PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
[Traffic Engineering Services]
THIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (the “Agreement”) is made at Orange, California, on thi s _____ day of ____________, 2022 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the CITY OF ORANGE, a municipal corporation (“City”), and KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., a North Carolina corporation (“Contractor”), who agree as follows:
1. Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Contractor shall provide to the reasonable satisfaction of City the services set forth in Exhibit “A,” which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. As a material inducem ent to City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor represents and warrants that it has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services and fully understands the difficulties and restrictions in performing the work. The services which are th e subject of this Agreement are not in the usual course of City’s business and City relies on Contractor’s representation that it is independently engaged in the busi ness of providing such services and is experienced in performing the work.
Contractor shall perform all services in a manner reasonably satisfactory to City and in a manner in conformance with the standards of quality normally observed by an entity provid ing such services to a municipal agency. All services provided shall conform to all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations and to the best professional standards and practices. The terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement shall control over any terms and conditions in Exhibit "A" to the contrary.
Larry Tay, City Traffic Engineer (“City’s Project Manager”), shall be the person to whom Contractor will report for the performance of services hereunder. It is understood that Contractor’s performance hereunder shall be under the supervision of City’s Project Manager (or his/ her designee), that Contractor shall coordinate its services hereunder with City’s Project Manager to the extent required by City’s Project Manager, and that all performances required hereunder by Contractor shall be performed to the satisfaction of City’s Project Manager and the City Manager.
2. Compensation and Fees.
a. Contractor's total compensation for all services performed under this Agreement, shall not exceed NINETY-NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED SIXTY -NINE DOLLARS and 63/100 ($99,569.63) without the prior written authorization of City.
b. The above compensation shall include all costs, including, but not limited to, all clerical, administrative, overhead, insurance, reproduction, telephone, travel, auto rental, subsistence and all related expenses.
c. In addition to the scheduled services to be performed by the Contractor, the parties recognize that additional, unforeseen work and services may be required by City’s Project Manager. In anticipation of such contingencies, the sum of NINE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY-SIX DOLLARS and 96/100 ($9,956.96) has been added to the total compensation of this Agreement. City’s Project Manager may approve the additional work and the actual costs incurred 2 by the Contractor in performance of additional work or services in accordance with such amount as City’s Project Manager and the Contractor may agree upon in advance. Said additional work or services and the amount of compensation therefor, up to the amount of the authorized contingency, shall be memorialized in the form of an Amendment to Agreement approved by the City Manager on a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The Contractor agrees to perform only that work or those services that are specifically requested by the City’s Project Manager. Any and all additional work and services performed under this Agreement shall be completed in such sequence as to assure their completion as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care in accordance with a cost estimate or proposal submitted to and approved by City’s Project Manager prior to the commencement of such services.
d. The total amount of compensation under this Agreement, including contingencies, shall not exceed ONE HUNDRED NINE THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY-SIX DOLLARS and 59/100 ($109,526.59).
3. Payment.
a. As scheduled services are completed, Contractor shall submit to City an invoice for the services completed, authorized expenses and authorized extra work actually performed or incurred.
b. All such invoices shall state the basis for the amount invoiced, including services completed, the number of hours spent and any extra work performed.
c. City will pay Contractor the amount invoiced within thirty (30) days of receipt of all deliverables.
d. Payment shall constitute payment in full for all services, authorized costs and authorized extra work covered by that invoice.
4. Change Orders. No payment for extra services caused by a change in the scope or complexity of work, or for any other reason, shall be made unless and until such extra services and a price therefor have been previously authorized in writing and approved by City as an amendment to this Agreement. City’s Project Manager is authorized to approve a reduction in the services to be performed and compensation therefor. All amendments shall set forth the changes of work, extension of time, and/or adjustment of the compensation to be paid by City to Contractor and shall be signed by the City’s Project Manager, City Manager or City Council, as applicable.
5. Licenses. Contractor represents that it and any subcontractors it may engage, possess any and all licenses which are requ ired under state or federal law to perform the work contemplated by this Agreement and that Contractor and its subcontractors shall maintain all appropriate licenses, including a City of Orange business license, at its cost, during the performance of this Agreement.
6. Independent Contractor . At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall be an independent contractor and not an employee of City. City shall have the 3 right to control Contractor only insofar as the result of Contractor's services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not have the right to control the means by which Contractor accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities, materi als and equipment which may be required for furnishing services pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall be solely responsible for, and shall indemnify, defend and save City harmless from all matters relating to the payment of its subcontractors, agents and employees, including compliance with social security withholding and all other wages, salaries, benefits, taxes, exactions, and regulations of any nature whatsoever.
Contractor acknowledges that it and any subcontractors, agents or employees employ ed by Contractor shall not, under any circumstances, be considered employees of City, and that they shall not be entitled to any of the benefits or rights afforded employees of City, including, but not limited to, sick leave, vacation leave, holiday pay, P ublic Employees Retirement System benefits, or health, life, dental, long-term disability or workers' compensation insurance benefits.
7. Contractor Not Agent. Except as City may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied , to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
8. Designated Persons. Only those qualified persons authorized by City’s Project Manager, or as designated in Exhibit “A,” shall perform work provided for under this Agreement.
It is understood by the parties that clerical and other nonprofessional work may be performed by persons other than those designated.
9. Assignment or Subcontracting. No assignment or subcontracting by Contractor of any part of this Agreement or of funds to be received under this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless the assignment has the prior written approval of City. City may terminate t his Agreement rather than accept any proposed assignment or subcontracting. Such assignment or subcontracting may be approved by the City Manager or his/her designee.
10. Time of Completion . Except as otherwise specified in Exhibit “A,” Contractor shall commence the work provided for in this Agreement within five (5) days of the Effective Date of this Agreement and diligently prosecute completion of the work in accordance with the time period set forth in Exhibit “A” hereto or as otherwise agreed to by and between the representatives of the parties.
11. Time Is of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. Contractor shall do all things necessary and incidental to the prosecution of Contractor's work. Contractor shall not have liability for any delays, expenses, losses, damages, or be deemed in breach which are caused by any factor outside of its reasonable control, including but not limited to , natural disasters, epidemics, pandemics (including COVID-19), adverse weather, or acts of the Ci ty, third parties, or governmental agencies.
12. Reserved.
4 13. Delays and Extensions of Time. Contractor's sole remedy for delays outside its control, other than those delays caused by City, shall be an extension of time. No matter what the cause of the delay, Contractor must document any delay and request an extension of time in writing at the time of the delay to the satisfaction of City. Any extensions granted shall be limited to the length of the delay outside Contractor’s control. If Contractor believes that delays caused by City will cause it to incur additional costs, it must specify, in writing, why the delay has caused additional costs to be incurred and the exact amount of such cost at the time the delay occurs. No additional costs can be paid that exceed the not to exceed amount stated in Section 2.a, above, absent a written amendment to this Agreement.
14. Products of Contractor. The documents, studies, evaluations, asses sments, reports, plans, citations, materials, manuals, technical data, logs, files, designs and other products produced or provided by Contractor for this Agreement shall become the property of City upon receipt. Contractor shall deliver all such products to City prior to payment for same. City may use, reuse or otherwise utilize such products without restriction. Any modifications made by City to any of Contractor’s documents, or any use, partial use, or reuse of the docum ents for purposes other than those identified in this Agreement, without written autho rization or adaptation by Contractor, will be at City’s sole risk and without liability to Contractor, and City shall indemnify, defend, and hold Contractor harmless from all claims, damages, losses, and expenses, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, resulting therefrom.
15. Equal Employment Opportunity . During the performance of this Agreement, Contractor agrees as follows:
a. Contractor shall not discrimina te against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, mental or physical disability, or any other basis prohibited by applicable law. Contractor shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that empl oyees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, national origin, mental or physical disability, or any other basis prohibited by applicable law.
Such actions shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Contractor agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, a notice setting forth provisions of this non-discrimination clause.
b. Contractor shall, in all solicitations and advertisements for employees placed by, or on behalf of Contractor, state that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, mental or physical disability, or any other basis prohibited by applicable law.
c. Contractor shall cause the foregoing paragraphs (a) and (b) to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement, provided that the foregoing provisions shall not apply to subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials.
16. Conflicts of Interest. Contractor agrees that it shall not make, participate in the making, or in any way attempt to use its position as a consultant to influence any decision of City 5 in which Contractor knows or has reason to know that Contractor, its of ficers, partners, or employees have a financial interest as defined in Section 8710 3 of the Government Code.
Contractor further agrees that it shall not be eligible to work as the design/build firm for the project that is the subject of this Agreement.
17. Indemnity.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law , Contractor agrees to indemnify, defend and hold City, its City Council and each member thereof, and the officers, officials, agents and employees of City (collectively the “Indemnitees”) entirely harmless from all liability arising out of:
(1) Any and all claims under workers’ compensation acts and other employee benefit acts with respect to Contractor’s employees or Contractor’s subcontractor’s employees arising out of Contractor’s work under this Agreement, including any and all claims under any law pertaining to Contractor or its employees’ status as an independent contractor and any and all claims under Labor Code section 1720 related to the payment of prevailing wages for public works projects; and
(2) Any claim, loss, injury to or death of persons or damage to property caused by any act, neglect, default, or omission other than a professional act or omission of Contractor, or person, firm or corporation employed by Contractor, either directly or by independent contract, including all damages due to loss or theft sustained by any person, firm or corporation including the Indemnitees, or any of them, arising out of, or in any way connected with the work or services which are the subject of this Agreement, including injury or damage either on or off City’s property; but not for any loss, injury, death or damage caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of City. Contractor, at its own expense, cost and risk, shall indemnify any and all claims, actions, suits or other proceedings that may be brought or instituted against the Indemnitees on any such claim or liability covered by this subparagraph, and shall pay or satisfy any judgment that may be rendered against the Inde mnitees, or any of them, in any action, suit or other proceedings as a result of coverage under this subparagraph.
b. To the fullest extent permitted by law, and as limited by California Civil Code 2782.8, Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold Indemnite es harmless from all liability arising out of any claim, loss, injury to or death of persons or damage to property to the extent caused by its negligent professional act or omission in the performance of professional services pursuant to this Agreement.
c. Except for the Indemnitees, the indemnifications provided in this Agreement shall not be construed to extend any third party indemnification rights of any kind to any person or entity which is not a signatory to this Agreement.
d. The indemniti es set forth in this section shall survive any closing, rescission, or termination of this Agreement, and shall continue to be binding and in full force and effect in perpetuity with respect to Contractor and its successors.
6 18. Insurance.
a. Contractor shall carry workers ’ compensation insurance as required by law for the protection of its employees during the progress of the work. Contractor understands that it is an independent contractor and not entitled to any worker s’ compensation benefits under any City program.
b. Contractor shall maintain during the life of this Agreement the following minimum amount of comprehensive general liability insurance or commercial general liability insurance: the greater of (1) One Million Dollars ( $1,000,000) per occurrence ; or (2) all the insurance coverage and/or limits carried by or available to Contractor. Said insurance shall cover bodily injury, death and property damage and be written on an occurrence basis.
c. Contractor shall maintain during the life of this Agreement, the following minimum amount of automotive liability insurance: the greater of (1) a combined single limit of One Million Dollars ($ 1,000,000); or (2) all the insurance coverage and/or limits carried by or available to Contractor. Said insurance shall cover bodily injury, death and property damage for all owned, non-owned and hired vehicles and be written on an occurrence basis.
d. Any insurance proceeds in excess of or broader than the minimum required coverage and/or minimum required limits which are applicable to a given loss shall be available to City. No representation is made that the minimum insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of Contractor under this Agreement.
e. Each policy of general liability and automotive liability shall provide that City, its officers, officials, agents, and employees are declared to be additional insureds under the terms of the policy, but only with respect to the work performed by Contractor under this Agreement. A policy endorsement to that effect shall be provided to City along with the certificate of insurance. In lieu of an endorsement, City will accept a copy of the policy(ies) which evidences that City is an additional insured as a c ontracting party. The minimum coverage required by Subsection 18.b and c, above, shall apply to City as an additional insured. Any umbrella liability insurance that is provided as part of the general or automobile liability minimums set forth herein shall be maintained for the duration of the Agreement.
f. Contractor shall maintain during the life of this Agreement professional liability insurance covering errors and omissions arising out of the performance of this Agreement with a minimum limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per claim. Contractor agrees to keep such policy in force and effect for at least five (5) years from the date of completion of this Agreement.
g. The insurance policies maintained by Contractor shall be primary insurance and no insurance held or owned by City shall be called upon to cover any loss under the policy.
Contractor will determine its own needs in procurement of insurance to cover liabilities other than as stated above.
7 h. Before Contractor performs any work or prepares or delivers any materials, Contractor shall furnish certificates of insurance and endorsements, as required by City, evidencing the aforementioned minimum insurance coverages on forms acceptable to City, which shall provide that the insurance in force will not be canceled or allowed to lapse without at least ten (10) days’ prior written notice to City.
i. Except for professional liability insurance coverage that may be required by this Agreement, all insurance maintained by Contractor shall be issued by companies admitted to conduct the pertinent line of insurance business in California and having a rating of Grade A or better and Class VII or better by the latest edition of Best Key Rating Guide. In the case of professional liability insuranc e coverage, such coverage shall be issued by companies either licensed or admitted to conduct business in California so long as such insurer pos sesses the aforementioned Best rating.
j Contractor shall immediately notify City if any required insurance lapses or is otherwise modified and cease performance of this Agreement unless otherwise directed by City.
In such a case, City may procure insurance or self-insure the risk and charge Contractor for such costs and any and all d amages resulting therefrom, by way of set -off from any sums owed Contractor.
k. Contractor agrees that in the event of loss due to any of the perils for which it has agreed to provide insurance, Contractor shall look solely to its insurance for recovery .
Contractor hereby grants to City, on behalf of any insurer providing insurance to either Contractor or City with respect to the services of Contractor herein, a waiver of any right to subrogation which any such insurer may acquire against City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance.
l. Contractor shall include all subcontractors, if any, as insureds under its policies or shall furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each subcontractor to City for review and approval. All coverages for subcontractors shall be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
19. Termination. City may for any reason terminate this Agreement by giving Contractor not less than five (5) days’ written notice of intent to terminate. Upon receipt of such notice, Contractor shall immediately cease work, unless the notice from City provides otherwise.
Upon the termination of this Agreement, City shall pay Contractor for services satisfactorily provided and all allowable reimbursements incurred to the date of termination in compliance with this Agreement, unless termination by City shall be for cause, in which event City may withhold any disputed compensation. City shall not be liable for any claim of lost profits.
20. Maintenance and Inspection of Records. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, Contractor and its subcontractors shall maintain reasonably full and complete books, documents, papers, accounting records, and ot her information (collectively, the “records”) pertaining to the costs of and completion of services performed under this Agreement.
City and its authorized representatives shall have access to and the right to audit and reproduce any of Contractor's records regarding the services provided under this Agreement. Contractor shall 8 maintain all such records for a period of at least three (3) years after termination or completion of this Agreement. Contractor agrees to make available all such records for inspection or audit at its offices during normal business hours and upon three (3) days’ notice from City, and copies thereof shall be furnished if requested.
21. Compliance with all Laws/Immigration Laws.
a. Contractor shall be knowledgeable of and comply with all local, state and federal laws which may apply to the performance of this Agreement.
b. If the work provided for in this Agreement constitutes a “public works,” as that term is defined in Section 1720 of the California Labor Code, for which prevailing wages must be paid, to the extent Contractor’s employees will perform any work that falls within any of the classifications for which the Department of Labor Relations of the State of California promulgates prevailing wage determinations, Contractor hereby agrees that it, and any subcontractor under it, shall pay not less than the specified prevailing ra tes of wages to all such workers . The general prevailing wage determinations for c rafts can be located on the web site of the Department of Industrial Relations ( www.dir.ca.gov/DLSR). Additionally, to perform work under this Agreement, Contractor must meet all State registration requirements and criteria, including project compliance monitoring.
c. Contractor represents and warrants that it:
(1) Has complied and shall at all times during the term of this Agreement comply, in all respects, with all immigration laws, regulations, statutes, rules, codes, and orders, including, without limitation, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA); and
(2) Has not and will not knowingly employ any individual to perform services under this Agreement who is ineligible to work in the United States or under the terms of this Agreement; and
(3) Has properly maintained, and shall at all times during t he term of this Agreement properly maintain, all related employment documentation records including, without limitation, the completion and maintenance of the Form I -9 for each of Contractor’s employees; and
(4) Has responded, and shall at all times during the term of this Agreement respond, in a timely fashion to any government inspection requests relating to immigration law compliance and/or Form I -9 compliance and/or worksite enforcement by the Department of Ho meland Security, the Department of Labor, or the Social Security Administration.
d. Contractor shall require all subcontractors or subconsultants to make the same representations and warranties as set forth in Subsection 21.c.
9 e. Contractor shall, upon request of City, provide a list of all employees working under this Agreement and shall provide, to the reasonable satisfaction of City, verification that all such employees are eligible to work in the United States. All costs associated with such verification shall be borne by Contractor. Once such request has been made, Contractor may not change employees working under this Agreement without written notice to City, accompanied by the verification required herein for such employees.
f. Contractor shall require all subcontractors or sub-consultants to make the same verification as set forth in Subsection 21.e.
g. If Contractor or subcontractor knowingly employs an employee providing work under this Agreement who is not authorized to work in the Uni ted States, and/or fails to follow federal laws to determine the status of such employee, that shall constitute a material breach of this Agreement and may be cause for immediate termination of this Agreement by City.
h. Contractor agrees to indemnify and hold City, its officers, officials, agents and employees harmless for, of and from any loss, including but not limited to fines, penalties and corrective measures City may sustain by reason of Contractor's failure to comply with sa id laws, rules and regulations in connection with the performance of this Agreement.
22. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of California and Contractor agrees to submit to the jurisdiction of California courts. Venue for any dispute arising under this Agreement shall be in Orange County, California.
23. Integration. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the parties. No other agreement, oral or written, pertaining to the work to be performed under this Agreement shall be of any force or effect unless it is in writing and signed by both parties. Any work performed which is inconsistent with or in violation of the provisions of this Agree ment shall not be compensated.
24. Notice. Except as otherwise provided herein, all notices required under this Agreement shall be in writing and delivered personally , by e -mail, or by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, to each party at the address listed below. Either party may change the notice address by notifying the other party in writing. Notices shall be deemed received upon receipt of same or within three (3) days of deposit in the U.S. Mail, whichever is earlier. Notices sent by e- mail shall be deemed received on the date of the e-mail transmission.
“CONTRACTOR” “CITY”
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. City of Orange
110 W. Town & Country Road 300 E. Chapman Avenue
Orange, CA 92868 Orange, CA 92866-1591
Attn.: Jason Melchor Attn.: Larry Tay
Telephone: (714) 705-1331 Telephone: (714) 744-5534 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: [email protected]
10 25. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. Signatures transmitted via facsimile and electronic mail shall have the same effect as original signatures.
IN WITNESS of this Agreement, the parties have entered into this Agreement as of the year and day first above written.
“CONTRACTOR” “CITY”
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC., CITY OF ORANGE, a municipal corporation a North Carolina corporation
*By: By:
Printed Name: Mark A. Murphy, Mayor
Title:
*By: ATTEST:
Printed Name:
Title:
Pamela Coleman, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mary E. Binning
Senior Assistant City Attorney
*NOTE: City requires the following signature(s) on behalf of the Contractor:
-- (1) the Chairman of the Board, the President or a Vice-President, AND (2) the Secretary, the Chief Financial Officer, the Treasurer, an Assistant Secretary or an Assistant Treasurer. If only one corporate officer exists or one corporate officer holds more than one corporate office, please so indicate. OR -- The corporate officer named in a corporate resolution as authorized to enter into this Agreement. A copy of the corporate resol ution, certified by the Secretary close in time to the execution of the Agreement, must be provided to City.
EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF SERVICES
[Beneath this sheet.]
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
1 3 PROJECT TEAM
The proposed Kimley-Horn team has a history of providing high-quality solutions while addressing state and federal procedures during the completion of similar safety projects for local agencies across California. The organizational chart below delineates the responsibilities of our proposed staff. Our team will be led by Jason Melchor, P .E., a successful Kimley-Horn project manager with over two decades of experience in transportation safety projects. Jason has thorough knowledge of the LRSP process and extensive experience coordinating communications between stakeholder groups and City staff throughout plan development. Jason will serve as your key contact and will maintain a close working relationship with City staff throughout the project. Jason will oversee an in-house team of well-qualified engineers, planners, and analysts, specializing in safety planning and engineering.
Jason and his team will be supported by Jean Fares, P .E., who will utilize his 30+ years of experience in traffic engineering to provide valuable input as the principal-in-charge on the project. In addition, our proposed QC/QA manager, Sri Chakravarthy, P .E., T.E., has 19 years of traffic engineering experience, specifically related to traffic design, planning, and operations of streets, intersections, and highways. Sri specializes in traffic signal operations, traffic signal design, traffic impact studies, roundabout design, corridor planning, signal justification studies, school safety studies, site specific traffic circulation, and safety studies.
Darryl dePencier, AICP , GISP , RSP1, who will be the lead project planner, brings more than 15 years of specialized safety experience ranging from establishing safety policy language to network screening to crash site engineering reviews to developing countermeasure toolboxes. He has worked on studies at the statewide, regional, local, and site-specific levels that incorporate the Es of safety (engineering, education, enforcement, emergency response, and emerging technologies). Darryl will be supported by Kyle McGowan, AICP, a planner in the traffic engineering field with experience providing engineering design support including crash and roadway analyses, document review, and data collection. In addition to Kyle, Darryl will be joined by Amanda Forsans, a skilled analyst backed by successful recent LRSP experience in Southern California.
Lastly, our proposed project engineers are Robert Paderna, P .E., RSP1, and Mike Colety, P .E., PTOE, RSP1, RSP2i, RSP2B. Robert brings 18 years of diverse traffic engineering experience and has been involved in traffic safety projects throughout California. Additionally, Mike has spent the last 25 years planning and designing transportation facilities that incorporate safety and functionality. He has been involved in more than a dozen recent LRSPs, and specializes in bicycle and facility planning, design, and safety. Our team has dedicated their careers to improving the safety of travelers and commuters.
In addition to our in-house team, Jason will manage subconsultant Crossroads Software, Inc. (Crossroads). Crossroads has been in business in Southern California for over 30 years and provides software systems for reporting and analysis of traffic collisions and traffic citations. Crossroads has provided Collision Database Analysis Systems to over 350 public agency traffic engineering departments and over 250 police departments in California. Crossroads’ Jeff Cullen will assist with data collection for this project using the SWITRS database. Crossroads can provide the project team direct access to updated collision records from CHPs central database, avoiding the need to have City staff pull data and potentially not get the latest data available. The last five years of collision data will be gathered to allow insight into trends and to better mitigate the natural year-over- year fluctuation caused by natural randomness in collision activity.
Resumes for each team member describing their individual experience can be found in the Appendices of this proposal.
Organizational Chart
PROJECT ENGINEERS
Robert Paderna, P .E., RSP1
Mike Colety, P .E., PTOE, RSP1,
RSP2I, RSP2B
LEAD PROJECT PLANNER
Darryl dePencier, AICP , GISP , RSP1
PROJECT PLANNER
Kyle McGowan, AICP
PROJECT ANALYST
Amanda Forsans
DATA COLLECTION
Jeff Cullen (Crossroads)
PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE
Jean Fares, P .E.
QC/QA MANAGER
Sri Chakravarthy, P .E., T.E.
PROJECT MANAGER
Jason Melchor, P .E.
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
2 Availability
In addition to experience with similar projects, our team members were selected based on their availability to perform the services required for this contract. Kimley-Horn uses a proactive management system, known as “cast-aheads” to detail every project’s personnel needs and determine each staff person’s availability. Based upon a review of our cast-aheads, we can assure you that the staff selected for this team are immediately available to serve you and are in excellent position to handle the workload required to accommodate the City’s needs throughout the duration of this contract. In addition, we can call upon the 5,500+ personnel in our firm at any given time to meet the City’s needs. Each team member’s level of commitment is shown in the table below.
Team Member % Available for this Project
Jason Melchor, P .E. (Project Manager) 50%
Jean Fares. P .E. (Principal-in-Charge) 20%
Srikanth Chakravarthy, P .E., T.E. (QC/QA Manager) 20%
Darryl dePencier, AICP , GISP , RSP1 (Lead Project Planner) 50% Robert Paderna, P .E., RSP1 (Project Engineer) 40%
Kyle McGowan, AICP (Project Planner) 50%
Amanda Forsans (Analyst) 50%
Mike Colety, P .E., PTOE, RSP1, RSP2i, RSP2B (Project Engineer) 30% Jeff Cullen (Crossroads Software) 25%
Key Personnel by Task
Task Name Key Personnel Involved
Task 1 – Project Management and Meetings Jason Melchor, Darryl dePencier, Kyle McGowan Task 2 – Determine Plan, Vision, and Goals Jason Melchor, Darryl dePencier, Kyle McGowan Task 3 – Data Analysis Darryl dePencier, Kyle McGowan, Jeff Cullen Task 4 – Countermeasure Development -
Identify Strategies
Jason Melchor, Darryl dePencier, Robert Paderna, Kyle McGowan Task 5 – Implementation Program Jason Melchor, Darryl dePencier, Kyle McGowan Task 6 – Local Roadway Safety Plan Jason Melchor, Darryl dePencier, Kyle McGowan, Mike Colety 4 EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS
Firm Overview
Kimley-Horn is a full-service engineering, planning, landscape architecture, and environmental consulting firm providing services to both public and private sector clients nationwide. Founded in 1967, Kimley-Horn has grown from a small group of traffic engineers and transportation planners to a firm of more than 5,500 employees in 99 offices nationwide, including 11 in California. Our Southern California offices including Orange, Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Diego are staffed with skilled engineers, planners, designers, and support staff specializing in traffic engineering, bicycle and pedestrian planning, SSAR and LRSP programs, grant writing expertise, and other key services.
Kimley-Horn’s continued growth and stability over the past 55 years is the direct result of our firm’s commitment to integrity and dedication to providing quality services. According to Engineering News Record, our firm ranks 10th in transportation among the nation’s top 500 design firms.
We offer clients the local knowledge and responsiveness of a small organization, backed by the depth of resources only a national firm can offer.
The Kimley-Horn team is committed to providing the City with high-quality solutions that exceed your expectations. We accomplish this by providing you with a team of experienced and technically proficient individuals who offer extensive safety expertise.
Areas of Experience
Our long-term association with public municipalities has provided us with comprehensive project experience and knowledge. Our Southern California offices offer complete traffic and civil engineering services in-house. We have completed thousands of traffic engineering and operations projects ranging from single intersection safety audits, designs, and analyses to major area-wide signal systems involving hundreds of intersections.
In summary, Kimley-Horn offers in-house specialists for the following general service areas:
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
3 LRSP
Kimley-Horn understands that an LRSP is a proactive approach to safety analysis. Existing crash patterns form part of the safety picture, but only show us where crashes have occurred, not necessarily where conditions that elevate the risk of crashes exist. An LRSP is intended to identify high crash locations within a city and diagnose what conditions might contribute to that elevated crash activity. The LRSP then identifies countermeasures that can be applied systemically throughout the city where those conditions exist to remove those higher risk conditions before crashes occur. We recognize that an LRSP is not fixed in its scope or breadth and that each jurisdiction faces unique safety challenges, driver behavior patterns, and historical roadway development. Our approach is to explore what is normal within the City of Orange and to avoid assumptions that might lead to a more repetitive approach to completing LRSP projects. In an effort to ensure completeness and to set safety benchmarks customized for the City, our approach will be to:
• Refine the work plan with City staff
• Conduct a citywide network screening to establish crash rate benchmarks for intersections and roadway segments
• Identify locations with the highest crash volumes and highest risk factors based on network screening (from the designated corridors and intersections)
• Map crash patterns at higher crash locations
• Conduct field review of higher crash locations
• Identify countermeasures that would likely reduce crashes • Establish template projects and benefit/cost assessments to produce short, medium, and long-term projects that the City can pursue funding for
• Active engagement with stakeholders
• Focus on driver behavior factors as well as roadway engineering Traffic Engineering
Kimley-Horn was founded by three traffic engineer graduates from North Carolina State University who had a strong passion to serve clients, particularly public agencies. Today, this discipline continues to be one of our core practice areas in virtually every one of our offices. We have completed thousands of traffic engineering projects for public agencies across the country, ranging from major area-wide systems involving hundreds of intersections to the design and analysis of a single intersection. Our team brings experience in traffic studies and analyses, including the evaluation of operational characteristics, safety, capacity, circulation, flow, and access. Our traffic engineers are highly-trained and capable in using software—including VISSIM, CORSIM, HCS+, Synchro/SimTraffic, SIDRA Intersection, Signal 2020, and Transyt-7F—to evaluate the operating conditions for existing or proposed roadway configurations. In addition, our staff has the ability to translate these analyses into easy-to- understand content for the general public, as well as public officials and other stakeholders. Specific services we provide include:
• Safety studies
• High accident location studies
• Collision analysis
• Data collection
• Asset inventory
• Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) studies
• Access-Egress and internal circulation studies
• Speed, classification, and volume studies
• Origin-Destination studies
• Traffic calming studies and cut-through analysis
• Freeway, arterial, and intersection capacity analysis • Interchange justification/modification reports
• Traffic simulation/animation
• Sidewalk needs studies
• Roundabout feasibility studies
• Median modification studies
• Maintenance of traffic plans
• Expert testimony
Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning
Kimley-Horn is committed to enabling safe, attractive, and comfortable access and travel for all users, including bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities. We have extensive experience in bicycle and pedestrian planning and place a priority on state-of-the-art practices and implementable solutions. Our bicycle and pedestrian planning experience ranges from municipal, regional, and statewide plans to corridors and wayfinding studies. Our focus on implementability is seen through our successful on-street bikeway, sidewalk, and greenway design practice as well as through our innovative operational studies such as in-road bicycle detection systems. The fact that we are frequently asked to take our bicycle and pedestrian planning projects all the way from design to construction administration demonstrates our clients’ trust in the quality we provide.
Traffic Data Collection
Our team members are skilled at using manual and advanced technology to collect traffic data. Based on the need, our team can capture field data with basic methods or through use of portable GPS devices that allow digital photo linking capabilities and direct importation into GIS mapping and software such as ESRI ArcGIS. We take care to obtain accurate data because it is the basis for a traffic study. Often, some data (such as accident reports or recent traffic counts) can be obtained from existing sources. However, if new data is needed, Kimley-Horn knows the criteria for data collection, documentation, and compilation.
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
4 Grant Writing
Kimley-Horn has a proven track record of winning grants for similar types of HSIP projects including 20 applications that were funded in Cycle 10 worth over $30 million. Kimley-Horn can research and find project funding through state and federal grant programs. Our planning studies are geared toward practical, community-based solutions that meet the objectives of many grant programs. Our grant writing experience has helped our clients secure more than $200 million over the past few years for the implementation of a wide array of projects through programs such as Active Transportation grants and Smart Growth programs. We understand the deadlines, application processes, and scoring criteria associated with grant programs, and can harness this experience to assist the City with funding applications. Our ultimate mission is to bring the ideas of a community involvement process to real projects that shape the livability of our cities and neighborhood.
Project Experience
Kimley-Horn has a diverse portfolio of
experience which includes both safety
planning and engineering and bicycle
and pedestrian facility planning safety
design. The projects below highlight our
team’s comprehensive statewide safety
experience. Each project was completed,
or is in the process of being completed,
by members of our project team within
budget and on schedule. This gives us the
ideal background to be able to complete
your LRSP on your terms. Detailed
descriptions of several recent, directly
related projects along with reputable
client references can be found in Section
7 of this proposal.
5 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING AND APPROACH
The City of Orange is taking a major step towards enhanced roadway safety through the development of a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). This plan will help the City identify the factors that contribute most to local traffic collisions and will better position the City for safety funding from state and federal grant programs. Kimley-Horn has extensive experience with the California HSIP including the development of the HSIP Implementation Plan at the statewide level, and recently over $30M in successful HSIP grants in Cycle 10. The goal of the LRSP is to develop countermeasures that can be systemically implemented to reduce the risk of collisions on city streets. Kimley-Horn’s approach builds that toolbox using three separate processes:
1. Identify citywide emphasis areas such as impaired driving or active transportation that represent a large proportion of traffic injuries.
2. Identify site-specific case studies that are representative of other locations in the city for a more detailed audit and focused countermeasures.
3. A review of citywide policies, programs, resources, and practices that may have an impact on traffic safety, and then the identification of opportunities to align with safety best practices.
CITY LRSPS, SSARPS, AND RSSAS
13 Sunnyvale SSARP
14 Goleta SSARP
15 Ventura SSARP
16 Santa Clarita SSARP/LRSP
17 Lancaster SSARP
18 Artesia LRSP
19 Anaheim LRSP
20 Eastvale SSARP
21 La Quinta SSARP
22 Perris LRSP
23 Imperial Beach LRSP
24 Moreno Valley RSA / RSSA
25 Santa Cruz LRSP
26 Palm Desert LRSP
27 Citrus Heights LRSP
28 Roseville LRSP
29 Rocklin LRSP
30 South San Francisco LRSP
31 Rancho Cordova LRSP
32 Indio LRSP
33 San Clemente LRSP
34 Costa Mesa LRSP
35 Seal Beach LRSP
36 Tracy LRSP
37 Hollister LRSP
38 San Juan Bautista LRSP
39 Santa Maria LRSP
in other states
OVER
135
LRSPs
40 Lincoln LRSP
41 Simi Valley LRSP
42 Agoura Hills LRSP
43 West Hollywood LRSP
44 Chino LRSP
45 Menifee LRSP
46 Corona LRSP
COUNTY LRSPS,
SSARPS, AND RSSAS
1 Nevada County RSSA
2 Placer County RSSA
3 Marin County RSSA
4 San Joaquin County SSARP
5 Calaveras County RSSA
6 Stanislaus County RSSA
7 Mono County SSARP
8 Monterey County RSSA
9 Ventura County LRSP
10 Imperial County RSSA
11 San Benito County LRSP
12 Sutter County LRSP
¨§¦
80 ¨§¦
40 ¨§¦
15 ¨§¦
10 ¨§¦
8 ¨§¦
5 ¨§¦
580
¨§¦
80 ¨§¦
280
101
101
99 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
36 37
38 39
14 15
16 41
42 43
17 18
19 20
22 46
33 34
35 21
23 25
26 32
27 40
28 29
30 31
44 45
24 STATEWIDE SAFETY PROJECTS
» California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
» California Strategic Performance Measures Targets
» California Highway Safety Improvement Program
Implementation Plan
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
5 This study is important because in addition to the trauma of injury and loss of life, economic losses in the City of Orange due to traffic injuries on city streets were nearly $600M from 2016 through 2020 according to SafeTREC’s Traffic Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and Caltrans HSIP Cost Parameters. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) most recently ranked Orange 24 of 59 peer cities in 2019 for traffic injuries after normalizing for population and VMT, which suggests that the city is in the more impacted half of its group for traffic injuries. The OTS ranking for several categories is listed in Table 1. Motorcycle related collisions is the lowest ranked in its peer group, followed by crashes with bicyclists.
Table 1 - Office of Traffic Safety Rankings (2019)
Agency Year County Group Population (Avg) DVMT
Orange 2019 ORANGE COUNTY B 139,504 1420880
TYPE OF CRASH VICTIMS KILLED & INJURED OTS RANKING
Total Fatal and Injury 712 24/59
Alcohol Involved 73 27/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 0 56/59
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 19 11/59
Motorcycles 34 4/59
Pedestrians 43 27/59
Pedestrians < 15 4 32/59
Pedestrians 65+ 5 31/59
Bicyclists 43 12/59
Bicyclists < 15 2 40/59
Composite 283 31/59
TYPE OF CRASH FATAL & INJURY CRASHES OTS RANKING
Speed Related 100 34/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 60 28/59
Hit and Run 31 39/59
TYPE OF ARRESTS ARRESTS OTS RANKING*
DUI Arrests 433 49/59
Kimley-Horn is the lead consultant supporting Caltrans’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and HSIP Implementation Plan. The SHSP outlines statewide priorities and emphasis areas, and when comparing fatalities and serious injuries over the last ten years against statewide trends for SHSP challenge areas, it showed that crashes in Orange more often involved motorcycles, aggressive driving, and distracted driving. Fewer involved lane departures, improper use of occupant protection, or intersections. Table 2 shows the statewide fatal and severe injury collisions in comparison to data from the City of Orange.
Table 2 - Fatal & Severe Injuries - Statewide vs. Orange Challenge Areas
Statewide Orange
% of F+SI Collisions
(2009-2018)
F+SI Collisions
(2009-2018) % % Point Difference
Aggressive Driving 33.1% 166 38.5% 5.4%
Aging Drivers 65+ 12.4% 51 11.8% -0.5%
Bicyclists 8.3% 32 7.4% -0.9%
Commercial Vehicles 6.4% 21 4.9% -1.5%
Distracted Driving 5.0% 39 9.0% 4.0%
Driver Licensing* 24.7% 16 19.3% -5.4%
Impaired Driving 25.3% 115 26.7% 1.4%
Intersections 23.6% 90 20.9% -2.7%
Lane Departure 43.3% 137 31.8% -11.5%
Motorcyclists 21.0% 120 27.8% 6.9%
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
6 Improper Use of
Occupant Protection 14.2% 34 7.9% -6.3%
Pedestrians 19.2% 85 19.7% 0.5%
Work Zones 1.4% 2 0.5% -1.0%
Young Drivers 13.1% 45 10.4% -2.6%
*Available for Fatal Only
Kimley-Horn has analyzed the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) data for the City from 2016-2020. Our preliminary analysis explored the following collision categories:
Collision Severity
6% of the injury collisions from 2016-2020 resulted in a fatality or severe injury. A majority of the injury collisions resulted in complaints of pain or some other visible injury. Table 3 shows the breakdown of injury collisions by injury severity.
Table 3 - Collisions by Severity Level
Severity Count Percent
Fatal 25 1.0%
Severe Injury 132 5.2%
Visible Injury 1019 40.0%
Complaint of Pain 1369 53.8%
Total 2545 100.0%
Collision Type
The most common types of collisions in the city were rear-ends and broadsides, totaling 64.2% of crashes within the city. A full breakdown of the collision types is shown in Table 4.
Table 4 - Collisions by Type
Collision Type Count Percent
Broadside 1009 39.6%
Rear End 626 24.6%
Head-On 230 9.0%
Sideswipe 222 8.7%
Hit Object 194 7.6%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 154 6.1%
Other 57 2.2%
Overturned 30 1.2%
Total 2545 100.0%
Primary Collision Factor
The most common factors that led to collisions in the city were right-of-way violations, unsafe speed, and improper turning, collectively accounting for almost two-thirds of all injury crashes. A full breakdown of the primary collision factors is shown in Table 5.
Table 5 - Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Primary Collision Factor Count Percent
Automobile Right-of-Way 693 27.2%
Unsafe Speed 635 25.0%
Improper Turning 277 10.9%
Traffic Signals and Signs 276 10.8%
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
7 Primary Collision Factor Count Percent
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 237 9.3%
Pedestrian Right-of-Way 77 3.0%
Wrong Side of Road 62 2.4%
Pedestrian Violation 61 2.4%
Unknown 58 2.3%
Unsafe Lane Change 51 2.0%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 40 1.6%
Other Hazardous Violation 16 0.6%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 15 0.6%
Following Too Closely 12 0.5%
Improper Passing 11 0.4%
Other Improper Driving 5 0.2%
Brakes 2 0.1%
Other Equipment 1 0.0%
Total 2545 100.0%
Collision ‘Involved With’
Nearly 70% of the injury collisions in the city were between two or more moving motor vehicles, and an additional 13% were evenly split between pedestrians and fixed objects. However, there were also several crashes with fixed objects, pedestrians, and bicycles. Pedestrian crashes in particular resulted in a higher rate of more severe injuries. Table 6 shows a full breakdown of the collisions, what object they were involved with, and the distribution of their injury levels.
Table 6 - Collisions by 'Involved With'
Vehicle Involved With Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury
Complaint
of Pain Total
Other Motor Vehicle 4 64 600 1066 1734
Fixed Object 5 23 141 77 246
Pedestrian 14 26 78 61 179
Bicycle - 13 85 77 175
Parked Motor Vehicle - 2 61 48 111
Non-Collision 1 3 22 12 38
Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway - - 8 15 23
Other Object 1 1 14 6 22
Train - - 2 - 2
Animal - - - 1 1
Not Started - - 8 6 14
Total 25 132 1011 1363 2545
Figure 1 and Table 7 show the concentration of injury crashes in Orange and highlights the 20 most economically impactful intersections in the city. We understand the City has ongoing projects that have completed construction or will be constructed such as the Left-turn Signal Modifications at Glassell Street and Meats Avenue and at Glassell Street and Collins Avenue. Collisions at those locations most likely have preceded the installation of those improvements, so we will need to compare that data closely. Therefore, the LRSP will be a living document, and when areas of construction are complete, the data can be revisited and analyzed in the area.
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
8 Figure 1: Injury Crashes and 20 Most Economically Impactful Intersection Table 7 - 20 Most Economically Impactful Intersections
Rank Intersection Total Fatal SI VI CP Bike Ped Cost
1 Chapman Avenue Tustin Street 36 0 3 11 22 5 2 $9,915,100 2 Katella Avenue Glassell Street 22 1 2 3 16 1 2 $8,291,300 3 Katella Avenue Main Street 13 0 3 3 7 0 3 $7,563,200
4 Chapman Avenue Prospect Street 21 0 2 4 15 2 1 $6,162,700 5 Chapman Avenue Manchester Avenue 14 0 2 7 5 0 2 $5,780,600 6 Heim Avenue Tustin Street 13 0 2 3 8 0 2 $5,454,100
7 Chapman Avenue James Street 12 0 2 4 6 2 1 $5,434,600 8 Chapman Avenue Lewis Street 14 0 2 1 11 0 2 $5,412,200 9 Chapman Avenue Hamlin Street 9 1 1 5 2 0 3 $5,253,300 10 Fairhaven Avenue Yorba Street 9 0 2 4 3 1 1 $5,191,900 11 Maple Avenue Main Street 9 0 2 3 4 1 1 $5,130,500
12 Village at Orange Tustin Street 6 0 2 2 2 0 1 $4,826,400 13 Meats Avenue Nordic Street 5 1 1 2 1 2 2 $4,745,500
14 Spring Street Prospect Street 5 0 2 2 1 1 0 $4,745,500 15 Chapman Avenue Wayfield Street 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 $4,664,600 16 Katella Avenue Struck Avenue 5 0 2 0 3 0 1 $4,622,700 17 Walnut Avenue Tustin Street 22 0 1 10 11 3 4 $4,502,900 18 Trenton Avenue Glassell Street 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 $4,460,900 19 Hoover Avenue Glassell Street 3 0 2 0 1 0 1 $4,460,900 20 Fairhaven Avenue Tustin Street 19 0 1 9 9 0 1 $4,198,800 Our team uses custom GIS-based tools to evaluate the roadway system and intersections using Highway Safety Manual statistical methods. This allows for independent evaluation of intersections by control type, and roadways by function. Our team then applies additional statistics to rate each location for crash severity, crash type patterns, driver behavior factors, and roadway conditions. Our analysis procedures are outlined on the next page.
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
9 Kimley-Horn works closely with Crossroads allowing us to seamlessly input their data outputs of the most recent
available crash data. Our custom in-house software can
process the Crossroads crash records to provide a
ranked order of intersections and roadway segments by
crash activity consistent with the Local Roadway Safety Manual. In addition, our custom software can provide a
statistical evaluation of crash rates for each location relative to citywide norms and highlight locations with unusually high crash severities or crash patterns that
can help diagnose safety challenges.
Kimley-Horn’s approach to LRSP development centers
on the creation of a countermeasure toolbox that
includes items that address both infrastructure and
driver behavior. A combination of crash history, roadway characteristics, and stakeholder feedback is used to
determine which countermeasures will be most likely to
have the most safety benefit relative to cost for the City.
The toolbox is then used to produce three products as
part of the LRSP .
1. City-wide Systemic Infrastructure Projects;
Serious injury crashes in Orange are more likely
to involve aggressive driving than in other parts of
California. The LRSP would likely include a number
of low-cost systemic countermeasures such as
signal coordination, narrower travel lanes, and speed
feedback signs.
2. Local Infrastructure Projects; For example, the intersection of Chapman Avenue and Tustin Street has had the most-costly injury count between 2016 and 2020, according to the TIMS dataset. This intersection saw a total of 36 injury crashes (three of which were severe), five bicycle collisions, and two pedestrian collisions over a 5-year period. The LRSP would likely consider leading pedestrian intervals (LPI), and retroreflective backplating to improve signal head visibility. We understand that a signal synchronization project along Tustin Street is underway, and LPI could potentially be implemented if determined to be a countermeasure for this location.
3. Non-Infrastructure Projects; Serious injury and fatal crashes in Orange are more commonly associated with impaired driving. The LRSP could explore opportunities to get additional OTS or other state grants for enforcement campaigns and educational initiatives. The team might also evaluate lighting and other roadway features that can reduce the harm associated with impaired driving.
The following scope of services outlines how Kimley-Horn will build off the City’s current plans to provide a well-rounded framework for an ongoing safety improvement program. The LRSP will be structured to make the City more competitive for grant funding, better able to identify and prioritize safety needs, and encourage safer driving practices of its residents.
Scope of Services
Task 1 – Project Management and Meetings
Task 1.1 – Kick-off Meeting, Project Management, and Project Schedule Kimley-Horn will prepare an agenda and conduct a project kick off meeting to review and refine the project methodology and schedule, and to establish a Project Development Team (PDT) with key City staff, which we will maintain close and consistent communication through regular monthly PDT status meetings to discuss plan development, project progress, upcoming deliverables, and City review periods. We will prepare meeting minutes to document the discussion, decisions made, and action items assigned. Meetings are anticipated to be held virtually given current conditions.
We will review the detailed project schedule and tasks during PDT meetings and update the schedule as needed.
Kimley-Horn will assist the City in providing administrative support to make sure the project is in compliance with the Local Assistance Procedure Manual guidelines.
Stakeholder Input Crash Data
Benef t / Cost Analysis
Identify High
Risk Network
Crash
Trends
Network Screening
Identify High Injury
Network
Diagnostic
Crash Patterns
Develop
Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures
Program Cost
Estimates
Unit Cost Estimates
Project Cost
Estimates
Develop
Systemic Infrastructure Countermeasures
Develop
Specific
Infrastructure
Countermeasures
DEVELOP
Countermeasure Toolbox
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
10 Kimley-Horn has established internal quality control processes that include multiple levels of review before deliverables are submitted to a client, including a designated quality control officer that is not part of the core project team to provide objective feedback from the perspective of someone external to the project. Kimley-Horn recommends in-person meetings, if conditions allow, at the following project milestones:
1. Project Kick-Off
2. Selection of High-Collision Sites for Project Development
3. Field Review Debrief
4. Project Recommendations
Additionally, Kimley-Horn will hold a short bi-weekly project progress meeting with the City project manager to discuss the current status of the project and to make decisions about project direction as alternative courses emerge.
During our kick-off meeting, we will identify safety partners/stakeholders who should be included in future project communications. We value representation from the local community, businesses, Chamber of Commerce, non-profit organizations, local transportation providers, City’s Public Works department, Orange Police Department, Orange Fire Department, Orange Unified School District, and health and safety agencies when creating a well-rounded safety plan.
Task 1.2 – Stakeholder Meetings
Kimley-Horn will work with the City to reach out to safety partners/stakeholders from the contact list developed. A Stakeholder meeting will be hosted, preferably in-person, to allow for two-way communication and feedback on the materials communicated. Kimley-Horn will organize, manage, run, and provide meeting minutes for the Stakeholder meeting. The meeting will provide an overview of the LRSP process, identify/ establish safety goals, objectives, strategies and emphasis areas; inform those present on the results found during the crash analysis, and outline the draft countermeasures and potential solutions. Stakeholders will be utilized for their local insight on the area, any challenges or opportunities they may know of, and their knowledge of “near-miss crashes.” Any potential additions or changes to the recommended countermeasures, based on the feedback received during this meeting, will be discussed with the City. The group will prioritize plans for implementation and be able to review and comment on the draft and final LRSP before recommending approval of the document to be adopted by City Council.
Task 1.3 – Field Visits
At up to ten identified high collision locations (key corridors and intersections) identified in Task 3, field assessments with City staff will be conducted to collect additional information to better match roadway characteristics with collision activity, allowing the team to diagnose issues and develop systemic recommendations. Deficiencies per the Highway Design Manual and other regulatory and guidance documents will be identified at these locations.
® Deliverables:
⤷ Project Kick-off Meeting
⤷ Meeting Agendas and Notes
⤷ Monthly Progress Reports
⤷ Two Stakeholder Meetings
⤷ Stakeholder Identification List
⤷ Field Visit Package (crash diagrams, note sheets, site visit map) ⤷ Field Notes
Task 2 – Determine Plan, Vision, and Goals
We will work with City staff, stakeholders, and the project team to draft a vision statement for the LRSP . We will work with the group to establish goals and objectives after completing the comprehensive data analysis with a focus on improving traffic and pedestrian safety, ultimately supporting the vision statement.
The team will identify safety challenges specific to the City of Orange that are elevating the risk of traffic injuries. The goals and objectives will be structured to meet the needs of the Local Road Safety Plan Program, provide optimal support of statewide funding priorities, and incorporate Priority Safety Strategies, Infrastructure Safety Projects, Behavioral Safety Strategies, and feedback from stakeholders and City staff. Each goal will be associated with a set of objectives that will help determine the prioritization of plan recommendations. ® Deliverables:
⤷ Vision statement for LRSP ⤷ Goals and Objectives Spreadsheet Task 3 – Data Analysis
Task 3.1 – State of the System Review - Review Best Practices, Existing Plans, Programs, and Policies Kimley-Horn will work with City staff to identify programs and policies within the City that are most supportive of safety, which ones could be updated to better align with current best practices, and where there are opportunities for new initiatives that would likely support safer roads and better driving behaviors. Kimley-Horn staff will collect the needed information by providing the City with a list of questions in advance and will conduct an interview with City staff to finalize the responses.
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
11 We will conduct a literature review of existing plans published by the City, including the General Plan. Documents produced by the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and Caltrans will also be reviewed to identify projects, policies and programs that are in place or recommended that might be of value to this analysis. Our team is already familiar with Caltrans procedures and guidance on the development of SSAR and LRSP plans and will provide a summary as part of this task.
We will coordinate with the City to obtain recent engineering studies that have been completed relating to roadway safety improvements, including traffic signal warrants, feasibility studies, and project study reports to examine the available citywide collision history and utilize Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) which was developed by the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) as a web-based tool for local agencies to gather data for their safety analysis.
Task 3.2 – Data Production
The Kimley-Horn team includes Crossroads Software (Crossroads). Crossroads can provide the project team direct access to updated collision records from CHPs central database, avoiding the need to have City staff pull data and potentially not get the latest data available. The last five- years of collision data will be gathered to allow insight into trends and to better mitigate the natural year-over-year fluctuation caused by natural randomness in collision activity. Kimley-Horn’s approach is to look at all collision severity levels. This provides a richer dataset to review and allows the team to determine factors where collision severity levels are high relative to overall collision numbers.
Kimley-Horn will obtain available data on roadway functional classification, intersection control, posted speeds, schools, parks, transit stops, and other roadway characteristics that impact safety. Available traffic volume data will also be collected from the City. If possible, additional ADTs will be accessed from OCTA’s Traffic Volume Map or the Orange County Traffic Analysis Model (OCTAM).
Task 3.3 – Crash History Assessment/Identify Top Emphasis Areas Kimley-Horn will perform a comprehensive data analysis review. Our approach to safety analysis includes statistical network screening using Highway Safety Manual Methods. These methods are selected to identify locations with higher-than-expected collision activity that can be reviewed to identify roadway and intersection characteristics associated with higher risk. These methods also review a variety of collision characteristics to identify locations where specific types of collisions are over-represented. This helps to diagnose safety factors that are leading to elevated numbers of collisions.
The first screening step is to develop critical crash rates for segments and intersections in the City. Average crash rates are developed for intersections based on control type, and roadway segments based on functional classification. A statistical threshold is then established based on daily traffic volumes for each segment and intersection. The difference between the actual crash rate and the critical crash rate for each location can then be used to estimate the relative risk faced by users of the given intersection or segment. This method builds on the High Collision or High Injury Networks that essentially mirror High Traffic networks to provide deeper insight into potential low-cost safety measures. Roadways and intersections with lower classifications will also be identified, allowing the LRSP to broach risk factors associated with those roadways.
The second screening step focuses on crash type over-representation. City-wide data is used to determine the typical collision type mix for each of the functional classifications and intersection control types. Then the mixture is reviewed for each segment and intersection to highlight those with high concentrations of a specific collision factor. Factors analyzed would include:
• Fatal Collisions
• Fatal + Serious Injury Collisions
• Broadside Collisions
• Rear-End Collisions
• Sideswipe Collisions
• Head-On Collisions
• Single Vehicle Collisions (run off road, fixed object, parked vehicle, other)
• Bicycle Collisions
• Pedestrian Collisions
• Wet/Slippery Road Collisions
• Nighttime Collisions
• Collisions Involving Alcohol/Drugs
• Collisions Involving Driver Inattention
• Collisions Involving Speeding/Aggressive Driving
The resulting list would include both the number of collisions for each factor, and the probability that any excess is not random.
Kimley-Horn will provide an inventory of sites including all roadway segments and intersections with three or more collisions (needed for statistical evaluation) ranked by overall number of collisions per Local Roadway Safety Manual Guidance. Kimley-Horn will then recommend up to ten locations for further evaluation and potential project development based on amount of collision activity, collision severity, unusual collision patterns, and site variability to maximize the potential number of systemic factors and mitigations identified. We will identify potential conflicts between vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles.
Kimley-Horn will use the research from the State of the System Review and an analysis of crash history to identify preliminary opportunity/emphasis areas in Orange for both infrastructure and non-infrastructure elements. These emphasis areas could be based on geography and/or other Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
12 categories (e.g., pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, or distracted driving), depending on observed trends. The “Es” of traffic safety (engineering, enforcement, education, emergency services, and emerging technologies) will be used to guide the identification of these opportunities. We will identify a lead agency for each countermeasure and establish measurable objectives and goals for the LRSP . ® Deliverables:
⤷ Summary of Opportunities for Best Practices
⤷ Technical Memorandum #1 – Existing Plans and Programs ⤷ Question list of Current Practices for City
⤷ Technical Memorandum #2 – City-wide Safety
Background and Trends
⤷ List of Intersections and Segments with Statistically Analyzable Collision Activity
⤷ City-wide Safety Trends and Recommended Focus Areas
⤷ Crash Diagrams for High Crash Locations
⤷ List of Potential Local Countermeasures
Task 4 – Countermeasure Development - Identify Strategies The identification of the potential projects will be developed by examining the crash data and determining the appropriate countermeasures improvements to roadway segments. The team will prepare a toolbox of systemic safety mitigations that can be applied citywide, or on key parts of the network.
Countermeasures will include a mixture of infrastructural improvements, educational initiatives, law enforcement strategies, emergency response, policy updates, coordination activities and other items that will contribute to the overall tapestry of roadway safety in the City. We will identify safety measures that are appropriate, cost efficient and proven effective countermeasures by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration.
The toolbox will be developed in three steps:
1. The site visit locations will be used as case studies. Solutions that emerge from those will be associated with the conditions they are addressing and added to the toolbox.
2. The team will identify up to three safety emphasis areas for the City based on collision trends and patterns that can be looked at holistically to identify broader strategies that can be employed to address them.
3. The best practices review will be used to identify actions the City can take to improve the safety environment.
An implementation plan will be developed for inclusion in the LSRP report that will help the City prioritize improvements and identify potential funding sources while remaining responsive to funding opportunities for HSIP and related grants, including evolving needs as plan implementation progresses.
® Deliverables:
⤷ Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
Task 5 – Implementation Program
Task 5.1 – Implementation Plan
Projects will be analyzed for their potential to reduce crash activity. Projects with the greatest and most cost-efficient crash reduction potential will be prioritized. Short-term, medium-term, and longer-term projects will be identified based on their cost and likelihood of reducing crashes.
The Kimley-Horn team will work with the City to develop an action plan and provide guidance for securing funding to address recommendations and achieve the goals and objectives identified for the LRSP . Safety projects identified will be consistent with Federal and State project funding requirements, particularly Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requirements. Kimley-Horn will assist the City with two HSIP grant applications.
This plan will also include a program for updates to the LRSP and an analysis procedure that City staff can use to update the network screening results to determine the effectiveness of countermeasures that have been implemented and to establish new priorities as existing ones are addressed and as roadway conditions and driver expectations change.
Proposal for
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PREPARATION
City of Orange TRTS77004.2022
13 Task 5.2 – Develop Priority Projects
Kimley-Horn will provide recommendations for operational safety improvements and develop project sheets for up to five high crash locations to improve roadway, traffic, and pedestrian safety. The sheets will profile the existing safety performance of the location, will include an aerial photo and map, and will outline potential countermeasures that had been identified through the safety analysis and workshop tasks and been approved by the City. Each countermeasure will also have a reported benefit/cost. These sheets will provide the City with a scalable overview of the most cost- effective safety options at each location based on the level of resources available, allowing for phased implementation of multiple countermeasures, or to go straight to implementation of the most cost-effective solutions. Projects will be reviewed and recommended for available grants. ® Deliverables:
⤷ Two Project Packages for Grant Applications
⤷ Technical Memorandum #3: Implementation Plan
⤷ Up to Five (5) Project Sheets Including List of Potential Projects ⤷ Cost estimates, mapping, and cost/benefit ratio of proposed safety improvements
Task 6 – Local Roadway Safety Plan
Task 6.1 – Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan
Prepare a Draft LRSP to document the findings of the previous tasks. The draft report, 60% Submittal, will be submitted to the City for review and comment. We will incorporate the City’s 60%’s comments into the Draft LRSP 90% Submittal and we will assist in circulating the Draft LRSP to identified stakeholders for review. Kimley-Horn will collect a consolidated set of comments from City staff and stakeholders to refine the report into a final document.
Task 6.2 – Final Local Roadway Safety Plan
Respond to all comments and incorporate feedback received on the Draft LRSP into the Final LRSP . This document will guide the City’s effort to improving transportation safety and reducing the number of incidents and the severity of those incidents on our transportation systems.
Provide three hard copies and an electronic copy (on flash drive) of the Final LRSP .
Kimley-Horn’s approach addresses the various Es of safety and will result in a report that satisfies the LRSP structure, making the City competitive for future state and federal safety funding. This report will include the previous deliverables into a single seamless document that the City can use to pursue additional project funding.
The LRSP will be a living document and analysis methods will be clearly outlined to facilitate future updates as the City completes projects, gets new collision data, as needs and priorities change, and seeks funding in future cycles after this report has reached its lifespan of up to five years per LRSP guidelines.
® Deliverables:
⤷ 60% and 90% Draft Local Road Safety Plan Submittals
⤷ Two hard copies of the Final Local Road Safety Plan
⤷ One flash drive of a PDF copy of the Final Local Road Safety Plan This Agreement is made in anticipation of conditions permitting continuous and orderly progress through completion of services. Times for performance shall be extended as necessary for delays or suspensions due to circumstances that the consultant does not control. Consultant shall not have liability for any delays, expenses, losses, damages or be deemed in breach for liabilities which are caused by any factor outside of its reasonable control, including but not limited to natural disasters, epidemics, pandemics, quarantine restrictions, adverse weather, or acts of the City, third parties, or governmental agencies.