Agenda packet — Pittsburg City Council, August 19, 2024 (part 2 of 3)

When this safety issue cannot be
mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk
and/or crossing treatments, then
installing a continuous pedestrian
barrier in the median may be a
viable solution.
35% 90% Low
R21
Improve
pavement
friction (High
Friction Surface
Treatments)
Improving the skid resistance at
locations with high frequencies of
wet road crashes and/or failure to
stop crashes.
55% 90% High
R22
Install/Upgrade
signs with new
fluorescent
sheeting
(regulatory or
warning)
Additional or new signage can
address crashes caused by lack of
driver awareness or compliance of
roadway signing.
15% 90% Very High
R26
Install dynamic/
variable speed
warning signs
Includes the addition of dynamic
speed warning signs (also known as
Radar Speed Feedback Signs).
30% 90% High
R27
Install delineators,
reflectors and/or
object markers
Installation of delineators, reflectors
and/or object markers are intended
to warn drivers of an approaching
curve or fixed object that cannot
easily be removed.
15% 90% Very High
R33PB Install Separated
Bike Lanes
Separated bikeways are most
appropriate on streets with high
volumes of bike traffic and/or high
bike-vehicle collisions, presumably
in an urban or suburban area.

Separation types range from
simple, painted buffers and flexible
delineators, to more substantial
separation measures including
raised curbs, grade separation,
bollards, planters, and parking
lanes.
45% 90% High
310
69 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG
Code Countermeasure
Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal
Funding
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity
R35PB
Install/upgrade
pedestrian
crossing (with
enhanced safety
features)
Roadway segments with no
controlled crossing for a significant
distance in high-use midblock
crossing areas and/or multilane
roads locations. flashing beacons,
curb extensions, medians and
pedestrian crossing islands and/
or other safety features should be
added to complement the standard
crossing elements.
35% 90% Medium
R37PB Install RRFB
RRFB includes pedestrian-activated
flashing lights and additional
signage that enhance the visibility
of marked crosswalks and alert
motorists to pedestrian crossings. It
uses an irregular flash pattern that
is similar to emergency flashers on
police vehicles. RRFBs are installed
at unsignalized intersections and
mid-block pedestrian crossings.
35% 90% Medium
* Code: S - Signalized intersection improvements
NS - Non-signalized intersection improvements
R - Roadway segment improvements
311
7 VIABLE

SAFETY PROJECTS
312
71 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG
VIABLE
SAFETY PROJECTS7
This chapter summarizes the process of selecting safety projects as part of the analysis for Pittsburg’s LRSP. The next step after the identification of high-injury locations, emphasis areas and applicable countermeasures was to identify location specific safety improvements for all high-risk roadway segments and intersections.

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

The corresponding number refers to the countermeasure number in the LRSM (2022).

The countermeasures were grouped into safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments. A total of eight safety projects were developed. All countermeasures were identified based on the technical teams’ assessment of viability that consisted of extensive analysis, observations, City staff input, and stakeholder/community input. The most applicable and appropriate countermeasures as identified have been grouped together to form projects that can help make high-risk locations safer.

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

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

These safety projects were chosen based on the previously completed collisions analysis, which was used to identify main collision attributes that were found to be leading factors of fatal and severe collisions in Pittsburg. These collision factors are shown below, as well as viable safety projects that can help address these factors. 313
72 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG
Nighttime Collisions : 61% of F+SI collisions in Pittsburg were nighttime collisions, compared to 36% of collisions of all severity. These collisions can potentially be mitigated with installing or upgrading street lighting with higher lumen, installing delineators, reflectors and object markers, adding fluorescent sheeting to traffic signs, and installing flashing beacons.

Pedestrian Collisions: For F+SI collisions in Pittsburg, 39% of collisions involved pedestrian.

This is higher than its share of collisions of all severity (12%). Pedestrian collisions can potentially be mitigated by reducing pedestrian crossing distances, installing high visibility crosswalks, adding LPI at signalized intersections, installing pedestrian refuge islands, installing RRFBs, installing bulb outs and installing pedestrian median fencing to restrict pedestrian crossing movement outside of the designated crosswalk.

Unsafe Speed Violations: 29% of F+SI collisions in Pittsburg were due to unsafe speed violations, compared to 25% of collisions of all severity. Countermeasures such as traffic calming, dynamic speed warning signs, road diet can all help to address unsafe speed violation collisions.

Hit Object Collisions : 19% of collisions of all severity were hit object collisions. It also makes up 13% of F+SI collisions. Hit object collisions can potentially be mitigated through removing or relocating fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone, installing Guardrail, installing delineators, reflectors, and object markers.

The next step in the process will be to secure grant funding for the recommended safety projects. As per the scope, TJKM will prepare up to three HSIP applications for Pittsburg to apply for HSIP grant in the upcoming cycle. However, it should be noted that while the LRSP projects are based on high-risk locations, HSIP applications can be expanded to include many locations across the city, which is reflected in Project 7. TJKM can work with the City to identify additional locations that may be beneficial to add to the HSIP application and calculate the B/C Ratio.

On the following page the identified projects are listed for the City of Pittsburg, with a preliminary cost estimate for each location and the resulting B/C Ratio of the project (the title of each countermeasure is located on Table 14 on the following page). 314
73 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG
Table 14. List of Viable Safety Projects
Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Total Benefit Total Cost B/C
Ratio
Project 1: Signalized Intersections: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation), Install Raised Pavement Markers and Stripping Through Intersection Auto Center Dr and Century Blvd S02 S03 S09
$8,530,515 $180,200 47.34Leland Rd and Piedmont Wy S02 S03 S09 Harbor St and School St S02 S03
Project 2: Signalized Intersections: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk, Modify signal phasing to implement a LPI Bailey Rd and Leland Rd S20PB S21PB
$16,408,702 $58,600 280
Auto Center Dr and Century Blvd S17PB S20PB S21PB
Leland Rd and Piedmont Wy S20PB S21PB
Harbor St and School St S17PB S20PB S21PB
Leland Rd and Southwood Dr S17PB S20PB S21PB
Project 3: Unsignalized Intersections: Add intersection lighting, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs Commerce Pl and Leland Rd NS01 NS06
$7,171,144 $74,900 95.74
Willow Pass Rd and Winter Wy NS06
Brookside Dr and Buchanan Rd NS06
El Dorado Dr and Railroad Ave NS06
Project 4: Roadway Segments: Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features), Install RRFB
Leland Rd: Railroad Ave to East
City Limit R35PB
$73,920,283 $1,272,000 58.11
Railroad Ave: Bliss Ave to Pueblo
Dr R35PB
Leland Rd: Chestnut Dr to
Woodhill Dr R35PB
Loveridge Rd: Loveridge Cir to
Hwy 4 EB on ramp R35PB
Atlantic Ave: Railroad Ave to
Atlantic Cir R37PB
315
74 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG
Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Total Benefit Total Cost B/C
Ratio
Project 5: Roadway Segments: Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments), Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Leland Rd: Railroad Ave to
Century Blvd R21 R26
$112,038,683 $13,030,000 8.6
Railroad Ave: Bliss Ave to Pueblo
Dr R21
Buchanan Rd: Railroad Ave to
Eastern city limits R21
Parkside Dr: Railroad Ave to
Maidenhair St R21 R26
Loveridge Rd: Loveridge Cir to
Hwy 4 EB on ramp R26
Stoneman Ave: St Moritz Dr to
Rolling Hills Dr R26
Project 6: Citywide Segment Lighting: Add segment lighting Citywide Roadways R01 $307,518,260 $5,034,200 61.1
Notes: CM – countermeasure. B/C ratio is the dollar amount of benefits divided by the cost of the countermeasure.

Countermeasure Name
S02 - Improve signal harwdware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
S03 - Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S09 - Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) S17PB - Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a LPI
NS01 – Add Intersection Lighting
NS06 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs R01 - Add segment lighting
R21 - Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) R37PB - Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 316
8 IMPLEMENTATION

AND EVALUATION
317
76 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG

IMPLEMENTATION
AND EVALUATION8
This chapter describes the steps the City may take to evaluate the success of this plan and steps needed to update the plan in the future. The LRSP is a guidance document and requires periodic updates to assess its efficacy and re-evaluate potential solutions. It is recommended to update the plan every two to five years in coordination with the identified safety partners. This document was developed based on community needs, stakeholder input, and collision analysis conducted to identify priority emphasis areas throughout the City. The implementation of strategies under each emphasis area would aim to reduce F+SI collisions in the coming years.

Implementation
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service-related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce F+SI collisions. It is recommended that the City of Pittsburg implement the selected projects in high-collision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City’s infrastructure development in their future Capital Improvement Plans. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluated.

Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, there are numerous other funding sources that could be pursued for such projects. (See Table 15 below). 318
77 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG
Table 15. List of Potential Funding Sources
Funding
Source
Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Call for
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Active
Transportation
Program
Caltrans,
California
Transportation
Commission,
MTC
~$450
million
per cycle
(every
two
years)
2024 Engineering,
Education
Can use used for most
active transportation
related safety projects
as well as education
programs? Funding
available through Caltrans
or MTC
Highway
Safety
Improvement
Program
Caltrans -Varies 2024 Engineering Most common grant
source for safety projects
One Bay Area
Grant (OBAG)
Cycle 4
MTC
(Combines
various federal
funds)
TBD
County
& Local
Program:

TBD
Engineering
Distributes federal funding
to cities and counties in
MTC region
Office of
Traffic Safety
Grants
California
Office of
Traffic Safety
Varies by
grant
Closes
January 31st
annually
Education,
Enforcement,
Emergency
Response
10 grants available
to address various
components of traffic
safety
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program
Strategic
Growth
Council and
Dept. of
Housing and
Community
Development
~$10-15
million
per
award
TBD; most
recent in
2023
Engineering,
Education
Must be connected
to affordable housing
projects; typically focuses
on bike/pedestrian
infrastructure/ programs
Urban
Greening
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
$28.5
million
TBD; most
recent in
2022
Engineering
Focused on bike/
pedestrian infrastructure
and greening public
spaces
Local Streets
and Road
Maintenance
and
Rehabilitation
CTC
(distributed to
local agencies)
$1.5
billion
statewide
N/A;
distributed
by formula
Engineering Typically pays for road
maintenance type projects
RAISE Grant USDOT ~$1.5
billion 2023 Engineering Typically used for larger
infrastructure projects
Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
California Air
Resources
Board
~$19.5
million
TBD; most
recent call
in 2023
Engineering,
Education
Targets projects that will
increase transportation
equity in disadvantaged
communities
Transformative
Climate
Communities
Strategic
Growth
Council
~$105
million
TBD; most
recent call
in 2022
Engineering
Funds community-led
projects that achieve
major reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions
in disadvantaged
communities
319
78 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG
Funding
Source
Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Call for
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Safe Streets
and Roads for
All (SS4A)
USDOT
$200k
- $50
million
2023 Engineering
Two types of SS4A
grants available:

Action Plan Grants and
Implementation Grants
Clean
California
Local Grant
Program
Caltrans
$100 – 5
million
per
award
2023 Engineering
Funding for local
communities to beautify
and improve local streets
and roads, tribal lands,
parks, pathways, and
transit centers
Monitoring and Evaluation
For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the 4 E-strategies continuously. Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensures the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help making decisions on the need for new strategies. The process would help the City make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan.

After implementing countermeasures, the strategies should be evaluated annually as per their performance measures. The evaluation should be recorded in a before-after study to validate the effectiveness of each countermeasure as per the following observations:
• Number of F+SI collisions
• Number of police citations
• Number of public comments and concerns

Evaluation should be conducted during similar time periods and durations each year. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reduction in F+SI collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions doesn’t decrease initially, then the countermeasures should be evaluated as per the other observations, as mentioned above.

The effectiveness of the countermeasures should be compared to the goals for each emphasis area.
320
79 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN CITY OF PITTSBURG
LRSP Update
The LRSP is a guidance document and is recommended to be updated every two to five years after adoption. After monitoring performance measures focused on the status and progress of the E’s strategies in each emphasis area, the next LRSP update can be tailored to resolve any continuing safety problems. An annual stakeholder meeting with the safety partners is also recommended to discuss the progress for each emphasis area and oversee the implementation plan. The document should then be updated as per the latest collision data, emerging trends, and the E’s strategies’ progress and implementation. 321
APPENDIX A:

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY

COMMNETS
322
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 4to4p822abv4 1 38.019424 ‐121.966003 Y W Leland Rd
Intersection is always backed up in the morning, especially the westbound lane trying to get into the on‐ramps. Cars get hung up in the middle and is always a bottleneck for freeway users.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
4to4p822abv4 1 38.019424 ‐121.966003 Y W Leland Rd
Intersection is always backed up in the morning, especially the westbound lane trying to get into the on‐ramps. Cars get hung up in the middle and is always a bottleneck for freeway users.

Motor Vehicles Traffic Congestion
6nab2uxf4ti8 2 37.998097 ‐121.895461 N Buchanan Rd Speeding both East & West traffic.... Motor Vehicles Speeding 6nab2uxf4ti8 2 37.998097 ‐121.895461 N Buchanan Rd Speeding both East & West traffic.... Motor Vehicles Traffic Congestion 3sa9l83z4ni3 3 37.995381 ‐121.897123 Y Kirker Pass Rd Commuter traffic speeding, and red light violations. Motor Vehicles Speeding 3sa9l83z4ni3 3 37.995381 ‐121.897123 Y Kirker Pass Rd Commuter traffic speeding, and red light violations. Motor Vehicles Red light violation 3sa9l83z4ni3 4 38.010384 ‐121.891722 N Railroad Ave Traffic from the new apartment development, in an already overburdened section of Railroad avenue. Motor Vehicles Traffic Congestion 9pu2itd9neb4 6 38.023221 ‐121.892503 N Dimaggio Ave
Cars speed through here ALL the time; I believe it's about time that the Parkside neighborhoods get their speed bumps.

Traffic from N. Parkside Dr. Uses DiMaggio Ave as a "short cut" to Railroad. There are plenty of kids on our street, and cars zoom passed the residential speed limit ALL the time. Please consider this.

Motor Vehicles Speeding
9pu2itd9neb4 6 38.023221 ‐121.892503 N Dimaggio Ave
Cars speed through here ALL the time; I believe it's about time that the Parkside neighborhoods get their speed bumps.

Motor Vehicles Neighborhood safety
9pu2itd9neb4 7 38.022653 ‐121.886753 N N Parkside Dr
These lines need to get repainted or have raised barriers, it's a blind turn for traffic coming from Railroad Ave. On several occasions, many cars have crossed over the lane almost hitting me head on, slamming on my breaks.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
9pu2itd9neb4 7 38.022653 ‐121.886753 N N Parkside Dr
These lines need to get repainted or have raised barriers, it's a blind turn for traffic coming from Railroad Ave. On several occasions, many cars have crossed over the lane almost hitting me head on, slamming on my breaks.

Motor Vehicles Signage Improvement
9pu2itd9neb4 8 38.009195 ‐121.878869 N E Leland Rd
This area is a high speed area choice for many cars. I've paced cars at 80mph while I'm going only 40mph. They zoom on this road ALWAYS. A high speed traffic deterrent is needed in this area.

Motor Vehicles Speeding
9pu2itd9neb4 9 38.012625 ‐121.850347 Y Pittsburg ‐ Antioch Hwy The homeless encampment in this area is not only an eye‐sore but it is indeed a safety issue. Several times occupants in this area are in the middle of the street. This needs to be
addressed ASAP
Other Public Safety
9pu2itd9neb4 10 38.021478 ‐121.892085 Y Civic Ave
Absolutely NO one, and I mean No one stops at this posted Stop sign. They more so "yield" but NEVER stop. I'm surprised that there isn't a motorcycle cop posted by this location. I'm sure he'd write tickets galore. Either put a speed bump here or they will continue to disregard this stop sign.

Motor Vehicles Stop sign violation
323
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 9pu2itd9neb4 10 38.021478 ‐121.892085 Y Civic Ave
Absolutely NO one, and I mean No one stops at this posted Stop sign. They more so "yield" but NEVER stop. I'm surprised that there isn't a motorcycle cop posted by this location. I'm sure he'd write tickets galore. Either put a speed bump here or they will continue to disregard this stop sign.

Motor Vehicles Sign violation
9pu2itd9neb4 11 38.021956 ‐121.893363 Y W 17th St
A taco truck is always posted here, which I personally don't mind. However, vehicles tend to stop and park sometimes in the middle of the street blocking access to the street as well traffic that exits DiMaggio cannot see around the cars parked on the corners of W.17th St. This indeed is a hazard. Maybe advise the taco truck of posting by City Park instead.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
9pu2itd9neb4 11 38.021956 ‐121.893363 Y W 17th St
A taco truck is always posted here, which I personally don't mind. However, vehicles tend to stop and park sometimes in the middle of the street blocking access to the street as well traffic that exits DiMaggio cannot see around the cars parked on the corners of W.17th St. This indeed is a hazard. Maybe advise the taco truck of posting by City Park instead.

Motor Vehicles Traffic Congestion
9pu2itd9neb4 12 38.010997 ‐121.886113 Y E Leland Rd
The stop lights at this intersection either need to be reset or changed. It takes a lengthy amount of time when it changes in between sets. Some people have ignored the red light and simply went on.

Motor Vehicles Signal improvement
9pu2itd9neb4 12 38.010997 ‐121.886113 Y E Leland Rd
The stop lights at this intersection either need to be reset or changed. It takes a lengthy amount of time when it changes in between sets. Some people have ignored the red light and simply went on.

Motor Vehicles Red light violation
99oj3637r9xa 13 38.019422 ‐121.965857 Y W Leland Rd
West bound Leland to North bound San Marco Blvd.
1) During the morning commute, people bypass traffic and don’t use the right turn lane. They go to the light and make an illegal right turn. This creates a hazard for pedestrians and disrupts traffic flow.
2) This intersection and road leading to the West Bound Hwy 4 on ramp backs up heavily every morning. Frustrated drivers will cut others off or try to bypass it by going through the nearby residential neighborhood.

Motor Vehicles Sign violation
99oj3637r9xa 13 38.019422 ‐121.965857 Y W Leland Rd
West bound Leland to North bound San Marco Blvd.
1) During the morning commute, people bypass traffic and don’t use the right turn lane. They go to the light and make an illegal right turn. This creates a hazard for pedestrians and disrupts traffic flow.
2) This intersection and road leading to the West Bound Hwy 4 on ramp backs up heavily every morning. Frustrated drivers will cut others off or try to bypass it by going through the nearby residential neighborhood.

Motor Vehicles Illegal turning
324
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 99oj3637r9xa 13 38.019422 ‐121.965857 Y W Leland Rd
West bound Leland to North bound San Marco Blvd.
1) During the morning commute, people bypass traffic and don’t use the right turn lane. They go to the light and make an illegal right turn. This creates a hazard for pedestrians and disrupts traffic flow.
2) This intersection and road leading to the West Bound Hwy 4 on ramp backs up heavily every morning. Frustrated drivers will cut others off or try to bypass it by going through the nearby residential neighborhood.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
99oj3637r9xa 13 38.019422 ‐121.965857 Y W Leland Rd
West bound Leland to North bound San Marco Blvd.
1) During the morning commute, people bypass traffic and don’t use the right turn lane. They go to the light and make an illegal right turn. This creates a hazard for pedestrians and disrupts traffic flow.
2) This intersection and road leading to the West Bound Hwy 4 on ramp backs up heavily every morning. Frustrated drivers will cut others off or try to bypass it by going through the nearby residential neighborhood.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
99oj3637r9xa 13 38.019422 ‐121.965857 Y W Leland Rd
West bound Leland to North bound San Marco Blvd.
1) During the morning commute, people bypass traffic and don’t use the right turn lane. They go to the light and make an illegal right turn. This creates a hazard for pedestrians and disrupts traffic flow.
2) This intersection and road leading to the West Bound Hwy 4 on ramp backs up heavily every morning. Frustrated drivers will cut others off or try to bypass it by going through the nearby residential neighborhood.

Motor Vehicles Traffic Congestion
3js8pmu2w2e8 14 38.003071 ‐121.885364 Y Harbor St
Southbound bicyclists on Harbor Street turning left onto Ventura Drive are in peril for their lives at this intersection.

Harbor Street at this point is a four‐lane with out a left turn lane. The actual intersection is hidden from motorists by the "hill" of the Contra Costa Canal until the motorist is right on top of the intersection. The wideness of Harbor Street proceeding south from Stoneman Drive encourages motorists to speed up as they accelerate away from the stop sign. Then as they are going down this slight hill, their speed gets away from them and they are travelling at a higher than speed limit rate. A glance at their phone or any other momentary
distraction and the stage is set for mowing down the bicyclist! In my opinion, this is the most dangerous intersection in the entire city. of Pittsburg.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
325
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 14 38.003071 ‐121.885364 Y Harbor St
Southbound bicyclists on Harbor Street turning left onto Ventura Drive are in peril for their lives at this intersection.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 14 38.003071 ‐121.885364 Y Harbor St
Southbound bicyclists on Harbor Street turning left onto Ventura Drive are in peril for their lives at this intersection.

Motor Vehicles Visibility
3js8pmu2w2e8 14 38.003071 ‐121.885364 Y Harbor St
Southbound bicyclists on Harbor Street turning left onto Ventura Drive are in peril for their lives at this intersection.

Motor Vehicles Speeding
326
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 15 38.027697 ‐121.885243 Y Railroad Ave
The northbound bicyclist who wants to stay on Railroad Avenue through the East Tenth Street intersection has
significant difficulty claiming his or her place on the street.

The entire Railroad Avenue portion of this intersection is completely dedicated to motor vehicles. We have bicycle lanes leading up to this intersection for the northbound bicyclist, then we throw him or her to the wolves at the intersection. Restriping the intersection with a bicycle lane is the obvious solution. A green dashed bicycle lane through the conflict zone would be the hot set‐up. This will necessitate adjusting the vehicle travel lanes. We might be forced to remove one or both of the dedicated left turn lanes,
northbound AND southbound, along with changing the timing of the traffic signals to accommodate protected left‐turns as well as straight‐through motor vehicle traffic at the same time. We need pedestrian crosswalks in all four quadrants of this signalized intersection.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 15 38.027697 ‐121.885243 Y Railroad Ave
The northbound bicyclist who wants to stay on Railroad Avenue through the East Tenth Street intersection has
significant difficulty claiming his or her place on the street.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
327
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 15 38.027697 ‐121.885243 Y Railroad Ave
The northbound bicyclist who wants to stay on Railroad Avenue through the East Tenth Street intersection has
significant difficulty claiming his or her place on the street.

Motor Vehicles Unsafe turning
3js8pmu2w2e8 15 38.027697 ‐121.885243 Y Railroad Ave
The northbound bicyclist who wants to stay on Railroad Avenue through the East Tenth Street intersection has
significant difficulty claiming his or her place on the street.

Motor Vehicles Signal improvement
3js8pmu2w2e8 16 38.016445 ‐121.889472 Y Railroad Ave
The on‐ramp to eastbound Highway 4 from northbound
Railroad Avenue is a death‐trap for pedestrians. Motorists during the afternoon commute are in a hurry. They are not yielding as required by law. It is just a matter of time before someone dies. The segment of northbound Railroad Avenue approaching the eastbound Highway 4 on‐ramp has a marked shoulder. It is marked with a solid white 4" stripe. Motorists Don't know how to behave with regard to this marked
shoulder. There is space for a bicycle lane. Why don't we install one? Dashed lines. Green paint. The works.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
328
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 16 38.016445 ‐121.889472 Y Railroad Ave
The on‐ramp to eastbound Highway 4 from northbound
Railroad Avenue is a death‐trap for pedestrians. Motorists during the afternoon commute are in a hurry. They are not yielding as required by law. It is just a matter of time before someone dies. The segment of northbound Railroad Avenue approaching the eastbound Highway 4 on‐ramp has a marked shoulder. It is marked with a solid white 4" stripe. Motorists Don't know how to behave with regard to this marked
shoulder. There is space for a bicycle lane. Why don't we install one? Dashed lines. Green paint. The works.

Motor Vehicles Sign violation
3js8pmu2w2e8 16 38.016445 ‐121.889472 Y Railroad Ave
The on‐ramp to eastbound Highway 4 from northbound
Railroad Avenue is a death‐trap for pedestrians. Motorists during the afternoon commute are in a hurry. They are not yielding as required by law. It is just a matter of time before someone dies. The segment of northbound Railroad Avenue approaching the eastbound Highway 4 on‐ramp has a marked shoulder. It is marked with a solid white 4" stripe. Motorists Don't know how to behave with regard to this marked
shoulder. There is space for a bicycle lane. Why don't we install one? Dashed lines. Green paint. The works.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 17 38.020625 ‐121.887904 Y Railroad Ave
The marked shoulder on northbound Railroad Avenue
disappears through the intersection with Civic Avenue. There is no defensible reason for this abandonment of the bicyclist in this intersection. There are two left turn lanes from eastbound Civic Drive to northbound Railroad Avenue. No problem! The motorist is making their turn when there are no legally‐operating bicyclists in the northbound right‐hand side of Railroad Avenue. This abomination was designed back in the 1980s when motor vehicles ruled and everyone else was an afterthought. Now is the time to lead Pittsburg into the 21st Century.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 18 38.021529 ‐121.904198 Y Power Ave
Eastbound Power Avenue in front of the apartment building just to the east of the PG&E high‐voltage transmission line corridor has on‐street parking. This Apartment building should provide sufficient parking within its own parking area to accommodate all the motor vehicles that belong there.

This segment of Power Avenue should be striped as a bicycle lane. AT LEAST sign and enforce the parking as four‐hour parking 24 hours per day. If this is politically infeasible, please require a parking decal to be displayed on the vehicle. Make the parking decal sufficiently expensive to convince those who are currently parking their junk‐heap on the street to find a different place to store it.

Motor Vehicles Improper Parking
329
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 18 38.021529 ‐121.904198 Y Power Ave
Eastbound Power Avenue in front of the apartment building just to the east of the PG&E high‐voltage transmission line corridor has on‐street parking. This Apartment building should provide sufficient parking within its own parking area to accommodate all the motor vehicles that belong there.

Motor Vehicles Parking restrictions &
Strategies
3js8pmu2w2e8 19 38.022789 ‐121.921075 Y Polaris Dr
Continue the marked bicycle lanes along both sides of Power Avenue to the west of Range Road until you come to the first house that has its front door FACING Power Avenue. There are several blocks of houses that have the SIDE of their house facing Power Avenue. This segment of Power Avenue could easily support bicycle lanes.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 20 38.025811 ‐121.905308 N N Parkside Dr
As one travels eastbound on North Parkside Drive in the marked bicycle lane, just to the east of the PG&E high voltage corridor, there is a narrow point where the bike lane is narrowed considerable for no discernible reason. This could easily be remedied. Bicyclists using this lane would say a million times "thank you." Note: three miles of bicycle lanes are negated by a one‐block‐long segment of missing bike lane.

We need to strive for a continuous network.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 21 38.019355 ‐121.903533 Y Dover Way
There is sufficient space between Dover Way and the Los Medanos Elementary School bike path is a segment of land that is parallel to the freeway with sufficient space for the installation of a bike path. Lacking this, there is sufficient space on Frontage Road to support the installation of marked bicycle lanes.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
330
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 22 38.019314 ‐121.906137 Y Dover Way
At the intersection of Frontage Road with Dover Way, we should install a bike path that goes past the city well and goes over to the PG&E high voltage electric line right of way. This bike path could connect with the space between two houses on Bodega Drive that was intentionally left wide for the construction of such a bicycle path. We could also connect this path with a path that leads up toward Rancho Medanos Junior High School and connect with the Delta de Anza
Regional Trail.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 22 38.019314 ‐121.906137 Y Dover Way
At the intersection of Frontage Road with Dover Way, we should install a bike path that goes past the city well and goes over to the PG&E high voltage electric line right of way. This bike path could connect with the space between two houses on Bodega Drive that was intentionally left wide for the construction of such a bicycle path. We could also connect this path with a path that leads up toward Rancho Medanos Junior High School and connect with the Delta de Anza
Regional Trail.

Bicycle School Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 23 38.019503 ‐121.891501 Y General Roadway We should install marked crosswalks in all four quadrants of every signalized intersection in the entire City of Pittsburg.

This should be a policy of the City of Pittsburg. There should NOT be any need to create or devise a warrant for taking care of our pedestrians.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 23 38.019503 ‐121.891501 Y General Roadway We should install marked crosswalks in all four quadrants of every signalized intersection in the entire City of Pittsburg.

This should be a policy of the City of Pittsburg. There should NOT be any need to create or devise a warrant for taking care of our pedestrians.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 24 38.012908 ‐121.894067 Y W Leland Rd
The segment of West Leland Road between Railroad Avenue and Crestview Drive has rolled curbs.  Unfortunately, this encourages people to park their cars with two wheels/tires up on the sidewalk because this segment of road way was
designed in the 1950s when no provision was made of bicycles at all and precious little consideration was given to
pedestrians.  When the car is parked halfway up on the
sidewalk, someone in a wheel chair is completely prohibited from using the sidewalk.  this is an ADA lawsuit waiting to happen.

Motor Vehicles Improper Parking
3js8pmu2w2e8 24 38.012908 ‐121.894067 Y W Leland Rd
The segment of West Leland Road between Railroad Avenue and Crestview Drive has rolled curbs.  Unfortunately, this encourages people to park their cars with two wheels/tires up on the sidewalk because this segment of road way was
designed in the 1950s when no provision was made of bicycles at all and precious little consideration was given to
pedestrians.  When the car is parked halfway up on the
sidewalk, someone in a wheel chair is completely prohibited from using the sidewalk.  this is an ADA lawsuit waiting to happen.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
331
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 24 38.012908 ‐121.894067 Y W Leland Rd
The segment of West Leland Road between Railroad Avenue and Crestview Drive has rolled curbs.  Unfortunately, this encourages people to park their cars with two wheels/tires up on the sidewalk because this segment of road way was
designed in the 1950s when no provision was made of bicycles at all and precious little consideration was given to
pedestrians.  When the car is parked halfway up on the
sidewalk, someone in a wheel chair is completely prohibited from using the sidewalk.  this is an ADA lawsuit waiting to happen.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 24 38.012908 ‐121.894067 Y W Leland Rd
The segment of West Leland Road between Railroad Avenue and Crestview Drive has rolled curbs.  Unfortunately, this encourages people to park their cars with two wheels/tires up on the sidewalk because this segment of road way was
designed in the 1950s when no provision was made of bicycles at all and precious little consideration was given to
pedestrians.  When the car is parked halfway up on the
sidewalk, someone in a wheel chair is completely prohibited from using the sidewalk.  this is an ADA lawsuit waiting to happen.

Pedestrian ADA Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 25 38.011816 ‐121.898333 N Crestview Dr
Please install RRFBs or HAWK signals at EVERY unsignalized crossing by any path or trail of any public street. Each RRFB or HAWK should be activated by the mere presence of the
bicyclist or pedestrian walking past the pole and starting to enter the crosswalk.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 25 38.011816 ‐121.898333 N Crestview Dr
Please install RRFBs or HAWK signals at EVERY unsignalized crossing by any path or trail of any public street. Each RRFB or HAWK should be activated by the mere presence of the
bicyclist or pedestrian walking past the pole and starting to enter the crosswalk.

Pedestrian Intersection Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 25 38.011816 ‐121.898333 N Crestview Dr
Please install RRFBs or HAWK signals at EVERY unsignalized crossing by any path or trail of any public street. Each RRFB or HAWK should be activated by the mere presence of the
bicyclist or pedestrian walking past the pole and starting to enter the crosswalk.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 26 38.019499 ‐121.872899 Y E 14th St
At the intersection of the East 14th Street and the Pittsburg‐ Antioch Highway, there needs to be a way for the bicyclist to "call" for the signal to change so that the bicyclist using the path in the green space parallel to the Pittsburg‐Antioch Highway has a way to safely cross the intersection and
proceed east on Pittsburg‐Antioch Highway.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 27 38.001597 ‐121.856345 N Via Delta de Anza Trail We need to install a pedestrian and bicycle path on the Standard Oil utility corridor between North Park Boulevard and the new traffic (yet to be installed) signal at Buchanan Road. This segment of bicycle path will connect the Delta de Anza Regional Trail with both of these important streets.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
332
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 27 38.001597 ‐121.856345 N Via Delta de Anza Trail We need to install a pedestrian and bicycle path on the Standard Oil utility corridor between North Park Boulevard and the new traffic (yet to be installed) signal at Buchanan Road. This segment of bicycle path will connect the Delta de Anza Regional Trail with both of these important streets.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 28 37.990447 ‐121.853277 Y Somersville Rd
We need to be sure that there is a space left between houses that back up against the small park close to the intersection of James Donlon Boulevard and Somersville Road so that a path can be built that will connect the new housing development with the park. This will allow the bicyclist from the
intersection of Buchanan Road and the Standard Oil utility corridor to ride through the quiet residential streets and get up to James Donlon Boulevard and Somersville Road without having to ride on heavily‐trafficked Somersville Road,
especially the segment between Buchanan Road and the
Contra Costa Canal that does not have a bicycle lane or a shoulder.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 29 38.027536 ‐121.917979 Y Willow Pass Rd
The Willow Pass Road/Range Road/North Parkside
Drive/railroad tracks abomination needs to be widened so that there is space for the bicyclist and the pedestrian to go under these underpasses. This configuration was built in the 1930s when Highway 4 followed Willow Pass Road through Bay Point and Pittsburg. Highway 4 was updated and is now an 8‐lane freeway. We need to provide some safety for our non‐automobile‐dependent citizens. Yes, the Railroad
Companies will be uncooperative and difficult to deal with.

Yes, this reconstruction will be expensive. Do you think that building the freeway was cheap?
Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 29 38.027536 ‐121.917979 Y Willow Pass Rd
The Willow Pass Road/Range Road/North Parkside
Drive/railroad tracks abomination needs to be widened so that there is space for the bicyclist and the pedestrian to go under these underpasses. This configuration was built in the 1930s when Highway 4 followed Willow Pass Road through Bay Point and Pittsburg. Highway 4 was updated and is now an 8‐lane freeway. We need to provide some safety for our non‐automobile‐dependent citizens. Yes, the Railroad
Companies will be uncooperative and difficult to deal with.

Yes, this reconstruction will be expensive. Do you think that building the freeway was cheap?
Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 30 38.02358 ‐121.965247 Y Willow Pass Rd
Please work with the County and place a sign in each direction indicating where San Marco Boulevard and Willow Pass Road formally change names. The City of Pittsburg has done well to place a similar sign where West 10th Street and Willow Pass Road change names. Thank you.

Other Signage Improvement
333
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 31 37.99787 ‐121.896607 Y Kirker Pass Rd
Please paint green bicycle lanes on northbound Kirker Pass Road as it approaches Buchanan Road.  Please retain the marked shoulder on southbound Kirker Pass Road.  This
intersection is very tight.  You might have to adjust the traffic‐ lane striping to fit everyone in.  Please install crosswalks in all four quadrants of this signalized intersection.  The warrant for these crosswalks is that someone is requesting them.  While we're on the subject, how about posting a sign where Kirker Pass Road and Railroad Avenue change names?
Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 31 37.99787 ‐121.896607 Y Kirker Pass Rd
Please paint green bicycle lanes on northbound Kirker Pass Road as it approaches Buchanan Road.  Please retain the marked shoulder on southbound Kirker Pass Road.  This
intersection is very tight.  You might have to adjust the traffic‐ lane striping to fit everyone in.  Please install crosswalks in all four quadrants of this signalized intersection.  The warrant for these crosswalks is that someone is requesting them.  While we're on the subject, how about posting a sign where Kirker Pass Road and Railroad Avenue change names?
Pedestrian Intersection Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 31 37.99787 ‐121.896607 Y Kirker Pass Rd
Please paint green bicycle lanes on northbound Kirker Pass Road as it approaches Buchanan Road.  Please retain the marked shoulder on southbound Kirker Pass Road.  This
intersection is very tight.  You might have to adjust the traffic‐ lane striping to fit everyone in.  Please install crosswalks in all four quadrants of this signalized intersection.  The warrant for these crosswalks is that someone is requesting them.  While we're on the subject, how about posting a sign where Kirker Pass Road and Railroad Avenue change names?
Other Signage Improvement
3js8pmu2w2e8 32 37.997093 ‐121.900839 Y W Buchanan Rd
Please mark or continue the marked bicycle lanes on West Buchanan Road between Railroad Avenue and Crestview
Drive.    Please install signs indicating that following Crestview north will lead the bicyclist to the Delta de Anza Regional Trail.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 32 37.997093 ‐121.900839 Y W Buchanan Rd
Please mark or continue the marked bicycle lanes on West Buchanan Road between Railroad Avenue and Crestview
Drive. Please install signs indicating that following Crestview north will lead the bicyclist to the Delta de Anza Regional Trail.

Bicycle Signage Improvement
3js8pmu2w2e8 33 38.010109 ‐121.891874 Y Railroad Ave
Please adjust the curb on northbound Railroad Avenue in the EBMUD utility corridor so that a bicyclist can safely exit the Delta de Anza Regional Trail and proceed north on Railroad Avenue. There is only a 20‐ or 30‐foot segment that needs attention.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
334
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 34 38.020975 ‐121.966357 N San Marco Blvd
Please build a sidewalk/path/trail on the west side of San Marco Boulevard between West Leland Road and the north
side of Highway 4 where it will connect into the Delta de Anza Regional Trail. We already have a path along the west side of San Marco Boulevard between West Leland Road and Santa
Teresa Drive. Note: We should continue this path south along San Marco Boulevard until it connects with Bailey Road at the top of the hill. The path should be ten‐feet wide with a two‐ foot shoulder on each side of the path...with lots of trees.

Pittsburg will have to cooperate with Caltrans for the 'under the freeway' portion of this path.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 34 38.020975 ‐121.966357 N San Marco Blvd
Please build a sidewalk/path/trail on the west side of San Marco Boulevard between West Leland Road and the north
side of Highway 4 where it will connect into the Delta de Anza Regional Trail. We already have a path along the west side of San Marco Boulevard between West Leland Road and Santa
Teresa Drive. Note: We should continue this path south along San Marco Boulevard until it connects with Bailey Road at the top of the hill. The path should be ten‐feet wide with a two‐ foot shoulder on each side of the path...with lots of trees.

Pittsburg will have to cooperate with Caltrans for the 'under the freeway' portion of this path.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 35 38.015773 ‐121.908622 N W Leland Rd
Widen the sidewalk on the westbound side of West Leland Road between Dover Way and Range Road. This sidewalk is HEAVILY used by Junior High School Students walking to and from school.

Pedestrian School Safety
3js8pmu2w2e8 36 38.014416 ‐121.917312 N Contra Costa Canal Install a bridge over the Contra Costa Canal between John Henry Johnson Park and the canal maintenance road. The Contra Costa Water District regularly permits entities to use their canal maintenance roads for trails. Following the canal maintenance road from John Henry Johnson Park about 3/4 mile to the west, one comes to the Delta de Anza Regional Trail and Ambrose Community Park. This short segment of path will be a GREAT addition to the connectivity of our bicycle and pedestrian path network in Pittsburg.

Other
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Connectivity
Improvement
335
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 3js8pmu2w2e8 37 38.01949 ‐121.892078 N Cop Recreation Department Rd Be sure to hold the Seeno Organization to their condition of approval for the Faria development wherein they promised to build a path between the west edge of the Faria development adjacent to the City of Concord at the top of the ridge through Stoneman park and ultimately connecting to John Henry
Johnson Park. This path construction should occur sooner rather than later. Note: The East Bay Regional Park District owns the segment of the former Naval Weapons Station that immediately abuts Pittsburg and the Faria property. Once the law suit is settled, negotiate with EBRPD so that any trail that they build will connect with the trail segment that the Seeno Organization is building. This path will be a GREAT addition to our bicycle and pedestrian path network.

Other
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Connectivity
Improvement
9vu3j7czh42p 38 37.998068 ‐121.887052 Y Buchanan Rd
Heavy traffic during commute hours. And traffic going east and west are constantly running the red lights. If nothing is done sooner or later there will be a fatality.

We need the bypass to alleviate the heavy traffic on Buchanan Rd.

Motor Vehicles Red light violation
9vu3j7czh42p 38 37.998068 ‐121.887052 Y Buchanan Rd
Heavy traffic during commute hours. And traffic going east and west are constantly running the red lights. If nothing is done sooner or later there will be a fatality.

We need the bypass to alleviate the heavy traffic on Buchanan Rd.

Motor Vehicles Traffic Congestion
9um6foy7w4g3 39 38.001048 ‐121.88693 3 Y Harbor St Tempting intersection for sideshows. Also a starting point for those drivers who want to speed down Harbor street. Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety 9um6foy7w4g3 39 38.001048 ‐121.88693 3 Y Harbor St Tempting intersection for sideshows. Also a starting point for those drivers who want to speed down Harbor street. Motor Vehicles Speeding 9smc87ync2e8 40 38.019332 ‐121.964027 Y W Leland Rd
No traffic light for Toscana residents to exit safely. Specially at morning cars block the keep clear and do not obey. Rude drivers would not let us get on West Leland. Or San Marco Blvd.

Motor Vehicles Signal improvement
9smc87ync2e8 40 38.019332 ‐121.964027 Y W Leland Rd
No traffic light for Toscana residents to exit safely. Specially at morning cars block the keep clear and do not obey. Rude drivers would not let us get on West Leland. Or San Marco Blvd.

Motor Vehicles Sign violation
6zn9cot9upr9 41 38.015416 ‐121.881025 Y California Ave
There isn't enough lane capacity to manage the volume of traffic along this interchange. One exit lane creates a bottle neck for those exiting the freeway and those travelling west on California Ave. All westward traffic are competing to get through the next intersection on Harbor, again, all in one lane of traffic. The congestion has a negative impact on safety.

Motor Vehicles Traffic Congestion
336
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 6zn9cot9upr9 41 38.015416 ‐121.881025 Y California Ave
There isn't enough lane capacity to manage the volume of traffic along this interchange. One exit lane creates a bottle neck for those exiting the freeway and those travelling west on California Ave. All westward traffic are competing to get through the next intersection on Harbor, again, all in one lane of traffic. The congestion has a negative impact on safety.

Motor Vehicles Corridor Safety
46z748yhk7a4 42 37.99798 ‐121.887066 Y Buchanan Rd Red Light running..... Motor Vehicles Red light violation 7g9ocp39l7w9 44 38.00439 ‐121.884898 Y Harbor St
This intersection the 2 streets which are Harbor and Stoneman are wide, I've seen pedestrians about to get hurt because of the lack of attention of some drivers, sometimes they don't respect the red stop sign and if they do "stop" they don't allow pedestrians to walk and get safely to the other side of the street, pedestrians are crossing the road and a lot of the drivers don't take the time to stop and wait to let them step on the sidewalk they just start their vehicles, I have been in a few meetings in Hillview Junior High school and Stoneman Elementary with the city of Pittsburg planning commission, me and other parents and school personnel walked this roads with them to explain how dangerous this intersection is, I hope this time something gets done, I'm not sure if a traffic light or at least please install the lights on the road that light up when someone press the button, some type of signs or signals that are visible for drivers, install signs that say that if you continue
Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
7g9ocp39l7w9 44 38.00439 ‐121.884898 Y Harbor St
This intersection the 2 streets which are Harbor and Stoneman are wide, I've seen pedestrians about to get hurt because of the lack of attention of some drivers, sometimes they don't respect the red stop sign and if they do "stop" they don't allow pedestrians to walk and get safely to the other side of the street, pedestrians are crossing the road and a lot of the drivers don't take the time to stop and wait to let them step on the sidewalk they just start their vehicles, I have been in a few meetings in Hillview Junior High school and Stoneman Elementary with the city of Pittsburg planning commission, me and other parents and school personnel walked this roads with them to explain how dangerous this intersection is, I hope this time something gets done, I'm not sure if a traffic light or at least please install the lights on the road that light up when someone press the button, some type of signs or signals that are visible for drivers, install signs that say that if you continue
Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
337
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 7g9ocp39l7w9 44 38.00439 ‐121.884898 Y Harbor St
This intersection the 2 streets which are Harbor and Stoneman are wide, I've seen pedestrians about to get hurt because of the lack of attention of some drivers, sometimes they don't respect the red stop sign and if they do "stop" they don't allow pedestrians to walk and get safely to the other side of the street, pedestrians are crossing the road and a lot of the drivers don't take the time to stop and wait to let them step on the sidewalk they just start their vehicles, I have been in a few meetings in Hillview Junior High school and Stoneman Elementary with the city of Pittsburg planning commission, me and other parents and school personnel walked this roads with them to explain how dangerous this intersection is, I hope this time something gets done, I'm not sure if a traffic light or at least please install the lights on the road that light up when someone press the button, some type of signs or signals that are visible for drivers, install signs that say that if you continue
Motor Vehicles Red light violation
7g9ocp39l7w9 44 38.00439 ‐121.884898 Y Harbor St
This intersection the 2 streets which are Harbor and Stoneman are wide, I've seen pedestrians about to get hurt because of the lack of attention of some drivers, sometimes they don't respect the red stop sign and if they do "stop" they don't allow pedestrians to walk and get safely to the other side of the street, pedestrians are crossing the road and a lot of the drivers don't take the time to stop and wait to let them step on the sidewalk they just start their vehicles, I have been in a few meetings in Hillview Junior High school and Stoneman Elementary with the city of Pittsburg planning commission, me and other parents and school personnel walked this roads with them to explain how dangerous this intersection is, I hope this time something gets done, I'm not sure if a traffic light or at least please install the lights on the road that light up when someone press the button, some type of signs or signals that are visible for drivers, install signs that say that if you continue
Motor Vehicles School Safety
338
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 7g9ocp39l7w9 44 38.00439 ‐121.884898 Y Harbor St
This intersection the 2 streets which are Harbor and Stoneman are wide, I've seen pedestrians about to get hurt because of the lack of attention of some drivers, sometimes they don't respect the red stop sign and if they do "stop" they don't allow pedestrians to walk and get safely to the other side of the street, pedestrians are crossing the road and a lot of the drivers don't take the time to stop and wait to let them step on the sidewalk they just start their vehicles, I have been in a few meetings in Hillview Junior High school and Stoneman Elementary with the city of Pittsburg planning commission, me and other parents and school personnel walked this roads with them to explain how dangerous this intersection is, I hope this time something gets done, I'm not sure if a traffic light or at least please install the lights on the road that light up when someone press the button, some type of signs or signals that are visible for drivers, install signs that say that if you continue
Motor Vehicles Signage Improvement
7g9ocp39l7w9 45 38.004561 ‐121.884779 Y Harbor St
Continuation... I hope this time something gets done, I'm not sure if a traffic light or at least please install the lights on the road that light up when someone press the button, some type of signs or signals that are visible for drivers, install signs that say that if you don't do a full stop they are going to be fined, install cameras both ways please.

Motor Vehicles Lighting
6777zmw2g6l8 46 38.029698 ‐121.885812 Y E 8th St
To many cars double parking, speeding and blocking the
handicap parking so the school bus cannot park.

Suggestion during the hours of 7:00 am to 8 am kids arriving and the hours of 1:50 pm to 2:45 pm kids leaving and on Wed 12:50 pm to 1:45 pm kids leaving can they cone off the street and only have one lane for drop off only. A teacher aid or an additional cross guard could move the cone for the school buses or emergency vehicles. This would control traffic and make it safe for everyone.

Also can they paint a cross walk from in front of the main door to cross the street.

Motor Vehicles Improper Parking
6777zmw2g6l8 46 38.029698 ‐121.885812 Y E 8th St
To many cars double parking, speeding and blocking the
handicap parking so the school bus cannot park.

Also can they paint a cross walk from in front of the main door to cross the street.

Motor Vehicles School Safety
339
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 6777zmw2g6l8 46 38.029698 ‐121.885812 Y E 8th St
To many cars double parking, speeding and blocking the
handicap parking so the school bus cannot park.

Also can they paint a cross walk from in front of the main door to cross the street.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
44gdm82jvc4a 48 37.99778 ‐121.889048 Y Heights Ave
This is a major problem that I have mentioned on the city work order system. My wife and I have almost been hit
multiple times. this is a very busy street also near a middle school. It is also a main cross walk for the nearest bus stop for public transportation. I would lighting cross walk that warns when someone is crossing. My previous requests listed:

Request #:5667324
Request #:5917032
Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
44gdm82jvc4a 49 37.997877 ‐121.888726 Y Buchanan Rd
I’m not sure if my last request went in but this crosswalk is very dangerous my wife and I have almost been hit a couple of times I’ve sent in a couple requests on the go request app. I would like to see there being light flashing to warn drivers people are crossing the street at minimum.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
44gdm82jvc4a 49 37.997877 ‐121.888726 Y Buchanan Rd
I’m not sure if my last request went in but this crosswalk is very dangerous my wife and I have almost been hit a couple of times I’ve sent in a couple requests on the go request app. I would like to see there being light flashing to warn drivers people are crossing the street at minimum.

Pedestrian Signal improvement
9um6foy7w4g3 51 38.001165 ‐121.886806 Y Harbor St Route for speeding vehicles. Speed bumps to deter speeders. Motor Vehicles Speeding 8cx87cih63w4 52 38.016534 ‐121.8899 Y Railroad Ave
Dotted lines are not visible enough for traffic to adhere to.

Drivers constantly Crossing over lines and almost hitting other cars.

Motor Vehicles Signage Improvement
8cx87cih63w4 52 38.016534 ‐121.8899 Y Railroad Ave
Dotted lines are not visible enough for traffic to adhere to.

Drivers constantly Crossing over lines and almost hitting other cars.

Motor Vehicles Sign violation
340
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 1c62‐4807‐9f57‐670c 53 Y Old Stage Road
Pedestrians of all ages walk along Old Stage Road between the intersections with Ocean Ridge Drive and the intersection with Pacific Woods Road. This route provides sole pedestrian access between residential neighborhoods, Bower Park, and Ocean Ridge Park. Pedestrians are not safe on this route, where they must walk on the fog line or adjacent
uneven/unsurfaced ground. There are no pedestrian
alternatives.

Gualala village lacks continuous sidewalks. The California Coastal Trail currently dead‐ends along the Gualala Bluff Trail.

Pedestrian safety in the village is threatened by insufficient sidewalks on both sides of SR 1, visibility obscured by parking along the highway, poor vehicle speed control at the north hillside descent, insufficient crosswalks and crosswalk markings. The California Coastal Trail should be extended toward Sonoma County by a continuous Class 1 trail or
sidewalks from Center Street across the SR 1 bridge, then up SR 1 to the Gualala Point Regional Park entrance. Thank you for your consideration.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
1c62‐4807‐9f57‐670c 53 Y Old Stage Road
Pedestrians of all ages walk along Old Stage Road between the intersections with Ocean Ridge Drive and the intersection with Pacific Woods Road. This route provides sole pedestrian access between residential neighborhoods, Bower Park, and Ocean Ridge Park. Pedestrians are not safe on this route, where they must walk on the fog line or adjacent
uneven/unsurfaced ground. There are no pedestrian
alternatives.

Gualala village lacks continuous sidewalks. The California Coastal Trail currently dead‐ends along the Gualala Bluff Trail.

Pedestrian Sidewalk Improvements
‐7d69‐4138‐8265‐021 54 N Lakeview
The traffic in the left turn lane on eastbound YL turning south on Lakeview constantly backs up beyond the turn lane into traffic
Motor Vehicles Traffic Congestion
341
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue 806b‐4c81‐9d1e‐3b29 55 Y Blosser Lane
We have several areas of concern in the Willits area. First, the intersection of Blosser Lane and Hwy 20 remains a serious concern because of its location on a major school route.

Second, the Hwy 20 portion (south end) of Main Street with 5 traffic lanes remains significantly challenging to pedestrians and cyclists. Finally, the 3‐way intersection of Sherwood Rd and Birch in the Brooktrails subdivision sees daily near misses..

Increased safety in each of these locations would do a great deal to help our residents.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
806b‐4c81‐9d1e‐3b29 55 Y Blosser Lane
We have several areas of concern in the Willits area. First, the intersection of Blosser Lane and Hwy 20 remains a serious concern because of its location on a major school route.

Increased safety in each of these locations would do a great deal to help our residents.

Bicycle Bicycle Safety
806b‐4c81‐9d1e‐3b29 55 Y Blosser Lane
We have several areas of concern in the Willits area. First, the intersection of Blosser Lane and Hwy 20 remains a serious concern because of its location on a major school route.

Increased safety in each of these locations would do a great deal to help our residents.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
806b‐4c81‐9d1e‐3b29 55 Y Blosser Lane
We have several areas of concern in the Willits area. First, the intersection of Blosser Lane and Hwy 20 remains a serious concern because of its location on a major school route.

Increased safety in each of these locations would do a great deal to help our residents.

Motor Vehicles Intersection Safety
a082‐4e1b‐be04‐e9b7 56 Y Bowling Ball
Hi,I was not able to use the map and drawing tool on my device.

There is a problematic area across from Bowling
Ball/Schooners gulch beach. People park across highway one and cross in a spot with no visibility. There’s should be signage snd pedestrian crossing. It is getting more and more crowded and is very dangerous!
Motor Vehicles Visibility
342
Respondent ID # Lat Long At Intersection? Road Name What traffic‐related concern do you have at this location? Mode Pertinent Issue a082‐4e1b‐be04‐e9b7 56 Y Bowling Ball
Hi,I was not able to use the map and drawing tool on my device.

There is a problematic area across from Bowling
Ball/Schooners gulch beach. People park across highway one and cross in a spot with no visibility. There’s should be signage snd pedestrian crossing. It is getting more and more crowded and is very dangerous!
Pedestrian Signage Improvement
‐41ec‐41d2‐b1fb‐7a5 58 Y Fairmont Blvd
Please employ the powerful enforcement deterrent to protect pedestrians, animals and communities along Fairmont Blvd. between Old Ranch Road and Paseo de las Palomas. Most
drivers adhere closely to the 40 MPH speed limit but some drive dangerously fast. Regular (as opposed to rare) sightings of a Police officer ticketing offending drivers along this road would encourage and reward law‐abiding behavior.

Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety
‐41ec‐41d2‐b1fb‐7a5 58 Y Fairmont Blvd
Please employ the powerful enforcement deterrent to protect pedestrians, animals and communities along Fairmont Blvd. between Old Ranch Road and Paseo de las Palomas. Most
drivers adhere closely to the 40 MPH speed limit but some drive dangerously fast. Regular (as opposed to rare) sightings of a Police officer ticketing offending drivers along this road would encourage and reward law‐abiding behavior.

Motor Vehicles Speeding
343
APPENDIX B:

SUMMARY OF PLANNING

DOCUMENTS
344

8 Table 1: Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects Document Highlights
City of Pittsburg General Plan 2020
• Policy 7-P-19: Rebuild the interchange/overpass between Willow Pass Road, Range Road, North Parkside Drive, and the SNSF Railroad tracks for safe and efficient movement of auto and bicycle traffic.
• Policy 7-G-10: Study the feasibility of a comprehensive network of on- and off- road bike routes to encourage the use of bikes for commute, recreational and other trips.
o A continuous network of safe and convenient bikeways
has the potential to connect neighborhoods with major
activity centers, parks, schools, employment centers,
civic uses, the waterfront, and the County bicycle
system.
• Policy 7-P-34: As part of development approval, ensure that safe and contiguous routes for pedestrians and bicyclists are provided within new development projects and on any
roadways that are impacted as a result of new development. • Policy 7-P-35: Work with school districts, school administrators and parents of elementary school students to develop a
“suggested routes to school” program for students who bicycle and walk.
• Policy 7-P-38: Develop a series of continuous pedestrian systems within Downtown and residential neighborhoods,
connecting major activity centers and trails with City and County open space areas. Sidewalks should be creatively designed to invite safe use by pedestrians, and be free of obstacles, such as newspaper racks, bus benches, utility poles, and fire hydrants.
• Policy 7-P-42: Improve pedestrian crossing safety at heavily used intersections by installing crossing controls that provide adequate time for pedestrians to cross the street.
• Policy 7-P-47: Develop a multi-use bicycle path (approx. 2.5 miles) along the abandoned railroad tracks north of Willow Pass Road, providing linkage between Downtown and the Stake
Point/Marina area.
• Policy 7-P-48: Ensure that construction of bulb-outs and curb extensions at intersections for pedestrian safety does not endanger bicyclists by forcing them into traffic lanes

345

9 Document Highlights
Pittsburg Moves Active
Transportation Plan (2020)

• Priority Corridor #1 – Delta de Anza Regional Trail - Install a raised crosswalk at Atherton Avenue and Gladstone Drive. Install a median refuge at Crestview Drive. Work with property owners to close the trail gap between Ackerman Drive and W. Leland Road. Consider installing a protected intersection at Railroad Avenue. Install a PHB or traffic signal at Harbor Street with a median refuge, high- visibility crosswalk markings, and wayfinding signage
• Priority Corridor #2 – Harbor Street - Install buffered bike lanes from Buchanan Road to Stoneman Avenue. Install separated bikeways from Stone man Avenue to E. 3rd Street. Between the Highlands Elementary and Buchanan Park driveways, install a RRFB with a high- visibility crosswalk, median refuge, and curb extensions.
• Priority Corridor #3 – Railroad Avenue - Install separated bikeways from E. 8th Street to Buchanan Road. Widen the sidewalk between California Avenue and City Park to provide a shared-use path with a minimum five foot landscape buffer from the street. At California Avenue, mark the southern crosswalk and install an LPI for the eastern crosswalk. Provide a two -step trail crossing with green paint along the northern and eastern crosswalks.
• Priority Corridor #4 – Kirker Pass Road - Install separated bikeways from Buchanan Road to Pheasant Drive. At Pheasant Drive, remove the northeast and southeast slip lanes, straighten the eastern crosswalk, add a pedestrian refuge, and upgrade the curb ramps.
• Priority Corridor #5 – Willow Pass Rd/ Parkside Dr - Coordinate with the County to install standard bike lanes from Loftus Road to the western city limit. At Balclutha Way, mark the western crosswalk and provide high-visibility markings.
• Priority Corridor #6 – E. 14th Street/ P-A Highway - Add a PHB at the Harbor Street/ Hawthorne Street intersection and a trail crossing on E. 14th Street, just east of the bridge. • Install separated bikeways along P-A Highway, between Harbor Street and Central Park.
• Priority Corridor #7 – Schooner Way/ Polaris Dr/ Power Ave/ California Ave - Install standard bike lanes along Schooner Way 346

10 Document Highlights
from the western city limit to Range Road. Install buffered bike lanes along Polaris Drive from Range Road to Andrew Avenue. • Priority Corridor #8 – Loveridge Rd - Install separated bikeways from Buchanan Road to Pittsburg Street. At California Avenue, install pork chop islands with raised crosswalks at all corners of the intersection to shorten crossing distances for pedestrians.
• Priority Corridor #9 – Willow Pass Rd/ W. 10 th St/ E. 10 th St - Install a shared-use path from Parkside Drive to Enterprise Circle and standard bike lanes from Enterpri se Circle to Railroad Avenue. At Enterprise Circle: install a PHB with a high -visibility crosswalk; add parking restrictions at the crosswalk appr oaches; provide adequate nighttime lighting; add curb extensions and a pedestrian refuge; and upgrade the curb ramps
• Priority Corridor #10 – W. Leland Rd/ E. Leland Rd - When West Leland Road is extended via development from Avila Road, add a Class IV sepa rated bikeway. At the S. Broadway Avenue intersection, add a marked crosswalk and install curb ramps across Broadway Avenue. Install a shared -use path on the south side of W. Leland Road from Villa Drive to the BART station access road northeast of Southwood Drive.

City of Pittsburg Systemic Safety
Analysis Report (2018)
Roadway Segment Countermeasures
• Add Segment Lighting
• Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone • Install impact attenuators
• Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
• Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers • Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
• Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures
• Add Intersection Lighting
• Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/ regulatory signs
• Upgrade intersection pavement markings
• Install flashing beacons as an advance warning
Signalized Intersection Countermeasures
• Add Intersection Lighting
347

11 Document Highlights
• Improve signal hardware (lenses, back -plates, mounting, size, and number)
• Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
• Install raised pavement markers and st riping (Through Intersection)
• Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
• Install pedestrian crossing
• Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)

Pittsburg/Bay Point BART Master
Plan (2011)
Project Goals
• Establish the BART station area as a regional focal point. • Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and automobile trips by promoting sustainable development characterized by a mix of uses and a circulation system that prioritizes pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders over single-occupancy cars. • Foster healthy lifestyles by supporting walking and bicycling and improving pedestrian
and bicycle linkages to/from the
BART station.

Pedestrian Spaces
• Provide a network of convenient and safe pedestrian paths to connect areas within the project to building entrances, adjacent properties, transit stops, and public rights-of-way. Provide directness, continuity, street crossings, visual interest, shade, site furnishings, and safety for pedestrians within and entering the project.

Transportation and Circulation Goals and Objectives
• Provide safe and efficient connections to the BART Station and the intermodal station for all travel modes
• Crosswalks shall be delineated with different paving material and colors to further emphasize pedestrian priority. Bollards and/or other features will be installed to safely manage pedestrian movement at these intersections
• Enhance pedestrian connectivity, safety, and comfort. • Offset driveways and intersections should be minimized to make pedestrian street crossings convenient and safe.

Pedestrian Crossing Design Standards
348

12 Document Highlights
• A minimum crosswalk width dimension equal to the
Through Zone on the approaching sidewalk.
• Curb extensions or bulbouts that extend to the edge of the travel way or bicycle lane to maximize pedestrian visibility. • Advanced vehicle stop bars on stop controlled approaches.

City of Pittsburg Railroad Avenue
Specific Plan (2009)
Design and Development Goals
• Provide a safe and inviting pedestrian environment to draw people to and from the eBART Station.
• Celebrate the station area as a major gateway to the City. • Promote high quality development t hat is socially and environmentally sustainable.

Design and Development Policies
• 4-P-1 - Require high quality, pedestrian- friendly design and a high level of transparency along street fronts and pathways to activate the street environment, promote social interaction and support crime prevention.
• 4-P-2 -Incorporate public pathways and greenway s throughout private development located within the Civic Center and Transit Village sub-areas to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the Specific Plan Area.
• 4-P-3 Provide high quality wayfinding signage throughout the Specific Plan Area
Lighting and Street Furniture
• Provide pedestrian -scaled lights on all streets in the Transit Village and Civic Center sub-areas and pedestrian paths, such as the linear parks between Garcia Avenue and East Leland Road, to improve safety and comfort.

Transportation and Circulation Policies
• 6-P-1 Encourage walking, bicycling and other non- motorized modes of transportation by providing clearly defined, generous, safe and enjoyable routes for pedestrians and cyclists. • 6-P-3 Provide wide sidewalks (a minimum of six-feet wide in residential areas and ten feet in commercial areas) to enhance the pedestrian experience.
• 6-P-9 Incorporate traffic calming techniques such as wide sidewalks, narrow streets, bulb outs, on-street parking, and other strategies throughout the Transit Village, Civic Center and High School Village sub-areas.
349

13 Document Highlights
City of Pittsburg Traffic Calming
Policy (2004)

Speed hump installation Warrants:
• The street or street segment shall be a two lane residential local or collector street where the primary function is to provide access to residential dwellings.
• The street or the street segment shall be improved with curb and gutter.
• The street or the street segment shall not be a part of a transit route.
• The measured 85th percentile speed (the “critical speed”) of the street or street segment shall be six miles per hour or greater than the posted speed limit.

• At least 67% of households with side or front yards on the proposed street and within 100’ of the outside limits of the proposed speed humps shall approve of speed hump
installations.
• For 14’ speed humps, the street shall have a posted speed limit of 25 mph. For 22’ speed humps, the street shall have a posted speed limit of 30 mph.
• The street or street segment shall be at least 750 feet long. • The installation of speed humps shall not unduly affect response times of emergency services. This shall be determined by staff in conjunction with the affected emergency services. • The average daily traffic (ADT) shall be no less than 500 vehicles per day and no more than 3000 vehicles per day.
• Speed humps shall not be installed on streets with a grade greater than 5 percent.
• Speed humps shall not be installed on streets with more than one through travel lane per direction.

City of Pittsburg Five Year Capital
Improvement Plan (FY 2021/22 –
2025/26)
Project in Design Phase
• BART Pedestrian/Bicycle Connectivity Project
• HSIP 9 Citywide Traffic Signal Improvement Project
• HSIP 10-Crestview Drive Pavement and Pedestrian
Improvement Project
• HSIP 10- Signing and Striping Improvement Project
Projects Under Construction
• Stoneman Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements
350

14 Document Highlights
• West Leland Pavement Delineation, Warning Signage, High Visibility Crosswalk Improvements and Traffic Signal
Modification at Range Road
• West Leland Road Pavement Markers/Markings and Speed
Signage Improvements
• FY 2020/21 CDBG ADA Curb Ramp Replacement Project
Other Streets Projects
• Intersection Geometric Improvements (San Marco Boulevard/ W. Leland Road) Geometric Improvements
• Delta DeAnza Trail Roadway Crossing Improvement
• East Third Street Streetscape Improvements
• Railroad Ave./Leland Rd. Geometric Improvements
• Bailey Road Operational Safety Improvements
• Century Boulevard Class III Bicycle Facility
• Century Boulevard Class II Bicycle Lanes
• Railroad Avenue Complete Streets
Contra Costa Countywide Bike and
Pedestrian Plan (2018)
Goals
• Encourage more people to walk and bicycle
• Increase safety and
security for pedestrians and bicyclists
• Create a safe, connected, and comfortable network of bikeways and walkways for all ages and abilities
• Increase the livability and attractiveness of Contra Costa's communities and districts
• Equitably serve all of Contra Costa's communities while ensuring that public investments are focused on projects with the greatest benefits
Objectives
• Increase the share of trips made by walking and bicycling in Contra Costa
• Reduce the rate of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and injuries per capita
• Increase the number of miles of low-stress bikeways in Contra Costa
• Increase the number of jurisdictions in Contra Costa with bicycle, pedestrian, or active transportation plans
• Integrate complete street principles and best practices into Authority funding and design guidance
351

15 Document Highlights
CCTA Transportation Expenditure
Plan (2020)
Goals
• Relieve Traffic Congestion on Highways and Interchanges • Make Bus, Ferry, Passenger Train, and BART Rides Safer, Cleaner, and More Reliable
• Provide Accessible and Safe Transportation for Children, Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities
• Improve Transportation in Our Communities
Projects
• Enhance I-80, I-580 (Richmond-San Rafael Bridge), Transit, and BART Corridor
• Improve Transit Reliability Along the I-80 Corridor
• Relieve Congestion and Improve Local Access Along
the I-80 Corridor
• Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads in West County
• Enhance Ferry Service and Commuter Rail in West
County
• Improve Traffic Flow and Local Access to Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Along I-580 and Richmond Parkway
• Seamless Connected Transportation Options
Contra Costa Countywide
Transportation Safety Policy and
Implementation Guide (2021)

• A. SIGNAL TIMING & PHASING
o Additional Signal Heads
o Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time

o Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
o Leading Pedestrian Interval
o Pedestrian Phase Recall
o Replace Permissive with Protected Left Turn
o Pedestrian Scramble
o Reduce Cycle Lengths
o Coordinated Signal Operation
o Extend Green Time for Bikes
o Extend Yellow and All Red Time
• B. INTERSECTION & ROADWAY DESIGN
o Close Slip Lane
o Raised Intersection
o Convert Two-Way Stop to All-Way Stop
o Install Sidewalk
o Protected Intersection
o Raised Median
352

16 Document Highlights
o Lane Narrowing
o Road Diet
o Widen Shoulder
o Roundabout
o Signal Head Improvements

o Traffic Circles
o Programmable Signals/Visors/Louvers
o Edge Line/Center Line Rumble Strips
o Hardened Centerlines
• C. BIKEWAY DESIGN
o Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
o Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
o Bike Detection
o Class I Bicycle Path or Mixed Use Trail
o Bike Box
o Class II Bike Lane
o Class IV Separated Bikeway
o Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Markings
o Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
• D. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS
o Install Pedestrian Countdown Timer
o Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
o Curb Extension
o High-Visibility Crosswalk
o Pedestrian Median Barrier
o Raised Crosswalk
o Pedestrian Refuge Island
o Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
o Reduce Curb Radius
o ADA-Compliant Directional Curb Ramps and Audible
Push Buttons
o Extended Time Push Button
• E. SIGNS & MARKINGS
o Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
o Advance Yield Markings
o Advance Stop Markings
o Pedestrian Signs
• F. OTHER
o Access Management
353

17 Document Highlights
o Intersection & Street Scale Lighting
o Remove Obstructions for Sightlines
CCTA Countywide Comprehensive
Transportation Plan (2017)
• GOAL 1: Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes
• GOAL 2: Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy, preserve its environment and support its communities
• GOAL 3: Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle
• GOAL 4: Maintain the transportation system
• GOAL 5: Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding
Contra Costa County
Transportation Analysis Guidelines
(2020)
Transportation Policy Framework
• Senate Bill 743 – California Environmental Quality Act • County General Plan
• Growth Management Element
• Transportation and Circulation Element
• Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program
• Complete Streets
• Contra Costa County Complete Streets Principles
• Contra Costa County Complete Streets Implementation
Measures
• Vision Zero Contra Costa County
• County Ordinance Code
• Section 74-4.006 – Electric Vehicle ("EV") Charging
• Chapter 82-16 – Off
-Street Parking
• Chapter 82-32 – Transportation Demand Management
• Title 9 - Subdivisions
• Contra Costa Transportation Authority
• CCTA Technical Procedures
• CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
• CCTA Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance

354
APPENDIX C:

CONSOLIDATED HIGH INJURY

COLLISION DATABASE
355
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT 8404438 2017 8/29/2017 708 4/14/2017 2029 285 5 5
8808114 2019 43585 708 43544 124 323 46 3 5
8605025 2018 6/11/2018 708 4/17/2018 1030 237 8308 2 5
7166868 2016 1/28/2016 708 1/17/2016 2108 P343 PITTS 7 5 7189429 2016 2/26/2016 708 1/24/2016 1628 P343 PITTS 7 5 8498389 2017 12/7/2017 708 11/16/2017 545 359 4 5
8958555 2019 11/7/2019 708 9/2/2019 2024 253 46 1 5
9019434 2019 2/6/2020 708 12/10/2019 1949 253 46 2 5
7115883 2015 12/18/2015 708 12/1/2015 1504 285 46 2 5
8477579 2017 11/13/2017 708 10/12/2017 2301 359 4 5
8605256 2018 5/15/2018 708 4/18/2018 2103 366 46 3 5
8636514 2018 6/20/2018 708 6/3/2018 809 354 46 7 5
8761522 2018 1/23/2019 708 12/13/2018 1032 323 46 4 5
9045653 2019 2/14/2020 708 12/29/2019 2209 353 7 5
7200001 2016 4/10/2017 708 10/22/2016 1924 285 6 5
8286841 2016 42759 708 42711 2230 346 0 3 5
8615018 2018 5/1/2018 708 3/2/2018 1142 354 46 5 5
8626568 2018 6/5/2018 708 1/12/2018 2325 363 46 5 5
8973596 2019 11/15/2019 708 10/11/2019 1140 355 708 5 5 8677399 2018 8/22/2018 708 7/22/2018 829 362 46 7 5
8892620 2019 7/26/2019 708 6/11/2019 2244 372 46 2 5
7152144 2015 1/20/2016 708 12/23/2015 1601 P219 3 5
7199983 2016 4/12/2017 708 9/7/2016 2212 285 3 5
7199991 2016 4/12/2017 708 12/4/2016 1729 285 7 5
8801536 2019 3/4/2019 708 1/22/2019 1803 350 708 2 5
8703945 2018 10/4/2018 708 8/27/2018 1534 362 708 1 5
6678007 2015 1/29/2016 708 8/1/2015 855 229 6 5
8355829 2017 5/3/2017 708 4/17/2017 1449 344 DELTA 1 5
8635657 2018 6/19/2018 708 4/24/2018 808 363 708 2 5
7133890 2015 12/15/2015 708 11/16/2015 1010 P324 1 5
8284638 2016 1/23/2017 708 10/15/2016 1830 331 46 6 5
8564658 2018 3/6/2018 708 2/5/2018 2157 291 1 5
8662446 2018 7/31/2018 708 6/27/2018 2145 329 708 3 5
7105799 2015 42315 708 42290 745 195 46 2 5
8939046 2019 10/23/2019 708 7/5/2019 605 285 46 5 5
6917814 2015 5/2/2016 708 3/3/2015 1729 P332 2 5
7140946 2015 12/22/2015 708 12/10/2015 1458 285 46 4 5
8159248 2016 11/4/2016 708 10/1/2016 2031 344 6 5
9005393 2019 1/15/2020 708 11/19/2019 1751 374 46 2 5
8097767 2016 8/17/2016 708 7/28/2016 207 P10608 708 4 5 8329838 2017 3/30/2017 708 2/6/2017 744 343 46 1 5
8935812 2019 9/19/2019 708 8/12/2019 2145 378 46 1 5
356
CASE_ID
8404438
8808114
8605025
7166868
7189429
8498389
8958555
9019434
7115883
8477579
8605256
8636514
8761522
9045653
7200001
8286841
8615018
8626568
8973596
8677399
8892620
7152144
7199983
7199991
8801536
8703945
6678007
8355829
8635657
7133890
8284638
8564658
8662446
7105799
8939046
6917814
7140946
8159248
9005393
8097767
8329838
8935812
POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER 5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 2325
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
357
CASE_ID
8404438
8808114
8605025
7166868
7189429
8498389
8958555
9019434
7115883
8477579
8605256
8636514
8761522
9045653
7200001
8286841
8615018
8626568
8973596
8677399
8892620
7152144
7199983
7199991
8801536
8703945
6678007
8355829
8635657
7133890
8284638
8564658
8662446
7105799
8939046
6917814
7140946
8159248
9005393
8097767
8329838
8935812
PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION TJKM_Int INTERSECTION COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED WEST LELAND RD BAILEY RD 20 W Y N 1 1
WEST LELAND RD DELTA VISTA LN 158 E Y N 1 1
WEST LELAND RD BAILEY RD 0 Y N 4 0
BAILEY RD WEST LELAND RD 0 Y Y 4 0
BAILEY RD WEST LELAND RD 0 Y Y 4 0
BAILEY RD WEST LELAND RD 0 Y Y 4 0
BAILEY RD WEST LELAND RD 43 N Y N 4 0
BAILEY RD WEST LELAND RD 0 Y Y 4 0
AUTO CENTER DR CENTURY BL 115 S Y N 4 0
AUTO CENTER DR CENTURY BL 0 Y Y 4 0
CENTURY BL AUTO CENTER DR 0 Y Y 4 0
CENTURY BL AUTO CENTER DR 0 Y Y 4 0
CENTURY BL AUTO CENTER DR 6 W Y N 2 0
CENTURY BL AUTO CENTER DR 0 Y Y 4 0
EAST LELAND RD PIEDMONT WY 82 E Y N 1 1
EAST LELAND RD MEDANOS COLLEGE WEST ENTR 20 E Y N 2 0
EAST LELAND RD PIEDMONT WY 30 E Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD PIEDMONT WY 0 Y Y 2 0
EAST LELAND RD PIEDMONT WY 10 W Y N 4 0
PIEDMONT WY EAST LELAND RD 15 N Y N 4 0
PIEDMONT LN EAST LELAND RD 10 S Y N 3 0
HARBOR ST SCHOOL ST 0 Y Y 3 0
HARBOR ST SCHOOL ST 15 S Y N 1 1
HARBOR ST SCHOOL ST 16 N Y N 1 1
HARBOR ST SCHOOL ST 0 Y Y 4 0
SCHOOL ST HARBOR ST 17 E Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD COMMERCE PL 0 Y Y 1 1
EAST LELAND RD COMMERCE PL 157 E Y N 4 0
WILLOW PASS RD WINTER WY 0 Y Y 3 0
WINTER WY WILLOW PASS RD 0 Y Y 4 0
WEST LELAND RD WOODHILL DR 221 W Y N 2 0
WEST LELAND RD SOUTHWOOD DR 2 W Y N 2 0
WEST LELAND RD SOUTHWOOD DR 162 E Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD OAKHILLS DR 299 W N N 2 0
WEST LELAND RD SOUTHWOOD DR 0 Y Y 1 1
BUCHANAN RD BROOKSIDE DR 0 Y Y 4 0
BUCHANAN RD BROOKSIDE DR 247 W Y N 2 0
BUCHANAN RD BROOKSIDE DR 0 Y Y 2 0
BUCHANAN RD BROOKSIDE DR 0 Y Y 4 0
WEST LELAND RD WOODHILL DR 2 E Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD BAILEY RD 3 W Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD WOODHILL DR 150 W Y N 4 0
358
CASE_ID
8404438
8808114
8605025
7166868
7189429
8498389
8958555
9019434
7115883
8477579
8605256
8636514
8761522
9045653
7200001
8286841
8615018
8626568
8973596
8677399
8892620
7152144
7199983
7199991
8801536
8703945
6678007
8355829
8635657
7133890
8284638
8564658
8662446
7105799
8939046
6917814
7140946
8159248
9005393
8097767
8329838
8935812
NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUN T PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN 0 2 A 11 21954 A N
0 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 21 22106 N
1 2 A 9 21453 C N
1 3 A 9 21453 C N
1 3 A 12 21453 A N
1 2 A 1 23152 N
1 2 A 11 21456 B N
1 2 A 8 22107 N
1 2 A 0 21453 N
32 D 0 N
2 2 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 12 21453 A N
1 2 A 10 21950 A M
1 2 A 3 22350 F
1 2 A 11 21955 0 N
1 2 A 21 22106 N
1 2 A 12 21453 N
1 2 A 3 22350 N
1 1 A 8 22107 N
2 2 A 8 22107 F
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
0 2 A 10 21950 A N
0 2 A 3 22350 N
3 2 A 1 23152 B N
1 2 A 4 21703 N
0 2 A 3 22350 N
2 3 A 3 22350 N
3 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 2 A 5 21650 1 N
1 2 A 17 22109 F
11 C 1 8 N
1 2 A 12 21453 A F
1 2 A 12 21453 A N
0 2 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 N
11 C 1 8 N
1 2 A 11 21955 N
1 3 A 4 21703 N
1 1 A 8 22107 M
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 1 A 1 23152 A N
359
CASE_ID
8404438
8808114
8605025
7166868
7189429
8498389
8958555
9019434
7115883
8477579
8605256
8636514
8761522
9045653
7200001
8286841
8615018
8626568
8973596
8677399
8892620
7152144
7199983
7199991
8801536
8703945
6678007
8355829
8635657
7133890
8284638
8564658
8662446
7105799
8939046
6917814
7140946
8159248
9005393
8097767
8329838
8935812
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE GB D A H ‐ C A
GB D B H ‐ C A
GB F A H ‐ A A
DC A B H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ B A
DC A B H ‐ B A
CC A A H ‐ C A
GB B B H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ ‐ A
AC A A H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ A A
GB B B H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ C A
GB D B H ‐ C A
CC A B H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ BA
BC A A H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ C A
GB B A H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A ‐
CD A A H ‐ A A
AD A A H ‐ A D
DG A A H ‐ A D
CG A B H ‐ C D
EJ A A H ‐ CA
AC A A H ‐ C A
GB B A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
‐C A A ‐ ‐ AD
EI A A H ‐ AA
GB D A H ‐ C D
CC A A H ‐ C D
EI A A H ‐ CA
GB C B H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ CA
360
CASE_ID
8404438
8808114
8605025
7166868
7189429
8498389
8958555
9019434
7115883
8477579
8605256
8636514
8761522
9045653
7200001
8286841
8615018
8626568
8973596
8677399
8892620
7152144
7199983
7199991
8801536
8703945
6678007
8355829
8635657
7133890
8284638
8564658
8662446
7105799
8939046
6917814
7140946
8159248
9005393
8097767
8329838
8935812
CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERT Y 0Y Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0 Y
0 Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0 Y
0 Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0Y Y
0 YY
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0 Y
0 Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0 Y
0 YY
0 Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0 YY
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0 YY
0 Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0 Y
361
CASE_ID
8404438
8808114
8605025
7166868
7189429
8498389
8958555
9019434
7115883
8477579
8605256
8636514
8761522
9045653
7200001
8286841
8615018
8626568
8973596
8677399
8892620
7152144
7199983
7199991
8801536
8703945
6678007
8355829
8635657
7133890
8284638
8564658
8662446
7105799
8939046
6917814
7140946
8159248
9005393
8097767
8329838
8935812
ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN Y N 60 0 0 0
YA 1 0 0 0
A1 0 0 1
A1 0 0 1
A1 0 0 1
A1 0 0 1
YA 7 0 0 1
N6 0 0 0 1
A1 0 0 1
A7 0 0 1
‐‐ 0 0 3
YA 1 0 0 2
Y D 22 1 0 0
A7 0 0 1
YA 1 0 0 1
0 N 60 1 0 0
A7 0 0 1
A1 1 0 0
A1 0 0 1
Y D 22 0 0 1
A7 0 2 0
‐0 1 0
YA 1 0 0 0
A1 0 0 0
YA 8 0 0 3
A1 0 0 1
C2 0 0 0
A1 0 0 2
A1 0 2 1
L4 0 0 1
‐9 9 1 0 0
‐‐ 1 0 0
C2 0 0 1
0‐ 0 1 0 0
YC 2 0 0 0
A1 0 0 1
‐‐ 1 0 0
N6 0 1 0 0
A1 0 0 1
A1 0 0 1
D2 2 0 0 1
YA 7 0 0 1
362
CASE_ID
8404438
8808114
8605025
7166868
7189429
8498389
8958555
9019434
7115883
8477579
8605256
8636514
8761522
9045653
7200001
8286841
8615018
8626568
8973596
8677399
8892620
7152144
7199983
7199991
8801536
8703945
6678007
8355829
8635657
7133890
8284638
8564658
8662446
7105799
8939046
6917814
7140946
8159248
9005393
8097767
8329838
8935812
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 10 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 1 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 1 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 1 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
363
CASE_ID
8404438
8808114
8605025
7166868
7189429
8498389
8958555
9019434
7115883
8477579
8605256
8636514
8761522
9045653
7200001
8286841
8615018
8626568
8973596
8677399
8892620
7152144
7199983
7199991
8801536
8703945
6678007
8355829
8635657
7133890
8284638
8564658
8662446
7105799
8939046
6917814
7140946
8159248
9005393
8097767
8329838
8935812
COUNTY CITY POINT_ X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419894 38.01533
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9381332 38.01539993
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419174 38.01533127
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419199 38.01532992
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419199 38.01532992
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419199 38.01532992
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.941925 38.01544952
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419174 38.01533127
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8356009 38.00542088
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.83534 38.00565999
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8353424 38.00566101
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8353424 38.00566101
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8353577 38.00566864
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8353424 38.00566101
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8746984 38.0090826
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8624938 38.0078154
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8748703 38.00912476
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8749695 38.00915146
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8750076 38.00915527
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8749542 38.00918961
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8749695 38.00915146
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8811299 38.01987992
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8811445 38.01984042
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8811136 38.01992198
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8811264 38.01987839
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.881073 38.01987457
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8641999 38.00817989
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8636786 38.00805464
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9310532 38.02679825
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9310499 38.02679988
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9524573 38.01692866
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9484177 38.01576233
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9478607 38.01567841
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9453976 38.01533342
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.94841 38.01575851
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.89277 37.9981
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8936274 37.9981
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.89277 37.9981
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8927689 37.99810028
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9519037 38.01651774
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419304 38.01533
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9522476 38.01682281
364
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT 8939204 2019 5/28/2021 708 8/30/2019 2345 323 46 5 5
7190569 2016 11/22/2016 708 6/20/2016 1026 285 1 5
8537157 2017 1/30/2018 708 1/13/2017 238 323 46 5 5
8714884 2018 11/5/2018 708 9/20/2018 831 341 46 4 5
8732413 2018 11/26/2018 708 10/25/2018 755 364 4 5
7006705 2015 3/29/2017 708 11/20/2015 1724 229 5 5
8041219 2016 5/24/2016 708 5/4/2016 1850 229 3 5
8166866 2016 4/11/2017 708 11/12/2016 1945 229 46 6 5
6678185 2017 43560 708 42947 451 229 0 1 5
6718594 2017 43147 708 42991 546 328 0 3 5
6787163 2015 42055 708 42007 1620 P286 0 6 5
6799955 2015 42072 708 42024 702 195 46 2 5
6829023 2015 42086 708 42041 1114 P323 0 5 5
6833669 2015 42083 708 42043 210 316 0 7 5
6847392 2015 42256 708 42062 2046 331 46 5 5
6847420 2015 42241 708 42055 1224 197 0 5 5
6849720 2015 42088 708 42057 1548 P331 DELTA 7 5
6849736 2015 42088 708 42060 1144 288 0 3 5
6849744 2015 42088 708 42062 752 262 0 5 5
6849748 2015 42088 708 42062 712 285 0 5 5
6855448 2015 42087 708 42079 1515 254 DELTA 1 5
6880060 2015 42118 708 42085 1156 262 0 7 5
6880064 2015 42115 708 42091 1303 197 0 6 5
6880068 2015 42115 708 42085 1154 254 46 7 5
6905072 2015 42174 708 42162 1444 P283 46 7 5
6910122 2015 42139 708 42117 813 195 46 4 5
6914327 2015 42143 708 42130 935 321 0 3 5
6922965 2015 42158 708 42127 614 P323 DELTA 7 5
6922989 2015 42158 708 42130 824 321 0 3 5
6934389 2015 42172 708 42143 1911 333 DELTA 2 5
6943845 2015 42187 708 42135 2110 P331 DELTA 1 5
6963498 2015 42180 708 42134 1918 P326 0 7 5
6974427 2015 42194 708 42177 1153 195 46 1 5
7003076 2015 42223 708 42168 1312 PR001 0 6 5
7004964 2015 42227 708 42196 1212 P229 0 6 5
7004966 2015 42209 708 42192 1850 333 DELTA 2 5
7044419 2015 42255 708 42226 745 195 46 1 5
7047666 2015 42265 708 42244 1505 229 0 5 5
7048432 2015 42261 708 42236 1518 P288 DELTA 4 5
7052855 2015 42271 708 42214 1221 195 46 3 5
7053807 2015 42270 708 42250 756 229 0 4 5
8286940 2017 42760 708 42742 2336 338 0 6 5
365
CASE_ID
8939204
7190569
8537157
8714884
8732413
7006705
8041219
8166866
6678185
6718594
6787163
6799955
6829023
6833669
6847392
6847420
6849720
6849736
6849744
6849748
6855448
6880060
6880064
6880068
6905072
6910122
6914327
6922965
6922989
6934389
6943845
6963498
6974427
7003076
7004964
7004966
7044419
7047666
7048432
7052855
7053807
8286940
POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER 5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
366
CASE_ID
8939204
7190569
8537157
8714884
8732413
7006705
8041219
8166866
6678185
6718594
6787163
6799955
6829023
6833669
6847392
6847420
6849720
6849736
6849744
6849748
6855448
6880060
6880064
6880068
6905072
6910122
6914327
6922965
6922989
6934389
6943845
6963498
6974427
7003076
7004964
7004966
7044419
7047666
7048432
7052855
7053807
8286940
PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION TJKM_Int INTERSECTION COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED WEST LELAND RD WOODHILL DR 30 W Y N 1 1
STONEMAN AV MEADOWBROOK AV 6 E Y N 1 1
STONEMAN AV MEADOWBROOK CIR 158 E Y N 4 0
STONEMAN AV MEADOWBROOK AV 9 E Y N 2 0
STONEMAN AV MEADOWBROOK AV 22 W Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV EL DORADO DR 25 N Y N 1 1
RAILROAD AV EL DORADO AV 0 Y Y 4 0
RAILROAD AV EL DORADO AV 14 S Y N 1 1
ATLANTIC AV RAILROAD AV 400 E N N 1 1
RAILROAD AV MARKS BL 400 S N N 1 1
RAILROAD AV VICTORY AV 100 N Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD EAST LELAND RD 956 S N N 3 0
STONEMAN AV PARK PLACE DR 33 W Y N 4 0
NORTH PARKSIDE DR N PARKSIDE DR 40 41 E Y N 2 0
RAIL ROAD AV BLISS AV 259 S N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 50 S Y N 4 0
KIRKER PASS RD BUCHANAN RD 64 S Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV EAST LELAND RD 413 N N N 4 0
CIVIC AV RAILROAD AV 422 W N N 4 0
SCHOOL ST HARBOR ST 353 W N N 3 0
RAILROAD AV ATLANTIC AV 42 S Y N 3 0
PARKSIDE AV DAVI AV 211 E Y N 4 0
ATLANTIC AV RAILROAD AV 50 E Y N 4 0
CARPINO AV BARRUS AV 156 E Y N 3 0
EAST 17TH ST RAILROAD AV 32 E Y N 4 0
GARCIA AV MARTIN WY 120 E Y N 2 0
EAST LELAND RD LOS MEDANOS RD 15 E Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD SOUTHWOOD DR 463 W N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD VENTURA DR 180 W Y N 3 0
CARPINO AV RONNIE ST 227 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV LELAND RD 40.6 S Y N 2 0
RAMONA ST HILLCREST AV 60 S Y N 3 0
LINSCHEID DR MADOLINE ST 53 E Y N 3 0
RAILROAD AV ALVARADO 93 N Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD WESTGATE DR 83 W Y N 3 0
BUCHANAN RD HEIGHTS AV 2745 W N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 1802 E N N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD STONEMAN AV 850 N N N 4 0
KIRKER PASS RD BUCHANAN RD 15 S Y N 3 0
NORTH PARKSIDE DR RAILROAD AV 11 W Y N 3 0
BUCHANAN RD LOVERIDGE RD 143 E Y N 3 0
RAILROAD AV CENTRAL AV 296 S N N 2 0
367
CASE_ID
8939204
7190569
8537157
8714884
8732413
7006705
8041219
8166866
6678185
6718594
6787163
6799955
6829023
6833669
6847392
6847420
6849720
6849736
6849744
6849748
6855448
6880060
6880064
6880068
6905072
6910122
6914327
6922965
6922989
6934389
6943845
6963498
6974427
7003076
7004964
7004966
7044419
7047666
7048432
7052855
7053807
8286940
NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUN T PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN 0 1 A 1 23152 F N
0 2 A 10 21950 C N
1 1 A 3 22350 N
1 2 A 3 22350 N
1 2 A 3 22350 N
0 2 A 11 21954 A N
2 2 A 9 21801 A N
0 2 A 11 21950 B N
0 2 A 11 21954 A N
0 4 A 11 21955 0 F
1 2 A 4 21703 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
2 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 1 23152 A N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 7 21658 A N
1 2 A 9 21804 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 N
1 4 A 8 22107 0 M
1 2 A 17 22109 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 3 A 8 22107 0 N
2 2 A 11 21954 A N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 N
1 2 A 9 21804 A N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 5 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 M
2 3 A 1 23153 A F
2 1 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 6 21755 0 N
1 2 A 11 21955 0 N
368
CASE_ID
8939204
7190569
8537157
8714884
8732413
7006705
8041219
8166866
6678185
6718594
6787163
6799955
6829023
6833669
6847392
6847420
6849720
6849736
6849744
6849748
6855448
6880060
6880064
6880068
6905072
6910122
6914327
6922965
6922989
6934389
6943845
6963498
6974427
7003076
7004964
7004966
7044419
7047666
7048432
7052855
7053807
8286940
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE EI A A H ‐ CA
GB B A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ CD
GB B A H ‐ A A
CE A A H ‐ A D
GB D A H ‐ C D
DC A A H ‐ A A
GB D A H ‐ C A
GB E A H ‐ C A
GB D A H ‐ C D
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
AI A B H ‐ AD
FI A B H ‐ CA
CC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A A
BJ A A H ‐ AA
BC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
GB C A H ‐ A A
AI A A H ‐ AA
AI A A H ‐ AD
CC A A H ‐ A A
AE A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
AI A ‐ H ‐ AA
CC A A H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ A A
GB D A H ‐ C D
CE A A H ‐ A A
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A D
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
AI A ‐ H ‐ AA
DC A A H ‐ A A
GB E B H ‐ C A
369
CASE_ID
8939204
7190569
8537157
8714884
8732413
7006705
8041219
8166866
6678185
6718594
6787163
6799955
6829023
6833669
6847392
6847420
6849720
6849736
6849744
6849748
6855448
6880060
6880064
6880068
6905072
6910122
6914327
6922965
6922989
6934389
6943845
6963498
6974427
7003076
7004964
7004966
7044419
7047666
7048432
7052855
7053807
8286940
CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERT Y 0 Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0 Y
0Y Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
370
CASE_ID
8939204
7190569
8537157
8714884
8732413
7006705
8041219
8166866
6678185
6718594
6787163
6799955
6829023
6833669
6847392
6847420
6849720
6849736
6849744
6849748
6855448
6880060
6880064
6880068
6905072
6910122
6914327
6922965
6922989
6934389
6943845
6963498
6974427
7003076
7004964
7004966
7044419
7047666
7048432
7052855
7053807
8286940
ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN YA 1 0 0 0
A7 0 0 0
YA 1 0 0 1
A1 1 0 0
A7 0 0 1
Y N 60 0 0 0
A1 0 0 2
Y N 60 0 0 0
0 N 60 0 0 0
0 N 60 0 0 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
Y D 22 0 0 1
0A 1 2 0 0
Y‐ 0 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0‐ 0 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0‐ 0 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 7 0 1 0
0‐ 0 0 0 1
0C 2 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0C 2 0 0 1
0A 1 1 0 0
0A 1 0 0 1
YA 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0 N 60 1 1 0
0‐ 0 0 1 0
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 7 0 0 1
0C 2 0 1 0
YA 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0‐ 0 0 0 1
YA 1 0 1 1
YA 1 0 2 0
0A 1 0 1 0
0 N 60 1 0 0
371
CASE_ID
8939204
7190569
8537157
8714884
8732413
7006705
8041219
8166866
6678185
6718594
6787163
6799955
6829023
6833669
6847392
6847420
6849720
6849736
6849744
6849748
6855448
6880060
6880064
6880068
6905072
6910122
6914327
6922965
6922989
6934389
6943845
6963498
6974427
7003076
7004964
7004966
7044419
7047666
7048432
7052855
7053807
8286940
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 00 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
372
CASE_ID
8939204
7190569
8537157
8714884
8732413
7006705
8041219
8166866
6678185
6718594
6787163
6799955
6829023
6833669
6847392
6847420
6849720
6849736
6849744
6849748
6855448
6880060
6880064
6880068
6905072
6910122
6914327
6922965
6922989
6934389
6943845
6963498
6974427
7003076
7004964
7004966
7044419
7047666
7048432
7052855
7053807
8286940
COUNTY CITY POINT_ X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9519577 38.01659393
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8791601 38.00430503
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8759453 38.00351368
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8791504 38.00430298
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8792572 38.00432587
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8939751 38.00468579
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.894 38.00461996
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8940132 38.00458299
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8912993 38.00787207
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8959694 37.9996226
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8883735 38.01981144
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8719322 38.00564931
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8815535 38.00418451
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG 0 0
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8902014 38.01498036
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8900731 38.01554517
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8965757 37.99793475
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8907985 38.01328895
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8894909 38.02088969
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8823056 38.02015431
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8926626 38.00809967
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.890315 38.02442647
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8924553 38.00816666
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8795117 38.02083198
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8873928 38.02204702
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8777028 38.01102069
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8625179 38.00795981
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9499837 38.01601966
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8688446 37.99799
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8750716 38.01935187
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.891241 38.01209331
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8959898 38.00191213
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8950161 38.00361361
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8919331 38.01013991
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8839851 38.01041796
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8965 37.9981
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8575454 37.99803001
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8721696 38.00503329
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.896518 37.99806135
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8871668 38.02374817
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8734637 37.99797178
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8868333 38.02449317
373
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT 7056335 2016 42453 708 42443 1700 341 46 1 5
7056415 2016 42453 708 42433 1811 P320 0 5 5
7056416 2016 42500 708 42434 819 P336 DELTA 6 5
7069502 2015 42272 708 42250 1701 330 DELTA 4 5
8029411 2016 5/11/2016 708 4/17/2016 2303 P326 7 5
7105952 2015 42318 708 42286 1118 229 0 5 5
7106063 2015 42397 708 42286 1827 P313 0 5 5
7108595 2015 42314 708 42301 851 229 0 6 5
7108603 2015 42314 708 42300 2106 P329 0 5 5
7110156 2015 42322 708 42288 2329 P331 46 7 5
7111897 2015 42324 708 42301 1148 229 0 6 5
7120761 2015 42404 708 42294 446 P331 46 6 5
7133726 2015 42359 708 42337 1505 P332 DELTA 7 5
7133730 2015 42368 708 42328 1723 304 0 5 5
7140675 2015 42367 708 42343 1900 P320 46 6 5
7140942 2015 42360 708 42342 738 285 46 5 5
7152148 2015 42389 708 42358 1351 P332 0 7 5
7164564 2016 42401 708 42388 1123 P229 0 2 5
7166848 2016 42401 708 42383 2116 P305 DELTA 4 5
7166864 2016 42401 708 42383 644 285 46 4 5
7167239 2015 42408 708 42350 637 P332 0 6 5
7171106 2015 42401 708 42303 1745 P315 0 1 5
7189425 2016 42426 708 42396 1719 342 DELTA 3 5
7190548 2016 42691 708 42578 1401 285 0 3 5
7200000 2016 42836 708 42704 2027 285 0 3 5
7201544 2016 42445 708 42436 1032 285 46 1 5
8006253 2016 42459 708 42447 1101 229 0 5 5
8010344 2016 42472 708 42464 1226 P335 0 1 5
8014457 2016 42480 708 42464 1346 P331 46 1 5
8016084 2016 42473 708 42458 857 P335 0 2 5
8025559 2016 42479 708 42441 1949 P332 0 6 5
8029407 2016 42524 708 42476 1128 197 46 6 5
8519759 2017 43102 708 43069 506 331 46 4 5
8038489 2016 42501 708 42473 1602 P324 0 3 5
8793388 2019 43521 708 43481 1812 362 708 3 5
8041203 2016 42514 708 42502 933 229 0 4 5
8041215 2016 42514 708 42495 1317 232 0 4 5
8050002 2016 42535 708 42506 915 341 0 1 5
8070892 2016 42558 708 42500 1341 229 DELTA 2 5
8070896 2016 42559 708 42524 1539 229 0 5 5
8070955 2016 42559 708 42537 606 285 0 4 5
8073649 2016 42557 708 42506 1242 262 0 1 5
374
CASE_ID
7056335
7056415
7056416
7069502
8029411
7105952
7106063
7108595
7108603
7110156
7111897
7120761
7133726
7133730
7140675
7140942
7152148
7164564
7166848
7166864
7167239
7171106
7189425
7190548
7200000
7201544
8006253
8010344
8014457
8016084
8025559
8029407
8519759
8038489
8793388
8041203
8041215
8050002
8070892
8070896
8070955
8073649
POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER 5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
375
CASE_ID
7056335
7056415
7056416
7069502
8029411
7105952
7106063
7108595
7108603
7110156
7111897
7120761
7133726
7133730
7140675
7140942
7152148
7164564
7166848
7166864
7167239
7171106
7189425
7190548
7200000
7201544
8006253
8010344
8014457
8016084
8025559
8029407
8519759
8038489
8793388
8041203
8041215
8050002
8070892
8070896
8070955
8073649
PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION TJKM_Int INTERSECTION COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED CIVIC AV RAILROAD AV 200 W Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD PAMELIA WY 48 W Y N 3 0
GARCIA AV HARBOR ST 585 E N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 442 W N N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD SOUTHWOOD DR 166 E Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD EAST LELAND RD 668 S N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD LOVERIDGE RD 10 E Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD EAST LELAND RD 376 N N N 4 0
SCHOOL ST BARRUS AV 60 E Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD WOODBOROUGH PL 10 W Y N 3 0
RAILROAD AV EAST LELAND RD 200 S Y N 3 0
BUCHANAN RD MCFAUL DR 43 W Y N 3 0
EAST LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 315 E N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV EAST LELAND RD 3 N Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD WILLIAM WY 98 W Y N 4 0
MEADOWBROOK AV FALLENLEAF WY 116 N Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD RAILROAD AV 31 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV EAST LELAND RD 543 N N N 4 0
NORTH PARKSIDE DR JIMNO AV 12 W Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD HEIGHTS AV 80 E Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD EAST LELAND RD 22 S Y N 4 0
ANDREW AV NORTH PARKSIDE DR 591 S N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV OAK PL 11 N Y N 2 0
EAST LELAND RD HARBOR ST 29 E Y N 1 1
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 1062 E N N 1 1
STONEMAN AV PARK PLACE DR 35 E Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 414 E N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD GLADSTONE DR 590 W N N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD BAILEY RD 264 W N N 4 0
LELAND RD COMMERCE PL 434 E N N 4 0
LORRAINE AV MADOLINE ST 468 W N N 4 0
STONERIDGE DR EAST LELAND RD 10 S Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV WEST LELAND RD 454 N N N 2 0
RAILROAD AV MARIPOSA DR 95 N Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD COMMERCE PL 400 W N N 2 0
HARBOR ST STONEMAN AV 460 N N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV ALVARADO 149 S Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD GLADSTONE DR 30 W Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD HARBOR ST 44 W Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD GLADSTONE DR 197 W Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD SANTA ANA DR 190 W Y N 4 0
ACACIA ST 14TH ST 23 S Y N 3 0
376
CASE_ID
7056335
7056415
7056416
7069502
8029411
7105952
7106063
7108595
7108603
7110156
7111897
7120761
7133726
7133730
7140675
7140942
7152148
7164564
7166848
7166864
7167239
7171106
7189425
7190548
7200000
7201544
8006253
8010344
8014457
8016084
8025559
8029407
8519759
8038489
8793388
8041203
8041215
8050002
8070892
8070896
8070955
8073649
NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUN T PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN 1 3 A 4 21703 0 N
3 3 A 3 22350 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 M
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
4 3 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 3 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 M
1 4 A 1 23152 E M
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 A N
1 2 A 9 21453 C N
2 2 A 7 21658 A N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 9 21804 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 2 A 21 22106 0 M
1 2 A 12 21453 A N
6 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 5 21650 0 N
2 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 12 21453 A N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
5 2 A 12 21453 A N
1 1 A 21 22106 0 N
1 2 A 21 22106 0 M
1 2 A 0 21954 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 11 21953 0 N
4 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 2 A 9 21804 A N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 N
3 4 A 3 22350 0 N
3 2 A 3 22350 0 N
2 3 A 4 21703 0 N
1 1 A 1 23152 A N
377
CASE_ID
7056335
7056415
7056416
7069502
8029411
7105952
7106063
7108595
7108603
7110156
7111897
7120761
7133726
7133730
7140675
7140942
7152148
7164564
7166848
7166864
7167239
7171106
7189425
7190548
7200000
7201544
8006253
8010344
8014457
8016084
8025559
8029407
8519759
8038489
8793388
8041203
8041215
8050002
8070892
8070896
8070955
8073649
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A B H ‐ C A
BC A B H ‐ A A
EI F A H ‐ AA
GB B A H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ A D
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A D
AE A A H ‐ D D
DC A A H ‐ C D
‐C A A H ‐ AA
EI A A H ‐ CD
CC A A H ‐ A A
‐‐ A ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐
CC A A H ‐ C A
CE A A H ‐ A A
EJ A A H ‐ AA
‐C A A H ‐ AA
CC A A H ‐ C A
EI A A H ‐ CA
GB B A H ‐ C A
HG A A H ‐ B A
DC A A H ‐ B A
CC A A H ‐ A A
AC A A H ‐ D A
AC A B H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ AD
DC A A H ‐ A D
BC A A H ‐ A A
CI A B H ‐ CA
CC A A H ‐ A A
GB D A H ‐ C D
CC A A H ‐ A A
GB D B H ‐ D D
AC A A H ‐ A D
DC A A H ‐ A D
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
‐J A A C ‐ AA
378
CASE_ID
7056335
7056415
7056416
7069502
8029411
7105952
7106063
7108595
7108603
7110156
7111897
7120761
7133726
7133730
7140675
7140942
7152148
7164564
7166848
7166864
7167239
7171106
7189425
7190548
7200000
7201544
8006253
8010344
8014457
8016084
8025559
8029407
8519759
8038489
8793388
8041203
8041215
8050002
8070892
8070896
8070955
8073649
CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERT Y 00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0Y Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 Y Y
00 Y 0 0 Y
00 0 0 Y Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 Y 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
379
CASE_ID
7056335
7056415
7056416
7069502
8029411
7105952
7106063
7108595
7108603
7110156
7111897
7120761
7133726
7133730
7140675
7140942
7152148
7164564
7166848
7166864
7167239
7171106
7189425
7190548
7200000
7201544
8006253
8010344
8014457
8016084
8025559
8029407
8519759
8038489
8793388
8041203
8041215
8050002
8070892
8070896
8070955
8073649
ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN 0‐ 0 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 2
0A 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
A1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
YA 7 0 0 4
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
YA 7 0 1 0
YC 2 0 1 0
0A 7 0 1 0
0 F 21 0 0 1
0 D 22 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 2
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 1
0 D 22 0 0 1
0A 8 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0C 2 1 0 0
0 D 22 1 1 4
YA 1 0 1 0
0A 7 0 0 2
0 D 22 0 0 1
0‐ 0 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 5
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 N 60 1 0 0
0A 7 0 0 1
0 N 60 1 0 0
0A 1 0 0 4
0‐ 0 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 3
0 D 22 0 0 3
0 D 22 0 0 2
YA 1 0 1 0
380
CASE_ID
7056335
7056415
7056416
7069502
8029411
7105952
7106063
7108595
7108603
7110156
7111897
7120761
7133726
7133730
7140675
7140942
7152148
7164564
7166848
7166864
7167239
7171106
7189425
7190548
7200000
7201544
8006253
8010344
8014457
8016084
8025559
8029407
8519759
8038489
8793388
8041203
8041215
8050002
8070892
8070896
8070955
8073649
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
381
CASE_ID
7056335
7056415
7056416
7069502
8029411
7105952
7106063
7108595
7108603
7110156
7111897
7120761
7133726
7133730
7140675
7140942
7152148
7164564
7166848
7166864
7167239
7171106
7189425
7190548
7200000
7201544
8006253
8010344
8014457
8016084
8025559
8029407
8519759
8038489
8793388
8041203
8041215
8050002
8070892
8070896
8070955
8073649
COUNTY CITY POINT_ X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.888754 38.02071096
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.89301 38.01264679
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8834341 38.01238983
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8724264 38.00851744
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9478436 38.01567547
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8716435 38.0064067
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8739253 37.99797
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8706016 38.00915286
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8802018 38.01994388
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8716447 37.99798
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8914032 38.01167468
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8752193 37.99797917
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8699052 38.00793198
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8911971 38.01220791
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8923151 38.01247939
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8794596 38.00360405
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8963924 37.9981
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8906707 38.01363142
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8929214 38.02469372
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8885924 37.99800552
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8709832 38.00810244
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8980396 38.02355042
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8879687 38.02086887
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8860232 38.01089805
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.860114 37.99802395
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8813211 38.00425074
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.869576 38.007854
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8679635 38.0079093
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9428366 38.01533
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8627504 38.00785625
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8965226 38.00491181
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8765358 38.00934273
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8907583 38.01339699
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.893017 38.00717036
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8655624 38.00836182
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8852752 38.00570089
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8921477 38.00949776
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.866119 38.00839431
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8862653 38.01095736
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8666698 38.0082513
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8835695 37.99798
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.87467 38.02003
382
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT 8595096 2018 43215 708 43148 1002 341 46 6 5
8078906 2016 42563 708 42528 817 229 708 2 5
8078910 2016 42563 708 42528 857 229 0 2 5
8099499 2016 42594 708 42512 2123 335 0 7 5
8099850 2016 42592 708 42523 1513 229 0 4 5
8110302 2016 42613 708 42601 1520 342 0 5 5
8139190 2016 42704 708 42633 808 262 0 2 5
8164609 2016 42683 708 42621 228 315 0 4 5
8167202 2017 43279 708 43061 655 285 0 3 5
8173274 2016 42692 708 42640 18 330 0 2 5
8187768 2016 42732 708 42692 1756 344 0 5 5
8187772 2016 42747 708 42712 817 335 0 4 5
8188301 2016 42717 708 42682 748 229 46 2 5
8188404 2016 42733 708 42650 709 336 708 5 5
8188448 2016 42718 708 42664 1830 340 0 5 5
8191082 2016 42725 708 42705 539 342 0 4 5
8191499 2016 42726 708 42659 148 320 0 7 5
8286600 2016 42766 708 42691 1203 262 0 4 5
8038498 2016 42501 708 42458 1718 P324 0 2 5
8742058 2018 43433 708 43326 707 323 46 2 5
8291007 2017 42769 708 42748 1537 349 46 5 5
8312135 2017 42793 708 42769 2125 329 46 5 5
8314641 2017 42828 708 42753 1848 344 0 3 5
8329688 2017 42823 708 42810 1420 229 0 4 5
8329692 2017 42823 708 42795 1812 318 46 3 5
8337222 2017 42835 708 42808 1040 247 46 2 5
8337325 2017 42829 708 42808 727 247 46 2 5
8361684 2017 42885 708 42856 1704 P10608 708 1 5
8361795 2016 42877 708 42712 1604 348 708 4 5
8365129 2017 42867 708 42833 2152 320 46 6 5
8369967 2017 42886 708 42860 719 10330 708 5 5
8369975 2017 42886 708 42878 719 351 708 2 5
8398382 2017 42919 708 42893 1418 285 0 3 5
8401764 2017 42937 708 42914 955 229 46 3 5
7053811 2015 42270 708 42248 1648 229 0 2 5
8416206 2017 42943 708 42918 1504 342 46 7 5
8873793 2019 6/10/2019 708 5/20/2019 1820 P253 46 1 5
8416634 2017 42947 708 42865 2106 331 46 3 5
8448289 2017 43003 708 42960 158 357 46 7 5
8477533 2017 43047 708 42998 1226 285 0 3 5
8491666 2017 43074 708 43035 729 247 0 5 5
8491770 2017 43089 708 43021 2154 358 0 5 5
383
CASE_ID
8595096
8078906
8078910
8099499
8099850
8110302
8139190
8164609
8167202
8173274
8187768
8187772
8188301
8188404
8188448
8191082
8191499
8286600
8038498
8742058
8291007
8312135
8314641
8329688
8329692
8337222
8337325
8361684
8361795
8365129
8369967
8369975
8398382
8401764
7053811
8416206
8873793
8416634
8448289
8477533
8491666
8491770
POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER 5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
384
CASE_ID
8595096
8078906
8078910
8099499
8099850
8110302
8139190
8164609
8167202
8173274
8187768
8187772
8188301
8188404
8188448
8191082
8191499
8286600
8038498
8742058
8291007
8312135
8314641
8329688
8329692
8337222
8337325
8361684
8361795
8365129
8369967
8369975
8398382
8401764
7053811
8416206
8873793
8416634
8448289
8477533
8491666
8491770
PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION TJKM_Int INTERSECTION COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 4 N Y N 2 0
EAST 17TH ST RAILROAD AV 90 E Y N 4 0
NORTH PARKSIDE DR ROSE ANN AV 15 E Y N 4 0
RAMONA ST MAE AV 25 N Y N 4 0
HARBOR ST STONEMAN AV 214 N Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 167 S Y N 4 0
HARBOR ST VENTURA DR 22 S Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV MARKS BL 45 S Y N 4 0
BAILEY RD KELLEY CANYON LANDFILL 6864 S N N 1 1
CALIFORNIA AV LOVERIDGE RD 827 W N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 86 E Y N 2 0
EAST LELAND RD PIEDMONT WY 327 W N N 3 0
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 2012 E N N 2 0
WEST LELAND RD DELTA VISTA LN 50 W Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD QUERCAS LN 168 E Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD HARBOR ST 865 E N N 4 0
EAST 14TH ST BIRCH ST 24 W Y N 4 0
HARBOR ST STONE HARBOUR DR 24.7 N Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD HARBOR ST 678 W N N 3 0
RAILROAD AV EAST 17TH ST 4 N Y N 2 0
WEST LELAND RD CHESTNUT DR 381 E N N 4 0
KIRKER PASS RD CASTLEWOOD DR 285 N N N 3 0
LOVERIDGE RD BUCHANAN RD 76 N Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD WEST LELAND RD 953 N N N 4 0
ATLANTIC AV RAILROAD AV 325 E N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV YOSEMITE DR 4 N Y N 4 0
ATLANTIC AV HARBOR ST 6 W Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD SUZANNE DR 237 E Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD WEST OF THE SUZANNE DR 384 W N N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD OAK HILLS DR 10 W Y N 4 0
SCHOOL ST SOMERS ST 201 W Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD RAILROAD AV 534 E N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD STONERIDGE DR 246 W Y N 3 0
EAST LELAND RD OUTH ENTRANCE TO WAL‐MAR 16 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CIVIC AV 126 S Y N 3 0
HARBOR ST YOSEMITE DR 340 S N N 3 0
WEST LELAND RD SOUTHWOOD DR 193 E Y N 4 0
HARBOR ST VENTURA DR 105 N Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD COMMERCE PL 439 E N N 4 0
ATLANTIC AV ATLANTIC CIR 6 W Y N 2 0
RAILROAD AV CIVIC AV 125 S Y N 4 0
HARBOR ST STONEMAN AV 562 N N N 2 0
385
CASE_ID
8595096
8078906
8078910
8099499
8099850
8110302
8139190
8164609
8167202
8173274
8187768
8187772
8188301
8188404
8188448
8191082
8191499
8286600
8038498
8742058
8291007
8312135
8314641
8329688
8329692
8337222
8337325
8361684
8361795
8365129
8369967
8369975
8398382
8401764
7053811
8416206
8873793
8416634
8448289
8477533
8491666
8491770
NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUN T PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN 1 2 A 21 22106 0 F
21 B 2 2 0 0 N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 11 21955 0 M
3 4 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 12 22450 A F
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
2 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 12 21453 A N
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
2 2 A 5 21651 A N
1 3 A 4 21703 0 N
1 3 A 4 21703 0 N
1 4 A 4 21703 0 N
1 2 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 10 21950 A F
1 2 A 5 21650 1 N
1 2 A 5 21650 1 N
1 1 A 17 21658 0 N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
11 C 1 8 0 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 2 21654 0 N
1 2 A 12 21453 A N
1 2 A 11 21950 B N
2 5 A 3 22350 0 N
1 3 A 4 21703 0 N
3 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
2 2 A 6 21755 A N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
2 2 A 12 21453 A N
1 2 A 5 21650 1 N
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
2 2 A 10 21950 A N
4 4 A 3 22350 0 N
2 1 A 1 23153 B N
386
CASE_ID
8595096
8078906
8078910
8099499
8099850
8110302
8139190
8164609
8167202
8173274
8187768
8187772
8188301
8188404
8188448
8191082
8191499
8286600
8038498
8742058
8291007
8312135
8314641
8329688
8329692
8337222
8337325
8361684
8361795
8365129
8369967
8369975
8398382
8401764
7053811
8416206
8873793
8416634
8448289
8477533
8491666
8491770
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE GB B A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ AD
CC A A H ‐ A A
BE A A H ‐ DD
GB D A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ CA
DC A B H ‐ A D
DC A A H ‐ C A
EI A A H ‐ CA
EI A B H ‐ AD
AC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ C D
CC A A H ‐ C A
CE A A H ‐ C A
GB B A H ‐ A A
BG A A H ‐ A D
GB B A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ AA
‐I A B H ‐ CA
HA A B H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A A
GB D A H ‐ B A
DC A A H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A B H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A D
DC A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ AA
BC A A H ‐ A A
DG A A H ‐ A D
EI A A H ‐ AA
GB ‐ A H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ A D
FA A A H ‐ C A
GB B A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ CA
387
CASE_ID
8595096
8078906
8078910
8099499
8099850
8110302
8139190
8164609
8167202
8173274
8187768
8187772
8188301
8188404
8188448
8191082
8191499
8286600
8038498
8742058
8291007
8312135
8314641
8329688
8329692
8337222
8337325
8361684
8361795
8365129
8369967
8369975
8398382
8401764
7053811
8416206
8873793
8416634
8448289
8477533
8491666
8491770
CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERT Y 0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 Y Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 Y Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 Y Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 Y 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 Y 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
388
CASE_ID
8595096
8078906
8078910
8099499
8099850
8110302
8139190
8164609
8167202
8173274
8187768
8187772
8188301
8188404
8188448
8191082
8191499
8286600
8038498
8742058
8291007
8312135
8314641
8329688
8329692
8337222
8337325
8361684
8361795
8365129
8369967
8369975
8398382
8401764
7053811
8416206
8873793
8416634
8448289
8477533
8491666
8491770
ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN 0A 1 1 0 0
0A 1 0 0 2
0A 1 0 0 1
YA 1 0 0 1
0 N 60 0 0 1
0 F 26 0 0 3
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 1 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0 D 22 1 0 0
0 F 26 0 1 0
0A 1 1 0 1
0 J 48 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 D 22 0 0 1
YA 1 0 0 1
0 D 22 0 0 1
0L 4 0 1 0
0 N 60 1 0 0
YA 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 1
0 N 60 0 0 1
0 D 22 0 0 1
0 N 60 0 0 1
0 D 22 0 0 2
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 3
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 2
YA 1 0 1 0
0A 7 0 0 2
0L 4 0 1 0
YA 1 0 1 0
A1 0 0 1
YA 1 0 0 1
0C 2 0 0 1
0A 1 1 0 1
0A 1 0 0 4
YA 1 1 1 0
389
CASE_ID
8595096
8078906
8078910
8099499
8099850
8110302
8139190
8164609
8167202
8173274
8187768
8187772
8188301
8188404
8188448
8191082
8191499
8286600
8038498
8742058
8291007
8312135
8314641
8329688
8329692
8337222
8337325
8361684
8361795
8365129
8369967
8369975
8398382
8401764
7053811
8416206
8873793
8416634
8448289
8477533
8491666
8491770
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
390
CASE_ID
8595096
8078906
8078910
8099499
8099850
8110302
8139190
8164609
8167202
8173274
8187768
8187772
8188301
8188404
8188448
8191082
8191499
8286600
8038498
8742058
8291007
8312135
8314641
8329688
8329692
8337222
8337325
8361684
8361795
8365129
8369967
8369975
8398382
8401764
7053811
8416206
8873793
8416634
8448289
8477533
8491666
8491770
COUNTY CITY POINT_ X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8900375 38.01568985
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8871997 38.02200165
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8937183 38.02476535
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8961551 38.00147578
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8851053 38.00504104
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8901505 38.01522968
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8853924 38.00292223
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8955971 38.00055216
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9489288 37.99196894
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8687323 38.01295059
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8635015 37.998
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8760948 38.00925871
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8568164 37.99803001
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9388536 38.01538725
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8907773 37.99806249
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8840477 37.99798317
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.876566 38.02066703
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8819161 38.01771516
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.888368 38.01147156
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8874969 38.02207947
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.934988 38.01546663
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8973089 37.99626819
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8740354 37.99816996
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8696728 38.0105348
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.89155 38.00792777
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8937159 38.0053505
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8871008 38.00830058
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8792675 37.99797586
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8814409 37.99798327
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9443947 38.01532
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8842752 38.02062711
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8894578 38.01172667
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8773869 38.00928303
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8691537 38.00787387
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.888217 38.02021881
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.88705 38.00007263
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9477539 38.01566315
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8852593 38.00325478
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8627336 38.00785279
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8906803 38.00774376
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.888216 38.02022144
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.885422 38.00595388
391
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT 8491774 2017 43083 708 43019 1400 323 46 3 5
8491778 2017 43076 708 43014 2320 341 46 5 5
8038485 2016 42501 708 42482 2011 P317 0 5 5
8491957 2017 43082 708 43048 1356 323 46 4 5
8491961 2017 43082 708 43040 1516 323 46 3 5
8498558 2017 43080 708 43067 1324 285 0 2 5
8498892 2017 43066 708 43048 752 285 0 4 5
8499055 2017 43066 708 42992 1858 320 708 4 5
8518421 2017 43091 708 43069 1621 323 46 4 5
8518429 2017 43091 708 43050 1546 323 46 6 5
8078902 2016 42563 708 42522 1356 229 46 3 5
8533385 2017 43116 708 42873 1837 281 708 4 5
8533432 2017 43117 708 43071 956 323 46 6 5
8533436 2017 43117 708 43086 1045 358 0 7 5
8549591 2017 43147 708 43094 1840 339 708 1 5
8549650 2018 43144 708 43125 751 285 0 4 5
8558198 2018 43283 708 43252 705 264 0 5 5
8564377 2018 43171 708 43141 2230 342 46 6 5
8564385 2018 43171 708 43159 1554 285 0 3 5
8570243 2018 43188 708 43162 1316 328 0 6 5
8574710 2018 43213 708 43129 1817 335 0 1 5
8593843 2018 43206 708 43129 1457 332 46 1 5
8593930 2018 43209 708 43155 1725 341 46 6 5
8410909 2017 42937 708 42906 1748 353 0 2 5
8602024 2018 43235 708 43165 2028 335 0 2 5
8615022 2018 43221 708 43190 1825 348 46 6 5
8615050 2018 43222 708 43204 2030 348 708 6 5
8616874 2018 43235 708 43131 740 262 8204 3 5
8616878 2018 43235 708 43115 1844 348 708 1 5
8625948 2018 43255 708 43224 2035 348 46 5 5
8636098 2018 43271 708 43193 634 341 0 2 5
8636333 2018 43284 708 43235 1100 352 46 2 5
8636635 2018 43271 708 43236 1814 350 46 3 5
8636677 2018 43276 708 43255 1605 342 46 1 5
8640241 2018 43279 708 43242 1054 352 46 2 5
8640263 2018 43276 708 43252 655 358 0 5 5
8645318 2018 43284 708 43246 913 323 46 6 5
8645322 2018 43284 708 43228 2031 350 708 2 5
8645404 2018 43283 708 43252 906 323 46 5 5
8646921 2018 43292 708 43257 1841 342 46 3 5
8648633 2018 43522 708 43358 2207 363 46 6 5
8659001 2018 43297 708 43265 708 352 46 4 5
392
CASE_ID
8491774
8491778
8038485
8491957
8491961
8498558
8498892
8499055
8518421
8518429
8078902
8533385
8533432
8533436
8549591
8549650
8558198
8564377
8564385
8570243
8574710
8593843
8593930
8410909
8602024
8615022
8615050
8616874
8616878
8625948
8636098
8636333
8636635
8636677
8640241
8640263
8645318
8645322
8645404
8646921
8648633
8659001
POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER 5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
393
CASE_ID
8491774
8491778
8038485
8491957
8491961
8498558
8498892
8499055
8518421
8518429
8078902
8533385
8533432
8533436
8549591
8549650
8558198
8564377
8564385
8570243
8574710
8593843
8593930
8410909
8602024
8615022
8615050
8616874
8616878
8625948
8636098
8636333
8636635
8636677
8640241
8640263
8645318
8645322
8645404
8646921
8648633
8659001
PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION TJKM_Int INTERSECTION COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED HARBOR ST VENTURA DR 2 S Y N 3 0
LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 13 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CALIFORNIA AV 19 S Y N 3 0
ATLANTIC AV RAILROAD AV 269 E N N 4 0
HARBOR ST EAST LELAND RD 73 S Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD HARBOR ST 48 W Y N 4 0
LELAND RD HARBOR ST 592 W N N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD BAILEY RD 283 W N N 3 0
BAILEY RD WILLOW AV 7392 S N N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD LOVERIDGE RD 2203 202 S Y N 2 0
RAILROAD AV WEST LELAND RD 222 N Y N 3 0
EAST LELAND RD PIEDMONT WY 1357 W N N 2 0
RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 449 S N N 3 0
RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 112 S Y N 4 0
N PARKSIDE AV BRUNO AV 19 E Y N 3 0
ARMY ST HARBOR ST 9 W Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD MC DERMOTT DR 60 E Y N 4 0
BAILEY RD WILLOW AV 7286 S N N 2 0
BAILEY RD MAYLARD ST 24 S Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD STONERIDGE DR 373 W N N 2 0
BUCHANAN RD HEIGHTS AV 90 E Y N 4 0
HARBOR ST ARMY ST 19 S Y N 3 0
WEST LELAND RD OAK HILLS DR 337 E N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV YOSEMITE DR 223 N Y N 3 0
BLISS AV RAILROAD AV 38 W Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD HARBOR ST 285 W N N 4 0
MADOLINE ST BELL DR 19 E Y N 2 0
CENTRAL AV RAILROAD AV 13 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 519 S N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD RAILROAD AV 241 E Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD SANTA ANA DR 247 W Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD LOVERIDGE CIR 9 W Y N 3 0
BUCHANAN RD VENTURA DR 552 W N N 4 0
ATLANTIC AV RAILROAD AV 265 E N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD LOVERIDGE RD 153 E Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD SANTA ANA DR 106 W Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD HARBOR ST 278 W N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD HOMEWOOD DR 591 E N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD GLADSTONE DR 465 W N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 58 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV ALTURAS AV 57 S Y N 1 2
BUCHANAN RD LOVERIDGE RD 148 E Y N 4 0
394
CASE_ID
8491774
8491778
8038485
8491957
8491961
8498558
8498892
8499055
8518421
8518429
8078902
8533385
8533432
8533436
8549591
8549650
8558198
8564377
8564385
8570243
8574710
8593843
8593930
8410909
8602024
8615022
8615050
8616874
8616878
8625948
8636098
8636333
8636635
8636677
8640241
8640263
8645318
8645322
8645404
8646921
8648633
8659001
NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUN T PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN 1 2 A 5 21650 0 N
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
3 4 A 17 21463 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 F
1 4 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 1 23152 A N
1 4 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 11 21955 0 N
4 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 4 A 3 22350 0 M
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
2 1 A 1 23152 0 N
1 2 A 21 22106 0 N
3 2 A 8 22107 0 N
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
2 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 F
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
12 B 2 2 0 0 N
1 3 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 11 21955 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 3 A 4 21703 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 N
1 2 A 9 21804 A N
2 2 A 6 21755 0 N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
11 C 1 8 0 0 N
1 4 A 4 21703 0 N
0 2 A 3 22350 0 N
2 4 A 6 21755 0 N
395
CASE_ID
8491774
8491778
8038485
8491957
8491961
8498558
8498892
8499055
8518421
8518429
8078902
8533385
8533432
8533436
8549591
8549650
8558198
8564377
8564385
8570243
8574710
8593843
8593930
8410909
8602024
8615022
8615050
8616874
8616878
8625948
8636098
8636333
8636635
8636677
8640241
8640263
8645318
8645322
8645404
8646921
8648633
8659001
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE GG A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ CA
DB F A H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A B H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ AD
CC A A H ‐ A A
GB D A H ‐ A A
FI A A H ‐ AA
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
AI A A H ‐ CA
GB B A H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ A A
EJ A A H ‐ DA
CC A A H ‐ A A
EI A B H ‐ AD
CC A A H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ A D
AC A A H ‐ A D
HG A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ A D
GB D A H ‐ C A
GB B A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A D
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A D
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ C A
EJ A A H ‐ AA
CC A A H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ C D
DC A A H ‐ A A
396
CASE_ID
8491774
8491778
8038485
8491957
8491961
8498558
8498892
8499055
8518421
8518429
8078902
8533385
8533432
8533436
8549591
8549650
8558198
8564377
8564385
8570243
8574710
8593843
8593930
8410909
8602024
8615022
8615050
8616874
8616878
8625948
8636098
8636333
8636635
8636677
8640241
8640263
8645318
8645322
8645404
8646921
8648633
8659001
CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERT Y 00 Y 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 Y 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
397
CASE_ID
8491774
8491778
8038485
8491957
8491961
8498558
8498892
8499055
8518421
8518429
8078902
8533385
8533432
8533436
8549591
8549650
8558198
8564377
8564385
8570243
8574710
8593843
8593930
8410909
8602024
8615022
8615050
8616874
8616878
8625948
8636098
8636333
8636635
8636677
8640241
8640263
8645318
8645322
8645404
8646921
8648633
8659001
ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN 0L 4 0 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 3 0
Y D 22 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
YA 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 1 0
0A 7 0 0 1
YC 2 1 0 0
0 N 60 0 1 0
0A 1 1 2 1
YA 7 0 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 2 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 3
0A 7 1 0 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 2 0 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 N 60 1 0 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 D 22 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0 M 47 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 2
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 0
0A 1 0 0 2
398
CASE_ID
8491774
8491778
8038485
8491957
8491961
8498558
8498892
8499055
8518421
8518429
8078902
8533385
8533432
8533436
8549591
8549650
8558198
8564377
8564385
8570243
8574710
8593843
8593930
8410909
8602024
8615022
8615050
8616874
8616878
8625948
8636098
8636333
8636635
8636677
8640241
8640263
8645318
8645322
8645404
8646921
8648633
8659001
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
02 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
399
CASE_ID
8491774
8491778
8038485
8491957
8491961
8498558
8498892
8499055
8518421
8518429
8078902
8533385
8533432
8533436
8549591
8549650
8558198
8564377
8564385
8570243
8574710
8593843
8593930
8410909
8602024
8615022
8615050
8616874
8616878
8625948
8636098
8636333
8636635
8636677
8640241
8640263
8645318
8645322
8645404
8646921
8648633
8659001
COUNTY CITY POINT_ X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.885372 38.00297475
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8709161 38.00815177
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8891988 38.01741997
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8917353 38.00797384
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8861938 38.01072817
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8862785 38.01096075
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8880836 38.01139964
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9429026 38.01533
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9482252 37.9946951
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG 0 0
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8909853 38.01278564
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8796234 38.0093608
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8903565 38.01447577
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8901141 38.01537799
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8955444 38.02493417
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8819733 38.01765823
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8781052 37.99797058
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9481964 37.99498367
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419708 38.01662445
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8778229 38.0092392
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8885574 37.99800491
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.881958 38.01760101
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9431915 38.01532745
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8934952 38.00592614
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8900375 38.01567841
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8870621 38.01115417
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8945999 38.00621033
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8864899 38.02526093
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8904266 38.01429367
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8904343 38.01194763
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8837662 37.99798203
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8716583 38.00636673
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8701324 37.99798203
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8917465 38.00797653
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8734283 37.99797058
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8832779 37.99797821
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8870392 38.01115036
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8797073 38.00938034
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8675461 38.00801086
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8636017 37.9980011
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8932266 38.00662994
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8734436 37.99797058
400
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT 8667824 2018 43311 708 43270 1633 339 708 2 5
8669355 2018 43328 708 43249 1138 247 0 2 5
8491782 2017 43076 708 43011 656 338 0 2 5
8678146 2018 43348 708 43295 2021 363 708 6 5
8680220 2018 43378 708 43315 2125 359 46 5 5
8680863 2018 43377 708 43292 1357 323 46 3 5
8686405 2018 43343 708 43273 1751 362 708 5 5
8687940 2018 43342 708 43285 2252 331 46 3 5
8692713 2018 43382 708 43347 1850 320 46 2 5
8693013 2018 43371 708 43353 849 305 705 1 5
8693021 2018 43371 708 43344 1720 358 0 6 5
8693139 2018 43371 708 43340 1805 320 46 2 5
8693151 2018 43371 708 43318 1645 342 46 1 5
8693159 2018 43371 708 43327 1200 323 46 3 5
8704785 2018 43385 708 43354 1309 352 46 2 5
8714863 2018 43409 708 43368 2020 341 46 2 5
8732526 2018 43419 708 43403 304 363 708 2 5
8735851 2019 43564 708 43470 2004 348 46 6 5
8801472 2019 43529 708 43507 704 285 46 1 5
8746152 2018 43437 708 43375 1459 323 46 2 5
8746213 2018 43491 708 43412 711 285 46 4 5
8750395 2018 43440 708 43405 2101 277 0 4 5
8416214 2017 42943 708 42927 726 285 0 2 5
8757993 2018 43473 708 43230 2111 332 0 4 5
8758011 2018 43493 708 43439 628 285 46 3 5
8758168 2018 43483 708 43428 1231 341 46 6 5
8758180 2018 43483 708 43432 1512 323 46 3 5
8761628 2018 43487 708 43454 1436 341 46 4 5
8765253 2018 43476 708 43427 10 342 46 5 5
8774491 2018 43491 708 43443 1509 368 46 7 5
8774543 2018 43491 708 43443 1454 328 0 7 5
8774547 2018 43491 708 43442 722 341 46 6 5
8774555 2018 43491 708 43445 1542 323 46 2 5
8774559 2018 43491 708 43437 1831 371 0 1 5
8776048 2018 43482 708 43387 312 348 708 7 5
8791722 2018 43559 708 43352 1334 355 708 7 5
8813150 2019 43535 708 43512 724 323 46 6 5
8958539 2019 43776 708 43716 1304 371 708 7 5
8757989 2018 43493 708 43437 1810 253 46 1 5
8808485 2018 43977 708 43393 412 341 46 6 5
8813130 2019 43535 708 43515 1035 285 46 2 5
8813134 2019 43535 708 43504 1436 355 708 5 5
401
CASE_ID
8667824
8669355
8491782
8678146
8680220
8680863
8686405
8687940
8692713
8693013
8693021
8693139
8693151
8693159
8704785
8714863
8732526
8735851
8801472
8746152
8746213
8750395
8416214
8757993
8758011
8758168
8758180
8761628
8765253
8774491
8774543
8774547
8774555
8774559
8776048
8791722
8813150
8958539
8757989
8808485
8813130
8813134
POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER 5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
402
CASE_ID
8667824
8669355
8491782
8678146
8680220
8680863
8686405
8687940
8692713
8693013
8693021
8693139
8693151
8693159
8704785
8714863
8732526
8735851
8801472
8746152
8746213
8750395
8416214
8757993
8758011
8758168
8758180
8761628
8765253
8774491
8774543
8774547
8774555
8774559
8776048
8791722
8813150
8958539
8757989
8808485
8813130
8813134
PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION TJKM_Int INTERSECTION COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED CALIFORNIA AV LOVERIDGE RD 728 W N N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD BAILEY RD 261 W N N 2 0
RAILROAD AV NORTH PARKSIDE DR 4 S Y N 3 0
EAST LELAND RD FREED WY 20 W Y N 3 0
HANNA ST TURNSTONE CIR 128 E Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD WOODHILL DR 264 E N N 3 0
RAILROAD AV YOSEMITE DR 240 N Y N 4 0
CAROLYN DR CECELIA WY 12 E Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE DR BUCHANAN RD 280 W N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV EAST LELAND RD 412 S N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 1371 E N N 3 0
CASTLEWOOD DR KIRKER PASS RD 20 S Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD LAKEVIEW DR 9 W Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV SCHOOL ST 89 S Y N 3 0
EAST LELAND RD PIEDMONT WY 471 E N N 4 0
LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 486 E N N 3 0
LOVERIDGE RD RT 4 37 S Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 40 N Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV LINSCHEID DR 24 S Y N 3 0
EAST LELAND RD HOMEWOOD DR 48 E Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 1054 E N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV MARKS BL 155 S Y N 2 0
WEST LELAND RD BAILEY RD 260 W N N 4 0
NORTH PARKSIDE DR ROSE ANN AV 26 N Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 2154 E N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD LOVERIDGE RD 153 E Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD ALVES RANCH RD 53 W Y N 4 0
HARBOR ST STONEMAN AV 62 S Y N 4 0
CIVIC AV RAILROAD AV 97 W Y N 4 0
MEADOWBROOK CIR GOLDENLEAF WY 40 S Y N 3 0
BUCHANAN RD MEADOWS AV 682 E N N 4 0
HEATHERWOOD DR LIMEWOOD PL 247 W Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 283 S N N 4 0
NORTH PARK BL LOVERIDGE RD 2112 E N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD STONERIDGE DR 20 W Y N 4 0
ROUNDHILL DR PEPPERRIDGE PL 241 S Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD GLADSTONE DR 3 E Y N 3 0
RAILROAD AV ALVARADO AV 5 N Y N 3 0
WEST LELAND RD OAK HILLS DR 398 W N N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD BUCHANAN CROSSING 1657 W N N 1 1
BUCHANAN RD HARBOR ST 26 E Y N 4 0
HARBOR ST STONEMAN AV 172 N Y N 3 0
403
CASE_ID
8667824
8669355
8491782
8678146
8680220
8680863
8686405
8687940
8692713
8693013
8693021
8693139
8693151
8693159
8704785
8714863
8732526
8735851
8801472
8746152
8746213
8750395
8416214
8757993
8758011
8758168
8758180
8761628
8765253
8774491
8774543
8774547
8774555
8774559
8776048
8791722
8813150
8958539
8757989
8808485
8813130
8813134
NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUN T PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN 1 3 A 1 23152 0 N
4 2 A 9 21804 A N
1 2 A 5 21650 1 F
11 C 1 8 0 0 N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 F
3 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 9 21804 A N
2 2 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 5 21650 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
2 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 M
2 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 7 21658 0 F
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 N
2 2 A 3 22350 0 N
4 2 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
2 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 3 A 9 21801 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
2 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 0 23103 A F
2 2 A 4 21703 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 5 21651 A N
12 ‐ ‐ 0 0 N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 1 23152 B N
1 2 A 10 21950 0 F
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 2 A 12 21453 A N
0 2 A 7 21658 A F
1 2 A 3 22350 0 F
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
404
CASE_ID
8667824
8669355
8491782
8678146
8680220
8680863
8686405
8687940
8692713
8693013
8693021
8693139
8693151
8693159
8704785
8714863
8732526
8735851
8801472
8746152
8746213
8750395
8416214
8757993
8758011
8758168
8758180
8761628
8765253
8774491
8774543
8774547
8774555
8774559
8776048
8791722
8813150
8958539
8757989
8808485
8813130
8813134
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE DC A A H ‐ A ‐
DC A A H ‐ A A
AG A A H ‐ B A
EI A A H ‐ AD
BE F A H ‐ C D
BC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A D
AE A A H ‐ C D
DG A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
EJ A A H ‐ AA
CC A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ AA
HA A A H ‐ A D
CC A A H ‐ A D
GB B A H ‐ C A
EI A A H ‐ CA
BC A B H ‐ C A
GB B A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ C A
GB B A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ C A
CC A B H ‐ D A
DC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
EI A B H ‐ CA
GB E A H ‐ A D
CC A A H ‐ A D
DC A A H ‐ A D
AC A A H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ C D
‐F A A H ‐ CA
BC A A H ‐ A D
GB B B H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ C A
GB E A H ‐ D D
CC A A H ‐ A A
EI A B H ‐ AA
405
CASE_ID
8667824
8669355
8491782
8678146
8680220
8680863
8686405
8687940
8692713
8693013
8693021
8693139
8693151
8693159
8704785
8714863
8732526
8735851
8801472
8746152
8746213
8750395
8416214
8757993
8758011
8758168
8758180
8761628
8765253
8774491
8774543
8774547
8774555
8774559
8776048
8791722
8813150
8958539
8757989
8808485
8813130
8813134
CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERT Y 00 0 0 Y Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 Y 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 Y 0 Y Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
406
CASE_ID
8667824
8669355
8491782
8678146
8680220
8680863
8686405
8687940
8692713
8693013
8693021
8693139
8693151
8693159
8704785
8714863
8732526
8735851
8801472
8746152
8746213
8750395
8416214
8757993
8758011
8758168
8758180
8761628
8765253
8774491
8774543
8774547
8774555
8774559
8776048
8791722
8813150
8958539
8757989
8808485
8813130
8813134
ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN YA 7 0 0 1
0A 1 3 1 0
Y D 22 0 1 0
0 ‐ ‐ 0 1 0
0A 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 2
0 D 22 0 0 1
YA 1 0 0 2
0L 4 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 1 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 2
YA 1 0 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 8 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 2
YA 1 1 0 3
0A 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 2
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 2
YA 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 8 0 0 2
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
Y D 22 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 1 0 1 0
0 D 22 0 0 1
Y D 22 0 0 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
407
CASE_ID
8667824
8669355
8491782
8678146
8680220
8680863
8686405
8687940
8692713
8693013
8693021
8693139
8693151
8693159
8704785
8714863
8732526
8735851
8801472
8746152
8746213
8750395
8416214
8757993
8758011
8758168
8758180
8761628
8765253
8774491
8774543
8774547
8774555
8774559
8776048
8791722
8813150
8958539
8757989
8808485
8813130
8813134
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
10 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
408
CASE_ID
8667824
8669355
8491782
8678146
8680220
8680863
8686405
8687940
8692713
8693013
8693021
8693139
8693151
8693159
8704785
8714863
8732526
8735851
8801472
8746152
8746213
8750395
8416214
8757993
8758011
8758168
8758180
8761628
8765253
8774491
8774543
8774547
8774555
8774559
8776048
8791722
8813150
8958539
8757989
8808485
8813130
8813134
COUNTY CITY POINT_ X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8683929 38.01296616
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9428253 38.01533127
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8871335 38.02372938
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8816833 38.00998688
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.878212 38.00941849
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9510727 38.01622772
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8934784 38.00597
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8940964 38.0136795
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.874054 37.99872971
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8916168 38.01111603
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8590393 37.99803162
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8974075 37.99549103
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8595276 38.00846481
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.887825 38.02124786
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8734131 38.00876236
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.869339 38.00779343
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.867775 38.01171494
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8710938 38.00819397
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8944092 38.00352859
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8815079 38.00982285
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8601379 37.99802399
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8957138 38.00026321
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9428227 38.01533
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8938599 38.02478027
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8563232 37.99803162
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8734283 37.99797058
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9554214 38.0177536
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8849335 38.00429916
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8884125 38.02062988
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8808289 38.00214386
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8614349 37.99801254
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8606186 37.99887466
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8902054 38.01491547
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.859024 38.01015091
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8766098 38.00936127
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8672485 38.00008392
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8660126 38.00842285
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8919983 38.00990295
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9457397 38.01536942
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8964996 37.99810028
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8869629 37.99798965
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8850784 38.00492859
409
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT 8813138 2019 43560 708 43504 734 372 46 5 5
8962897 2019 43766 708 43726 1120 355 708 3 5
8832281 2019 43567 708 43518 1013 355 708 5 5
8833905 2019 43571 708 43539 1328 355 708 5 5
8835128 2019 43564 708 43500 712 323 46 1 5
8835195 2019 43560 708 43536 629 285 46 2 5
8851582 2019 43588 708 43536 747 323 46 2 5
8851586 2019 43588 708 43541 252 368 708 7 5
8853966 2019 43598 708 43525 2243 348 705 5 5
8854176 2019 43593 708 43553 619 371 46 5 5
8873557 2019 43627 708 43606 818 350 46 2 5
8873835 2019 43627 708 43588 1629 355 708 5 5
8878949 2019 43641 708 43616 1712 350 46 5 5
8878957 2019 43642 708 43594 1500 307 0 4 5
8879348 2019 43637 708 43607 1338 323 46 3 5
8879352 2019 43637 708 43615 1527 350 46 4 5
8886489 2019 43663 708 43622 1927 262 0 4 5
8892628 2019 43676 708 43654 1800 262 0 1 5
8892681 2019 43670 708 43630 1344 369 0 5 5
8892685 2019 43682 708 43635 1411 323 46 3 5
8907879 2019 43696 708 43661 102 358 0 1 5
8914641 2019 43690 708 43639 2121 P379 0 7 5
8914746 2019 43691 708 43657 1411 323 46 4 5
8914750 2019 43691 708 43657 854 357 708 4 5
8921426 2019 43726 708 43687 652 357 7080 6 5
8921888 2019 43704 708 43656 1144 247 8115 3 5
8671122 2018 43384 708 43301 30 262 0 5 5
8935329 2019 43733 708 43696 1442 323 46 1 5
8935804 2019 43727 708 43694 1315 368 708 6 5
8957654 2019 43768 708 43691 2135 372 0 3 5
8957662 2019 43768 708 43703 630 368 708 1 5
8925833 2019 43714 708 43668 1816 335 0 1 5
8961476 2019 43773 708 43713 1030 355 708 4 5
8961488 2019 43773 708 43718 732 285 46 2 5
8962893 2019 43766 708 43733 1706 369 0 3 5
8498557 2017 12/8/2017 708 11/20/2017 1503 285 1 5
8972660 2019 43784 708 43744 1328 370 46 7 5
8973107 2019 43788 708 43728 2026 348 708 5 5
8973210 2019 43788 708 43733 1454 323 46 3 5
8973214 2019 43783 708 43739 539 331 46 2 5
8973556 2019 43781 708 43738 728 323 46 1 5
8973560 2019 43781 708 43738 1644 378 46 1 5
410
CASE_ID
8813138
8962897
8832281
8833905
8835128
8835195
8851582
8851586
8853966
8854176
8873557
8873835
8878949
8878957
8879348
8879352
8886489
8892628
8892681
8892685
8907879
8914641
8914746
8914750
8921426
8921888
8671122
8935329
8935804
8957654
8957662
8925833
8961476
8961488
8962893
8498557
8972660
8973107
8973210
8973214
8973556
8973560
POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER 5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
411
CASE_ID
8813138
8962897
8832281
8833905
8835128
8835195
8851582
8851586
8853966
8854176
8873557
8873835
8878949
8878957
8879348
8879352
8886489
8892628
8892681
8892685
8907879
8914641
8914746
8914750
8921426
8921888
8671122
8935329
8935804
8957654
8957662
8925833
8961476
8961488
8962893
8498557
8972660
8973107
8973210
8973214
8973556
8973560
PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION TJKM_Int INTERSECTION COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED LOVERIDGE RD EAST LELAND RD 792 N N N 4 0
E LELAND ROAD RAILROAD AV 10 E Y N 3 0
LOVERIDGE RD EAST LELAND RD 140 S Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD RAILROAD AV 299 E N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD LAKEVIEW DR 201 W Y N 2 0
BUCHANAN RD SUZANNE DR 230 E Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD ALVES RANCH RD 5 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CENTRAL AV 506 S N N 2 0
EAST LELAND RD LOS MEDANOS RD 517 W N N 4 0
DIOKNO CT GLADSTONE DR 95 E Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD HARBOR ST 80 W Y N 3 0
LOVERIDGE RD EAST LELAND RD 169 S Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD QUERCUS LN 34 W Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD FREED WY 10 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CENTER DR 256 N N N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD LELAND RD 338 N N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CENTRAL AV 59 W Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CENTER DR 19 S Y N 3 0
RAILROAD AV EAST LELAND RD 68 S Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD EAST LELAND RD 5 S Y N 3 0
MARKS BL SEENO AV 294 W N N 3 0
NORTH PARKSIDE DR WARREN WY 47 E Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 166 E Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD VENTURA RD 4 W Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 131 N Y N 3 0
NORTH PARKSIDE DR ROSE ANN AV 6 W Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CIVIC AV 162 S Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD SUZANNE DR 261 E N N 3 0
RAILROAD AV ATLANTIC AV 254 S N N 2 0
LOVERIDGE RD LELAND RD 641 S N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV ALVARADO AV 3 S Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CALIFORNIA AV 22 N Y N 4 0
CALIFORNIA AV RAILROAD AV 4 E Y N 3 0
WEST LELAND RD CHESTNUT DR 125 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV SIERRA DR 7 N Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD PIEDMONT WY 23 E Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV ATLANTIC AV 71 S Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 810 W N N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD LOVERIDGE RD 674 W N N 4 0
RAILROAD AV BLISS AV 828 S N N 4 0
BAILEY RD MAYLARD ST 38 S Y N 4 0
BUCHANAN RD SANTA ANA DR 270 W N N 4 0
412
CASE_ID
8813138
8962897
8832281
8833905
8835128
8835195
8851582
8851586
8853966
8854176
8873557
8873835
8878949
8878957
8879348
8879352
8886489
8892628
8892681
8892685
8907879
8914641
8914746
8914750
8921426
8921888
8671122
8935329
8935804
8957654
8957662
8925833
8961476
8961488
8962893
8498557
8972660
8973107
8973210
8973214
8973556
8973560
NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUN T PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN 11 C 1 8 0 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 A F
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
3 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 N
1 1 A 1 23152 A N
1 2 A 4 21703 0 F
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
2 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 3 A 4 21703 0 N
4 3 A 3 22350 0 N
2 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
4 2 A 8 22107 0 N
2 2 A 3 22350 0 N
2 2 A 3 22350 0 F
2 3 A 10 21950 A N
1 4 A 1 23152 A N
2 3 A 1 23153 A M
1 2 A 21 22106 0 N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 11 21954 A F
2 4 A 3 22350 0 N
2 3 A 3 22350 0 N
2 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 9 21804 A N
1 2 A 10 21950 A N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 12 21453 A N
1 3 A 3 22350 0 F
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 9 21801 A N
1 2 A 12 21453 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
413
CASE_ID
8813138
8962897
8832281
8833905
8835128
8835195
8851582
8851586
8853966
8854176
8873557
8873835
8878949
8878957
8879348
8879352
8886489
8892628
8892681
8892685
8907879
8914641
8914746
8914750
8921426
8921888
8671122
8935329
8935804
8957654
8957662
8925833
8961476
8961488
8962893
8498557
8972660
8973107
8973210
8973214
8973556
8973560
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE EI A B H ‐ AA
GB B A H ‐ A A
GI A A H ‐ AA
DC A A H ‐ A A
EJ A B H ‐ AA
CC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A A
EI A A H ‐ CD
CC A A H ‐ C A
EI A B H ‐ BD
EI A A H ‐ AA
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
BC A A H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ A A
AE A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ C A
DC A A H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ A A
BI A A H ‐ AA
FA A A H ‐ A D
GB D A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A D
EI A A H ‐ CA
DC A A H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ A A
GB B A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CG A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ A A
D‐ A A H ‐ C A
AC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A D
414
CASE_ID
8813138
8962897
8832281
8833905
8835128
8835195
8851582
8851586
8853966
8854176
8873557
8873835
8878949
8878957
8879348
8879352
8886489
8892628
8892681
8892685
8907879
8914641
8914746
8914750
8921426
8921888
8671122
8935329
8935804
8957654
8957662
8925833
8961476
8961488
8962893
8498557
8972660
8973107
8973210
8973214
8973556
8973560
CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERT Y 00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
0Y 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
0Y Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 Y Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
415
CASE_ID
8813138
8962897
8832281
8833905
8835128
8835195
8851582
8851586
8853966
8854176
8873557
8873835
8878949
8878957
8879348
8879352
8886489
8892628
8892681
8892685
8907879
8914641
8914746
8914750
8921426
8921888
8671122
8935329
8935804
8957654
8957662
8925833
8961476
8961488
8962893
8498557
8972660
8973107
8973210
8973214
8973556
8973560
ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN 0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 1
0 ‐ 99 0 1 0
0 D 22 0 0 1
0C 2 0 0 1
YA 1 3 0 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 1
YA 1 1 0 0
0 D 22 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 1
0A 8 0 0 1
0A 8 0 0 4
0 I 20 0 0 2
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 4
0A 7 0 1 1
0C 2 0 0 2
0A 1 0 2 0
YA 1 0 1 0
YA 7 0 0 2
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 D 22 0 1 0
0C 2 0 0 1
Y N 60 0 0 1
0A 7 0 2 0
0A 1 1 0 1
0A 7 0 0 2
0A 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 0
0A 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
A1 0 0 1
0 ‐ 99 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 ‐ ‐ 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
416
CASE_ID
8813138
8962897
8832281
8833905
8835128
8835195
8851582
8851586
8853966
8854176
8873557
8873835
8878949
8878957
8879348
8879352
8886489
8892628
8892681
8892685
8907879
8914641
8914746
8914750
8921426
8921888
8671122
8935329
8935804
8957654
8957662
8925833
8961476
8961488
8962893
8498557
8972660
8973107
8973210
8973214
8973556
8973560
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
02 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
01 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
417
CASE_ID
8813138
8962897
8832281
8833905
8835128
8835195
8851582
8851586
8853966
8854176
8873557
8873835
8878949
8878957
8879348
8879352
8886489
8892628
8892681
8892685
8907879
8914641
8914746
8914750
8921426
8921888
8671122
8935329
8935804
8957654
8957662
8925833
8961476
8961488
8962893
8498557
8972660
8973107
8973210
8973214
8973556
8973560
COUNTY CITY POINT_ X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8700256 38.01019287
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8911743 38.01218414
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.871109 38.00779343
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8902435 38.01190186
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8601761 38.0083313
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8792953 37.9979744
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9552231 38.01771545
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8869247 38.02399445
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8643417 38.0083313
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8662643 38.00630569
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8873291 37.99799347
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8711395 38.00771713
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8914795 37.99808121
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8815842 38.00996017
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8886032 38.01922226
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.870636 38.00905228
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8865891 38.02511597
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8888855 38.01850128
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8912659 38.01202011
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8709641 38.00814819
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8988342 38.00072861
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8963699 38.02500534
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8704071 38.00804138
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8682327 37.9980011
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8899307 38.01602936
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8937912 38.02477264
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8882523 38.02012253
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8791809 37.9979744
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8928757 38.00754166
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8716125 38.00647736
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8920059 38.00988388
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8891525 38.01752853
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8891678 38.0174675
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9358749 38.01543808
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.895401 38.00100708
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8748938 38.0091311
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8926926 38.00802231
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.873642 38.00881958
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8731918 38.00871277
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8907318 38.01347733
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419632 38.0165863
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8838501 37.99798203
418
CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME OFFICER_ID REPORTING_DISTRIC T DAY_OF_WEEK CHP_SHIFT 8973564 2019 43781 708 43732 29 379 0 2 5
8973600 2019 43784 708 43747 2 338 0 3 5
8973764 2019 43784 708 43750 2236 367 0 6 5
8979023 2019 43872 708 43743 1300 375 0 6 5
8980836 2019 43820 708 43755 1524 355 708 4 5
8991217 2019 43853 708 43799 1434 350 46 6 5
8991370 2019 43858 708 43796 1748 253 46 3 5
8991374 2019 43858 708 43795 1153 323 46 2 5
8991382 2019 43858 708 43782 1656 355 708 3 5
8991390 2019 43858 708 43781 1625 355 708 2 5
8992917 2019 43846 708 43781 1041 285 46 2 5
8995582 2019 43837 708 43792 203 359 0 6 5
90038930 2015 42304 9320 42289 745 18042 0 1 1
9019438 2019 43868 708 43809 1558 323 46 2 5
9031398 2019 43861 708 43820 1432 346 46 6 5
90352008 2016 42731 9320 42720 1400 21433 0 5 2
9054670 2019 43899 708 43821 330 359 46 7 5
90599545 2017 43060 9320 43055 810 20026 0 4 1
90606236 2017 43069 9320 43061 1510 20981 0 3 2
90686741 2017 43199 9320 43015 2214 21440 0 6 3
90747727 2018 43264 9320 43252 705 22013 0 5 1
91095618 2019 43749 9320 43744 2300 22049 0 7 3
419
CASE_ID
8973564
8973600
8973764
8979023
8980836
8991217
8991370
8991374
8991382
8991390
8992917
8995582
90038930
9019438
9031398
90352008
9054670
90599545
90606236
90686741
90747727
91095618
POPULATION CNTY_CITY_LOC SPECIAL_COND BEAT_TYPE CHP_BEAT_TYPE CITY_DIVISION_LAPD CHP_BEAT_CLASS BEAT_NUMBER 5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 4
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 0P1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 3
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 708 0 2 S 0 2 901
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 5
5 708 0 1 3 0 2 403
5 708 0 0 0 0 0 2
5 708 1 4 S 0 2 901
5 708 0 2 S 0 2 901
5 708 0 2 4 0 2 72
5 708 0 2 S 0 2 901
5 708 0 2 4 0 2 72
420
CASE_ID
8973564
8973600
8973764
8979023
8980836
8991217
8991370
8991374
8991382
8991390
8992917
8995582
90038930
9019438
9031398
90352008
9054670
90599545
90606236
90686741
90747727
91095618
PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION TJKM_Int INTERSECTION COLLISION_SEVERITY NUMBER_KILLED WEST LELAND RD RAILROAD AV 1 N Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV CALIFORNIA AV 18 N Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV YOSEMITE DR 114 S Y N 4 0
STONEMAN AV LUAU DR 101 E Y N 3 0
RAILROAD AV CENTER DR 172 N Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD STONERIDGE DR 136 W Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD STONERIDGE DR 417 W N N 2 0
CALIFORNIA AV CHEVRON DR 73 E Y N 4 0
WEST LELAND RD SOUTHWOOD DR 697 E N N 3 0
NORTH PARKSIDE DR WARREN WY 16 E Y N 2 0
HARBOR ST EAST LELAND RD 29 N Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV VICTORY AV 6 S Y N 3 0
E. LELAND RD E/B WALMART ST 25 W Y N 4 0
LOVERIDGE RD STONEMAN APT ENTRANCE 23 S Y N 4 0
LELAND RD FREED AV 575 E N N 4 0
/B FROM RAILROAD AVE. S/B ON RAILROAD AVE 30 W Y N 4 0
RAILROAD AV OAK PL 112 N Y N 4 0
EAST LELAND RD HARBOR ST 100 E Y N 4 0
N PARKSIDE DRIVE SOUTH AVENUE 400 N N N 3 0
BAILEY RD MYRTLE DR 9504 N N N 1 1
BUCHANAN RD MCDERMOTT DR 65 E Y N 4 0
BAILEY RD SR‐4 575 S N N 4 0
421
CASE_ID
8973564
8973600
8973764
8979023
8980836
8991217
8991370
8991374
8991382
8991390
8992917
8995582
90038930
9019438
9031398
90352008
9054670
90599545
90606236
90686741
90747727
91095618
NUMBER_INJURED PARTY_COUN T PRIMARY_COLL_FACTOR PCF_VIOL_CATEGORY PCF_VIOLATION PCF_VIOL_SUBSECTION HIT_AND_RUN 1 2 A 5 21650 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 F
1 2 A 21 22106 0 N
11 C 1 8 0 0 N
2 3 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 8 22107 0 N
1 2 A 21 22106 0 N
3 2 A 12 21453 A N
1 1 A 3 22350 0 N
1 1 A 1 23152 A N
2 2 A 1 23153 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
1 2 A 9 21800 0 N
1 2 A 9 21804 A N
1 2 A 21 22106 0 N
1 1 A 1 23152 A N
4 2 A 21 22106 0 N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 N
4 2 A 5 21460 A N
1 2 A 7 21658 A N
1 2 A 3 22350 0 M
422
CASE_ID
8973564
8973600
8973764
8979023
8980836
8991217
8991370
8991374
8991382
8991390
8992917
8995582
90038930
9019438
9031398
90352008
9054670
90599545
90606236
90686741
90747727
91095618
TYPE_OF_COLLISION MVIW PED_ACTION ROAD_SURFACE ROAD_COND_1 ROAD_COND_2 LIGHTING CONTROL_DEVICE DC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ C A
CC A A H ‐ C A
EI A A H ‐ AA
CC A A H ‐ A A
EI A B H ‐ AA
EJ A B H ‐ CD
CC A B H ‐ A A
DC A A H ‐ B A
EI A A H ‐ AA
EI A A H ‐ AA
AF A A H ‐ C D
CC A A H ‐ A A
HG A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A A
CC A A H ‐ A D
EI A A H ‐ CD
CC A B H ‐ A D
EI A A H ‐ AD
AC A A H ‐ D D
BC A A H ‐ A D
CC A A H ‐ C A
423
CASE_ID
8973564
8973600
8973764
8979023
8980836
8991217
8991370
8991374
8991382
8991390
8992917
8995582
90038930
9019438
9031398
90352008
9054670
90599545
90606236
90686741
90747727
91095618
CHP_ROAD_TYPE PEDESTRIAN_ACCIDENT BICYCLE_ACCIDENT MOTORCYCLE_ACCIDENT TRUCK_ACCIDENT NOT_PRIVATE_PROPERT Y 00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 Y Y
00 Y 0 0 Y
00 0 Y 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
00 0 0 0 Y
424
CASE_ID
8973564
8973600
8973764
8979023
8980836
8991217
8991370
8991374
8991382
8991390
8992917
8995582
90038930
9019438
9031398
90352008
9054670
90599545
90606236
90686741
90747727
91095618
ALCOHOL_INVOLVED STWD_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT CHP_VEHTYPE_AT_FAULT COUNT_SEVERE_INJ COUNT_VISIBLE_INJ COUNT_COMPLAINT_PAIN 0C 3 0 0 1
YA 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 ‐ ‐ 0 1 0
0A 8 0 0 2
0 D 22 0 0 1
0A 1 1 0 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 1 0 1 2
0C 2 1 0 0
YA 7 0 0 1
Y D 22 0 2 0
0 F 26 0 0 1
0L 4 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0A 7 0 0 1
0A 1 0 0 1
0 H 13 0 0 4
0A 1 0 1 0
0 D 22 3 1 0
0A 1 0 0 1
0 ‐ 99 0 0 1
425
CASE_ID
8973564
8973600
8973764
8979023
8980836
8991217
8991370
8991374
8991382
8991390
8992917
8995582
90038930
9019438
9031398
90352008
9054670
90599545
90606236
90686741
90747727
91095618
COUNT_PED_KILLED COUNT_PED_INJURED COUNT_BICYCLIST_KILLED COUNT_BICYCLIST_INJURED COUNT_MC_KILLED COUNT_MC_INJURED 00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 1 0 0
00 0 0 0 1
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
00 0 0 0 0
426
CASE_ID
8973564
8973600
8973764
8979023
8980836
8991217
8991370
8991374
8991382
8991390
8992917
8995582
90038930
9019438
9031398
90352008
9054670
90599545
90606236
90686741
90747727
91095618
COUNTY CITY POINT_ X POINT_Y
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8912048 38.0121994
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8893051 38.01712418
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.893837 38.00504303
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8825226 38.00400925
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8886871 38.01900101
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8770065 38.00932312
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8779755 38.0092392
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.869072 38.01294708
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9460297 38.01540375
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8964767 38.02501678
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8860931 38.01099777
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8884888 38.01953506
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8693566 38.00779426
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8718262 38.00551987
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.879715 38.00950623
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8896297 38.01714392
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8878632 38.02113342
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8857863 38.01084431
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8869116 38.02364687
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9489766 37.99170415
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.8780823 37.99797058
CONTRA COSTA PITTSBURG ‐121.9419479 38.01716232
427
APPENDIX D:

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY

MANUAL (LRSM) EXCERPT
428

3/30/2018 Local Roadway Safety - (Version 1.4)
Version 1.6
April 2022
429

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Future Updates:

In the future, Caltrans anticipates that additional changes will be needed to keep the Local Roadway Safety Manual consistent with future Calls-for-Projects’ Guidelines and Application Instructions. In addition, new local HSIP programs, improvements to California data on local roadways, data analysis tools, and the latest safety research and methodologies may give rise to the need to make more significant changes to this manual. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | i 430

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Evaluation of Improvements ...............................................................................................................42 Appendix A: HSIP Call-for
-Projects Process ................................................................................................43 Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures .....................................................................................44 B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized ...............................................................................47 S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) ............................................................................................. 47 S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number .................. 47 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) ..................................................................... 48 S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems....................................................................................................... 49 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | ii 431

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

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

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

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

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

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

R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing......................................................................................................................... 75 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | iii 432

R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes .................................................................................................................... 76 R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) ......................................................................................................................... 76 R13, Add two-way left-turn lane ........................................................................................................................................ 77 R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) ........................................................ 77 R15, Widen shoulder........................................................................................................................................................... 78 R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) ................................................................................................................. 78 R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) ........................................................................................................ 79 R18, Flatten crest vertical curve......................................................................................................................................... 80 R19, Improve curve superelevation................................................................................................................................... 80 R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic................................................................................................................. 81 R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................ 81 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) .................................................... 82 R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves ............................................................................................................... 83 R24, Install curve advance warning signs.......................................................................................................................... 83 R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) ........................................................................................... 84 R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs......................................................................................................... 84 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers .............................................................................................. 85 R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines .............................................................................................................................. 86 R29, Install no-passing line................................................................................................................................................. 87 R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes .................................................................................................................... 87 R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes....................................................................................................................... 88 R32PB, Install bike lanes..................................................................................................................................................... 88 R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................. 89 R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) ............................................................................ 89 R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) .............................................................. 90 R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing ......................................................................................................................... 91 R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)............................................................................................. 91 R38, Install Animal Fencing ................................................................................................................................................ 92 Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”...................................................................................93 Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations.....................................................................................97 Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS ..............................98 Appendix F: List of Abbreviations ...............................................................................................................99 Appendix G: References............................................................................................................................100 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | iv 433

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

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

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

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

With FHWA’s and SafeTREC’s support and expertise, Caltrans was able to expedite the completion of this manual and can now offer California’s local agencies a new tool intended to provide focused roadway safety information in one manual.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 1 434

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

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

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

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

This manual is not intended to cover many of the day-to-day basics of traffic engineering including:
maintain standard signage per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; maintain sight distance (cut vegetation, remove parking); maintain a recovery zone; work with local traffic law enforcement; monitor collisions; address complaints; and manage litigation. These activities are understood to be critical elements of a local agency’s traffic engineering responsibilities, but are not within the intended scope of this document.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 2 435

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

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

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

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

FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation’s roads. The Safe System approach addresses the safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. It involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 3 436

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

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

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

Caltrans’ administration of these programs encompasses many responsibilities, including: establishing program guidance; reviewing applications for improvements on local roadways; ranking applications/projects on a statewide basis; selecting projects for funding based on the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and injuries; programming the selected projects in the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP); and assisting with programming and delivery issues throughout the delivery of the local agency projects. One goal for developing this document is to improve Caltrans’ overall data-driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and to maximize the long-term safety improvements across California. To show the relationship between Caltrans’ project selection process and this manual, a diagram showing the HSIP Call-for-Projects Process is provided in Appendix A.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 4 437

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

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

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

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

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

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

These statistics demonstrate the large and complex safety issues facing California. Through the development of this document, Caltrans is striving to help local agencies proactively identify high risk roadway features, roadway network locations/corridors with the highest safety needs, and encourage them to select effective low-cost improvements, whenever appropriate. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 5 438

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

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

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

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

Proactive Approach
An agency is considered to be using a proactive approach to roadway safety if they go beyond the elements of a reactive approach and identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of their entire roadway network, in one of the following ways:
• One-time, network-wide safety analysis of their roadways driven by new source of funding. • Routine safety analyses of the roadway network (Preferred Approach!) Agencies with a proactive approach utilize both systemic and spot location improvements (as defined in section 1.5 below). Applying improvements systemically across an entire corridor or network allows an agency to proactively address locations that have not had crash concentrations in the past, but have 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 6 439

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

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

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

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

Benefits of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Widespread effect. The Systemic Approach addresses safety issues at a large number of locations or on an entire local roadway network. It can also generate projects that combine HCCLs and locations with the potential for crashes and still have high Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratios. An example of this type of project could be upgrading pavement delineation and warning signs along a rural corridor:
crashes may not have occurred on every curve or segment along the corridor, but all of the corridor’s pavement delineation and warning signs can be upgraded at one time. For urban applications, an example could be protecting the left-turn phase of signalized intersections with 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 7 440

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

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

Spot Location Approach
The Spot Location Approach is typically based on an analysis of crash history to identify locations that have significantly higher crashes and treat them accordingly. It is important to practitioners to 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 8 441

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

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

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

The Spot Location Approach to traffic safety is ideally implemented along with the Systemic Approach to provide the best combination of safety treatments. For instance, the Spot Location Approach can be applied at locations where low-cost countermeasures are not expected to be effective in significantly 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 9 442

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

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

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

By utilizing this simple framework for identifying, analyzing and implementing a proactive approach for improving safety on their roadways, practitioners will have a better understanding of their agencies’ unique safety issues, the proven low-cost countermeasures that can reduce crashes, and the existing and future funding to implement the projects. This small investment of time will help local agencies achieve significant reductions in future fatalities, injuries and overall crashes. We believe these local agencies may also gain the added unexpected benefit of improved job satisfaction of those involved, as there are few more rewarding tasks than knowing that your efforts will result in future roadway users arriving safely at their destination instead of becoming statistics. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 10 443

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

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

The proactive safety analysis framework incorporated in this document is summarized in Figure 1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 11 444

Figure 1
Calculate the Project’s B/C Ratio
-HSIP Analyzer -Locally preferred methods -HSM methodology 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 12 445

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appendix C includes a summary of “recommended actions” involved in a proactive safety analysis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 13 446

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

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

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

Appendix G presents a list of references.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 14 447

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

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

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

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

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

Due to the randomness of crashes in a given year, a multi-year average of safety data will smooth outlier years of relatively high or low roadway crash rates. This concept is commonly referred to as “regression to the mean” and is critical in helping safety practitioners avoid making wrong inferences as they analyze their roadway network data. An example of this is an agency making a high-cost improvement at 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 15 448

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

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

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

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

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

Many agencies utilize one of several crash analysis software packages (e.g., Crossroads) to manage and access their crash records. Their use can be costly, but allows local road practitioners to identify locations with multiple roadway crashes, conduct an analysis that can produce predominant crash types, and identify associated roadway features that may have contributed. One drawback to agencies managing and updating their own individual databases is that the statewide database may become outdated and may not include the updated crash details like geo-coded locations. Agencies that manage and update their own individual databases are encouraged to share all updates, including any geo- coding information, with the SWITRS data managers at the California Highway Patrol. This will allow updated geo-coding and other crash features to be available on a statewide basis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 16 449

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

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

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

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

Speed of Travel?
General WB:

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

PM 7.1
Jan 5, 2011
Input from law
enforcement
Stop Sign missing N/A N/A N/A J. Smith
1/5/11
Informed
Maintenance
New sign
1/5/11
An example of a pin-map, which could be modified to capture much of the data gathered in Section 2, is shown in the following section as part of the TIMS output. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 17 450

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

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

Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency’s data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or purchased software applications) can help the safety practitioner complete or assist with each of the actions in Sections 2.1 through 2.8. This website includes several tutorials specifically designed to support the individual sections of this document. Local practitioners may find the TIMS output files as a great starting point to build their tracking spreadsheet discussed in the recommendation of Section 2.1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 18 451

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

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

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

2.4 Observational Information
Law enforcement officers, local agency maintenance crews, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can serve as valuable resources to identify problem areas. Since they travel extensively on local roads, they can continuously monitor roads for actual or potential problems (e.g., poor delineation, fixed objects near the roadway, missing signs, signs of vehicles leaving the road). Law enforcement observations of driver behavior and roadway elements can provide valuable information to the local road agency. Additionally, law enforcement officers are sometimes aware of problem areas based on citations written, even if crashes related to the violations have not yet occurred. Road maintenance crews may keep logs of their work, including sign and guardrail replacements, debris removal, and edge drop-off repairs. These logs can provide supplemental information about crashes and HCCLs that may not have been reported to law enforcement. Finally, Emergency Medical Service Crash Reports can provide an entirely different perspectives and set of observations relating to crash occurrences. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 19 452

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

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

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

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

2.6 Roadway Data and Devices
It is also valuable to obtain information about the existing roadway infrastructure. Currently, many local agencies have few of their roadway characteristics in a database. For these agencies, the establishment of a roadway database could be a long-term goal. The following roadway characteristics are often used to assist practitioners in safety analyses of roadway segments:
• Roadway surface (dirt, aggregate, asphalt, concrete)
• Roadway geometry (horizontal, vertical, flat)
• Lane information (number, width)
• Shoulder information (width, type)
• Median (type, width)
• Traffic control devices present (signs, pavement marking, signals, rumble stripes etc.) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 20 453

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

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

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

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

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

The most common type of exposure data used on roadway segments is traffic volume. Ideally, volume would be broken down by pedestrians, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, and large trucks. A count of the number of vehicles and non-motorized users can provide information for comparison. For example, if 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 21 454

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identify the most appropriate countermeasures. It’s recommended that local agencies develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken. The information gathered during the assessments should be added to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet, as discussed in section 2.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 22 455

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

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

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

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

The practitioner should analyze the data to identify locations and crash characteristics with the highest frequency. There are numerous methods to assist practitioners in this process. Each agency will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples of the methods used to determine Crash Frequency:
• Summarize the crashes by attributes such as type, severity and location to identify patterns in the crash data and the most significant problem locations.
o Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments. It is common to weight more severe crashes higher in this process.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 23 456

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

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

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

Crash Rate
Crash rate analysis can be a useful tool to determine how a specific roadway or segment compares with similar roadway types on the network. A simple count of the number of crashes can be inadequate when comparing multiple roadways of varying lengths and/or traffic volume. Local agencies are also encouraged to compare their crashes with those occurring in similar areas around the state; doing so will help in determining just how severe the number and types of crashes are in the local area. When working with limited budgets, Crash Rates are often used to prioritize locations for safety improvements that will achieve the greatest safety benefits with limited resources. Where traffic volume data is unavailable, other information can be used to provide exposure information. One often-used factor is the length of the roadway segment on each route studied. Comparing the number of roadway crashes per mile or per intersection can help an agency identify potential opportunities to improve safety. The FHWA Roadway Departure Safety and Intersection Safety manuals include the following formulas for calculating crash rates on roadway segments and intersections:
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 24 457

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3.2 Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis considers the physical characteristics of the roadway network, through the examination of maps, photographs, and field assessments. Certain roadway infrastructure characteristics relate to design standard and compliance issues and should continually be identified and upgraded on a network-wide basis (e.g., signing and pavement delineation characteristics relating to CA- MUTCD compliance as discussed in more detail below). Other roadway characteristics are more important as they relate to locations with high crash frequencies and rates (e.g., well defined pedestrian 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 25 458

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

Ensuring Compliance with CA-MUTCD and Design Standards
It is important for local agencies to continually evaluate their roadways for compliance with the minimum safety standards. The CA-MUTCD provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. In addition to ensuring compliance with the CA-MUTCD, geometric standards should be evaluated as they relate to sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation. Many local agencies have their own specific roadway design standards, while others rely on Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual7, FHWA’s “Green Book” policy manual8 and PEDSAFE guide9, and AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide10. If the traffic control devices or roadway geometry are not in compliance, appropriate devices/countermeasures should be installed. Non-compliance is an important consideration that can affect road safety and may have liability implications for a jurisdiction. Using CA-MUTCD compliant devices results in uniformity among California roadways and serves to meet road user expectations.

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

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

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

Recommended Action: Incorporate qualitative analysis elements into agency’s proactive analysis approach. Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify locations with roadway 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 26 459

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

Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin-maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 27 460

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

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

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

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

It is important to note that there are many safety issues and corresponding countermeasures that are more “maintenance” in nature (e.g., visibility issues relating to the need for brush clearing and roadway departure issues relating to the need to replace shoulder backing). As these issues are identified when investigating crash locations, it’s expected that the local safety practitioners would take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in the short-term. For this reason, most of the common maintenance-type safety countermeasures are not included in this document. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 28 461

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

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

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

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

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

Applicability: In general, once a local safety practitioner determines that one or more CMFs exist for a specific countermeasure, the next step is to determine which CMF is the most applicable. Applicability depends on how closely the CMF represents the situation to which it will be applied. Safety practitioners should evaluate the potentially applicable CMFs, eliminating any that are not appropriate for the situation. Practitioners should only choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project based on factors including but not limited to: urban areas vs. rural areas; low vs. high traffic volumes; 2-lane vs. 6- lane roadways; individual vs. combination treatments; signalized vs. non-signalized intersections; and minor crashes vs. fatal crashes. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect will likely be over or underestimated. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 29 462

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

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

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

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

The countermeasures listed in the following three tables have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories, as the consideration of non-motorized travel is important for all roadway classifications and locations. The countermeasures included in these tables are also used in the HSIP Analyzer. When selecting countermeasures and CMFs to apply to their specific safety needs, local agency safety practitioners should consider the availability, applicability, and quality of CMFs, as discussed in section 4.1.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 30 463

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

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

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

Recommended Action: At this point, agencies should use all information and results obtained by completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic ‘engineering judgment’ is required and that this manual should not be used as a simple cheat-sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 31 464

Table 2. Countermeasures for Non-Signalized Intersections No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expecte
d Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium NS02 Control Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) All 50% 10 90% High NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 20 90% Low
NS04 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05mr* Control Convert intersection to mini-roundabout All 30% 20 90% Medium NS06 Operation/ Warning Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs All 15% 10 90% Very High
NS07 Operation/ Warning Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 10 90% Very High NS08 Operation/ Warning Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 10 90% High NS09 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% High NS10 Operation/ Warning Install transverse rumble strips on approaches All 20% 10 90% High NS11 Operation/ Warning Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 10 90% High NS12 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium NS13 Geometric Mod. Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches All 40% 20 90% Medium NS14 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium NS15 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u- turns (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
NS16 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS17 Geometric Mod. Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 20 90% Low NS18 Geometric Mod. Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low NS19PB Ped and Bike Install raised medians / refuge islands (NS.I.) P & B 45% 20 90% Medium NS20PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90% High
NS21PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium
NS22PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium NS23PB Ped and Bike Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% Low *CM NS05mr is a new countermeasure added for HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 33 465
Table 1. Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
S01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium S02 Signal Mod. Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number All 15% 10 90% Very High
S03 Signal Mod. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High S04* Signal Mod. Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed approaches All 40% 10 90% High S05 Signal Mod. Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Emergency Vehicle 70% 10 90% High
S06 Signal Mod. Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) All 55% 20 90% Low
S07 Signal Mod. Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% High S08 Signal Mod. Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium S09 Operation/
Warning Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High S10 Operation/
Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 10 90% Medium S11 Operation/
Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium S12 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium S13PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low S14 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
S15 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium S16 Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low S17PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian countdown signal heads P & B 25% 20 90% Very High S18PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) P & B 25% 20 90% High S19PB Ped and Bike Pedestrian Scramble P & B 40% 20 90% High S20PB Ped and Bike Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) P & B 15% 10 90% Very High S21PB Ped and Bike Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P & B 60% 10 90% Very High *CM S04 has been deleted in HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 32 466

Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium R02 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone All 35% 20 90% High R03 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Median Barrier All 25% 20 90% Medium R04 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Guardrail All 25% 20 90% High R05 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install impact attenuators All 25% 10 90% High R06 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes All 30% 20 90% Medium R07 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail All 40% 20 90% Medium R08 Geometric Mod. Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium R09 Geometric Mod. Install median (flush) All 15% 20 90% Medium R10PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low R11 Geometric Mod. Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes All 25% 20 90% Low R12 Geometric Mod. Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) All 25% 20 90% Medium R13 Geometric Mod. Add two-way left-turn lane All 30% 20 90% Medium R14 Geometric Mod. Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) All 35% 20 90% Medium
R15 Geometric Mod. Widen shoulder All 30% 20 90% Medium R16 Geometric Mod. Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) All 45% 20 90% Medium R17 Geometric Mod. Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) All 50% 20 90% Low R18 Geometric Mod. Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 20 90% Low R19 Geometric Mod. Improve curve superelevation All 45% 20 90% Medium R20 Geometric Mod. Convert from two-way to one-way traffic All 35% 20 90% Medium R21 Geometric Mod. Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% High 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 34 467

Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways (Continued)
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R22 Operation/ Warning Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High
R23 Operation/ Warning Install chevron signs on horizontal curves All 40% 10 90% Very High R24 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs All 25% 10 90% Very High R25 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 10 90% High R26 Operation/ Warning Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs All 30% 10 90% High R27 Operation/ Warning Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers All 15% 10 90% Very High R28 Operation/ Warning Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High R29 Operation/ Warning Install no-passing line All 45% 10 90% Very High R30 Operation/ Warning Install centerline rumble strips/stripes All 20% 10 90% High R31 Operation/ Warning Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R32PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 20 90% High R33PB Ped and Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes P & B 45% 20 90% High R34PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 20 90% Medium R35PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R36PB Ped and Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R37PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R38 Animal Install animal fencing Animal 80% 20 90% Medium 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) P a ge | 35 468

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

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

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

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

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

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

For statewide calls-for-projects, Caltrans strives to ensure that all projects are fairly ranked based on a consistent statewide approach. Given this, Caltrans has avoided using methodology requiring agencies to mathematically adjust their crash data (e.g., Empirical Bayes) and instead has opted to use 5 years of “observed crashes” in estimating “expected crashes.”
Applying CMFs by type and severity: Section 4.1 of this manual discusses the application of CMFs and the need for them to represent the situation to which they will be applied. It also stresses the need for 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 36
469

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

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

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

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

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

Applying benefit value by crash severity: The last step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is to multiply the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the “cost” of crashes. In other words, the expected “benefit” value for a project is actually the expected “reduction in costs” value from reducing future crashes. There are many sources for the costs of crashes (e.g., HSM, FHWA & National Safety Council) and some of the sources vary widely depending on how they account for the economic value of a life and when the numbers were last updated. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 37
470

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio
In general, the B/C ratio is calculated by taking a project’s overall benefit (as calculated in Section 5.1) and dividing it by the project’s overall cost (as calculated in Section 5.2). There are, however, several 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 38
471

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits to maximize the number of fatal and injury crashes addressed within the limits. Consider lower cost countermeasures in areas where high and medium cost countermeasures resulted in low B/C ratios.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 39
472

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

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

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

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

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

6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources
In addition to the HSIP Program, the Division of Local Assistance’s web site includes several other Caltrans administered funding programs:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance
Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 40
473

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

Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to “toot their own safety-horn.”
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 41
474

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

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

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

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

Location Type of Countermeasure
Installed
Date
Installed
Crashes Before
(Duration and
Severity)
Crashes After
(Duration and
Severity)
Comments
Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet or database to track future safety project installations and record 3 or more years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 42
475

Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Process
Countermeasure Selection:
-Address the crash
problem/pattern with cost
effectiveness
Calculate the Project’s B/C Ratio
-HSIP Analyzer
Finish preparing application and
submit to Caltrans electronically,
with applicable attachments.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 43
476

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

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

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

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

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

The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
NCHRP Report 500 Series: Volumes 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and others https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152868.aspx
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 44
477

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

For HSIP Calls-for-projects:
• Funding Eligibility - 90% or 50%.
• Crash Types Addressed - “All”, “Pedestrian and Bicycle”, “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”.
• CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Notes - Specific requirements are provided for utilizing the countermeasure on applications for Caltrans statewide calls-for-projects.
•
General Information:
• Where to use – Roadway segments and intersections with specific common characteristics can be addressed with similar countermeasures that are most effective. • Why it works – A discussion of the benefit of a countermeasure is important to determine its appropriateness in addressing certain roadway crash types at areas with specific issues as determined by the data and roadway features.
• General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness) – This category is more subjective and can vary substantially. ‘Time’ refers to the approximate relative time it can take to implement the countermeasure. Costs can vary considerably due to local conditions, so ‘cost’ represents the relative cost of applying a countermeasure. A relative overall ‘effectiveness’ is also provided for some countermeasures. All of this subjective information may not be applicable to the unique circumstances for the agency and should not be utilized without verification by the safety practitioner.
• FHWA CMF Clearinghouse
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 45
478

o Crash Types Addressed – In order to effectively reduce the number and severity of roadway crashes, it is necessary to match countermeasures to the crash types they are intended to address. Depending on the type of problem, one or more of a range of countermeasures could be the most effective way to reduce the number and severity of future crashes.
o Crash Reduction Factor – The crash reduction factor (CRF) is an indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes it is expected to reduce. Note: As mentioned earlier in this section, the effectiveness of a countermeasure can also be expressed as a Crash Modification Factor (CMF), which is defined mathematically as 1 – CRF. However, this document uses CRFs as they can be more insightful when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes. There is a range of CRF values that exist for each of the countermeasures (or similar countermeasures). The range of CRFs is provided to give local safety practitioners a clear understanding that they may need to go to the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse to find the most appropriate countermeasure and CRF for their specific projects and local prioritization.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 46
479

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 0-46% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 47
480

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

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

General information
Where to use:

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

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

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

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 39% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 48
481

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

General information
Where to use:

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

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

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

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

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 17 - 58 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 49
482

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

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left-turn or no left-turn protection that have a high frequency of angle crashes involving left turning, opposing through vehicles, and non-motorized road users. A properly timed protected left-turn phase can also help reduce rear-end and sideswipe crashes between left-turning vehicles and the through vehicles as well as vehicles behind them. Protected left-turn phases are warranted based on such factors as turning volumes, delay, visibility, opposing vehicle speed, distance to travel through the intersection, presence of non-motorized road users, and safety experience of the intersections. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

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

General information
Where to use:

Intersections currently controlled by pedestal mounted traffic signals (in medians and/or on outside shoulder) that have a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals in advance to safely negotiate the intersection. Intersections that have pedestal-mounted signals may have poor visibility and can result in vehicles not being able to stop in time for a signal change. Care should be taken to place the new signal heads (with back plates) as close to directly over the center of the travel lanes as possible.

Why it works:

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

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 12 - 74% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 50
483

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

General information
Where to use:

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

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear End, Angle CRF: 36 - 62% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 51
484

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

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

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

General information
Where to use:

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

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle CRF: 21 -55 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 52
485

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

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

General information
Where to use:

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 53
486

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

General information
Where to use and Why it works:

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

Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT):

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

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

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

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/Rear- End/All CRF: 34.8-100%
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 54
487

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

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

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

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 55
488

S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left-turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double-right or double-left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. Another 22 percent of pedestrian crashes involve a pedestrian either running across the intersection or darting out in front of a vehicle whose view was blocked just prior to the impact. Finally, 16 percent of these intersection-related crashes occur because of a driver violation (e.g., failure to yield right-of-way). When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accoun ted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements may be funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25% S19PB, Pedestrian Scramble
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection with the new pedestrian crossing.

General information
Where to use:

Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district.

Why it works:

Pedestrian Scramble has been shown to reduce injury risk and increase bicycle ridership due to its perceived safety and comfort.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Not involving any additional R/W, Pedestrian Scramble should not require a long development process and should be implemented reasonably soon. A systemic approach may be used in implementing this CM, resulting in cost efficiency with low to moderate cost.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: -10% to 51% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 56
489

S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection-crossing with the new advanced stop bars.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur.

Why it works:

Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. It also allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers (This dedicated space is often referred to as a bike-box.) General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 35% S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 60% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing with the newly implemented Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

General information
Where to use:

Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.

Why it works:

A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of crossing pedestrians; (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; (3) Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs for implementing LPIs are very low, since only minor signal timing alteration is required. This makes it an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be incorporated into pedestrian safety action plans or policies and can become routine agency practice. When considered at a single location, the LPI is usually local-funded. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 59% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 57
490

B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized
NS01, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost. For rural intersections, studies have shown the installation of streetlights reduced nighttime crashes at unlit intersections and can be more effective in reducing nighttime crashes than either rumble strips or overhead flashing beacons. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 25- 50% NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. CA-MUTCD warrant must be met.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all-way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all-way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior. MUTCD warrants should always be followed.

Why it works:

All-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection, reducing through and turning speeds, and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be present. Advance public notification of the change is critical in assuring compliance and reducing crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The costs involved in converting to all-way stop control are relatively low. All-way stop control can normally be implemented at multiple intersections with just a change in signing on intersection approaches, and typically are very quick to implement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 6 - 80% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 58
491

NS03, Install signals
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new signals. All new signals must meet MUTCD "safety" warrants: 4, 5 or 7. Given the over-arching operational changes that occur when an intersection is signalized, no other intersection CMs can be applied to the intersection crashes in conjunction with this CM.

General information
Where to use:

Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, left-turn). Consideration to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic control have been utilized as the installation of a traffic signal often leads to an increased frequency of crashes (rear-end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met. Refer to the CA MUTCD, Section 4C.01, Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals.

Why it works:

Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase in rear-end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Typical traffic signal costs fall in the medium to high category and are affected by application, type of signal and right-of-away considerations. Projects of this magnitude should only be considered after alternate and lesser means of correction have been evaluated. Some locations can result i n high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 74% NS04, Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited.

Why it works:

Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all-way stop-controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left-turn and right-angle movements.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Construction of roundabouts are usually relatively costly and major projects, requiring the environmental process, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation under an agency’s long-term capital improvement program. (For this reason, roundabouts may not be appropriate for California's Federal Safety Programs that have relatively short delivery requirements.) Even with roundabouts higher costs, they still can have a relatively high effectiveness.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 12 - 78 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 59
492

NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2-way stop or Yield control) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.

General information
Where to use:

Why it works:

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 12 - 78 % NS05mr, Convert intersection to mini-roundabout
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.

General information
Where to use:

Mini-roundabouts are characterized by a small diameter (45-90 ft) and traversable islands (central island and splitter islands).

Mini-roundabouts offer most of the benefits of regular roundabouts with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. They are best suited to environments where speeds are already low and environmental constraints would preclude the use of a larger roundabout. Mini-roundabouts are most effective in lower speed environments in which all approaching roadways have posted speed of 30 mph or less and an 85th-percentile speed of less than 35 mph near the proposed yield and/or entrance line. For any location with an 85th-percentile speed above 35 mph, the mini-roundabout can be included as part of a broader system of traffic calming measures to achieve an appropriate speed environment.

Why it works:

Mini-roundabouts may be an optimal solution for a safety or operational issue at an existing intersection where there is insufficient right-of-way for a standard roundabout installation. The benefits of mini-roundabouts are the compact size, operational efficiency, traffic safety improvement and traffic Calming.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Construction costs for mini-roundabouts vary widely depending upon the extent of sidewalk modifications or other geometric improvements and the types of materials used. In most cases, mini-roundabouts have been installed with little or no pavement widening and with only minor changes to curbs and sidewalks. Construction costs can be minimum for an installation consisting entirely of pavement markings and signage or moderate for mini-roundabouts that include raised islands and pedestrian improvements.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: NA CRF: NA 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 60
493

NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the influence area of the new signs. The influence area must be determined on a location by location basis.

General information
Where to use:

The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.

Why it works:

The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 55% NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pavement markings. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing pavement markings in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing pavement markings and striping.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars.

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Pavement marking improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of markings. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 13 - 60% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 61
494

NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the stop-controlled approaches / influence area of the new beacons.

General information
Where to use:

Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non-Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post-mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop-controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs.

Why it works:

Flashing beacons provide a visible signal to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where night-time visibility of intersections is an issue.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs.

Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 5-34% NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new beacons placed in advance of the intersection.

General information
Where to use:

Non-Signalized Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's awareness of approaching intersection or controls at a downstream intersection.

Why it works:

Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Flashing beacons are intended to reinforce driver awareness of the stop or yield signs and to help mitigate patterns of crashes related to intersection regulatory sign violations. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of flashing beacons requires minimal development process, allowing flashing beacons to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).

In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 36 - 62% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 62
495

NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new rumble strips.

General information
Where to use:

Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. They can be used at any stop or yield approach intersection, often in combination with advance signing to warn of the intersection ahead. Due to the noise generated by vehicles driving over the rumble strips, care must be taken to minimize disruption to nearby residences and businesses.

Why it works:

When motorists are traveling along the roadway, they are sometimes unaware they are approaching an intersection. This is especially true on rural roads, as there may be fewer clues indicating an intersection ahead. Transverse rumble strips warn motorists that something unexpected is ahead that they need to pay attention to.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of transverse rumble strips requires minimal development process, allowing transverse rumble strips to be installed within a short time period. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach, although care should be taken to not over-use this CM. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear- locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 35% NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the significantly improved new sight distance. Minor/incidental improvements to sight distance would not likely result in the CRF shown below.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway.

Why it works:

Adequate sight distance for drivers at stop or yield-controlled approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall safety at unsignalized intersections. By removing sight distance restrictions (e.g., vegetation, parked vehicles, signs, buildings) from the sight triangles at stop or yield-controlled intersection approaches, drivers will be able see approaching vehicles on the main line, without obstruction and therefore make better decisions about entering the intersection safely.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Projects involving clearing sight obstructions on the highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing sight obstructions on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way.

In general, this CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. Usually only high -cost removals would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding. Note:

When federal safety funding is used to remove vegetation that has the potential to grow back, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 56% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 63
496

NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.

General information
Where to use:

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

Why it works:

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 % NS13, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new splitter island on the minor road approaches.

General information
Where to use:

Minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections where the presence of the intersection or the stop sign is not readily visible to approaching motorists. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections where the speeds on the minor road are high. In creation of a splitter island allows for an additional stop sign to be placed in the median for the minor approach.

Why it works:

The installation of splitter islands allows for the addition of a stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous. Additionally, the splitter island on the minor-road provides for a positive separation between turning vehicles on the through road and vehicles stopped on the minor road approach.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Splitter islands at non-signalized intersections can usually be installed with minimal roadway reconstruction and relatively quickly. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 35 - 100 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 64
497

NS14, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non- participating.

General information
Where to use:

Where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and operation of an intersection. Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable.

Why it works:

Raised medians with left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians also prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive approaches would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, the need for providing alternative access ways should be considered. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 20 - 39 % NS15, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings.

General information
Where to use:

Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, they should be used in conjunction with efforts to provide alternative access ways and promote driveway spacing objectives.

Why it works:

Agencies are increasingly using access management techniques on urban and suburban arterials to manage the number of conflicts experienced at an intersection. A key element of access management is to restrict certain movements, create directional median openings, or close median openings that are deemed too close to an intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can usually be implemented quickly. Costs are highly variable but in many cases could be considered low. In some cases this strategy may involve acquiring access or constructing replacement access; those actions will significantly increase the cost of the project. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 65
498

NS16, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left-Turn Conflict.

General information
Where to use and Why it works:

Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT):

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/Rear- End/All CRF: 34.8-100%
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 66
499

NS17, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new right -turn lanes. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all-way stop intersections.

General information
Where to use:

Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.

Why it works:

The strategy is targeted to reduce the frequency of rear-end collisions resulting from conflicts between vehicles turning right and following vehicles and vehicles turning right and through vehicles coming from the left on the cross street. Right-turn lanes also remove slow vehicles that are decelerating to turn right from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Right-turn lanes can increase the length of the intersection crossing and create an additional potential conflict point for non-motorized users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, right-turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction.

Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 14 - 26 % NS18, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left -turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all-way stop intersections.

General information
Where to use:

Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new left-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.

Why it works:

Adding left-turn lanes remove vehicles waiting to turn left from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear- end collisions. Because they provide a sheltered location for drivers to wait for a gap in opposing traffic, left-turn lanes may encourage drivers to be more selective in choosing a gap to complete the left-turn maneuver. This strategy may reduce the potential for collisions between left-turn and opposing through vehicles.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, left-turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 9 -55 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 67
500

NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the crossing with the new islands. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.

Why it works:

Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised (i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. They can stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before completing their crossing.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Median and pedestrian refuge areas are a low-cost countermeasure to implement. This cost can be applied to retrofit improvements or if it is a new construction project, implementing this countermeasure is even more cost-effective. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 30 - 56 % NS20PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. These markings will often be different for controlled verses uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder", "zebra" or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or “yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including:
continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 25 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 68
501

NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the new crossing (influence area) with enhanced safety features. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Non-signalized intersections where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic.

They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with turn pockets. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Incorporating advanced "yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the types of enhanced features that will be combined with the standard crossing improvements. The need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications will also be a factor. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have relatively high B/C ratios based on past non-motorized crash history.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 37% NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB.

General information
Where to use:

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.

Why it works:

RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 – 47.4% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 69
502

NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 55% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new signal.

For HAWK or other pedestrian signals, the justification may be Warrant 4, 5 and/or 7, or passing the test in Figure 4F-1/4F-2 in Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD. Please refer to Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD for more details
General information
Where to use:

Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non-motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) (also called High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk.

Why it works:

Adding a pedestrian signal has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.

Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non- motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The cost of improvements are generally high, but can vary dependent on the type of signal and overall scope of the project. In most cases the project duration can be short. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 15 - 69% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 70
503

B.3 Roadway Countermeasures
R01, Add Segment Lighting
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rear-end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.

Why it works:

Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

It expected that projects of this type may be constructed in a year or two and are relatively costly. There are several types of costs associated with providing lighting, including the cost of providing a permanent source of power to the location, the cost for the luminaire supports (i.e., poles), and the cost for routinely replacing the bulbs and maintenance of the luminaire supports.

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

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 18 - 69 % R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new clear recovery zone (per Caltrans' HDM).

General information
Where to use:

Known locations or roadway segments prone to collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate.

Why it works:

While this strategy does not prevent the vehicle leaving the roadway, it does provide a mechanism to reduce the severity of a resulting crash. A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. Removing or moving fixed objects, flattening slopes, or providing recovery areas reduces the likelihood of a crash.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Projects involving removing fixed objects from highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing objects on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way. This CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. High-cost removals or removals implemented using a systematic approach would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object CRF: 17 - 100 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 71
504

R03, Install Median Barrier
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls-for-Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new barrier.

General information
Where to use:

Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross-overs are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO and non-severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. It is recommended to review the warrants as outlined in Chapter 7 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual when considering whether to install median barriers.

Why it works:

This strategy is designed to prevent head-on collisions by providing a barrier between opposing lanes of traffic. The variety of median barriers available makes it easier to choose a site-specific solution. The main advantage is the reduction of the severity of the crashes. The key to success would be in selecting an appropriate barrier based on the site, previous crash history, maintenance needs, and median width.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy would in many cases be possible to implement within a short period after site selection. Costs will vary depending on the type of median barrier selected and whether the strategy is implemented as a stand-alone project or incorporated as part of a reconstruction or resurfacing effort. Maintenance costs and worker exposure will also vary depending on the type of barrier selected. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 0 - 94 % R04, Install Guardrail
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new guardrail. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged rail).

For projects proposing to upgrade existing guardrail to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing rail conditions suggests the upgraded guardrail may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM).

General information
Where to use:

Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run-off-the-road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes. New and upgraded guardrail and end-treatments must meet current safety standards; see Method for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for more information. Caltrans (or other national accepted guidance) slope/height criteria need to be considered and documented.

Why it works:

Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Strategies range from relatively inexpensive too costly. Costly projects may include those that upgrade existing guardrail applications to more semi-rigid and rigid barrier systems over extended distances. In general, this CMs can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 11 - 78 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 72
505

R05, Install impact attenuators
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new attenuators. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged attenuators). For projects proposing to upgrade existing attenuators to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing attenuator conditions suggests the upgraded attenuators may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM).

General information
Where to use:

Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators should only be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed. New and upgraded barrier end-treatments must meet current safety standards; see MASH for more information.

Why it works:

Attenuators bring an errant vehicle to a more-controlled stop or redirect the vehicle away from a rigid object. Attenuators are effective at absorbing impact energy and increasing occupant safety. They also tend to draw attention to the fixed object, which helps drivers steer clear of the fixed objects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs depending on the scope of the project, type(s) used, and associated ongoing maintenance costs. Time to install is fairly quick once site is identified.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 50 % R06, Flatten side slopes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new side slopes. Minor/incidental flattening of side slopes would not likely result in the CRF shown below and may not be appropriate for use in Caltrans B/C calculations.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways experiencing frequent lane departure crashes that result in roll-over type crashes as a result of the roadway slope being so severe as to not accommodate a reasonable degree of driver correction. When there is a need to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes without installing a barrier system that could result in increased numbers of crashes.

Why it works:

Flattened slopes provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. Steep slopes, ditches or unprotected hazardous drops-offs adjacent to a travel lane offer little opportunities to correct an inappropriate action by a driver and can result in sever crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Roadside modifications range from relatively inexpensive to very costly. Strategies that include creating safer side slopes where none exists can be moderately expensive based on the scope of the project and the associated clearing, grading, etc. The potential for high environmental and right-of-way impacts is high which can take several years to clear. In other cases This CM can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 62 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 73
506

R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of both the removed guardrail and the new side slopes.

General information
Where to use:

Locations where high number of crashes originate as a lane departure and result in collision with guardrail or a fixed object located on the side slope shielded by guardrail. The guardrail may or may not meet current standards. Even though guardrails are generally installed to reduce the severity of departure crashes, they still can result in severe crashes in some locations.

Why it works:

Flattened side slopes and an unobstructed clear zone provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. The existing guardrail may help protect the steep slopes, fixed objects, or unprotected hazardous drops-offs adjacent to a travel lane, but removing all of these obstacles generally improves safety.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Roll Over, Fixed Object CRF: 42% R08, Install raised median
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing a raised median is a more restrictive approach in that it represents a more rigid barrier between opposing traffic. Application of raised medians on roadways with higher speeds is not advised - instead a median barrier should be considered. Including landscaping in new raised medians can be counterproductive to the HSIP safety goals and should only be done in ways that do not increase drivers’ exposure to fixed objects and that will maintain driver's sight distance needs throughout the life of the proposed landscaping. Agencies need to consider and document impacts of additional turning movements at nearby intersections.

Why it works:

Adding raised medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the travel lane. Raised median may also be used to limit unsafe turning movements along a roadway.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In some cases this strategy may be a retrofit into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder.

These raised medians can be installed directly over the existing pavement. Cost and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median. The surface treatment of the raised median also significantly affects their cost-effectiveness: standard concrete or other hardscape surfaces are usually more cost effective than landscaped medians. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase due to excavation, backfill/top-soil, water-connection, irrigation, planting, maintenance needed for the landscaping. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 20 - 75 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 74
507

R09, Install median (flush)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new flush median. The new median must be a minimum of 4 feet wide (or "wider" if a narrow median exists before the proposed proje ct).

General information
Where to use:

Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Roadways with oversized lanes offer an opportunity to restripe the roadway to reduce the lanes to standard widths and use the extra width for the median.

Why it works:

Adding medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a narrow buffer median between opposing flows, thereby providing a greater opportunity to correct an errant maneuver and further reinforce the limits of the travel lane. Application widths can vary based on the available cross section and intended application.

Additional safety can be provided by combining this CM with rumble strips.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 15 - 78 % R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing.

General information
Where to use:

Roadway segments with high pedestrian-generators and pedestrian-destinations nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid-block crossing. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25 - 40% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 75
508

R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new accel/decel lanes on high speed roadways. Significant improvements to the merge length for lane-drop locations is also an acceptable use of this CM.

General information
Where to use:

Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed is reached and areas that do not provide the opportunity to safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement. This CM can also be used to improve the safety of merging vehicles at a lane-drop location.

Why it works:

A lane that does not provide enough deceleration length and storage space for turning traffic may cause the turn queue to back up into the adjacent through lane. This can contribute to rear-end and sideswipe crashes. An acceleration lane is an auxiliary or speed-change lane that allows vehicles to accelerate to highway speeds (high speed roadways) before entering the through- traffic lanes of a highway. Additionally, if acceleration by entering traffic takes place directly on the traveled way, it may disrupt the flow of through-traffic and cause rear-end and sideswipe collisions.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs are highly variable. Where sufficient median or shoulder space exists it may be possible to provide acceleration/deceleration lanes at a moderate cost. Where the roadway must be widened and additional right-of-way must be acquired, higher costs and a lengthy time-to-construct are likely. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Sideswipe, Rear-End CRF: 10 - 75 % R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls-for-Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the widened lanes. Widening must a minimum of 1 foot.

General information
Where to use:

Horizontal curves or tangents and low speed or high speed roadways identified as having lane departure crashes, sideswipe or head-on crashes that can be attributed to an existing pavement width less than 10 feet.

Why it works:

Increasing pavement width can affect almost all crash types. A common practice is to widen the traveled way on horizontal curves to make operating conditions on curves comparable to those on tangents. Speed is a primary consideration when evaluating potential adverse impacts of lane width on safety. On high-speed, rural two-lane highways, an increased risk of cross-centerline head-on or cross-centerline sideswipe crashes is a concern because drivers may have more difficulty staying within the travel lane.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs will depend on the amount of reconstruction necessary and on whether additional right-of-way is required. In general, this is one of the higher-cost strategies recommended, but it can also be very beneficial. Since this is a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard roadways.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 5 - 70 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 76
509

R13, Add two-way left-turn lane
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane, where an existing median did not already exist.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways having a high frequency of drivers being rear-ended while attempting to make a left turn across oncoming traffic.

Also can be effective for drivers crossing the centerline of an undivided multilane roadway inadvertently.

Why it works:

Two-way left-turn lanes provide a buffer between opposing directions of travel and separate left turning traffic from through traffic. They can also help to allow vehicles to begin to accelerate before entering the through-traffic lanes. They reduce the disruption of flow of through-traffic and reducing rear-end and sideswipe collisions. For some roadways the option of converting a four-lane undivided arterials to two-vehicle-lane roadways with a center left-turn lane and bike lanes should be considered (see "Road Diet" CM.)
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In some cases this strategy may be retrofitted into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder and can ultimately be as simple as restriping the roadway. Costs and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median, requiring new right-of-way, and having significant environmental impacts. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location as the B/C ratios will vary from low to high.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 8 - 50 % R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane striping. "Intersection" crashes can only be applied when they resulted from turning movements that had no designated turn lanes/phases in the existing condition and the Road Diet will provide turn lanes/phases for these movements. This CM does not apply to roadway sections that already included left turn lanes or two way left turn lanes before the lane reductions. New bike lanes are also expected to be part of these projects. if any pavement is planned to be removed for the purpose of adding landscaping, planter - boxes, or other non-roadway user features, the cost should be non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left-turn, and rear-end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four-lane design. It may also result in congestion levels that contribute to other crashes.

Why it works:

The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes. In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. In addition to increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on-street parking.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementation would require more time than in other low-cost treatments to complete environmental analyses, traffic studies and public input. Projects that only require new lane markings and minor signalization modifications will have relatively low cost and can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. These striping and signal modification costs should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM. (If additional signal hardware improvements are being made, over what is needed for the road diet, then the Improve Signal Hardware CM may also be used.) Often road diet projects need a seal-coat placed on the roadway to fully remove the old striping. These seal coats are considered part of the proper installation of this CM. In contrast, structural-overlays should not be considered part of this CM and are not considered eligible for funding in the California Local HSIP.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 26 - 43 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 77
510

R15, Widen shoulder
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new paved shoulder. A minimum of 2 feet width must be added and the new/resulting shoulders must be a minimum of 4 feet wide. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", for which the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have a frequent incidence of vehicles leaving the travel lane resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. The probability of a safe recovery is increased if an errant vehicle is provided with an increased paved area in which to initiate such a recovery.

Why it works:

Based on the best available research, adding shoulder or widening an existing shoulder provides a greater area to regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects such as guardrail, signs and poles. They may also provide space for disabled vehicles to stop or drive slowly, provide increased sight distance for through vehicles and for vehicles entering the roadway, and in some cases reduce passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. The likely safety benefits for adding or widening an existing shoulder generally increase as the widening width increases - practitioners should refer to NCHRP Report 500 Series, the CMF Clearinghouse or other references for more details.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Shoulder widening costs would depend on whether new right-of-way is required and whether extensive roadside modification is needed. Since shoulder widening can be a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard roadways.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road, Sideswipe CRF: 15 - 75 %
R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the new shoulder widening at curves. A minimum of 2-4 feet width must be added to the outside of horizontal curves and the new traversable shoulder must be a minimum of 4 feet wide.

General information
Where to use:

Roadway curves noted as having frequent lane departure crashes due to inadequate or no shoulders, resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway.

Why it works:

Adding shoulders (outside only) creates a recovery area in which a driver can regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

To minimize the R/W needs and the cost, only outside shoulder at curves is to be widened. This CM can be implemented in a relatively short timeframe.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: NA
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 78
511

R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved alignment. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", including: the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the agency's 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways with horizontal curves that have experienced lane departure crashes as a result of a roadway segment having compound curves or a severe radius. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.

Why it works:

Increasing the radius of a horizontal curve can be very effective in improving the safety performance of the curve. Curve modification reduces the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its lane, crossing the roadway centerline, or leaving the roadway at a horizontal curve; and minimizes the adverse consequences of leaving the roadway. Horizontal alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy is a long-term, higher-cost alternative for improving the safety of a horizontal curve because it usually involves total reconstruction of the roadway. It may also require acquisition of additional right-of-way and an environmental review.

This strategy, albeit costly, has shown that increasing the radius of curvature can significantly reduce total curve-related crashes by up to 80 percent. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 24 - 90% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 79
512

R18, Flatten crest vertical curve
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved alignment. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", including: the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the agency's 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must b e attached to the application.

General information
Where to use:

The target for this strategy is usually unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance due to vertical geometry and with patterns of crashes related to that lack of sight distance that cannot be ameliorated by less expensive methods. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.

Why it works:

Adequate sight distance for drivers at stopped approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall intersection safety. Vertical alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Projects involving changing the horizontal and/or vertical alignment to provide more sight distance are quite extensive and usually take several years to accomplish. If additional right-of-way is required or environmental impacts are expected, these projects will require a substantial period of time. Since this is usually an expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard locations.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 20 - 51 % R19, Improve curve superelevation
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved superelevation. This CM does not apply to sections of roadways where the horizontal or vertical alignments are changing via another CM.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways noted as having frequent lane departure crashes and inadequate or no superelevation. Safety can be enhanced when the superelevation is improved or restored along curves where the actual superelevation is less than the optimal.

Why it works:

Superelevation works with friction between the tires and pavement to counteract the forces on the vehicle associated with cornering. Many curves may have inadequate superelevation because of vehicles traveling at higher speeds than were originally designed for, because of loss of effective superelevation after resurfacing, or because of changes in design policy after the curve was originally constructed.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy can be a higher-cost alternative for improving the safety of a curve because it involves reconstruction to some degree. Other projects may be able to be constructed by simple overlays and minimal reconstruction of roadways features.

When simple overlay fixes are pursued, a systematic installation approach may be appropriate. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 40 - 50 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 80
513

R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new one -way sections.

General information
Where to use:

One-way streets can offer improved signal timing and accommodate odd-spaced signals. One-way streets can simplify crossings for pedestrians, who must look for traffic in only one direction. While studies have shown that conversion of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes and the number of conflict points, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. Care must be taken not to create conditions that cause driver confusion and erratic maneuvers.

Why it works:

Studies have shown a 10 to 50-percent reduction in total crashes after conversion of a two-way street to one-way operation.

While studies have shown that con-version of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. At the same time, this strategy (1) increases capacity significantly and (2) can have safety-related drawbacks including pedestrian confusion and minor sideswipe crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The costs will vary depending on length of treatment and if the conversion requires modification to signals. Conversion costs can be high to build "crossovers" where the one-way streets convert back to two-way streets and to rebuild traffic signals. It's also likely that these types of modifications will require public involvement and could significantly add to the time it takes to complete the project. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 26 - 43 % R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.

General information
Where to use:

Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Areas as noted having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than actual roadway speeds; including but not limited to curves, loop ramps, intersections, and areas with short stopping or weaving distances. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding is determined to be a problem, in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is one that runs (skids) off the road or is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.

Why it works:

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

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Rear-End, All CRF: 17 - 68 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 81
514

R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new/upgraded signs. This CM is not intended for maintenance upgrades of street-name, parking, guide, or any other signs without a primary focus on roadway safety. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as part of a larger sign audit project, including the study of: 1) the existing signs' locations, sizes and information per MUTCD standards, 2) missing signs per MUTCD standards, and 3) sign retroreflectivity. The overall sign audit scope (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application. Based on the scope of the project/audit, it may be appropriate to combine other CMs in the B/C calculation.

General information
Where to use:

The target for this strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns of head on, nighttime, non-intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:

This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by lack of driver awareness (or compliance) roadway signing. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning by using fluorescent yellow sheeting (or other retroreflective material).

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head on, Run-off road, Sideswipe, Night CRF: 18 - 35%
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 82
515

R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve).

General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:

Post-mounted chevrons are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve and provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. While they are intended to act as a warning, it should also be remembered that the posts, placed along the roadside, represent a possible object with which an errant vehicle can crash into. Design of posts to minimize damage and injury is an important part of the considerations to be made when selecting these treatments.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 6 - 64 % R24, Install curve advance warning signs
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve)
General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. This countermeasure may also include horizontal alignment and/or advisory speed warning signs. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.)
Why it works:

This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve. It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 20 - 30 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 83
516

R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve)
General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves. Flashing beacons in conjunction with warning signs should only be used on horizontal curves that have an established severe crash history to help maintain their effectiveness.

Why it works:

This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an enhanced advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve.

It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed. Flashing beacons are an added indication that a curve may be particularly challenging.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 30 % R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. through the curve) {This CM does not apply to dynamic regulatory speed warning signs. There are currently no nationally accepted CRFs for dynamic regulatory signs (also known as Radar Speed Feedback Signs).

CRFs are being developed and Caltrans hopes to include these CMs and CRFs in future calls for projects.}
General information
Where to use:

Curvilinear roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes due to excessive speeds on relatively sharp curves.

Why it works:

This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning that they may be traveling over the recommended speed for the approaching curve. Care should be taken to limit the placement of these signs to help maintain their effectiveness.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of dynamic speed warning signs requires minimal development process, allowing them to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).

In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 84
517

R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits / influence area of the new features. { This is not a striping-related CM}
General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on curves (relatively flat to sharp) during periods of light and darkness.

Any road with a history of fixed object crashes is a candidate for this treatment, as are roadways with similar fixed objects along the roadside that have yet to experience crashes. If a fixed object cannot be relocated or made break-away, placing an object marker can provide additional information to motorists. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:

Delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. They are intended to provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. They are generally less costly than Chevron Signs as they don't require posts to place along the roadside, avoiding an additional object with which an errant vehicle can crash into.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of locations. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 30 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 85
518

R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new centerlines and/or edge -lines.

This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing striping and RPMs in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing striping. For two lane roadways allowing passing, a striping audit must be done to ensure the passing limits meeting the MUTCD standards. Both the centerline and edge-lines are expected to be upgraded, unless prior approval is granted by Caltrans staff in writing and attached to application.

General information
Where to use:

Any road with a history of run-off-road right, head-on, opposite-direction-sideswipe, or run-off-road-left crashes is a candidate for this treatment - install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate. Incorporating raised/reflective pavement markers (RPMs) into centerlines (and edge-lines) should be considered as it has been shown to improve safety.

Why it works:

Installing edge-lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines (paint to thermoplastic, adding audible disks/bumps in the thermoplastic stripes, or adding RPMs) are intended/designed to help drivers who might leave the roadway because of their inability to see the edge of the roadway along the horizontal edge of the pavement or cross- over the centerline of the roadway into oncoming traffic. New pavement marking products tend to be more durable, are all- weather, more visible, and have a higher retroreflectivity than traditional pavement markings.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded striping upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Striping Audit and Upgrade Projects".

Including wide-scale striping audits in the development phase of striping projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) striping/marking features, no-passing zone limits needing adjustment, and missing striping/markings that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on this concepts is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage under an RSSA example document. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Run-off Road, All CRF: 0 - 44 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 86
519

R29, Install no-passing line
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new or extended no-passing zones.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways that have a high percentage of head-on crashes suggesting that many head-on crashes may relate to failed passing maneuvers. No-passing lines should be installed where drivers "passing sight distance" is not available due to horizontal or vertical obstructions. General restriping projects can be good opportunities to reevaluate and incorporate new no-passing zones limits. The incorporation 'No Passing Zone' pennants should also be considered when reevaluating the limits of no- passing zones. Installing no-passing limits in areas that are not warranted may reduce the overall safety of the corridor as drivers may become frustrated and attempt passing maneuvers at other locations without the necessary sight distance.

Why it works:

When the centerline markings do not differentiate between passing and no-passing areas, drivers may have difficulty determining where passing maneuvers can be completed safely. Providing clear and engineered passing and no-passing areas can encourage drivers to wait patiently for safe passing areas and avoid aggressively looking for passing opportunities.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Side-swipe CRF: 40 - 53% R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new rumble strips/stripes .

General information
Where to use:

Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be used on virtually any roadway – especially those with a history of head-on crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.

Why it works:

Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Side-swipe, All CRF: 15 - 68% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 87
520

R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new rumble strips/stripes.

General information
Where to use:

Shoulder and edge line milled rumble strips/stripes should be used on roads with a history of roadway departure crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Special requirements may appl y and care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.

Why it works:

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road CRF: 10 - 41% R32PB, Install bike lanes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the Class II (not Class III) bike lanes. When an off-street bike-path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.

General information
Where to use:

Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder. Most studies suggest that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions.

Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when is desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists.

Why it works:

Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Bicycle lanes provide marked areas for bicyclist to travel along the roadway and provide for more predictable movements for both bicyclist and motorist. Evidence also shows that riding with the flow of vehicular traffic reduces bicyclists’ chances of collision with a motor vehicle. Locations with bicycle lanes have lower rates of wrong-way riding. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Adding striped bicycle lanes can range from the simply restriping the roadway and minor signing to projects that require roadway widening, right-of-way, and environmental impacts. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. For simple installation scenarios, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 0 - 53 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 88
521

R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the separated bike lanes.

When an off-street bike-path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.

General information
Where to use:

Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike-vehicle collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation measures including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. These options range in feasibility due to roadway characteristics, available space, and cost. In some cases, it may be possible to provide additional space in areas where pedestrian and bicyclists may interact, such as the parking buffer, or loading zones, or extra bike lane width for cyclists to pass one another.

Why it works:

Separated bike lanes provide increased safety and comfort for bicyclists beyond conventional bicycle lanes. By separating bicyclists from motor traffic, “protected” or physically separated bike lanes can offer a higher level of comfort and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. Intersections and approaches must be carefully designed to promote safety and facilitate left- turns for bicyclists from the primary corridor to cross street.

In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The cost of Installing separated bike lanes can be low to medium or high, depending on whether roadway widening, right-of- way and environmental impacts are involved. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 3.7 - 100 % R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 80% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the new walkway. This CM is not intended to be used where an existing sidewalk is being replaced with a wider one, unless prior Caltrans approval is included in the application. When an off-street multi-use path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.

General information
Where to use:

Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate.

Why it works:

Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to be related to significant reductions in the “walking along roadway” pedestrian crash risk compared to locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. Reductions of 50 to 90 percent of these types of pedestrian crashes. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non- motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 89
522

Costs for sidewalks will vary, depending upon factors such as width, materials, and existing of curb, gutter and drainage.

Asphalt curbs and walkways are less expensive, but require more maintenance. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. These projects can be very effective in areas of high-pedestrian volumes with a past history of crashes involving pedestrians.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 65 - 89 % R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the new crossing which includes new enhanced safety features. Note:

This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install raised pedest rian crossing" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio. This CM is not intended to be used for high- cost aesthetic enhancements (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high-use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. For multi -lane roadways, advance "yield" markings can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.

The enhanced safety elements, which may include curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting, combined with pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.

Care must be taken to warn drivers of the potential for pedestrians crossing the roadway and enhanced improvements added to the crossing increase the likelihood of pedestrians crossing in a safe manner. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to crossing like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending on the extent of the curb extensions, raised medians, flashing beacons, and other pedestrian safety elements that are needed with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these improvements can sometimes be low cost and funded through local funding by local crews. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 8 - 56% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 90
523

R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the area with the new raised crossing. Note:

This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio.

General information
Where to use:

On lower-speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant vehicular traffic. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone, may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, raised crossings can be added to complement the standard crossing elements. Special requirements may apply and extra care should be taken when considering installing raised crossings to ensure unintended safety issues are not created, such as: emergency vehicle access or truck route issues.

Why it works:

Adding a raised pedestrian crossing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The raised crossing encourages motorists to reduce their speed and provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the elements of the raised crossing and the need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have medium to high B/C ratios based on past non-motorized crash history.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 30 - 46% R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB.

General information
Where to use:

Why it works:

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 – 47.4% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 91
524

R38, Install Animal Fencing
For HSIP Cycle 11 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Animal 80% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "animal" crashes occurring within the limits of the new fencing.

General information
Where to use:

At locations with high percent of vehicular/animal crashes (reactive) or where there is a known high percent of animals crossing due to migratory patterns (proactive).

Why it works:

Animal fencing helps to channelize the identified animals to a natural or man-made crossing, eliminating the conflict between vehicles and animals on the same place. Animal fencing is typically installed at a bridge location with its "run of need" dependent on the surrounding terrain.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Time to install fencing can be moderate to lengthy depending on the environmental commitments and agreed upon solution to mitigating project impacts. Costs will be fairly low and depend on the "run of need" length. There will be minimal reoccurring maintenance costs on keeping the fence intact. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Animal CRF: 70 - 90 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 92
525

Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”
The information contained here represent a brief summary of each section of this manual as well as the Summary of “Recommended Actions” from Sections 2 through 7. This is intended to be a quick-reference for local agency practitioners working on a “proactive safety analysis” of their roadway network.

Introduction and Purpose
As safety practitioners consider implementing a ‘proactive safety analysis approach’ they should consider the overall context of the safety issues facing California local agencies and Caltrans primary goals for preparing this Safety manual for California’s local roadway owners. Figure 1 provides a flowchart of the process and Appendices E and F provide examples and lessons learned from recent statewide calls-for-projects.

Identifying Safety Issues
This section provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used. As practitioners gather information they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin-maps to help track and manage this data. The following spreadsheet is offered as an example, but each agency’s spreadsheet should include data and be formatted as necessary to meet their needs.

General Information Crash Information Evaluation / Action Location & Date Source/Type
of information
Safety
Issue/Problem
Nature of
Crashes
Time
of Day
Weather/Traffic
Conditions
Staff
Evaluation
Recommend
Action
Resolution
1) Intersection “X”
2) Roadway Segment
(PM 5.3 to PM 7.8)
State and Local Crash Databases
Recommended Action: Obtain at least 3 years of network-wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics.

Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency’s data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or tools from private for-profit vendors) can help the safety practitioner access and manage their crash data .

Law Enforcement Crash Reports
Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 93
526

safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data.

Observational Information
Recommended Action: Gather information received from law enforcement and road maintenance crew observations. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them.

Public Notifications
Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited.

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

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

Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits
Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identification of the most appropriate countermeasures. Develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken.

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

Quantitative Analysis
Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of their roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies, including:

Crash Frequency
Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments.

For lower volume roadways, network wide pin-maps may be more effective.

Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles and pedestrians.

Crash Rate
Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments in relationship to length, volumes, and/or density.

Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate.

Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 94
527

Qualitative Analysis
Recommended Action: Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify roadway infrastructure characteristics relating to both locations with compliance issues and locations with high crash frequencies/rates. As part the field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures.

Countermeasures
This Section provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown in this manual. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). NOTE: Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as 1 – CMF. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout this document.

Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors Countermeasure Details and Characteristics
Recommended Action: Agencies should use all information and results obtained through completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic ‘engineering judgment’ is required and that this manual and should not be used as a simple cheat-sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding.

Calculating the B/C ratio and Comparing Projects
This section defines a methodology for calculating a benefit to cost (B/C) ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects’ overall cost effectiveness.

Estimating the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Benefit’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

Estimating the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Project Cost’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 95
528

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

Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits or utilizing lower cost countermeasures for projects with low initial B/C ratios.

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

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

Other Funding Sources
Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures including the HSIP and ATP Programs.

Project Development and Construction Considerations
Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to “toot their own safety-horn.”
Evaluation Improvements
This section presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well.

Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet to track future safety project installations and record 3+ years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 96
529

Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations
This appendix includes the Benefit Cost methodology used in the Caltrans calls-for-projects in the HSIP programs. The HSM, Part B - Chapter 7, includes more details on conducting Economic Appraisal for roadway safety projects. Local agencies will be required to utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) as part of their application for HSIP funding. Starting in Cycle 7 call for projects, the fatality and severe injury costs have been combined for calculating the benefit. Because fatality figures are small and are a matter of randomness, this change is being made to reduce the possibility of selecting an improvement project on the basis of randomness. 3 CRF × N × CCave 1) Benefit ( Annual) =∑
s=0 Y
- CRF : Crash reduction factor in each countermeasure.
- S : Severity (0: PDO, 1: Minor Injury, 2: Injury, 3: Severe Injury/Fatal). See the below table. - N : Number of Crashes, in severity levels, related to selected countermeasure. - Y : Crash data time period (Year).
- CC : Crash costs in severity levels. ave
Severity (S) Crash Severity * Location Type Crash Cost *** 3 Signalized Intersection $1,787,000
3 **Fatality and Severe Injury Non Signalized Intersection $2,843,000 3 Combined (KA) Roadway $2,461,000
2 Evident Injury – Other Visible (B) $159,900
1 Possible Injury–Complaint of Pain (C) $90,900
0 Property Damage Only (O) $14,900
* The letters in parenthesis (K, A, B, C and O) refer to the KABCO scale; it is commonly used by law enforcement agencies in their crash reporting efforts and is further documented in the HSM. ** Figures were calculated based on an average Fatality (K) / Severe Injury (A) ratio for each area type, a crash cost for a Fatality (K) of $8,112,200, and a crash cost of a Severe/Disabling Injury (A) of $437,100. These costs are used in the HSIP Analyzer.
*** Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), First Edition, 2010. Adjusted to 2022 Dollars. 2) Benefit (Life) = Benefit (annual) x Years of service life Benefit (Life)(CM )3) BCR (each countermeasure): Benefit Cost Ratio = (CM ) Total Pr oject Cost (CM )
𝑛𝑛 ∑ 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 (𝐿𝐿𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵)(𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶)𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶=1 4) BCR (project): 𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵𝐵 (𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃) = 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇𝐵𝐵𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃 𝑇𝑇𝑗𝑗𝐵𝐵𝑗𝑗𝐵𝐵 𝐶𝐶𝑇𝑇𝐶𝐶𝐵𝐵 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 97
530

Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS
As demonstrated throughout the manual, SafeTREC’s TIMS website http://tims.berkeley.edu/ can be used to assist local agencies in completing a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network. (Note:

This manual focuses on TIMS as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. Local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor-supplied crash analysis software to complete their data collection and analysis process).

SWITRS Query & Map:

The SWITRS Query & Map application is a tool for accessing and mapping fatal and injury collision data from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

SWITRS GIS Map
:

The SWITRS GIS Map offers an interactive map-centric approach to viewing and querying SWITRS collision data, with the capability of multiple tasks including Rank by Intersection, Collision Diagram, etc.

Collision Diagram Tool:

The Collision Diagram tool allows users to generate an interactive collision diagram. The Collision Diagram is accessible through SWITRS GIS Map after a set of collisions is selected.

ATP Maps & Summary Data:

The ATP Maps & Summary Data tool utilizes interactive collision maps to find pedestrian and bicycle collisions hot spot and generate data summaries within specified project and/or community limits.

Though it is designed to support the California Active Transportation Program (ATP), this tool may be useful in developing an HSIP project targeting pedestrian and bicycle safety issues. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 98
531

Appendix F: List of Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ATP Active Transportation Program
B/C; BCR Benefit Cost Ratio
Caltrans California Department of Transportation (Division of Local Assistance) CA-MUTCD California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CM Countermeasure
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
“5 E’s of Safety” Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies
EMS Emergency Medical Services
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
HCCL High Crash Concentration Location
HR3 High Risk Rural Roads Program
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
RSA Roadway Safety Audit
SafeTREC Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System (a product of SafeTREC) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 99
532

Appendix G: References

1. FHWA, Office of Safety website: Local and Rural Road Safety Program • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/

2. Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Product of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.
• http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx

3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Data Resource • https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/

4. California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) • https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd

5. Caltrans’ website on the Highway Design Manual
• https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm

6. FHWA, Research and Development website for Bikesafe and Pedsafe • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/

7. AASHTO - A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets (“Green Book”) AASHTO - the Roadside Design Guide
• https://store.transportation.org/

8. FHWA – Public Roads Magazine:
• https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/home
4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety P a ge | 100
533
APPENDIX E:

COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
534
Table 3. High‐risk Intersections
Control
CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 CM6 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 1 Bailey Rd and Leland Rd Signalized S21PB S02 S03 S09 S20PB S13PB S02 S03 S21PB S20PB S13PB S03 S09 S11 S02 S03 S12 S02 S09 2 Auto Center Dr and Century Blvd Signalized S02 S03 S21PB S20PB S17PB S09 S02 S03 S21PB S20PB S17PB S02 S03 S02 S09 3 Leland Rd and Piedmont Way Signalized S02 S03 S09 S11 S21PB S20PB S02 S03 S21PB S20PB S03 S09 S11 S02 S09 4 Harbor St and School St Signalized S02 S03 S21PB S20PB S17PB S08 S02 S03 S21PB S20PB S17PB S03 S09 S11 S02 S03 S08 S02 S09 5 Commerce Pl and Leland Rd Stop Controlled NS01 NS06 NS12 NS10 NS01 NS06 NS10 NS12 NS06 NS08 NS01 NS06 6 Willow Pass Rd and Winter Way Stop Controlled NS06 NS07 NS14 NS21PB NS06 NS07 NS21PB NS06 NS07 NS14 7 Leland Rd and Southwood Dr Signalized S02 S03 S21PB S20PB S17PB S12 S02 S03 S21PB S20PB S17PB S02 S03 S12 S02 S09 8 Brookside and Buchanan Stop Controlled NS06 NS10 NS11 NS15 NS06 NS11 NS11 NS10 NS15 9 Leland Rd and Woodhill Dr Signalized S02 S03 S09 S12 S02 S03 S03 S09 S02 S09 10 Meadowbrook Ave and Stoneman Ave Stop Controlled NS22PB NS10 NS12 NS22PB NS22PB NS23PB NS12 NS10 11 El Dorado Dr and Railroad Ave Stop Controlled NS21PB NS01 NS06 NS21PB NS06 NS01 NS21PB NS07 NS01 NS06 Code Countermeasure Name
HSIP/Non‐HSIP Code
S01 Add intersection lighting
S02 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back‐plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S05 Install emergency vehicle pre‐emption systems
S06 Install left‐turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left‐turn lane or phase before) S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) S08 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal‐mounted)
S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)
S11 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) S12 Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
S13PB Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches
S14 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left‐turns and U‐turns (S.I.) S15 Reduced Left‐Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)
S16 Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal)
S17PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
S18PB Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
S19PB Pedestrian Scramble
S20PB Install advance stop bar before crosswalk
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Code Countermeasure Name
NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
NS02 Convert to all‐way STOP control (from 2‐way or Yield control) NS03 Install Signals
NS04 Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) NS05 Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2‐way stop or Yield control) NS05mr Convert intersection to mini‐roundabout
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or addiƟonal stop signs or other intersecƟon warning/regulatorysigns NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop‐Controlled Intersections NS09 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) NS12 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) NS13 Install splitter‐islands on the minor road approaches NS14 Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
NS15 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left‐turns and u‐turns (NS.I.) NS16 Reduced Left‐Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.)
NS17 Install right‐turn lane (NS.I.)
NS18 Install left‐turn lane (where no left‐turn lane exists) NS19PB Install raised medians (refuge islands)
NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) ID Intersection
Consolidated CMs
(HSIP‐Eligible ‐ Refer to LRSM* 2020) Additional CM
(non‐HSIP)**
EA ‐ 1 Improve Intersection
Safety
EA ‐ 6 Address Hit object
collisions
EA ‐ 5 Address Nighttime
collisions
EA ‐ 4 Address Broadside
collisions
EA ‐ 3 Address Rear‐end
collisions and Unsafe speed
violations
EA ‐ 2 Improve Pedestrian
Safety
535
Table 4. High‐risk Roadway Segments
CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM5 CM6 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 A Leland Rd: Railroad Ave to Century Blvd R22 R26 R27 R21 R35PB R35PB R26 R21 R22 R01 R22 R27 R02 R27 B Railroad Ave: Bliss Ave to Pueblo Dr R22 R27 R21 R35PB R35PB R21 R22 R01 R22 R27 R02 R27 C Leland Rd: Chestnut Dr to Woodhill R22 R27 R35PB R10PB R02 R30 Repavement between Chestnut and Bailey R35PB R10PB R26 R21 R22 R01 R22 R27 R02 R27 D Buchanan Rd: Railroad Ave to Eastern city limits R22 R27 R37PB R21 R02 R33PB RRFB at Buchnan and Heights R35PB R33PB R37PB R21 R22 R01 R22 R27 R02 R27 E Parkside Dr: Railroad Ave to Maidenhair St R22 R27 R21 R02 R30 R21 R22 R01 R22 R27 R02 R27 F School St: Railroad Ave to Deems St R22 R27 R37PB R30 Repavement R37PB R22 R01 R22 R27 G Loveridge Rd: Loveridge Cir to Hwy 4 EB on ramp R22 R27 R35PB R26 R02 R35PB R26 R21 R22 R22 R27 R02 R27 H Atlantic Ave: Railroad Ave to Atlantic Cir R22 R27 R37PB R10PB Upgrade Pavement Striping R37PB R10PB R26 R21 R22 R22 R27 I Stoneman Ave: St Moritz Dr to Rolling Hills Dr R22 R27 R37PB R26 R02 Repavement R37PB R26 R21 R22 R22 R27 R02 R27 J Bailey Rd: Southern City Limits to 1/3 mile north R22 R27 R01 R02 R04 R30 R26 R22 R01 R22 R27 R02 R27 R04 Code Countermeasure Name
R01 Add Segment Lighting
R02 Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone R03 Install Median Barrier
R04 Install Guardrail
R05 Install impact attenuators
R06 Flatten side slopes
R07 Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail
R08 Install raised median
R09 Install median (flush)
R10PB Install pedestrian median fencing
R11 Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes
R12 Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft)
R13 Add two‐way left‐turn lane (without reducing travel lanes) R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left‐turn and bike lanes) R15 Widen shoulder
R16 Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only)
R17 Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)
R18 Flatten crest vertical curve
R19 Improve curve superelevation
R20 Convert from two‐way to one‐way traffic
R21 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
R24 Install curve advance warning signs
R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R28 Install edge‐lines and centerlines
R29 Install no‐passing line
R32PB Install bike lanes
R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes
R34PB Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) R36PB Install raised pedestrian crossing
R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
R38 Install Animal Fencing
ID Roadway Segment
Consolidated CMs
(HSIP‐Eligible ‐ Refer to LRSM* 2020) Additional CM
(non‐HSIP)**
EA ‐ 1 Improve Intersection
Safety
EA ‐ 6 Address Hit object
collisionsEA ‐ 2 Improve Pedestrian safety
EA ‐ 3 Address Rear‐end
collisions and Unsafe speed
violations
EA ‐ 4 Address Broadside
collisions
EA ‐ 5 Address Nighttime
collisions
536
Table 5. Non‐Engineering Countermeasures
Strategy Performance Measure Organizations to be involved Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws, unsafe speeds, distracted driving, and driving under the influence. Number of education campaigns City/ School District/ Police Department Conduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of pedestrian safety needs through media outlets and social media. Number of education campaigns City/ School District/ Police Department Conduct bicycle safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of bicycle safety needs through media outlets and social media. Number of education campaigns City/ School District/ Police Department Targeted enforcement at high‐risk locations. Number of tickets issued. Police Department Increase the number of personnel who have completed Advanced Roadside impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training
Number of personnel who have
completed Advanced Roadside
impaired Driving Enforcement
(ARIDE) training
Police Department
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre‐emption systems EMS vehicle response time. Local Emergency Services Agency Increase the number of EMS/fire controll personnel taking Traffic Incident Managmenet Training
number of EMS/fire controll
personnel taking Traffic Incident
Managmenet Traising
Local Emergency Services Agency
Enforcement
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Education
537
Table 6. HSIP Eligible Countermeasures
City of Pittsburg LRSP
Countermeasures for Intersections
Sr. No. Code Countermeasure Name CM Description CRF Federal Funding Systemic Approach Opportunity HSIP/Non‐HSIP Code
1 S01 Add intersection lighting Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium 2 S02 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back‐plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, a Includes New LED lighting, signal back plates, retro‐reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads. 15% 90% Very High 3 S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Includes adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher‐risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations. 15% 50% Very High
5 S05 Install emergency vehicle pre‐emption systems
Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles 70% 90% High
6 S06 Install left‐turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left‐turn lane or phase before) Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left‐turn phase that are experiencing a large number of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left‐turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left‐turning vehicles (angle, rear‐end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left‐turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high‐ volume and high‐speed major‐road approaches.
55% 90% Low
7 S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) Left turns are widely recognized as the highest‐risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left‐turn phases for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left‐turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles 30% 90% High
8 S08 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal‐mounted) Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection.

Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers. 30% 90% Medium 9 S09 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. When drivers approach and traverse through complex intersections, drivers may be required to perform unusual or unexpected maneuvers 10% 90% Very High 10 S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. 30% 90% Medium 11 S11 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes 55% 90% Medium 12 S12 Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) Raised medians next to left turn lanes at intersections offer a cost effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections 25% 90% Medium
13 S13PB Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian‐generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians J‐walking across the travel lanes at mid‐block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walk‐ phase.
30% 90% Low
14 S14 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left‐turns and U‐turns (S.I.) Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear‐end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection
50% 90% Medium
15 S15 Reduced Left‐Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)
Reduced left‐turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left‐turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U‐turns to complete certain left‐turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U‐turn (RCUT) and the median U‐turn (MUT). 50% 90% Medium 16 S16 Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left‐turn movements.

Varies 90% Low
17 S17PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes. 25% 90% Very High
18 S18PB Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left‐turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double‐right or double‐left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase.
25% 90% High
19 S19PB Pedestrian Scramble
Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district.
40% 90% High
20 S20PB Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur. 15% 90% Very High 21 S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Addition of LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3‐7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication; only minor signal timing alteration is required. 60% 90% Very High Signalized
538
Sr. No. Code Countermeasure Name CM Description CRF Federal Funding Systemic Approach Opportunity 1 NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium 2 NS02 Convert to all‐way STOP control (from 2‐way or Yield control) Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all‐way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate,and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all‐way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior.
50% 90% High
3 NS03 Install Signals Installation of traffic signals 25% 90% Low 4 NS04 Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) Intersections that have a high frequency of right‐angle and left‐turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate‐volume unsignalized intersections.

Varies 90% Low
5 NS05 Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2‐way stop or Yield control) Intersections that have a high frequency of right‐angle and left‐turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate‐volume unsignalized intersections.

Varies 90% Low
6 NS05mr Convert intersection to mini‐roundabout Mini‐roundabouts are characterized by a small diameter (45‐90 ft) and traversable islands (central island and splitter islands). 30% 90% High 7 NS06 Install/upgrade larger or addiƟonal stop signs or other intersecƟon warning/regulatorysign Additional regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections will help enhance the ability of approaching drivers to percieve them 15% 90% Very High
8 NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of centerlines and stop bars 25% 90% Very High 9 NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop‐Controlled Intersections Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non‐Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right‐angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post‐mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop‐controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs. 15% 90% High
10 NS09 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) Installation of advance flashing beacoms to call drivers attention to intersection control signs 30% 90% High 12 NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway. 20% 90% High 13 NS12 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Non‐signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
55% 90% Medium
14 NS13 Install splitter‐islands on the minor road approaches The installation of a splitter island allows for the addition of a stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous. 40% 90% Medium
15 NS14 Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable. 25% 90% Medium
16 NS15 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left‐turns and u‐turns (NS.I.) Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear‐end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection.
50% 90% Medium
17 NS16 Reduced Left‐Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) Reduced left‐turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left‐turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. 50% 90% Medium 18 NS17 Install right‐turn lane (NS.I.)
Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right‐turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right‐turn lanes, particularly on high‐volume and high‐speed major‐road approaches. When considering new right‐turn lanes, potential impacts to non‐motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. 20% 90% Low
19 NS18 Install left‐turn lane (where no left‐turn lane exists) Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left‐turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left‐turn lanes, particularly on high‐volume and high‐speed major‐road approaches. When considering new left‐ turn lanes, potential impacts to non‐motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. 35% 90% Low
20 NS19PB Install raised medians (refuge islands)
Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.
45% 90% Medium
21 NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) Non‐signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk.
25% 90% High
23 NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian‐activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid‐block pedestrian crossings. 35% 90% Medium
24 NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non‐motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) (also called High‐Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. 55% 90% Low
Countermeasures for Roadway Segments
Sr. No. Code Countermeasure Name CM Description CRF Federal Funding Systemic Approach Opportunity 1 R01 Add Segment Lighting Provision of lighting along roadways. 35% 90% Medium Unsignalized
539
2 R02 Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone Known locations or roadway segments prone to collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right‐of‐way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate. 35% 90% High
3 R03 Install Median Barrier
Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross‐overs are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO and non‐severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. 25% 90% Medium
4 R04 Install Guardrail
Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run‐off‐the‐road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes.
25% 90% High
5 R05 Install impact attenuators
Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators should only be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed.
25% 90% High
6 R06 Flatten side slopes
Roadways experiencing frequent lane departure crashes that result in roll‐over type crashes as a result of the roadway slope being so severe as to not accommodate a reasonable degree of driver correction. When there is a need to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes without installing a barrier system that could result in increased numbers of crashes. 30% 90% Medium
7 R07 Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail
Locations where high number of crashes originate as a lane departure and result in collision with guardrail or a fixed object located on the side slope shielded by guardrail. The guardrail may or may not meet current standards. Even though guardrails are generally installed to reduce the severity of departure crashes, they still can result in severe crashes in some locations. 40% 90% Medium
8 R08 Install raised median
Areas experiencing head‐on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing a raised median is a more restrictive approach in that it represents a more rigid barrier between opposing traffic.
25% 90% Medium
9 R09 Install median (flush)
Areas experiencing head‐on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Roadways with oversized lanes offer an opportunity to restripe the roadway to reduce the lanes to standard widths and use the extra width for the median. 15% 90% Medium
10 R10PB Install pedestrian median fencing
Roadway segments with high pedestrian‐generators and pedestrian‐destinations nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians J‐walking across the travel lanes at mid‐block locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid‐block crossing. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution. 35% 90% Low
11 R11 Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes
Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed is reached and areas that do not provide the opportunity to safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement.
25% 90% Low
12 R12 Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) Horizontal curves or tangents and low speed or high speed roadways identified as having lane departure crashes, sideswipe or head‐on crashes that can be attributed to an existing pavement width less than 10 feet. 25% 90% Medium 13 R13 Add two‐way left‐turn lane (without reducing travel lanes) Roadways having a high frequency of drivers being rear‐ended while attempting to make a left turn across oncoming traffic. Also can be effective for drivers crossing the centerline of an undivided multilane roadway inadvertently. 30% 90% Medium 14 R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left‐turn and bike lanes) Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head‐on, left‐turn, and rear‐end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four‐lane design. 30% 90% Medium
15 R15 Widen shoulder
Roadways that have a frequent incidence of vehicles leaving the travel lane resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. The probability of a safe recovery is increased if an errant vehicle is provided with an increased paved area in which to initiate such a recovery.
30% 90% Medium
16 R16 Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) Roadway curves noted as having frequent lane departure crashes due to inadequate or no shoulders, resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. 45% 90% Medium
17 R17 Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)
Roadways with horizontal curves that have experienced lane departure crashes as a result of a roadway segment having compound curves or a severe radius. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.
50% 90% Low
18 R18 Flatten crest vertical curve
The target for this strategy is usually unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance due to vertical geometry and with patterns of crashes related to that lack of sight distance that cannot be ameliorated by less expensive methods. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns. 25% 90% Low
19 R19 Improve curve superelevation Roadways noted as having frequent lane departure crashes and inadequate or no superelevation. Safety can be enhanced when the superelevation is improved or restored along curves where the actual superelevation is less than the optimal. 45% 90% Medium 20 R20 Convert from two‐way to one‐way traffic
One‐way streets can offer improved signal timing and accommodate odd‐spaced signals. One‐way streets can simplify crossings for pedestrians, who must look for traffic in only one direction. While studies have shown that conversion of two‐way streets to one‐way generally reduces pedestrian crashes and the number of conflict points, one‐way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems.
35% 90% Medium
21 R21 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes 55% 90% High 22 R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) Additional or new signage can address crashes caused by lack of driver awareness or complaince of roadway signing. 15% 90% Very High 23 R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. 90% 24 R24 Install curve advance warning signs Addition of advance curve warning signs; may also include horizontal alignment and/or advisory speed warning signs 25% 90% Very High 25 R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves. Flashing beacons in conjunction with warning signs should only be used on horizontal curves that have an established severe crash history to help maintain their effectiveness. 90% 26 R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Includes the addition of dynamic speed warning signs (also known as Radar Speed Feedback Signs) 30% 90% High 27 R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Installation of delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. 15% 90% Very High
28 R28 Install edge‐lines and centerlines
Any road with a history of run‐off‐road right, head‐on, opposite‐direction‐sideswipe, or run‐off‐road‐left crashes is a candidate for this treatment ‐install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate.
25% 90% Very High
540
29 R29 Install no‐passing line
Roadways that have a high percentage of head‐on crashes suggesting that many head‐on crashes may relate to failed passing maneuvers. No‐passing lines should be installed where drivers "passing sight distance" is not available due to horizontal or vertical obstructions.
45% 90% Very High
32 R32PB Install bike lanes Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder. 35% 90% High
33 R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes
Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike‐vehicle collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation measures including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. 45% 90% High
34 R34PB Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate. 80% 90% Medium 35 R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high‐use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.
35% 90% Medium
36 R36PB Install raised pedestrian crossing On lower‐speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant vehicular traffic. 35% 90% Medium 37 R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian‐activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid‐block pedestrian crossings 35% 90% Medium
38 R38 Install Animal Fencing At locations with high percent of vehicular/animal crashes (reactive) or where there is a known high percent of animals crossing due to migratory patterns (proactive). 80% 90% Medium
541
APPENDIX F:

HSIP ANALYSER
(B/C RATIO CALCULATION)
542

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
65 Civic Avenue
Pittsburg, CA 94565
TO: Mayor and Council Members
FROM: Garrett Evans, City Manager
SUBJECT: Adoption of a City Council Resolution Authorizing the Execution of a Funding Agreement Between the City of Pittsburg and Contra Costa Transportation Authority
MEETING DATE: August 19, 2024

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of Project 2243 – Countywide Smart Signals (the “Project”), the City of Pittsburg and Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) have developed a Funding Agreement regarding the design and construction of upgrades to a total of thirty (30) traffic signal intersections within the City. If adopted, this resolution with authorize the execution of this Funding Agreement as part of the Project.

FISCAL IMPACT
None from this action. With adoption of Resolution No. 23-14318 on June 19, 2023, the Project is funded with the CCTA programmed total of $1,332,724 from the One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG3) and $152,834 from Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) to provide local matching funds. The total Project cost of improvements for the City is $1,485,558.

RECOMMENDATION
City Council adopt the attached resolution to authorize the City Manager to execute the Funding Agreement with CCTA.

BACKGROUND
CCTA is the Project sponsor and designated lead agency for implementing the Countywide Smart Signals Project within Contra Costa County. The Project will install traffic signal systems and intelligent transportation system equipment upgrades to key identified intersections within the City. The following upgrades will help the City collect traffic data, upgrade existing infrastructure, and improve safety for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. 543

SUBCOMMITTEE FINDINGS
This item was not presented to a subcommittee.

STAFF ANALYSIS
The Smart Signals Project will develop, manage, and implement systems that will improve multimodal mobility, maximize highway and arterial system throughput, reduce environmental impact, and improve operation efficiency and safety throughout Contra Costa County.

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution
Funding Agreement
Report Prepared By: Nhat Phan, Associate Engineer
544
Exhibit "A"- Budget Summary
Project 2243 - Countywide Smart Signals
Project Funding
One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG3) $1,332,724
Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) - Local Match $152,834 Funding Total $1,485,558
545

BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURG
In the Matter of:

Authorizing the Execution of a )
Funding Agreement Between )
The City of Pittsburg and Contra ) RESOLUTION NO. 24- Costa Transportation Authority )
WHEREAS, the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) was awarded a One Bay Area Grant Cycle 3 (OBAG3) for the design, construction, and deployment of Project 2243 – Countywide Smart Signals (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the Project will install signal system and intelligent transportation system (ITS) equipment upgrades to key identified intersections within Contra Costa County cities with the objective to coordinate and synchronize the timing of the signals; and WHEREAS, the City and CCTA have identified 30 intersections to recommend for signal system and ITS equipment upgrades for inclusion in the Project estimated at $1,332,724; and
WHEREAS, the City and CCTA desire to enter into a funding agreement to provide CCTA the required matching funds for this project; and
WHEREAS, staff requests that the City Council authorize the City Manager to authorize the execution of the Funding Agreement.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute a Funding Agreement between the City and CCTA.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pittsburg at a regular meeting on the 19th of August 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAINED:

ABSENT:
_____________________________
Juan Antonio Banales, Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
Alice E. Evenson, City Clerk
546
Funding Agreement No. 648
Countywide Smart Signals Design and Construction Phases

Page 1 of 6 ends

Pittsburg City CouncilAugust 19, 2024

Pittsburg City Council
August 19, 2024