Pacifica
Local Roadway
Safety Plan
ADOPTED: XX
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PACIFICA
ATTACHMENT A
Pacifica LRSP I
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
TOWN OF PACIFICA STAFF
Ryan Marquez, Project Manager, Public Works
Lisa Peterson, Director of Public Works
Roland Yip, Deputiy Director of Public Works
SAFETY PARTNERS
Raymond Donguines, Pacifica Public Works -
Engineering
Christopher Clements, Pacifica Police Department
Carlene Foldenauer, Safe Routes 2 School
Lawrence Henriquez, Pacifica Public Works -
Engineering
Bonny O’Connor, Pacifica Planning Department
Christian Murdock, Pacifica Planning Department
Todd Johnson, North County Fire Association
Sean Kavanaugh, North County Fire Association
Lauren Berman, Planning Commission
Jay Crawford, Emergency Preparedness and
Safety Commission
FEHR & PEERS CONSULTANT TEAM
Erin Ferguson, PE, RSP1
Jonathan Kupfer
Nina Price
1. Introduction 1
2. Safety Partners 3
3. Vision 4
4. Supporting Efforts 5
5. Safety Analysis 8
6. Collision Risk Profiles and
Countermeasure Toolbox
15 7. Priority Locations 18
8. Funding, Implementation,
and Evaluation Strategies
21 Appendices 25
II Pacifica LRSP
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABOUT PACIFICA
POPULATION (2020 US Census)
38,640 people
DEMOGRAPHICS
58.8% White
21.3% Asian
18.6% Latino or Hispanic
2.6% Black
10.2% Two or More Races
Approximately 5.3%of Pacifica
residents are in poverty, with a townwide median income of $138,548.
Pacifica LRSP 1
1 Introduction
The City of Pacifica (“City”) is bounded to the
West by the Pacifica Ocean. Moving east, the City
quickly becomes hilly terrain due to the Montara
Mountain and associated open space. Pacifica
attracts a lot of visitors for access to the ocean
as well as the open space in Montara Mountains.
Pacifica’s primary North-South route is Highway
1, and due to the terrain of the City, many northsouth and east-west routes are interrupted or made discontinuous. As a result, all road users
tend to get funneled onto a small number of
continuous routes. The City includes residential,
supporting commercial, and other community
services (e.g., schools or community centers).
Many residents commute to either San Francisco
or other cities on the San Francisco Peninsula
for employment. There are no major employers
within the City.
Pacifica’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
documents roadway safety performance in Pacifica
and strategies for reducing the risk of collisions.
The analysis used to inform the LRSP considered
reported collision data, confirmed with community
voiced concerns about road safety and stakeholder
input on ways to improve road safety. The following
provides an overview of what an LRSP is, explains
the Safe System approach, an idea which underlies
this LRSP, and summarizes contextual information
about Pacifica. The LRSP identifies a set of
emphasis areas that are based on roadway or
land-use characteristics, includes concept designs
for priority locations, and a toolbox of additional
countermeasures that can be implemented across
the City.
WHAT IS AN LRSP?
As part of the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP), every state in the U.S., is required
to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)
that establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis
(or challenge) areas to reduce traffic accident
fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads
using a data-driven approach. Within California,
every local agency is required to have an LRSP
to be eligible for state administrated (HSIP) grant
funding. An LRSP provides a framework for
agencies to proactively and systemically identify
and address unique safety issues prevalent in their
jurisdiction. LRSPs require using a data driven
process to identify trends and priorities as well as a
multidisciplinary input to facilitate partnerships with key stakeholders in the community.
The LRSP process offers an opportunity to
learn from many perspectives – from collision
data to feedback on perceived safety issues to
contextual patterns in collision data that may be
similar systemically – to develop and prioritize a
list of meaningful and grant-competitive safety
projects for Pacifica. This priority list of projects
must be informed by a collision data analysis. This
study also sets up a process for multi-disciplinary
collaboration, transparency, and accountability to
support implementation actions that follow after the
LRSP’s adoption.
2 Pacifica LRSP
S A F E S YS T E M
APPROACH
Each day, people are killed and seriously injured on
California roads. Crashes can irreversibly change the
course of human lives, touching victims, their families and loved ones, and society as a whole. Through
collective action on the part of all roadway system
stakeholders—from system operators, vehicle
manufacturers, to law enforcement and everyday
users—the City of Pacifica can move to a Safe
System approach that anticipates human mistakes,
with the goal of eliminating fatalities and serious
injuries for all road users.
A Safe System acknowledges the vulnerability of
the human body – in terms of the amount of kinetic
energy transfer a body can withstand – when
designing and operating a transportation network to
minimize serious consequences of crashes.
According to the World Health Organization, the goal
of a Safe System is to ensure that if crashes occur,
they “do not result in serious human injury. ”A Safe
System approach addresses the five elements of a
safe transportation system – safe road users, safe
vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash
care – in an integrated manner, through a wide
range of interventions.
The Safe System approach to road safety
started internationally as part of the Vision Zero
proclamation that, from an ethical standpoint, no
one should be killed or seriously injured on the road
system. It is founded on the principle that people
make mistakes, and that the road system should
be adapted to anticipate and accommodate human
mistakes and the physiological and psychological
limitations of humans. Countries that have adopted
the Safe System approach have had significant
success reducing highway fatalities, with reductions
in fatalities between 50% and 70%.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and
the Road to Zero Coalition’s Safe System Explanation
and Framework articulate that to anticipate human
mistakes, a Safe System seeks to:
• Separate users in a physical space (e.g.,
sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities)
• Separate users in time (e.g., pedestrian
scramble, dedicated turn phases)
• Alert users to potential hazards
• Accommodate human injury tolerance through
interventions that reduce speed or impact force
Creating a Safe System means shifting a major
share of the responsibility from road users to those
who design the road transport system. “Individual
road users have the responsibility to abide by laws
and regulations” and do so by exhibiting due care
and proper behavior on the transportation system.
While road users are responsible for their own
behavior, this is a shared responsibility with those
who design, operate, and maintain the transportation
network: including the automotive industry, law
enforcement, elected officials, and government
bodies. In a Safe System, roadway system designers
and operators take on the highest level of ethical
responsibility. This report is organized by the
Safe System key principles to encompass the full
range of safety stakeholders and facilitate crossdisciplinary collaboration and accountability. This is consistent with the methods outlined in the United
States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
National Roadway Safety Strategy and the Caltrans
commitment to a Safe System approach to achieving
Vision Zero [traffic fatalities and severe injuries]
goals.
BACKGROUND
This is the first LRSP for the City of Pacifica, but
builds upon numerous related transportation planning and engineering efforts. This LRSP provides the City and its stakeholders a findings and actions
to advance to improve road safety and accessibility.
This LRSP will also assist the City when it applies for safety infrastructure funding sources such as future
HSIP grant funding opportunities from Caltrans as
well as regional One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) Cycle 3
funding.
Pacifica LRSP 3
The City has engaged stakeholders to address
the unique traffic safety concerns in Pacifica.
The assembled team of Safety Partners for
the LRSP included representatives from the
City of Pacifica along with the following local
and regional partners:
SAFE ROUTES PACIFICA
Safe Routes Pacifica is Pacifica’s Safe Routes to
School (SR2S) Program, a nonprofit organization
that provides education and encouragement
efforts to six schools in the City of Pacifica. SR2S
strives to build a collaborative community to
support students using alternative transportation
(walking, biking, skating and scooting) to and
from school with the goal to encourage lifelong
healthy habits and create a more livable
PACIFICA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Police officers provide valuable insight into
behaviors they observe on the roads, and are
important partners in safety conversations so that
jurisdictions can focus enforcement time on
behaviors most closely associated with injuries and
fatalities. The Pacifica Police Department also leads
and participates in traffic safety education programs.
NORTH COUNTY FIRE AUTHORITY
The North County Fire Authority is an
interjurisdictional fire department for Pacifica, Daly
City, and Brisbane. The Fire Department is the first
point of contact for emergency medical services
and are responsible for directing post-crash care for
victims of collisions.
PACIFICA PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission advises the City Council
in the preparation, adoption, and amendment of the
City’s General Plan, Coastal Plan, Zoning Law, and
other specific and area development plans which
provide for and control the future physical
development and conservation of the City.
PACIF I C A EMER G EN C Y PR EPA R ED NE S S A ND
SAFETY COMMISSION
The Emergency Preparedness and Safety
Commission recommends and advises the City
Council on City programs, activities, plans and other
related actions that assist the City in preparing for
possible future disasters and safety, including
roadway safety.
02 2 Safety Partners
4 Pacifica LRSP
GOALS:
1. Balance roadway safety improvements and other travel needs across different modes of transportation.
2. Modernize and maintain infrastructure through cost
efficient means.
3. Advance risk-based, data-driven, and systemic
approach to improving safety on local roadways.
4. Decrease the severity of collisions through roadway
infrastructure improvements.
5. Coordinate with law enforcement and emergency
responders to maintain adequate emergency response
times.
6. Invest in safety improvements for students walking and rolling to school.
7. Encourage people to drive at lower speeds with cost
efficient roadway design, signage, and educational
campaigns.
8. Discourage motorists from driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs through educational and enforcement programs.
VISION STATEMENT
Residents of and visitors to Pacifica
are able to safely travel by car, foot,
bicycle, transit, and other modes of
transportation to access daily needs
and recreational opportunities.
At the start of the LRSP preparation, the
project team and Stakeholder Group
developed the following Pacifica road safety
vision statement and set of corresponding
goals.
3 Vision
Pacifica LRSP 5
PLANS
Pacifica General Plan (July 2022 Draft)
The Pacifica General Plan lays out a community
vision and policy framework for the long-range
development of the City of Pacifica, including
land use, transportation, open space and
community facilities, and safety. Of the seven
purposes outlined in the General Plan, the
following purpose most closely encompasses
road safety: “allow City departments, other
public agencies, and private developers to
design projects that enhance the character of
the community, promote public health, preserve
environmental resources, and minimize hazards.”
The Circulation Element of the General Plan creates
a vision for transportation in Pacifica that strengthens the transportation network by providing more choice
of travel modes, identifies needed improvements to
support all modes of travel, and works in tandem with
land use changes. Through roadway classifications,
land use characteristics, and relationship to the
circulation system, the plan identifies pedestrian
priority areas and Complete Street corridors,
which are intended to balance different modal
needs and improve the road safety for all users.
Pacifica Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2020)
The Pacifica Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan sets forth a blueprint for improving walking
and bicycle infrastructure through policies,
programs, and project recommendations. It is
guided by the vision statement “Pacifica is a city
where walking and bicycling is encouraged as
safe and practical means of transportation that
provide access to schools, parks, shopping,
trails, beaches, bluffs, and other community
destinations together on both sides of Highway 1.”
Four goals are outlined in the plan, including
improving safety through infrastructure and
education and prioritizing safe routes to school. This
plan identifies current challenges and opportunities
in the modal culture and infrastructure of Pacifica.
Three of the challenges are that Highway 1 crossings
are currently uncomfortable for pedestrians and
bicyclists and therefore are a barrier for people to
do so, that bikeways are uncomfortable along major
arterials, and that missing sidewalks present
discontinuities for pedestrians.
SafeTREC Complete Streets Safety
Assessment (2020)
The Complete Streets Safety Assessment was
created by the Safe Transportation Research and
Education Center (SafeTREC) at U.C., Berkeley in
November 2020. The report includes a bicycle and
pedestrian collision analysis for the five-year period
between 2015 and 2019. Based on a request from
the City, eight locations were chosen as focal areas.
SafeTREC additionally identifies strengths,
opportunities, and recommendations for City
Supporting
Efforts
4 In recent years, the City’s efforts to improve safety have been most visible throughthrough a range of plans and programs. This section describes plans and recent efforts supporting road safety within the City of Pacifica.
6 Pacifica LRSP
programs, policies, and practices. These
recommendations were considered alongside the
safety analysis results and stakeholder input as
part of the LRSP development.
ENGAGEMENT AND SAFETY PARTNERS
A key step in addressing safety issues is
hearing from local officials, key stakeholders, and
the general public. Working through a collaborative
process, the City can create effective solutions
by considering and coordinating with the general
public, engineering, enforcement, education, and
emergency service strategies. The project team
deployed the following tools that are most
appropriate for the City-wide planning effort:
• Solicited community feedback via
Nextdoor and other community forums.
• Updates to the City Council, open to the public.
• Solicited input from a group of Safety Partners.
Stakeholder Meetings
Pacifica held three safety partners meetings to
discuss the safety vision, priorities, existing
conditions, and draft collision risk profiles in
Pacifica. During the first stakeholder meeting,
safety partners were presented initial findings from
the collision data analysis and provided input on
major safety topics, including barriers and
opportunities related to implementation. During the
second meeting, stakeholders were presented to
about the emphasis areas and proposed
engineering and non-engineering
countermeasures that are recommended in this
Plan. During the final meeting, stakeholders were
involved in a discussion related to the proposed
strategies and actions in the Plan and helped
identify how to overcome potential barriers for
implementation.1
Soliciting Community Feedback
The road safety concerns of Pacifica residents is
valuable insight to understand priority locations
that may be overlooked through data analysis. The
City of Pacifica invited the community to provide
feedback on the current state of roadway safety to
identify concerns that were incorporated into the
development of countermeasures and emphasis
areas.
Community feedback was solicited through posts
on online neighborhood forums. 114 residents
submitted responses to the open-ended prompt,
describing both general roadway safety concerns
and identifying specific intersection and corridors
that warrant consideration during the development of
the LRSP. In the responses, 71 percent mentioned
unsafe speeds, 32 percent mentioned poor sightlines
at intersection approaches, 21 percent mentioned
gaps in pedestrian network connectivity, and 26
percent mentioned pedestrian safety as a concern.
Other significant concerns included reckless driving,
degraded pavement conditions, congestion, and
inappropriate intersection controls as contributors to
road safety issues in the city.
Infrastructure Improvements
In the period between 2016 and 2020, the City
focused on integrating low cost safety-related
improvements into projects related to maintenance
such as pavement markings and signs. In recent
years, the City has invested more in bicycle and
pedestrian safety-related improvements. The
following are a list of funded and planned projects
from the 2022-2027 Capital Improvement Program
related to roadway safety:
• The Pavement Resurfacing Program: Resurfaces
the pavement along roads designated in the
five-year paving plan with appropriate treatment
types, including base repair and installation
of thermoplastic traffic striping and pavement
markings. These programs include upgrading ADA
ramps for many roadways as well as installation of
new bike lanes/boulevards and crosswalk striping.
• Manor Drive Overpass Improvements (Planning
Phases): Alleviate weekday peak hour traffic and
provide safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities
by installing new traffic signals, widening the
overcrossing, improving crosswalks and ramps,
and implementing other infrastructure upgrades.
• Esplanade and Palmetto Bicycle &
Pedestrian Improvement Project: Install
class II bike facilities along Palmetto and
Esplanade and improve pedestrian safety
at two highly utilized intersections.
• School Crosswalk Beacon Replacement Project:
Replace outdated school crossing warning system
and minor striping and signage improvements
Additional routine maintenance infrastructure
improvements occurred under the Annual Pavement
Striping and Marking Refresh Project; the Annual
Concrete & ADA Improvement Project, and the Sidewalk
1 Additional supporting information is available upon request.
Pacifica LRSP 7
Repair Program. The Sharp Park Priority Development
Area (PDA) Pedestrian Improvement Project received a
One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) award, which aims to
promote active transportation through proposed
sidewalk improvements, bike-friendly streets, and
multi-use paths.
The following are recent safety projects completed
by the City since 2017:
• Palmetto Avenue Streetscape Project (2017):
The project focused investment into the
pedestrian-oriented mixed-use district along
Palmetto Avenue to increase the comfort,
atmosphere, and navigability of the corridor.
Improvements included installing bulb outs,
curb ramps, ADA driveways, Class II bike lanes,
and improved crosswalks in downtown area
• Linda Mar Boulevard Bikeway Project: Class II bike
lanes were installed along Linda Mar Boulevard
between Oddstad Boulevard and Seville Drive.
• Monterey Road between Waterford Street
and Fremont Avenue: school mid block
crossing improvements installed RRFBs,
high visibility crosswalk, and bulb outs.
• Palmetto Aveneue Sidewalk Project: sidewalk
installation from Westline Dr. to Dollar Radio
• Terra Nova Boulevard & Oddstad Boulevard
– Class II bicycle lane installation.
• Cabrillo School Crosswalk and Stop
Improvements: installed stormwater retention
bulb outs, flashing stop signs, improved signage,
and improved striping near Cabrillo School.
• FY 20-21 and FY 21-22 Concrete and
Curb Ramp Project: Various curb ramps
and sidewalk improvements.
• North Pacifica Pedestrian Improvement
Project: Curb ramps.
KEY TERMS
INJURY COLLISIONS REFERS TO COLLISIONS
WHERE ONE OR MORE INDIVIDUALS WERE
INJURED OR KILLED.
KILLED OR SEVERELY INJURED (KSI COLLISIONS)
REFERS TO COLLISIONS WHERE ONE OR MORE
INDIVIDUALS WERE SEVERELY INJURED OR KILLED
IN COLLISION. THIS INCLUDES SEVERE INJURY
COLLISIONS AND FATAL COLLISIONS.
8 Pacifica LRSP
5 05Safety Analysis
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual
(LRSM) instructs safety practitioners to “consider a
wide range of data sources to get an overall picture
of the safety needs.” Crash data and contextual data
were collected and analyzed as part of this LRSP.
This analysis considers injury collisions from 2016
through 2020 available through the Transportation
Injury Mapping System (TIMS). TIMS reports injury
collisions from the Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS). This analysis excludes
property damage only (PDO) collisions to enable
the City to focus on reducing risk of injury on public
roadways. The analysis considered all at-grade public
roadways within the City limits. This includes
state-owned, at-grade roadways (i.e., excludes
freeway sections of Highway 1 and Highway 35).
Where applicable throughout this document, trends
are analyzed for City owned roadways and Caltrans
at-grade facilities separately.
DATA LIMITATIONS
Collision databases have been found to have certain
reporting biases, including:
• Collision involving people walking, on bicycles,
or on motorcycles are less likely to be
reported than collisions with people driving;
• Property damage collisions are less likely to be
reported compared to more severe collisions;
• Younger victims are less likely to report collisions; • Alcohol-involved collisions may
be under-reported.
Race, income, immigration status, and English
proficiency may also impact reporting, but there is
limited research on these factors.
COLLISION ANALYSIS SUMMARY
The collision analysis identified several collision
trends and risk factors in Pacifica, including:
• People walking and biking are more likely to
be fatally or severely injured in a collision.
• Unsafe speed is the most frequent factor
listed for fatal and severe collisions.
• Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
that a collision will be more severe.
• 45% of injuries to people walking occur when
people are crossing in marked crosswalks.
• Another 44% of injuries to people walking
occur when people are walking in the
road or crossing not in a crosswalk.
• A majority (65%) of collisions where someone
was killed or severely injured (KSI collisions)
occurred between 6 PM and 6 AM.
COLLISIONS BY YEAR AND MODE
From 2016 to 2020, there were 414 total injury
collisions, and 32 collisions where victims were
killed or severely injured (KSI) within the City, shown in Table 1. 18 of the 32 KSI collisions (56%) occurred
on locally owned roadways, while 14 occurred on
Caltrans at-grade facilities, and 261 of the 414 injury collisions (63%) occurred on locally owned
roadways, while the remaining 37% occurred on
state-owned roadways.
On average, six people were killed or seriously
injured each year in Pacifica due to traffic collisions.
When compared against the City’s population, there
are 0.16 fatal or severe collisions per 1,000
residents, roughly half of the rate of San Mateo
County. Figure 1 shows the geographic distribution
of collisions across the City.
Pacifica LRSP 9
FIGURE 1 GEOGRAHPIC DISTRIBUTION OF COLLISIONS
INJURY COLLISIONS IN PACIFICA, 2016-2020
VEHICLE ONLY BICYCLE-INVOLVED
PEDESTRIANINVOLVED
TOTAL
Citywide Total 345 23 46 414
Citywide KSI 22 5 5 32
Caltrans At Grade Facility Total 136 5 12 153
Caltrans At Grade Facility KSI 11 2 1 14
City Owned Roads Total 209 17 35 261
City Owned Roads KSI 11 3 4 18
V
TABLE 1 COLLISION SUMMARY STATISTICS
People walking and biking are over-represented in
KSI collisions: bicyclists are involved in 6 percent
of injury collisions but 16 percent of KSI collisions,
and pedestrians are involved in 11 percent of injury
collisions but 16 percent of KSI collisions. This is
consistent with state-wide and national trends. The
number of injury collisions for each year by mode is
shown in Figure 2. The number of injury collisions
per year is on an overall upward trend through 2019
and decreases in 2020. This varies from national
trends of continuing increases in traffic injuries and
fatalities through 2020.
FIGURE 1 INJUR Y CO L L IS I O NS
BY YEAR & MODE
COLLISIONS TYPE
The three most common injury collision types on
state-owned roadways are Rear End (45%) and
Broadsides (18%), and on locally-owned roads
are Broadsides (20%), Rear Ends (19%), Hit Object
(19%), as shown in Figure 3. For KSI collisions on
state-owned facilities, Broadside collisions are
most common (36%), followed by Vehicle/
FIGURE 3 INJURY COLLISIONS BY TYPE
20 40
60 80
100
120
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of Collisions Vehicle Collisions Bicycle Collisions Pedestrian Collisions 0% 10%2 0% 30%4 0% 50%
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Sideswipe
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Head-On
Other
Overturned
State-Owned Roadways
0% 5% 10%1 5% 20%2 5% 30%3 5%
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Sideswipe
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Head-On
Other
Overturned
Locally-Owned Roadways
KSI Collisions Injury Collisions
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
10 Pacifica LRSP
Pedestrian collisions (21%). On locally-owned
facilities, the most common KSI collision types are
Hit Objects (33%) and Vehicle/Pedestrian (28%).
This further illustrates the disproportionate share
pedestrians make of KSI collisions in the City. It
also shows that Broadside collisions are more
likely, compared to other collision types, to result
in a fatality or severe injury.
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF)
In Pacifica, the most common primary collision
factors (PCFs) in injury collisions are Unsafe
Speed (27%), Improper Turning (16%), Vehicle
Right-of-Way Violations (13%), and Driving or
Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs
(10%). For KSI collisions, the most common PCFs
are Unsafe Speed collisions (25%), Driving or
Bicycling Under the Influence collisions (19%), and
Vehicle Right-of-Way Violations and Traffic Signals
and Signs (9% each). Figure 4 compares the cited
primary collision factors for injury collisions versus
KSI collisions. These trends are mostly
consistent across state- and locally-owned
facilities. KSI collisions citing “Traffic Signals and
Signs” and “Pedestrian ROW Violation”
disproportionately affect locally-owned roads.
The Pedestrian Involved Violation PCF includes
both instances where a pedestrian violated a
rule of the road and where a vehicle violated the
pedestrian’s right of way. The two are combined
in the figure below because the severity outcome
of such collisions is such that the pedestrian
involved in the collision is often not able to
provide their own account of the collision.
DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood that a
collision will be more severe in Pacifica. While
11 percent of injury collisions involve drugs or
alcohol (45 collisions), 19 percent of KSI collisions
involve drugs or alcohol (six collisions), as shown
in Figure 5. These percentages reflect the portion
of collisions involving one or more parties
determined to be under the influence of drugs
or alcohol. Driving under the influence may not
0% 5% 10%1 5% 20%2 5% 30%
Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Vehicle Right of Way Violation
Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol…
Pedestrian Involved ROW Violation
Following Too Closely
Other than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unknown/Not Stated
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other
KSI Collisions
Injury Collisions
FIGURE 4 INJURY COLLISIONS BY PCF
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
No Drug or Alcohol Impairment Involved or Unkown
Drug or Alcohol Impairment Involved
FIGURE 5 CO L L IS I O NS IN VO LV IN G
DRUG OR ALCOHOL IMPAIRMENT
always be listed as the primary collision factor
even if a driver is found to be under the influence.
24 of the 45 injury collisions (53%) occurred on
locally-owned roadways, compared with 2 of the
6 KSI collisions (33%).
PEDESTRIAN LOCATION
As shown in Figure 6, collisions with people
walking frequently involved pedestrians crossing
in a crosswalk in the intersection (43%) or crossing
not in a crosswalk (24%). For KSI collisions,
collisions frequently occurred with pedestrians
not in the road (40%), followed by crossing in
crosswalk in the intersection, crossing in
crosswalks not at the intersection, and not
crossing in the crosswalk (20% each).
Collisions with pedestrians occurring not in the
road is uncommon and something that can be
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Crossing in
Crosswalk at
Intersection
Crossing in
Crosswalk
Not at
Intersection
Crossing
Not in
Crosswalk
In Road,
Including
Shoulder
Not in RoadN ot Stated
Injury Collisions KSI Collisions
FIGURE 6 PED E S T R I A N AC T I O NS
PRECEDING INJURY COLLISIONS
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%
Injury Collisions
Not
Stated
Not in
Road
Pacifica LRSP 11
further explored in conversation with local police
department. People crossing the street outside of
crosswalks and walking in the road may indicate
that there are unmet pedestrian desire lines, and
could be evaluated to identify potential locations for
new crosswalks and sidewalks. 75% of the
pedestrian-involved injury collisions and 100% of
the KSI collisions on state-owned roadways
involved a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk.
VICTIM PROFILE
When compared with the population of Pacifica,
fatal and severe collisions are disproportionately
affecting young adults (ages 15-34). People
between the ages of 15 and 34 are 24 percent of
the City’s population but represent 37 percent of
injury crashes and 42 percent of KSI crashes.
Additionally, people 65 years and older are
disproportionately affected by KSI crashes.
People 65 years and older are 18 percent of the
City’s population and 12 percent of injury crashes
but are 24 percent of KSI crashes. The age
distribution of collision victims is shown on Figure
7. Given the recreational opportunities in Pacifica,
as well as people using Highway 1 to drive through
Pacifica, collisions are likely affecting both residents and visitors who live outside of the City. People
under the age of 15 have not experienced a
disproportionate share of crashes in Pacifica. The
youngest age group is 16 percent of the City’s
population and represent less than 3 percent of
injury and KSI injury crashes. This distribution is
consistent across collisions on both locally- and
state-owned roadways.
As shown in Figure 8, the distribution of reported
race of the victim involved in the collision is somewhat similar to the population of Pacifica. It is important to note that race is determined at the
discretion of the reporting officer and is only
reported at the party level. If people of multiple
races are present in a vehicle, only the driver’s
race will be reported. As noted at the beginning
of this chapter, race, income, immigration status,
and English proficiency may impact collision
reporting. This distribution is consistent across
collisions on both locally- and state-owned
roadways.
R OA D S A F E T Y
PRIORITIES
The high injury network was identified based
on reported injury and fatal collisions from 2016
through 2020.
HIGH INJURY NETWORK
The High Injury Network (HIN) represents the corridors with the highest concentrations of fatal and serious injury collisions. The High Injury Network
is shown in Figure 9 and includes the following
roadways:
• Linda Mar Boulevard
• Terra Nova Boulevard
• Manor Drive
• Sharp Park Road
• Oceana Boulevard
• Palmetto Avenue
• Clarendon Road
• Skyline Boulevard (Highway 35)
• At-Grade Highway 1 (Westport
Drive to Southern Limits
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Under
15 15-242 5-34 35-444 5-54 55-646 5+
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
FIGURE 7 CO L L IS I O N V I C T IM
AGE DISTRIBUTION
FIGURE 8 CO L L IS I O N V I C T IM
RACE DISTRIBUTION
0%
20%
40%
60%
AsianB lack Hispanic WhiteO ther Not
Stated
Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Asian Black Hispanic White Other Not Stated
Under 15 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+
12 Pacifica LRSP
3 Additional supporting information is available upon request.
The total distance of the High Injury Network
makes up approximately 24% of the cumulative
distance of at-grade, public roadways in Pacifica,
but accounts for 69% of injury collisions and 77%
of fatal and serious injury collisions. The
collision data analysis considered the Equity
Priority Area, an area in the Northern portion of
the City that was identified using four socioeconomic indicators that are commonly used to determine historically underinvested communities,
including race, income, English ability, and
vehicle access.3 The City does not have any
Census Tracts in its jurisdiction that the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Safe
Streets and Roads for All, or California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
respective definitions for underserved or
disadvantaged.
SYSTEMIC ANALYSIS
Systemic analysis is a proactive safety approach
that focuses on evaluating an entire roadway
network using a defined set of criteria. It looks at
collision history on an aggregate basis to identify
high-risk roadway characteristics in addition to
looking at high collision locations. By merging
adjacent road and intersection features with
collision data, relationships can be uncovered
between contextual factors and the risk of
frequent and severe collisions. This systemic
process relied on a two-fold approach to identify
key safety issues and locations to prioritize hot
spot analysis and development of collision types.
The result of the systemic analysis was the
identification of City-wide emphasis areas shown
in the subsequent chapter.
Pacifica LRSP 13
14 Pacifica LRSP
FIGURE 9 HIGH INJURY NETWORK
Pacifica LRSP 15
This chapter presents
Emphasis Areas
identified through the
hotspot and systemic
analyses as well as key
safety countermeasures
applicable to different
roadway contexts
across Pacifica.
02 Emphasis
Areas &
Countermeasure
Toolbox
6 E M P H A S I S A R E A
PROFILES
Emphasis area profiles were identified based on
collision history and contextual factors. These
profiles describe roadway or land use
characteristics and/or driver behaviors that are
found to be leading to collisions and can therefore
be used in a systemic methodology to
proactively identify locations which have similar
contexts but may have experienced fewer
collisions in the past. A similar set of low-cost
countermeasures can then be used to improve
road safety at locations that have experienced
severe crashes in the past as well as similar
locations that have yet to experience such
incidents. Systemic improvements enable greater
systemwide gains in road safety.
The systemic analysis combined collision history
with contextual data on roadway characteristics
as well as input from local stakeholders to
produce a set of five emphasis areas to highlight
the most common and severe collision patterns
in Pacifica, shown in Table 2. Eighty-two percent
(82%) of injury collisions are represented in at
least one of the five city-wide emphasis areas.
S A F E T Y
C O U N T E R M E A S U R E S
TOOLBOX
This chapter presents key safety
countermeasures applicable in different
roadway contexts acrossPacifica. The
countermeasures associated with the
emphasis areas are described further,
including engineering countermeasures
and non-engineering countermeasures.
16 Pacifica LRSP
EMPHASIS AREA DESCRIPTION FACTORS
NUMBER OF
COLLISIONS
POTENTIAL COUNTERMEASURES
At-Grade Caltrans
Facilities
(e.g., Highway 1
South of Westport Dr;
Skyline Blvd)
Caltrans operated
roadways that intersect
with the local raodway
network.
Higher speeds and
more severe collisions;
unclear right of way.
153 Injury (37%)
14 KSI (44%)
• Upgrade pavement markings
• Reduce speed limit;
• Convert stop control to signal control;
• Install raised median;
• Install a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon;
• Install retroreflective backing
for signal heads;
• Install pedestrian refuge island.
Frontage Roads
(e.g., Palmetto Ave)
Roadways adjacent
to Highway 1 where
Highway 1 is grade
separated.
Higher speeds, lack
of clear pavement
markings.
35 Injury (8%)
3 KSI (9%)
• Upgrade or add pavement markings,
including centerlines, edge lines,
and high-visibility crosswalks;
• Install centerline rumble strips;
• Add or upgrade lighting;
• Install transverse rumble strips
on approach to stop signs;
• Reduce speed limit.
Mixed-Use Areas
(e.g., Linda Mar Blvd
and Highway 1)
Roadways adjacent to
mixed use land-use or
commercial centers.
Increased pedestrian
and vehicular activity.
160 Injury (39%)
10 KSI (31%)
• Upgrade pavement markings;
• Add or improve lighting;
• Convert stop control to signal control;
• Convert two-way stop control
to all-way stop control;
• Install a raised crosswalk;
• Improve access management.
Winding Roads in the
Hills
(e.g., Sharp Park Rd)
Winding roads with
curves that are graded
Higher speeds in the
downhill direction with
limited sightlines
75 Injury (18%)
6 KSI (19%)
• Upgrade or add pavement markings;
• Install centerline rumble strip;
• Implement road diet;
• Install curve warning signs;
• Improve approach sightlines/daylighting.
Community Centers,
Schools, and Senior
Housing Facilities
(e.g., Crespi Dr)
Roads adjacent to
community centers,
schools, and senior
housing facilities
Higher frequency of
travel by children and
people over the age
of 65
114 Injury (28%)
5 KSI (16%)
• Upgrade pavement markings;
• Add or improve lighting;
• Reduce speed limit;
• Install raised crosswalk;
• Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon;
• Install pedestrian refuge island.
Note: Because an individual collision may be categorized under multiple profiles, the values in the table do not sum to 100%. Cells without a percentage KSI represent profiles where zero KSI collisions occurred for a given mode.
TABLE 2 EMPHASIS AREA PROFILES
Many of the countermeasures are Caltransapproved, with an associated Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) and crash type (i.e., all modes, bicycle
and pedestrian crashes only, etc.) as outlined in
the 2020 California Local Roadway Safety Manual
(LRSM). The higher the CRF (100% being the
highest), the greater the expected reduction in
crashes. Countermeasures not in the LRSM are
scored on a “low-medium-high” AVAILABILITY OF
RESEARCH scale based on proven safety studies;
otherwise, denoted as “N/A” when limited safety
studies are available. The higher the AVAILABILITY
OF RESEARCH rating, the greater the expected
reduction in crashes.
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
A complete Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
containing relevant engineering countermeasures
can be found in Appendix 1.
NON-ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
Education
Transportation safety education plays an important
role in shaping and shifting behavior. Many cities,
such as Seattle, Oakland, and Los Angeles, are
including community engagement and education
to make streets safer for all. For example, the Los
Angeles Vision Zero Dignity-Infused Community
Engagement (DICE) approach includes partnerships
with local nonprofits, paid outreach work for those
experiencing barriers to employment, and both
large- and small-scale community engagement
events.
Various organizations and agencies release both
general and seasonal educational materials and
marketing campaigns around traffic safety. The
California Office of Traffic Safety (CA OTS) has a
series of campaigns for public use shared on their
website,4 as does the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA).5
Community engagement is not a one-size-fitsall model as different communities have different needs. By developing culturally relevant
engagement strategies, all participants are invited
into conversations about safety. For example,
including cultural markers of a local community can
be a creative and welcoming way of engaging
residents. Also, meeting people “where they are” to
gather input on safety issues at local parks can more
effectively engage parents and children, rather than
expecting families to attend a meeting at a
government building. Pop-up engagement
conducted by the City and Safe Routes to School
staff at the Pacifica Farmers’ Market as part of the
LRSP is an example of such education efforts.
Enforcement
Traffic enforcement can be one part of a
multipronged approach to communicating expected
behaviors for safe road users, combined with
other strategies such as road user education and
safe road design. The following sections discuss
effective strategies and noteworthy considerations
for implementing enforcement-based strategies.
Emergency Services
Victims involved in collision have a higher chance
of survival if they can quickly receive medical care.
In many cases, law enforcement officers and fire
department staff are the first responders to arrive at
a collision location. In addition to equipping all first responders with the appropriate training, improving
response times for Emergency Medical Services
(EMS) will help improve collision victims’ chances of
survival. Additionally, collisions on their own can also put first responders’ and other road users’ lives at
risk due to increased congestion during the collision
response, which may lead to secondary collisions.
Pacifica could work with EMS to provide
effective response times while maintaining a
safe environment while traveling to the scene
of collisions and attending to patients at the
scene. Strategies include designing emergency
vehicles to be highly visible (e.g., retroreflective
striping and chevrons, high-visibility paint,
and built-in passive light) and implementing
emergency vehicle signal preemption, which
allows emergency vehicles to break a normal
signal cycle and proceed through an intersection.
Emerging Technology
Recent advancements in transportation technology
have not only introduced new transportation
modes and travel patterns but have also
presented opportunities to better understand
travel behavior and encourage safe behavior.
4 California Office of Traffic Safety, Campaigns, 2023, https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/campaigns/. 5 United States Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Marketing, 2023, https://www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/.
Pacifica LRSP 17
Priority
Locations
7 Through the collision and roadway and land-use
characteristics analysis, five priority locations and
associated infrastructure recommendations were
identified with the intent that the City will strive
to advance projects for these locations over the
next five years (i.e., between this LRSP’s adoption
and the next update to it). The priority locations
were selected based on the systemic collision data
analysis and conversations with City Staff. Appendix
2 contains the cut sheets for each priority location
illustrating improvements the City could work to
advance towards implementation.
In addition to the quantitative and geographic data
analyzed as part of this project, a combination of
in-person and virtual (remote using satellite, aerial,
and virtual photograph imagery from sources such as
Google and Bing) investigations were conducted to
better understand existing conditions, constraints,
opportunities, and needs at each project location.
The combination of data analysis and site
investigations were utilized to identify issues and
candidate treatments.
Initial List of Priority Locations
An initial list of ten intersection and segment
priority locations was identified using a
combination of the number of collisions, the
number of KSI collisions, and the systemic
analysis results (see section above “Emphasis
Area Profiles”). These locations reflect a variety
of contexts, location types, and emphasis area
profiles. The initial ten locations are reflected in
Table 3.
LOCATION TYPE COLLISIONS EMPHASIS AREA PROFILES
Highway 1 and Fassler Ave Intersection 24 Collisions (2 KSI) High Injury Network; Caltrans At-Grade; MixedUse Area Highway 1 and Westport Dr Intersection 9 Collisions (1 KSI) High Injury Network; Caltrans At-Grade Skyline Blvd and Manor Dr Intersection 4 Collisions (1 KSI) High Injury Network; Caltrans At-Grade; MixedUse Area; Equity Priority Area Skyline Blvd and Cypress St Intersection 4 Collisions (1 KSI) High Injury Network; Caltrans At-Grade; Equity Priority Area
Sharp Park Rd: Lundy Way to College Segment 34 Collisions (4 KSI) High Injury Network; Caltrans At-Grade; MixedUse Area Clarendon Rd: Lakeside Ave to Francisco Blvd Segment 4 Collisions (2 KSI) High Injury Network; Frontage Roads; MixedUse Area; Equity Priority Area Crespi Dr: Highway 1 to Roberts Rd Segment 5 Collisions (1 KSI) Caltrans At-Grade; Mixed-Use Area; Community Centers
Linda Mar Blvd: De Solo Dr to Adobe Dr Segment 10 Collisions (2 KSI) High Injury Network; Mixed-Use Area Fassler Ave: not inclusive of Highway 1 Segment 8 Collisions (0 KSI) Mixed Use Area; Caltrans At-Grade; Winding Roads
Manor Dr Segment 11 Collisions (1 KSI) High Injury Network; Winding Roads; Mixed-Use Area; Equity Priority Area
TABLE 3 INITIAL LIST OF PRIORITY LOCATIONS
18 Pacifica LRSP
Final Priority Locations
In collaboration with City staff, five final priority
locations were selected from the initial ten locations.
The selection of these areas took into account recent
or planned implementation of safety improvements
at some of the locations, and prioritized locations
that appear most likely to be competitive for Highway
Safety Improvement Program grant funds.
The final five priority locations reflect a variety of
contexts, including two intersections with Highway 1,
three locations on residential neighborhood streets,
including one with various community centers and
one near commercial centers, and a winding, graded,
high-speed roadway. This allows the potential
countermeasures identified for the five priority
locations to provide a representative framework
for evaluating safety countermeasures at locations
throughout the City as part of future efforts. The five priority locations are:
1. Linda Mar Blvd between De Solo Dr and Adobe Dr
2. Sharp Park Rd
3. Crespi Dr and Highway 1
4. Fassler Ave and Highway 1
5. Clarendon Rd between Lakeview Ave and
Franicsco Blvd
Field Visit
A field visit to the priority locations was conducted on February 10, 2023 with City staff to review potential
countermeasures as well as benefits and challenges
related to implementation. The group visited each of
the five priority locations. After the field visit, adjustments to preliminarily identified countermeasures at each location were made. Adjustments included edits
in consideration of elements such as:
• Impact of traffic signal and utility poles
on the placement of curb ramps and
consideration for pedestrian scale lighting
• Realignment of crosswalks and
tightening of curb radii
• Ensuring consistency with prior studies
and past recommendations.
Reported Collisions, Primary Collision
Factors and Potential Countermeasures for
Priority Locations
Below is the table of the final Priority Locations with the total collisions, KSI collisions, and top injury
factors identified. The potential countermeasures
at these locations may be suited to a wide variety
of approaches for funding and implementation,
with opportunities to implement systemic, low-cost,
quick-build improvements potentially best suited to
funding through the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP). The priority location cutsheets can
be found in Appendix 2, which shows the collisions,
top injury factors, and proposed countermeasures
at each location. Table 4 shows the final priority
locations, while Table 5 shows the countermeasures
for each location.
TABLE 4 FINAL PRIORITY LOCATIONS
Pacifica LRSP 19
LOCATION Total Injury
Collisions
KSI
Collisions
1 Segment
Linda Mar Boulevard: De Solo Drive to Adobe Drive 10 2
2 Segment
Crespi Drive: Highway 1 to Roberts Road 5 1
3 Segment
Clarendon Road: Lakeside Avenue to Francisco Boulevard 4 2 4 Segment
Sharp Park Road: Lundy Way to College Road 34 4
5 Intersection
Fassler Avenue and Highway 1 24 2
20 Pacifica LRSP
TABLE 5: PRIORITY LOCATION COUNTERMEASURES
LOCATION Signal Timing
and Phasing
Signs and
Markings
Intersection and
Roadway Design Bikeway Design
Pedstrian
Crossings
Linda Mar Blvd: De
Solo Dr to Adobe Dr
Retroreflective
backplates.
Road diet. Class II Bike Lanes. Upgrade to high
visibiility crosswalks
with advance stop
bars.
Crespi Dr: Highway
1 to Roberts Rd
Install retroreflective
backplates on
northbound signal
heads; add Leading
Pedestrian Intervals
for all phases;
Include pedestrian
cyclist actuated
phase phase to
restrict turns from
Crespi Drive onto
Highway 1; Install
bicycle signal head
for east/westbound
bikes.
Upgrade striping
and install high
visibility cross-walks
with ad-vance stop
bars. Consider road
diet on Crespi Drive.
Install two-way cycle
track.
Install two-way
cycle track conflict
markings. Widen
median island and
landing (shift sig-nal
poles as needed);
install centerline
rum-ble strips south
of in-tersection.
Two-way Cycle
Track.
Advance stop bars
and high visibility
crossings.
Clarendon Road:
Lakeside Avenue to
Francisco Blvd
Upgraded striping
with high visibility
crosswalks and
advance stop bars.
Yield here to pedestrian signs.
Tighten intersection
so that Lakeside
Avenue “T’s” into
Clarendon Road.
Improved pedestrian scale lighting.
Upgraded high
visibility crosswalks.
Sharp Park Road:
Lundy Way to College Road
Advance curve
warning signs and
chevrons.
Road diet to accommodate a separated
bike lane.
Class IV Bike Lanes.
Fassler Avenue and
Highway 1
Consider a
pedestrian-actuated
No Right Turn illuminated sign on
Westbound Fassler
turning Northbound
on Highway 1.
Ensure pedestrian push buttons
are ap-propriately
placed.
Ensure “No Pedestrian Crossing” signs
are clear on each
intersection leg
where there is no
marked cross-walk.
Upgrade pavement
mark-ings.
Tightened corner
radii; Removal of
eastbound right turn
slip lane; Installation
of sidewalk to
connect intersection
with bus stop.
Upgrade crosswalks
to high visibility
ladder crosswalks
with advance
limit lines. Install
island thumbnails.
Straighten
crosswalks.
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
Although HSIP is a common avenue for funding safety improvements, a variety of additional funding sources can be used to finance safety projects. Table 6 outlines regional, state, and federal programs related to transportation, air quality, sustainability, and housing that can be utilized to fund associated safety improvements depending on context.
This chapter
identifies funding
and implementation
considerations that will
be important to City
staff as they seek to
program and construct
safety projects.
TABLE 6 FUNDING SOURCES
FUNDING SOURCE PROGRAM PURPOSE
APPROXIMATE
TIMING
Congestion Mitigation
and Air Quality (CMAQ)
Improvement Program
The FAST Act continued the CMAQ program to provide a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air quality for areas that do not meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that are now in compliance (maintenance areas).
Forthcoming.
Rebuilding American
Infrastructure with
Sustainability and Equity
(RAISE)
This program supports projects that for surface transportation infrastructure projects that will improve: safety; environmental sustainability; quality of life; mobility and community connectivity; economic competitiveness and opportunity including tourism; state of good repair; partnership and collaboration; and innovation.
Annual Call for
Projects, Opens
in Spring
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
California’s Local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs). Local HSIP projects must be identified on the basis of collision experience, collision potential, collision rate, or other data-supported means. 18-month Cycle
Funding,
Implementation,
& Evaluation
Strategies
8 Pacifica LRSP 21
FUNDING SOURCE PROGRAM PURPOSE
APPROXIMATE
TIMING
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
ATP is a statewide competitive grant application process with the goal of encouraging increased use of active modes of transportation. The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single program with a focus to make California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP administered by the Division of Local Assistance, Offi ce of State Programs.
18-month Cycle
SB-1 Transportation
Funding
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is the biennial five-year plan for future allocations of certain state transportation funds for state highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements.
Forthcoming.
City/County Association of
Governments (C/CAG) of
San Mateo County’s
Transportation
Development Act (TDA)
Article 3
The goal of the TDA Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Program is to fund projects that encourage and improve bicycling and walking conditions in San Mateo County.
Bicycling and walking are sustainable forms of transportation and contribute to the overall goals of the TDA Article 3 to reduce commute corridor congestion, make regional connections, enhance safety, and meet local mobility needs. The program is funded every two to three years.
Forthcoming.
City/County Association
of Governments (C/CAG)
of San Mateo County’s
Transportation Fund for
Clean Air (TFCA)
The TFCA provides funding for arterial traffic management utilizing advanced technology and traffic calming projects, including quick build bicycle and/or pedestrian improvement projects. Forthcoming.
San Mateo County
Transportation
Authority’s Measure A
Program
The goal of the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program is to fund projects that improve bicycling and walking accessibility and safety in San Mateo County, helping to encourage more residents to participate in active transportation. Historically, the call for projects has occurred biennially.
Forthcoming.
Metropolitan
Transportation
Commission (MTC) One
Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
Program
The TFCA provides funding for arterial traffic management utilizing advanced technology and traffic calming projects, including quick build bicycle and/or pedestrian improvement projects. Forthcoming.
Caltrans Sustainable
Transportation Planning
Grant Program
The goal of the Measure A Pedestrian and Bicycle Program is to fund projects that improve bicycling and walking accessibility and safety in San Mateo County, helping to encourage more residents to participate in active transportation. Historically, the call for projects has occurred biennially.
Forthcoming.
22 Pacifica LRSP
I M P L E M E N TAT I O N
STRATEGIES
Implementation of the LRSP is a vital step in the
process where identified strategies and projects are
executed. To successfully implement programs and
projects, partnerships, trust, funding and coordination need to be proactively managed. Successful implementation requires sustained and coordinated
support from key stakeholders, elected officials and
City staff. Some strategies are outlined below:
OVERSIGHT & ACCOUNTABILIT Y
Establishing a committee or Task Force with key
officials and stakeholders (in and outside of the City) that meets bi-annually or quarterly is recommended to facilitate effective delivery of safety projects and programs. Having appointed leadership will
be a crucial part of maintaining buy-in and support
for the LRSP from not only officials, but the community as well. Leadership could additionally include members from identified LRSP partners. Holding the
City’s community development, engineering, and
public safety departments accountable is crucial for
effective implementation, along with holding County departments accountable as well. Some duties could include conducting briefings and presentations at board and agency meetings, collecting and sharing information on a regular basis and updating
a public-facing database (or scorecard) on LRSP
goal progress.
COORDINATION & PARTNERSHIP
Throughout the lifetime of the LRSP, coordination
and partnership amongst diverse stakeholders will
be essential for effective delivery of the LRSP. Some
strategies include regularly informing leaders and
stakeholders on progress and key milestones, consulting partner agencies early on in the implementation process to gather suggestions and feedback, and finding opportunities for partnership via project
bundling (e.g. integrating LRSP projects with pavement resurfacing and maintenance).
FUNDING
One major hurdle to plan implementation is often
funding. As part of an implementation strategy it is
recommended that the City stay up to date on potential grant opportunities and place the most competitive projects forward as grant sources evolve.
Additionally, reviewing an updated list of current
capital projects to find where LRSP projects could
overlap for possible project bundling. See previous
section on funding for more details.
COMMUNICATION
Having continued communication and transparency
with stakeholders and community members can allow for greater trust and support of the LRSP’s goals.
Some strategies include communication across
diverse channels (e.g. updated webpage, news,
and social media), actively addressing community
concerns, publishing updating factsheets on plan
progress, and regular public meetings using effective community engagement techniques. An oversight committee or Task Force (as proposed above) could aid with leading efforts on communication and
trust-building.
IMPLEMENTATION ACTIONS,
PHASING & SEQUENCING
Implementing countermeasures, projects, and
programs identified in the LRSP typically requires
an ongoing, long-term commitment from the City. To
facilitate the evaluation and prioritization of funding, it can be desirable to consider the implementation
of safety projects through different time horizons.
Near-term implementation efforts may focus on
low-cost improvements which can be constructed within five years. These may include systemic improvements such as upgraded traffic signal heads,
signal phasing and timing modifications, high-visibility crosswalk markings, and pedestrian visibility enhancements which can be pursued as discrete
projects or as system improvements at multiple locations.
Medium-term implementation goals may target the
pursuit of progressive safety elements such as those
identified in the Countermeasure Toolbox in all
capital projects and infrastructure planning efforts
already underway.
Long-term goals may focus on further emphasizing
safety in future planning and design efforts, including updates to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Pacifica LRSP 23
Plan and all capital improvement projects. Future
efforts for the City to consider may also include a
commitment to Vision Zero strategies and values.
An ongoing commitment to the inclusion of off-site
safety improvements in conjunction with development projects will allow the City to capitalize on additional funding opportunities.
E VA LUAT I O N
S T R AT E G I E S
Evaluation allows the City to understand its performance in achieving its safety goals and inform future decision-making accordingly. It provides the basis
for determining selection of emphasis or priority
areas, countermeasures, and locations to reduce
collisions and collision severity.
UPDATE THE PL AN REGUL ARLY
For example, scheduling an update every five years
could assist with organizing and directing evaluation efforts. As conditions within the City and region could change, it will be necessary to update the
LRSP in the future.
IDENTIF Y TARGET METRICS AND ME ASURE
GOAL PERFORMANCE IN PRIORIT Y ARE AS
In order to understand progress and safety conditions, several metrics could be used in LRSP evaluation. Examples of measuring goal performance include monitoring the number of total collisions,
specific types of collisions, and/or safety infrastructure improvements installed.
Additional regular measurement of goal progress
in priority areas can be performed every year. One
example is a safety scorecard. Safety scorecards
that are released annually can be a powerful tool
for measuring effectiveness, highlighting areas that
need further attention and resources, and identifying tasks and deadlines for responsible stakeholder parties.
CONTINUE ENGAGEMENT
OF STAKEHOLDERS
Efforts around evaluation could include expanding partnership from diverse sources (e.g. officials, agencies, community advocacy groups). Input from
identified stakeholders and future partners, along
with collected target metrics, could be used to adapt
the plan based on community feedback and expert
insight as projects and programs are rolled out.
Conduct pre- and post- surveys with community
members to measure how their actions and views
have shifted after engagement around traffic safety.
Local partners can be tasked with disseminating the
pre- and post-surveys to residents. Surveys could
evaluate whether respondents express a shift in
behavior after having participated in traffic safety
programming. The metrics for evaluation can also
be developed in partnership with local partners to
facilitate broader accessibility for the public.
24 Pacifica LRSP
Pacifica
Local Roadway
Safety Plan:
Appendices
Appendix 1: Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix 2: Priority Concept Design Cutsheets