City of Rialto
Safety Action Plan
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
i
City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT AND GOAL SETTING 4
Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes .....................................................................................................................................4 Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a safety action plan and the systemic process ................................................................................4 Goal #3: Define safety improvements for the near-, mid- and long-term, including projects for HSIP, SS4A and other program funding consideration ........................................................................................................................................................................5 Goal #4: Identify emphasis areas to prioritize countermeasure application .....................................................................................5 Goal #5: Proposed List of Targeted Safety Investigation for Implementation of Countermeasures .........................................5
3. PLANNING STRUCTURE 6
Stakeholder and Public Workshops ................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1 Guiding Manuals............................................................................................................................................................................................. 6
3.2 Analysis T echniques ....................................................................................................................................................................................7
4. SAFETY ANALYSIS 10
4.1 Roadway Network .......................................................................................................................................................................................10
4.2 Intersections .................................................................................................................................................................................................10
4.3 Count Data ....................................................................................................................................................................................................10
4.4 Crash Data ....................................................................................................................................................................................................10
5. CRASH SAFETY TRENDS 14
5.1 All Crashes ......................................................................................................................................................................................................14
5.2 Fatal and Suspected Severe Injury Crashes ......................................................................................................................................16
5.3 Crash Severity ..............................................................................................................................................................................................18
5.4 Primary Collision Factor .............................................................................................................................................................................19
5.5 Vulnerable Road Users ............................................................................................................................................................................20 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
ii
City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
5.6 Time of Day ..................................................................................................................................................................................................20
5.7 Time of Y ear ..................................................................................................................................................................................................20
5.8 Behavioral Driving ......................................................................................................................................................................................20
5.9 Statewide Comparison .............................................................................................................................................................................20
5.10 Crash Network Screening Analysis Results .....................................................................................................................................24
6. ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION 37
6.1 Public Engagement .....................................................................................................................................................................................37
6.2 Public Workshops and Meetings ...........................................................................................................................................................37
6.3 Stakeholder Meetings ...............................................................................................................................................................................38
7. EQUITY 39
7.1 Equity Framework .........................................................................................................................................................................................39
7.2 Methodology ................................................................................................................................................................................................43
7.3 Equity Analysis .............................................................................................................................................................................................43
7.4 Collisions by Mode .....................................................................................................................................................................................45
7.5 Collisions by Age ........................................................................................................................................................................................52
7.6 Key Takeaways ............................................................................................................................................................................................54
8. CLIMATE CHANGE, SUSTAINABLE AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS 55
8.1 Trip Origin: Trip Destination Analysis .....................................................................................................................................................55
8.2 Trip Origin and Destination Analysis ....................................................................................................................................................58
9. POLICY AND PROCESS CHANGE 63
9.1 Literature Review .........................................................................................................................................................................................63
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
iii
City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
10. STRATEGY AND PROJECT SELECTIONS 82
10.1 Consideration 1: T op Five Challenge Areas .......................................................................................................................................82
10.2 Consideration 2: EPDO Ranking for Segments and Intersections ..........................................................................................82
10.3 Consideration 3: Equity ..........................................................................................................................................................................82
10.4 Geographic Focus Area ..........................................................................................................................................................................82
10.5 Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas ..............................................................................................................................83
11. EMPHASIS AREAS 86
Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving .......................................................................................................................................................86 Emphasis Area #2: Impaired Driving ............................................................................................................................................................86 Emphasis Area #3: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety ................................................................................................................................86 Emphasis Area #4: Intersections ...................................................................................................................................................................87 Case Study Locations ........................................................................................................................................................................................87
12. PROGRESS AND TRANSPARENCY 88
12.1 Funding Sources .......................................................................................................................................................................................88
12.2 Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................................................................................89
12.3 Implementation Strategies ....................................................................................................................................................................90
13. NEXT STEPS 91
Appendix A. Case Study Sheets 92
Appendix B. Online Public Survey Feedback 93
Acknowledgements
City of Rialto
xx
xx
xx
Project Team
Kimley-Horn
xx
Community Stakeholders
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
xx
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
1 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Rialto Safety Action Plan identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of
the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas
include type of crashes, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history.
The plan analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as
well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations and high-risk locations, as well as city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to:
With this plan, the City continues its safety efforts
by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic
recommendations to enhance safety.
The City’s vision is to enhance the transportation network and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury-related crashes. The City’s vision includes the following goals:
• Providing a safe and efficient street system that
links all parts of the area for the movement of people
and goods
• Providing Rialto’s residents with a choice of
travel modes
• Providing a street system that contributes to
residents’ quality of life and minimizes impacts on
the environment
• These goals will be furthered by this plan through the following target objectives
The plan analyzes the most recent range of crash data
(January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2023) and roadway characteristics to access historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern. While the COVID-19 pandemic altered traffic conditions and collision patterns from
2020 to 2022, these years were ultimately included to
understand recent trends.
Further, the collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through collision histories or similarities to other locations with more active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations were identified within the city that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements. Additionally, collision risk factors for the entire network were derived.
The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures
to address certain roadway characteristics and related
behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users.
Emphasis areas were developed revisiting the visions and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.
Identify factors in the transportation network that
inhibit safety for all roadway users.
Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and
reduce serious injury and fatal collisions.
Develop safety measures using the four E’s of
safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and
Emergency Response to encourage safer driver
behavior and lower severity outcomes.
1 2
3 Objective #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.
Objective #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive
safety program and the systemic process.
Objective #3: Plan future safety improvements for
near-, mid-, and long-term.
Objective #4: Define safety projects for HSIP and other program funding considerations.
Emphasis Area 1: Aggressive Driving
Emphasis Area 2: Impaired Driving
Emphasis Area 3: Bicyclist and Pedestrian Safety
Emphasis Area 4: Intersections
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
2 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
The following eleven (11) project locations were selected as priority projects based on an evaluation of crash data, stakeholder input, public input, and equity considerations that were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the city:
These locations were identified through the analysis
process based on their crash histories, public engagement and input, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the city can
employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.
Countermeasures are subjected to a benefit-cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment.
The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that prevent further safety challenges from developing. Additionally, this information can be used to help the city apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These grants and
funding opportunities include highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), administered by Caltrans; the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) program, administered by the federal
government; the Active Transportation Program (ATP) funds, administered by the federal government; and the Active
Transportation Program (ATP) funds, administered by the State of California. There are also regional funding sources, administrated by the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA). The completion of a safety action plan is required for some of these programs and will allow the City of Rialto to be eligible for these funds.
Near-term action items were identified to accelerate the City’s achievement of the goals and vision of a Safety
Action Plan (SAP). The City can:
These recommendations provide Rialto with a look-ahead
for safety improvements that can be applied systemically.
Additionally, this information can be used to help the
City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements.
An evaluation and implementation plan were created that identifies actionable items that will help the City achieve the goals and vision set out in this report. This section will lay out next steps for the City to continue to capitalize on the analysis and information provided in this report. It is recommended that the City Council formally adopt this plan.
1. Intersection: Cedar Avenue and Merrill Avenue
2. Intersection: Riverside Avenue and
W Foothill Avenue
3. Intersection: Linden Avenue and Merrill Avenue
4. Segment: Riverside Avenue from San Bernardino
Avenue to Valley Boulevard
5. Intersection: Sycamore Avenue and
Baseline Road
6. Intersection: North Alder Avenue and
Riverside Avenue
7. Intersection: Acacia Avenue and Rialto Avenue
8. Segment: Riverside Ave. from Agua Mansa Road
and Miguel Bustamante Parkway
9. Intersection: Sycamore avenue and
San Bernardino Ave.
10. Segment: Riverside Avenue from Industrial Drive
to Jurupa Avenue
11. Segment: Merrill Avenue from Linden Avenue to
Cedar Street
• Actively seek other funding opportunities to
improve safety for all modal users.
• Establish a goal of zero traffic fatalities by the
year 2050 consistent with the statewide goals set
by Caltrans.
• Collaborate with established safety partners &
neighboring municipalities as improvements are
made to create a cohesive transportation network.
• Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed
transportation safety programs and capital
improvements to design a safer transportation
network in Rialto.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
3 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
1. INTRODUCTION
Rialto’s Safety Action Plan (SAP) identifies emphasis
areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of
the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas
include the type of crash, focused locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The SAP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation
network allows for the following opportunities:
• Identify factors in the transportation network that
inhibit safety for all roadway users, improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and
• Develop safety measures using the four E’s of
safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and
Emergency Response) to encourage safer driver
behavior and better severity outcomes.
The City of Rialto has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the City and, with this SAP, Rialto is continuing to prioritize safety in its planning process. The California Office of Traffic Safety most recently ranked Rialto 16th of 60 peer cities for total fatal and injured crashes after normalizing for population and Vehicle
Miles Travelled (VMT) in 2021. With an OTS ranking of one considered the highest, or “worst,” this indicates that Rialto performs worse than most of its peer cities in the state for limiting injuries on City roadways.
Based on the University of California Berkeley’s
Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vehicles Operation Cost Parameters, Rialto’s economic losses due to traffic injuries amounted to approximately $260.2 million from 2018 through 2023. This report identifies factors
associated with the most vehicle crashes particular to the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes
Create a greater awareness of
road safety and risk
Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury
crashes
Develop lasting Partnerships
Support for grant/funding applications
Prioritize investments in safety throughout the
City
The intent of the
Safety Action Plan:
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
4 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
2. LEADERSHIP COMMITMENT AND GOAL SETTING
The Rialto Safety Action Plan 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, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent
municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety
countermeasures. Through analysis of historical data and trends, community outreach and input, and proactive
identification, safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and
response to crashes as they occur.
Cities across the county have implemented SAPs and
systemically addressed the conditions leading to serious injuries and fatal crashes. SAPs provide a locally developed and customized approach to directly address the most
significant safety risks in the given jurisdiction. This plan’s vision, goals, and objective have been established to
reflect discussions with Rialto’s staff, various stakeholders identified by City staff, input from community members, and a review of existing plans/policies in the area. This plan also supports the goal of zero fatalities from traffic collisions by 2050, which is consistent with Caltrans and the Southern California Association of Governments’
(SCAG)’s Vision Zero goals.
1 Goal #1: Identify areas with a
high risk for crashes
Objectives:
• Evaluate the City’s roadway network for crash activity • Identify intersections and segments in need of
mitigation
• Identify areas of interest with respects to safety
concerns for pedestrians and bicycles
2 Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a safety
action plan and the systemic process
Objectives:
• Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for crashes based on
present characteristics closely associated with
severe crashes
• Demonstrate, through the systemic process,
the gap and data collection activities that can be
improved upon
• Demonstrate a safety toolbox and strategies to
better align with current best practices, and where
there are opportunities for new initiatives that
would likely support safer roads and better driving
behaviors
• Identify safety countermeasures for specific
locations (selected project locations)
• Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied
city-wide
5 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
3 Goal #3: Define safety improvements for
the near- , mid- and long-term, including
projects for HSIP , SS4A and other program
funding consideration
Objectives:
• Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth-coming cycles
• Use the systemic process to create Project Case
Study sheets
• Use Project Case Study sheets to apply for upcoming
HSIP funding consideration
• Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed
safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative
and the California State Highway Safety Plan
5 Goal #5: Proposed List of Targeted
Safety Investigation for Implementation
of Countermeasures
Objectives:
• Identify targeted safety investigation
for implementation
• Identify systemic issues where countermeasures can
be implemented
• Prioritize these countermeasures for implementation
based on cost, effort, and timeline
4 Goal #4: Identify emphasis areas to
prioritize countermeasure application
Objectives:
• Use systemic crash analysis to identify
emphasis areas
• Prioritize emphasis areas for
countermeasure development
• Align emphasis areas with City goals & objectives
• Align emphasis areas with current City areas
of concern
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
6 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
3. PLANNING STRUCTURE
Stakeholder and Public Workshops
Through the development and implementation of this
Safety Action Plan, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community. Key stakeholder briefings held as part of the SAP provided insight on lessons learned from implementation, and indicated a desire to coordinate
improvements with neighboring cities.
Guidance on the Safety Action Plan process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for a Safety Plan.
FHWA encourages the following:
• The establishment of a working group
(stakeholders/public) to participate in developing a
Safety Action Plan
• A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concerns
• The identification of 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 Safety Plan
3.1 GUIDING MANUALS
This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Rialto at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the City that will benefit from safety enhancements and services crash risk factors based on historic crash data using a network screening
process. The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics
and related driving behaviors contributing to crashes. This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described.
3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.6, April 2022) encourages
local agencies to pursue a proactive approach when
identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive
approach is the analyzation of safety in an entire roadway network through either a one-time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.
According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual
(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 beneficial and competitive funding
approach, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics
and traffic volumes. The result should reflect a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity
patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the
potential effective countermeasures. 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 conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels.
Countermeasure selection should be supported using
Crash Reductions Factors (CRFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
7 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
3.1.2 Safe System Approach
The SS4A grant is guided by the Safe System Approach,
which involves another perspective on infrastructure,
human behavior, responsible oversight of the vehicle and transportation industry, and emergency response shifting from a conventional safety approach to focus on both
human mistakes and human vulnerability. A Safe System
Approach incorporates the following principles:
• Death and Serious Injuries are Unacceptable
• Humans Make Mistakes
• Humans are Vulnerable
• Responsibility is Shared
• Safety is Proactive
• Redundancy is Crucial
3.1.3 Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM) presents a variety of methods for quantitatively
estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of
locations. 2 This four-part manual is divided into the
following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and
Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C)
Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.
In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, the “Network Screening Process” is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire
network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to 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.
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 and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories.
3.2 ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES
3.2.1 Crash and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four
collision metrics:
• Number of Collisions
• Critical Crash Rate (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 study, intersections were grouped by their control type (Signalized, or
Unsignalized) and segments by their roadway category
(Other Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Collector, or Local Streets). 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 seen.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
8 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
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 1) crash injury (fatal, severe injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only), 2) crash type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-
on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other), 3) environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), 4) driver behavior (aggressive), and 5) driver impairment. With these additional factors, the locations were further analyzed and assigned a new rank.
From the results of the network screening analyses, a
short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area of the City of Rialto to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for safety 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. As a result, seven locations have been selected for mitigation analysis.
3.2.2 Statistical Performance Measures
Critical Crash Rate (CCR)
Analyzing the number of collisions at a location is a method used to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level; however, it does not give a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment daily. The HSM describes the Critical Crash Rate 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 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 location based on facility type and 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 traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities.
Figure 1: Critical Crash Rate Formula
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Data Needs
CCR can be calculated using:
• Daily entering volume for intersections or ADT for
roadway segments
• Intersection control types to separate them into like populations
• Roadway functional classification to separate them
into like populations
• Collision records in Geographic Information System
(GIS) or tabular form including coordinates or linear
measures
Strengths
• Reduces low volume exaggeration
• Considers variance
• Establishes comparison threshold
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
9 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
CCR Methodology
The process of analyzing the CCR and comparing locations (separately by intersections and segments) is a multi-step process. The following is a high-level description of the process undertaken to develop the initial analysis.
The first step in the process was to establish a city-wide crash rate for each facility population. These populations are broken into two categories with sub-categories:
Intersection:
• Signalized
• Non-signalized
Roadway Classification:
• Other Principal Arterial
• Minor Arterial
• Collector
• Local
The individual crash rate for each location was then
calculated based on the associated traffic volume. This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. The
next step was to establish a Significance Threshold. This Threshold was used to determine what level of exceedance (how much the crash rate exceeded the critical crash rate) a location must have based on traffic volume to provide a high level of confidence that the collision occurring at the location is not random. For this study, a confidence level of 95% was used. The local crash rates were then compared to the Significance Threshold to see if each location exceeded the expected CCR and if so, by how much. After this
analysis was completed, the locations were analyzed by
their categories according to that level of exceedance.
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method
is described in the Highway Safety Manual. 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 figure 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 figure allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs.
(Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4).
Probability
The Highway Safety Manual describes the methodology for determining the probability that crash type is greater than an identified threshold proportion. This helps to identify locations where a crash type is more likely to occur.
Data Needs
The probability of a specific crash type can be determined using crashes records with location data, and classifications of the locations (intersections or segments) studied.
Strengths
• Can be used as a diagnostic tool.
• Considers variance in data.
• Not affected by selection bias.
The HSM methodology first determines the frequency
of a specific crash type at an individual location, then determines the observed proportion of that crash type
relative to all crash types at that location. A threshold proportion is then determined for the specific crash
type; HSM suggests utilizing the proportion of the crash type observed in the entire reference population (e.g.
throughout the entire City of Rialto).
These proportions are then utilized to determine the
probability that the proportion of a specific crash type is greater than the long-term expected proportion of that
crash type.
Figure 2: Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
10 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
4. SAFETY ANALYSIS
4.1 ROADWAY NETWORK
The City’s roadway database was used to build the base
roadway network used for this analysis, and functional
classifications were taken from the City’s General Plan.
Traffic volumes and signal locations were collected
from Replica and were included in the analysis network.
Intersections and roadway segments were divided into
control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be evaluated against similar facilities. Figure 3 illustrates Rialto’s roadway network and intersections as classified for this study.
4.2 INTERSECTIONS
The crash analysis requires each intersection be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized. The safety analysis compares intersection safety performance to locations
with similar control types. This information is also
displayed in Figure 3.
4.3 COUNT DATA
Vehicular count data is used as part of the analysis process to evaluate the impact of traffic and understand the natural hierarchy of the roadway network. Count data utilized for this project was pulled from Replica, reflecting average weekday volumes for the fall of 2023. For locations without volume or count data, reasonable assumptions were
made based on classification types. The traffic volume
information allowed the team to assess locations for risk to a given roadway user as well as reviewing locations with the highest number of crashes.
4.4 CRASH DATA
Crash data was collected from Crossroads Software for
the period from January 1, 2018, through December 31,
2023, six years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw crash data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges
faced throughout the City. Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the following crash trends and patterns.
All crashes analyzed in the study period are shown in
Figure 4. The locations of fatal and severe injury crashes are displayed in Figure 5.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
11 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 3: Functional Classification and Signalized Intersections in Rialto
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
12 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 4: All Crashes in Rialto (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
13 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 5: Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
14 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
5. CRASH SAFETY TRENDS
The following section breaks down the crash data by a variety of input factors and road user types. This information is used to identify specific locations of concern for the city.
5.1 ALL CRASHES
According to the dataset acquired from TIMS between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2023, there were 2125 crashes recorded along the City’s surface roadway network and at freeway ramps within the City (the analysis does not incorporate crashes occurring on mainline freeway segments).
During the study period, the most recorded crash types were broadside (46%) and rear rend (24%) crashes. Figure 6 shows a breakdown of crash type for each year of the study period. Figure 7 shows a breakdown of crash severity for each year of the study period. Both figures show that the number of crashes increased in 2021 and 2022, and then in 2023 returned to pre-2021 levels.
Figure 6: Crash Type by Year (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
15 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 7: Crashes by Injury Level (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
16 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
5.2 FATAL AND SUSPECTED SEVERE INJURY CRASHES
During the study period, a total of 50 fatal injury crashes and 122 suspected severe injury crashes occurred on the City’s roadways. Figure 8 shows a breakdown of fatal injury and suspected severe injury crashes for each year in the study period.
As can be seen, the number of these crashes increased in 2020, mirroring nationwide trends. These crashes decreased in 2021 but increased significantly in 2022 and 2023. Table 1 breaks down the number of fatal injury and suspected severe injury crashes that occurred during the study period and categorizes them by the type of vehicle involved.
Figure 8: Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
17 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 1: Fatal Injury and Suspected Severe Injury Crashes Categorized by Involved Party (2018–2023) Involved with # of Severe Injury Crashes # of Fatal Crashes Non-Collision 3 0
Pedestrian 26 19
Other Motor Vehicle 65 18
Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway 1 0
Parked Motor Vehicle 5 0
Train 2 0
Bicycle 6 3
Fixed Object 12 9
Other Object 2 1
Total 122 50
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
18 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
5.3 CRASH SEVERITY
Figure 9 shows a breakdown of crash severity during the study period. Crashes resulting in fatal injury or suspected severe injury totaled 8.1% of all crashes.
Figure 9: Crash Severity (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
19 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
5.4 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
Table 2 shows a breakdown of crashes by primary crash factor, or in other words, their cause. The most cited cause of crashes in the City during the study period was unsafe speed, at 24.6%, followed by automobile right-of-way violations, at
23.5%, and traffic signals and signs, at 16.3% of all crashes.
Table 2: Primary Crash Factor (2018–2023)
Primary Crash Factor No. of Crashes % of Crashes
Unsafe Speed 522 24.56%
Automobile Right of Way 500 23.53%
Traffic Signals and Signs 346 16.28%
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 240 11.29%
Improper Turning 215 10.12%
Pedestrian Violation 81 3.81%
Wrong Side of Road 40 1.88%
Unknown 39 1.84%
Pedestrian Right of Way 39 1.84%
Following Too Closely 23 1.08%
Improper Passing 17 0.80%
Unsafe Lane Change 17 0.80%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) 16 0.75%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 15 0.71%
Other Improper Driving 6 0.28%
Other Hazardous Violation 5 0.24%
Impeding Traffic 2 0.09%
Hazardous Parking 1 0.05%
Other Equipment 1 0.05%
Grand Total 2125 100.00%
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
20 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
5.5 VULNERABLE ROAD USERS
5.5.1 Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes
During the study period, 148 crashes were reported involving pedestrians, resulting in 19 fatal injuries, 26 suspected serious injuries, 47 suspected minor injuries, and 56 possible injury crashes. Figure 10 shows the locations of vehicle-pedestrian crashes in the City during the study period.
5.5.2 Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes
During the study period, 59 crashes were reported
involving bicycles, resulting in three (3) fatal injuries, 6 suspected serious injuries, 26 minor injuries, and 24 possible injury crashes. Figure 10 shows the locations of vehicle-bicycle crashes in the City during the study period.
5.6 TIME OF DAY
During the study period, 60.4% of crashes occurred
during daylight hours, while 36.4% occurred at night,
with the remainder occurring near dawn or dusk. Most
crashes during the night occurred along roadways or at
intersections where there are existing streetlights. However,
1.9% of crashes occurred at night along roadways or at
intersections where there were no streetlights.
5.7 TIME OF YEAR
Figure 11 shows a breakdown of the number of crashes by month of the year. The month with the highest number of crashes was October, with 246 crashes recorded during
the study period. Crash activity spiked in October and
November. The fewest number of crashes occurred in May, with 149 crashes recorded during the study period.
5.8 BEHAVIORAL DRIVING
Aggressive driving and impaired driving are two important behavioral factors that often significantly contribute to crash patterns.
Caltrans defines aggressive driving as behaviors that
include speeding, tailgating, and running stop signs or red lights. These behaviors contributed to 41.9% of crashes recorded in the City during the study period.
Impaired driving is defined by Caltrans as any instance where a driver, pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorcyclist is under the influence of alcohol, illicit drugs, or prescribed or over-the-counter medication. During the study period,
11.3% of the crashes recorded within the City occurred as a result of driving or biking under the influence.
The California Office of Traffic Safety most recently ranked Rialto 9 of 60 peer cities for alcohol-involved crashes after normalizing for population for 2021 data yet ranks Rialto 54 of 60 peer cities for DUI arrests.
5.9 STATEWIDE COMPARISON
A comparison of select characteristics among fatal and
suspected severe injury crashes between the City and the State of California was conducted for crashes occurring between 2016 and 2021 (the most recent statewide data
available). The results of this statewide comparison are shown in Table 3.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
21 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 10: Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
22 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 11: Number of Crashes by Month (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
23 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 3: Statewide Comparison of Fatal (F) and Suspected Serious Injury (SI) Crashes (2016–2021) Challenge Areas
Statewide Rialto % Difference between
Rialto and State% of F+SI Crashes (2016–2021) % of F+SI Crashes (2016–2021) Pedestrians 19.2% 27.0% 7.7%
Impaired Driving 25.3% 31.3% 6.0%
Intersections 23.6% 28.6% 5.0%
Y oung Drivers 13.1% 16.8% 3.7%
Aggressive Driving 33.1% 36.5% 3.4%
Commercial Vehicles 6.4% 7.2% 0.9%
Work Zones 1.4% 1.3% -0.1%
Distracted Driving 5.0% 4.6% -0.4%
Occupant Protection 14.2% 12.5% -1.7%
Aging Drivers 12.4% 9.9% -2.5%
Bicyclists 8.3% 4.3% -4.0%
Motorcyclists 21.0% 13.5% -7.5%
Lane Departure 43.3% 31.9% -11.3%
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
24 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
5.10 CRASH NETWORK SCREENING ANALYSIS RESULTS
Figure 12 below shows the results of the crash network screening analysis, depicting the number of crashes that occurred at intersections and at mid-block roadway segments across the City during the study period.
Figure 12: Crash Network Screening Analysis Results (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
25 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 4 and Table 5 show the number of crashes occurring at intersections and along roadway segments within the
City during the study period. These are organized by crash type for the locations that will be studied further in the report, and highlights locations in which the probability of those crash types exceeding the threshold proportion is greater than 33%.
The tables are ordered by the number of crashes that
occurred at that segment or intersection. To be statistically significant, only locations where more than two crashes were recorded are included. At locations with one crash, random chance can account for crash history as much or
more than specific roadway characteristics.
The tables are separated into sub-sections visible by the blue gradient. The first two columns, Crashes and CCR,
represent the level of crash activity in absolute terms, and as relative to other similar locations, respectively.
Per guidance from the Local Roadway Safety Manual
(LRSM) each sub-population of locations was ranked
according to the number of crashes. The second column
shows the CCR, which highlights whether or not the crash activity was higher or lower than the average for the sub- population based on the individual segment or intersection volume. This volume was either collected through data
count resources or calculated based on the roadway
classification. All averages used in the CCR calculation were established based on City of Rialto crash data to determine what locations might be best to prioritize at the local level.
This process highlights locations of crashes that are unusual for the City to determine Rialto’s challenge areas, and not problems faced by peer cities that do not apply in Rialto.
The remaining columns total crashes by type, to evaluate each sub-population and understand what proportion of
crashes in the City are of a particular type. The citywide proportion was compared with the local intersection or
segment specific proportion to determine which locations have more of a given crash type than would be expected
when considering the City average. A confidence level of 95% was used for the CCR Calculations. For this study, two categories of ranges were highlighted:
• Light Gray: >50% probability that this crash type is
over-represented on this segment/intersection as
compared to other characteristically similar locations
within the City of Rialto. Although these locations
have a slightly higher probability of this crash type
than their counterparts, they are not necessarily highly significant.
• Dark Gray: >75% probability that this crash type is
over-represented on this segment/intersection as
compared to other characteristically similar locations
within the City of Rialto. These locations are highly
significant in regard to the number of crashes
occurring here and should be further investigated.
After this analysis was completed, the locations were
ranked against other similar locations within the City by their categories according to the expected proportion
of that crash type within Rialto. Locations with higher- than-expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for
exceedances.
Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Crash Severity, Type, Involved With, and Behavior are additional characteristics of the crashes and should not be counted as a separate crash.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
26 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 4: Crash Analysis Results – Intersections
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Signalized Intersections
Cedar Ave & W Merrill Ave 43 0.43 1096 3 2 9 29 0 20 1 10 5 0 1 1 4 3 13 0 4 0 1 N Pepper Ave & E Foothill Blvd P 35 1.02 418 0 1 10 24 0 22 3 6 1 1 1 0 1 0 10 1 2 0 3 N Riverside Ave & W Foothill Blvd 30 0.05 387 0 1 10 19 0 11 2 7 3 0 0 1 5 3 14 0 0 0 2 S Cedar Ave & W Rialto Ave 27 0.08 341 0 1 4 22 0 13 1 13 0 0 0 0 0 1 18 0 8 0 2 N Sycamore Ave & E Foothill Blvd 27 0.49 341 0 1 4 22 0 12 2 4 3 1 1 0 2 0 14 0 1 0 1 S Riverside Ave & W Valley Blvd 25 -0.13 334 1 0 5 19 0 11 2 7 3 1 0 1 0 0 17 0 3 0 1 N Linden Ave & W Foothill Blvd 24 0.54 183 0 0 8 16 0 16 0 4 2 0 0 0 2 1 17 0 2 0 0 Bloomington Ave & W Merrill Ave 23 0.20 485 0 2 6 15 0 6 2 9 0 2 0 1 2 2 10 0 2 0 1 N Riverside Ave & E Base Line Rd 21 -0.14 482 0 2 8 11 0 9 2 6 0 0 0 1 3 1 10 0 1 1 3 N Willow Ave & W Foothill Blvd 20 0.25 294 0 1 3 16 0 7 1 7 1 0 1 1 2 0 12 0 1 1 4 N Cedar Ave & W Foothill Blvd 19 -0.09 129 0 0 3 16 0 4 0 11 0 0 0 0 3 1 10 0 2 1 0 N Willow Ave & W Baseline Rd 19 -0.02 297 0 1 5 13 0 9 0 6 1 1 0 0 1 0 11 0 3 0 0 N Sycamore Ave & E Base Line Rd 18 0.08 772 2 2 6 8 0 12 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 1 0 3 N Alder Ave & N Riverside Ave 18 0.19 440 1 1 3 13 0 8 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 2 S Riverside Ave & W San Bernardino Ave 17 -0.20 145 0 0 9 8 0 4 0 7 1 2 0 0 2 0 9 0 4 0 1 S Linden Ave & W Rialto Ave 17 0.59 448 0 2 6 9 0 6 1 4 2 3 0 0 0 1 8 0 4 2 0 S Willow Ave & W Merrill Ave 16 0.13 601 0 3 6 7 0 10 0 3 1 0 0 1 1 2 7 0 1 0 0 S Cactus Ave & W Merrill Ave 16 -0.08 111 0 0 3 13 0 11 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 N Cactus Ave & W Foothill Blvd 16 -0.18 284 0 1 6 9 0 6 0 5 2 1 0 0 2 0 8 0 2 0 0 N Pepper Ave & E Margarita Rd 16 -0.12 442 0 2 6 8 0 9 0 4 2 0 0 0 1 0 7 0 4 0 0 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
27 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Ayala Dr & S Renaissance Pkwy 16 -0.10 125 0 0 6 10 0 4 3 6 1 1 0 0 1 0 9 0 2 0 2 S Cactus Ave & W Randall Ave 15 0.28 259 0 1 2 12 0 12 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 1 0 2 N Cedar Ave & W Etiwanda Ave 15 -0.12 254 1 0 1 13 0 10 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 N Riverside Ave & Easton St 15 -0.19 114 0 0 5 10 0 7 0 7 0 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 0 Shopping Center & Foothill Blvd 15 3956 124 0 0 7 8 0 13 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 S Cactus Ave & W Rialto Ave 14 -0.10 258 0 1 3 10 0 9 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 1 7 0 3 0 1 N Ayala Dr & W Baseline Rd 14 -0.20 425 0 2 5 7 0 8 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 2 8 0 2 0 2 N Riverside Ave & E Walnut Ave 14 -0.19 421 1 1 4 8 0 4 0 6 1 1 0 0 3 1 7 0 2 1 0 N Lilac Ave & W Foothill Blvd 13 -0.16 79 0 0 0 13 0 8 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 11 0 1 0 0 S Lilac Ave & W Valley Blvd 11 -0.06 76 0 0 2 9 0 6 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 S Cactus Ave & W Valley Blvd 11 -0.13 85 0 0 4 7 0 8 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N Eucalyptus Ave & E Foothill Blvd 11 -0.15 76 0 0 2 9 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 1 5 0 2 0 0 N Acacia Ave & E Foothill Blvd 11 -0.22 235 0 1 2 8 0 8 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 2 N Acacia Ave & E Base Line Rd 11 -0.13 90 0 0 5 6 0 7 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 1 N Eucalyptus Ave & E Margarita Rd 11 -0.12 81 0 0 3 8 0 7 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 3 0 1 N Riverside Ave & W Etiwanda Ave 10 -0.21 70 0 0 2 8 0 4 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 N Cactus Ave & W Baseline Rd 10 -0.26 219 0 1 0 9 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 0 2 0 0 Alder Ave & Renaissance Pkwy 10 -0.29 75 0 0 3 7 0 4 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 2 0 3 Industrial Dr S & Resource Dr 9 -0.11 64 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 1 S Riverside Ave & E Slover Ave 9 -0.32 386 0 2 3 4 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 S Riverside Ave & W Rialto Ave 9 -0.19 218 0 1 1 7 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 0 0 0 1 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
28 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Locust Ave & Renaissance Pkwy 9 -0.23 64 0 0 2 7 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 S Riverside Ave & W Santa Ana Ave 8 -0.29 375 1 1 2 4 0 2 0 4 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 1 1 0 0 S Willow Ave & W Rialto Ave 8 0.03 58 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 3 0 0 S Riverside Ave & E Randall Ave 8 -0.30 72 0 0 5 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 N Lilac Ave & W Baseline Rd 8 -0.21 63 0 0 3 5 0 5 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 0 0 N Linden Ave & W Baseline Rd 8 -0.23 58 0 0 2 6 0 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 Alder Ave & W Casmalia St 8 -0.21 207 1 0 0 7 0 3 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 1 N Ayala Dr & N Riverside Oh E 8 0.24 58 0 0 2 6 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 6 0 0 0 1 S Riverside Ave & E 1st St 7 -0.10 210 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 N Spruce Ave & W Foothill Blvd 7 -0.30 47 0 0 1 6 0 1 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 0 N Linden Ave & Renaissance Pkwy 7 -0.18 61 0 0 4 3 0 6 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 N Ayala Dr & W Galway St 7 -0.21 52 0 0 2 5 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 1 N Glenwood Ave & W Bohnert Ave 7 -0.04 56 0 0 3 4 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 S Cedar Ave & W Randall Ave 6 -0.32 204 1 0 2 3 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 S Willow Ave & Bloomington Ave 6 -0.14 50 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 Alder Ave & W Walnut Ave 6 30.86 46 0 0 2 4 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 N Linden Ave & Casmalia St 6 -0.03 200 0 1 1 4 0 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 0 1 N Locust Ave & N Riverside Ave 6 -0.30 46 0 0 2 4 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 S Riverside Ave & W Agua Mansa Rd 5 -0.25 40 0 0 2 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 Bloomington Ave & W San Bernardino Ave 5 -0.33 198 1 0 2 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 S Sycamore Ave & E Merrill Ave 5 -0.32 189 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
29 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Eucalyptus Ave & W Mill St 5 -0.23 30 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Alder Ave & W Baseline Rd 5 -0.35 35 0 0 1 4 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 N Locust Ave & Miro Way 5 -0.25 352 0 2 1 2 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 Marketplace West & Renaissance Parkway 5 -0.10 30 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 S Willow Ave & W Valley Blvd 4 -0.37 34 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Lilac Ave & W Randall Ave 4 -0.24 24 0 0 0 4 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Maple Ave & Foothill Blvd 4 -0.35 192 1 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Yucca Ave & W Etiwanda Ave 4 -0.36 188 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 Locust Ave & W Baseline Rd 4 -0.37 24 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N Maple Ave & W Baseline Rd 4 -0.37 38 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 N Locust Ave & W Casmalia St 4 -0.37 29 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 N Live Oak Ave & N Riverside Ave 4 -0.37 38 0 0 3 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 Riverside Ave & Galway St 4 0.04 29 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 Marketplace East & Renaissance Pkwy 4 -0.22 29 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Spruce Ave & Valley Blvd 3 -0.40 18 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Larch Ave & W Rialto Ave 3 -0.38 18 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Pepper Ave & E Winchester Dr 3 -0.41 23 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 N Alder Ave & W Casa Grande Dr 3 -0.34 18 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Retail Center & Casmalia St 3 -0.34 186 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Walmart Driveway & San Bernardino Ave 3 669 23 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 Scholl Way & Ayala Drive 3 -0.41 27 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
30 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Unsignalized Intersections
S Linden Ave & W Merrill Ave 21 1.54 486 0 2 9 10 0 15 0 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 1 1 S Acacia Ave & E Rialto Ave 16 1.02 270 0 1 3 12 0 11 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 5 0 1 S Lilac Ave & W Merrill Ave 15 0.51 100 0 0 2 13 0 8 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 3 0 1 N Riverside Ave & E 3rd St 14 0.72 416 1 1 3 9 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 S Sycamore Ave & E San Bernardino Ave 10 0.95 569 1 2 7 0 0 2 0 2 2 3 0 0 0 1 4 0 3 0 0 N Ayala Dr & N Fitzgerald Ave 10 0.02 79 0 0 4 6 0 6 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 W Agua Mansa Rd & W Agua Mansa Rd 9 0.52 64 0 0 2 7 0 6 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Enterprise Dr & Resource Dr 9 1.00 544 0 3 3 3 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Cactus Ave & W San Bernardino Ave 9 0.22 55 0 0 0 9 0 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 1 1 1 S Acacia Ave & E Merrill Ave 8 0.21 53 0 0 1 7 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 S Willow Ave & W Slover Ave 7 0.08 364 2 0 1 4 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Lilac Ave & W Rialto Ave 7 0.17 43 0 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 Cactus Ave & Slover Ave 6 0.09 41 0 0 1 5 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 S Alice Ave & W Valley Blvd 6 0.04 50 0 0 3 3 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 S Riverside Ave & E Alru St 6 0.12 55 0 0 4 2 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 S Clifford Ave & W Orchard St 6 0.43 209 1 0 3 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 S Larch Ave & W Merrill Ave 6 0.07 363 0 2 2 2 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Sycamore Ave & E Rialto Ave 6 0.20 46 0 0 2 4 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Eucalyptus Ave & E Rialto Ave 6 0.25 41 0 0 1 5 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Cedar Ave & W 2nd St 6 -0.07 204 0 1 2 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 N Riverside Ave & W Rosemary Ln 6 -0.05 204 0 1 2 3 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
31 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Yucca Ave & W Walnut Ave 6 0.02 46 0 0 2 4 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Locust Ave & W Casa Grande Dr 6 0.09 50 0 0 3 3 0 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 S Riverside Ave & Industrial Dr 5 0.00 203 1 0 3 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 S Sycamore Ave & E Randall Ave 5 0.09 35 0 0 1 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 S Riverside Ave & E James St 5 0.06 357 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Spruce Ave & W Merrill Ave 5 0.02 194 0 1 1 3 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 S Sycamore Ave & E Wilson St 5 0.34 35 0 0 1 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N Palm Ave & W Foothill Blvd 5 -0.08 30 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Magnolia Ave & E Foothill Blvd 5 0.00 40 0 0 2 3 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Pepper Ave & E Etiwanda Ave 5 -0.03 30 0 0 0 5 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 N Acacia Ave & E Etiwanda Ave 5 0.26 35 0 0 1 4 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 N Idyllwild Ave & W Baseline Rd 5 -0.06 49 0 0 4 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Willow Ave & W Winchester Dr 5 0.28 35 0 0 1 4 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Pepper Ave & Renaissance Pkwy 5 0.00 30 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 E Shamwood Ave & N Riverside Ave 5 8.93 44 0 0 3 2 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Willow Ave & W Santa Ana Ave 4 0.22 24 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Maple Ave & Arrow Blvd 4 -0.08 188 0 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Palmetto Ave & Baseline Ave 4 0.31 188 0 1 1 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Riverside Ave & E 2nd St 4 0.00 41 0 0 3 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 N Olive Ave & E Foothill Blvd 4 -0.11 34 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Larch Ave & W Foothill Blvd 4 -0.05 24 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
32 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Yucca Ave & W Rosewood St 4 -0.07 34 0 0 2 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N Riverside Ave & E Madrona St 4 -0.10 346 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Lilac Ave & W Shamrock St 4 22.70 29 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Willow Ave & W Shamrock St 4 0.02 188 0 1 1 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Lilac Ave & W Jackson St 4 0.41 34 0 0 2 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 N Lilac Ave & W Walnut Ave 4 0.21 29 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 N Cedar Ave & W Casmalia St 4 -0.04 24 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 1 S Lilac Ave & W San Bernardino Ave 3 -0.07 23 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 S Willow Ave & W Randall Ave 3 -0.03 27 0 0 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 S Spruce Ave & W Fromer St 3 1.57 18 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Sycamore Ave & E Grant St 3 0.06 340 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Maple Ave & Merrill Ave 3 -0.04 181 1 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 S Cedar Ave & W Durst Dr 3 -0.14 27 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 S Riverside Ave & W South St 3 -0.09 18 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 S Riverside Ave & W Bonnie View Dr 3 -0.11 23 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N Lilac Ave & Holladay Pl 3 0.26 23 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Millard Ave & W Foothill Blvd 3 -0.11 177 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Cedar Ave & W Grove St 3 -0.14 23 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Acacia Ave & E Ramona Dr 3 0.04 181 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 N Willow Ave & W Grove St 3 0.35 27 0 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 N Riverside Ave & W Cornell Dr 3 -0.13 181 1 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
33 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Linden Ave & W Etiwanda Ave 3 0.02 23 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Idyllwild Ave & W Etiwanda Ave 3 0.21 23 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Riverside Ave & E Holly St 3 -0.13 27 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 N Willow Ave & W Shamrock St 3 0.06 18 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Fitzgerald Ave & W Mesa Dr 3 -0.13 23 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Riverside Ave & N Alice Ave 3 -0.12 23 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Riverside Ave & E Condor Dr 3 3.66 23 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Casmalia St & N Riverside Ave 3 -0.09 32 0 0 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Cedar Ave & Bohnert Ave 3 0.88 18 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Country Club Dr & N Riverside Ave 3 0.64 23 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Locust Ave & W Persimmon Ave 3 -0.10 27 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Maple Ave & W Persimmon Ave 3 1.10 23 0 0 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Linden Ave & N Riverside Ave 3 -0.12 23 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Orangewood Ave & W Terra Vista Dr 3 0.24 186 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
34 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 5: Crash Analysis Results – Roadway Segments
Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Major Arterial
S Riverside Ave W Valley Blvd & W San
Bernardino Ave 21 0.06 477 0 2 7 12 6 1 8 1 3 0 1 1 1 11 0 2 0 1 S Riverside Ave W San Bernardino Ave & E
Randall Ave 19 0.00 293 0 1 4 14 6 1 6 3 0 1 0 2 0 8 0 2 0 1 S Riverside Ave Miguel Bustamante Pkwy & W
Agua Mansa Rd 13 45.51 275 1 0 8 4 6 0 5 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 3 0 2 E Foothill Blvd N Sycamore Ave & N Acacia Ave 9 0.18 64 0 0 2 7 4 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 N Riverside Ave E Walnut Ave & W Easton St 9 -0.16 223 0 1 2 6 4 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 W Foothill Blvd S N Cedar Ave & N Larch Ave 9 20.13 69 0 0 3 6 4 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 E Foothill Blvd N Acacia Ave & N
Eucalyptus Ave 8 0.07 58 0 0 2 6 5 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 0 2 N Riverside Ave E Base Line Rd & N Alice Ave 8 -0.01 230 0 1 5 2 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Riverside Ave W Jurupa Ave & Industrial Dr 5 0.13 506 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 1 S Riverside Ave W Santa Ana Ave & W
Mindanao St 5 -0.37 511 1 2 1 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 E Foothill Blvd N Eucalyptus Ave & N
Pepper Ave 4 -0.01 24 0 0 0 4 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 N Riverside Ave N Ashford Ave & N Locust Ave 4 -0.40 34 0 0 2 2 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 N Riverside Ave N Alice Ave & W Cascade Dr 3 40.63 27 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Riverside Ave Redwood Ave & Sierra Ave 3 -0.48 177 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 W Foothill Blvd S N Linden Ave & N Cedar Ave 3 -0.33 177 1 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 Bloomington Ave S Larch Ave & W San
Bernardino Ave 3 -0.21 27 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Riverside Ave Industrial Dr & W Bryant St 3 -0.16 340 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
35 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
S Riverside Ave W Agua Mansa Rd &
Singleton Dr 3 -0.27 177 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Riverside Ave Ramp_112381 & Ramp_112380 3 -0.27 27 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N Riverside Ave E Wabash St & E Base Line Rd 3 -0.43 186 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 S Riverside Ave Resource Dr & W Jurupa Ave 3 -0.42 181 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 W Foothill Blvd N Larch Ave & N Spruce Ave 3 -0.46 181 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 S Riverside Ave S W Bonnie View Dr & W
Rialto Ave 3 -0.44 186 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 Minor Arterial
W Baseline Rd N Willow Ave & N Riverside Ave 16 1.81 265 0 1 2 13 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 2 W Merrill Ave S Willow Ave &
Bloomington Ave 6 0.80 50 0 0 3 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 W Rialto Ave N Maple Ave & S Linden Ave 5 0.32 35 0 0 1 4 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 W Merrill Ave S Linden Ave & S Cedar Ave 4 0.76 351 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 W Agua Mansa Rd & W Agua Mansa Rd 4 0.68 29 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 N Ayala Dr S N Fitzgerald Ave & N
Fitzgerald Ave 3 -0.09 23 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 W Baseline Rd S N Lilac Ave & Willow Ave 3 0.15 23 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 W Rialto Ave S Cedar Ave & S Larch Ave 3 0.58 23 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Collector Arterial
N Linden Ave Lorraine Pl & W Foothill Blvd 4 3.49 188 0 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Eucalyptus Ave E Mc Kinley St & E Foothill Blvd 4 2.57 34 0 0 2 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Walnut Ave N Riverside Ave & N
Sycamore Ave 3 2.35 18 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 S Lilac Ave W Merrill Ave & W Rialto Ave 3 0.76 186 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
36 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR
Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious
Injury
Other
Visible Injury
Complaint of
Pain
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
N Willow Ave Base Line Rd & W Winchester Dr 3 0.51 27 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 N Eucalyptus Ave E Walnut Ave & E Easton St 3 2.99 177 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 Local Arterial
N Linden Ave Miro Way & Renaissance Pkwy 6 3.52 204 1 0 2 3 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 1 0 N Linden Ave W Wildflower St & W
Persimmon Ave 4 3.52 29 0 0 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Casmalia St Laurel Ave & N Locust Ave 3 0.15 23 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 W Casmalia St Sierra Ave &Ave & Alder Ave 3 -0.30 32 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Linden Ave Miro Way & Miro Way 3 0.04 18 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Casmalia St Alder Ave & Laurel Ave 3 -0.08 23 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Casmalia St N Locust Ave & N Linden Ave 3 1349.42 23 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential
2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
37 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
6. ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION
Members of the public and local agency partners were
included in the development of the SAP to ensure
the local perspective was maintained at the forefront
of planning efforts. A public agency working group
was created of City Public Works staff and external
representatives from the Law enforcement/Police
Department. Attendees and represented agencies also
included the Budget and Finance Department, the Deputy
Director of Maintenance and Facilities, City of Rialto CIP Project Management, the Director of Public Works, San
Bernardino County Transportation Authority, Omnitrans,
San Bernardino County Traffic Engineering Department,
City of Colton Public Works Department, City of San
Bernardino traffic Engineering, and San Bernardino
County Public Works.
The members of the public agency partners were called
together to offer insight on the safety issues presenting the City’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, the results were presented to the public in a series of workshops. These workshops helped the project team gain insight into ongoing roadway safety issues in the City and potential solutions. City Public Works, the agency partners, and consultant staff met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas
through meetings in the field and in-person. Following
these meetings, potential improvements were developed
and presented to the public for comment, feedback,
and discussion. The public engagement and agency
coordination activities are discussed below.
6.1 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Online Engagement
The City of Rialto created a Safety Action Plan page on the City’s website, which included information about
the project, notification about upcoming workshops
and events, a project email address, and an interactive mapping activity and survey. An online survey was created and posted to the City website from November 21st,
2024 to January 20th, 2025. 23 respondents replied to
the survey. Residents generally indicated that alternative transportation options to private vehicles should be
improved throughout Rialto, but that the current walking and biking infrastructure feels unsafe. Residents indicated what countermeasures would improve the biking and
walking experience in Rialto, including dedicated signals, curb extensions, buffered bike lanes, and completed
sidewalk and bike networks. A full summary of the
responses collected as part of the online public survey is located in Appendix B.
6.2 PUBLIC WORKSHOPS AND MEETINGS
One public workshop/meeting was held to help the project team understand public areas of concern, create public
awareness of the plan, and keep members of the public
informed about the direction of the plan and the City’s response to roadway safety issues from input received from the public.
The public workshop was held on August 6th, 2024,
at Rialto National Night Out, a nationally recognized
event promoting police-community partnerships and
neighborhood camaraderie. The goal of the National Night Out workshop was to strengthen community awareness
of the Safety Action Plan and gather public feedback.
The booth included a large map, where attendees could
place notes about locations they were concerned about.
Additionally, digital and written safety surveys were
available to fill out for comments and concerns. The main concerns expressed at this workshop included speeding,
traffic calming, pedestrian and bicyclist safety issues, and visibility concerns at several locations. Online survey results also outlined a need for traffic calming measures, wider sidewalks, sidewalk gap closures, and crosswalks, etc. The feedback and comments received at the National Night Out workshop was crucial in identifying locations with safety concerns in Rialto.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
38 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
6.3 STAKEHOLDER MEETINGS
Two stakeholder meetings were held to gain the
perspective and expertise of local subject matter experts and to help guide the plan as it was being developed.
The first stakeholder meeting was held online on June 27th, 2024. The group was introduced to the project, the project team, timeline, and the goals and objectives of a safety action plan. Stakeholders joined from local and regional law enforcement, fire, ADA advocacy groups, transit
agencies, educational agencies, and pedestrian and bicycle advocacy groups. The project team analyzed several grant opportunities and examples of grant projects. The most
prominent example was the intersection of Cedar Avenue
and Merrill Avenue. This intersection is in the process of receiving protected left turn phases, video detection systems, pedestrian countdown heads, and a leading
pedestrian interval (LPI). Additionally, citywide collision trends by crash type, level of injury, and cause were also analyzed with the stakeholders and compared to statewide levels. Finally, 11 case study intersections and segments were analyzed. The discussion and feedback from the
stakeholders helped to inform the project development
that will be discussed later in the plan.
The second stakeholder meeting was held online on
October 3rd, 2024, and followed in the footsteps of
the first meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to
provide a progress report on the Safety Action Plan and discuss public workshops, HSIP applications, and citywide demographics and traffic volume trends. The meeting was attended by city staff and representatives from Omnitrans and the City of San Bernardino, the latter expressing
interest in coordinating on bicyclist and pedestrian
connections to and from Rialto.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
39 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
7. EQUITY
The following section summarizes the equity analysis
conducted for the City of Rialto Comprehensive Traffic
Safety Action Plan (Safety Plan). The Safety Plan aims to enhance roadway safety conditions by proposing potential projects to reduce the risk of collisions.
The purpose of this memo is to report on the equity
analysis to identify programs and infrastructure
investments for the City of Rialto to support transportation and safety policies. The memo first provides the equity framework used to guide the analysis followed by a
summary of the methodology. The memo then provides an
equity analysis of demographics and collisions, followed by general takeaways related to the equity and safety data.
The analysis informs policy and program recommendations for the City to equitably improve safety in accordance with state and federal equity goals.
7.1 EQUITY FRAMEWORK
The equity analysis supplements technical collision data analysis by identifying any correlations between equity and safety data, in accordance with federal and state
regulations. A comparative analysis between demographic and collision data provides insights on equity that can be addressed through safety improvements and infrastructure.
This ensures that vulnerable and disadvantaged
populations can benefit from additional safety
considerations. Meeting the needs of equity populations is a critical step in equitable distribution of resources and outcomes. As such, the equity analysis aims to summarize key safety and equity findings.
7.1.1 Federal Policies
Equity analysis in transportation planning became solidified by two key federal policies: Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Executive Order (EO) 12898 in 1994. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Executive Order (EO) 12898 directs all federal agencies to develop an Environmental Justice strategy that, “identifies and addresses the disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations.” Both policies mandate transportation
agencies to identify, address and serve disadvantaged
communities through their work. More recently in 2021,
Executive Order 14008 was signed establishing Justice
40 with the goal that 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal investments flow to disadvantaged
communities.
7.1.2 State Policies
California SB 535 (2012) directs investments of cap-and- trade funds towards “Disadvantaged Communities” (DACs).
The SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities map (2022)
was established to identify DACs throughout the state of California. The map uses data from CalEnviroScreen.
The equity analysis conducted as part of the memo
initiated with an analysis of the 2022 California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) SB 535
Disadvantaged Communities Map and 2022 Justice 40
Tracts Map to determine if any tracts within the city were considered disadvantaged communities.
7.1.3 Disadvantaged Communities
Disadvantaged communities face challenges in
transportation safety. Data show that minority and low- income groups are more likely to rely on non-motorized
forms of transportation, like walking and cycling. This makes them vulnerable road users, as people outside of
motor vehicles face greater risk of injury and death from traffic collisions. People of color make up the majority of the population in the City of Rialto. Additionally, the area between SR 210 and I-10 is majority low-income.
Another population of note are senior citizens, who are concentrated to the south of I-10 and in the downtown
area. Senior citizens who are unable to drive may rely on non-motorized transportation to fulfill their needs. This plan will address the transportation safety challenges these populations face.
Currently, two-thirds of the City’s land area is designated as disadvantaged based on CalEnviroScreen statistics, which consider multiple sources of pollution and population
characteristics that make communities more sensitive to pollution. Figure 13 below shows disadvantaged census
tracts in the City as designated by CalEnviroScreen.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
40 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
In addition to CalEnviroScreen, Justice 40 is a program introduced by Executive Order 14008, which makes it a
goal to invest 40 percent of the overall benefits of certain Federal climate, clean energy, and affordable housing
investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are
underinvested and overburdened by pollution. Executive
Order 14008 also directed the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) to develop a new tool. The Climate and
Economic Justice Screening (CEJST) identifies census
tracts as disadvantaged based on eight criteria. These
include Climate Change, Energy, Health, Housing, Legacy Pollution, Transportation, Water and Wastewater, and
Workforce Development. Figure 14 shows the census tracts in Rialto which are categorized as disadvantaged in one or more of the eight categories.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
41 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 13: CalEnviroScreen Disadvantaged Census Tracts in Rialto
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
42 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 14: Justice 40 Disadvantaged Tracts in Rialto
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
43 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
7.2 METHODOLOGY
For the purpose of this memo, equity demographics and
collision data were analyzed. The equity analysis builds on the crash data memorandum drafted by Kimley-Horn
as part of the Comprehensive Traffic Safety Action Plan (CTSAP) development process. This analysis forms the
basis for equity policy and program recommendations
provided in this memo.
Demographic data for the city’s population was collected from the United States Census American Community
Survey (US ACS) 5-year estimates for 2022 for total
population by race/ethnicity, age, and income to identify equity communities within the city.
In addition to the City of Rialto having a majority non- white population, commuting data for employees travelling to the City were also collected from the Longitudinal
Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) Origin-Destination
Employment Statistics (LODES) database for 2021. Employee travel data for those travelling to the City from surrounding census tracts within San Bernardino and Riverside counties was gathered, as well as minority data from the same census tracts. The correlation of these two datasets was used to characterize demographic characteristics of commuters to the City who may use transportation infrastructure reflected in the City collision data.
Lastly, collision data from 2018 to 2022 was sourced from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). The data included bicycle, pedestrian, and automobile collision counts for the City of Rialto. Collision data was filtered by race/ethnicity and age to complete a comparative analysis of existing safety conditions. The collision data informed key findings for each demographic category.
In addition to analyzing demographic, employee, and collision data, the team cross referenced the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) SB 535 Disadvantaged
Communities, and the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT) Disadvantaged Communities Justice 40 online databases as referenced above.
The analysis presents findings on equity data collected at the city level, regional level, and state and federal level.
7.3 EQUITY ANALYSIS
This section summarizes demographic data for the City of Rialto, employee commute data for workers travelling to the City, and statewide collision safety data.
7.3.1 Race/Ethnicity
The City of Rialto, located in San Bernardino County,
is situated between the cities of San Bernardino and
Redlands to the East, and the city of Fontana to the West.
Table 6 provides a summary of the population in Rialto
by race/ethnicity. Rialto is within the top 10 largest cities in San Bernardino County with a population of 103,873
according to the US Census Bureau. The City’s population is predominately Hispanic (75.1%), followed by Black (11.8%), White (8.9%), Asian (1.9%), Two or More (1.4%), and less than
0.5% of the population is classified as American Indian and Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander.
7.3.2 Race/Ethnicity
Table 7 provides a summary of the population of Rialto
by age. According to the US Census Bureau, the City’s
population is distributed evenly, with ages of 15 and under making up the largest share (22.1%) of the population.
7.3.3 Income
Table 8 provides a summary of the percentage of
households in Rialto by Income. According to the US
Census Bureau, the City of Rialto has a median household income of $85,585. The total number of households in the City is 27,295 households. As shown in Table 3, of all the households in the City, 28.8% have an income of less than $50,000.
7.3.4 County Demographics
The City of Rialto has workers that travel from surrounding cities for employment. According to the LEHD LODES
data from 2021, approximately 37,375 people commute
into the city from surrounding census tracts and cities.
Figure 15 shows the concentration of workers travelling to the City of Rialto from surrounding cities. Many workers travel from Fontana, Bloomington, and San Bernardino to Rialto. Figure 16 shows the demographic characteristics of workers travelling to the City by minority population from the surrounding cities.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
44 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 6: Race and Ethnicity in Rialto — 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates Race/Ethnicity # of People by Race/Ethnicity % of People by Race/Ethnicity Hispanic 78,091 75.18%
Black 12,269 11.81%
White 9,318 8.97%
Asian 2,037 1.96%
American Indian and Alaska Native 220 0.21%
Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander 38 0.04%
Other 400 0.39%
Two or More 1,500 1.44%
Total 103,873
Table 7: Age Distribution in Rialto — 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates Age Range Number of People by Age Percentage
Less than 15 22,921 22.1%
15–24 17,699 17.0%
25–34 16,635 16.0%
35–44 14,275 13.7%
45–64 22,142 21.3%
65+ 10,201 9.8%
Total 103,873
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
45 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 8: Income Distribution in Rialto — 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates Income Range Percent of Households
Less than $50,000 28.80%
$50,000 to $74,999 16.10%
$ 75,000 to $99,999 13.10%
$100,000 to $149,999 24.30%
$150,000 to $199,999 11.50%
$200,000 + 6.20%
7.4 COLLISIONS BY MODE
A total of 2,125 collisions were reported during a five-year period, with 5,544 people involved in these collisions.
Bicycle collisions accounted for 87 collisions while
pedestrian collisions accounted for 189 collisions.
Figure 17 shows a summary of the 2018 to 2023 collision data by severity. Additionally, Figure 18 and Figure 19 show collision data by severity for pedestrians and
bicyclists, respectively.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
46 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 15: Concentration of Workers to Rialto by Census Tract — 2023 Longitudinal Employer Household Dynamics (LEHD)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
47 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 16: Percentage of Minority Population by Census Tract — 2023 ACS 5-Year Estimates
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
48 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 17: Collisions by Severity (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
49 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 18: Pedestrian Collisions by Severity (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
50 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 19: Bicycle Collisions by Severity (2018–2023)
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
51 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
7.4.1 Total Collisions by Race/Ethnicity
In disaggregating collisions by race/ethnicity, the data shows that most people involved in collisions in the City of Rialto were Hispanic (3,508) and accounted for 63% of all collisions. Collisions involving Black individuals accounted for 13% of all collisions (738). Collisions involving White individuals accounted for 10% of all collisions (573). 11% of all individuals (654) were characterized as other or were not identified by race/ethnicity. Few collisions involving Asian individuals were reported (71). Table 9 shows the number of people involved in collisions in the City by race/ethnicity.
Table 9: Parties involved in Collisions by Race and Ethnicity Race/Ethnicity Number of people by Race/Ethnicity Percentage Asian 71 1%
Black 738 13%
Hispanic 3508 63%
White 573 10%
Other 184 3%
No Information Provided 470 8%
7.4.2 Bicycle Collisions by Race/Ethnicity
Overall, bicycle collisions in the City of Rialto are relatively high. In total, there were 68 collisions involving a bicycle between 2018 and 2023. There were 3 collisions that resulted in fatalities and 65 that resulted in injuries. Of the three bicycle collisions that resulted in fatalities, 2 involved people of color. The fatalities involved Black (1), Hispanic (1), and White (1) identifying individuals. Collisions that resulted in injuries involved Hispanic (45), Black (10), White (7), and No Information Provided (3) identifying individuals. Table 10 shows the number of people involved in bicycle collisions in the City by race/ethnicity.
Table 10: Bicycle Collisions by Race and Ethnicity
Bicyclist Race/Ethnicity Fatal Injury
Asian 0 0
Black 1 10
Hispanic 1 45
White 1 7
Other 0 0
No Information Provided 0 3
Total 3 65
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
52 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
7.4.3 Pedestrian Collisions by Race/Ethnicity
Overall, pedestrian collisions in the City of Rialto are quite high. In total, there were 176 collisions involving 185 pedestrians between 2018 and 2023. There were 26 collisions that resulted in fatalities and 33 that resulted in severe injuries. Table 11 shows pedestrian collisions in the City by race/ethnicity.
Table 11: Pedestrian Collisions by Race and Ethnicity
Pedestrian Race/Ethnicity Fatal Injury
Asian 0 1
Black 5 32
Hispanic 13 103
White 3 14
Other 5 6
No Information Provided 0 3
Total 26 159
7.5 COLLISIONS BY AGE
7.5.1 Total Collisions by Age
Of the total 2,125 collisions within the five-year period, 5,544 people were involved in the collisions. The number of people involved in each collision per age group is shown in Table 12. Most of the 2,125 collisions within this period involved individuals between the ages of 25 to 34 (1,397) followed by individuals aged 45 to 64 (1,273). These numbers indicate that roughly 46% of people involved in collisions were under the age of 35.
Table 12: Parties Involved in Collisions by Age
Age Range Count Percent
Under 15 45 0.8%
15–24 1,135 20.5%
25–34 1,397 25.2%
35–44 902 16.3%
45–64 1,273 23.0%
65+ 329 5.9%
Not Provided 463 8.4%
Total 5,544
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
53 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions by Age
The number of people involved in bicycle collisions by age group and severity is shown in Table 13. Of the total 68 individuals involved in bicycle collisions, about 61% were under the age of 35. Three individuals were involved in bicycle collisions that resulted in fatalities, two were over the age of 45 and one was under the age of 35.
Table 13: Fatal and Injury Bicyclist-Involved Crashes by Age Range Bicyclist Age Range Fatal Injury
Less than 15 0 7
15–24 0 19
25–34 1 15
35–44 0 11
45–64 1 10
65 + 1 0
Age Not Provided 0 3
Total 3 65
7.5.3 Pedestrian Collisions by Age
The number of people involved in pedestrian collisions by age group and severity is shown in Table 14. Of the total 185 people involved in the 176 pedestrian collisions, ninety-six individuals, or 52% of individuals, were under the age of 35.
Twenty-six people were fatally injured in pedestrian collisions between the ages of 15 and under (2), 15 – 24 (2), 25 – 34 (4), 35 – 44 (5), 45 – 64 (8), and 65 + (5).
Table 14: Fatal and Injury Pedestrian-Involved Crashes by Age Range Pedestrian Age Range Fatal Injury
Less than 15 2 24
15–24 2 40
25–34 4 24
35–44 5 15
45–64 8 39
65 + 5 17
Age Not Provided 0 0
Total 26 159
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
54 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
7.6 KEY TAKEAWAYS
The following includes key findings from the equity analysis as it relates to demographic factors:
The equity and collision analysis helps to identify areas of the city where additional safety improvements are needed to reduce the incidence of severe or fatal collisions and reduce disproportionate impacts on vulnerable populations.
The city should explore traffic calming, bicycle and
pedestrian friendly infrastructure, and street improvements that prioritize safety. Directing policies and projects to equity focused areas of the city will help to improve
conditions for everyone, including residents and workers traveling to and through the City of Rialto.
• 28% of households in the City of Rialto earn less than $50,000 a year, with a majority (58%) of households
in Rialto earning less than $100,000 a year.
• Despite making up 75% of the City’s population,
Hispanic/Latino residents were involved in only
63% of crashes. White, Black, and Asian residents,
as well as residents of other races were slightly
over-represented in crashes relative to their share
of the population.
• Black residents were constituted a larger share of
bicycle and pedestrian involved injuries than their
share of the population. They represented 15% of
bicyclist injuries and 20% of pedestrian injuries
relative to a 12% share fo the City’s population.
• Residents in the 25–34 age group make up 16%
of the City’s population, but were involved in 25%
of crashes.
• Younger residents were more likely to be victims of
bicycle injuries than older residents.
• Residents ages 45 and older were more likely to be
killed in pedestrian-involved crashes. 50% of victims
were at least 45 years of age, whereas 31% of the
population of Rialto is 45 or older.
• Nearly all pedestrian-involved crashes resulting in
fatal or severe injuries occurred on arterial streets,
with large concentrations along Riverside Ave,
Foothill Blvd, and Merrill Ave. There were also
notable concentrations at SR-210 and I-10
on/off ramps.
• Fatal crashes involving bicyclists were concentrated
along Riverside Ave, while serious injury collisions
involving bicyclists were concentrated along Foothill
Blvd, Rialto Ave, and Merrill Ave.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
55 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
8. CLIMATE CHANGE, SUSTAINABLE AND ECONOMIC COMPETITIVENESS The analysis was done using REPLICA, a tool used to access traffic data sets for specific geographic areas. The dataset available represents the population and their travel patterns in the City of Rialto.
8.1 TRIP ORIGIN: TRIP DESTINATION ANALYSIS
This report utilizes REPLICA data for Spring 2023 to
determine the volumes of network links. The data is derived from REPLICA’s seasonal model, which provides volume
information for a typical weekday. The metrics used in
analyzing the network link volumes include the choice of mode, trip distance, trip purpose, and vehicle details. The dataset focuses on trip information at the network link level. Figure 21 displays the locations of all transportation trips for various modes on the network link. Figure 22
through Figure 24 depict the locations of pedestrian,
bicycle, and transit trips on the network link. The volume data reveals that the top five roadway segments with the highest trip counts are I-10, CA-210, Riverside Avenue, Foothill Boulevard, and Bloomington Avenue.
8.1.1 Network Volume
Table 15 presents an overview of the proportions of primary modes of travel within the roadway network of the City of Rialto. The most common primary mode of transportation
in Rialto is private auto, accounting for 57.56% of trips, followed by carpool for 27.7%, and walking for 8.8%.
8.1.2 Trip Distance
The internal distribution of trip origin and trip destination exclusively within Rialto is illustrated in Figure 20. The greatest proportion of trips have a distance between 8 and 16 miles, accounting for 18.5% of the total. This is followed by trips with distances between 4 and 8 miles which make up 17.4% of the total, and trips between 2 and 4 miles, which account for 16.2% of the total.
Further analysis was conducted to identify the primary
modes of transportation for trips with distances under 0.5 miles and is shown in Table 16. The results indicate that walking is the main mode, accounting for 58.3% of these trips. These are followed by single occupancy vehicles and carpool trips.
Table 15: Mode Share for Trips of All Distances Taken
Within or Through Rialto
Primary Mode Percentage
Single Occupancy Vehicle 57.6%
Carpool 27.7%
Walking 8.8%
Commercial Vehicle (Freight) 4.4%
Biking 0.3%
Other (E-scooter, School Bus, Public
Transit, Taxi/Lyft/Uber) 1.1%
Table 16: Mode Share for Trips Under Half a Mile in Rialto Primary Mode Percentage
Walking 58.3%
Single Occupancy Vehicle 16.5%
Carpool 11.1%
Commercial Vehicle (Freight) 6.78%
Biking 1.0%
Other (E-scooter, School Bus, Public
Transit, Taxi/Lyft/Uber) 6.3%
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
56 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 20: Trip Distance Distribution in Rialto
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
57 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 17: Trip Destination from Rialto by City
Destination Trips Percent
Rialto 158,653 43.51%
Fontana 52,414 14.37%
San Bernardino 45,126 12.37%
Colton 12,468 3.42%
Rancho Cucamonga 11,030 3.02%
Riverside 9,979 2.74%
Bloomington 9,477 2.60%
Ontario 8,048 2.21%
Jurupa Valley 5,425 1.49%
Redlands 3,896 1.07%
Table 18: Top External Trip Destinations by Census Tract Destination by Tracts Number of Trips
35.03 (San Bernardino, CA) 14,645
36.09 (San Bernardino, CA) 13,798
35.05 (San Bernardino, CA) 11,131
35.10 (San Bernardino, CA) 10,642
38.01 (San Bernardino, CA) 9,065
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
58 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
8.2 TRIP ORIGIN AND DESTINATION ANALYSIS
8.2.1 Trip by Origin
The number of trips originating in the City of Rialto is reported to be 379k, made by 177k trip takers. The term “trip by origin” refers to the number of trips that start within the boundaries of Rialto. This data provides an
overview of the of the total number of person-trips taken in Rialto, including both residents who made trips and those who did not.
8.2.2 Origin Destination Pairs
Table 17 presents a summary of the percentage of
destination trips by city for trips originating in Rialto. The table highlights the top destinations for trips originating in Rialto. The city with the highest number of trips is Rialto itself, accounting for 44% of trips. This is followed by Fontana, which accounts for 14%, and San Bernardino, which accounts for 12%. Other popular destinations for trips leaving Rialto include Colton and Rancho Cucamonga.
8.2.3 Active Transportation
This analysis utilized Replica data to filter the primary modes of walking, biking, and transit in the City of Rialto.
The top roadway segments for biking volume were
identified as Merrill Avenue, Baseline Road, and Pepper Avenue. Similarly, the top roadway segments for walking volume were Maple Avenue, Willow Avenue, Persimmon
Street, and Meridian Avenue. This information highlights the importance of having adequate pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure in areas with high concentrations of vulnerable users. Comparing the data on vulnerable user collisions with the volumes of vulnerable user activity, it was observed that most collisions occurred on the roadway segments with the highest vulnerable user activity. This emphasizes the need for improved safety measures for
pedestrians and cyclists in these areas. The analysis also revealed that the primary mode of transportation in the City of Rialto is driving, with many people using this mode for short to medium distance trips. While the majority of trips under 0.5 miles were walking trips, it is important to consider further distances in order to explore alternative modes of travel, such as walking, biking, and transit. By enhancing connectivity throughout the city, it is possible to reduce the reliance on short car trips and promote
other modes of transportation. Figure 21–Figure 24
provide insights into the volume of trips across all modes of transportation, as well as specific modes. Improving roadway safety for non-automobile modes of travel can
have several benefits, including reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), greenhouse gas emissions, and pollutants.
Improving the pedestrian environment enhances the overall quality of life for residents and improves the efficiency of the transportation network. By reducing reliance on
private cars and promoting walking, biking, and public
transportation, Rialto can decrease the emission of carbon dioxide and other pollutants, contributing to efforts to combat climate change and improve air quality. Additionally, promoting active transportation can help reduce traffic congestion, leading to smoother traffic flow and fewer idling vehicles. This not only benefits businesses by providing faster and more reliable commuting options, but also
attracts new businesses and investments. Increase foot
traffic and cycling can contribute to a vibrant local economy and foster a sense of community. Safer roads and alternative modes of transportation also contribute to the economic competitiveness of a city by reducing accident-related
costs, improving transportation efficiency, and promoting environmental and public health. Therefore, increasing
active transportation can enhance Rialto through improved connectivity to restaurants and shops, better public health outcomes, and enhanced environmental sustainability.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
59 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 21: Daily Roadway Volumes for All Modes by Segment in Rialto
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
60 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 22: Daily Bicycle Volumes by Roadway Segment in Rialto
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
61 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 23: Daily Pedestrian Volumes by Road Segment in Rialto
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
62 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Figure 24: Daily Transit Trips by Roadway Segment in Rialto
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
63 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
9. POLICY AND PROCESS CHANGE
9.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or on-going were compiled at the start of the SAP 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 topics were identified to inform decision making in the SAP. Table 19 outlines the relevant existing City plans and their goals, while Table 20 and Table 21 outline current and proposed active transportation and roadway projects.
Table 19: Summary of Existing Transportation Plans and Initiatives in Rialto Document Name Transportation Policies/Improvements
Rialto General
Plan (2010)
• The General Plan is a planning document which serves as a guide to the community’s vision until 2040. The General Plan was updated in 2023. • The Circulation Element in the General Plan was updated in 2023. The Circulation Element focuses on riding rail and bus transit, accommodating bicyclists and pedestrians, and moving goods. There are planned routes for trucks and bicyclists, and goals and policies to increase safety throughout the roadway network.
Rialto Systemic
Safety Analysis
Report Program
(SSARP)
• The Rialto SSARP evaluates the findings of a Citywide collision assessment and recommends safety improvements throughout the City to lower collision rates. Four years of collision data was analyzed, and certain locations with higher collision rates or risk factors were further evaluated in the field.
• The SSARP provides a list of several potential safety improvement projects that could be prioritized for grant funding in the future. The list includes seven high-risk corridors and twelve high-risk intersections. Countermeasures were selected including traffic control modifications at intersections and safety improvements along corridors.
Rialto Safe Routes
to School (SRTS)
• The program promotes walking and biking to school for students and their parents in the City of Rialto. These alternative modes of transportation are encouraged to improve health and well-being when implemented in a safe manner. • The program also focuses on implementing engineering recommendations to increase safety along corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists. The SRTS program prioritizes segments to improve as funding becomes available. recommends safety improvements and polices including enhanced crosswalks,
• Several factors impact which recommendations are proposed and prioritized by location including pedestrian and bicyclist crash data, median household income, student body population density, number of students enrolled, and speed limit analysis.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
64 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Document Name Transportation Policies/Improvements
Rialto Active
Transportation
Plan (ATP)
• The City of Rialto’s ATP strives to implement more safety, connectivity, livability, accessibility to transit, coordination and collaboration with local agency plans and their implementations, and increased focus on disadvantaged communities. • This plan outlines several walking and bicycling benefits including environmental benefits, health benefits, and economic benefits. Community engagement is key to find strategies to prioritize specific projects.
• The plan also provides recommendations including bicycle and pedestrian treatments, recommended bikeway projects, safe routes to parks recommendations, and first and last mile to transit recommendations.
Rialto Climate
Adaptation Plan
(2021)
• The Climate Adaptation Plan outlines how to prepare the City of Rialto and its residents for climate change. The plan proposes goals, policies, and actions centered around air pollution, extreme, het, wildfire, and flooding.
• Goal 1 in the plan is to design streets that are safe and comfortable to walk and bike through. Policy 1.1 in the plan prioritizes Safe Routes to School in locations impacted by extreme heat and air pollution.
2022 San
Bernardino County
Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP)
• The San Bernardino County LRSP determines and analyzes collision hot spots throughout the roadway network of the unincorporated areas. The LRSP recommends countermeasures to help reduce collisions and improve safety overall. • The plan implements the Safe System approach with a goal to eliminate all fatalities and serious injuries for each type of road user. The Safe System approach focuses on providing a safe transportation system with five main elements: safe road users, safe vehicles, safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash care. • The plan helps with funding for safety projects from the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and other funding mechanisms.
2015 San
Bernardino
Associated
Governments
Complete Streets
Strategy
• The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA; formerly San Bernardino Associated Governments – SANBAG) Complete Streets Strategy focuses on helping local jurisdictions create policies and projects for Complete Streets. • Complete Streets policies mandate the implementation of planning, designing, and maintaining streets that are safe for all road users.
• The strategy specifically investigates Complete Streets in General Plans and the integration of Complete Streets with other planning efforts. 2017 SBCTA
Regional Safe
Routes to School
Plan Phase II
• The plan is intended to increase the safety and accessibility of walking and biking to school.
• Several pedestrian and bicycle improvements are recommended in the plan to help local agencies implement this program in their communities.
• Phase I of the plan was developed in 2015. Phase II has two volumes with the first one describing the processes of developing the engineering recommendations and the second one detailing the engineering recommendations to improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling to school.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
65 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Document Name Transportation Policies/Improvements
2022 Caltrans
District 8 Active
Transportation Plan
• The ATP identifies specific locations where bicycle and pedestrian improvements are needed throughout the State Highway System in the district. • The plan prioritizes certain highway segments and crossings to improve active transportation with future funding. The next steps for implementation of these bicycle and pedestrian facilities are also included in the plan. • Caltrans and other agencies will use the plan for future planning, construction, and maintenance projects to address active transportation needs. 2020 SCAG
Connect SoCal
Transportation
Safety and Security
Technical Report
for San Bernardino
County
• This technical report by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) describes current transportation safety conditions and lists strategies to improve transportation safety in Southern California.
• The report acts as guide for local and county agencies to implement safety into the regional transportation system.
• The goals of Connect SoCal are to create safer, healthier, and more sustainable communities. The plan aims to meet these goals by creating strategies and policies to improve safety for all road users, investing in infrastructure preservation, implementing safety strategies to support healthy and equitable communities, and increasing access to different modes of transportation.
2018 San
Bernardino County
Non-Motorized
Transportation Plan
• The goals of the plan are to increase access and travel for pedestrians and bicyclists, accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists in transportation and land use planning, and improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists.
• The plan investigates pedestrian and bicycle planning, local jurisdiction bicycle plans, design guidelines, and plan implementation. The plan also includes crash data, mileage statistics, and existing and proposed bikeway facilities 2020 SBCTA
Comprehensive
Pedestrian Sidewalk
Inventory Plan
• The plan developed a sidewalk inventory to assist in planning improvements for sidewalk connectivity. Projects were identified and prioritized based on pedestrian and bicycle crash data and other factors.
• The plan also strives to reduce redundant pedestrian infrastructure data collection efforts by regional and local agencies, as well as create consistent data for agencies to use for planning pedestrian projects.
• Phase II (2023) of the plan further refines the sidewalk inventory and helps support each agency’s compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) to design safe and accessible pedestrian facilities.
2023 Foothill
Central Specific
Plan
• The Foothill Central Specific Plan outlines the development of Foothill Boulevard and the City of Rialto’s Downtown Area. The Specific Plan supports the elements provided in the City of Rialto General Plan.
• The plan supports other planning initiatives to increase safety including the Active Transportation Plan and Rialto Climate Plan. Funding mechanisms are also identified for the planning area.
• The Specific Plan recognizes the safety concerns of residents in the Plan Area due to the lack of reliable transit and inadequate pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
66 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 20: Current and Future Active Transportation Projects in Rialto Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Pacific Electric
(PE) Trail
Expansion
Feasibility
Study: City
of Rialto,
Public Works
Department
(2022)
Spans 21 miles
east-west
• Multi-use pedestrian and
bicycle trail. In design
Cactus Trail
Improvements
Project
City of Rialto
Recirculated
Mitigated
Negative
Declaration
(MND)
West side of
Cactus Avenue
(Rialto Avenue -
Base Line Road)
• Bicycle and pedestrian trail
improvements. Completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #1
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
West Terra Vista
Drive (Sierra
Avenue – Alder
Avenue)
• School signage, RRFB's, Class II
Bike Lane extension, crosswalk
alterations/additions, ADA
curb ramp additions, pavement
marking refurbish, and speed
feedback units.
In construction
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #17
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Eucalyptus
Avenue (E.
Walnut Avenue
- E. Margarita
Road)
• Sidewalk additions, ADA
curb ramps, school signage,
crosswalk alterations/additions,
and school pavement marking
alterations.
In design
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #21
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Eucalyptus
Avenue (E.
Holly Street - E.
Victoria Street)
• Sidewalk additions, ADA curb
ramps, and bulb outs. In design
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #31
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Meridian Avenue
(Mill Street -
Birch Street)
• Bulb out installation, crosswalk
alterations/additions, sidewalk
additions, speed feedback unit,
school signage, and pedestrian
push button modification.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #33
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
S. Lilac Avenue
W. (Randall
Avenue - W.
San Bernardino
Avenue)
• School signage, pedestrian
signal flasher additions,
RRFB's, ADA curb ramps,
sidewalk additions, and
signalized intersection
installation.
Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
67 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #34
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
S. Meridian
Avenue (Los
Robles Avenue –
Visconti Drive)
• School signage, crosswalk
alterations/additions, RRFB's,
striping modifications, bulb out
installation, school pavement
refurbishment, speed feedback
unit, and sidewalk additions.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #7
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Maple Avenue
(Summit Avenue
– Bohnert
Avenue)
• ADA curb ramp, school
signage, sidewalk additions,
school pavement markings,
and crosswalk additions/
alterations.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #20
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Acacia
Avenue (E.
Madrona Street
- E. Victoria
Street)
• Bulb outs, ADA curb ramps,
and crosswalk alterations/
additions.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #22
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Meridian
Avenue (E.
Etiwanda
Avenue - E.
Jackson Street)
• ADA curb ramps, crosswalk
alterations/additions, and
sidewalk additions.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #9
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Apple Avenue
(Ayala Drive
- W. Willow
Avenue)
• School crosswalk alteration/
additions, red paint, centerline
additions, bulb out install,
school signage, RRFB's, and
ADA curb ramps.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #28
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Eucalyptus
Avenue (E. 3rd
Street - Golden
Spike Drive)
• Crosswalk alterations/
additions, school signage,
red paint, sidewalk additions,
ADA curb ramps, traffic
signal modifications, school
pavement markings, speed
feedback units, bulb out
installation, shoulder stripe
additions, and mast arm
refurbishment.
Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
68 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #32
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Randall
Avenue (S.
Cactus Avenue
-Lawrence
Garrett Street)
• Sidewalk additions, ADA
curb ramps, school signage,
traffic signal modification
plan, bulb out installation,
crosswalk alterations/additions,
school pavement marking
refurbishment, Class II Bike
Lane modifications, RRFB's,
and STOP bar refurbishment.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #2
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Mango Avenue
& Segovia Lane
(Sierra Avenue
- W. Terra Vista
Drive)
• School signage, red paint,
RRFB's, crosswalk additions,
and bulb outs.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #11
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Willow Avenue
(Easton Street
- E. Base Line
Road)
• School signage, crosswalk
additions/alterations, RRFB's,
and ADA curb ramps.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #19
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Etiwanda
Avenue
(Sycamore
Avenue –
Meridian
Avenue)
• Bulb out curbs, signalized
intersection, sidewalk
additions, RRFB's, school
signage, crosswalk alterations/
additions, and in ground
pavement flashers.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #24
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
W. Rialto
Avenue (Maple
Avenue – Cactus
Avenue)
• ADA curb ramps, school
signage, speed feedback,
crosswalk alteration/
additions,sidewalk additions,
traffic signal modifications, and
Class II bike lane modifications.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #26
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
S. Lilac Avenue
(W. Carter
Street - W.
Rialto Avenue)
• School signage, speed
feedback units, railroad
crossing accessibility
modifications, and crosswalk
additions/alterations.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #30
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
S. Pepper
Avenue (Poplar
Street - Park
Vista Drive)
• RRFB's, ADA curb ramps,
school signage, crosswalk
alterations/additions, traffic
signal modification for
pedestrian clearance time, and
sidewalk additions.
Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
69 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #5
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Riverside
Avenue (Peach
Street – Cactus
Avenue)
• School signage, speed
feedback units, ADA curb
ramps, median relocation, and
crosswalk alteration/additions.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #6
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Linden Avenue
(N. Ironwood
Avenue - W.
Norwood Street)
• Road diet, crosswalk additions/
alterations, ADA curb ramps,
and sidewalk additions.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #8
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Summit Avenue
(Maple Avenue
- N. Apple
Avenue)
• Sidewalk additions and ADA
curb ramps. Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #10
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Pecan Avenue
(N. Riverside
Avenue -Apple
Avenue)
• Sidewalk additions and ADA
curb ramps. Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #13
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
W. Etiwanda
Avenue (Cedar
Avenue – Willow
Avenue)
• School signage, ADA curb
ramps, crosswalk alterations/
additions, school pavement
markings, RRFB's, and Class II
bike facility additions.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #14
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
E. Walnut
Avenue
(Sycamore
Avenue –
Chestnut
Avenue)
• School signage, crosswalk
additions/alterations, ADA curb
ramps, and sidewalk.
In design
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #15
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Sycamore
Avenue (Walnut
Avenue –
Victoria Street)
• ADA curb ramps, crosswalk
alterations/additions, sidewalk
additions, and speed
feedback units.
In design
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #25
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
E. Merrill
Avenue/W. Mill
Street (S. Althea
Avenue - S.
Eagle View)
• School signage, crosswalk
alterations/additions,
speed feedback units,
signal modification plans
and pedestrian push button
updates, bulb out installation,
ADA curb ramps, and
sidewalk additions.
Awarded
– To start
construction
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
70 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #27
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Sycamore
Avenue (E.
Wilson Avenue -
E. Carter Street)
• ADA curb ramps, school
signage, bulb out installation,
pedestrian clearance time
modification, and sidewalk
installation.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #3
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Alder Avenue
(Summerset
Drive - Sunrise
Drive)
• School signage, speed
feedback, RRFB's, and
crosswalk additions/alterations.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #12
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Lilac Avenue
(Heather Street
– Van Koevering
Street)
• School signage, speed feedback
units, ADA curb ramps,
crosswalk addition/alterations,
and sidewalk addition.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #16
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Acacia
Avenue (E.
Heather Street -
E. Home Street)
• RRFB's, crosswalk alterations/
additions, ADA curb ramps,
and school signage
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #4
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Buena Vista
Drive (Alder
Avenue –
Carnation Drive)
• School signage, ADA curb
ramps, red paint, and crosswalk
alterations/additions.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #18
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
N. Terrace Road
(N. Eucalyptus
Avenue - N.
Pepper Avenue)
• ADA curb ramps, pedestrian
hybrid beacon, school signage,
and crosswalk additions/
alterations.
Not completed
Rialto SRTS
Segment ID #23
Rialto Safe
Routes to
School (SRTS)
Shamrock Drive
(N. Meridian
Avenue - Terrace
Road)
• Sidewalk additions and ADA
curb ramps. Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #1 Rialto ATP
Riverside
Avenue (Foothill
Boulevard -
Agua Mansa
Road)
• Class II/III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #2 Rialto ATP
Riverside
Avenue (Walnut
Avenue -
Etiwanda
Avenue)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
71 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #3 Rialto ATP
Willow Avenue
(Easton
Street - Valley
Boulevard)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #4 Rialto ATP
Lilac Avenue
(Apple
Street - Valley
Boulevard)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #5 Rialto ATP
Pepper Avenue
(Foothill
Freeway –
Baseline Road)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #6 Rialto ATP
Foothill
Boulevard
(Maple Avenue –
Pepper Avenue)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #7 Rialto ATP
Sycamore
Avenue (Easton
Street - San
Bernardino
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #8 Rialto ATP
Bloomington
Avenue (Cedar
Avenue –
Riverside
Avenue)
• Class IV bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #9 Rialto ATP
Eucalyptus
Avenue
(Easton Street -
Carter Street)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #10 Rialto ATP
PE ROW (Cactus
Avenue -
Pepper Avenue)
• Class I bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #11 Rialto ATP
Cactus Avenue
(Ayala Drive
– Agua Mansa
Road)
• Class I bikeway Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
72 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #12 Rialto ATP
Walnut Avenue
(Cactus Avenue
– Eucalyptus
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #13 Rialto ATP
Linden Avenue
(Riverside
Avenue -
Randall Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #14 Rialto ATP
San Bernardino
Avenue (Larch
Avenue -
Sycamore
Avenue)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #15 Rialto ATP
Easton Street/
Renaissance
Parkway
(Palmetto
Avenue -
Eucalyptus
Avenue)
• Class II/III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #16 Rialto ATP
Randall Avenue
(Maple Avenue -
City Limits)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #17 Rialto ATP
Locust Avenue
(Casa Grande
Avenue –
Baseline Road)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #18 Rialto ATP
Valley Boulevard
(City Limits -
City Limits)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #19 Rialto ATP
Slover Boulevard
(Cactus Avenue
- City Limits)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #20 Rialto ATP
Casmalia
Street/Sierra
Lakes Parkway
(City Limits
- Riverside
Avenue)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
73 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #21 Rialto ATP
Cactus Avenue
(Baseline Road -
PE ROW)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #22 Rialto ATP
E. Rialto Avenue
(Riverside
Avenue -
Eucalyptus
Avenue)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #23 Rialto ATP
Rialto Avenue
(Maple Avenue -
Cactus Avenue)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #24 Rialto ATP
Santa Ana
Avenue (City
Limits - City
Limits)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #25 Rialto ATP
Terra Vista Drive
(Dove Tree
Avenue – City
Limits)
• Class II bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #26 Rialto ATP
Acacia Avenue
(E. Easton Street
- E. Montrose
Street)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #27 Rialto ATP
Palm Avenue
(Foothill
Boulevard -
Rialto Metrolink
Station)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #28 Rialto ATP
McKinley Street
and 3rd Street
(Riverside
Avenue –
Eucalyptus
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #29 Rialto ATP
Cornell Street
(Eucalyptus
Avenue – Cactus
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
74 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #30 Rialto ATP
PE Trail Access
(PE ROW via
Spruce Avenue
- Etiwanda
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #31 Rialto ATP
South Street
(Eucalyptus
Avenue – Willow
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #32 Rialto ATP
Cactus Avenue
(Merrill Avenue
– Valley
Boulevard)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #33 Rialto ATP
PE Trail Access
(PE ROW via
Larch Avenue
- Etiwanda
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #34 Rialto ATP
Holly Street
(Pepper Avenue
- Lilac Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #35 Rialto ATP
Bohnert Avenue
(N. Locust
Avenue - Cactus
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #36 Rialto ATP
Home Street
(Riverside
Avenue -
Eucalyptus
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #37 Rialto ATP
Maple Avenue
(Foothill
Boulevard -
Randall Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #38 Rialto ATP
Apple Avenue
(Cactus Avenue
- Casmalia
Street)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
75 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #39 Rialto ATP
Larch Avenue
(Merrill Avenue -
San Bernardino
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #40 Rialto ATP
Fromer Street/
Sage Avenue
(Sycamore
Avenue -
Randall Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #41 Rialto ATP
Grove Street
(Cactus Avenue
- Cedar Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #42 Rialto ATP
Alru Street
(Larch Avenue -
Cactus Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #43 Rialto ATP
Sunrise Drive
(N. Palmetto
Avenue - N.
Alder Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #44 Rialto ATP
Shirly Bright
Road (Pepper
Avenue - Walnut
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #45 Rialto ATP
Maple Avenue/
West Coast
Boulevard
(Locust Avenue
- Bohnert
Avenue)
• Cass III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #46 Rialto ATP
E. Winchester
Drive (Pepper
Avenue -
Eucalyptus
Avenue)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Rialto ATP
Segment ID #47 Rialto ATP
Jurupa Avenue
(Riverside
Avenue -City
Limits)
• Class III bikeway Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
76 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto SSARP
Location #1 Rialto SSARP Cedar Avenue at
Merrill Avenue
• Provide 1-second all-red
clearance interval for N/S
left-turns, extend NB/SB all-
red clearance interval by 0.5
seconds, convert NB/SB lead/
lag left-turn arrows to all-time
leading operation, upgrade
vehicle detection to video
detection system, install EB/
WB Protected-Permissive
Left-Turn (PPLT) arrow, and
add advance limit lines for all
approaches
In design –
Awarded in
HSIP Cycle 11
Rialto SSARP
Location #2 Rialto SSARP
Foothill
Boulevard at
Pepper Avenue
• Renew existing intersection
striping, add EB right-turn
arrow pavement marking
at limit line, install EB near-
side "Right Lane Must Turn
Right" (R3–7) sign, install NB
Protected-Permissive Left-Turn
(PPLT) arrow, and consider
widening NB approach to
provide new right-turn pocket
Submitted
application –
Not awarded in
HSIP Cycle 11
Rialto SSARP
Location #3 Rialto SSARP
Riverside
Avenue at Valley
Boulevard
• Renew existing intersection
striping, install NB "No U-Turn"
(R3–4) sign, install additional
NB/SB mast-arm indications,
install EB right-turn overlap
arrow, install additional safety
lighting on NW & SE corners,
and consider widening SB
approach to provide new right-
turn pocket
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Location #4 Rialto SSARP
Riverside
Avenue at I-10
Ramps
• Request that Caltrans provide
and/or increase all-red time,
request that Caltrans install
additional NB & SB mast-arm
indications, and request that
Caltrans conduct a detailed
traffic safety study
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Location #5 Rialto SSARP
Foothill
Boulevard at
Cedar Avenue
• Consider increasing all-red
time at night, install EB & WB
near-side indications, and
install additional EB & WB
mast-arm indications
Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
77 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto SSARP
Location #6 Rialto SSARP
Riverside
Avenue at
Baseline Road
• Replace WB mast-arm lane
assignment sign w/ "No
U-Turn" (R3–4) sign, install NB,
SB, & WB near-side indications,
and upgrade mast arm pole on
NW corner of intersection
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Location #7 Rialto SSARP
Eucalyptus
Avenue at
Baseline Road
• Full modernization of traffic
signal Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Location #8 Rialto SSARP
Foothill
Boulevard
at Riverside
Avenue
• Prohibit stopping for 150' on
north leg (SB approach/NB
departure), install WB "No
U-Turn" (R3–4) signs, install
NB & SB near-side indications,
install additional safety light on
SE corner, and install NB right-
turn overlap arrows
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Location #9 Rialto SSARP
Foothill
Boulevard
at Sycamore
Avenue
• Renew existing intersection
striping, improve EB right-turn
trap lane channelization with
painted median, install new NB
& SB poles with mast-arms and
indications, and restripe NB &
SB approaches to provide left-
turn pockets
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Location #10 Rialto SSARP
Riverside
Avenue at
Easton Street
• Install WB right-turn overlap
arrows, install additional NB
& SB mast-arm indications,
and replace EB mast arm with
longer mast arm to better align
indications
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Location #11 Rialto SSARP
Downtown
Rialto (Riverside
Avenue at
2nd/3rd Street)
• Concentrate pedestrian
crossings at a single high
visibility crosswalk, install
"saw tooth" yield markings at
median, and install double-
posted rectangular rapid
flashing beacons (RRFB)
Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
78 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto SSARP
Location #12 Rialto SSARP
Riverside
Avenue at Merrill
Avenue and
Bloomington
Avenue
• Reconfigure striping to better
define intersection, add cat-
tracking for Bloomington
Avenue movements, and
consider widening SB
approach to provide new right-
turn pocket
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Corridor #1 Rialto SSARP Riverside
Avenue
• Strive for consistent speed
zoning, improve street and
safety lighting, modify traffic
signal operations, install
raised median islands with
landscaping, and target
improvements at Riverside/
Merrill/ Bloomington
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Corridor #2 Rialto SSARP Foothill
Boulevard
• Convert State Route into
boulevard, consider extending
all-red clearance intervals,
improve safety lighting at
signalized intersections, narrow
travel lanes, and modernize
traffic signals
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Corridor #3 Rialto SSARP Baseline Road
• Install radar feedback signs,
consider extending all-red
clearance intervals, and target
improvements at Baseline/
Eucalyptus and Baseline/
Sycamore
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Corridor #4 Rialto SSARP Cedar Avenue/
Ayala Drive
• Upgrade safety lighting, review
traffic signal timing, complete
pedestrian facilities, control
access strategically, and target
improvements at Cedar/Merrill
and Cedar/Etiwanda
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Corridor #5 Rialto SSARP Cactus Avenue
• Develop and implement
Complete Street project and
consider new traffic signal
installations (3)
Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
79 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Plan Location Project Description Status
Rialto SSARP
Corridor #6 Rialto SSARP Eucalyptus
Avenue
• Implement traffic calming
strategies, establish a school
outreach program, establish
"No Parking" zones, upgrade
"School Zone" signage
and markings, and target
improvements at Eucalyptus/
Baseline
Not completed
Rialto SSARP
Corridor #7 Rialto SSARP Casmalia Street
• Strive for consistent speed
zoning, develop western
portion for future growth,
target improvements at
Casmalia/Ayala, and target
improvements at Casmalia/
Cactus and Casmalia/Lilac
Not completed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
80 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 21: Recent and Future Roadway and Additional Projects in Rialto Project Name Timeline Roadway Improvements
Curb, Gutter, Sidewalk Improvements 2021 Completed Improvements to enhance curb, gutter, and sidewalks.
Easton Sidewalk Improvement Completed Sidewalk improvements between Acacia Ave to Highland Ave.
Pepper and Winchester Drive/Terrace Road Completed Installation of a traffic signal to improve traffic flow and safety.
Terra Vista Neighborhood SRTS Completed Safe Routes to School improvements to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and accessibility.
Ayala and Fitzgerald Completed Installation of a traffic signal to improve traffic flow and safety.
Cedar Avenue Sidewalk and Railroad Crossing
Improvements
In
construction
Construction of a new sidewalk on Cedar
Avenue and installation of pedestrian gates and
panels at the railroad crossing.
City of Rialto Traffic Signal Improvements –
Left Turn Phasing Completed
Installation of Protected-Only left turn signal
phasing and signal hardware at Baseline Road
and Sycamore Avenue (E/W Direction).
City of Rialto Traffic Signal Improvements –
Left Turn Phasing Completed
Installation of Protected-Only left turn signal
phasing and signal hardware at Baseline Road
and Eucalyptus Avenue (E/W Direction).
City of Rialto Traffic Signal Improvements –
Left Turn Phasing Completed
Installation of Protected-Only left turn signal
phasing and signal hardware at Riverside
Avenue and Alder Avenue (N Direction).
City of Rialto Traffic Signal Improvements –
Left Turn Phasing
In
construction
Installation of Protected-Only left turn signal
phasing and signal hardware at Cedar Avenue
and Etiwanda Avenue.
Pepper Avenue Street Reconstruction Project In
construction
Full depth street reconstruction. The project
will also include reconstruction of damaged
curbcurbs, guttergutters, sidewalk, curb ramps,
cross gutters and spandrels, and driveway
approaches.
Baseline Road Median In
construction
Construct raised median and signage on
Baseline Road from Riverside Avenue to
Pepper Avenue.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
81 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Project Name Timeline Roadway Improvements
Alder & 210 Freeway Pre-
construction
The project proposes modifications to
include widening the existing Alder Avenue
overcrossing (OC) structure spanning SR-210
providing additional capacity, allowing for
increased freight movement per the City of
Rialto General Plan.
City-Wide Pavement Rehabilitation Project In
construction
Reconstruction of approximately 15 miles of City
streets with reconstruction of curb ramps.
Class II Bike Lanes Pre-bid Construct Class II bike lanes along Merrill Avenue from Riverside Avenue to Eucalyptus Avenue.
Merrill SRTS Project In design
Construct curb ramps, driveway approaches,
and sidewalk improvements on South Street,
Huff Street, Carter Street, Orchard Street, Joyce
Avenue, Sycamore Avenue, Acacia Avenue, and
Merrill Avenue.
Sycamore SRTS Project In planning
stage
Replacement or construction of curb ramps,
driveway approaches, sidewalk improvements,
and signing and striping along Sycamore Avenue
between Baseline Road and Walnut Avenue.
Bemis Elementary School SRTS Project In planning
stage
Replacement or construction of curb ramps,
driveway approaches, sidewalk improvements,
and signing and striping along various local and
collector roads around Bemis Elementary School.
Cedar/Merrill Traffic Signal Improvements –
Left Turn Phasing In design
Installation of Protected-Only left turn signal
phasing and signal hardware and equipment at
the intersection of Cedar Avenue and
Merrill Avenue.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
82 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
10. STRATEGY AND PROJECT SELECTIONS
10.1 CONSIDERATION 1: TOP FIVE
CHALLENGE AREAS
One of the main considerations when developing focus
areas for the Safety Action Plan (SAP) is where Rialto is exceeding the statewide average for certain challenge
areas. When looking at the percentage of all crashes
within a defined area that involve fatal or suspected
serious injuries, there are five challenge areas where Rialto exceeds the average for California for crashes involving:
Pedestrians, impaired driving, intersections, young drivers, and aggressive driving.
The percentage of fatal and suspected severe injury crashes involving pedestrians from 2016–2021 is 7.7% higher than the statewide average, while impaired driving crashes
are 6% higher than the statewide average and crashes in intersections are 5% higher. Crashes involving younger
drivers are 3.7% higher than the statewide average and
aggressive driving crashes are 3.4% higher.
The locations of these crashes using data from 2018 to
2023 or each of the top five challenges were considered, along with the output of the network screening results for each of the top five challenge areas. From these results, the majority of overlap occurred along Riverside Avenue
10.2 CONSIDERATION 2: EPDO RANKING FOR
SEGMENTS AND INTERSECTIONS
Using the outputs from the network screening analysis with 2018–2023 crash data, focus areas were also determined by examining the intersections and segments with the highest Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) crashes, which
considers all crashes and their severities. Four of the five segments with the highest EPDO rankings are on Riverside Avenue, with Merrill Avenue being the fifth segment
within the top five highest EPDO scores. Riverside Avenue between Santa Ana Avenue and Mindanao Street had the
highest EPDO score with 511, followed by Riverside Avenue between Jurupa Avenue and Industrial Street with a score of 506, Riverside Avenue between Valley Boulevard and
San Bernardino Avenue with a score of 477, Merrill Avenue between Linden Avenue and Cedar Avenue with a score
of 351, and Riverside Avenue between Industrial Drive and Bryant Street with a score of 340. Of 44 segments, 21 have EPDO scores higher than 150. The EPDO scores of the rest of the segments are significantly lower, ranging from 18 to 69.
Intersections overall had higher EPDO scores than
segments, as most crashes during the study period
occurred at intersections. From this examination, there are 30 intersections with EPDO scores above 200. Of these
intersections, nine involve Riverside Avenue and three
involve Merrill. The intersection of Cedar Avenue and Merrill Avenue had the highest EPDO score of all the analysis
intersections.
10.3 CONSIDERATION 3: EQUITY
In addition to analyzing the frequency and severity of
crashes, it is also important to examine existing conditions related to vulnerable populations to ensure that roadway and intersection improvements are implemented fairly. Data from the Justice 40 initiative via the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) were utilized to identify disadvantaged census tracts within Rialto. 21 of 33 census tracts within the City of Rialto identify as disadvantaged and intersect with several major arterials and intersections.
10.4 GEOGRAPHIC FOCUS AREA
When taking into account the three aforementioned
considerations—Top Five Challenge Areas, High-Ranking
EPDO Segments and Intersections, and Equity—there are
several areas within Rialto that should be focus on for further analysis and/or improvements
Area 1 – Riverside Ave
As a major north-south arterial traversing the length of the city, Riverside Ave is a keystone in Rialto’s transportation network. Crashes from all five challenge areas were
concentrated along Riverside Ave, and a good portion
of fatal and severe injury bike and pedestrian crashes
occurred along Riverside Ave. Also, the entirety of Riverside Ave south of SR-210 travels through CalEnviroScreen
disadvantaged communities. This suggests that Riverside Ave has an overall negative impact on transportation safety in Rialto, and improvements and enforcement along this
corridor could lead to significant reductions in crashes and crash severities.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
83 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Area 2 - Shopping Centers
Major shopping centers, including but not limited to, Rialto Marketplace, North Rialto Center, Rancho Verde Plaza, and Renaissance Marketplace are important activity center in Rialto. These shopping centers employ residents primarily in lower-paying retail and food service jobs, who are more likely to rely on walking, biking, or transit to commute to work than other residents. In addition, a majority of trips in Rialto under half a mile in length were walking trips, suggesting residents living near these shopping centers choose to walk to run errands. Many of these shopping
centers are located along Riverside Ave, or near I-10 and SR-210, both of which are areas with high numbers of
bicycle and pedestrian-involved crashes. Feedback from
the SAP survey indicated that residents ranked sidewalk and pedestrian improvements as the most important and
necessary safety enhancement in Rialto
Area 3 - Areas Frequented by Younger and
Older Residents
The SAP’s crash analysis and equity screening indicated that children under 18 and seniors 65 and older were more likely to be killed or severely injured than other residents.
Notably, children were more likely to be involved in
crashes as bicyclists, while seniors were more likely to be involved in crashes as pedestrians. Active transportation improvements centered around schools, libraries, parks, shopping centers, and senior centers would help to reduce crashes affecting Rialto’s most vulnerable populations.
Improvements around schools would also compound safety
improvements underway as part of Rialto’s Safe Routes to School Plan.
10.5 BEST PRACTICES EVALUATION AND
EMPHASIS AREAS
Table 22 identifies existing plans and policies that were recently completed, or are planned, or on-going within the City of Rialto. The intent of this review is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City that may impact the safety analysis process. It will also identify opportunity areas where the City could adopt non- infrastructure countermeasures. This table also ties each topic and enhancement to the emphasis areas that are laid out in Table 19 through Table 21.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
84 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Table 22: Summary of Rialto’s Current Programs and Policies Regarding Transportation Safety Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Rialto Topic Initiatives / Current Status
Committees / Roles
Does the City have an Active Transportation
Coordinator? Not de jure; De facto – Consultant City Engineer Does this City have a Safety or Active Transportation
Advisory Committee?
Y es (check city website),
under Transportation Commission
Does the City have an Active Transportation Safety
Education Program?
City doesn’t think so;
check ATP for information/recommendations
Policy / Plans
Does the City have a complete streets plan? Y es – check city website Does the City assess Traffic Impact Fees? Ye s
Does the City have Safea Safe Routes to
School Program? Y es – captured in literature review
Does the City implement Traffic Calming Policies? Ye s
Does the City regularly conduct speed surveys? Y es – recent citywide 2022 or 2023 by Advantec Does the City utilize Warrants for Stop Signs
and Signals?
Both local and CA MUTCD (more geared to State);
consultant traffic engineer handles requests, sometimes City acts independently, commission studies for
improvements – likely similar to MUTCD warrants
Is the City planning for Density and Walkable Area? Foothill Boulevard Does the City have Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)), or Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT)
Reduction policies?
Not currently; could be involved
in next steps from this study
Does the City perform Traffic Crash Monitoring? Not currently Does the City have an Active Transportation
Master Plan? Y es – 2018 KTUA
Does the City have MUTCD-compliant Pedestrian
Signal Timing? Y es; no LPIs
Does the City implement Crosswalks at high
pedestrian locations?
Not currently; look into recommendations as data is
analyzed; report recently recommended moving some
unsafe crosswalks – some have been removed
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
85 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of Rialto What type of traffic enforcement does the City conduct? Sometimes use speed feedback signs (more for calming than enforcement); utilize DUI checkpoints
What is the City’s Bicycle Policy? Check municipal code (sidewalk use, helmet laws) What types of transit does the City have?
Bus (SBCTA), Metrolink, not BRT – check CIP list for
transportation utility contacts; Vanpool and paratransit exist (funded by City through senior center)
What types of wayfinding does the City have? There is wayfinding (City Hall, Metrolink Station) Data Collection / Inventory
Does the City have an inventory of Pedestrian Signs
and Signals?
Inventory of pedestrian signals.
Not currently a sign inventory
Does the City have an inventory/mapping of Active
Transportation Routes? Check ATP; SBCTA shapefile
Does the City utilize Crossroads Database
for collisions? Not currently; PD manages own crash data Does the City have Active Transportation
Volume Counting? Collected upon request but not regularly Coordination / Feedback
What ways can citizens give feedback about
roadway safety?
Moving toward mobile application; currently calling/
emailing or using City website to submit feedback –
funnels to public works/traffic
What types of Coordination with other City
organizations does your department perform?
Coordination conducted with relevant parties as needed
per project/development; private sector projects
mandate standard coordination meetings
What types of School Engagement does the
City perform?
Construction notices would include schools; events
between PD and schools related to bicycle safety –
check ATP; annual bike rodeo
What types of Law Enforcement/Emergency Service
Engagement does the City perform? As needed basis
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
86 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
11. EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas represent crash factors that are common
in the City and provide the opportunity to reduce the
largest number of traffic injuries with strategic investment.
Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.
Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving
Description: Aggressive driving includes several behaviors such as speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. 874 collisions were a result of aggressive
driving behaviors.
Goals for Emphasis Area #1:
• Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive
driving in the city.
• Identify hot spots and priority corridors where more
aggressive driving collisions occur.
• Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to
address aggressive driving.
Strategies for Emphasis Area #1
• Educational campaign to target aggressive driving.
• Increase law enforcement presence and enforcement
of traffic laws related to aggressive driving.
• Implement traffic calming improvements and establish
a monitoring program to determine which measures
are most effective.
Emphasis Area #2: Impaired Driving
Description: Impaired driving includes collisions where any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver is present, even if the driver was not over the legal limit.
234 collisions in the study period involved impaired drivers.
Goals for Emphasis Area #2
• Reduce the number and severity of impaired driving
crashes in the city
• Increase impaired driving awareness to help drivers
make responsible decisions and avoid driving under
the influence.
• Apply for funding to implement countermeasures to
reduce impaired driving crashes
Strategies for Emphasis Area #2
Establish or enhance enforcement programs to reduce
impaired driving, such as:
• Policies and program activities that aim to reduce
underage drinking and impaired driving
• Promote the use of transportation alternatives such as ride hailing, public transit and designated sober driver programs
• High visibility enforcement to promote public
awareness of the dangers of impaired driving and
change high-risk behaviors
• Improve access to alternative transportation such
as ridesharing services, public transportation, and
designated driver programs. Promote these options
as convenient and affordable alternatives to driving
under the influence.
Emphasis Area #3: Bicyclist and
Pedestrian Safety
Description: Bicyclist and Pedestrian safety was a major concern of residents and a significant cause of severe injury and fatality crashes in Rialto. Bicyclist and pedestrian safety aims to create an environment where non-motorists feel
safe and confident while travelling through the City.
Goals for Emphasis Area #3
• Reduce the number and severity of bicycle crashes
in Rialto
• Increase bicycles safety on Rialto streets
• Increase visibility of bicyclists
• Increase cohesiveness of bicycle network
Strategies for Emphasis Area #3
• Provide outreach, education, and enforcement
programs to encourage safer driving behaviors
near bicyclist
• Install bicycle facilities along key corridors and
neighboring city connections
• Work closer with local advocacy groups and bicycle
clubs to assist in prioritizing bicycle improvements
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
87 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
Emphasis Area #4: Intersections
Description: Collisions identified by the responding officer as occurring at an intersection or involving a train or rail vehicle. Intersection collisions accounted for 1657 collisions with thirty-five (35) fatal crashes, eighty-seven (87) severe injury crashes, and 1535 minor injury/possible injury crashes.
Goals for Emphasis Area #4
• Reduce the number and severity of collisions
at intersections
• Provide safe infrastructure for all modes of
transportation through upgrades to existing
infrastructure
• Standardize intersections as well as possible through common infrastructure and hardware.
Strategies for Emphasis Area #4
• Apply for additional funding to implement
countermeasures to reduce intersection collisions.
• Implement crosswalks on all legs of intersections
where possible.
• Continue to implement systemic improvements and
hardware upgrades (recent HSIP Cycle 12 application
to install new signal heads with reflective backplates, controllers, and leading pedestrian intervals at
signalized intersections in the Rialto.
Case Study Locations
Based on the safety analysis in Section 4, The following 11 case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the City. These locations were identified through the
analysis process based on their crash rates, crash patterns, stakeholder suggestions, and their different characteristics and functions. The purpose of this was to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures
that the City can explore further to achieve the most cost- effective safety benefits. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, 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, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges
from developing. Additionally, this information can be
used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements.
A safety Project Case Study was developed for each of the following locations:
1. Intersection: Cedar Avenue & Merril Avenue
2. Intersection: Riverside Avenue & West
Foothill Avenue
3. Intersection: Linden Avenue & Merrill Avenue
4. Segment: Riverside Avenue – San Bernardino
Avenue to Valley Boulevard
5. Intersection: Sycamore Avenue & Baseline Road
6. Intersection: N Alder Avenue & Riverside Avenue
7. Intersection: Acacia Avenue & Rialto Avenue
8. Segment: Riverside Avenue – Agua Mansa Road &
Miguel Bustamante Parkway
9. Intersection: Sycamore Avenue & San
Bernardino Ave
10. Segment: S Riverside Avenue – Industrial Drive to
Jurupa Avenue
11. Segment: Merrill Avenue – Linden Avenue to
Cedar Street
The individual case study sheets are located in Appendix A.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
88 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
12. PROGRESS AND TRANSPARENCY
12.1 FUNDING SOURCES
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Rialto. 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 Rialto. This section provides
high-level introductions to some of the main funding
programs and grants for which the City can apply.
12.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is
a federally funded, Caltrans-managed program that
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:
• Curb-extensions
• Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
• High visibility crosswalks
• Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road
Safety Manual
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 can be found online at: https://highways. dot.gov/safety/hsip. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects – can be found at: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed- and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program.
12.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
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: https:/ /dot. ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/ active-transportation-program
12.1.3 California SB 1
The California SB 2 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 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:
• Local Street and Road Maintenance and
Rehabilitation: $1.5 billion
• This funding is dedicated to improving local road
maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through
projects such as restriping and repaving.
• Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
• This will go to cities, counties, and regional
transportation agencies to build or convert ore
bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a
significant increase in funding for these projects
through the ATP.
• Local Planning Grants: $25 million
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
89 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
12.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grant applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) 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
12.1.5 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
Grant Program
This program has allocated $1 billion annually from 2022 to 2026 for local cities, counties, MPOs, and other roadway owners (excepting state DOTs) for safety improvement
grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is not benefit / cost based. Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project’s alignment with the Safe Systems approach. There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in-kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agency and implementation grants are open to agencies
with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway
Safety Plan and Safety Action Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100K to $1M and implementation
grants are expected to range from $1M to $20M. Grant
applications are expected to be due in mid-2025.
12.1.6 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
In November 2021, the President signed into law the
$1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above,
this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for improvements and investment in the transportation
sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over 5 years for competitive RAISE/BUILD grants for
transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these rant programs continue to be developed, City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue.
12.1.7 12.1.7 San Bernardino County Measure I
Measure I is a half penny sales tax to fund transportation improvements in San Bernardino County through 2040.
Each member agency develops a capital improvement plan.
Currently, over $20 million of projects in Rialto are being funded by Measure I through Fiscal Year 2028-2029.
12.2 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Once the Safety Action Plan has been completed, the City can plan to regularly review and monitor crash data for trends and changes. The City can also plan to prioritize and implement certain improvements that were identified in
this plan.
12.2.1 Monitoring
The City can plan to regularly monitor the success of the SAP and its related implementations by performing the
following steps. This before and after analysis can be
performed every second year. The City can also meet with the Police Department on a regular basis to discuss roadway safety issues and compare to the latest crash analysis. • Pull yearly crash data from Crossroads database to
determine year-over-year trend
• Utilize Crossroads or GIS software to review the
number of crashes occurring at specific locations.
Locations where improvements have been made
should receive priority for monitoring.
• Based upon changes in crash activity, determine
efficacy of improvements and adjust strategies
going forward
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
90 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
12.2.2 Analysis Update
Every five (5) years, the City will perform a major update to the analysis and the Safety Action Plan by performing the following steps. This update will maintain eligibility for grant funding for the City. This analysis should continue to focus on both systemic and location-specific safety needs.
1. Obtain updated Statewide Integrated Traffic
Records System (SWITRS) crash data from the
Crossroads or TIMS databases.
2. Identify new or changing hot spots through GIS
mapping. Review crash data in changing trends,
new land uses, and evolving driver behavior.
3. Update the roadway shapefile with any new or
upgraded roadways.
4. Update the intersection shapefile with any new or
upgraded intersections.
5. Evaluate crash trends to determine whether new
emphasis areas are emerging
6. Document implemented countermeasures and
review changes in crash activity.
7. Review the Crash Toolbox to determine if any
additional countermeasures should be considered
for implementation in the City.
12.3 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
The opportunities identified in this report provide
systemic and location-specific countermeasures that can be implemented within the City. Implementation will be
dictated by funding and available resources; this guidance is preliminary and subject to change. Over the near-term and mid-term, the City can concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas:
• Pedestrians
• Impaired Driving
• Intersection Crashes
• Young Drivers
• Aggressive Driving
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to crashes within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systematic 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 citywide 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 that might contribute to future crashes.
For location-specific improvements, the City can utilize benefit-cost ratio calculations to help prioritize projects as funding and resources become available.
The City can also plan to implement the non-engineering improvements identified throughout this report,
including actions related to Enforcement, Education,
and Emergency Services. These actions will require
coordination with internal and external stakeholders, such as City departments, law enforcement, local government
organizations, and local community organizations. Early buy-in and engagement from these stakeholders will be
key to the success of these actions.
To aid in these actions, the City can assemble a ‘Task Force’ of representatives from different city departments, such as Public Works, Community Development, and Code
Enforcement. This task force will be instrumental in the monitoring, analysis update, project development, and
project implementation outlined in this plan.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
91 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
13. NEXT STEPS
The City has completed this SAP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come.
In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this SAP and the safety efforts overall.
Work with state and partner
agencies on implementation of
large-scale programs and policies.
Next Steps:
Incorporate safety analysis findings in future
updates of safety programs.
Develop investment program to help achieve
the City’s crash reduction goals.
Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance,
and funding opportunities.
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
92 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
AppenDix A. CASE STUDY SHEETS
Case Study Sheet: Location #1
Project Location, Description & Maps
Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto
Intersection: Cedar Avenue & Merrill Avenue
Example of Similar Intersection: N Pepper Avenue & E Foothill Boulevard
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
1 Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 43
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 5
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (46%)
Rear End (23%)
Head-On (12%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 4
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
36 4 3
Case Study Sheet: Location #1
Field Visit Notes
• Cracking pavement, faded crosswalk markings, flooding • High speeds encouraging aggressive driving behavior (2 drivers observed running red signal) Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on all
approaches
Control Type Signalized Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed
Limit 45 MPH
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install bicycle lanes 35%
(R32PB) $5,725,090 $3,360 1703.90
Provide protected
left turn phase (left
turn lane already
exists)
30%
(S07) $4,907,220 $400,000 12.27
Install centerline
rumble strips/stripes
20%
(R30) $3,271,480 $16,800 194.73
Improve signal
hardware; lenses,
backplate with
retroreflective
borders, mounting,
size, and number
15%
(S02) $2,453,610 $4,032 608.53
Conflict bicycle
striping
5%
(N/A) $817,870 $40,320 20.28
Case Study Sheet: Location #1
Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Riverside Avenue & West Foothill Avenue
Example of Similar Intersection: S Cedar Avenue & W Rialto Ave Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto
2 SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 30
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 1
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (37%)
Rear End (23%)
Head-On (10%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 0
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
22 5 3
Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on all
approaches
Control Type Signalized Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed
Limit 40 MPH
Field Visit Notes
• Striping and pavement markings faded
• Uneven grades throughout the intersection (Potential cause of rear end collisions) • Wide lanes promoting speeding and aggressive driving behavior Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Modify signal
phasing to
implement a leading
pedestrian interval
60%
(S21PB) $3,790,020 $1680 2255.96
Install audible push
buttons
25%
(S17PB) $1,579,175 $20,000 78.96
Install high visibility
crosswalk
25%
(S18PB) $903,250 $5,880 153.61
Install centerline
rumble strips/stripes
20%
(R30) $1,263,340 $16,800 75.20
Install/upgrade signs
with new
fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or
warning)
15%
(R22) $947,505 $40,000 23.69
Install edge-lines
and centerlines
15%
(R28) $947,505 $31,000 30.56
Pedestrian Nose
(Rubber)
5%
(N/A) $315,835 $48,000 6.58
Corner Islands 5%
(N/A) $315,835 $248,640 1.27
Prohibit Right Turn
on Red
5%
(N/A) $315,835 $840 375.99
Pedestrian
countdown heads
5%
(N/A) $315,835 $16,128 19.58
Increased
pedestrian crossing
times
5%
(N/A) $315,835 $2,520 125.33
Case Study Sheet: Location #3
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Linden Avenue & Merrill Avenue
Example of Similar Intersections: S Lilac Avenue & W Merrill Street STOP
STOP
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto
3 Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 21
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 2
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (71%)
Rear-end/Vehicle-
Pedestrian(19%)
Dark Collisions 1
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition No Crosswalks
Control Type Unsignalized
Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 45 MPH
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
18 2 1
Field Visit Notes
• No sidewalk on some sections of Merrill Avenue
• Concerns with sight lines on Linden Ave Westbound turn lane Case Study Sheet: Location #3
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install sidewalks 80%
(R34PB) $4,642,400 $122,500 37.89
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or
other intersection
warning/regulatory
signs
25%
(NS06) $870,450 $20,000 43.52
Improve signal
hardware; lenses,
backplate with
retroreflective
borders, mounting
size, and number
15%
(S02) $870,450 $40,000 21.76
Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled
locations (w
enhanced safety
features)
5%
(R35PB) $290,150 $5,888 49.28
Case Study Sheet: Location #3
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Riverside Avenue – San Bernardino Avenue to Valley Boulevard Example of Similar Segments: Riverside Avenue – San Bernardino Avenue to Randall Avenue Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto
4 ROADWAY
SEGMENT
SOP
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
19 1 1
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Collision Data
Lighting Yes
Median Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH
Collision Data
Total Collisions 21
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 2
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-End (38%)
Broadside (28%)
Hit Object (14%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 2
Field Visit Notes
• Very busy commercial area with restaurants, grocery stores, big box retail • Bikeshare nearby with no bike lanes
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install bicycle lanes 35%
(R32PB) $2,429,490 $266,112 9.13
Install high visibility
crosswalk
25%
(S18PB) $1,735,350 $5,880 295.13
Truncated Domes 5%
(N/A) $347,070 $500 694.14
Consider removing
left turn at shopping
center driveway
near In-n-Out;
extend left turn
pocked at Senior
Way to increase left
turn queuing
5%
(Custom) $347,070 $475,000 0.73
Evaluate for Signal
Warrant
5%
(N/A) $347,070 $15,000 23.14
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Sycamore Avenue & Baseline Road
Example of Similar Intersections: Alder Avenue & Riverside Avenue Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
5 Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 18
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 4
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (67%)
Rear-End (17%)
Head-On (11%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 1
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on all
approaches
Control Type Signalized
Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
17 1 0
Field Visit Notes
• High speeds and aggressive drivers
• Striped bike lane suddenly turns into shared lane
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year
Costs
Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install Bicycle Lanes
(Green conflict striping
through intersection)
35%
(R32PB) $3,763,270 $10,080 373.34
Provide protected left turn
phase (left turn lane already
exists)
30%
(S07) $3,225,660 $300,000 10.75
Improve signal hardware;
lenses, backplate with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number
15%
(S02) $1,612,830 $4,032 400.01
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Case Study Sheet: Location #6
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: N Alder Avenue & Riverside Avenue
Example of Similar Intersections: Riverside Avenue & San Bernardino Avenue Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
6 Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 18
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 2
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (44%)
Head-on/Rear-end (44%)
Sideswipe (11%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 2
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
18 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• Striping and pavement markings faded
• Low pedestrian volumes
• Cars and freight trucks going high speeds
Case Study Sheet: Location #6
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 3
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on two
approaches
Control Type Signalized
Intersection
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 50 MPH
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install Sidewalks 80%
(R34PB) $5,325,440 $7,000 760.787
Install multi-use
paths
35%
(R32PB) $2,329,880 $31,584 73.77
Install high visibility
crosswalks
25%
(S17PB) $1,664,200 $23,520 70.76
Install Raised
Median
25%
(R08) $1,664,200 $168,000 9.91
Install centerline
rumble strips/stripes
20%
(R30) $1,331,360 $16,800 79.25
Improve signal
hardware; lenses,
backplate with
retroreflective
borders, mounting,
size, and number
15%
(S02) $998,520 $4,032 247.65
Case Study Sheet: Location #6
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Acacia Avenue & Rialto Avenue
Example of Similar Intersections: Lilac Avenue and Merrill Avenue Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
7 STOP
STOP
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 16
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 1
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (69%)
Rear-End/Head-On (25%)
Sideswipe (6%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 5
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
16 0 0
Field Visit Notes
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Crosswalk Condition No Crosswalks
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH
• 40 MPH speed limit in low density residential area
• Stop bar located further back, bring forward to improve sight lines • Pavement is cracking and only one streetlamp in the area
Countermeasure Evaluation
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Speed Feedback Signs 30%
(R26) $785,070 $13,440 58.41
Install traffic circle
(Mini-roundabout)
30%
(NS05) $785,070 $840,000 0.93
Install high visibility
crosswalk
25%
(S18PB) $654,225 $5,880 111.26
Daylighting (prohibit
parking 20’ from
intersection)
20%
(NS11) $523,380 $20,000 26.17
Install speed
bumps/humps
15%
(S03) $130,485 $16,800 7.79
Case Study Sheet: Location #8
Project Location, Description & Maps
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
SOP
Segment: Riverside Avenue – Agua Mansa Road & Miguel Bustamante Parkway Example of Similar Segments: Sycamore Avenue & Acacia Avenue Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto
8 Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 13
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 1
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (46%)
Rear-End (31%)
Hit Object (15%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 3
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
13 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• Very wide lane widths, encouraging high speeds
• No sidewalks on some segments
• Visual obstructions blocking driveways
Case Study Sheet: Location #8
Collision Data
Lighting No
Median At Agua Mansa Rd
Intersection
Highest Posted Speed
Limit 55 MPH
Countermeasure Evaluation
Case Study Sheet: Location #8
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install sidewalk (complete
gaps)
80%
(R34PB) $3,118,080 $7,000 445.44
Install high visibility
crosswalks
25%
(S18PB) $974,400 $5,880 41.43
Install Centerline rumple
strips/stripes
20%
(R30) $779,520 $4,200 185.60
Improve sight distance
to intersection (Clear
sight
triangles/trimming
vegetation)
20%
(NS11) $779,520 $30,000 25.98
Improve signal hardware;
lenses, backplate with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number
15%
(S02) $584,640 $12,096 48.33
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Project Location, Description & Maps
Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto
Intersection : Sycamore Avenue & San Bernardino Ave
Example of Similar Segment: Riverside Avenue & E 3rd Street 9 UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
STOPSTOP
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 10
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 3
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Head-On/Rear-
End/Broadside (60%)
Hit-Object (30%)
Unknown (10%)
Dark Collisions 0
Impaired Collisions 3
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
9 0 1
Field Visit Notes
• High speeds upon entering Rialto due to changes in elevation • No sidewalks on some segments, used as space to dump trash • No turning pockets in the eastbound lane
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 3
Crosswalk Condition No Crosswalks
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
Countermeasure Evaluation
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Add green conflict
marking through the
intersection
35%
(R32PB) $1,413,965 $10,080 140.27
Install signals 30%
(NS03) $1,211,970 $332,640 3.64
Install/upgrade
larger or additional
stop signs or other
intersections +
Warrant Analysis
15%
(NS06) $2,090,745 $20,000 104.54
Install Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (PHB)
5%
(N/A) $696,915 $332,640 2.10
Install curb 5%
(Custom) $201,995 $62,160 3.25
Add Bus Stop
amenities
5%
(Custom) $201,995 $52,000 3.88
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
Project Location, Description & Maps
Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto
Segment: S Riverside Avenue – Industrial Drive to Jurupa Avenue Example of Similar Segments: Riverside Avenue – Santa Ana Avenue to Mindanao Street 10 ROADWAY
SEGMENT
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
SOP
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 5
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 3
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-End/Head-
on/Overturned (60%)
Hit Object (40%)
Dark Collisions 2
Impaired Collisions 1
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
5 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• Recently added concrete median
• High speeds and high truck volume from Riverside
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
Collision Data
Lighting Yes
Median Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 55 MPH
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install sidewalks 80%
(R34PB) $11,422,720 $28,000 407.95
Install high visibility
crosswalk
35%
(S18PB) $3,569,600 $11,760 303.54
Convert intersection to
mini-roundabout
30%
(NS05) $4,283,520 $1,680,000 2.55
Install Raised Median 25%
(R08) $3,569,600 $168,000 21.25
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
Case Study Sheet: Location #11
Project Location, Description & Maps
Project Name: Rialto Safety Action Plan
Agency Name: City of Rialto ROADWAY
SEGMENT
SOP
Segment: Merrill Avenue – Linden Avenue to Cedar Street Example of Similar Segment: Rialto Avenue – Maple Avenue to Linden Avenue STOP
11 Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 4
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions 2
Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-End/Head On/Hit
Object (75%)
Vehicle/Pedestrian(25%)
Dark Collisions 1
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Lighting Yes
Median No
Highest Posted Speed
Limit 45 MPH
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
2 1 1
Field Visit Notes
• No crosswalk at Linden Avenue and a shared bicycle lane • 45 MPH speed limit on relatively small road
Case Study Sheet: Location #11
Countermeasure Evaluation
Case Study Sheet: Location #11
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install Sidewalks 80%
(R34PB) $7,691,040 $7,000 1098.72
Install Rapid Rectangular
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Solar
35%
(R37PB) $3,364,830 $42,000 80.12
Install lighting 5%
(NS01) $480,690 $26,880 17.88
Safety Action Plan
City of Rialto
93 City of Rialto | Safety Action Plan
AppenDix B. ONLINE PUBLIC SURVEY FEEDBACK
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
1 / 16
72.73% 16
0.00% 0
18.18% 4
4.55% 1
4.55% 1
Q1 What is your primary mode of transportation when traveling within the City of Rialto? Answered: 22 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 22
# OTHER- PLEASE SPECIFY (RIDESHARE, SCOOTER, ETC.) DATE 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Driving
Biking
Walking
Public
Transportation
(buses)
Other- please
specify
(Rideshare,...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Driving
Biking
Walking
Public Transportation (buses)
Other- please specify (Rideshare, scooter, etc.)
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
2 / 16
1 worms 1/20/2025 11:58 AM
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
3 / 16
Q2 Which areas of improvement would you prioritize to enhance safety in the City of Rialto? Please rank the items below. (Most important=1; least important=4)
Answered: 18 Skipped: 4
44.44%
8 11.11%
2 22.22%
4 22.22%
4 18
2.78 38.89%
7 44.44%
8 16.67%
3 0.00%
0 18
3.22 16.67%
3 27.78%
5 44.44%
8 11.11%
2 18
2.50 0.00%
0 16.67%
3 16.67%
3 66.67%
12 18
1.50 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
More
roadways/inters
ection...
More
sidewalks/pedes
trian...
More bike
lanes/bicycle
improvements
More transit
service/public
transit...
1 2 3 4 TOTAL SCORE
More roadways/intersection improvements
More sidewalks/pedestrian improvements
More bike lanes/bicycle improvements
More transit service/public transit improvements
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
4 / 16
5.56% 1
11.11% 2
33.33% 6
50.00% 9
Q3 How would you rate the importance of improving alternative transportation options (such as biking, walking, and public transportation) in the City of Rialto?
Answered: 18 Skipped: 4
TOTAL 18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not important
Somewhat
important
Important
Very important
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not important
Somewhat important
Important
Very important
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
5 / 16
# PLEASE EXPLAIN WHY YOU CHOSE YOUR RANKING ABOVE. DATE 1 worms! 1/20/2025 11:59 AM
2 Walking saves money and also keep you exercising and a lot shopping centers are walking distance from my home 1/9/2025 5:06 PM 3 No sense of community and too many car accidents due to speed 12/23/2024 8:53 PM 4 More public transportation would help homebound people get out more 12/20/2024 9:34 AM 5 Many of the community members ride or walk to their destinations. 12/19/2024 7:05 PM 6 Keeps people using alternative methods of transportation like walking and bicycling safer 11/25/2024 1:00 PM 7 The less cars that are on the road the safer it’ll be for everyone 11/22/2024 5:10 AM 8 It’s not safe to move around with the crazy amount of drivers 11/21/2024 7:03 PM 9 City residence is safety is number one concern. 11/21/2024 5:57 PM 10 To create a family friendly environment where families can walk and bike together 8/6/2024 9:59 PM 11 I love some of the improvements and the walking trail but my issue is that it doesn’t feel safe to walk or bike on our streets. 8/6/2024 7:59 PM City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
6 / 16
55.56% 10
61.11% 11
55.56% 10
77.78% 14
27.78% 5
Q4 Which topics of concern should be addressed to improve traffic related safety efforts in the City of Rialto? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 18 Skipped: 4
Total Respondents: 18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Pedestrian
Related
Impaired
Driving
Intersection
Related
Aggressive
Driving
Commercial
Vehicle Related
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Pedestrian Related
Impaired Driving
Intersection Related
Aggressive Driving
Commercial Vehicle Related
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
7 / 16
88.89% 16
11.11% 2
5.56% 1
22.22% 4
Q5 Which modes of transportation do you feel safe using in the City of Rialto? (Select all that apply) Answered: 18 Skipped: 4
Total Respondents: 18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Personal
Vehicle
Walking
Biking
Public Transit
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Personal Vehicle
Walking
Biking
Public Transit
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
8 / 16
Q6 What would make walking around the City of Rialto more appealing? (Select all that apply) Answered: 18 Skipped: 4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Installing/wide
ning sidewalks
Installing
more lighting
Adding shade
Sidewalk gap
closures
Installing
crosswalks
Wayfinding/sign
age
Other (please
specify)
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
9 / 16
66.67% 12
72.22% 13
55.56% 10
66.67% 12
50.00% 9
44.44% 8
33.33% 6
Total Respondents: 18
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Near my address 339 W Montrose cares drive more then the speed limit speed bumps would be great large ones to stop speeding drivers from almost running g over pedestrian and students on there way to the bus stop. 1/9/2025 5:09 PM
2 Remove tree overhangs 12/29/2024 10:23 AM
3 Adding more stop signs or speed bumps in neighborhoods. Cars drive extremely fast. Careless driving. 12/23/2024 8:55 PM 4 Daylighting at intersections, raised cross walks, no slip lanes 11/21/2024 7:06 PM 5 Sidewalk needs yo be clear of growing weeds 8/6/2024 9:20 PM 6 We have the ring and people are constantly posting people stealing off the front yards or random people knocking at their doors don’t just feels like it’s not safe to walk around our streets the way people do in cities like Rancho 8/6/2024 8:04 PM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Installing/widening sidewalks
Installing more lighting
Adding shade
Sidewalk gap closures
Installing crosswalks
Wayfinding/signage
Other (please specify)
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
10 / 16
50.00% 9
55.56% 10
38.89% 7
61.11% 11
5.56% 1
Q7 What would make biking around the City of Rialto more appealing? (Select all that apply) Answered: 18 Skipped: 4
Total Respondents: 18
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Installing/wide
ning bike lanes
Installing
bike lane
protection...
Wayfinding/sign
age
Complete bike
networks
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Installing/widening bike lanes
Installing bike lane protection (bollards, concrete barriers, etc.) Wayfinding/signage
Complete bike networks
Other (please specify)
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
11 / 16
1 wider streets and less drunk drivers 12/19/2024 7:06 PM City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
12 / 16
Q8 What would make using public transportation around the City of Rialto more appealing? (Select all that apply) Answered: 18 Skipped: 4
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
More frequent
service
More stops
Affordable
fares
Bus
shelters/benche
s
Onboard safety
Other (please
specify)
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
13 / 16
50.00% 9
38.89% 7
33.33% 6
50.00% 9
44.44% 8
22.22% 4
Total Respondents: 18
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Gear toward families and working class people. 12/23/2024 8:57 PM 2 None 11/25/2024 1:03 PM
3 Ease of use & more informational 11/22/2024 12:06 AM
4 Homeless people hangout at bus stops 8/6/2024 8:06 PM
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
More frequent service
More stops
Affordable fares
Bus shelters/benches
Onboard safety
Other (please specify)
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
14 / 16
61.11% 11
66.67% 12
22.22% 4
22.22% 4
33.33% 6
Q9 What types of road improvements do you believe would enhance the comfort of alternative transportation (walking, biking, and public transportation) in the City of Rialto? (Select all that apply) Answered: 18 Skipped: 4
Total Respondents: 18
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Dedicated
bike/pedestrian
signals at...
Curb
bump-outs/curb
extensions
Reduce turn
radius
A reduced
number of
travel lanes
Other (please
specify)
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Dedicated bike/pedestrian signals at stoplights
Curb bump-outs/curb extensions
Reduce turn radius
A reduced number of travel lanes
Other (please specify)
City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
15 / 16
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Speed bumps on 309 W Montrose St. To 369 W Montrose Street 1/9/2025 5:12 PM 2 Remove concrete lane dividers 12/29/2024 10:26 AM
3 Adapting measurements to slow vehicles down in neighborhoods and add more ambient lights so pedestrians can be seen in the early hours and in winter when time changes.
12/23/2024 8:58 PM
4 Pedestrian signals at high volume crossings 11/26/2024 10:37 AM 5 Decreasing the width of the lanes 11/22/2024 5:12 AM
6 A few streets in my neighborhood have been improved so thank you! 8/6/2024 8:07 PM City of Rialto Safety Action Plan Survey
16 / 16
Q10 Do you have any other safety-related concerns or suggestions for improvement(s) for the City of Rialto’s Safety Action Plan?
Answered: 11 Skipped: 11
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Speeding cars on 309 W Montrose Street thru 369 W Montrose Street Rialto Ca 1/9/2025 5:13 PM 2 Merrill Avenue between Cedar and Maple is extremely dangerous due to excessive speeding and pedestrians frequently walking in the streets, particularly from Bob’s Market to Maple. Additionally, Linden Avenue poses significant risks, with vehicles often pulling out in front of speeding cars. This area urgently needs a crosswalk and either a traffic light or a stop sign to improve safety for both drivers and pedestrians. 1/6/2025 10:45 PM
3 There are too many red light runners. We need more police officers and cameras at intersections to slow drivers down. This is an increasing concern. I see it everyday at Acacia & Baseline. It’s frightening & extremely dangerous 12/29/2024 10:30 AM
4 Yes. I’ve wrote to the city of Rialto to please add an additional stop off Eucalyptus near foothill blvd. Cars zoom by going 60 miles per hour. There is 2 elementary schools nearby and a church. I no longer feel safe walking, due to the speed of vehicles on that street and almost being hit, having to run quickly to cross the street. The lack of response by the City is disappointing. 12/23/2024 9:03 PM
5 no 12/19/2024 7:07 PM
6 No 11/26/2024 10:37 AM
7 None 11/25/2024 1:04 PM
8 Please address the fact that so many people speed especially on a road like Baseline 11/22/2024 5:13 AM 9 Follow through with the plan, make it a priority, don’t take out parks for parking lots. 11/21/2024 7:08 PM 10 Complete side walk segments on Est bound second street at Cactus. Complete side walk segments on first street east bound and west bound at Cactus and lilac.
11/21/2024 6:08 PM
11 More lighting in our neighborhoods. And like I keep saying figuring out how we can feel safe walking on our streets. Last year one of our cars parked on the street had a bullet hole…it’s like seriously…how dangerous is that why are people shooting like that. Thank you! 8/6/2024 8:10 PM
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 1 / 11
0.00% 0
100.00% 1
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q1 ¿Cómo se traslada dentro de la ciudad de Rialto?
Answered: 1 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 1
# OTRO - POR FAVOR EXPLIQUE (VIAJE COMPARTIDO COMO UBER, PATINETA, ETC.) DATE 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Conduzco
solo/a en un
vehículo...
Bicicleta
A pie/camino
Transporte
público
(camiones)
Otro - por
favor explique
(viaje...
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Conduzco solo/a en un vehículo particular
Bicicleta
A pie/camino
Transporte público (camiones)
Otro - por favor explique (viaje compartido como Uber, patineta, etc.) Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 2 / 11
There are no responses.
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 3 / 11
Q2 ¿Cuáles áreas priorizaría para mejorar la seguridad vial en la ciudad de Rialto? Por favor ordene las respuestas abajo (1 = más importante; 4 = menos importante)
Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0.00%
0 0
0.00 ! No matching responses.
1 2 3 4 TOTAL SCORE
Más mejoramientos de las calles/intersección
Más mejoramientos de las banquetas/cruces peatonales
Más mejoramientos de ciclovías/carriles para bicicletas Más mejoramientos del transporte público/transito
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 4 / 11
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q3 ¿Cómo calificaría la importancia de mejorar modos alternativos de trasporte en la ciudad de Rialto? (EE., bicicletas, caminando, transporte público, etc.)
Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
TOTAL 0
! No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
No importante
Más o menos importante
Importante
Muy Importante
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 5 / 11
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q4 ¿Cuáles temas deben ser abordados para mejorar esfuerzos de seguridad vial en a la ciudad de Rialto? (Seleccione todos los que apliquen)
Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 0
! No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Relacionados a peatones
Manejando ebrio
Relacionados a intersecciones
Conduciendo agresivamente
Relacionados a vehículos comerciales
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 6 / 11
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q5 ¿Cuáles modos de transporte se siente seguro/a usando en la ciudad de Rialto? (Seleccione todos los que apliquen) Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 0
! No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Vehículo personal/particular
Caminando
Bicicleta
Transporte Público
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 7 / 11
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q6 ¿Qué haría caminando una opción más atractiva en la ciudad de Rialto? (Seleccione todos lo que apliquen) Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 0
# OTRO (POR FAVOR ESPECIFIQUE) DATE
There are no responses.
! No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Instalando/expandiendo aceras/banquetas
Instalando más luces nocturnas
Añadiendo sombra
Reparando quebraduras en la red de aceras/peatonales
Instalando más pasos peatonales
Letreros/Señales e señaléticas
Otro (por favor especifique)
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 8 / 11
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q7 ¿Qué haría usando una bicicleta una opción más atractiva en la ciudad de Rialto? (Seleccione todos lo que apliquen) Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 0
# OTRO (POR FAVOR ESPECIFIQUE) DATE
There are no responses.
! No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Instalando/expandiendo ciclovías/carriles de bicicletas Instalando ciclovías protegidas (postes, barreras de concreto, Añadiendo sombra
Reparando quebraduras en la red de aceras/peatonal
Instalando más pasos peatonales
Letreros/señales y señaléticas
Otro (por favor especifique)
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 9 / 11
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q8 ¿Qué haría usando el transporte público una opción más atractiva en la ciudad de Rialto? (Seleccione todos lo que apliquen)
Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 0
# OTRO (POR FAVOR ESPECIFIQUE) DATE
There are no responses.
! No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Más servicio frecuente
Más paradas de autobús
Precios asequibles
Paradas de autobús/bancas
Seguridad a bordo del transporte publico
Otro (por favor especifique)
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 10 / 11
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
0.00% 0
Q9 ¿Qué tipos de mejoramientos aumentaría el confort de modos alternativos de trasporte en la ciudad de Rialto? (EE., bicicletas, caminando, transporte público, etc.) (Seleccione todos lo que apliquen) Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
Total Respondents: 0
# OTRO (POR FAVOR ESPECIFIQUE) DATE
There are no responses.
! No matching responses.
ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Señales dedicadas para peatones y ciclistas en los semáforos Extensión de la acera/banqueta o saliente de acera
Reduciendo la distancia de giros para vehículos
Reduciendo el numero de carriles para vehículos
Otro (por favor especifique)
Encuesta para el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la Ciudad de Rialto 11 / 11
Q10 ¿Tiene otra sugerencia o preocupación relaciona a la seguridad vial para mejorar el Plan de Acción de Seguridad de la ciudad de Rialto?
Answered: 0 Skipped: 1
# RESPONSES DATE
There are no responses.