Pleasant Hill City Council
September 21, 2026

I
September 2026
Copyright © 2026 Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc
I
Safety Action Plan
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by KimleyHorn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. © September 2026
Prepared for:

City of Pleasant Hill
Engineering Division
100 Gregory Lane
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
4637 Chabot Drive
Suite 200
Pleasanton, CA 94588
925-398-4840
II
Acknowledgements
The City of Pleasant Hill employees and partners were instrumental in the development, review, and refinement of this Safety Action Plan. Kimley-Horn would like to express their appreciation to the supporting staff and partners for their participation and contributions.

City of Pleasant Hill
Zac Shess, Mayor
Andrei Obolenskiy, Vice Mayor
Ann James, Director of Public Works
Laetitia Porta, Senior Civil Engineer
Anthony Nuti, Associate Engineer
Community Stakeholder Group
Consultant Team (Kimley-Horn)
Robert Paderna
Channing Bickford
Mike Colety
Kristen Mei
Shahrzad Rahgozar
Abbey Ibarra
Rebecca Chan
Zachary Ramalingam
Seitu Coleman
Statutory Notice
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code - Section 409: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

III
Table of Contents
Safety Action Plan.........................................................................................................................I Acknowledgements .....................................................................................................................II Statutory Notice...........................................................................................................................II Table of Contents........................................................................................................................III List of Appendices ...................................................................................................................... V List of Figures ............................................................................................................................. V List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. VI List of Acronyms ........................................................................................................................VII

1. Introduction..........................................................................................................................1 SS4A Grant Program.................................................................................................................5 Safe Systems Approach............................................................................................................5 Vision Zero ...............................................................................................................................6

2. Community Engagement.......................................................................................................7 Online Community Outreach ..................................................................................................10 Online Social Map: Contributions by Category .....................................................................11 Key Themes from the Survey................................................................................................12 Community Events .................................................................................................................17 Event 1: Light Up the Night (November 11, 2025) ..................................................................17 Event 2: Virtual Public Meeting (February 17, 2026) ..............................................................17 Event 3: Pleasant Hill Earth Day (April 23, 2026) ...................................................................18 Event 4: In-Person Public Workshop (May 19, 2026) .............................................................18 Community Stakeholder Group...............................................................................................19 Member List........................................................................................................................19 Recap of Meetings ..............................................................................................................19

3. Safety Analysis ...................................................................................................................21 Data Collection...................................................................................................................21 City Collision Trends ...........................................................................................................21 Local Safety Performance ...................................................................................................28 Equivalent Property Damage Only and Critical Crash Rate....................................................30 High-Injury Network ............................................................................................................31

4. Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................34 IV
Engineering Countermeasures................................................................................................34 Crash Modification Factors .................................................................................................34 Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox................................................................................36 Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox................................................................................37 Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox (continued) .............................................................38 Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures .....................................................................................42

5. Safety Projects....................................................................................................................43

6. Actions & Strategies............................................................................................................46

7. Review of Existing Policies, Programs, and Plans..................................................................50

8. Implementation and Evaluation...........................................................................................51 Implementation......................................................................................................................51 Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas.........................................................................................51 Evaluation..............................................................................................................................51

9. Next Steps..........................................................................................................................53

10. Appendices ..........................................................................................................................1 V
List of Appendices
Appendix A: – Online Survey Comments.................................................................................... A-2 Appendix B: Engagement Events Feedback Materials ................................................................ B-1 Appendix C: Intersection Network Screening Results ....................C-Error! Bookmark not defined.

Appendix D: Segment Network Screening Results .....................................................................D-1 Appendix E: Corridor Improvement Exhibits .............................................................................. E-1 Appendix F: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for City of Pleasant Hill.....................F-1 Appendix G: Funding Sources...................................................................................................G-1 List of Figures
Figure 1 — Interactive Engagement Poster for Pop-Up Events ........................................................8 Figure 2 — Samples of Social Media Promotional Posts for the Safety Action Plan ..........................9 Figure 3 — Project Flyer Developed for Distribution .....................................................................10 Figure 4 — Online Interactive Map Platform.................................................................................11 Figure 5— Engagement Feedback Heatmap Overlay with High-Injury Network .............................15 Figure 6— Engagement Feedback Point Map Overlay with High-Injury Network ............................16 Figure 7 – Interactive Engagement Board.....................................................................................17 Figure 8— Virtual Public Meeting (Zoom).....................................................................................17 Figure 9 – Pleasant Hill Earth Day Event.......................................................................................18 Figure 10 — In-Person Public Workshop......................................................................................18 Figure 11 — Working Group Meeting #2 on April 21st, 2026 ...........................................................20 Figure 12 — Number of Crashes Annually ...................................................................................22 Figure 13 — Percent of Crashes by Type......................................................................................23 Figure 14 — Primary Crash Factors of KSI Crashes ......................................................................24 Figure 15 – Map of Crashes by Severity........................................................................................25 Figure 16 – Map of Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes .........................................................................26 VI
Figure 17 – Map of Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes .....................................................................27 Figure 18 – Pleasant Hill High-Injury Network Map.......................................................................32 Figure 19 — CMF Calculation .....................................................................................................34 Figure 20 — CRF Calculation ......................................................................................................34 Figure 21 — CMF Method Sample Calculation.............................................................................35 Figure 22 - Priority HIN Corridors ................................................................................................44 List of Tables
Table 1 – Crash Severity..............................................................................................................22 Table 2 – Historical Trends: Pleasant Hill Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Compared ..................28 Table 3- Pleasant Hill OTS Ranking (2023) ...................................................................................29 Table 4 - Crash Cost by Severity..................................................................................................30 Table 5 - Pleasant Hill High-Injury Network Segments..................................................................33 Table 6 - City of Pleasant Hill Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox . Error! Bookmark not defined.

Table 7 - Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term Improvements....................................................41 Table 8 — Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox ............................................................42 Table 9 – Pleasant Hill Priority HIN Corridors ...............................................................................45 Table 10 – Actions and Strategies................................................................................................47 Table 11: Intersection Critical Crash Rate Differentials..................................................................1 Table 12: Segment Critical Crash Rate Differentials.......................................................................1 VII
List of Acronyms
ARIDE Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement
ATP Caltrans Active Transportation Program
ATTAIN Advanced Transportation Technology and Innovation CalB/C California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model CCR Critical Crash Rates
CHP California Highway Patrol
CMFs Crash Modification Factors
CRFs Crash Reduction Factors
CTC California Transportation Commission
DREs Drug Recognition Experts
DUI Driving Under Influence
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
ER Emergency Response
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
HAWK High Intensity Activated Crosswalk
HIN High Injury Network
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
IIP Interregional Improvement Program
ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
KSI Fatal and Severe Injury
LPI Leading pedestrian interval
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
OBAG One Bay Area Grant
OTS California Office of Traffic Safety
VIII
PCF Primary Crash Factor
RCP Reconnecting Communities Pilot
RIP Regional Improvement Program
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
RSA Road Safety Audit
RTIPs Regional Transportation Improvement Programs
SAP Safety Action Plan
SB 1 California Senate Bill 1
SHSP California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SMART Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation SSA Safe System Approach
SS4A Safe Streets and Roads for All
SRTS Safe Routes to School
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TDM Transportation Demand Management
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
USDOT U.S. Department of Transportation
1 Executive Summary
The City of Pleasant Hill’s Safety Action Plan is a comprehensive data-driven and communityinformed strategy for reducing roadway fatalities and severe injuries and improving safety for everyone who travels in Pleasant Hill. The Plan provides a framework for identifying, prioritizing, funding, and implementing improvements across the City’s roadway network. It combines analysis of historical crash data with input from residents, City departments, emergency responders, community organizations, schools, businesses, partner agencies, and neighboring jurisdictions. By implementing this Safety Action Plan and focusing investments where they can have the greatest impact, Pleasant Hill is taking proactive steps toward a transportation system where people of all ages and abilities can travel safely whether walking, bicycling, driving, riding transit, or using mobility devices.

The Safety Action Plan is organized around several key findings and recommendations that together create a clear path toward a safer Pleasant Hill:

Current Conditions and the Need for Action
The safety analysis included review of five years of crash data from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2023. The analysis generally included crashes within the Pleasant Hill city limits, excluding crashes on the State Highway System such as Interstate 680. The City’s roadway network was evaluated using a number of different crash analyses and metrics to identify locations with elevated safety risk.

During the five-year study period, 360 crashes were recorded in Pleasant Hill. Three crashes resulted in fatalities and 43 resulted in severe injuries, meaning that fatal and severe-injury crashes represented approximately 13 percent of all crashes analyzed. While these crashes represent a relatively small share of all crashes, they result in the most serious and life-changing consequences for individuals, families, and the community. Fatal and severe-injury crashes also increased by an average of approximately 1.9 crashes per year during the study period, highlighting the need for proactive investments in transportation safety.

Community-Informed Planning
Community input was an integral part of the Plan and helped ensure that technical analysis was complemented by the lived experiences of residents, students, and visitors. Community engagement occurred between November 2025 and June 2026 and included two rounds of outreach, online surveys and interactive mapping, in-person pop-up events, virtual and in-person public meetings, and coordination with a Community Stakeholder Group. The outreach process was designed to inform the public, understand the community’s traffic safety concerns through lived experience, and identify the improvements residents consider most important.

The online engagement platform received a total 911 community comments and responses, including 640 interactive map comments and 271 survey responses. Pedestrian concerns represented 45 percent of mapped comments, vehicle concerns represented 28 percent, and 2 bicycle concerns represented 23 percent. The most frequently identified safety challenges were aggressive driving, pedestrian crossings, and bicycle lanes. The solutions most often prioritized by respondents included improved crossings with flashing beacons, stop signs, or traffic signals; completion of missing sidewalks; and slower vehicle speeds through traffic-calming measures.

Community feedback consistently emphasized the need to:
• Manage speeding and aggressive driving, particularly near schools and in residential neighborhoods.
• Improve pedestrian crossings, sidewalks, accessibility, and visibility. • Provide safer and better-connected bicycle facilities. • Address intersection operations, traffic conflicts, lighting, and sight-distance concerns. • Improve connections to schools, parks, trails, Downtown Pleasant Hill, BART, commercial destinations, and neighboring
communities.

High-Injury Network
The Plan establishes a High-Injury
Network to identify the portions of
Pleasant Hill’s roadway network
where fatal and severe-injury crashes
are concentrated. Approximately 98
percent of the City’s fatal and
severe-injury crashes occurred on
10 percent of its roadways. Focusing
resources on these corridors allows
the City to direct investments toward
locations where improvements can
have the greatest benefit.

The High-Injury Network (Figure ES-1)
includes key corridors throughout the
City where fatal and severe injury
crashes are concentrated.

Priority Safety Projects
The Plan identifies ten priority HighInjury Network corridors based on crash concentrations, injury severity,
and community concerns. These
corridors represent locations with a
high need for safety intervention and
Figure 1: Pleasant Hill High Injury Network
3 will serve as the initial focus for targeted safety improvements. Proposed improvements include enhanced street lighting, pedestrian and bicycle pavement markings, crossing enhancements, median and curb extensions, and traffic signal improvements. Detailed concepts for the priority corridors are provided in Appendix E of the Plan.

Engineering and Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures
The Plan includes a toolbox of proven safety improvements that the City can apply systemically or at specific locations based on roadway context, crash patterns, project feasibility, and available funding. These strategies range from physical roadway improvements, such as enhanced crossings and bicycle facilities, to operational changes that improve visibility, reduce speeding, and make intersections and roads safer. Examples include improved lighting, road diets, separated and buffered bicycle lanes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, high visibility crosswalks, leading pedestrian intervals, pedestrian countdown heads, ADA upgrades, retroreflective signal backplates, speed feedback signs, traffic circles, and speed management treatments.

Countermeasures are organized into near-, mid-, and long-term implementation categories. Nearterm improvements generally require fewer resources and may be implemented more readily, while mid- and long-term projects may require additional procurement, engineering, permitting, or construction.

The Plan also recommends education, enforcement, and outreach strategies that address behaviors commonly associated with fatal and severe crashes, including speeding, aggressive driving, impaired driving, occupant protection, and distracted driving. These strategies include high-visibility enforcement, publicized sobriety checkpoints, nighttime seat-belt enforcement, and targeted cellphone and text messaging enforcement.

Programs, Policies, and Recommended Actions
In addition to physical improvements, the Plan recommends coordinated policies and programs organized into six categories: Programmatic and Policy Actions, Education, Enforcement, Infrastructure, Alternative Transportation, and Post-Crash Care. Priority actions include establishing an implementation funding program, continuing coordination through the Traffic Safety Commission, publishing progress reports, conducting staff training, conducting targeted speed and DUI enforcement, expanding the bicycle and pedestrian network, and improving transportation data collection and analysis.

Implementation, Evaluation, and Accountability
Implementation of the Safety Action Plan will occur over time through a combination of capital projects, policy changes, education and enforcement programs, and continued pursuit of local, state, and federal funding opportunities. Over the next three to five years, the Plan recommends emphasizing speed management and aggressive driving, vulnerable roadway users, motorcycles, and impaired driving.
4 The City can evaluate progress by continuing to monitor crash activity, convening regular progress meetings, maintaining and updating its list of priority locations, tracking completed safety improvements, and assessing changes in fatal and severe-injury crashes and other identified safety emphasis areas. The Plan recommends updating the Safety Action Plan every five years, obtaining City Council approval for future updates to the Plan and adoption of a Vision Zero policy.

Conclusion
The Pleasant Hill Safety Action Plan represents the City’s commitment to providing a safer transportation network for its residents, workers, students, and visitors. By combining data-driven decision making with community priorities and proven safety strategies, the Plan provides a roadmap for reducing severe injury crashes and saving lives. With continued investment and implementation efforts, successful implementation will help create a safer, healthier, and more connected Pleasant Hill for current and future generations. 5 1.Introduction
The City of Pleasant Hill’s Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Safety Action Plan has several notable purposes in improving the safety of all the City’s roadway facilities. The first purpose being to identify traffic safety improvements based on a review of crash data and input from the staff, stakeholders, and the community. This project also aims to provide a foundation for a decisionmaking framework so that the City can identify, prioritize, and implement safety countermeasures from the toolbox in the following years. The report also serves as an ongoing resource for City staff as they identify and pursue funding through various programs to implement the identified safety improvements.

The Safety Action Plan summarizes the existing safety context for the City of Pleasant Hill based on crash data obtained from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. This data has been used to identify safety trends, high-crash locations, and locations with unusual crash patterns or high-crash severities within the City. The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the roadway systems maintained by the City using crash records spanning a five-year period from January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2023.

Section 3 of the report describes the analysis techniques that were used and why these methods were chosen.

SS4A Grant Program
The SS4A Grant Program, established under the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021), provides federal funding to support regional, local, and Tribal initiatives aimed at preventing roadway deaths and serious injuries. Administered by the U.S.

Department of Transportation (USDOT), the program aligns with the national Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

SS4A funding is available for both Action Plan development and Implementation projects. Action Plans establish a data-driven framework for identifying, prioritizing, and addressing the most significant roadway safety issues in a community, while implementation grants provide resources to carry out projects and strategies identified in these plans.

For the City of Pleasant Hill, participation in the SS4A program provides an opportunity to wholistically examine safety throughout the city and create a transformative plan in the Safety Action Plan. By leveraging federal resources, the City can identify local crash trends, evaluate safety challenges, and establish evidence-based strategies to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. This collaborative planning effort not only strengthens eligibility for future implementation funding but also supports long-term goals of improving roadway safety, enhancing mobility for all users, and fostering a safer, more resilient City.

Safe Systems Approach
The Safe System Approach (SSA) is the guiding framework for roadway safety in the United States, promoted by the USDOT and central to the SS4A program. The approach acknowledges that while human errors are inevitable, roadway deaths and serious injuries are preventable. Rather than placing sole responsibility on road users, the SSA emphasizes designing a transportation system 6 that anticipates mistakes and reduces crash forces to prevent fatal or life-altering outcomes. The approach is built around five core elements:

Safe Roads – Designing and operating
roadways that prioritize safety for all
users.

Safe Speeds – Managing speeds to
reduce the likelihood and severity of
crashes.

Safe Vehicles – Promoting vehicle
technologies and standards that
protect occupants and vulnerable
road users.

Safe Road Users – Encouraging safe
behaviors through education,
enforcement, and equitable policies.

Post-Crash Care – Ensuring timely,
effective emergency response to
reduce the severity of injuries.

By applying these principles, the SSA shifts from a reactive to a proactive safety strategy, focusing on system-wide improvements rather than isolated fixes. For the City of Pleasant Hill adopting the Safe Systems Approach ensures that roadway design, policy decisions, and safety strategies consider all users—drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit riders alike. This comprehensive, human-centered framework supports the City’s efforts to move toward zero fatalities and serious injuries, while creating safer and more equitable transportation networks for the community.

Vision Zero
Vision Zero is an international traffic safety movement that originated in Sweden in the 1990s and has since been adopted by cities and regions across the United States. The core principle of Vision Zero is that no loss of life on our roadways is acceptable. Unlike traditional approaches that often view traffic deaths and severe injuries as inevitable, Vision Zero establishes the ethical imperative that the transportation system must be designed to prioritize human life and health.

Vision Zero strategies emphasize proactive, systemic safety improvements that account for human mistakes and vulnerabilities. The initiative promotes safer roadway design, equitable enforcement, community engagement, and policies that encourage safe speeds and protect the most vulnerable users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. Across the U.S., adoption of Vision Zero has accelerated in recent years as communities recognize the need for bold, measurable commitments to eliminate severe and fatal crashes.

For the City of Pleasant Hill, Vision Zero would provide both a unifying goal and a policy framework that aligns with federal initiatives like the SS4A Grant Program and the SSA. By embracing Vision Zero, the City may affirm their commitment to a future where residents and visitors alike can travel safely—whether by car, bicycle, foot, or transit—without the risk of death or life-changing injury. 7 2.Community Engagement
The Public Engagement Plan developed for the Pleasant Hill Safety Action Plan included strategies and activities to reach a broad cross-section of the community throughout the City. The plan included two rounds of public outreach as well as extensive stakeholder engagement with agency partners and interested parties. Outreach and engagement efforts occurred between November 2025 and June 2026 and consisted of three main components:

1. In-person pop-up events

2. Virtual and in-person Public Meetings

3. Online Pleasant Hill Safety Action Plan Survey and Interactive Map hosted on engagement platform PublicCoordinate
In person public engagement officially launched on November 11, 2025, with the first pop-up event held at Light Up the Night on Crescent Drive. The project team later attended the Earth Day pop-up on April, 23, 2026. The in-person efforts consisted of two pop-ups and two public meetings over a six-month period at various community hubs in Pleasant Hill. Interactive poster boards were stationed at the in-person pop-up events, allowing participants to place dots and vote on their top three safety challenges (pictured below).
8 Figure 2 — Interactive Engagement Poster for Pop-Up Events The online survey, available in various languages, and interactive mapping tool were also made public on November 17, 2025 and remained open for over six months until June 1, 2026.

The project website and interactive surveys were promoted through the City of Pleasant Hill’s various communication channels, including the city’s electronic billboard, e-newsletters, Facebook, X, Nextdoor, and Instagram (pictured below).
9 Figure 3 — Samples of Social Media Promotional Posts for the Safety Action Plan

Flyers featuring a QR code and link to the Pleasant Hill Safety Action Plan survey and interactive map were developed and posted at the library, police station, senior center, and various bus shelters.
10 Figure 4 — Project Flyer Developed for Distribution
Online Community Outreach
Pleasant Hill residents were invited to participate in an online map survey that gave users the option to comment on pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicle concerns that they experienced throughout the city. Users could drag and drop their safety concerns to specific locations. These comments were then later considered in the development of safety improvement strategies.

The online survey engagement resulted in a total of 911 contributions. The online interactive map had 640 contributors and site-specific comments recorded, and the survey form received 271 contributions. Two pop-up events within Pleasant Hill aided participation in the online survey platform in addition to the in-person interactive poster board. Comments and surveys received during online engagement can be found in Appendix A.
11 Figure 5 — Online Interactive Map Platform
Online surveys collected from various efforts revealed that the majority of the respondents live within Pleasant Hill. Most respondents noted that they mainly drive solo as their primary mode of travel, with a large handful of participants noting that they mainly walk and bike. Survey participants expressed that they feel the safest as a driver when traveling through Pleasant Hill. The top three safety challenges expressed by survey users were:

1. Aggressive driving,

2. Pedestrian crossings, and

3. Bicycle lanes.

When asked how conditions could be made safer for people traveling through Pleasant Hill, the top three solutions were: 1) add crosswalks with flashing beacons, stop signs, or traffic signals at intersections, 2) complete missing sidewalks, 3) slower vehicular traffic/traffic calming. A combination of these top three improvements was selected the most often, but all remained within the top three.

Online Social Map: Contributions by Category

1. Pedestrian, 287 Total Comments (45%)
a. Common concerns included:
12 i. Missing sidewalks or sidewalk gaps
ii. Crosswalks that are difficult to access or poorly marked iii. Drivers failing to yield to pedestrians
iv. Long crossing distances on wide roadways
v. Limited pedestrian visibility due to roadway geometry or parked vehicles vi. Inadequate lighting
vii. Accessibility barriers for older adults and individuals with disabilities

2. Vehicle, 180 Total Contributions (28%)
a. Common concerns included:
i. Vehicles traveling well above posted speed limits
ii. Aggressive driving behaviors
iii. Rapid acceleration between intersections
iv. Speeding through residential neighborhoods
v. High travel speeds near schools, parks, and commercial areas

3. Bicycle, 147 Total Contributions (23%)
a. Common concerns included:
i. Gaps in the existing bicycle network
ii. Lack of protected bicycle lanes
iii. Narrow bicycle lanes adjacent to high-speed traffic iv. Difficult bicycle crossings at major intersections
v. Conflicts with turning vehicles
vi. Poor pavement conditions

4. Other, 23 Total Contributions (3%)

5. Transit, 3 Total Contributions (1%)
Key Themes from the Survey
Out of the 911 comments received from the online survey platform, key areas of focus and themes were as follows:

1. Speeding and Aggressive Driving Near Schools and Neighborhoods The strongest and most recurring theme was excessive vehicle speed, particularly around school routes and residential streets. Residents repeatedly cited speeding on corridors such as Patterson Boulevard, Lucille Drive, Oak Park Boulevard, Pleasant View Drive, Putnam Boulevard, Taylor Boulevard, and Pleasant Hill Road. Many comments expressed concerns regarding children walking or biking to school and safety during drop-off and pick-up periods.

Areas of focus:
• School-zone traffic calming
• Lower operating speeds on neighborhood streets
• Speed feedback signs, speed humps, and enforcement
• Safer routes to schools
13 2. Unsafe Pedestrian Crossings
Many respondents identified crosswalks and intersections where drivers fail to yield, visibility is poor, or pedestrians have difficulty crossing busy roadways. Numerous comments referenced children and families feeling unsafe when crossing streets, even at marked crossings. Requests for flashing beacons, pedestrian signals, refuge islands, and improved crossing treatments were common.

Areas of focus:
• High-visibility crosswalks
• Pedestrian beacons and signals
• Safer school crossings
• Improved driver yielding behavior

3. Sidewalk Gaps and Pedestrian Infrastructure Deficiencies Residents frequently noted locations where sidewalks are missing, incomplete, too narrow, or poorly connected. Concerns were especially concentrated along routes used by children walking to school and in residential areas where pedestrians must share space with vehicles.

Areas of focus:
• Filling sidewalk gaps
• Completing pedestrian networks
• Improving accessibility and visibility
• Creating safer walking environments in residential neighborhoods

4. Bicycle Safety and Connectivity
Bicycle-related comments highlighted concerns about missing bike lanes, unsafe crossings, conflicts with vehicles, and inadequate facilities near schools and major destinations.

Respondents expressed concern about children biking to school, bike lane discontinuities, and difficult crossings on corridors such as Oak Park Boulevard, Putnam Boulevard, Taylor Boulevard, and the freeway overpass area near BART access.

Areas of focus:
• Protected or enhanced bike facilities
• Safer bicycle crossings
• Better connections to schools, parks, trails, and BART • Reduced conflicts between bikes and vehicles

5. Intersection Safety, Traffic Operations, and Visibility A significant number of comments focused on dangerous intersections, confusing turning movements, congestion, poor sight distance, inadequate lighting, signal timing issues, and 14 visibility problems caused by vegetation or parked vehicles. Residents frequently requested traffic signals, improved signage, lighting, and intersection redesigns.

Areas of focus:
• Intersection control improvements
• Signal upgrades and coordination
• Better lighting and visibility
• Turn-movement and conflict reduction
The public feedback indicates that Pleasant Hill residents are primarily concerned with speed management, school-area safety, pedestrian crossings, bicycle safety, and intersection improvements. Across both the survey and map-based comments, there is a strong emphasis on protecting children and families traveling to and from schools, creating safer walking and biking conditions, and reducing speeding on neighborhood streets. The most frequently suggested solutions include traffic calming, improved crossings, new sidewalks, enhanced bicycle facilities, better lighting, and intersection upgrades.

The following maps highlight an overlay of public comments with Pleasant Hill’s High-Injury Network.
15 Figure 6— Engagement Feedback Heatmap Overlay with High-Injury Network 16 Figure 7— Engagement Feedback Point Map Overlay with High-Injury Network 17 Community Events
The following is a detailed account of the two in-person pop-up events, and two public meetings held within Pleasant Hill. Engagement event feedback materials can be found in Appendix B.

Event 1: Light Up the Night (November 11, 2025)
Cresent Drive, Pleasant Hill, CA
At Light Up the Night, the team spoke with 128
participants about the Pleasant Hill Safety Action
Plan using interactive boards. The team engaged
members of the public with project boards that
asked attendees what their top three safety
challenges were within Pleasant Hill. Key safety
challenges noted at the event were missing
sidewalks, speeding, poor pavement conditions,
distracted driving, and cars not stopping at stop
signs or running through red lights.

Event 2: Virtual Public Meeting (February 17, 2026)
Zoom
At the virtual public meeting, the Project team
engaged with 23 virtual attendees. The team
provided an overview of the project, a summary
of crash data, and a preview into outreach and
engagement activities throughout the project.

Attendees were provided with a walkthrough of
the Safety Action Plan website and interactive
map survey.

Figure 8 – Interactive Engagement Board
Figure 9— Virtual Public Meeting (Zoom)
18 Event 3: Pleasant Hill Earth Day (April 23, 2026)
Pleasant Hill City Hall, Pleasant Hill, CA
At the Pleasant Hill Earth Day event, the team
engaged with 70 individuals. The team utilized
interactive countermeasure boards and received
comments on the High-Injury Network map. Key
safety concerns raised included the need for traffic
calming and speed reduction, improved pedestrian
crossings and sidewalk safety, and improved
bicycle infrastructure.

Event 4: In-Person Public Workshop (May 19, 2026)
Pleasant Hill City Hall, Pleasant Hill, CA
At the in-person public workshop, the team spoke
with nine in-person participants about the
Pleasant Hill Safety Action Plan using interactive
countermeasure boards and High Injury Network
maps. The majority of attendees identified that
they would like to see separated bike lanes, curb
extensions/bulb-outs, curb radius reductions,
and chokers, chicanes, and bulb-outs integrated
throughout Pleasant Hill.

Figure 10 – Pleasant Hill Earth Day Event
Figure 11 — In-Person Public Workshop
19 Community Stakeholder Group
Member List
A stakeholder working group was formed to review and provide feedback for the Plan. This group comprised of the following agencies:
• 511 Contra Costa
• Caltrans
• CCC Fire Protection District
• CCTA
• Chamber of Commerce
• Christ the King Catholic School
• City Council Members
• City of Concord
• City of Martinez
• City of Walnut Creek
• College Park High School
• Contra Costa County PW
• County Connection
• Downtown Property Owners
• East Bay Regional Park District
• Fair Oaks Elementary School
• Gregory Gardens Elementary School
• Mt. Diablo Unified School District
• Pleasant Hill City Manager
• Pleasant Hill Elementary School
• Pleasant Hill Middle School
• Pleasant Hill Planning Division
• Pleasant Hill Recreation and Park
District
• Police Department
• Sequoia Elementary School
• Sequoia Middle School
• Strandwood Elementary School
• Traffic Safety Commission Member
• Valley View Middle School
• Visit Pleasant Hill
Recap of Meetings
The Project team met with the Pleasant Hill Safety Action Plan Stakeholders to share information about the Project, solicit feedback, and gain support:

January 13, 2026: Working Group Meeting #1
Topics Covered
• Project Overview
• Crash Data Summary
• Outreach and Engagement
• Closing
• Questions and Survey Assistance
April 21, 2026: Working Group Meeting #2
Topics Covered
• Project Overview
• Outreach and Engagement
• High Injury Network (HIN)
Development
• Countermeasure Feedback
20 Figure 12 — Working Group Meeting #2 on April 21st, 2026 21 3.Safety Analysis
A critical step in developing a comprehensive Safety Action Plan (SAP) is conducting a detailed analysis of local crash trends, roadway conditions, and community safety challenges. The safety analysis provides the basis of evidence to guide decision-making, helping the City identify where and why severe and fatal crashes are occurring, and which populations or roadway users are most affected.

Using a network screening process, locations within the City that would most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. The outcome of this analysis helps inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that are most likely to improve roadway safety in the City of Pleasant Hill. The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each location over the analysis period and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location.

Analysis methods such as the Critical Crash Rate (CCR) and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) were also used to determine crash frequency and severity at each location. The results of the network screening analysis are shown within this section. The appendices associated with this section present all of the intersections and roadway segments with three or more crashes within the five-year study period from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023. The following sections describe the data analysis process.

Data Collection
Crash data were retrieved from University of California, Berkeley’s, Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). TIMS was developed starting in 2003 as a tool for agencies to retrieve geocoded collision data from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). SWITRS is a database that collects and processes statewide collision data.

Crashes were limited to those that occurred within the City of Pleasant Hill limits during the 5-year study period from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023. Crashes that occurred on the State Highway System (e.g., Interstate 680) were omitted. An exception to include crashes that occurred beyond the City limits was made on a case-by-case basis if the crash occurred near the City limits and was likely to have been influenced by the City’s local roadway network. The City of Pleasant Hill Police Department reviewed the crash data prior to the crash analysis to verify consistency with local records.

City Collision Trends
Table 1 shows the number of crashes by severity that occurred in the City of Pleasant Hill from 2019 to 2023. Of the 360 total crashes that occurred in the City during the study period, three resulted in fatalities while 43 resulted in severe injuries representing a combined 13% of all crashes. The majority of crashes (59%) resulted in other visible injuries, while nearly a third (28%) of crashes resulted in complaints of pain. The three crashes that resulted in fatalities included a 22 broadside with another motor vehicle, a head on with another motor vehicle, and a head on with a fixed barrier object.

Table 1 – Crash Severity
Severity Crashes Percentage
Fatal 3 1%
Severe Injury 43 12%
Other Visible Injury 212 59%
Complaint of Pain 102 28%
Total 360 100%
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
Note: Property-damage only crashes were not included in the analysis as the study is focused on higher-severity crashes that result in injuries or fatalities to roadway users.

The crashes are additionally mapped by severity in Figure 16.

Figure 13 shows the number of crashes by year over the five-year study period. Fatal and Severe Injury crashes exhibit a trend of gradual growth during the study period. Fatal and severe crashes grew at an average of approximately 1.9 crashes per year. In contrast, the total number of crashes dropped from 75 in 2019 to 59 in 2020. The total number of crashes then grew to 64 in 2021 and then to 82 in 2022 before leveling off in 2023. The drop in the total number of crashes is likely an effect caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, during which vehicle-miles traveled in the United States decreased dramatically due to shelter-in-place policies being in effect.

Figure 13 — Number of Crashes Annually
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
Figure 14 shows the percent of crashes by type. Among fatal and severe injury crashes, broadside (20%), hit object (17%), and pedestrian crashes (15%) were the most prevalent, followed by bicycle (13%), head on (9%), rear-end (9%), and other (9%) crashes. Pedestrian, bicycle, sideswipe, and hit object crashes are overrepresented amongst fatal and serious injury crashes, each having a higher 75 59 64
82 80
5 8 8
13 12
0 50
100
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Crashes By Year
All Crashes Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes
23 percentage of fatal and serious injury crashes than of all crashes, indicating that these crashes are more likely to result in fatalities or severe injuries.

Pedestrian and bicycle crashes are mapped in Figure 18.

Figure 14 — Percent of Crashes by Type
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding errors.

Figure 15 shows the percent of crashes by primary crash factor (PCF). The PCFs with the highest percentages include unsafe speed (20%), improper turning (11%), driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (11%), automobile right-of-way violation (11%), unsafe lane changes (11%), and unknown (11%). These top five PCFs make up 75% of fatal and serious injury crashes. 9% 7%
27%
6%
21%
12% 13%
1%
4%
1%
15%
13%
20%
7%
9% 9%
17%
0%
9%
2%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Percent
All Crashes Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes
24 Figure 15 — Primary Crash Factors of KSI Crashes
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding errors.

Unsafe Speed, 20%
Improper Turning, 11%
Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of
Alcohol or Drug, 11%
Automobile Right of
Way, 11%
Wrong Side of Road,
7%
Traffic Signals and
Signs, 7%
Pedestrian Right of
Way, 4%
Other Than Driver (or
Pedestrian), 2%
Unsafe Lane Change,
11%
Pedestrian Violation,
4%
Unknown, 11%
Other Improper
Driving, 2%
25 Figure 16 – Crashes by Severity
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
26 Figure 17 – Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
27 Figure 18 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
28 Local Safety Performance
SHSP Statewide Comparison Table
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) focuses on 16 challenge areas identified by the SHSP Executive Leadership and Steering Committees after an in-depth analysis of California fatal and severe injury crash data as well as an extensive statewide outreach process involving hundreds of diverse traffic stakeholders around the state.

Table 2 displays a comparison of challenge areas in which Pleasant Hill has a higher percentage of crashes compared to the State of California. Based on Table 2, the City is challenged in the following areas: aging drivers (≥65), intersections, aggressive driving, and bicyclists. In each of these areas, the City has a disproportionate and higher share when compared to the State. For example, aging drivers (≥65) made up 17.6 percent more of the fatal and serious injury crashes in Pleasant Hill than those of the State.

Table 2 – Historical Trends: Pleasant Hill Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes Compared to Statewide Percentages
California SHSP
Challenge Area
Pleasant Hill
Comparison to
Statewide
Percentages
Percent of Fatal and Severe Injury
Crashes (2014-2023)
Differential
Pleasant Hill
Percentage of Crashes
Statewide Percentage
of Crashes
Aging Drivers Higher 30.3% 12.7% +17.6%
Intersections Higher 39.4% 34.7% +4.7%
Aggressive Driving Higher 36.4% 32.7% +3.7%
Bicyclists Higher 13.6% 10.0% +3.6%
Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (2014-2023); Driver Licensing is based on crash data from the Fatality Analysis Reporting Service (FARS) (2014-2023); https://shsp.dot.ca.gov/ Notes:
• Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or severe injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (e.g. a crash involving a bicyclist could have occurred at an intersection).
• Roadway ownership includes only local roads. Roadway functional classification includes only other principal arterials, minor arterials, major collectors, minor collectors, and local roads. 29 Office of Traffic Safety Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) is a state agency that implements and funds programs to prevent fatalities and serious injuries on California’s highways. Table 3 presents how the City of Pleasant Hill ranked in the 2023 OTS rankings. The OTS rankings provide a comparison for safety data amongst cities of similar sizes. For the 2023 OTS rankings, the City of Pleasant Hill was compared to 93 other cities in the State within the same group (D) based on population size of 25,001 – 50,000. Compared to other cities in the same group in 2023, the City of Pleasant Hill ranked among the top half in crashes relating to drivers under 21 that had been drinking, motorcycles, pedestrians, pedestrians specifically over 65, speed related, and nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am).

Table 3- Pleasant Hill OTS Ranking (2023)
Crash Category Victims Killed or Injured OTS Ranking (Out of 93) Total Fatal and Injury 114 48
Alcohol Involved 12 49
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 2 17
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34 1 82
Motorcycles 7 51
Pedestrians 9 46
Pedestrians < 15 0 65
Pedestrians 65+ 3 20
Bicycle 5 62
Bicyclist < 15 0 75
Composite* 48 47
Crash Category Fatal or Injury Crashes OTS Ranking (Out of 93) Speed Related 16 45
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am) 11 39
Hit and Run 6 57
Type of Arrests Arrests OTS Ranking (Out of 93)
DUI Arrests 68 52
Source: https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings/ Notes:
• The figures in the ranking column show as two numbers divided by a slash. The first number is that city’s ranking in that category. The second number is the total number of cities/counties within that “Group”. For instance, if you see “18/93”, that means that city ranks 18th out of 93 cities of similar size.
• Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or “worst”. A ranking of 1/93 is the highest or worst. 52/93 is average, and 93/93 is the lowest or best.
30 • City rankings are for incorporated cities only, for local streets in those cities, and state highways that run through cities with shared jurisdiction with the CHP and the city. City rankings do not include numbers of crashes, killed or injured on freeways and on state highways where cities do not have jurisdiction.
• *Composite is an aggregate ranking of several other rankings, including Had Been Drinking 21-34, Had Been Drinking Under 21, Alcohol Involved, Hit & Run, Nighttime, and Speed. Composite is meant to give an indication of overall traffic safety.

Equivalent Property Damage Only and Critical Crash Rate The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method is used to quantify crash activity along local roadway network facilities on a consistent basis. Crashes are assigned dollar costs depending on their severities and locations as shown in Table 4.

Table 4 - Crash Cost by Severity
Crash Severity Severity* Facility Type Crash Cost Weighting Factor
Fatal or Severe Injury
3 Signalized Intersection $2,162,000 120.1
3 Non-signalized Intersection $3,440,000 191.1
3 Roadway Segment $2,978,000 165.4
Other Visible Injury 2 Any $193,000 10.7
Complaint of Pain 1 Any $110,000 6.1
Property Damage Only 0 Any $18,000 1.0
Sources:
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, Version 1.7 April 2024; https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/localassistance/documents/hsip/2024/lrsm2024-v2.pdf; https://highways.dot.gov/safety/local-rural/improving-safety-rural-local-andtribal-roads-safety-toolkit/step-2-conduct • *Severity is used to organize crashes into common categories despite being located on different facilities. EPDO is calculated by multiplying the number of crashes of a particular severity and facility type by its respective crash costs or weighting factors, dividing the product with the crash cost or weighting factor of a property damage only, and summing the quotient with those of other crashes of particular severities and facility types.

Using weighting factors developed from the crash cost by severity, EPDO values for each intersection and segment were calculated by multiplying the respective number of crashes by severity with their respective weighting factors. Additionally, critical crash rate differentials for intersections and segments were computed by taking the difference between each intersection and segment and expected statewide crash rates of similar facilities.

The EPDO values and Critical Crash Rates (CCR) for each intersection and segment in Pleasant Hill with at least three (3) crashes recorded during the 5-year study period from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2023, are shown in Appendix C and Appendix D respectively.

The following facilities had the highest EPDO values and positive CCR differentials (i.e., had higher crash rates than the statewide average):

Signalized Intersections
• Contra Costa Boulevard & Chilpancingo Parkway
• Buskirk Avenue & Monument Boulevard
31 • Contra Costa Boulevard & Golf Club Road
• Putnam Boulevard / Buena Vista Avenue & Geary Road
• Taylor Boulevard & Grayson Road
Unsignalized Intersections
• Contra Costa Boulevard & Massolo Drive
• Contra Costa Boulevard & Cottonwood Drive
• Contra Costa Boulevard & Harriet Drive
• Marcia Drive & Monument Boulevard
• Contra Costa Boulevard & Doris Drive
Segments
• Monument Boulevard from Marcia Drive to Park Royale Mobile Home Park Driveway • Contra Costa Boulevard from I-680 Southbound Ramps to 2nd Avenue High-Injury Network
As part of the safety analysis, the City of Pleasant Hill has identified a High Injury Network (HIN) to identify roadways throughout the City which experienced a disproportionate number of injury crashes and fatalities to guide safety improvements where they are needed most. Ninety eight percent of Pleasant Hill’s severe injury and fatal crashes occurred on 10 percent of the City’s roadways. By focusing on these high-risk corridors and intersections, the City can make the biggest impact in reducing severe injuries and fatalities.

Figure 19 presents the City’s HIN with fatal and severe injury crashes overlayed, and Table 5 lists the HIN segments.
32 Figure 19 – Pleasant Hill High-Injury Network Map
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
33 Table 5 - Pleasant Hill High-Injury Network Segments No. Roadway Limits
1 Contra Costa Boulevard 2nd Avenue to Oak Park Boulevard 2 Taylor Boulevard West City Limit (near Twinview Place) to Contra Costa Boulevard 3 Gregory lane Pleasant Hill Road to Kahrs Avenue
4 Gregory lane Elinora Drive to Contra Costa Boulevard
5 Grayson Road Reliez Valley Road to Taylor Boulevard
6 Monument Boulevard Contra Costa Boulevard to East City Limit (near Iron Horse Trail) 7 Pleasant Hill Road North City Limit (near Devon Avenue) to Taylor Boulevard 8 Golf Club Road Paso Nogal Road to Contra Costa Boulevard 9 Morello Avenue North City Limit (Saint Germain Lane) to Paso Nogal Road 10 Paso Nogal Road Morello Avenue to Golf Club Road
11 Norse Drive Paso Nogal Road to Taylor Boulevard
12 Geary Road Larkey Lane to Putnam Boulevard
13 Ellinwood Drive Contra Costa Boulevard to Ellinwood Way 14 Mayhew Way Buskirk Avenue to East City Limit (near Iron Horse Trail) 15 Camelback Road Chilpancingo Parkway to Old Quarry Road 16 Doray Drive Elinora Drive to Contra Costa Boulevard
17 Elinora Drive Maureen Lane to Leslie Drive
18 Santa Barbara Road Patterson Boulevard to Monticello Avenue Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
Notes: Segments are listed in no particular order of priority. 34 4.Countermeasure Toolbox
The following sections provide more information on potential engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that might address conditions that were observed to contribute to crash activity in the City of Pleasant Hill.

Engineering Countermeasures
The following sections contain a description of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) associated with the engineering countermeasures toolbox.

Crash Modification Factors
When identifying potential systemic safety improvements, it is important to look at CMFs for the proposed improvements. The CMF Method is found in Part D of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM).

CMFs are defined as the ratio of effectiveness of one condition in comparison to another condition and represent the relative change in crash frequency due to a change in one specific condition. In other words, a CMF is a multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site. Countermeasures with CMFs less than one are expected to reduce crashes if applied, while those countermeasures with CMFs greater than one are expected to increase crashes. Figure 20 illustrates the definition of CMFs.

Figure 20 — CMF Calculation
A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is similar to a CMF but stated in different terms. A CRF is defined as a percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after the implementation of a given countermeasure at a specific site. In application, the higher a CRF value is, the more effective the countermeasure is at preventing crashes. Figure 21 shows how a CRF is calculated in relationship to a CMF.

Figure 21 — CRF Calculation
35 The CMF Method is used to calculate the expected number of crashes by taking the observed number of crashes and multiplying those crashes by the applicable CMF for the proposed countermeasure. It is recommended that CMFs be applied to a minimum of three years of crash data for urban and suburban sites and five years of crash data for a rural site. Figure 22 is a sample calculation of the CMF method with one CMF being applied to a particular site for a single year.

Figure 22 — CMF Method Sample Calculation
Caution should be used in the selection of appropriate CMFs. The following guidance should be considered when selecting CMFs for predictive crash analysis:
▪ CMFs should be selected from the HSM Part D, the LRSM, or from the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse website (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org). ▪ Read the countermeasure abstract to determine if the CMF is applicable to the proposed improvement.
▪ Only CMFs with a four-star rating or higher should be considered for use in analysis. ▪ Be sure the selected CMF is applicable to the set of crash data being used for analysis.

Some CMFs may only be applicable to a subset of the crash data. ▪ The application of multiple CMFs can overestimate the expected crash reduction.

Unless each CMF addresses independent crash types, multiple CMFs should not be used. It is suggested that no more than three independent CMFs be applied to a particular site.
▪ The countermeasures proposed in this SAP were chosen because of their effectiveness in reducing crashes.
36 Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox
The systemic improvements identified as most likely effective are shown in below and are listed in Error! Reference source not found.. These improvements include a wide range of countermeasures that can be implemented in phases where appropriate.

The CMF indicates how effective the countermeasure is at reducing crashes. CMFs and CRFs have been provided for reference to aid staff in understanding potential reductions from crashes by different countermeasures. Caltrans funding levels for each countermeasure are also provided to aid the City in determining what the local match would likely be if the City were to pursue grant funding. According to the Caltrans LRSM, most countermeasures are eligible for Caltrans funding up to 90%, though some are lower.
37 Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox
The systemic improvements identified as most likely effective are listed in Error! Reference source not found., and include a wide range of countermeasures that can be implemented in phases where appropriate.

The CMF indicates how effective the countermeasure is at reducing crashes. CMFs and CRFs have been provided for reference to aid to staff in understanding potential reductions from crashes by different countermeasures. Caltrans funding levels for each countermeasure are also provided to aid the City in determining what the local match would likely be if the City were to pursue grant funding. Most countermeasures are eligible for Caltrans funding up to 90%, though some are lower.
38 Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox (continued)
39 Table 6 - City of Pleasant Hill Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox Countermeasure Applies to Crash Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)
Caltrans Funding Cost to Implement
All Pedestrian Bicycle
Roadway Improvements
R-1 Improved Lighting X 0.65 35% 90% $$
R-2 Flashing Warning Beacons X 0.7 30% 90% (if beacons are utilized) $$ R-3 Raised Medians X 0.75 25% 90% $$
R-4 Delineators, Reflectors or Object Markers X 0.85 15% 90% $ R-5 Two-Way Left-Turn Lane X 0.7 30% 90% $-$$$
R-6 Left-Turn Lane or Right-Turn Lane X 0.65 to .8 20% to 35% 90% $$ R-7 Road Diet X 0.65 35% 90% $$-$$$
R-8 Green Bike Lanes & Buffered Bike Lanes X 65 35% 90% $ R-9 Separated Bike Lanes X X 0.55 45% 90% $-$$$
R-10 Pedestrian Median Fencing X 0.65 35% 90% $$
R-11 Additional Signage for Pedestrian Crossing X Not Available Not Available Not Available $ R-12 Raised Pedestrian Crossing X 0.65 35% 90% $$
R-13 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) X X 0.65 35% 90% $$ Traffic Signal Modifications
T-1 New Traffic Signal X 0.7 30% 90% $$-$$$
T-2 Protected Turn Phase X 0.7 30% 90% $$
T-3 Signal Timing X 0.85 15% 50% $$
T-4 Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) X 0.4 60% 90% $
T-5 Emergency and/or Transit Vehicle Preemption X 0.3 70% 90% $$-$$$ T-6 Pedestrian Countdown Heads X 0.75 25% 90% $
T-7 Restrict Right-turn on Red X Not Available Not Available Not Available $ T-8 Bike Detection X Not Available Not Available Not Available $$$ T-9 Bike Signal X Not Available Not Available Not Available $$ T-10 Pedestrian Scramble Phase X 0.6 40% 90% $$
T-11 ADA Ramps & Audible Push Button Upgrades X Not Available Not Available Not Available $$ Intersection Design Improvements
I-1 Mast Arm Mounted Signals X 0.7 30% 90% $$$
I-2 Close Slip Lane X X Not Available Not Available Not Available $$ 40 Countermeasure Applies to Crash Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash
Reduction
Factor
(CRF)
Caltrans Funding Cost to Implement
All Pedestrian Bicycle
I-3 Transverse Rumble Strips on Approaches X 0.8 20% 90% $$ I-4 Splitter Island on Minor Road Approaches X 0.6 40% 90% $$ I-5 Directional Median Openings X 0.5 50% 90% $-$$
I-6 Remove Sightline Obstructions X 0.8 20% 90% $-$$
I-7 Lane Line Extensions X 0.82 18% Not Available $
I-8 High Visibility Crosswalk X .6-.81 19%-40% Not Available $ I-9 Pedestrian Refuge Island X 0.55 45% 90% $$
I-10 Curb Extensions/Bulb-outs, Curb Radius Reduction X 0.63 37% N/A $$ I-11 Bicycle Crossings and Refuge Corners X Not Available Not Available Not Available $$ I-12 HAWK Signal X 0.45 55% 90% $$$
I-13 Convert 2-way Stop or Yield Control to All Way Stop X 0.5 50% 90% $ Signs and Markings
M-1 Retroreflective Backplates X 0.85 15% 90% $
M-2 Enhanced Intersection Pavement Markers X 0.75 25% 90% $ M-3 Advanced Stop Bar X X 0.85 15% 90% $
M-4 Improved Signage and/or Reflective Strips X Not Available Not Available 90% $ M-5 Stop Signs with Flashing LEDS 0.59 41% Not Available $ M-6 Edgelines and Centerlines (install or modify) X 0.75 25% 90% $-$$ M-7 Upgraded Signs and with Fluorescent Sheeting X 0.85 15% 90% $ M-8 Advanced Curve Warning Signs X 0.75 25% 90% $
M-9 Chevrons Along Horizontal Curves X 0.6 40% 90% $
M-10 Bike Box X X 0.85 15% 90% $
Signs and Markings
S-1 Speed Feedback Sign X X Not Available Not Available Not Available $$ S-2 Roundabouts X Varies Varies 90% $$$
S-3 Speed Humps, Speed Cushions, & Speed Tables X Not Available Not Available N/A $$ S-4 Traffic Circles X Varies Varies 90% $$
S-5 Chokers, Chicanes, & Bulb-outs X Not Available Not Available N/A $$$ $$$ Requires design and construction of extensive infrastructure improvements $$ Requires procurement and/or minor construction activities $ Requires limited staff resources and can be implemented in-house with current engineering and/or maintenance staff
41 The countermeasures in the countermeasures toolbox can be considered as near-term, mid-term and long-term improvements. Near-term improvements are lower cost and can be implemented most readily. Mid-term improvements are higher cost improvements, while long-term improvements are the highest cost and may require engineering design and permitting to implement. Table 7 presents an estimated time range for various countermeasures.

Table 7 - Near-Term, Mid-Term, and Long-Term Improvements Near-Term Improvements
(0-3 Years)
Mid-Term Improvements
(3-5 Years)
Long-Term
Improvements
(5+ Years)
• R-4 Delineators, reflectors, or
object markers
• R-11 Additional signage for
pedestrian crossing
• T-3 Signal timing
• T-4 Leading pedestrian interval
(LPI)
• T-6 Pedestrian Countdown Heads
• T-7 Restrict right turn on red
• T-8 Bike detection
• T-11 ADA ramps & audible push
button upgrades
• I-6 Remove sightline obstructions
• I-7 Lane line extensions
• I-8 High visibility crosswalk
• I-13 Convert 2-way stop or yield
control to all way stop
• M-1 Retroreflective backplates
• M-2 Enhanced intersection
pavement markers
• M-3 Advanced stop bar
• M-4 Improve signage and/or
reflective strips
• M-5 Stop signs with flashing LEDs
• M-7 Upgrade signs with
fluorescent sheeting
• M-8 Advanced curve warning
signs
• M-9 Chevrons along horizontal
curves
• S-1 Speed feedback sign
• R-1 Improved lighting
• R-2 Flashing warning
beacons
• R-3 Raised median
• R-8 Green bike lanes &
buffered bike lanes
• R-10 Pedestrian median
fencing
• R-13 RRFB
• T-2 Protected turn phase
• T-5 Emergency and/or
transit vehicle preemption
• T-9 Bike signal
• T-10 Pedestrian scramble
phase
• I-2 Close slip lane
• I-3 Transverse rumble strips
on approaches
• I-4 Splitter island on minor
road approaches
• I-5 Directional median
openings
• I-11 Bicycle crossing and
refuge corners
• I-12 HAWK signal
• M-10 Bike box
• M-6 Edgelines and
centerlines (install or
modify)
• S-3 Speed humps, speed
cushions, & speed tables
• R-5 Two-way left turn
lane
• R-6 Left-turn lane or
right-turn lane
• R-7 Road diet
• R-9 Separated bike
lanes
• R-12 Raised
pedestrian crossing
• T-1 New traffic signal
• I-1 Mast arm mounted
signals
• I-9 Pedestrian refuge
island
• I-10 Curb
extensions/bulb-outs,
curb radius reduction
• S-2 Roundabouts
• S-4 Traffic circles
42 • S-5 Chokers, chicanes, &
bulbouts
Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures that Work, Ninth Edition, is a reference to assist safety stakeholders in selecting effective, science-based noninfrastructure traffic safety countermeasures for major highway safety problem areas. While many of the countermeasures are more appropriate to apply at the state-level or require legislative modifications to implement, Table 8 contains countermeasures that have demonstrated effectiveness. Note that while there are several other non-infrastructure countermeasures available, only those which have an effectiveness rating of four stars or higher are presented.

Access to Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training for law enforcement are not included but can also be considered.

Table 8 — Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox
Countermeasure Effectiveness
Cost to
Implement Use
Time to
Implement
Aggressive Driving
Automated enforcement systems
(red light camera systems) Effective $$$† Medium 3-12 Months Impaired Driving
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints Effective $$$ Medium Less than 3 months
High-Visibility Saturation Patrols (large
number of law enforcement officers
patrolling a specific area)
Situational $$ High Less than 3
months
Occupant Protection (Seat Belts, Helmets, Child Seats)
Short-term high visibility enforcement Effective $$$ Medium 3-12 Months Integrated nighttime seat belt enforcement
(nighttime seat belt enforcement in
conjunction with High-Visibility Saturation
Patrols for impaired driving)
Situational $$$ Unknown 3-12 Months
Distracted Driving
High visibility cellphone/text messaging
enforcement Situational $$$ Low 3-12 Months
Cost to Implement:
$$$ Requires extensive new facilities, staff, equipment, or publicity, or makes heavy demands on current resources $$ Requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity $ Can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment, facilities, and publicity 43 †Can be covered by income from citations
Use:

High:More than two-thirds of states, or a substantial majority of communities Medium: Between one-third and two-thirds of states or communities Low: Less than one-third of states or communities
Unknown: Data not available.

5.Safety Projects
The City of Pleasant Hill has identified ten (10) priority project locations along the HIN based on a combination of factors, including high concentrations of crashes, the severity of injuries, and community feedback of safety concerns. These locations, which are presented in Figure 22 and listed in Table 9, represent areas with the greatest need for intervention and are the focus of targeted safety improvements outlined in this Plan. By addressing these corridors first, the City aims to make measurable progress toward reducing severe injuries and fatalities on its streets.

The safety improvements proposed as part of the Safety Action Plan are intended to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries on the HIN. Improvements proposed as part of this plan include enhanced street lighting, improved pavement markings for pedestrians and bicycles, median and curb extensions, and traffic signal improvements. Appendix E contains concept exhibits and planning-level cost estimates for the safety improvements proposed as part of this Safety Action Plan.
44 Figure 23 - Priority HIN Corridors
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
45 Table 9 – Pleasant Hill Priority HIN Corridors
Rank HIN Corridor Limits
1 Contra Costa Boulevard 2nd Avenue to Viking Drive
2 Contra Costa Boulevard Harriet Drive to Doray Drive
3 Gregory Lane Kahrs Avenue to Contra Costa Boulevard
4 Gregory Lane Pleasant Hill Road to Kahrs Avenue
5 Golf Club Road Paso Nogal Road to Contra Costa Boulevard 6 Paso Nogal Road Morello Avenue to Golf Club Road
7 Geary Road Larkey Lane to Putnam Boulevard
8 Pleasant Hill Road West City Limit to Taylor Boulevard 9 Morella Avenue Chilpancingo Parkway to Paso Nogal Road 10 Taylor Boulevard Apollo Way to South City Limit
Source: TIMS Crash Data 2019-2023
Note: Rankings determined by EPDO values of respective corridors calculated during the safety analysis. Number 1 in the rankings is the highest, or “worst,” and has a higher priority for safety improvements than number 10 in the rankings. 46 6. Actions & Strategies
This Plan includes a list of policy and program recommendations to streamline and improve the process of implementing traffic safety improvements, enforcement, and educational outreach.

Some key policy and process updates include:
• Implement and enforce intersection daylighting as per AB 413. • Provide focused training for local agency engineers and planners responsible for designing and reviewing street design and safety planning activities. Develop resources (i.e. checklist) to incorporate safety countermeasures along priority/HIN corridors. • Explore and implement technologies such as leading pedestrian interval, transit signal priority, and adaptive traffic signal systems.

Table 10 lists the description, implementation timeline and key partners for each proposed action and strategy. In accordance with the Safe System Approach, the recommendations are presented in relation to following six categories:
• Programmatic/Policy Action: Overall program initiative, planning and budgeting. • Education: Safety education and driver behavior
• Enforcement: Speed management and enforcement
• Infrastructure: Roadway design and engineering
• Alternative Transportation: New vehicle technology and impaired driving prevention • Post-Crash Care: Emergency response
47 Table 10 – Recommended Safety Actions and Strategies Action Description
Key Partners
Recommended Implementation
Timelines
City of Pleasant Hill Police
Dept
City of Pleasant Hill Public
Works & Community
Development Dept
Programmatic / Policy Action
Safety Action Plan Implementation Funding
Program
Establish funding strategies and secure local funding. Short-Term (With Plan Adoption) X Working Group / Task Force Continue work with the Traffic Safety Commission to coordinate Citywide Safety and Vision Zero implementation and initiatives. Short-Term X X Progress Report Publish annual report on Citywide Safety program progress. Medium-Term X X Update Safety Action Plan Update existing Safety Action Plan in 5 years or per grant requirement Medium-Term X
Education
City Staff Communications Training Conduct training for local agency staff on effective roadway safety and traffic collisions messaging. Short-Term X X
Stakeholder Engagement Convene local stakeholder group and conduct workshops or walk audits along priority HIN corridors. Short-Term X X
Traffic Education for Safe Routes to School
(SRTS)
Continue providing and expanding traffic safety education (i.e. walking school bus) for students and parents. Short-Term X X Traffic Education for Seniors Provide traffic safety education for seniors. Medium-Term X X Continue and Expand Education Campaigns Conduct and update ongoing education campaigns such as installing message signs or media posts on speeding, distracted driving, or other high-risk behaviors.

Medium-Term X X
Online Safety Dashboard & Data Sharing Develop/build upon online interactive dashboard as a tool to present traffic safety information. Collaborate on data sharing with neighboring agencies.

Medium-Term X X
Enforcement
Speed Management Implement speed limit reductions in accordance with AB 43.

Define up to 20% of the agencies' street network as Safety Corridors to reduce posted speed limits by 5 miles per hour.

Short-Term X X
Speed & DUI Enforcement Conduct high-visibility traffic enforcement on speed and driving under influence (DUI) along the priority/HIN corridors. Short-Term X X Collision Data Focused Training for
Enforcement and Public Safety
Professionals
Participate in training to improve collision reporting practices. The focus area includes improved data on speeding, impairment, distracted driving.

Medium-Term X X
48 Action Description
Key Partners
Recommended Implementation
Timelines
City of Pleasant Hill Police
Dept
City of Pleasant Hill Public
Works & Community
Development Dept
Police Academy Training Integrate Vision Zero principles into police training and academy curriculum. Long-Term X X
Infrastructure
Intersection Daylighting Implement and enforce intersection daylighting as per AB 413. Short-Term X Post KSI-Crash Review Develop a multi-department collision review process and conduct post-crash review of fatal and severe injuries collisions to discuss potential improvements.

Short-Term X X
Safety Priority Corridors Update priority corridors as needed and identify funding for design and implementation of top priority corridors. Short-Term X X Traffic Calming Program Update Re-evaluate and update existing traffic calming program and policies. Incorporate best practices and update process of implementing traffic calming measures.

Short-Term X X
School Safety Zones Establish reduced speed limits of 15 mph in school zones. Short-Term X X Design Review Create an internal procedure for evaluating and, where possible, implementing safety countermeasures on projects located along priority/ HIN corridors.

Medium-Term X X
Vision Zero Design Standards Develop and apply Street Design Standards specifically for HIN network. Incorporate best practices such as NACTO, and update City design standards as needed.

Medium-Term X
Design Review Training & Resources Provide focused training for local agency engineers and planners responsible for designing and reviewing street design and safety planning activities. Develop resources (i.e. checklist) to incorporate safety countermeasures along priority/HIN corridors.

Medium-Term X
Expand Pleasant Hill’s Bicycle and
Pedestrian Network
Continue expanding and upgrading the existing bicycle and pedestrian network per the City's Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan.

Long-Term X
Intelligent Transportation Systems Explore and implement technologies such as leading pedestrian interval, transit signal priority, and adaptive traffic signal systems. Long-Term X Improve Data Collection and Analysis Engage in newer “big data” sources as a proactive strategy to monitor speed, traffic volume, locations with frequent "near misses”.

Long-Term X
49 Action Description
Key Partners
Recommended Implementation
Timelines
City of Pleasant Hill Police
Dept
City of Pleasant Hill Public
Works & Community
Development Dept
Alternative Transportation
Subsidized Transit Coordinate with County Connection or apply for grant funding to implement free or discounted transit fares for holidays and special events to reduce impaired driving.

Medium-Term X
Rideshare Program for Impaired Driving
Prevention
Establish subsidized rideshare program aimed to reduce impaired driving. Medium-Term X
Future transportation innovation and
mitigate future risks
Explore opportunities and prepare for new forms of transportation and enforcement of standards. Track AB 645 Speed Safety System pilot. Collaborate and exchange knowledge with neighboring cities on related policy updates. Support any new state legislation for safer streets.

Long-Term X
Post-Crash Care
Emergency Response (ER) Continue monitoring traffic signal operations with emergency vehicle pre-emption and implement signal and roadway
improvements that enhance emergency vehicle response times. Medium-Term X 50 7.Review of Existing Policies, Programs, and Plans
The City of Pleasant Hill has taken meaningful steps to prioritize road safety and has successfully integrated these approaches into numerous programs, policies, and practices. This SAP includes an assessment of both the existing and the identified opportunities to enhance programs, policies, and practices to address road safety more comprehensively. Appendix F provides a summary of the existing programs, policies, and practices, as well as the recommended enhancements. The City and stakeholders should collaborate to discuss these policy modifications and set tangible goals for implementation.
51 8.Implementation and Evaluation
Implementation
Implementation of the SAP can be accomplished through development and implementation of safety improvement projects and strategies, the establishment of new/updated policies and programs, and development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders. With regard to projects, the following section identifies potential focus areas for the City in the near-to-mid-term.

Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas
The opportunities identified in this SAP provide more of the systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City of Pleasant Hill. Over the next three to five years, it is recommended that the City concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas:
▪ Aging Drivers
▪ Speed Management and Aggressive Driving
▪ Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists)
▪ Motorcycles
▪ Impaired Driving
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to crashes within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Systemic projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high benefit-tocost ratio, allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct crash history, but with conditions that might contribute to future crashes.

It is recommended that the City apply for funding to implement the safety projects identified in this plan, and to implement engineering and non-engineering countermeasures at additional locations.

Appendix G presents a summary of available grant programs which may be considered.

Evaluation
The success of the SAP can be evaluated using the general process outlined below. This process can be useful to monitor progress towards implementation of safety improvement projects and strategies, and to determine when updates to the SAP should be considered. ▪ Law enforcement continues monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways.
▪ Conduct frequent progress meetings (annually or quarterly) between City staff and the working group to review the latest crash data, including assessing the effectiveness of safety countermeasures implemented, discussing ongoing traffic safety challenges, and tracking progress on plan implementation.
52 ▪ Maintain a list of focus/priority areas where there are transportation safety concerns based on review of crash data. The list of priority and/or top crash locations can be updated as an outcome of review of updated crash data and trends.
▪ Perform an update to the plan after no more than five years. It is recommended that updates to the SAP be approved by the City Council and made available to the public in accordance with Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Plan guidance. Progress should be evaluated by tracking the quantity of fatal and severe injury crashes and of crashes related to identified Challenge Areas, including but not limited to: aging drivers, intersections, aggressive driving, and bicyclist crashes. Updates should also track where safety improvements have been constructed and the corresponding reduction in crashes achieved.
53 9.Next Steps
The City of Pleasant Hill has completed this SAP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. The data-driven analysis process identified crash types, related primary crash factors, and locations of crashes. Emphasis areas have been identified to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the combined transportation network. These emphasis areas will guide corridor improvements, education programs, and capital improvements for the City.

Using the analyzed data and outputs from this SAP, the City can:
▪ Apply for future HSIP, SS4A, OBAG, and ATP funding cycles to implement local, systemic, and multijurisdictional infrastructure improvements. ▪ Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users. ▪ Collaborate with established stakeholders, safety partners, and neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network. ▪ Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in the City.

A1

10. Appendices
A2
Appendix A: – Online Survey Comments
CVENT Survey Questions
0 100 200 300
I own a second home and/or stay in Pleasant
Hill seasonally.

I attend school in Pleasant Hill.

Other
I work or own a business in Pleasant Hill.

I pass through Pleasant Hill with a
destination outside of the area.

I travel to Pleasant Hill to visit family and
friends.

I use transit station(s) in Pleasant Hill to
commute to work/school/other destinations.

I go to my medical appointments in Pleasant
Hill.

My child attends school in Pleasant Hill.

I shop, dine, or visit social or other
entertainment destinations in Pleasant Hill.

I live in Pleasant Hill.

Number
Choices
Which best describes your relationship to Pleasant Hill? (Choose all that apply)
A3
Do you feel safe as a driver, pedestrian, or cyclist traveling in Pleasant Hill? Based on the 271 responses, people generally feel safest as drivers and least safe as cyclists, with pedestrian safety falling somewhere in between but still raising frequent concerns.

Many respondents said they feel safe or mostly safe driving, while several explicitly noted that they feel safe as a driver but not as a pedestrian or cyclist. Cyclist safety was the most consistently negative theme, with concerns about limited or disconnected bike lanes, unsafe on-street conditions, speeding vehicles, and feeling safe only on trails or separated paths. Pedestrian safety concerns were also common, especially related to speeding cars, missing or narrow sidewalks, difficult crossings, school routes, and specific roads such as Pleasant Hill Road, Gregory, Geary, Taylor, and neighborhood streets without sidewalks.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
I don’t travel within Pleasant Hill
Paratransit
Use a mobility assistance device (e.g.
walker or wheelchair)
Bus
Other
Carpool/vanpool/rideshare (Uber, Lyft,
etc.)
Bike/E-bike/scooter or another rideable
device
Walk
Drive solo
Unique Count of Response Code
Choices
When traveling within Pleasant Hill, which transportation option do you usually use? (Choose all that apply)
A4
0 20 40 60 80
ADA accessibility
Other
Signage and striping (unclear or faded, additional signage needed, etc.)
Poor pavement conditions
Traffic congestion (causing unsafe behaviors such as sudden lane changes, red light running, etc.)
Electric mobility (e.g. e-bikes, e-scooters, etc.) (unsafe and unlawful use)
Traffic signals (e.g. poor visibility, signal timing, conflicts with pedestrians or bicyclists, etc.)
Street Lighting (e.g. nighttime visibility)
Distracted driving
Stop sign or red-light running violations
Intersection safety and visibility (e.g. vehicles parked at intersection corners, difficult to make a turn at stopcontrolled intersections, etc.) Bicycle lanes (e.g. narrow/missing bike lanes at intersections or along streets)
Pedestrian crossings (e.g. long crossing distance,
deteriorated pavement striping, sidewalk gaps, etc.)
Aggressive driving (e.g. speeding)
Please identify the top three safety challenges you face when traveling in Pleasant Hill.

Response Count Rank 3 Response Count Rank 2 Response Count Rank 1 A5
0 20 40 60
Improve public transit accessibility
Other
Better signage (e.g. directional, warning)
More educational programs: Safe Routes to School program for students, Bike and Walk Safe program, driver education, safety campaign
Improve existing bike lanes
Improve existing walking paths by making them wider and/or more accessible for those with mobility assistant devices and strollers
Increase street lighting
Provide landscaping that separates vehicles from pedestrians & cyclists
Create new bike lanes
Improve safety at existing roadway crossings for pedestrians and cyclists
Traffic laws and speeding enforcement (e.g. speed cameras, police enforcement)
Slower vehicular traffic/traffic calming (e.g. speed bumps, speed tables, raised crosswalks, etc.)
Complete missing sidewalks
Add crosswalks with flashing beacons, stop signs, or traffic signals at intersections
How could conditions be safer for people walking or rolling in Pleasant Hill? Select up to three options and rank them in order of importance or need, with #1 being the most important: (Rank 1: First most important, Rank 2: Second most important, Rank 3:

Response Count Rank 3 Response Count Rank 2 Response Count Rank 1 A6
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Late night
Afternoon
Evening rush hour
Morning rush hour
Number
Choices
What times of day do you notice the most traffic safety concerns (morning rush hour, afternoon, evening rush hour, or late night? 0 50 100 150 200
I would take public transportation in
Pleasant Hill more often.

I would not change my current travel
choices.

I would walk more often in Pleasant Hill.

I would bike, scoot, or roll more often in
Pleasant Hill.

I would feel safer allowing children to walk
or bike more often.

Unique Count of Response Code
Choices
How might your travel decisions change in Pleasant Hill if traffic safety is improved? (Choose all that apply)
A7
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Prefer not to answer
Yes
No
Number of Answers
Choices
Have you or someone you know personally been personally affected by a fatal or severe traffic collision?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Number
Choices
I believe it is possible to eliminate traffic fatalities and serious injuries on roads and streets in Pleasant Hill through different engineering improvements, public education, and enforcement strategies.

A8
Is there anything else you would like to share about traffic safety concerns in Pleasant Hill? Based on 270 responses, the top 10 traffic safety concern themes in Pleasant Hill are:

1. Speeding and aggressive driving
The most common concern is vehicles driving too fast on major streets and residential cut-through routes, including Pleasant Hill Road, Geary, Gregory, Taylor, Boyd, Maureen, Elderwood, Patterson, and Pleasant View Drive.

2. Unsafe conditions near schools
Many respondents focused on school arrival and dismissal periods, citing unsafe crossings, impatient drivers, congestion, lack of crossing guards, and concerns about children walking or biking to schools such as Pleasant Hill Elementary, Strandwood, Sequoia, Valley View, and College Park.

3. Lack of sidewalks and safe pedestrian space
Respondents repeatedly noted missing, narrow, incomplete, or poorly maintained sidewalks, especially in older neighborhoods and along routes used by children and families, forcing pedestrians into the street.

4. Dangerous crossings and intersections
0 50 100 150 200 250
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Number of Answers
Choices
I am willing to change my behavior when driving to help reduce the risk of fatally or seriously injuring myself or another person.

A9
Many comments called out crosswalks and intersections where drivers do not stop, visibility is poor, or traffic volumes make crossing difficult. Requests included flashing beacons, stop signs, traffic signals, raised crosswalks, pedestrian islands, and improved signal timing.

5. Inadequate or unprotected bicycle infrastructure
People expressed concern that bike lanes are missing, disconnected, too narrow, poorly maintained, or only painted rather than physically protected. Gregory Lane, Pleasant Hill Road, Taylor, Oak Park, Boyd, and freeway/Caltrans crossings were frequently mentioned.

6. Cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods
Respondents described drivers using neighborhood streets to bypass congestion on freeways or arterials, creating speeding, congestion, and safety risks on streets that also serve children, pedestrians, and cyclists.

7. Need for more traffic enforcement
Many comments called for stronger enforcement of speeding, red-light running, stop-sign violations, distracted driving, illegal parking, and unsafe driver behavior, including more visible police presence and ticketing.

8. E-bike and trail user safety concerns
E-bikes and motorized bikes were a recurring concern, particularly youth riding at high speeds on streets, school grounds, and trails. Respondents also noted conflicts between cyclists, e-bikes, and pedestrians on shared trails.

9. Poor visibility, lighting, and sightline issues
Respondents cited dark streets, limited streetlighting, sun glare, blind curves, overgrown vegetation, parked cars near crossings, and unclear signage or striping as contributors to unsafe conditions.

10. Connectivity gaps for walking, biking, and trails
Many comments emphasized the lack of safe, direct connections across I-680, between Pleasant Hill and nearby communities, to schools, downtown, BART, parks, shopping areas, and along major trail corridors such as the Canal Trail and Iron Horse Trail.

A10
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Black/African-American
American Indian/Alaskan Native
Middle Eastern/Arab
Other
Hispanic/Latino/a/x
Asian, Pacific Islander, or Native Hawaiian
I prefer not to answer
White/Caucasian
Number of Answers
Choices
What is your race or ethnicity?
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
Gender non-conforming or non-binary
Other
I prefer not to answer
Male
Female
Number of Answers
Choices
What is your gender?
A11
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Under 18
18-24
25-34
55-64
I prefer not to answer
65 or over
45-54
35-44
Number of Answers
Choices
What is your age?
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Community event/in-person pop-ups for
this project
Other
Email
Friends/family, word of mouth
Social media
Newsletter/website
Number of Answers
Choices
How did you hear about this survey?
A12
PublicCoordinate Comments
Based on the 639 interactive map comments, the top 10 themes expressed are:

Please note that these 10 themes are a synthesization of all map comments, prioritizing the themes that were most frequently noted in descending order.

1. Speeding and aggressive driving
A dominant concern is that drivers are traveling well above posted speeds on both major roads and neighborhood streets, creating unsafe conditions for pedestrians, cyclists, students, and other drivers.

2. Unsafe school travel conditions
Many comments focus on school arrival and dismissal, including congestion, impatient drivers, unsafe crossings, lack of crossing guards, children biking or walking in traffic, and parents blocking or double-parking near schools.

3. Drivers failing to stop or yield
Respondents repeatedly mention cars not stopping at crosswalks, rolling through stop signs, running red lights, ignoring flashing beacons, and failing to yield to pedestrians and cyclists.

4. Lack of sidewalks and safe pedestrian space
Missing, incomplete, narrow, uneven, or poorly maintained sidewalks are a recurring concern, especially where children and families are forced to walk in the street or around parked cars.

5. Dangerous crossings and intersections
Many comments identify intersections and crosswalks that feel unsafe due to high traffic volumes, confusing layouts, wide roads, poor signal timing, lack of traffic control, or the need for flashing beacons, stop signs, traffic signals, or crossing guards.

6. Unsafe or incomplete bicycle infrastructure
Residents frequently note missing, narrow, disconnected, or unprotected bike lanes, with particular concern for children biking to school and adults biking along fast-moving corridors or freeway overpasses.

7. Poor visibility and sightline issues
Blind curves, hills, overgrown vegetation, parked cars near intersections, sun glare, dark conditions, and unclear signage or striping are often cited as reasons drivers do not see pedestrians, cyclists, or other vehicles in time.

8. Cut-through traffic in residential neighborhoods
Several comments describe drivers using residential streets to avoid congestion, freeway delays, or school traffic, bringing higher speeds and larger traffic volumes onto streets used by children, families, and walkers.

A13

9. Need for traffic calming, enforcement, and better controls Residents frequently request speed bumps, speed feedback signs, lower speed limits, red-light or stop-sign enforcement, police presence, no-turn restrictions, improved signage, and stronger parking enforcement.

10. Connectivity gaps for walking, biking, and trails
Comments highlight missing or unsafe connections between neighborhoods, schools, parks, downtown, BART, shopping areas, the Canal Trail, Iron Horse Trail, and routes across or under I680.

B1
Appendix B: Engagement Events Feedback Materials
Light Up the Night Pop-Up
B2
Light Up the Night Pop-Up
B3
Earth Day Pop-Up
B4
Earth Day Pop-Up
B5
Earth Day Pop-Up
B6
Public Workshop #2
B7
Public Workshop #2
B8
Public Workshop #2
C1
Appendix C: Intersection Network Screening Results
Table 11: Intersection Critical Crash Rate Differentials Intersection
Descriptive
Statistics Injury Severity Crash Type Involvement Driver Behavior Roadway
Condition
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
BroadsideSideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Not Stated
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Signalized Intersections
Contra Costa Blvd & Chilpancingo Pkwy 28 0.09 715 4 19 5 12 3 4 3 4 2 2 12 3 13 5 Buskirk Ave & Monument Blvd 14 0.00 355 2 9 3 4 6 1 1 1 1 8 3 Contra Costa Blvd & Golf Club Rd 12 0.02 562 4 7 1 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 6 2 3 1 Putnam Blvd/Buena Vista Ave & Geary Rd 11 0.05 200 1 4 6 5 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 3 Taylor Blvd & Grayson Rd 10 0.01 198 1 5 4 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 5 2 Contra Costa Blvd & Woodsworth Ln 10 -0.01 98 8 2 3 1 3 2 1 1 4 1 5 1 Pleasant Hill Rd & Taylor Blvd 10 -0.01 89 6 4 6 2 1 1 5 4 I-680 & Monument Blvd 8 -0.04 54 1 7 2 4 2 1 3 1 4
Contra Costa Blvd & Taylor Blvd/Sunvalley Blvd 8 -0.03 72 5 3 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 Contra Costa Blvd & Monument Blvd/Crescent Plz 7 -0.04 70 6 1 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 4 1 Taylor Blvd & Gregory Ln 7 -0.03 66 5 2 2 2 1 1 1 4 2 4 1 Contra Costa Blvd & Ellinwood Dr 7 -0.03 285 2 3 2 1 4 1 1 3 2 3 3 Contra Costa Blvd & 2nd Ave S 7 0.02 161 1 1 5 2 2 3 2 1 Pleasant Hill Rd/Alhambra Ave & Paso Nogal Rd 7 -0.02 57 3 4 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 Woodsworth Ln & Gregory Ln 6 -0.03 174 1 5 2 2 1 1 3 1 4 Rolling Green Cir/Helen Rd & Gregory Ln 6 -0.01 169 1 4 1 4 2 1 Contra Costa Blvd & Doray Dr/Beth Dr 6 -0.03 165 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 4 Contra Costa Blvd & Viking Dr 6 -0.03 165 1 3 2 3 3 1 2 2 1 Oak Rd/Buskirk Ave & Oak Park Blvd/Coggins Dr 4 -0.04 29 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 N Main St & Astrid Dr 4 -0.04 38 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Buskirk Ave & Clarie Dr 4 -0.05 43 4 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1
Contra Costa Blvd & Boyd Rd 4 -0.05 148 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 Cleaveland Rd & Crescent Plz 4 0.00 43 4 3 1 1
Moiso Ln & Gregory Ln 4 -0.04 143 1 1 2 2 1 1
Ruth Dr & Taylor Blvd 4 -0.04 143 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
Contra Costa Blvd & Alan Dr 4 -0.05 38 3 1 3 1
Old Quarry Rd & Golf Club Rd 4 -0.04 38 3 1 3 1 1 1
Contra Costa Blvd & I-680 Ramps/Target Dwy 4 -0.03 34 2 2 1 2 1 2 Camino Verde/Pleasant Hill Rd & Pleasant Hill Rd/Geary Rd 3 -0.05 23 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 Buskirk Ave & Mayhew Way 3 -0.05 23 1 2 1 2 1 1 1
Cleaveland Rd & Boyd Rd 3 -0.05 28 2 1 1 1 1 2 1
Buskirk Ave & Lamkin Ln 3 -0.06 28 2 1 1 1 1 3
Crescent Dr & Crescent Plz 3 -0.04 28 2 1 1 1 1 2
Pleasant Hill Rd & Grayson/Gregory Ln 3 -0.06 32 3 1 1 1 1 2 Morello Ave/Mercury Way & Taylor Blvd 3 -0.06 137 1 1 1 3 2 1 Unsignalized Intersections
Marcia Dr & Monument Blvd 9 0.03 73 4 5 3 5 1 1 4 1 3 1 Contra Costa Blvd & Doris Dr 7 0.03 66 5 2 2 4 1 5 3 1
Contra Costa Blvd & Massolo Dr 6 0.02 421 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 Brandon Rd & Gregory Ln 4 0.02 38 3 1 3 1
Contra Costa Blvd & Harriet Dr 4 0.00 223 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 Contra Costa Blvd & Cottonwood Dr 4 0.01 394 2 2 2 1 1 2 Odin Dr & Viking Dr 3 0.07 32 3 2 1 1
Camelback Rd & Chilpancingo Pkwy 3 0.02 32 3 1 1 1 1 1
Notes:
• Summary table includes locations with 3 or more collisions between 2019-2023. Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). • TIMS does not include property damage only collisions. • The sum of the crash types may not equal the total number of crashes as not all crashes have a crash type recorded, and because crashes involving vulnerable road users are not always classified with a crash type.
• Aggressive driving crashes are defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (CA SHP) as crashes where the primary collision factor includes unsafe speed, following too closely, and violating traffic signals or signs.
• Impaired driving crashes are defined by the CA SHP as crashes where the responsible parties had been drinking or using drugs. This includes instances where the driver had been drinking but was not over the legal blood-alcohol content limit.

D1
Appendix D: Segment Network Screening Results
Table 12: Segment Critical Crash Rate Differentials
Facility From To
Descriptive Statistics Injury Severity Crash Type Involvement Driver
Behavior
Roadway
Condition
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential
EPDO
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible
Injury
Complaint of Pain
BroadsideSideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Not Stated
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Major Arterial
Monument Blvd Marcia Dr Park Royale Mobile
Home Park Dwy 4 0.26 198 0 1 3 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 Minor Arterial
Contra Costa Blvd I-680 SB Ramps 2nd Ave 3 0.05 178 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 Notes:
• Local CCR Differential = Local Critical Crash Rate Differential • EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
• Summary table includes locations with 3 or more collisions between 2019-2023. Source: UC Berkeley Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). • TIMS does not include property damage only collisions. • The sum of the crash types may not equal the total number of crashes as not all crashes have a crash type recorded, and because crashes involving vulnerable road users are not always classified with a crash type. • Aggressive driving crashes are defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (CA SHP) as crashes where the primary collision factor includes unsafe speed, following too closely, and violating traffic signals or signs. • Impaired driving crashes are defined by the CA SHP as crashes where the responsible parties had been drinking or using drugs. This includes instances where the driver had been drinking but was not over the legal blood-alcohol content limit.

E1
Appendix E: Corridor Improvement Exhibits
(Please see separate document with corridor improvement exhibits) F1
Appendix F: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for City of Pleasant Hill
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Complete Streets Policy

5.3 in the Pleasant Hill 2040
General Plan states that they
will apply complete streets
principles when building new or
rehabilitating existing roadways.

It is recommended that the City of
Pleasant Hill continues to enforce
the complete streets goal.

Safe Routes to School
Funding

5.5 in the Pleasant Hill 2040
General Plan seeks to alter
infrastructure and educate
individuals to support their Safe
Routes to school program.

Engage with the community to seek
funding avenues in support of the
continued enaction of the Safe
Routes to Schools program.

Traffic Safety Education
The city has a Traffic Safety
Commission comprised of
citizens and employees of the
city that strives to engage the
public in traffic safety education
and resolve existing issues.

Work to continue the duties of the
Traffic Safety Commission.

Program for Reviewing
Crash Activity
The 2022 Local Road Safety
Plan (LRSP) serves as a
framework for identifying and
analyzing roadway safety
issues.

Set up formal program for reviewing
crash activity at a fixed time interval
(1 or 2 years); Update database for
future LRSP analyses & updates.

Crash Records Database
Updates
Pleasant Hill does not use a
crash records database, but has
collision data present in their
LRSP from SWITRS.

Continue to analyze and update
crash databases at regular intervals.

City Enforcement on
Bicycle Rules
Bicycle regulations are enforced
under California Vehicle Code.

Continue to enforce bicycle rules
and coordinate efforts to educate the
community on bicycle safety,
especially in problematic areas.

Sobriety / Seatbelt Checks
Conducted by the City of
Pleasant Hill Police
Department.

City should engage with PD in
planning and implementing sobriety
and & seatbelt checks based on
collision patterns, community events,
and safety priorities.

City Law Enforcement
Coordinate with Adjacent
Jurisdictions
Pleasant Hill PD coordinates
with Contra Costa County and
nearby cities on a variety of
activities.

City Law Enforcement should
continue to work with adjacent
jurisdictions.

F2
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Speed Surveys
Speed Surveys are conducted
by the Traffic Engineering team
(speed limits were lowered on 3
roads and increased on 1 in
2019).

Continue to implement regular speed
surveying as required by California
Vehicle Code.

Speed Limits
Speed Limit Regulation can be
found in Pleasant Hill Municipal
Code 10.10.

Continue to update as required by
California Vehicle Code; Exercise
context-based flexibility offered
under Assembly Bill 43.

Traffic Calming Policies
Traffic calming procedures and
process established by the
Traffic Safety Committee.

Continue to implement traffic
calming strategies as appropriate.

Transit Vehicles
Accommodation of
Bicycles
AC transit and County
Connection vehicles are
equipped with bike racks and
BART trains also accommodate
bicycles.

Continue to accommodate bicycles
on transit to promote multi-modal
trips.

Coordination of Transit
Providers and City Staff
Pleasant Hill coordinates with
511 Contra Costa and local
transit agencies to improve
regional connections.

Continue coordination; Work to
identify areas for improvements
particularly with first and last mile
connections.

Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plans
In 2024 the City adopted their
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan.

Implement the high priority projects
recommended in the plan. Pursue
grant funding for design and
construction of projects with
maximum safety benefit.

General Plan Addresses
Multimodal Traffic Safety
Section 5.2 in the 2040 General
Plan extensively covers ways
for the City to accommodate all
modes of travel.

Continue to implement
recommendations under General
Plan; Regularly assess progress and
areas for improvement; Promote
projects that prioritize multimodal
safety while also providing
operational improvements.

Inventory of Bicycle,
Pedestrian, Parking, and
other facilities
Yes, as integrated into the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan.

Continue to maintain and grow
bicycle, pedestrian, parking and
other facilities.

Traffic Safety Audit
Program
Traffic Safety is monitored by
the Traffic Safety Commission.

Public Works to utilize the FHWA
Road Safety Audit (RSA) guidelines
to ensure consistency in field
reviews and safety assessments.

F3
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Coordination between
Emergency Response and
City Transportation
Planning
Traffic Safety Commission and
city planners work with various
city departments, including
emergency response, to review
and implement safety planning
efforts.

Continue engaging emergency
response in transportation planning
processes.

Coordination between
Local Health Agencies and
City Transportation
Planning
Participation may occur on a
project specific basis.

Additionally, the City runs the
Senior Van Service to transport
seniors to various medical
appointments at a subsidized
price.

Continue engaging local health
agencies in transportation planning
processes and maintain the Senior
Van Service.

Resident Feedback
Feedback can be submitted via
email, mail, or by attending
planning commission meetings.

Implement a system for soliciting
public comment online and continue
to receive and review comments
looking for patterns that could result
in systemic safety improvement.

Maintenance of Roadway
Surfaces
Pleasant Hill’s Maintenance
Division handles pothole
repairs, street sweeping, and
pavement treatments.

Continue regular maintenance of
roadway surfaces; integrate safety
improvements such as bike lanes
and advanced stop bars.

Transportation Demand
Management
Policies/Programs
2040 General Plan includes
strategies for how to reduce
VMT through Transportation
Demand Management (TDM).

Continue to enact the policies
outlined in the TDM section of the
General Plan.

Use of overlays, specific
plans, redevelopment
areas to encourage infill
development to reduce
VMT

5.1 of the 2040 General plan
discusses infill as a strategy to
reduce VMT.

Identify areas where infill
development will require safety
improvements; Coordinate with
County / neighboring jurisdictions to
ensure connectivity and continuation
of safety amenities with other
municipalities.

Regular Collection of
Traffic / Bicycle /
Pedestrian Volumes
Traffic, Bicycle, and Pedestrian
counts are collected by the
Traffic Engineering Division and
utilized to update key planning
documents. Policy TC-2.2 in the
General Plan requires the City
to provide biennial (every two
years) data collection,
monitoring, and reporting.

Require bicycle and pedestrian
counts as part of routine traffic
counting policies for the City when
traffic impact studies or
environmental documents are being
developed.

Program for Installing
Wayfinding Signage
Section 7 of the Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan outlines
city efforts and standards for
wayfinding and integration with
the regional wayfinding system.

Follow guidelines outlined in the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan
to ensure wayfinding is clear and
present throughout frequently
utilized routes.

F4
Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance
Warrants for Traffic
Control Devices Uses CA MUTCD. Continue to use CA MUTCD warrants.

School Zone Safety
As outlined in section 8.5 of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan, targeted enforcement of
School Zone speed limits is
conducted in September by the
PD.

Continue enforcement of road safety
in school zones; Seek grant funding
opportunities for additional personnel
in school zones, or funding for
schools to make safety
improvements.

Crosswalk Safety
As outlined in section 6.1 of the
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan, the City maintains a
prioritized list of pedestrian
crossing locations in need of
safety improvements.

Additionally, Pleasant Hill
schools have introduced “Walkn-Roll” programs to encourage active transportation to school.

Continue to improve crosswalks
identified in the prioritized list.

Additionally, continue to advance
active transportation programs for
schools in the area.

G1
Appendix G: Funding Sources
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in the City of Pleasant Hill. The City will continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Pleasant Hill. The following is a high-level introduction into some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.

1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program housed under Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. This program apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
• New or upgraded traffic signals
• Upgraded guardrails
• Marked pedestrian crosswalks
California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level is available at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/
HSIP Analyzer
The preferred way to calculate the BCR for the HSIP program uses Caltrans HSIP Analyzer tool in the form of an active PDF. The PDF tool contains 4 sections which are used to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio for the Highway Safety Improvement Program. This tool can be accessed on the Caltrans website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highwaysafetyimprovement-program/apply-now Projects appropriate for other state grant programs can be analyzed using the Life-Cycle Benefit Cost Analysis Model (CalB/C) which has a much more comprehensive benefit assessment tool set.Projects appropriate for other state grant programs can be analyzed using the California LifeCycle Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (CalB/C) which has a much more comprehensive benefit assessment tool set.

HSIP Eligibility
Per Chapter 9 of the Highway Safety Improvement Program, funds are eligible for projects that improve the safety of its users on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway G2
or trail, or on tribal lands for general use of tribal members. HSIP looks for safety projects that can be designed and constructed expeditiously and do not require significant acquisition of rights-ofway. Proposed projects should not require extensive environmental review and mitigation.

Additional information on the HSIP project selection criteria can be accessed online:
• Benefit Cost Ratio Applications
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2024/hsipanalyzer-manual-bcr2024.pdf • Funding Set-asides (Non-Benefit Cost Ration Applications) https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2024/hsipanalyzer-manual-2024sa-final.pdf HSIP project eligibility is subject to the California SHSP. The SHSP identifies statewide challenge areas that correspond to safety concerns at the statewide level and potential countermeasure to address them and determine HSIP project eligibility. SHSP’s are developed in compliance with FHWA requirements. A list of eligible project types can be seen in the current HSIP Analyzer. More information about the California HSIP application process can be accessed here:
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/lapg/g09.pdf

2. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP)
Caltrans ATP is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g. safe routes to school) • Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/active-transportationprogram

3. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
The STIP provides state and federal gas tax money for improvements both on and off the state highway system. STIP programming occurs every two years. The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate, followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate. The fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the programming of transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional planning agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal. Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) using G3
Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds, and regional agencies prepare Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) using Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds.

The STIP is then adopted by the CTC.

4. California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
SB 1 is a transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.

California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
• Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This funding will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in subsidy for these projects through the Active Transportation Program (ATP). • Local Planning Grants: $25 million

5. California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
This program has funding projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this plan) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
• Alcohol Impaired Driving
• Distracted Driving
• Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
• Motorcycle Safety
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
• Police Traffic Services
• Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
• Roadway Safety and Traffic Records

6. Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
The SS4A Grant Program is a federal program established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. A total of $5 billion are available from 2022-2026 in the form of planning grants and implementation grants. Grant applications for projects that implement the Safe Systems Approach, such as those related to speed management, improvements in underserved communities, and vulnerable road users, are encouraged. Implementation grant projects must be identified in an applicant’s G4
qualifying Safety Action Plan. The SS4A Self-Certification Eligibility Worksheet describes the required elements of an Action Plan and can be accessed at:
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2025-03/SS4A_FY25-Self-CertificationWorksheet.pdf Additional information about implementation grants can be found at:
https://www.transportation.gov/grants/ss4a/implementation-grants

7. Advanced Transportation Technology and Innovation
(ATTAIN)
The ATTAIN program is a competitive funding initiative administered by FHWA. It aims to support the deployment, installation, and operation of advanced transportation technologies that enhance:
• Safety
• Mobility
• Efficiency
• System performance
• Intermodal connectivity
• Infrastructure return on investment.

The ATTAIN program was scoped with an annual budget of $60 million per year from FY 2022-2026 but is closed as of February 2024. Future funding is to be determined. Additional information can be found at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure-investment-and-jobs-act/attain.cfm

8. Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Grant Program
The RCP Program was established under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act with the aim of reconnecting communities that were divided or harmed by past transportation infrastructure decisions—such as highways, rail lines, or other barriers. It supports both planning and capital construction projects that restore community connectivity, improve mobility, and foster economic development.

The RCP Program has budgeted an annual average of $50 million for planning grants and $140 million for construction grants from FY 2022-2026. RCP priorities include the following:
• Access
• Facility Suitability
• Community Engagement, and Community-based Stewardship, Management, and Partnerships
• Community Development
• Extreme Weather Adaptation and Resilience
• Workforce Development and Economic Opportunity
• Planning Integration
Additional information can be found at: https://www.transportation.gov/reconnecting G5

9. Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMART)
The SMART Grant Program was established by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) to fund demonstration projects that deploy advanced smart city and community technologies aimed at improving transportation efficiency and safety. The SMART program is organized into two stages, with the first stage focused on planning and prototyping projects with awards up to $2 million; stage two awards are available to stage one recipients only and can be used to further refine, scale up, or integrate the original project into the existing transportation network. Phase two awards range from $2-18 million, and the SMART Program has budgeted a total of $100 million from FY 2022-2026. More information can be found at: https://www.transportation.gov/grants/SMART

10. One Bay Area Grant (OBAG)
The OBAG program is administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and distributes federal transportation funding from the FHWA to projects and programs that improve safety, spur economic development, and help the Bay Area meet climate change and air quality improvement goals. The grant is currently on its fourth cycle and includes $820 million in federal funding for projects from 2027 through 2030.

More information can be found at: https://mtc.ca.gov/funding/federal-funding/federal-highwayadministration-grants/one-bay-area-grant-4-obag-4

11. Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA)
The TFCA program was established by the California Legislature in 1991 and authorized the Department of Motor Vehicles to impose a $4 surcharge on vehicles registered within the Bay Area Air District’s jurisdiction to support projects that reduce vehicle emissions. Sixty percent of the funds are earmarked for programs implemented by the Bay Area Air District. The remaining 40 percent is provided to the designated agencies responsible for distributing transportation funds within each of the nine Bay Area counties. CCTA is the designated agency for Contra Costa County and annually distributes approximately $1.5 million in TFCA funds.

More information can be found at: https://ccta.ca.gov/about-us/funding/

12. Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC)
The TLC program allocates five percent of Measure J funds to support projects that improve local access, strengthen connections between transportation and land use, and help create safer, walkable, bikeable, and transit-accessible communities. Measure J is a voter-approved 25-year extension of Measure C and implements a countywide half-cent sales tax to fund transportation programs and projects.

More information can be found at: https://ccta.ca.gov/planning/coordinated-call-for-projects/ G6

13. Pedestrian, Bicycle and Trail Facilities (PBTF)
The PBTF program allocates 1.5 percent of Measure J funds to bicycle, pedestrian, trail, and active transportation projects across Contra Costa County. The East Bay Regional Park District receives one-third of PBTF funds while the remaining two-thirds of funds are distributed to projects that are competitively evaluated by the County Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

More information can be found at: https://ccta.ca.gov/planning/coordinated-call-for-projects/