cost projects (e.g., overlays, sealcoats, drainage, signing, and striping projects) may be more important to incorporate into larger maintenance projects. It is common for agencies to have 1-, 5-, and 10-year plans for making these standard maintenance improvements. With upfront planning and coordination between agency staff, the lowcost safety projects identified through the proactive safety analysis can be incorporated with minimal costs to an agency’s maintenance program. Maximizing the cost effectiveness of the program may even allow the transportation managers to justify increasing the funding for their overall roadway maintenance program.

In addition to their maintenance program, transportation managers should also strategically seek out planned capital improvement and development projects that can incorporate low and medium cost countermeasures identified in their safety analysis. Local agencies may also find opportunities to partner with private enterprises and insurance companies to fund special safety projects that further both organizations’ strategic goals.

Recommended Action: Survey planned maintenance, developer and capital projects to determine whether they overlap any of the proposed safety projects. Where projects overlap, leverage the existing funding sources to include safety countermeasures.

6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources
In addition to the HSIP Program, the Division of Local Assistance’s web site includes several other Caltrans administered funding programs:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance
Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 40
194

6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations In general, roadway safety projects don’t garner the same level of attention from decision makers, media, elected officials, and the general public, that large operational and development-driven projects do. As a result, local safety practitioners and project sponsors often find their projects have difficulty in competing for the agencies’ limited project delivery resources. Establishing and implementing a comprehensive safety analysis process can assist safety practitioners in delivering their safety programs in many ways, including:
• Credibility and awareness to individual projects and delivery schedules. • Increased stakeholders tracking and delivery of a project when low-cost improvements are incorporated into ongoing maintenance and capital projects. • An increased focus on low-cost countermeasures typically corresponds to projects with less environmental, right-of-way and other impacts; resulting in projects that have streamlined project delivery processes and short construction schedules.

Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to “toot their own safety-horn.”
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 41
195

7. Evaluation of Improvements
Evaluation of the effectiveness of roadway treatments following installation should be used to guide future decisions regarding roadway countermeasures. Field reviews should also be conducted shortly after the project is completed to insure the project is operating as intended.

A record of crash history and countermeasure installation forms the foundation for assessing how well the implemented strategies have performed. An important database to maintain is a current list of installed countermeasures with documented “when/where/why” information. Periodic assessments will provide the necessary information to make informed decisions on whether each countermeasure contributed to an increase in safety, whether the countermeasure could or should be installed at other locations, and which factors may have contributed to each countermeasure’s success.

In order to perform the assessment, it is necessary to collect the required information for a certain period after strategies have been deployed at the locations. The time period varies, but whenever possible, 3 to 5 years is recommended to reduce the effects of the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean). The information required may consist of public input and complaints, police reports, observations from maintenance crews, and local and State crash data.

It is important to keep the list of safety installations up-to-date since it will serve as a record of countermeasure deployment history (see table below for an example). By using this type of system, assessment dates can be scheduled to review the crashes and other pertinent information on segments where roadway countermeasures have been installed. Making “after” assessments will inform the practitioner on the effectiveness of past improvements and can provide data to help justify the value of continuing and expanding the local agency’s safety program in the future.

Location Type of Countermeasure
Installed
Date
Installed
Crashes Before
(Duration and
Severity)
Crashes After
(Duration and
Severity)
Comments
Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet or database to track future safety project installations and record 3 or more years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 42
196

Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Process
Countermeasure Selection:
-Address the crash
problem/pattern with cost
effectiveness
Calculate the Project’s B/C Ratio
-HSIP Analyzer
Finish preparing application and
submit to Caltrans electronically,
with applicable attachments.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 43
197

Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures
The intent of the information contained in this appendix is to provide local agency safety practitioners with a list of effective countermeasures that are appropriate remedies to many common safety issues.

The tables in Section 4.2 present a quick summary of the specific values that the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance uses to assess and select projects for its calls- for-projects. In addition to the same information as in Section 4.2, this appendix also includes notes for Caltrans HSIP calls-for-projects and “General information” regarding where the countermeasure should be used, why it works, the general qualities that can be used to suggest the potential complexity of installation, and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse on the type of crashes where the countermeasure is best used and a range of their expected overall effectiveness.

The countermeasures have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories.

Caltrans gives careful consideration to the fair application of its calls-for-projects process. Starting in 2012, the award of safety funding has been solely based on a determined benefit-to-cost ratio for each project. The fixed set of countermeasures and CRFs included in these tables are intended to allow for all projects to be evaluated consistently and fairly throughout the project selection process. However, at this time, there are no CRFs/CMFs available for several safety improvements, such as: "dynamic/variable speed regulatory signs", "non-motorized signs and markings (regulatory and warning)", "Square-up (reduce curve radius) turn lanes" and non-infrastructure elements. These safety improvement items can be included in project applications, but they will not be included into the B/C ratio calculations, unless the safety improvements meet the intent of other separate countermeasures included in the attached lists. Caltrans is interested in adding these countermeasures (and many others) to these tables once CRFs/CMFs have been established. Caltrans will continue to periodically update this list of allowable countermeasures and CRFs as new safety research data becomes available. With this in mind, Caltrans is interested in feedback and suggestions from local agency safety practitioners on the overall countermeasure list as well as specific details of individual countermeasures, including locally developed safety effectiveness information.

Caltrans used the following references to assist its team in developing the information shown in the following tables. Safety Practitioners are encouraged to utilize these references for a more expansive list of countermeasures and CRFs / CMFs.

The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
NCHRP Report 500 Series: Volumes 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and others https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152868.aspx
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 44
198

Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org
Pedestrian and Bicycle - Tools to Diagnose and Solve the Problem https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/
FHWA Local and Rural Road / Training, Tools, Guidance and Countermeasures for Locals https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/
For each countermeasure (CM):
(Title) CM No., CM Name
• CM No. is
o S01 through S21PB for Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized, o NS01 through NS23PB for Intersection Countermeasures – Unsignalized, or o R01 through R38 for Roadway Countermeasures.

For HSIP Calls-for-projects:
• Funding Eligibility - 90% or 50%.
• Crash Types Addressed - “All”, “Pedestrian and Bicycle”, “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”.
• CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Notes - Specific requirements are provided for utilizing the countermeasure on applications for Caltrans statewide calls-for-projects.
•
General Information:
• Where to use – Roadway segments and intersections with specific common characteristics can be addressed with similar countermeasures that are most effective. • Why it works – A discussion of the benefit of a countermeasure is important to determine its appropriateness in addressing certain roadway crash types at areas with specific issues as determined by the data and roadway features.
• General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness) – This category is more subjective and can vary substantially. ‘Time’ refers to the approximate relative time it can take to implement the countermeasure. Costs can vary considerably due to local conditions, so ‘cost’ represents the relative cost of applying a countermeasure. A relative overall ‘effectiveness’ is also provided for some countermeasures. All of this subjective information may not be applicable to the unique circumstances for the agency and should not be utilized without verification by the safety practitioner.
• FHWA CMF Clearinghouse
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 45
199

o Crash Types Addressed – In order to effectively reduce the number and severity of roadway crashes, it is necessary to match countermeasures to the crash types they are intended to address. Depending on the type of problem, one or more of a range of countermeasures could be the most effective way to reduce the number and severity of future crashes.
o Crash Reduction Factor – The crash reduction factor (CRF) is an indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes it is expected to reduce. Note: As mentioned earlier in this section, the effectiveness of a countermeasure can also be expressed as a Crash Modification Factor (CMF), which is defined mathematically as 1 – CRF. However, this document uses CRFs as they can be more insightful when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes. There is a range of CRF values that exist for each of the countermeasures (or similar countermeasures). The range of CRFs is provided to give local safety practitioners a clear understanding that they may need to go to the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse to find the most appropriate countermeasure and CRF for their specific projects and local prioritization.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 46
200

B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized
S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% "night" crashes 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).

Why it works:

Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection 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 the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost which results in a moderate to high cost.

Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 20-74% S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the upgraded signals. This CM does not apply to improvements like "battery backup systems", which do not provide better intersection/signal visibility or help drivers negotiate the intersection (unless applying past crashes that occurred when the signal lost power). If new signal mast arms are part of the proposed project, CM "S2" should not be used and the signal improvements would be included under CM "S7".

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections with a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached. Signal intersection improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro-reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.

Why it works:

Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion for drivers.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Installation costs and time should be minimal as these type strategies are classified as low cost and implementation does not typically require the approval process normally associated with more complex projects. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 0-46% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 47
201

S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 50% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new signal timing. For projects coordination signals along a corridor, the crashes related to side-street movements should not be applied. This CM does not apply to projects that only 'study' the signal network and do not make physical timing changes, including corridor operational studies and improvements to Traffic Operation Centers (TOCs).

In Caltrans calls for projects, this CM has a HSIP reimbursement ratio of 50%, considering that it will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.

General information
Where to use:

Locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections. Signalization improvements may include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations.

Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety.

Why it works:

Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce multiple safety benefits. Sometimes capacity improvements come along with the safety improvements and other times adverse effects on delay or capacity occur. Corridor improvements often have the highest benefit but may take longer to implement. Projects focused on capacity improvements (without a separate focus on signal timing safety needs) may not result in a reduction in future crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In general, these low-cost improvements to multiple signalized intersections can be implemented in a short time. Typically these low cost improvements are funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, some projects requiring new interconnect infrastructure can have moderate to high costs making them more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual project.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41% S04, Provide Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection for high speed approaches For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new detection and signal timing.

General information
Where to use:

More rural/remote areas that have a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes. The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system enhances safety at signalized intersections by modifying traffic control signal timing to reduce the number of drivers that may have difficulty deciding whether to stop or proceed during a yellow phase. This may reduce rear-end crashes associated with unsafe stopping and angle crashes due to illegally continuing into the intersection during the red phase.

Why it works:

Clearance times provide safe, orderly transitions in ROW assignment between conflicting streams of traffic. An Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection system has several benefits relative to traditional multiple detector systems, which have upstream detection for vehicles in the dilemma zone but do not take the speed or size of individual vehicles into account. These benefits include: Reducing the frequency of red-light violations; Reducing the frequency of crashes associated with the traffic signal phase change (for example, rear-end and angle crashes); Reducing delay and stop frequency on the major road and a reduction in overall intersection delay.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Installation costs should be low and the time to implement short. Additional modifications to the traffic signal controller may also necessary. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. Video detection equipment is now available for this purpose, making installation and maintenance more efficient.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 39% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 48
202

S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Emergency Vehicle - only 70% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "E.V." crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pre-emption system.

General information
Where to use:

Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles Why it works:

Providing emergency vehicle preemption capability at a signal or along a corridor can be a highly effective strategy in two ways; any type of crash could occur as emergency vehicles try to navigate through intersections and as other vehicles try to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicles. In addition, a signal preemption system can decrease emergency vehicle response times therefore decreasing the time in receiving emergency medical attention, which is critical in the outcome of any crash.

When data is not available for past crashes with emergency vehicles, an agency may consider combining the E.V. pre-emption improvements into a comprehensive project that also makes significant signal hardware and/or signal timing improvements.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs for installation of a signal preemption system will vary from medium to high, based upon the number of signalized intersections at which preemption will be installed and the number of emergency vehicles to be outfitted with the technology.

The number of detectors, a requirement for new signal controllers, and the intricacy of the preemption system could increase costs. This CM is considered systemic as it is usually implemented on a corridor-basis.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Emergency Vehicle - only CRF: 70% S06, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left-turn phase that are experiencing a large number of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left-turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left-turning vehicles (angle, rear-end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.

Why it works:

Left-turn lanes allow separation of left-turn and through-traffic streams, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Leftturn phasing also provides a safer opportunity for drivers to make a left-turn. The combination of left-turn storage and a left turn signal has the potential to reduce many collisions between left-turning vehicles and through vehicles and/or non-motorized road users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementation time may vary from months to years. At some locations, left-turn lanes can be quickly installed simply by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. Installing a protected left turn lane and phase where none exists results in a high Crash Reduction Factor and is often highly effective.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 17 - 58 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 49
203

S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn phases. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn (unless the single left is unprotected and the proposed double left will be protected).

General information
Where to use:

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. A properly timed protected left-turn 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 safety experience of the intersections. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.

Why it works:

Left turns are widely recognized as the highest-risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left-turn phases (i.e., the provision for a specific phase for a turning movement) for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left-turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles. Where left turn pockets are not protected, the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase often conflicts with these left turn maneuvers. Drivers focused on navigating the gaps of oncoming cars may not anticipate and/or perceive the non-motorized road users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

If the existing traffic signal only requires a minor modification to allow for a protected left-turn phase, then the cost would also be low. The time to implement this countermeasure is short because there is no actual construction that has to take place. Inhouse signal maintainers can perform this operation once the proper signal phasing is determined so the cost is low. In addition, the countermeasure is tried and proven to be effective. Has the potential of being applied on a systemic/systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Sideswipe, Broadside CRF: 16 - 99% S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the converted signal heads that are relocated from median and/or outside shoulder pedestals to signal heads on master arms over the travel-lanes. Projects using CM "S7" should not also apply "S2" in the B/C calc.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections currently controlled by pedestal mounted traffic signals (in medians and/or on outside shoulder) that have a high frequency of right-angle 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. Care should be taken to place the new signal heads (with back plates) as close to directly over the center of the travel lanes as possible.

Why it works:

Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection.

Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Dependent on the scope of the project. Costs are generally moderate for this type of project. There is usually no right-of-way costs, minimal roadway reconstruction costs, and a shorter project development timeline. At the same time, new mast arms can be expensive. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to moderate costs, some locations may result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 12 - 74% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 50
204

S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 10% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and influence areas of the new pavement markers and/or markings.

General information
Where to use:

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

Driver confusion can exist in regard to choosing the proper turn path or where through-lanes do not line up. This is especially relevant at intersections where the overall pavement area of the intersection is large, and multiple turning lanes are involved or other unfamiliar elements are presented to the driver.

Why it works:

Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. When drivers approach and traverse through complex intersections, drivers may be required to perform unusual or unexpected maneuvers. Providing more effective guidance through an intersection will minimize the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its appropriate lane and encroaching upon an adjacent lane.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs of implementing this strategy will vary based on the scope and number of applications. Applying raised pavement markers is relatively low cost but can be variable and determined largely by the material used for pavement markings (paint, thermoplastic, epoxy, RPMs etc.). When using this type delineators, an issue of concern is the cost-to-service-life of the material. (Note: When HSIP safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.) When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, All CRF: 10 - 33% S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new flashing beacons.

General information
Where to use:

At signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply.

Why it works:

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. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs. This combined with a relatively high CRF, can result in high B/Cs for locations with a history of crashes and lead to a high effectiveness.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear End, Angle CRF: 36 - 62% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 51
205

S11, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.

General information
Where to use:

Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.

Why it works:

Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 % S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts.

Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections noted as having turning movement crashes near the intersection as a result of insufficient access control.

Application of this CM should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need to restrict or accommodate the movement.

Why it works:

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 functional area of the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive CMs would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. The result is This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. Raised medians can often be installed directly over the existing pavement. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle CRF: 21 -55 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 52
206

S13PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian-generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walk-phase. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with signal timing and shoulder/sidewalk treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside the intersection crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely depending on the type and placement of the median fencing. Impacts to transit and other land uses may need to be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, this CM can be effective as a spot-location approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25- 40% S14, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings.

General information
Where to use:

Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection.

Why it works:

Restricting turning movement into and out of an intersection can help reduce conflicts between through and turning traffic. The number of access points, coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway, contributes to crashes. Affecting turning movements by either allowing them or restricting them, based on the application, can ensure safe movement of traffic.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can be implemented quickly. The cost of this strategy will depend on the treatment. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 53
207

S15, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left-Turn Conflict.

General information
Where to use and Why it works:

Reduced left-turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left-turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT).

Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT):

The RCUT intersection modifies the direct left-turn and through movements from cross-street approaches. Minor road traffic makes a right turn followed by a U-turn at a designated location (either signalized or unsignalized) to continue in the desired direction.

The RCUT is suitable for a variety of circumstances, including along rural, high-speed, four-lane, divided highways or signalized routes. It also can be used as an alternative to signalization or constructing an interchange. RCUTs work well when consistently used along a corridor, but also can be used effectively at individual intersections.

Median U-turn (MUT)
The MUT intersection modifies direct left turns from the major approaches. Vehicles proceed through the main intersection, make a U-turn a short distance downstream, followed by a right turn at the main intersection. The U-turns can also be used for modifying the cross-street left turns.

The MUT is an excellent choice for heavily traveled intersections with moderate left-turn volumes. When implemented at multiple intersections along a corridor, the efficient two-phase signal operation of the MUT can reduce delay, improve travel times, and create more crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years, depending on whether additional R/W is required. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/RearEnd/All CRF: 34.8-100% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 54
208

S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in influence area of the new roundabout. This CM is not intended for mini-roundabouts.

The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left-turn movements.

Why it works:

The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements are not present in a roundabout. The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection. This helps keep the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing their potential for conflicts.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Provision of a roundabout requires substantial project development. The need to acquire right-of-way is likely and will vary from site to site and depends upon the geometric design. These activities may require up to 4 years or longer to implement. Costs are variable, but construction of a roundabout to replace an existing signalized intersection are relatively high. The result is this CM may have reduced relative-effectiveness compared to other CMs.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 35 - 67% S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new countdown heads.

General information
Where to use:

Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.

Why it works:

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.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs and time of installation will vary based on the number of intersections included in this strategy and if it requires new signal controllers capable of accommodating the enhancement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 55
209

S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left-turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double-right or double-left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. Another 22 percent of pedestrian crashes involve a pedestrian either running across the intersection or darting out in front of a vehicle whose view was blocked just prior to the impact. Finally, 16 percent of these intersection-related crashes occur because of a driver violation (e.g., failure to yield right-of-way). When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements may be funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25% S19PB, Pedestrian Scramble
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection with the new pedestrian crossing.

General information
Where to use:

Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district.

Why it works:

Pedestrian Scramble has been shown to reduce injury risk and increase bicycle ridership due to its perceived safety and comfort.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Not involving any additional R/W, Pedestrian Scramble should not require a long development process and should be implemented reasonably soon. A systemic approach may be used in implementing this CM, resulting in cost efficiency with low to moderate cost.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: -10% to 51% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 56
210

S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection-crossing with the new advanced stop bars.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur.

Why it works:

Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. It also allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers (This dedicated space is often referred to as a bike-box.) General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs and time of installation will vary based on the number of intersections included in this strategy and if it requires new signal controllers capable of accommodating the enhancement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 35% S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 60% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing with the newly implemented Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

General information
Where to use:

Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.

Why it works:

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.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs for implementing LPIs are very low, since only minor signal timing alteration is required. This makes it an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be incorporated into pedestrian safety action plans or policies and can become routine agency practice. When considered at a single location, the LPI is usually local-funded. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 59% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 57
211

B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized
NS01, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

Non-signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).

Why it works:

Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection 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 the 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.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost. For rural intersections, studies have shown the installation of streetlights reduced nighttime crashes at unlit intersections and can be more effective in reducing nighttime crashes than either rumble strips or overhead flashing beacons. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 25- 50% NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. CA-MUTCD warrant must be met.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all-way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all-way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior. MUTCD warrants should always be followed.

Why it works:

All-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection, reducing through and turning speeds, and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be present. Advance public notification of the change is critical in assuring compliance and reducing crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The costs involved in converting to all-way stop control are relatively low. All-way stop control can normally be implemented at multiple intersections with just a change in signing on intersection approaches, and typically are very quick to implement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 6 - 80% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 58
212

NS03, Install signals
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new signals. All new signals must meet MUTCD "safety" warrants: 4, 5 or 7. Given the over-arching operational changes that occur when an intersection is signalized, no other intersection CMs can be applied to the intersection crashes in conjunction with this CM.

General information
Where to use:

Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, left-turn). Consideration to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic control have been utilized as the installation of a traffic signal often leads to an increased frequency of crashes (rear-end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met. Refer to the CA MUTCD, Section 4C.01, Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals.

Why it works:

Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase in rear-end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Typical traffic signal costs fall in the medium to high category and are affected by application, type of signal and right-of-away considerations. Projects of this magnitude should only be considered after alternate and lesser means of correction have been evaluated. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 74% NS04, Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.

The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited.

Why it works:

Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all-way stop-controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left-turn and right-angle movements.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Construction of roundabouts are usually relatively costly and major projects, requiring the environmental process, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation under an agency’s long-term capital improvement program. (For this reason, roundabouts may not be appropriate for California's Federal Safety Programs that have relatively short delivery requirements.) Even with roundabouts higher costs, they still can have a relatively high effectiveness.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 12 - 78 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 59
213

NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2-way stop or Yield control) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.

The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited.

Why it works:

Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all-way stop-controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left-turn and right-angle movements.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Construction of roundabouts are usually relatively costly and major projects, requiring the environmental process, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation under an agency’s long-term capital improvement program. (For this reason, roundabouts may not be appropriate for California's Federal Safety Programs that have relatively short delivery requirements.) Even with roundabouts higher costs, they still can have a relatively high effectiveness.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 12 - 78 % NS05mr, Convert intersection to mini-roundabout
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.

General information
Where to use:

Mini-roundabouts are characterized by a small diameter (45-90 ft) and traversable islands (central island and splitter islands).

Mini-roundabouts offer most of the benefits of regular roundabouts with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. They are best suited to environments where speeds are already low and environmental constraints would preclude the use of a larger roundabout. Mini-roundabouts are most effective in lower speed environments in which all approaching roadways have posted speed of 30 mph or less and an 85th-percentile speed of less than 35 mph near the proposed yield and/or entrance line. For any location with an 85th-percentile speed above 35 mph, the mini-roundabout can be included as part of a broader system of traffic calming measures to achieve an appropriate speed environment.

Why it works:

Mini-roundabouts may be an optimal solution for a safety or operational issue at an existing intersection where there is insufficient right-of-way for a standard roundabout installation. The benefits of mini-roundabouts are the compact size, operational efficiency, traffic safety improvement and traffic Calming.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Construction costs for mini-roundabouts vary widely depending upon the extent of sidewalk modifications or other geometric improvements and the types of materials used. In most cases, mini-roundabouts have been installed with little or no pavement widening and with only minor changes to curbs and sidewalks. Construction costs can be minimum for an installation consisting entirely of pavement markings and signage or moderate for mini-roundabouts that include raised islands and pedestrian improvements.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: NA CRF: NA 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 60
214

NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the influence area of the new signs. The influence area must be determined on a location by location basis.

General information
Where to use:

The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.

Why it works:

The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 55% NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pavement markings. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing pavement markings in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing pavement markings and striping.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars.

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Pavement marking improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of markings. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 13 - 60% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 61
215

NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the stop-controlled approaches / influence area of the new beacons.

General information
Where to use:

Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non-Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post-mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop-controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs.

Why it works:

Flashing beacons provide a visible signal to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where night-time visibility of intersections is an issue.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs.

Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 5-34% NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new beacons placed in advance of the intersection.

General information
Where to use:

Non-Signalized Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's awareness of approaching intersection or controls at a downstream intersection.

Why it works:

Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Flashing beacons are intended to reinforce driver awareness of the stop or yield signs and to help mitigate patterns of crashes related to intersection regulatory sign violations. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of flashing beacons requires minimal development process, allowing flashing beacons to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).

In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 36 - 62% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 62
216

NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new rumble strips.

General information
Where to use:

Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. They can be used at any stop or yield approach intersection, often in combination with advance signing to warn of the intersection ahead. Due to the noise generated by vehicles driving over the rumble strips, care must be taken to minimize disruption to nearby residences and businesses.

Why it works:

When motorists are traveling along the roadway, they are sometimes unaware they are approaching an intersection. This is especially true on rural roads, as there may be fewer clues indicating an intersection ahead. Transverse rumble strips warn motorists that something unexpected is ahead that they need to pay attention to.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of transverse rumble strips requires minimal development process, allowing transverse rumble strips to be installed within a short time period. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach, although care should be taken to not over-use this CM. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wearlocations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 35% NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the significantly improved new sight distance. Minor/incidental improvements to sight distance would not likely result in the CRF shown below.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway.

Why it works:

Adequate sight distance for drivers at stop or yield-controlled approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall safety at unsignalized intersections. By removing sight distance restrictions (e.g., vegetation, parked vehicles, signs, buildings) from the sight triangles at stop or yield-controlled intersection approaches, drivers will be able see approaching vehicles on the main line, without obstruction and therefore make better decisions about entering the intersection safely.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Projects involving clearing sight obstructions on the highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing sight obstructions on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way.

In general, this CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. Usually only high-cost removals would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding. Note:

When federal safety funding is used to remove vegetation that has the potential to grow back, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 56% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 63
217

NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.

General information
Where to use:

Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Non-signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.

Why it works:

Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 % NS13, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new splitter island on the minor road approaches.

General information
Where to use:

Minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections where the presence of the intersection or the stop sign is not readily visible to approaching motorists. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections where the speeds on the minor road are high. In creation of a splitter island allows for an additional stop sign to be placed in the median for the minor approach.

Why it works:

The installation of splitter islands allows for the addition of a stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous. Additionally, the splitter island on the minor-road provides for a positive separation between turning vehicles on the through road and vehicles stopped on the minor road approach.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Splitter islands at non-signalized intersections can usually be installed with minimal roadway reconstruction and relatively quickly. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 35 - 100 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 64
218

NS14, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered nonparticipating.

General information
Where to use:

Where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and operation of an intersection. Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable.

Why it works:

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 functional area of the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive approaches would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, the need for providing alternative access ways should be considered. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 20 - 39 % NS15, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings.

General information
Where to use:

Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, they should be used in conjunction with efforts to provide alternative access ways and promote driveway spacing objectives.

Why it works:

Agencies are increasingly using access management techniques on urban and suburban arterials to manage the number of conflicts experienced at an intersection. A key element of access management is to restrict certain movements, create directional median openings, or close median openings that are deemed too close to an intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can usually be implemented quickly. Costs are highly variable but in many cases could be considered low. In some cases this strategy may involve acquiring access or constructing replacement access; those actions will significantly increase the cost of the project. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 65
219

NS16, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left-Turn Conflict.

General information
Where to use and Why it works:

Reduced left-turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left-turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT).

Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT):

The RCUT intersection modifies the direct left-turn and through movements from cross-street approaches. Minor road traffic makes a right turn followed by a U-turn at a designated location (either signalized or unsignalized) to continue in the desired direction.

The RCUT is suitable for a variety of circumstances, including along rural, high-speed, four-lane, divided highways or signalized routes. It also can be used as an alternative to signalization or constructing an interchange. RCUTs work well when consistently used along a corridor, but also can be used effectively at individual intersections.

Median U-turn (MUT)
The MUT intersection modifies direct left turns from the major approaches. Vehicles proceed through the main intersection, make a U-turn a short distance downstream, followed by a right turn at the main intersection. The U-turns can also be used for modifying the cross-street left turns.

The MUT is an excellent choice for heavily traveled intersections with moderate left-turn volumes. When implemented at multiple intersections along a corridor, the efficient two-phase signal operation of the MUT can reduce delay, improve travel times, and create more crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years, depending on whether additional R/W is required. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/RearEnd/All CRF: 34.8-100% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 66
220

NS17, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new right-turn lanes. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all-way stop intersections.

General information
Where to use:

Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.

Why it works:

The strategy is targeted to reduce the frequency of rear-end collisions resulting from conflicts between vehicles turning right and following vehicles and vehicles turning right and through vehicles coming from the left on the cross street. Right-turn lanes also remove slow vehicles that are decelerating to turn right from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Right-turn lanes can increase the length of the intersection crossing and create an additional potential conflict point for non-motorized users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, right-turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction.

Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 14 - 26 % NS18, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left-turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all-way stop intersections.

General information
Where to use:

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, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new left-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.

Why it works:

Adding left-turn lanes remove vehicles waiting to turn left from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rearend 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. This strategy may reduce the potential for collisions between left-turn and opposing through vehicles.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, left-turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 9 -55 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 67
221

NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the crossing with the new islands. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.

Why it works:

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. They can stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before completing their crossing.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Median and pedestrian refuge areas are a low-cost countermeasure to implement. This cost can be applied to retrofit improvements or if it is a new construction project, implementing this countermeasure is even more cost-effective. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 30 - 56 % NS20PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. 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. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including:
continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 25 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 68
222

NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the new crossing (influence area) with enhanced safety features. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Non-signalized intersections where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic.

They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with turn pockets. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to 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. 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. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the types of enhanced features that will be combined with the standard crossing improvements. The need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications will also be a factor. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have relatively high B/C ratios based on past non-motorized crash history.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 37% NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB.

General information
Where to use:

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.

Why it works:

RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 – 47.4% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 69
223

NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 55% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new signal.

For HAWK or other pedestrian signals, the justification may be Warrant 4, 5 and/or 7, or passing the test in Figure 4F-1/4F-2 in Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD. Please refer to Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD for more details
General information
Where to use:

Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non-motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) (also called High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk.

Why it works:

Adding a pedestrian signal has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.

Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of nonmotorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The cost of improvements are generally high, but can vary dependent on the type of signal and overall scope of the project. In most cases the project duration can be short. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 15 - 69% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 70
224

B.3 Roadway Countermeasures
R01, Add Segment Lighting
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rear-end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.

Why it works:

Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

It expected that projects of this type may be constructed in a year or two and are relatively costly. There are several types of costs associated with providing lighting, including the cost of providing a permanent source of power to the location, the cost for the luminaire supports (i.e., poles), and the cost for routinely replacing the bulbs and maintenance of the luminaire supports.

Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 18 - 69 % R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new clear recovery zone (per Caltrans' HDM).

General information
Where to use:

Known locations or roadway segments prone to collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate.

Why it works:

While this strategy does not prevent the vehicle leaving the roadway, it does provide a mechanism to reduce the severity of a resulting crash. A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. Removing or moving fixed objects, flattening slopes, or providing recovery areas reduces the likelihood of a crash.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Projects involving removing fixed objects from highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing objects on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way. This CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. High-cost removals or removals implemented using a systematic approach would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object CRF: 17 - 100 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 71
225

R03, Install Median Barrier
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls-for-Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new barrier.

General information
Where to use:

Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross-overs are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO and non-severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. It is recommended to review the warrants as outlined in Chapter 7 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual when considering whether to install median barriers.

Why it works:

This strategy is designed to prevent head-on collisions by providing a barrier between opposing lanes of traffic. The variety of median barriers available makes it easier to choose a site-specific solution. The main advantage is the reduction of the severity of the crashes. The key to success would be in selecting an appropriate barrier based on the site, previous crash history, maintenance needs, and median width.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy would in many cases be possible to implement within a short period after site selection. Costs will vary depending on the type of median barrier selected and whether the strategy is implemented as a stand-alone project or incorporated as part of a reconstruction or resurfacing effort. Maintenance costs and worker exposure will also vary depending on the type of barrier selected. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 0 - 94 % R04, Install Guardrail
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new guardrail. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged rail).

For projects proposing to upgrade existing guardrail to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing rail conditions suggests the upgraded guardrail may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM).

General information
Where to use:

Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run-off-the-road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes. New and upgraded guardrail and end-treatments must meet current safety standards; see Method for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for more information. Caltrans (or other national accepted guidance) slope/height criteria need to be considered and documented.

Why it works:

Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Strategies range from relatively inexpensive too costly. Costly projects may include those that upgrade existing guardrail applications to more semi-rigid and rigid barrier systems over extended distances. In general, this CMs can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 11 - 78 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 72
226

R05, Install impact attenuators
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new attenuators. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged attenuators). For projects proposing to upgrade existing attenuators to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing attenuator conditions suggests the upgraded attenuators may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM).

General information
Where to use:

Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators should only be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed. New and upgraded barrier end-treatments must meet current safety standards; see MASH for more information.

Why it works:

Attenuators bring an errant vehicle to a more-controlled stop or redirect the vehicle away from a rigid object. Attenuators are effective at absorbing impact energy and increasing occupant safety. They also tend to draw attention to the fixed object, which helps drivers steer clear of the fixed objects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs depending on the scope of the project, type(s) used, and associated ongoing maintenance costs. Time to install is fairly quick once site is identified.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 50 % R06, Flatten side slopes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new side slopes. Minor/incidental flattening of side slopes would not likely result in the CRF shown below and may not be appropriate for use in Caltrans B/C calculations.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways experiencing frequent lane departure crashes that result in roll-over type crashes as a result of the roadway slope being so severe as to not accommodate a reasonable degree of driver correction. When there is a need to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes without installing a barrier system that could result in increased numbers of crashes.

Why it works:

Flattened slopes provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. Steep slopes, ditches or unprotected hazardous drops-offs adjacent to a travel lane offer little opportunities to correct an inappropriate action by a driver and can result in sever crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Roadside modifications range from relatively inexpensive to very costly. Strategies that include creating safer side slopes where none exists can be moderately expensive based on the scope of the project and the associated clearing, grading, etc. The potential for high environmental and right-of-way impacts is high which can take several years to clear. In other cases This CM can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 62 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 73
227

R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of both the removed guardrail and the new side slopes.

General information
Where to use:

Locations where high number of crashes originate as a lane departure and result in collision with guardrail or a fixed object located on the side slope shielded by guardrail. The guardrail may or may not meet current standards. Even though guardrails are generally installed to reduce the severity of departure crashes, they still can result in severe crashes in some locations.

Why it works:

Flattened side slopes and an unobstructed clear zone provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. The existing guardrail may help protect the steep slopes, fixed objects, or unprotected hazardous drops-offs adjacent to a travel lane, but removing all of these obstacles generally improves safety.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Roadside modifications range from relatively inexpensive to very costly. Strategies that include creating safer side slopes where none exists can be moderately expensive based on the scope of the project and the associated clearing, grading, etc. The potential for high environmental and right-of-way impacts is high which can take several years to clear.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Roll Over, Fixed Object CRF: 42% R08, Install raised median
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing a raised median is a more restrictive approach in that it represents a more rigid barrier between opposing traffic. Application of raised medians on roadways with higher speeds is not advised - instead a median barrier should be considered. Including landscaping in new raised medians can be counterproductive to the HSIP safety goals and should only be done in ways that do not increase drivers’ exposure to fixed objects and that will maintain driver's sight distance needs throughout the life of the proposed landscaping. Agencies need to consider and document impacts of additional turning movements at nearby intersections.

Why it works:

Adding raised medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the travel lane. Raised median may also be used to limit unsafe turning movements along a roadway.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In some cases this strategy may be a retrofit into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder.

These raised medians can be installed directly over the existing pavement. Cost and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median. The surface treatment of the raised median also significantly affects their cost-effectiveness: standard concrete or other hardscape surfaces are usually more cost effective than landscaped medians. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase due to excavation, backfill/top-soil, water-connection, irrigation, planting, maintenance needed for the landscaping. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 20 - 75 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 74
228

R09, Install median (flush)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new flush median. The new median must be a minimum of 4 feet wide (or "wider" if a narrow median exists before the proposed project).

General information
Where to use:

Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Roadways with oversized lanes offer an opportunity to restripe the roadway to reduce the lanes to standard widths and use the extra width for the median.

Why it works:

Adding medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a narrow buffer median between opposing flows, thereby providing a greater opportunity to correct an errant maneuver and further reinforce the limits of the travel lane. Application widths can vary based on the available cross section and intended application.

Additional safety can be provided by combining this CM with rumble strips.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In some cases this strategy may be retrofitted into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder and can ultimately be as simple as restriping the roadway. Costs and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 15 - 78 % R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing.

General information
Where to use:

Roadway segments with high pedestrian-generators and pedestrian-destinations nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid-block crossing. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside designated pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely depending on the type and placement of the median fencing. Impacts to transit and other land uses may need to be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, this CM can be effective as a spot-location approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25 - 40% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 75
229

R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new accel/decel lanes on high speed roadways. Significant improvements to the merge length for lane-drop locations is also an acceptable use of this CM.

General information
Where to use:

Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed is reached and areas that do not provide the opportunity to safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement. This CM can also be used to improve the safety of merging vehicles at a lane-drop location.

Why it works:

A lane that does not provide enough deceleration length and storage space for turning traffic may cause the turn queue to back up into the adjacent through lane. This can contribute to rear-end and sideswipe crashes. An acceleration lane is an auxiliary or speed-change lane that allows vehicles to accelerate to highway speeds (high speed roadways) before entering the throughtraffic lanes of a highway. Additionally, if acceleration by entering traffic takes place directly on the traveled way, it may disrupt the flow of through-traffic and cause rear-end and sideswipe collisions.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs are highly variable. Where sufficient median or shoulder space exists it may be possible to provide acceleration/deceleration lanes at a moderate cost. Where the roadway must be widened and additional right-of-way must be acquired, higher costs and a lengthy time-to-construct are likely. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Sideswipe, Rear-End CRF: 10 - 75 % R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls-for-Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the widened lanes. Widening must a minimum of 1 foot.

General information
Where to use:

Horizontal curves or tangents and low speed or high speed roadways identified as having lane departure crashes, sideswipe or head-on crashes that can be attributed to an existing pavement width less than 10 feet.

Why it works:

Increasing pavement width can affect almost all crash types. A common practice is to widen the traveled way on horizontal curves to make operating conditions on curves comparable to those on tangents. Speed is a primary consideration when evaluating potential adverse impacts of lane width on safety. On high-speed, rural two-lane highways, an increased risk of cross-centerline head-on or cross-centerline sideswipe crashes is a concern because drivers may have more difficulty staying within the travel lane.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs will depend on the amount of reconstruction necessary and on whether additional right-of-way is required. In general, this is one of the higher-cost strategies recommended, but it can also be very beneficial. Since this is a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard roadways.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 5 - 70 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 76
230

R13, Add two-way left-turn lane
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane, where an existing median did not already exist.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways having a high frequency of drivers being rear-ended while attempting to make a left turn across oncoming traffic.

Also can be effective for drivers crossing the centerline of an undivided multilane roadway inadvertently.

Why it works:

Two-way left-turn lanes provide a buffer between opposing directions of travel and separate left turning traffic from through traffic. They can also help to allow vehicles to begin to accelerate before entering the through-traffic lanes. They reduce the disruption of flow of through-traffic and reducing rear-end and sideswipe collisions. For some roadways the option of converting a four-lane undivided arterials to two-vehicle-lane roadways with a center left-turn lane and bike lanes should be considered (see "Road Diet" CM.)
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In some cases this strategy may be retrofitted into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder and can ultimately be as simple as restriping the roadway. Costs and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median, requiring new right-of-way, and having significant environmental impacts. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location as the B/C ratios will vary from low to high.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 8 - 50 % R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane striping. "Intersection" crashes can only be applied when they resulted from turning movements that had no designated turn lanes/phases in the existing condition and the Road Diet will provide turn lanes/phases for these movements. This CM does not apply to roadway sections that already included left turn lanes or two way left turn lanes before the lane reductions. New bike lanes are also expected to be part of these projects. if any pavement is planned to be removed for the purpose of adding landscaping, planterboxes, or other non-roadway user features, the cost should be non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left-turn, and rear-end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four-lane design. It may also result in congestion levels that contribute to other crashes.

Why it works:

The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes. In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. In addition to increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on-street parking.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementation would require more time than in other low-cost treatments to complete environmental analyses, traffic studies and public input. 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. These striping and signal modification costs should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM. (If additional signal hardware improvements are being made, over what is needed for the road diet, then the Improve Signal Hardware CM may also be used.) Often road diet projects need a seal-coat placed on the roadway to fully remove the old striping. These seal coats are considered part of the proper installation of this CM. In contrast, structural-overlays should not be considered part of this CM and are not considered eligible for funding in the California Local HSIP.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 26 - 43 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 77
231

R15, Widen shoulder
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new paved shoulder. A minimum of 2 feet width must be added and the new/resulting shoulders must be a minimum of 4 feet wide. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", for which the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have a frequent incidence of vehicles leaving the travel lane resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. The probability of a safe recovery is increased if an errant vehicle is provided with an increased paved area in which to initiate such a recovery.

Why it works:

Based on the best available research, adding shoulder or widening an existing shoulder provides a greater area to regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects such as guardrail, signs and poles. They may also provide space for disabled vehicles to stop or drive slowly, provide increased sight distance for through vehicles and for vehicles entering the roadway, and in some cases reduce passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. The likely safety benefits for adding or widening an existing shoulder generally increase as the widening width increases - practitioners should refer to NCHRP Report 500 Series, the CMF Clearinghouse or other references for more details.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Shoulder widening costs would depend on whether new right-of-way is required and whether extensive roadside modification is needed. Since shoulder widening can be a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard roadways.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road, Sideswipe CRF: 15 - 75 %
R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the new shoulder widening at curves. A minimum of 2-4 feet width must be added to the outside of horizontal curves and the new traversable shoulder must be a minimum of 4 feet wide.

General information
Where to use:

Roadway curves noted as having frequent lane departure crashes due to inadequate or no shoulders, resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway.

Why it works:

Adding shoulders (outside only) creates a recovery area in which a driver can regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

To minimize the R/W needs and the cost, only outside shoulder at curves is to be widened. This CM can be implemented in a relatively short timeframe.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: NA
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 78
232

R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved alignment. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", including: the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the agency's 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways with horizontal curves that have experienced lane departure crashes as a result of a roadway segment having compound curves or a severe radius. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.

Why it works:

Increasing the radius of a horizontal curve can be very effective in improving the safety performance of the curve. Curve modification reduces the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its lane, crossing the roadway centerline, or leaving the roadway at a horizontal curve; and minimizes the adverse consequences of leaving the roadway. Horizontal alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy is a long-term, higher-cost alternative for improving the safety of a horizontal curve because it usually involves total reconstruction of the roadway. It may also require acquisition of additional right-of-way and an environmental review.

This strategy, albeit costly, has shown that increasing the radius of curvature can significantly reduce total curve-related crashes by up to 80 percent. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 24 - 90% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 79
233

R18, Flatten crest vertical curve
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved alignment. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", including: the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the agency's 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application.

General information
Where to use:

The target for this strategy is usually unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance due to vertical geometry and with patterns of crashes related to that lack of sight distance that cannot be ameliorated by less expensive methods. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.

Why it works:

Adequate sight distance for drivers at stopped approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall intersection safety. Vertical alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Projects involving changing the horizontal and/or vertical alignment to provide more sight distance are quite extensive and usually take several years to accomplish. If additional right-of-way is required or environmental impacts are expected, these projects will require a substantial period of time. Since this is usually an expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard locations.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 20 - 51 % R19, Improve curve superelevation
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved superelevation. This CM does not apply to sections of roadways where the horizontal or vertical alignments are changing via another CM.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways noted as having frequent lane departure crashes and inadequate or no superelevation. Safety can be enhanced when the superelevation is improved or restored along curves where the actual superelevation is less than the optimal.

Why it works:

Superelevation works with friction between the tires and pavement to counteract the forces on the vehicle associated with cornering. Many curves may have inadequate superelevation because of vehicles traveling at higher speeds than were originally designed for, because of loss of effective superelevation after resurfacing, or because of changes in design policy after the curve was originally constructed.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy can be a higher-cost alternative for improving the safety of a curve because it involves reconstruction to some degree. Other projects may be able to be constructed by simple overlays and minimal reconstruction of roadways features.

When simple overlay fixes are pursued, a systematic installation approach may be appropriate. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 40 - 50 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 80
234

R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new one-way sections.

General information
Where to use:

One-way streets can offer improved signal timing and accommodate odd-spaced signals. One-way streets can simplify crossings for pedestrians, who must look for traffic in only one direction. While studies have shown that conversion of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes and the number of conflict points, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. Care must be taken not to create conditions that cause driver confusion and erratic maneuvers.

Why it works:

Studies have shown a 10 to 50-percent reduction in total crashes after conversion of a two-way street to one-way operation.

While studies have shown that con-version of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. At the same time, this strategy (1) increases capacity significantly and (2) can have safety-related drawbacks including pedestrian confusion and minor sideswipe crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The costs will vary depending on length of treatment and if the conversion requires modification to signals. Conversion costs can be high to build "crossovers" where the one-way streets convert back to two-way streets and to rebuild traffic signals. It's also likely that these types of modifications will require public involvement and could significantly add to the time it takes to complete the project. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 26 - 43 % R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.

General information
Where to use:

Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Areas as noted having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than actual roadway speeds; including but not limited to curves, loop ramps, intersections, and areas with short stopping or weaving distances. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding is determined to be a problem, in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is one that runs (skids) off the road or is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.

Why it works:

Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in a reduction of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Rear-End, All CRF: 17 - 68 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 81
235

R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new/upgraded signs. This CM is not intended for maintenance upgrades of street-name, parking, guide, or any other signs without a primary focus on roadway safety. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as part of a larger sign audit project, including the study of: 1) the existing signs' locations, sizes and information per MUTCD standards, 2) missing signs per MUTCD standards, and 3) sign retroreflectivity. The overall sign audit scope (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application. Based on the scope of the project/audit, it may be appropriate to combine other CMs in the B/C calculation.

General information
Where to use:

The target for this strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns of head on, nighttime, non-intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:

This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by lack of driver awareness (or compliance) roadway signing. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning by using fluorescent yellow sheeting (or other retroreflective material).

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head on, Run-off road, Sideswipe, Night CRF: 18 - 35%
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 82
236

R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve).

General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:

Post-mounted chevrons are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve and provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. While they are intended to act as a warning, it should also be remembered that the posts, placed along the roadside, represent a possible object with which an errant vehicle can crash into. Design of posts to minimize damage and injury is an important part of the considerations to be made when selecting these treatments.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 6 - 64 % R24, Install curve advance warning signs
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve)
General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. This countermeasure may also include horizontal alignment and/or advisory speed warning signs. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.)
Why it works:

This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve. It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 20 - 30 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 83
237

R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve)
General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves. Flashing beacons in conjunction with warning signs should only be used on horizontal curves that have an established severe crash history to help maintain their effectiveness.

Why it works:

This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an enhanced advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve.

It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed. Flashing beacons are an added indication that a curve may be particularly challenging.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of flashing beacons requires minimal development process, allowing flashing beacons to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).

In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 30 % R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. through the curve) {This CM does not apply to dynamic regulatory speed warning signs. There are currently no nationally accepted CRFs for dynamic regulatory signs (also known as Radar Speed Feedback Signs).

CRFs are being developed and Caltrans hopes to include these CMs and CRFs in future calls for projects.}
General information
Where to use:

Curvilinear roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes due to excessive speeds on relatively sharp curves.

Why it works:

This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning that they may be traveling over the recommended speed for the approaching curve. Care should be taken to limit the placement of these signs to help maintain their effectiveness.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of dynamic speed warning signs requires minimal development process, allowing them to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).

In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 84
238

R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits / influence area of the new features. {This is not a striping-related CM}
General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on curves (relatively flat to sharp) during periods of light and darkness.

Any road with a history of fixed object crashes is a candidate for this treatment, as are roadways with similar fixed objects along the roadside that have yet to experience crashes. If a fixed object cannot be relocated or made break-away, placing an object marker can provide additional information to motorists. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:

Delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. They are intended to provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. They are generally less costly than Chevron Signs as they don't require posts to place along the roadside, avoiding an additional object with which an errant vehicle can crash into.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of locations. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 30 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 85
239

R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new centerlines and/or edge-lines.

This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing striping and RPMs in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing striping. For two lane roadways allowing passing, a striping audit must be done to ensure the passing limits meeting the MUTCD standards. Both the centerline and edge-lines are expected to be upgraded, unless prior approval is granted by Caltrans staff in writing and attached to application.

General information
Where to use:

Any road with a history of run-off-road right, head-on, opposite-direction-sideswipe, or run-off-road-left crashes is a candidate for this treatment - install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate. Incorporating raised/reflective pavement markers (RPMs) into centerlines (and edge-lines) should be considered as it has been shown to improve safety.

Why it works:

Installing edge-lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines (paint to thermoplastic, adding audible disks/bumps in the thermoplastic stripes, or adding RPMs) are intended/designed to help drivers who might leave the roadway because of their inability to see the edge of the roadway along the horizontal edge of the pavement or crossover the centerline of the roadway into oncoming traffic. New pavement marking products tend to be more durable, are allweather, more visible, and have a higher retroreflectivity than traditional pavement markings.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded striping upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Striping Audit and Upgrade Projects".

Including wide-scale striping audits in the development phase of striping projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) striping/marking features, no-passing zone limits needing adjustment, and missing striping/markings that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on this concepts is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage under an RSSA example document. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Run-off Road, All CRF: 0 - 44 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 86
240

R29, Install no-passing line
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new or extended no-passing zones.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have a high percentage of head-on crashes suggesting that many head-on crashes may relate to failed passing maneuvers. No-passing lines should be installed where drivers "passing sight distance" is not available due to horizontal or vertical obstructions. General restriping projects can be good opportunities to reevaluate and incorporate new no-passing zones limits. The incorporation 'No Passing Zone' pennants should also be considered when reevaluating the limits of nopassing zones. Installing no-passing limits in areas that are not warranted may reduce the overall safety of the corridor as drivers may become frustrated and attempt passing maneuvers at other locations without the necessary sight distance.

Why it works:

When the centerline markings do not differentiate between passing and no-passing areas, drivers may have difficulty determining where passing maneuvers can be completed safely. Providing clear and engineered passing and no-passing areas can encourage drivers to wait patiently for safe passing areas and avoid aggressively looking for passing opportunities.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Side-swipe CRF: 40 - 53% R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new rumble strips/stripes.

General information
Where to use:

Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be used on virtually any roadway – especially those with a history of head-on crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.

Why it works:

Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Side-swipe, All CRF: 15 - 68% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 87
241

R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new rumble strips/stripes.

General information
Where to use:

Shoulder and edge line milled rumble strips/stripes should be used on roads with a history of roadway departure crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Special requirements may apply and care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.

Why it works:

Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road CRF: 10 - 41% R32PB, Install bike lanes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the Class II (not Class III) bike lanes. When an off-street bike-path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.

General information
Where to use:

Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder. Most studies suggest that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions.

Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when is desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists.

Why it works:

Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Bicycle lanes provide marked areas for bicyclist to travel along the roadway and provide for more predictable movements for both bicyclist and motorist. Evidence also shows that riding with the flow of vehicular traffic reduces bicyclists’ chances of collision with a motor vehicle. Locations with bicycle lanes have lower rates of wrong-way riding. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Adding striped bicycle lanes can range from the simply restriping the roadway and minor signing to projects that require roadway widening, right-of-way, and environmental impacts. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. For simple installation scenarios, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 0 - 53 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 88
242

R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the separated bike lanes.

When an off-street bike-path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.

General information
Where to use:

Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike-vehicle collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation measures including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. These options range in feasibility due to roadway characteristics, available space, and cost. In some cases, it may be possible to provide additional space in areas where pedestrian and bicyclists may interact, such as the parking buffer, or loading zones, or extra bike lane width for cyclists to pass one another.

Why it works:

Separated bike lanes provide increased safety and comfort for bicyclists beyond conventional bicycle lanes. By separating bicyclists from motor traffic, “protected” or physically separated bike lanes can offer a higher level of comfort and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. Intersections and approaches must be carefully designed to promote safety and facilitate leftturns for bicyclists from the primary corridor to cross street.

In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The cost of Installing separated bike lanes can be low to medium or high, depending on whether roadway widening, right-ofway and environmental impacts are involved. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 3.7 - 100 % R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 80% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the new walkway. This CM is not intended to be used where an existing sidewalk is being replaced with a wider one, unless prior Caltrans approval is included in the application. When an off-street multi-use path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.

General information
Where to use:

Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate.

Why it works:

Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to be related to significant reductions in the “walking along roadway” pedestrian crash risk compared to locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. Reductions of 50 to 90 percent of these types of pedestrian crashes. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for nonmotorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 89
243

Costs for sidewalks will vary, depending upon factors such as width, materials, and existing of curb, gutter and drainage.

Asphalt curbs and walkways are less expensive, but require more maintenance. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. These projects can be very effective in areas of high-pedestrian volumes with a past history of crashes involving pedestrians.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 65 - 89 % R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the new crossing which includes new enhanced safety features. Note:

This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install raised pedestrian crossing" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high-use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. For multi-lane roadways, advance "yield" markings can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.

The enhanced safety elements, which may include curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting, combined with pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.

Care must be taken to warn drivers of the potential for pedestrians crossing the roadway and enhanced improvements added to the crossing increase the likelihood of pedestrians crossing in a safe manner. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to crossing like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending on the extent of the curb extensions, raised medians, flashing beacons, and other pedestrian safety elements that are needed with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these improvements can sometimes be low cost and funded through local funding by local crews. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 8 - 56% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 90
244

R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the area with the new raised crossing. Note:

This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio.

General information
Where to use:

On lower-speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant vehicular traffic. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone, may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, raised crossings can be added to complement the standard crossing elements. Special requirements may apply and extra care should be taken when considering installing raised crossings to ensure unintended safety issues are not created, such as: emergency vehicle access or truck route issues.

Why it works:

Adding a raised pedestrian crossing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The raised crossing encourages motorists to reduce their speed and provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the elements of the raised crossing and the need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have medium to high B/C ratios based on past non-motorized crash history.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 30 - 46% R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB.

General information
Where to use:

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.

Why it works:

RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 – 47.4% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 91
245

R38, Install Animal Fencing
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Animal 80% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "animal" crashes occurring within the limits of the new fencing.

General information
Where to use:

At locations with high percent of vehicular/animal crashes (reactive) or where there is a known high percent of animals crossing due to migratory patterns (proactive).

Why it works:

Animal fencing helps to channelize the identified animals to a natural or man-made crossing, eliminating the conflict between vehicles and animals on the same place. Animal fencing is typically installed at a bridge location with its "run of need" dependent on the surrounding terrain.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Time to install fencing can be moderate to lengthy depending on the environmental commitments and agreed upon solution to mitigating project impacts. Costs will be fairly low and depend on the "run of need" length. There will be minimal reoccurring maintenance costs on keeping the fence intact. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Animal CRF: 70 - 90 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 92
246

Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”
The information contained here represent a brief summary of each section of this manual as well as the Summary of “Recommended Actions” from Sections 2 through 7. This is intended to be a quick-reference for local agency practitioners working on a “proactive safety analysis” of their roadway network.

Introduction and Purpose
As safety practitioners consider implementing a ‘proactive safety analysis approach’ they should consider the overall context of the safety issues facing California local agencies and Caltrans primary goals for preparing this Safety manual for California’s local roadway owners. Figure 1 provides a flowchart of the process and Appendices E and F provide examples and lessons learned from recent statewide calls-for-projects.

Identifying Safety Issues
This section provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used. As practitioners gather information they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin-maps to help track and manage this data. The following spreadsheet is offered as an example, but each agency’s spreadsheet should include data and be formatted as necessary to meet their needs.

General Information Crash Information Evaluation / Action Location & Date Source/Type
of information
Safety
Issue/Problem
Nature of
Crashes
Time
of Day
Weather/Traffic
Conditions
Staff
Evaluation
Recommend
Action
Resolution
1) Intersection “X”
2) Roadway Segment
(PM 5.3 to PM 7.8)
State and Local Crash Databases
Recommended Action: Obtain at least 3 years of network-wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics.

Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency’s data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or tools from private for-profit vendors) can help the safety practitioner access and manage their crash data.

Law Enforcement Crash Reports
Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 93
247

safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data.

Observational Information
Recommended Action: Gather information received from law enforcement and road maintenance crew observations. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them.

Public Notifications
Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited.

Roadway Data and Devices
Recommended Action: Identify and track roadway characteristics for the intersections, roadway segments, and corridors, including compliance with the minimum standards. At a minimum, this should be done for locations being considered for safety improvements, but ideally agencies would establish an extensive database of roadway data to help them proactively identify high risk roadway features.

Exposure Data
Recommended Action: Consider the availability of exposure data and track it along with the other crash data to help prioritize potential locations for safety improvements.

Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits
Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identification of the most appropriate countermeasures. Develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken.

Safety Data Analysis
This section summarizes the types of analyses that can be conducted to determine what roadway countermeasures should be implemented. This section is the link between the data (Section 2) and the selection of appropriate countermeasures (Section 4). It provides definitions and examples of the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be considered when evaluating roadway safety issues.

Quantitative Analysis
Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of their roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies, including:

Crash Frequency
Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments.

For lower volume roadways, network wide pin-maps may be more effective.

Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles and pedestrians.

Crash Rate
Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments in relationship to length, volumes, and/or density.

Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate.

Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 94
248

Qualitative Analysis
Recommended Action: Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify roadway infrastructure characteristics relating to both locations with compliance issues and locations with high crash frequencies/rates. As part the field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures.

Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin-maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2.

Countermeasures
This Section provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown in this manual. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). NOTE: Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as 1 – CMF. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout this document.

Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors Countermeasure Details and Characteristics
Recommended Action: Agencies should use all information and results obtained through completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic ‘engineering judgment’ is required and that this manual and should not be used as a simple cheat-sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding.

Calculating the B/C ratio and Comparing Projects
This section defines a methodology for calculating a benefit to cost (B/C) ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects’ overall cost effectiveness.

Estimating the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Benefit’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

Estimating the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Project Cost’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 95
249

Calculating the B/C Ratio
Recommended Action: Calculate the B/C ratio for each of the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits or utilizing lower cost countermeasures for projects with low initial B/C ratios.

Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements
This section identifies existing and new funding opportunities for safety projects that local agencies should be considering. This section also briefly discusses some unique project development issues and strategies for safety projects as they proceed through design and construction.

Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures
Recommended Action: Survey planned maintenance, developer and capital projects to determine whether they overlap any of the proposed safety projects. Where projects overlap, leverage the existing funding sources to include safety countermeasures.

Other Funding Sources
Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures including the HSIP and ATP Programs.

Project Development and Construction Considerations
Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to “toot their own safety-horn.”
Evaluation Improvements
This section presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well.

Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet to track future safety project installations and record 3+ years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 96
250

Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations
This appendix includes the Benefit Cost methodology used in the Caltrans calls-for-projects in the HSIP programs. The HSM, Part B - Chapter 7, includes more details on conducting Economic Appraisal for roadway safety projects. Local agencies will be required to utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) as part of their application for HSIP funding. Starting in Cycle 7 call for projects, the fatality and severe injury costs have been combined for calculating the benefit. Because fatality figures are small and are a matter of randomness, this change is being made to reduce the possibility of selecting an improvement project on the basis of randomness. 1) 3 CRF × N ×CCave Benefit (Annual) = ∑s=0 Y
- CRF : Crash reduction factor in each countermeasure.
- S : Severity (0: PDO, 1: Minor Injury, 2: Injury, 3: Severe Injury/Fatal). See the below table. - N : Number of Crashes, in severity levels, related to selected countermeasure. - Y : Crash data time period (Year).
- CC : Crash costs in severity levels. ave
Severity (S) Crash Severity * Location Type Crash Cost *** 3 Signalized Intersection $1,787,000
3 **Fatality and Severe Injury Non Signalized Intersection $2,843,000 3 Combined (KA) Roadway $2,461,000
2 Evident Injury – Other Visible (B) $159,900
1 Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) $90,900
0 Property Damage Only (O) $14,900
* The letters in parenthesis (K, A, B, C and O) refer to the KABCO scale; it is commonly used by law enforcement agencies in their crash reporting efforts and is further documented in the HSM. ** Figures were calculated based on an average Fatality (K) / Severe Injury (A) ratio for each area type, a crash cost for a Fatality (K) of $8,112,200, and a crash cost of a Severe/Disabling Injury (A) of $437,100. These costs are used in the HSIP Analyzer.
*** Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), First Edition, 2010. Adjusted to 2022 Dollars. 2) Benefit (Life) = Benefit (annual) x Years of service life Benefit (Life)(CM ) 3) BCR (each countermeasure): Benefit Cost Ratio(CM ) = Total Pr oject Cost (CM ) 𝑛𝑛 ∑ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 (𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵) 𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶=1 (𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶) 4) BCR (project): 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃) = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐵𝐵𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗𝐵𝐵𝑗𝑗𝐵𝐵 𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 97
251

Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS
As demonstrated throughout the manual, SafeTREC’s TIMS website http://tims.berkeley.edu/ can be used to assist local agencies in completing a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network. (Note:

This manual focuses on TIMS as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. Local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor-supplied crash analysis software to complete their data collection and analysis process).

SWITRS Query & Map:

The SWITRS Query & Map application is a tool for accessing and mapping fatal and injury collision data from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

SWITRS GIS Map:

The SWITRS GIS Map offers an interactive map-centric approach to viewing and querying SWITRS collision data, with the capability of multiple tasks including Rank by Intersection, Collision Diagram, etc.

Collision Diagram Tool:

The Collision Diagram tool allows users to generate an interactive collision diagram. The Collision Diagram is accessible through SWITRS GIS Map after a set of collisions is selected.

ATP Maps & Summary Data:

The ATP Maps & Summary Data tool utilizes interactive collision maps to find pedestrian and bicycle collisions hot spot and generate data summaries within specified project and/or community limits.

Though it is designed to support the California Active Transportation Program (ATP), this tool may be useful in developing an HSIP project targeting pedestrian and bicycle safety issues. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 98
252

Appendix F: List of Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ATP Active Transportation Program
B/C; BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
Caltrans California Department of Transportation (Division of Local Assistance) CA-MUTCD California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CM Countermeasure
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
“5 E’s of Safety” Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies
EMS Emergency Medical Services
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HCCL High Crash Concentration Location
HR3 High Risk Rural Roads Program
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
RSA Roadway Safety Audit
SafeTREC Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System (a product of SafeTREC) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 99
253

Appendix G: References

1. FHWA, Office of Safety website: Local and Rural Road Safety Program • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/

2. Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Product of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
• http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx

3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Data Resource • https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/

4. California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) • https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd

5. Caltrans’ website on the Highway Design Manual
• https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm

6. FHWA, Research and Development website for Bikesafe and Pedsafe • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/

7. AASHTO - A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“Green Book”) AASHTO - the Roadside Design Guide
• https://store.transportation.org/

8. FHWA – Public Roads Magazine:
• https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/home
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | 100
254
84 | P a g e O a k l e y L o c a l R o a d S a f e t y P l a n APPENDIX D: COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
255
Table 3. High-risk Intersections
Control
CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 1 O'Hara Ave and Laurel Rd Signalized S02 S03 S12 1 F, 2 SI, 5 CoP, 4 sideswipe, 3 broadside, 1 nightime, 7 Signal/sign violation
Redlight Camera, Extend the
length of merging lane or add a
travel lane on east leg
S02 S03 S03 S12 S09 S10
2 Main St and Sandy Ln One Way Stop
Controlled NS06 NS07 NS20PB NS01 2 SI, 1 Ped, 1 broadside, 1 wrong side of road, 1 Auto ROW Install sidewalk on Main St
between Nelroy and Sandy
(R34PB)
NS06 NS07 NS20PB NS06 NS07 NS01
3 Empire Ave and Laurel Rd Signalized S02 S03
1 SI, 11 CoP, 6 Rear end, 6 broadside, 3 Unsafe Speed, 2 DUI, 2 Improper Turning, 2 AutoROW, 2 Signal&Sign
violation
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed
approaches
S02 S03 S02 S03 S02 S03 S02 S03
4 Carol Ln and Main St Signalized S02 S03 S09 1 SI, 5 CoP, 4 Broadside, sideswipe, 1 rear end, 4 Signal&Sign violation, 2 improper turning Redlight Camera S02 S03 S09 S02 S03 S02 S03 5 Main St and Vintage Pkwy Signalized S02 S03 1 SI, 1 VI, 2 CoP, 1 Ped, 1 Bike, 2 rear end, 2 PedROW, 1 Unsafe speed, 1 Wrong side No RTOR S02 S03 S02 S03 S02 S03 6 Main St/Brentwood Blvd and Delta Rd Two Way Stop
Controlled NS03 NS07 NS14 NS01
1 SI, 3 CoP, 1 motorcycle, 3 broadside, 1 head-on, 2
AutoROW, 1 wrong side, 1 Signal&Sign violation, 1
nighttime
Traffic signal being install by the
city, Pavement resurface and
restriping
NS03 NS07 NS14 NS03 NS07 NS14 NS01 NS09 NS14 NS07
7 Live Oak Ave and Nelroy Rd All Way Stop
Controlled
NS03 NS08 1 SI, 3 CoP, 2 head-on, 2 broadside, 2 wrong side, 1 DUI, 1 unsafe speed Wrong Way - Do not Enter' signs NS03 NS08 NS03 NS08 NS08 NS09 NS14 NS07 8 Brown Rd and Neroly Rd Signalized S02 S03 2 CoP, Rear end, 2 unsafe speed Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed
approaches
S02 S03 S02 S03 S02 S03
9 E Cypress Rd and Bethel Island Rd Signalized S02 S03 S09 1 Fatal, 1 CoP, 1 sideswipe, 1 nightime, 1 wrongside of road, 1 unsafe lane change Wrong Way - Do not Enter' signs S02 S03 10 Francisco Villa Dr and O'Hara Ave One Way Stop
Controlled
NS03 NS07 NS09 NS14 1 SI, 1 VI, 2 CoP, 2 Ped, 3 head-on, 2 wrong side, 2 PedROW, 1 fixed object
Wrong Way - Do not Enter' signs,
Pavement resurface, Restrict onstreet parking near intersection NS03 NS07 NS09 NS14 NS07
11 Oakley Rd and Neroly Rd All Way Stop
Controlled
NS11 NS07 NS08 NS14 1 SI, 1 CoP, 1 Bike, 1 head-on, 1 broadside, 1 wrong side, 1 AutoROW
NS11 NS07 NS08 NS07
12 Live Oak Ave and Laurel Rd Signalized S02 S03 S09 1 SI, 3 CoP, 2 headon, 2 broadside, 2 wrongside, 1 DUI, 1 Signal Violation
Redlight Camera, Wrong Way -
Do not Enter' signs
S02 S03 S09 S02 S03
Code Countermeasure Name
HSIP/Non-HSIP Code
S01 Add intersection lighting
S02 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S05 Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
S06 Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) S08 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)
S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)
S11 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) S12 Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
S13PB Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches
S14 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) S15 Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)
S16 Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
S17PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
S18PB Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
S19PB Pedestrian Scramble
S20PB Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Code Countermeasure Name
NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
NS02 Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) NS03 Install Signals
NS04 Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) NS05 Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2-way stop or Yield control) NS05mr Convert intersection to mini-roundabout
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or addiƟonal stop signs or other intersecƟon warning/regulatorysigns NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections NS09 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) NS10 Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) NS12 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) NS13 Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches NS14 Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
NS15 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) NS16 Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.)
NS17 Install right-turn lane (NS.I.)
NS18 Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) NS19PB Install raised medians (refuge islands)
NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) NS21PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) ID Intersection
Consolidated CMs
(HSIP-Eligible - Refer to LRSM* 2022) Additional CM
(non-HSIP)
EA - 1 Improve Intersection
Collision Info (2017-2022) Safety
EA - 6 Address Head-on
collisions
EA - 5 Address Nighttime
collisions
EA - 4 Reduce Unsafe speed
violations
EA - 3 Address Broadside
collisions
EA - 2 Address Rear-end
collisions
256
Table 4. High-risk Roadway Segments
CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 CM6 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 A Main St: West City Limit to South City Limit R22 R27 R26 R34PB R32PB R21 3 SI, 6 VI, 26 CoP, 18 rear end, 5 broadside, 4 hit
object, 3 ped, 3 bike, 3 motorcycle, 13 unsafe
speed, 5 improper turning, 4 wrong side, 3 DUI
From Nelroy to Live Oaks: R34PB,
R32PB and restrict on-street
parking, From Vintage Pkwy to
2nd St: Restrict On-street parking,
reduce speed limit
R22 R27 R21 R26 R23 R22 R27 R08
B E Cypress Rd: Main St to East City Limit R22 R27 R02 R08 R30 1 F, 2 SI, 3 VI, 9 CoP, 1 bike, 1 motorcycle, 7 rear
end, 2 head-on, 6 unsafe speed, 3 wrong side, 3
nighttime
Wrong Way - Do not Enter' signs,
Upgrade pavement markings
R22 R27 R26 R23 R24 R01 R08 R30
C Laurel Rd: West City Limit to Teton Rd R22 R27
1 F, 1 SI, 1 VI, 9 CoP, 2 motorcycle, 6 rear end, 2
head-on, 2 broadside, 2 nighttime, 7 unsafe
speed, 2 wrongside
'Wrong Way - Do not Enter' signs R22 R27
D Neroly Rd: Main St to Silverspur Ln R22 R27 R31 R02
1 SI, 4 VI, 4 CoP, 1 ped, 2 bike, 1 motorcycle, 3 hit
object, 2 head on, 2 broadside, 1 nighttime, 4
wrong side
Wrong Way - Do not Enter' signs,
Raised median at Oakley/Nelroy R22 R27 R26 R23 R08 R31
E Beechnut Ln: Cashew Ln to Almondtree Cir R22 R27 R28 1 SI, 1 hit object, 1 unsafe speed R22 R27 R28 F Bethel Island Rd: E Cypress Rd to North City Limit (Sandmound Blvd) R22 R27 R30 1 F, 1 CoP, 1 head-on, 1 sideswipe, 1 nightitme, 1 DUI, 1 unsafe lane change
R22 R27 R22 R27 R08 R30
G Francisco Villa Dr: O’Hara Ave to Cul-de-sac R22 R27 R28 1 SI, 1 head on, 1 wrong side Upgrade pavement markings and striping
R28
H Empire Ave: Main St to South City Limit R22 R27 1 VI, 9 CoP, 5 rear end, 5 broadside, 3 improper turning, 2 DUI, 2 unsafe speed, 2 AutoROW
R22 R27
I O'Hara Ave: Main St to Nelroy Rd R22 R27 1 SI, 1 VI, 3 CoP, 1 Head-on, rear-end, broadside, overturned, 2 unsafe
Wrong Way - Do not Enter' signs,
Install Signal at Ohara Av &
Covered Wagon Dr
R22 R27
Code Countermeasure Name
R01 Add Segment Lighting
R02 Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone R03 Install Median Barrier
R04 Install Guardrail
R05 Install impact attenuators
R06 Flatten side slopes
R07 Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail
R08 Install raised median
R09 Install median (flush)
R10PB Install pedestrian median fencing
R11 Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes
R12 Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft)
R13 Add two-way left-turn lane (without reducing travel lanes) R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) R15 Widen shoulder
R16 Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only)
R17 Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)
R18 Flatten crest vertical curve
R19 Improve curve superelevation
R20 Convert from two-way to one-way traffic
R21 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
R24 Install curve advance warning signs
R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines
R29 Install no-passing line
R30 Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
R31 Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
R32PB Install bike lanes
R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes
R34PB Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) R36PB Install raised pedestrian crossing
R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
R38 Install Animal Fencing
ID Roadway Segment
Consolidated CMs
(HSIP-Eligible - Refer to LRSM* 2022) Additional CM
(non-HSIP)**
EA - 1 Improve
Collision Info (2017-2022) Intersection Safety EA - 2 Address Rear-end collisions EA - 6 Address Head-on collisions EA - 3 Address Broadside collisions
EA - 4 Reduce Unsafe speed
violations
EA - 5 Address Nighttime
collisions
257
Table 5. Non-Engineering Countermeasures
Strategy Performance Measure Organizations to be involved Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws, unsafe speeds, distracted driving, and driving under the influence. Number of education campaigns City/ School District/ Police Department Conduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of pedestrian safety needs through media outlets and social media. Number of education campaigns City/ School District/ Police Department Conduct bicycle safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of bicycle safety needs through media outlets and social media. Number of education campaigns City/ School District/ Police Department Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations. Number of tickets issued. Police Department Increase the number of personnel who have completed Advanced Roadside impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training
Number of personnel who have
completed Advanced Roadside
impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE)
training
Police Department
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time. Local Emergency Services Agency Increase the number of EMS/fire controll personnel taking Traffic Incident Managmenet Training
number of EMS/fire controll
personnel taking Traffic Incident
Managmenet Traising
Local Emergency Services Agency
Enforcement
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Education
258
Table 6. HSIP Eligible Countermeasures
City of Oakley LRSP
Countermeasures for Intersections
Sr. No. Code Countermeasure Name CM Description CRF Federal Funding Systemic Approach
Opportunity
HSIP/Non-HSIP Code
1 S01 Add intersection lighting Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium 2 S02 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Includes New LED lighting, signal back plates, retro-reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads. 15% 90% Very High 3 S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Includes adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations. 15% 50% Very High
5 S05 Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles 70% 90% High
6 S06 Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left-turn phase that are experiencing a large number of crashes.

Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left-turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left-turning vehicles (angle, rear-end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high-volume and highspeed major-road approaches. 55% 90% Low
7 S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) Left turns are widely recognized as the highest-risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left-turn phases for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left-turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles 30% 90% High
8 S08 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers. 30% 90% Medium 9 S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. When drivers approach and traverse through complex intersections, drivers may be required to perform unusual or unexpected maneuvers 10% 90% Very High 10 S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. 30% 90% Medium 11 S11 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes 55% 90% Medium 12 S12 Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) Raised medians next to left turn lanes at intersections offer a cost effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections 25% 90% Medium
13 S13PB Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian-generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians Jwalking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walkphase. 30% 90% Low
14 S14 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes.

If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection
50% 90% Medium
15 S15 Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)
Reduced left-turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left-turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT). 50% 90% Medium 16 S16 Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left-turn movements.

Varies 90% Low
17 S17PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes. 25% 90% Very High
18 S18PB Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left-turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double-right or double-left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase.
25% 90% High
Signalized
259
19 S19PB Pedestrian Scramble
Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district. 40% 90% High 20 S20PB Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur. 15% 90% Very High 21 S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Addition of LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication; only minor signal timing alteration is required. 60% 90% Very High Sr. No. Code Countermeasure Name CM Description CRF Federal Funding Systemic Approach
Opportunity
1 NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium 2 NS02 Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all-way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate,and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all-way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior.
50% 90% High
3 NS03 Install Signals Installation of traffic signals 25% 90% Low 4 NS04 Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections.

Varies 90% Low
5 NS05 Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2-way stop or Yield control) Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections.

Varies 90% Low
6 NS05mr Convert intersection to mini-roundabout Mini-roundabouts are characterized by a small diameter (45-90 ft) and traversable islands (central island and splitter islands). 30% 90% High 7 NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
Additional regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections will help enhance the ability of approaching drivers to percieve them 15% 90% Very High
8 NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of centerlines and stop bars 25% 90% Very High 9 NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non-Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of rightangle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post-mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop-controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs. 15% 90% High
10 NS09 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) Installation of advance flashing beacoms to call drivers attention to intersection control signs 30% 90% High 11 NS10 Install transverse rumble strips on approaches Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. 20% 90% High
12 NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway. 20% 90% High 13 NS12 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Non-signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
55% 90% Medium
14 NS13 Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches The installation of a splitter island allows for the addition of a stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous. 40% 90% Medium
15 NS14 Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable. 25% 90% Medium
16 NS15 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes.

If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection.
50% 90% Medium
17 NS16 Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) Reduced left-turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. 50% 90% Medium 18 NS17 Install right-turn lane (NS.I.)
Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new rightturn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.20% 90% Low 19 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, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new leftturn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.35% 90% Low Unsignalized
260
20 NS19PB Install raised medians (refuge islands)
Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.
45% 90% Medium
21 NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) Non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets.