Pasadena City Council
October 27, 2025

October 2025
Pasadena Focused
Local Roadway
Safety Action Plan

DRAFT FINAL
2 this page is intentionally left blank.

DRAFT FINAL

4 dedication
The City of Pasadena’s foremost Transportation objective as memorialized in the 2015 General Plan is to “Enhance livability through street design to achieve safe interactions for all modes of travel.” For Pasadena to work for everyone, every person must be safe as they travel within it.

Safety has been a priority in every Pasadena transportation plan, from the most recent 2023 Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan back to the 1994 General Plan. These planning efforts have resulted in improvements in ways for people to travel safely, whether it be the introduction of the Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System (now Pasadena Transit) and Metro Gold Line (now A Line) Light Rail in the 1990s, buildout of the bike network, safety education, or continual investment in our sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic signals. This document, the Focused Local Roadway Safety Action Plan, is yet another demonstration of the City’s commitment to advancing safety. Front and center in this Plan is the goal of zero traffic fatalities by the year 2035.

In order to reach this ambitious goal, the City is applying the Safe System Approach to roadway safety. This approach acknowledges that death and serious injuries are unacceptable, humans make mistakes, humans are vulnerable, responsibility is shared, safety is proactive, and redundancy is crucial.

In acknowledging that death and serious injuries must be eliminated to the extent possible, we must be proactive and thoughtful in delivering projects that advance safety in our great City.

The City of Pasadena is committing itself to the goal of eliminating the tragedy of traffic deaths on our streets.

It will take a multi-departmental effort with support
from our residents, businesses, and institutions. We look forward to having you join us!
Pasadena’s Goal of Zero Traffic Fatalities by 2035
Miguel Márquez
city manager
pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan
5 we support the
goal of zero traffic
fatalities by 2035
Greg de Vinck
public works
Chad Augustin
fire chief
Manuel Carmona
public health
Joaquin T. Siques
Transportation
Eugene Harris
chief of police
David Reyes
water & Power
James Wong
housing
Koko Panossian
parks, recreation, and
community services
Michele Beal Bagneris
city attorney
Philip Leclair
information technology
Tiffany Jacobs-Quinn
human resources
Jennifer Page
planning and community
development
Tim McDonald
library and information
services
Helen Morales
rent stabilizations
Vic Erganian
finance department
Lisa Derderian
chief communication officer

DRAFT FINAL
6 page 8 page 16
table of contents
introduction developing the
action plan
Vision & Goals
page 9
Roadway Safety
in Pasadena
page 10
Building On
Previous Efforts
and Best Practice
page 14
Overview of Action
Plan Development
page 17
Safety Corridors
page 22
Community Feedback
page 23
Statement of
Protection

REPORTS DISCOVERY

AND ADMISSION INTO

EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN

REPORTS, SURVEYS,
AND INFORMATION —
Notwithstanding any other
provisions of law, reports,
surveys, schedules, lists, or
data compiled or collected for
any purpose relating to this
section, shall not be subject
to discovery or admitted
into evidence in a Federal or
State court proceeding or
considered for other purposes
in any action for damages
arising from any occurrence
at the location identified or
addressed in the reports,
surveys, schedules, lists, or
other data.

DRAFT FINAL
pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan
7 page30 page60
action plan appendices
Priority Safety
Projects
page 31
Project Cutsheets
page 34
Tracking Progress
page 58
Acknowledgements
page 59
Appendix A
Safety Corridors
Methodology
page 61
Appendix B
Project Prioritization
Methodology and Results
page 64
Appendix C
Community Engagement
Summary
page 81
Appendix D
Countermeasure Toolbox
page 89
Appendix E
SS4A Compliance Table
page 137
Appendix F
Local Roadway
Safety Plan (2022)
page 140

DRAFT FINAL
8 Section 1
introduction
The Focused Local Roadway Safety Action Plan builds
upon Pasadena’s previous safety planning efforts, like
the 2022 Pasadena Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP),
to establish a Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)-
compliant action plan that will unlock new funding
opportunities for improving safety for all road users
in Pasadena. This Action Plan reaffirms Pasadena’s
commitment to prioritizing multimodal safety
improvements and working towards eliminating fatalities and serious injuries from our roadways.

DRAFT FINAL
introduction | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 9 vision & goals
The Focused Local Roadway Safety Action Plan builds on the 2022 LRSP and carries forward the vision and goals established in the City’s adopted 2015 General Plan Mobility Element, including enhancing livability and encouraging walking, biking, transit, and other alternatives to motor vehicles. The Focused LRSAP is one component of the Safe System Approach to roadway safety utilized by the City. Specifically, this is a plan that follows the SS4A program criteria to unlock SS4A and similar state funding for safety improvements.

The vision, goals, and objectives of this Action Plan are consistent with the LRSP, but now with a new commitment to achieving zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries on Pasadena roadways by 2035.

The Focused LRSP established four objectives that
will continue to guide our efforts through 2035:
objective
1 Improve safety for
pedestrians, bicyclists, and
other vulnerable road users
objective
2 Deliver safer infrastructure,
install clearer signage, and
implement improvements at
top collision locations
objective
3 Facilitate and promote
engagement with local
stakeholders to promote the
road safety message
objective
4 Continue to collaborate with
stakeholders to deliver a
strong road safety message
vision
Improve roadway
safety for all road
users on public
roads in Pasadena.
goal
Achieve zero
traffic fatalities
and serious injuries
on Pasadena
roadways by 2035.

DRAFT FINAL
10 roadway safety in pasadena
Collision History
3,051 crashes resulted in an injury between 2020 and 2024 on Pasadena’s roadways. 6% of those crashes involved someone being killed or seriously injured, which is referred to as a KSI collision.

This Action Plan updates the in-depth safety analysis conducted for the 2022 LRSP with the most recent five years of available RoadSafe collision data (2020-2024). The 2022 LRSP collision data analysis is documented in greater detail in Appendix F. 0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Fatality
Serious injury
Injury (non-KSI)
2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Pasadena Injury Collisions, 2020-2024
Legend
This Focused LRSAP is primarily concerned
with addressing the 6% of crashes that
result in a fatality or a serious injury

DRAFT FINAL
introduction | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 11 Safety Emphasis Areas
The following safety emphasis areas were identified in the 2022 LRSP and reconfirmed by this Action Plan through the updated collision analysis. The priority projects in this Action Plan are designed to address all four emphasis areas.

Signalized Intersections
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Safety
Speeding
Nighttime Collisions

DRAFT FINAL
12 Source: Safety Over Speed, Vision Zero Network (2025); AAA Foundation, Tefft, B.C. (2011) 6%
65%
29%
Vehicle Crash Location
Mid-block
Non-signalized intersection
Signalized intersection
Legend Mid-block
Non-signalized intersection
Signalized intersection
Mid-block Legend
Non-signalized intersection
Signalized intersection
Legend
7%
38% 55%
Bicycle Crash Location
9%
64%
27%
Pedestrian Crash Location
Vehicle speed is the most
important factor influencing
crash severity.

The higher the vehicle speed, the
less likely someone is to survive
when they are involved in a crash.

The most recent collision analysis indicates 65% of injury collisions in Pasadena occurred at signalized intersections, up from 52% between 2015 and 2019. Bicycle and pedestrianrelated injury collisions account for a higher percentage of collisions at signalized intersections than at other facility types (non-signalized intersections and midblock locations), accounting for 60% of bicycle and pedestrian injury collisions.

Signalized Intersections
Unsafe speeds is one of the most frequent primary collision factors in the City of Pasadena, accounting for 20% of injury collisions and 25% of KSI collisions between 2020 and 2024.

Speeding

DRAFT FINAL
introduction | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 13 Vehicle Only
Bicyclist
Pedestrian
Legend
81%
11%
7%
Injury Collisions, 2020-2024
60%
28%
12%
KSI Injury Collisions, 2020-2024
Both bicycle and pedestrian collisions are over-represented in fatal and severe injury collisions. While pedestrian collisions account for 11% of all injury collisions, pedestrian collisions account for 28% of KSI collisions. Similarly, bicycle collisions account for 7% of injury collisions, but 12% of KSI collisions.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety
29% of injury collisions in the City between 2020 and 2024 were reported as occurring at night. While Pasadena has excellent coverage of street lighting across the City, opportunities remain to address visibility and other issues that contribute to nighttime collisions, such as driving under the influence.

Nighttime Collisions

DRAFT FINAL
14 building on previous
efforts and best practice
Federal, State and Local Policy and Guidance
This Action Plan is built on significant advancements in transportation safety policy and guidance at the federal, state, and local levels. Recent developments in safety guidance began with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance on Local Roadway Safety Plans (LRSP) in 2012. 2012
FHWA Local Roadway Safety Plans
In 2012, the FHWA released a manual to support local agencies in the development of Local Road Safety Plans (LRSP). The manual provided guidance on data-driven analyses to identify and address roadway safety issues.
2020
Caltrans “Pivot”
In 2020, Caltrans pivoted to the Safe System Framework in the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (released 2022).

Caltrans Adopts a Vision Zero Goal
In 2020, Caltrans adopted a Vision Zero goal to eliminate severe and fatal crashes by 2050.
2021
California AB 43
Passed in 2021, this bill allows for increased flexibility in speed limit setting and allows local authorities to consider factors like pedestrian and bicycle safety when setting speed limits.

USDOT Safe Streets and Roads for All
Passed in 2021, this bill dedicated $5 billion to safe streets projects over five years.

DRAFT FINAL
introduction | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 15 Safe
Speeds
R
E
D
U
N
DANCY

IS CRUCIAL

SAFETY IS PROACTIVE

RESPONSIBILITY IS SHARED

HUMANS ARE VULNERABLE
HUMANS
MAKE
MISTA
K
E
S

DEATH/SERIOUS INJURY IS UNACCEPTABLE
Safe
Vehicles
Post-Crash
Care
Safe Road
Users
Safe
Roads
THE

SAFE SYSTEM

APPROACH
Safe System Approach
The LRSP and this Action Plan are consistent with the FHWA’s Safe System approach, which has also been adopted at the state level by Caltrans. The Safe System approach is a framework created by FHWA for designing and managing our roadways that accounts for human error and vulnerability. It is built upon five core elements (within the circle) and guided by six key principles (outside the circle). Establishing a roadway system that incorporates all five core elements creates redundancy, ensuring that if one component fails, the entire system remains functional. This Safe System approach represents a shift in thinking on improving roadway safety. Instead of an over-reliance on changing behavior through education campaigns or enforcement, it encourages roads, vehicles, and policies intentionally designed to prioritize safety.

Source: California Office of Traffic Safety

DRAFT FINAL
16 Section 2
developing the
action plan
This Action Plan builds upon recent local planning
initiatives to improve transportation safety throughout Pasadena and presents updated, prioritized list of
safety projects. The Action Plan and supporting
analyses represent a collaborative effort between City
Departments. Input from Pasadena community members
directly informed the final priority project list and was invaluable to the Action Plan’s development.

DRAFT FINAL
developing the action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 17 overview of action
plan development
This Action Plan puts forth
an updated, prioritized
list of safety projects,
representing the next
phase of the City’s
safety efforts. The safety
projects in the Action
Plan were informed by
a comprehensive review
of the City’s existing
plans, multiple rounds of
community engagement,
and a project prioritization
exercise.

Additional details about the
approach and results from
each phase of work are
described in Appendices A,
B, and C.

The Plan Development
Process Visualized
The following pages outline
the development of the
Action Plan in chronological
order. Each key milestone
is described to help
illustrate the process.

Cont. on next page
Note on data: Safety corridors were developed using 2015 to 2019 collision data for consistency with the 2022 LRSP. However, citywide and individual crash statistics were updated with the most recently available data (2020-2024). DRAFT FINAL 18 N 0 0.5 1 mi
Review of existing city plans safety corridors development Assessed 80 existing transportation projects
across the following plans:

Developed a network of corridors with the
highest incidence of injury collisions across
all modes. The methodology for developing
the Safety Corridors is described in more
detail in Appendix A. Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)
The LSRP created a prioritized list of safety
improvements and identified locations where
each type of countermeasure should be
implemented.

Pedestrian Transportation
Action Plan (2024)
The PTAP included descriptions of
enhancements along eleven major streets
with specific improvements for the area
surrounding each intersection.

Greenways Feasibility Study (2021)
The GFS proposed planning-level concepts
for four north-south greenways.

Capital Im provement Program –
Transportation (FY 25-29)
The list of transportation projects in the FY25-
29 CIP includes 46 prioritized projects, with
varying levels of allocated funding.

Safety Corridors
A larger version of this map is
available on page 20 of this plan!

DRAFT FINAL
developing the action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 19 prioritization of existing projects
Identified 20 existing transportation projects that from the LRSP, PTAP, GFS, and CIP had the greatest expected safety and equity benefits.

Projects were scored based on the collision history at their proposed location, the crash reduction factors of their proposed engineering countermeasures, their proximity to historically disadvantaged communities, the number of existing City plans that include their project, the number of travel modes they would benefit, and their climate and resiliency benefit. These criteria and scoring were guided by the SS4A program criteria that is similar to those of other state and regional traffic safety funding programs. This process is described in more detail in Appendix B.

Category Criteria Score
Safety Benefit Overlaps with Safety Corridors 0-5
Crash Reduction Factor
Countermeasure crash reduction factor
provided in 2024 California Local Road
Safety Manual
0-5
Community Impact
Within an area of the city with higher
rates of people living in poverty and/or
disproportionately burdened by pollution.
0-5
Plan Concurrence Number of existing plans that include the project 0-3
Complete Streets Benefit Number of modes benefited (walk, bike/ micromobility, transit, vehicle) 0-5
Climate & Resiliency
Benefits
Incorporates green infrastructure
Reduces vehicle miles traveled 0-2
Priority Project Scoring Matrix

DRAFT FINAL
20 N 0 0.5 1 mi
Round one community
engagement
Identification of priority
projects
Collected public feedback on the top 20
projects. Participants ranked their highest
priority projects through an in-person
and online project prioritization exercise.

Community members also identified other
areas where they had transportation safety
concerns through an interactive mapping
exercise.

Recommended four communitygenerated projects—Arroyo Parkway, Marengo Avenue, Colorado Boulevard,
and Sunset Avenue—along with eleven of
the existing safety projects for inclusion in
this Action Plan based on the prioritization
exercise and community input.

Four New Community Generated Projects
for Focused LRSAP
A larger version of this map is
available on page 27 of this plan!

DRAFT FINAL
developing the action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 21 Final Selected Priority Project Sites
Project Type
Corridor
Intersection
N 0 0.5 1 mi
Round Two Community
engagement
action plan development
and Adoption
Collected feedback on the top safety issues
along the four community-generated safety
project locations along Arroyo Parkway,
Colorado Boulevard, Marengo Avenue,
and Sunset Avenue. Used community
feedback to develop project descriptions
for these community-generated projects.

Reviewed and refined the project
descriptions for the 15 priority projects
to reflect community feedback and the
latest safety best practices. Developed an
implementation plan with approximate
cost and timeline estimates.

City staff presented the Action Plan to
local advisory and governing bodies of the
Transportation Advisory Committee, Municipal
Services Committee, and City Council for
additional feedback and eventual approval.

A larger version of this map is
available on page 27 of this plan!

DRAFT FINAL
22 Wilson
Mount
Pasadena
East
ntridge
Cañada Altadena
Pasadena
South
Gabriel
San
Gabriel
East San
Alhambra
Colorado Blvd.

Orange Grove Blvd.

Mountain St.

Lida St.

Washington Blvd.

Linda Vista Ave
Walnut St.

Union St.

Del Mar Blvd.

Cordova St.

Green St.

Glenarm St.

California Blvd.

Villa St.

Marengo Ave.Los Robles Ave.El Molino Ave.Lake Ave.

Allen Ave.

Sierra Madre Blvd.

San Gabriel Rd.

Sierra Madre
Villa Ave.

Wilson Ave.

Oak Knoll Ave.

Pasadena Ave.

Fair Oaks Ave.Raymond Ave.

Holly St.

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTA
210

CALIFORNIA
110

CALIFORNIA
134
Arroyo Pkwy.
safety corridors
The Pasadena Safety Corridors represent streets with the greatest number and severity of collisions based on injury collision data. The Safety Corridors form a network of roadways that can be targeted for future safety improvements across the City. The network can also support efforts to reduce speed limits, as allowed by AB 43. More detail on the development of the Safety Corridors and each segment’s extent is provided in Appendix A.
80 percent of KSI collisions
occurred on just 13 percent
of Pasadena’s roadways,
represented by the Safety
Corridors.

Based on 2015-2019 collision data.

DRAFT FINAL
developing the action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 23 round one of engagement
community feedback
Community engagement played an essential role in the development of the Action Plan. Community members shared feedback on their safety project priorities and broader transportation safety concerns over the course of two rounds of in-person and online engagement.
round Two of engagement
April 5, 2025
Victory Park Farmer’s Market Pop-Up
April 12, 2025
Victory Park Farmer’s Market Pop-Up
April 12, 2025
Rose Bowl Aquatic Center Pop-Up
April 15, 2025
La Pintoresca Library Pop-Up
October 16, 2024
Victory Park Community Center Workshop
October 17, 2024
Villa Park Community Center Workshop
October 22, 2024
Robinson Park Recreation Center Workshop
October 24, 2024
City Hall Training Room Workshop
Engagement Events

DRAFT FINAL
24 Round One
Fall 2024
Four in-person workshops were
held where attendees could rank
their top safety projects and
highlight any other areas in the
City where they had transportation
safety concerns. Community
members could also provide
feedback via the project website,
which included a project ranking
survey and interactive mapping
exercise.
4 In-Person Workshops
201
Contributors
194
Safety Concern Pins
Submitted
Citizen advisory committee
The project development process was overseen by a Citizen Advisory Committee consisting of local stakeholders and Council District representatives.

The advisory committee met monthly to discuss project
development progress with City staff and provided feedback and guidance on the selection process and project details.

DRAFT FINAL
developing the action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 25 Pasadena
East
ridge
ñada Altadena
Pasadena
South
Gabriel
San
Gabriel
East San
T
Alhambra
Colorado Blvd.

Orange Grove Blvd.

Mountain St.

Lida St.

Washington Blvd.

Linda Vista Ave
Arroyo Blvd.

Orange Grove Blvd.

Walnut St.

Union St.

Green St.

Glenarm St.

California Blvd.

Del Mar Blvd.

Villa St.

Marengo Ave.Los Robles Ave.El Molino Ave.Lake Ave.

Allen Ave.

Sierra Madre Blvd.San Gabriel Rd.

Sierra Ma
dre
Villa Ave.

Wilson Ave.

Hill Ave.

Oak Knoll Ave.

Arroyo Pkwy.

Pasadena Ave. Sunset Ave.

Fair Oaks Ave.

Holly St.

Lincoln Ave.

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210

CALIFORNIA
110

CALIFORNIA
134
Community Safety Concern Submissions
Safety Concern Mode
Driving
Biking
Walking
Biking/Walking
Other/No Mode
Community members shared
their areas of concern through
a mapping exercise available
in-person and online. These
submissions resulted in the
identification of four new
safety projects for inclusion in
this Action Plan

DRAFT FINAL
26 020406080100120
Pedestrian crossing improvements on San Gabriel Blvd.

Crossing improvements at El Molino Ave./Villa St. intersection Signal and crossing improvements at Fair Oaks Ave./
Washington Blvd. intersection
Signal improvements at Fair Oaks Ave./Maple St. intersection Crossing improvements at Lake Ave./Maple St. intersection Dynamic speed warning signs on Los Robles Ave. from
Washington Blvd. to Maple St.

Signal and crossing improvements at Fair Oaks Ave./
Orange Grove Blvd. intersection
Pedestrian crossing improvements on Los Robles Ave.

Signal and crossing improvements at Lake Ave./
Washington Blvd. intersection
Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Allen Ave.

Pedestrian crossing improvements on Fair Oaks Ave.

Traffic signal premption for emergency vehicles
Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Del Mar Blvd.

Pedestrian crossing improvements on Washington Blvd.

Fluorescent sign sheeting at 15 priority locations
Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Lake Ave.

Class II bike lane on Washington Blvd. (Forest Ave. to Catalina Ave.) Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) signals at priority midblock or non-signalized intersections
Citywide installation of Leading Pedestrian Intervals and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (LPI/APS)
Citywide implementation of high visibility crosswalks
Top 20 Existing Safety Projects by Community Votes
Online Votes
In Person Votes
Legend
Round One Key Takeaways
The findings and lessons learned from this first outreach process directly informed the prioritization of existing City projects and the identification of community-generated projects for inclusion in the Action Plan.

In-person and online
participants generally
expressed a preference
for citywide projects
and projects along
major corridors.

The most common
safety concerns were
speeding and the
ability of pedestrians
and bicyclists to cross
intersections safely. High
traffic speeds, highspeed turns, and a lack of
pedestrian infrastructure
were also noted.

Participants preferred
separated bikeways
over bike lanes and bike
routes, sharing that
more separation would
make bicyclists feel
safer and encourage
more residents to bike.

Several people
requested for the
proposed bike lane
on Washington
Boulevard to be
upgraded to a
separated bikeway.

DRAFT FINAL
developing the action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 27 Round Two
Spring 2025
Four pop-up events were held
around the city to collect feedback
about the top safety issues at the
four community-generated safety
project corridors along:
• Arroyo Parkway
• Colorado Boulevard
• Marengo Avenue
• Sunset Avenue
These projects were generated
based on the results of the first
round of engagement in Fall 2024.

Visitors could vote on their top
safety concerns along each of the
four corridors.
4 Pop-Up Events
293
Contributors
483
Safety Concerns Submitted

DRAFT FINAL
28 Round Two Key Takeaways
The findings from this outreach process informed the development of the project description and potential countermeasures for the four community-generated safety projects, which are included in the Action Plan.

The greatest areas of
concern across all four
corridors were traffic and
driver behavior, biking
and rolling safety, and
crossing safety. These three
concerns accounted for 75%
of the total safety concerns
shared by the community
during the second round
of engagement.

Sidewalk, accessibility
challenges, and lighting
were also noted but
ranked lower than driver
behavior, crossing safety,
and biking safety across
all four projects.
0 10 20 30 40 50
No Safety Concerns
Lighting
Biking and Rolling Safety
Crossing & Safety
Sidewalk & Accessibility
Challenges/Barriers
Traffic and Driver
Behavior
Transit Stop Safety
and Comfort
Sunset Avenue
(69 votes)
Colorado Boulevard
(152 votes)
Marengo Avenue
(133 votes)
Arroyo Parkway
(132 votes)
Legend
Top Safety Concern Along Community-Generated Project Corridors Community members were
more familiar with projects
along the City’s major
corridors. Arroyo Parkway,
Colorado Boulevard,
and Marengo Avenue all
received well over 100 safety
concern contributions.

Fewer community members
were familiar with Sunset
Avenue, a residential street,
though this corridor still
received 69 contributions.

DRAFT FINAL
developing the action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 29 plan adoption
The City of Pasadena government has several advisory
commissions and governing bodies that are responsible
for reviewing, approving, and adopting this Action Plan.

Transportation Advisory Commission
The Transportation Advisory Commission (TAC) is made up of City Council appointees. City staff presented the Final Draft of this Action Plan to TAC on September 25, 2025.

Following a discussion of the Action Plan, TAC unanimously supported the LRSAP and the establishment of a goal to eliminate traffic fatalities and reduce serious injuries within the City by 2035 and recommended adoption of the LRSAP by City Council.

Municipal Services Committee
City staff presented the Final Draft LRSAP to the Municipal Services Committee (MSC) on October 14, 2025.

Committee members expressed concerns about the LRSAP setting a citywide project prioritization framework; however, the LRSAP is intended to prioritize projects specifically for the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) or similar grant opportunities, as identified projects in this plan are unfunded. As a result, it was recommended to revise the title from LRSAP to Focused LRSAP to reflect the purpose of the grant-specific requirement and not replace other City transportation safety priorities, such as the Capital Improvement Program.

Additionally, committee members recommended to expand the project limits of these previously adopted projects on Washington Boulevard to include the full extent of the corridor. These recommended changes are reflected in the Focused LRSAP.

DRAFT FINAL
30 Crescenta-Montrose
Section 3
action plan
Pasadena is committed to eliminating fatalities and
serious injuries on its roadways by 2035. The 15 priority projects identified in this Action Plan will help bring us closer to making this vision for a safer multimodal future a reality.

DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 31 Wilson
Mount
Pasadena
East
Flintridge
La Cañada Altadena
Pasadena
South
Mad
Sier
Gabriel
East San
City
Temp
Colorado Blvd.

Orange Grove Blvd.

Mountain St.

Washington Blvd.

Linda Vista Ave
Walnut St.

Del Mar Blvd.

Glenarm St.

California Blvd.

Villa St.

Los Robles Ave.

Marengo Ave.

Lake Ave.

El Molino Ave.

Sierra Madre Blvd.

Altadena Dr.

San Gabriel Rd.

Wilson Ave.

Pasadena Ave.

Raymond Ave.

Fair Oaks Ave.

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210

CALIFORNIA
110

CALIFORNIA
134
Arroyo Pkwy.

Sunset Ave.

Arroyo Blvd.

Lincoln Ave.

Hill Ave.

Allen Ave.
priority safety projects
The 15 priority projects in
this Action Plan represent
projects in existing City
plans with the greatest
expected safety benefit,
as well as areas that
community members
identified as needing
more investment from
a multimodal safety
perspective.

We reviewed and updated each
of these priority projects to
align with the latest safety best
practices and to ensure they
address the safety emphasis
areas identified in previous local
planning efforts. The project
cutsheets describe the potential
countermeasures that could
address collision trends and
community concerns in project
areas as well as preliminary
cost and time estimates for
implementing each project.
# Project Description Location and/or Extent
1 Pedestrian improvements at
intersections
Lake Ave. from north City limit to Arden Rd.
2 Los Robles Ave. from north City limit to Walnut St.
3 Fair Oaks Ave. within City limits
4 Washington Blvd. from Arroyo Blvd. to Bellford Ave.
5 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(HAWK) signals at non-signalized
intersections
Lincoln Ave. at Toolen Pl.

Atchinson St. at Lake Ave.

Elizabeth St. at Lake Ave.

Bresee Ave. at Washington Blvd.
6 Signal and crossing improvements Fair Oaks Ave. at Orange Grove Blvd. 7 Fair Oaks Ave. at Washington Blvd.
8 High-visibility crosswalks Citywide
9 Traffic signal preemption for
emergency vehicles Citywide
10 Leading pedestrian intervals and
accessible pedestrian signals Citywide
11 Corridor-wide traffic calming
measures Sunset Ave. from Howard St. to Hammond St.
12 Corridor-wide bicycle improvements
Washington Blvd.:

Class III bike route from Arroyo Blvd. to Lincoln Ave.

Class IV bike lane from Lincoln Ave. to Catalina Ave
To be determined bike facility from Catalina Ave. to
Bellford Ave.
13 Corridor-wide pedestrian
improvements Colorado Blvd. from Allen Ave. to Sierra Madre Blvd. 14 Corridor-wide pedestrian and bicycle
improvements
Arroyo Pkwy. from Glenarm St. to Cordova St.
15 Marengo Ave. from Glenarm St. to Villa St.

Lincoln Ave. at Toolen Pl. Atchinson St. at Lake Ave.

Bresee Ave. at Washington Blvd.

Elizabeth St. at Lake Ave.

Fair Oaks Ave. at Washington Blvd.

Fair Oaks Ave. at Orange Grove Blvd.

DRAFT FINAL
32 Priority Projects
Priority Project Original
Plan
Pasadena Safety
Emphasis Areas Timeline Cost
Near-Term Projects
Pedestrian improvements on
Lake Avenue PTAP
unsafe speed
Pedestrian improvements on Los
Robles Avenue PTAP
unsafe speed
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
signals at priority midblock or
non-signalized intersections
LRSP
unsafe speed
Signal and crossing
improvements at Fair Oaks
Avenue/Orange Grove Boulevard
LRSP
unsafe speed
Signal and crossing
improvements at Fair Oaks
Avenue/Washington Boulevard
LRSP
Citywide high-visibility
crosswalks CIP
Citywide traffic signal
preemption for emergency
vehicles
CIP
Citywide installation of
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
and Accessible Pedestrian
Signals (LPI/APS) at signalized
intersections
CIP
Mid-Term Projects
Pedestrian improvements on Fair
Oaks Avenue PTAP
unsafe speed
Pedestrian improvements on
Washington Boulevard PTAP
unsafe speed
Traffic calming measures on
Sunset Avenue
New
project unsafe speed

DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 33 Priority Project Table (Cont.)
Priority Project Original
Plan
Pasadena Safety
Emphasis Areas Timeline Cost
Long-Term Projects
Upgraded bicycle facilities on
Washington Boulevard from
Arroyo Boulevard to Bellford
Avenue
LRSP
unsafe speed
Multimodal improvements on
Arroyo Parkway
New
project unsafe speed
Pedestrian crossing
improvements on Colorado
Boulevard
New
project
Multimodal improvements on
Marengo Avenue
New
project unsafe speed
Note: Collision statistics on the following pages for projects originating in the PTAP represent collisions at signalized intersections along the project corridor.
table legend
Near-Term
1-3 Years
Mid-Term
3-5 Years
Long-Term
6+ Years
Timeline
Approximate timeframe for implementing the project
Less than $1 Million
Potential to be funded
at local/regional level
$1 - $5 Million
Primarily state or
federal grant funding
More than $5 Million
Would likely require
state/federal competitive
grant funding
Cost
Preliminary assessment of project cost
Signalized
Intersections
Bicyclist and
Pedestrian Safety unsafe speed
Unsafe Speed Visibility
Pasadena Safety Emphasis Areas

DRAFT FINAL
34 ksi* collisions
12 bike collisions involved a
turning vehicle
23%
total injury collisions
208
ksi* collisions were
broadsides (t-bone)
33%
pedestrian collisions at
a marked crosswalk
81%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisions
5 pedestrian collisions
involved a turning vehicle
63% protected left
turn phasing
high-visibility
crosswalks
leading
pedestrian
intervals
curb
extensions
accessible
pedestrian
signals
sidewalk
widening
rapid flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons
SPEED
LIMIT
30 lower speed
limit
exclusive
pedestrian
phase
The Project
lake avenue
corridor project
project countermeasures
originating plan
Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (2024)
project description
This project proposes multi-modal improvements
with a focus on pedestrian crossing safety at
19 intersections along Lake Avenue. Proposed
countermeasures include high-visibility crosswalks,
RRFBs and PHBs, curb extensions, curb ramp
improvements, signal improvements like leading
pedestrian intervals, and roadway reconfiguration.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Near-Term $$$
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. corridor characteristics
Pedestrian improvements with a
focus on crossing safety
The Project Site
length 3.1 mi
roadway width 60 ft
posted speed 25-35 mph
number of lanes 3-6 lanes
number of signalized
crossings
21 max distance between
controlled crossings
2,350 ft
(10-12 min walk)
collision statistics (2020-2024)
north pasadena city limit to arden road
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 35 CLEAR
KEEP
CLEAR
KEEP
Villa St
Lake Ave
Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
Focused Intersection
Countermeasures
signalized intersection concept
or or
Atchison St
Lake Ave
side street stop-controlled intersection concept
This project would also consider
the following countermeasures at
a subset of signalized intersections
along the corridor as appropriate.

Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
An exclusive pedestrian phase is a form of
pedestrian “WALK” phase at a signalized
intersection in which all vehicular traffic
is required to stop, allowing pedestrians
to cross through the intersection in any
direction, sometimes including diagonally.

Protected Left Turn Phasing
A protected left turn is a traffic signal
configuration that provides dedicated
time for vehicles to make left turns,
minimizing conflicts with oncoming
traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians.

Curb Extensions
New Sidewalk Extent Curb Extensions
Images: City of Pasadena, CA DRAFT FINAL
36 ksi* collisions
2 bike collisions involved a
turning vehicle
63%
total injury collisions
94 ksi* collisions were
broadsides (t-bone)
50%
pedestrian collisions
involved a turning vehicle
63%
pedestrian collisions at
a marked crosswalk
75%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisions
1 protected left
turn phasing
high-visibility
crosswalks
leading
pedestrian
intervals
pedestrian
refuge island
exclusive
pedestrian
phase
curb
extensions
accessible
pedestrian
signals
sidewalk
widening
rapid flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons
SPEED
LIMIT
30 lower speed
limit
The Project
los robles
avenue
corridor project
corridor characteristics
Pedestrian improvements with a
focus on crossing safety
The Project Site
project countermeasures
originating plan
Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (2024)
project description
This project proposes multi-modal improvements
with a focus on pedestrian crossing safety at 14
intersections along Los Robles Avenue. Proposed
countermeasures include high-visibility crosswalks,
RRFBs and PHBs signals, curb extensions, curb
ramp improvements, and signal improvements like
leading pedestrian interval.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Near-Term $$$
length 2.2 mi
roadway width 50-60 ft
posted speed 30-35 mph
number of lanes 3-4 lanes
number of signalized crossings 10
max distance between
controlled crossings
3,190 ft
(14-16 min walk)
collision statistics (2020-2024)
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. north pasadena city limit to walnut street
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 37 Midblock countermeasures
This project would also consider
the following countermeasures
along the corridor.

Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
Walnut Ave
Los Robles Ave
Highland St
Highland St
Los Robles Ave
signalized intersection concept
side street stop-controlled intersection concept
Widened sidewalks provide a more
comfortable space for pedestrians,
particularly in locations with high
volumes of pedestrians, and provide
space to accommodate people in
wheelchairs.

Sidewalk Widening1
1 Image: NACTO
Curb Extensions

DRAFT FINAL
38 ksi* collisions
0 intersection collisions
100%
total injury collisions
10 pedestrian collisions at
a marked crosswalk
100%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
pedestrian
hybrid beacon
(PHB)
The Project
pedestrian hybrid
beacons (PHBs)
intersections project
project countermeasures
originating plan
Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)
project description
This project includes installation of Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) signals at midblock or nonsignalized intersections with designated pedestrian crossings. These signals allow pedestrians to cross
the road safely operating in a Yellow-Red-Flashing
Red sequence to alert motorists that pedestrians
need to cross the road.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Near-Term $$
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. project characteristics
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (sometimes
referred to as HAWK signals) at priority
non-signalized intersections
The Project Site
intersections on corridor
• lincoln avenue/ toolen place
• atchinson street/lake avenue
• elizabeth street/ lake avenue
• bresee avenue/washington boulevard
collision statistics (2020-2024)
priority midblock or non-signalized intersections
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured)
Toolen Pl
Lincoln Ave
side street stop-controlled
intersection concept
Site Visualization & Potential
Countermeasures

DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 39 ksi* collisions
1 total injury collisions
14 injury collisions involved
a turning vehicle
50%
pedestrian collisions at
a marked crosswalk
50%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisions
1 Orange Grove Blvd
Fair Oaks Ave
curb
extensions
flashing yellow
left turn signal
The Project
fair oaks avenue/
orange grove
boulevard
intersection project
intersection characteristics
Signal and crossing improvements at Fair
Oaks Avenue/Orange Grove Boulevard
The Project Site
Curb Extensions
roadway width 50 ft and 70 ft
posted speed 35 mph
number of lanes 5 lanes
number of signalized
crossings
1 collision statistics (2020-2024)
project countermeasures
originating plan
Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)
project description
This project proposes multi-modal improvements
to the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Orange
Grove Boulevard. Improvements include a flashing
yellow arrow to signals in all directions and install
curb extensions at the northwest corner of Orange
Grove Boulevard.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Near-Term $
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. * KSI (Killed or Severely Injured)
Site Visualization & Potential
Countermeasures
intersection concept

DRAFT FINAL
40 total injury collisions
ksi* collisions
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisions
1 22
pedestrian collisions at
a marked crosswalk
50%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
1 bike collisions involved a
turning vehicle
63%
pedestrian collisions
involved a turning vehicle
63%
Washington Blvd
Fair Oaks Ave
flashing yellow
left turn signal
high-visibility
crosswalks
The Project
fair oaks avenue/
washington
boulevard
intersection project
intersection characteristics
Signal and crossing improvements at Fair
Oaks Avenue/Washington Boulevard
The Project Site
roadway width 60 ft
posted speed 35 mph
number of lanes 5 lanes
collision statistics (2020-2024)
project countermeasures
originating plan
Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)
project description
This project proposes multi-modal improvements
to the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and
Washington Boulevard. Improvements include
adding a flashing yellow arrow to signals in all
directions and installing high-visibility crosswalks.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Near-Term $
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details.

Site Visualization & Potential
Countermeasures
intersection concept
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 41 58%
pedestrian collisions
at a marked crosswalk
total injury
collisions
3051
ksi* collisions
187
pedestrian or
cyclist-involved ksi*
collisions
52 pedestrian collisions
346
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
pedestrian collisions
involved a turning
vehicle
52%
high-visibility
crosswalks
City of Pasadena
High-Visibility Crosswalks
A high-visibility crosswalk uses ladder-style stripes
made of reflective material, improving safety by
increasing visibility and prompting drivers to slow
down and yield to pedestrians.

Citywide implementation of continentalstyle crosswalks (high-visibility crosswalks) Citywide
collision statistics (2020-2024)
citywide project The Project
project countermeasure
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. originating plan
Capital Improvement Program - Transportation
(FY 2025-2029)
project description
This project would systematically replace all existing
marked crosswalk striping with continentalstyle crosswalks at approximately 310 signalized intersections and 35 marked uncontrolled
crosswalks citywide.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Near-Term $$
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) Image: City of Pasadena, CA DRAFT FINAL 42 total injury
collisions
ksi* collisions
58%
intersection
collisions
52%
turning vehicleinvolved ksi* collisions
3051
187
pedestrian or
cyclist-involved ksi*
collisions
52 vehicle ksi* collisions
346 Traffic Signal Preemption1
Traffic signal preemption for emergency vehicles
allows the emergency vehicle to receive a green
light when they are approaching the traffic signal.
traffic signal
preemption
for emergency
vehicles
City of Pasadena
Emergency vehicle green
light priority at select traffic signals
Citywide
collision statistics (2020-2024)
citywide project The Project
project countermeasure
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. originating plan
Capital Improvement Program - Transportation
(FY 2025-2029)
project description
This project provides for the installation of
preemption equipment at approxumately ten
traffic signals along arterial streets in Pasadena.

Transmitters will also be installed on all Fire
Department emergency vehicles to control
traffic signals during emergency responses. The
transmitters will be consistent with regional
standards to ensure region-wide compatibility.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Near-Term $
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) 1Image: City of Minneapolis, MN DRAFT FINAL safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 43 total injury
collisions
ksi* collisions
3051
187
pedestrian or
cyclist-involved ksi*
collisions
52 pedestrian collisions
346
58%
pedestrian collisions
involved a turning
vehicle
52%
pedestrian collisions
at a marked crosswalk
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
leading pedestrian
intervals and
accessible
pedestrian signals
City of Pasadena
Citywide installation of Leading
Pedestrian Intervals and Accessible
Pedestrian Signals (LPI/APS) at
signalized intersections
Citywide
collision statistics (2020-2024)
citywide project
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
Accessible Pedestrian Signals
At intersection locations that have a high volume
of turning vehicle and have high pedestrian/
vehicle conflicts, a leading pedestrian interval gives
pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection
three to seven seconds before vehicles are given a
green indication.

Includes audible push buttons that improve access
for pedestrians who are blind or have low vision.

Push buttons comply with the Americans with
Disability Act (ADA) standards for accessibility.

The Project
originating plan
Capital Improvement Program - Transportation
(FY 2025-2029)
project description
This project proposes pedestrian crossing safety
improvements through the implementation
of Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) and
Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) at all
eligible intersections across the city.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Near-Term $$
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) Images: City of Pasadena, CA project countermeasures
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details.

DRAFT FINAL
44 ksi* collisions
16 bike collisions involved a
turning vehicle
67%
total injury collisions
234
ksi* collisions were
broadsides (t-bone)
38%
pedestrian collisions
involved a turning vehicle
61%
pedestrian collisions at
a marked crosswalk
71%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisions
9 protected left
turn phasing
high-visibility
crosswalks
leading
pedestrian
intervals
roadway
reconfiguration
curb
extensions
accessible
pedestrian
signals
rapid flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons
directional
curb ramps
sidewalk
widening
SPEED
LIMIT
30 lower speed
limit
The Project
fair oaks
avenue
corridor project
corridor characteristics
Pedestrian improvements with a
focus on crossing safety
The Project Site
project countermeasures
originating plan
Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (2024)
project description
This project proposes multi-modal improvements
with a focus on pedestrian crossing safety at 21
intersections along Fair Oaks Avenue. Proposed
countermeasures include high-visibility crosswalks,
RRFBs and PHBs, curb extensions, curb ramp
improvements, signal improvements like leading
pedestrian intervals, and roadway reconfiguration.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Mid-Term $$$
length 4.0 mi
roadway width 55-60 ft
posted speed 30-35 mph
number of lanes 4 lanes
number of signalized crossings 27
max distance between
controlled crossings
1,570 ft
(6-7 min walk)
collision statistics (2020-2024)
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. pasadena city limits
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 45 Curb Extensions
Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
midblock Countermeasures
Mountain St
Fair Oaks Ave
or or
Claremont St
Claremont St
Fair Oaks Ave
signalized intersection concept
side street stop-controlled intersection concept
This project would also consider
the following countermeasures
along the corridor.

Sidewalk Widening1
Widened sidewalks provide a more
comfortable space for pedestrians,
particularly in locations with high
volumes of pedestrians, and they provide
space to accommodate people in
wheelchairs.

Roadway Reconfiguration2
Reduces space for vehicle lanes to create
room for wider sidewalks, center turn
lanes, and pedestrian refuge islands.

This enhances safety by lowering vehicle
speeds and and providing designated
space for all road users.
1 Image: NACTO 2
Image: City of Pasadena, CA DRAFT FINAL
46 total injury collisions
ksi* collisions
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisionspedestrian collisions at a marked crosswalk
pedestrian collisions
involved a turning vehicle
ksi* collisions were
broadsides (t-bone)
5 72%
148 60%
78%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
2 protected left
turn phasing
high-visibility
crosswalks
leading
pedestrian
intervals
roadway
reconfiguration
curb
extensions
accessible
pedestrian
signals
sidewalk
widening
install new
signal
rapid flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons
directional
curb ramps
SPEED
LIMIT
30 lower speed
limit
The Project**
washington
boulevard
corridor project
corridor characteristics
Pedestrian improvements with a
focus on crossing safety
The Project Site
project countermeasures
originating plan
Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (2024)
project description
Improvements would be made at signalized and
side street stop-controlled intersections along
Washington Boulevard. Typical improvements
would include high-visibility crosswalks, RRFBs and
PHBs, curb extensions, curb ramp improvements,
signal improvements like leading pedestrian
intervals, and bus stop improvements. This project
would also consider a roadway reconfiguration.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Mid-Term $$$
length 3.2 mi
roadway width 30-60 ft
posted speed 30-35 mph
number of lanes 2-4 lanes
number of signalized
crossings
12 max distance between
controlled crossings
2,428 ft
(10-12 min walk)
collision statistics (2020-2024)
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. arroyo boulevard to bellford Avenue
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured)
** Boundaries as adopted in the 2024 Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan and assessed by the public as part of this effort consisted of Lincoln Avenue to Sierra Bonita Avenue. Revised and extended boundaries were requested by the Municipal Services Committee in October 2025. DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 47 Washington Blvd
Fair Oaks Ave
or
Washington Blvd
Mentor Ave
Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
signalized intersection concept
side street stop-controlled intersection concept
1 Image: NACTO 2
Image: City of Pasadena, CA
Curb Extensions
Curb Extensions
midblock Countermeasures
This project would also consider
the following countermeasures
along the corridor.

Sidewalk Widening1
Widened sidewalks provide a more
comfortable space for pedestrians,
particularly in locations with high
volumes of pedestrians, and they provide
space to accommodate people in
wheelchairs.

Roadway Reconfiguration2
Reduces space for vehicle lanes to create
room for wider sidewalks, center turn
lanes, and pedestrian refuge islands.

This enhances safety by lowering vehicle
speeds and and providing designated
space for all road users.

DRAFT FINAL
48 total injury collisions
ksi* collisions
3 13
intersection collisions
100%
high-visibility
crosswalks
traffic circle
chicanes
intersection
tightening
curb
extensions
speed tables
sunset
avenue
howard street to hammond street
Traffic calming measures along corridor
corridor project
The Project Site
corridor characteristics
length 0.5 mi
roadway width 30 ft
posted speed 25 mph
number of lanes 2 lanes
number of signalized crossings 0
collision statistics (2020-2024)
The Project
project countermeasures
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. originating plan
New, community-generated project
project description
The Sunset Avenue project proposes traffic
calming measures and pedestrian improvements
at intersections along the residential street.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Mid-Term $$
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 49 Washington Blvd
Sunset Ave
Hammond St
Sunset Ave
Painted Curb Extensions/ Asphalt Art Opportunity Areas
Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
all-way stop-controlled intersection concept
side street stop-controlled intersection concept
Speed Tables
A speed table is a traffic calming
device that use vertical defection to
raise the entire wheelbase of a vehicle
and encourage motorists to travel at
slower speeds to avoid damage to the
undercarriage of an automobile.

Neighborhood Traffic Circles
Chicanes
Neighborhood traffic circles or miniroundabouts, are circular traffic calming devices designed to slow vehicles
and improve safety at intersections in
residential areas.

A chicane consists of curb extensions,
or edge islands, along a straight roadway
that causes vehicles to jog.

Images: City of Pasadena, CA
Curb Extensions
Traffic calming
Countermeasures
This project would also
consider the following traffic
calming countermeasures.

DRAFT FINAL
50 ksi* collisions
12 bike collisions involved a
turning vehicle
18%
total injury collisions
216
pedestrian collisions at
a marked crosswalk
67%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisions
6 pedestrian collisions
involved a turning
vehicle
56%
class iv bike
lanes
class iii bike
boulevard
roadway
reconfiguration
SPEED
LIMIT
30 lower speed
limit
washington
boulevard
arroyo boulevard to bellford avenue
Class III bike boulevard between Arroyo
Boulevard and Lincoln Avenue
Class IV bike lane between Lincoln
Avenue and Catalina Avenue
To be determined bike facility between
Catalina Avenue and Bellford Avenue
corridor project
The Project Site
corridor characteristics
length 3.2 mi
roadway width 30-60 ft
posted speed 30-35 mph
number of lanes 2-4 lanes
number of signalized crossings 12
max distance between
controlled crossings
2,428 ft
(10-12 min walk)
collision statistics (2020-2024)
The Project**
project countermeasures
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. originating plan
Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)
project description
This project proposes bicycle facility improvements
along Washington Boulevard from Arroyo
Boulevard to Bellford Avenue. These improvements
include a roadway reconfiguration from four
to three lanes, the installation of a Class IV
bike lane, and the replacement of pavement
markers with thermoplastic or paint.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Long-Term $$$
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured)
** Boundaries as adopted in the 2024 Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan and assessed by the public as part of this effort consisted of Lincoln Avenue to Sierra Bonita Avenue. Revised and extended boundaries were requested by the Municipal Services Committee in October 2025. DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 51 Catalina Ave.

Lake Ave.

El Molino Ave.

Los Robles Ave.

Garrifield Ave.

Marengo Ave.

Raymond Ave.

Fair Oaks Ave.

Glen Ave.

Lincoln Ave.

Washington Blvd.

Sidewalk
5’
Planter
5’
Parking
7’
Drive Lane

10.5’
Drive Lane
10’
Drive Lane
10’
Drive Lane

10.5’
Parking
7’
Planter
5’
Sidewalk
5’
class iv bike lane extents
Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
existing cross-section catalina ave. to lincoln ave. site aerial Sidewalk
5’
Planter
5’
Bike Lane
6’
Bike Lane
6’
Buffer 2’
Buffer
3’
Parking
7’
Drive Lane
11’
Center Turn Lane
10’
Drive Lane
10’
Planter
5’
Sidewalk
5’
potential cross-section catalina ave. to lincoln ave.*
*West of Lincoln Avenue, Washington Boulevard is just one lane in each direction. The bike facility would transition to a bike boulevard with class III sharrows and a lower posted speed limit. Other bike boulevardcompatible traffic calming features should also be considered in the design phase. Bike facility type east of Catalina Ave. to Bellford Ave. to be determined.

DRAFT FINAL
52 total injury collisions
ksi* collisions
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisionspedestrian collisions at a marked crosswalk
bike collisions involved a
turning vehicle
intersection collisions
4 40%
63 92%
100%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
2 ksi* collisions were
broadsides (t-bone)
25%
pedestrian collisions
involved a turning
vehicle
80%
lane
narrowing
P
remove peakhour parking
restrictions
mid-block
crossings
pedestrianscale lighting
wayfinding
striping
improvements
improved
transit
amenities
SPEED
LIMIT
30 lower speed
limit
curb
extensions
directional
curb ramps
arroyo
parkway
glenarm street to cordova street
Pedestrian and bicycle
improvements along corridor
corridor project
The Project Site
corridor characteristics
length 1.0 mi
roadway width 80 ft
posted speed 35 mph
number of lanes 3-4 lanes
number of signalized crossings 6
max distance between
controlled crossings
2,000 ft
(8-10 min walk)
collision statistics (2020-2024)
The Project
project countermeasures
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. originating plan
New, community-generated project
project description
The Arroyo Parkway project proposes multi-modal
improvements with a focus on the pedestrian
environment and safety. Proposed countermeasures
include crossing improvements, traffic calming,
transit stop amenities, and bicycle wayfinding.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Long-Term $$$
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 53 Cordova St.

Del Mar Blvd.

Bellevue Dr.

California Blvd.

Glenarm St.

Filmore St.

Arroyo Pkwy.

Transit Stop Amenities2
Transit amenities are features
that enhance user experience
and support an increased use of
transit.

Wayfinding1
A network of signs that highlight
nearby pedestrian and bicycle
facilities. Can help to reduce
crossings at locations with poor
sight distance or limited crossing
enhancements.

Lower Speed Limits3
Shorten stopping distances,
reduce the likelihood and severity
of collisions, and enhance the
pedestrian and cyclist experience.

Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
Arroyo Existing site aerial
Sidewalk
7’
Drive Lane
11’
Drive Lane
11’
Planting Strip
10’
Sidewalk
7’
Planter
4’
Planter
4’
Drive Lane
12’
Drive Lane
12’
Drive Lane
11’
Drive Lane
11’
existing cross-section
Arroyo Proposed
Sidewalk
7’
Buffer
5’
Buffer
5’
Drive Lane
10’
Drive Lane
10’
Planting Strip
10’
Sidewalk
7’
Planter
4’
Planter
4’
Parking
8’
Parking
8’
Drive Lane
11’
Drive Lane
11’
potential cross-section
Additional corridor countermeasures
This project would also consider the following countermeasures along the corridor. 1 Image: City of Pasadena, CA
2 Image: City of Pasadena, CA
3 Image: City of Alexandria, VA
Parking is permitted in the outer lane in both directions during non-peak hours (9am-3pm).

SPEED
LIMIT
30 DRAFT FINAL
54 pedestrian collisions at
a marked crosswalk
bike collisions involved a
turning vehicle
intersection collisions
ksi* collisions
2 33%
total injury collisions
35 100%
50%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisions
1 ksi* collisions were
broadsides (t-bone)
50%
pedestrian collisions
involved a turning
vehicle
0%
high-visibility
crosswalks
leading
pedestrian
intervals
pedestrian
hybrid beacon
(PHB)
curb
extensions
directional
curb ramps
SPEED
LIMIT
30 lower speed
limit
colorado
boulevard
allen avenue to sierra madre boulevard
Pedestrian improvements along corridor
corridor project
The Project Site
corridor characteristics
length 0.7 mi
roadway width 70 ft
posted speed 30 mph
number of lanes 5 lanes
number of signalized crossings 4
max distance between
controlled crossings
1,300 ft
(5-7 min walk)
collision statistics (2020-2024)
The Project
project countermeasures
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. originating plan
New, community-generated project
project description
The Colorado Boulevard project proposes
pedestrian improvements including
additional crossing opportunities.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Long-Term $$$
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 55 Midblock countermeasures
This project would also consider
the following countermeasures
along the corridor.

Colorado Blvd
Craig Ave
CLEAR
KEEP
CLEAR
KEEP
CLEAR
KEEP
Colorado Blvd
Oak Ave
Oak Ave
Curb Extensions
Curb Extensions
Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
signalized intersection concept
side street stop-controlled intersection concept
Shorten stopping distances, reduce
the likelihood and severity of collisions,
and enhance the pedestrian and cyclist
experience.

Lower Speed Limits1
1 Image: City of Alexandria, VA
SPEED
LIMIT
30 DRAFT FINAL
56 total injury collisions
ksi* collisions
pedestrian or cyclistinvolved ksi* collisionspedestrian collisions at a marked crosswalk
bike collisions involved a
turning vehicle
intersection collisions
6 57%
109 99%
63%
Bike collisions
involing turning
vehicle
3 centerline
hardening
class ii bike
lanes
ONLY
green conflict
striping
protected left
turn phasing
high-visibility
crosswalks
leading
pedestrian
intervals
roadway
reconfiguration
SPEED
LIMIT
30 lower speed
limit
intersection
tightening
curb
extensions
install new
signal
speed tables
rapid flashing beacons or pedestrian hybrid beacons
directional
curb ramps
remove second
right turn lane
marengo
avenue
glenarm street to villa street
Pedestrian and bicycle
improvements along corridor
corridor project
The Project Site
corridor characteristics
length 1.8 mi
roadway width 55-65 ft
posted speed 30 mph
number of lanes 3-5 lanes
number of signalized crossings 12
max distance between
controlled crossings
3,020 ft
(13-15 min walk)
collision statistics (2020-2024)
The Project
project countermeasures
See countermeasure toolbox in Appendix D for more details. originating plan
New community-generated project
project description
The Marengo Avenue project proposes bicycle
and pedestrian improvements, intersection safety
improvements, traffic calming, and extending
bike infrastructure north of Cordova Street.
implementation details
design & construction
timeline cost
Long-Term $$$
* KSI (Killed or Severely Injured) DRAFT FINAL
safety action plan | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan 57 `
Marengo
Villa St.

Maple St.

Corson St.

Walnut St.

Holly St.

Union St.

Colorado Blvd.

Green St.

Cordova St.

Del Mar Blvd.

California Blvd.

Glenarm St.

Filmore St.

Alpine St.

Marengo Blvd.

Marengo Proposed
Sidewalk
6’
Drive Lane
11’
Drive Lane
11’
Center Turn Lane
10’
Sidewalk
6’
Planter
5’
Planter
5’
Parking
8’
Parking
8’
Bike Lane
6’
Bike Lane
6’
Buffer
3’
Buffer
3’
cross-section extents
Directional Curb Ramps4
Includes tactile warning strips
and dual ramps at corners
to guide visually impaired
pedestrians into crosswalks.

Leading Pedestrian Interval5
Provides pedestrians a 3–7 second
head start to enter the crosswalk
before vehicles turn, enhancing
visibility and safety.

High-Visibility Crosswalks2
Use ladder-style stripes made
of reflective material increasing
visibility, prompting drivers to slow
down and yield to pedestrians.

Curb Extensions1
Temporarily widen sidewalks to
enhance pedestrian visibility and
prompt drivers to make sharper,
slower turns.

Lower Speed Limits3
Shorten stopping distances,
reduce the likelihood and severity
of collisions, and enhance the
pedestrian and cyclist experience.

Site Visualization & Potential Countermeasures
existing cross-section* cordova st. to villa st. site aerial potential cross-section cordova st. to villa st.

Marengo Existing
Sidewalk
6’
Drive Lane
11’
Drive Lane
11’
Center Turn Lane
10’
Sidewalk
6’
Planter
5’
Planter
5’
Parking
7’
Parking
7’
Sharrow
10’
Sharrow
10’
*Class II Bike Lane already installed between Cordova St. and Glenarm St.

Additional corridor countermeasures
This project would also consider the following countermeasures along the corridor. 1 Image: City of Pasadena, CA
2 Image: City of Pasadena, CA
3 Image: City of Alexandria, VA
4Image: City of Pasadena, CA
5 Image: City of Pasadena, CA
SPEED
LIMIT
30 DRAFT FINAL
58 tracking progress
Successful implementation
depends on consistent
and well-organized
collaboration among City
staff, regular evaluation
of the effectiveness of
implemented strategies,
and continuous
engagement with key
stakeholders and the
broader community.

The City has a range of
established systems and
tools to support these
implementation goals.

Performance Measures
Implementation
Structure
The City is developing a public
dashboard that will track
outcome-based performance
measures such as the number of
traffic related deaths and injuries
by severity. This dashboard will
be a web-based report that
displays metrics in an easy-tounderstand format and will be updated quarterly to give City
staff, key stakeholders, and the
broader community visibility
into progress toward our shared
goal of achieving zero fatal and
serious injury collisions. The
implementation group will
regularly review the dashboard
to assess progress Citywide but
will also conduct before and after
studies once a priority project
is implemented to understand
location and countermeasurespecific impacts. Assessing progress at both scales will provide
a comprehensive picture of
what is working well and where
adjustments may be needed.

Pasadena Department of
Transportation (DOT) and the
Department of Public Works
(Public Works) will assume a
shared responsibility for the
implementation of the Action Plan.

We will use standing monthly
capital improvement planning
meetings between DOT and
Public Works to advance and
monitor the implementation of
the priority projects in this Action
Plan. By utilizing an existing
communication channel among
City staff, we can quickly build
momentum and efficiently align
priorities within Pasadena’s
broader capital improvement
strategy.

The dashboard will track the
following safety metrics:
• Total injury collisions
• Serious injury collisions
• Traffic deaths
• Hit & run collisions
• Injury collisions on private
property
• Injury collisions by day of the
week
The implementation group
will provide annual updates
on citywide progress towards
implementing the priority projects
and achieving the goal outlined in
this Action Plan. By maintaining a
consistent reporting schedule, the
City aims to foster accountability,
support data-driven decisionmaking, and continuously engage the community around ongoing
safety improvements.

City of Pasadena’s Draft Collision Dashboard

DRAFT FINAL
pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan
59 acknowledgements
City of Pasadena
Joaquin Siques
director
Department of Transportation
Donson Liu
Engineer
Department of Transportation
Jenny CristalesCevallos
Deputy Director
Department of Transportation
Nader Asmar
Principal Engineer
Department of Transportation
Hy Lao
Engineer
Department of Transportation
Richard Dilluvio
Principal Transportation
Planner
Department of Transportation
Scott Johnson
Senior Planner
Department of Transportation
Arvin Mangasar
Associate Engineer
Department of Transportation
Fehr & Peers
Nata Kovalova
Senior Transportation
Planner
Matt Benjamin
Principal
Natalie Chyba
Senior Associate
Gavin Derleth
Transportation Planner
Sebastian Silva
Transportation Planner &
Creative Studio Designer

HERE LA
Amber Hawkes
Co-Director
Shannon Davis
Co-Director
Shiying Wang
Urban Designer
Sofia Gulaid
Urban Designer

DRAFT FINAL
Section 4
appendices
Appendix A
Safety Corridors Methodology
Appendix B
Project Prioritzation Methodology and Results
Appendix C
Community Engagement Summary
Appendix D
Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix E
SS4A Compliance Table
Appendix F
Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022)

DRAFT FINAL
appendix a | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Appendix ASafety Corridors Methodology

DRAFT FINAL
61 Table 1. Weights by Collision Severity
Severity Crash Cost Safety Corridors Weight
Fatal and Severe Injury (KSI) $2,860,000* 26
Evident Injury – Other Visible $193,000 2**
Possible Injury – Complaint of
Pain
$110,000 1
Notes:
1 Cost assumptions included in the 2024 Caltrans LRSM are based on costs included in the HSM, First Edition, 2010 with costs adjusted to 2024 dollars. *The fatal and severe injury (KSI) collision cost is an average of the location type costs (signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, roadway). **Rounded to nearest whole number.

Overview
Safety Corridors
Development
The Safety Corridors developed
for the City of Pasadena identify
higher-risk locations for injury
collisions across all modes based
on collision history. Overlap
with the Safety Corridors
was factored into the project
prioritization process as part of
the development of the Pasadena
Focused Local Roadway Safety
Action Plan (Focused LRSAP).
collision data
The Safety Corridors were
developed using data previously
collected for the Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) provided by
the City of Pasadena. This dataset
includes five years of collision data
from 2015 to 2019. This dataset
only includes injury collisions (i.e.
excluding Property Damage Only).
safety corridors
methodology
The methodology relies on
Pasadena’s collision history to
build the Safety Corridors. We
weighed injury collisions by the
collision severity in terms of
“comprehensive” crash cost.

The weights for collision severity,
summarized in Table 1, are based
on 2024 California Local Road
Safety Manual (LRSM) crash costs
for each collision severity. This
method is similar to the Highway
Safety Manual (HSM) Equivalent
Property Damage Only (EPDO)
weighting method but uses the
“Complaint of Pain” severity level
as its baseline. The HSM uses
“comprehensive” or “societal”
crash costs to associate crash
costs with each crash severity
level. Comprehensive costs
include both economic costs and
monetized pain and suffering
costs. Economic costs are
monetary costs associated with
emergency services deployment,
medical services, productivity loss
due to victim injury, insurance and
legal costs, costs associated with
congestion impacts as a result of
the collision, and property damage
costs. Monetized pain and
suffering costs are an assumption
of the costs associated with lost
quality-of-life (or Quality-Adjusted
Life Years [QALY]), accounting for
reductions in life expectancy and
quality of life changes as a result of
a crash.
associating collisions to
roadways
The following section outlines the
major steps of the methodology
for associating collisions with
roadway segments.

1. Associating collisions to
roadway segments
a. Collisions were associated
to roadway segments
using a 60-foot roadway
segment buffer. Collisions
within 60 feet of multiple
roadway segments (e.g. at an
intersection) were assigned
to each segment and were
double counted.

2. Calculate Safety Corridor
Index
a. Each collision was assigned
a collision score based on
the proposed collision factor
weights in Table 1.
b. A score for each roadway
(known as the Safety Corridor
Index) was calculated by
aggregating the weighted
collision sums, which were
joined to the network in the
previous step.

3. Safety Corridor building
a. The Safety Corridors were
built using roadways that fell
above the 85th percentile on
the Safety Corridor Index.

4. Safety Corridors check
and refinement: Checked
and corrected anomalies in
resulting Safety Corridors.

Examples include:
a. Compared the Safety
Corridors to the Top Corridors
in the City of Pasadena LSRP
and extended the Safety
Corridors to match the total
length of all Top Corridors.
b. Removed segments that
have recently undergone
major safety improvements
(e.g. the lane reduction on
Cordova Street).
62 DRAFT FINAL DRAFT FINAL
appendix a | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Wilson
Mount
Pasadena
East
ridge
añada Altadena
Pasadena
South
San
Gabriel
East San
Colorado Blvd.

Orange Grove Blvd.

Mountain St.

Lida St.

Washington Blvd.

Linda Vista Ave
Walnut St.

Union St.

Del Mar Blvd.

Cordova St.

Green St.

Glenarm St.

California Blvd.

Villa St.

Marengo Ave.Los Robles Ave.El Molino Ave.Lake Ave.

Allen Ave.

Sierra Madre Blvd.

San Gabriel Rd.

Sierra Madre
Villa Ave.

Wilson Ave.

Oak Knoll Ave.

Pasadena Ave.

Fair Oaks Ave.Raymond Ave.

Holly St.

INTERSTATE
210

INTERSTATE
210

CALIFORNIA
110

CALIFORNIA
134
Arroyo Pkwy.

Table 2. Safety Corridors
Street Name From To
Allen Ave Corson St Whitefield Rd
Arroyo Pkwy Glenarm St Holly St
California Blvd St. John Ave Wilson Ave
Colorado Blvd Arroyo Blvd Northup Ave
Del Mar Blvd Orange Grove Blvd Catalina Ave
Del Mar Blvd Bonnie Ave Craig Ave
El Molino Ave Union St Mountain St
Fair Oaks Ave Glenarm St Fair Oaks Dr
Foothill Blvd Walnut St Michillinda Ave
Glenarm St Pasadena Ave El Molino Ave
Green St Grande Ave Hill Ave
Holly St Linda Vista Ave Orange Grove Blvd
Lake Ave Arden Rd Atchison St
Lida St Knollwood Dr Parkview Ave
Linda Vista Ave Banyan St La Vista Pl
Los Robles Ave California Blvd Claremont St
Marengo Ave California Blvd Orange Grove Blvd
Mountain St Lincoln Ave Los Robles Ave
Oak Knoll Ave Oak Knoll Cir Cordova St
Orange Grove Blvd Ellis St Michigan Ave
Pasadena Ave Valley St Corson St
Raymond Ave Glenarm St Hammond St
San Gabriel Blvd Diana St Sierra Madre Blvd
Seco St Rosemont Ave Lincoln Ave
Sierra Madre Blvd Canterbury Rd Paloma St
Sierra Madre Villa Ave Colorado Blvd Sierra Madre Blvd
Villa St Cypress Ave Sinaloa Ave
Walnut St Orange Grove Blvd Harkness Ave
Washington Blvd Mentone Ave Tierra Alta Dr
Wilson Ave Blanche St Emerson St
Union St Lake Ave Hill Ave
Union St St. John Ave Arroyo Pkwy
Safety Corridors
The City of Pasadena Safety
Corridors represent 80 percent of
injury collisions across 13 percent
of Pasadena’s roadways. This
network of roadways that can
be targeted for future safety
improvements across the city. The
network can also support efforts
to reduce speed limits, as allowed
by AB 43.

DRAFT FINAL
63 Appendix BProject Prioritization
Methodology and Results
64 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Overview
Existing City Projects
The following pages summarize
the methodology and outcome
of the project prioritization
process for the Pasadena Focused
Local Roadway Safety Action
Plan (Focused LRSAP). The
prioritization effort identified a
total of 15 projects for inclusion in
the Action Plan: 11 projects from
existing City of Pasadena (“City”)
plans and four new communitygenerated projects developed based on feedback collected
during two rounds of community
engagement in Fall 2024 and
Spring 2025. Key prioritization
criteria for selecting these 15
projects included expected safety
and community benefits, and
community support.

Unfunded safety projects in
existing City plans were scored
and prioritized for inclusion in the
Focused LRSAP based on seven
categories: safety benefit, crash
reduction factor, community
impact, plan concurrence,
complete streets benefit, climate
and resiliency benefit, and
community support.

Initial filtering and scoring
The project prioritization
exercise began by identifying
all the existing transportation
projects in the City’s Pedestrian
Transportation Action Plan (PTAP),
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP),
Capital Improvements Program
Transportation Projects (CIP), and
Greenways Feasibility Study. We
identified 80 projects from four
City plans to be included in the
comprehensive existing project
list, included in Attachment A. We
first applied qualitative filters to
remove projects that do not have
a safety component and/or are
already funded. This “screening”
step filtered the comprehensive
list of projects down from 80
projects to 35 projects.
• The first qualitative filter
assessed and removed
projects without a connection
to safety because improving
roadway safety is the primary
goal of the City’s LSRAP. This
filter removed a subset of
Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) projects. For example,
the “Hydrogen Fueling Station”
CIP project will design and
construct a hydrogen fueling
station for City vehicles, which
does not directly improve
safety.
• The second qualitative filter
categorized projects based
on their funding status and
removed projects that are 50%
or more funded. The purpose
of this filter was to exclude
projects that are already in
the implementation process.

Projects with more than 50%
funding are also more likely
to be able to leverage existing
funding resources. Projects
were categorized as: fully
funded, majority funded,
partially funded (50% or less
of the budget financed), and
unfunded. Similar to the safety
component filter, this criterion
primarily filtered out a subset
of CIP projects.

The next step was to score the 35
remaining projects based on a
set of scoring criteria, based on six
categories for 25 possible points,
as shown in Table 1. Each project
was given scores for its:

1. Safety Benefit
The goal of the Focused
LRSAP is to eliminate
severe injuries and fatalities
on Pasadena’s roadway
network. A project earned five
points if it overlapped with
the City’s Safety Corridors
to ensure projects are
improving locations with a
history of severe injury and
fatal collisions. Fehr & Peers
developed the Safety Corridors
based on citywide collision
data from 2015-2019 and
weighted roadway segments
by collision severity.

DRAFT FINAL
65 2. Crash Reduction Factor
To evaluate the relative safety
impact of each project,
projects were scored based
on the crash reduction factor
(CRF) of their proposed
countermeasures as defined
in the 2024 California Local
Roadway Safety Manual
(LRSM). The range of possible
CRF’s for all countermeasures
is between 0% and 100%.

This range was divided
into five quantiles, which
means a countermeasure
received between one and
five points depending on
its corresponding CRF. For
each project, we identified
and scored the proposed
countermeasure with the
highest CRF. For example, a
project that proposed a leading
pedestrian interval (CRF of
60% for pedestrian and bicycle
crash types) and protected left
turn phasing (CRF of 30% for
all crash types) at intersections
along Washington Boulevard
was scored based on the
leading pedestrian interval
countermeasure and received
a CRF score of 3 points. If a
project did not propose any
countermeasures from the
LRSM, it received zero points
for this category.

3. Community Impact
Priority projects in the Focused
LRSAP should represent
equitable investment in the
safety needs of historically
underserved communities. A
A project earned five points
if it benefits a disadvantaged
community, defined based on
socioeconomic and pollution
burdern variables.

4. Plan Concurrence
A project received a score
between zero and three based
on the number of City plans
in which it appeared. Projects
that were included in multiple
City plans were scored higher
as this suggests these projects
are internal priorities, have
buy-in across multiple City
departments, and/or are highly
feasible to implement.

5. Complete Streets Benefit
Focused LRSAP projects
should promote safe access
for all road users, including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit
riders, and motorists of all
ages and abilities. A project’s
Complete Streets score ranged
from zero to five based on the
number of modes the project
benefits. The more modes a
project benefited, the higher it
scored in this category.

6. Climate and Resiliency
Benefit
The SS4A grant program
evaluates to what extent
projects support the U.S.

Department of Transportation’s
climate change and
sustainability goals. To ensure
Focused LRSAP projects
advance the City’s climate
and sustainability efforts,
projects that incorporate
green infrastructure and
strategies that reduce vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) received
a score of two, while projects
that meet one of these two
criteria received a score of
one. Examples of green
infrastructure include street
trees, bioswales, and planter
boxes. These interventions use
natural landscape features to
filter and absorb stormwater,
which reduces flood risk
from rain events along with a
host of other environmental
and community benefits.

VMT reduction strategies,
which reduce transportation
emissions, were defined as
the set of transportation
measures in the California
Air Pollution Control Officers
Association (CAPCOA) 2021
Handbook for Analyzing
Greenhouse Gas Emission
Reductions, Assessing
Climate Vulnerabilities and
Advancing Health and Equity
(“Handbook”).

These categories represent key
evaluation criteria for safety
grants, including the Federal
Department of Transportation’s
SS4A Program and the California
Transportation Commission’s
Active Transportation Program.

We presented the 20 projects with
the highest cumulative scores to
the public to collect community
feedback on project prioritization.
66 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Table 1. Priority Project Scoring
Category Criteria Score
Safety Benefit • Overlaps with Safety Corridors 0-51
Crash Reduction Factor • Countermeasure crash reduction factor provided in 2024 California Local Road Safety Manual
0-52
Community Impact • Within an area of the city with higher rates of people living in poverty and/or disproportionately burdened by pollution.
0-53
Plan Concurrence • Number of existing plans that include the project 0-34 Complete Streets
Benefit
• Number of modes benefited (walk, bike/micromobility, transit, vehicle)
0-55
Climate & Resiliency
Benefits
• Incorporates green infrastructure
• Reduces vehicle miles traveled
0-2
Notes:
1 Projects were given a score of 0 if there was no overlap with the Safety Corridors, a score of 2 if under half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors, and a score of 5 if over half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors. 2 Projects were scored based on the proposed countermeasure with the highest CRF. 3 Projects were given a score of 0 if there was no overlap with disadvantaged communities, a score of 2 if under half of the project extent overlapped with disadvantaged communities, and a score of 5 if over half of the project extent overlapped with disadvantaged communities. 4Projects that appeared in two plans received a score of one; projects that appeared in three plans received a score of two; projects that appeared in four or more plans received a score of 3. The CIP was not considered when awarding points for multiple plan concurrence because all CIP projects began in a City plan.
5 Projects that benefit one mode received a score of one; projects that benefit two modes received a score of three; projects that benefit three modes received a score of four; projects that benefit four modes or more received a score of five.

DRAFT FINAL
67 Top Twenty Scoring
Projects
The top 20 scoring existing City
projects are shown in Table 2.

The scores for the top 20 projects
ranged from 19 points for the
top project (Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections
on Washington Boulevard) to 12
points. There was a five-way tie
for projects in the 18th through
22nd positions on the list. This
tie included three projects from
the PTAP (pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections
on San Gabriel Boulevard, Del
Mar Boulevard, and Foothill
Boulevard), one project from the
CIP (mobility hubs and first/last
mile improvements), and one
project from the LRSP (fluorescent
sign sheeting at priority locations).

Based on City feedback, two
of these three PTAP projects
(San Gabriel Boulevard and Del
Mar Boulevard) and the LRSP
fluorescent sign sheeting project
were selected for the top 20 list.

These projects offered a balance
of near-term, ready-to-construct
projects from the LRSP and
CIP alongside larger long-term
projects from the PTAP.

The top 20 projects included three
projects from the CIP, ten projects
from the LRSP, and seven projects
from the PTAP. All these projects
were expected to improve safety in
the City—all 20 are located along
one of the City’s Safety Corridors
and incorporate countermeasures
identified in the 2024 California
Local Roadway Safety Manual—
while still representing a range of
project types and locations. The
top scoring projects also reflect the
importance of prioritizing safety
improvements in disadvantaged
and underserved communities;
18 of the top 20 projects include
some overlap with disadvantaged
communities in the City, many of
Table 2. Top Twenty Projects, Prior to Community Input
project name/location

1.       Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on
Washington Boulevard

11.      Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on
Allen Avenue

2.      Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on Fair
Oaks Avenue
w.    Crossing improvements at Lake
Avenue/Maple Street intersection

3.      Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on Los
Robles Avenue

13.    Class II bike lane on Washington
Boulevard from Forest Avenue to
Catalina Avenue

4.     Citywide installation of Leading
Pedestrian Intervals and Accessible
Pedestrian Signals (LPI/APS) at
signalized intersections

14.    Crossing improvements at
El Molino Avenue/Villa Street
intersection

5.      Signal and crossing
improvements at Lake Avenue/
Washington Boulevard intersection

15.    Dynamic speed warning signs on
Los Robles Avenue from Washington
Boulevard to Maple Street

6.      Signal and crossing
improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/
Washington Boulevard intersection

16.    Signal improvements at Fair Oaks
Avenue/Maple Street intersection

7.      Signal and crossing
improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/
Orange Grove Boulevard intersection

17.    Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons at
priority midblock or non-signalized
intersections

8.      Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on
Lake Avenue

18.    Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on San
Gabriel Boulevard

9.      Citywide implementation of
continental-style crosswalks (highvisibility crosswalks)

19.    Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on Del
Mar Boulevard

10.    Traffic signal preemption for
emergency vehicles at intersections
along arterial streets

20.  Fluorescent sign sheeting at
15 priority locations for nighttime
visibility
which are entirely located within
disadvantaged communities.

Most of the projects incorporated
strategies that would encourage
mode shift away from driving
alone, though none of the top 20
projects currently incorporate a
green infrastructure component.
68 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Table 3. Priority Project Scoring with Community Input
Category Criteria Score
Safety Benefit • Overlaps with Safety Corridors 0-51
Crash Reduction
Factor
• Countermeasure crash reduction factor
provided in 2024 California Local Road
Safety Manual
0-52
Community Impact • Within an area of the city with higher rates of people living in poverty and/
or disproportionately burdened by
pollution.
0-53
Plan Concurrence • Number of existing plans that include the project
0-34
Complete Streets
Benefit
• Number of modes benefited (walk,
bike/micromobility, transit, vehicle)
0-55
Climate & Resiliency
Benefits
• Incorporates green infrastructure
• Reduces vehicle miles traveled
0-2
Community Input
Score
• Number of votes a project received
during community engagement both
in-person and online.
1-56
Notes:
1 Projects were given a score of 0 if there was no overlap with the Safety Corridors, a score of 2 if under half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors, and a score of 5 if over half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors. 2 Projects were scored based on the proposed countermeasure with the highest CRF. 3 Projects were given a score of 0 if there was no overlap with disadvantaged communities, a score of 2 if under half of the project extent overlapped with disadvantaged communities, and a score of 5 if over half of the project extent overlapped with disadvantaged communities.
4 Projects that appeared in two plans received a score of one; projects that appeared in three plans received a score of two; projects that appeared in four or more plans received a score of

3. The CIP was not considered when awarding points for multiple plan concurrence because all CIP projects began in a City plan.
5 Projects that benefit one mode received a score of one; projects that benefit two modes received a score of three; projects that benefit three modes received a score of four; projects that benefit four modes or more received a score of five. 6 Projects received 1-5 points depending on the number of votes they received during the first round of engagement. Votes were associated with quintiles, which were calculated based on the maximum number of votes received by a single project. community input scoring
We then brought these 20
projects to the public for their
input and updated their scores
based on community feedback
collected during the first round
of engagement in Fall 2024.

Each priority project was given a
community input score from 0-5.

The final community input score
for each project was based on
the number of votes it received
from both online and in-person
community engagement
outreach. The maximum number
of project votes received for a
single project was broken into
quintiles, and each project
received a community input score
based on where the number
of votes it received fell in these
quintiles. For example, a project
that received 75 percent of the
highest number of total project
votes got a score of four since it
fell in the fourth quintile. The top
20 projects were then re-scored to
incorporate the community input
score. The final existing project
scoring methodology was thus
based on seven categories for a
maximum possible score of 30
points, as shown in Table 3.

Focused LRSAP Priority
Project Selection
The City selected eleven existing
City projects for inclusion in
the Focused LRSAP based
on the results of the updated
scoring process. The final
scores for the top 20 existing
City projects ranged from 22
points for the highest-scoring
project (Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections
on Washington Boulevard) to
13 points for the lowest-scoring
project (Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections
on San Gabriel Boulevard). Table
4 lists the scores for the top 20
projects (including community
input scoring) and denotes the
eleven selected as Focused LRSAP
priority projects in bold.

DRAFT FINAL
69 Table 4. Top 20 Project, Including Community Input
Project Safety CRF Community
Impact
Plan
Concurrence
Complete
Streets
Climate &
Resiliency
Community
Input
Total
Score
Pedestrian crossing
improvements at
intersections on Washington
Boulevard1
5 3 5 1 4 1 3 22
Citywide installation of
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
and Accessible Pedestrian
Signals (LPI/APS) at
signalized intersections
5 3 5 1 1 1 5 21
Citywide implementation of
continental-style crosswalks
(high visibility crosswalks)
at signalized intersections
and marked uncontrolled
crosswalks
5 1 5 2 1 1 5 20
Pedestrian crossing
improvements at
intersections on Fair Oaks
Avenue
5 3 5 0 4 1 2 20
Pedestrian crossing
improvements at
intersections on Lake
Avenue
5 3 2 1 3 1 4 19
Pedestrian crossing
improvements at
intersections on Los Robles
Avenue
5 3 5 0 3 1 2 19
Class II bike lane on
Washington Boulevard from
Forest Avenue to Catalina
Avenue1
5 2 5 0 1 1 4 18
Traffic signal preemption
for emergency vehicles at
intersections along arterial
streets
5 4 5 0 1 0 3 18
Signal and crossing
improvements at Fair Oaks
Avenue/Orange Grove
Boulevard intersection
5 2 5 0 3 1 2 18
Signal and crossing
improvements at Lake
Avenue/Washington
Boulevard intersection2
5 1 5 1 3 1 2 18
70 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Table 4. Top 20 Project, Including Community Input
Project Safety CRF Community
Impact
Plan
Concurrence
Complete
Streets
Climate &
Resiliency
Community
Input
Total
Score
Signal and crossing
improvements at Fair
Oaks Avenue/Washington
Boulevard intersection1
5 3 2 1 1 1 4 17
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(HAWK) signals at priority
midblock or non-signalized
intersections2
5 1 5 1 3 1 1 17
Pedestrian crossing
improvements at
intersections on Allen
Avenue
5 3 2 0 3 1 2 16
Fluorescent sign sheeting
at 15 priority locations for
nighttime visibility
5 1 5 0 1 0 3 15
Pedestrian crossing
improvements at
intersections on Del Mar
Boulevard
5 3 0 0 3 1 3 15
Crossing improvements at
Lake Avenue/Maple Street
intersection
5 1 5 1 1 1 1 15
Dynamic speed warning
signs on Los Robles Avenue
from Washington Boulevard
to Maple Street
5 2 5 0 1 0 1 14
Signal improvements at Fair
Oaks Avenue/Maple Street
intersection
5 2 5 0 1 0 1 14
Crossing improvements at El
Molino Avenue/Villa Street
intersection
5 1 5 0 1 1 1 14
Pedestrian crossing
improvements at
intersections on San Gabriel
Boulevard
5 3 0 0 3 1 1 13
Notes:
1 The City allowed for overlap between some projects like the Washington Boulevard PTAP and Washington Boulevard Bicycle Lane Improvements projects because these projects provide the City with the multiple options for improving Washington Boulevard depending on future funding opportunities.
2 The HAWK Signal project replaced the Signal and Crossing Improvements at Lake Avenue/Washington Boulevard Intersection project because the improvements in this project were similar to the Pedestrian Crossing Improvements at Intersections on Lake Avenue project already included in the final project list.

DRAFT FINAL
71 Figure 1. Safety Mapping Exercise
Community-Generated
Projects
Community-generated projects
include projects not included in
the original top 20 list, but that
were identified by the public
as important for enhancing
traffic safety. These projects
were developed using feedback
collected during the first round
of engagement and then scored
and prioritized for inclusion
in the Focused LRSAP based
on three categories: safety
benefit, community impact, and
community support.

Project Identification
The first round of community
engagement also informed the
development of communitygenerated projects. In-person
attendees could place pins on a
map of Pasadena, shown in Figure
1, at any location where they have
experienced transportation safety
concerns. Online participants
had the opportunity to place
virtual pins on an online map of
the City. Attendees and online
contributors were asked to specify
if their pin referred to a specific
intersection or an entire corridor,
and what mode(s) are impacted
by their transportation safety
concern. Participants could also
leave comments explaining their
concerns in greater detail.

The project team used the pins
submitted by participants to
develop community-generated
projects based on the steps
summarized below.

1. The project team consolidated
the pins submitted online and
during in-person workshops
into a single GIS map to
visualize all submissions in one
place.

2. Next, pins were grouped
into projects based on their
location. Pins located along
the same street were grouped
together if there was less
than a mile between each
pin. Pins at intersections were
considered for projects along
both intersecting streets.

The locations and comments
associated with pins
determined the final extents
of the community-generated
projects.

3. Community-generated
projects that overlapped with
the 20 existing City projects
with the highest cumulative
scores—as determined in the
quantitative scoring step of the
prioritization methodology—
were removed to ensure
the community-generated
projects represented new
project opportunities.

Comments associated with
pins that overlapped existing
City projects will be revisited
when finalizing those project
descriptions.
72 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Table 5. Community-Generated Project Scoring Framework
Category Criteria Score
Safety Benefit • Overlaps with Safety Corridors 0-51
Community Impact • Within a top 25% scoring
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Census tract
• Defined as disadvantaged by the
Climate and Economic Justice
Screening Tool (CEJST)
0-52
Community Input
Score
• Number of votes a project received
during community engagement both
in-person and online.
1-53
Table 6. Community-Generated Project Scoring, Top Four
Scoring Projects
Project Extent Community
Input Safety1 Community Impact
Total
Score
Marengo
Avenue
Between Villa
Street & Glenarm
Street
5 5 2 12
Sunset
Avenue
Between
Howard Street &
Hammond Street
5 5 2 12
Arroyo
Parkway
Between
Cordova Street &
Glenarm Street
5 5 0 10
Colorado
Boulevard
Between Allen
Avenue & Sierra
Madre Boulevard
5 5 0 10
Notes:
1 Projects were given a score of 0 if there was no overlap with the Safety Corridors, a score of 2 if under half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors, and a score of 5 if over half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors. 2 Projects were scored based on the proposed countermeasure with the highest CRF. 3 Projects were given a score of 0 if there was no overlap with disadvantaged communities, a score of 2 if under half of the project extent overlapped with disadvantaged communities, and a score of 5 if over half of the project extent overlapped with disadvantaged communities.

Notes:
1 Projects were given a score of 0 if there was no overlap with the Safety Corridors, a score of 2 if under half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors, and a score of 5 if over half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors.

Project Scoring
The project team scored 73
community-generated projects
using a similar methodology
to what we used to prioritize
existing City projects. The scoring
categories for the communitygenerated projects were safety benefit, community impact,
and community input. Each
project was given a score based
on these three categories for a
maximum possible score of 15
points, as shown in Table 5. The
community-generated projects
were not scored in the crash
reduction factor, plan concurrence,
complete street benefit, or climate
and resiliency benefit categories
because they did not yet include
the detailed project scope and
countermeasures needed for
scoring in these categories.

Focused LRSAP Priority
Project Selection
The City selected the four
community-generated projects
that had the highest total
scores but did not overlap with
ongoing or planned projects.

These four projects are listed
in Table 6. For a full list of
community-generated projects,
see Attachment B. The City
prioritized projects that did not
overlap with ongoing or planned
projects like the neighborhood
traffic management program
along Mountain Street or
improvements associated with
other City agency projects like the
Pasadena Department of Water
and Power’s undergrounding
project along Raymond Avenue.

The project description and
potential countermeasures for the
community-generated projects
selected for inclusion in the
Focused LRSAP priority project
list were informed by the second

DRAFT FINAL
73 round of community engagement
in Spring 2025. The communitygenerated project descriptions were developed to include safety
treatments that maximize safety
benefits, while also providing
complete streets, and climate and
resiliency benefits.

Additional information about the
community outreach component
of the project can be found in the
Community Engagement Plan
and Community Engagement
Summary memoranda.

Top Fifteen Projects
The 15 projects selected for
inclusion as priority projects in
the Focused LRSAP is comprised
of eleven projects from existing
City plans and four communitygenerated projects and are shown in Table 7. This list represents three
citywide projects, nine corridor
projects, and three intersection
or mid-block crossing projects.

These projects are multi-modal
and include improvements for
bicyclists, pedestrians, transit
riders, and drivers. They are
geographically distributed
throughout the City and cover
many of its major corridors and
critical intersections. The final list
of projects offers a mix of nearterm and long-term projects that the City can select from based
on their future needs and grant
opportunities.

Table 7. Top 15 Project Selected for Inclusion in the
Focused LRSAP
project name/location

1.       Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on
Washington Boulevard

9.      Class II bike lane on Washington
Boulevard from Forest Avenue to
Catalina Avenue

2.     Citywide installation of Leading
Pedestrian Intervals and Accessible
Pedestrian Signals (LPI/APS) at
signalized intersections

10.      Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(HAWK) signals at priority midblock or
non-signalized intersections

3.      Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on Fair
Oaks Avenue

11.      Signal and crossing improvements
at Fair Oaks Avenue/Washington
Boulevard intersection

4.      Citywide implementation
of continental-style crosswalks
(high visibility crosswalks) at
signalized intersections and marked
uncontrolled crosswalks

12.      Marengo Avenue – between Villa
Street and Glenarm Street

5.      Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on Los
Robles Avenue

13.      Sunset Avenue – between
Howard Street and Hammond Street

6.      Pedestrian crossing
improvements at intersections on
Lake Avenue

14.      Arroyo Parkway – between
Cordova Street and Glenarm Street

7.      Signal and crossing
improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/
Orange Grove Boulevard intersection

15.      Colorado Boulevard – between
Allen Avenue and Sierra Madre
Boulevard

8.      Traffic signal preemption for
emergency vehicles at intersections
along arterial streets
74 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Attachment A: Projects Identified from Existing City Plans Table 1. Local Roadway Safety Plan (2022) Projects
project name/location

1.       Bike Lane on Washington Blvd (from
Forest Ave to Catalina Ave)

11.       Flashing yellow signal and high visibility
crosswalks at Colorado Blvd & Sierra Madre Blvd

2.       Bike Lane on Del Mar Blvd (from Los
Robles Ave to east City Limit)

12.       Install high visibility crosswalk and add curb extensions at Arroyo Pkwy & Green St

3.       RRFB Installation at multiple midblock and non-signalized locations13.       Intersection improvements at Fair Oaks Ave & Maple St

4.       HAWK Signal Installation at multiple midblock and non-signalized locations14.       Retroreflective backing plates at 115 signalized intersections (22 priority intersections)

5.       High Visibility Crosswalks at Lake Ave & Maple St 15.       Nearside signal heads at 10 intersections

6.       High Visibility Crosswalks at El Molino Ave & Villa St 16.       Fluorescent sheeting at 15 sign locations

7.       Install new traffic signal at Orange
Grove Blvd & Sierra Bonita Ave

17.       Dynamic speed warning signs and thermoplastic paint at Lake Ave from Mountain St to California Blvd

8.       Flashing yellow signal and high visibility
crosswalks at Lake Ave & Washington Blvd

18.       Dynamic speed warning signs on Los Robles
Ave (from Washington Blvd to Maple St)

9.       Flashing yellow signal and high visibility
crosswalks at Fair Oaks Ave & Washington Blvd

19.       Add contrast restriping at 31 locations

10.       Flashing yellow signal and high visibility crosswalks at Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Blvd Table 2. Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan (2024) Projects project name/location

1.       Allen Ave (from north City limit to Colorado Blvd) 7.       Los Robles Ave (from north City limit to Walnut St)

2.       Del Mar Blvd (from Pasadena Ave to east City limit) 8.       Raymond Ave (from Colorado Blvd to E Glenarm St)

3.       Fair Oaks Ave (from north City limit to south City limit) 9.       San Gabriel Blvd (from Maple St to California Blvd)

4.       Foothill Blvd (from Walnut St to east City limit) 10.     Washington Blvd (from Lincoln Ave to Sierra Bonita Ave)

5.       Lake Avenue (from north City limit to Arden Road) 11.       California Blvd (from Fair Oaks Ave to Lake Ave)

6.       Lincoln Ave (from north City limit to Washington Blvd Table 3. Greenways Feasibility Study (2021) Projects
project name/location

1.       El Molino Ave (from Atchison St to Bonita Drive) 3.       Sierra Bonita Ave (from Washington Blvd to Colorado Blvd)

2.       Wilson Ave (from Washington Blvd to California Blvd) 4.       Craig Ave (from Orange Grove Blvd to Del Mar Blvd)

DRAFT FINAL
75 Table 4. Capital Improvement Program - Transportation (FY 2025-2029) Projects project name/location

1. Pasadena Bicycle Program 24. Citywide Leading Pedestrian Interval/Accessible Pedestrian Signal (LPI/APS) Implementation Program

2. Citywide Neighborhood Traffic Management Program 25. Implementation of Citywide Transportation Performance Monitoring Network

3. Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Program 26. Implement Bus Signal Priority System on Pasadena Transit Buses

4. Arterials Speed Management Program 27. Walnut St Corridor Signal Improvements

5. Citywide Complete Streets Program 28. St. John Capacity Enhancement

6. Complete Streets Project - Ave 64 29. Intelligent Transportation System Projects & Traffic Flow Improvements within the SR 710 Affected Corridors

7. Complete Streets Project - N Hill Ave 30. Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon at Washington Blvd/ Hudson Ave

8. South Lake Ave Pedestrian Access Improvements to A
Line Station

31. Traffic Signal at Del Mar Blvd/Michigan Ave

9. Installation of Leading Pedestrian Interval and Audible Signals at Signalized Intersections

32. Traffic Signal at Orange Grove Blvd/Craig Ave

10. Enhancements to Metro A Line Allen Station 33. Installation of Traffic Signal and Curb Extensions at Sierra Bonita Ave/Orange Grove

11. Lake Ave Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Enhancements – Design Phase

34. A Line Phase I - Project Enhancements

12. Pedestrian Transportation Action Plan - Outreach and Conceptual Design

35. Pasadena Light Rail Train Tracking and Network Monitoring System - Phase II

13. Greenway (Bike Blvd) Implementation 36. Traffic Signal Improvements at Orange Grove Blvd/Holly St, and Orange Grove Blvd/Colorado Blvd

14. Pasadena Ave and St John Ave Street Improvements 37. Multimodal Improvements on San Rafael Ave

15. Columbia St Multimodal Improvements 38. Installation of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (HAWKs) at Various Locations

16. Citywide Continental Crosswalk Implementation 39. Mobility Hubs and First/Last Mile Improvements

17. Complete Streets Project - Mountain St 40. Installation of Automated License Plate Readers - Pilot Program

18. Rose Bowl Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Study 41. Signal Preemption Equipment at Traffic Signals Citywide - Phase II

19. Orange Grove Blvd Mobility Improvement Program 42. Purchase of Replacement Transit Vehicles and Expansion FixedRoute Transit Vehicles

20. Mobility Corridor Improvements 43. Purchase of Dial-A-Ride Vehicles

21. Transportation System Safety Enhancements Project 44. Construction of Transit Operations Maintenance Facility

22. Old Pasadena Traffic Improvement 45. Bus Stop Improvement Program

23. Intelligent Transportation System Equipment
Upgrades/Replacement

46. Hydrogen Fueling Station
76 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Attachment B: Community Generated Project List and Scores Community Generated Project List and Scores
project type extents community
input safety1 community impact
total
score
Mountain Street Corridor Between Raymond Avenue
& El Molino Avenue
5 5 5 15
Villa Street (between Champlain
Avenue & Lake Avenue)
Corridor Between Champlain
Avenue & Lake Avenue
4 5 5 14
El Molino Avenue Corridor Between Woodbury Road &
Santa Barbara Street
5 2 5 12
Marengo Avenue Corridor Between Villa Street &
Glenarm Street
5 5 2 12
Orange Grove Boulevard
(Between Fair Oaks Avenue &
Sierra Madre Villa Avenue)
Corridor Between Fair Oaks Avenue
& Sierra Madre Villa Avenue
5 2 5 12
Sunset Avenue Corridor Between Howard Street &
Hammond Street
5 2 5 12
Wilson Avenue Corridor Between California
Boulevard & Emerson
Street
5 5 2 12
Raymond Avenue Corridor Between Mountain Street &
Howard Street
4 2 5 11
Seco Street Corridor Between Lincoln Avenue &
Arroyo Boulevard
4 5 2 11
Paloma Street (at Sierra Madre
Boulevard)
Intersection Sierra Madre Boulevard/
Paloma Street
1 5 5 11
Maple Street (Between El Molino
Avenue & Wilson Avenue)
Corridor Between Wilson Avenue &
El Molino Avenue
3 2 5 10
Arroyo Parkway Corridor Between Cordova &
Glenarm Street
5 5 0 10
California Boulevard Corridor Between Fair Oaks Avenue
& Wilson Avenue
5 5 0 10
Glenarm Street Corridor Between Pasadena Avenue
& Los Robles Avenue
5 5 0 10
Colorado Boulevard Corridor Between Orange Grove
Boulevard & Sierra Madre
Boulevard
5 5 0 10
Altadena Drive (between
Mountain Street & Queensberry
Road)
Corridor Between Mountain Street &
Queensberry Road
4 0 5 9
Foothill Boulevard Corridor Between Walnut Street &
Sierra Madre Boulevard
4 5 0 9
Sierra Madre Villa Avenue Corridor Between Sierra Madre Boulevard & Electronic
Drive
4 5 0 9
Villa Street (at Sierra Bonita
Avenue)
Intersection Villa Street/Sierra Bonita
Avenue
4 5 0 9
Sierra Madre Boulevard Corridor Between Paloma Street & Hastings Ranch Drive
5 2 2 9
Howard Street Corridor Between Forest Avenue &
Raymond Avenue
5 2 2 9
Walnut Street (Between Corson
Street & Garfield Avenue)
Corridor Between Corson Street &
Garfield Avenue
3 5 0 8

DRAFT FINAL
77 Community Generated Project List and Scores
project type extents community
input safety1 community impact
total
score
Garfield Avenue (Between
Woodbury Road & Washington
Boulevard)
Corridor Between Woodbury Road &
Washington Boulevard
1 2 5 8
Union Street Corridor Between Arroyo Parkway &
De Lacey Avenue
2 5 0 7
Pasadena Avenue Corridor Between Columbia Street &
Hulburt Street
5 2 0 7
Michigan Avenue Corridor Between Colorado
Boulevard & Del Mar
Boulevard
5 2 0 7
Mountain Street (at Altadena
Drive)
Intersection Altadena Drive/Mountain
Street
2 0 5 7
Washington Boulevard (at
Herritage Drive)
Intersection Washington Boulevard/
Herritage Drive
2 0 5 7
Cordova Street Corridor Between Madison Avenue
& Arroyo Parkway
4 2 0 6
Holly Street Corridor Between City Hall &
Leonard J Pieroni St
4 2 0 6
Euclid Avenue Corridor Between California
Boulevard & Glenarm Street
4 2 0 6
Sierra Bonita Avenue Corridor Between Orange Grove
Boulevard & Villa Street
4 2 0 6
Painter Street (at Summit Avenue) Intersection Painter Street/Summit Avenue
1 0 5 6
Raymond Avenue (at Del Mar
Station)
Intersection Raymond Avenue/Del Mar
Station
1 5 0 6
Cooley Place (at Altadena Drive) Intersection Altadena Drive/Cooley Place
1 0 5 6
Oak Knoll Avenue (at Colorado
Boulevard)
Intersection Colorado Boulevard/N Oak
Knoll Avenue
1 5 0 6
Oakland Avenue (at Colorado
Boulevard)
Intersection Colorado Boulevard/N
Oakland Avenue
1 5 0 6
Pasadena Avenue (at Walnut
Street)
Intersection Walnut Street/Pasadena
Avenue
1 5 0 6
Roosevelt Avenue (at Colorado
Boulevard)
Intersection Colorado Boulevard/
Roosevelt Avenue
1 5 0 6
Rosemont Avenue (at Seco Street) Intersection Seco Street/Rosemont Avenue
1 5 0 6
Walnut Street (at Foothill
Boulevard)
Intersection Foothill Boulevard/Walnut
Street
1 5 0 6
Orange Grove Boulevard (at Holly
Street)
Intersection Orange Grove Boulevard/
Holly Street
1 5 0 6
Union Street (at Hill Avenue) Intersection Union Street/Hill Avenue 1 5 0 6 Hill Avenue Corridor Between Corson Street &
Cordova Street
4 2 0 6
Fillmore Street Corridor Between Marengo Avenue
& Fair Oaks Avenue
3 2 0 5
Garfield Avenue (Between Holly
Street & Walnut Street)
Corridor Between Holly Street &
Walnut Street
3 2 0 5
78 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Community Generated Project List and Scores
project type extents community
input safety1 community impact
total
score
Corson Street Corridor Corson Street/Lake Avenue 2 2 0 4 Los Robles Avenue (Between
Glenarm Street & Del Mar
Boulevard)
Corridor (Between Glenarm Street &
Del Mar Boulevard)
2 2 0 4
Lincoln Avenue Corridor Between Howard Street &
Washington Boulevard
4 0 0 4
State Street (at Pasadena Avenue) Intersection Pasadena Avenue/State Street
4 0 0 4
Target Parking Lot (at Union
Street)
Intersection Union Street/Target 4 0 0 4
Forest Avenue Corridor Between Howard Street &
Del Monte Street
3 0 0 3
Hastings Ranch Drive Corridor Between Sierra Madre
Boulevard & Cartwright
Street
3 0 0 3
Orange Grove Boulevard
(Between Orange Grove Circle &
Arlington Drive)
Corridor Between Orange Grove
Circle & Arlington Drive
3 0 0 3
Villa Street (between Altadena
Drive & Sierra Madre Boulevard)
Corridor Between Altadena Drive &
Sierra Madre Boulevard
3 0 0 3
Maple Street (Between Foothill
Boulevard & San Gabriel
Boulevard)
Corridor Between Foothill Boulevard
& San Gabriel Boulevard)
1 2 0 3
Altadena Drive (at Canyon Close
Road)
Corridor Two intersections with
Canyon Close Road
2 0 0 2
Walnut Street (at Sunnyslope
Avenue)
Intersection Walnut Street/Sunnyslope
Avenue
2 0 0 2
Del Monte Street Corridor Betwen Forest Avenue &
Lincoln Avenue
2 0 0 2

DRAFT FINAL
79 Community Generated Project List and Scores
project type extents community
input safety1 community impact
total
score
Columbia Street (at Pasadena
Avenue)
Intersection Pasadena Avenue/
Columbia Street
2 0 0 2
Altadena Drive (at Florecita Drive) Intersection Altadena Drive/Florecita Drive
1 0 0 1
Arroyo Boulevard (at 134 NB) Intersection Arroyo Boulevard/SR 134 1 0 0 1 Marengo Avenue and Garfield
Avenue
Intersection Marengo Avenue/Garfield
Avenue
1 0 0 1
Michillinda Avenue (Between
Sierra Madre Boulevard & North
City border)
Corridor Michilinda Avenue 1 0 0 1
Rose Bowl Intersection Rose Bowl 1 0 0 1
Rosemead Boulevard (at Sierra
Madre Villa Avenue)
Intersection Rosemead Boulevard/Sierra
Madre Villa Avenue
1 0 0 1
Woodbury Road (Between El
Molino Avenue & Lake Avenue)
Corridor Between El Molino Avenue
& Lake Avenue
1 0 0 1
Alpine Street (at El Molino Avenue) Intersection El Molino Avenue/Alpine Street
1 0 0 1
Arlington Drive (at Pasadena
Avenue)
Intersection Pasadena Avenue/Arlington
Drive
1 0 0 1
Cartwright Street (at Hastings
Ranch Drive)
Intersection Hastings Ranch Drive/
Cartwright Street
1 0 0 1
Daisy Avenue (at Foothill
Boulevard)
Intersection Foothill Boulevard/Daisy
Avenue
1 0 0 1
Woodbury Road (at El Molino
Avenue)
Intersection El Molino Avenue/E
Woodbury Road
1 0 0 1
Cordova Street (at Shoppers Lane) Intersection Cordova Street/Shoppers Lane
1 0 0 1
Notes:
1 Projects were given a score of 0 if there was no overlap with the Safety Corridors, a score of 2 if under half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors, and a score of 5 if over half of the project extent overlapped with the Safety Corridors 80 DRAFT FINAL
appendix b appendix c | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Appendix C
Community Engagement Summary

DRAFT FINAL
81 Table 1. In-Person Workshop Details
Workshop Location Date and Time
Number of
Sign-Ins
Victory Park Community
Center
Wednesday, October 16, 6:00pm
8:00pm
7 Villa Parke Community
Center
Thursday, October 17, 6:00pm8:00pm9
Robinson Park
Recreation Center
Tuesday, October 22, 6:00pm8:00pm10
City Hall Training Room Thursday, October 24, 6:00pm8:00pm6 Overview Round One Community
Engagement The following pages summarize
the results of the community
engagement efforts for the
Focused Local Roadway Safety
Action Plan (Focused LRSAP),
led by the City of Pasadena in
partnership with Fehr & Peers
and HERE.LA. The first round of
community engagement took
place from October to November
2024 to gather feedback on
20 existing safety-related City
projects and to solicit ideas for
new ones. 201 voters participated
in the project-ranking exercise
and made 194 contributions to
the interactive mapping tool. The
findings informed the prioritization
of existing and communitygenerated projects, and guided planning for the second round of
engagement. The second round
of community engagement took
place in April 2025, and focused
on collecting feedback on four
community-generated safety
projects along Arroyo Parkway,
Colorado Boulevard, Marengo
Avenue, and Sunset Avenue. Over
397 participants cast 503 votes
highlighting key safety concerns,
including unsafe driver behavior,
biking and rolling safety, and
crossing conditions. The outcomes
of this second round shaped the
project descriptions and potential
countermeasures for the four
corridor-specific safety projects to
be included in the LRSAP.

The first round of community
engagement took place from
October to November 2024 to
gather feedback on 20 existing
safety-related City projects and to
solicit ideas for new ones.

Engagement Channels
To encourage a wide range of
responses, the project team
conducted in-person and online
community engagement. While
the capabilities of in-person and
online efforts differed slightly,
both outreach channels included
project ranking and interactive
mapping exercises.

In-Person Workshops
Four in-person workshops were
held to gather community
feedback on the Focused LRSAP.

At these workshops, attendees
were asked to rank their top five
preferred projects from a list of
20 existing projects previously
identified by the project team in
the Project Prioritization Results
Memorandum (September
20, 2024) and contribute to an
interactive mapping exercise
with locations where they had
transportation safety concerns.

The workshops also served as a
place for attendees to ask City
staff any questions they had
about existing City projects or
the Focused LRSAP process. The
workshops were held at venues
across Pasadena and were staffed
with Spanish and Mandarin
speakers to encourage diverse
feedback and participation. A
total of 32 participants signed in
at the workshops. Attendance by
workshop location is summarized
in Table 1.
82 DRAFT FINAL
appendix c | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Each workshop consisted of a
project ranking exercise and an
interactive mapping component.

Attendees were provided with
handouts that included project
descriptions for the top 20
projects and a countermeasure
toolbox with definitions of all the
countermeasures referenced in the
project descriptions. In the project
ranking exercise, attendees were
given five rings that represented a
vote and asked to place the rings
on the flags representing their
preferred existing projects. Each
existing project had its own flag,
shown in Figure 1. Residents could
allocate multiple rings to the same
project if they wished. In-person
attendees cast a total of 129 votes
in the project ranking exercise. The
interactive mapping component,
also shown in Figure 1, allowed
attendees to place a pin on a
map of Pasadena at any location
where they had safety concerns.

Attendees selected orange pins
for locations where their concern
was tied to a specific intersection
and red pins where their concern
was tied to a larger corridor. Some
attendees also left notes on the
map to give more details about
their experience at that location.

Attendees contributed a total of
50 experience pins across the four
workshops.

Online Engagement
Online community engagement
was conducted from October
7, 2024, through December 1,
2024. The interactive website was
designed using Social Pinpoint
to help explain the Focused
LRSAP project to visitors virtually
and solicit feedback through
the same project ranking and
interactive mapping exercises
used in the in-person format.

The website also linked to
.pdf versions of the workshop
handouts, which provided more
detailed project descriptions and
a countermeasure toolbox. The
project ranking exercise asked
website visitors to prioritize the
existing top 20 projects from first
to fifth most important. During
the online engagement window,
169 voters cast 845 project votes
in the existing project ranking
exercise. The interactive mapping
component of the website allowed
visitors to place a pin anywhere in
Pasadena that they had a safety
concern, select what mode of
travel the concern was based
on (walking, biking, driving, or
other concern), leave a comment
describing their pin, and upvote
contributions from other residents
that they agreed with. Online
visitors contributed a total of 144
pins to the interactive mapping
exercise.

Engagement Results and
Key Findings
While the response rates of inperson and online outreach efforts differed, overall themes
and comments from the project
prioritization and mapping
exercises were consistent across
platforms. In general, the same
existing projects performed well
in-person and online, with a
preference for citywide projects or
projects along a major corridor, as
opposed to spot improvements or
specific intersection investments.

Comments and concerns raised
in the interactive mapping
exercise were consistent, with
many contributors mentioning
concerns about the ability of
pedestrians and bicyclists to cross
intersections and concerns about
traffic speeds at locations across
the city. Total votes for each of the
top 20 projects and a visualization
of the contributions to the
mapping exercise can be found in
Attachment A and Attachment B
respectively.

Citywide Project Popularity
Projects marked as citywide or
those that included a variety of
intersections across the City were
very popular in the project ranking
exercise. The two projects that
received the most votes online
and in-person overall were the
citywide continental-style (high
visibility) crosswalk project and
the leading pedestrian intervals
(LPI)/accessible pedestrian signals
(API) project. Two other popular
projects, fluorescent sign sheeting
and HAWK signal installation,
included improvements at
multiple locations rather than
a single intersection or corridor.

The popularity of these more
geographically broad projects
could be attributed to a
Figure 1: Project Ranking Exercise (left), Safety Mapping Exercise (right)

DRAFT FINAL
83 preference for projects that will
be implemented across the city
rather than at a single location.

Major Corridor Popularity
The projects with the most votes
outside the citywide projects were
located along a major corridor.

Many of these major corridors,
like Washington Boulevard,
Fair Oaks Avenue, and Lake
Avenue, represented Pedestrian
Transportation Action Plan (PTAP)
corridors and overlapped with
commonly noted locations on the
interactive mapping website.

Traffic Speeds
One of the most popular themes
from the comments left as
part of the interactive mapping
exercise was concerns about
traffic speed at intersections
and corridors throughout the
City. Contributors identified
intersections and corridors
where they believed traffic
speed was the top concern for
transportation safety in that area.

Some respondents specifically
identified improvements like road
diets, while other residents raised
traffic speed as a concern more
generally.

Difficulty Crossing for Pedestrians
and Bicyclists
Another common interactive
mapping contribution was a
concern about the ability of
pedestrians and bicyclists to
cross intersections safely. These
comments brought up issues such
as high traffic speeds, high-speed
turns, and a lack of pedestrian
infrastructure. Intersection safety
concerns were spread across the
City.

Bike Lane Protection
Many contributors to the
interactive map expressed a
preference for separated bikeways
over bike lanes and bike routes. A
number of workshop attendees
shared this sentiment in their live
comments and questions related
to the proposed bike lane project
on Washington Boulevard. These
community members felt that
separated bikeways would allow
bicyclists to feel safer on the road
and encourage more residents to
bike.

Engagement Approach
Learnings
The first round of community
engagement yielded many
lessons learned that can were
incorporated into the second
round of community engagement.

The outreach process had some
successes, like creativity and
interactive website popularity,
and some challenges, like low inperson attendance.

Creativity and Materials
Attendees appreciated the
creativity and novelty of the
project ranking and interactive
mapping exercises both in-person
and online. The construction of
the in-person activity encouraged
attendees to move around the
room and allowed facilitators
to easily answer attendees’
questions about specific projects
or safety treatments. Additionally,
attendees and visitors found
the materials like the project
maps and descriptions helpful in
understanding what was included
in each project. For example,
attendees appreciated that
each “flag” for a project included
both a project description and a
list of countermeasures, which
they could reference in the
countermeasure toolbox handout.

In-Person Attendance
Overall, in-person attendance was
lower than online engagement
and contributions. Some possible
factors for the lower in-person
attendance include overlap with
the World Series which occurred
during the same time and some
locations being more challenging
to find, like the City Hall training
room, which was located in the
basement. The project team
explored different marketing
channels and in-person outreach
formats to boost in-person
participation in the second round
of community engagement in
Spring 2025.

Online Participation
There was a substantial amount
of online participation in the
community engagement process,
with over three-quarters of project
ranking and interactive mapping
contributions coming from online
contributors. Online engagement
allowed the project team to reach
residents who may not have been
able to attend one of the in-person
workshops, but still wanted to
contribute to the Focused LRSAP
effort.

Diversity of Workshop Locations
While the in-person attendance
was lower overall, the diversity in
the location of workshops yielded
a consistent number of attendees
at each event. Additionally, there
were typically different attendees
at each event, contributing new
perspectives and ideas to the
project ranking and interactive
mapping exercises.
84 DRAFT FINAL
appendix c | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Table 2. Pop-Up Event Details
Workshop Location Date and Time
Total
Visitors
Victory Park Farmer’s Market1 Saturday, April 5, 8:30am-12:00pm 102 Victory Park Farmer’s Market Saturday, April 12, 8:30am-12:00pm 146 Rose Bowl Aquatics Center Saturday, April 12, 1:30pm-3:30pm 24 La Pintoresca Library1 Tuesday, April 15, 3:00pm-6:00pm 14 Round Two Community
Engagement
Figure 2. Corridor Posters (left), Safety Concern Voting Balls (right) The second round of community
engagement took place in April
2025, and focused on collecting
feedback on four communitygenerated safety projects along Arroyo Parkway, Colorado
Boulevard, Marengo Avenue, and
Sunset Avenue
Engagement Channels
To encourage feedback from
a wide range of community
members, the project team
conducted in-person pop-up
events at four different locations as
well as online engagement. While
the capabilities of in-person and
online efforts differed slightly, both
outreach channels included the
ability to share top safety concerns
by project corridor and provide
free response comments.

Pop-Up Events
Four in-person pop-up events
were held to gather community
feedback about the top safety
issues along the four corridors
identified by the project team
following the first round of
engagement: Arroyo Parkway,
Colorado Boulevard, Marengo
Avenue, and Sunset Avenue.

Visitors could vote on their top
two safety concerns along each
of the four corridors. The seven
categories visitors could choose
from were lighting, transit stop
safety & comfort, sidewalk &
accessibility challenges/barriers,
crossing & safety, biking & rolling
safety, traffic & driver behavior, or
no safety concern. Visitors could
also provide specific details on the
nature and location of their safety
concerns via comment cards.

Before casting their votes, visitors
could learn more about the four
community-generated project
corridors on posters shown in
Figure 2. These posters included a
map of the project corridor, some
key destinations along the corridor,
and collision statistics for the
corridor.

The pop-up events were held
across Pasadena and a subset
were staffed with Spanish
speakers. A total of 286 people
visited one of the pop-up events
and 141 of these visitors cast a
vote or submitted a comment
card. In-person attendees cast a
total of 486 votes across the four
corridors and submitted a total
of 25 comment cards at the four
pop-ups. Attendance by pop-up
location is summarized in Table 2.

Online Engagement
Online community engagement
was conducted from March 28,
2025 through May 6, 2025. The
project website provided an
overview of the Focused LRSAP
planning effort, collision statistics
for each of the four communitygenerated project corridors and an interactive map activity that
allowed visitors to share their top
safety concerns along each of
the four community-generated
project corridors. Nine voters cast
17 votes for safety concerns along
the four community-generated
project corridors via the project
website during the second round
of engagement.

Notes:
1 Pop-up event was staffed by a Spanish interpreter

DRAFT FINAL
85 Table 3. Safety Concern Votes by Corridor
Safety Concern
Arroyo
Pkwy
Marengo
Ave
Colorado
Blvd
Sunset
Ave
No Safety Concerns 7 3 7 3
Lighting 6 11 8 11
Transit Stop Safety &
Comfort
8 9 7 2
Sidewalk & Accessibility
Challenges/Barriers
11 9 16 10
Crossing & Safety 26 28 36 14
Biking & Rolling Safety 36 38 38 15
Traffic & Driver Behavior 42 44 43 15
Total 136 142 155 70
Notes:
1 This summary includes votes submitted online and at in-person workshops.

Engagement Results and
Key Findings
While the participation and
responses rates differed between
in-person and online outreach
efforts, overall themes and
comments from the safety
concern exercises were consistent
across platforms. Marengo Avenue
received the most community
feedback in-person and online,
followed by Arroyo Parkway, then
Colorado Boulevard, and lastly
Sunset Avenue. Driver behavior,
biking and rolling safety, and
crossing safety were the top areas
of concern across corridors and
outreach channels. Total votes by
safety concern for each corridor
are shown in the table to the right.

Top Safety Concerns
The top safety concerns were
consistent across all four corridors.

For each corridor the top concern
was driver behavior followed
by biking and rolling safety and
then crossing safety. These three
concerns accounted for 75% of
the total safety concerns shared
by the community during the
second round of engagement. The
fourth concern varied by corridor.

Sidewalk accessibility challenges/
barriers was the fourth most
common safety concern along
Arroyo Parkway and Colorado
Boulevard, while lighting ranked
fourth for Marengo Avenue and
Sunset Avenue.

Corridor Familiarity
Community members were
more familiar with projects along
the city’s major corridors, which
generally serve more traffic and
destinations. Arroyo Parkway,
Colorado Boulevard, and Marengo
Avenue all received well over 100
safety concern contributions.

Fewer community members
were familiar with Sunset Avenue,
a residential street, though
this corridor still received 70
contributions.

Engagement Approach
The project team engaged
substantially more people via the
pop-up event format compared
to the in-person workshop
format leveraged during the
first round of engagement due
to the high-traffic locations,
primarily weekend timing, and
simplicity of the engagement
event. The pop-up event format
importantly still allowed City staff
to have in-depth conversations
with interested community
members. For future projects
where in-person engagement is
the priority, City staff can consider
a similar approach. The second
round of online engagement
resulted in less website traffic
compared to the first round
despite a similar approach to
online marketing. This decrease in
web traffic could be attributed to
the narrower scope of this round
of engagement, which focused
on four corridors rather than 20
projects across the city. Future
engagement efforts focused on
individual projects should consider
targeted marketing efforts at the
project site to help drive more
online engagement among the
intersection or corridor’s existing
road users.
86 DRAFT FINAL
appendix c | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Attachment A: Community Votes for Each of the Top 20 Existing Projects Community Votes for Each of the Top 20 Existing Projects project total votes received
Citywide implementation of continental-style crosswalks (high visibility crosswalks) at signalized intersections and marked uncontrolled crosswalks 117
Citywide installation of Leading Pedestrian Intervals and Accessible Pedestrian Signals (LPI/ APS) at signalized intersections
114
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) signals at priority midblock or non-signalized intersections
85 Class II bike lane on Washington Boulevard from Forest Avenue to Catalina Avenue 80 Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Lake Avenue 78 Fluorescent sign sheeting at 15 priority locations for nighttime visibility 65 Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Washington Boulevard 64 Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Del Mar Boulevard 60 Traffic signal preemption for emergency vehicles at intersections along arterial streets 48 Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Fair Oaks Avenue 46 Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Allen Avenue 38 Signal and crossing improvements at Lake Avenue/Washington Boulevard intersection 35 Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on Los Robles Avenue 32 Signal and crossing improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/Orange Grove Boulevard intersection 25 Dynamic speed warning signs on Los Robles Avenue from Washington Boulevard to Maple Street
20 Crossing improvements at Lake Avenue/Maple Street intersection 19 Signal improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/Maple Street intersection 14 Signal and crossing improvements at Fair Oaks Avenue/Washington Boulevard intersection 12 Crossing improvements at El Molino Avenue/Villa Street intersection 11 Pedestrian crossing improvements at intersections on San Gabriel Boulevard 10

DRAFT FINAL
87 Attachment B: Interactive Mapping Exercise Contributions Reservoir
Gate
Devils
Pasadena
East
Flintridge
La Cañada
Altadena
Madre
Sierra
San Marino
Arcadia
·110
·134
·210
&%710
Sierra Madre Bl
Walnut St
West Howard St
Linda Vista Avenue
North Fair Oaks Avenue
New York Drive
East Corson Street
eunevAekaL North Lake Avenue
East Del Mar Boulevard
East Washington Bl
vAselboRsoL
eunevAdnomyaR htroN
Columbia St
East Woodbury Road
Allen Av
East Orange Grove Boulevard
East Colorado Boulevard
eunevAadnillihciMhtroN
Seco St
eunevA dnomyaR htuoS
Altadena Drive
Woodbury Road
East Walnut St
eunevA lliH htuoS
Orange Grove Boulevard
Oak Grove Drive
eunevA selboR soL
North Hill Avenue
eunevAnosliW
Maple Street
Sierra Madre Boulevard
East Mountain Street
Interactive Map Contributions by Primary Mode of Concern Biking
Biking/Walking
Driving
Other concern/No mode provided
Walking
Pasadena_City_Boundary
Figure
88 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Appendix DCountermeasure Toolbox

DRAFT FINAL
89 Leading Pedestrian Interval
At intersection locations that have a high
volume of turning vehicle and have high
pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes, a leading
pedestrian interval gives pedestrians
the opportunity to enter an intersection
3 - 7 seconds before vehicles are given
a green indication. With this head start,
pedestrians can better establish their
presence in the crosswalk before vehicles
have priority to turn left or right.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
60%
Image Source: City of Long Beach
How to Read This Toolbox
Photo
Icon
Title
Description
Roadway Contexts
Roadway types adequate for
countermeasure implementation.

Types of Roadway Contexts:

Local, Collector, and Arterial
Updated FHWA Design Hierarchy
Safe System Approach alignment that
countermeasure best corresponds to
Crash Reduction Factor
When describing the CRF note that some
CRF’s apply to all crash types while others
address a subset of crash types. e.g. Leading
Pedestrian Intervals address pedestrian/
bicycle crashes. Intersection daylighting
addresses all crash types.
90 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Bicycle Boulevard
A bike boulevard is a street with low vehicle
traffic volumes and speeds, designated
to give bicyclists travel priority and create
a low-stress cycling experience. Bike
boulevards typically feature various traffic
calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds
and prioritize bicycles, such as branded
wayfinding, pavement markings, traffic
diverters, and landscaping. Sharrows are
the most common pavement marker used
on bike boulevard. They should be centered
in the travel lane, at least three feet away
from parked cars (outside the “door” zone).

Implement traffic calming features every 250
feet to encourage slow, attentive driving.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase attentiveness and awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Los Angeles Eco-Village
Bicycle Crossing (Green Paint)
Solid green paint across an intersection that
signifies the path of the bicycle crossing.

Increases visibility and safety of bicyclists
traveling through an intersection.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: NACTO
Bikeway Projects

DRAFT FINAL
91 Bicycle Signal/Exclusive
Bike Phase
A bicycle signal/exclusive bike phase is
specifically designed to control the movement
of bicycles at intersections, operating
either independently or in coordination
with traffic signal. It separates bicycle
movements from conflicting motor vehicle,
streetcar, light rail, or pedestrian movements
enhancing safety and visibility for cyclist
navigating through an intersection.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Manage Conflicts
in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Bike Portland
Bike Box
A bike box is a designated area at the head
of a traffic lane at a signalized intersection
that provides bicyclists with a safe and
visible way to get ahead of queuing
traffic during the red signal phase.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Manage Conflicts
in Time; Increase Attentiveness and
Awareness
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: NACTO
Bikeway Projects
92 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Bike Detection
Bike detection is a technology used
to identify the presence of a bicycle at
signalized intersections or along roadways,
either through use of push-buttons, inpavement loops, or by video or infrared cameras, to call a green light for bicyclists
and reduce delay for bicycle travel. Provides
appropriate signal timing or priority for
bicyclists, which can discourage red light
running, increase convenience, and safety.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: City of Long Beach
Bike path (Class I)
A bike path provides a completely separate
right of way that is designated for the
exclusive use of people riding bicycles
and walking with minimal cross-flow
traffic. Paths and trails offer opportunities
for the lowest stress bicycle travel.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts
crash reduction factor
45%
Image Source: City of Orlando
Bikeway Projects

DRAFT FINAL
93 Buffered bicycle lane (Class II+)
A buffered bike lane is a conventional bike
lane paired with a designated buffer space,
typically marked with pavement markings
or physical barriers, separating the bike lane
from the adjacent vehicle travel lane and/
or parking lane. The buffer space provides
greater shy distance between motor vehicles,
reducing the risk of collisions with vehicles,
opening car doors, or encroachments
in to the bike lane by parked cars.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts
crash reduction factor
35%
Image Source: City of Covina
Extend Green Time For Bikes
Extending green time for bikes prolongs
the green phase when bicyclists are present
to provide additional time for bicyclists
to clear the intersection. Longer green
times reduce risk of conflicts between
bicyclists and turning vehicles, improve
visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians, and
reduce the need for rushed maneuvering
that could lead to unsafe behavior.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: Irvine Standard
Bikeway Projects
94 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Floating Transit Island
An in-street transit boarding island is used
in conjunction with a Class IV bike facility,
separating transit traffic from bicycle
traffic, reducing conflict between the two
modes, and lowering the risk of collision.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Reduce Vehicle
Speeds
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: San Francisco Bike Coalition
Green Conflict Striping
Dashed green markings in bike lanes
through conflict areas such as at turn
pockets, driveways, and intersections.

Signals to drivers and bikers to take
caution and look for conflicts.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Bikeway Projects

DRAFT FINAL
95 Mixing Zone
Places a suggested bike lane within the
inside portion of a dedicated motor vehicle
turn lane. Lane markings delineate space for
bicyclists and motorists within the same lane
and indicate the intended path for bicyclists to
reduce conflict with turning motor vehicles.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Google Streeetview
Separated Bikeway
A separated bikeway provides dedicated street
space, typically adjacent to outer vehicle travel
lanes, with physical separation from vehicle
traffic, designated lane markings, pavement
legends, and signage. Physical separation
may consist of plastic posts, parked vehicles,
or a curb. Pavement markings that denote
the door zone of parked vehicles can help
bicyclists maintain safe positioning on the
roadway. Separated bikeways improve safety
by reducing conflicts between bicycles and
vehicles on the road and by creating a roadnarrowing effect with buffers or vertical barriers, which may reduce vehicle speeds.

A raised barrier of plastic posts and painted
pavement is a low-cost/quick build option.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts
crash reduction factor
45%
Image Source: City of Burbank
Bikeway Projects
96 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Two-Stage Turn
Queue Bike Box
This roadway treatment provides bicyclists
with a means of safely making a left turn at a
multi-lane signalized intersection from a bike
lane or cycle track on the far right side of the
roadway. In this way, bicyclists are protected
from the flow of traffic while waiting to turn.

Usage could be mirrored for right-turns from
a one-way street with a left-side bikeway.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Manage Conflicts
in Time; Increase Attentiveness and
Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: NACTO
Bikeway Projects

DRAFT FINAL
97 All-Way Stop Control
An all-way stop-controlled intersection
requires all vehicles to stop before crossing
the intersection. An all-way stop controlled
intersection improves safety by removing the
need for motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians
on a side-street stop-controlled intersection
to cross free-flowing lanes of traffic, which
reduces the risk of collision. An “ALL WAY” sign
should be placed under the octagonal stop
sign at all-way stop-controlled intersections
as required by the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Reduce Vehicle
Speeds; Manage Conflicts in Time; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
50%
Image Source: Google Streetview
Centerline Hardening
Centerline hardening is the installation of
physical barriers or delineators separating
two opposing traffic lanes. The enhanced
visibility and lane narrowing reduces lane
departure crashes and head on-crashes.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: IIHS
Intersection & Roadway Projects
98 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Chicanes
A chicane is a traffic-calming feature
consisting of alternating road curves—
typically formed with curb extensions—
that prompt drivers to slow down and
navigate more carefully, thereby improving
safety in areas prone to speeding.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce vehicle speeds, increase
attentiveness & awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Close Slip Lane
Modifies the corner of an intersection to
remove the sweeping right turn lane for
vehicles. Results in shorter crossings for
pedestrians, reduced speed for turning
vehicles, better sight lines, and space
for landscaping and other amenities.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Reduce Vehicle
Speeds
crash reduction factor
30%
Image Source: New York City Street Design Manual
Intersection & Roadway Projects

DRAFT FINAL
99 Intersection Reconstruction
and Tightening
Irregular intersections can be overbuilt and
confusing, presenting safety hazards to all
users. “Squaring up” an intersection as close
to 90 degrees as possible involves intersection
reconstruction to provide better visibility for
all road users, also reducing high speed turns
and reducing pedestrian crossing length.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Reduce Vehicle
Speeds; Increase Attentiveness and
Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Seattle Department of Transportation
Lane Narrowing
Lane narrowing reduces lane widths to
encourage motorists to travel at slower
speeds. Lane Narrowing improves safety
by lowering the risk of collision among
bicyclists, pedestrians, and other motorists.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Eric Fischer
Intersection & Roadway Projects
100 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Leading Pedestrian Interval
At intersection locations that have a high
volume of turning vehicle and have high
pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes, a leading
pedestrian interval gives pedestrians
the opportunity to enter an intersection
3 - 7 seconds before vehicles are given
a green indication. With this head start,
pedestrians can better establish their
presence in the crosswalk before vehicles
have priority to turn left or right.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
60%
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Left Turn Enhanced
Daylighting/Slow Turn Wedge
Uses paint and bollards to extend the curb
and slow left turns at intersections of oneway to one-way or two-way streets. Widening the turning radii of left-turning vehicles
expands the field of vision for drivers and
increases the visibility of pedestrians.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
10%
Image Source: Erica Fischer
Intersection & Roadway Projects
DRAFT FINAL 101
Mini Roundabout/Traffic Circle
Traffic circles, also referred to as mini
roundabouts, are a type of roundabout
typically small in diameter, with on-lane
and a fully traversable central island.

Traffic circles decrease vehicle speeds
and severity of collisions, while reducing
congestion and improving traffic flow.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts, Reduce Vehicle
Speeds
crash reduction factor
Varies
Image Source: NACTO
Partial Closure/Diverter
A roadway treatment that restricts
through vehicle movements using
physical diversion while allowing bicyclists
and pedestrians to proceed through
an intersection in all directions.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts
crash reduction factor
50%
Image Source: Urban Grammar
Intersection & Roadway Projects
102 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Pedestrian Recall
Pedestrian recall is a traffic signal timing
function that causes a pedestrian walk
phase to activate automatically every
cycle. Pedestrian recall can benefit
pedestrians by reducing pedestrian delay.

Improved convenience of crossing in turn
can reduce unsafe crossing behavior.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Dan Gold
Prohibit Left Turns
and/or U-Turns
Restricting left turns and/or U-turns where
they present issues can improve transit
performance, general traffic performance, and
walking and bicycling safety at the same time.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Erica Fischer
Intersection & Roadway Projects
DRAFT FINAL 103
Protected Intersection
Protected intersections use corner
islands, curb extensions, and colored
paint to delineate bicycle and pedestrian
movements across an intersection. Slower
driving speeds and shorter crossing
distance increase safety for pedestrians.

Separates bicycles from pedestrians
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Reduce Vehicle
Speeds
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Santa Monica Spoke
Raised Crosswalk
A raised crosswalk is a pedestrian
crosswalk that is typically elevated 3-6
inches above the road or at sidewalk
level. A raised crosswalk improves safety
by increasing crosswalk and pedestrian
visibility and slowing down motorists.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
35%
Image Source: New York City Street Design Manual
Intersection & Roadway Projects
104 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Raised Intersection
Elevates the intersection bringing vehicles
to sidewalk level. Serves as a traffic calming
measure by creating a visual and physical
reminder for drivers to reduce their speed.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
35%
Image Source: NACTO
Raised Median
Raised medians are curbed sections
in the center of the roadway that are
physically separated from vehicular
traffic. They can be extended through an
intersection to prevent turns and throughmovements to and from the intersecting street. Raised medians reduce vehicular
speeding and discourage risky turning
movements, increasing pedestrian safety.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Reduce Vehicle
Speeds
crash reduction factor
25%
Image Source: Steven Vance
Intersection & Roadway Projects
DRAFT FINAL 105
Refuge Island
A Raised Median, or Refuge Island, is a raised
barrier in the center of the roadway that
can restrict certain turning movements and
provide a place for pedestrians to wait if they
are unable to finish crossing the intersection.

A Raised Median improves safety by reducing
the number of potential conflict points
with designated zones for vehicles to turn,
and a pedestrian refuge island improves
safety by reducing the exposure time for
pedestrians crossing the intersection.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Reduce Vehicle
Speeds
crash reduction factor
45%
Image Source: NYC Street Design Manual
Remove Second
Right-Turn Lane
Roads with two right turn lanes accommodate
more vehicles making right turns
simultaneously and often permit both lanes
to turn right on red. Removing a second
right-turn lane can reduce conflict points
and improve the visibility of pedestrians
and bicyclists for turning drivers.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce vehicle speeds
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: FHWA
Intersection & Roadway Projects
106 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Roadway Reconfiguration
A roadway reconfiguration reduces
roadway space dedicated to vehicle
travel lanes to create room for bicycle
facilities, wider sidewalks, or center turn
lanes and pedestrian refuge islands. A
roadway reconfiguration improves safety
by reducing vehicle speeds and creating
designated space for all road users.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts, Reduce Vehicle
Speeds
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: City of Pasadena
Roundabout
A roundabout is a type of circular intersection
in which road traffic is permitted to flow in
one direction around a central island, and
priority is typically given to traffic already
in the junction. Mini circles are a type of
roundabout that use paint and soft hit posts
to replace stop-controlled intersections with
a circular design. The types of conflicts that
occur at roundabouts are different from
those occurring at conventional intersections;
namely, conflicts from crossing and left-turn
movements are not present in a roundabout.

The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers
to reduce speeds as they proceed through
the intersection; the range of vehicle speeds
is also narrowed, reducing the severity of
crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians
only have to cross one direction of traffic at
a time at roundabouts, thus reducing the
potential for vehicle/pedestrian conflicts.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Reduce Vehicle
Speeds
crash reduction factor
Varies (35-67% to convert from signal; 12-
78% from unsignalized)
Image Source: Google Earth
Intersection & Roadway Projects
DRAFT FINAL 107
Shared Streets
Shared streets are intended to be shared by
pedestrians, bicyclists, and low speed motor
vehicles. They are typically streets without
curbs and sidewalks, and vehicles are slowed
by placing trees, planters, parking areas, and
other obstacles in the street. The shared street
maintains utilitarian uses like loading docks
and parking while making the roadway safer
and more accessible to non-drivers. They
are most often implemented in commercial
areas and on local residential streets.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness;
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: NYC Department of Transportation
Signal
Traffic signals at intersections control the flow
of traffic. Traffic signals have the potential to
reduce the most severe type crashes but will
likely cause an increase in rear-end collisions.

A reduction in overall injury severity is likely
the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
30%
Image Source: Irvine Standard
Intersection & Roadway Projects
108 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Speed Hump
A speed hump is a parabolic traffic calming
device that uses vertical defection to raise
the entire wheelbase of a vehicle and
encourage motorists to travel at slower
speeds to avoid damage to the undercarriage
of an automobile. Speed humps span the
full width of the street and are typically
used to slow speeds on low volume, low
speed roads. They should be spaced every
250 to 500 feet for maximium efficacy.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Unsafe speeds
Image Source: PEDBIKESAFE
Speed Table
A speed table is a traffic calming device
that use vertical defection to raise the entire
wheelbase of a vehicle and encourage
motorists to travel at slower speeds to
avoid damage to the undercarriage of an
automobile. Speed tables are flat-topped
and longer than speed humps, which makes
them suitable for streets with operating
speeds of up to 45 miles per hour. Speed
tables should be spaced at a maximum of
500 feet apart for maximum efficacy. Speed
tables in opposing directions of travel can be
offset or exlude center turn lane to minimize
impacts to emergency service vehicles.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Unsafe speeds
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Intersection & Roadway Projects
DRAFT FINAL 109
Straighten Crosswalk
Straightening crosswalks improves sight lines,
making pedestrians more visible to oncoming
drivers, and may shorten the crossing
distance, reducing the length of time required
for pedestrians to cross an intersection.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: NACTO
Intersection & Roadway Projects
110 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Add Sidewalk
Adding sidewalks provides a separated
and continuous facility for people to walk
along the roadway. Adding sidewalks
improves safety by minimizing collisions
with pedestrians walking in the road.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts
crash reduction factor
80%
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Audible Push Button Upgrade
Push buttons must comply with the
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
standards for accessibility. Pushbuttons
should be visible and conveniently located for
pedestrians waiting at a crosswalk. Accessible
pedestrian signals, including audible push
buttons, improve access for pedestrians
who are blind or have low vision. DIB 82-06
includes accessibility design guidance.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
25%
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Pedestrian Facilities Projects
DRAFT FINAL 111
Bus Stop Placement
Placing bus stops and pedestrian crossings
in close proximity allows transit riders to
cross the street safely. Locating bus stops
on the far side of an intersection, meaning
immediately after an intersection, allows the
bus to pass through the intersection before
stopping for passenger loading and unloading.

Far-side stops encourage pedestrians to
cross behind the bus for greater visibility
and can improve transit service reliability.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: NACTO
Curb Extensions
A curb extension is a traffic calming measure
which widens the sidewalk for a short distance
to enhance the pedestrian crossing and
reduce vehicle speeds. For the pedestrian, this
reduces the crossing distance and improves
pedestrian visibility. For the vehicle, this visual
narrowing encourages drivers to reduce
speed when approaching intersection and
modifies the turning movement geometry
to encourage shaper, slower turns.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
35%
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Pedestrian Facilities Projects
112 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Decorative Crosswalks
Decorative crosswalks are marked pedestrian
crossings across a roadway that include a
colored and/or textured pattern, aesthetic, or
artistic mural element within its horizontal
white boundaries. Artistic elements are
often added in partnership with community
organizations but may also be implemented
to emphasize and alert roadway users of
the designated pedestrian crossing. Similar
application of artistic elements, often referred
to as “asphalt art”, can be applied within the
boundaries of quick-build curb extensions.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
35%
Image Source: Richard Masoner
Extended Time Pushbutton
A pushbutton that can be pressed to
request extra time for using the crosswalk,
beyond the standard crossing time.

Ideal near senior-serving land uses.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: David Schwen
Pedestrian Facilities Projects
DRAFT FINAL 113
High-Visibility Crosswalk
& Advance Stop Bar
A high-visibility crosswalk has a striped
pattern with ladder markings made of highvisibility material, such as thermoplastic tape, instead of paint. A high-visibility crosswalk
improves safety by increasing the visibility of
marked crosswalks and provides motorists
a cue to slow down and yield to pedestrians.

Advance stop bars provide clear direction to
the motorist where they should stop to allow
pedestrians to cross. Having a set back stop
bar improves pedestrian/suto sight lines.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
35%
Image Source: NACTO
Improved Transit Amenities
Improving transit amenities refers to
enhancing the comfort, accessibility, and
functionality of transit stops, including bus
shelters, clear signage, lighting, seating, and
real-time information. These create a safer
and more welcoming environment for people
walking to and from transit by improving the
visibility of transit stops, shortening crossing
distances, and promoting traffic calming.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase attentiveness & awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: NACTO
Pedestrian Facilities Projects
114 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan New and Widened Sidewalks
New and widened sidewalks provide a more
comfortable space for pedestrians, particularly
in locations with high volumes of pedestrians,
and provides space to accommodate people
in wheelchairs. New and widened sidewalks
improve safety by minimizing collisions
with pedestrians walking in the road.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
New/Updated Curb Ramp
New and updated curb ramps include
tactile warning devices for visually
impaired pedestrians and are ideally
“directional” curb ramps that direct
pedestrians immediately into the crosswalk
in the direction they are traveling.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Pedestrian Facilities Projects
DRAFT FINAL 115
Pedestrian Countdown Signals
A pedestrian countdown signal is an LED
timer integrated into pedestrian signals that
displays remaining time for pedestrians to
complete their street crossing at a signalized
intersection. These systems give pedestrians
adequate warning when attempting to
cross a roadway and minimize uncertainty.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
25%
Image Source: LA Walks
Pedestrian Detection
Pedestrian detection is an intersection
treatment that relies on sensors to
detect when a pedestrian is waiting at
a crosswalk and automatically triggers
the pedestrian “WALK” phase.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
25%
Image Source: PEDBIKESAFE
Pedestrian Facilities Projects
116 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
A pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is used
at unsignalized intersections or mid-block
crosswalks to notify oncoming motorists
to stop with a series of red and yellow
lights. Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests
in dark until a pedestrian activates it via
pushbutton or other form of detection
providing enhanced pedestrian visibility.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
55%
Image Source: City of San Luis Obispo
Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
are pedestrian safety devices installed at
crosswalks to enhance visibility and alert
drivers to the presence of pedestrians.

Activated by pedestrians, these beacons
emit a rapid, alternating flash pattern,
capturing drivers’ attention and prompting
them to yield. RRFBs improve crosswalk
visibility, increase driver compliance with
yielding to pedestrians, and thereby enhance
pedestrian safety. Note that due to their
proven efficacy in crash reduction, other
flashing beacons (such as LED-flashing
signs) are not a substitute for RRFBs.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
35%
Image Source: City of Covina
Pedestrian Facilities Projects
DRAFT FINAL 117
Remove Crossing Prohibition
Removes existing crossing prohibitions
and provides marked crosswalk
and other safety enhancements for
pedestrians to cross the street.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
25%
Image Source: Paul Brennan
Pedestrian Facilities Projects
118 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Advanced Dilemma
Zone Detection
The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
system adjusts the start time of the yellowsignal phase (i.e. earlier or later) based on observed vehicle locations and speeds.

The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
system improves safety by minimizing
the number of drivers that are faced with
the dilemma of determining if they should
stop at the intersection or drive through
the intersection based on their speed
and distance from the intersection.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Irvine Standard
Exclusive Pedestrian Phase
A form of pedestrian “WALK” phase at
a signalized intersection in which all
vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing
pedestrians to safely cross through the
intersection in any direction, including
diagonally. The pedestrian exclusive phase
significantly reduces conflict between
vehicles and pedestrians at intersections and
provides maximum pedestrian visibility.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space (Pasadena, CA) Signal Projects
DRAFT FINAL 119
Extend Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Extended pedestrian crossing time
reduces crossings at inappropriate
times, ensures that pedestrians have
enough time to safely cross the roadway,
and improves pedestrians visibility.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: LA Walks
Extend Yellow and All Red Time
Extending yellow and all red time increases
the time allotted for the yellow and red
lights during a signal phase. Extending
yellow and all red time improves safety
by allowing drivers and bicyclists to safely
cross through a signalized intersection
before conflicting traffic movements are
permitted to enter the intersection.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: Irvine Standard
Signal Projects
120 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Flashing Left Turn Signal
A flashing yellow arrow at a traffic signal
indicates to drivers that they must yield to
oncoming traffic and pedestrians before
making a left turn. Flashing left turn signals
are considered safer than traditional solid
green lights at intersections for permissive
left turns because they reduce confusion
and increase attentiveness and awareness.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase attentiveness & awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Prohibiting right-run-on-red movements
should be considered at skewed intersections,
or where exclusive pedestrian “WALK”
phases, Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs),
sight distance issues, or high pedestrian
volumes are present. Can help prevent crashes
between vehicles turning right on red from
one street and through vehicles on the cross
street, and crashes involving pedestrians.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Manage Conflicts
in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: UNC at Chapel Hill
Signal Projects
DRAFT FINAL 121
Protected Left Turns
A protected left turn is a traffic signal
configuration that allows vehicles to make
a left turn at an intersection while being
shielded from conflicting traffic. Left turns
are widely recognized as the highest-risk
movements at signalized intersections, so
providing protected left-turn phases for
signalized intersections significantly improves
the safety for vehicles making the left-turn
maneuver and the conflicting pedestrians.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts; Manage Conflicts
in Time
crash reduction factor
30-55%
Image Source: Benny Mazur
Rest in Red Signal
At certain hours (e.g. late night) a signal
remains red for all approaches or certain
approaches until a vehicle arrives at the
intersection to encourage lower travel
speeds. Speed sensitive rest in red signals
will not turn green until after a vehicle stops,
if the vehicle is going faster than the desired
speed. If the vehicle is going the desired
speed the signal will change to green before
the vehicle arrives, providing an operational
benefit to drivers traveling at the desired
speed limit. This countermeasure can be
paired with variable speed warning signs.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Manage Conflicts
in Time
crash reduction factor
30%
Image Source: Irvine Standard
Signal Projects
122 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Retroreflective Signal Borders
Retroreflective signal borders enhance
the visibility of traffic signals for aging and
color vision impaired drivers, enabling them
to understand which signal indication is
illuminated. Retroreflective borders may
also alert drivers to signalized intersections
during periods of power outages when
the signals would otherwise be dark,
and non–reflective signal heads and
backplates would not be visible.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: City of Surrey
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
A separate right-turn phasing provides
a green arrow phase for right-turning
vehicles. Avoids conflicts between rightturning traffic and bicyclists or pedestrians crossing the intersection on their right.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Gabon Gazette
Signal Projects
DRAFT FINAL 123
Shorten Cycle Length
Traffic signal cycle lengths have a significant
impact on the quality of the urban realm
and consequently, the opportunities for
bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit vehicles
to operate safely along a corridor. Long
signal cycles, compounded over multiple
intersections, can make crossing a street or
walking even a short distance prohibitive
and frustrating. Shortening cycle lengths
decrease exposure to conflicts, reduce wait
time, and improve intersection capacity.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: City of San Gabriel, CA
Signal Interconnectivity and
Coordination / Green Wave
Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies
can produce multiple safety benefits.

Sometimes capacity improvements come
along with the safety improvements and
other times adverse effects on delay or
capacity occur. The emphasis of improving
signal coordination for this countermeasure
is to provide an opportunity for slow speed
signal coordination. Coordinating signals
to allow for bicyclist progression, also
known as a ‘green wave,’ gives bicyclists
and pedestrians more time to safely cross
through the ‘green wave’ intersections.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: Pixabay
Signal Projects
124 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Emergency Vehicle Traffic
Signal Preemption
Traffic signal preemption allows emergency
vehicles to temporarily control traffic signals,
giving them a green light to safely and
efficiently pass through intersections during
emergency responses. This technology
aims to reduce response times and
reduce conflicts at intersections between
emergency vehicles and other vehicles.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage conflicts in time
crash reduction factor
70%
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Signal Projects
DRAFT FINAL 125
Edge Line
Edge lines are striping between the travel
lane and the parking lane and are used to
narrow a driver’s visual field, which can help
lower speeds. Edge lines and other striping
(centerline, striped median, etc.) can be a
lower-cost traffic calming alternative to vertical
and horizontal traffic displacement devices like
speed humps/speed tables and lateral shifts.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
25%
Image Source: Google Streetview
Speed Monitoring
and Feedback
Monitor individual vehicle speeds through
video and/or radar roadside sensors and
notify motorist of excessive speed through
a combination of dynamic roadside signage
and V2I messaging. Deliver speed data
to the traffic operations center (TOC) for
monitoring. While automated enforcement
is not currently legal in California, the
system could be extended to include
enforcement when it becomes legal.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: City of Covina
Signing and Striping Projects
126 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Striping Through Intersection
Adding clear pavement markings, also known
as “cat tracks,” can guide motorists through
complex intersections. Intersections where
the lane designations are not clearly visible to
approaching motorists and/or intersections
noted as being complex and experiencing
crashes that could be attributed to a driver’s
unsuccessful attempt to navigate the
intersection can benefit from this treatment.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
10%
Image Source: Google Earth
Upgrade Intersection
Pavement Markings
Upgrading intersection pavement marking
can include “Stop Ahead” markings
and the addition of centerlines and stop
bars. Upgrading intersection pavement
markings can improve safety by increasing
the visibility of intersections for drivers
approaching and at the intersection.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
25%
Image Source: Montgomery County, MD
Signing and Striping Projects
DRAFT FINAL 127
Upgrade Signs with
Fluorescent Sheeting
Upgrading signs with fluorescent
sheeting replaces existing signs with new
signs that can clearly display warnings
by reflecting headlamp light back to
vehicles. Upgrading signs with fluorescent
sheeting improves safety by increasing
visibility of signs to drivers at night.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: Wikimedia Commons, Scott Batson
Upgrade Striping
Restriping lanes with contrast striping
or high-visibility materials can improve
striping visibility and clarify lane
assignment. This is especially helpful
in low-light or bright conditions.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: FHWA
Signing and Striping Projects
128 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Flashing Beacon as
Advance Warning
A flashing beacon as Advanced Warning
is a blinking light with signage to notify
motorists of an upcoming intersection or
crosswalk. A flashing beacon improves safety
by providing motorists more time to be
aware of and slow down for an intersection
or yield to pedestrians crossing a crosswalk.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
30%
Image Source: Lara Justine
LED-Enhanced Sign
An LED-Enhanced Sign has LED lights
embedded in the sign to outline the sign
itself or the words and symbols on the sign.

The LEDs may be set to flash or operate
in a steady mode. An LED-enhanced sign
improves safety by improving the visibility of
signs at locations with visibility limitations or
with a documented history of drivers failing
to see or obey the sign (e.g. at STOP signs).
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: Jo Naylor
Signing and Striping Projects
DRAFT FINAL 129
Intersection Lighting
Adding intersection and/or pedestrianscale lighting at intersections improves safety by increasing visibility of all road
users. This countermeasure improves safety
for all users by increasing the visibility of
pedestrians at intersections at night.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
40%
Image Source: Fehr & Peers
Pedestrian Scale Lighting
Pedestrian-scale lighting features lowmounted fixtures that brighten sidewalks, crosswalks, and paths to improve visibility and
create a safer, more inviting environment for
foot traffic. Unlike traditional streetlights, they
are typically closer to the ground to focus light
on pedestrian areas rather than over roadways.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase attentiveness & awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Erik McLean
Lighting Projects
130 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Upgrade Lighting to LED
Upgrading Lighting to LED replaces highpressure sodium light bulbs with LED light bulbs in street lights. Upgrading
Lighting to LED improves safety by
increasing the visibility of pedestrians in
crosswalks through greater color contrast
and larger areas of light distribution.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: Bill Morrow
Lighting Projects
DRAFT FINAL 131
Access Control for
Commercial Vehicles
Restrict large commercial trucks from
certain areas or streets within the City.

Access control is often implemented on
local and residential streets and can help
reduce vehicle conflicts in areas with
higher bicycle and pedestrian activity.
roadway contexts
Collector, Local
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Live 5 News WCSC
Access Management
Forms of access management include closing
driveways and restricting left turns. Vehicles
entering and exiting driveways may conflict
with pedestrians and with vehicles on the
main road, especially at driveways within
250 feet of intersections. Closing driveways
near intersections with high collision rates
related to driveways may reduce potential
conflicts. Prohibitions of left turns at locations
where a turning vehicle may conflict with
pedestrians in the crosswalk or where
opposing traffic volume is high reduces
pedestrian interaction with vehicles when
crossing. Directional median openings
restrict specific turning movements, such as
allowing a left-turn from a major street but
not from a minor street. A directional median
opening to restrict left turn improves safety
by reducing the number of conflict points.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Manage Conflicts in Time
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Ryan Smith
Other Projects
132 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Curbside Management
Curbside management can better prioritize
reliable transit and safe bicycling infrastructure,
freight deliveries, passenger pick-ups/
drop-offs, green stormwater infrastructure,
public spaces, and parking management.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Remove Severe Conflicts
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Curb IQ
Delineators, Reflectors,
and/or Object Markers
Delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers are intended to warn drivers
of an approaching curve or fixed object
that cannot easily be removed. They are
generally less costly than Chevron Signs as
they don’t require posts to place along the
roadside, avoiding an additional object with
which an errant vehicle can crash into.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
15%
Image Source: Google Streetview
Other Projects
DRAFT FINAL 133
Dynamic Speed Management
Variable or dynamic speed limits may
be appropriate on roads with significant
variations in congestion throughout the day
or in response to a crash, as well as roads
with frequent weather conditions that affect
safe travel speed. Sensors in the road detect
congestion, weather conditions, vulnerable
road user activity, or scheduled events (such
as school bell times), then automatically lower
the speed limit in stages to manage a more
even slowing of traffic, delay of congestion
onset, and smooth traffic flows. These
changes plus lower speed have potential to
reduce crashes, including secondary crashes.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source City of Covina, CA:

Red Light Camera
A red light camera enforces traffic signal
compliance by capturing the image of a
vehicle that has entered an intersection
in spite of the traffic signal indicating red.

The automatic photographic evidence
is used by authorities to enforce traffic
laws and issue traffic violation tickets.
roadway contexts
Arterial, Collector
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: Digi_Shot
Other Projects
134 DRAFT FINAL
appendix d | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Remove Obstructions
For Sightlines
Remove objects that may prevent drivers
and pedestrians from having a clear
sightline. May include installing red curb at
intersection approaches to remove parked
vehicles (also called “daylighting”), trimming
or removing landscaping, or removing or
relocating large signs. This countermeasure
supports compliance with AB 413, California’s
daylighting law that prohibits the stopping
,standing, parking of a vehicle within
20 feet of the vehicle approach side of
any unmarked or marked crosswalk.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
20%
Image Source: WOSU Public Media Image Source: LADOT
Other Projects
Remove Peak-Hour
Parking Restrictions
Removing peak hour parking lanes eliminates
driver confusion and the hazards caused
by parked cars blocking peak hour lanes. It
also benefits local businesses and improves
pedestrian comfort by moving higher
speed traffic away from the sidewalk.
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce vehicle speeds; remove severe
conflicts
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
DRAFT FINAL 135
Speed Limit Reduction
Setting speed limits to reflect the surrounding
context of the roadway and that meet with
driver expectations can help improve driver
respect for speed limits. Lower speed limits
allow for shorter stopping distances, reduce
the likelihood of collisions, decrease the
severity of crashes, and enhance the overall
experience for pedestrian and bicyclists.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Reduce Vehicle Speeds; Increase
Attentiveness and Awareness
crash reduction factor
Varies
Image Source: City of Alexandria, VA
Wayfinding
Wayfinding involves a system of elements,
such as signage and maps, to direct road
users to local destinations. Wayfinding
can help guide pedestrians and cyclists
to safer, low-traffic routes with dedicated
spaces. Clear signage also makes pedestrian
and bicycle facilities more visible for
all road users, increasing awareness
and potentially reducing conflicts.
roadway contexts
All roadway types
updated fhwa design hierarchy
Increase attentiveness & awareness
crash reduction factor
Not yet available
Image Source: City of Pasadena, CA
Other Projects
136 DRAFT FINAL
appendix e | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Appendix E
SS4A Compliance Table
DRAFT FINAL 137
Overview
One of the goals for the development of the City of Pasadena Focused Local Roadway Safety Action Plan (Focused LRSAP) was to establish a Safe Streets for All (SS4A)-compliant action plan. The City developed the 2022 Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify and address traffic safety concerns for all road users with the goal of achieving zero traffic fatalities in Pasadena. The 2022 LRSP satisfied some but not all of the SS4A Action Plan requirements. The Focused LRSAP builds upon the 2022 LRSP by incorporating the components described below to enable the City to apply for SS4A implementation grants.

SS4A Action Plan Components
• Leadership Commitment and Goal Setting
• Planning Structure
• Safety Analysis
• Engagement and Collaboration
• Policy and Process Changes
• Strategy and Project Selection
• Progress and Transparency
• Equity Considerations1
Notes:
1 Equity considerations was one of the SS4A Action Plan requirements at the time the SS4A planning grant was awarded to the City of Pasadena and during the development of this Action Plan. However, equity considerations is no longer described in the SS4A eligibility requirements as of 2025.
138 DRAFT FINAL
appendix e | pasadena focused local roadway safety action plan Table 1. 2022 LRSP Compliance with SS4A Action Plan Requirements SS4A Action Plan
Component Component Requirements Corresponding Focused LRSAP Section(s) Leadership Commitment
and Goal Setting
Action Plans should include official
public commitment to an eventual
goal of zero roadway fatalities and
severe injuries.

The Introduction chapter of the Focused LRSAP
establishes a public commitment to a goal of zero
roadway fatalities and severe injuries by 2035.

Planning Structure As part of Action Plan development,
a committee or task force should be
established to oversee the Action Plan
development, implementation, and
monitoring.

The Action Plan chapter of the Focused LRSAP
commits the Departments of Transportation
and Public Works to monitor Action Plan
implementation through monthly capital
improvement planning meetings. Previously, the
2022 LRSP included two stakeholder engagement
sessions where key participants were invited to
provide input on its development.

Safety Analysis SS4A Action Plans are required to
analyze existing conditions and
historical trends of crashes.

The 2022 LRSP met this requirement. The Action
Plan supplements the previous analysis and
includes the development of Safety Corridors
described in the Developing the Action Plan
chapter.

Engagement and
Collaboration
Action Plans should include robust
public engagement to allow for
feedback on project development
and groundtruth data analysis.

The Developing the Action Plan chapter of
the Focused LRSAP outlines the community
engagement carried out through two rounds of
public outreach to gather feedback on both existing
and new transportation projects and concerns.

Policy and Process
Changes
Action Plans should include an
assessment of existing policies, plans,
and practices to identify opportunities
to improve how processes prioritize
safety.

The Developing the Action Plan chapter of the
Focused LRSAP details the assessment of existing
city planning documents to identify opportunities
to improve safety in the city. Additionally, the Action Plan chapter discusses process changes to monitor
the implementation of the Action Plan.

Strategy and Project
Selection
Action Plans are required to include
a comprehensive set of projects and
strategies and the timeline for their
implementation.

The Action Plan chapter of the Focused LRSAP
details the priority safety projects identified and a
timeline for their implementation. This project list
includes projects identified in the 2022 LRSP and
other city transportation plans.

Progress and
Transparency
SS4A Action Plans should include
measures to report progress over time
The Action Plan chapter of the Focused LRSAP
details the public-facing dashboard that the City
will maintain and update to track outcome-based
performance measures such as the number of
traffic related deaths.

Equity Considerations Action Plans should include an
equity lens, including building
inclusive processes and identifying
underserved communities through
data and other analyses.

The Developing the Action Plan chapter of the
Focused LRSAP describes the use of equity
measures in priority project scoring. Equity
considerations are no longer described in the SS4A
eligibility requirements but were included when
this Focused LRSAP was developed.

DRAFT FINAL 139
Appendix FLocal Roadway Safety Plan
(2022)
140 DRAFT FINAL

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

CITY OF PASADENA

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
AUGUST 2022
Prepared for:

City of Pasadena
Department of Transportation
221 E Walnut St, Suite 210
Pasadena, CA 91101
Prepared By:
1100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 201
Monterey Park, CA 91754
T: 323.260.4703 | F: 323.260.4705
www.koacorp.com
JC11048
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 2
Table of Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

2.0 INTRODUCTION 8

2.1 FIVE E'S OF SAFETY............................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRSP ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8

2.3 ADDITIONAL PLANS AND DOCUMENTS ....................................................................................................................................... 8

2.4 CITY OF PASADENA ............................................................................................................................................................................. 8

2.5 LRSP OVERVIEW ................................................................................................................................................................................. 10

2.5.1 Data Collection 10

2.5.2 Safety Data Analysis 10

2.5.3 Identify Safety Measures 10

2.5.4 Develop Safety Projects and Cost Estimation 10

3.0 VISION AND GOALS 11

4.0 METHODOLOGY 12

4.1 COLLISION DATA SOURCES ............................................................................................................................................................. 12

4.1.1 RoadSafe GIS 12

4.1.2 SWITRS 12

4.1.3 OTS 12

4.2 IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS FOR ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................................. 12

4.2.1 Ranking Function 13

4.2.2 Average Crash Frequency 13

4.2.3 EPDO Scores 13

4.3 PROPOSING ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES .................................................................................................................... 14

5.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS 15

5.1 PRELIMINARY COLLISION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 15

5.1.1 Year Trend 15

5.1.2 Collision Type 16

5.1.3 Primary Collision Factor (PCF) 17

5.1.4 Motor Vehicle Involved With 18

5.1.5 Time of Day 19

5.1.4 At-Fault Party 19

5.2 COLLISIONS BY FACILITY TYPE ....................................................................................................................................................... 21

5.3 GEOGRAPHIC COLLISION ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 25

5.4 CITY OF PASADENA VS. LOS ANGELES COUNTY ....................................................................................................................... 31

5.5 CITY OF PASADENA VS. CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZES .................................................................................................................... 33

5.6 TOP COLLISION LOCATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 33

5.6.1 Intersection Ranking 35

5.6.2 Roadway Segment Ranking 36
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 3

6.0 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 37

7.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS 38

8.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES 39

8.1 SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURES ..................................................................................................................................................... 43

8.1.1 Retro-Reflective Backing Plates 43

8.1.2 Nearside Signals 45

8.1.3 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 47

8.1.4 HAWK (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk) Signals 49

8.1.5 Fluorescent Sheeting 51

8.1.6 Restriping 53

8.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS ..................................................................................................................................................................... 55

8.2.1 Washington Blvd from Forest Ave to Catalina Ave 55

8.2.2 Lake Ave from Mountain St to California Blvd 56

8.2.3 Los Robles Ave from Washington Blvd to Maple St 57

8.2.4 Del Mar Blvd from Los Robles Ave to East City Limit 58

8.3 INTERSECTIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................. 59

8.3.1 Fair Oaks Ave & Maple St 59

8.3.2 Lake Ave & Washington Blvd 60

8.3.3 Fair Oaks Ave & Washington Blvd 61

8.3.4 Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Blvd 62

8.3.5 Colorado Blvd & Sierra Madre Blvd 63

8.3.6 Arroyo Pkwy & Green St 64

8.3.7 Lake Ave & Maple St 65

8.3.8 El Molino Ave & Villa St 66

8.3.9 Orange Grove Blvd & Sierra Bonita Ave 67

9.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES 68

9.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS .......................................................................................................................................................... 68

9.2 BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ........................................................................................................................................... 69

9.3 SPEEDING ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 70

9.4 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES .............................................................................................................................................. 71

10.0 SAFETY PROJECTS 73

10.1 PROJECT SCOPES AND BENEFIT CALCULATIONS .................................................................................................................... 73

10.2 COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................................................................................ 76

10.3 BENEFIT/COST RATIO ...................................................................................................................................................................... 76

10.4 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION ............................................................................................................................................................. 79 CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 4
List of Figures
Figure 3.1: City of Pasadena Citywide Collision Map (2015-2019) ..........................................................................................................................9 Figure 5.1: Total Collisions by Year..................................................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 5.2: Collision Severity .............................................................................................................................................................................................15 Figure 5.3: Types of Collisions and Types of Collisions vs. KSI Collisions.........................................................................................................16 Figure 5.4: Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Collisions and PCF Collisions vs. KSI Collisions..........................................................................17 Figure 5.5: Motor Vehicle Involved With (MVIW) Collisions and MVIW Collisions vs KSI Collisions........................................................18 Figure 5.6: Collisions by Time of Day .............................................................................................................................................................................19 Figure 5.7: At-Fault Party by Age and Gender...........................................................................................................................................................20 Figure 5.8: Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Age Group......................................................................................................................................20 Figure 5.9: Citywide Collisions .........................................................................................................................................................................................26 Figure 5.10: Broadside due to Automobile Right-of-Way Violations................................................................................................................. 27 Figure 5.11: Rear End due to Unsafe Speed ................................................................................................................................................................28 Figure 5.12: Sideswipe due to Improper Turning ......................................................................................................................................................29 Figure 5.13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions ............................................................................................................................................................30 Figure 5.14 Top Collision Locations ...............................................................................................................................................................................34 Figure 8.1: Recommended Systemic Countermeasure Locations........................................................................................................................39 Figure 8.2: Recommended Intersection and Roadway Countermeasure Locations.....................................................................................40 Figure 8.3: Retro-Reflective Backing Plates Locations.............................................................................................................................................44 Figure 8.4: Nearside Signal Locations ...........................................................................................................................................................................46 Figure 8.5: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Locations ....................................................................................................................................48 Figure 8.6: HAWK Singal Locations................................................................................................................................................................................50 Figure 8.7: Signage Fluorescent Sheeting Locations ...............................................................................................................................................52 Figure 8.8: Contrast Striping Locations.........................................................................................................................................................................54 Figure 8.9: Concept for Washington Boulevard ........................................................................................................................................................55 Figure 8.10: Concept for Lake Avenue ..........................................................................................................................................................................56 Figure 8.11: Concept for Los Robles Avenue............................................................................................................................................................... 57 Figure 8.12: Concept for Del Mar Boulevard...............................................................................................................................................................58 Figure 8.13: Concept for Fair Oaks Avenue & Maple Street..................................................................................................................................59 Figure 8.14: Concept for Lake Avenue & Washington Boulevard .......................................................................................................................60 Figure 8.15: Concept for Fair Oaks Avenue & Washington Boulevard ...............................................................................................................61 Figure 8.16: Concept for Fair Oaks Avenue & Orange Grove Boulevard.......................................................................................................... 62 Figure 8.17: Concept for Colorado Boulevard & Sierra Madre Boulevard........................................................................................................63 Figure 8.18: Concept for Arroyo Parkway & Green Street......................................................................................................................................64 Figure 8.19: Concept for Lake Avenue & Maple Street ...........................................................................................................................................65 Figure 8.20: Concept for El Molino Avenue & Villa Street.....................................................................................................................................66 Figure 8.21: Concept for Orange Grove Boulevard & Sierra Bonita Avenue ................................................................................................... 67 CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 5
List of Tables
Table 4.1: Collision Weight by Severity ..........................................................................................................................................................................13 Table 5.1: Transportation Mode of Collisions by Facility Type ..............................................................................................................................21 Table 5.2: Collisions by Facility Type .............................................................................................................................................................................22 Table 5.3: Collision Severity by Facility Type ..............................................................................................................................................................22 Table 5.4: Street Lighting by Facility Type...................................................................................................................................................................23 Table 5.5: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type .................................................................................................................................................24 Table 5.6 Broadside Collisions by Facility Type .........................................................................................................................................................25 Table 5.7 Rear-end Collisions by Facility Type...........................................................................................................................................................25 Table 5.8 Sideswipe Collisions by Facility Type..........................................................................................................................................................25 Table 5.9: Total Collision Comparison for Pasadena vs. LA County ....................................................................................................................31 Table 5.10: KSI Collision Comparison for Pasadena vs. LA County ......................................................................................................................31 Table 5.11: Collision Type Comparison for Pasadena vs. Los Angeles County................................................................................................32 Table 5.12: PCF Comparison for Pasadena vs. Los Angeles County ...................................................................................................................32 Table 5.13: 2018 OTS Data................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Table 5.14: Top Intersection Ranking ............................................................................................................................................................................35 Table 5.15: Top Collisions at Non-Signalized Intersections Only.........................................................................................................................36 Table 5.16: Top Roadway Segment Ranking...............................................................................................................................................................36 Table 8.1: Common Causes and Countermeasures-Citywide Collisions ............................................................................................................41 Table 8.2: Safety Countermeasures Applied to the City of Pasadena LRSP ....................................................................................................42 Table 9.1: Signalized Intersection Programs Funding Sources .............................................................................................................................68 Table 9.2: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Program Funding Sources ............................................................................................................... 70 Table 9.3: Speeding Program Funding Sources .........................................................................................................................................................71 Table 9.4 Transportation Safety Funding Summary................................................................................................................................................. 72 Table 10.1 Safety Project Scopes .....................................................................................................................................................................................74 Table 10.2 Optional Safety Project Scopes .................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Table 10.3 Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project...................................................................................................................................... 77 Table 10.4 Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Optional Safety Project................................................................................................................... 78 Table 10.5: Safety Project List...........................................................................................................................................................................................80 Appendices
Appendix A – Intersection Collision Summary
Appendix B – Proposed List of Retro-Reflective Backing Plate Locations Appendix C – Proposed List of Fluorescent Sheeting Locations Appendix D – Safety Project Cost Estimation
Appendix E – Collision Benefit Analysis
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 6

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established a program for cities to prepare a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) to identify safety needs and recommend projects to address these needs. This document serves as the LRSP for the City of Pasadena.

OVERVIEW
An LRSP analyzes collision data, assesses infrastructure deficiencies through an inventory of roadway system elements, and identifies roadway safety solutions on a citywide basis. The State created the LRSP to help local agencies develop safety projects that can be submitted for funding by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP Cycle 11, opened as of May 2022, and subsequent cycles will require an LRSP or equivalent plans such as a Vision Zero Plan or System Safety Analysis Report.

This report has been prepared per Caltrans LRSP guidelines and the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) version 1.6 dated June 2022. The general content of this LRSP report follows this outline:
● Crash data source and analysis techniques
● Crash data analysis results and highest occurring crash types ● High-risk corridor and intersection analysis and safety countermeasures ● Cost estimates of recommended improvements
● Prioritization of projects based on cost-benefit ratio and effectiveness of safety improvement ● Strategies for safety project implementation
● Traffic safety enforcement size analysis based on Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) data The LRSP fulfills the following purposes:
● Identify the highest occurring collision types and the roadway characteristics contributing to the collisions. ● Identify high-risk corridors and intersections.
● Propose safety countermeasures to address the safety issues. ● Prioritize safety improvement projects based on benefit/cost ratio and other considerations.

PROMINENT COLLISION PATTERN
Five years of RoadSafe GIS collision records was utilized from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019, adhering to the maximum period permitted by the HSIP for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding. The collisions were categorized by severity, collision type, Primary Collision Factor (PCF), involved parties, lighting conditions, and facility type (signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and mid-block locations). A total of 7,576 crashes were recorded from 2015 to 2019. The following summarizes the collision patterns within the City:
● The most common collision types were broadside, rear-end, and sideswipe. ● Bicycle- and pedestrian-related crashes accounted for approximately .08 percent of total collisions and 14.9 percent of KSI collisions.
● Broadside due to automobile right of way is one of the prominent collision patterns.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 7

SAFETY MEASURES
The following transportation safety emphasis areas were identified based on the collision data analysis:

Signalized Intersections
Bicyclists and Pedestrian Safety
Speeding
Visibility
The LRSP recommends engineering countermeasures derived based on the discussion with stakeholders and city staff, identified emphasis areas, and collision patterns. In addition to infrastructure improvements, non-engineering safety measures address traffic safety concerns through education and enforcement. The emphasis areas were utilized to identify non-engineering programs. Several state and federal grant programs offer funds for nonengineering programs, such as:

Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program (ATCMTD) Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Sustainable Communities Grant Program
California Office of Traffic (OTS) Safety Grants (NHTSA funding) CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 8

2.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Pasadena has retained KOA Corporation (KOA) to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).

Traditionally, agencies have selected safety projects based on historical crash records, focusing on sites with a concentration of recent severe collisions. The LRSP shares a similar framework with the California Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which focuses on engineering and non-engineering solutions towards roadway safety issues. The LRSP identifies the most common collision categories across a roadway network to target projects that address the factors associated with those categories. The LRSP allows agencies to assess risks before a collision by focusing on causal factors rather than collisions. Systemic improvements target broader geography than the traditional spot location improvements. The systemic project selection favors the cost-effective countermeasures for implementation.

2.1 FIVE E'S OF SAFETY
This Plan provides a framework for reducing fatalities and severe injuries across all travel modes and on all public roads. The LRSP focuses on improving roadway safety with engineering improvements and non-engineering programs/campaigns. The plan utilized the following Five E’s: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies. Working together with the Five E's at the city level will help make city roads safer.

2.2 PURPOSE OF THE LRSP
The LRSP systematically identifies and analyzes safety problems and recommends safety improvements. The recommendations in the LRSP also considered the comments of stakeholders involved in the process. Stakeholders included the City's Police and Fire Department, Public Health, Public Works, the Pasadena Department of Transportation, and other city staff. The results of the LRSP are summarized with a prioritized list of improvements and actions. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing roadway safety needs in Pasadena.

2.3 ADDITIONAL PLANS AND DOCUMENTS
In addition to the safety projects listed in this document, other documents include more mode specific safety analysis and associated projects that further enhance overall safety and can complement this plan. The additional plans and documents include the Pedestrian Plan and the Bicycle Transportation Action Plan. Additionally, the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identifies a number of safety projects developed through traffic investigations and public engagement and are in accordance with the principles of the LRSP. Collectively, the Local Road Safety Plan and these additional documents provide the City of Pasadena's safety project list consistent with a Safe System Approach and help determine grant funding application opportunities. The referenced plans have undergone a series of public outreach and engagement activities to formalize the key projects.

2.4 CITY OF PASADENA
The City of Pasadena is a city located northeast of downtown Los Angeles. According to the US Census, the estimated 2021 population is 138,699 residents. Based on the RoadSafe GIS collision database, between January 2015 and December 2019, there were 7,576 collisions in Pasadena, of which 138 resulted in fatal and severe injuries.

Figure 3.1 illustrates a map of the collisions citywide.

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 9
Figure 3.1: City of Pasadena Citywide Collision Map (2015-2019)

INTRODUCTION
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 10

2.5 LRSP OVERVIEW
The LRSP project includes four primary tasks. The following sections include a brief description of the tasks associated with this project, with a more detailed description of each task in subsequent sections of this document.

2.5.1 Data Collection
A comprehensive Geographic Information Systems (GIS) project database was developed by utilizing the following data:

Five years (1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019) of collision data collected via the RoadSafe GIS collision database Five years (1/1/2015 to 12/31/2019) of collision data were collected via the California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) to compare Pasadena and Los Angeles County at large Classification of control type: signalized intersection, non-signalized intersection, and midblock locations

2.5.2 Safety Data Analysis
Following the comprehensive GIS database, the collision data was analyzed for Pasadena. Collisions were compared to the safety emphasis areas defined in the California SHSP. The safety data analysis is summarized in Section 5 of this document. The transportation emphasis areas are identified based on the collision data analysis and are discussed in Section 7 of this document.

2.5.3 Identify Safety Measures
In coordination with city staff, a list of engineering-related safety countermeasures and non-engineering safety measures were developed for use as recommendations in this LRSP. These safety measures are discussed in Section 8 and Section 9 of this document.

2.5.4 Develop Safety Projects and Cost Estimation
Roadways and intersections were ranked based on the collision frequency. The top locations of interest will be investigated for further evaluation and potential safety improvements. The improvements include signal hardware improvement, additional warning signage, and bikeway-related features. Planning-level cost estimations are provided for each safety project. The list of safety projects is prioritized based on the following considerations:

Benefit/Cost Ratio (for engineering solutions only)
Funding availability for engineering and non-engineering programs Other factors recommended by city staff
The safety projects and cost estimates are discussed in Section 10 of this document.

CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 11

3.0 VISION AND GOALS
This LRSP aims to develop the safety measures under the following 5 E's of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies through data-driven analysis and stakeholder participation. The development of the Pasadena LRSP identified the following vision and goal to guide the LRSP implementation plan.

VISION
To improve roadway safety for all road users on public roads in Pasadena GOAL
Achieving zero traffic fatalities in Pasadena
In consideration of the vision and goal, the following will be the primary objective of this Plan:

1. Improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable road users

2. Deliver safer infrastructure, clearer signage, and implement improvements at top collision locations

3. Facilitate and promote engagement with local stakeholders to promote the road safety message

4. Continue to collaborate with stakeholders to deliver a strong road safety message This Plan is consistent with FHWA's safe system approach to achieving zero traffic fatalities in Pasadena. The LRSP ensures that the City continues to adopt a comprehensive approach to roadway safety. Also, the LRSP aims to develop safety measures through data-driven analysis and stakeholder participation. This Plan provides details on the improvements and the implementation process by emphasis areas.

CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 12

4.0 METHODOLOGY

4.1 COLLISION DATA SOURCES
The collision data drew from three sources. The collision trend data was derived between 2015 and 2019 from the (1) city's RoadSafe GIS database; (2) California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database; (3) California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings (OTS). The OTS traffic safety data for Pasadena compared it with 59 cities in California with a similar population.

4.1.1 RoadSafe GIS
The RoadSafe GIS maintains Pasadena's collision record. The database provides geocoded collisions through an online platform to input, manage, and query the collision records. The most recent five years of collision data from 2015 to 2019 were extracted from RoadSafe GIS to identify long–term collision trends and patterns within the City.

The analysis is aggregated and classified by control type (signalized, non-signalized, and midblock locations). The 2020 collision data was excluded from the analysis because the COVID-19 pandemic may have impacted travel patterns and traffic volumes for that year.

4.1.2 SWITRS
The California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database collects and processes data on collisions throughout California. The online SWITRS application provides geographically- and temporally-targeted collision reports in an electronic format. The SWITRS collision database was utilized to compare Pasadena and Los Angeles County at large to identify prominent transportation trends.

4.1.3 OTS
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings compare traffic safety statistics among cities in California with similar populations. The statistics focus on the victims killed and injured in crashes. Cities can use these comparisons to see the areas in which they underperform. In the OTS collision ranking system, Pasadena belongs to Group B, containing 59 cities with a population between 100,001 and 250,000. The data is based on the 2018 data from the OTS website.

4.2 IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS FOR ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES Crash data analysis for this LRSP was conducted using collision data from the RoadSafe GIS database. The collision records include a variety of information about each collision, including the location, date, time of the day, crash type, crash severity, primary violation category, transportation mode of the involved parties, and movement of the involved parties prior to the collision. Per California state law, motor vehicle collisions must be reported when vehicle or property damage exceeds $1,000, or when any parties suffer an injury or fatality. Collisions with no injured parties or little property damage might not be reported and, therefore, are not included in the collision database.

Caltrans' Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California's Local Road Owners, Version 1.6, April 2022 (LRSM) encourages a proactive rather than reactive approach to safety issue identification. Traditionally, agencies using a reactive approach have located and implemented safety projects solely based on recent crashes, specific crash concentrations, or safety issues raised by stakeholders. According to the LRSM, a proactive approach is preferred.

With traditional methods, "crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort." A proactive approach would identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network. For this document, the process for identifying candidate

METHODOLOGY
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 13
locations for safety improvements considers any one of the following three factors:
● An extensive crash history at high-collision frequency locations provides insight into which roadway characteristics are associated with certain types of crashes ● Professional engineering judgment regarding the availability of feasible engineering countermeasures to fix the safety issues
● Applicability of the engineering countermeasures at other locations with similar roadway characteristics regardless of their crash history
The LRSM guidelines require analyzing at least three to five years of the most recent crash data. Five years' worth of collision data from January 2015 to December 2019 was reviewed for the Pasadena LRSP. Five years of crash data usage adheres to the maximum threshold permitted by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.

4.2.1 Ranking Function
A candidate intersection or roadway segment for safety improvements does not necessarily need to demonstrate a history of high or severe collisions to be considered for further evaluation. However, locations with high numbers of collisions are often good starting points for safety analysis due to the rich information provided by the collision history. Two ranking methods were utilized to identify high collision frequency intersections and roadway segments:

Average Crash Frequency and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. A brief description of each of the methods is provided in the following sections.

4.2.2 Average Crash Frequency
The average Crash frequency is the most basic method for assessing collision incidence. The analysis tallies the number of collisions at each location in the system, both aggregate and by category of interest (e.g., level of severity, collision type, etc.). The analysis then ranks intersection or roadway segments based on the collisions' frequency. The method involves easy computation and little data collection. A collision database such as the SWITRS database usually suffices.

4.2.3 EPDO Scores
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores are calculated by assigning weighted factors to collisions by severity relative to property damage only collisions. The weights generally reflect the order of magnitude difference between the societal cost of fatal and severe injury collisions versus the non-severe injury collisions. Table 4.1 shows the weights by collision severity, based on the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), April 2022.

Table 4.1: Collision Weight by Severity
Collision Severity Location Type Crash Cost
Fatality and Severe Injury
Signalized
Intersection $1,787,000
Non Signalized
Intersection $2,843,000
Combined (KA) Roadway $2,461,000
Evident Injury – Other Visible (B) - $159,900
Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) - $90,900
Property Damage Only (O) - $14,900

METHODOLOGY
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 14
EPDO scores are helpful for a benefit-to-cost analysis as collision costs can be translated into measurable benefits from installing improvements that reduce the collisions in question. However, EPDO scores may place undue weight on the injury outcomes of previous collisions rather than overall trends suggested by collision patterns regardless of injury outcome. Furthermore, a location's EPDO score could be inflated by fatal or severe collisions.

4.3 PROPOSING ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
After ranking the intersections and roadway segments, the following steps were used to propose engineering countermeasures:

Make citywide collision maps for dominant collision types such as rear-end collisions, broadside collisions, bicycle, and pedestrian collisions, and collisions due to unsafe speed. Identify high-risk locations by collision type.

Review crash details (party involved, movement before the crash, primary collision factor, violation code, time of the day, and others) at high-risk locations. Obtain detailed police reports from the City and review all the fatal and severe injury collisions.

Assess the nature of prevalent crash types based on the intersection's control type, geometrical features, and signal phasing/timing.

Review current conditions and recent historical conditions via Google Maps Street View, whenever necessary, to check whether any geometry, signal, or signage changes have been made in the past few years.

Evaluate and screen countermeasures from the LRSM or Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/), a searchable database that can be easily queried to identify CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs).

Identify intersections/roadway segments that do not demonstrate crash history but resemble other locations with documented crash history and risk factors. Once identified, these locations can be analyzed through the steps mentioned above.

CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 15

5.0 SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND

PATTERNS

5.1 PRELIMINARY COLLISION ANALYSIS

5.1.1 Year Trend
The collision trend analysis draws from the five years of RoadSafe data. From 2015 to 2019, a total of 7,576 collisions occurred on City roadways. Figure 5.1 shows that the annual number of collisions decreases from 1,903 to 1,328 between 2015 and 2019. Figure 5.2 illustrates the collision severity by mode of transportation. The far-left chart depicts the severity of all collisions, followed by vehicle, pedestrian, and bicyclist. Overall, 60% of the total collisions were associated with property damage only. Pedestrian-related collisions had the highest frequency of fatalies (2.3%) and severe injuries (8.4%) compared to bicycle- and vehicle-related collisions.

Figure 5.1: Total Collisions by Year
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
Figure 5.2: Collision Severity
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 16

5.1.2 Collision Type
Figure 5.3 compares the percent of fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions for each collision type with the total number of collisions for each type. The total number of collisions is categorized by collision type, as represented by the gray bars in the chart (see Y-Axis on the left side). Broadside accounted for the largest category, comprising

34.6% of total collisions. Rear end (21.5% of total) and sideswipe (19.3% of total) made up the second-and thirdlargest crash categories.

The green line in the chart shows the percentage of each collision type that resulted in fatalities or severe injuries (see the Y-Axis on the right side). The labeled percentages represent the KSI collision percentages of each collision type. For example, as high as 11.8% of the pedestrian-related collisions were KSI collisions, 4.9% of the overturned collisions led to fatalities and severe injuries. In contrast, less than one percent of the sideswipe collisions resulted in victims killed or seriously injured.

Figure 5.3: Types of Collisions and
Types of Collisions vs. KSI Collisions
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 17

5.1.3 Primary Collision Factor (PCF)
Figure 5.4 summarizes the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) for all the collisions in the past five years. PCF is the leading cause of a collision based on the available evidence in a collision. Also, KSI-related collisions are compared with the PCF. The PCF data may be insufficient, as shown in the chart below indicates 1,881 (26%) of the total collisions were classified as "unknown."
As shown in Figure 5.4, unsafe speed (1,185), automobile right-of-way (948), and improper turning (881) were the top three causes of all collisions. These top PCFs do not represent the top KSI-related collisions. As shown in the line graph (see Y-Axis on the right side), pedestrian right of way (9.2%), other than the driver (7.3%), and driving under the influence (DUI) (7%) collisions are the top three KSI-related collisions associated with the PCF.

Note: The pedestrian right of way primary collision factor is a collision where a motorists did not yield the right of way to a pedestrian crossing a roadway within a marked or unmarked crosswalk at an intersection, resulting in a collision.

Figure 5.4: Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Collisions and PCF Collisions vs. KSI Collisions
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 18
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019

5.1.4 Motor Vehicle Involved With
Figure 5.5 summarizes that the motor vehicle was involved with another motor vehicle, pedestrian, bicycle, fixed object, parked vehicle, or non-collision. Motor vehicles involved with other motor vehicles were associated with 4,995 collisions, which was associated with KSI collisions at 1.1%. A motor vehicle involved with a pedestrian had the highest percentage of KSI collisions at 10.6%, followed by involving a bicyclist at 4.3%.

Figure 5.5: Motor Vehicle Involved With (MVIW) Collisions and MVIW Collisions vs KSI Collisions
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 19

5.1.5 Time of Day
Figure 5.6 summarizes the time of day a collision occurred between 2015 and 2019. Most of the collisions happened in the late afternoon, with 23% associated between 3 PM and 6 PM, followed by 20.4% of the collisions between 12 PM and 3 PM. KSI-related collisions associate the most during the timeframe between 9 PM and midnight.

Figure 5.6: Collisions by Time of Day
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019

5.1.4 At-Fault Party
At-fault motorists in Pasadena tended to be young males, as shown in Figure 5.7. Nearly 14.9% of motorists were in the 20-24 age group, followed by 13% in the 25-29 age group. The 20-24 age group accounts for the largest share of at-fault motorists among any age group, with the number of at-fault motorists decreasing in older age groups. In all age groups, men accounted for most collisions at fault. Note that some of the collision data does not specify the gender and age of the party at fault.

Pedestrians are the most vulnerable roadway users, and they were involved in one-fourth of the KSI collisions.

Figure 5.8 shows the age group distribution of pedestrians involved in crashes from 2015 to 2019. The highest number of pedestrians were in the 50 to 54 year-old (10%) and the 25 to 29 year-old (10%) age groups. While pedestrians of the age 25 to 29 and 50 to 54 were usually victims of a collision. Pedestrian at-fault (2%) are similar in both age groups. Also, the age group 30-34 year-old had the highest number of pedestrians at-fault (nearly 4%).

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 20
Figure 5.7: At-Fault Party by Age and Gender
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
Figure 5.8: Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Age Group Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 21

5.2 COLLISIONS BY FACILITY TYPE
Collision patterns were analyzed by facility type (intersections vs. mid-block locations) using the most recent five years of collision data (2015 to 2019). This analysis allowed for determining the effect of access control and intersection geometry on collision frequency. The analysis classifies collisions by facility type as follows:

Collisions that occurred within 50 feet of an intersection are considered signalized intersections or non-signalized intersection collisions
Collisions that occurred more than 50 feet away from an intersection are classified as mid-block collisions
Table 5.1 shows the total number of crashes associated with each type of facility. About half of all collisions occurred at signalized intersections (52%). Nearly all collisions were vehicle-related collisions (91%) and only 8.6% were pedestrian- and bicycle-related collisions, most of which occurred at signalized intersections.

Table 5.1: Transportation Mode of Collisions by Facility Type Signalized
Intersection
Non-Signalized
Intersection
Midblock
Locations Grand Total
Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions %
Vehicle-Related
Collisions 3,602 47.5% 1,651 21.8% 1,672 22.1% 6,925 91.4% Bicycle-Related
Collisions 103 1.4% 82 1.1% 71 0.9% 256 3.4%
Pedestrian-Related
Collisions 224 3.0% 77 1.0% 94 1.2% 395 5.2%
Total 3,929 52% 1,810 24% 1,837 24% 7,576 100%
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
Table 5.2 shows how the collision type varies by location. Broadside collisions comprise the largest share of crashes at signalized intersections (39.7%). At signalized intersections, rear-end (23.3%), and sideswipe (14.8%) collisions are the second- and third-most-common crash types. Similarly, broadside, rear ends, and sideswipe collisions were the top three collision types at non-signalized and midblock locations.

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 22
Table 5.2: Collisions by Facility Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections Midblock Grand Total
Collision Type Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Broadside 1,559 39.7% 645 35.6% 418 22.8% 2,622 34.6%
Head-On 253 6.4% 124 6.9% 145 7.9% 522 6.9%
Hit Object 180 4.6% 136 7.5% 211 11.5% 527 7.0%
Not Stated 185 4.7% 58 3.2% 84 4.6% 327 4.3%
Other 54 1.4% 28 1.5% 47 2.6% 129 1.7%
Overturned 19 0.5% 6 0.3% 16 0.9% 41 0.5%
Rear End 914 23.3% 459 25.4% 254 13.8% 1,627 21.5%
Sideswipe 581 14.8% 290 16.0% 588 32.0% 1,459 19.3%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 184 4.7% 64 3.5% 74 4.0% 322 4.3%
Total 3,929 100% 1,810 100% 1,837 100% 7,576 100%
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
Table 5.3 shows the relationship between collision severity and facility type. Collision severity shows that the fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions comprise 138 total collisions. Among the 29 fatal collisions, 14 of the crashes occurred at signalized intersections, 10 occurred at non-signalized intersections, and 5 at midblock locations.

Table 5.3: Collision Severity by Facility Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections Midblock Grand Total
Severity Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Fatal 14 0.4% 10 0.6% 5 0.3% 29 0.4%
Severe Injury 53 1.3% 27 1.5% 29 1.6% 109 1.4%
Visible Injury 540 13.7% 278 15.4% 259 14.1% 1,077 14.2% Complaint of Pain 1,064 27.1% 426 23.5% 350 19.1% 1,840 24.3% Property Damage Only 2,258 57.5% 1,069 59.1% 1,194 65.0% 4,521 59.7% Total 3,929 100% 1,810 100% 1,837 100% 7,576 100%
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 23
Table 5.4 shows the relationship between street lighting conditions and facility type. A majority of collisions occurred in the presence of lighting (i.e., either in daylight or nighttime with street lighting) at all three location types. About one-fourth of the lighting conditions were not stated (24.8%). Among the 62 collisions that occurred under dark-no street lighting conditions, 35 crashes occurred at midblock locations, more than 50% of the total for dark-no street lights.

Table 5.4: Street Lighting by Facility Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections Midblock Grand Total
Lighting Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Dark - No Street Lights 12 0.3% 15 0.8% 35 1.9% 62 0.8% Dark - Street Lights 704 17.9% 360 19.9% 410 22.3% 1,474 19.5% Dark - Street Lights Not
Functioning 4 0.1% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 4 0.1%
Daylight 2,012 51.2% 952 52.6% 995 54.2% 3,959 52.3%
Dusk - Dawn 103 2.6% 45 2.5% 30 1.6% 178 2.3%
Not Stated 1,086 27.6% 431 23.8% 361 19.7% 1,878 24.8%
Unknown 8 0.2% 7 0.4% 6 0.3% 21 0.3%
Total 3,929 100% 1,810 100% 1,837 100% 7,576 100%
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
Table 5.5 tabulates the primary collision factor (PCF) by facility type. The three largest PCF categories include unsafe speed, automobile right-of-way, and improper turning based on the total collisions from the "Grand Total" column. The PCF for unknown accounted for nearly one-fourth of total collisions, which was also ranked the top PCF by collision frequency. The collision data may be underrepresented. ● Among the 301 pedestrian violations, 237 collisions occurred at signalized intersections, 29 at non-signalized intersections, and 35 at midblock locations.
● At signalized intersections, traffic signals and signs (15.2%), unsafe speed (12.5%), and automobile right-of-way violations (10.8%) were the dominant PCFs.
● At non-signalized intersections, unsafe speed (19.3%), automobile right-of-way violations (18.9%), and improper turning (10.6%) were the dominant PCFs.
● At midblock locations, the most frequent PCFs were unsafe speed (18.8%) and improper turning (16.8%).

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 24
Table 5.5: Primary Collision Factor by Facility Type
Signalized
Intersections
Non-Signalized
Intersections Midblock Grand Total
PCF Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Collisions % Unknown 1,056 26.9% 445 24.6% 380 20.7% 1,881 24.8%
Unsafe Speed 491 12.5% 349 19.3% 345 18.8% 1,185 15.6%
Automobile Right of Way 424 10.8% 342 18.9% 182 9.9% 948 12.5% Improper Turning 380 9.7% 192 10.6% 309 16.8% 881 11.6% Traffic Signals and Signs 599 15.2% 81 4.5% 9 0.5% 689 9.1% DUI 127 3.2% 83 4.6% 134 7.3% 344 4.5%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 122 3.1% 53 2.9% 131 7.1% 306 4.0% Pedestrian Violation 237 6.0% 29 1.6% 35 1.9% 301 4.0%
-* 147 3.7% 61 3.4% 79 4.3% 287 3.8%
Unsafe Lane Change 39 1.0% 29 1.6% 53 2.9% 121 1.6%
Pedestrian Right of Way 85 2.2% 28 1.5% 6 0.3% 119 1.6% Other Hazardous Violation 42 1.1% 17 0.9% 47 2.6% 106 1.4% Other Improper Driving 47 1.2% 17 0.9% 38 2.1% 102 1.3% Wrong Side of Road 27 0.7% 41 2.3% 28 1.5% 96 1.3%
Following Too Closely 66 1.7% 14 0.8% 15 0.8% 95 1.3%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 17 0.4% 16 0.9% 22 1.2% 55 0.7% Improper Passing 19 0.5% 9 0.5% 18 1.0% 46 0.6%
Hazardous Parking 3 0.1% 1 0.1% 2 0.1% 6 0.1%
Brakes 0 0.0% 3 0.2% 0 0.0% 3 0.0%
Fell Asleep 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2 0.1% 2 0.0%
Impeding Traffic 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 1 0.0%
Lights 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.0%
Other Equipment 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 1 0.1% 1 0.0%
Total 3,929 100% 1,810 100% 1,837 100% 7,576 100%
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
*The primary collision factor was not stated.

Broadside, rear end, and sideswipe collisions were the most frequently occurring collision types in Pasadena.

Broadside collisions caused by automobile right of way and traffic signals and signs (47.7%) contributed to the largest collisions between 2015 and 2019 among all PCF categories. Unsafe speed was the most common PCF associated with rear end collisions (39.3%). Finally, improper turning was the most common PCF associated with sideswipe collisions (25.5%) among all PCF categories. The following tables, Table 5.6, Table 5.7, and Table 5.8, show the percentage of crashes associated with the top three collision types.

SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 25
Table 5.6 Broadside Collisions by Facility Type
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
Table 5.7 Rear-end Collisions by Facility Type
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
Table 5.8 Sideswipe Collisions by Facility Type
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019

5.3 GEOGRAPHIC COLLISION ANALYSIS
The following maps illustrate the prominent collision factors, such as the location of top collision type, primary collision factor, and bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions.

Figure 5.9 illustrates the citywide collision hotspot locations and collision severity.

Figure 5.10 illustrates the location of broadside collisions in correlation with automobile right-of-way violations.

Figure 5.11 illustrates the location of rear end collisions in correlation with unsafe speed.

Figure 5.12 illustrates the location of sideswipe collisions in correlation with improper turning.

Figure 5.13 illustrates the location of the bicycle- and pedestrian-related collisions citywide.

Signalized
intersections 1,559 766 49.1%
Non-signalized
intersections
645 346 53.6%
Midblock locations 418 140 33.5%
Total 2,622 1,252 47.7%
Facility Type
Total
Broadside
Collisions
Broadside due to
Automobile Right
of Way & Traffic
Signals and Signs Percentage
Signalized
intersections
914 336 36.8%
Non-signalized
intersections
459 203 44.2%
Midblock locations 254 100 39.4%
Total 1,627 639 39.3%
Facility Type
Total
Rear End
Collisions
Rear End due to
Unsafe Speed Percentage
Signalized
intersections
581 217 37.3%
Non-signalized
intersections
290 111 38.3%
Midblock locations 588 44 7.5%
Total 1,459 372 25.5%
Facility Type
Total
Sideswipe
Collisions
Sideswipe due to
Improper Turning Percentage
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 26
Figure 5.9: Citywide Collisions
Source: Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 27
Figure 5.10: Broadside due to Automobile Right-of-Way Violations Source: Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 28
Figure 5.11: Rear End due to Unsafe Speed
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 29
Figure 5.12: Sideswipe due to Improper Turning
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 30
Figure 5.13: Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
Source: RoadSafe GIS, 2015-2019
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 31

5.4 CITY OF PASADENA VS. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
Five years of SWITRS collision data was used to compare the characteristics of injury and fatality collisions for the City of Pasadena with those of the County of Los Angeles. As shown in Table 5.9, the City had 141,029 residents in 2019, and an estimated 10,744 collisions per million residents per year. During the same period, Los Angeles County had 10,039,107 residents and an estimated 9,848 collisions per million residents per year. Pasadena's total KSI collisions were one percent lower (1.8% vs. 2.8%) than Los Angeles County. Pedestrian- and bicycle-related collisions in Pasadena were similar to the County's collision statistics.

Table 5.9: Total Collision Comparison for Pasadena vs. LA County Source: 2015-2019 collision data from RoadSafe GIS and SWITRS Table 5.10 focuses on the KSI collisions in Pasadena and Los Angeles County based on 2015-2019 collision data.

Pasadena had a lower KSI collision per million residents per year than Los Angeles County (196 vs. 277). Among the KSI collisions, both pedestrian- and bicycle-related collisions in Pasadena had a lower fatality rate and severe injury than the county.

Table 5.10: KSI Collision Comparison for Pasadena vs. LA County Source: 2015-2019 collision data from RoadSafe GIS and SWITRS Table 5.11 breaks down the 2015-2019 collision data by collision type for Pasadena and Los Angeles County. Rearend and Broadside collisions made up the highest proportions of crashes in Pasadena and Los Angeles County.

Broadsides accounted for 34.6% of collisions in Pasadena and 28.1% in Los Angeles County, while rear ends comprised roughly 21.5% of collisions in Pasadena and 24% of collisions in Los Angeles County.

Total Collisions
City of
Pasadena
Los Angeles
County
Population (2019 estimates) 141,029 10,039,107
Total Collisions 7,576 494,344
Collision/1,000,000/Year 10,744 9,848
Fatal and Severe Collisions (KSI) 138 13,914
KSI % 1.8% 2.8%
Total Pedestrian Collisions 395 26,408
Pedestrian % 5.2% 5.3%
Total Bicycle Collisions 256 17,808
Bicycle % 3.4% 3.6%
KSI Collisions
City of
Pasadena
Los Angeles
County
Population (2019 estimates) 141,029 10,039,107
Total KSI Collisions 138 13,914
KSI Collision/1,000,000/Year 196 277
Fatal 29 2,518
Severe Injury 109 11,396
Total Pedestrian Collisions 395 26,408
KSI Pedestrian 42 4,285
KSI Pedestrian % 10.6% 16.2%
Total Bicycle Collisions 256 17,808
KSI Bicycle 11 1,166
KSI Bicycle % 4.3% 6.5%
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 32
Table 5.11: Collision Type Comparison for Pasadena vs. Los Angeles County Source: 2015-2019 collision data from RoadSafe GIS and SWITRS Table 5.12 compares the PCFs for the City and the County based on the 2015-2019 collision data. Compared with the County, Pasadena had a noticeably higher percentage of collisions categorized at the unknown as the primary cause. Aside from the unknown PCF category, collisions caused by unsafe speeding (15.6% vs. 20.4%) were the highest PCF among all categories.

Table 5.12: PCF Comparison for Pasadena vs. Los Angeles County Source: 2015 -2019 collision data from RoadSafe GIS and SWITRS Collision Type
City of
Pasadena
Los Angeles
County
Broadside 34.6% 28.1%
Head-On 6.9% 7.3%
Hit Object 7.0% 7.8%
Other 1.7% 3.0%
Overturned 0.5% 0.7%
Rear End 21.5% 24.0%
Sideswipe 19.3% 22.7%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 4.3% 4.8%
Not Stated 4.3% 1.6%
Primary Collision Factor
City of
Pasadena
Los Angeles
County
Automobile Right of Way 12.5% 19.0%
Brakes 0.0% 0.0%
DUI 4.5% 5.7%
Fell Asleep 0.0% 0.0%
Following Too Closely 1.3% 3.3%
Hazardous Parking 0.1% 0.1%
Impeding Traffic 0.0% 0.0%
Improper Passing 0.6% 1.3%
Improper Turning 11.6% 17.0%
Lights 0.0% 0.0%
Other Equipment 0.0% 0.0%
Other Hazardous Violation 1.4% 0.9%
Other Improper Driving 1.3% 0.8%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 0.7% 1.0%
Pedestrian Right of Way 1.6% 2.2%
Pedestrian Violation 4.0% 1.7%
Traffic Signals and Signs 9.1% 7.7%
Unknown 24.8% 5.0%
Unsafe Lane Change 1.6% 4.9%
Unsafe Speed 15.6% 20.4%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 4.0% 5.1%
Wrong Side of Road 1.3% 2.3%
Not Stated 3.8% 1.1%
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 33

5.5 CITY OF PASADENA VS. CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZES
The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) data was utilized to compare traffic safety problems of other cities with similarly sized populations. The rankings are calculated based on a ranking method that adds weights to different statistical categories such as crash counts, population, and vehicle miles traveled. In the State of California's OTS Crash Ranking system, Pasadena falls under Group B. This group consists of 59 cities in California with a population between 100,001 and 250,000. Table 5.13 shows the City's 2018 crash ranking among the cities in Group B (1 being the highest or worst and 59 being the lowest or best). Overall, the City's traffic safety performance ranges from average to good, with a few exceptions:

The City ranked 2nd for killed or injured pedestrians over 65 years old The City ranked 3rd for killed or injured pedestrians
The City ranked 16th for killed or injured pedestrians under 15 years old The City ranked 18th for killed or injured bicyclists.

Table 5.13: 2018 OTS Data
Source: OTS, 2018
DUI arrest figures are shown for cities only, not counties. The number of cities ranked against may differ from the number of cities in the other categories. Not all cities report DUI arrests to the Department of Justice.

5.6 TOP COLLISION LOCATIONS
The initial step of the systemic analysis is evaluating the existing roadway network and its various characteristics.

The analysis was divided into intersections and roadway segments and utilized two main ranking methods: average crash frequency and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. The description of the ranking methods is discussed in Section 3.2 of this document. Based on the collision analysis, the high-risk collision intersections and roadway segments in Pasadena are shown in Figure 5.14. Appendix A provided a summary of all the collisions by intersection.

Type of Crash
Victims Killed
& Injured
OTS
Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury 933 21/59
Alcohol Involved 74 26/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 1 44/59
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 28 21/59
Motorcycles 27 43/59
Pedestrians 83 3/59
Pedestrians < 15 6 16/59
Pedestrians 65+ 13 2/59
Bicyclists 42 18/59
Bicyclists < 15 1 54/59
Composite 331 31/59
Type of Crash
Fatal & Injury
Crashed
OTS
Ranking
Speed Related 118 39/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 70 27/59
Hit and Run 40 29/59
Type of Arrests Arrests
OTS
Ranking
DUI Arrests NA NA
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 34
Figure 5.14 Top Collision Locations
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 35

5.6.1 Intersection Ranking
This is a general process for identifying potential locations by ranking the intersections based on Crash Frequency and EPDO score. The ranking is a quantitative method used to evaluate a particular corridor segment and compare it with other segments. It is ultimately just a tool to streamline the collision analysis and the selection process for potential locations. Table 5.14 shows the top 10 intersections by collision frequency, EPDO score, and crash rate.

Table 5.15 focuses on non-signalized intersections only where the number of collisions is greater than 10.

Table 5.14: Top Intersection Ranking
ID Intersections
Grand TotalFatalSevere InjuryVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage OnlyBroadsideHead-OnHit ObjectNot StatedOtherOverturnedRear EndSideswipeVehicle/ Pedestrian Control
Type
Rank
Collision
Frequency
EPDO
Score
Rank
EPDO
Score
Crash
Rate
Rank
Crash
Rate
Daily
Intersection
Volumes
1 Lake Ave & Orange Grove Bl 69 1 9 19 40 22 5 2 7 2 21 7 3 Signal 1 372.4 1 2.77 2 13,642 2 Fair Oaks Ave & Maple St 47 6 15 26 25 1 2 1 11 7 Signal 2 181.9 6 1.68 5 15,330 3 Corson St & Lake Ave 46 3 15 28 16 1 1 12 15 1 Signal 3 151.7 8 2.58 3 9,771 4 Lake Ave & Washington Bl 45 4 18 23 9 9 1 4 7 11 4 Signal 4 175.7 7 1.46 9 16,842 5 Lake Ave & Maple St 44 1 2 8 33 14 1 3 2 16 8 Signal 5 223.2 5 2.90 1 8,328 6 Pasadena Ave & State St 38 5 10 23 20 3 1 3 6 5 Non-Signal 6 137.7 10 1.52 8 13,673 7 Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Bl 38 7 7 24 7 3 1 3 2 1 9 10 2 Signal 6 141.8 9 1.55 7 13,439 8 Colorado Bl & Sierra Madre Bl 38 1 1 2 8 26 17 1 2 2 10 5 1 Signal 6 336.1 3 1.24 10 16,782 9 Arroyo Pkwy & Green St 38 1 8 15 14 24 1 2 2 1 7 1 Signal 6 311.3 4 2.31 4 9,009 10 Fair Oaks Ave & Washington Bl 37 1 1 1 14 20 9 5 2 1 1 12 5 2 Signal 10 356.0 2 1.56 6 12,981

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANLAYSIS – COLLISION TREND AND PATTERNS CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 36
Table 5.15: Top Collisions at Non-Signalized Intersections Only

5.6.2 Roadway Segment Ranking
The roadway segment rankings are also by Crash Frequency and EPDO scores. The ranking is a quantitative method used to evaluate a particular corridor segment and compare it with other segments. It is ultimately just a tool to streamline the collision analysis and the selection process for potential locations.

Table 5.16 shows the top collision roadway segments.

Table 5.16: Top Roadway Segment Ranking
ID Intersections
Grand TotalFatalSevere InjuryVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage OnlyBroadsideHead-OnHit ObjectNot StatedOtherOverturnedRear EndSideswipeVehicle/ Pedestrian Control
Type
Rank
Collision
Frequency
EPDO
Score
Rank
EPDO
Score
Crash
Rate
Rank
Crash
Rate
Daily
Intersection
Volumes
1 Pasadena Ave & State St 38 5 10 23 20 3 1 3 6 5 Non-signal 1 137.7 4 0.79 2 13,673 2 Del Mar Bl & San Marino Ave 18 7 6 5 11 3 3 1 Non-signal 2 116.7 5 0.42 5 26,448 3 California Bl & Oak Knoll Ave 15 1 3 7 4 8 1 1 2 3 Non-signal 3 269.7 1 0.34 7 23,247 4 Glenarm St & Los Robles Ave 14 1 4 9 5 1 3 1 2 2 Non-signal 4 44.1 8 0.60 3 24,400 5 Cordova St & Oakland Ave 13 3 10 11 1 1 Non-signal 5 28.3 10 0.49 4 12,709 6 Fair Oaks Ave & Tremont St (N) 12 3 3 6 4 1 1 5 1 Non-signal 6 56.5 7 0.35 6 14,597 7 Orange Grove Bl & Worcester Ave 12 4 8 2 1 5 4 Non-signal 6 32.4 9 0.20 10 18,731 8 Boylston St & Lake Ave 12 1 2 3 6 3 2 3 4 Non-signal 6 236.6 2 0.34 8 33,715 9 Del Mar Bl & Madison Ave 12 1 4 7 8 1 1 2 Non-signal 6 222.2 3 0.22 9 19,549 10 Arlington Dr & Pasadena Ave 12 4 3 5 9 1 1 1 Non-signal 6 66.2 6 0.81 1 30,118

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
ID Roadway Segment From To
Grand TotalFatalSevere InjuryVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage OnlyBroadsideHead-OnHit ObjectNot StatedOtherOverturnedRear EndSideswipeVehicle/ Pedestrian Rank
Collision
Frequency
EPDO
Score
Rank
EPDO
Score
Crash
Rate
Rank
Crash
Rate ADT
Corrido
r Length
(miles)
1 Washington Blvd Forest Ave Catalina Ave 127 1 1 23 33 69 44 5 3 4 1 24 43 3 1 847.5 1 273.43 1 17,674 1.44 2 Lake Ave Mountain St California Blvd 114 2 10 30 72 25 8 7 5 2 1 25 31 10 2 692.7 3 152.73 4 23,107 1.77 3 Orange Grove Blvd Lincoln Ave Catalina Ave 94 1 2 8 29 54 26 4 8 1 3 24 22 6 3 812.3 2 204.08 3 16,826 1.5 4 Fair Oaks Ave Mountain St California Blvd 76 1 11 22 42 22 4 3 4 24 17 2 4 459.4 5 93.02 7 25,293 1.77 5 Foothill Blvd San Gabriel Blvd Michillinda Ave 72 1 5 15 51 22 4 3 6 2 11 20 4 5 361.3 7 145.49 5 18,831 1.44 6 Colorado Blvd Pasadena Ave Allen Ave 70 1 10 12 47 18 3 7 1 4 13 20 4 6 392.7 6 103.18 6 15,819 2.35 7 Los Robles Ave Washington Blvd Maple St 70 1 1 10 15 43 16 7 4 3 2 17 15 6 6 572.2 4 231.90 2 14,509 1.14

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 37

6.0 STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH
Two virtual stakeholder meetings were held via Microsoft Teams. At these meetings, stakeholders were invited to share safety issues regarding the City's circulation system, pedestrian network, and other transportation safety issues. Stakeholders invited to these meetings included staff from the City's Department of Transportation, Public Works Department, Police Department, Fire Department, Pasadena's Transit Division, the Public Health Division, and the Accessibility Coordinator.

STAKEHOLDER MEETING #1
The first stakeholder meeting was held on October 28, 2021. The citywide collision analysis findings were presented, and the stakeholders were invited to share their safety concerns and help develop the LRSP's goals and objectives.

Stakeholder comments included:
● Concern for the intersection ranking of Orange Grove Boulevard & Lake Avenue due to a new protected permissive signal installed after 2019. The collisions data used for the LRSP (2015-2019) did not reflect changes in collisions after the signal was installed
● Consider breaking down crosswalk data into "marked" and "unmarked" crosswalks ● First responders agreed collision data findings do reflect what is seen on the job STAKEHOLDER MEETING #2
The second stakeholder meeting was held on February 24, 2022. At this meeting, the engineering and nonengineering safety solutions were presented. A summary of the stakeholder comments are listed below:

Engineering Intersection Countermeasures:

Fair Oaks Avenue and Maple Street – Caltrans will be removing the pedestal signal pole, working on curb ramps, and signal modifications near the 210 freeway. Additional pedestrian improvements may be made.

The Implementation Plan in the CIP includes installing high visibility crosswalks at all signalized intersections
See if intersections are ADA compliant
Consider median improvements due to panhandlers at Lake Avenue & Maple street Engineering Roadway Countermeasures:

Bike lane improvements – concern for opposition from the removal of parking along Washington Boulevard and Del Mar Boulevard
Concerns that bicycle facility improvements that are not listed in the Bicycle Transportation Action Plan are not approved
Engineering Systemic Countermeasures:
● Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Blvd
o Heritage Square project may overlap with recommendations at this intersection ● Curb Extensions
o If all curb extensions include curb ramps, they should be directional curb ramps o Concern for curb extensions near bus stops
Non-Engineering Program Recommendations:
● Include all age groups in the safety education programs CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 38

7.0 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
Transportation safety emphasis areas provide a strategic framework for developing and implementing the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The emphasis areas show the City of Pasadena where to focus when developing projects and programs based on the LRSP. The implementation of the emphasis areas should directly relate to the goals, policies, and strategies of the LRSP. Based on the collision data analysis conducted for the City of Pasadena, the following are the transportation safety emphasis areas:

Signalized Intersection
Bicyclists and Pedestrian Safety
Unsafe Speed
Visibility

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
The signalized intersections emphasis area -- collisions occurred at intersections with traffic signals. The collision analysis revealed that 52% of collisions occurred at signalized intersections. Bicycle and pedestrian-related collisions account for the highest percentage of collisions at signalized intersections than at other facility types (nonsignalized intersections and midblock locations), accounting for 50% of bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
Bicyclists and pedestrian safety emphasis area -- includes instances where pedestrians or bicyclists have been involved in a collision with a motor vehicle. Pedestrian and bicycle collisions accounted for the highest percentage of killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions, with those involving pedestrians accounting for 10.6%, and those involving bicycles accounting for 4.3%. Based on its number of KSI pedestrian collisions, Pasadena ranked 3rd of 59 cities of similar size and 18th for KSI bicycle collisions (1 being the highest or worst and 59 being the lowest or best).

UNSAFE SPEED
Speeding emphasis area – where a motorist is traveling too fast or exceeding the posted speed limit, causing a collision. Unsafe speeding is one of the frequent primary collision factors in the City of Pasadena, accounting for 1,185 collisions (15.6%).

VISIBILITY
The visibility emphasis area -- focuses on improving the ability of drivers to respond to existing traffic controls and messages. One crucial element of visibility in nighttime visibility. Pasadena currently has excellent coverage of street lighting across the City. However, lighting is not the only aspect that may contribute to nighttime collisions. 1,540 collisions (20%) in the City are reported as occurring at night, which accounts for the second-highest time of day collisions. Even with street lighting, traffic signals, and signage, visibility may be challenging at night.

CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 39

8.0 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
The recommended engineering countermeasures were derived from the collision patterns from the collision analysis. The recommended countermeasures identified below are based on a combination of collision data and responses from stakeholders and city staff: the recommended countermeasures focus on signalized intersections, bicyclists and pedestrian safety, unsafe speeding, and visibility. The countermeasures include systemic improvements as illustrated in Figure 8.1 and intersection and roadway improvements at locations shown in Figure 8.2.

Figure 8.1: Recommended Systemic Countermeasure Locations

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 40
Figure 8.2: Recommended Intersection and Roadway Countermeasure Locations

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 41
The top three types of most frequently encountered collisions in Pasadena were broadside, rear end, and sideswipe.

The common causes of these three collision types and the typical safety countermeasures addressing each collision type are listed in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: Common Causes and Countermeasures-Citywide Collisions Type Causes Potential Countermeasures
Broadside ● Automobile ROW
● Traffic Signals and Signs
● Improper Turning
● Unknown
● Unsafe Speed
● Unsafe Starting or Backing
● Wrong Side of Road
● Advanced dilemma zone detection
● Upgrade signal hardware and improve the signal
visibility
● Improve signal timing (yellow, red intervals,
pedestrian clearance)
● Restrict turning movements out of driveways
● Restrict parking on intersection approaches
● Improve street lighting
● Install advanced street name signage
Rear End ● Unsafe Speed
● Following Too Closely
● Unsafe Starting or Backing
● Improper Turning
● Unknown
● Driving or Biking under the
influence
● Automobile ROW
● Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
● Emergency Vehicle Preemption (EVP) system
● Reduce the number of travel lanes
● Install bike lanes and reduce travel lane width
● Reduce the speed limit/Calm Traffic
● Improve crosswalk visibility
● Install 12-inch signal heads
● Replace signs indicating permitted turning
movements on signals
● Install advanced street name signage
● Improve signal timing
Sideswipe ● Improper Turning
● Unsafe Lane Change
● Unknown
● Automobile ROW
● Unsafe Speed
● Unsafe Starting or Backing
● Driving under the influence
● Improve pavement marking visibility
● Install advanced street name signage
● Replace signs indicating permitted turning
movements on signals
● Install parking signs that are easier to interpret
● Stripe red curb at intersection approaches
The Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) listed in the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) is directly connected to the Crash Modification Factor (CMF). A CRF is measured in the percentage of crash reduction expected after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific location. It plays an essential role in cost-effectiveness, which is the form of the Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR).

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 42
Table 8.2 summarizes the list of safety countermeasures included in the LRSM and applied to this project. The table summarizes each countermeasure's applicable crash types, CRF, project life of the recommended improvement, maximum federal reimbursement percentage, and the opportunity for a systemic approach.

The countermeasure numbers (far left column) in Table 8.2 represent the ID number for the types of improvements that are eligible for HSIP funding. Throughout this document, countermeasures eligible for HSIP funding will have the ID number, and those that are not eligible will not have an ID number.

Table 8.2: Safety Countermeasures Applied to the City of Pasadena LRSP CM No. Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life (Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
NS03 Install Signal Pedestrian
and Bicycle 30% 20 90%
NS21PB Curb Extension Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 90%
NS22PB Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 90%
NS23PB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(HAWK)
Pedestrian
and Bicycle 55% 20 90%
R22 Regulatory Signs All 15% 10 90%
R26 Install Dynamic Speed Warning
Signs
All 30% 10 90%
R32PB Install Bike Lane Pedestrian
and Bicycle 35% 20 90%
S02 Retro-Reflective Backing Plates All 15% 10 90%
S08 Convert Signal Mast Arm All 30% 20 90%
Source: Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.6 April 2022

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 43

8.1 SYSTEMIC COUNTERMEASURES

8.1.1 Retro-Reflective Backing Plates
Reflective backing plates are recommended for consideration at 115 signalized intersections. The locations listed below are datadriven, selected based on nighttime collisions across the City.

Additional locations listed in Appendix B were selected based on their proximity to the original list of locations and did not have supportive data.

Retro-reflective backing plates improve the visibility of traffic signals in daytime and nighttime conditions. They also help color vision-deficient drivers to see whether the light is red or green when approaching an intersection.1 Color vision deficient people are typically not able to see the color red or green, and the retro-reflective backing plates help them see whether the light is on at the top or bottom of the signal head.

Consider upgrading the existing traffic signals with retro-reflective backing plates at the following locations based on data:

1. Lake Ave & Orange Grove Bl

2. Corson St & Lake Ave

3. Fair Oaks Ave & Washington Bl

4. Colorado Bl & Sierra Madre Bl

5. Arroyo Pkwy & Green St

6. Lake Ave & Maple St

7. Fair Oaks Ave & Maple St

8. Lake Ave & Washington Bl

9. Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Bl

10. Colorado Bl & Pasadena Ave

11. Lake Ave & Villa St

12. Lake Ave & Union St

13. Raymond Ave & Washington Blvd

14. Union St & Wilson Ave

15. Fair Oaks Ave & Glenarm St

16. Colorado Blvd & San Gabriel Blvd

17. Fair Oaks Ave & Hammond St

18. Colorado Blvd & Orange Grove Blvd

19. Colorado Blvd & Fair Oaks Ave

20. Colorado Blvd & Raymond Ave

21. Marengo Ave & Villa St

22. Marengo Ave & Green St
Figure 8.3 illustrates the locations where the improvements are recommended for consideration.

1 Backplates with Retroreflective Borders. FHWA. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/backplate.cfm Source: MLT News

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 44
Figure 8.3: Retro-Reflective Backing Plates Locations

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 45

8.1.2 Nearside Signals
The selected nearside signals are data-driven based on the top 10 intersections with the highest Equivalent Property Damage Only (EDPO) scores. A total of 10 signalized intersections are recommended for consideration and are listed below. The locations are primarily along Fair Oaks Avenue, as shown in Figure 8.4. The data analysis revealed that the top primary collision factor (PCF) on Fair Oaks Avenue was unsafe speed. Most locations listed below had PCF's of unsafe speed and traffic sign and signal violations. Nearside traffic signals are considered at these locations to improve traffic signal visibility as drivers approach the intersection.

Consider the installation of nearside signal heads at the following locations:

1. Fair Oaks Ave & Washington Bl (All directions)

2. Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Bl ( All directions)

3. Fair Oaks Ave & Maple St (North and southbound approach)

4. Corson St & Fair Oaks Ave (North and southbound approach)

5. Colorado Bl & Pasadena Ave

6. Arroyo Pkwy & Green St

7. Lake Ave & Washington Bl (All directions)

8. Lake Ave & Orange Grove Bl (All directions)

9. Union St & Wilson Ave

10. Colorado Bl & Sierra Madre Bl (All directions)
Figure 8.4 illustrates the locations where the improvements are recommended for consideration.

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 46
Figure 8.4: Nearside Signal Locations

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 47

8.1.3 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
The locations listed below are at midblock locations or non-signalized intersections that could improve the pedestrian crossing. Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB) enhance pedestrian safety by emitting high-intensity flashing warning lights to drivers that a pedestrian is crossing. Consider the installation of RRFB at the following locations:

1. Los Robles Avenue & Jackson Street

2. Madre Street between Del Mar Boulevard & Thorndale Rd

3. Halstead Street between Rosemead Boulevard & Foothill Boulevard

4. Marengo Avenue & Wallis Street
Figure 8.5 illustrates the locations where the improvements are recommended for consideration.

Source: Arizona DOT

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 48
Figure 8.5: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Locations

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 49

8.1.4 HAWK (High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk) Signals The proposed locations listed below are at midblock locations or non-signalized intersections with designated pedestrian crossings that could be improved. High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) Signals allow pedestrians to cross the road safely operating in a Yellow–Red–Flashing Red sequence to alert motorists that pedestrians need to cross the road. Consider the installation of HAWK Signals at the following locations:

1. Atchison Street & Lake Avenue

2. Bresee Avenue & Washington Boulevard (East leg)

3. Elizabeth Street & Lake Avenue (South leg)

4. Lincoln Avenue & Toolen Place
Figure 8.6 illustrates the locations where the improvements are recommended for consideration.

Source: FHWA

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 50
Figure 8.6: HAWK Signal Locations

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 51

8.1.5 Fluorescent Sheeting
The signs listed below are recommended for consideration to be upgraded with fluorescent sheeting. A sign audit would need to be conducted for these signs to be upgraded. The signs include bicycle, pedestrian, fire station, and other regulatory/warning signs. These signs were identified through Google Maps street view, where they appear not to have fluorescent sheeting. The fluorescent sheeting will make the signs more visible at night when vehicles approach them. The locations were identified in locations with clusters of nighttime collisions. Additional locations listed in Appendix C were selected based on their proximity to the original list of locations with similar roadway characteristics. Consider upgrading signs with new fluorescent sheeting at the following locations:

1. Del Mar Boulevard & Holliston Avenue (W11-8)

2. Del Mar Boulevard, east of Holliston Avenue (W11-8)

3. Del Mar Boulevard, west of Hill Avenue (W11-8)

4. Lake Avenue, south of Santa Barbara Street ("Fire Station"sign)

5. Fair Oaks Avenue, south of Dayton Street (W11-8)

6. Fair Oaks Avenue, north of Valley Street (W11-8)

7. Hammond Street, east of Fair Oaks Avenue ("Fire station, watch for trucks" sign)

8. Hammond Street & Fair Oaks Boulevard northeast corner ("Fire station, watch for trucks" sign)

9. Hammond Street, south of Fair Oaks Avenue (NB) ("Fire station, watch for trucks" sign)

10. Fair Oaks Avenue, south of Claremont Street (SB) ("Fire station, watch for trucks" sign)

11. Lincoln Avenue, east of Orange Grove Boulevard (EB) (Pedestrian W11-2)

12. El Molino Avenue, west of Washington Boulevard (EB) Bike "share the road" sign (W11-1 & W16-1P)

13. Palm Terrace, east of Washington Boulevard (EB) Bike "share the road" sign (W11-1 & W16-1P)

14. Prime Court, west of Washington Boulevard (WB) Pedestrian (W11-2)

15. Mentor Avenue & Washington Boulevard (EB) School pedestrian sign (S1-1 & W16-9P) Figure 8.7 illustrates the locations where the improvements are recommended for consideration, including the list from Appendix C

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 52
Figure 8.7: Signage Fluorescent Sheeting Locations

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 53

8.1.6 Restriping
The locations listed are recommended for consideration to be restriped with contrast striping. The top 10 intersections were initially analyzed to see if it is feasible to recommend contrast striping. Additional locations were identified based on daytime collisions. The extents of the contrast striping was measured from the center of the intersection to the end of the light-colored concrete. Contrast striping is helpful for making travel lanes more visibile when the sun is directly hitting the concrete.

Restriping with contrast striping on the light concrete is recommended for consideration at the following locations:

Fair Oaks Avenue & Howard Street
Fair Oaks Avenue & Mountain Street
Fair Oaks Avenue & Maple Street
Corson Street & Fair Oaks Avenue
Fair Oaks Avenue & Walnut Street
Holly Street & Orange Grove Boulevard
Del Mar Boulevard & Fair Oaks Avenue
Fair Oaks Avenue & California Boulevard
Maple Street & Marengo Avenue
Marengo Avenue & Walnut Street
Marengo Avenue & Union Street
Green Street & Marengo Avenue
Arroyo Parkway & Del Mar Boulevard
Los Robles Avenue & Villa Street
Los Robles Avenue & Maple Street
Colorado Boulevard & Los Robles Avenue
Lake Avenue & Maple Street
Corson Street & Lake Avenue
Lake Avenue & Walnut Street
Colorado Boulevard & Lake Avenue
Green Street & Lake Avenue
Del Mar Boulevard & Lake Avenue
Hill Avenue & Walnut Street
Colorado Boulevard & Hill Avenue
Allen Avenue & Colorado Boulevard
Colorado Boulevard & Sierra Madre Boulevard
Altadena Drive & Foothill Boulevard
La Tierra Street & San Gabriel Boulevard
Foothill Boulevard & San Gabriel Boulevard
Del Mar Boulevard & San Gabriel Boulevard
Foothill Boulevard & Sierra Madre Villa Avenue
Figure 8.8 illustrates the locations where the improvements are recommended for consideration.

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 54
Figure 8.8: Contrast Striping Locations

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 55

8.2 ROADWAY SEGMENTS

8.2.1 Washington Blvd from Forest Ave to Catalina Ave
Washington Boulevard is a 1.9-mile roadway running in the east-west direction, from Forest Avenue to Catalina Avenue. Between Forest Avenue to Lincoln Avenue, Washington Boulevard has one travel lane in each direction, and on-street parking along the south side of the roadway (eastbound direction). From Lincoln Avenue to Catalina Avenue, Washingon Boulevard has two travel lanes in each direction. This part of the segment also has parking which appear underutilized at all times of the day.

A total of 127 collisions occurred along the corridor. The collision data revealed that the top primary collision factors of this segment include automobile right of way (41 collisions or 19.%), unsafe speed (40 collisions or

19.1%), and improper turning (30 collisions or 14.3%). Most of those collisions occurred when vehicles were traveling along the segment.

An option for Washington Boulevard is to install a Class III bike route from Forest Avenue to Lincoln Avenue and preserve parking. From Lincoln Avenue to Catalina Avenue, parking could be removed from both sides of the street and be replaced with a buffered 5-foot bike lane with a striped 2-foot buffer. The travel lane width would remain the same. This lane reconfiguration may require further analysis to determine whether the removal of the on-street parking would impact residents and businesses along this corridor. Per initial on-street parking observation, the roadway has underutilized street parking with overnight parking restrictions which do not allow overnight parking Citywide without a permit. Additionally, pavement markers along the roadway could be replaced with thermoplastic or paint for better visibility of the travel lanes. The improvement concept is illustrated in Figure 8.9.

Figure 8.9: Concept for Washington Boulevard

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 56

8.2.2 Lake Ave from Mountain St to California Blvd
Lake Avenue is a 1.75-mile roadway running north-south from Mountain Street to California Boulevard. The corridor has two travel lanes in each direction, with a raised median and on-street parking permitted on both sides of the street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. Lake Avenue is one of the commercial corridors in Pasadena and is heavily utilized by vehicles, with at least 30,000 vehicles traveled daily.

A total of 114 collisions occurred along this corridor. Unsafe speed is the top primary collision factor along the roadway, accounting for 20.3% of collisions. Automobile right of way (12.4%) and improper turning (10.7%) are the second and third highest primary collision factors.

Lake Avenue is primarily a commercial use corridor with multiple clusters of unsafe speed collisions along the roadway. Speed feedback signs are recommended for consideration on Lake Avenue between Orange Grove Boulevard and Maple Street (two signs). Lastly, the existing pavement markers along the roadway are recommended to be replaced with thermoplastic or paint for better visibility of the travel lanes. The improvement concept is illustrated in Figure 8.10.

Figure 8.10: Concept for Lake Avenue

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 57

8.2.3 Los Robles Ave from Washington Blvd to Maple St
Los Robles Avenue is a 1.15-mile roadway segment running north-south, from Washington Boulevard to Maple Street. It is primarily a residential use corridor with one travel lane in each direction with a two-way-left-turn lane.

On-street parking is permitted on both sides of the street, and the posted speed limit is 35 mph.

A total of 70 collisions occurred along the corridor. Unsafe speed (23.7%), automobile right of way (14.1%), and driving or bicycling under the influence (10.4%) are the top primary collision factors. Nearly half of collisions occurred during daylight conditions (46.7%).

Clusters of unsafe speeding collisions occurred along Los Robles Avenue. Based on the location of an existing speed feedback sign south of Mountain Street, an additional speed feedback sign is recommended for consideration north of Orange Grove Boulevard. The new speed feedback sign would be for northbound traffic, opposite to the existing sign. The improvement concept is illustrated in Figure 8.11.

Figure 8.11: Concept for Los Robles Avenue

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 58

8.2.4 Del Mar Blvd from Los Robles Ave to East City Limit The Del Mar Boulevard roadway is approximately 3.38-miles, running in the east-west direction, from Los Robles Avenue to the eastern terminus of the city boundary. It is primarily a residential use corridor with two travel lanes in each direction with left-turn pockets. On-street parking is generally permitted with peak period restrictions on both sides of the street. Del Mar Avenue has approximately 20,000 vehicles traveling daily.

A total of 276 collisions occurred along the corridor. The top primary collision factors of the roadway were automobile right of way (22.4%), unsafe speed (14.7%), and improper turning (11.2%). Most collisions occurred during daylight collisions (52.5%). Of the 276 collisions, six were bicycle-related, and 13 were pedestrian-related.

A lane reconfiguration project is an option on Del Mar Boulevard, where one travel lane would be removed from each direction and a Class II buffered bike lane would be installed between the on-street parking and the travel lane. A two-foot buffer is recommended for consideration between the parking and bike lanes to allow for door space for parked vehicles. Parking will be preserved for residents and commercial businesses along this segment.

Additionally, a center turn lane is recommended for consideration to allow vehicles to turn left without blocking traffic. The minimum travel lane width would adhere to Pasadena's Street Design Guidelines. Figure 8.12 illustrates the conceptual lane reconfiguration improvement on Del Mar Boulevard.

Additionally, pavement markers along the roadway segment could be replaced with thermoplastic or paint for better visibility of the travel lanes. The replacement of the pavement markers would address automobile right-ofway collisions. The improvement concepts are illustrated in Figure 8.12 Figure 8.12: Concept for Del Mar Boulevard

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 59

8.3 INTERSECTIONS

8.3.1 Fair Oaks Ave & Maple St
Fair Oaks Avenue and Maple Street is a four-legged signalized intersection near the 210 and 134 freeway on/off ramps. Maple Street is a one-way westbound street, and Fair Oaks Avenue is a two-way street running in the northsouth direction. All approaches have permissive phasing, except the northbound approach has a protected left-turn phasing for the dual left-turn lanes.

A total of 47 collisions occurred at this intersection. The collision data revealed that traffic signal and sign violations were the top primary collision factor at this intersection, accounting for 27% of collisions. Unsafe speed was the second most common PCF, which accounted for 13.5% of collisions. Half (50%) of the collisions occurred during daylight conditions at this intersection.

The existing northbound protected left-turn phasing signal is located at the raised median on a pedestal pole. The left-turn phasing signal head may not be readily visible as the driver approaches the intersection, turning left onto Maple Street. It is recommended that the City consider replacing the signal pole with an extended mast arm that encompasses the protected left-turn signal head. The concept is illustrated in Figure 8.13.

Note: Caltrans will be making improvements along the 210 freeway. The improvement may overlap with the recommended countermeasures for this intersection.

Figure 8.13: Concept for Fair Oaks Avenue & Maple Street

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 60

8.3.2 Lake Ave & Washington Blvd
The intersection of Lake Avenue and Washington Boulevard is a four-legged signalized intersection with protectedpermissive phasing in all directions. All approaches have two travel lanes and a dedicated left-turn lane. This intersection has bus stops for Metro bus lines and Pasadena Transit.

This intersection had a total of 58 collisions. The top primary collision factors include improper turning (20.7%) and automobile right of way (19%). Pedestrians were involved in 13.8% of vehicle-involved collisions, accounting for the second-highest category of vehicle-involved collisions.

It is recommended that the City consider replacing all protected permissive signals with flashing yellow arrows on all legs of this intersection. To enhance pedestrian safety, at the intersection, high visibility crosswalks are recommended for consideration on all legs. High visibility crosswalks would enhance the visibility of the pedestrian crossing at all times of the day. The recommended concepts are illustrated in Figure 8.14.

Figure 8.14: Concept for Lake Avenue & Washington Boulevard

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 61

8.3.3 Fair Oaks Ave & Washington Blvd
Fair Oaks Avenue and Washington Boulevard intersection is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected left-turn phasing in the east-west direction (Washington Boulevard). Protected-permissive phasing is provided on Fair Oaks Avenue. All legs of the intersection have two travel lanes in each direction with a dedicated left-turn lane.

The intersection had a total of 41 collisions. The top primary collision factors were unsafe speed (31.7%), traffic sign and signal violations (9.8%), and automobile right of way (9.8%). Pedestrian-related collisions accounted for 12.2% of total crashes at this intersection.

It is recommended that the City consider replacing all protected permissive signals with flashing yellow arrows on all legs of this intersection. High visibility crosswalks are also recommended for consideration on all legs of the intersection to improve visibility of pedestrians crossing. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 8.15.

Figure 8.15: Concept for Fair Oaks Avenue & Washington Boulevard

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 62

8.3.4 Fair Oaks Ave & Orange Grove Blvd
Fair Oaks Avenue and Orange Grove Boulevard intersection is a four-legged signalized intersection with high visibility crosswalks. Protected-permissive phasing is provided in all directions. The intersection has two travel lanes and a dedicated left-turn lane in each direction. Bus stops for Metro bus lines and Pasadena Transit are provided at this intersection.

A total of 43 collisions occurred at this intersection. The top collision type was sideswipe accounting for 27.9% of total collisions. Also, the leading primary collision factor includes improper turning (23.3%) and automobile right of way (23.3%).

It is recommended that the City consider replacing all protected permissive signals with flashing yellow arrows on all legs of this intersection. The concept is illustrated in Figure 8.16.

Figure 8.16: Concept for Fair Oaks Avenue & Orange Grove Boulevard

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 63

8.3.5 Colorado Blvd & Sierra Madre Blvd
The intersection of Colorado Boulevard and Sierra Madre Boulevard is a four-legged signalized intersection with protected-permissive phasing. The intersection has two travel lanes and a dedicated left-turn lane. Also, dedicated right-turn lanes are provided on Colorado Boulevard. A Class II bike lane is provided along Sierra Madre Boulevard, and on-street parking is generally prohibited at the intersection. Bus stops for Foothill Transit and Pasadena Transit bus lines are provided at this intersection.

This intersection experienced a total of 43 collisions. Improper turning(16.3%) and automobile right of way (9.3%) accounted for the top primary collision factors. However, the unknown primary collision factor contributed nearly

37.2% of total collisions at this intersection. Roughly half of the collisions occurred during daylight conditions (46.5%). Finally, the broadside collision type accounts for 39.5% of total collisions.

It is recommended that the City consider replacing all protected permissive signals with flashing yellow arrows on all legs of this intersection. High visibility crosswalks are also recommended for consideration on all legs. The striping of the intersection is also recommended to be restriped with contrast striping on the light-colored concrete. The extents of the contrast striping are as follows (measured from the center of the intersection):
 East Leg 195ft
 West Leg 185ft
 North Leg 200ft
 South Leg 200ft
The concepts are illustrated in Figure 8.17.

Figure 8.17: Concept for Colorado Boulevard & Sierra Madre Boulevard

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 64

8.3.6 Arroyo Pkwy & Green St
Arroyo Parkway and Green Street is a four-legged signalized intersection. Green Street is an eastbound one-way street with four travel lanes and on-street parking. A raised median is provided on Arroyo Parkway, south of Green Street.

This intersection had a total of 38 collisions. More than half of the collisions were traffic signals and sign violations (57.9%), making this the highest primary collision factor, and five collisions were pedestrian-related. Finally, the broadside collision type accounts for 63.2% of total collisions.

It is recommended that the City consider installing high visibility crosswalks on all legs of this intersection and a curb extension on the northeast corner of Arroyo Parkway. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 8.18.

Figure 8.18: Concept for Arroyo Parkway & Green Street

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 65

8.3.7 Lake Ave & Maple St
Lake Avenue and Maple Street is a four-legged signalized intersection near the Lake Avenue Metro L Line station.

Marked crosswalks are provided, except for the south leg. Maple Street is a westbound one-way street adjacent to the I-210 westbound on/off ramps. Lake Avenue has two travel lanes in each direction with dual left-turn lanes for the northbound approach.

This intersection had a total of 48 collisions. The top primary collision factor includes unsafe speeding (16.7%) and traffic signals and signs violations (10.4%). However, the unknown primary collision factor contributed nearly 37.5% of total collisions at this intersection. Almost half of all collisions occurred in daylight (43.8%).

It is recommended that the City consider installing high visibility crosswalks on the north, east, and west legs of this intersection. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 8.19.

Figure 8.19: Concept for Lake Avenue & Maple Street

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 66

8.3.8 El Molino Ave & Villa St
El Molino Avenue and Villa Street is a four-legged signalized intersection with one travel lane. The intersection has permissive phasing and marked crosswalks in all directions. Also, this intersection is located within the residential neighborhood.

A total of 17 collisions occurred at this intersection, where traffic sign and signal violations (23.5%) accounted for the highest primary collision factor. Pedestrian-related collisions accounted for 17.6% of total collisions.

For improved pedestrian safety, it is recommended that the City consider installing high visibility crosswalks on all legs of the intersection. The concepts are illustrated in Figure 8.20.

Figure 8.20: Concept for El Molino Avenue & Villa Street

ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 67

8.3.9 Orange Grove Blvd & Sierra Bonita Ave
Orange Grove Boulevard and Sierra Bonita Avenue is a four-legged stop-controlled intersection with stop signs located on Sierra Bonita Avenue. The intersection has high visibility crosswalks and a dedicated left turn lane along Orange Grove Boulevard. Also, on-street parking is provided on Orange Grove Boulevard.

This intersection had a total of four collisions involving automobile right-of-way, improper turning, traffic signal and signs, and unsafe speeding. Collision severity includes complaint of pain, visibly injury, and property damage only.

The City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) identified this location as a future signalized intersection. Currently, the proposed signal has no funding for implementation. The recommendation for this intersection is to install a traffic signal. The concept is illustrated in Figure 8.21.

Figure 8.21: Concept for Orange Grove Boulevard & Sierra Bonita Avenue

SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 68

9.0 NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
This section presents the non-infrastructure safety measures for the City of Pasadena's roadway safety needs. The program promotes safe behavior in each Plan's identified transportation safety emphasis areas through education, law enforcement, and encouragement.

9.1 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS
Currently, the City of Pasadena does not have programs specifically for signalized intersections. In the past, the City implemented the “Stop B4 the Line” safety campaign specific to pedestrian safety at signalized intersections. This asserts the need for more programs to ensure drivers are aware of safe driving practices and the rules of the road at signalized intersections. The following summarizes the recommendations on education and enforcement programs with respective funding sources.

EDUCATION
Run an advertising campaign on social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and at public events to educate drivers on the dangers of unsafe driving and the rules of the road at signalized intersections Develop an online website to provide educational resources such as articles, games, and videos of the rules of the road and how to drive safely at signalized intersections Implement targeted safety education programs for vulnerable users such as children (administered in schools) and elderly (administered at community gathering locations) active transportation users. Using presentations and flyers, the program should convey the need for increased precaution at signalized intersections

ENFORCEMENT
● Deploy targeted enforcement at signalized intersections with a history of high numbers of collisions

FUNDING SOURCES
Table 9.1 presents the potential funding sources for programs addressing safety challenges.

Table 9.1: Signalized Intersection Programs Funding Sources Description
Agency
Responsible
Funding
Program

EDUCATION
Run an advertising campaign on social media
platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram) and at public
events to educate drivers on the dangers of unsafe
driving and the rules of the road at signalized
intersections
City of Pasadena OTS Grants
Develop an online website to provide educational
resources such as articles, games, and videos of the
rules of the road and how to drive safely at signalized intersections
City of Pasadena OTS Grants

NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 69
Description
Agency
Responsible
Funding
Program
Implement targeted safety education programs for
vulnerable users such as children (administered in
schools) and elderly (administered at community
gathering locations) active transportation users. Using presentations and flyers, the program should convey
the need for increased precaution at signalized
intersections
City of Pasadena,
Pasadena Unified
School District
OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Deploy targeted enforcement at signalized
intersections with a history of high numbers of
collisions
City of Pasadena,
Pasadena Police
Department
OTS Grants

9.2 BICYCLIST AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY
The Pasadena Police Department currently has a traffic safety website containing information about child safety in a vehicle, seatbelts, school bus/zone, bicycle helmets, driving under the influence (DUI), and enforcement.2 The Pasadena Police Department also has educational programs where police officers educate young drivers at high schools about traffic safety and DUIs. Pasadena's Department of Transportation (DOT) also offers a website containing videos and information relating to school zones, pedestrians, and bicyclists.3 The following summarizes the recommendations on education and enforcement programs with respective funding sources.

EDUCATION
Launch an education campaign for motorists on pedestrian rights. This can include:
● Run a Go Human safety advertisement campaign4 to encourage drivers to watch for people walking and biking. This campaign would be at targeted locations with a history of bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

Advertising can be done with neighborhood lawn signs – residents can post these signs on their properties to urge drivers to slow down/stop for pedestrians and bicyclists. ● Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle safety education into physical education classes in the Pasadena Unified School District
● Develop an education campaign for motorists on pedestrian and bicycle rights and rules of the road. This can include:
o Advertising on the radio, streaming services (Pandora/Spotify), or social media o Distributing pamphlets or brochures in schools, parks, and other public places ● Organize bicycle rodeos at schools or other public events to educate the youth on the rules of the road

2 Traffic Safety and Education. Pasadena Police Department. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://www.cityofpasadena.net/police/traffic-safety-and-education/ 3 Traffic Engineering Safety. Pasadena Department of Transportation. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://www.cityofpasadena.net/transportation/traffic-engineering-safety/#common-crash-types 4 Join the safety campaign. Southern California Association of Governments. (n.d.). Retrieved January 20, 2022, from https://scag.ca.gov/go-human-safety-campaign

NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 70

ENFORCEMENT
● Deploy targeted enforcement at locations with a history of bicycle and pedestrian collisions

FUNDING SOURCES
Table 9.2 presents potential funding sources for programs addressing bicyclist and pedestrian safety challenges.

Table 9.2: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety Program Funding Sources Description
Agency
Responsible
Funding
Program

EDUCATION
Run a Go Human safety advertisement campaign to
encourage drivers to watch for people walking and
biking. This campaign would be at targeted locations
with a history of bicycle and pedestrian collisions.

City of Pasadena SCAG
Incorporate pedestrian and bicycle safety education
into physical education classes in the Pasadena
Unified School District
City of Pasadena,
Pasadena Unified
School District
OTS Grants
Develop an education campaign for motorists on
pedestrian and bicycle rights and rules of the road. City of Pasadena OTS Grants Organize bike rodeos at schools or other public
events to educate the youth on the rules of the road
City of Pasadena,
Pasadena Unified
School District
OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Deploy targeted enforcement at locations with a
history of bicycle and pedestrian collisions
City of Pasadena,
Pasadena Police
Department
OTS Grants

9.3 SPEEDING
Currently, the City of Pasadena does not have programs specific to speeding. However, the City has conducted various safety campaigns associated with speeding in the past. For instance, the City had a school zone safety program that included speed related messaging. The City also had a Slow Streets Program during the pandemic that included over 50-miles of residential streets. The following programs are recommended to address speeding in the City. The following summarizes the recommendations on education and enforcement programs with respective funding sources.

EDUCATION
● Create a social media campaign with infographics conveying the collision and injury statistics associated with speeding vehicles (Facebook, Tik Tok, Twitter, etc).
● Run a Go Human safety advertisement campaign to encourage drivers to watch for people walking and biking.

This campaign would be at targeted locations with a history of speeding. Advertising can be done with lawn signs – schools, residents, and businesses can post these signs on their properties to urge drivers to slow down

NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 71

ENFORCEMENT
● Install radar speed feedback signs at periodic intervals along arterials with reported speeding issues. These technologies display passing drivers' travel speed below a sign with the posted speed limit, thus showing whether drivers travel over the speed limit.
● Expand the ticketing operations in which police officers equipped with radar or lidar technology are deployed at strategic locations to ticket speeding drivers.

FUNDING SOURCES
Table 9.3 presents potential funding sources for programs addressing safety challenges for speeding.

Table 9.3: Speeding Program Funding Sources
Description
Agency
Responsible
Funding
Program

EDUCATION
Create a social media campaign with infographics
conveying the collision and injury statistics associated with speeding vehicles.

City of Pasadena OTS Grants
Run a Go Human safety advertisement campaign to
encourage drivers to watch for speed. This campaign
would be at targeted locations with a history of
unsafe speed collisions.

City of Pasadena OTS Grants

ENFORCEMENT
Install radar speed feedback signs at periodic intervals along arterials with reported speeding issues. These
technologies display passing drivers' travel speed
below a sign with the posted speed limit, thus
showing whether drivers travel over the speed limit.

City of Pasadena,
Pasadena Police
Department
OTS Grants
Expand the ticketing operations in which police
officers equipped with radar or lidar technology are
deployed at strategic locations to ticket speeding
drivers.

City of Pasadena,
Pasadena Police
Department
OTS Grants

9.4 SUMMARY OF FUNDING SOURCES
Several state and federal grant programs offer to fund non-engineering roadway safety projects. The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP) aims to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use by funding programs that increase bike or pedestrian mode share or improve bicycle or pedestrian safety. Caltrans also administers the Sustainable Communities Grant Program, which awards grants to municipal projects that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions and support Multi-modal transportation. The Sustainable Communities Program prioritizes projects that solicit stakeholder and community engagement and support state policies like the 2040 California Transportation Plan. The California Office of Traffic Safety awards grants for projects addressing ten priority areas, including driving under the influence (DUI), distracted driving, pedestrian and bicycle safety, law enforcement, safety data collection, and marketing/publicity campaigns.

The Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program funds technology to promote safety and efficiency in the transportation system at the federal level. The Highway Safety Improvement

NON-ENGINEERING SAFETY MEASURES
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 72
Program (HSIP) funds safety projects on any public roadway. The program mainly supports engineering projects, but the program's legislation permits funding for law enforcement and data collection efforts. Table 9.4 summarizes the funding opportunities
Table 9.4 Transportation Safety Funding Summary
Agency Source Eligible Programs Areas Addressed
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program (HSIP)
Any roadway improvements related to public roads,
bikeways, and pedestrian paths/trails. For the most part, only engineering projects are eligible, but the FAST Act permits funding for data collection by law enforcement1,2.

Data Collection
Federal
Highway
Administration
(FHWA)
Advanced
Transportation and
Congestion
Management
Technologies
Deployment Program
Funds advanced transportation and congestion
management technologies to improve safety, efficiency,
and performance. Funded project types include advanced
traveler information systems and data collection and
analysis efforts3
.

Digital
Enforcement;
Technology
Partnerships
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Local government projects improve safety or increase
bicycling and walking mode share. Additional program
objectives include reducing emissions and enhancing
public health4.

Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Education and
Enforcement
California
Department of
Transportation
(Caltrans)
Sustainable
Communities Grant
Program
The program awards "Competitive Grants" to local
governments. These grants prioritize projects that reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions, support multi-modal
transportation, involve stakeholder/ community
engagement, and support related plans like the California Transportation Plan and California Complete Streets
Framework5.

Active
Transportation
Speed and
Education
California
Office of
Traffic Safety
Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) Grants
Programs should address one of ten priority areas (six
relevant ones listed to the right). Grant recipients should expect to wait up to 90 days before being
reimbursed/funded and should be able to provide traffic safety data to justify funded programs6
.

DUI
Distracted Driving
Ped/Bike Safety
Police Enforcement
Roadway Safety
and Data
Collection
Social
Media/Marketing
Sources:
 Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines, April 2016  Highway safety improvement program, Pub. L. No. 148, 23 US Code (2015). https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/23/148.  Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment. February 2016. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/advtranscongmgmtfs.cfm.  2021 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. March 25, 2020. Resolution G-20-31.  California Department of Transportation. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program. December 2019.  California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Manual for Federal Fiscal Year 2020. December 2019.

CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 73

10.0 SAFETY PROJECTS
This section provides the project scope, collision reduction benefits calculation, cost estimation, and Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratio analysis. This section also discusses and summarizes the project prioritization for HSIP applications.

10.1 PROJECT SCOPES AND BENEFIT CALCULATIONS
The development of project scopes involves identifying one or more specific countermeasures at potential locations for safety improvements. Expected benefits are derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) to the expected crashes. This involves:

Identifying the current number of crashes without treatment Applying CRFs by type and severity
Applying a benefit value by crash severity
Calculating the annual collision reduction benefits and multiplying by the project life in years Caltrans has established some key requirements and procedures for its calls-for-projects to allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked statewide. These include:

Only a maximum of three individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project.

For a countermeasure to be utilized in the B/C ratio calculations, it must represent a minimum of 15 percent of the project's total construction cost. This is intended to ensure that minor and insignificant project elements are not misrepresented in the agency's major safety effort.

An engineer determining the benefits of newly installed infrastructure first determines the number of collisions with the potential to be prevented by the improvement. The engineer then applies the CRF, which gives the rough percentage of crashes that would be prevented. The next step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is multiplying the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the "cost" of crashes. A project's expected "benefit" value is the expected "reduction in costs" value from reducing future crashes.

The cost source by collision severity level was taken from Appendix D of the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, as discussed in Section 3.2.

The final step in calculating the total safety project benefits is to divide the benefits by the number of years the collision data was collected (five years for this project) and multiply this value by the project life in years.

For this LRSP, instead of calculating project benefits manually, project benefits were derived from entering collision data directly into the HSIP Analyzer tool. The tool auto-calculates project collision reduction benefits based on the method discussed above and reduces benefits if more than one project is included due to cumulative effects.

The safety project scopes are listed in Table 10.1 and Table 10.2, including the applicable countermeasure category for each improvement and benefits calculated according to the method above.

SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 74
Table 10.1 Safety Project Scopes
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
1 Fair Oaks Ave & Maple
St
S08 Convert signal mast arm Replace protected left turn signal with a protected left turn signal mast arm (northbound)
All 30% 20
Other Contrast Striping Restripe the intersection with contrast striping.

Extents of the restriping are as follows:
- East leg 123ft - West leg 60ft
- North leg 144ft - South leg 2035ft
-
S02 Nearside Signals Install near side signal on the northbound and southbound approaches
All
S02 Retro-reflective backing
plates
Upgrade all existing traffic signals with retroreflective backing plates.All 2 Orange Grove Bl &
Sierra Bonita Ave
NS03 Install Signal Install traffic signal All 14% 20
3 Washington Bl
from Forest Ave to
Catalina Ave
R32PB Install Bike Lane Install buffered 5' bike lanes with 2' striped buffer from Lincoln Ave to El Molino Ave and a Class III
bike route from Forest Ave to Lincoln Ave
P&B 35% 20
Other Striping Replace pavement markers with thermo plastic of paint
4 Del Mar Bl from Los
Robles Ave to east City
Limit
R32PB Install Bike Lane Install Class II bike lanes and remove one travel lane from each direction.

P&B 35% 20
Other Striping Replace pavement markers with thermo plastic or paint
5 Multiple Locations S02 Retro-reflective backing
plates
Upgrade existing traffic signals with retro-reflective
backing plates
All 15% 10
6 Multiple Locations S02 Nearside Signals Install nearside signal heads All 15% 10 7 Multiple Locations NS22PB Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons
- Los Robles Ave & Jackson St
- Madre St btwn Del Mar Bl & Thorndale Rd
- Halstead St btwn Rosemead Bl & Foothill Bl
P&B 35% 20

SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 75
Table 10.1 Safety Project Scopes
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
- Marengo Ave & Wallis St
8 Multiple Locations NS23PB HAWK Signal Install HAWK Signals at the following locations:
- Bresse Ave & Washington Bl (east leg)
- Atchison St & Lake Ave
- Elizabeth St & Lake Ave (South leg)
- Lincoln Ave & Toolen Place
P&B 55% 20
9 Multiple Locations R22 Regulatory Signs Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting All 15% 10 Table 10.2 Optional Safety Project Scopes
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
1 Lake Ave & Washington
Bl
Other Flashing yellow arrow Replace protected permissive signals with flashing yellow arrows on all directions
Left Turn 14% 20
Other High visibility crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks Vehicle/ Pedestrian
2 Fair Oaks Ave &
Washington Bl
Other High visibility crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks Vehicle/ Pedestrian
14% 20
Other Flashing Yellow Arrow Install flashing yellow arrows on all directions Left Turn 3 Fair Oaks Ave & Orange
Grove Bl
Other Flashing Yellow Arrow Install flashing yellow arrows on all directions Left Turn 14% 20 Other Curb Extensions Install curb extension on the northwest corner of Orange Grove Blvd
P&B
4 Colorado Bl & Sierra
Madre Bl
Other High visibility crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks Vehicle/ Pedestrian
14% 20
Other Flashing Yellow Arrow Add flashing yellow arrows in all directions Left Turn 5 Arroyo Pkwy & Green St Other High visibility crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10

SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 76
Table 10.2 Optional Safety Project Scopes
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names Description
Collision
Type CRF
Project
Life
(Years)
Other Curb Extensions Install curb extension on the northeast corner of Arroyo Pkwy
P&B
6 Lake Ave & Maple St Other High visibility crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10
7 El Molino Ave & Villa St Other High visibility crosswalks Install high visibility crosswalks Vehicle/ Pedestrian
40% 10
8 Lake Ave from Mountain
St to California Bl
Other Install dynamic speed
warning signs
Install speed feedback signs
-South of Orange Grove Blvd (southbound)
-South of Villa St (northbound)
All 22% 10
Other Striping Replace pavement markers with thermo plastic or paint from Colorado Bl to Walnut St
9 Los Robles Ave
from Washington Bl to
Maple St
Other Install dynamic speed
warning signs
Install speed feedback signs
-North of E Ashtabula St (northbound)
-South of Mountain St (southbound)
All 22% 10
10 Multiple Locations Other Restriping Restripe existing lanes with contrast striping on the light concrete
- - 10

10.2 COST ESTIMATE
Planning-level cost estimates were developed for each countermeasure.

Cost estimates were prepared based on recent bid tabulations and estimates of current construction costs consisting of unit-based cost estimates and contingencies. The costs include construction costs and engineering and administrative costs. A contingency is added to the construction cost of each project, depending on the complexity of the scope. The engineering and administration cost is assumed to be 25 percent of the total construction cost, including the contingency. The cost estimates are included in Appendix D.

10.3 BENEFIT/COST RATIO
A Benefit/Cost Ratio (BCR) is the ratio of a project’s benefits relative to its costs, and both are expressed in monetary terms. Projects with a higher BCR mean greater benefits relative to costs, while a lower BCR means fewer benefits relative to costs.

Based on Caltrans's need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-for-projects, the benefit and cost calculations were completed using the same process shown in the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. The B/C ratios were used to identify the projects with high cost-effectiveness that may have a greater chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-for-projects.

Table 10.3 and Table 10.4 summarizes the proposed safety projects

SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 77
with respective BCRs. The detail of the safety project, including the BCR analysis summary table, is provided in Appendix E.

Table 10.3 Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Safety Project Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventabl
e Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost
Ratio
(BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
1 Fair Oaks Ave &
Maple St
S08 Convert signal mast
arm
52 $2,860,800 $3,432,960 $104,042 33.0 90% $93,638 $10,404 Other Contrast Striping
S02 Nearside Signals
S02 Retro-reflective
backing plates
2 Orange Grove Bl &
Sierra Bonita Ave
NS03 Install Signal 4 $280,600 $157,136 $435,800 0.4 90% $392,220 $43,580 3 Washington Bl
from Forest Ave to
Catalina Ave
R32PB Install Bike Lane 30 $10,513,300 $14,718,620 $157,389 93.5 90% $141,650 $15,739 Other Striping
4 Del Mar Bl from Los
Robles Ave to east
City Limit
R32PB Install Bike Lane 19 $4,497,200 $6,296,080 $265,920 23.7 90% $239,328 $26,592 Other Striping
5 Multiple Locations S02 Retro-reflective
backing plates
2118 $180,900,900 $54,270,270 $669,760 81.0 90% $602,784 $66,976 6 Multiple Locations S02 Nearside Signals 418 $39,072,100 $11,721,630 $247,229 47.4 90% $222,506 $24,723 7 Multiple Locations NS22PB Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
5 $3,268,600 $4,576,040 $301,450 15.2 90% $271,305 $30,145 8 Multiple Locations NS23PB HAWK Signal 0 $0 $0 $2,188,426 0.0 90% $1,969,583 $218,843 9 Multiple Locations R22 Regulatory Signs 488 $50,393,100 $15,117,930 $124,750 121.2 90% $112,275 $12,475

SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 78
Table 10.4 Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Optional Safety Project Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost
Ratio
(BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
1 Lake Ave &
Washington Bl
Other Flashing Yellow
Arrow
17 $1,220,300 $698,012 $63,464 11.0 0% $0 $63,464
Other High visibility
crosswalks
2 Fair Oaks Ave &
Washington Bl
Other High visibility
crosswalks
7 $2,249,400 $1,259,664 $63,464 19.8 0% $0 $63,464
Other Flashing Yellow
Arrow
3 Fair Oaks Ave &
Orange Grove Bl
Other Flashing Yellow
Arrow
16 $1,198,400 $671,104 $489,924 1.4 0% $0 $489,924
Other Curb Extensions
4 Colorado Bl &
Sierra Madre Bl
Other High visibility
crosswalks
11 $536,900 $300,664 $63,464 4.7 0% $0 $63,464
Other Flashing Yellow
Arrow
5 Arroyo Pkwy &
Green St
Other High visibility
crosswalks
2 $250,800 $200,640 $467,140 0.4 0% $0 $467,140
Other Curb Extensions
6 Lake Ave & Maple
St
Other High visibility
crosswalks
0 $0 $0 $17,600 0.0 0% $0 $17,600
7 El Molino Ave &
Villa St
Other High visibility
crosswalks
2 $1,877,900 $1,502,320 $22,040 68.2 0% $0 $22,040

SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
PAGE 79
Table 10.4 Benefits/Cost Ratio Analysis by Optional Safety Project Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/
Cost
Ratio
(BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount
Local
Amount
8 Lake Ave from
Mountain St to
California Bl
Other Install dynamic
speed warning signs
415 $39,504,200 $17,381,848 $55,409 313.7 0% $49,868 $5,541 Other Striping
9 Los Robles Ave
from Washington
Bl to Maple St
Other Install dynamic
speed warning signs
123 $16,065,100 $7,068,644 $40,280 175.5 0% $36,252 $4,028 10 Multiple Locations Other Restriping 0 $0 $0 $2,661,888 - 0% $0 $2,661,888 As shown in the table above (Table 10.3 and Table 10.4), the improvements are listed by intersections, roadway segments, and systemic improvements. Some improvements have a BCR of zero due to no collisions associated with the improvement type. The calculated BCR for each project summarizes the cost-effectiveness of the 19 proposed safety projects without considering how the project would be funded.

10.4 PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
A prioritized list of safety projects for the HSIP application was identified.

The B/C ratios may be used to identify the projects with high costeffectiveness that have the greatest chance of receiving federal funding in Caltrans call-for-projects.

BCR is not the only guide to prioritizing and implementing a countermeasure. The safety project list will be used to reference which safety project to implement first. The implementation timeline will be dependent on the City's goals and funding eligibility. The City may choose to move forward with any of these safety projects in any order, depending on funding availability. If the applications are approved for funding, these projects should not be applied for future HSIP cycles. If the safety projects are not funded by the upcoming HSIP Cycle 11, then those projects could be considered for application from other funding sources.

Because HSIP grants are competitive, it is typically appropriate to apply only for projects with a higher BCR. According to the HSIP grant application guidelines, a safety project needs to be at least $100,000 and a minimum of 3.5 BCR to submit an HSIP Cycle application.

Considering the HSIP application, Table 10.5 summarizes the BCR analysis for the safety projects. The safety projects are categorized by countermeasure ID and are prioritized by BCR. The City may use the list from Table 10.5 to determine which will be implemented based on the City's goals and funding availability. The City may also determine which project to be prioritized based on available funding sources, public support, and other factors.

SAFETY PROJECTS
CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PAGE 80
Table 10.5: Safety Project List
Location CM #
Countermeasure
Names
No. of
Preventable
Collisions
Collision
Costs
Collision
Benefits
Cost ($)
Estimation
Benefit/Cost
Ratio (BCR)
HSIP
Max
Share
HSIP
Amount Local Amount
Multiple Locations R22 Regulatory Signs 488 $50,393,100 $15,117,930 $124,750 121.2 90% $112,275 $12,475 Washington Bl
from Forest Ave to
Catalina Ave
R32PB Install Bike Lane 30 $10,513,300 $14,718,620 $157,389 93.5 90% $141,650 $15,739 Other Striping
Multiple Locations S02 Retro-reflective
backing plates
2118 $180,900,900 $54,270,270 $669,760 81.0 90% $602,784 $66,976 Multiple Locations S02 Nearside Signals 418 $39,072,100 $11,721,630 $247,229 47.4 90% $222,506 $24,723 Fair Oaks Ave &
Maple St
S08 Convert signal
mast arm
52 $2,860,800 $3,432,960 $104,042 33.0 90% $93,638 $10,404 Other Contrast Striping
S02 Nearside Signals
S02 Retro-reflective
backing plates
Del Mar Bl from Los
Robles Ave to east
City Limit
R32PB Install Bike Lane 19 $4,497,200 $6,296,080 $265,920 23.7 90% $239,328 $26,592 Other Striping
Multiple Locations NS22PB Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB)
5 $3,268,600 $4,576,040 $301,450 15.2 90% $271,305 $30,145

CITY OF PASADENA | LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN APPENDIX

APPENDIX A

INTERSECTION COLLISION SUMMARY
Pasadena LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand TotalFatalSevere InjuryVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage OnlyBroadsideHead-OnHit ObjectNot StatedOtherOverturnedRear EndSideswipeVehicle/ Pedestrian 1 LAKE AVE & ORANGE GROVE BL 69 1 9 19 40 22 5 2 7 2 21 7 3 2 FAIR OAKS AVE & MAPLE ST 47 6 15 26 25 1 2 1 11 7
3 CORSON ST & LAKE AVE 46 3 15 28 16 1 1 12 15 1
4 LAKE AVE & WASHINGTON BL 45 4 18 23 9 9 1 4 7 11 4
5 LAKE AVE & MAPLE ST 44 1 2 8 33 14 132 16 8
6 PASADENA AVE & STATE ST 38 5 10 23 20 3 1 3 65
7 FAIR OAKS AVE & ORANGE GROVE BL 38 7 7 24 7 3 1 3 2 1 9 10 2 8 COLORADO BL & SIERRA MADRE BL 38 1 1 2 8 26 17 1 2 2 10 5 1 9 ARROYO PKWY & GREEN ST 38 1 8 15 14 24 1 2 2 171
10 FAIR OAKS AVE & WASHINGTON BL 37 1 1 1 14 20 9 5 2 1 1 12 5 2 11 GREEN ST & MARENGO AVE 34 4 9 21 18 1 1 2 2 3 5 2
12 LA TIERRA ST & SAN GABRIEL BL 32 1 11 20 19 1 2 1 27 13 COLORADO BL & FAIR OAKS AVE 32 1 6 9 16 7 11 10 6 7
14 ALLEN AVE & WASHINGTON BL 32 5 8 19 7 4 1 1 12 6 1
15 MARENGO AVE & UNION ST 31 4 11 16 22 2 223
16 FAIR OAKS AVE & MOUNTAIN ST 31 4 11 16 9 1 1 4 952
17 LAKE AVE & WALNUT ST 31 3 9 19 3 2 4 1 2 13 3 3
18 COLORADO BL & HILL AVE 31 6 5 20 10 4 1 3 1 5 5 2
19 LOS ROBLES AVE & WALNUT ST 30 3 5 22 13 1 1 2 2 1 6 3 1 20 HILL AVE & WALNUT ST 30 3 6 21 11 4 2 12 1
21 HOLLY ST & ORANGE GROVE BL 29 2 4 8 15 16 4 1 35
22 LAKE AVE & MOUNTAIN ST 29 6 10 13 9 5 3 1 623
23 COLORADO BL & ORANGE GROVE BL 29 4 3 22 16 3 2 35
24 COLORADO BL & RAYMOND AVE 29 1 1 6 21 6 11 7 11 3
25 CALIFORNIA BL & SAN GABRIEL BL 29 8 2 19 13 3 1 3 63 26 MAPLE ST & MARENGO AVE 27 4 7 16 15 1 1 154
27 DEL MAR BL & FAIR OAKS AVE 27 4 9 14 3 2 3 1 11 6 1
28 COLORADO BL & LOS ROBLES AVE 27 5 6 16 11 2 3 47
29 SIERRA MADRE VILLA AVE & WALNUT ST 26 4 9 13 16 1 342

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
J:\2021\JC11048 Pasadena LRSP\Analysis\Collisions\Collisions_20152019_Final.xlsx - APPENDIX A 1 of 36
3/30/2022
Pasadena LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand TotalFatalSevere InjuryVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage OnlyBroadsideHead-OnHit ObjectNot StatedOtherOverturnedRear EndSideswipeVehicle/ Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
30 FAIR OAKS AVE & WALNUT ST 26 1 4 4 17 10 1 1482
31 ARROYO PKWY & CALIFORNIA BL 26 2 3 5 16 13 1 1 2 81
32 FOOTHILL BL & SAN GABRIEL BL 25 2 6 17 7 3 2 3 64
33 FOOTHILL BL & SIERRA MADRE BL 25 1 3 7 14 14 4 1 2 13 34 COLORADO BL & LAKE AVE 25 1 13 11 6 3 1 1 10 3 1
35 ALLEN AVE & COLORADO BL 25 3 5 17 14 2 2 1 33
36 LAKE AVE & VILLA ST 24 1 2 10 11 7 1 11 3 2
37 ARROYO PKWY & DEL MAR BL 24 2 4 18 8 3 1 3 2 4 2 1
38 FOOTHILL BL & SIERRA MADRE VILLA AVE 23 1 7 15 3 1 1 12 5 1 39 CORSON ST & HILL AVE 23 2 7 14 12 1 82
40 ALTADENA DR & FOOTHILL BL 23 3 4 16 12 1 1 1 143
41 CORSON ST & FAIR OAKS AVE 22 4 6 12 13 1 1 1 1 3 2
42 DEL MAR BL & LAKE AVE 22 89565 2 63
43 EL MOLINO AVE & ORANGE GROVE BL 22 3 5 14 8 1 1 1 533 44 LOS ROBLES AVE & WASHINGTON BL 21 1 6 14 4 5 1 821
45 RAYMOND AVE & UNION ST 21 2 5 14 7 2 1 641
46 LOS ROBLES AVE & ORANGE GROVE BL 21 1 2 4 14 9 3 711 47 MARENGO AVE & WALNUT ST 21 1 4 4 12 11 1 2 2 1 2 2
48 GREEN ST & LOS ROBLES AVE 21 5 16 15 1 1 4
49 DEL MAR BL & MARENGO AVE 21 1 3 5 12 7 2 4 413
50 CORDOVA ST & LAKE AVE 21 2 5 14 6 2 1 1 821
51 BONNIE AVE & COLORADO BL 21 4 2 15 6 1 1 3 532
52 CALIFORNIA BL & RAYMOND AVE 21 1 3 4 13 14 1 1 311
53 CALIFORNIA BL & LAKE AVE 21 1 6 14 5 1 1 761
54 MARENGO AVE & VILLA ST 20 1 1 11 7 4 2 1 2 911
55 LAKE AVE & UNION ST 20 1 3 7 9 10 1 1 242
56 GARFIELD AVE & WASHINGTON BL 20 5 5 10 8 1 1 1 63
57 GREEN ST & LAKE AVE 20 1 4 8 7 13 1 24
58 COLORADO BL & SAN GABRIEL BL 20 2 5 13 4 1 1 1 1 6 4 2 J:\2021\JC11048 Pasadena LRSP\Analysis\Collisions\Collisions_20152019_Final.xlsx - APPENDIX A 2 of 36
3/30/2022
Pasadena LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand TotalFatalSevere InjuryVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage OnlyBroadsideHead-OnHit ObjectNot StatedOtherOverturnedRear EndSideswipeVehicle/ Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
59 COLORADO BL & WILSON AVE 20 1 2 5 12 9 2 1 53
60 ALLEN AVE & ORANGE GROVE BL 20 57863 56
61 ALLEN AVE & WALNUT ST 20 6 7 7 12 3 113
62 FOOTHILL BL & ROSEMEAD BL 19 1 4 14 3 11 10 3 1
63 FAIR OAKS AVE & GREEN ST 19 1 3 4 11 2 1 1 4 74
64 COLORADO BL & PASADENA AVE 19 1 5 5 8 11 1 2 2 1 1 1 65 DEL MAR BL & LOS ROBLES AVE 19 5 4 10 4 5 154
66 ARROYO PKWY & FILLMORE ST 19 8 11 7 1 1 1 1 5 3
67 ORANGE GROVE BL & SIERRA MADRE BL 18 6 5 7 12 1 32
68 RAYMOND AVE & WASHINGTON BL 18 1 3 2 12 8 1 252
69 HILL AVE & WASHINGTON BL 18 2 7 9 12 1 1 31
70 HILL AVE & MAPLE ST 18 1 3 14 7 11 27
71 FAIR OAKS AVE & HOWARD ST 18 1 2 6 9 7 2 54
72 DEL MAR BL & SAN MARINO AVE 18 7 6 5 11 3 3 1
73 CORSON ST & MARENGO AVE 18 2 5 11 9 1 1 241
74 CORSON ST & LOS ROBLES AVE 18 1 1 9 7 8 1 3 33
75 CALIFORNIA BL & SAINT JOHN AVE 18 4 14 7 2 1 17
76 CALIFORNIA BL & PASADENA AVE 18 5 13 7 1 1 1 71
77 LINCOLN AVE & MONTANA ST 17 1798 11 61
78 DEL MAR BL & SAN GABRIEL BL 17 35972211 31
79 COLORADO BL & SAINT JOHN AVE 17 3 3 11 13 1 21
80 COLORADO BL & MARENGO AVE 17 3 3 11 8 3 1131
81 DEL MAR BL & SIERRA MADRE BL 17 6 11 7 2 1 34
82 CALIFORNIA BL & ORANGE GROVE BL 17 1 3 13 5 3 1 521
83 ALLEN AVE & MAPLE ST 17 3 2 12 8 1 1 3 31
84 LINCOLN AVE & WYOMING ST 16 1 5 10 5 2 1 35
85 FAIR OAKS AVE & TREMONT ST (N) 16 3 3 10 5 1 361
86 FAIR OAKS AVE & UNION ST 16 34962 1 421
87 GLENARM ST & MARENGO AVE 16 34981 1 1311
J:\2021\JC11048 Pasadena LRSP\Analysis\Collisions\Collisions_20152019_Final.xlsx - APPENDIX A 3 of 36
3/30/2022
Pasadena LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand TotalFatalSevere InjuryVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage OnlyBroadsideHead-OnHit ObjectNot StatedOtherOverturnedRear EndSideswipeVehicle/ Pedestrian

COLLISION SEVERITY COLLISION TYPE
88 DEL MAR BL & RAYMOND AVE 16 1 5 10 2 13 442
89 COLUMBIA ST & ORANGE GROVE BL 16 3 7 6 10 11 31
90 EL MOLINO AVE & VILLA ST 16 1 1 2 5 7 4 2 1 1 4 2 2
91 CORDOVA ST & LOS ROBLES AVE 16 1 5 2 8 8 3 41
92 CALIFORNIA BL & FAIR OAKS AVE 16 178711 52
93 ALTADENA DR & MAPLE ST 16 4 4 8 16
94 ALTADENA DR & ORANGE GROVE BL 16 1 7 8 10 2 13
95 ALLEN AVE & MOUNTAIN ST 16 53872 421
96 ORANGE GROVE BL & RAYMOND AVE 15 3 3 3 6 8 1 1221
97 GARFIELD AVE & ORANGE GROVE BL 15 1 2 1 11 7 1 2 212 98 GREEN ST & RAYMOND AVE 15 1 2 3 9 4 371
99 COLORADO BL & DE LACEY AVE 15 1 1 2 11 3 1 1 28
100 COLORADO BL & MENTOR AVE 15 1 2 3 9 8 1 33
101 COLORADO BL & HUDSON AVE 15 1779 2 121
102 COLORADO BL & MADRE ST 15 1 1 4 9 7 2 51
103 ALTADENA DR & CORSON ST 15 1598 2 41
104 CALIFORNIA BL & OAK KNOLL AVE 15 1 3 7 4 8 1 1 23
105 CALIFORNIA BL & MARENGO AVE 15 16861 422
106 ALTADENA DR & SIERRA MADRE BL 15 10 5 8 1 2 211
107 BONNIE AVE & DEL MAR BL 15 33982 221
108 ARROYO PKWY & GLENARM ST 15 1 7 7 6 2 7
109 ARROYO PKWY & COLORADO BL 15 1 2 12 4 1 721
110 LOS ROBLES AVE & MOUNTAIN ST 14 1 2 4 7 5 1 611
111 UNION ST & WILSON AVE 14 1 2 2 9 8 2 1 21
112 WALNUT ST & WILSON AVE 14 1 4 3 6 9 1 1 21
113 MOUNTAIN ST & RAYMOND AVE 14 1 2 3 8 6 2 2 22
114 FOOTHILL BL & HALSTEAD ST 14 1 1 4 8 2 1 1 64
115 LINCOLN AVE & ORANGE GROVE BL 14 4 4 6 10 1 111
116 GREEN ST & FAIR OAKS AVE 14 2 1 11 1 3 1 5 2 2
J:\2021\JC11048 Pasadena LRSP\Analysis\Collisions\Collisions_20152019_Final.xlsx - APPENDIX A 4 of 36
3/30/2022
Pasadena LRSP
Appendix A: Intersection Collision Summary
ID Intersections
Grand TotalFatalSevere InjuryVisible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage OnlyBroadsideHead-OnHit ObjectNot StatedOtherOverturnedRear EndSideswipeVehicle/ Pedestrian