Route 1 is a two-lane, state-maintained roadway that runs along the coast of California and serves as the primarily access route for most of the smaller communities located along the rural coastal areas of Mendocino County. According to the Mendocino County General Plan and Point Arena General Plan, Route 1 is designated as a minor arterial. In the General Plan Circulation Element, the City recognizes Route 1 as its principal evacuation route. Within downtown Point Arena, Route 1 is designated as Main Street and is fronted by commercial and residential land uses. At the northern end of the downtown area, Route 1 makes a sharp westerly turn and is designated as School Street until the intersection with Lake Street.
According to the Mendocino County General Plan, Route 1 is eligible to be a California Scenic Highway but has not been officially designated as such yet. Caltrans’ Department of Landscape Architecture maintains a list of the designated and eligible roadways throughout the state. The purpose of this designation is to protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of the highway and adjacent corridor through special conservation treatment. Typically, jurisdictions that have these facilities must adopt policies that regulate and conserve the land use, density of development, site planning, advertising, landscaping, and design around the roadway. Although this designation does not preclude future development or widening, the program ensures that the future activities are consistent with the community values and compatible with protection of scenic resources.
Port Road is a narrow, two-lane collector street that connects the City to the harbor and port located on the coast. Although Port Road intersects with Main Street (Route 1), the section of Port Road between Iverson Avenue and Main Street is not considered the primary connection to Main Street because it is barricaded at the end. Vehicles must use Gillmore Alley to access the westerly half of Port Road. Most parcels along Port Road are residential. Speed bumps are present, indicating speeding may be an issue on this roadway.
Point Arena Harbor, end of Port Road
Iverson Avenue is a two-lane collector street that provides the primary connection between Port Road and Main Street (Route 1). Most of the parcels along Iverson Avenue are residential.
Speed bumps are present, indicating speeding may be an issue on this roadway.
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
Riverside Avenue/Eureka Hill Road is a two-lane collector street that provides access to inland areas east of the City, as well as the Pomo Indian Reservation. Riverside Avenue is also designated as an evacuation route for the City.
Lake Street is a two-lane local street running parallel to Route 1 in the northern part of the City.
Point Arena High School, Elementary School, and Pacific Community Charter Schools are located on Lake Street, as well as several residences. Speed bumps are present, indicating speeding may be an issue on this roadway.
Lake Street at Point Arena Elementary School
Mill Street is a two-lane local street that runs east from Main Street (Route 1) before dead-ending.
The street is residential in character; however, there are medical offices located near Center Street and Main Street (Route 1), as well as a motel.
Center Street is a narrow alley running from Mill Street to Starboard Way. It provides access to the medical office parking lot and library parking lot, as well as a rear access for commercial properties with storefronts on Main Street (Route 1).
Starboard Way is a narrow alley running between Main Street (Route 1) and Center Street. It provides access to the General Store, as well as a connection to Center Street.
Gillmore Alley is a narrow alley running between Port Road and Iverson Avenue. The intersection of Gillmore Alley and Iverson Avenue replaces the barricade Port Road and Iverson Road intersection.
Windy Hollow Road is a north/south, two-lane connector street that begins at Riverside Avenue and ends at Route 1 north of the City. However, the road is not entirely accessible because it is bisected by the Garcia River, and a bridge is not provided. The Manchester-Point Arena Rancheria is conducting a feasibility study to install a bridge across the river, to provide better connectivity and emergency access.
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
Study Intersections
Ten intersections within the City were chosen as focused study areas based on feedback from the Technical Advisory Committee. These intersections represent locations with significant pedestrian or vehicle volumes, existing deficiencies, or constraints. The chosen locations are shown in Figure 1. They are:
1. Iverson Avenue / Main Street (Route 1): This intersection is a three-legged intersection connecting Main Street (Route 1) to Port Road. Residential and commercial uses are located near this intersection. Iverson Avenue is stop-controlled.
2. Mill Street / Main Street (Route 1): This intersection is a three-legged intersection. Mill Street is a residential street that dead-ends approximately 1,000 feet east of the intersection. Residences, medical facilities, and a motel are located near this intersection. Mill Street is stop-controlled.
3. Port Road / Main Street (Route 1): This intersection is a three-legged intersection.
Although Port Road extends towards the coast, a barricade has been erected at the westbound leg of the Port Road/Iverson Road intersection. Therefore, the section of Port Road that abuts Main Street (Route 1) is effectively a dead-end street for vehicular traffic.
Vehicles must use Gillmore Alley to access the westerly half of Port Road. Residential and commercial uses are located near this intersection. Port Road is stop-controlled.
4. Starboard Way / Main Street (Route 1): This intersection is a three-legged intersection.
Starboard Way is an alley that connects to Center Street approximately 200 feet east of Main Street (Route 1). Starboard Way also serves as an entrance to the parking lot for the Point Arena General Store.
5. Riverside Avenue-Eureka Hill Road / Main Street (Route 1): This intersection is a threelegged intersection, with Riverside Avenue stop-controlled on the westbound approach.
Primarily residences are located near this intersection.
6. School Street (Route 1) / Main Street (Route 1): This intersection is located at a 90- degree turn in Route 1 at the top of a hill. From the bend, Main Street extends approximately 500 northward before becoming Lake Street. Point Arena Elementary School is located just north (uphill) of this intersection. Only the southbound approach is stop-controlled, making the operations at this intersection, which includes a school crosswalk on the west leg, somewhat confusing.
7. Lake Street / Route 1: This intersection is a four-legged intersection, with Lake Street as the east and west approaches. Both Lake Street approaches are stop-controlled. There are residential areas on both the east and west side of the intersection, in addition to a commercial strip development on the northwest corner. Point Arena High School and the Independent Charter High School are located approximately 300 feet east of the intersection. School Street (Route 1) curves sharply on the northbound approach to this intersection.
8. Iverson Avenue / Gillmore Alley: This intersection is a three-legged intersection located west of Route 1. Iverson Avenue runs east-to-west; Gillmore Alley is side-street-stopcontrolled and forms the north approach. This intersection replaces another intersection of Port Road and Iverson Avenue located approximately 200 feet to the west that has been closed to vehicular traffic. Primarily residences are located near this intersection.
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
9. Mill Street / Center Street: This intersection is a three-legged intersection located approximately 150 feet east of Main Street (Route 1). East of the intersection, Mill Street is residential; however, Center Street (the north leg of the intersection) is an alley that serves commercial properties that face Main Street (Route 1) and a health care center.
10. Center Street / Starboard Way: This intersection is located behind the Point Arena General Store. Both Center Street and Starboard Way are alleys that serve commercial uses that front onto Main Street (Route 1). At Main Street, Starboard Way is adjacent to a parking lot for the Point Arena General Store.
Roadway Volumes and Intersection Levels of Service
No new roadway or intersection counts were done for this study; however, the State Route 1 Corridor Study Update (W-Trans, 2008) contains existing and future year (2020 and 2030) summer PM peak hour and Saturday afternoon peak hour turning movement counts for the intersections: (1) Iverson Avenue / Main Street (Route 1) and (5) Riverside Avenue / Eureka Hill Road/ Main Street (Route 1). The turning movement volumes and resultant intersection levels of service (LOS)1
are shown in Figure 2 a, b, and c.
As shown in Figure 2, these two intersections operate at acceptable (LOS B or better) levels during the peak travel periods until 2030, when (1) Iverson Avenue/Main Street (Route 1) is projected to operate at LOS C. The State Route 1 study also conducted left-turn lane warrant analysis to see if these locations would qualify for dedicated turn pockets. The Iverson Avenue eastbound approach met left-turn lane warrants under year 2030 conditions, which would improve conditions to LOS B.
Route 1 looking northbound at Iverson Avenue
1 Level of service qualitative description of traffic flow based on such factors as speed, travel time, delay, and freedom to maneuver. Six levels are defined from LOS A, with little to no delay, to LOS F, where demand exceeds capacity and long delays occur. LOS E represents “at-capacity” operations. The County maintains a LOS B standard for its roadway and intersections.
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
Figure 2a. Existing
Figure 2b. Future 2020
Figure 2c. Future 2030
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
Existing Roadway Plans and Policies
The Point Arena General Plan Circulation Element was reviewed to identify current policies and plans related to the transportation system. The City has proposed the following roadway improvements in its Circulation Element (shown in Figure 3):
A new, north-south collector street between Port Road and Route 1 The abandonment of Gillmore Alley and the construction of a new connection between Iverson Avenue and Port Road
The widening of Port Road between Iverson Avenue and the coast Improvements of the Route 1/Iverson Avenue intersection A long-term Route 1 bypass to replace the current Main Street (Route 1) alignment.
While the City has recognized a need for this improvement, no alignment has been determined.
In general, the City’s policy is that all new and upgraded streets shall meet current design standards for right-of-way and paved width, while being consistent with the goal of maintaining the City’s small-town rural character.
The City has a goal to maintain its roadways and intersections at LOS B. New development that would cause a roadway to fall below LOS B would likely be required to develop mitigation measures to return the facility to acceptable operating conditions. However, the City recognizes that several roadways are physically constrained by existing development and topography.
Therefore, the City’s Circulation Element also includes a goal to maintain roadways consistent with its small town character.
Caltrans maintains Route 1 at LOS D through Point Arena, but Caltrans and the County wish to maintain Route 1’s two-lane cross-section wherever possible.
F I GUR E 3
C I T Y O F P O I N T A R E N A , C A L I F O R N I A
POINT AR E NA C OMMUNITY AC TION P LAN
0 0.04 0.08 Miles
Source: F ehr & Peers, 2009
Source: DC&E and F & P, 2009
Legend
Intersection ImprovementsRoad WideningNew Street
POINT ARENA GENERAL PLAN - CIRCULATION ELEMENT PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Route 1/School Street
Lake Street
Windy Hollow Road
Riverside Drive / Eureka Hill Road
Scott Place
Mill Street
Starboard Way
Center Street
Iverson Avenue
Route 1/Main Street
Port Road
Gillmore Alley XX X X
(Route 1)School StreetPort Road andcollector betweenNew north-south Port Road and Iverson AvenueNew connection between
Gillmore AlleyAbandonment of
have not been determined.Note: Exact alignments for future roadways John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
EXISTING PARKING LOCATIONS
The City has indicated that parking can be particularly difficult, especially during the summer, when tourism traffic on Route 1 peaks. Parking availability was reviewed qualitatively during midday, weekday hours in June 2009. Figure 4 shows the areas of the City with on-street or offstreet parking. The table on Figure 4 shows the observed occupancy and estimated supply for each of these parking areas.
On-street parking is provided along Main Street (Route 1). On-street parking is also permitted along Mill Street, parts of Lake Street (near the elementary school), and sections of School Street and Riverside Avenue/Eureka Hill. During the observed weekday, these on-street parking areas were approximately 50 percent occupied.
On-Street Parking on Main Street (Route 1)
Several businesses along Main Street (Route 1) have off-street parking areas for their patrons.
During the observed weekday, these parking areas were approximately 50 percent occupied.
1 1
1 2
17 18
15 16
13 14
F I GUR E 4
E X I S T I N G P A R K I N G C O N D I T I O N S
C I T Y O F P O I N T A R E N A , C A L I F O R N I A
POINT AR E NA C OMMUNITY AC TION P LAN
0 0.03 0.06 Miles
Source: F ehr & Peers, 2009
Legend Item
Legend Item
Off-Street Lots
E xis ting P arking L ocations
On-Street Locations
S ource: Fehr & P eers , 2009
9 10
8 7
2 4
5 6
3 Lake Street
Windy Hollow Road
Riverside Drive / Eureka Hill Road
Scott Place
Mill Street
Iverson Avenue
Port Road
Route 1/School Street
Starboard Way
Center Street
Route 1/Main Street
Route 1/School Street
Off-Street Parking Occupancy
Location Occupied Spaces Total Spaces % OccupiedPort (Not Shown) 12 45 27% Seashell Inn 15 20 75%Fred Morgan Medical 0 6 0%Community Health Center 0 11 0% General Store 5 6 83%Pharmacy/Library 6 18 33%
Art Gallery 6 6 100%
Post Office 1 6 17%
General Retail 6 10 60%Theater 10 14 71%
On-Street Parking Occupancy
Location Occupied Spaces Total Spaces % OccupiedMain Street (Route 1) NB 26 37 70% Main Street (Route 1) SB 27 41 66%Route 1 SB 1 3 33%Lake Street NB 0 2 0%Elementary School 20 30 67% Riverside Ave EB 6 12 50%Mill Street EB 13 20 65%
Mill Street WB 6 20 30% 18.
17.16.15.14.13.12.11. #
10.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1. #
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
Off Street Parking at the Arena Pharmacy
These estimates are based on an informal parking survey conducted during field observations, and may not represent peak conditions. Some areas, such as Port Road, east of Iverson Avenue, have informal on-street parking. Several lots are unpaved or marked, so a true parking supply was not available. However, the observed occupancy does not indicate that the City has a significant parking shortage. Parking concerns may be exacerbated by the limited U-turn potentials in downtown, which makes on-street parking access challenging. Furthermore, the City has limited signage that directs drivers to off-street parking areas, limiting their visibility.
In addition to the parking areas identified above, several areas in the City have informal areas where drivers may park. These areas are typically found on roadways with wide shoulders (such as along School Street (Route 1) west of Main Street and Main Street across from the elementary school).
Existing Parking Policies
The Point Arena General Plan Circulation Element sets guidelines for how and when parking should be provided in certain developments. While parking requirements are set in the City’s Zoning Ordinance, the City encourages joint use of parking facilities and is supportive of a “downtown” parking district. The Circulation Element also identifies a two-hour parking limit during the week on Main Street (Route 1); however, it does not support metered parking.
EXISTING TRANSIT SERVICE
The Mendocino Transit Authority (MTA) operates twelve fixed bus routes throughout Mendocino County, including service between the coastal communities along Route 1 and the inland communities of Ukiah and Santa Rosa (Sonoma County). Riders can connect with other regional transit operators in Santa Rosa (Golden Gate Transit) and Ukiah (Lake Transit). A new bus stop/pocket park with restrooms is under construction near the Point Arena Theater.
The following two MTA routes, shown in Figure 5 and summarized in Table 1, serve Point Arena:
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
Route 95 provides bus service between Point Arena and Santa Rosa once a day. Monday through Saturday, Route 95 departs from the Point Arena Theater bus stop pavilion at 8:00 AM and arrives at the 2nd Street Transit Mall in Santa Rosa at 11:00 AM, with stops in Anchor Bay, Gualala, Sea Ranch, Stewards Point, Fort Ross, Jenner, Bodega Bay, Freestone, and Sebastopol. Service can also be extended to the Amtrak Depot and Sonoma County Airport Express by request. From the 2nd Street Transit Mall in Santa Rosa, riders can connect with Golden Gate Transit and Sonoma Transit buses. Route 95 departs Santa Rosa at 4:15 PM and returns to the Point Arena harmacy at 7:05 PM. On Sunday, Route 95 begins its trip at 10:00 AM, arrives in Santa Rosa at 1:00 PM, and departs Santa Rosa at 4:15 PM.
Route 75 provides bus service between Gualala and Ukiah once a day. Heading northbound on Route 1, Route 75 stops at the Point Arena Pharmacy and the Point Arena High School at approximately 8:10 AM. Passengers arrive in Ukiah at approximately 10:35 AM. The return trip leaves the Ukiah Library at approximately 3:05 PM and arrives at the Point Arena Theater at 5:30 PM. There are intermediary stops at Elk, Navarro, Philo, and Boonville. Passengers can connect with other MTA routes and Lake Transit (Lake County) routes in Ukiah.
Route 75 also has connecting service to Mendocino and Fort Bragg. Riders connect at a timed transfer at Navarro River Junction at 8:55 AM and arrive in Fort Bragg at 10:25 AM. In the afternoon, Route 75 departs Fort Bragg at 3:35 PM and arrives at Navarro River Junction at 4:45 PM.
Table 1 – Existing Transit Service to Point Arena
Route Start End AM Stop in
Point Arena
PM Stop in
Point Arena
75 Gualala Ukiah1
8:10 AM
(Pharmacy)
8:15 AM
(High School)
5:25 PM
(High School)
5:30 PM (Theater)
95 Point Arena
2nd Street Transit
Mall
(Santa Rosa)2
Monday-Saturday:
8:00 AM (Theater)
Sunday:
10:00 AM (Theater)
7:05 PM (Pharmacy)
Notes:
1. Timed transfer to/from Fort Bragg at Navarro River Junction at 8:55 AM and 4:40 PM.
2. Extension to Sonoma County Airport Express by request.
3. Several stops require passengers to flag the bus or request a stop.
Source: Mendocino Transit Authority, Effective September 14, 2008, Accessed June 2009.
In addition to service provided by MTA, the South Coast Senior Center operates a small, handicap accessible van for senior citizens at the center wishing to do errands in other areas of the County.
75 9
5 FIGUR E 5
M E N D O C I N O T R A N S I T A U T H O R I T Y C O A S T A L T R A N S I T S E R V I C E
C I T Y O F P O I N T A R E N A , C A L I F O R N I A
POINT AR E NA C OMMUNITY AC TION P LAN
0 0.04 0.08 Miles
S ource: Fehr & Peers , 2009
R oute 75 - S outh Coast Bus
Gualala-Ukiah & Fort Bragg
S ource: Mendocino T rans it Authority, 2009
R oute 95 - S outh Coast Bus
Point Arena - S anta R osa
MTA Trans it Line
Bus Stop
Lake Street
Windy Hollow Road
Riverside Drive / Eureka Hill Road
Scott Place
Mill Street
Iverson Avenue
Port Road
Route 1/School Street
Starboard Way
Center Street
Route 1/Main Street
Gillmore Alley
Route Starting Point End Point Point Arena
AM Stop in
Point Arena
PM Stop in
9575 Point Arena
Gualala
Sonoma Airport
Ukiah 8:10 AM
8:00 AM
5:30 PM7:05 PM
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
EXISTING BICYCLE FACILITIES
The Mendocino County Bikeways Plan (Dow & Associates, 2006) designates existing and planned bicycle facilities throughout the County, including the incorporated areas. Bicycle facilities consist of bicycle lanes, trails, and paths. Typically, bicycle facilities are grouped into three categories:
Class I facilities consist of off-road bicycle paths and are generally shared with pedestrians. Class I facilities may be adjacent to an existing roadway, or may be entirely independent of existing vehicular facilities.
Class II facilities consist of striped bicycle lanes on roadways. These facilities reserve a minimum of four feet of space along each side of the roadway for bicycle traffic. Class III facilities consist of signed bicycle routes. Class III facilities do not have striped, reserved right of way for bicycles, but are signed and ideally designed to accommodate and encourage bicycle traffic.
Within Point Arena, Route 1 is designated as part of the Pacific Coast Bike Route, a Class III facility running most of the length of Route 1 within California. The City also maintains bike lanes on Port Road between Iverson Avenue and the coast. Bicycle lanes (Class II) now exist on Port Road; however, they have substandard width in some locations. The bike facilities in the City are shown on Figure 6.
Figure 6 also shows proposed bike lanes on Port Road and Iverson Avenue. These Class II lanes are proposed as high-need projects in the County Bikeways Plan.
Port Road Class II Bicycle Lanes
FIGUR E 6
C I T Y O F P O I N T A R E N A , C A L I F O R N I A
POINT AR E NA C OMMUNITY AC TION P LAN
0 0.04 0.08 Miles
S ource: Fehr & Peers , 2009
EXISTING AND PROPOSED BICYCLE FACILITIES
Lake Street
Windy Hollow Road
Riverside Drive / Eureka Hill Road
Scott Place
Mill Street
Iverson Avenue
Port Road
Route 1/School Street
Starboard Way
Center Street
Route 1/Main Street
Gillmore Alley
P roposed C lass II --
B ike Lanes
E xis ting and P roposedB icycle Facilities
E xisting Class III --
B ike R oute
Source: Mendocino C ounty
B ikeways P lan, 2006
E xisting Class II --B ike Lanes
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Pedestrian facilities include improvements such as sidewalks, crosswalks, pathways, and trails.
Fehr & Peers surveyed the City to identify these facilities. Existing sidewalks and crosswalks are shown in Figure 7.
As shown in Figure 7, most streets in the City have sidewalks along at least one side of the street. Main Street (Route 1), the City’s main commercial corridor, as well as Mill Street, have sidewalks on both sides of the street. School Street (Route 1) has a sidewalk on the north side of the roadway. Portions of Lake Street along school properties have sidewalks. Sidewalks have adequate width and are generally well-maintained. As mentioned, ADA-accommodations are typically substandard. On Mill Street, sidewalks have limited accessibility due to high curbs, steep driveway cross-slopes, and tree root damage.
Sidewalks on Mill Street
Few intersections in the City have marked crosswalks. Most marked crosswalks are uncontrolled, where vehicle movements are not controlled by stop signs or traffic signals. Crosswalks across Route 1 are located north of Mill Street, mid-block between Port Road and Riverside Avenue, at the intersection of School Street / Main Street (yellow ladder crosswalk, west leg), and at the intersection of Lake Street / Route 1 (yellow ladder crosswalk, north leg). The two yellow ladder crosswalks (school crosswalks) were recently installed. However, their visibility is limited by topography, curves, and skewed intersection angles. There are also two mid-block crosswalks across Lake Street located near the schools.
The City also has formal and informal trails connecting Route 1 with Port Road. These trails are shown on Figure 7. The paved section of trail connects Main Street with a playground located approximately 300 feet west of Main Street (Route 1). After the playground, a worn, informal trail connects to Port Road. A second informal, worn trail connects School Street (Route 1) with the other informal trail leading to Port Road.
FIGUR E 7
C I T Y O F P O I N T A R E N A , C A L I F O R N I A
POINT AR E NA C OMMUNITY AC TION P LAN
0 0.04 0.08 Miles
S ource: Fehr & Peers , 2009
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Lake Street
Windy Hollow Road
Riverside Drive / Eureka Hill Road
Scott Place
Mill Street
Iverson Avenue
Port Road
Route 1/School Street
Starboard Way
Center Street
Route 1/Main Street
Gillmore Alley
Crosswalk with
While Parallel Stripes
E xis ting Pedestrian F acilities
S idewalk
Source: F ehr & P eers , 2009
C rosswalk with
Informal TrailPaved Trail
Yellow Ladder Stripes
John Hykes, DC&E
July 10, 2009
Entrance to paved trail west of Route 1
Existing Pedestrian Plans and Policies
Caltrans’ Safety Office has initiated a crosswalk safety project in District 1; however, the full project has not been approved or funded. The City of Point Arena does not have a stated crosswalk placement/ removal/ treatment policy or a pedestrian master plan in place.
RECENT COLLISION HISTORY
Collision history for the City for the past six years was obtained from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). This system contains all collisions involving motor vehicles in the state, including those that occur between vehicles and pedestrians and vehicles and bicycles.
The California Highway Patrol officer assigned to Point Arena, Sgt. Greg Stefani, was also consulted to obtain additional background information for the collisions. Between 2003 and 2009, Point Arena had six reported collisions. Their locations are shown in Figure 8.
As shown in Figure 8, one broadside collision occurred at Main Street (Route 1) / Iverson Avenue. According to Sgt. Stefani, this collision may have been associated with limited visibility due to the grade and angle of the intersection.
Three vehicle-vehicle collisions occurred at the intersection of School Street (Route 1) / Main Street (Route 1). Route 1 makes a 90-degree bend at this location without any stop control to slow vehicles. Additionally, northbound drivers unfamiliar with the area may make last minute turning decisions if they wish to stay on Route 1, but are not aware of the necessary turn at the intersection. While no pedestrian collisions were recorded for this location, the presence of a school crosswalk at a location with confusing traffic control and wayfinding may be a safety concern.
One vehicle-pedestrian collision occurred just south of Mill Street. A pedestrian was hit crossing Main Street (Route 1) outside of a marked crosswalk. Based on discussions with Sgt. Stefani, this collision was associated with pedestrian behavior rather than roadway design concerns.
FIGUR E 8
C I T Y O F P O I N T A R E N A , C A L I F O R N I A
POINT AR E NA C OMMUNITY AC TION P LAN
0 0.04 0.08 Miles
S ource: Fehr & Peers , 2009
COLLISION HISTORY (2003 - 2009)
Lake Street
Windy Hollow Road
Riverside Drive / Eureka Hill Road
Scott Place
Mill Street
Iverson Avenue
Port Road
Route 1/School Street
Starboard Way
Center Street
Route 1/Main Street
Gillmore Alley
B roadside
Source: S WITR S , 2003-2009
Hit F ixed Object
Reported Collisions by Type
(E ach Dot R epres ents
One (1) C ollis ion)
Re
Other
ar End
S ideswipe(P edeVehicle/P edes trian
strian not in
C rosswalk)
A PPENDIX C
C ONCEPTUAL C OST E STIMATES
City of Point Arena 3-Mar-10
Item Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Cost
$203,000
1.1 Traffic and Pedestrian Control 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
1.2 Prepare Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 1 LS $8,000.00 $8,000
1.3 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000
1.4 Project Information Signs 1 LS $5,000.00 $5,000
1.5 Cold Plane Asphalt Concrete Pavement (2") 72,000 SF $0.75 $54,000
1.6 Asphalt Concrete (2" Overlay) 900 TON $90.00 $81,000
1.7 School Street/Lake Street Intersection Improvements $74,260
1.7.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 220 LF $8.00 $1,760
1.7.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 440 SF $2.50 $1,100
1.7.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 290 CY $20.00 $5,800
1.7.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 80 LF $30.00 $2,400
1.7.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 2,270 SF $10.00 $22,700
1.7.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 4 EA $2,500.00 $10,000
1.7.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.7.8 Remove Existing Retaining Wall 100 LF $35.00 $3,500
1.7.9 30" Retaining Wall 68 LF $250.00 $17,000
1.8 New Sidewalk Between Eureka Hill RD and Scott Place $25,922
1.8.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 174 LF $8.00 $1,392
1.8.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 284 SF $2.50 $710
1.8.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 85 CY $20.00 $1,700
1.8.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 174 LF $30.00 $5,220
1.8.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 1,190 SF $10.00 $11,900
1.8.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 2 EA $2,500.00 $5,000
1.8.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit - EA $10,000.00 $0
1.9 Bulbout - Riverside Drive $20,570
1.9.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 40 LF $8.00 $320
1.9.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 220 SF $2.50 $550
1.9.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 88 CY $20.00 $1,760
1.9.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 48 LF $30.00 $1,440
1.9.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 400 SF $10.00 $4,000
1.9.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500
1.9.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.10. Bulbout - Post Office $20,570
1.10.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 40 LF $8.00 $320
1.10.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 220 SF $2.50 $550
1.10.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 88 CY $20.00 $1,760
1.10.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 48 LF $30.00 $1,440
1.10.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 400 SF $10.00 $4,000
1.10.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500
1.10.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.11 Extended Sidewalk Bus Bulbout (West Side) $38,316
1.11.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 192 LF $8.00 $1,536
1.11.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk - SF $2.50 $0
1.11.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 620 CY $20.00 $12,400
1.11.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 216 LF $30.00 $6,480
1.11.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 540 SF $10.00 $5,400
1.11.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500
1.11.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.12 Extended Sidewalk/Stair/Planting Strip including bulbout (East Side) $121,168
1.12.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 466 LF $8.00 $3,728
1.12.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 688 SF $2.50 $1,720
1.12.2 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 292 CY $20.00 $5,840
1.12.3 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 466 LF $30.00 $13,980
1.12.4 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 640 SF $10.00 $6,400
1.12.5 Concrete 18"-22" Curb 380 LF $100.00 $38,000
Downtown Point Arena Streetscape
CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE
1.0 CIVIL ENGINEERING
1.12.6 Concrete Stair (8 sections of 8" riser - 15" Tread - 10' length) 240 SF $50.00 $12,000
1.12.7 Railing - custom decorative arts theme 180 LF $150.00 $27,000
1.12.8 Concrete Curb Ramp 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500
1.12.9 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.13 Bulbout - Port Road (west) $26,895
1.13.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 60 LF $8.00 $480
1.13.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 310 SF $2.50 $775
1.13.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 117 CY $20.00 $2,340
1.13.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 85 LF $30.00 $2,550
1.13.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 575 SF $10.00 $5,750
1.13.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 2 EA $2,500.00 $5,000
1.13.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.14 Bulbout - Port Road (east) $21,917
1.14.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 34 LF $8.00 $272
1.14.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 418 SF $2.50 $1,045
1.14.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 65 CY $20.00 $1,300
1.14.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 40 LF $30.00 $1,200
1.14.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 560 SF $10.00 $5,600
1.14.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500
1.14.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.15 Bulbout - Mill Street (east) $27,244
1.15.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 83 LF $8.00 $664
1.15.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 400 SF $2.50 $1,000
1.15.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 180 CY $20.00 $3,600
1.15.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 92 LF $30.00 $2,760
1.15.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 422 SF $10.00 $4,220
1.15.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 2 EA $2,500.00 $5,000
1.15.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.16 Bulbout - Mill Street (west) $20,570
1.16.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter 40 LF $8.00 $320
1.16.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk 220 SF $2.50 $550
1.16.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 88 CY $20.00 $1,760
1.16.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 48 LF $30.00 $1,440
1.16.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 400 SF $10.00 $4,000
1.16.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500
1.16.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.17 Iversen Avenue Intersection Improvements $42,750
1.17.1 Remove Concrete Curb & Gutter - LF $8.00 $0
1.17.2 Remove Concrete Sidewalk - SF $2.50 $0
1.17.3 Unclassified Excavation (Rdwy Exc - 12" deep incl/ AC & Base) 270 CY $20.00 $5,400
1.17.4 Concrete Type "A" Curb & Gutter 80 LF $30.00 $2,400
1.17.5 Concrete Sidewalk (3.5" PCC, 4" AB) 620 SF $10.00 $6,200
1.17.6 Concrete Curb Ramp 1 EA $2,500.00 $2,500
1.17.7 New Storm Drain Inlet and Storm Drain System Tie in and Retrofit 1 EA $10,000.00 $10,000
1.17.8 30" Retaining Wall 65 LF $250.00 $16,250
1.18 Harpers Cut Off $127,420
1.18.1 Rough Grading 20,700 SF $1.00 $20,700
1.18.2 Asphalt Trail 10,020 SF $2.00 $20,040
1.18.3 Decomposed Granite Trail SF 6,680 $6.00 $40,080
1.18.4 Trailhead Signage LS 1 $600.00 $600
1.18.5 Gravel Parking Lot 4,100 SF $10.00 $41,000
1.18.6 Vehicle Barrier Gates 2 LS $2,500.00 $5,000
$1,465,200
2.1 Storm Drain 1,600 LF $100.00 $160,000
2.2 Sewer 2,600 LF $100.00 $260,000
2.3 Water 3,450 LF $200.00 $690,000
2.4 Overhead electric undergrounding (Port Rd.) 1,470 LF $160.00 $235,200
2.5 Remove utility poles (Port Rd.) 12 EA $10,000.00 $120,000 $172,400
3.1 Pathway Lights, including pole, concrete footing, pull box and luminaire 24 EA $4,600.00 $110,400
2.0 UTILITIES
3.0 LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS
3.2 Trenching, Conduit, Conductors, Fittings, Service Connections 1 LS $50,000.00 $50,000
3.3 Wire terminations, splicing and tapping 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000
3.4 Grounding conductors, fittings and connections 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000
3.5 Metered Service Pedestal & Controls 1 LS $6,000.00 $6,000 $13,226
2.1 Trees- (24" box, ICY Soil Import/Offhaul, DG Tree Well, Root Barrier) 17 EA $650.00 $11,050
2.2 Landscaping Improvements (Planting, Mulch, Soil Amendment, Water Barrier) 272 SF $8.00 $2,176 $25,200
3.1 Benches 2 EA $1,200.00 $2,400
3.2 Bike Racks 4 EA $1,000.00 $4,000
3.3 Recycling & Trash Receptacles 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000
3.4 Wayfinding Signage (Not on Plans) 6 EA $800.00 $4,800
3.5 Community Kiosk 1 LS $10,000.00 $10,000
$12,260
4.1 12" Thermoplastic Crosswalk Striping 1,200 SF $3.00 $3,600
4.2 4" White Stripe Thermoplastic Bike Lane Striping 1,440 LF $0.50 $720
4.3 Thermoplastic Pavement Sharrow Marking and Class II Bike Lane Marking 1 LS $3,000.00 $3,000
4.4 4" Double Yellow Thermoplastic Traffic Striping 1,440 LF $1.00 $1,440
4.5 Ped Crossing Signage Stands 3 EA $500.00 $1,500
4.6 Reset Signs 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000
4.7 Curb Painting 1 LS $1,000.00 $1,000
Subtotal $ 2,458,888
Engineer's Estimate Contingency (20%) $ 491,778
Subtotal-Construction $ 2,950,666
Project Management (5%) $ 147,533
Design Fee (12%) $ 354,080
CM, Survey, Testing (10%) $ 295,067
Subtotal-Soft Cost $ 796,680
Total $ 3,747,345
4.0 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS
Notes:
1. Estimated quantities for storm drain, sewer and water are only included for existing roadways (School St, Lake St, Main St, Iverson Ave, Port Rd, Mill St, Riverside Dr, Scott Pl), and do not account for facilities that could be installed with future development along new roadways.
2. Sewer quantities are assumed based on improvement recommendations by Coastland Engineering to accommodate future flows.
3. Water line quantities assume upgrading along the streets that were identified as having substandard water pressure. (Main St, Mill St, Port Rd)
5.0 SITE FURNISHINGS
6.0 STREET STRIPING AND SIGNAGE
California Department of Transportation
“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment.” Director’s Policy Number: DP-37
Effective Date: December 7, 2021
Supersedes: DD-64-R2 (10/16/2014)
Responsible
Programs: Finance
Maintenance & Operations
Planning and Modal Programs
Project Delivery
Safety Programs
Sustainability
Title Complete Streets
Policy
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) recognizes that walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail are integral to our vision of delivering a brighter future for all through a world-class transportation network. Additionally, Caltrans recognizes that streets are not only used for transportation but are also valuable community spaces.
Accordingly, in locations with current and/or future pedestrian, bicycle, or transit needs, all transportation projects funded or overseen by Caltrans will provide comfortable, convenient, and connected complete streets facilities for people walking, biking, and taking transit or passenger rail unless an exception is documented and approved.
When decisions are made not to include complete streets elements in capital and maintenance projects, the justification will be documented with final approval by the responsible District Director.
Opportunities for complete streets exist in all phases of project development from planning and design to construction, operations, and maintenance. Complete streets projects should prioritize underserved communities that have been historically harmed and segmented by the transportation network and should serve people of all ages and abilities. Furthermore, Caltrans commits to removing unnecessary policy and procedural barriers and partnering with communities and agencies to ensure projects on local and state transportation systems improve the connectivity to existing and planned pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities, and accessibility to existing and planned destinations, where possible.
Director's Policy
DP-37
Intended Results
This policy establishes Caltrans' organizational priority to encourage and maximize walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail as a strategy to not only meet state climate, health, equity, and environmental goals but also to foster socially and economically vibrant, thriving, and resilient communities. To achieve this vision, Caltrans will maximize the use of design flexibility to provide context-sensitive solutions and networks for travelers of all ages and abilities.
Definitions
Complete Street
A complete street is a transportation facility that is planned, designed, constructed, operated, and maintained to provide comfortable and convenient mobility, and improve accessibility and connectivity to essential community destinations for all users, regardless of whether they are travelling as pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation riders, or drivers. Complete streets are especially attuned to the needs of people walking, using assistive mobility devices, rolling, biking, and riding transit. Complete streets also maximize the use of the existing right-of-way by prioritizing space-efficient forms of mobility, such as walking and biking, while also facilitating goods movement in a manner with the least environmental and social impacts. Complete streets shift the focus of transportation planning and project development from vehicle movement as the primary goal to the movement of people and goods.
All Ages and Abilities
The "all ages and abilities" concept strives to serve all users-regardless of age, gender, race, or ability and inclusive of the mobility needs of children, older adults, and people with disabilities-by embodying national and international best practices related to traffic calming, speed reduction, universal design, and roadway design to increase user safety and comfort, as well as accessibility for people with disabilities. This approach also includes the use of traffic calming elements or facilities separated from motor vehicle traffic, both of which can offer a greater feeling of security and appeal to a wider spectrum of the public.
Design Flexibility
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment." Director's Policy
DP-37
Caltrans policy supports designers in their application of guidance to achieve our goals of developing complete facilities to serve all members of the community.
Design flexibility refers to the ability to develop a design suited to its users and context, and to employ professional judgment and experience to interpret, apply, and adapt appropriate design standards and guidance. Flexibility in design is essential to achieving Caltrans' goals of putting safety first, enhancing and connecting the multimodal network, leading on climate action, and advancing equity and livability in all communities. Design flexibility includes consideration of diverse user needs, assessment of risk, review of applicable guidance, and documentation of design decisions.
Underserved Community
Underserved communities include low-income, frontline environmental justice, and vulnerable communities, including but not limited to Black and Indigenous peoples, communities of color, people experiencing homelessness, people with disabilities, older adults, and youth. Refer to guidance from the Caltrans Office of Race and Equity for the most current definition.
Accessibility ( Access to Destinations)
Accessibility is the ease by which travelers can reach - or access - desired destinations such as work, shopping and other retail, school, health care, and recreation. Accessibility reflects the number and proximity of destinations, as well as the directness and condition of walking, biking, and transit facilities . This is distinct from accessibility in the context of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); refer to Deputy Directive 42 for more information on ADA and State Disability Laws.
Connectivity
A connected multimodal network allows people to travel by whichever mode they choose and provides convenient, accessible connections between different modes.
State Transportation Network {STN}
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment." Director's Policy
DP-37
Refers to the State Highway System (SHS) and all other multimodal facilities, including parallel and intersecting paths, frontage roads, and other facilities not directly on the SHS mainline.
Responsibilities
All employees in the following functional groups have specific responsibilities related to implementation of this policy in their program areas:
Director's Office - Headquarters Sustainability
• Lead, coordinate, and facilitate development of implementation plan for this policy in coordination with appropriate functional groups. • Facilitate alignment of policy, guidance, and training to meet state's climate, health, equity, walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail goals. • Facilitate coordination, information sharing, and collaboration among Divisions and Districts on topics related to complete streets.
• Track, monitor, report, and communicate Caltrans ' progress toward meeting its policy and strategic goals related to walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail. • Establish and facilitate internal/external advisory committees to provide technical input, strategic direction, and implementation guidance to Caltrans policies related to complete streets.
Planning and Modal Programs
Headquarters
• Develop, maintain, and update state plans, training, and resources to assist in the identification and prioritization of pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and passenger rail needs and recommended improvements on or across the SHS. • Develop guidance for integrating pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and passenger rail needs from the corridor planning process into future complete streets projects. • Identify best practices for increased and meaningful engagement with partners, stakeholders, and communities during the development of plans and projects that facilitate the inclusion of complete streets elements as appropriate. • Work with local and regional transit and rail partners to identify and implement first mile/last mile solutions, both on and off the STN. • Provide technical support and guidance to internal and external stakeholders on enhancing rail and transit reliability and operations related to complete streets within and adjacent to the STN.
• Promote Caltrans policies related to complete streets in rail and transit planning documents and grant program guidelines.
Districts
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment." Director's Policy
DP-37
• Develop, maintain, and update plans, tools, and other planning documents to identify and prioritize pedestrian, bicycle, and transit needs and recommended improvements on or across the SHS.
• Verify that proposed projects are in alignment with local, regional, and state planning documents detailing pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and passenger rail needs on or across the SHS.
• Integrate pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and passenger rail improvements from the corridor planning process into projects.
• Include complete streets elements in projects during the pre-Project Initiation Document (pre-PID) and PID phases.
• Participate in Project Development Teams (PDTs) to assist in delivering complete streets elements identified in PID phase.
• Develop and implement strategy for meaningful engagement with partners, stakeholders, and communities during the development of plans and projects that facilitate the inclusion of complete streets elements as appropriate. • Identify and pursue partnerships and funding opportunities with local, regional, and state agencies.
• Work with local and regional transit and rail partners to identify and implement first mile/last mile solutions, both on and off the STN. • Promote pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements and land uses supportive of these modes in local projects through the Local DevelopmentIntergovernmental Review process.
Project Delivery
Headquarters
• Develop, maintain, and update policy, procedures, guidance, and standards pertaining to the design and construction of complete streets facilities in alignment with Caltrans and state walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail goals, including but not limited to temporary access during construction. • Provide training and guidance to promote the use of "world-class" design best practices related to complete streets throughout Caltrans, including the adoption of design flexibility guidance, contextual guidance, and others. • Cultivate subject-matter expertise for design excellence of complete streets facilities in projects on or across the STN.
• Designate a complete streets asset manager to track and monitor progress of complete streets statewide as an asset in the State Highway System Management Plan (SHSMP) and develop funding and performance targets for complete streets in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP).
• Establish and oversee processes for documenting decisions related to complete streets elements.
Districts
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment." Director's Policy
DP-37
• Implement project delivery strategies and best practices to further enhance the delivery of complete streets, including coordination of community engagement efforts.
• Implement "world-class" design best practices related to complete streets. • Cultivate subject-matter expertise for design excellence of complete streets facilities in projects on or across the STN.
• Promote and exercise design flexibility throughout project development process. • Document decisions related to complete streets elements. • Implement and oversee use of standard plans and specifications, as well as best practices, for temporary pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access routes during construction.
Maintenance
Headquarters
• Develop, maintain, and update policy, procedures, guidance, manuals, training and standards pertaining to the maintenance of complete streets facilities. • Work with Districts to determine equipment needs for maintenance of current and future complete streets facilities, including application-specific equipment such as sweepers for sidewalks and bikeways where standard maintenance equipment cannot be used.
• Coordinate with Division of Equipment to procure complete streets maintenance equipment.
• Develop and provide training to Maintenance staff on maintenance best practices for complete street facilities.
• Facilitate collection and maintenance of active transportation facility inventory and condition data to inform maintenance decisions.
• Develop, maintain, and update maintenance agreement templates for complete streets facilities.
Districts
• Maintain complete streets facilities on the SHS in accordance with maintenance policy, procedures, guidance, manuals, and standards.
• Develop, execute, and update, as needed, maintenance agreements with local agencies for complete street facilities that are mutually beneficial to both entities and protect the investments made in new infrastructure. • Collaborate with Headquarters Divisions of Maintenance and Equipment to purchase or lease equipment necessary to maintain current and future complete streets facilities, including application-specific equipment such as sweepers for sidewalks and bikeways where standard maintenance equipment cannot be utilized.
• Maintain and use active transportation facility inventory and condition data to inform maintenance decisions.
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment." Director's Policy
DP-37
• Collaborate with Planning, Safety, and Complete Streets Coordinators to identify opportunities for complete streets improvements in Highway Maintenance projects.
Traffic Operations
Headquarters
• Develop, maintain, and update policy, procedures, guidance, and standards pertaining to the operations of facilities to improve access to destinations by walking, biking, transit, and passenger rail, including but not limited to temporary access during construction.
• Develop policy and framework for collecting and maintaining current pedestrian and bicycle count data.
• Develop, maintain, and update training, guidance, and procedures to improve encroachment permit application process for local agency-sponsored complete streets projects that are on or cross the SHS.
• Identify and develop proposals to address policy and procedural barriers to implementing locally-sponsored complete streets projects on and across the SHS.
Districts
• Collect and maintain current pedestrian and bicycle count data. • Identify opportunities to leverage traffic control devices, where needed, to better facilitate the throughput of people walking, biking, and taking transit. • Implement standard plans and specifications for temporary pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access routes during construction.
• Support the delivery of complete streets improvements in capital projects. • Identify strategies to streamline the approval process for complete streets projects seeking encroachment permits.
Safety Programs
Headquarters
• Develop, maintain, and update policy, procedures, guidance, plans, documents, and technical assistance to proactively or responsively identify pedestrian and bicycle safety needs on the SHS.
• Develop and administer programs to investigate locations and provide recommendations for improvements at locations with pedestrian and bicycle safety needs.
• Identify opportunities to leverage traffic control devices, where needed, to better facilitate the throughput of people walking, biking, and taking transit.
Districts
• Develop and implement innovative, context-sensitive solutions to address the safety of vulnerable roadway users.
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment." Director's Policy
DP-37
• Investigate and implement countermeasures at locations with pedestrian and/or bicycle safety concerns/needs.
• Engage with internal functions and seek input from external stakeholders on pedestrian and bicycle safety needs during investigations.
Equipment
• Procure and provide training on equipment needed to maintain current and future complete streets facilities.
• Track and share with districts the national state of the practice for equipment used to maintain pedestrian, bicycle, and transit features.
Asset Management
Headquarters
• Track, monitor, and report on progress of complete streets as an asset in the SHSMP.
• Finalize funding and SHSMP performance targets for complete streets in the SHOPP.
• Support Districts in tracking and reporting on complete streets assets.
Districts
• Compile identified complete streets needs into SHOPP projects to support Districts in meeting performance targets.
• Regularly update Asset Management Tool with complete streets assets identified in all projects.
• Track and monitor progress of complete streets as an asset in the SHSMP and report progress to Headquarters Asset Management and Complete Streets Program Manager.
Local Assistance
Headquarters
• Provide support and technical assistance to local and regional agencies and Caltrans Districts applying for state or federal active transportation funding. • Provide tools, training, and resources to support the successful delivery of local and regional active transportation projects on time, in scope, and within budget.
Districts
• Provide support and technical assistance to local and regional agencies and Caltrans Districts applying for state or federal active transportation funding. • Provide tools, training, and resources to support the successful delivery of local and regional active transportation projects on time, in scope, and within budget. "Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment." Director's Policy
DP-37
Legal
• Provide counsel and support on legal issues pertaining to complete streets policies, procedures, and projects.
District-Designated Complete Streets Coordinator(s)
• District Directors will designate complete streets coordinator(s) . • Work with PDTs to maximize opportunities for inclusion of complete streets in all project phases by actively participating in the pre-scoping, project initiation, and project development phases.
• Support the asset manager in tracking and monitoring complete streets assets . • Assist with identifying project-specific complete streets needs throughout project planning, development, and delivery.
• Review and provide concurrence to decision documents related to complete streets.
• Work with other functions to provide technical assistance to local agency sponsored projects that are on or cross the SHS to incorporate complete streets elements.
• Collaborate with local and regional partners, advocacy and community groups, and District engineers to identify pedestrian, bicycle, and transit gaps to incorporate into planning documents and projects.
• Provide recommendations for partnerships and funding opportunities with local, regional, and state agencies.
Applicability
This policy applies to all Caltrans employees.
12/07/2021
Toks Omishakin Date Signed
Director
"Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves a ll people and respects the environment."
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
06/15/2022
Final Report
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
i
Contents
Executive Summary .......................................................................................................................................................iv
1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 What is a LRSP? ........................................................................................................................................................... 8 Vision and Goals of the LRSP ................................................................................................................................. 8 Study Area ..................................................................................................................................................................... 8 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................... 10
2. Existing Planning Efforts ................................................................................................................................... 13
3. Collision Data Collection and Analysis ........................................................................................................ 17 Demographic and Jurisdiction Information ................................................................................................... 19 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Collision Data Analysis ........................................................................................................................................... 21 Collision Severity Weight ...................................................................................................................................... 34 High-Injury Locations ............................................................................................................................................. 36
4. Emphasis Areas .................................................................................................................................................... 40 Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Point Arena ........................................................................... 41
5. Countermeasure Identification ...................................................................................................................... 48 Countermeasure Selection ................................................................................................................................... 48 Draft Countermeasure Toolbox .......................................................................................................................... 49 Non-Signalized Intersections Countermeasures ......................................................................................... 49 Roadway Countermeasures ................................................................................................................................. 50
6. Safety Projects ...................................................................................................................................................... 52 High-Collision Network Projects ........................................................................................................................ 52
7. Evaluation and Implementation .................................................................................................................... 55 Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................ 57 Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................................................................. 57 LRSP Update .............................................................................................................................................................. 58
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
ii
List of Figures
Figure 1 City of Point Arena ........................................................................................................................................ 9 Figure 2. City's Website Posting ............................................................................................................................. 12 Figure 3. Project Website: mendocinosaferoads.com .................................................................................... 12 Figure 4. All Injury Collisions on City Roadways (2015 – 2019).................................................................. 18 Figure 5. Collisions by Severity (2015-2019)...................................................................................................... 21 Figure 6. Five Year Collision Trend ........................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 7. Intersection vs. Roadway Collisions - All Collisions ...................................................................... 24 Figure 8. Collision Type – All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .......................................................................... 24 Figure 9. Violation Category: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions ................................................................... 25 Figure 10. Motor Vehicle Involved With: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions ............................................. 25 Figure 11. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions ............................................................... 26 Figure 12. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions .............................................................. 26 Figure 13. Time of the Day: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions....................................................................... 27 Figure 14. All Collisions: Age vs Sex ...................................................................................................................... 27 Figure 15. All Collisions: Collision Type vs Severity (2015-2019) ............................................................... 28 Figure 16. All Collisions: Collision Type vs Violation Category (2015-2019) .......................................... 29 Figure 17. All Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved with vs Violation Category ....................................... 30 Figure 18. All Collisions: Collision Type vs. Movement Preceding Collisions of Party at Fault ....... 30 Figure 19. All Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved With vs. Movement Preceding Collisions ........... 31 Figure 20. F+SI Collisions: Collision Type vs Lighting Conditions ............................................................. 32 Figure 21. All Collisions: Collisions Type vs Time of the Day ....................................................................... 32 Figure 22. Injury Collisions by Type and Violation Category ....................................................................... 33 Figure 23. Point Arena EPDO Score ...................................................................................................................... 35 Figure 24. City of Point Arena High Injury Network ....................................................................................... 37
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
iii
List of Tables
Table 1. Point Arena: Public Comments .............................................................................................................. 11 Table 2. Document Review Summary ................................................................................................................... 13 Table 3. Point Arena and Mendocino Population and Centerline Miles ................................................. 19 Table 4. Mendocino County Commute to Work Census Data .................................................................... 20 Table 5. Office of Traffic Safety Ratings 2018 .................................................................................................... 20 Table 6. Collisions by Severity and Facility Type .............................................................................................. 22 Table 7. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 10 ....................................................................................................... 34 Table 8. High Injury Intersections .......................................................................................................................... 38 Table 9. High Injury Corridors ................................................................................................................................. 39 Table 10. Existing Program Summary ................................................................................................................... 41 Table 11. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 43 Table 12. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 44 Table 13. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 45 Table 14. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 46 Table 15. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies ................................................................................................................... 47 Table 16. List of Viable Safety Projects ................................................................................................................ 53 Table 17. Potential Funding Sources .................................................................................................................... 55 Appendices
Appendix A: Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects Appendix B: Consolidated Collision Database
Appendix C: HSIP Eligible Countermeasures
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix E: B/C Ratio Calculation - LRSM (2020)
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
iv
Executive Summary
The City of Point Arena’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety related issues and recommend projects and countermeasures. The LRSP aims to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions through a prioritized list of improvements that can enhance safety on local roadways.
The LRSP takes a proactive approach to addressing safety needs. It is viewed as a guidance document that can be a source of information and ideas. It can also be a living document, one that is routinely reviewed and updated by City staff and their safety partners to reflect evolving collision trends and community needs and priorities. With the LRSP as a guide, the City will be able to ready to apply for grant funds, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
Chapter 1 – Introduction
The Introduction presents the project, describes how this report is organized, summaries the vision and goals, the study area for the LRSP, details how the report is organized and introduces the safety partners.
Chapter 2 – Existing Planning Efforts
This chapter summarizes existing City and regional planning documents and projects that are relevant to the LRSP. It ensures that the recommendations of the LRSP are in line with existing goals, objectives, policies, or projects. This chapter summarized the following documents: City of Point Arena General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (1995), Madera County Active Transportation Plan (2018), Downtown Design Guidelines (2017), Point Arena Community Action Plan (2010), City of Point Arena FY 2020-2021 Budget (2020), Capital Improvement Program 2021-2025, Mendocino County Safe Routes to School Plan (2014) and Mendocino County Regional Active Transportation Plan (2017).
Chapter 3 – Collision Data Collection and Analysis
Collision data was obtained and analyzed for a five-year period from 2015 to 2019 from the California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the University of California at Berkeley SafeTREC’s Transportation Injury Mapping Service (TIMS).
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
v
The collision analysis identified general trends of collisions in the City of Point Arena. There were a total of 10 collisions reported City-wide from 2015 to 2019. Out of these six collisions (60 percent) were property damage only (PDO) collisions, one collisions (10 percent) led to complaint of pain injury and two collisions (20 percent) led to a visible injury. There was one F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collision, one collisions (10 percent) led to a severe injury and zero collisions led to a fatality. For collisions including collisions of all severity, 70 percent of all collisions (seven collisions) occurred at intersections whereas 30 percent (30 collisions) occurred on roadway segments. One of the top priorities of the LRSP will be to address intersection safety at all intersections where collisions have historically occurred.
For all collisions, collisions were observed to occur at the edges of city limits (three of the four injury collisions), including along Highway 1 and Riverside Drive. This suggests that placing traffic calming gateways at the edges of town may be effective at reducing traffic collisions. A gateway is a geometric or physical landmark that indicates a change in environment from major road to a lower speed residential or commercial district. It sends a clear message to motorists that they have reached a specific place and must reduce speeds. Gateways may be a combination of street narrowing, medians, signs, arches over the roadway, roundabouts, or other identifiable feature.
Strong visual effects are essential to gateway feature’s effect on traffic collision reduction.
For all collisions, 70 percent of collisions occurred during the nighttime, including the only fatal or severe injury collision. Nighttime collisions have been observed at the intersection of Port Road and Bluff Top Road and along the corridor Highway 1/Main Street. This may indicate that lighting at these locations should be evaluated to insure lumen levels are adequate. Many different factors can contribute to nighttime collisions, such as low lighting levels that can be targeted with countermeasure, but extraneous factors can also contribute to nighttime injury such as alcohol use, sleep and fatigue. Improvements such as installing new lighting, upgrading existing lighting to a higher lumen, installing larger signal heads, installing and upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting and installing pedestrian improvements with lighting elements such as RRFBs (rectangular rapid flashing beacons) and HAWKs can help make these locations safer for all road users.
For all collisions, 40 percent of collisions were hit object collisions, most of these occurred at intersections. This calls for evaluating hit object collisions along the high injury network and throughout the City with similar characteristics. Hit object collisions can be mitigated by installing reflective signs, object markers, and keeping sightlines clear at intersections.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
vi
While the above analysis is based on a small amount of collisions, ten total collisions and four injury collisions, it should be noted that some of the trends identified in the City of Point Arena are similar to trends identified in Mendocino Unincorporated County as a whole, including hit object collisions which account for 53 percent of F+SI collisions in Unincorporated Mendocino County, and DUI collisions, which account for 36 percent of F+SI collisions in Unincorporated Mendocino County.
Chapter 4 - Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas are a focus of the LRSP that are identified through the various collision types and factors resulting in fatal and severe injury collisions within the City of Point Arena. The five emphasis areas for Point Arena are:
Nighttime Collisions
Collisions close to the City Boundary
Hit Object Collisions
Unsafe Speed Collisions
Young Adult (Party at Fault) Collisions
Chapter 5 – Countermeasure Identification
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-risk locations and for the emphasis areas. These were based off of approved countermeasures from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) used in HSIP grant calls for projects. The intention is to give the City potential countermeasures for each location that can be implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Non-engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 4 E’s strategies, and are included with the emphasis areas.
Chapter 6 – Safety Projects
A set of five safety projects were identified for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, using HSIP approved countermeasures. A benefit cost ratio analysis was conducted for each of these projects. These safety projects are:
Project 1: Systemic Improvements at Unsignalized Intersections Project 2: Improvements at Unsignalized Intersections Project 3: Systemic Roadway Segment Improvements
Project 4: Pedestrian and Other Roadway Segment Improvements Project 5: Pedestrian Set Aside
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
vii
Chapter 7 – Evaluation and Implementation
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing fatal and severe injury collisions throughout the City. If the number of fatal and severe injury collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluate.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
8 1.Introduction
What is a LRSP?
The LRSP is a localized data-driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address unique highway safety needs and reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions. The LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues, and recommend safety projects and countermeasures. The LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in the development of a prioritized list of improvements that can qualify for HSIP funding.
The LRSP is a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and is viewed as a living document that can be constantly reviewed and revised to reflect evolving trends, and community needs and priorities.
Vision and Goals of the LRSP
Goal #1: Systematically identify and analyze roadway safety problems and recommend improvements
Goal #2: Improve the safety of all road users by using proven effective countermeasures Goal #3: Ensure coordination and response of key stakeholders to implement roadway safety improvements within Point Arena
Goal #4: Serve as a resource for staff who continually seek funding for safety improvements Goal #5: Recommend how safety improvements can be made in a manner that is fair and equitable for all Point Arena residents
Study Area
The City of Point Arena is located in Mendocino County, California, covering a total area of about
1.36 square miles. It is located 32 miles west of Hopland, at an elevation of 118 feet.
The City’s estimated population is 421 (ACS 2019 1-year estimate). State Route 1 is the major highway that connect the City of Point Arena to Fort Bragg to the North and also serves as the Main Street in the City. Figure 1 shows the study area.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
9 Figure 1 City of Point Arena
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
10 Safety Partners
Safety partners are vital to the development and implementation of an LRSP. For the City of Point Arena, these include representatives from the City’s Public Works and Parks, Redwood Coast Fire Protection District, Point Arena Schools, Mendocino County Sheriff and Caltrans District 1. Two stakeholder meetings among these departments/agencies were conducted to review project goals and findings, and to solicit feedback from the group during the project timelines.
This stakeholder outreach was supplemented by a project website (mendocinosaferoads.com), with an interactive map input platform. Project related info was also published on the City’s website. As part of the Mendocino County Local Road Safety Plan, a public input platform called mapptionaire was published online and advertised on social media to solicit input public comments regarding traffic safety. The mapptionaire tool was open for public comments starting March 5th, 2021 and closed on September 31, 2021. During this period 324 comments were submitted, out of which 13 comments were for the City of Point Arena.
The most common commented on traffic safety issue was pedestrian safety, with a total 6 comments. Three comments regarded School Street/Main Street/Route 1 and the other three comments were on Port Road. One comment requested a rectangular rapid flashing beacon at the intersection of Lake Street and School Street. One comment requested a marked crosswalk across Main Street at the Post Office. Sight lines and blind corners were the second most common issue, with two comments, one comment of the intersection of Iverson Avenue and Main Street and the other on Port Road and Main Street. The next most common commented on traffic safety issue was speeding and bicycle safety at Port Road and Main Street/Route 1. Other responses were collected through website, email correspondence, and social media comments.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
11 Table 1. Point Arena: Public Comments
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 Port Rd Main St/Route 1 Iverson Ave/Main st Lake St and School St/Route 1
Port Rd and Main
St/Route 1
Riverside Dr
Speeding Pedestrian Safety Bicycle Safety Sight Lines Pavement Issues U-Turn City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
12 Figure 2. City's Website Posting
Figure 3. Project Website: mendocinosaferoads.com
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
13 2. Existing Planning Efforts
This chapter summarizes the planning documents, projects underway, and studies reviewed for the City of Point Arena’s LRSP, being developed as a part of Mendocino Council of Governments LRSP’s for Local Agencies. The purpose of this in-depth review is to ensure that the LRSP vision, goals, and the subsequent traffic safety strategies developed are aligned with prior planning efforts, planned transportation projects and non-infrastructure programs. This review includes both City and County level planning documents. The documents reviewed are listed below:
City of Point Arena General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (1995) Point Arena Community Action Plan (2010)
City of Point Arena FY 2020-2021 Budget (2020)
Capital Improvement Program 2021-2025, City of Point Arena Streets and Roads Mendocino County Safe Routes to School Plan (2014)
Mendocino County Regional Active Transportation Plan (2017) The following section includes a brief descriptions of these documents and how they inform the development of the LRSP. A document description summary is provided in Table 2. A list of relevant goals, projects, and policies from each document is summarized in Appendix A.
Table 2. Document Review Summary
Document Highlights
City of Point Arena General
Plan/Local Coastal Plan
(1995)
Traffic and circulation element of the General Plan details goals, policies and programs for the City’s traffic, parking, street network, non-motorized transportation and public transportation
infrastructure facilities.
Point Arena Community
Action Plan (2010)
A community vision was developed, traffic circulation was analyzed, sustainable development scenarios were mapped, improvement strategies and funding sources were identified, and other issues were addressed
City of Point Arena FY 2020-
2021 Budget (2020) Report on the City of Point Arena budget for FY 2020-2021 Capital Improvement
Program 2021-2025, City of
Point Arena Streets and
Roads
Lists the Streets and Roads improvement projects for the fiscal year of 2021-2025
Mendocino County Safe
Routes to School Plan (2014)
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program with a simple goal:
helping more children get to school by walking and bicycling.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
14 Document Highlights
Mendocino County Regional
Active Transportation Plan
(2017)
Details bicycle and pedestrian improvements on County significant corridors. Includes detailed priority bike and pedestrian projects.
City of Point Arena General Plan/Local Coastal Plan (1995) The Point Arena General Plan is a comprehensive, integrated, and internally consistent statement of Point Arena's environmental preservation, economic development, land use, public safety, housing, and development goals, policies, and programs. It is intended to address goals and needs for a period of
approximately fifty years from the date of adoption. The plan was first adopted by the City Council in 1995 and was most recently amended in 2006. The traffic and circulation element of the General Plan entails topics associated with traffic, transportation, and Point Arena’s street and pedestrian systems, and is of most relevance to the development of this roadway safety plan.
Point Arena Community Action Plan (2010)
The Community Action Plan for the City of Point Arena identifies recommendations for a wide-range of transportation and
circulation improvements, promotes the community character of the City, and helps visualize long-term and sustainable growth consistent with the City’s General Plan and the community’s vision.
The Plan comprises of a Downtown Streetscape Plan, a Circulation and Parking Plan, recommendations for gateway, signage, and traffic calming elements.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
15 The goals of the plan are to maintain and enhance Point Arena’s unique character, beautify downtown, reduce speeding along Main Street and alert drivers they are entering a city, improve the Main, Lake Street, school street intersection, improve downtown circulation and parking, create new open space and trails, improve access to existing open space and create new open space and trails and improve access to existing, improve the accessibility and safety of the downtown area, encourage sustainable development and provide more employment opportunities. The plan informs the LRSP of the existing conditions and specific circulation, streetscape and parking improvements that are recommended for future development.
City of Point Arena FY 2020-2021 Budget (2020)
Point Arena’s budget for 2020-2021 including the street and road repair budget. A number of streets were repaved and drainage and surface cracking was repaired. A number of sidewalk reconstruction and repair was done including Mill Street. The budget helps inform the LRSP of the budgeted improvements and helps ensure that no improvements are repeatedly recommended as a part of this plan.
Capital Improvement Program 2021-2025, City of Point Arena Streets and Roads This document lists the proposed streets and roads projects under the Capital Improvement Program. One of the improvements underway entails sidewalk replacement or addition and that the sidewalk construction program that may partner with property owners might be needed. The list helps inform the LRSP of the planned and funded improvements helping ensure that no
improvements are repeatedly recommended as a part of this plan.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
16 Mendocino County Safe Routes to School Plan (2014)
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program with a simple goal:
helping more children get to school by walking and bicycling. The plan envision kids using safe streets, helped by engaged adults (from teachers to parents, engineers, planners and police officers), surrounded by responsible drivers. The plan is the first area-wide Safe Routes to School Plan in Mendocino County, designed to serve schools in the unincorporated areas of the county. The plan includes recommendations for a Safe Routes to School program that will strive to enhance children's health and well-being, ease traffic congestion near the school to improve safety, increase the number of students getting regular physical activity, improve air quality around schools and community members’ overall quality of life, increase the number of students who walk and/or bike to and from school and provide clear projects and programs for implementation.
Mendocino County Regional Active Transportation Plan (2017) This Plan identifies priority bicycle and pedestrian improvements within all jurisdictions of Mendocino County, which include the Cities of Ukiah, Willits, Fort Bragg and Point Arena and the unincorporated areas of the County of Mendocino. It lists the existing bikeway in the City of Point Arena, Coastal Access Scenic Bikeway and Iverson/Port Road to Pier. It lists short range priority improvements for pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure. This list will help inform the LRSP of improvements for pedestrian and bicyclists that have been previously identified.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
17 3.Collision Data Collection and Analysis
This chapter summarizes the results of a citywide collision analysis for collisions that have occurred in the City of Point Arena between January 2015 and December 2019. A five-year city-wide collision data set was retrieved from TIMS and SWITRS.
The LRSP focuses on systemically identifying and analyzing traffic safety issues to recommend appropriate safety strategies and improvements. This chapter starts with brief demographic analysis, followed by an analysis of citywide collisions of all severity, including PDO collisions, retrieved from TIMS and SWITRS. Following this, a comprehensive evaluation was conducted based on factors such as collision severity, type of collision, primary collision factor, lighting, weather and time of the day. A high-injury network of intersections and roadway segments was also identified. The following is a brief overview of the sections:
1. Demographic and Jurisdiction Characteristics
2. Data Collection
3. Collision Data Analysis
4. High Injury Network
5. Summary
Figure 4 illustrates all the injury collisions that have occurred in Point Arena from January 2015 to December 2019.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
18 Figure 4. All Injury Collisions on City Roadways (2015 – 2019) City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
19 Demographic and Jurisdiction Information
Demographic data has been collected from the Census1 in the City of Point Arena and Mendocino County, a summary of the population, centerline miles of roadway and commute to work characteristics are presented below.
Population
According to the 2015-2019 American Community Service (ACS) 5-year Estimate data, the population of Point Arena is 421, which is 0.5 percent of the county population. The population proportion as well as the centerline miles are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Point Arena and Mendocino Population and Centerline Miles Jurisdiction Population
Percent of
County
Population
Centerline
Miles
Percent of County Centerline
Miles
Point Arena 421 0.5% 2.3 0.2%
Willits 4,893 5.6% 20.5 1.8%
Fort Bragg 7,302 8.4% 28.1 2.5%
Ukiah 15,943 18.4% 58.9 5.3%
Unincorporated 58,190 67.1% 1,009.9 90.2%
Total 86,749 1,119.7
Commute to Work
In the City of Point Arena, approximately 79 percent of residents travel by cars or vans to work, out of which 70 percent drive alone and nine percent carpool. About 10 percent of residents walk to work. The different modes of transportation used to commute to work for the City are shown in Table 4.
1 United States Census Bureau. (2021). 2015-2019 American Community Service ACS 5-year Estimate https://data.census.gov
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
20 Table 4. Mendocino County Commute to Work Census Data Commute to Work Point Arena
Drive alone 70%
Carpool 9%
Public Transportation 0%
Walked 10%
Bicycle 0%
Work from Home 10%
Other 0%
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings
Additional information on collisions in the City of Point Arena is provided by the California OTS.
OTS is designated by the Governor to receive federal traffic safety funds for coordinating California’s highway safety programs. OTS rankings from 2018, the latest available year, indicate that the City of Point Arena ranks in the top, meaning higher collisions rates in total collisions (nine out of 32 similarly sized cities), alcohol involved collisions (four out of 32 similarly sized cities) and nighttime collisions (four out of 32 similarly sized cities). These rankings take into account fatal and injury crashes per population and per VMT. As a result of Point Arena’s small population, small amounts of collisions translates to high rankings, because these rankings are produced from a small sample size the results may not be statistically significant. Table 5 provides a summary of the 2018 rankings2
.
Table 5. Office of Traffic Safety Ratings 2018
OTS 2018 Ranking Point Arena
Total Fatality and Injury 9/32
Alcohol Involved 4/32
Pedestrian 8/32
Bicycle 6/32
Speed Related 11/32
Nighttime 4/32
2 California Office of Traffic Safety. (2018). Office of Traffic Safety Rankings 2018. https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-andresearch/crash-rankings-results/?wpv-wpcf-year=2018&wpv-wpcfcity_county=Point+Arena&wpv_filter_submit=Submit# City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
21 Data Collection
Collision data helps understand different factors that might be influencing collision patterns and various factors leading to collisions in a given area. For the purpose of this analysis, a five-year jurisdiction-wide collision data, from 2015 to 2019 was retrieved from TIMS3 and SWITRS4. State
route roadways were included in this analysis. The collision data was analyzed and plotted in ArcMap to identify high-risk intersections and roadways segments.
Collision Data Analysis
Collision Severity
There were a total of 10 collisions reported City-wide from 2015 to 2019. Out of these six collisions (60 percent) were PDO collisions, one collisions (10 percent) led to complaint of pain injury and two collisions (20 percent) led to a visible injury. There was one F+SI (fatal and severe injury) collision, one collisions (10 percent) led to a severe injury and zero collisions led to a fatality.
Figure 5 illustrates the classification of all collisions based on severity.
Figure 5. Collisions by Severity (2015-2019)
3 UC Berkeley Safe TREC. (2021). Transportation Injury Mapping System https://tims.berkeley.edu/ 4 California Highway Patrol. (2021). Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. https://www.chp.ca.gov/programsservices/services-information/switrs-internet-statewide-integrated-traffic-records-system Fatal
0.0%
Severe Injury
10%
Visible Injury
20%
Complaint of Pain
10%
Property Damage
Only (PDO)
60%
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
22 The analysis first includes a comparative evaluation between all collisions and F+SI collisions, based on various factors including but on limited to the collision trend, primary collision factor, collision type, facility type, motor vehicle involved with, weather, lighting, and time of the day. The collision data was segregated by facility type, i.e. based on collisions occurring on intersections and roadway segments. For the purposes of the analysis, a collision was said to have occurred at an intersection if it occurred within 250 feet of it. The reported collisions categorized by facility type and collision severity are presented in Table 6.
Table 6. Collisions by Severity and Facility Type
Collision Severity Roadway Segment Intersection Total
Fatal 0 0 0
Severe Injury 0 1 1
Visible Injury 2 0 2
Complaint of Pain 1 0 1
Property Damage Only (PDO) 0 6 6
Total 3 7 10
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
23 Collision Severity by Year
For all collisions, the number increased from 2015 to 2018. The highest number of collisions (four collisions) were observed in 2018 and the lowest number of collisions (one) were observed in 2016 and 2019. A total of one F+SI collisions occurred in the City of Point Arena during the study period in 2018. Figure 6 illustrates the five-year collision trend for all collisions, F+SI collisions and also PDO collisions.
Figure 6. Five Year Collision Trend
0 0 0
1 0
2 1
2 4
1 0
1 2
3 4
5 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
F+SI Property Damage Only (PDO) Total
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
24 Intersection vs. Roadway Collisions
When evaluating roadways vs intersections, it was observed that the majority of collisions occurred at intersections. In the City of Point Arena, 70 percent of all collisions (seven collisions) occurred at intersections whereas 30 percent (three collisions) occurred on roadway segments.
This classification by facility type can be observed in Figure 7.
Figure 7. Intersection vs. Roadway Collisions - All Collisions Collision Type
Considering all collision the most commonly occurring collision type was hit object collisions (40 percent) and overturned collisions (30 percent). The only F+SI collisions as type other. Figure 8 illustrates the collision type for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.
Figure 8. Collision Type – All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions Roadway Segment
30%
Intersection
70%
10% 10%
40%
30%
10%
0% 0% 0% 0%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Sideswipe Rear End Hit Object Overturned Other
Total F+SI
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
25 Violation Category
Considering all collisions, the most common violation category was observed to be wrong side of road (30 percent), driving under the influence (20 percent) and unsafe speed (20 percent). The only F+SI collisions was a driving under the influence collision. Figure 9 illustrates the violation category for all collisions and F+SI collisions.
Figure 9. Violation Category: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions
Motor Vehicle Involved With
Considering all collisions, 50 percent of the collisions are motor vehicle involved with fixed objects and 30 percent were motor vehicle involved with parked vehicles. The only F+SI collisions was categorized as a non-collision. Figure 10 illustrates the percentage for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.
Figure 10. Motor Vehicle Involved With: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions 20% 20%
30%
10%
20%
100%
0% 0% 0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
DUI Unsafe Speed Wrong Side of Road Improper Turning Other Total F+SI
10%
30%
50%
10%
100%
0% 0% 0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Non-Collision Parked Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other object Total F+SI
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
26 Lighting
For collisions of all severity, 70 percent of collisions have occurred in dark, including 30 percent that occurred on streets with no streetlights. The only F+SI collision occurred in the dark with no streetlights. Figure 11 illustrates the lighting condition for all collisions and F+SI collisions.
Figure 11. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions Weather
For collisions of all severity, 60 percent of the collisions have occurred during clear weather conditions, 30 percent collisions have observed to occur during cloudy weather conditions and 10 percent occurred during foggy conditions. The only F+SI collision occurred during cloudy weather conditions. Figure 12 illustrates the percentage distribution of weather conditions during occurrence of collisions of all severity as well as F+SI collisions.
Figure 12. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions 30%
40%
30%
0% 0%
100%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights
Total F+SI
60%
30%
10%
0%
100%
0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Clear Cloudy Fog
Total F+SI
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
27 Time of the Day
For collisions of all severity, the maximum number of collisions have occurred between 10:00 PM to 11:00 PM (20 percent) and 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM. The only F+SI collision occurred between 10:00 PM and11:00 PM. Figure 13 illustrates the percentage of collisions occurring during the day for all collisions as well as F+SI collisions.
Figure 13. Time of the Day: All Collisions vs. F+SI Collisions Gender vs. Age
For all collisions, the sex of the party at fault was much more likely to be male than female (70 percent of F+SI collisions vs 20 percent). The party at fault for collisions are also more likely to be younger, with the majority age 35 or lower (80 percent. The only F+SI collision. Figure 14 illustrates the sex and age of the party at fault for all collisions.
Figure 14. All Collisions: Age vs Sex
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Total F+SI
0 1
2 3
18-19 20-25 26-29 30-35 >35 Not Stated
F M Other/Not Stated
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
28 Collision Type and Severity
For all collisions, the most common collision types were hit object collisions and overturned collisions. Figure 15 below shows the severity of collisions as well as the collision types.
Figure 15. All Collisions: Collision Type vs Severity (2015-2019) 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury injury Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Sideswipe Rear End Hit Object Overturned Other
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
29 Collision Type and Violation Category
For all collisions, the most common violation type was hit object and overturned collisions. Hit object collisions were caused by DUI, improper turning, and wrong side of road driving, while overturned collisions resulted from unsafe speed and wrong side of road driving. Figure 16 illustrates the type of collision as well as the violation category for all collision severities.
Figure 16. All Collisions: Collision Type vs Violation Category (2015-2019) 0 1
2 3
4 5
Sideswipe Rear End Hit Object Overturned Other
DUI Unsafe Speed Wrong Side of Road Improper Turning Other City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
30 Motor Vehicle Involved with and Violation Category
For all collisions, the violation category of collisions that led to the highest amount of collisions was DUI collisions and unsafe speed collisions. The results, with violation category and motor vehicle involved with, are shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17. All Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved with vs Violation Category Collision Type vs. Movement Preceding Collision of Party at Fault For all collisions, the most common collision type was hit object collisions. The most common movement of the party at fault proceeding hit object collisions is proceeding straight or ran off road. Figure 18 illustrates the type of collisions as well as the movement of the party at fault preceding the collision for all collision severities.
Figure 18. All Collisions: Collision Type vs. Movement Preceding Collisions of Party at Fault 0 1
2 3
4 DUI Unsafe Speed Wrong Side of Road Improper Turning Other Non-Collision Parked Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other object 0 1
2 3
4 5
Sideswipe Rear End Hit Object Overturned Other
Proceeding Straight Ran Off Road Making Right Turn Backing Crossed Into Opposing Lane City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
31 Motor Vehicle Involved with vs. Movement Preceding Collision For all collisions, 50 percent of the collisions are with fixed object and 100 percent of these collisions the party at fault was proceeding straight or ran off road. Figure 19 illustrates the movement of the party at fault preceding the collision along with the type of object the motor vehicle was involved with for all collisions.
Figure 19. All Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved With vs. Movement Preceding Collisions 0 1
2 3
4 5
6 Non-Collision Parked Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other object Proceeding Straight Ran Off Road Making Right Turn Backing Crossed Into Opposing Lane City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
32 Collision Type and Lighting Conditions
For all F+SI collisions, most collisions occurred in the daylight at an intersection. Hit-object collisions were the highest number of collisions that occurred in the dark. Figure 20 illustrates the lighting condition and the collision type as observed for all collisions.
Figure 20. F+SI Collisions: Collision Type vs Lighting Conditions Collision Type and Time of the Day
For all collisions types, the most common collision type was hit object and overturned. Hit object collisions have been observed to occur after 10:00 PM and before 3:00 AM. Figure 21 illustrates the collision type by the time of the day for all collisions.
Figure 21. All Collisions: Collisions Type vs Time of the Day 0 1
2 3
4 5
Sideswipe Rear End Hit Object Overturned Other
Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights
0 1
2 3
4 1-3 am 4-6 am 7-9 am 10-12 pm 1-3 pm 4-6 pm 7-9 pm 10-12 pm Sideswipe Rear End Hit Object Overturned Other
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
33 Collision Locations and Trends
The above collision analysis was used to identify three main collision factors that highlight the top trends among collisions in Point Arena. These three collision factors were identified to be hit object collisions, DUI collisions, and nighttime collisions. Figure 22 shows the location, collision type, violation type and severity for injury collisions in Point Arena.
Figure 22. Injury Collisions by Type and Violation Category City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
34 Collision Severity Weight
A collision severity weight was used to identify the high severity collision network, using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) method. The EPDO method accounts for both the severity and frequency of collisions by converting each collision to an equivalent number of PDO collisions. The EPDO method assigns a crash cost and score to each collision according to the severity of the crash weighted by the comprehensive crash cost. These EPDO scores are calculated using a simplified version of the comprehensive crash costs per HSIP Cycle 10 application. The weights used in the analysis are shown below in Table 7.
Table 7. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 10
Collision Severity EPDO Score
Fatal and Severe Injury Combined 165*
Visible Injury 11
Possible Injury 6
PDO 1
*This is the score used in HSIP Cycle 10 for collisions on roadways segments, to simplify the analysis this study uses the same score for all F+SI collisions regardless of location
The EPDO scores for all collisions can then be aggregated in a variety of ways to identify collision patterns, such as location hot-spots. The weighted collisions for the City of Point Arena were geolocated onto Point Arena’s road network. Figure 23 shows the location and geographic concentration of collisions by their EPDO score.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
35 Figure 23. Point Arena EPDO Score
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
36 High-Injury Locations
Following the detailed collision analysis in Chapter 3 the next step was to identify the high-risk roadway segments and intersections in the City of Point Arena. The methodology for scoring the high injury locations is the same method used in the severity weight section.
Figure 24 shows the top four high-collision roadway segments, and top four high-collision intersections. This high collision network has a total of four injury collisions and one F+SI collisions, which represents 100 percent of injury collisions and 100 percent of F+SI collisions in Point Arena.
For the purposes of the high collision network analysis, intersections include collisions that occurred within 250 feet of it and roadways include all collisions that occurred along the roadway except for collisions that occurred occur directly at an intersection, or collisions that have occurred at the distance of zero feet from the intersection as per the SWITRS.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
37 Figure 24. City of Point Arena High Injury Network
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
38 High Injury Intersections
Four intersections were identified as high injury intersections. There were a total of one F+SI collisions that occurred at these intersections. The intersection of Port Road and Bluff Top Road has the highest EPDO score. Intersections without injury collisions were chosen based on PDO collisions.
Table 8 lists the collision rate of the top four identified high-collision intersections along with their collision total and the number of F+SI collisions.
Table 8. High Injury Intersections
ID Intersection Total F+SI Hit
Object DUI Nighttime EPDO
Score Collisions
1 Port Road and Bluff Top Road 1 1 0 1 1 165
2 Pine Reef and Riverside Drive 1 0 0 1 1 11
3 Lake Street and School Street/Highway 1
(intersections without injury collisions
were chosen based on property damage
only collisions)
0 0 0 0 0 0
4 Port Road and Main Street (intersections
without injury collisions were chosen
based on property damage only collisions)
0 0 0 0 0 0
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
39 High Injury Corridors
Four corridors were identified as high injury corridors. There was a total zero F+SI collisions on these corridors. The corridor with the highest EPDO score is Riverside Drive. Corridors without injury collisions were chosen based on PDO collisions.
Table 9 lists the collision rate of the top four identified high-collision corridors along with the number of F+SI collisions and total collisions.
Table 9. High Injury Corridors
ID Corridors
Total F+SI Hit
Object DUI Night-time
Length
(miles)
EPDO
Score
Collisions
A
Riverside Drive: Main
Street/Highway 1 to
Pine Reef
2 0 0 1 1 1.1 22
B
School Street/Highway
1: Northern City Limits
to Lake Street
1 0 0 1 1 0.6 6
C
Main Street/Highway
1: Riverside Drive to
Southern City Limits
(corridors without
injury collisions were
chosen based on
property damage only
collisions)
0 0 0 0 0 0.3 0
D
Port Road: Iverson
Avenue to Main
Street/Highway 1
(corridors without
injury collisions were
chosen based on
property damage only
collisions)
0 0 0 0 0 0.7 0
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
40 4. Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas are focus areas for the LRSP that are identified through the comprehensive collision analysis of the identified high injury network within the City of Point Arena. Emphasis areas help in identifying appropriate safety strategies and countermeasures with the greatest potential to reduce collisions occurring at these high-risk locations. In addition, traffic safety related concerns were heard at the Stakeholders Meeting conducted for this plan on June 28, 2021.
This chapter summarizes the top five emphasis areas identified for the City of Point Arena. These emphasis areas were derived from the consolidated high injury collision database (Appendix B) where top injury factors were identified by combining the data manually. Along with findings from the data analysis, stakeholder input was also considered while identifying emphasis areas specific to the City of Point Arena.
Nighttime Collisions
Collisions close to the City Boundary
Hit Object Collisions
Unsafe Speed Collisions
Young Adult Party at Fault Collisions
The Four E’s OF Traffic Safety
LRSP utilizes a comprehensive approach to safety incorporating “4 E’s of traffic safety”:
Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements.
Incorporating the 4 E’s of traffic safety is often required to ensure successful implementation of significant safety improvements and reduce the severity and frequency of collisions throughout a jurisdiction.
Some of the common violation types that may require a comprehensive approach are speeding, failure-to-yield to pedestrians, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to arrange visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes and injuries.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
41 To improve safety, education efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement. Additionally, education efforts can supplement enforcement to improve the efficiency of each. Education can also be employed in the short-term to address high crash locations until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented, addressed under Engineering improvements and countermeasures. Similarly, Emergency Medical Services entails strategies around supporting organizations that provide rapid response and care when responding to collisions causing injury, by stabilizing victims and transporting them to facilities.
Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the City of Point Arena The City of Point Arena has already implemented safety strategies corresponding to the 4 E’s of traffic safety. The strategies detailed in this section can supplement these existing programs and concentrate them on high injury collision locations and crash types. These initiatives are summarized in the table below:
Table 10. Existing Program Summary
Document Description E’s Addressed
Point Arena Community
Action Plan (2010)
A community vision was developed, traffic circulation
was analyzed, sustainable development scenarios were
mapped, improvement strategies and funding sources
were identified, and other issues were addressed.
Engineering
Mendocino County Safe
Routes to School Plan
(2014)
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a program with a simple goal: helping more children get to school by walking
and bicycling.
Engineering
Mendocino County
Regional Active
Transportation Plan
(2017)
Details bicycle and pedestrian improvements on County
significant corridors. Includes detailed priority bike and pedestrian projects.
Engineering
Walk and Bike
Mendocino
Walk and Bike Mendocino promotes walking and biking
as a primary transportation choice in short distance
travel in Mendocino County.
Education
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
42 Factors considered in the determination of Emphasis Areas This section presents collision data analysis of collision type, collision factors, facility type, roadway geometries, analyzed for the various emphasized areas. Emphasis areas were determined by factors that led to the highest amount of injury collisions, with a specific emphasis on fatal and severe (F+SI) injury collisions. In addition to the collision data, emphasis areas were also determined to by the feedback received from stakeholders. This section also presents comprehensive programs, policies and countermeasures to reduce collisions in specific emphasis areas.
Emphasis Area 1 - Nighttime Collisions
The City of Point Arena experienced a total 10 reported collisions during the study period. 7 (70 percent) of these collisions occurred at nighttime, including 1 severe injury collisions. 3 Hit object collisions
3 Wrong side of road
collisions
2 DUI Collisions
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
43 Table 11. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies Engineering
S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size and number
S10, Install flashing beacon as warning
NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
R01, Add segment lighting
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
Objective
Reduce the number of collisions that occur at nighttime Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding and the larger risk of collisions during the nighttime.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor collisions that occur at nighttime.
Number of
tickets issued
Police
Department
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
44 Emphasis Area 2 - Collisions close to the City Boundary The City of Point Arena experienced a total 10 reported collisions during the study period. Five (50 percent) of these collisions occurred at the close to the City Boundary. 3 Collisions occurred
near School Street and
Lake Street, at the
north edge of the City
3 Collisions were hit
object collisions
2 Occurred near Riverside
Drive and Pine Reef, at the
east edge of the City
Table 12. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies
Objective
Reduce the number of collisions near the City Boundary
Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding, unsafe speeds, distracted driving, improper turning and driving under the influence
Number of
education
campaigns
City/School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations Number of
tickets issued
Police
Department
Engineering
R01, Add segment lighting
R04, Install guard rail
R15. Widen shoulder
R21, Improve pavement friction
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R26, Install dynamic / variable speed warnings
NS04/NS05/S16, Convert intersection to roundabout
Consider reducing speed limits at the northern edge of the City, and use prima facie to set speed limit instead of 80th percentile Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
45 Emphasis Area 3 - Hit Object Collisions
The City of Point Arena experienced a total 10 reported collisions during the study period. Four (40 percent) of these collisions were hit object collisions. 3 Hit Object Collisions
occurred on Main Street
3 Collisions occurred at
night
2 Wrong side of road
collisions
Table 13. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies
Objective
Reduce the number of collisions were hit object collisions Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for
intersection safety laws regarding, unsafe speeds, distracted driving, improper turning and driving under the influence.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/School
District/Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations Number of
tickets issued
Police
Department
Engineering
R01, Add segment lighting
R03, Install median barrier
R04, Install guard rail
R15. Widen shoulder
R21, Improve pavement friction
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R26, Install dynamic / variable speed warnings
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R28, Install edge lines and centerlines
Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
46 Emphasis Area 4 - Unsafe Speed Collisions
The City of Point Arena experienced a total 10 reported collisions during the study period. 2 (20 percent) of these collisions were unsafe speed.
2 Overturned Collison
1 Occurred at Route 1
and Lake Street
1 Occurred on Riverside Drive
and Eureka Hill
Table 14. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies
Objective
Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that are a result of unsafe speed Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding unsafe speed and its dangers.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department
Enforcement
Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor unsafe speed.
Number of
tickets issued
Police
Department
Engineering
S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
R04, Install guard rail
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs
R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
Consider reducing speed limits at the northern edge of the City, and use prima facie to set speed limit instead of 80th percentile
Number of
locations
improved
City
EMS
S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time
Mendocino
County Local
Emergency
Services
Agency
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
47 Emphasis Area 5 - Young Adult Party at Fault Collisions The City of Point Arena reported a total 10 reported collisions during the study period. The following is a review of the demographic data, provided in the party data of the reported collisions. 80%
Party at fault was 35
years old or younger
70%
Party fault was a male
Table 15. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies
Objective
Reduce the number of younger adult fatal and severe injury collisions Strategy Performance
Measure
Agencies/
Organizations
Education
Target education programs for younger adults. Distribute brochures/fliers with basic red light running, speeding, distracted driving, aggressive driving and stop sign
violations information at driver training programs. Include statistics of younger adult larger risks of fatalities.
Number of
education
campaigns
City/ School
District/ Police
Department
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
48 5.Countermeasure Identification
This section summarizes the process of selecting countermeasures on Point Arena streets as part of the analysis for the LRSP. Countermeasures were selected for each of the identified high-risk intersections and roadway segments based on extensive review of existing conditions at the site and characteristics of identified collisions on the High Injury Network.
Identified collision factors and existing conditions were cross referenced with the Caltrans LRSM identified countermeasures that are HSIP approved. Countermeasures that best fit the site and had the highest opportunity for systemic implementation were selected. Countermeasures were selected not only for each high-risk location, but also for each identified citywide Emphasis Area.
Countermeasure Selection
In 2010, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published a set of three manuals local and rural road owners to present a simple, data driven safety analysis framework for rural agencies across the country. In conjunction with these documents, California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) developed the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM). The goal of this manual is to “maximize the safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to proactively identify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively in Caltrans’ statewide, data-driven call-for-projects.”5 Although, the LRSM identifies all of California’s local roadway safety issues and the countermeasures that address them, this document only highlights the issues and countermeasures relevant to the local roads of the City of Chowchilla. This section identifies the different solutions for the City from HSIP-qualified and non-HSIP countermeasures.
It also provides a brief description along with their corresponding crash reduction factors (CRF), expected life and baseline cost. An excerpt of the LRSM, detailing each available HSIP countermeasure referenced in the recommendations tables, is included as Appendix C.
The countermeasures have been divided into three categories:
Signalized (S) – countermeasures only applicable for signalized intersections; Non-Signalized (NS) – countermeasures only applicable to stop-controlled, or uncontrolled intersections;
Roadway Segment (RS) – countermeasures only applicable to roadway segments; Other (O) – countermeasures that do not qualify for HSIP funding.
5 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
49 Draft Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix D detail the draft countermeasures for each high-risk location and Emphasis Area, separated by intersections and roadway segments. While not all of these countermeasures will be included in the resulting safety projects, they are included to give the City a toolbox for implementing future safety improvements through other means, such as the City’s Capital Improvement Program.
Non-Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
NS01 – Add intersection lighting. Non-signalized
intersections that have a disproportionate number of nighttime crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be
supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Crash Reduction Factor
– 40%
Expected Life – 20 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately
$100,000 per
intersection
NS06 – Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs. The
visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of
approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign
techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.
Crash Reduction Factor
– 15%
Expected Life – 10 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately $4,200
per intersection
NS07 – Upgrade intersection pavement markings
(NS.I.). Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection
Crash Reduction Factor –
25%
Expected Life – 10 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately $900 per
intersection
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
50 NS09 - Install flashing beacons as advance warning
(NS.I.)Non-Signalized Intersections with patterns of
crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's
awareness of approaching intersection or controls at a
downstream intersection. Advance flashing beacons can
be used to supplement and call driver attention to
intersection control signs. Flashing beacons are intended to reinforce driver awareness of the stop or yield signs and to help mitigate patterns of crashes related to intersection regulatory sign violations.
Crash Reduction Factor
– 30%
Expected Life – 10 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately $14,000
NS22PB – Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB). The RRFB includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian
crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are
installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block
pedestrian crossings.
Crash Reduction Factor –
35%
Expected Life – 20 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately $58,000
Roadway Countermeasures
R01 – Add segment lighting. Providing roadway lighting
improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1)
making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which
improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2)
enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation.
Crash Reduction Factor
– 35%
Expected Life – 20 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately
$100,000
R22 – Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting (regulatory or warning). The target for this
strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns of head on, nighttime, non-intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be
combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades
(install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, Crash Reduction Factor
– 15%
Expected Life – 10 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately $2,000
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
51 beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD
standards.).
R26 – Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs.
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by
motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a
visual warning that they may be traveling over the
recommended speed for the approaching curve. Care
should be taken to limit the placement of these signs to help maintain their effectiveness.
Crash Reduction Factor
– 30%
Expected Life – 10 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately
$ 20,000
R27 – Install delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers. Roadways that have an unacceptable level of
crashes on curves (relatively flat to sharp) during periods of light and darkness. Any road with a history of fixed object crashes is a candidate for this treatment, as are roadways with similar fixed objects along the roadside
that have yet to experience crashes.
Crash Reduction Factor
– 15%
Expected Life – 10 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately $2,000
R35PB – Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety features). Adding pedestrian crossings
has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. The enhanced
safety elements, which may include curb extensions,
medians and pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and
lighting, combined with pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
Crash Reduction Factor
– 35%
Expected Life – 20 years
Baseline Cost –
Approximately $25,000
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
52 6. Safety Projects
High-Collision Network Projects
This section summarizes the process of selecting safety projects as part of the analysis for the City of Point Arena’s LRSP. The next step after the identification of high-risk locations, emphasis areas and applicable countermeasures was to identify location specific safety improvements for all highrisk roadway segments and intersections.
Specific countermeasures and improvements were selected from the 2020 Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), where:
S refers to improvements at signalized locations,
NS refers to improvements at non-signalized locations, and R refers to improvements at roadway segments.
The corresponding number refers to the countermeasure number in the LRSM (2020). The countermeasures were grouped into safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments. A total of four safety projects were developed. All countermeasures were identified based on the technical teams’ assessment of viability that consisted of extensive analysis, observations, and City staff input. The most applicable and appropriate countermeasures as identified have been grouped together to form projects that can help make high-risk locations safer.
Table 16 lists the safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, along with total base planning level cost (2021 dollar amounts) estimates and the resultant preliminary Benefit-Cost (B/C) Ratio. The “Total Benefit” estimates were calculated for the proposed improvements being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. This “Total Benefit” is divided by the “Total Cost per Location” estimates for the proposed improvements, giving the resultant B/C Ratio. The B/C Ratio Calculation follows the methodology as mentioned in the LRSM (2020).
Attachment E lists the detailed methodology to calculate B/C Ratio, the complete cost, benefit and B/C Ratio calculation spreadsheet.
These safety projects were chosen based on the previously completed collisions analysis, which was used to identify main collision attributes that were found to be leading factors of fatal and severe collisions in Point Arena. These collision factors were identified to be nighttime collisions and hit object collisions.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
53 For all collisions, 70 percent of collisions occurred during the nighttime, including the only fatal or severe injury collision. Nighttime collisions have been observed at the intersection of Port Road and Bluff Top Road and along the corridor Highway 1/Main Street. Many different factors can contribute to nighttime collisions, such as low lighting levels that can be targeted with countermeasure, but extraneous factors can also contribute to nighttime injury such as alcohol use, sleep and fatigue. Recommended improvements at these location include installing flashing beacons as advance warning, installing and upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting and installing pedestrian improvements with lighting elements such as RRFBs.
For all collisions, 40 percent of collisions were hit object collisions, most of these occurred at intersections. Riverside Drive and Highway 1/School Street have more hit object collisions compared to other roads in Point Arena. Recommended improvements at these location include installing delineators, reflectors and/or object markers, and keeping sightlines clear at intersections.
Table 16. List of Viable Safety Projects
Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location
B/C
Ratio
Project 1: Systemic Improvements at Unsignalized Intersections Port Road and Bluff Top Road NS06 NS07 $3,059
22.73 Pine Reef and Riverside Drive NS01 NS06 NS07 $35,434 Lake Streetand School Street/Highway 1 NS06 $1,400
Port Road and Main Street NS06 $280
Iverson Avenue and Main Street NS06 $980
Project 2: Improvements at Unsignalized Intersections
Lake Street and School Street/Highway 1 NS09 $28,000 0.38 Iverson Avenue and Main Street NS09 $14,000 Project 3: Systemic Roadway Segment Improvements
Riverside Drive: Main Street/Highway 1 to Pine
Reef R22 $7,980
43.19 Main Street/Highway 1: Riverside Drive to
Southern City Limits R22 $10,710
Port Road: Iverson Avenue to Main Street/
Highway 1 R22 $5,040
Project 4: Pedestrian and Other Roadway Segment Improvements Riverside Drive: Main Street/Highway 1 to Pine
Reef R27 R26 $16,520
35.29 School Street/Highway 1: Northern City Limits to
Lake Street
R27 R26 $14,840
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
54 Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost per
Location
B/C
Ratio
Port Road: Iverson Avenue to Main
Street/Highway 1 R01 $69,776
Project 5: Pedestrian Set Aside
Corner of Main Street and School Street near
Methodist Church
NS22P
B
$58,800
N/A Main Street/Highway 1: Riverside Drive to
Southern City Limits R35PB $39,200
Notes: CM – countermeasure. B/C ratio is the dollar amount of benefits divided by the cost of the countermeasure. NS01- Add intersection lighting (NS.I.), NS06- Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs, NS07- Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.), NS09- Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.), NS22PB- Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), R01- Add segment lighting, R22- Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning), R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs, R27- Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers, R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Costs include contingency, PS&E, environmental and construction costs.
HSIP Applications
The next step will be to prepare HSIP grant ready materials, so that the City may submit them for HSIP Cycle 11 funding in 2022.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
55 7. Evaluation and Implementation
This chapter describes the steps the City may take to evaluate the success of this plan and steps needed to update the plan in the future. The LRSP is a guidance document and requires periodic updates to assess its efficacy and re-evaluate potential solutions. It is recommended to update the plan every two to five years in coordination with the identified safety partners. This document was developed based on community needs, stakeholder input, and collision analysis conducted to identify priority emphasis areas throughout the City. The implementation of strategies under each emphasis area would aim to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions in the coming years.
Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common source of funding for safety projects, there are numerous other funding sources that could be pursued for such projects. Potential funding sources are listed below in Table 17.
Table 17. Potential Funding Sources
Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated
Call for
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Active
Transportation
Program
Caltrans,
California
Transportation
Commission
~$223
million
per year
2022 Engineering,
Education
Can use used for most
active transportation
related safety projects
as well as education
programs
Highway Safety
Improvement
Program
Caltrans TBD Early 2022 Engineering
Most common grant
source for safety
projects
Surface
Transportation
Block Group
Program
FHWA
(Administered
through
MCTC)
Varies by
FY
TBD Engineering Typically used for
roadway projects
Congestion
Mitigation and
Air Quality
(CMAQ)
FHWA
(Administered
through
MCTC)
Varies by
FY
TBD Engineering Focused on projects
that improve air quality
Office of Traffic
Safety Grants
California
Office of
Traffic Safety
Varies by
grant
Closes
January
31st
annually
Education,
Enforcement,
Emergency
Response
10 grants available to
address various
components of traffic
safety
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
56 Funding Source Funding
Agency
Amount
Available
Next
Estimated
Call for
Projects
Applicable
E’s Notes
Affordable
Housing and
Sustainable
Communities
Program
Strategic
Growth
Council and
Dept. of
Housing and
Community
Development
~$405
million 2022 Engineering, Education
Must be connected to
affordable housing
projects; typically
focuses on bike/ped
infrastructure/programs
Urban Greening
California
Natural
Resources
Agency
$28.5
million 2022 Engineering
Focused on
bike/pedestrian
infrastructure and
greening public spaces
Local Streets
and Road
Maintenance
and
Rehabilitation
CTC
(distributed to
local agencies)
$1.5
billion
statewide
N/A;
distributed
by formula
Engineering
Typically pays for road
maintenance type
projects
RAISE Grant USDOT ~$1
billion 2022 Engineering Typically used for larger infrastructure projects Sustainable
Transportation
Equity Project
California Air
Resources
Board
~$19.5
million
TBD; most
recent call
in 2020
Engineering,
Education
Targets projects that
will increase
transportation equity in
disadvantaged
communities
Transformative
Climate
Communities
Strategic
Growth
Council
~$90
million
TBD; most
recent call
in 2020
Engineering
Funds community-led
projects that achieve
major reductions in
greenhouse gas
emissions in
disadvantaged
communities
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
57 Implementation
The LRSP document provides engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency medical service related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the City to reduce F+SI collisions. It is recommended that the City of Point Arena implement the selected projects highcollision locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the City’s infrastructure development in their future Capital Improvement Plans.
The success of the LRSP can be achieved by fostering communication among the City and the safety partners.
Monitoring and Evaluation
For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the four E-strategies continuously.
Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensures the effectiveness of the countermeasures for each emphasis area, and help making decisions on the need for new strategies. The process would help the City make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan’s progress and accordingly, update the goals and objectives of the plan.
After implementing countermeasures, the strategies should be evaluated annually as per their performance measures. The evaluation should be recorded in a before-after study to validate the effectiveness of each countermeasure as per the following observations:
Number of fatal and severe injury collisions
Number of police citations
Number of public comments and concerns
Evaluation should be conducted during similar time periods and durations each year. The most important measure of success of the LRSP should be reduction in fatal and severe injury collisions throughout the City. If the number of F+SI collisions doesn’t decrease initially, then the countermeasures should be evaluated as per the other observations, as mentioned above. The effectiveness of the countermeasures should be compared to the goals for each emphasis area.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
58 LRSP Update
The LRSP is a guidance document and is recommended to be updated every two to five years after adoption. After monitoring performance measures focused on the status and progress of the E’s strategies in each emphasis area, the next LRSP update can be tailored to resolve any continuing safety problems. The City of Point Arena’s Public Works Department will be accountable for the progress of the plan goals. An annual stakeholder meeting with the safety partners is also recommended to discuss the progress for each emphasis area and oversee the implementation plan. The document should then be updated as per the latest collision data, emerging trends, and the E’s strategies’ progress and implementation.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Appendices:
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
APPENDIX A: TABLE OF POLICIES AND PROJECTS FROM THE
LITERATURE REVIEW:
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects
Document Details
City of Point
Arena General
Plan/ Local
Coastal Plan
(1995)
Goal 1: Improve safety on all streets.
Policy 3.1.1: New streets to be considered for acceptance into the Point Arena street system shall conform to design standards appropriate to their functional classification.
3.1.3: The City shall resolve traffic and safety impacts of development at Arena Cove, and along Iversen/Port Roads. Of immediate concern is the junction of Iversen at Main Street. Safety and operational characteristics of this intersection shall be identified and problems mitigated prior to approval of new developments.
3.1.4: The City shall investigate methods of improving sight distances at intersections. Possible solutions may include: trimming or removing weeds, shrubbery, or limbs; relocating signs or other obstructions; removing on-street parking near intersections; prohibiting large-vehicle parking near intersections; and adjusting traffic control devices to provide better views.
3.1.6: Through traffic should be diverted from local streets insofar as possible.
Point Arena
Community
Action Plan
(2010)
Projects:
Main Street/Mill Street Intersection By relocating the marked crosswalk, pedestrians will exit onto a sidewalk on the western side of the crosswalk, instead of a driveway as occurs today. The new marked crosswalk location also provides a more convenient crossing for the South Coast Senior Center. Bulbouts will be constructed on both the east and west sides of Main Street at the new crosswalk.
School Street/Lake Street Install bulb outs and realign intersection. School Street/Harper’s Cut-off Trail Install two new median refuge island and crosswalk enhancements.
Roundabout Improvements at Windy Hollow Road/Riverside Drive and Eureka Hill Road.
Roundabout improvement at Lake Street and Highway 1.
Class II bike lanes along Riverside Drive/Eureka Hill Road between Main Street and Windy Hollow Road.
Class II bike lanes along Windy Hollow Road between Riverside Drive and Manchester Point Arena Rancheria.
Class II bike lanes along Iversen Avenue between Main Street and Port Road.
Capital
Improvement
Program 2021-
2025, City of
Riverside Drive and Center Street Renovation: Completion of Riverside Drive, Center Street construction of 330 feet concrete drainage swale. Mill Street Reconstruction: The project will remove and regrade roadway, install subsurface drainage, replace sidewalk, and repave roadway.
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Document Details
Point Arena
Streets and
Roads
Windy Hollow Road: Overlay roadway.
Sidewalk Repair, replacement and new sidewalk program: Sidewalks will be prioritized for replacement or addition. Sidewalk construction program that may partner with property owners may be needed.
Mendocino
County Safe
Routes to
School Plan
(2014)
Mendocino County Safe Routes to School Program Toolkit Mendocino County SRTS Plan Framework
Mendocino
County
Regional Active
Transportation
Plan (2017)
Goals:
To improve our public spaces so the street, road and transportation system meets the needs of all surface transportation modes, including vehicular, bicycle, pedestrian and transit.
Provide a safe and useable network of bicycle and pedestrian facilities throughout the region as a means to lessen dependence on vehicular travel and improve the health of Mendocino County’s residents. Maximize investment in non-motorized transportation facilities through maintenance.
Priority Improvements:
Short Range:
Coastal Access Scenic Bikeway Rehabilitation
Lake Street Sidewalks
Long Range:
Multi-use Trail from Cove (Harper’s Cut-off Trail)
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
APPENDIX B. CONSOLIDATED COLLISION DATABASE
Case ID Accident Year Collision Date Primary Road
Secondary
Road Distance Direction
Collision
Severity
8771731 2018 43453 PORT RD BLUFF TOP RD 0 2
6957699 2015 42146 EUREKA HILL RD PINE REEF 278 W 3
90470980 2017 42880 SR‐1 LAKE ST 1056 N 4
90992291 2019 43594 RIVERSIDE DR EUREKA HILL RD422 W 3
7086810 2015 20150917 RT 1 PORT RD 18 N 0
8105508 2016 20160805 PORT RD MAIN ST 50 W 0
8419133 2017 20170710 RT 1 LAKE ST 40 N 0
8537340 2018 20180113 LAKE ST MAIN ST 0 0
8574682 2018 20180223 MAIN ST MAIN ST 365 0 0
8613635 2018 20180305 PORT RD PORT RD 200 0 0
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
APPENDIX C: HSIP ELIGIBLE COUNTERMEASURES
B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized
S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% "night" crashes 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.
General information
Where to use:
Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Why it works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost which results in a moderate to high cost.
Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 20-74% S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the upgraded signals. This CM does not apply to improvements like "battery backup systems", which do not provide better intersection/signal visibility or help drivers negotiate the intersection (unless applying past crashes that occurred when the signal lost power). If new signal mast arms are part of the proposed project, CM "S2" should not be used and the signal improvements would be included under CM "S7".
General information
Where to use:
Signalized intersections with a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached. Signal intersection improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro-reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.
Why it works:
Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion for drivers.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Installation costs and time should be minimal as these type strategies are classified as low cost and implementation does not typically require the approval process normally associated with more complex projects. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 0-46% 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-5
S13PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing.
General information
Where to use:
Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian-generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walk-phase. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with signal timing and shoulder/sidewalk treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside the intersection crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely depending on the type and placement of the median fencing. Impacts to transit and other land uses may need to be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, this CM can be effective as a spot-location approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25- 40% S14, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings.
General information
Where to use:
Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection.
Why it works:
Restricting turning movement into and out of an intersection can help reduce conflicts between through and turning traffic. The number of access points, coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway, contributes to crashes. Affecting turning movements by either allowing them or restricting them, based on the application, can ensure safe movement of traffic.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can be implemented quickly. The cost of this strategy will depend on the treatment. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51% 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-11
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection-crossing with the new advanced stop bars.
General information
Where to use:
Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur.
Why it works:
Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety.
Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. It also allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers (This dedicated space is often referred to as a bike-box.) General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs and time of installation will vary based on the number of intersections included in this strategy and if it requires new signal controllers capable of accommodating the enhancement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 35% S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle 60% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing with the newly implemented Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).
General information
Where to use:
Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Why it works:
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of crossing pedestrians; (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; (3) Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs for implementing LPIs are very low, since only minor signal timing alteration is required. This makes it an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be incorporated into pedestrian safety action plans or policies and can become routine agency practice. When considered at a single location, the LPI is usually local-funded. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 59% 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-15
B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized
NS01, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% Night 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.
General information
Where to use:
Non-signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Why it works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users as lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost. For rural intersections, studies have shown the installation of streetlights reduced nighttime crashes at unlit intersections and can be more effective in reducing nighttime crashes than either rumble strips or overhead flashing beacons. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 25- 50% NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 50% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. CA-MUTCD warrant must be met.
General information
Where to use:
Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all-way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all-way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior. MUTCD warrants should always be followed.
Why it works:
All-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection, reducing through and turning speeds, and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be present. Advance public notification of the change is critical in assuring compliance and reducing crashes.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
The costs involved in converting to all-way stop control are relatively low. All-way stop control can normally be implemented at multiple intersections with just a change in signing on intersection approaches, and typically are very quick to implement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 6 - 80% 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-16
NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2-way stop or Yield control) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.
The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.
General information
Where to use:
Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited.
Why it works:
Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all-way stop-controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left-turn and right-angle movements.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Construction of roundabouts are usually relatively costly and major projects, requiring the environmental process, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation under an agency’s long-term capital improvement program. (For this reason, roundabouts may not be appropriate for California's Federal Safety Programs that have relatively short delivery requirements.) Even with roundabouts higher costs, they still can have a relatively high effectiveness.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 12 - 78 % NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the influence area of the new signs. The influence area must be determined on a location by location basis.
General information
Where to use:
The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.
Why it works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 55% 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-18
NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pavement markings. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing pavement markings in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing pavement markings and striping.
General information
Where to use:
Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars.
Why it works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections will provide approaching motorists with additional information at these locations. Providing visible stop bars on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection. Drivers should be more aware that the intersection is coming up, and therefore make safer decisions as they approach the intersection.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Pavement marking improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of markings. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 13 - 60% NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the stop-controlled approaches / influence area of the new beacons.
General information
Where to use:
Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non-Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post-mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop-controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs.
Why it works:
Flashing beacons provide a visible signal to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where night-time visibility of intersections is an issue.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs.
Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 5-34% 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-19
NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the crossing with the new islands. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding must not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and must be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This new requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts.
General information
Where to use:
Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.
Why it works:
Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised (i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. They can stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before completing their crossing.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Median and pedestrian refuge areas are a low-cost countermeasure to implement. This cost can be applied to retrofit improvements or if it is a new construction project, implementing this countermeasure is even more cost-effective. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 30 - 56 % NS20PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).
General information
Where to use:
Non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.
Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. These markings will often be different for controlled verses uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder", "zebra" or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or “yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including: continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 25 % 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-26
NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the new crossing (influence area) with enhanced safety features. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).
General information
Where to use:
Non-signalized intersections where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic.
They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with turn pockets. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Incorporating advanced "yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the types of enhanced features that will be combined with the standard crossing improvements. The need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications will also be a factor. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have relatively high B/C ratios based on past non-motorized crash history.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 37% NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB.
General information
Where to use:
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Why it works:
RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 – 47.4% 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-27
B.3 Roadway Countermeasures
R01, Add Segment Lighting
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% Night 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.
General information
Where to use:
Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rear-end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.
Why it works:
Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
It expected that projects of this type may be constructed in a year or two and are relatively costly. There are several types of costs associated with providing lighting, including the cost of providing a permanent source of power to the location, the cost for the luminaire supports (i.e., poles), and the cost for routinely replacing the bulbs and maintenance of the luminaire supports.
Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 18 - 69 % R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new clear recovery zone (per Caltrans' HDM).
General information
Where to use:
Known locations or roadway segments prone to collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate.
Why it works:
While this strategy does not prevent the vehicle leaving the roadway, it does provide a mechanism to reduce the severity of a resulting crash. A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. Removing or moving fixed objects, flattening slopes, or providing recovery areas reduces the likelihood of a crash.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Projects involving removing fixed objects from highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing objects on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way. This CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. High-cost removals or removals implemented using a systematic approach would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object CRF: 17 - 100 % 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-29
R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new one-way sections.
General information
Where to use:
One-way streets can offer improved signal timing and accommodate odd-spaced signals. One-way streets can simplify crossings for pedestrians, who must look for traffic in only one direction. While studies have shown that conversion of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes and the number of conflict points, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. Care must be taken not to create conditions that cause driver confusion and erratic maneuvers.
Why it works:
Studies have shown a 10 to 50-percent reduction in total crashes after conversion of a two-way street to one-way operation.
While studies have shown that con-version of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. At the same time, this strategy (1) increases capacity significantly and (2) can have safety-related drawbacks including pedestrian confusion and minor sideswipe crashes.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
The costs will vary depending on length of treatment and if the conversion requires modification to signals. Conversion costs can be high to build "crossovers" where the one-way streets convert back to two-way streets and to rebuild traffic signals. It's also likely that these types of modifications will require public involvement and could significantly add to the time it takes to complete the project. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 26 - 43 % R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.
General information
Where to use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Areas as noted having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than actual roadway speeds; including but not limited to curves, loop ramps, intersections, and areas with short stopping or weaving distances. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding is determined to be a problem, in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is one that runs (skids) off the road or is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why it works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in a reduction of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Rear-End, All CRF: 17 - 68 % 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-39
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new/upgraded signs. This CM is not intended for maintenance upgrades of street-name, parking, guide, or any other signs without a primary focus on roadway safety. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as part of a larger sign audit project, including the study of: 1) the existing signs' locations, sizes and information per MUTCD standards, 2) missing signs per MUTCD standards, and 3) sign retroreflectivity. The overall sign audit scope (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application. Based on the scope of the project/audit, it may be appropriate to combine other CMs in the B/C calculation.
General information
Where to use:
The target for this strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns of head on, nighttime, non-intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by lack of driver awareness (or compliance) roadway signing. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning by using fluorescent yellow sheeting (or other retroreflective material).
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head on, Run-off road, Sideswipe, Night CRF: 18 - 35%
4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-40
R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits / influence area of the new features. {This is not a striping-related CM}
General information
Where to use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on curves (relatively flat to sharp) during periods of light and darkness.
Any road with a history of fixed object crashes is a candidate for this treatment, as are roadways with similar fixed objects along the roadside that have yet to experience crashes. If a fixed object cannot be relocated or made break-away, placing an object marker can provide additional information to motorists. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works:
Delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. They are intended to provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. They are generally less costly than Chevron Signs as they don't require posts to place along the roadside, avoiding an additional object with which an errant vehicle can crash into.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of locations. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 30 % 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-43
R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 100% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new centerlines and/or edge-lines.
This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing striping and RPMs in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing striping. For two lane roadways allowing passing, a striping audit must be done to ensure the passing limits meeting the MUTCD standards. Both the centerline and edge-lines are expected to be upgraded, unless prior approval is granted by Caltrans staff in writing and attached to application.
General information
Where to use:
Any road with a history of run-off-road right, head-on, opposite-direction-sideswipe, or run-off-road-left crashes is a candidate for this treatment - install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate. Incorporating raised/reflective pavement markers (RPMs) into centerlines (and edge-lines) should be considered as it has been shown to improve safety.
Why it works:
Installing edge-lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines (paint to thermoplastic, adding audible disks/bumps in the thermoplastic stripes, or adding RPMs) are intended/designed to help drivers who might leave the roadway because of their inability to see the edge of the roadway along the horizontal edge of the pavement or crossover the centerline of the roadway into oncoming traffic. New pavement marking products tend to be more durable, are allweather, more visible, and have a higher retroreflectivity than traditional pavement markings.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded striping upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Striping Audit and Upgrade Projects".
Including wide-scale striping audits in the development phase of striping projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) striping/marking features, no-passing zone limits needing adjustment, and missing striping/markings that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on this concepts is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage under an RSSA example document. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Run-off Road, All CRF: 0 - 44 % 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-44
R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes
For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the separated bike lanes.
When an off-street bike-path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.
General information
Where to use:
Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike-vehicle collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation measures including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. These options range in feasibility due to roadway characteristics, available space, and cost. In some cases, it may be possible to provide additional space in areas where pedestrian and bicyclists may interact, such as the parking buffer, or loading zones, or extra bike lane width for cyclists to pass one another.
Why it works:
Separated bike lanes provide increased safety and comfort for bicyclists beyond conventional bicycle lanes. By separating bicyclists from motor traffic, “protected” or physically separated bike lanes can offer a higher level of comfort and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. Intersections and approaches must be carefully designed to promote safety and facilitate leftturns for bicyclists from the primary corridor to cross street.
In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
The cost of Installing separated bike lanes can be low to medium or high, depending on whether roadway widening, right-ofway and environmental impacts are involved. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 3.7 - 100 % R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 80% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the new walkway. This CM is not intended to be used where an existing sidewalk is being replaced with a wider one, unless prior Caltrans approval is included in the application. When an off-street multi-use path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply.
General information
Where to use:
Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate.
Why it works:
Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to be related to significant reductions in the “walking along roadway” pedestrian crash risk compared to locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. Reductions of 50 to 90 percent of these types of pedestrian crashes. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for nonmotorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs for sidewalks will vary, depending upon factors such as width, materials, and existing of curb, gutter and drainage.
Asphalt curbs and walkways are less expensive, but require more maintenance. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. These projects can be very effective in areas of high-pedestrian volumes with a past history of crashes involving pedestrians.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 65 - 89 % 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-47
R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) For HSIP Calls-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the new crossing which includes new enhanced safety features. Note:
This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install raised pedestrian crossing" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).
General information
Where to use:
Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high-use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. For multi-lane roadways, advance "yield" markings can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians.
Why it works:
Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.
The enhanced safety elements, which may include curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting, combined with pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
Care must be taken to warn drivers of the potential for pedestrians crossing the roadway and enhanced improvements added to the crossing increase the likelihood of pedestrians crossing in a safe manner. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to crossing like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):
Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending on the extent of the curb extensions, raised medians, flashing beacons, and other pedestrian safety elements that are needed with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these improvements can sometimes be low cost and funded through local funding by local crews. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding.
FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 8 - 56% 4/20/2020 Local Roadway Safety P a g e | Appendix-48
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
APPENDIX D: COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
Control
CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 I‐1 Port Rd and Bluff Top Rd Uncontrolled NS01 NS06 NS07 NS01 NS06 NS06 NS07 I‐2 Pine Reef and Riverside Dr Two way stop controlled NS01 NS06 NS07 Install stop bar and signs NS01 NS06 NS01 NS06 NS07 NS06 NS07 I‐3 Lake St and School St/ Hwy 1 Two way stop controlled NS06 NS09 Reduce radius of southeast corner; NS06 NS09 NS06 NS09 I‐4 Port Rd and Main St Uncontrolled (Stop sign) NS06 Reduce parking near intersection; NS06 NS06 Identified from Stakeholder Input
I‐5 Iverson Ave and Main Street One way stop controlled NS07 NS06 NS09 NS07 NS07 I‐6
Corner of Main Street and School Streetnear Methodist Church One way stop controlled NS01 NS06 NS22PB NS01 NS01 Code Countermeasure Name
NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
NS06
Install/upgrade larger or additional stop
signs or other intersection
warning/regulatorysigns
NS07
Upgrade intersection pavementmarkings (NS.I.)
NS09
Install flashing becons as advanced
warning
NS18 Install left turn lane
EA ‐ 2 Reduce
Collisions Close to the
City Boundaries ID Intersection
Consolidated CMs
(HSIP‐Eligible ‐ Refer to LRSM* 2020) Additional CM (non‐HSIP)** EA ‐ 1 Reduce
Nighttime
Collisions
EA ‐3 Reduce Hit
Object Collisions
EA 4 ‐ Reduce
Unsafe Speed
Collisions
CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 A Riverside Dr: Main St/Hwy 1 to Pine Reef R02 R22 R26 R27 Repave roadway R22 R27 R02 R22 R27 R02 R27 R22 R26 B School St/Hwy 1: Northern City Limits to Lake St R02 R26 R27 R31 R27 R02 R26 R27 R02 R27 R26 R31 C Main St/ Hwy 1: Riverside Dr to Southern City Limits R22 R25 R35PB R22 R28 R22 R28 R35PB R26 R28 D Port Rd: Iverson Ave to Main St/ Hwy 1 R01 R22 Restrict larger trucks from R01 R22 R22 Identified from Stakeholder Input
E Highway 1 through town R35PB R35PB
Code Countermeasure Name
R01 Add Segment Lighting
R02 Relocate fixed object
R22
Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R25 Install curve advanced warning signs (flashing beacons) R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markersR28 Install edge‐lines and centerlines R31 Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes
R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) EA 4 ‐ Reduce Unsafe Speed
ID Roadway Segment Collisions
Consolidated CMs
(HSIP‐Eligible ‐ Refer to
LRSM* 2020)
Additional CM
(non‐HSIP)**
EA ‐ 1 Reduce Nighttime
Collisions
EA ‐ 2 Reduce Collisions Close to
the City Boundaries
EA ‐3 Reduce Hit Object
Collisions
Strategy Performance Measure Organizations to be involved Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws, unsafe speeds, distracted driving, improper turning and driving under the influence. Number of education campaigns City/ School District/ Police DepartmentConduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of pedestrian safety needs through media outlets, social media and Bike and Walk Mendocino. Updatepamphlet for crosswalk safety for Point Arena every 3‐5 years. Number of education campaigns City/ School District/ Police Department Targeted enforcement at high‐risk locations. Number of tickets issued. Police Department (CHP main enforcer on Highway 1) Increase the number of personnel who have completed Advanced Roadside impaired DrivingEnforcement (ARIDE) training Number of personnel who havecompleted Advanced Roadsideimpaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training Police Department (CHP main enforcer on Highway 1) S05, Install emergency vehicle pre‐emption systems EMS vehicle response time. Mendocino County Local Emergency Services Agency Increase the number of EMS/fire controll personnel taking Traffic Incident Managmenet Traising
number of EMS/fire controll
personnel taking Traffic IncidentManagmenet Traising Mendocino County Local Emergency Services Agency Education
Emergency Medical Services (EMS)
Enforcement
City of Point Arena
Local Roadway Safety Plan
APPENDIX E: B/C RATIO CALCULATION - LRSM (2020)
ĞŶĞĨŝƚͬŽƐƚZĂƚŝŽĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŽŶƐ
dŚŝƐĂƉƉĞŶĚŝdžŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐƚŚĞĞŶĞĨŝƚͬŽƐƚŵĞƚŚŽĚŽůŽŐLJƵƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞĂůƚƌĂŶƐĐĂůůƐͲĨŽƌͲƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐŝŶƚŚĞ,^/W ƉƌŽŐƌĂŵƐ͘dŚĞ,^D͕WĂƌƚͲ ŚĂƉƚĞƌϳ͕ŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŵŽƌĞĚĞƚĂŝůƐŽŶĐŽŶĚƵĐƚŝŶŐ ĐŽŶŽŵŝĐƉƉƌĂŝƐĂůĨŽƌ
ƌŽĂĚǁĂLJƐĂĨĞƚLJƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͘>ŽĐĂůĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐǁŝůůďĞƌĞƋƵŝƌĞĚƚŽƵƚŝůŝnjĞƚŚĞ,^/WŶĂůLJnjĞƌƚŽĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞƚŚĞͬ ƌĂƚŝŽĂƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞŝƌĂƉƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶĨŽƌ,^/WĨƵŶĚŝŶŐ͘ ^ƚĂƌƚŝŶŐŝŶLJĐůĞϳĐĂůůĨŽƌƉƌŽũĞĐƚƐ͕ƚŚĞĨĂƚĂůŝƚLJĂŶĚ ƐĞǀĞƌĞŝŶũƵƌLJĐŽƐƚƐŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĐŽŵďŝŶĞĚĨŽƌĐĂůĐƵůĂƚŝŶŐƚŚĞďĞŶĞĨŝƚ͘ĞĐĂƵƐĞĨĂƚĂůŝƚLJĨŝŐƵƌĞƐĂƌĞƐŵĂůů ĂŶĚĂƌĞĂŵĂƚƚĞƌŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŶĞƐƐ͕ƚŚŝƐĐŚĂŶŐĞŝƐďĞŝŶŐŵĂĚĞƚŽƌĞĚƵĐĞƚŚĞƉŽƐƐŝďŝůŝƚLJŽĨƐĞůĞĐƚŝŶŐĂŶ ŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽũĞĐƚŽŶƚŚĞďĂƐŝƐŽĨƌĂŶĚŽŵŶĞƐƐ͘
ϭͿ 3 CRF × N ×CCave Benefit (Annual) = ∑s=0 Y
Ͳ CRF ͗ƌĂƐŚƌĞĚƵĐƚŝŽŶĨĂĐƚŽƌŝŶĞĂĐŚĐŽƵŶƚĞƌŵĞĂƐƵƌĞ͘ Ͳ S ͗ ^ĞǀĞƌŝƚLJ;Ϭ͗WK͕ϭ͗DŝŶŽƌ/ŶũƵƌLJ͕Ϯ͗/ŶũƵƌLJ͕ϯ͗^ĞǀĞƌĞ/ŶũƵƌLJͬ&ĂƚĂůͿ͘^ĞĞƚŚĞďĞůŽǁƚĂďůĞ͘ Ͳ N ͗ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨƌĂƐŚĞƐ͕ŝŶƐĞǀĞƌŝƚLJůĞǀĞůƐ͕ƌĞůĂƚĞĚƚŽƐĞůĞĐƚĞĚĐŽƵŶƚĞƌŵĞĂƐƵƌĞ͘ Ͳ Y ͗ ƌĂƐŚĚĂƚĂƚŝŵĞƉĞƌŝŽĚ;zĞĂƌͿ͘
Ͳ CC ͗ƌĂƐŚĐŽƐƚƐŝŶƐĞǀĞƌŝƚLJůĞǀĞůƐ͘ ave
^ĞǀĞƌŝƚLJ;^Ϳ ƌĂƐŚ^ĞǀĞƌŝƚLJΎ >ŽĐĂƚŝŽŶdLJƉĞ ƌĂƐŚŽƐƚΎΎΎ ϯ ^ŝŐŶĂůŝnjĞĚ/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ Ψϭ͕ϱϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ
ϯ ΎΎ&ĂƚĂůŝƚLJĂŶĚ^ĞǀĞƌĞ/ŶũƵƌLJ EŽŶ^ŝŐŶĂůŝnjĞĚ/ŶƚĞƌƐĞĐƚŝŽŶ ΨϮ͕ϱϯϬ͕ϬϬϬ ϯ ŽŵďŝŶĞĚ;<Ϳ ZŽĂĚǁĂLJ ΨϮ͕ϭϵϬ͕ϬϬϬ
Ϯ
ǀŝĚĞŶƚ/ŶũƵƌLJʹKƚŚĞƌsŝƐŝďůĞ;Ϳ ΨϭϰϮ͕ϯϬϬ
ϭ WŽƐƐŝďůĞ/ŶũƵƌLJʹŽŵƉůĂŝŶƚŽĨWĂŝŶ;Ϳ ΨϴϬ͕ϵϬϬ
Ϭ WƌŽƉĞƌƚLJĂŵĂŐĞKŶůLJ;KͿ Ψϭϯ͕ϯϬϬ
Ύ dŚĞůĞƚƚĞƌƐŝŶƉĂƌĞŶƚŚĞƐŝƐ;<͕͕͕ĂŶĚKͿƌĞĨĞƌƚŽƚŚĞ<KƐĐĂůĞ͖ŝƚŝƐĐŽŵŵŽŶůLJƵƐĞĚďLJůĂǁ ĞŶĨŽƌĐĞŵĞŶƚĂŐĞŶĐŝĞƐŝŶƚŚĞŝƌĐƌĂƐŚƌĞƉŽƌƚŝŶŐĞĨĨŽƌƚƐĂŶĚŝƐĨƵƌƚŚĞƌĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ,^D͘ ΎΎ &ŝŐƵƌĞƐǁĞƌĞĐĂůĐƵůĂƚĞĚďĂƐĞĚŽŶĂŶĂǀĞƌĂŐĞ&ĂƚĂůŝƚLJ;<Ϳͬ^ĞǀĞƌĞ/ŶũƵƌLJ;ͿƌĂƚŝŽĨŽƌĞĂĐŚĂƌĞĂƚLJƉĞ͕ĂĐƌĂƐŚ ĐŽƐƚĨŽƌĂ&ĂƚĂůŝƚLJ;<ͿŽĨΨϳ͕Ϯϭϵ͕ϴϬϬ͕ĂŶĚĂĐƌĂƐŚĐŽƐƚŽĨĂ^ĞǀĞƌĞͬŝƐĂďůŝŶŐ/ŶũƵƌLJ;ͿŽĨΨϯϴϵ͕ϬϬϬ͘dŚĞƐĞ ĐŽƐƚƐĂƌĞƵƐĞĚŝŶƚŚĞ,^/WŶĂůLJnjĞƌ͘
ΎΎΎ ĂƐĞĚŽŶdĂďůĞϳͲϭ͕,ŝŐŚǁĂLJ^ĂĨĞƚLJDĂŶƵĂů;,^DͿ͕&ŝƌƐƚ ĚŝƚŝŽŶ͕ϮϬϭϬ͘ĚũƵƐƚĞĚƚŽϮϬϮϬŽůůĂƌƐ͘
ϮͿĞŶĞĨŝƚ;>ŝĨĞͿсĞŶĞĨŝƚ;ĂŶŶƵĂůͿdžzĞĂƌƐŽĨƐĞƌǀŝĐĞůŝĨĞ Benefit (Life)(CM ) ϯͿ ĞŶĞĨŝƚͬŽƐƚZĂƚŝŽ;ĞĂĐŚĐŽƵŶƚĞƌŵĞĂƐƵƌĞͿ͗ Benefit Cost Ratio(CM ) = Total Pr oject Cost (CM ) 3 ∑Benefit (Life)(CM )
CM =1 ϰͿĞŶĞĨŝƚͬŽƐƚZĂƚŝŽ;ƉƌŽũĞĐƚͿ͗ Benefit Cost Ratio (Pr oject) = Total Pr oject Cost Images Library for Point Arena CDP 1-2026
Class III Bicycle lane with Sharrows
Example of Beveled Sidewalk
NS09 - Install flashing beacons as advance warning at (NS.I.) • Lake Street and School Street/Highway 1
• Iverson Avenue and Main Street
R22- Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning), example
• Main Street/Highway 1: Riverside Drive to Southern City Limits R26 - Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
• School Street/Highway 1: Northern City Limits to Lake Street R27- Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers. • School Street/Highway 1: Northern City Limits to Lake Street NS22PB- Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), • Corner of Main Street and School Street near Methodist Church R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) • Main Street/Highway 1: Riverside Drive to Southern City Limits
x
x
x
x
x
LASTREVISION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION ON
STATE HIGHWAY
PROJECTMANAGER
SHEET
DEL NORTE
SISKIYOU MODOC
TRINITY SHASTA LASSEN
TEHAMA
GLENN BUTTE
PLUMAS
SIERRA
NEVADA
PLACER YUBA COLUSA
LAKE
YOLO
SONOMA NAPA
EL DORADO
MARIN
AMADOR ALPINE
CALAVERAS CONTRA
COSTA
TUOLUMNE
MONO
SANTA
CLARA
SANTA CRUZ
STANISLAUS MARIPOSA
MERCED
MADERA
FRESNO
MONTEREY
INYO
TULARE
KINGS
OBISPO KERN
SANTA
BARBARA
VENTURA
LOS ANGELES
SAN BERNARDINO
RIVERSIDE
SAN DIEGO IMPERIAL
ORANGE
SOLANO
ALAMEDA
MENTO SACRAJOAQUIN SAN
SAN
BENITO
SAN
LUIS
SUTTER
SAN FRANCISCO
SAN MATEO
Dist COUNTY ROUTE
TOTAL
TOTAL PROJECT SHEETS
LOCATION MAP
DATEPLOTTED =>
09:49
14-NOV-2022
POST MILES
No.
OF LICENSE AS SPECIFIED IN THE "NOTICE TO BIDDERS."
INDEX OF PLANS
TIMEPLOTTED =>
R
R
10-04-22
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POSSESS THE CLASS (OR CLASSES)
PLANS APPROVAL DATE
R
E
G
IS
TERED
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
No.
Exp.
CIVIL
PROJECT ENGINEERREGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
DATE
COMPLETENESS OF SCANNED COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACCURACY OR OFFICERS OR AGENTS SHALL NOT BETHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS CONTRACT No.PROJECT ID
UNIT PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 0119000124ab001.dgn
USERNAME => s155768
DGN FILE =>
RELATIVE BORDER SCALE
IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
CALTRANS WEB SITE IS: HTTP//WWW.DOT.CA.GOV/ 0306 01190001240
DESIGNMANAGER
BORDER LAST REVISED 8/1/2016
NO SCALE
01 Men 1 14.7/33.9
01-0J9400
TO BE SUPPLEMENTED BY STANDARD PLANS DATED 2022
ROBERTM. FLOYD II
0119000124
TO PHILO GREENWOOD ROAD
0.2 MILE SOUTH OF IVERSON AVENUE
IN MENDOCINO COUNTY IN & NEAR POINT ARENA FROM
HUMBOLDT
MANHAL KHAMMASH
To Whitesboro
M. Floyd II
Robert
C 82452
09-30-24
ROUTE 1
POINT ARENA ManChester
Elk
Stornetta
T
o
G
a
llaw
ay
R
IV
E
R
S
ID
E
D
r
M
O
U
T
A
IN
V
IE
W
R
d
C
R
ISP
IN
R
d
Philo
Greenwood
Rd
OCEAN
PACIFIC
END CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN CONSTRUCTIONPM 14.7
PM 33.9
Flumeville
Elk
Creek
Greenwood
Creek
Mills
Creek
Mallo
P
ass
Creek
Alder
Creek
Brush
Creek
Garc
ia
River
Hathaway
Creek
Po
int
Arena
Creek
Irish
Creek
MENDOCINO
T
o
B
o
onv
ille
HATHAWAY CREEK Br
GARCIA RIVER Br
BRUSH CREEK Br
ALDER CREEK Br
IRISH CREEK Br
MALLO PASS CREEK Br
ELK CREEK Br GREENWOOD CREEK Br
PM 34.2
PM 14.4 End Work
Begin Work
Mendocino County
Point Arena
E
NILHCTAM
SCALE: 1" = 300'
LAYOUT PLAN
CONSTRUCTION
C-1
C-12
C-13
C-14
C
-
1 5
C
-
15 C16
C16
C-17
C-18
PM 14.80 PM 15.00
PM
16. 00
BEGIN OVERLAYPM 14.95
ROW (APPROXIMATE)POTENTIAL STAGING AREA
LEGEND:
EXISTING MBGRSEE CONSTRUCTION LAYOUTS FOR DETAILS.HIGH FRICTION SURFACE TREATMENT (HFST)GRIND AND OVERLAY BEGIN GRIND OGFCPM 15.23
ANDRESCOY
DESIG N-M3
ROBERTM. FLOYD II
01 Men 1 14.7/33.9
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE
POST MILES
TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.
TOTAL
SHEETS
LASTREVISION
STATEOFCALIFORNIA -DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.
Exp.
CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
11:19
22-SEP-2025
CHECKEDBY
REVISEDBY
DATEREVISED
PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE
FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS R
04-08-25
USERNAME => s148653
DGN FILE => 0119000124ga001.dgn
RELATIVE BORDER SCALE
IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 UNIT 0306 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 01190001240
DESIGNEDBY
CALCULATED-
ROBERTM. FLOYD II - 3. FOR GUARDRAIL UPGRADE SEE CONSTRUCTION DETAIL SHEETS 2. SEE L-1 FOR LEGEND 1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE. NOTES: Mendocino County Point Arena © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO C-12
SCALE: 1" = 20'
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LAYOUT
MATCHLINE
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.
1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT NOTE:
X#
IMPROVEMENT
IMPROVEMENT
TYPE OF IMPROVEMENT
S = SIDEWALKD = DRIVEWAYC = CURB RAMPABBREVIATIONS
R/W
R/W
R/WR/W
M3-DESIG N
01 Men 1 14.7/33.9
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE
POST MILES
TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.
TOTAL
SHEETS
LASTREVISION
STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.
Exp.
CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:48
22-SEP-2025
CHECKEDBY
REVISEDBY
DATEREVISED
PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE
FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS R
00-00-00
USERNAME => s160314
DGN FILE => 0119000124ga012.dgn
RELATIVE BORDER SCALE
IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 UNIT 0306 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 01190001240
DESIGNEDBY
CALCULATED-
ROBERTM. FLOYD II"MILL_ST" 10+00.00 BEG
"MILL_ST" 10+71.13 END
1 2
3 4
"M
ill_
S
t_F
L
"
1 2
+
9 3
.
7 ,
0 .
0 '
N
o
t
e
"B
K
S
W
"
1 +
0 0
.00
B
E
G
"BKSW"4+99.08 END
"B
K
S
W
"
1 +00
.89
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
1 +41
.03
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
2 +
1 6
.87
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
3 +02
.17
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
3 +
4 5
.11
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
3 +
6 5
.51
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
4 +13
.
3 9
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
4 +
2 6
.
6 0
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
4 +
3 8
.
9 1
P
I
"B
K
S
W
"
4 +
6 8
.48
P
I "BKSW"4+70.26 PI
"BKSW" 4+82.18 PI
"BKSW" 4+88.27 PI
2 3
4 Beg SIDEWALK
Beg CURB (TYPEA2-6)
23.27' Rt "A1" LINE 99+98.73
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Rt "A1" LINE
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Lt "A1" LINE
D1
D2
D3 D4 D5
D7 D8 C1 C3
C2
C4
C5
D6
S1
S2
S3
S4
S8
S5
S6
S7
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Rt "A1" LINE
S10
S9 S11
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Lt "A1" LINE
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Lt "A1" LINE
C6 S12
S13
C7
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Lt "A1" LINE
1 2 3 4 105
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE TCE TCE
TCE TCE TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE
TCE TCE
TCE TCE
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO R/W
R/W
SCALE: 1" = 20' C-13
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LAYOUT
M
A
T
C
H
L
IN
E
M
A
T
C
H
L
IN
E
R/WR/W
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.
1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT NOTE:
M3-DESIG N
01 Men 1 14.7/33.9
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE
POST MILES
TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.
TOTAL
SHEETS
LASTREVISION
STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.
Exp.
CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:36
22-SEP-2025
CHECKEDBY
REVISEDBY
DATEREVISED
PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE
FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS R
00-00-00
USERNAME => s148653
DGN FILE => 0119000124ga013.dgn
RELATIVE BORDER SCALE
IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 UNIT 0306 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 01190001240
DESIGNEDBY
CALCULATED-
ROBERTM. FLOYD II
D8 D9 D11 D13 D14 D17 D18
D10 D12 D15 D16 D19
C8
C9
S14 S15
S16 S18
S17 S19
S20 S21
S22
S23
S24
REMOVE AND RELOCATE DI
6 7 8 9 110 1
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO
MATCHLINE
TAM HC NIL E
SCALE: 1" = 20' C-14
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LAYOUT
3 30.00 24°12'15" 6.43 12.67
2 40.00 43°22'11" 15.91 30.28
1 300.00 08°58'58" 23.57 47.03
No. # R À T L
CURVE DATA
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.
1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT NOTE:
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
M3-DESIG N
01 Men 1 14.7/33.9
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE
POST MILES
TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.
TOTAL
SHEETS
LASTREVISION
STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.
Exp.
CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
10:43
22-SEP-2025
CHECKEDBY
REVISEDBY
DATEREVISED
PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE
FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS R
00-00-00
USERNAME => s148653
DGN FILE => 0119000124ga014.dgn
RELATIVE BORDER SCALE
IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 UNIT 0306 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 01190001240
DESIGNEDBY
CALCULATED-
ROBERTM. FLOYD II
D20 D21 S30
S32
C10 C11 C12 C13
C15
C16
C14
S25
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Rt "A1" LINE
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Rt "A1" LINE
S26 S28
S27
S29
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Rt "A1" LINE
D22
S31
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Rt "A1" LINE
D23
S33
S34
S35
REMOVE AND RELOCATE DI
1 2
3 11
5 2 3 4
6 115
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO
MATCHLINE
MATCH
LINE
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.
1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT NOTE:
SCALE: 1" = 20' C-17
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LAYOUT
R/WR/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
M3-DESIG N
01 Men 1 14.7/33.9
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE
POST MILES
TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.
TOTAL
SHEETS
LASTREVISION
STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.
Exp.
CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
11:17
22-SEP-2025
CHECKEDBY
REVISEDBY
DATEREVISED
PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE
FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS R
00-00-00
USERNAME => s148653
DGN FILE => 0119000124ga017.dgn
RELATIVE BORDER SCALE
IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 UNIT 0306 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 01190001240
DESIGNEDBY
CALCULATED-
ROBERTM. FLOYD II
140
9 1
2 3
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO © 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO M
A
T
C
H
L
IN
E
RIGHT OF WAY ENGINEERING AT THE DISTRICT OFFICE.
1. FOR ACCURATE RIGHT OF WAY DATA, CONTACT NOTE:
SCALE: 1" = 20'
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS LAYOUT
C-18
R/W
R/W
M3-DESIG N
01 Men 1 14.7/33.9
x
x
x
x
x
Dist COUNTY ROUTE
POST MILES
TOTAL PROJECT
SHEET
No.
TOTAL
SHEETS
LASTREVISION
STATEOFCALIFORNIA - DEPARTMENTOFTRANSPORTATION
No.
Exp.
CIVIL
R
E
G
IS
TERED
PROFESSIONAL
ENG
IN
E
E
R
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER
TIMEPLOTTED =>
DATEPLOTTED =>
11:18
22-SEP-2025
CHECKEDBY
REVISEDBY
DATEREVISED
PLANS APPROVAL DATE
DATE
FUNCTIONALSUPERVISOR
R
COPIES OF THIS PLAN SHEET.THE ACCURACY OR COMPLETENESS OF SCANNEDOR AGENTS SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FORTHE STATE OF CALIFORNIA OR ITS OFFICERS R
00-00-00
USERNAME => s148653
DGN FILE => 0119000124ga018.dgn
RELATIVE BORDER SCALE
IS IN INCHES
0 1 2 3
BORDER LAST REVISED 7/2/2010 UNIT 0306 PROJECT NUMBER & PHASE 01190001240
DESIGNEDBY
CALCULATED-
ROBERTM. FLOYD II
C18
C17
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Rt "A1" LINE
CONFORM TO EXIST
End CURB (TYPEA2-6)
20.00' Rt "A1" LINE
145 4
6 7
© 2025 Microsoft Corporation © 2025 Maxar ©CNES (2025) Distribution Airbus DS Earthstar Geographics SIO Point Arena Mendocino County
Type text here
Form adapted from Appendix E of the CEQA Guidelines August 2024 Notice of Exemption
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113
Sacramento, CA 95812-3044
From: California Department of Transportation
1656 Union Street
Eureka, CA 95501
Project Title: North Point Arena Capital Maintenance Project (EA: 01-0J940) Project Applicant: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Project Location - Specific: On State Route 1 from Post Miles 14.7 to 33.9.
Project Location - City: Point Arena Project Location - County: Mendocino Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project:
Project would restore and preserve drive-ability and serviceability. Asphalt overlay, cold planing, upgrade metal beam guardrail to Midwest guardrail, end treatment upgrades, shoulder backing, dike removal and replacement, and pavement delineation.
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: Caltrans, District 1 Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Caltrans, District 1 Exempt Status (check one):
☐ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
☐ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
☐ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
☒ Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15301(c) ☐ Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
Reasons why project is exempt:
The proposed project will rehabilitate pavement conditions of an existing roadway, replace/upgrade transition railings, signage, guardrail, transportation management systems, and components within the roadway prism as necessary.
Lead Agency Contact Person: Devin Sutfin Phone number: 707-382-7559 If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? ☐ Yes ☐ No
Signature: ____________________ Date: 9/27/24 Title: Env. Scientist - Coordinator ☒ Signed by Lead Agency ☐ Signed by Applicant
Date Received for filing at OPR:
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code.
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. ☐ No
Signature: ____________________
Signed by Lead Agency
CITY OF POINT ARENA
451 School Street
P.O. Box 67
Point Arena CA 95468
(707) 882-2122
https://pointarena.ca.gov/
Mayor Barbara Burkey
Vice-Mayor Dan Doyle
Councilmember Anna Dobbins
Councilmember Jim Koogle
Councilmember Jeff Hansen
Molly Haviland, City Manager
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Point Arena City Council will conduct a public hearing at Point Arena City Hall, 451 School Street and via teleconference (https://zoom.us/j/88269848341) via teleconference on April 21, 2026 at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, on the following:
Public Hearing will be held Approving/Denying the following project:
CASE: CDP# 2026-01
DATE FILED: October 22, 2026
OWNER: Caltrans
APPLICANTS: Devin Sutfin, Tony Symanovich, Caltrans
ZONING: NA
REQUEST: Repave Main Street and replace existing sidewalks on Main Street in the City of Point Arena.
This work includes reconstructing existing sidewalks and driveways from PM 14.95 (intersection of Rt 1 with Iverson Ave) to PM 15.27 NB (Intersection of Main and Rt 1) and SB; reconstructing existing sidewalk from PM 15.27 (intersection of Main & Rt 1) to PM 15.78 NB (intersection with W Lake Street) and reconstructing ADA ramps NB of PM 15.84.
APN: NA
LOCATION: Main Street between Iverson Ave and W Lake Street.
CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt from CEQA per 15301(c) repair of existing highways and streets.
PUBLIC HEARING DATE: April 21, 2026
The Point Arena City Council is soliciting your input. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard at this time. Applicants or their agents must appear for their hearings. If you challenge the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. All documents are available for review in the City Clerk’s Office. The City Council’s action regarding the item shall constitute final action by the City unless appealed to the Coastal Commission. Appeals to the Coastal Commission must be made in writing within 10 working days following Coastal Commission receipt of a Notice of Final Action on this project. Should you desire to request notification of the City Council’s decision you may do so in writing by providing a self-addressed stamped envelope to the City Clerk.
For further information contact the City of Point Arena:
Mailing Address: PO Box 67, Point Arena, California 95468 City Hall Location: 451 School Street, Point Arena, California 95468 Telephone: 707 882-2122
Website: https://pointarena.ca.gov/
Email: [email protected]
Paul Andersen
City Clerk
Date: April 6, 2026
CITY OF POINT ARENA
451 School Street
P.O. Box 67
Point Arena CA 95468
(707) 882-2122
https://pointarena.ca.gov/
Mayor Barbara Burkey
Vice-Mayor Dan Doyle
Councilmember Anna Dobbins
Councilmember Jim Koogle
Councilmember Jeff Hansen
Molly Haviland, City Manager
NOTICE OF A CONTINUATION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the public hearing previously noticed for April 21, 2026, before the Point Arena City Council regarding the following matter:
CASE: CDP# 2026-01
PROJECT: Repaving of Main Street and replacement of existing sidewalks on Main Street in the City of Point Arena
was opened and continued to a future date.
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that said public hearing has been continued to May 19, 2026, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, at Point Arena City Hall, 451 School Street, Point Arena, California, and via teleconference.
All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard at that time. No further notice of this continued hearing will be provided.
For additional information, please contact the City of Point Arena at (707) 882-2122 or [email protected]
The Point Arena City Council is soliciting your input. All interested parties are invited to attend and be heard at this time. Applicants or their agents must appear for their hearings. If you challenge the above matter(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior to, the public hearing. All documents are available for review in the City Clerk’s Office. The City Council’s action regarding the item shall constitute final action by the City unless appealed to the Coastal Commission. Appeals to the Coastal Commission must be made in writing within 10 working days following Coastal Commission receipt of a Notice of Final Action on this project. Should you desire to request notification of the City Council’s decision you may do so by sending an email to the City Clerk at [email protected].
For further information contact the City of Point Arena:
City Hall Location: 451 School Street, Point Arena, California 95468 Mailing Address: PO Box 67, Point Arena, California 95468 Telephone: 707 882-2122
Website: https://pointarena.ca.gov/
Email: [email protected]
Paul Andersen
City Clerk
Date: April 6, 2026