Rancho Cordova City Council
February 22, 2022

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, February 22, 2022
5:30 PM – Regular Meeting
David B. Roberts Council Chambers
City Hall
2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova
Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361 amending the Ralph M. Brown Act (Govt. Code 54950-54963), the City has declared a state of emergency relating to COVID-19 and imposed measures to promote social distancing.

Join the Meeting Via Zoom Link:
https://cityofranchocordova.zoom.us/j/82744506605?pwd=UVRFQTdlbXZKVnc0QkJqZEVSbWMvdz09 Join the Meeting via the Zoom Phone Number
Zoom Phone Number: +1 669 900 6833, +1 253 215 8782
Webinar ID:827 4450 6605
Password: 578969
Instructions to Make Public Comment
Submitting Public Comment via Email

Members of the public who wish to provide public comment via email will need to submit comments to [email protected] no later than 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 22, 2022. All comments submitted later than 3:00 p.m. will be sent to the City Council for their review and may not be read during the meeting.

Listening to a Zoom Meeting by Zoom Video Conference
To make a public comment using the Zoom platform, please use the “raise hand” feature at the bottom center of the screen. Please make sure to enable audio controls once access has been given by the City Clerk’s office to speak. Please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Listening to a Zoom Meeting by Phone Only

You can join a Zoom meeting via teleconferencing/audio conferencing using a cell phone or traditional landline phone. To request to make a public comment by phone press *9 to raise your hand. Please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.

All public comments will be limited to three-minutes.

If you have questions related to the City Council Meeting or the use of Zoom, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 Tuesday, February 22, 2022, before 3:00 p.m.

AGENDA

1. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry

2. METRO CABLE TV TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENT

The Clerk will announce the meetings video recording and playback schedules.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

The Mayor will call on someone in attendance to lead the Pledge.

4. INVOCATION

Dan DeShong with River City Christian Church will give the invocation.

5. PRESENTATIONS

5.1. Presentation of City Website Update.

5.2. Employee Milestone Anniversary Presentations.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

Citizens wishing to address the Council for any matter not on the agenda may do so at this time via teleconference. If you want to make a public comment via teleconference, please use the “raise hand” feature at the bottom center of the screen.

If you are participating by telephone and you want to make a public comment, please press *9 to raise your hand. For those participating by Zoom or telephone, please wait to be called upon by the City Clerk.

For items on the agenda, speakers will be called by the Mayor at the point on the agenda when the item will be heard. Speakers are encouraged to keep comments to three minutes or less and to state name and community of residence.

Under the provisions of the California Government Code, the City Council is prohibited from discussing or taking immediate action on any item not on the agenda unless it can be demonstrated to be of an emergency nature or the need to take immediate action arose after

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Tuesday, February 22, 2022

the posting of the agenda.

7. COUNCIL REPORTS

8. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

9. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

9.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of February 7, 2022 and the Special Meeting of February 15, 2022.

Recommendation: Adopt the Minutes.

9.2. Subject: A Resolution Adopting the City of Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.3. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract Amendment with Fehr and Peers to Increase the Contract Amount from $94,240 to an Amount not to Exceed $156,840 and Extend the Contract Date to December 31, 2022 for Professional Engineering Services for the Coloma Road Evaluation.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.4. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Contract No. 2022-22 with Sierra Nevada Construction, Inc. in an Amount not to Exceed $609,007 for the International Drive Surface Treatment Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.5. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract Amendment with BPR Consulting Group, LLC to Increase the Contract Amount from $100,000 to $750,000 and Extend the Contract Date to December 31, 2025 for On-Call Plan Review and Inspection Services.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution

9.6. Subject: Treasurer's Report - December 31, 2021.

Recommendation: This report is informational only. It is recommended that the City Council receive and file the December 31, 2021 Treasurer’s Report.

10. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

10.1. Subject: Resolutions and an Ordinance Related to the Formation of the City of Rancho Cordova Arista Del Sol Community Facilities District No. 2022-1.

Recommendation: Continue the public hearing to the March 21, 2022 City council meeting.

10.2. Subject: A Resolution to Support a Sacramento Transportation Authority Tax Measure which would Extend without Increase an Existing Fee Funding the Sacramento Abandoned Vehicle Service Authority Program.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10.3. Subject: Woodside Homes Arista Del Sol Subdivision Major Design Review and Special Development Permit Project No. PLND-1021-0011.

Recommendation: Determine the project Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Section 15182, Residential Projects Pursuant to a Specific Plan and adopt the Resolution for Arista Del Sol

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Subdivision Major Design Review and Special Development Permit.

11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

None.

12. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

12.1. Subject: Planning Commission Member Nomination and Selection.

Recommendation: 1. Make a motion to approve the nomination of Cynthia Stauss- Vlassopoulos, Kenneth Henderson, Lee Frechette, Robert McGarvey and Surender Deverapalli to fill the five (5) regular Planning Commission members.

2. Nominate and make a motion to approve the two (2) at large Planning Commission members.

12.2. Subject: Written Report Regarding Tobacco Ordinance Pursuant to Government Code Section 65868(d) and Extension of Urgency Ordinance 3-2022 for a Period of 10 Months and 15 Days.

Recommendation: Adopt the Urgency Ordinance extending the temporary moratorium on the establishment and operation of electronic cigarette retailers and electronic cigarette lounges and vapor bars.

12.3. Subject: Appointment of Real Property Negotiators Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney for the Following Properties and Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN's): Mather Field Rd, 077-0050-058-0000, 10503 Armstrong Ave, 067-0990-005-0000, Mather Blvd, 067-0010-039-0000, 10566 Peter A Mccuen, 067-1040-006-0000, 3615 Bleckely St, 067-1040-001-0000, C3607 Bleckely St, 067- 1040-002-0000, 3611 Bleckely St, 067-1040-007-0000, 10621 Schirra Ave, 067-1040-008- 0000, Bleckely St, 067-0010-093-0000,Femoyer Ave, 067-1040-005-0000, Bleckely St, 067- 0010-113-0000, Bleckely St, 067-0010-094-0000.

Recommendation: Approve appointment of Real Property Negotiators.

13. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

14. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Terry will adjourn the meeting to closed session.

15. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Council Members Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry

16. CLOSED SESSION

Council will meet in closed session to discuss the following items:

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8:

Property: Mather Field Rd, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 077-0050-058-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Tuesday, February 22, 2022

Property: 10503 Armstrong Ave, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-0990-005-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: Mather Blvd Assessor's Parcel Number: 067-0010-039-0000, City Negotiators:

Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: 10566 Peter A Mccuen, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-1040-006-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: 3615 Bleckely St, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-1040-001-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: 3607 Bleckely St, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-1040-002-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: 3611 Bleckely St, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-1040-007-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: 10621 Schirra Ave, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-1040-008-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: Bleckely St, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-0010-093-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: Femoyer Ave, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-1040-005-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: Bleckely St, Assessor's Parcel Number: 067-0010-113-0000, City Negotiators:

Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Property: Bleckely St, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 067-0010-094-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U.

Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: County of Sacramento.

Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment.

17. OPEN SESSION - REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION

The City Attorney will report on action taken in closed session.

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Tuesday, February 22, 2022

18. ADJOURNMENT

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SPECIAL MEETINGS LISTED BELOW ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE/CANCELLATION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE.

UNLESS THE COUNCIL ADOPTS A MOTION TO EXTEND THE MEETING, ANY ITEM THAT IS NOT INITIATED BEFORE 11:00 PM WILL BE CONTINUED TO THE NEXT DAY AT 5:30 PM OR SCHEDULED ON THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING AGENDA OF THE COUNCIL.

Public documents related to items on the open session portion of this agenda, which are distributed to the City Council less than 72 hours prior to the meeting, shall be available for public inspection at the time the documents are distributed to the Council. Documents are available for inspection at the City Clerk's office located in Rancho Cordova City Hall.

The agenda items are accessible on the City’s website at www.cityofranchocordova.org on Thursdays or Fridays prior to the Regular City Council Meeting.

UPCOMING MEETINGS
March 7, 2022 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
March 21, 2022 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
March 29, 2022 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
April 4, 2022 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
April 18, 2022 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
April 26, 2022 5:30 PM Special Meeting/Work Session
May 2, 2022 4:00 PM Special Meeting/Regular Meeting
May 16, 2022 5:30 PM Regular Meeting
If you have any technical questions related to the agenda items, please contact City Hall at (916) 851- 8700.

The Rancho Cordova City Council meeting will be videotaped in its entirety and will be cablecast without interruption on Metro Cable 14, the Government Affairs Channel on the Comcast, Consolidated Communications and AT&T U-Verse Systems. Closed Captioning will be available on the playback cablecast. A DVD copy is available from the City Clerk’s Department and a webcast of this meeting will be available for viewing via video streaming from the City’s website within 48 hours of adjournment of this meeting.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 851-8720 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting.

CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA

Rancho Cordova City Council - AGENDA
Regular Meeting of Tuesday, February 22, 2022

I, Stacy Leitner, City Clerk for the City of Rancho Cordova, declare that the foregoing agenda for the February 22, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Rancho Cordova City Council was posted and available for review on February 18, 2022 at City Hall of the City of Rancho Cordova, 2729 Prospect Park Drive, Rancho Cordova, California, 95670. The agenda is also available on the City website at www.cityofranchocordova.org.

Signed February 18, 2022 at Rancho Cordova, California.

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 9.1.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Monday, February 7, 2022
5:30 PM – Regular Meeting

NO PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
Meetings are currently teleconference meetings only to align with the Sacramento County Public Health Order dated January 6, 2022.

Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361 amending the Ralph M. Brown Act (Govt. Code 54950-54963), the City has declared a state of emergency relating to COVID-19 and imposed measures to promote social distancing.

DRAFT MINUTES

1. REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Mayor Terry called the Regular meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Cyrus Abhar, Adam Lindgren, Stacy Leitner and Persephonie Riley

2. METRO CABLE TV TELEVISION ANNOUNCEMENT

The City Clerk read the meetings recordings and playback schedule.

3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Adam Lindgren led the pledge.

4. INVOCATION

Sherry DeShong with River City Christian Church gave the invocation.

5. PRESENTATIONS

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

5.1. Introduction of New Employees: Arlene Granadosin-Jones, Senior Planner by Darcy Goulart, Heather Cook, Code Enforcement Officer I, and Andrew Thomas, Code Enforcement Officer I by Brittany Mariscal, Code Enforcement Supervisor, Kristy Acuna, Animal Services Officer I by Russ Ducharme, Neighborhood Services Manager.

5.2. The SiFi Fiber Network Project Update.

5.3. Mayor Terry's Birthday on February 8, 2022.

6. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council of submitted public comment via email:

1. Gary Brewer
Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

7. COUNCIL REPORTS

Council reported on events since the last meeting.

8. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT

City Manager Cyrus Abhar gave his report.

9. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers. Mayor Gatewood closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 9.1 through 9.5 by Budge second by Sander; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

9.1. Subject: Meeting Minutes from the Regular City Council Meeting of January 18, 2022 and the Special Meeting of January 25, 2022.

Recommendation: Adopt the Minutes.

9.2. Subject: A Resolution Declaring the Results of the Mail Ballot Election for Rancho Cordova Transit-Related Services Special Tax Area Zone 31 for a Portion of The Ranch Project.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.3. Subject: A Resolution Approving the First Amendment to the Mills Crossing Civic Center Exclusive Negotiating Rights Agreement with Griffin/Swinerton, LLC and The Related Companies of California, LLC to Extend the Term by Six Months.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

9.4. Subject: A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova and on Behalf of Commissions and Committees Created by the City Council Pursuant to Government Code Section 54952(b) Confirming the State of Emergency Under Government Code Section 8625, Recognizing Continued Measures to Promote Social Distancing, and Re- authorizing Remote Teleconference Meetings of the City for the Period from February 7, 2022 to March 8, 2022.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

9.5. Subject: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager, or Designee, to Execute Contract No. 2021-340 for an Amount not to Exceed $350,000 for the Hiring of an Executive Director as well as to Provide Executive Coaching and Consultancy for the Board of Directors and/or Rancho Cordova Food Locker Staff to Proactively Advance the Rancho Cordova Food Locker's Mission.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10. CONSENT PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - ROLL CALL VOTE

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers. Mayor Gatewood closed the public comment period.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 10.1 through 10.2 by Gatewood second by Pulipati; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

10.1. Subject: A Resolution Approving the Issuance of Multifamily Revenue Bonds by the California Public Finance Authority in Support of an Affordable 82 Unit Multifamily Development, Sunrise Crossing Apartments.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

10.2. Subject: A Resolution Approving an Update to the Transportation Development Impact Fee Program and Nexus Study that Facilitates New Development and Ensures that Development Pays for Traffic Impacts to Maintain the Quality of Life in the City of Rancho Cordova.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

11. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS

11.1. Subject: A Resolution Approving Residential Solid Waste Rate Adjustments for Implementation of the State Mandated Residential Food Waste Collection and Recycling Program.

Recommendation: Adopt the Resolution.

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. Cathy Birch

2. Ed Hughes

3. Helen Whelan-Bashaw

4. Amir Mohammadiadl

5. Sonia

Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

The City Clerk announced that the final tabulation of valid protests received for the proposed solid waste rate increase was 544.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 11.1 by Budge second by Pulipati; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

12. REGULAR CALENDAR ITEMS

12.1. Subject: Appointment of Real Property Negotiators Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney for the Following

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

Properties: 2931 Shawn Way, 072-0135-001-0000, 10517 Silverwood Way, 072-0191- 017-0000, 11137 Portage River Ct, 056-0370-068-0000, 2740 El Caprice Dr., 076-0261- 006-0000, 2925 Kilgore Rd., 072-0480-022-0000, 2542 Rod Beaudry, 075-0690-048- 0000, and 10149 Folsom Blvd, 076-0033-006-0000, 10145 Folsom Blvd, 076-0033-007- 0000.

Recommendation: Approve appointment of Real Property Negotiators.

ACTION: Motion to approve item 12.1 by Budge second by Sander; Motion passed with a 5:0 vote.

13. COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

None.

14. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION

Mayor Terry adjourned the meeting to closed session at 7:20 p.m.

15. CLOSED SESSION - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Mayor Terry called closed session to order at 7:21 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Cyrus Abhar, Adam Lindgren, Stacy Leitner and Persephonie Riley

16. CLOSED SESSION

Council will meet in closed session to discuss the following item:

1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS: Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8: Property: 2931 Shawn Way, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN):
072-0135-001-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: 3G Properties Incorporated;
Property: 10517 Silverwood Way, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 072-0191-017- 0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Lawrence L Mack & Antoinette Mack;
Property: 11137 Portage River Ct, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 056-0370-068- 0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: William Ledeen (Estate of);
Property: 2740 El Caprice Drive, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 076-0261-006-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Layher Surviving Spouses Trust; Property: 2925 Kilgore Road, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 072-0480-022-0000; City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Monday, February 7, 2022

Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Jennifer Berrueta Vergara Living Trust Berrueta Family Revocable Trust/Bypass;
Property: 2542 Rod Beaudry Drive, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 075-0690-048- 0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Delta CPM Inc.

Defined Benefit Plan;
Council Member David Sander recused himself from the item regarding the property located on Rod Beaudry Drive due to a conflict related to the proximity of his residence to the discussed property.

Property: 10149 Folsom Blvd., Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 076-0033-006-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Daniel Dauenhauer, Thomas Dauenhauer;
Property: 10145 Folsom Blvd, Assessor's Parcel Number (APN): 076-0033-007-0000, City Negotiators: Cyrus Abhar, City Manager, Micah Runner, Deputy City Manager, and Adam U. Lindgren, City Attorney, Negotiating Parties: Daniel Dauenhauer, Thomas Dauenhauer; Under Negotiation for all properties: Price and terms of payment.

2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION (pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)) Cordova Recreation and Park District v. City of Rancho Cordova, Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2021- 80003705.

Council Member Gatewood recused himself from the item regarding Cordova Recreation and Park District v. City of Rancho Cordova, due to a conflict related to a business interest.

17. OPEN SESSION - REPORT OUT FROM CLOSED SESSION

City Attorney Adam Lindgren reported that staff was given direction and no reportable action was taken in closed session.

18. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Terry adjourned the meeting in memory of Elk Grove Police Officer Ty Lenehan and City of Stockton Fire Captain Vidal "Max" Fortuna at 8:43 p.m. _____________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 9.1.

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, February 15, 2022
5:30 PM – Special Meeting/Work Session

NO PHYSICAL LOCATION FOR PUBLIC ATTENDANCE
Meetings are currently teleconference meetings only to align with the Sacramento County Public Health Order dated January 6, 2022.

Pursuant to California Assembly Bill 361 amending the Ralph M. Brown Act (Govt. Code 54950-54963), the City has declared a state of emergency relating to COVID-19 and imposed measures to promote social distancing.

DRAFAT MINUTES

1. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL

Mayor Terry called the Regular meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.

Council Members Present: Linda Budge, Garrett Gatewood, Siri Pulipati, David Sander, and Mayor Donald Terry
Council Members Absent: None
Staff Members Present: Cyrus Abhar, Adam Lindgren, Stacy Leitner and Persephonie Riley

2. PUBLIC COMMENT

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. Seeing no speakers, Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

3. SPECIAL MEETING ITEMS

3.1. Subject: Planning Commission Application Discussion and Potential Selection of the Seven Member Planning Commission.

Recommendation: Receive a report on additional information requested by the City Council at the previous meeting, hear a brief 2-minute introduction from prospective applicants and begin the nomination and selection process or defer the action to a future City Council meeting.

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, February 15, 2022

Mayor Terry opened the public comment period. The following individuals addressed the Council or submitted public comment via email:

1. Helen Whelan-Bashaw
Seeing no additional speakers, Mayor Terry closed the public comment period.

Mayor Terry invited the Planning Commission Applicants to give a breif introduction of themselves.

The Following Planning Commission Applicants addressed the Council:

1. Afraz a. Hameed

2. Andrew E. Carhart

3. Anil Reddy Kondakrindi

4. Anjeleeca Wood

5. Autumn Eberhardt

6. Cynmthia R. Stauss-Vlassopoulos

7. Jack O. S. Zwald

8. James Stein

9. Kenneth R. Henderson Jr.

10. Kimberly Vester

11. Lee M. Frechette

12. Leroy Tripette

13. Lusine M Sarkisyan

14. Matt Cummings

15. Ray Savorn

16. Regan A. King

17. Richard Kurianowicz

18. Robert J. McGarvey

19. Ronald L. Brandon

20. Sergio J. Diaz

21. Surender R. Devarapalli

22. Therese M. Kolvenbach

23. Wayne T. Hart
ACTION: The following nominations were made for the five appointed members of the planning Commision:

Garrett Gatewood - Kenneth Henderson
Siri Pulipati - Surender Deverapalli
David Sander - Lee Frechette
Linda Budge - Cynthia Stauss-Vlassopoulos
Donald Terry - Robert McGarvey
ACTION: Mayor Terry stated that a final vote and the appointment of the two at-large members would take place at the February 22, 2022 City Council meeting.

4. ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Terry adjourned the meeting at 7:43 p.m.

ITEM 9.1.

Rancho Cordova City Council - DRAFT MINUTES
Meeting of Tuesday, February 15, 2022

____________________
Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

MEMORANDUM
City Council Staff Report - Page 1 of 2

ITEM 9.2.

DATE: February 22, 2022

TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members

FROM: Albert Stricker, Public Works Director
Byron Tang, Senior Civil Engineer

SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

RECOMMENDATION

Adopt the Resolution.

RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION

The adoption of the completed Local Road Safety Plan would establish recommended practices for continually monitoring crash data and trends within the City’s transportation network. Additionally, the adoption will allow the City to be eligible to apply for future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding for safety projects, including but not limited to locations identified by the plan as high priority.

BACKGROUND

City staff applied and received funding from Caltrans in the amount of $72,000 in 2020 to complete a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). Staff advertised and executed a contract with consultant Kimley-Horn in an amount not to exceed $80,000. In September of 2021, the progress of this project was presented to City Council and included a review of the draft technical memo.

Since this time, Kimley-Horn has completed the final LRSP report in collaboration with City staff and project stakeholders. This plan provides a comprehensive approach for addressing traffic safety which includes:
• A system wide analysis of crash data and trends for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular modes of travel
• Establishing recommended practices for continual monitoring of collision data • Identifying priority locations for roadway safety improvements and recommending safety countermeasures
• Creating a menu of traffic safety countermeasures for reducing collisions • Identifying grant opportunities for future funding of traffic safety projects The LRSP will provide a framework that will bring multiple benefits to the City, including

City Council Staff Report - Page 2 of 2
improvements to transportation safety, economic development, and the City’s positive image.

These improvements will result in a more livable community for residents and more inviting environment for businesses to thrive.

FISCAL IMPACT AND FUNDING SOURCE

No additional fiscal impact is anticipated at this time. Completion of the LRSP was provided by State grant funding in the amount of $72,000 and a local match of $8,000 provided by Measure A Maintenance.

ATTACHMENT(S)

1. Resolution

2. Exhibit A to the Resolution - Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan 2022

ITEM 9.2. ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. XX-2022 Page 1 of 1

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

RESOLUTION NO. XX-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA,

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA LOCAL ROAD

SAFETY PLAN

WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cordova received State grant funding in January 2020 in the amount of $72,000, with a local match of $8,000 for a project total of $80,000, to develop a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP); and
WHEREAS, the City entered into a professional services agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. in April of 2021 for engineering services to prepare the Rancho Cordova LRSP; and
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Safety Improvement Project (HSIP) requires agencies to have an approved LRSP to be eligible for traffic safety project funding; and WHEREAS, the completed LRSP has been reviewed by staff and is now recommended to City Council for adoption.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA that the Local Road Safety Plan attached hereto as Exhibit A is adopted.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cordova on the 22nd day of February, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST:

Donald Terry, Mayor

Stacy Leitner, CMC
City Clerk

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Page i

FINAL REPORT
FOR

CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
Prepared for:

City of Rancho Cordova
Public Works Department
2729 Prospect Park Drive
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670
Prepared by:

Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
555 Capitol Mall
Suite 300
Sacramento, CA
916-858-5800
This document, together with the concepts and designs presented herein, as an instrument of service, is intended only for the specific purpose and client for which it was prepared. Reuse of and improper reliance on this document without written authorization and adaptation by Kimley- Horn and Associates, Inc. shall be without liability to Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.  January 2022
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Page ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The City of Rancho Cordova employees and partners were instrumental in the development, review, and refinement of this Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). The City of Rancho Cordova and Kimley-Horn would like to express their appreciation to the supporting staff and partners for their participation and contributions.

City of Rancho Cordova
Byron Tang (Public Works)
Alyssa Swanson (Public Works)
Mark Atkins (Police Department)
Kenneth Gouveia (Police Department)
Victor Ramos (Maintenance)
Dennis Dunn (Maintenance)
Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District
Jeff Frye
Jenae Smith
Folsom Cordova Unified School District
Jim Huber
Scott Meyer
Sacramento Area Council of Governments
Sam Shelton
Community Partners
Austin Allen (Bicycle Advocates of Rancho Cordova)
Alicia Brown (Walk Sacramento)
Pristina Zhang (Walk Sacramento)
Consultant Team
Robert Paderna (Project Manager)
Amy Butler
Darryl DePencier
Molly O’Brien
Zachary Ramalingam
Matt Weir

STATUTORY NOTICE
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code - Section 409: Discovery and admission as evidence of certain reports and surveys
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway- highway crossings, pursuant to sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Page iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1.  Document Organization .................................................................................................. 2

2. VISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................. 3

3. PROCESS ................................................................................................................................ 4

3.1.  Guiding Manuals ............................................................................................................. 4

3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners ............... 5

3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual ....................................................................................... 5

3.2.  Analysis Techniques ....................................................................................................... 6

3.2.1. Crash and Network Screening Analysis .............................................................. 6

3.2.2. Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis ..................................................................... 7

3.2.3. Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion ................. 8

3.2.4. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) ......................................................... 8

4. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................................ 10

4.1.  Stakeholder Meetings ................................................................................................... 10

5. REVIEW OF CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS ............................................................................... 11

6. DATA SOURCES .................................................................................................................... 12

6.1.  Roadway Network ........................................................................................................ 12

6.2.  Intersections ................................................................................................................. 12

6.3.  Crashes ........................................................................................................................ 12

7. SAFETY TRENDS ................................................................................................................... 13

7.1.  Rancho Cordova K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes...................... 13

7.2.  Severity Level ............................................................................................................... 14

7.3.  Cause of Crash ............................................................................................................. 17

7.4.  Highest Occurring Crash Types ................................................................................... 17

7.5.  Lane Departure ............................................................................................................. 19

7.6.  Aggressive, Impaired, and Distracted Crashes ............................................................ 19

7.6.1. Aggressive Driving ............................................................................................. 19

7.6.2. Impaired Driving ................................................................................................. 20

7.7.  Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes ................................................................................... 22

7.7.1. Pedestrian Crashes ........................................................................................... 22

7.7.2. Bicycle Crashes ................................................................................................. 22

8. RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................. 24

8.1.  Engineering Countermeasures ..................................................................................... 24

8.1.1. Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) ................................................................... 24

8.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox ............................................................ 25

8.1.3. Project Sheets for Priority Locations .................................................................. 28

8.2.  Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures ........................................................................... 31

9. EVALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................................................... 33

9.1.  Evaluation ..................................................................................................................... 33

9.2.  Implementation ............................................................................................................. 33

9.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas ..................................................................... 33 23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Page iv

9.3.  Updates to the LRSP .................................................................................................... 34

9.3.1. HSIP Analyzer ................................................................................................... 35

9.3.2. HSIP Eligibility ................................................................................................... 35

9.4.  Funding ......................................................................................................................... 35

9.4.1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) ................................................. 36

9.4.2. Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) ................................................. 36

9.4.3. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) .......................................... 36

9.4.4. California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) ........................................................................... 37

9.4.5. California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants................................................. 37

9.4.6. SACOG Regional Funding Programs ................................................................ 37

10. NEXT STEPS .......................................................................................................................... 38

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A Matrix Review of Planning Documents
Appendix B Intersection Network Screening Results
Appendix C Segment Network Screening Results
Appendix D Cause of crash: primary collision factor from California vehicle code Appendix E Project Sheets
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Page v

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Crashes by Severity: KA ............................................................................................ 15 Figure 2 – Crashes by Severity: BCO ......................................................................................... 15 Figure 3 – Intersection K+SI Crashes Map ................................................................................. 16 Figure 4 – Crashes by Cause ..................................................................................................... 17 Figure 5 – Crashes by Type: Rear Ends, Broadsides and Sideswipes ...................................... 18 Figure 6 - Crashes by Type: Hit Object, Head On and Overturned ............................................ 18 Figure 7 – Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes ................................................................ 19 Figure 8 – Aggressive Driving K+SI Crashes Map ...................................................................... 21 Figure 9 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes ................................................................................ 22 Figure 11 – CMF Calculation ...................................................................................................... 24 Figure 12 – CMF Method Sample Calculation ............................................................................ 24 Figure 13 – CRF Calculation ....................................................................................................... 25 Figure 14 – Systemic Signalized Intersections Location Map ..................................................... 29

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – City K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes ......................................... 13 Table 2 – Crashes by Severity .................................................................................................... 14 Table 3 – Rancho Cordova Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox ......................................... 26 Table 4 – Priority Location Summary .......................................................................................... 30 Table 5 – Rancho Cordova Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox ................................ 32 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Page vi

LIST OF ACRONYMS
A Serious Inju ry Crash
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ADT Average Daily Traffic
ARIDE Advance Roadside Impaired Enforcement
ATP Active Transportation Program
B Non-incapacitating Injury Crash
BCR Benefit/Cost Ratio
C Possible Injury Crash
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR Critical Crash Rate
City City of Rancho Cordova
CMF Crash Modification Factor
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
CTC California Transportation Commission
DAC Disadvantaged Communities
DEV Daily Entering Volume
DRE Drug Recognition Expert
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HFST High Friction Surface Treatment
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
IIP Interregional Improvement Program
ITIP Interregional Transportation Improvement Program
K Fatal Crash
K+SI Fatal and Serious Injury Crashes
LPI Leading Pedestrian Interval
LRSM Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020)
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Page vii
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
O No Injury Crash (Property Damage Only)
OTS Office of Traffic Safety
PDO Property Damage Only
RIP Regional Improvement Program
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
R/W Right-of-Way
SACOG Sacramento Area Council of Governments
SB1 California Senate Bill 1
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SSAR Systemic Safety Analysis Report
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 20 22

1. I NTRODUCTION
The City of Rancho Cordova is located in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area, having a population of over 79,000 and covering a total area of nearly 35 square miles. Rancho Cordova is one of the largest employment centers in the Sacramento region and is also one of the fastest growing cities. The City’s transportation network includes 235 centerline miles of City-maintained roads and 80 traffic signals, the majority of which are located on key arterial and collector roadways.

This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify citywide trends, high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and locations with unusual crash patterns or high- crash severities. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to:
 Identify safety factors in the transportation network that may be challenging for all roadway users
 Improve safety at specific high-crash locations
 Develop safety measures aligning with the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Five Es of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, to encourage safer driver behavior and reduce fatalities and serious injuries
The process and analysis performed in development of the City’s LRSP, including establishing the initial vision and goals for the LRSP, performing crash history analysis, identification of emphasis areas and recommended engineering and non-engineering safety countermeasures are summarized in this LRSP. The information compiled will provide a foundation for decision making and prioritization for safety countermeasures and projects that enhance safety for all modes of travel within the City.

The City has already taken steps to enhance multi-modal safety throughout the City with completion of its Systemic Safety Analysis R eport (SSAR) and through this LRSP, is continuing to make safety a priority in its planning processes. The City builds upon the safety practices that have led to prioritizing traffic safety across its road network in this LRSP by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic recommendations that can be implemented to further enhance safety.

This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data that was available at the start of the project (January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019) and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

The intent of the LRSP is to:
 Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
 Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
 Develop lasting partnerships through collaboration among professionals in various disciplines encompassing the Five Es
 Support for grant/funding applications
 Assist in prioritizing investments in traffic safety
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

1.1. Document Organization
The LRSP is organized into the following sections:
 Section 1 provides an introduction to the LRSP.
 Section 2 presents the vision, goal, and objectives for the LRSP.  Section 3 summarizes the LRSP development process including guidance documents and analysis techniques.
 Section 4 presents the project stakeholders and stakeholder engagement.  Section 5 summarizes the review of City planning documents.  Section 6 contains the LRSP data sources.
 Section 7 provides a summary of safety trends.
 Section 8 includes recommended engineering and non-infrastructure countermeasures.  Section 9 summarizes the evaluation and implementation of the safety countermeasures.
 Section 10 identifies next steps.
 Appendices

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

2. V ISION, GOAL, AND OBJECTIVES
The Rancho Cordova LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers and passengers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of travel modes, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. This effort is intended to use historical data to identify trends and develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) maintains a list of Proven Safety Countermeasures.

The list currently has 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures, and LRSPs are included on the list of 20 Proven Safety Countermeasures. Implementati on of LRSPs has improved safety in local jurisdictions across the country by providing a guide for local jurisdictions to systemically address the conditions that lead to fatal and severe-injury crashes. They provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction.

Following discussions with city staff and a review of existing plans and policies for the area, the following Vision, Goal, and Objectives have been established for this LRSP.

Vision: Support the California vision of moving towards significantly reducing fatalities and serious injuries for all road users
Goal: Identify transportation safety initiatives (projects and programs) and partnerships under the 5 Es of traffic safety including Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies, to continue reducing fatalities and severe injuries in Rancho Cordova.

Objectives:  Identify major contributing factors to crashes and define priority locations for roadway safety improvements including pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular modes of travel
 Identify cost-effective countermeasures and safety investments that can be applied systemically (i.e., flashing yellow arrow, retroreflective backplates, leading pedestrian interval, etc.)
 Promote safe, equitable, and multimodal mobility opportunities  Create an LRSP document to capitalize on established safety initiatives and identify other strategies to prioritize safety investments  Document Rancho Cordova’s procedures for on-going crash data monitoring
 Utilize LRSP as a baseline to monitor crash trends and overall safety performance of City’s transportation network
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

3. P ROCESS
In support of the City of Rancho Cordova’s primary goal of ensuring a safe, inviting, and livable community, the City and its stakeholders have established a priority on providing safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. The City will continue its collaboration with stakeholders to identify and discuss safety issues within the community through the development of the LRSP and its implementation.

Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) level. Both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations to be included in a LRSP.

The FHWA encourages:
 The establishment of a working group (Stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP  Review crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern  Establish goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
 Establish leadership
 Analyze the safety data
 Determine emphasis areas
 Identify strategies
 Prioritize and incorporate strategies
 Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the vision, goal, and objectives for the LRSP; existing safety efforts; collision analysis; emphasis areas; and project sheets for priority locations. Furthermore, the development of the LRSP recommendations considers the Five Es of traffic safety defined by the California SHSP: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies throughout its process.

3.1. Guiding Manuals
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within the City at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. Using historic crash data, crash risk factors for the entire network are derived. The outcomes inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle crashes as well as active transportation users.

This process uses the latest National and State best practices for statistical roadway analysis described in the following sections.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

3.1.1. Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners The Local Roadway Safety: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) (LRSM) purpose is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying and analyzing safety issues, while preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through either a one-time, network wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.

According to the LRSM, “The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.”
To provide the most benefit and to be competitive for funding, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and be considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effectiv e safety countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio (BCR). The LRSM suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that considers both crash frequency and crash rates.

These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and systematic level.

Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are the peer reviewed product of before and after research that quantifies the expected rate of crash reduction that can be expected from implementation of a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under considerat ion, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply CMFs appropriately.

3.1.2. Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. This four-part manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.

Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the Network Screening process. The Network Screening Process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network and identify/rank locations that, based on the implementation of a countermeasure, are most likely to least likely realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.

The HSM identifies five steps in this process:

1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.

2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.

4. Select Screening Method: There are three principal screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.

5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.

The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high risk locations based on overall crash histories. In addition to identifying the total number of crashes, this LRSP uses a method referred to as Critical Crash Rate (CCR) to analyze the data.

3.2. Analysis Techniques

3.2.1. Crash and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four crash metrics:
 Number of Crashes
 CCR (HSM Ch. 4)
 Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion (HSM Ch. 4)  Equivalent Property Damage Only (HSM Ch. 4)
The initial steps of the crash analysis established sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type (Signalized and Unsignalized) and segments by their roadway category (Arterial, Collector, Minor Collector, and Local). Individual crash rates were calculated for each sub- population. The population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These sub-populations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are occurring.

The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. These crash type factors were:
 Crash severity - fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, and property damage only (PDO)
 Crash type - broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, and other
 Environmental factors – lighting and wet roads
 Driver behavior - impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, CCR, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area within the City to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety toolbox with mitigation measures that will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the City.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

3.2.2. Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Analysis
Reviewing the number of crashes at a location is a good way to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level but does not provide a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment on a daily basis. The HSM describes the CCR method, which provides a statistical review of locations to determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first step in analyzing for patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that location, and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging.

The CCR compares the observed crash rate to the expected crash rate at a particular location based on facility type and traffic volume using a locally calculated average crash rate for the specific type of intersection or roadway segment being analyzed. Based on traffic volumes and a weighted citywide crash rate for each facility type, a critical crash rate threshold is established at the 95% confidence level to determine locations with higher crash rates that are unlikely to be random. The threshold is calculated for each location individually based on its traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities.

Critical Crash Rate Formula
𝑅௖,௜ ൌ 𝑅௔ ൅቎ 𝑃ൈ ඨ 𝑅௔
𝑀𝐸𝑉௜
቏൅ ቈ 1
൫2 ൈ ሺ𝑀𝐸𝑉௜ ሻ൯቉
Where,
𝑅௖,௜ = Critical crash rate for intersection i
𝑅௔ = Weighted average crash rate for reference population 𝑃 = P-value for corresponding confidence level
𝑀𝐸𝑉௜ = Million entering vehicles for intersection i
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Data Needs:

CCR is calculated using:
 Daily Entering Volume (DEV) for intersections, or Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) for roadway segments
 Intersection control types to separate them into like populations  Roadway functional classification to separate them into like populations  Crash records in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) or tabular form including coordinates or linear measures
Strengths:
 Reduces low volume exaggeration
 Considers variance
 Establishes comparison threshold
Weakness:
 Does not account for regression to the mean bias
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

3.2.3. Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion When analyzing crash data systematically, it is important to identify areas where certain types of crashes are occurring with greater frequency. The HSM describes a method of identifying locations where probability of a specific crash type exceeds the threshold population. This method prioritizes locations based on the probability that the true proportion (long-term predicted proportion) of a type of crash or injury level will exceed the threshold proportion. The threshold proportion is based on the proportion of a specific crash type/severity to all crashes within the dataset (HSM, Chapter 4). This analysis identifies locations where certain crash types are over- represented to be isolated for further analysis.

3.2.4. Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The EPDO method is described in the HSM. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs). This value is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This value allows all locations to be co mpared based on injury crash costs (HSM, Chapter 4).

EPDO Formula:

𝐸𝑃𝐷𝑂 ൌ
ሺ𝑁ி ൅𝑁 ௌሻ ∗ 1,590,000 ൅ ሺ𝑁ை ∗ 142,300ሻ ൅ ሺ𝑁஼ ∗ 80,900ሻ ൅ ሺ𝑁௉஽ை ∗ 13,300ሻ 13,300
Where,
EPDO = Equivalent Property Damage Only (in units of crashes) NF = Number of fatal crashes
NS = Number of severe injury crashes
NO = Number of other visible injury crashes
NC = Number of complaint of pain crashes
NPDO = Number of PDO crashes

The cost to society for each crash type at unsignalized intersections is as follows:
 Fatal: $1,590,000
 Severe: $1,590,000
 Other Visible Injury: $142,300
 Complaint of Pain: $80,900
 PDO: $13,300
Source: Highway Safety Manual

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

As an example, as presented in Appendix E, the intersection of Coloma Road & Folsom Blvd experienced 67 crashes. The crashes are broken down by severity as follows: 0 fatal crash, 1 crash res
ulting in severe injuries, 3 crash resulting in other visible injuries, 20 crashes resulting in complaints of pain, and 43 PDO crashes.

𝐸𝑃𝐷𝑂 ൌ
ሺ0 ൅ 1ሻ ∗ 1,590,000 ൅ ሺ3 ∗ 142,300ሻ ൅ ሺ20 ∗ 80,900ሻ ൅ ሺ43 ∗ 13,300ሻ 13,300 ൌ 316
The 67 crashes of ranging severity that took place at the intersection of Coloma Road & Folsom Blvd comprise the monetary equivalent of 316 property damage only crashes. This intersection also has
a CCR value of 0.44. Together the EPDO and CCR values show that the intersection of Coloma Road & Folsom Blvd
has historically had a higher than average crash rate.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

4. S TAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT
As part of the LRSP, local stakeholders were included in the process to ensure local perspective was kept at the forefront of this planning effort. A stakeholder group comprised of City staff and external stakeholders was formed. This group consisted of members of City staff, the Sacramento Area Council of Government (SACOG), Bicycling Advocates for Rancho Cordova (BARC), and Walk Sacramento, as well as representatives from the Rancho Cordova Police Department and the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District.

The stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety concerns present in the City’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, the stakeholder group met in the field to observe “priority” locations and discuss potential countermeasures. The summary of the stakeholder meetings are outlined below.

4.1. Stakeholder Meetings
A project stakeholder workshop was conducted virtually on August 4, 2021. At the meeting, the LRSP stakeholder group was introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, data analysis approach, preliminary results and priority/emphasis areas.

In addition to the LRSP overview, stakeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge at 20 “priority” locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash analysis process.

The stakeholder group met in the field on October 13, 2021, at 10 “priority” locations selected based on the crash analysis and stakeholder input. This meeting provided an opportunity to perform a field
assessment and
offer another
opportunity to solicit
feedback from
members of the
multidisciplinary
stakeholder group.

Potential safety
countermeasures
for each location
were recommended
and discussed at
the field review
meeting.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

5. R EVIEW OF CITY PLANNING DOCUMENTS
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going within the City were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topi cs were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP.

The following planning documents were reviewed to obtain planned and programmed projects:
 Mobility Master Plan, 2019
 Capital Improvement Program, Fiscal Year 2016-2020
 Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), 2019
 Pedestrian Master Plan, 2011
 Bicycle Master Plan, 2016
 Metropolitan Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy, 2016  Sunrise/Folsom Blvd Safety Improvements Project (Currently in design)

A matrix identifying plans and improvements is included in Appendix A. The intent of this matrix is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City and to reveal projects that may impact the safety analysis process.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

6. D ATA SOURCES
The following data was obtained from the City for use in crash data analysis.

6.1. Roadway Network
The collision analysis, which is described in detail in Section 3, requires each corridor within the City to be classified. The City’s roadway network was categorized using Caltrans’ roadway classification system. The roadway network classification was assigned to each corridor roadway segment as either a major arterial, minor arterial, collector, and residential road to compare the functional design and capacity to better stratify analysis results, only comparing roadway segment safety performance with similar peer roadways (i.e., only major arterials are compared to major arterials).

6.2. Intersections
The crash analysis also required each intersection within the City to be classified by control type.

Intersections throughout the City were classified by control type as either signalized or unsignalized. The safety analysis also only compared intersection safety performance with similar control types (i.e., signalized intersections are only compared to signalized intersections) within the City.

6.3. Crashes
Crash data for the five-year period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 20191 was used for the crash analysis. Using data for the past five-year period is sufficient to identify potential trends in crashes by location and type, while not being outdated as to have data that would include long-term technology and cultural changes. The crash data comes from two sources: the City’s current crash database, Brazos, and the Crossroads database, both of which process crash records obtained from the City of Rancho Cordova’s Police Department. These databases contain law enforcement records and provide GPS coordinate data that can be used to geocode crashes into a Geographic Information System (GIS) format. The city used the Crossroads database until 2019, when it transitioned to the Brazos database. Data from both sources were used and reviewed to ensure that no double-counting occurred.

The Crossroads and Brazos crash data required preliminary cleaning and scrubbing to make it compatible with the GIS network screening tool. In total, there were 4,193 crash records in the combined Crossroads and Brazos databases from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019. Of these crashes, 3,763 crash records were geolocated and did not occur on private property.

1 Traffic volumes and patterns were irregular throug hout the majority of 2020 because of the COVID-19 pandemic.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

7. S AFETY TRENDS
The following sections contain the results of the analysis process which included evaluation of Rancho Cordova fatal and serious injury (K+SI) crashes to statewide K+SI crashes, among other evaluations including crash by severity level, cause, pedestrian, and bicycle crashes. Summary tables presenting the crash data analysis and network screening results for all intersections and roadway segments are provided in Appendix B and Appendix C, respectively.

7.1. Rancho Cordova K+SI Crashes Co mpared to Statewide K+SI Crashes The California SHSP focuses on 16 challenge areas identified by the SHSP Executive Leadership and Steering Committees after an in-depth analysis of California K+SI crash data as well as an extensive statewide outreach process that involved hundreds of diverse traffic stakeholders around the state. Crashes can be attributed to 12 of the 16 challenge areas. Table 1 contains a comparison of City K+SI crashes to the statewide K+SI crashes. Challenge areas where the City percentages were higher than the statewide percentages include pedestrians, aging drivers, aggressive driving, bicyclists, distracted driving, and intersections.

Table 1 – City K+SI Crashes Compared to Statewide K+SI Crashes California SHSP Challenge
Area
Rancho Cordova
Comparison to Statewide
Percentages
Rancho Cordova Statewide
Percentages
Pedestrians Higher 27.70% 19.1%
Aging Drivers (≥65) Higher 17.60% 11.9%
Aggressive Driving Higher 37.70% 33.2%
Bicyclists Higher 11.30% 8.4%
Distracted Driving Higher 7.50% 5.2%
Intersections Higher 25.20% 23.6%
Young Drivers (15-20) Lower 9.40% 13.6%
Impaired Driving Lower 21.40% 25.8%
Commercial Vehicles Lower 1.90% 6.4%
Occupant Protection (Seat
Belts, Helmets, Child Seats) Lower 6.90% 14.8%
Lane Departure Lower 35.20% 43.7%
Motorcyclists Lower 10.70% 20.8%

Source: Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (2015 – 2019).

Notes:

1. Percentages will not add up to 100%, as a fatality or serious injury could have involved multiple Challenge Areas (i.e., a young driver that was impaired and unrestrained)

2. California SHSP does not have reported crash data for the following three challenge areas: Driver Licensing, Emergency Response, Emerging Technology, and Work Zones ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

7.2. Severity Level
Knowing the impacts of the crash (the injuries or type of damage which occurred) is a key part of assessing the environment and safety factors around the site of the crash. Over the observed time period, there was a total of 12 fatal crashes and 71 crashes resulting in serious injuries, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 2 presents crashes by severity resulting in non-incapacitating injuries, possible injuries, and no injury (PDO). Table 2 below summarizes the crashes by severity for signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and segments.

The National Safety Council developed the “KABCO” injury scale, which is frequently used by law enforcement for classifying injuries:
 K – Fatal crash
 A – Serious injury crash
 B – Non-incapacitating injury crash
 C – Possible injury crash
 O – No injury (property damage only) crash

Table 2 – Crashes by Severity
Severity
Signalized
Intersection
Unsignalized
Intersection Segments Total
Crashes % Crashes % Crashes % Crashes %
Fatal 5 <1% 7 1% 0 0% 12 <1%
Severe Injury 31 2% 33 2% 7 2% 71 2%
Other Visible
Injury 130 6% 115 8% 29 8% 274 7%
Complaint of
pain 561 28% 312 22% 100 27% 973 26%
No Injury (PDO) 1278 64% 927 66% 228 63% 2433 65%
Total 2,005 53% 1,394 37% 364 10% 3,763
Source: Crossroads (2015 – 2019); Brazos (2019).

As summarized in Table 2, a high proportion (90%) of crashes in the City over the five year period occurred at intersections. Figure 3 illustrates the intersection K+SI crashes throughout the City.

A high proportion of the K+SI crashes occurred at facilities within the City’s disadvantaged communities (DAC)

2. 2 https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/sb535
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Figure 1 – Crashes by Severity: KA

Source: Crossroads (2015 – 2019); Brazos (2019).

Figure 2 – Crashes by Severity: BCO

Source: Crossroads (2015 – 2019); Brazos (2019).

Total: 12
Total: 71
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 K‐Fatal A‐ Severe Injury
Crashes
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Figure 3 – Intersection K+SI Crashes Map

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

7.3. Cause of Crash
As shown in Figure 4, the most frequent contributing factor for crashes was ‘Unsafe Speed’ (32%). The next most frequent factors were ‘Unsafe Lane Change’ (23%), ‘Traffic Signals and Signs’ violations (13%), and ‘Automobile R/W Violation’ (12%). The remaining causes made up approximately 20% of all crashes and included ‘Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs’ (7%), ‘Unsafe Starting or Backing’ (3%), ‘Unknown Causes’ (4%), and several others with percentages less than three percent. A breakdown of the CVC violation that corresponds with the PCF and the specific cause of crash is provided in Appendix D.

Figure 4 – Crashes by Cause

Source: Crossroads (2015 – 2019); Brazos (2019).

7.4. Highest Occurring Crash Types
According to reported data, approximately 4,193 crashes occurred within the City of Rancho Cordova during the five-year study period, of which 3,763 had clear, discernable spatial data that did not occur on private property. Figure 5 indicates that ‘Rear-End crashes are consistently the most common crash type within the City. The second most common crash types are ‘Broadside’ crashes, followed by ‘Sideswipe’ crashes. As shown, for these top three crash types, the majority of the crashes occurred at signalized intersections. Crash data for the other crash types are summarized in Figure 6.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 20 22

Figure 5 – Crashes by Type: Rear Ends, Broadsides and Sideswipes Source: Crossroads (2015 – 2019); Brazos (2019).

Figure 6 - Crashes by Type: Hit Object, Head On and Overturned Source: Crossroads (2015 – 2019); Brazos (2019).

Total: 1211
Total: 939
Total 607
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Rear End Broadside Sideswipe
Crashes
Unsignalized Signalized Segment
Total: 441
Total: 184
Total: 31
0 50
100
150
200
250
Hit Object Head  On Overturned
Crashes
Unsignalized Signalized Segment
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 20 22

7.5. Lane Departure
Caltrans defines crashes involving lane departure as those with crash types listed as ‘Head-On’, ‘Hit Object’, or ‘Overturned’. This also includes instances where a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the crash. There were 656 lane departure crashes over the study period within the City. Of the 656 lane departure crashes, zero were fatal, 12 were reported with severe injuries, 59 with non-incapacitating injuries, 107 with complaints of pain, and 434 with no injuries (PDO).

7.6. Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes
Figure 7 contains a summary of aggressive and impaired driving crashes by intersections and segments. Additional information is included in the following sections.

Figure 7 – Aggressive and Impaired Driving Crashes
Source: Crossroads (2015 – 2019); Brazos (2019).

7.6.1. Aggressive Driving
The California SHSP data definition for aggressive dr iving is a collision where primary collision factor violation category is unsafe speed, followi ng too closely, or traffic signals and signs, or where the other associated factor violation category is failure to heed stop signal, failure to heed stop sign, unsafe speed, reckless driving, or following too closely. There were 1,115 aggressive driving collisions between 2015-2019, accounting for 29% of collisions within the City of Rancho Cordova. Figure 8 contains a figure of aggressive driving K+SI collisions within the City.

Total: 1115
Total: 223
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Aggressive Impaired
Crashes
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 20 22

7.6.2. Impaired Driving
Collisions involving drugs or alcohol include all collisions where there was any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver. This is different from impaired driving statistics in that drivers do not need to exceed the legally defined threshold of intoxication to be counted. Caltrans considers any level of alcohol consumption to have the potenti al to impact driver responsiveness and decision making. Approximately 7% of collisions within City of Rancho Cordova were associated with alcohol or drugs. Two of the crashes resulted in fatalities and eight resulted in major injuries.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Figure 8 – Aggressive Driving K+SI Crashes Map

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

7.7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes
As shown in Figure 9, the majority of bicycle and pedestrian crashes are occurring at intersections as opposed to roadway segments. Pedestrian crashes are more prevalent at unsignalized intersections but occur at the same rate as bicycle crashes at signalized intersections. Figure 10 illustrates the locations of pedestrian and bicycle K+SI crashes within the City. Additional information on pedestrian and bicycle crashes is provided in the following sections.

Figure 9 – Bicycle and Pedestrian Crashes

Source: Crossroads (2015 – 2019); Brazos (2019).

7.7.1. Pedestrian Crashes
Over the span from 2015 to 2019, a total of 95 pedestrian-involved crashes occurred in the City.

Of the pedestrian-involved injury crashes, 5 were fatal, 21 were reported with severe injuries, 19 with non-incapacitating injuries, 42 with complaints of pain, and 9 with no injuries (PDO). Forty- two percent of crashes resulting in fatalities involved a pedestrian.

7.7.2. Bicycle Crashes
There were 101 bicycle-involved crashes that occurred in the City over the study period. Of the bicycle-involved injury crashes, none were fatal, 9 were reported with severe injuries, 45 with non- incapacitating injuries, 57 with complaints of pain, and 17 with no injuries (PDO). Furthermore, there were a total of 56 bike crashes which occurred within the City’s DACs.

Total: 95
Total: 101
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Pedestrian Bicycle
Crashes
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Figure 10 – Non-Motorized Crashes Map

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

8. R ECOMMENDATIONS
The following sections provide more information on potential engineering and non-infrastructure safety countermeasures that are likely to address conditions that were observed to contribute to crash activity in the City.

8.1. Engineering Countermeasures
While there are many safety countermeasures that could be used to systemically improve roadway safety, the following sections provide countermeasures for consideration by the City of Rancho Cordova. The following sections contain a description of Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) associated with the engineering countermeasures toolbox.

8.1.1. Crash Modification Factors (CMFs)
When identifying potential systemic safety improvements, it is important to look at CMFs for the proposed improvements. The CMF Method is found in Part D of the HSM. CMFs are defined as the ratio of effectiveness of one condition in comparison to another condition and represent the relative change in crash frequency due to a change in one specific condition. In other words, a CMF is a multiplicative factor used to compute the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site. Countermeasures with CMFs less than one are expected to reduce crashes if applied, while those countermeasures with CMFs greater than one are expected to increase crashes. Figure 11 illustrates the definition of CMFs.

Figure 11 – CMF Calculation

The CMF Method is used to calculate the expected number of crashes by taking the observed number of crashes and multiplying those crashes by the applicable CMF for the proposed countermeasure. It is recommended that CMFs be applied to a minimum of three years of crash data for urban and suburban sites and five years of crash data for a rural site. Figure 12 is a sample calculation of the CMF method with one CMF being applied to a particular site for a single year.

Figure 12 – CMF Method Sample Calculation

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is similar to a CMF but stated in different terms. A CRF is defined as a percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after the implementation of a given countermeasure at a specific site. Figure 13 presents how a CRF is calculated in relationship to a CMF.

Figure 13 – CRF Calculation

Caution should be used in the selection of appropriate CMFs. The following guidance should be considered when selecting CMFs for predictive crash analysis:
 CMFs should be selected from the HSM Part D, the LRSM, or from the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse.
 Read the countermeasure abstract to determine if the CMF is applicable to the proposed improvement.
 Only CMFs with a four-star rating or higher should be considered for use in analysis.  Be sure the selected CMF is applicable to the set of crash data being used for analysis.

Some CMFs may only be applicable to a subset of the crash data.  The application of multiple CMFs can overestimate the expected crash reduction. Unless each CMF addresses independent crash types, multiple CMFs should not be used. It is suggested that no more than three independent CMFs be applied to a particular site.

The countermeasures proposed in this document were chosen because of their effectiveness in reducing crashes.

8.1.2. Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox
The systemic improvements identif ied as most likely effective for the City are listed in Table 3, and include low-cost and higher-cost items that can be implemented in phases where appropriate.

The CMF indicates how effective the countermeasure is at reducing crashes. CMFs and CRFs have been provided for reference to aid the City in understanding potential reductions from crashes by different countermeasures.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Table 3 – Rancho Cordova Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CMF/CRF Applies to
Caltrans Funding
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Signalized Intersections
Install intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 100%
Retroreflective backplates 0.85 15% X 100%
Improve signal timing (coordination) 0.85 15% X 50% Advanced dilemma zone detection 0.6 40% X 100%
Install Left Turn Lane, Add Left Turn Phase 0.45 55% X 100% Protected left turn phase 0.7 30% X 100%
Convert signal from pedestal-mounted to mast arm 0.7 30% X 100% Install raised pavement markers and striping 0.9 10% X 100% Install signs with LED borders as advanced warning 0.7 30% X 100% (if beacons are utilized)
Install High Friction Surface Treatment (HFST) 0.45 55% X 100% Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 100% Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches X 0.65 35% X 90% Pedestrian countdown signal heads X 0.75 25% X 100% Pedestrian scramble X 0.6 40% X 100%
Advanced stop bar before crosswalk and bicycle box X X 0.85 15% X 100% Modify signal to provide a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) X 0.4 60% X 100% Flashing yellow arrow 0.94 6% X N/A
Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems (Cloud-based or GPS) 0.3 70% Emergency
Vehicles 100%
Unsignalized Intersection
Add intersection lighting 0.6 40% X 100%
Install all-way STOP control 0.5 50% X 100%
Convert intersection to roundabout Varies Varies X 100% Install/upgrade intersection warning/regulatory signs 0.85 15% X 100% Upgrade pavement markings 0.75 25% X 100%
Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersections 0.85 15% X 100% ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Countermeasure
Also Addresses Crash
Modification
Factor (CMF)
Crash Reduction
Factor (CRF)
CMF/CRF Applies to
Caltrans Funding
Pedestrian Bicycle All Nighttime Pedestrian and
Bicycle
Install signs with LED borders as advanced warning 0.7 30% X 100% (if beacons are utilized)
Clear sight triangles 0.8 20% X 90%
Install HFST 0.55 55% X 100%
Install splitter-islands on minor road approaches 0.6 40% X 100% Install raised median on approaches 0.75 25% X 90% Directional median openings to restrict turning movements 0.5 50% X 90% Reduced Left-Turn Conflict (R-CUT) intersections 0.5 50% X 90% Install right-turn lane 0.8 20% X 90%
Install left-turn lane 0.65 35% X 90%
Pedestrian refuge island X 0.55 45% X 90%
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features X 0.65 35% X 100% Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) X 0.65 35% X 100% Pedestrian Signal or Pedestrian High Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) X 0.45 55% X 100%
Retroreflective strips on sign posts Not Available Not Available X Crosswalk lighting X 0.6 40% X 100%
Colored bicycle lanes X 0.61 39% X
Curb extensions X 0.63 37% X
Segments
Add segment lighting 0.65 35% X 100% $$
Remove or relocate fixed object outside of Clear Recovery Zone 0.65 35% X 90% $$$ Install impact attenuators 0.75 25% X 100% $$
Install pedestrian median fencing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Install bike lanes X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) X X 0.65 35% X 90% $ Install raised pedestrian crossing X X 0.65 35% X 90% $$ Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) X X 0.65 35% X 100% $$ Speed feedback signs (mobile or fixed) X X Not Available Not Available X Opportunity for OTS $

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

8.1.3. Project Sheets for Priority Locations
From the citywide analysis, six project case study locations and one systemic signalized intersections project were selected for further analysis and development of safety improvement recommendations. For each of these priority locations, project sheets were developed to provide a case study to organize projects when applyi ng for funding. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, the observed crash patterns, and their differing characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.

Each project sheet includes location maps with an aerial, crash data summary, and list of recommended safety countermeasures with corresponding CMFs, number of crashes anticipated to be reduced, 10-year crash reduction estimate and benefit, and planning level construction cost estimates. The potential safety countermeasures identified reflect safety improvements that can be applied to reduce the likelihood of future crashes. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment to determine their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure(s), and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history. These project sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities.

Table 4 presents a summary of the potential safety countermeasures identified for each of the priority locations listed below and corresponding benefit/cost. A project sheet was developed for each of the priority locations containing additional information and are included in Appendix E.  Mather Field Road & Paseo Drive/Folsom Boulevard
 Coloma Road and Folsom Boulevard
 Coloma Road and Sunrise Boulevard
 Routier Road and Mills Station Rd
 McGregor Drive and Zinfandel Drive
 Grant Line Road between Raymer Road and White Rock Road (Segment) A map presenting the 47 intersections included in the systemic signalized intersection safety improvements/upgrades project is provided in Figure 14.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

`
2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Figure 14 – Systemic Signalized Intersections Location Map

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Table 4 – Priority Location Summary
Location Potential Countermeasures B/C
Install Retroreflective Backplates 280
Install median fencing to discourage jaywalking (east leg) 1,066 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed
approaches 224
Advanced Stop Bars (NB approach) in advance of railroad tracks, add "Keep Clear" pavement markings 2,809
Implement leading pedestrian interval (LPI) 2,127
Install Green paint at vehicle/bicycle conflict zones. Install hatched pavement marking between center and right-turn only lanes (NB approach) to reinforce not bike lane.
682
Lane reconfiguration of NB approach to eliminate right-turns from shared center lane -
Install Retroreflective Backplates 153
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed
approaches 84
Advanced Stop Bars to encourage drivers to stop in advance of crosswalks for added safety of crossing pedestrians. Provide bike box for bicyclists making SB left-turn
1,168
Implement leading pedestrian interval (LPI) 662
Install Green paint at vehicle/bicycle conflict zones 280 Pedestrian-activated pedestrian crossing blankout sign installed far-side on southwest corner (facing SB traffic) 92
Refresh striping (yellow), install high visibility striping 1,056 Install additional overhead-mounted 3-section signal head (EB and WB approaches), retroflective backplates 48
Evaluate lane reconfiguration of SB approach to eliminate right- turns from shared center lane -
Install Retroreflective Backplates 180
Install Green paint at vehicle/bicycle conflict zones 3 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed
approaches 180
Advanced Stop Bars to encourage drivers to stop in advance of crosswalks for added safety of crossing pedestrians 20
Implement leading pedestrian interval (LPI) 19
Install additional overhead-mounted 3-section signal head on Coloma Rd approaches 103
Install yield lines in advance of crosswalks at uncontrolled crossing (EB and WB free right turns) 2,538
Add Raised Delineators along left-turn lane at NB mid-block median opening to restrict access from driveway on east side of Sunrise
131
Install No U-Turn sign at NB mid-block median opening 25,281 Mather Field Road / Paseo Drive &
Folsom Boulevard
Coloma Road & Folsom Boulevard
Coloma Road & Sunrise Boulevard

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Table 4 – Priority Location Summary (continued)
Location Potential Countermeasures B/C
Install RRFB or Pedestrian HAWK signal 1
Enhanced street lighting along Routier Rd at Mills Station Rd intersection 19
All-way stop control conversion 886
Install intersection ahead and pedestrian crossing advanced warning signage on NB approach 690
Install additional speed limit signage 3,667
Install additional speed limit pavement markings 5,743 Install oversized STOP signs 2,245
Improved intersection lighting 48
Install high visibility marked crosswalks 442
Install advanced STOP ahead warning singage 2,245
Install advanced STOP ahead warning pavement markings 10,351 Retroflective strips on posts 4,041
Roundabout (Recommendation from SSAR) 2
Install edgeline rumble strips 48
Install centerline rumble strips 90
Add reflective strip on sign posts and new fluorecent sheeting on all signs 20
Upgrade chevron signs on horizontal curve (both directions) with LED enhanced treatment 24
Grant Line Road from Raymer Way
to White Rock Road
Routier Road & Mills Station Road
McGregor Drive & Zinfandel Drive

8.2. Non-Infrastructu re Countermeasures
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Countermeasures that Work, Ninth Edition, is a reference to assist safety stakeholders in selecting effective, science-based non- infrastructure traffic safety countermeasures for major highway safety problem areas. While many of the countermeasures are more appropriate to apply at the state-level or require legislative modifications to implement, Table 5 contains countermeasures that have demonstrated effectiveness and could be applied at the City level. Access to Drug Recognition Experts (DREs) and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training for law enforcement is not included in the document but is something that could also be considered for the City. These non-infrastructure countermeasures can be implemented through securing grant funding such as California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants and other federal, state, and regional funding programs presented in Section 9.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

Table 5 – Rancho Cordova Non-Infrastructure Countermeasures Toolbox Countermeasure Effectiveness Cost to
Implement Use Time to
Implement
Impaired Driving
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints ***** $$$ Medium Short
High-Visibility Saturation Patrols **** $$ High Short
Occupant Protection (Seat Belts, Helmets, Child Seats)
Short-term high visibility
enforcement
***** $$$ Medium Medium
Integrated nighttime seat belt
enforcement
**** $$$ Unknown Medium
Distracted Driving
High visibility cellphone/text
messaging enforcement
**** $$$ Low Medium
Effectiveness:
***** Demonstrated to be effective by several high quality evaluations with consistent results **** Demonstrated to be effective in certain situations Cost to Implement:
$$$ Requires extensive new facilities, staff, equipment, or publicity, or makes heavy demands on current resources $$ Requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity $ Can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment, facilities, and publicity †Can be covered by income from citations
Use:

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

Long: More than 1 year
Medium: More than 3 months but less than 1 year
Short: 3 months or less
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

9. E VALUATION AND IMPLEMENTATION

9.1. Evaluation
The success of the LRSP will be evaluated using the preliminary process outlined below. This process will be useful to ensure proper implementation of goals and to determine when updates are needed.
 Quarterly progress meetings are recommended to be conducted to track the implementation of the plan. In addition, the success of the plan will be evaluated on a reoccurring basis.
 An update to the plan should be considered after five to seven years.  Continued monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways by law enforcement.
 Maintain a list of focus areas where there are transportation safety concerns, based on historical crash data.

9.2. Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP can be accomplished through several avenues including development of projects, the establishment of new policies and programs, and development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders.

With regard to projects, the following identifies potential focus areas for the City in the near-to- mid-term.

9.2.1. Near- and Mid-Term Focus Areas
The opportunities identified in this LRSP provide more of the systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, it is recommended that the City concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas:
 Pedestrians
 Aging Drivers
 Aggressive Driving
 Bicyclists
 Distracted Driving
 Intersections
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to K+SI crashes within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this LRSP for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying citywide crash rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct crash history, but with conditions and risk factors that might contribute to future crashes.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

9.3. Updates to the LRSP
The following steps outline the process for updating the City’s LRSP every 5 to 7 years. 1) Access necessary data
 Roadway and intersection classification/configurations  Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volumes (Collected from counts where available)  Collision history
2) Network screening
 Calculate the CCR for each roadway functional classification and intersection control type
 Rank for each facility type
i) Roadway Segment
(1) Primary
(2) Secondary
(3) Local
ii) Intersection
(1) Signalized
(2) Unsignalized
3) Select locations
 Identify the location with a higher CCR than what is typical of comparable facility types within City
 Analyze the collision history and work with local officials to understand any significant exterior influences on the location
4) Countermeasures
 Using the Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox ( Table 3) and Non-Infrastructure Toolbox (Table 5), identify potential countermeasures that can be applied to the local to enhance safety features
5) Develop a Project Sheet that can serve as a template for analyzing future locations 6) Calculate the benefit and the cost of each applicable countermeasure using Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) tool and LRSM countermeasures. If those are not available, refer to other resources such as the CMF Clearinghouse and follow a similar calculation (using 20-year cost and benefit numbers). See more information in the section HSIP Analyzer below.

The LRSP has completed steps 1 through 6. In subsequent years, the City can begin at step 1 to continue the LRSP process. Additional items the City can do to keep the LRSP current are:
1) When new or reconstruction projects arise, use the data processed to identify locations with similar characteristics and apply countermeasures which proved effective 2) Proactively update its roadway and traffic st andards to address systemic safety issues identified in the LRSP
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

9.3.1. HSIP Analyzer
As of 2021, the preferred way to calculate the BCR for the HSIP program uses Caltrans HSIP Analyzer tool in the form of an active PDF. The PDF tool contains 4 sections which are used to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio for the Highway Safety Improvement Program.

This tool can be accessed on the Caltrans website at:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety- improvement-program/apply-now
Projects appropriate for other state grant programs can be analyzed using the Life-Cycle Benefit Cost Analysis Model (CalB/C) which has a mu ch more comprehensive benefit assessment tool set.

9.3.2. HSIP Eligibility
Per Chapter 9 of the Highway Safety Improvement Program, funds are eligible for projects that improve the safety of its users on any public road or publicly owned bicycle or pedestrian pathway or trail, or on tribal lands for general use of tribal members.

HSIP looks for safety projects that can be designed and constructed expeditiously and do not require significant acquisition of rights-of-wa y. Proposed projects should not require extensive environmental review and mitigation. Additional information on the HSIP project selection criteria can be accessed online at:
 Benefit Cost Ratio Applications
https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-
assistance/documents/hsip/2020/hsipanalyzerinstructions2020bcr.pdf

 Funding Set-asides (Non-Benefit Cost Ratio Applications) https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/local-
assistance/documents/hsip/2020/hsipanalyzerinstructions2020sa.pdf HSIP project eligibility is subject to the California SHSP. The SHSP identifies statewide challenge areas that correspond to safety concerns at the statewide level and potential countermeasure to address them and determine HSIP project eligibility. SHSP’s are developed in compliance with FHWA requirements. A list of eligible project types can be seen in the current HSIP Analyzer.

More information can be accessed online at the Caltrans HSIP grant website:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety- improvement-program/apply-now

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

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

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

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level is available at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California sp ecific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects – is available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.

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

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

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

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

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

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

9.4.6. SACOG Regional Funding Programs
The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) provides funding allocation for various multi-modal transportation projects in the Sacramento region. Projects that are considered for this regional funding program must be eligible for CMAQ, RSTP, or STIP funds.

Performance outcomes which are considered for selection include those which:
 Reduce regional VMT per capita
 Reduce regional congest VMT per capita
 Increase multi-modal or alternative travel choices
 Provide long term benefits, sustaining both rural and urban economies  Improve movement of goods, in and through the region
 Improve safety and security
 Maintain and improve upon the existing transportation system ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022

10. N EXT STEPS
The City of Rancho Cordova has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. The data-driven analysis process identified crash types, related primary crash factors, and locations of many crashes. Based on this process, emphasis areas were identified. These emphasis areas will guide traffic safety improvements, education programs, and capital improvements for the City.

Using the analyzed data and outputs from this LRSP, the City will:
 Apply for HSIP grant funding for safety improvements throughout the City that address the various emphasis areas identified, including intersections and vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists)
 Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users  Collaborate with established stakeholders and neighboring municipalities (i.e. Sacramento County) as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network  Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design and operate a safer transportation network in Rancho Cordova  Complete annual review of safety data
The City also plans to have the City Council formally approve and adopt this LRSP. Based on current Caltrans guidelines, the City will plan to update the LRSP in five years in 2026.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Appendix

APPENDIX A

MATRIX REVIEW OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

ID Document  Name Year Agency Document  Description Transportation  Improvements / Policies Safety 1 Mobility  Master Plan 2019 City of Rancho
Cordova
Describes how the City will prioritize
and leverage existing resources and
new mobility trends to provide a
transportation system that best meets
the needs of residents, visitors, and
employees over the next 20 years.
‐ Enhance bus stops
‐ Pilot on‐demand shuttle services (SmaRT Ride)
‐ Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Programming: inform the public of public transportation options ‐ Results from online survey conducted by the City show which areas the public wants to be adressed
‐Lighting, bike facilities, and pedestrian crossings need improvement 2 Five‐year Capital Improvement
Plan 2016‐2020 2016 City of Rancho
Cordova Current project
‐Includes list of projects for funding years 15/16 and 16/17. See appendix for list of projects
3 General Plan 2006 City of Rancho
Cordova
Serves as a blueprint for future
growth and development
‐ Rancho Cordova estimated to add
approximately 53,000 new housing units and
41,000 new jobs from 2006 to 2030
‐See attached recommended bike network
‐Requires grade separated crossings at key locations
‐Implement regular street sweeping program
‐Goal is to reduce bike crashes by 50% from 2006 to 2026 ‐Develop improvement standards for at‐grade pedestrian crossings (e.g., pedestrian bulb outs, markings, special paving, lighting, signage) 4 P
edestrian Master Plan 2011 City of Rancho
Cordova
Reviews demand for pedestrian
infrastructure and identifies key
safety issues
‐Add pedestrian crossings of Highway 50; create pedestrian accessible transit stops and connections to them. See Ped Improvements map in the appendix ‐ Implement ADA Transition plan,  retrofit street corners, crossings, and transit stops that do not meet current accessibility standards; ‐Annually review pedestrian complaints and crashes to implement ongoing improvements at intersections;
‐At high safety risk intersections, consider “smart” signals to improve intersection safety and convenience for pedestrians, and pedestrian/bicycle activated signals that allow bikes and pedestrians to cross busy streets without inviting traffic onto cross streets;
‐Routier road is a heavily trafficed pedestrian route. Pedestrian signals and crosswalks should be provided on all legs of every signalized intersection. In addition, the City will consider larger corner pedestrian plazas, pork chop islands, and median pedestrian refuges so that intersections are more attractive for pedestrian use.
5 SSA
R Study Final 2019 City of Rancho
Cordova
Reviews  2013‐2017 crash data and
gives prioritized list of safety projects
‐Recommended that Sunrise Blvd and Folsom Blvd be the subject of focus (See excerpt in the appendix for specific countermeasures)
‐See pages 111‐112 for locations of intersections needing improvements 6 Bicycle  Master Plan 2016 City of Rancho
Cordova
Contains goals, policies, and actions
related to transportation and mobility
‐ Recommends targeted enforcement, bicycle traffic law education, better wayfinding signs, speed feedback signs and trailers, bicycle detection at actuated traffic signals. ‐ See attachments: page 55 has a list of priority projects, pg 118 for Community Input ‐ 10% of all vehicle crashes from 2010‐2016 were bicycle related ‐Broadside collisions were the most common type of crash ‐Bicycling on the wrong side of the road was a contributing cause for 40%  of collisions
7 Metropolitan Transportation
Plan / Sustainable Communities
Strategy
2016 SACOG Summarizes regional development
priorities
and 20‐year investment
‐Projections indicate significant growth in the region by 2036 and identify significant investments in transit to reduce per capita vehicle miles ‐2016 MTP/SCS Online Map shows proposed projects such as Folsom Blvd Complete Street, RR crossing improvement for Folsom at Bradshaw, Routier, Mather Airfield Road,  Routier and Zinfandel, Mather Rails to Trails Project, Horn Light Rail Station, Routier Road Widening
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

ID Document  Name Year Agency Document  Description Transportation  Improvements / Policies Safety 8A D A  Transition Plan 2005 City of Rancho
Cordova
Strategy to achieve long‐range goals
to meet State and Federal
‐See pgs 84 & 129: the city plans to retrofit crosswalks and sidewalks at specific intersections every year until 2025.
‐ Goals: Identify safety patterns, trends, and "hot spots" and appropriate solutions ‐ Prioritization factors for projects include: lighting presence, crash history, proximity to existing traffic safety countermeasures, proximity to schools, presence

of sidewalk, existing bike network, existing transit stops, equity, and funded city plans
‐Focuses on local streets and refers arterial issues to Capital Improvement Program 9 Sunrise/Folsom Safety
Improvements Project In Progress City of Rancho
Cordova
Improvement plans identified from
HSIP Cycle 9
‐Speed feedback and  video detection systems at intersections along the Sunrise Blvd and Folsom Blvd corridors
10 Director's Policy 37: Complete
Streets 2021 Caltrans Caltrans aims to support projects that include Complete Streets elements
All projects funded or overseen by Caltrans must provide facilites that support multimodal transportation and complete streets design criteria 11 Rancho Cordova Safe Routes to
School Master Plan Report 2020 City of Rancho
Cordova
The report identifies potential
infrastructure projects and program
activities that could improve student
safety and support walking and
bicycling to school
‐Identifies low, medium and high cost project locations ‐Report identifies potential funding sources and eligibility ‐Recommendations are made for challenge areas at schools throughout the city, suggesting efforts such as targeted enforcement, parent education, improved striping, and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs)
‐Class IV Bike lane was constructed along Routier, as seen in the field visit ‐125 bicycle related crashes occurred from 2014 to 2018, 36 of which occurred in school areas
‐20 school area bike crashes occurred along Coloma Road ‐Folsom Blvd was the corridor with the most pedestrian crashes ‐Bicycling on the wrong side of the road was the leading primary collision factor for bicyclist involved crashes
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova LRSP - Draft Tech Memo.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP August 2021
Appendix
APPENDIX A-1
EXCERPT OF MOBILITY MASTER PLAN, RANCHO CORDOVA (2019)

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

RANCHO CORDOVA TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN
Online Survey Analysis
Question 6 Analysis
Survey question: Is there anything else you would like to tell us that would help the City of Rancho Cordova better serve the mobility needs of Rancho Cordova residents, employees, and visitors? Purpose of this analysis: What were the key takeaways from the responses to this question? Category Key Takeaways
Older Adults & Person
with Disabilities
 Need a service geared towards seniors and persons with disabilities. Paratransit can have long wait times.

Street Lights & Traffic  Street light timing along Sunrise Blvd needs to be reassessed  Douglas Road near Sunridge Park, at Timberland, and Elmanto Drive may need a street light.

Transit Operations &
Coverage
 Desire for more frequent, reliable transit with reduced travel times  Consider later hours for weekdays and weekends
 Consider expanding the CordoVan or adding a new local services that serves:
o Business park shuttle for employees
o Network gaps in Mather Independence and Anatolia area Affordability  More affordable transit. Consider fareless system.

Bus Stops  Enhance bus stops with shelters
 Cleaner, safer bus stops
 More convenient bus stops, particularly at:
o New development sites
o New shopping center
o From Rancho Murieta down Jackson Hwy
Bike Facilities  More off road bike paths and bike lanes.  Improve access to and extend the existing bike trail
 Safe bike routes to get people to other mass-transit hubs (e.g. light rail stations).  Improve safety and awareness with signage and painted bike lanes  More secure bike parking at public places such as parks, hospitals, light rail stations Pedestrian Facilities  Sidewalks at:
o Pedro, Charbono, Barbara and Aramon Ways
o Folsom Blvd to Hazel
 ADA compliant sidewalks with curb ramps
Bike & Ped Crossings  Safer bike crossing at White Rock Rd.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Category Key Takeaways
 Safer crossings at:
 Hwy 50 on Zinfandel
 Sunrise Blvd
 Consider bike/ped bridges:
o Across river nearer to Carmichael
o Over Sunrise between Gold River and Sun River
Roads  Repair roads
 More roadway connections between:
o Rancho Cordova Parkway to Douglas
o Kiefer Blvd, Mat her Blvd, and Douglas Road
TOD  TOD development along light rail
 Develop retail and dining near Anatolia/Kavala Ranch to reduce trips.

Safety and Comfort  Safety concerns
o In older parts of Rancho Cordova
o Along Folsom Blvd
o Near Mather field exit area
o At Zinfandel light rail station
 Add security at bus stops and light rail stations
 Clean light rail stations and vehicles
 More lighting
Wayfinding &
Information
 More of the new directional signs
 Lack of education about what services are available
Emerging Mobility  Promote rideshare
 More EV charging
 Need dynamic transportation
 Limebike
Enforcement  More enforcement for speeding, running red lights, running stop signs, blocked bike lanes, bike laws
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova LRSP - Draft Tech Memo.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP August 2021
Appendix
APPENDIX A-2
EXCERPT OF PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN, RANCHO CORDOVA (2003)

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

MATCHLINE FOR MAP BMATCHLINE FOR MAP B

M A T H E R F I E L D
50 INTERNATIONAL DR

WHITE ROCK RD

ROUTIER RD

DOUGLAS RD

MATHER FIELD RD

ZINFANDEL DR

MATHER BLVD

DATA DR

S T O N E C R E E K
N . M A T H E R

C A M P U S

PRO POSED

PRO M EN ADE
OVER HW Y 5 0¹
A
M

ERICAN RI VER BI K
E
T
R
A
IL

AAMMEERRIICCAANN RRIIVVEERR

FOLSOM SOUTH CANALFOLSOM SOUTH CANAL

FOLSOM BLVD

SUNRISE BLVD

COLOMA RD
ZIN

FANDEL DR

WHITE ROCK RD

ROUTIER RD

OLD PLACERVILLE RD

WHITE ROCK RD

BRADSHAW RD
50 AMBASSADOR DR
R

OSSMOOR DR

COLOMA RD

DATA DR

KILGORE RD

MCGREGOR DR
ARAM
ON DR

HORN RD

OLSON DR

CHASE DR

ROD BEAUDRY DR

BENITA DR

LINCOLN VILLAGE DR

QUALITY DR

BEAR HOLLOW DR

EXPLORER DR

VIKING DR

MERCANTILE DR

CORDOVA LN

BUSINESS PARK DR

SYSTEMS PKWY

CORDOVA LN

PEDESTRIAN

IMPROVEMENTS
X:\GIS_STAFF\PROJECTS\PUBLIC_WORKS\TRAILS\Bicycle_and_Pedestrian_MP\Pedestrian_Improvements_8x11.mxd March 2011

SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS

EXISTING MIDBLOCK CROSSING

PROPOSED MID BLOCK CROSSING

WALKWAY UPGRADES

REQUESTED LIGHTING IMPROVEMENTS

SIDEWALK REPAIR LOCATION

SIDEWALK INFILL OPPORTUNITY

PROPOSED CLASS I BIKE PATH / WALKWAY

EXISTING CLASS I BIKE PATH/WALKWAY

EXISTING CITY BIKE ROUTE

PROPOSED CITY BIKE ROUTE

EXISTING OVERCROSSING

EXISTING UNDERCROSSING

INTERCHANGE WITH PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
0 0.5 1
Miles
¹ See the Rancho Cordova Bicycle Master Plan for Additional Grade Separation and Class I Trail Project Locations.

FIGURE 5.1
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova LRSP - Draft Tech Memo.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP August 2021
Appendix
APPENDIX A-3

EXCERPT OF SYSTEMIC SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT (SSAR),
RANCHO CORDOVA (2019)

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Systemic Safety Analysis Report, City of Rancho Cordova, CA 1 1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to document the results of the preparation of a Systemic Safety Analysis Report (Report) for the City of City of Rancho Cordova. The study included reviews of the most recent five years of collision data (2013-2017), ADT traffic data, and field review of roadway characteristics.

The report also provided analysis of the City’s road network, signage of bicycle/pedestrian areas, and the effectiveness of existing safety measures. In addition, the Report identified high-risk corridors and intersections, and recommended proactive safety countermeasures. The Report also provide a prioritized list of viable safety project recommendations with high benefit/cost ratios, and which are eligible for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding and/or other safety-related funding programs.

SUMMARY
The City reviewed the 5-year
collision data for five major
corridors in the City as shown in
Exhibit 1:
• Sunrise Boulevard
• Folsom Boulevard
• Zinfandel Drive
• Olson Drive
• Coloma Road
After extensive review of high
collision locations and corridors,
trends and primary collision factors
etc., it was evident that the most
effective solution is to focus on two
of the five corridors since both of the
corridors carry some of the highest
average daily traffic (ADT) volumes in the City and both corridors also showed the highest number of collisions and rates:
• Sunrise Boulevard
• Folsom Boulevard
Collisions Trends
The total collisions of the two corridors are 605 and 490, respectively for Sunrise Boulevard and Folsom Boulevard. A synthesis of the citywide 5-year SWITRS collision data for both corridors was conducted to survey collision trends and predominant types of collisions. A summary of results of the cumulative collisions for types of collisions and primary collision factors for both corridors:

Sunrise Boulevard - the nine (9) mile north-south corridor, the collision trends are as follows:
• Majority are rear-ended and sideswipe co llisions (47% and 21 % respectively). • Driving at unsafe speed (45%) and improper turning (15%) are key collision factors.

Folsom Boulevard - the eight (8) mile east-west corridor showed the following collision trends:

Exhibit 1: Study Corridors
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Systemic Safety Analysis Report, City of Rancho Cordova, CA 2 • Majority are rear-ended and broadside co llisions (39% and 25 % respectively). • Driving at unsafe speed (36%) and improper turning (16%) are key collision factors. • Pedestrians and bike collisions (11%).

Roadway Issues
An extensive evaluation of
the collision d
ata was conducted followed with field review of both corridors to observe general driver behavior along the two roadways. Both corridors are used differently by drivers and the resulting collision trends and types showed the inherent issues or deficiency of the roadway operations;
 Sunrise Boulevard – drivers travelled at high speed and there are several tight horizontal curves.  Folsom Boulevard – pedestrians crossing to train stations and train preemptions at intersections frequently created long queues and conflicts of pedestrians and bikes.

Selected Projects and B/C Ratio
Based on the analysis and feedback from City staff and stakeholders, the following are potential low- cost countermeasures based on results of Cost/Benefit analysis of various countermeasures. The methodology for calculating Benefit/Cost ratios was based on HSIP Analyzer (Version May 11, 2018) for Cycle 9.

Sunrise Boulevard
There are two applications or projects recommended for this corridor: Common BCR Application and Set- aside for High Friction Surface Treatment. A summary of the results of the B/C Calculations based on the HSIP Analyzer for both projects are shown below:

Sunrise Boulevard - Common BCR Application
No. Countermeasure
Name Benefit Cost Resulting B/C
1 S9 14,208,230 $345,231 41.2
2 R30 26,322,726 $388,385 67.8
3 S2 $9,360,462 $575,385 16.3
Entire Project $49,891,41 8 $1,309,000 38.1
Sunrise Boulevard - Set-aside for High Friction Surface Treatmen t Application
No. Countermeasure
Name Benefit Cost Resulting B/C
1 S11 18,459,642 $2,253,200 8.2
Entire Project 18,459,64 2 $2,253,200 8.2
Folsom Boulevard
A summary of the results of the B/C Calculations for the proposed project or application for the corridor based on the HSIP Analyzer is shown in Table 6.

Sunrise Boulevard - Set-aside for High Friction Surface Treatment Application No. Countermeasure
Name
Benefit Cost Resulting B/C
1 S3 $9,584,876 $201,397 47.6
2 S9 11,979,374 $280,517 42.7
3 S21 $2,972,544 $805,587 3.7
Entire Project 24,5 36,794 $1,287,500 19.1
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

HSIP Analyzer

Version Date: May 11, 2018
Application ID:
3 III.1 List of Project Locations and Location Groups
List all locations/sites included in this project by groups. The locations entered in Table III.1 below will be automatically populated in the crash data tables in III.2.

Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into groups.

Table III.1 List of Project Locations by Groups

Highlighted fields must be filled in. For each group:
1) Must select a Location Type;
2) Initially each group has one location line. Click "+"/"-" to add a new line/delete an existing line; 3) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto-populated in III.2. *Note: If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g. 10 stop controlled intersections, 5 horizontal curves, etc., as long as they have similar features and the safety improvements to be implemented are the same.

No. No. in
Group
Location Description
(Intersection Name or Road Limit or General Description) GROUP 1 Select Location Type: S (Signalized Intersections) +
- 1 G1-1 Gold Country Blvd
+
- 2 G1-2 Trinity River Dr-Gold Express Dr
+
- 3 G1-3 Coloma Rd
+
- 4 G1-4 Zinfandel Dr
+
- 5 G1-5 SR 50
+
- 6 G1-6 Folsom Blcd
+
- 7 G1-7 Trade Center Dr
+
- 8 G1-8 White Rock Rd
+
- 9 G1-9 International Dr-Monier Cir N
+
- 10 G1-10 Douglas Rd
GROUP 2 Select Location Type: S (Signalized Intersections) +
- 11 G2-1 Sun Center Dr-Sunrise Gold Cir S
+
- 12 G2-2 Sunrise Park Dr
+
- 13 G2-3 Fitzgerald Rd
+
- 14 G2-4 Mechanical Dr
+
- 15 G2-5 Herodian Dr
+
- 16 G2-6 Chrysanthy Blvd
+
- 17 G2-7 Bosphorus Dr
+
- 18 G2-8 Kiefer Blvd
+
- 19 G2-9 SR 16-Jackson Rd
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

HSIP Analyzer

Version Date: May 11, 2018
Application ID:

GROUP 3 Select Location Type: R (Roadways)
+
- 20 G3-1 S Bridge St to Trinity River Dr-Gold Express Dr +
- 21 G3-2 Trinity River Dr-Gold Express Dr to Folsom Blvd +
- 22 G3-3 Folsom Blvd to White Rock Rd
+
- 23 G3-4 White Rock Rd to SR 16-Jackson Rd
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova LRSP - Draft Tech Memo.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP August 2021
Appendix
APPENDIX A-4
EXCERPT OF BICYCLE MASTER PLAN, RANCHO CORDOVA (2016)
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Setti ng the Course: Implementation | 5-4 Table 5-4: Priority 1 Projects
Location Start End Type Mile Est. Cost
Aerojet Spur Trail Westborough Trail Citrus Rd Aeroject Spur Connector Trail
Path 0.39 $1,097,820
Americanos Trail Jaeger Ranch Trail West Trail Path 5.88 $16,752,420 Anatolia Bike Trail Sunrise Blvd Anatolia Bike Trail Path 0.66 $1,751,500 Anatolia Bike Trail
Connection To Preserve
Trail
Anatolia Bike Trail Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Path 0.07 $182,500
Capital Center Dr White Rock Rd International Dr Protected Bikeway

0.57 $1,622,300
Chase Dr Hagen Park Bike Path
Trail Connection
Octavia Way Protected
Bikeway

0.16 $459,600
Chase Dr Octavia Way Coloma Rd Protected
Bikeway

0.41 $1,164,200
Citrus Rd Aeroject Spur
Connector Trail
Aerojet Spur Trail Sunrise Blvd Trail Path 0.64 $1,823,580 Folsom Blvd Rod Beaudry Dr Routier Rd Protected
Bikeway

0.20 $581,200
Hagen Park Bike Path
Trail Connection
Chase Dr American River Bike
Trail
Path 0.14 $371,000
Jaeger Ranch Trail Kiefer Blvd Trail Am ericanos Trail Path 1.24 $3,542,400 Kiefer Blvd Trail The Arboretum Trail Jaeger Ranch Trail Path 0.22 $640,980 Kilgore Rd Folsom Blvd Trade Center Dr Bike Lane 0.23 $19,300 Mills Park Dr Folsom Blvd White Rock Rd Bike
Boulevard

0.46 $240
Preserve Trail (West) Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (East)
Americanos Trail Path 1.57 $4,153,000
Rio Del Oro Trail Americanos Trail City Limits Path 1.10 $2,907,500 Rio Del Oro Trail City Limits Grant Line Rd Path 0.69 $1,826,500 Rio Del Oro Trail West Trail Americanos Trail Path 1.40 $3,704,500 Rio Del Oro Trail West Trail Folsom South Canal
Trail
Path 0.54 $1,418,500
Rod Beaudry Dr End Folsom Blvd Protected
Bikeway

0.63 $1,791,500
Routier Rd Folsom Blvd Old Placerville Rd Protected
Bikeway

1.42 $4,040,700
Stone Creek / Rdo
Recycle Rd Trail
Folsom South Canal
Trail
Recycle Rd Path 0.12 $317,000
Stone Creek Trail W Airpark Dr N Mather Blvd Path 0.52 $1,369,500 The Arboretum Trail Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail Path 1.20 $3,434,400
UP Rail Spur Folsom Blvd Old Placerville Rd Path 1.36 $3,598,000 Upper Laguna Creek
Trail
Jackson Rd Kiefer Blvd Tr ail Path 5.24 $14,928,840
West Trail Douglas Rd Aerojet Spur Trail Path 3.50 $9,974,340 Westbourough Trail Aerojet Spur Trail City Limits Path 1.56 $4,120,000 White Rock Rd S White Rock Rd Capital Center Dr Protected Bikeway

0.22 $615,400
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

PROJECT LIST,

COSTS AND

FUNDING
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-1 Appendix D

PROJECT LIST, COSTS

AND FUNDING
This appendix presents a list of recommended infrastructure projects, cost estimates, and a review of funding sources that may be available to implement the projects in this Plan.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-2

PROJECT LIST AND COST ESTIMATES
Table D-1 lists all the recommended infrastructure projects with assigned priority and estimated cost.

Table D-1: Project List and Cost Estimates
Location Start End Type Priority Mile Est. Cost
Aerojet Spur Trail Folsom South Canal Crossing 2 TBD
Aerojet Spur Trail Westborough Trail Citrus Rd Aeroject Spur Connector
Trail
Path 1 0.39 $1,097,820
Ambassador Dr Ambassador Dr Hagen Park
Connector Trail
Bike Route 2 0.13 $720
Ambassador Dr Ambassador Dr Yukon River Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.01 $720 Americanos Blvd Rc Pkwy Crossing 2 $1,738,000
Americanos North
Trail
Westborough Trail Westborough East
Trail
Path 2 0.72 $1,890,000
Americanos Spur
Trail
Jaeger Ranch Trail End Path 2 0.08 $206,000
Americanos Trail Americanos Blvd Crossing 2 $1,342,000 Americanos Trail Chrysanthy Blvd Crossing 2 $1,738,000 Americanos Trail Douglas Rd Crossing 2 $1,716,000
Americanos Trail Jaeger Ranch Trail West Trail Path 1 5.88 $16,752,420 Americanos Trail Rc Pkwy Crossing 2 $1,738,000
Americanos Trail Rio Del Oro Pkwy Crossing 2 $1,342,000 Americanos Trail Villagio Dr Crossing 2 $1,056,000
Americanos Ulcc
Connector Trail
Americanos Trail Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Path 2 0.75 $2,134,620
Anatolia /Preserve
Trail (West)
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Crossing 2 $1,738,000
Anatolia Bike Trail Sunrise Blvd Anatolia Bike Trail Path 1 0.66 $1,751,500 Anatolia Bike Trail
Connection To
Preserve Trail
Anatolia Bike Trail Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Path 1 0.07 $182,500
Anatolia Dr Justinian Dr Herodian Dr Bike Lane 2 1.25 $21,300 Anatolia Iv Trail Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
End Path 2 0.34 $907,000
Anatolia Preserve
Trail
Crystal Cove Trail Anatolia Bike Trail Path 2 0.55 $1,448,000 Ancil Hoffman
Trail
American River Crossing 2 TBD
Anza Way El Manto Dr Bridlewood Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.28 $420 Aramon Dr Milazzo Way Chassella Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.30 $1,440 Atwood Dr Beclan Dr Cordova Ln Bike Boulevard 2 0.18 $960 Azienda Dr Baroque Dr Oselot Way Bike Route 2 0.08 $480 Bardolino Trail Spoto Dr Bardolino Trail Path 2 0.08 $216,500 Beclan Dr Aramon Dr Atwood Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.33 $1,920 Benita Dr Pinturo Way Zinfandel Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.32 $960 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-3 Location Start End Type Priority Mile Est. Cost
Biscay Way Cordova Ln Glenfaire Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.05 $480 Blodgett
Reservoir Trail
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail Path 2 0.84 $2,226,500
Bridlewood Dr Coloma Rd Zinfandel Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.52 $1,440 Campana Way Glenfaire Dr Pinturo Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.44 $960 Capital Center Dr White Rock Rd International Dr Protected Bikeway
1 0.57 $1,622,300
Capitales Dr W La Loma Dr La Loma Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.28 $960 Chardonay Dr Coloma Rd Dolecetto Dr Bike Route 2 0.07 $480 Chase Dr Hagen Park Bike
Path Trail
Connection
Octavia Way Protected
Bikeway
1 0.16 $459,600
Chase Dr Octavia Way Coloma Rd Protected
Bikeway
1 0.41 $1,164,200
Chassella Way Aramon Dr Zinfandel Dr Bike Route 2 0.34 $480 Chassella Way Dolecetto Dr Aramon Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.27 $480 Chrysanthy Blvd
Trail
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail
Montelena Preserve
Trail
Path 2 0.42 $1,098,500
Citrus Rd Aeroject
Spur Connector
Trail
Aerojet Spur Trail Sunrise Blvd Trail Path 1 0.64 $1,823,580 Citrus Rd Aeroject
Spur Connector
Trail
Folsom Blvd Crossing 2 $1,661,000
Coloma Rd Coloma Rd Cordova Ln Signage 2 0.01 $720
Coloma Rd Coloma Rd Georgetown Dr Signage 2 0.11 $720
Cordova Ln Biscay Way Milazzo Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.10 $480 Corvina Dr Corvina Dr Muscat Way Bike Route 2 0.24 $480 Crawford Way Gould Way Glenmoor Dr &
Glenmoor Dr
Bike Boulevard 2 0.17 $480
Croetto Way Malaga Way Furmint Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.26 $480 Crystal Cove Trail Kiefer Blvd Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Path 2 1.11 $2,937,500
Dave Roberts Park
Trail
Mapola Way Mapola Way Path 2 0.10 $262,000
Dawes Creek Trail American River Bike
Trail
Dawes Creek Trail
@ Pkwy Limits
Path 2 0.69 $1,809,000
Dawes Creek Trail Dawes Creek Trail
@ Pkwy Limits
Aramon Dr Path 2 1.56 $4,117,000
Dawes St Los Palos Dr Folsom Blvd Bike Route 2 0.40 $480 Dawes St Rinda Dr Los Palos Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.36 $480 Dolecetto Dr Chassella Way Chardonay Dr Bike Route 2 0.06 $480 Dolecetto Dr Dawes St Gilbert Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.23 $240 Dolecetto Dr Tormolo Way Chassella Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.44 $240 Douglas Rd Borderlands Dr Americanos Blvd Bike Lane 2 0.22 $4,800 Douglas Rd Fsc Crossing 2 TBD
Douglas Rd Trail Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (South)
Grant Line Rd Path 2 2.02 $5,332,000
El Cejo Cir El Pavo Way El Chorlito Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.16 $480 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-4 Location Start End Type Priority Mile Est. Cost
El Chorlito Dr El Cejo Cir W La Loma Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.26 $960 El Manto Dr Coloma Rd End Bike Boulevard 2 0.35 $480
El Manto Dr El Manto Dr Coloma Rd Bike Boulevard 2 0.26 $480 El Pavo Way W La Loma Dr El Cejo Cir Bike Boulevard 2 0.18 $480 Ellenwood Ave Routier Rd Nut Plains Dr Bike Route 2 0.46 $1,440 Folsom Blvd Hwy 50 Crossing 2 TBD
Folsom Blvd Rod Beaudry Dr Routier Rd Protected
Bikeway
1 0.20 $581,200
Folsom Blvd-
Citrus Rd Trail
800' East Of Point
East Dr
Citrus Rd Aeroject
Spur Connector
Trail
Path 2 0.20 $521,000
Folsom South
Canal
Sunrise Blvd Crossing 2 $1,100,000
Folsom South
Canal Trail
Anatolia Bike Trail Crossing 2 TBD
Folsom South
Canal Trail
International Dr Crossing 2 TBD
Folsom South
Canal Trail
Jackson Hwy Crossing 2 TBD
Folsom South
Canal Trail
Kiefer Blvd Crossing 2 TBD
Folsom South
Canal Trail
Sunrise Gold Cir Crossing 2 $539,000
Folsom South
Canal Trail
White Rock Rd Crossing 2 $1,100,000
Furmint Way Malaga Way Croetto Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.16 $960 Gadsten Way Queenwood Dr Zinfandel Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.30 $480 Gilbert Way Dolecetto Dr Malaga Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.24 $480 Glenfaire Dr Biscay Way Campana Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.05 $480 Glenhaven Way Cordova Ln Queenwood Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.32 $960 Glenmoor Dr Crawford Way Ellenwood Ave Bike Route 2 0.10 $480 Glenmoor Dr Rockingham Dr &
Smithlee Dr
Crawford Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.22 $480
Gould Way Crawford Way Ellenwood Ave &
Ellenwood Ave
Bike Boulevard 2 0.11 $480
Grant Line Rd Trail Jackson Rd Rio Del Oro Trail Path 2 6.30 $16,634,500 Hagen Park Bike
Path Trail
Connection
Chase Dr American River Bike
Trail
Path 1 0.14 $371,000
Hwy 50 Fs Canal Crossing 2 TBD
Hwy 50 East Of Hazel Crossing 2 TBD
Hyw 50 Sunrise Blvd Trail
(Citrus Road)
Crossing 2 TBD
International Dr 850' East Of Kilgore
Rd
400' West Of
Sunrise Blvd
Signage 2 0.05 $720
Jaeger Ranch
Connector Trail
Jaeger Ranch Trail Americanos Ulcc
Connector Trail
Path 2 0.87 $2,303,500
Jaeger Ranch
Kiefer Connector
Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail Jaeger Ranch
Connector Trail
Path 2 0.50 $1,313,500
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-5 Location Start End Type Priority Mile Est. Cost
Jaeger Ranch Trail Kiefer Blvd Trail Am ericanos Trail Path 1 1.24 $3,542,400 Jeager Ranch Trail Americanos Blvd Crossing 2 $1,342,000 Jeager Ranch Trail Central Park Dr Crossing 2 $858,000 Jeager Ranch Trail Crossing Rd Crossing 2 $858,000
Jeager Ranch Trail Kiefer Blvd Crossing 2 $1,716,000
Jeager Ranch Trail Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Crossing 2 $1,342,000
Kiefer Blvd Trail Jaeger Ranch Trail Grant Line Rd Trail Path 2 1.41 $3,723,500 Kiefer Blvd Trail Sunrise Blvd The Arboretum Trail Path 2 0.69 $1,829,000 Kiefer Blvd Trail The Arboretum Trail Jaeger Ranch Trail Path 1 0.22 $640,980 Kilgore Rd Folsom Blvd Trade Center Dr Bike Lane 1 0.23 $19,300 Klamath River Dr Trinity River Dr Trinity River Dr Bike Boulevard 2 1.92 $1,920 La Placita Dr W La Loma Dr La Loma Dr Bike Route 2 0.30 $960 La Presa Way Las Casas Way Los Palos Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.13 $480 Las Casas Way La Presa Way W La Loma Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.46 $960 Levee Rd End El Cejo Cir Bike Route 2 0.03 $480
Los Amigos Dr Los Palos Dr Paseo Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.40 $480 Los Palos Dr La Presa Way Dawes St & Dawes
St
Bike Boulevard 2 0.08 $480
Malaga Way Capitales Dr & La
Loma Dr
Aramon Dr Bike Boulevard 2 1.42 $1,440
Malvasia Dr Sarda Way Chassella Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.14 $480 Mather Field Rd Mather Field Rd El Mercado Dr Signage 2 0.04 $720 Mather Field Rd Mills Station Rd Folsom Blvd Signage 2 0.16 $720 Mather UP Rail
Spur Trail
Old Placerville Rd Crossing 2 $1,716,000
Mather UP Spur
Trail
Folsom Blvd Crossing 2 $1,661,000
Mather UP Spur
Trail
Hwy 50 Crossing 2 $3,500,000
Mercantile Dr Sunrise Gold Cir Folsom Blvd Bike Lane 2 1.09 $89,800 Milazzo Way Aramon Dr Cordova Ln Bike Boulevard 2 0.21 $480 Mills Park Dr Croetto Way Folsom Blvd Bike Boulevard 2 0.12 $240 Mills Park Dr Folsom Blvd White Rock Rd Bike Boulevard 1 0.46 $240 Mills Tower Dr White Rock Rd Mills Park Dr Bike Lane 2 0.68 $56,100 Montelena
Preserve Trail
Chrysanthy Blvd
Trail
Chrysanthy Blvd
Trail
Path 2 1.11 $2,935,500
Morison Creek
Trail
Douglas Rd Crossing 2 $1,738,000
Morrison Creek
Trail
Americanos Trail Rio Del Oro Trail Path 2 1.59 $4,190,500 Morrison Creek
Trail
West Trail Americanos Trail Path 2 2.59 $6,829,000
Nimbus Rd Folsom Blvd City Limits Bike Lane 2 0.67 $55,500 North Trail West Trail White Rock Rd Trail Path 2 0.96 $2,547,500 Nut Plains Dr Rockingham Dr Ellenwood Ave Bike Route 2 0.35 $1,200 Olson Dr Zinfandel Dr Bike Lane 2 0.67 $55,800
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-6 Location Start End Type Priority Mile Est. Cost
Park Loop Spur
Trail
Park Loop Trail End Path 2 0.08 $200,000
Park Loop Trail Americanos Trail Amer icanos Trail Path 2 2.79 $7,377,500 Park West Trail Americanos Trail International Dr Path 2 0.56 $1,474,000 Paseo Dr Malaga Way Mather Field Rd Bike Route 2 0.24 $480 Peter A Mccuen
Blvd
Mather Blvd Femoyer St Bike Lane 2 0.94 $77,600
Pinturo Way Benita Dr Campana Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.11 $480 Preserve
Connector Spur
Trail
Preserve Connector
Trail
End Path 2 0.34 $888,000
Preserve
Connector Trail
Preserve Trail (East) Jaeger Ranch Trail Path 2 0.66 $1,741,500 Preserve Trail
(Central)
Preserve Trail
(West)
Path 2 1.26 $3,316,500
Preserve Trail
(East)
Crystal Cove Trail Americanos Trail Path 2 1.78 $4,704,500 Preserve Trail
(West)
Chrysanthy Blvd Crossing 2 $1,342,000
Preserve Trail
(West)
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (East)
Americanos Trail Path 1 1.57 $4,153,000
Preserve Trail
Central
Chrysanthy Blvd Crossing 2 $473,000
Preserve Trail East Chrysanthy Blvd Crossing 2 $473,000 Promanade Hwy 50 Crossing 2 $16,500,000
Queen Arbor Dr
Trail
Bardolino Trail Spoto Dr Path 2 0.42 $1,101,500
Queenwood Dr Gadsten Way Glenhaven Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.14 $480 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Interchange
West Trail
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (North)
Westborough Trail Path 2 0.26 $733,860
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail
Douglas Rd Crossing 2 $1,738,000
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (East)
Preserve Trail
(West)
Douglas Rd Path 2 0.92 $2,417,500
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (North)
White Rock Rd Trail Westborough Trail Path 2 1.83 $5,222,880 Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (North)
White Rock Road Crossing 2 $1,716,000
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (South)
Anatolia Bike Trail
Connection To
Preserve Trail
Rio Del Oro Trail Path 2 1.91 $5,033,000
Rc Parkway
Connector Trail
Westborough Trail Folsom South Canal
Trail
Path 2 0.08 $218,500
Ribier Way Dolecetto Dr Malaga Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.22 $480 Rinda Dr Westborough Fsc
East Trail
Chase Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.34 $480
Rio Del Oro
Morrison Creek
Connector Trail
Rio Del Oro Trail Morrison Creek Trail Path 2 0.05 $129,500 Rio Del Oro Trail Americanos Dr Crossing 2 $1,342,000 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-7 Location Start End Type Priority Mile Est. Cost
Rio Del Oro Trail Americanos Trail City Limits Path 1 1.10 $2,907,500 Rio Del Oro Trail Centennial Dr Crossing 2 $1,342,000 Rio Del Oro Trail City Limits Grant Line Rd Path 1 0.69 $1,826,500 Rio Del Oro Trail East Residential Rd Crossing 2 $858,000 Rio Del Oro Trail Grant Line Rd Crossing 2 $1,716,000 Rio Del Oro Trail Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Crossing 2 $605,000
Rio Del Oro Trail Sunrise Blvd Crossing 2 $1,738,000
Rio Del Oro Trail West Trail Americanos Trail Path 1 1.40 $3,704,500 Rio Del Oro Trail West Trail Folsom South Canal
Trail
Path 1 0.54 $1,418,500
Rockingham Dr Glenmoor Dr &
Smithlee Dr
Nut Plains Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.24 $1,440
Rockingham Dr Routier Rd Smithlee Dr Bike Route 2 0.23 $1,440 Rod Beaudry Dr End Folsom Blvd Protected
Bikeway
1 0.63 $1,791,500
Routier Rd Folsom Blvd Old Placerville Rd Protected
Bikeway
1 1.42 $4,040,700
Routier Rd Hwy 50 Crossing 2 TBD
Sarda Way Malvasia Dr Malaga Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.25 $480 Smithlee Dr Rockingham Dr Glenmoor Dr &
Rockingham Dr
Bike Route 2 0.04 $480
Stirling Park Dr Rod Beaudry Dr West End Bike Lane 2 0.14 $11,500 Stirling Park
Dr/Mira Del Rio
Connector
Stirling Park Dr Mira Del Rio Dr Path 2 0.28 $742,500
Stone Creek / Rdo
Recycle Rd Trail
Folsom South Canal
Trail
Recycle Rd Path 1 0.12 $317,000
Stone Creek
Central Trail
Zinfandel Dr Crossing 2 $2,860,000
Stone Creek Trail
Se Connection To
Fsc
Stone Creek Trail
East
Folsom South Canal
Trail
Path 2 0.03 $82,000
Stone Creek Trail
W
Airpark Dr N Mather Blvd Path 1 0.52 $1,369,500
Stone Creek Trail
W Connection To
International Dr
Stone Creek Bike
Trail
International Dr Path 2 0.01 $39,500
Stonecreek Se
Trail
Zinfandel Dr Crossing 2 $1,716,000
Stonecreek/Rio
Recycle Rd
Connector
At Fsc Crossing 2 $990,000
Suncreek West
Connector Trail
Sunrise Blvd Kiefer Blvd Trail Path 2 0.31 $811,000
Suncreek West
Trail
Suncreek West
Connector Trail
The Arboretum
West Trail
Path 2 0.55 $1,456,000
Sunridge East
Trail
West End City Limits Path 2 1.00 $2,633,500
Sunridge Ne Trail Americanos Trail Grant Line Rd Trail Path 2 0.77 $2,031,500 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-8 Location Start End Type Priority Mile Est. Cost
Sunrise Blvd Kiefer Blvd Jackson Rd Bike Lane 2 1.36 $112,800 Sunrise Blvd Trail Folsom South Canal Bus Turnaround At North End Of Citrus
Rd
Path 2 0.66 $1,750,000
Sunrisge Ne Trail Americanos Blvd Crossing 2 $1,342,000 The Arboretum
Trail
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail Path 1 1.20 $3,434,400
The Arboretum
West Trail
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Kiefer Blvd Trail Path 2 1.18 $3,102,500
Tormolo Way Dolecetto Dr Malaga Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.18 $480 Trinity River Dr Coloma Rd Klamath River Dr Bike Lane 2 0.04 $3,200 Trinity River Dr Klamath River Dr Sunrise Blvd Bike Lane 2 0.08 $6,700 Truckee River Dr Klamath River Dr Bridlewood Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.08 $480 Ulcc Jackson Hwy
Connector
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Jackson Rd Path 2 0.04 $121,500
Ulcc Kiefer Blvd
Connection Trail
Crossing Rd Crossing 2 $1,144,000
Ulcc Kiefer Blvd
Connection Trail
Waegell Pkwy Crossing 2 $1,144,000
Ulcc Kiefer Blvd
Connector Trail
The Arboretum Trail Kiefer Blvd Trail Path 2 2.09 $5,505,500 Ulcc Kiefer Blvd
Connector Trail
Spur (North)
Ulcc Kiefer Blvd
Connector Trail
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Path 2 0.05 $121,000
Ulcc Kiefer Blvd
Connector Trail
Spur (South)
Ulcc Kiefer Blvd
Connector Trail
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Path 2 0.01 $32,500
Ulcc Trail Arboretum Pkwy Crossing 2 $1,243,000
UP Rail Spur Folsom Blvd Old Placerville Rd Path 1 1.36 $3,598,000 Upper Laguna
Creek Connection
Folsom South Canal Crossing 2 TBD
Upper Laguna
Creek Connection
Sunrise Blvd Crossing 2 $1,738,000
Upper Laguna
Creek Fsc
Connection Trail
Sunrise Blvd Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Path 2 0.14 $371,500
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Grant Line Rd Crossing 2 $1,100,000
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Jackson Hwy Crossing 2 $1,100,000
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Jackson Rd Kiefer Blvd Trai l Path 1 5.24 $14,928,840
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Kiefer Blvd Crossing 2 $847,000
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy
Crossing 2 $1,100,000
Upper Laguna
Creek Trail
Sunrise Blvd Crossing 2 TBD
Viking Dr Lincoln Village Dr Explorer Dr Bike Lane 2 0.39 $32,600 W La Loma Dr Capitales Dr El Pavo Way Bike Boulevard 2 0.41 $1,440 West Trail Douglas Rd Aerojet Spur Trail Path 1 3.50 $9,974,340 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Pr oject List, Costs and Funding | D-9 Location Start End Type Priority Mile Est. Cost
West Trail International Dr Crossing 2 $1,716,000
West Trail White Rock Rd Crossing 2 $1,716,000
Westborough East
Trail
Easton Valley Pkwy Crossing 2 $1,716,000
Westborough East
Trail
Rancho Cordova
Pkwy Trail (North)
Westborough Trail Path 2 2.13 $5,635,500
Westborough Trail Americanos
Blvd/Mercantile Dr
Crossing 2 $539,000
Westborough Trail Rc Pkwy Crossing 2 TBD
Westbourough
Trail
Aerojet Spur Trail City Limits Path 1 1.56 $4,120,000
White Rock Rd S White Rock Rd Capital Center Dr Protected Bikeway
1 0.22 $615,400
White Rock Rd Zinfandel Dr City Limits Bike Lane 2 4.51 $373,200 White Rock Rd
Trail
West Trail Park Loop Trail Path 2 1.34 $3,535,000
Whiterock Park
Overcrossing
Hwy 50 Crossing 2 TBD
Woodberry Way Croetto Way Mills Pa rk Dr Bike Route 2 0.15 $720 Yukon River Way Ambassador Dr Klamath River Dr Bike Boulevard 2 0.10 $240 Zinfandel Dr Folsom Blvd Alicante Way Bike Lane 2 0.06 $4,800 Zinfandel Dr Gold Center Dr White Rock Rd Bike Lane 2 0.12 $9,600 Zinfandel Dr Length Of Turn
Lane
Folsom Blvd Study 2 0.04 $15,000

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

COMMUNITY
INPUT
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Community Input | E-1
Appendix E

COMMUNITY INPUT

This Appendix includes comments received from residents, community groups, and stakeholder agencies on the Public Draft of the Rancho Cordova Bicycle Master Plan.

Comments were received at a public workshop, a meeting of the Bicycle Advocates of Rancho Cordova (BARC), on the Nextdoor neighborhood social media platform, or via email from residents or official groups.

Source Topic or
Location Comment or Noted Priority
BARC
Meeting
White Rock Road
at Folsom South
Canal
Improve the Folsom South Canal and White Rock Road connection BARC
Meeting
Make connections on both ends of Ambassador
BARC
Meeting
White Rock Road
and Data Drive
Improve bike detection at Data and White Rock Road
BARC
Meeting
Trade Center
Drive and Sunrise
Improve connectivity along Trade Center Dr and bike detection @ WB Trade Center and Sunrise
BARC
Meeting
Capital Village Capital Village driveway from WB to SB needs detection BARC
Meeting
Klamath River Dr Do not want a bike boulevard along Klamath River - too narrow, too many side streets.

BARC
Meeting
Klamath River Dr Bike boulevard along Klamath River is an important bypass to the American River Parkway.

BARC
Meeting
Desire for wayfinding signage
BARC
Meeting
Improve bike parking
BARC
Meeting
Construct a connection from the Stone Creek Trail to Mather Blvd BARC
Meeting
Douglas Rd widening
BARC
Meeting
City has the best 4th of July
BARC
Meeting
City has been very approachable in the past
BARC
Meeting
Ambassador Dr There is a bad connection at the east end of Ambassador Drive.

BARC
Meeting
Ambassador Dr The connection at the west end of Ambassador Drive does not function well for bikes, has poor jogs and bad sight lines.

BARC
Meeting
El Cejo Circle at
American River
Parkway
The connection to the American River Parkway at El Cejo Circle (Levee Road) near Rod Beaudry is poor and needs improvement.

Part of the connection is a gravel road.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Community Input | E-2
Source Topic or
Location Comment or Noted Priority
BARC
Meeting
Folsom South
Canal Trail
Is there a way to provide maintenance (weed control) along the Folsom South Canal Trail? There are mega goatheads (flat tires) and the problem gets even worse south of Jackson Highway. There was some unofficial conversation about just having the City go out and take care of it. Residents also volunteered to help out if equipment could be provided.

BARC
Meeting
Coloma Rd from
Trinity River Dr to
Sunrise Blvd
The bike striping on Coloma Road between Trinity River Drive and Sunrise Boulevard is in bad shape. Please restripe.

BARC
Meeting
Data Dr and
White Rock Rd
Need bike detection at Data Drive and White Rock Road.

BARC
Meeting
Trade Center Dr Need better connectivity along Trade Center Drive. Missing about 200 feet of bike lane on west leg at Sunrise Boulevard. Also, there is no detection going WB at that intersection
BARC
Meeting
Capital Village There is no detection in the left turn pocket exiting Capital Village in front of Chilies going south on Zinfandel Drive.

BARC
Meeting
Klamath River Dr Klamath River Drive is not a good place for a bicycle boulevard.

Email Costs How is bicycle signage only $3,700?
Email Costs How were cost estimates made?
Email Design I am excited to see all the new class 1 paths proposed in our area! The one we have now is great, it would just be nice to have more and to be able to connect to the rest of the system.

The one improvement I would suggest is to make sure that drinking fountains are included throughout. I have used our path in Anatolia for running and would love if there were a drinking fountain at one of the ends of the path.

Email Enforcement:

American River
Bike Trail
I support expanding and improving our infrastructure for cyclists. I think it's good for our residents and good for our environment.

However, I hope the city will step up and increase enforcing laws among cyclists. The American River Parkway has been completely taken over by speeding cyclists. Many people no longer feel safe using the mixed use paths due to the speeding. That includes families and the elderly that no longer feel safe walking, and recreational bike riders like myself no longer feeling safe. The topic has come up multiple times in community boards. Existing speed limits on these trails needs to be enforced, and speeds limits through crowded areas should perhaps be reduced. In addition, many people now avoid the mixed use trails and try to stay on the turf walking trails for a safe way to still enjoy the American River Parkway, but now illegal offroad bike riders are taking over these paths as well. They are riding fast up and down hills with blind turns and have struck multiple people and dogs. This is unsafe and is now making it unsafe for people to walk on the turf trails. Everyone should have a right to use the American River Parkway, but a few bad apple cyclists are ruining it for everyone. Please see that laws are being enforced.

Email Enforcement I would like to see these bike routes to be pedestrian friendly as well.

I've walked on a few trails only to be pushed and threatened off them by overeager cyclists!
Email Network Let’s cut the bull and stop the crazy ideas about bicycle lanes in Rancho streets. You are cutting traffic lanes to minimum state width causing cars and trucks to "play chicken". I bicycle every day in Rancho and see no reason to clutter up the roads with bicycle lanes.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Community Input | E-3
Source Topic or
Location Comment or Noted Priority
Email Network: White
Rock at Folsom
South Canal
I would suggest at minimum a crosswalk be installed where the Folsom south canal bikeway crosses White Rock Rd. Better would be a pedestrian crossing light similar to the one where the bike path crosses Sunrise. It can be very dangerous crossing White Rock during high traffic times.

Thanks for helping to improve cycling in Rancho Cordova.

Email Network Why has the City not adopted Bicycle Parking plan? Email Network Why no more than 3.6 miles of Class IV lanes in Master plan? Email Prioritization Priority projects:
- Rail spur from FSC to Folsom Blvd crossing Mercantile Drive - Work with other agencies to get connectivity
- Access and connectivity is very important
- Add more Class IV routes: Capital Center Drive, Bearhollow Drive, Prospect Park Drive
- Rio Del Oro Trail "Spurs"? I do not understand why all under 1.5 miles?
Email Signage Wayfinding signage for bicyclists and not necessarily for vehicles Email -
BARC
Crossing: Sunrise
Blvd between
White Rock Rd
and Jackson Hwy
BARC would like to see the master plan add several
bicycle/pedestrian over/under crossings, across Sunrise Boulevard between White Rock Rd and Jackson Highway. (Due to the 6 lanes of travel, volume of traffic and the speed of the traffic, there is a constant danger for bicyclists and pedestrians trying to cross that stretch of road to be injured or killed.)
Email -
BARC
Crossing BARC also sees a strong need to improve the bridge crossings (Zinfandel Road, Sunrise Blvd) at Hwy 50. A bicycle/pedestrian crossing like the one added to the Watt Ave Bridge would be a good example of this.

Email -
BARC
Network BARC would like to see a safer bicycle circulation plan for shopping centers, businesses, or other venues as they are built or remodeled. (Example: Bicyclist would enter a parking lot from low volume street or come up behind the shopping center into the parking lot with clear signage and abundant bicycle parking in front of the businesses. (ROCK STAR PARKING) There would be separated bike lane or sharrows in the parking lot.)
Email -
SABA
Appendix C:

Standard
Drawings
Many of these drawings are outdated and should be updated with information from the NACTO guide. For example, sheet C-17 shows 4 ft bike lanes along a 6 lane major arterial, a terrifying situation for most potential riders.

Email -
SABA
Chapter 4 - Goals In general, the Goals need to have performance measures and targets so the City and its citizens know where the bicycle program is headed and when it plans to get there.

Email -
SABA
Chapter 4 –
Network: Mather
Field Rd and
Paseo Dr at
Folsom Blvd
The bike path from the south terminates at Folsom and then abandons riders in the traffic lane who want to continue north to connect with the bike boulevards.

Email -
SABA
Chapter 4 -
Programs
These 9 pages on possible Education, Enforcement, Encouragement, and Evaluation efforts simply present a long series of
recommendations to "pursue," "consider," "support," and "partner with" but does not actually state anything the City plans to do in a concrete way. To which ones is the City actually committed? ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Community Input | E-4
Source Topic or
Location Comment or Noted Priority
Email -
SABA
Chapter 5 Project
Prioritization
Strategy
The ATP Guidelines (Table E-1) require a BMP to "describe the methodology for project prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation." This chapter, however, does not describe a methodology beyond input from the community and staff input.

Table 5-2 provides cost estimates for a set of Priority 1 projects and a set of Priority 2 projects but describes no timeline. The project-type subtotals in Table 5-1 do not correspond to those shown in Table 5-2.

I recommend that project priority be based on the goals of the BMP which should be 1) a connected network, 2) ridership, and 3) safety.

The projects that best support achieving these goals should be highest priority.

Email -
SABA
Costs The cost figures for the single bike lane project ($0) and the single bike boulevard project ($240) seem suspect.

Email -
SABA
Plan goals: Goal 1 This is an excellent goal but needs more substantive description of what "comprehensive" means in terms of the vision stated on page 1- 1: "a bicycling network for both transportation and recreation where residents of all ages and abilities can choose to bicycle." For example, will it be a "low-stress network" so all ages and abilities can get to the attractors shown on Figure 2-2? Will it reach all neighborhoods?
Email -
SABA
Plan goals: Goal 2 This is not really a goal but more an implementation action that would be better stated as "ensure new development extends the bicycle network to all neighborhoods and attractors"
Email -
SABA
Plan goals: Goal 3 This is not really a goal but an implementation action that would help increase ridership
Email -
SABA
Plan goals: Goal 4 Not a goal, but really an implementation action that would help increase safety (which should be a goal but is not yet). This implementation action should include "Increase awareness of motorist safety and responsibility through education and enforcement" also.

Email -
SABA
Plan goals: Goal 5 Not a goal, but really an implementation action that would help accomplish increases in network connectivity, ridership, and safety.

Email -
SABA
Plan goals: Goal 6 This could be an excellent goal (i.e. to increase ridership) but needs more work: What is the baseline from which the 40% increase is to happen? Is it truly for all trips or for commute trips as are described on page B-6? Why not state the goal as a desired mode share figure by 2020?
Email -
SABA
Plan goals: Goal 7 This seems out of place in the Bicycle Master Plan and seems like it would be more appropriate in an economic development plan (to increase visitors to the city)
Email -
SABA
Plan goals The 2nd subject, “Collision Report”, mandates “a goal for collision reduction, serious injury, and fatality reduction after implementation of the plan” and refers again to Appendix B, but that appendix shows historical crash and fatality data but no goal for reductions.

Email -
SABA
Network Figure 4-4 shows that the large area of the City east of Zinfandel and north from International Drive to Folsom Blvd (including City Hall) relies exclusively on Class II bike lanes along arterial type streets with very wide vehicle lanes inducing high speed traffic. Very few potential bike riders are comfortable riding in such situations (see Mekuria et al. 2012). The BMP should show some plans to provide comfortable bikeways in this area of a lot of attractors for bike riding, including employers (see Fig 2-2)
Email -
SABA
Network White Rock Rd connection to Mills Park Dr where riders coming north across the Hwy 50 bike overcrossing must rely on a piece of Class II bike lanes before they can connect to the Mills Park Dr bike boulevard
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Community Input | E-5
Source Topic or
Location Comment or Noted Priority
Email -
SABA
Network Class III shared lanes on 6-lane Zinfandel Drive between Data Dr and White Rock Rd (where a huge landscape area along the road could provide space for protected bike lanes)
Email -
SABA
Network Sunrise Blvd northbound at Folsom where a proposed path ends before reaching Folsom Blvd and fails to connect to the Sunrise Corridor bikeway
Email -
SABA
p1-4 and
Appendix E
The paragraph on ATP Compliance refers to Appendix E. In Table E-1, the first subject, “Future Trip Estimates”, mandates “estimated increase in number of bicycle trips . . . resulting from implementation of plan” and refers to Appendix B. However Appendix B has no estimate of predicted increases in bike trips (although it does show old mode share data from the ACS).

Email -
SABA
Prioritization Table 5-3 shows individual "Priority 1" projects by street segment, bikeway type, mileage, and cost but no map is provided to show where these projects are located and how they fit into the "comprehensive network" that is the main goal of the BMP. It is possible with careful inspection of Table 5-3 and Figure 4-4 to identify some of the projects by location. For example, the 7 protected bikeway projects look like excellent additions to the City's network.

Email -
SABA
Prioritization Bike path projects comprise 19 of the 28 "Priority 1" projects and seem to be mostly in the relatively undeveloped portion of the city east of Sunrise. These 19 projects are estimated to cost over $76 million or 87% of the cost total for the Priority 1 projects. The BMP should provide substantial justification for spending such a high proportion of funding in undeveloped area where the projects may contribute little to ridership or safety in the near term.

Email -
SMAQMD
Crossing: Hwy 50 The gap between bicycle connections across Highway 50 is a significant barrier to pedestrian and bicycle connectivity. Highway 50 in this area roughly parallels the Folsom Boulevard light rail corridor, and providing more frequent connections across Highway 50 would allow bicyclists on either side of the highway to more easily access light rail stations. It would support City General Plan policies to require bicycle and pedestrian connections to public transit systems at stops, stations, and terminals.

Email -
SMAQMD
Crossing: Hwy 50 We support leveraging exis ting infrastructure investments, such as the Rancho Cordova Parkway Interchange, to provide bicycle connections across Highway 50, in addition to other options for Highway 50 crossings. Other options for Highway 50 crossings include improvements to Zinfandel Drive, and the proposed grade separation on Highway 50 between Prospect Park Drive and Olson Drive depicted on Figure 4-4 of the draft plan. Both of these would connect Capital Village to light rail stations, enhancing the City’s commendable smart growth efforts in Capital Village.

Email -
SMAQMD
Crossing:

Zinfandel Dr at
Hwy 50
With proper improvements, the Zinfandel Drive crossing could be comfortable for bicyclists. The Watt Avenue Interchange provides a multi-modal path separate from motor vehicle lanes, and is a potential model for a Zinfandel Drive crossing. Further, the proposed grade separation on Highway 50, between Prospect Park Drive and Olson Drive, would facilitate a direct connection from Capital Village to the thriving Koreana Plaza market with nearby light rail.

Email -
SMAQMD
General Capital Village and the high intensity of employment and civic uses surrounding it are a vital Rancho Cordova community center. Direct bicycle connection to light rail is essential to Capital Village’s general plan designation as a bicycle and pedestrian supportive town center.

The Capital Village Special Planning Area Handbook says “Vehicle, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit connectivity are key planning principles used to form Capital Village.”
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Community Input | E-6
Source Topic or
Location Comment or Noted Priority
Email -
SMAQMD
General We believe that a direct connection from Capital Village to light rail could reduce local vehicle miles traveled (VMT). We urge the City to access Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) modeling capabilities to determine the full benefit of this connection in reducing VMT. District staff can assist in this effort. If it is demonstrated that this project can sufficiently reduce VMT, then District staff can work with City staff on air quality mitigation credit for including this connection as a priority project in the Bicycle Master Plan. This would also support compliance with Active Transportation Program (ATP) guidelines.

Email -
SMAQMD
General We evaluated the draft plan’s improvement standards using the Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality Collaborative’s Best Practices for Bicycle Master Planning and Design, and have comments as follows. First, we note that many of the bike lane widths are less than 5 feet, without curb and gutter area. High volume, high speed roadways are not safe for cyclists without proper precautions, and we recommend a minimum of 8 feet wide lanes with 2-foot wide painted buffers between traffic and bike lanes along roads with speeds of 45 miles per hour or more. We recommend a minimum of 5 feet for bike lane widths.

Email -
SMAQMD
General The improvement standards do not depict bicycle accommodations at intersections, so we cannot fully evaluate intersection accommodations. We recommend expanding the plan’s description of intersection accommodations to demonstrate how they enhance safety, comfort, and convenience for bicyclists.

NextDoor Education Making etiquette and safety on the bike trail more widely known to users of the trail would be great! There are SO many pedestrians that incorrectly use the trail even with signs stating which side of the trail to walk on. We've had several near accidents because of inconsiderate and/or poorly informed pedestrians on the trail.

NextDoor Education The majority of bicyclist I see do not use the current bicycle lanes, instead ride on the sidewalks. They run stop signs. They don't have lights on the front and back of their bicycles.

NextDoor Network South Canal access from Kiefer would be AWESOME! Living in Kavala Ranch, riding to and from work can get a little dicey on Douglas/Sunrise.

NextDoor Network Anything to make a ride from S. Rancho to Folsom (work) safer would be appreciated - I see some feasible routes in the future! NextDoor Network: White
Rock Rd at
Folsom South
Canal
I'd like to see a dedicated bike crossing on White Rock Rd at the Folsom South Canal bikeway. At present FSC bikeway cyclists must divert onto White Rock Rd east to Sunrise or west to Kilgore and then pick up the bikeway on the opposite side of White Rock. White Rock itself has no bike lane, forcing cyclists to either ride on the sidewalk or share traffic lanes with vehicles moving at 45 mph.

NextDoor Network I see no connection between Sunridge and present or future bike paths. As it is there is no way to get to bike path near excelsior and Douglas safely. There are a lot of families and individuals that would appreciate a safe connection to present and future routes.

NextDoor Network Pedestrians should always face traffic which means you should always walk and jog to your left!
Workshop Bike Boulevard:

Klamath River Dr
Remove parking on one side of street.

Workshop Class I: Rail line at
Folsom Blvd
Folsom South Canal - use rail line to make trail
Workshop Class IV: Sun
Center Dr
On-street parking under-utilized, recommends converting bike lanes to protected bikeways.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

BICYCLE MASTER PLAN | APRIL 2016 Community Input | E-7
Source Topic or
Location Comment or Noted Priority
Workshop Class IV: White
Rock east of
Zinfandel
Currently proposed bike lanes, request for Class IV instead Workshop Class IV: Data Dr
from International
Dr to Capital
Center Dr
Upgrade lanes to IV
Workshop Crossing: Folsom
South Canal near
Prospect Park Dr
Add a crossing over 50.

Workshop Crossing: I-50
Promenade
Request for an overcrossing rather than undercrossing.

Workshop Crossing: I-50
Promenade
Add local car traffic? (No! Maybe Bus) IV
Workshop Crossing:

American River
Bike Trail near
Hoffman Golf
Course
Need more ways across river like this
Workshop Detection: Trade
Center Dr at
Citrus Rd
Signal doesn't detect bikes
Workshop Development
requirements
When building new shopping center or business have class I bike path come in from the back of the company with/by direct entrance from bike path
Workshop Plan goals: Goal 1 Add or clarify: "comprehensive"- continuous, connected, low-stress? Workshop Plan goals: Goal 3 Clarify: "Adequate support facilities"- ? Workshop Plan goals: Goal 4 Add:... for drivers and bicyclists Workshop Plan goals: Goal 6 Yes! (supportive of goal)
Workshop Sunrise Blvd at
Trinity River Dr
Safer Crossing of Sunrise for school children and others Workshop Rod Beaudry Dr
at Horn Rd/ Mills
Station
Off set intersection. Request to better align or signalize as offset intersection.

Workshop Rockingham Dr.
at Old Placerville
Rd
Multiple lanes maybe 2 stage? Left needs bike detour left turn lane.

Hard to cross.

Workshop Old Placerville Rd.
at Rockingham Dr
Left turn lane needs bike detection
Workshop Schriever Ave. at
Old Placerville Rd
Hard to cross. SB left to Schriever.

Workshop Lighting: Sunrise
corridor bikeway
at Hwy 50
Improve lighting in tunnel
Workshop Maintenance Bike lane sweeping, especially Zinfandel Dr.

Workshop Folsom Boulevard
from Rancho
Cordova Parkway
east to City limit
Network
EB Bike lanes are narrow and have utility poles encroaching ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova LRSP - Draft Tech Memo.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP August 2021
Appendix
APPENDIX A-4
EXCERPT OF ADA TRANSITION PLAN, RANCHO CORDOVA (2005)
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

City of Rancho Cordova Draft ADA Transition Plan
April 11, 2005 Page 127 Street 1 (typically NS
Street)
Street 2 (typically EW
Street) Land Use Use
Condi-
tion
Work
Scope
Fund-
ing
Crb
Rmp
Aud.
sig-
nals FY
Curb
Ramp
Costs
Signal
Costs
Cross-
walk
Costs
Sidewalk
Costs Total Costs
Aramon Dr Folsom Blvd Commercial 2 2 9 G 2 No 06 $12,520 $760 $1,750 $15,030 Don Juan Dr Folsom Blvd Commercial 2 2 9 G 2 No 06 $12,520 $760 $1,750 $15,030 McGregor Dr Folsom Blvd Commercial 2 2 9 G 2 No 06 $12,520 $760 $1,750 $15,030 Sunrise Blvd Folsom Blvd Transit 1 2 1 G 8 Yes 06 $50,080 $11,840 $6,080 $8,200 $76,200 Dawes St Folsom Blvd Commercial 1 2 1 G 8 Yes 06 $50,080 $11,840 $6,080 $1,750 $69,750 Los Nogales Way Folsom Blvd Commercial 2 2 9 G 2 No 06 $12,520 $760 $1,750 $15,030 Mills Park Dr Folsom Blvd Commercial 2 2 1 G 8 Yes 06 $50,080 $11,840 $3,040 $1,750 $66,710 Kilgore Rd Folsom Blvd Commercial 2 2 9 G 2 No 06 $12,520 $760 $1,750 $15,030 19 $513,320 $88,800 $50,920 $63,970 $717,010

FY 2008-2009
Cranor Dr Ambassador Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 08 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Ambassador Dr Lewitt Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 08 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Ambassador Dr Elmanto Dr Commercial 1 2 2 Z 4 No 08 $25,040 $6,080 $1,750 $32,870 3 $75,120 $0 $12,160 $14,050 $101,330

FY 2009-2010
Ambassador Dr McGregor Dr School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 09 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 Mather Field Rd Croydon Way Transit & Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 09 $25,040 $3,040 $12,300 $40,380 2 $62,600 $0 $7,600 $18,450 $88,650

FY 2010-2011
Blackpool Way White Rock Rd School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 10 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 Mills Park Dr Woodberry Way Public Us e 1 2 4 Z 4 No 10 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 2 $62,600 $0 $7,600 $12,710 $82,910

FY 2011-2012
Bradshaw Rd Folsom Blvd Transit & Public Use 1 2 1 CR 8 Yes 11 $50,080 $11,840 $6,080 $12,300 $80,300 1 $50,080 $11,840 $6,080 $12,300 $80,300

FY 2012-2013
Mills Station Rd Dain Ct Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 12 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Portsmouth Dr Mills Station Rd Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 12 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Portsmouth Dr Birmingham Way Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 12 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 3 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $19,680 $103,920

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

City of Rancho Cordova Draft ADA Transition Plan
April 11, 2005 Page 128 Street 1 (typically NS
Street)
Street 2 (typically EW
Street) Land Use Use
Condi-
tion
Work
Scope
Fund-
ing
Crb
Rmp
Aud.
sig-
nals FY
Curb
Ramp
Costs
Signal
Costs
Cross-
walk
Costs
Sidewalk
Costs Total Costs
FY 2013-2014
Winchester Way Portsmouth Dr Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 13 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Ramsgate Way Portsmouth Dr Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 13 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Dawes St El Cedro Ct Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 13 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 3 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $19,680 $103,920

FY 2014-2015
Portsmouth Dr Swansea Way Commercial 1 2 2 Z 6 No 14 $37,560 $4,560 $1,750 $43,870 Aramon Dr Ribier Way Public Use 1 2 2 Z 6 No 14 $37,560 $4,560 $6,560 $48,680 2 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $8,310 $92,550

FY 2015-2016
Mills Park Dr Croetto Way Public Use 1 2 2 Z 6 No 15 $37,560 $4,560 $6,560 $48,680 Dawes St Los Palos Dr Commercial 1 2 2 Z 6 No 15 $37,560 $4,560 $1,750 $43,870 2 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $8,310 $92,550

FY 2016-2017
Dawes St Dolecetto Dr Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 16 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Brenda Way Dawes St Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 16 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Don Juan Dr Le Ann Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 16 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 3 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $19,270 $103,510

FY 2017-2018
Barbera Way Chassella Way School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 17 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 Rinda Dr Chase Dr School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 17 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 2 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $12,300 $96,540

FY 2018-2019
Tronero Way Malaga Way Transit 1 2 4 Z 4 No 18 $25,040 $3,040 $8,200 $36,280 Chase Dr Brenda Way School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 18 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Doyle Way Chase Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 18 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 3 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $20,500 $104,740

FY 2019-2020
Rinda Dr Moraine Cir Public Use 1 2 2 Z 6 No 19 $37,560 $4,560 $6,560 $48,680 Furmint Way Malaga Way Commercial 1 2 2 Z 6 No 19 $37,560 $4,560 $1,750 $43,870 2 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $8,310 $92,550
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

City of Rancho Cordova Draft ADA Transition Plan
April 11, 2005 Page 129 Street 1 (typically NS
Street)
Street 2 (typically EW
Street) Land Use Use
Condi-
tion
Work
Scope
Fund-
ing
Crb
Rmp
Aud.
sig-
nals FY
Curb
Ramp
Costs
Signal
Costs
Cross-
walk
Costs
Sidewalk
Costs Total Costs

FY 2020-2021
Zinfandel Dr Chassella Way Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 20 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Daniel Way Chase Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 20 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Zinfandel Dr Alicante Way Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 20 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 3 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $19,270 $103,510

FY 2021-2022
Holmes Way Chase Dr Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 21 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Ribier Wy Malaga Way Public Use 1 2 2 Z 8 No 21 $50,080 $6,080 $6,560 $62,720 2 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $13,120 $97,360

FY 2022-2023
Dawes St Doyle Way Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 22 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Augibi Way Malaga Way Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 22 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Mills Park Dr Olson Dr Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 22 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 3 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $19,270 $103,510

FY 2023-2024
Moraine Cir Thores St Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 23 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Mills Park Dr Mills Tower Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 23 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 2 $50,080 $0 $6,080 $12,710 $68,870

FY 2024-2025
Los Amigos Dr Malaga Way Transit 1 2 2 Z 6 No 24 $37,560 $4,560 $8,200 $50,320 El Segundo Dr Malaga Way Transit 1 2 2 Z 6 No 24 $37,560 $4,560 $8,200 $50,320 2 $75,120 $0 $9,120 $16,400 $100,640

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

City of Rancho Cordova Draft ADA Transition Plan
April 11, 2005 Page 130

Beyond 20-Year Discretionary Funding Program - Projects for Competitive Funding Street 1 (typically NS
Street)
Street 2 (typically EW
Street) Land Use Use
Condi-
tion
Work
Scope
Fund-
ing
Crb
Rmp
Aud.
sig-
nals* FY
Curb
Ramp
Costs
Signal
Costs
Cross-
walk
Costs
Sidewalk
Costs Total Costs
Trade Center Dr Sun Center Dr Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Gilbert Way Malaga Way Transit 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $8,200 $36,280 Benny Way Malaga Way Transit 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $8,200 $36,280 Mills Park Dr Glenview Way School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Paseo Dr Malaga Way Transit 1 2 2 Z 8 No 25 $50,080 $6,080 $8,200 $64,360 La Rue Way Mills Tower Dr Commercia l 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $1,750 $29,830 Mills Park Dr Marcel Way School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Buena Plaza Cir Mills Tower Dr Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Mills Acres Cir White Rock Rd School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Mills Station Rd White Rock Rd School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Joerger St White Rock Rd School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Mills Tower Dr White Rock Rd School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 Portsmouth Dr White Rock Rd School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Swansea Way White Rock Rd School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Mather Field Rd Mills Station Rd Transit & P ublic Use 1 2 1 Z 8 Yes 25 $50,080 $11,840 $6,080 $12,300 $80,300 Mather Field Rd Rockingham Dr Transi t 1 2 1 Z 8 Yes 25 $50,080 $11,840 $6,080 $8,200 $76,200 Femoyer St Mather Blvd Transit & Public Use 1 2 2 Z 8 No 25 $50,080 $6,080 $12,300 $68,460 Femoyer St Norden St Transit & Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $12,300 $40,380 Bleckely St Macready St Transit & Public Use 1 2 2 Z 8 No 25 $50,080 $6,080 $12,300 $68,460 Forestlake Dr Woodlawn Dr School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 Maryvale Way Ambassador Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Van Stralen Way Forestlake Dr School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 Carlos Way Benita Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Lucia Ct Benita Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Segovia Way Benita Dr School 1 2 2 Z 8 No 25 $50,080 $6,080 $6,150 $62,310 Forestlake Dr Mcgregor Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Pinturo Way Benita Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Sonata Dr Benita Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Benita Dr Mapola Way School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Zinfandel Dr Hirschfeld Way Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Coloma Rd Gaywood Dr Transit 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $8,200 $36,280 Carlos Way McGregor Dr Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 McGregor Dr Campana Way Commercial 1 2 2 Z 8 No 25 $50,080 $6,080 $1,750 $57,910 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

City of Rancho Cordova Draft ADA Transition Plan
April 11, 2005 Page 131 Street 1 (typically NS
Street)
Street 2 (typically EW
Street) Land Use Use
Condi-
tion
Work
Scope
Fund-
ing
Crb
Rmp
Aud.
sig-
nals* FY
Curb
Ramp
Costs
Signal
Costs
Cross-
walk
Costs
Sidewalk
Costs Total Costs
Coloma Rd Rossmoor Dr Transit 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $8,200 $36,280 Benita Dr Zinfandel Dr Transit & School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $9,840 $51,960 Ellison Dr Georgetown Dr Commercial 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $1,750 $29,830 Sonata Dr Zinfandel Dr Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Rose Hill Ct Georgetown Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Rugby Ct Georgetown Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Warrenton Dr Georgetown Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Zinfandel Dr Queenwood Dr Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Ambassador Dr River Vist a Way Commercial 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $1,750 $29,830 Georgetown Dr Starrlyn Way School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 McGregor Dr Zinfandel Dr Transit & School 1 2 2 Z 8 No 25 $50,080 $6,080 $9,840 $66,000 Queenwood Dr Gadsten Way Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Ambassador Dr River Edge Way Public Use 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $6,560 $48,680 River Wood Way River Edge Way Commerc ial 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $1,750 $29,830 Georgetown Dr Woodcliff Way Public Use 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,560 $34,640 Cordova Ln Zinfandel Dr Transit & School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $9,840 $51,960 Georgetown Dr River Edge Way School 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $6,150 $48,270 Queenwood Dr Glenhaven Way Transit 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $8,200 $36,280 Zinfandel Dr Glenfaire Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Aramon Dr Semillon Way Public Use 1 2 2 Z 6 No 25 $37,560 $4,560 $6,560 $48,680 Cordova Ln Dunbar Way Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Georgetown Dr Woodbridge Way School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Aramon Dr Milazzo Way Commercial 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $1,750 $29,830 Cordova Ln Atwood Dr Transit & School 1 2 2 Z 8 No 25 $50,080 $6,080 $9,840 $66,000 Georgetown Dr Westwood Ct School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Cordova Ln Ballantrae Way Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Italia Way Zinfandel Dr School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Cordova Ln Glenhaven Way Transit & Sc hool 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Dolecetto Dr Chardonay Dr Commercial 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $1,750 $29,830 Cordova Ln Alandale Way Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Coloma Rd Dattier Ct Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Catawba Way Chassella Way School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Don Juan Dr Pedro Way School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 Cordova Ln Le Ann Dr Transit & School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $9,840 $37,920 Dolecetto Dr Chassella Way School 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $6,150 $34,230 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

City of Rancho Cordova Draft ADA Transition Plan
April 11, 2005 Page 132 Street 1 (typically NS
Street)
Street 2 (typically EW
Street) Land Use Use
Condi-
tion
Work
Scope
Fund-
ing
Crb
Rmp
Aud.
sig-
nals* FY
Curb
Ramp
Costs
Signal
Costs
Cross-
walk
Costs
Sidewalk
Costs Total Costs
Octavia Way Chase Dr Park 1 2 4 Z 4 No 25 $25,040 $3,040 $16,400 $44,480 Pedro Way Zinfandel Dr School 1 2 2 Z 8 No 25 $50,080 $6,080 $6,150 $62,310 Kilgore Rd White Rock Rd Transit 1 2 1 Z 8 Yes 25 $50,080 $11,840 $6,080 $8,200 $76,200 Evadna Dr White Rock Rd Public Use 1 2 2 Z 6 Yes 25 $37,560 $8,880 $4,560 $6,560 $57,560 TUSKET RIVER DR TRINITY RIVER DR Transit & Public Use 1 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $12,300 $18,060 SABLE RIVER CT TRINITY RIVER DR Transit 1 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $8,200 $13,960 OBERUN RIVER CT TRINITY RIVER DR Transit 1 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $8,200 $13,960 TEXAS RIVER CT TRINITY RIVER DR Tr ansit 1 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $8,200 $13,960 TRINITY RIVER DR KLAMATH RIVER DR Tr ansit 1 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $8,200 $13,960 VEHICLE DR COLOMA RD Transit 1 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $8,200 $13,960 COLOMA RD TRUCKEE RIVER DR Transit 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $8,200 $13,960 GOLLER CT HIRSCHFELD WAY Commercial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 HIRSCHFELD WAY HIRSCHFELD WAY Comme rcial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 HIRSCHFELD WAY BERRYWOOD DR Commerc ial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 QUEENWOOD DR ALANDALE WAY Public Use 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,560 $12,320 MARCILEE WAY SCOTSMAN WAY Commercial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 SUN CENTER DR SUNRISE BLVD Public Use 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,560 $12,320 GOLD TAILINGS CT SUN CENTER DR Comme rcial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 KILGORE RD SUN CENTER DR Commerc ial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 SUN CENTER DR PROSPECT PARK DR Tr ansit 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $8,200 $13,960 OLSON DR PLATINUM CT Commercial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 OLSON DR GWENDOLYN WAY Commercial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 GOLD CAMP DR COBBLEROCK DR Public Use 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,560 $12,320 GOLD CAMP DR PROSPECT PARK DR Tr ansit 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $8,200 $13,960 ZINFANDEL DR HWY 50 Public Use 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,560 $12,320 GOLD CENTER DR PROSPECT PARK DR Pub lic Use 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,560 $12,320 WHITE ROCK RD GOLD VALLEY DR Public Use 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,560 $12,320 W LA LOMA DR RIVER MIST WAY Sc hool 1 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,150 $11,910 ROD BEAUDRY DR STIRLING PARK DR Public Use 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,560 $12,320 CROYDON WAY MILLS STATION RD Transit & P ublic Use 1 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $12,300 $18,060 ROUTIER RD HORN RD Public Use 1 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $6,560 $12,320 OLD WINERY PL HORN RD Commercial 2 2 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 OLD PLACERVILLE RD SYSTEMS PKWY Commercial 2 1 8 Z 1 No 25 $5,760 $1,750 $7,510 101 $2,370,560 $44,400 $267,520 $687,390 $3,369,870 ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova LRSP - Draft Tech Memo.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP August 2021
Appendix
APPENDIX A-5
Director's Policy 37: Complete Streets (2021)
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Director’s Policy Number: DP-37
Eff
ective Date: December 7, 2021
Sup
ersedes: DD- 64-R2 (10/16/2014)
Resp
onsible
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.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

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
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Caltrans policy suppo rts 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}
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

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
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

• 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 Development­ Intergovernmental 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
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

• 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.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

• 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.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

• 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.

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

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
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Appendix

APPENDIX B

INTERSECTION NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Intersection
Cross Street 1
Cross Street 2

OBJECTID
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Signalized Intersections 3 4 8 32 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 26 27 COLOMA RD & SUNRISE BLVD COLOMA  RD SUNRISE  BLVD 1275 123 0.27 676 0 3 2 3 5 8 3 1 4 2 0 7 2 290110 6 6 1 0 3 5 1 1 SUNRISE BLVD & ZINFANDEL DR SUNRISE BLVD ZINFANDEL DR 1255 112 0 . 2 2 4 1 2 013 3 0 7 8 2 1 2 4 5 8 241100 5 4 4 2 1 1 1 OLSON DR & ZINFANDEL DR OLSON DR ZINFANDEL DR 795 94 0 . 5 9 2 7 5 004 2 8 6 2 3 5 1 7 2 8 411044 2 2 3 1 9 7 FOLSOM BLVD & SUNRISE BLVD FOLSOM BLVD SUNRISE BLVD 1250 89 0.16 471 0 2 5 1 9 6 3 2 1 2 1 3 7 430010 2 9 4 1 9 7 FOLSOM BLVD & MATHER FIELD RD/PASEO DR FOLSOM BLVD MATHER FIELD RD/PASEO DR 365 75 0.63 842 1 4 8 1 9 4 3 4 1 1 3 7 361158 2 5 7 2 6 5 COLOMA RD & FOLSOM BLVD COLOMA RD FOLSOM BLVD 465 67 0.44 316 0 1 3 20 43 9 8 16 0 15 1 0 2 13 21 2 18 11 WHITE ROCK RD & ZINFANDEL DR WHITE ROCK RD ZINFANDEL DR 826 62 0 . 2 7 1 3 7 002 1 1 4 9 1 8 2 3 1 8 110010 1 6 1 1 4 7 FOLSOM BLVD & ZINFANDEL DR FOLSOM BLVD ZINFANDEL DR 782 59 0 . 3 3 2 4 8 011 1 2 4 5 9 1 4 2 2 080110 1 9 4 1 4 8 MATHER FIELD RD & ROCKINGHAM DR MATHER FIELD RD ROCKINGHAM DR 457 56 0 . 1 1 3 1 5 013 2 2 3 0 2 1 8 1 9 230021 1 7 3 1 2 7 SUNRISE BLVD & WHITE ROCK RD SUNRISE BLVD WHITE ROCK RD 1350 49 ‐0 . 0 7 1 6 3 0079 3 3 1 9 7 1 5 240000 1 1 292 SUNRISE BLVD & GOLD COUNTRY BLVD SUNRISE BLVD GOLD COUNTRY BLVD 1767 49 ‐0 . 1 8 2 4 3 012 1 1 3 5 19 3 2 131010 2 9 3 1 3 7 FOLSOM BLVD & MILLS PARK DR FO LSOM BLVD MILLS PARK DR 614 46 0 . 4 0 2 6 5 012 1 6 2 7 1 0 6 1 7 160114 1 7 1 1 5 8 FOLSOM BLVD & CORDOVA LN/OLSON DR FOLSOM BLVD CORDOVA LN/OLSON DR 917 46 0 . 4 6 2 4 5 102 1 2 3 1 1 4 1 0 1 3 220031 1 3 2 1 0 2 SUNRISE BLVD & TRINITY RIVER DR SUNRISE BLVD TRINITY RIVER DR 1318 45 ‐0 . 1 8 1 7 6 003 2 0 2 2 37 3 3 000000 3 0 2 1 2 5 BRADSHAW RD & LINCOLN VILLAGE DR BRADSHAW RD LINCOLN VILLAGE DR 4 42 ‐0 . 1 0 1 5 7 004 1 5 2 3 9 1 0 1 9 130001 1 5 0 1 0 7 FOLSOM BLVD & ROUTIER RD FOLSOM BLVD ROUTIER RD 208 42 0 . 5 2 2 6 0 015 1 0 2 6 1 4 4 1 3 440011 1 0 578 DOUGLAS RD & SUNRISE BLVD DOUGLAS RD SUNRISE BLVD 1392 41 0 . 2 6 1 1 1 002 1 0 2 9 1 1 7 1 4 340100 1 2 3 1 0 5 GOLD CENT
ER DR & ZINFANDEL DR NB US 50 EB ON GOLD CENTER DR ZINFANDEL DR NB US 50 EB ON 815 38 ‐0 . 2 7 2 6 2 013 1 5 1 9 1 8 89100010 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 INTERNATIONAL DR & SUNRISE BLVD INTERNATIONAL DR SUNRISE BLVD 1354 34 ‐0.05 360 0 2 58 1 9 1 1 961700008045 COLOMA RD & MCGREGOR DR COLOMA RD MCGREGOR DR 733 33 0 . 6 0 1 1 8 0049 2 0 1 2 3 1 0 240020 1 0 2 1 3 8 COLOMA RD & TRINITY RIVER DR COLOMA RD TRINITY RIVER DR 1217 33 0 . 1 9 8 3 0018 2 4 1 1 2 1 6 220000 1 0 396 BRADSHAW RD & OLD PLACERVILLE RD BR ADSHAW RD OLD PLACERVILLE RD 6 31 ‐0 . 0 5 9 2 001 1 0 2 0 1 0 392201319055 SUNRISE BLVD & TRADE CENTER DR SUNRISE BLVD TRADE CENTER DR 1294 30 ‐0.22 298 0 2 06 2 2 89 1 1 010010 1 0 034 MATHER FIELD RD & MILLS STATION RD MATHER FIELD RD MILLS STATION RD 364 27 ‐0 . 1 6 1 9 1 0117 1 8 1 0 473002005185 FOLSOM BLVD & KILGORE RD FOLSOM BLVD KILGORE RD 1140 25 0.30 298 0 2 07 1 6 52 1 1 250000 1 0 532 SUNRISE BLVD & US 50 WB SUNRISE BLVD OFF SUNRISE BLVD US 50 WB SUNRISE BLVD OFF 1226 24 ‐0. 3 3 1 7 8 0115 1 7 83 1 3 0000009133 COLOMA RD & EL MANTO DR COLOMA RD EL MANTO DR 875 24 ‐0 . 4 1 2 8 1 1104 1 8 42 1 1 130120 1 0 463 DAWES ST & FOLSOM BLVD DAWES ST FOLSOM BLVD 404 23 ‐0 . 1 2 9 7 0047 1 2 4290300138183 COLOMA RD & VEHICLE DR COLOMA RD VEHICLE DR 1170 23 ‐0 . 0 1 2 0 1 0144 1 4 54 1 0 120000 1 1 342 KILGORE RD & WHITE ROCK RD KILGORE RD WHITE ROCK RD 1230 23 ‐0 . 0 2 6 3 0016 1 6 1 0 341103002115 FOLSOM BLVD & NIMBUS RD FOLSOM BLVD NIMBUS RD 1653 23 0 . 6 5 7 3 0018 1 4 1 2 611210003041 CHASE DR & COLOMA RD CHA SE DR COLOMA RD 438 22 0.04 319 0 2 28 1 0 3333710107183 HERODIAN DR & SUNRISE BLVD HERODIAN DR SUNRISE BLVD 1393 22 0 . 0 5 8 7 0029 1 1 9481000005025 INTERNATIONAL DR & ZINFANDEL DR INTERNATIONAL DR ZINFANDEL DR 876 21 ‐0 . 1 4 8 6 0029 1 0 8523100020260 SUN CENTER DR & SUNRISE GOLD CIR SUN CENTER DR SUNRISE GOLD CIR 1345 20 ‐0 . 2 8 7 5 0035 1 2 8361100005068 MATHER FIELD RD & US 50 EB MATHER FIELD RD OFF MATHER FIELD RD US 50 EB MATHER FIELD RD OFF 414 19 ‐0 . 36 6 9 0026 1 1 61 1 0 020000 1 0 162 1 / 6
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Intersection
Cross Street 1
Cross Street 2

OBJECTID
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
US 50 WB ZINFANDEL DR OFF & ZINFANDEL DR US  50 WB ZINFANDEL DR OFF ZINFANDEL  DR 803 19 ‐0 . 3 6 6 9 0026 1 1 1 1 070000016022 DATA DR & ZINFANDEL DR DATA  DR ZINFANDEL  DR 841 19 ‐0 . 0 2 5 4 0015 1 3 61 1 1 010000 1 0 023 FOLSOM BLVD & MERCANTILE DR FOLSOM BLVD MERCANTILE DR 1380 19 0 . 0 0 6 3 0033 1 3 2181402006472 COLOMA RD & MALAGA WAY COLOMA RD MALAGA WAY 456 18 ‐0 . 1 5 5 8 0016 1 1 7241400005264 INTERNATIONAL DR & MATHER FIELD RD INTERNATIONAL DR MATHER FIELD RD 505 18 ‐0 . 2 0 1 7 6 1024 1 1 5330400114372 MICRON AVE & BRADSHAW RD MIC RON AVE BRADSHAW RD 1788 17 ‐0 . 3 9 5 8 0008914 1 0 0100009022 BRADSHAW RD & US 50 WB BRADSHAW RD OFF BRADSHAW RD US 50 WB BRADSHAW RD OFF 3 16 ‐0 . 3 6 6 1 001789141000004046 COLOMA RD & TRUCKEE RIVER DR & BRIDLEWOOD DR COLOMA RD TRUCKEE RIVER DR & BRIDLEWOOD DR 1035 16 ‐0 . 1 1 6 5 003493370100004231 FITZGERALD RD & SUNRISE BLVD FITZGERALD RD SUNRISE BLVD 1366 16 ‐0 . 2 7 1 7 9 102585190001006030 BRADSHAW RD & FOLSOM BLVD BRADS HAW RD FOLSOM BLVD 0 15 ‐0 . 2 5 1 5 4 0104 1 0 2380101005371 DATA DR & WHITE ROCK RD DATA DR WHITE ROCK RD 904 15 ‐0 . 2 2 4 5 000698150100004223 JACKSON RD & SUNRISE BLVD JACKSON RD SUNRISE BLVD 1401 15 0 . 2 2 2 0 0001 1 4 3141410005016 ARAMON DR & FOLSOM BLVD ARAMON DR FOLSOM BLVD 663 14 ‐0.23 271 0 2 0484251000023020 FOLSOM BLVD & MCGREGOR DR FOLSOM BLVD MCGREGOR DR 1021 13 ‐0 . 2 6 2 3 0002 1 1 1180300007131 SUNRISE BLVD & SUNRISE PARK DR SUNRISE BLVD SUNRISE PARK DR 1348 13 ‐0 . 3 6 4 8 002384152000005132 BENITA DR & COLOMA RD BENIT A DR COLOMA RD 868 12 ‐0 . 1 3 4 2 001474151000007032 MECHANICAL DR & SUNRISE BLVD MECHANICAL DR SUNRISE BLVD 1381 12 ‐0 . 3 5 2 7 000393350100004000 FOLSOM BLVD & HORN RD FOLSOM BLVD HORN RD 41 11 ‐0 . 3 0 1 5 0 100462140200105230 MATHER FIELD RD & US 50 WB MATHER FIELD RD OFF MATHER FIELD RD US 50 WB MATHER FIELD RD OFF 382 11 ‐0 . 4 3 8 0 005425040000024011 KIEFER BLVD & SUNRISE BLVD KIEFER BLVD SUNRISE BLVD 1397 11 ‐0 . 3 2 5 5 003353130211003021 GRANT LINE RD & JACKS ON RD GRANT LINE RD JACKSON RD 1629 10 0 . 6 3 4 9 003252061000007041 BRAVADO DR & FOLSOM BLVD BRAVADO DR FOLSOM BLVD 266 10 ‐0 . 2 9 4 5 002350162100005330 FOLSOM BLVD & ROD BEAUDRY DR FOLSOM BLVD ROD BEAUDRY DR 128 9 ‐0 . 3 3 2 9 000452330000103030 FOLSOM BLVD & LA LOMA DR FOLSOM BLVD LA LOMA DR 313 9 ‐0 . 3 5 2 9 000451170000007000 FOLSOM BLVD & VILLAGE LN FOLSOM BLVD VILLAGE LN 723 9 ‐0 . 3 8 1 4 3 010352060000105010 FOLSOM BLVD & MARKETPLACE LN FOLSOM BLVD MARKETPLACE LN 1553 9 ‐0 .3 0 1 3 3 010171030400103020 OLD PLACERVILLE RD & ROUTIER RD OLD PLACERVILLE RD ROUTIER RD 243 8 ‐0 . 3 6 2 8 001251130210002221 DATA DR & INTERNATIONAL DR DATA DR INTERNATIONAL DR 643 8 ‐0 . 3 8 2 3 000352221010002112 INTERNATIONAL DR & KILGORE RD INTERNATIONAL DR KILGORE RD 1235 8 ‐0 . 3 0 2 3 000352140100004020 FOLSOM BLVD & MINE SHAFT LN FOLSOM BLVD MINE SHAFT LN 1436 7 ‐0 . 1 7 3 7 002230000700001020 LINCOLN VILLAGE DR & SYSTEMS PKWY & ROUTIER RD LINCOLN VILLAGE DR & SYSTEMS PKWY R O UTIER RD 228 6 ‐0 . 3 1 1 6 000244010000000120 COLOMA RD & CORDOVA LN COLOMA RD CORDOVA LN 665 6 ‐0 . 4 5 6000060230100004001 DON JUAN DR & FOLSOM BLVD DON JUAN DR FOLSOM BLVD 871 6 ‐0 . 4 2 3 5 003032200101000120 BEAR HOLLOW DR & ZINFANDEL DR BEAR HOLLOW DR ZINFANDEL DR 945 6 ‐0 . 3 7 1 6 000241110200001000 CHRYSANTHY BLVD & SUNRISE BLVD CHRYSANTHY BLVD SUNRISE BLVD 1394 6 ‐0 . 4 4 1 3 5 010233101100000041 HAZEL AVE & US 50 EB HAZEL AVE OFF HAZEL AVE US 50 EB HAZEL AVE OFF 1652 6 ‐0 . 4 5 1 6 000244010000001010 CAPITAL VILLAGE LN & ZINFANDEL DR CAPITAL VILLAGE LN ZINFANDEL DR 855 5 ‐0 . 4 6 1 0 000140031010003021 FEMOYER ST & INTERNATIONAL DR FEMOYER ST INTERNATIONAL DR 725 5 ‐0 . 4 6 2 5 001223020000002000 2 / 6
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Intersection
Cross Street 1
Cross Street 2

OBJECTID
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
BOSPHORUS DR & SUNRISE BLVD BOSPHORUS  DR SUNRISE  BLVD 1395 5 ‐0 . 4 6 3 0 001312300000000010 OLD PLACERVILLE RD & SYSTEMS PKWY OLD PLACERVILLE RD SYSTEMS PKWY 360 4 ‐0 . 5 0 1 4 000222010100000111 DATA DR & DISK DR DATA DR DISK DR 893 3 ‐0 . 4 6 1 3 001020100200001131 BRIDGEWAY DR & INTERNATIONAL DR BRIDGEWAY DR INTERNATIONAL DR 960 3 ‐0 . 5 3 1 2 7 010111010100001110 SPOTO DR & ZINFANDEL DR SPOTO DR ZINFANDEL DR 1089 3 ‐0 . 5 3 1 3 000210010200001000 PROSPECT PARK DR & WHITE ROCK RD PROSPECT PARK DR WHITE ROCK RD 1142 3 ‐0. 5 3 3000031011000001000 INTERNATIONAL DR & PROSPECT PARK DR INTERNATIONAL DR PROSPECT PARK DR 1149 3 ‐0 . 5 3 1 8 001110100100001120 KILGORE RD & TRADE CENTER DR KILGORE RD TRADE CENTER DR 1171 3 ‐0 . 5 3 1 3 001020011100001001 BAROQUE DR/N MATHER BLVD & ZINFANDEL DR BAROQUE DR/N MATHER BLVD ZINFANDEL DR 1207 3 ‐0 . 4 4 1 2 2 010020000300002121 FOLSOM BLVD & CORDOVA TOWN CENTER STATION FOLSOM BLVD CORDOVA TOWN CENTER STATION 1935 3 ‐0 . 5 2 3000030020000003000 Unsignalized Intersections
OLD PLACERVILLE RD & ROCKINGHAM DR OLD  PLACERVILLE RD ROCKINGHAM  DR 415 25 0 . 0 5 7 0 0017 1 7 3 1 0 60401012153 SUNRISE BLVD & US 50 EB SUNRISE  BLVD US  50 EB 1225 25 0 . 0 5 2 2 9 0103 2 1 48 1 3 000000 1 3 037 GRANT LINE RD & RAYMER WAY GRANT LINE RD RAYMER WAY 1765 22 1 . 2 6 2 3 1 0112 1 8 2110 1 4 1100 1 5 0 1 1 1 4 MCGREGOR DR & ZINFANDEL DR MCGREGOR DR ZINFANDEL DR 859 20 0 . 3 3 2 4 9 0116 1 2 1 4 111001112082 BRADSHAW RD & BUSINESS PARK DR BRADSHAW RD BUSINESS PARK DR 2 18 ‐0 . 0 5 3 8 0004 1 4 3462110006032 MILLS STATION RD & ROUTIER RD MILLS STATION RD ROUT IER RD 217 18 0 . 4 4 7 3 002798011500124086 COLOMA RD & DOLECETTO DR COLOMA RD DOLECETTO DR 441 15 0 . 2 1 2 4 4 011678210100210231 DAWES ST & MALAGA WAY DAWES ST MALAGA WAY 388 14 0 . 5 5 3 9 0013 1 0 4210100021141 ZINFANDEL DR & ZINFANDEL DR SB US 50 EB ON ZINFANDEL DR ZINFANDEL DR SB US 50 EB ON 807 14 ‐0 . 0 5 5 9 00257 1 0 030100004141 BRADSHAW MHP & BRADSHAW RD BRADSHAW MHP BRADSHAW RD 5 13 ‐0 . 1 0 6 7 002733460000004032 CROYDON WAY & MATHER FIELD RD CROY DON WAY MATHER FIELD RD 363 13 ‐0 . 0 9 4 3 000670070100046153 ZINFANDEL DR & ZINFANDEL DR NB US 50 WB ON ZINFANDEL DR ZINFANDEL DR NB US 50 WB ON 806 13 ‐0 . 0 5 2 3 0002 1 1 4260000106021 REFINEMENT RD & SUNRISE BLVD REFINEMENT RD SUNRISE BLVD 1384 13 ‐0 . 0 2 2 3 7 011562531200004121 ROCKINGHAM DR & ROUTIER RD ROCKINGHAM DR ROUTIER RD 221 12 0 . 1 4 2 2 6 012182140111206033 CHARDONAY DR & COLOMA RD CHARDONAY DR COLOMA RD 531 12 0 . 0 6 2 7 0011 1 0 4130300013051 EL MERCADO DR & MATHER FIELD RD EL MERC ADO DR MATHER FIELD RD 472 11 ‐0 . 1 0 2 2 0 101271410200121030 COLOMA RD & WOODLAWN DR COLOMA RD WOODLAWN DR 816 11 ‐0 . 0 5 5 1 002454111300101052 VEHICLE DR & ZINFANDEL DR VEHICLE DR ZINFANDEL DR 1206 11 ‐0 . 0 3 5 1 002454022000101031 CITRUS RD & SUNRISE BLVD CITRUS RD SUNRISE BLVD 1333 11 ‐0 . 1 2 4 1 002273402200001010 MATHER FIELD RD & MATHER FIELD RD NB US 50 WB ON MATHER  FIELD RD MATHER FIELD RD NB US 50 WB ON 397 10 ‐0 .0 7 2 0 000280260100015021 DOUGLAS RD & TIMBERLAND DR DOUGLAS RD TIMBERLAND DR 1643 10 ‐0 . 5 7 2 5 000373030400004151 DATA DR & RESERVE DR DATA DR RESERVE DR 636 9 0 . 4 2 2 4 000365021100000231 CAPITAL CENTER DR & WHITE ROCK RD CAPITAL CENTER DR WHITE ROCK RD 652 9 0 . 0 0 3 4 001352042100003022 ZINFANDEL DR & ZINFANDEL DR SB US 50 WB ON ZINFANDEL DR ZINFANDEL DR SB US 50 WB ON 798 9 ‐0 . 0 7 1 9 000271250010004010 OLSON DR & PROGRESS CT OLSO N DR PROGRESS CT 937 9 ‐0 . 0 2 9000092120300103011 FOLSOM BLVD & POINT EAST DR FOLSOM BLVD POINT EAST DR 1293 9 0.00 398 0 2 0252221100102131 SUNRISE BLVD & SUNRISE GOLD CIR SUNRISE BLVD SUNRISE GOLD CIR 1342 9 ‐0 . 1 3 2 0 3 010171240200004130 3 / 6
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Intersection
Cross Street 1
Cross Street 2

OBJECTID
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
FITZGERALD RD & WHITE ROCK RD FITZGERALD RD WHITE ROCK RD 1367 9 ‐0 . 2 0 2 4 000365310000001001 CROYDON WAY & MATHER FIELD RD CROYDON WAY MATHER FIELD RD 362 8 ‐0 . 1 5 2 8 000442030300003031 MATHER FIELD RD & MATHER FIELD RD SB US 50 EB ON MATHER FIELD RD MATHER FIELD RD SB US 50 EB ON 401 8 ‐0 . 0 8 2 3 001162120200011000 CAPITAL CENTER DR & DATA DR CAPITAL CENTER DR DATA DR 705 8 0 . 0 9 3 8 002243130000013020 KILGO
RE RD & SUN CENTER DR KILGORE RD SUN CENTER DR 1219 8 ‐0 . 1 4 2 2 3 010527000000000012 EXPLORER DR & LINCOLN VILLAGE DR EXPLORER DR LINCOLN VILLAGE DR 45 7 0 . 0 0 3 1 002145020000001123 MILLS STATION RD & PORTSMOUTH DR MILLS STATION RD PORTSMOUTH DR 402 7 0 . 0 4 2 7 000431200100301130 COLOMA RD & NEWTON WAY COLOMA RD NEWTON WAY 439 7 ‐0 . 0 8 2 2 001151210300005033 COLOMA RD & GEORGETOWN DR COLOMA RD GEORGETOWN DR 545 7 ‐0 . 1 0 2 7 001242030100013110 LAURELHURST DR & S WHITE ROCK RD LAUR ELHURST DR S WHITE ROCK RD 558 7 ‐0 . 1 8 2 0 1 010151501000002010 MILLS PARK DR & WHITE ROCK RD MILLS PARK DR WHITE ROCK RD 618 7 3 . 3 7 1 7 001062010400003231 MILLS PARK DR & MILLS TOWER DR MILLS PARK DR MILLS TOWER DR 629 7 1 . 0 6 1 7 001060141100001120 COLOMA RD & ROSSMOOR DR COLOMA RD ROSSMOOR DR 700 7 ‐0 . 1 2 3 7 000612023000002010 QUALITY DR & WHITE ROCK RD QUALITY DR WHITE ROCK RD 759 7 ‐0 . 0 5 2 1 7 100421002300101031 DRACO DR & LINCOLN VILLAGE DR DRAC O DR LINCOLN VILLAGE DR 24 6 0 . 2 3 1 6 000244001000100010 CAPITALES DR & W LA LOMA DR CAPITALES DR W LA LOMA DR 154 6 0 . 3 9 1 6 000245010000001120 TERRA LOMA DR & W LA LOMA DR TERRA LOMA DR W LA LOMA DR 175 6 0 . 2 3 2 1 001140210200100120 CAPITALES DR & MALAGA WAY CAPITALES DR MALAGA WAY 276 6 0 . 2 9 1 6 000244100000001110 OLD PLACERVILLE RD & SCHRIEVER AVE OLD PLACERVILLE RD SCHRIEVER AVE 417 6 ‐0 . 0 9 3 5 003031120200004011 AUTUMN BREEZE WAY & LAURE LHURST DR AUTUMN BREEZE WAY LAURELHURST DR 459 6 3 . 2 6 2 1 6 010414010000101011 COLOMA RD & SIERRA MADRE CT COLOMA RD SIERRA MADRE CT 497 6 ‐0 . 1 1 1 6 001051110200001011 COLOMA RD & DATTIER CT COLOMA RD DATTIER CT 520 6 ‐0 . 1 2 3 1 001321000200120032 ARMSTRONG AVE & VON KARMAN ST ARMSTRONG AVE VON KARMAN ST 573 6 2 . 3 96000061200300001122 INTERNATIONAL DR & RESERVE DR INTERNATIONAL DR RESERVE DR 766 6 ‐0 . 0 9 2 0 5 010234110000002001 GOLD CENTER DR & PROSPECT PARK DR GOLD CENTER DR PR OSPECT PARK DR 985 6 ‐0 . 2 9 6000064101000000002 FOLSOM BLVD & LOS NOGALES WAY FOLSOM BLVD LOS NOGALES WAY 1063 6 ‐0 . 1 3 2 1 000331103100000121 SUNRISE BLVD & SUNRISE BLVD SB US 50 WB ON SUNRISE BLVD SUNRISE BLVD SB US 50 WB ON 1240 6 ‐0 . 1 0 1 1 000150030300004022 RECYCLE RD & SUNRISE BLVD RECYCLE RD SUNRISE BLVD 1359 6 ‐0 . 1 6 1 6 000243110000001000 MERCANTILE DR & TRADE CENTER DR MERCANTILE DR TRADE CENTER DR 1365 6 ‐0. 0 2 1 1 000154101000000000 DOUGLAS RD & GRAN
T LINE RD DOUGLAS RD GRANT LINE RD 1766 6 ‐0 . 0 1 2 1 001141001310001031 ELLENWOOD AVE & ROUTIER RD ELLENWOOD AVE ROUTIER RD 225 5 0 . 0 0 3 4 003022010100010033 ROUTIER RD & VANGUARD DR ROUTIER RD VANGUARD DR 226 5 0 . 0 2 2 0 9 011122020100002000 MILLS STATION RD & WHITE ROCK RD MILLS STATION RD WHITE ROCK RD 409 5 0 . 3 4 1 5 000232001000200010 LAURELHURST DR & ROCKINGHAM DR LAURELHURST DR ROCKINGHAM DR 468 5 0 . 3 0 1 0 000140300001000141 FOLSOM BLVD & INVESTMENT CIR FOLSOM BLVD INVESTMENT CIR 508 5 ‐0 .1 8 1 5 000231220000001100 REYMOUTH AVE & S WHITE ROCK RD REYMOUTH AVE S WHITE ROCK RD 562 5 0 . 3 55000052201000000121 CHASSELLA WAY & ZINFANDEL DR CHASSELLA WAY ZINFANDEL DR 771 5 ‐0 . 0 3 2 0 001131110100102021 CORDOVA LN & ZINFANDEL DR CORDOVA LN ZINFANDEL DR 787 5 ‐0 . 3 1 1 0 000141111100000120 4 / 6
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Intersection
Cross Street 1
Cross Street 2

OBJECTID
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
BENITA DR & COLOMA RD BENITA  DR COLOMA  RD 869 5 ‐0 . 1 0 2 5 001220010300031140 BAROQUE DR & ZINFANDEL DR BAROQUE  DR ZINFANDEL  DR 1013 5 ‐0 . 4 5 3 5 002211030100002010 HIRSCHFELD WAY & ZINFANDEL DR HIRSCHFELD  WAY ZINFANDEL  DR 1141 5 ‐0 . 0 7 2 9 002121110000101011 KLAMATH RIVER DR & TRINITY RIVER DR KLAMATH RIVER DR TRINITY RIVER DR 1274 5 0 . 1 2 2 5 001222011000001010 GUMTREE DR & ROLLING RIVER LN GUMTREE DR ROLLING RIVER LN 1277 5 2 . 7 65000050040000103110 DOUGLAS RD & RANCHO CORDOVA PKWY DOUGLAS RD RANCH O CORDOVA PKWY 1620 5 ‐0 . 1 5 2 5 001220010300002000 GRANT LINE RD & KIEFER BLVD GRANT LINE RD KIEFER BLVD 1736 5 ‐0 . 3 0 5000050020111003021 LINCOLN VILLAGE DR & VIKING DR LINCOLN VILLAGE DR VIKING DR 27 4 ‐0 . 3 0 1 4 000220110000202010 FITE CIR & HORN RD FITE CIR HORN RD 84 4 0 . 0 0 1 9 000312010100001021 BRAVADO DR & CAPITALES DR BRAVADO DR CAPITALES DR 211 4 0 . 4 64000040220000000120 HORN RD & ROUTIER RD HORN RD ROUTIER RD 216 4 ‐0 . 1 7 2 4 001213000100000110 COUNTRYSIDE WAY & ROCKINGHAM DR COUNTR YSIDE WAY ROCKINGHAM DR 371 4 ‐0 . 1 3 9000130010300001120 CHASE DR & RINDA DR CHASE DR RINDA DR 400 4 ‐0 . 1 5 1 4 000222010000011010 BENNY WAY & MALAGA WAY BENNY WAY MALAGA WAY 405 4 0 . 2 8 1 9 8 010120111000101020 EVADNA DR & WHITE ROCK RD EVADNA DR WHITE ROCK RD 503 4 0 . 0 74000041110100001000 FOLSOM BLVD & INVESTMENT CIR FOLSOM BLVD INVESTMENT CIR 509 4 ‐0 . 2 0 9000130210100001011 CHETTENHAM DR & EL MERCADO DR CHETTENHAM DR EL MERCADO DR 510 4 0 . 8 99000131300000000220 BLUESTAR CT & MILLS TOWER DR BLUES TAR CT MILLS TOWER DR 604 4 0 . 5 4 1 4 001031210000001011 ARAMON DR & STUDARUS WAY & ARAMON DR ARAMON DR STUDARUS WAY & ARAMON DR 626 4 ‐0 . 1 6 9000131020000012011 PEDRO WAY & ZINFANDEL DR PEDRO WAY ZINFANDEL DR 742 4 ‐0 . 3 5 9000132100100001020 COLOMA RD & HERMOSA CT COLOMA RD HERMOSA CT 933 4 ‐0 . 1 5 9000130030100003012 GOLD CENTER DR & PROSPECT PARK DR GOLD CENTER DR PROSPECT PARK DR 986 4 ‐0 . 0 3 4000040210001000120 ANZA WAY & CERVANTES DR AN ZA WAY CERVANTES DR 1034 4 2 . 2 4 1 9 8 010121120000000100 RASHAWN DR & ZINFANDEL DR RASHAWN DR ZINFANDEL DR 1172 4 ‐0 . 1 3 1 4 001031101000101010 SUNRISE BLVD & SUNRISE BLVD NB US 50 EB ON SUNRISE BLVD SUNRISE BLVD NB US 50 EB ON 1244 4 ‐0 . 1 1 1 4 001030310000001020 S BRIDGE ST & SUNRISE BLVD S BRIDGE ST SUNRISE BLVD 1282 4 ‐0 . 1 8 1 4 001030030001001110 CITRUS RD & TRADE CENTER DR CITRUS RD TRADE CENTER DR 1339 4 ‐0 . 0 6 1 4 001032100100000000 SANDER
S DR & SUNRISE BLVD SANDERS DR SUNRISE BLVD 1352 4 ‐0 . 2 1 2 4 001212200000000011 GOLD VALLEY DR & WHITE ROCK RD GOLD VALLEY DR WHITE ROCK RD 1358 4 ‐0 . 1 9 9000134000000000001 MECHANICAL DR & RECYCLE RD MECHANICAL DR RECYCLE RD 1373 4 0 . 1 2 1 4 000222200000000000 ASTRAL DR & BURLINE ST ASTRAL DR BURLINE ST 134 3 0 . 2 33000030210000000000 ASTRAL DR & OLD PLACERVILLE RD ASTRAL DR OLD PLACERVILLE RD 149 3 ‐0 . 2 2 1 8 001111001100000121 GEMINI WAY & SCORPIO DR GEMINI WAY SCOR PIO DR 162 3 1 . 5 03000031200000002010 KING WAY & MILLS STATION RD KING WAY MILLS STATION RD 231 3 ‐0 . 1 6 3000030101100001021 ROCKINGHAM DR & SMITHLEE DR ROCKINGHAM DR SMITHLEE DR 300 3 0 . 3 33000031011000001020 COUNTRYSIDE WAY & FIRESIDE WAY COUNTRYSIDE WAY FIRESIDE WAY 339 3 0 . 9 73000030110000001031 FOLKLORE WAY & ROCKINGHAM DR FOLKLORE WAY ROCKINGHAM DR 341 3 0 . 1 83000030110001002020 CROYDON WAY & MILLS STATION RD CROYDON WAY MILLS STATION RD 342 3 ‐0 . 4 3 3000030010200002022 5 / 6
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Intersection
Cross Street 1
Cross Street 2

OBJECTID
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
MILLS TOWER DR & WHITE ROCK RD MILLS TOWER DR WHITE ROCK RD 433 3 ‐0 . 3 0 2 0 2 011010110000010020 BUENA PLAZA CIR & MILLS TOWER DR BUENA PLAZA CIR MILLS TOWER DR 447 3 0 . 2 3 1 3 001021011000000130 ANANDA LN & COLOMA RD ANANDA LN COLOMA RD 453 3 ‐0 . 2 2 1 3 001020010200002120 CROETTO WAY & WOODBERRY WAY CROETTO WAY WOODBERRY WAY 541 3 1 . 3 0 1 8 001110100000110010 SHAWN WAY & SPAULDING WAY SHAWN WAY SPAULDING WAY 549 3 1 . 3 03000031002000001021 GLENVIEW WAY & MILLS TOWER DR GLEN VIEW WAY MILLS TOWER DR 568 3 ‐0 . 1 2 8000120201000001110 CROETTO WAY & MILLS PARK DR CROETTO WAY MILLS PARK DR 575 3 0 . 6 4 3 8 1 110011100000101000 MALAGA WAY & RIBIER WAY MALAGA WAY RIBIER WAY 580 3 ‐0 . 1 3 8000121011000000011 GLENVIEW WAY & SPAULDING WAY GLENVIEW WAY SPAULDING WAY 619 3 1 . 0 7 1 3 001021200000000120 MILLS PARK DR & OLSON DR MILLS PARK DR OLSON DR 624 3 ‐0 . 0 8 1 3 001020010000021000 ARAMON DR & CHASSELLA WAY ARAMON DR CHASSELLA WAY 675 3 ‐0 . 3 5 1 3 001021001000100010 COLOMA RD & GAYWOOD DR CO LOMA RD GAYWOOD DR 718 3 ‐0 . 2 2 2 7 002101020000001011 ALICANTE WAY & ZINFANDEL DR ALICANTE WAY ZINFANDEL DR 776 3 ‐0 . 1 9 3000032100000000010 CAPITAL CENTER DR & INTERNATIONAL DR CAPITAL CENTER DR INTERNATIONAL DR 781 3 ‐0 . 2 1 1 8 001110010200001010 BENITA DR & EL MANTO DR BENITA DR EL MANTO DR 854 3 0 . 5 23000031200000001010 ATWOOD DR & CORDOVA LN ATWOOD DR CORDOVA LN 856 3 ‐0 . 3 9 8000120111000001120 BENITA DR & PINTURO WAY BENITA DR PINTURO WAY 872 3 0 . 1 23000031200000000011 BENITA DR & SONATA DR BENIT A DR SONATA DR 887 3 0 . 0 6 1 8 000302000100000000 ALANDALE WAY & QUEENWOOD DR ALANDALE WAY QUEENWOOD DR 1007 3 0 . 2 73000030010200001020 KLAMATH RIVER DR & TIBER RIVER DR KLAMATH RIVER DR TIBER RIVER DR 1147 3 0 . 3 08000120120000001111 SOLERA DR & TINTA FINA & ZINFANDEL DR SOLERA DR & TINTA FINA ZINFANDEL DR 1154 3 ‐0 . 1 6 3000030010200001031 BAROQUE DR/N MATHER BLVD & ZINFANDEL DR BAROQUE DR/N MATHER BLVD ZINFANDEL DR 1207 3 ‐0 . 4 4 1 9 2 010020000300002121

KLAMATH
RIVER DR & PIT RIVER CT & ELL RIVER CT KLAMATH RIVER DR PIT RIVER CT & ELL RIVER CT 1214 3 0 . 9 03000032000100000010 TEXAS RIVER CT & TRINITY RIVER DR TEXAS RIVER CT TRINITY RIVER DR 1218 3 ‐0 . 1 2 1 8 001110010100002000 RAVINE CIR & SPREADING OAK LN RAVINE CIR SPREADING OAK LN 1259 3 1 . 3 03000030030000000000 MONIER CIR & SUNRISE BLVD MONIER CIR SUNRISE BLVD 1356 3 ‐0 . 2 2 8000120110100000000 FITZGERALD RD & HYDRAULIC DR FI TZGERALD RD HYDRAULIC DR 1370 3 0 . 0 73000032100000001000 LUYUNG DR & WHITE ROCK RD LUYUNG DR WHITE ROCK RD 1372 3 ‐0 . 2 0 1 8 001110010100000110 JUSTINIAN DR & SUNRISE BLVD JUSTINIAN DR SUNRISE BLVD 1396 3 ‐0 . 2 2 1 9 2 010020000300001120 ANATOLIA DR & HERODIAN DR ANATOLIA DR HERODIAN DR 1430 3 0 . 3 08000120030000002000 UNNAMED RD & CADES COVE DR & DOUGLAS RD UNNAMED RD & CADES COVE DR DOUGLAS RD 1503 3 ‐0 . 0 4 2 2 002011100100000101 PERICLES DR & RANCHO CORD OVA PKWY PERICLES DR RANCHO CORDOVA PKWY 1622 3 0 . 1 4 1 3 001020000210003021 DOUGLAS RD & KATAHDIN DR DOUGLAS RD KATAHDIN DR 1701 3 ‐0 . 1 2 8000120000200001120 6 / 6
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Appendix

APPENDIX C

SEGMENT NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Facility

OBJECTID
Cross Street 1
Cross Street 2
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Major Injury
Minor Injury
Complaint of Pain
No Injury
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Principal Arterial 10 34 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 28 29 SUNRISE BLVD 3298 TRINITY RIVER DR COLOMA  RD 26 0 . 4 3 8 7 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 31 2 2 000000 1 5 151 BRADSHAW RD 581 US 50 EB On‐Ramp US  50 WB On‐Ramp 13 5 . 7 1 3 8 0 0 0580280000009040 SUNRISE BLVD 3300 ZINFANDEL DR SUNRISE  BLVD SB US 50 WB ON 13 0 . 3 1 2 8 0 0 03 1 0 0180200015210 SUNRISE BLVD 3299 GOLD COUNTRY BLVD TRINITY  RIVER DR 9 0 . 0 4 1 9 0 0 0270350001013011 SUNRISE BLVD 2379 SUNRISE PARK DR WHITE  ROCK RD 5 0 . 0 8 2 0 0 0 1130000400001120 BRADSHAW RD 575 LINCOLN VILLAGE DR COUNTRY  ROADS DR 4 0 . 1 1 9 0 0 0130040000004000 SUNRISE BLVD 2911 SUNRISE BLVD SB US 50 WB ON US 50 WB SUNRISE BLVD OFF 4 0 . 0 5 2 3 0 0 2020040000004000 HAZEL AVE SB US 50 EB ON 3152 US 50 HAZEL AVE 4 0 . 0 3 4 0 0 0040100000000010 MATHER FIELD RD 1237 US 50 EB MATHER FIELD RD OFF US 50 EB MATHER FIELD RD ON 3 ‐0 . 0 1 1 6 7 0 1 0020110100000010 SUNRISE BLVD 2913 SUNRISE GOLD CIR SUNRISE PARK DR 3 ‐0 . 0 6 1 8 0 0 1110010200011010 SUNRISE BLVD 2914 FOLSOM BLVD TRADE CENTER DR 3 ‐0 . 0 4 3 0 0 0030000000000000 SUNRISE BLVD 2916 SUN CENTER DR SUNRISE GOLD CIR 3 0 . 0 7 3 0 0 0030030000010000 SUNRISE BLVD 3295 S BRIDGE ST AMERICAN RIVER BIKE TRL 3 ‐0 . 1 0 2 7 0 0 2100020000102010 SUNRISE BLVD 3297 COLOMA RD ZINFANDEL DR 3 ‐0 . 0 9 8 0 0 0120120000002010 Minor Arterial
OLSON DR 2319 BRENTWOOD DR PROGRESS CT 21 0 . 6 3 6 1 0 0 16 1 4 0122300002120 FOLSOM BLVD 2148 DAWES ST COLOMA RD 11 0 . 3 8 3 1 0 0 0470111510012360 SUNRISE BLVD 1375 REFINEMENT RD DOUGLAS RD 8 ‐0 . 0 9 2 8 0 0 1250430100002120 WHITE RO CK  RD 2453 QUALITY DR ZINFANDEL  DR 8 1 . 2 4 8 0 0 0080410000001000 ZINFANDEL DR 2475 FOLSOM BLVD OLSON  DR 7 0 . 4 3 2 2 0 0 0340100000020010 FOLSOM BLVD 2682 MERCANTILE DR MINESHAFT  LN 7 ‐0 . 0 9 1 7 0 0 1060011400112030 FOLSOM BLVD 1725 ROD BEAUDRY DR ROUTIER  RD 6 0 . 5 3 3 1 0 0 0510030100020010 WHITE ROCK RD 2441 SUNRISE BLVD SUNRISE  PARK DR 6 0 . 2 4 3 6 0 0 2220000110011000 FOLSOM BLVD 1722 W LA LOMA DR BRAVADO  DR 5 0 . 3 1 1 5 0 0 0230110100111100 FOLSOM BLVD 2686 SPRUCE AVE MERCANTILE  DR 5 0 . 0 7 2 0 0 0 1130010000000230 OLD PLACERVILLE RD 865 BRADSHAW RD GRANBY  DR 4 ‐0 . 0 6 9 0 0 0130011000001000 COLOMA RD 2067 MALAGA WAY FOLSOM BLVD 4 0 . 0 9 9 0 0 0130000000000010 COLOMA RD 2633 MCGREGOR DR BENITA DR 4 0 . 2 4 4 0 0 0040220000001010 FOLSOM BLVD 2689 KILGORE RD SUNRISE BLVD 4 ‐0 . 1 0 9 0 0 0130200200010130 OLD PLACERVILLE RD 862 SYSTEMS PKWY SCHRIEVER AVE 3 ‐0 . 1 6 2 3 0 0 1200002100001000 FOLSOM BLVD 1724 LA LOMA DR MATHER FIELD DR 3 ‐0 . 1 1 1 7 2 0 1 0110020000101000 FOLSOM BLVD 2151 VILLAGE LN ZINFANDEL DR 3 ‐0 . 1 3 3 0 0 0030200100000010 FOLSOM BLVD 2152 INVESTMENT CIR MILLS PARK DR 3 ‐0 . 1 4 1 7 2 0 1 0110010000100010 FOLSOM BLVD 2687 CORDOVA LN MCGREGOR DR 3 ‐0 . 0 9 8 0 0 0120010100001000 Collector 0 ‐8.17232 0 0000000000000000
DATA DR 1698 RESERVE DR INTERNATIONAL DR 6 1 . 4 1 3 0 0 0 2130111000000010 GRANT LINE RD 193 KIEFER BLVD COUNTRY ROAD 5 ‐0 . 0 6 3 0 0 0 0500020300001010 DATA DR 1700 CAPITAL CENTER RD RESERVE DR 5 0 . 5 5 3 5 0 0 1400120100001020 GRANT LINE RD 2168 WHITE ROCK ROAD RAYMER WAY 4 ‐0 . 1 0 9 0 0 0130100300004010 GRANT LINE RD 1186 RAYMER WAY DOUGLAS RD 3 ‐0 . 1 4 2 2 0 0 2010000110013020 1 / 2
1/21/2022
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Facility

OBJECTID
Cross Street 1
Cross Street 2
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Major Injury
Minor Injury
Complaint of Pain
No Injury
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Dark
Wet
ZINFANDEL DR 1480 UNNAMED RD CA FIRE/RESCUE DRIVEWAY 3 ‐0 . 0 8 1 7 7 0 1 0200200000001020 MILLS STATION RD 1495 CORDOVAN MH ESTATES MILLS STATION RD 3 0 . 2 4 1 8 0 0 1110101000000110 SUN CENTER DR 2497 GOLD PAN CT SUNRISE BLVD 3 2 . 1 5 3 0 0 0030000000000000 VEHICLE DR 3334 COLOMA RD ZINFANDEL DR 3 0 . 8 8 3 0 0 0030110000001100 ZINFANDEL DR 3358 SUNRISE BLVD VEHICLE DR 3 0 . 1 9 1 3 0 0 1020100000021000 Local
EL PARQUE CIR 1703 BRAVADO DR BRAVADO DR 2 4 . 9 1 2 0 0 0020100000000020 EL CAPRICE DR 2108 MALAGA WAY PASEO DR 2 5 . 7 0 2 0 0 0020001000000000 LA LOMA DR 2204 CAPITALES DR F OLSOM BLVD 2 6 . 4 2 2 0 0 0020110000000020 SEGOVIA WAY 2884 BENITA DR EL MANTO DR 2 4 . 6 5 2 0 0 0020110000000000

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
2 / 2
1/21/2022
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 2022
Appendix

APPENDIX D
CAUSE OF CRASH: PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR FROM CALIFORNIA

VEHICLE CODE

ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Cause of Crash - Appendix D
SWITRS
Code SWITRS Description CVC Description CVC Code
0 00 - Unknown Unknown Unknown
0 00 - Unknown N/A 2235011
0 00 - Unknown N/A G
0 00 - Unknown N/A MEDICAL
0 00 - Unknown N/A MEDICAL ISSUE
0 00 - Unknown N/A OBJECTS
0 00 - Unknown N/A SEE NARR
0 00 - Unknown N/A SUN
0 00 - Unknown Blank
0 00 - Unknown <Null> <Null>
0 00 - Unknown N/A 82350
1 01 - Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug DUI 23152 1 01 - Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug DUI 23153 1 01 - Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Underage Alcohol Violation 23136 3 03 - Unsafe Speed Slow Vehicle 22400
3 03 - Unsafe Speed Speeding 22350
3 03 - Unsafe Speed Decreased Speed Limit Near District 22360 3 03 - Unsafe Speed Racing 23109
4 04 - Following Too Closely Following Too Closely (Tailgating) 21703 4 04 - Following Too Closely Tailgaiting Emergency Vehicle 21706 6 06 - Improper Passing Overtaking and Passing 21750
6 06 - Improper Passing Crossing Double Yellow Lines 21460 6 06 - Improper Passing Improper Overtaking and Passing (Left) 21751 6 06 - Improper Passing Improper Overtaking and Passing (Right) 21754 6 06 - Improper Passing Improper Overtaking and Passing (Off-Road) 21755 6 06 - Improper Passing Operating Vehicle on Left Side of Roadway 21752 7 07 - Unsafe Lane Change Lane Weaving and Lane Straddling 21658 7 07 - Unsafe Lane Change Unsafe Lane Change 22107
8 08 - Improper Turning Illegal U-Turn in a Business District 22102 8 08 - Improper Turning Illegal U-Turn in a Residence District 22103 8 08 - Improper Turning Illegally Using Bike Lane as Turn Lane 21717 8 08 - Improper Turning Turning on Roadways 22100
8 08 - Improper Turning Improper U-Turn 22105
9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Entering a Highway from an Alley or Driveway 21804 D-1
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Cause of Crash - Appendix D
SWITRS
Code SWITRS Description CVC Description CVC Code
9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Failure to Yield Right-of-Way 21802 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Failure to Yield to a Pedestrian 21950 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Failure to Yield to Other Motorists 21800 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Failure to Yield to Pedestrian on Sidewalk 21952 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Failure to Yield When Making a Left or U-Turn 21801 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Improper Yielding to Emergency Vehicle 21806 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Vehicle in Bicycle Lane 21209 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Unsignaled Decceleration in Roadway 22109 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Improper Yielding to Emergency Traffic Control 2818 9 09 - Automobile Right of Way Vehicle on Sidewalk 21663 11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Bicycle Illegally Traveling in Center of Lane 21202 11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Failure of Pedestrian to Yield to Vehicles Outside of Crosswalk 21954 11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Illegal Operation of Motorized Scooter 21235 11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Improper Pedestrian/Bicycle Crosswalk Crossing 21456 11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Jaywalking 21955
11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Motor Vehicle Laws Applicable to Bicyclists 21200 11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Improper Bicycle Equipment 21201 11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Improper Operation of Bicycle 21208 11 11 - Pedestrian Violation Pedestrian Walking in Roadway 21956 12 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs Disobey Direction of Traffic Control Device 22101 12 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs Flashing Yellow and Flashing Red Obedience 21457 12 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs Green Light Rules 21451 12 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs Gridlock 22526
12 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs Ran a Red Light 21453 12 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs Ran a Stop Sign 22450 12 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs Disobeying Non-Intersection Traffic Control Device 21455 12 12 - Traffic Signals and Signs Disobeying Regulatory Sign 21461 16 16 - Other Equipment Improper Lighting 24250
16 16 - Other Equipment Deficient Parking Brake 26451
16 16 - Other Equipment Operation of Unsafe Vehicle 24002 16 16 - Other Equipment Unsecured Load in Transit 23114 16 16 - Other Equipment Unsuitable Vehicle Load or Size 2803 17 17 - Other Hazardous Violation Stopping, Standing, and Parking 22515 17 17 - Other Hazardous Violation Abandoned Vehicle in Roadway 22500 D-2
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Cause of Crash - Appendix D
SWITRS
Code SWITRS Description CVC Description CVC Code
17 17 - Other Hazardous Violation Crossing a Divided Highway 21651 17 17 - Other Hazardous Violation Reckless Driving 23103 17 17 - Other Hazardous Violation Improper Opening of Door into Traffic 22517 17 17 - Other Hazardous Violation Wireless Device Usage While Operating Vehicle 23123 17 17 - Other Hazardous Violation Hit and Run (Fatal / Injury) 20001 17 17 - Other Hazardous Violation Hit and Run (Property Damage Only) 20002 21 21 - Unsafe Starting or Backing Unsafe Starting or Backing 22106 22 22 - Other Improper Driving Right Hand Lane Violations 21650 22 22 - Other Improper Driving Improper Emergency Vehicle Usage 21807 22 22 - Other Improper Driving Improper Operation of Passenger for Hire Vehicle 22453 22 22 - Other Improper Driving N/A IMPATIENT
D-3
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

2022-01 Rancho Cordova LRSP.docx City of Rancho Cordova LRSP January 20 22
Appendix

APPENDIX E

PROJECT SHEETS
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan
Project Description for Intersection Improvements
Location: Citywide Signalized Intersections (47 signals) 1,318 Agency Name: City of Rancho Cordova N/A
Contact Name: Byron Tang 8,921
E-mail: [email protected] 4
27 80
345
862
276
222
560
38 118
6 24 24
46 31
504
74 318
149

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF  COUNTERMEASURE LRSM  # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2016 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)

QUANTITY/
NUMBER OF
UNITS
UNIT COST COST

ESTIMATE
1 BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 4 0.6 1.20 1,590,000$      1,908,000$
SERIOUS 27 4.05 8.10 1,590,000$      12,879,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 80 12 24.00 142,301$          3,415,224$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 345 51.75 103.50 80,900$            8,373,150$ PDO 862 129.3 258.60 13,300$            3,439,380$
FATAL 4 1.6 3.20 1,590,000$      5,088,000$
SERIOUS 27 10.8 21.60 1,590,000$      34,344,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 80 32 64.00 142,301$          9,107,264$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 345 138 276.00 80,900$            22,328,400$ PDO 862 344.8 689.60 13,300$            9,171,680$
FATAL 1 0.85 1.70 1,590,000$      2,703,000$
SERIOUS 14 11.9 23.80 1,590,000$      37,842,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 16 13.6 27.20 142,301$          3,870,587$ COMPLAINT OF PAIN 33 28.05 56.10 80,900$            4,538,490$ PDO 6 5.1 10.20 13,300$            135,660$
FATAL 1 0.6 1.20 1,590,000$      1,908,000$
SERIOUS 14 8.4 16.80 1,590,000$      26,712,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 16 9.6 19.20 142,301$          2,732,179$ COMPLAINT OF PAIN 33 19.8 39.60 80,900$            3,203,640$ PDO 6 3.6 7.20 13,300$            95,760$
Note:

1. The cost estimate does not include "soft costs" such as mobilization, traffic control, and permitting fees.

Sunrise Blvd (17 signals)
Folsom Blvd (21 signals)
Roadway Segments
Coloma Rd (9 signals)
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Signalized Intersections - Systemic
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Crash Type
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Contributing Factors
Non-Motorist Crashes
Crash Conditions
Wet
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2015‐2019)
‐ All Install Retroreflective
Backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
940
Retroreflective
Backplates (20
per intersection)
Dark
705,000$           750$             S02 10 0.85 100% 30,014,754$   42.6 100% 49,089,737$   207885 Linear
Feet
‐ All
Provide Advanced Dilemma
Zone Detection for high speed
approaches
Provi
de Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed
approaches
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Install Green paint at
vehicle/bicycle conflict zones
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
47 Signals
(Detection)
7 $                  36.3S20PB 10 0.15
S04 10 0.60 100% 80,039,344$   40,000$        42.61,880,000$ 1,351,253$
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Implement leading pedestrian
interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implem ent
a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 147S21PB 10 0.40 100% 34,651,579$   47 Signals (LPI) 235,000$           5,000$ ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan
Project Description for Intersection Improvements
Location: Mather Field Road / Paseo Drive & Folsom Boulevard 75 Agency Name: City of Rancho Cordova 0.63
Contact Name: Byron Tang 842
E-mail: btang@cityof ranchocordova.org 1
4 8
19 43
4 11
37 3
6 1
6 8
25 7
26 5

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF  COUNTERMEASURE LRSM  # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY
COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2016 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)

QUANTITY/
NUMBER OF
UNITS
UNIT COST COST
ESTIMA
TE1 BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 1,590,000 $     477,000$
SERIOUS 4 0.6 1.20 1,590,000 $     1,908,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 8 1.2 2.40 142,301 $         341,522$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 19 2.85 5.70 80,900$           461,130$ PDO 43 6.45 12.90 13,300$           171,570$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$     ‐$
SERIOUS 5 3.25 6.50 1,590,000 $     10,335,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.95 3.90 142,301$         554,974$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 6 3.9 7.80 80,900$           631,020$ PDO 0 0 0.00 13,300$           ‐$
FATAL 1 0.4 0.80 1,590,000 $     1,272,000$
SERIOUS 4 1.6 3.20 1,590,000 $     5,088,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 8 3.2 6.40 142,301$         910,726$

COMPLAIN
T OF PAIN 19 7.6 15.20 80,900$           1,229,680$
PDO 43 17.2 34.40 13,300$           457,520$
FATAL 1 0.15 0.30 1,590,000 $     477,000$
SERIOUS 4 0.6 1.20 1,590,000 $     1,908,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 8 1.2 2.40 142,301$         341,522$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 19 2.85 5.70 80,900$           461,130$ PDO 43 6.45 12.90 13,300$           171,570$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$     ‐$
SERIOUS 5 3 6.00 1,590,000$     9,540,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.8 3.60 142,301$         512,284$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 6 3.6 7.20 80,900$           582,480$ PDO 0 0 0.00 13,300$           ‐$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$     ‐$
SERIOUS 5 4.25 8.50 1,590,000 $     13,515,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 2.55 5.10 142,301$         725,735$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 6 5.1 10.20 80,900$           825,180$ PDO 0 0 0.00 13,300$           ‐$
100% 15,065,915$  ‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Install Green paint at
vehicle/bicycle conflict zones.

Install hatched pavement
marking between center and
right‐turn only lanes (NB
approach) to reinforce not bike
lane.

Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicy
cle Box) S20PB 10 0.15
S21PB 10 0.40 100% 10,634,764$   1 Signals (LPI)
100% 3,359,222$   184 SQFT of
striping
7 $                22,100$             6823400 SQFT of
striping
5,000$               5,000$         2,127
All
Provide Advanced Dilemma
Zone Detection for high speed
approaches
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed
approaches
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Implement leading pedestrian
interval (LPI)
Modify sig
nal phasing to implement
a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
S13PB 0.35
1,196$               ‐ All
Advanced Stop Bars (NB
approach) in advance of
railroad tracks, add "Keep
Clear" pavement markings
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
S04 10 0.60 100%
S20PB 10 0.85
40,000$       22440,000$            8,957,926$   1 Signals (Detection)
7 $                 2,809
‐
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2015‐2019)
370 Linear Feet
12,000$             280
10,804$

750$
11,520,994$
‐ All Install Retroreflective
Backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
16 Retroreflective
Backplates (0.8
signals at 20 per
signal)
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Install median fencing to
discourage jaywalking (east
leg)
Install pedestrian median fencing
on approaches
S02 10 0.85 100% 3,359,222$
90%20
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Dark
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Wet
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Contributing Factors
Crash Type
29$               1,066
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan
Project Description for Intersection Improvements
Location: Mather Field Road / Paseo Drive & Folsom Boulevard 75 Agency Name: City of Rancho Cordova 0.63
Contact Name: Byron Tang 842
E-mail: btang@cityof ranchocordova.org 1
4 8
19 43
4 11
37 3
6 1
6 8
25 7
26 5

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF  COUNTERMEASURE LRSM  # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH

SEVERITY
COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2016 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)

QUANTITY/
NUMBER OF
UNITS
UNIT COST COST
ESTIMA
TE1 BENEFIT/COSTNUMBER OF CRASHES
(2015‐2019)
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Dark
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Wet
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Contributing Factors
Crash Type
FATAL 1 ‐‐ 1,590,000$     ‐
SERIOUS 4 ‐‐ 1,590,000$     ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 8 ‐‐ 142,301$         ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 19 ‐‐ 80,900$           ‐
PDO 43 ‐‐ 13,300$           ‐
Note:

1. The cost estimate does not include "soft costs" such as mobilization, traffic control, and permitting fees. ‐ All
Lane reconfiguration of NB
approach to eliminate right‐
turns from shared center lane
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐‐ ‐$   ‐ ‐ ‐
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan
Project Description for Intersection Improvements
Location: Coloma Road & Folsom Boulevard 67
Agency Name: City of Rancho Cordova 0.44
Contact Name: Byron Tang 316
E-mail: [email protected] 0
1 3
20 43
9 8
16 0
15 1
2 12
21 2
18 11

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF  COUNTERMEASURE LRSM  # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS  FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2016 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)

QUANTITY/
NUMBER OF
UNITS
UNIT COST COST
ESTI
MATE1 BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000 $       ‐ $
SERIOUS 1 0.15 0.30 1,590,000 $       477,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 142,301$          128,071$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 20 3 6.00 80,900$            485,400$ PDO 43 6.45 12.90 13,300$            171,570$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$       ‐$
SERIOUS 1 0.4 0.80 1,590,000$       1,272,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.2 2.40 142,301 $          341,522$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 20 8 16.00 80,900 $            1,294,400$ PDO 43 17.2 34.40 13,300 $            457,520$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000 $       ‐ $
SERIOUS 1 0.15 0.30 1,590,000 $       477,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 142,301$          128,071$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 9 1.35 2.70 80,900$            218,430$ PDO 1 0.15 0.30 13,300$            3,990$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$       ‐$
SERIOUS 1 0.6 1.20 1,590,000$       1,908,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 1.8 3.60 142,301$          512,284$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 9 5.4 10.80 80,900$            873,720$ PDO 1 0.6 1.20 13,300$            15,960$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$       ‐$
SERIOUS 1 0.85 1.70 1,590,000 $       2,703,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 2.55 5.10 142,301$          725,735$

COMPLAI
NT OF PAIN 9 7.65 15.30 80,900$            1,237,770$
PDO 1 0.85 1.70 13,300$            22,610$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$       ‐$
SERIOUS 1 0.25 0.50 1,590,000 $       795,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.75 1.50 142,301$          213,452$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 9 2.25 4.50 80,900$            364,050$ PDO 1 0.25 0.50 13,300$            6,650$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$       ‐$
SERIOUS 1 0.9 1.80 1,590,000$       2,862,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 2.7 5.40 142,301 $          768,425$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 20 18 36.00 80,900 $            2,912,400$ PDO 43 38.7 77.40 13,300 $            1,029,420$
100% 7,572,245$   1103 SQFT of
striping 7 $
1 Signs 15,000$        15,000$              91.9
7,170$               ‐ All Refresh striping (yellow), install high visibility striping
Install raised pavement markers and
striping (Through Intersection) S09 10 0.10
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Pedestrian‐activated pedestrian
crossing blankout sign installed
far‐side on southwest corner
(facing SB traffic)
Install pedestrian countdown signal
heads
S17PB 20 0.75 100% 1,379,152$
2580 SQFT of
striping
750$
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
7 $                  16,770$
Crash Conditions
Wet
8,250$
40,000$        40,000$
7 $                  709$
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Install Green paint at
vehicle/bicycle conflict zones
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 10 0.15 100% 4,689,115$
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Implement leading pedestrian
interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement
a Leadin
g Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 5,000$          662
100%
S21PB 10 0.40 100% 3,309,964$   1 Signals (LPI) 5,000$
827,491$   109 SQFT of
striping
3,365,442$   1 Signals
(Detection)
‐ All Install Retroreflective
Backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
11 Retroreflective
Backplates (0.55
signals at 20 per
signal)
S20PB 10 0.85 100%
‐ All
Provide Advanced Dilemma
Zone Dete
ction for high speed
approaches
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed approaches
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Advanced Stop Bars to
encourage drivers to stop in
advance of crosswalks for
added safety of crossing
pedestrians. Provide bike box
for bicyclists making SB left‐
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
S04 1 0

0.60 Overturned
Fatal
153S02 10 0.85 100% 1,262,041$
Non-Motorist Crashes
Contributing Factors
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2015‐2019)
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Dark
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Crash Type
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury

84.1 1,168
1,056
280
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan
Project Description for Intersection Improvements
Location: Coloma Road & Folsom Boulevard 67
Agency Name: City of Rancho Cordova 0.44
Contact Name: Byron Tang 316
E-mail: [email protected] 0
1 3
20 43
9 8
16 0
15 1
2 12
21 2
18 11

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF  COUNTERMEASURE LRSM  # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS  FUNDING
NUMBER OF

HISTORIC

CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

BENEFIT
(2016 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)

QUANTITY/
NUMBER OF
UNITS
UNIT COST COST
ESTI
MATE1 BENEFIT/COST
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Wet
Overturned
Fatal
Non-Motorist Crashes
Contributing Factors
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2015‐2019)
Signalized Intersection
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Dark
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Crash Type
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000 $       ‐ $
SERIOUS 1 0.15 0.30 1,590,000 $       477,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 3 0.45 0.90 142,301$          128,071$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 20 3 6.00 80,900$            485,400$ PDO 43 6.45 12.90 13,300$            171,570$
FATAL 0 ‐‐ 1,590,000$       ‐
SERIOUS 1 ‐‐ 1,590,000$       ‐
OTHER VISIBLE 3 ‐‐ 142,301$          ‐
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 20 ‐‐ 80,900$            ‐
PDO 43 ‐‐ 13,300$            ‐
Note:

1. The cost estimate does not include "soft costs" such as mobilization, traffic control, and permitting fees. 3 Signals and
Retroflective
Backplates
8,750$          26,250$              48.1100% 1,262,041$  ‐ All Install additional overhead‐
mounted 3‐section signal head
(EB and WB approaches),
retroflective backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 10 0.85
‐‐ ‐ ‐‐ All
Evaluate lane reconfiguration of
SB approach to eliminate right‐
turns from shared center lane
‐‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐$
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan
Project Description for Intersection Improvements
Location: Coloma Road & Sunrise Boulevard 123 26
Agency Name: City of Rancho Cordova 0.27 0.43
Contact Name: Byron Tang 676 87
E-mail: [email protected] 0 0
3 0
2 0
35 12
83 14
14 3
20 1
72 22
2 0
9 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
66 15
10 1
35 5
11 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF  COUNTERMEASURE LRSM  # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF
HISTORIC CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDU
CTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)

QUANTITY/
NUMBER OF
UNITS
UNIT COST COST
ESTIMATE1 BENEFIT/COST
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000 $      ‐ $
SERIOUS 3 0.45 0.90 1,590,000 $      1,431,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 142,301 $         85,381$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 35 5.25 10.50 80,900$           849,450$ PDO 83 12.45 24.90 13,300$           331,170$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$      ‐$
SERIOUS 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$      ‐$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 142,301$         ‐$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.85 1.70 80,900$           137,530$ PDO 0 0 0.00 13,300$           ‐$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$      ‐$
SERIOUS 3 1.2 2.40 1,590,000$      3,816,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.8 1.60 142,301$         227,682$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 35 14 28. 00 80,900$           2,265,200$ PDO 83 33.2 66.40 13,300$           883,120$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$      ‐$
SERIOUS 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$      ‐$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 142,301$         ‐$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.15 0.30 80,900$           24,270$ PDO 0 0 0.00 13,300$           ‐$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$      ‐$
SERIOUS 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$      ‐$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 142,301$         ‐$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 1 0.6 1.20 80,900$           97,080$
PDO 0 0 0.00 13,300$           ‐$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000$      ‐$
SERIOUS 3 0.45 0.90 1,590,000$      1,431,000$
OTHE
R VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 142,301$         85,381$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 35 5.25 10.50 80,900$           849,450$ PDO 83 12.45 24.90 13,300$           331,170$
‐ All
Install additional overhead‐
mounted 3‐section signal head
on Coloma Rd approaches
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
S02 2,697,001$
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Crash Conditions
Wet
Dark
24,270$   206 SQFT of
stri
ping
S04
10 0.85 100%
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2015‐2019)
S20PB
3 Signals and
Retroflective
Backplates
Proposed Intersection Improvements
8,750$          26,250$              103
5,000$          19.4
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
100%
10 0.60

19.6 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
10 0.85
15,000$              180750$

3.3 S21PB 10 0.40 100% 97,080$   1 Signals (LPI) 5,000$               ‐ Pedestrian and Bicyclist
Implement leading pedestrian
interval (LPI)
Modify signal phasing to implement
a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
40,000$        18040,000$             100% 7,192,002$   1 Signals (Detection)‐ All
Provide Advanced Dilemma
Zone Detection for hig h speed
approaches
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Advanced Stop Bars to
encourage drivers to stop in
advance of crosswalks for
added safety of crossing
pedestrians
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box) 1,236$               6 $
Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone
Detection for high speed approaches
100% 137,530$   6450 SQFT of
striping
‐ All Install R etroreflective
Backplates
Improve signal hardware: lenses,
back‐plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number
20 Retroreflective
Backplates (1
signals at 20 per
signal)
S02 10 0.85 100% 2,697,001$
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Install Green paint at
vehicle/bicycle conflict zones
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 10 0.15 41,925$             7 $ Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Over
turned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Contributing Factors
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Crash Type
Signalized Intersection & Road Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Intersection Road Segment
Crash Type
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code

Rancho Cordova Local Road Safety Plan
Project Description for Intersection Improvements
Location: Coloma Road & Sunrise Boulevard 123 26
Agency Name: City of Rancho Cordova 0.27 0.43
Contact Name: Byron Tang 676 87
E-mail: [email protected] 0 0
3 0
2 0
35 12
83 14
14 3
20 1
72 22
2 0
9 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
66 15
10 1
35 5
11 1

NOTES COLLISION
TYPE RECOMMENDATION LRSM/CMF  COUNTERMEASURE LRSM  # Expected Life (Years) CMF CALTRANS

FUNDING
NUMBER OF
HISTORIC CRASHES

REDUCED
10‐YEAR CRASH

REDUCTION

ESTIMATE
CRASH
SEVERITY COST
10‐YEAR CRASH
REDUCTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)
TOTAL 10‐YEAR CRASH
REDU
CTION BENEFIT
(2016 $)

QUANTITY/
NUMBER OF
UNITS
UNIT COST COST
ESTIMATE1 BENEFIT/COST
Bicycle
Contributing Factors
Aggressive
Impaired
Crash Conditions
Dark
Wet
Crash Conditions
Wet
Dark
NUMBER OF CRASHES
(2015‐2019)
Proposed Intersection Improvements
Non-Motorist Crashes
Pedestrian
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Impaired
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Non-Motorist Crashes
Contributing Factors
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Crash Type
Signalized Intersection & Road Segment
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Intersection Road Segment
Crash Type
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Total Crashes
Local CCR Differential
Equivalent Property Damage Only
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
FATAL 0 0 0.00 1,590,000 $      ‐$
SERI
OUS 3 0.45 0.90 1,590,000$      1,431,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 2 0.3 0.60 142,301$         85,381$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 35 5.25 10.50 80,900$           849,450$ PDO 83 12.45 24.90 13,300$           331,170$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,190,000$      ‐$
SERIOUS 0 0 0.00 2,190,000$      ‐$
OTHER VISIBLE 0 0 0.00 142,301$         ‐$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 12 1.8 3.60 80,900$           291,240$ PDO 14 2.1 4.20 13,300$           55,860$
FATAL 0 0 0.00 2,190,000$      ‐$
SERIOUS 3 2.55 5.10 2,190,000$      8,109,000$
OTHER VISIBLE 1 0.85 1.70 142,301$         241,912$
COMPLAINT OF PAIN 22 18.7 37.40 80,900$           3,025,660$ PDO 0 0 0.00 13,300$           ‐$
Note:

1. The cost estimate does not include "soft costs" such as mobilization, traffic control, and permitting fees. 1 Signs 450$             450$   25,281‐ All Install No U‐Turn sign at NB mid‐ block median opening
Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or
warning)
R22 10 0.15 100% 11,376,572$
‐ Pedestrian and
Bicyclist
Install yield lines in advance of
crosswalks at uncontrolled
crossing (EB and WB free right
turns)
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S20PB 10 0.85 100% 2,697,001$
‐ All 2,640$                131
1,063$                2,538
450$
25 SQFT of
stri
ping 7 $
2 Signs
Proposed Road Segment Improvements
Add Raised Delineators along
left‐turn lane at NB mid‐block
median opening to restrict
access from driveway on east
side of Sunrise
Install delineators, reflectors and/or
object markers R27 10 0.85 100% 347,100$   24 Deliniators  110$ ITEM 9.2.

ATTACHMENT 2
Exhibit A to the Resolution
23 U.S.C. § 409: US Code