Richmond City Council
May 24, 2022

Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
38 Developing Education
Materials Related to Roadway
Design Changes
Temporary demonstrations, like pop-up
installations, can physically showcase
proposed safety infrastructure to the public
and emergency response in a tangible
way. Lastly, preparing materials and videos
focused on new types of roadway design
and Richmond’s major violation issues
(e.g. speed, DUIs, left-turn violations,
pedestrian crossings, and contraflow
bike riding) can direct community
conversations for meaningful outcomes.

EDUCATION Partner with Community Experts
Local partners can serve as community
liaisons between the City and the public.

Working with community partners such as
Rich City Rides and the RYSE Center, and
public institutions, such as the Richmond
Public Library, that have relationships with
residents strengthens the engagement
process by building trust and engaging
an established base of stakeholders.

Local partners can help tailor the
engagement process or help incorporate
engagement into existing programs
and resources to educate people more
effectively about roadway safety.

Education Program Efficacy
NHTSA has compiled a comprehensive
report on efficacy for programmatic
safety countermeasures in their
Countermeasures that Work (2017)
report. This report includes many
education strategies, such as:
• Education regarding medication
• Driver education for younger
and older drivers
• Driver training for pedestrian
and bicyclist safety
• Bicycle safety education for
children and adults
However, research on the efficacy of
education programs is limited, and each
of these education countermeasures
is rated in the report as having still
undetermined effectiveness or limited/
no high-quality evaluation evidence.

Figure 17. (Left to Right) City of Sacramento Education Videos, SFMTA Vision Zero Informational Signs, LADOT Pop-Up Installation Enforcement Sources: LA Streetsblog, Vision Zero SF, City of Sacramento

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
39 Enforcement
Equity Considerations
Enforcement of traffic laws is a common
strategy to increase street safety, but
historical enforcement techniques and
strategies have raised concerns about
racial profiling, police violence, and the
impacts of policing on communities of
color. According to the US Department
of Justice, Black and Hispanic people
are more likely than white people to
experience use of force when they
are stopped by police. To ensure that
efforts to improve safety recognize
that all people have the right to move
about their communities safely, cities
have shifted to equity-based strategies
that target specific reckless behaviors
that pose the highest safety risk while
working to mitigate potential inequities
in enforcement. In 2020, the Safe
Routes to School Partnership removed
enforcement as part of its 6 E’s for Safe
Routes to School and replaced it with
engagement as a strategy for encouraging
safe travel to school. In 2021, the
Governor's Highway Safety Association
made recommendations to invest in
social programs to alleviate enforcement
burdens and prevent recidivism, along
with training for officers on topics of
racism, bias, and de-escalation.

High Visibility Enforcement
High visibility enforcement is a multifaceted
approach to enforcement that involves
garnering public attention to traffic safety
laws through highly visibly patrols, such
as checkpoints: saturation patrols, or
message boards. Across several topic
areas, high visibility enforcement is often
the most effective form of enforcement,
in terms of safety outcomes, according to
NHTSA research. The goal of high visibility
• Progressive traffic fine structures, such
as a sliding scale for traffic fines based on
a driver’s income, developing payment
plans, or giving first offenders the
opportunity to take a safety class focuses
enforcement on behavior change.
• Analyzing available demographic
data in traffic citations can help the
City of Richmond understand if traffic
enforcement is being implemented
universally or if specific communities are
experiencing disparities in enforcement.
• Since enforcement practices, like traffic
stops, require the discretion of police
officers, it is possible for implicit bias to
affect how and to whom officers issue
traffic citations. Assessing traffic citation
demographic and geographic data can
help uncover inequities in policing and
the enforcement of traffic safety.

Equity considerations can be considered in a range
of enforcement strategies, including:

Figure 18. Automated Speed Enforcement
Source: CBC News

ENFORCEMENT

Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
40 enforcement is to promote voluntary
compliance with traffic laws. High visibility
enforcement can target specific traffic
violations for a short period of time to
encourage drivers to stop engaging in a
traffic violation. For example, speeding can
be targeted in an area so that the public is
aware that speed limits are enforced in the
area. Another high visibility enforcement
strategy is publicized sobriety checkpoints
which are used to deter impaired driving
on national holidays or weekends where
more people are likely to drink and drive.

Automated Enforcement
Automated enforcement, such as redlight
cameras or speed cameras, target
the specific drivers who are behaving
dangerously. A strictly data-driven
approach to automated enforcement
might place red-light or speed cameras
in locations with the highest number of
collisions. Speed safety cameras are a
tool that has been proven in cities across
the United States and abroad to reduce
excessive speeding and severe and
fatal injury traffic collisions. The National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration
reports that fixed speed cameras reduce
injury crashes by 20 to 25 percent, and
mobile speed cameras reduce injury
collisions by 21 to 51 percent. Seattle saw
the average number of traffic violations
decrease by 64% in a two-year period
after installation of speed cameras. 90%
of offenders in Seattle did not receive
another citation after being cited one
time for speeding. This tool is not yet
legal in California so a change to state
law would be required before this
technology could be applied in Richmond.

Speed Limit Setting
The California Zero Traffic Fatalities Task
Force conducted a year-long study to
assess the existing speed limit setting
methodology in California. The Task Force
found that the existing methodology, which
sets speed limits as the 85th percentile of
speed and traffic surveys, is not flexible
enough to meet the needs of urban areas
and recommends the development of
a new context-sensitive approach that
sets speed limits to prioritize safety for
all users. Lower maximum speed limits
reduce crashes and fatalities. While lower
posted speeds can help reduce crashes,
they are more effective at encouraging
driving at desired speeds when
implemented through comprehensive
efforts including installation of road safety
improvements or enforcement. While no
statewide change to the 85th percentile
has been made yet, there is a near-term
opportunity for Richmond to conduct
speed surveys after safety-related roadway
improvements have been implemented,
which may result in an opportunity
for setting lower posted speeds.

Beyond Traditional Enforcement
Alternatives to law enforcement
involve investing in cross-sector
partnerships to promote traffic safety.

Alternatives include:
• Community partners can be hired
as Street Safety Ambassadors and
canvas along corridors where there
are severe traffic fatalities or where
communities are experiencing the
most traffic stops or tickets for traffic
violations. Hiring community members
as Street Safety Ambassadors also
serves as an opportunity to build
trust between government agencies
and the public since community
partners typically have preexisting
relationships in the community.
• Hiring Social Workers, Mental Health
Counselors, Addiction Specialists,
and other unarmed specifically
trained professionals can serve as a
supplement to traffic enforcement.
• Partnering with local departments
of mental health and public health
can deescalate traffic enforcement
by treating traffic safety violations
as a public safety issue.

Figure 19. Lower Speed Limits in School Zone
Source: Tim Berger/Burbank Leader

ENFORCEMENT

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
41 • De-escalating traffic enforcement
through government partnerships
with public-facing agencies can also
work to foster trust with the public
during moments where there are
national discussions on public safety
regarding the police. For example,
the City of Oakland partners with
parking enforcement to enforce
traffic laws in a deliberate effort to
disarm the enforcement of traffic
violations. This approach shifts
traffic safety to nonsworn officers
while still enforcing traffic laws.

Enforcement Efficacy
NHTSA has compiled a comprehensive
report on efficacy for enforcement
safety countermeasures in their
Countermeasures that Work (2017) report.

This report includes many enforcement
strategies, and those with the highest
safety efficacy rating are listed below:
• Publicized sobriety checkpoints
• High-visibility DUI patrols
• High-Visibility seat belt
laws enforcement
• Communications and outreach
supporting enforcement efforts
• High-visibility child restraint
laws enforcement
• Automated speed enforcement
• Speed limits
• High-visibility cell phone
laws enforcement
• Learner's permit and intermediate
driver license restrictions, including
nighttime and passengers
• License screening, testing and
restriction for older drivers
• Pedestrian Safety Zones, pairing
enforcement and education with
engineering countermeasures
at a specific location
Strategies for
DUI Collisions
Driving under the influence is a major
factor in fatal and severe collisions that
is most ment and related strategies.

Three types of policy instruments
have been used to reduce rates
of driving under the influence:
• Deterrence
• Prevention
• Limited access
Deterrence policies focus on raising the
actual and perceived risk of detection
of driving under the influence. These
policies should be highly visible to
increase awareness of the risks of driving
under the influence. Publicized sobriety
checkpoints, saturation patrol, and other
forms of high visibility and enforcement
are effective for safety outcomes.

Prevention and education policies
focus on mobilizing and educating the
community and intervening before
driving under the influence takes
place. According to NHTSA research,
alcohol problem assessment and
treatment programs, as well as alcohol
intervention in settings such as a doctor's
office, are highly effective strategies
for improving safety outcomes.

Partnerships with healthcare providers
in Richmond can be an important piece
of combating DUIs. Other opportunities
include partnering with TNCs (e.g.,
Lyft or Uber) to reduce drinking and
driving can help promote safety on
the road and prevent fatal and severe
collisions. Limited access policies focus
on making underage access to alcohol
and drugs more difficult and limiting
excessive alcohol consumption.

ENFORCEMENT

Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
42 Emergency Services
Traffic collision victims have a higher
chance of survival if they can quickly
receive medical care. In many cases, law
enforcement officers and fire department
staff are the first responders to arrive at a
collision location. In addition to equipping
all first responders with the appropriate
training, improving response times for
Emergency Medical Services will help
improve collision victims’ chances of
survival. Traffic crashes can also put first
responders’ and other road users’ lives
at risk due to increased congestion,
which may lead to secondary crashes.

Strategies to improve response time
and safety for EMS include designing
emergency vehicles to be highly visible
(e.g. retroreflective striping and chevrons,
high-visibility paint, and built-in passive
light) and implementing emergency
vehicle signal preemption, which allows
emergency vehicles to break a normal
signal cycle and proceed through
an intersection. Lastly, emergency
responders can use data collected on
historical medical care in the City to
improve care and use best practices.

Trauma Care
Effective emergency trauma care can
increase crash survival rates by as much as
25 percent, and an effective countywide
trauma care coordination system can
reduce fatalities by 50 percent. Key
factors that influence the survivability of
crashes are: proximity to care (how near
is an appropriate trauma care center),
response time, equipment, technology,
and EMS training. The faster a traumatic
EMERGENCY SERVICES injury victim receives medical care, the higher the chances are of preventing
death. Recommended strategies to
improve trauma care include providing
funding for appropriate first responder
equipment (e.g. hydraulic and pneumatic
extrication tools), research and adoption
of technology aimed at reducing triage
time (e.g. automatic vehicle reporting
of severe crashes to EMS, EMS vehicle
collision avoidance systems, and
geolocation of nearest appropriate
EMS vehicles), and promotion of federal
and state-certified training programs.

Expanded access to and number of trauma
care facilities is another major factor in
improving outcomes for crash victims.

Data Sharing
Sharing data regarding on-scene
time, patient destination and patient
outcomes (as allowable by privacy law)
would allow Richmond to effectively
monitor triage performance and EMS
system effectiveness. Issuing annual
research regarding the findings could
assist with increasing transparency
and accountability to the public. Other
strategies for improving data sharing
could include comparing and merging
EMS and hospital data with police and
other relevant agency records to better
inform policies, projects, programs and
needed data quality improvements.

Equity variables could be evaluated to
document potential inequities related to
homelessness, race/ethnicity, language,
and income to guide policy for addressing
disproportionate trauma and fatalities.

Fatal Crash Response Team
In the event of a traffic fatality, analysis and
evaluation is a key towards addressing
the burden of traffic mortality and tracking
progress towards eliminating fatalities
on Richmond’s roads. One strategy is to
establish a cross-agency fatal crash team
of EMS, police, transportation, public
health, and City officials to convene at
the crash site after a fatal crash. This
would assist with accurate investigation
and documentation of potentially
relevant infrastructural and environmental
crash factors, while identifying other
additional response factors that may have
contributed to the fatal crash outcome.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
43 Emerging Technology
Recent advancements in transportation
technology have not only introduced
new modes and travel patterns but
have also presented opportunities to
better understand travel behavior and
encourage safe behavior. The proliferation
of new mobility devices, services and
technologies (e.g. ride-hailing services)
have presented numerous needs and
options for addressing road safety.

Among these new technologies, artificial
intelligence allows for more detailed
data collection and the proliferation of
autonomous vehicle (AV) usage. AVs
have potential to reduce human error
and improve street safety, but AVs also
incur different challenges. The following
represent a summary of emerging
technology trends related to safety.

Data Collection and Management
Up-to-date data on transportation
infrastructure, including roadway
characteristics, intersection
characteristics, and signs, is valuable
for planning and implementing future
improvements. Service providers that
can assist with this work include:
• Mapillary, uses crowdsourced or
privately provided street level imagery
to extract and map signs, street
lamps, sidewalks, signals, and other
objects. https://www.mapillary.com/
• EcopiaTech uses satellite imagery
to extract features such as road
centerlines, roadway cross-
sections, sidewalks, and more.
https://www.ecopiatech.com/
Smart Signal Technology
As part of its strategy to bolster road
safety, Richmond could explore the
feasibility of deploying smart signal
technology on its roads. Smart signal
technology enables cities to collect data
along multiple intersections, providing
high-resolution data on how people are
using the roadway in real time. Connected
vehicles are another part of this system.

They wirelessly communicate with
other vehicles and infrastructure (like
signals) to provide data for instantaneous
decision-making (e.g. reporting driver
speed or collisions). Data from signals
in combination with data from vehicles
can allow for real time speed-related
signal operations, allowing for enhanced
safety through adaptable systems.

AV Readiness Planning
Having strategies prepared to meet
and address the oncoming challenges
posed by AV technology will be crucial
in advancing road safety in Richmond.

Fully automated vehicles have the
potential to transform travel behavior
and safety outcomes given that AVs are
ultimately designed to operate without any
human intervention. Some strategies for
preparation include educating the public
on current and future safety features
and limitations, developing signing
and striping standards, and conducting
reviews of equity implications. Without
appropriate research and guidance,
AVs could widen accessibility and safety
gaps for vulnerable communities.

Near Miss Data
Near misses have historically been
difficult to study in practical safety
applications due to an overall lack of
reported information. In the absence
of sufficient crash data, near miss data
is an important indicator for guiding
crash prevention. There are several
technologies detailed below that are
closing the gap and providing key
safety insights regarding near misses:
• Video Data: Video machine learning
is an effective means of classifying
collisions and collecting near miss
data. The City should consider
investing in these technologies
(e.g. along key roadways and
intersections) to proactively
enact safety countermeasures.
• Incidence Data from Connected
Vehicles: With the capability of
vehicles to capture and transmit
real-time data on driver behavior
wirelessly, these data are
increasingly becoming an integral
part of reporting near misses
especially given the introduction
of AVs on public roadways.
• Public Crowdsourcing: Online web
crowdsourcing platforms, like UC
Berkeley’s SafeTREC Street Story tool,
allow anyone to anecdotally report
incidents of near misses. These data
are available publicly for analysis
and contain important contextual
information based on geographic
location (e.g. road conditions, street
lighting and travel mode). Utilizing a
platform like Street Story could also
advance community education and
engagement around road safety.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGY

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
44 The twelve emphasis areas are a combination
of four priority corridors and eight collision
profiles that were identified based on the number
of total collisions, number of fatal and severe
injury (KSI) collisions, and stakeholder input

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
45 Emphasis Areas
and Strategies
Chapter 7
The following twelve emphasis areas
are a combination of four priority
corridors and eight collision profiles
that were identified based on the
number of total collisions, number
of fatal and severe injury (KSI)
collisions, and stakeholder input.

Each priority corridor is presented on
a cutsheet that includes a collision
summary, location summary, safety
goals, strategies to help the City
achieve the identified goals, and
relevant grant opportunities.

The location summary for each emphasis
area includes the violations and collision
types that account for the most severe
or highest number of collisions. The
underlying safety analysis and collision
profile details are discussed in Chapter 5.

The strategies, which were selected
to address the collision types and
violations and contribute to achieving
the safety-related goals are identified
as primary countermeasures which
correspond to the factors identified in
the location summary and are best suited
for competitive HSIP grant applications.

Each emphasis area also indicates if the
collisions are located in or near a school,
retail, transit corridor, or park. Proximity
Emphasis Areas
to schools, parks, transit and retail was
defined as within a 1,000 ft radius.

Unit cost estimates represent general
unit costs based on prior Bay Area or
statewide projects, and are not specific
to the location. High-level benefit
estimates assume a collision cost-
based benefit related to all relevant
collisions for a location or collision
type, to allow for an apples-to-apples
comparison of countermeasures. More
information on benefit calculations
can be found in the LRSM, Appendix
D, page A-55. Further engineering
studies will be required to develop
more detailed estimates and designs.
1 23rd Street, Grant Avenue
to Maricopa Avenue
2 23rd Street & 22nd Street Couplet
3 Barrett Avenue, Harbour
Way to 24th Street
4 Cutting Boulevard, Hoffman
Boulevard to Carlson Boulevard
5 Unsafe Speeds
6 Driving Under the Influence
7 Collisions Involving the
15-24 Age Group
8 Stop Sign Violations at Stop-
Controlled Intersections
9 Left Turns at Signalized Intersections
10 Pedestrian Right-
of-Way Violations at
Uncontrolled Crossings
11 Pedestrians Crossing Outside
Crosswalk or Legal Crossings
12 Contraflow Bicycle Riding

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
46 23rd Street
Countermeasure Issue Area Time Frame Unit Cost
Green Conflict Striping To address Contraflow bicycle riding Short $1,000 per location Advanced Stop Bar To address Pedestrian right-of-way, Not stopping Short $1,000 per location High-visibility Crosswalks To address Pedestrian right-of-way Medium $5,000 per location Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (or RRFB) To address Pedestrian right-of-way Medium $50,000 per location Class II Bicycle Lanes To address Contraflow bicycle riding Medium $90,000 per mile PHB To address Pedestrian right-of-way Medium $250,000
Road Diet To address Unsafe Speed, Pedestrian right-of-way, Contraflow bicycle riding Medium-Long $80,000 - $50,000 per mile Protected Left-Turn Phasing To address Left-turns Medium-Long $250,000 per intersection Grant Avenue to Maricopa Avenue

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT
Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
Collision Summary
59 Total Collisions
5 KSI Collisions
19 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
2 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

PRIORITY CORRIDOR
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Vehicle right-of-
way violation
• Unsafe speed
• Improper turning
• Pedestrian right-of-
way violation
• Wrong side of road
• Driving or under the
influence of alcohol or drug

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Rear end
• Vehicle-Pedestrian
• Head-on

ROADWAY & CONTEXTUAL

FACTORS
• 4-lane road with
parking, no median
• 30-35 mph speed limit
• Multiple offset intersections
Goals
• Reduce vehicle speeds throughout the corridor
• Increase pedestrian visibility with enhanced striping and signage, especially near schools and parks
• Reduce frequency of intersection conflicts, particularly left-turn conflicts, using traffic control and intersection enhancements • Create consistency with the three-lane portion of the road in City of San Pablo • Continue to build out bicycle network
ATP
OTHER
OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
47 MARICOPA AVE
23RD ST

COALINGA AVE

HUMPHREY AVE

LINCOLN AVE

GRANT AVE

GAYNOR AVE
23rd Street, Grant Avenue
to Maricopa Avenue
In December 2021 the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) published a City of Richmond
Complete Streets Safety Assessment. Where
noted, CSSA recommendations should
be implemented to improve safety.

In May 2018 a draft 23rd Street Streetscape Plan
was developed. Implementation of this plan would
include the elements listed here and would further
Richmond’s safety goals for this corridor.

Whole-Corridor Improvements
• Implement a road diet (4-to-3 lane conversion)
• Install Class 2 bicycle lanes and green
conflict striping at intersections to
provide a separate space for bikes and
reduce conflicts at intersections
Add a new enhanced crosswalk on the
north side of the intersection with 23rd
Street with a median pedestrian refuge
and RRFB
• Enhance the existing
crosswalk and add a median
to help channelize northbound/
southbound turns
• Address left-turn conflicts by
adding a left-turn pocket, protected
left-turn phasing for northbound/
southbound traffic, split phasing
for eastbound/westbound traffic
• Implement pedestrian facility
improvements mentioned
in the CCTA CSSA
• Address left-turn
conflicts by adding
left-turn phasing
for northbound/
southbound traffic
and split phasing for
eastbound/westbound
• Implement pedestrian
facility improvements
mentioned in the

CCTA CSSA
Add new crosswalks
including RRFBs
Enhance the existing
crosswalk including a
median refuge and RRFBs
Enhance
the existing
crosswalk
with median
pedestrian
refuge and
RRFBs
Enhance the existing
crosswalk and add
new crossings at this
intersection

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
48 23rd Street & 22nd Street Couplet
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Traffic signals and signs
• Unsafe speed
• Pedestrian right-of-
way violation
• Improper turning
• Vehicle right-of-
way violation
• Pedestrian violation
• Driving or bicycling
under the influence
of alcohol or drugs

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Vehicle/Pedestrian
• Rear end
• Head-on
• Sideswipe

ROADWAY &

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 22nd Street: 2-lane
road with parking
• 23rd Street: 3-lane
road with parking
• 30-35 mph speed limit
• Multiple offset intersections
Goals
• Reduce vehicle speeds throughout the corridor
• Increase pedestrian visibility with enhanced striping and signage • Reduce frequency of intersection conflicts, particularly left-turn conflicts, using traffic control and intersection enhancements • Continue to build out bicycle network

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT
Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
105 Total Collisions
4 KSI Collisions
21 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
2 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

PRIORITY CORRIDOR
Countermeasure Issue Area Time Frame Unit Cost
Advanced Stop Bar To address Pedestrian right-of-way, Not stopping Short $1,000 per location Speed Hump or Speed Table To address Unsafe Speed Short-Medium $5,000 per location Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (or RRFB) To address Pedestrian right-of-way Medium $250,000 per location High-visibility Crosswalks To address Pedestrian right-of-way Medium $5,000 per location Road Diet To address Unsafe Speed, Pedestrian right-of-way, Contraflow bicycle riding Medium-Long $80,000 - $500,000 per mile Protected Left-Turn Phasing To address Left-turns Medium-Long $250,000 per intersection Close Slip Lane To address Unsafe Speed, Pedestrian right-of-way Long $200,000 per location OTS

CARLSON BLVD

NEVIN AVE
23RD ST

BARRETT AVE

ROOSEVELT AVE

BISSELL AVE

ESPEE AVE

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
49 CARLSON BLVD

NEVIN AVE
23RD ST

BARRETT AVE

ROOSEVELT AVE

BISSELL AVE

ESPEE AVE
23rd Street & 22nd Street Couplet
In December 2021 the Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA) published a City of Richmond Complete Streets
Safety Assessment. Where noted, CSSA recommendations
should be implemented to improve safety.

A draft 23rd Street Streetscape Plan was developed in May 2018.

Implementation of this plan would include the elements listed here and would further Richmond’s safety goals for this corridor.

Whole-Corridor Improvements
• Convert 22nd Street and 23rd Street from one-
way to two-way streets and include Class 2
bicycle lanes on each side of both streets
Add a speed hump on
the approach to Roosevelt
Avenue, prior to the
connection with 22nd Street
Close the left-turn slip lane,
enlarge the raised median and
add a new crossing which uses
the median as a pedestrian refuge
• Address left-turn conflicts
by adding left-turn pockets
on the eastbound/westbound
approaches and protected
left-turn phasing
• Implement the
Macdonald/22nd Street
pedestrian facility
improvements mentioned
in the CCTA CSSA
Tie in 22nd Street to
Carlson Boulevard
and close the existing
connection via the
underpass to Ohio Avenue
Enhance existing crosswalk with
median pedestrian refuge and
RRFB

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
50 Barrett Avenue
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Traffic signals and signs
• Vehicle right-of-
way violation
• Improper turning
• Pedestrian right-of-
way violation
• Unsafe speed
• Driving or bicycling
under the influence
of alcohol or drug
• Pedestrian violation

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Vehicle/Pedestrian
• Rear end
• Sideswipe
• Head-on

ROADWAY & CONTEXTUAL

FACTORS
• 4-to-5-lane road with parking
and partial raised median
• 30-35 mph speed limit
• Discontinuous bicycle facilities
• Train (BART) overpass
Goals
• Reduce vehicle speeds throughout the corridor
• Prevent use of turning lanes as through lanes
• Slow and channelize traffic through the undercrossing • Create consistency with the three-lane portion of the road to the east • Continue to build out bicycle network

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT
Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
109 Total Collisions
4 KSI Collisions
23 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
2 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions
Harbour Way to 24th Street PRIORITY CORRIDOR
Countermeasure Issue Area Time Frame Unit Cost
Advanced Stop Bar To address Pedestrian right-of-way, Not stopping Short $1,000 per location Speed Hump or Speed Table To address Unsafe Speed Short-Medium $5,000 per location High-visibility Crosswalks To address Pedestrian right-of-way Medium $5,000 per location Road Diet To address Unsafe Speed, Pedestrian right-of-way, Contraflow bicycle riding Medium-Long $80,000 - $500,000 per mile Protected Left-Turn Phasing To address Left-turns Medium-Long $250,000 per intersection OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
51 BARRETT AVE

HARBOUR WAY
12TH ST

BARRETT AVE
23RD ST
20TH ST
18TH ST
Barrett Avenue, Harbour Way to 24th Street
In December 2021 the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority (CCTA) published a City of Richmond Complete
Streets Safety Assessment. Where noted, implement
these CSSA recommendations to improve safety.

Whole-Corridor Improvements
• Implement a road diet throughout the corridor (to match lane configurations east of 24th Street) and implement
raised medians at all intersections along the corridor to discourage use of the two-way turn lane as a passing lane • Enhance the existing
crosswalk with
median and RRFB
• Implement pedestrian facility
improvements mentioned
in the CCTA CSSA
• Remove one through lane in each direction
to accommodate a bicycle lane
• Add channelizers and striping on approach
to 18th Street, remove eastbound right-
turn lane and add a left-turn lane
• Widen sidewalks through the underpass
• Implement the roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facility improvements
mentioned in the CCTA CSSA
• Convert the southernmost eastbound
lane to a right-turn only lane
Address left-turn conflicts
and enhance crossings
per recommendations
provided for the 22nd
Street & 23rd Street
Couplet
Add new enhanced
crosswalks to the
eastern leg of the 19th
Street intersection and
western leg of 21st Street
intersection

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
52 Cutting Boulevard
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Vehicle right-of-
way violation
• Traffic signs and signals
• Improper turning
• Driving under the influence
of alcohol or drug
• Following too closely
• Pedestrian violation
• Wrong side of road

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Vehicle/pedestrian
• Rear end
• Sideswipe
• Head-on

ROADWAY &

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 4-to-5-lane road with
parking and partial
raised median
• 30-35 speed limit
• Multiple unsignalized,
unenhanced crossings and
areas absent safe crossings
• Railroad crossing adjacent
high-traffic intersection
Goals
• Reduce vehicle speeds throughout the corridor
• Provide separate and protected facilities for people who walk and bike • Improve visibility of bicyclists and pedestrians at intersections • Encourage multimodal transportation with multimodal infrastructure and lower vehicle speeds • Continue to build out bicycle network

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT
Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
90 Total Collisions
12 KSI Collisions
22 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
5 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions
Hoffman Boulevard to Carlson Boulevard PRIORITY CORRIDOR Countermeasure Issue Area Time Frame Unit Cost
Advanced Stop Bar To address Pedestrian right-of-way, Not stopping Short $1,000 per location Speed Hump or Speed Table To address Unsafe Speed Short-Medium $5,000 per location High-visibility Crosswalks To address Pedestrian right-of-way Medium $5,000 per location Road Diet To address Unsafe Speed, Pedestrian right-of-way, Contraflow bicycle riding Medium-Long $80,000 - $500,000 per mile Median Refuge To address Pedestrian Crossing Medium-Long $25,000 per location Close Slip Lane To address Unsafe Speed, Pedestrian right-of-way Long $200,000 per location OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
53 CUTTING BLVD
HO

FFM A N B L V D

HARBOUR WAY S

MARINA WAY S

MARINA BAY PKWY

CARLSON BLVD
S 23RD ST

CUTTING BLVD
Cutting Boulevard, Hoffman Boulevard to Carlson Boulevard Whole-Corridor Improvements
• Implement a road diet (5-to-3 lanes) throughout the corridor and install protected bicycle lanes buffered either by parking or constructed barriers • Add new enhanced crosswalks to 12th, 15th, 18th
and 21st Streets and enhance existing crosswalks
at Marina Way S, 17th and 20th Streets
• Coordinate the location of crosswalks
with existing transit facilities
Remove parking or
implement road diet to
accomodate protected
bicycle facilities
• Remove parking to accommodate protected bicycle facilities • Maintain the raised median throughout this corridor segment • Enhance existing crosswalks at 23rd, 24th, 26th, 29th and 31st Streets with pedestrian refuges, RRFBs or PHBs
• Remove the third westbound
lane and install separated
bikeways in both directions
• Raise the existing striped
median through S 9th Street
• Maintain the road diet on
approach to the intersection
• Implement the roundabout
from the City of Richmond
Pedestrian Master Plan
• Install bicycle facilities across all
legs of the intersection and complete
bikeway connections to existing
facilities east of Stege Avenue and
future facilities on Carlson Boulevard
Square-up
bikeway
crossings of
the railroad
tracks
Remove the third eastbound
and westbound lanes and
install protected bicycle
lanes

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
54 Unsafe Speeds
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Unsafe speed

COLLISION TYPES
• Rear end
• Hit object
• Broadside
• Head-on
• Sideswipe
• Overturned
• Vehicle/pedestrian

ROADWAY &

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Citywide issue
Goals
• Reduce vehicle speeds through roadway design
• Improve visibility of people who walk and bike, particularly at intersections • Encourage slower speeds via education and enforcement, including development of neighborhood slow zones, and Safe Routes to Schools Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
237 Total Collisions
29 KSI Collisions
18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
6 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

COLLISION PROFILE

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT
Countermeasure Time Frame Unit Cost
Radar Speed Feedback Signs Short $10,000 per location
Speed Hump or Speed Table Short-Medium $5,000 per location Road Diet Medium-Long $80,000 - $500,000 per mile
Close Slip Lane Long $200,000 per location
OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
55 Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Fatal and Severe Collisions (29)
All Other Collisions (268)
Unsafe Speeds
Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
56 Driving Under the Influence
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Driving or bicycling
under the influence
of alcohol or drug

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Rear end
• Hit object
• Sideswipe
• Head-on
• Vehicle/Pedestrian
• Overturned

ROADWAY &

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Citywide issue
Goals
• Reduce the severity of collisions caused by driving under the influence with roadway design • Reduce driving under the influence with enforcement and partnerships Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
Collision Summary
108 Total Collisions
14 KSI Collisions
4 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
2 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT

COLLISION PROFILE
Countermeasure Time Frame Unit Cost
Extended Y ellow and All Red Time Short $500 per location Impact Attenuators Medium $50,000 each
Median Barrier Medium $75 per linear foot
Guardrail Medium $50 per linear foot
Edgeline Rumble Strips Medium $50 per linear foot
Intersection Lighting Long $30,000 per intersection
Roadway Lighting Long $10,000 per light
OTHER
OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
57 Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_DUI
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Fatal and Severe Collisions (14)
All Other Collisions (94)
Driving Under the Influence

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
58 Collisions Involving the 15-24 Age Group
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Vehicle right-of-way violation
• Unsafe speed
• Traffic signals and signs
• Improper turning
• Driving or bicycling under the
influence of alcohol or drug
• Wrong side of road
• Pedestrian right-of-way violation
• Pedestrian violation

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Rear end
• Head-on
• Sideswipe
• Vehicle/pedestrian
• Hit object

ROADWAY &

CONTEXTUAL

FACTORS
• Citywide issue
Goals
• Increase the visibility of intersection signs and signals and pedestrian crossings • Reduce speeds via roadway design, particularly near schools and high-traffic areas • Encourage safe behavior with community-wide sustained outreach safety campaigns and targeted outreach
Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
OTS
Collision Summary
498 Total Collisions
41 KSI Collisions
72 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
11 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT

COLLISION PROFILE
Non-Engineering Countermeasure Time Frame* Cost*
Safe Routes to Schools Program Short $
Public Information Campaigns Medium $$
Y outh Education Medium $$
* These estimates do not include the costs of enacting legislation or establishing policies.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
59 Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_age
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Fatal and Severe Collisions (14)
All Other Collisions (94)
Collisions Involving the
15-24 Age Group

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
60 Stop Sign Violations at Stop-Controlled intersections Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Traffic signals and signs

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Sideswipe
• Head-on
• Vehicle/pedestrian
• Overturned

ROADWAY &

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• All-way or two-way
(i.e., side-street) stop-
controlled intersections
• School zones (or
intersections near schools)
Goals
• Slow vehicle speeds throughout the corridor and reduce the occurrence of broadside collisions
• Increase driver awareness of intersections, sign and signal controls with enhanced warning signs and by enhancing signal visibility Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
103 Total Collisions
13 KSI Collisions
18 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
1 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT

COLLISION PROFILE
Countermeasure Time Frame Unit Cost
Advanced Warning Signs Short $1,500 per location
Road Diet Medium-Long $80,000 - $500,000 per mile
Bulbouts Medium-Long $50,000 per corner
OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
61 Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_stopsign
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Fatal and Severe Collisions (13)
All Other Collisions (90)
Stop Sign Violations at Stop-
Controlled intersections

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
62 Left Turns at Signalized Intersections
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Vehicle right-of-
way violation

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Head-on
• Sideswipe
• Hit object
• Not stated
• Vehicle/Pedestrian

ROADWAY &

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Signalized intersections
lacking a left-turn phase
Goals
• Reduce number and severity of left-turn collisions at signalized intersections • Reduce number and severity of broadside collisions at signalized intersectionsRelevant Grant Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
49 Total Collisions
3 KSI Collisions
5 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
0 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT

COLLISION PROFILE
Countermeasure Time Frame Unit Cost
Protected Left-turn Phasing Medium-Long $250,000 per intersection Raised Median Medium-Long $150 per linear foot
OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
63 Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_LT
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Fatal and Severe Collisions (3)
All Other Collisions (46)
Left Turns at Signalized
Intersections

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
64 Pedestrian Right-of-Way Violations at Uncontrolled Crossings Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Pedestrian right-
of-way violation

COLLISION TYPES
• Vehicle/Pedestrian
• Sideswipe
• Broadside
• Not stated

ROADWAY & CONTEXTUAL

FACTORS
• Uncontrolled crossings, two-
way stop-controlled crossings
and midblock crossings
• Multilane roadways (more than
one lane in each direction)
• Nighttime and/or low-light conditions
Goals
• Provide separate and protected facilities for people who walk • Increase visibility for people who drive and walk at night with intersection, roadway and pedestrian lighting
• Reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicle traffic by upgrading or filling gaps in facilities such as sidewalks and crosswalks Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
39 Total Collisions
8 KSI Collisions
39 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
8 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT

COLLISION

PROFILE
Countermeasure Time Frame Unit Cost
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (or RRFB) Medium $50,000
PHB Medium $250,000
High-visibility Crosswalk Medium $5,000 per location
Bulbouts Medium-Long $50,000 per corner
Median Refuge Medium-Long $25,000 per location
Road Diet Medium-Long $80,000 - $500,000 per mile
OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
65 Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_pedROW
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Fatal and Severe Collisions (8)
All Other Collisions (31)
Pedestrian Right-of-
Way Violations at
Uncontrolled Crossings

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
66 Pedestrians Crossing Outside Crosswalk or Legal Crossings Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Pedestrian violation

COLLISION TYPES
• Vehicle/Pedestrian
• Head-on
• Sideswipe
• Not stated
• Other

ROADWAY &

CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Outside of a crosswalk
or legal crossing (marked
and unmarked crosswalk)
• Midblock or along
roadway shoulder
Goals
• Reduce pedestrian exposure to vehicular traffic by upgrading or filling in gaps in facilities such as sidewalks and crosswalks • Improve sight distance and/or visibility between motor vehicles and pedestrians • Reduce vehicle speeds
Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
32 Total Collisions
7 KSI Collisions
32 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
7 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT

COLLISION PROFILE
Countermeasure Time Frame Unit Cost
Median Barricades Medium $50 per linear foot
High-visibility Crosswalk Medium $5,000 per location
Road Diet Medium-Long $80,000 - $500,000 per mile
Roadway Lighting Long $10,000 per light
OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
67 Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_crossing
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Fatal and Severe Collisions (7)
All Other Collisions (25)
Pedestrian Crossing
Outside Crosswalk
or Legal Crossings

Chapter 7: Emphasis Areas and Strategies
68 Contraflow Bicycle Riding
Location Summary

VIOLATIONS
• Wrong side of road

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside
• Head-on
• Sideswipe

ROADWAY & CONTEXTUAL

FACTORS
• Multiple-lane roadways
• 30-35 mph speed limit
• No dedicated bicycle facilities
Goals
• Reduce bicyclist exposure to vehicular traffic by upgrading or filling gaps in facilities such as bicycle lanes
• Improve sight distance and/or visibility between motor vehicles and bicyclists, particularly at intersections
Relevant Grant
Opportunities
Location
Attributes
HSIP
ATP
OTHER
Collision Summary
24 Total Collisions
2 KSI Collisions
24 Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
2 Bicycle and Pedestrian KSI Collisions

NEAR SCHOOL

NEAR RETAIL

NEAR PARK

NEAR TRANSIT

COLLISION PROFILE
Countermeasure Time Frame Unit Cost
Green Conflict Striping Short $1,000 per location
Class II Bicycle Lanes Medium $90,000 per mile
Road Diet Medium-Long $80,000 - $500,000 per mile
Separated Bikeway Long $1,250,000 per mile
OTS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
69 Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_contraflow
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Collision Profiles
Barrett Ave
S37thSt
Cutting Blvd
Rheem Ave
S Garrard Blvd
Macdonald Ave
W Barrett Ave
Ohio Ave
MarinaBayPkwy
ParkCentral
DornanDr
McBryde Ave
23rd St
13th St
Garvin Ave
Central Ave
Chevron Way
Bayview Ave
Marina Way
Harbour Way
Regatta Blvd
S 23rd St
MeadeSt
Richmond Pkwy
Castro St
Solano Ave
Brickyard Cove Rd Carlson Blvd
Atlas Rd
Hilltop Dr
MorningsideDr
Hoffman Blvd
CanalBlvd
S Harbour Way
Cerrito Ave
BlumeDr
Parr Blvd
Shane Dr
Amend Rd
Markovich Lane
El Portal Dr
Moyers Rd
Full Moon Dr
Juliga Woods St
GiantHighway
Potrero Ave
Fred Jackson Way
Peninsula Dr
22nd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
May Rd
S 2nd St
Hilltop Mall Rd
S55thSt
6th St
Seacliff Dr
LakesideDr
KeyBlvd
29th St
7th St
SanPabloAve
CastroRanch Rd
·123
%&580
!"80
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
CollisionProfile_speed
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other Visible)
Complaint of Pain
Fatal and Severe Collisions (2)
All Other Collisions (22)
Contraflow Bicycle Riding

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
70 While many safety projects will perform well in the HSIP process, others may be successfully funded through
other sources that consider additional factors such as
increasing walking and biking, improving accessibility, and making the transportation system more equitable

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
71 Evaluation and
Implementation
Chapter 8
While a major goal of the Local
Roadway Safety Plan is to prepare
the City of Richmond to submit
successful Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP)
applications, safety projects can
be funded through a wide range of
additional sources at the regional,
state, and federal levels. HSIP funds
are largely awarded based on a
benefit/cost analysis using a set of
Caltrans-approved countermeasures
with documented collision reduction
factors and historic collision data.

While many safety projects will
perform well in the HSIP process,
others may be successfully funded
through other sources that consider
additional factors such as increasing
walking and biking, improving
accessibility, and making the
transportation system more equitable.

Funding Opportunities
The sources in this chapter may be used
to fund a broad scope of projects targeting
air quality and sustainability, affordable
housing, and transportation. Successful
projects often entail creative solutions
that address impact areas beyond
transportation safety alone, but that
can include, and often benefit from, the
countermeasures identified in this report.

Local, regional, state and federal funding
opportunities relevant to LRSP projects
are listed on the following pages.

Where possible, details about upcoming
funding application cycles are provided,
however, many of these are in flux due
to impacts from the ongoing Covid-19
pandemic. We recommend that the City
of Richmond periodically review this list
and check for updates regarding funding
availability until funding cycles stabilize.

Local and Regional Sources
Contra Costa County Measure J Funding
Administered through the Contra
Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA),
Measure J provides funding for
countywide and local transportation
projects in Contra Costa County.

Frequency: Apportioned annually by CCTA
Developer Fees
California law allows local governments to
establish and charge a fee on residential
and non-residential developments to fund
public facilities and to service population
growth. Public facility fees can be charged
to new development based on density and
traffic impacts, and can go to a variety of
public facilities, one being local roadways.

Frequency: Not applicable

Chapter 8: Evaluation and Implementation
72 Lifeline Transportation Program
The Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) has created the Lifeline
Transportation Program to evaluate state
and federal funds to provide grants for
mobility and accessibility needs in low-
income communities across the Bay Area.

New guidelines are established for each
cycle and the projects must address
transportation gaps or barriers identified
in community-based transportation
plans or other local planning efforts
in low-income neighborhoods.

Frequency: Biennial funding cycle
Program for Arterial System
Synchronization (PASS)
PASS delivers financial and technical
assistance to cities and counties to
enhance signal coordination across
jurisdictions. This includes engineering
help for local governments seeking to re-
time signals, adjustments to existing traffic-
responsive timing systems, “flush” plans
for managing traffic incident, and more.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA3) Funding
Administered through the Metropolitan
Transportation Committee (MTC), TDA3
provides funding annually for bicycle
and pedestrian projects. Each county
coordinates a consolidated annual request
for projects to be funded in the county.

Some counties competitively select
projects, while other counties distribute the
funds to jurisdictions based on population.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
State Sources
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
ATP is a statewide competitive grant
application process with the goal of
encouraging increased use of active
modes of transportation. The ATP
consolidates existing federal and state
transportation programs, including the
Transportation Alternatives Program
(TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA), and State Safe Routes to School
(SRTS), into a single program with a
focus to make California a national
leader in active transportation. The ATP
is administered by the Division of Local
Assistance, Office of State Programs.

Frequency: Biennial funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: Cycle 6
applications are due June 15, 2022. This
cycle includes funding/programming
for fiscal years 2023/2024, 2024/2025,
2025/2026, and 2026/2027.

California Natural Resources Agency
Environmental Enhancement and
Mitigation (EEM) Program
This program supports projects
that “contribute to mitigation of the
environmental effects of transportation
facilities.” According to the program
guidelines, projects that fall under the
following category can apply: “Mitigation
Projects Beyond the Scope of the Lead
Agency responsible for assessing the
environmental impact of the proposed
transportation improvement.”
Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: 2022 EEM Program
applications are expected to be due April 2022.

California Natural Resources
Agency Urban Greening Program
This program supports projects that
“use natural systems or systems that
mimic natural systems to achieve
multiple benefits.” Eligible projects
include “Non-motorized urban trails
that provide safe routes for travel
between residences, workplaces,
commercial centers, and schools.”
Frequency: Biennial funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: Cycle 4 applications
are due February 7-March 28, 2022.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
73 California Office of Traffic
Safety (OTS) Grant Program
OTS administers traffic safety grants in
the following areas: Alcohol Impaired
Driving, Distracted Driving, Drug-Impaired
Driving, Emergency Medical Services,
Motorcycle Safety, Occupant Protection,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Police Traffic
Services, Public Relations, Advertising,
and Roadway Safety and Traffic Records.

This funding is primarily geared to
enforcement and outreach efforts.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: FY 2024
application materials and workshops will
be announced December 2022; grant
applications are due January 31, 2023.

California Strategic Growth Council
(SGC) Transformative Climate
Communities (TCC) Program
The Transformative Climate Communities
(TCC) Program empowers the
communities most impacted by pollution
to choose their own goals, strategies,
and projects to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions and local air pollution.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: Round 4 FY
2021/2022 pre-proposals due April 22,
2022; final applications due July 1, 2022.

Caltrans Strategic Partnerships Grants
These grants, a subset of Caltrans’
Sustainable Transportation Planning
Grant Program, fund multi-modal
planning studies, with a focus on transit,
of regional, interregional, and statewide
significance. Studies are conducted
in partnership with Caltrans and must
assist in achieving the Caltrans Mission
and Grant Program Objectives.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: FY 2023/2024
application period yet to be announced.

Clean California
The Clean California Local Grant Program
(CCLGP), operated by Caltrans, was
created by AB 149 in 2021 to beautify and
clean up local streets and roads, tribal
lands, parks, pathways, transit centers,
and other public spaces. The program
will allocate $296 million in state funds, in
grants not to exceed $5 million, to local
and regional public agencies that install
beautification measures and art in public
spaces and remove litter and debris to
enhance communities and improve spaces
for walking and recreation. The goals of
the CCLGP are to: reduce the amount of
waste and debris within public rights-of-
way, pathways, parks, transit centers, and
other public spaces; enhance, rehabilitate,
restore, or install measures to beautify and
improve public spaces and mitigate the
urban heat island effect; enhance public
health, cultural connection, and community
placemaking by improving public spaces
for walking and recreation; and advance
equity for underserved communities.

Frequency: three-year cycle
Next funding opportunity: Cycle 2 timeline
yet to be announced; likely winter 2024.

Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP)
California’s Local HSIP focuses on
infrastructure projects with nationally
recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs).

Local HSIP projects must be identified
based on collision experience, collision
potential, collision rate, or other data-
supported means. There are opportunities
to include systemic safety projects as well.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: HSIP Cycle
11 application deadline yet to be
announced; likely due fall 2022.

SB 1 Local Partnership Program (LPP)
The purpose of this program is to provide
local and regional transportation agencies
that have passed sales tax measures,
developer fees, or other imposed
transportation fees with a continuous
appropriation of $200 million annually from
the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation
Account to fund road maintenance and
rehabilitation, sound walls, and active
transportation projects. There is also a
competitive grant portion of this project.

Frequency: Biennial funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: 2022 program
guidelines available summer 2022;
applications due winter 2022.

Chapter 8: Evaluation and Implementation
74 SB 1 Local Streets and
Roads Program (LSRP)
SB 1 dedicated approximately $1.5
billion per year in new formula
revenues apportioned by the State
Controller to cities and counties for
basic road maintenance, rehabilitation,
and critical safety projects on the
local streets and roads system.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next Funding Opportunity: Eligible
project lists due Summer-Fall 2022.

SB 1 Solutions for Congested
Corridors Program (SCCP)
The Solutions for Congested Corridors
Program funds projects designed to
reduce congestion in highly traveled
and highly congested corridors. This
statewide, competitive program makes
$250 million available annually for projects
that implement specific transportation
performance improvements and are part
of a comprehensive corridor plan by
providing more transportation choices
while preserving the character of local
communities and creating opportunities
for neighborhood enhancement.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: Cycle 3
(FY 2023/2024) program guidelines
available summer/fall 2022;
applications due winter 2022.

SB 1 State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP)
The State Transportation Improvement
Program (STIP) is the biennial five-year
plan for future allocations of certain state
transportation funds for state highway
improvements, intercity rail, and regional
highway and transit improvements.

Frequency: Biennial funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: 2024 cycle
funding estimate and program details
likely to be released Summer 2023.

SGC Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program
The Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities (AHSC) Program makes
it easier for Californians to drive
less by making sure housing, jobs,
and key destinations are accessible
by walking, biking, and transit.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: Round 7
applications due February 2023.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
75 Federal Sources
Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Program
The Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible
program that provides communities with
resources to address a wide range of
unique community development needs.

Communities often use CDBG funds to
construct and repair streets and sidewalks.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: Housing
and Community Development program
application cycle yet to be announced;
likely January-February 2023.

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ) Improvement Program
The FAST Act continued the CMAQ
program to provide a flexible funding
source to State and local governments
for transportation projects and programs
to help meet the requirements of the
Clean Air Act. Funding is available to
reduce congestion and improve air
quality for areas that do not meet the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
ozone, carbon monoxide, or particulate
matter (nonattainment areas) and for
former nonattainment areas that are now
in compliance (maintenance areas).

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: Funding
apportioned via metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs) based on a formula.

Rebuilding American Infrastructure
with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)
Discretionary Grant Program
This program supports projects that are
“road or bridge projects eligible under title
23, United States Code;” and “intermodal
projects.” Previously the BUILD grant, this
program replaces the TIGER program.

Frequency: Annual funding cycle
Next funding opportunity: FY 2022
applications due April 14, 2022.

Implementation
Considerations
Implementation of the LRSP is a vital
step in the process in which the
identified strategies and projects are
executed. To successfully implement
programs and projects, partnerships,
trust, funding, and coordination need
to be proactively managed. Successful
implementation requires sustained
and coordinated support from key
stakeholders, elected officials, and City
staff. Some strategies are outlined below:

Oversight & Accountability
To ensure effective delivery of safety
projects and programs, establishing
a committee or Task Force with key
officials and stakeholders (in and
outside of the City) that meets bi-
annually or quarterly is recommended.

Having appointed leadership will be a
crucial part of maintaining buy-in and
support for the LRSP from not only
officials, but the community as well.

Leadership could additionally include
members from identified LRSP partners.

Some duties could include conducting
briefings and presentations at board
and agency meetings, collecting, and
sharing information on a regular basis,
and updating a public-facing database
(or scorecard) on LRSP goal progress.

Coordination & Partnership
Throughout the lifetime of the LRSP,
coordination and partnership amongst
diverse stakeholders will be essential
for effective delivery of the LRSP. Some
strategies include regularly informing
leaders and stakeholders on progress
and key milestones, consulting partner
agencies early on in the implementation
process to gather suggestions and
feedback, and finding opportunities for
partnership via project bundling (e.g.
integrating LRSP projects with pavement
resurfacing and maintenance).

Funding
One major hurdle to plan implementation is
often funding. As part of an implementation
strategy, it is recommended that the
City stay up to date on potential grant
opportunities and place the most
competitive projects forward as grant
sources evolve. Additionally, review
current capital projects to find where
LRSP elements could overlap for possible
project bundling. See previous section
“Funding Opportunities” for more details.

Chapter 8: Evaluation and Implementation
76 Safety scorecard examples can be
found at the following links:
https://www1.nyc.gov/content/
visionzero/pages/vision-zero-scorecard
https://roadsafetyatwork.ca/tool-
kits/road-safety-snapshot/
Communication
Having continued communication and
transparency with stakeholders and
community members can allow for greater
trust and support of the LRSP’s goals.

Some strategies include communication
across diverse channels (e.g. updated
webpage, news, and social media),
actively addressing community concerns,
publishing updating factsheets on plan
progress, and regular public meetings
using effective community engagement
techniques. An oversight committee or
Task Force (as proposed above) could
aid with leading efforts on communication
and trust-building. The Neighborhood
Councils and/or the Neighborhood
Coordinating Council and the Richmond
Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory
Committee present key opportunities to
coordinate with Richmond residents.

Evaluation Strategies
Evaluation identifies possible opportunities
to inform future decision-making, it
will allow the City to understand how
it is doing with regards to meeting its
safety goals. It provides the basis for
determining selection of priority areas,
countermeasures, and locations to
reduce crashes (and the harm resulting
from them). Recommendations include:

Update the Plan Regularly
For example, scheduling an update every
two years could assist with organizing
and directing evaluation efforts. As
conditions within the City and County
could change, it will be necessary
to update the LRSP in the future.

Identify Target Metrics and
Measure Goal Performance
in Priority Areas
To understand progress and safety
conditions, several metrics should be
used in LRSP evaluation. Examples of
measuring goal performance include:
• Monitoring collisions, specific to
the goals outlined in this plan
• Monitoring the number of safety
infrastructure improvements installed
Additional regular measurement of
goal progress in priority areas can
be performed every year (e.g. safety
scorecard). Safety scorecards that are
released annually can be a powerful
tool for measuring effectiveness,
highlighting areas that need further
attention and resources, and
identifying tasks and deadlines for
responsible stakeholder parties.

Continue Engagement
of Stakeholders
Efforts around evaluation should
include expanding partnership from
diverse sources (e.g. officials, agencies,
community advocacy groups). Input from
identified partners and future partners,
along with collected target metrics, could
be used to adapt the plan based on
community feedback and expert insight
as projects and programs are rolled out.

Conduct pre- and post- surveys with
community members to measure how
their actions and views have shifted after
engagement around traffic safety. Local
partners can be tasked with disseminating
the pre- and post-surveys to residents.

Surveys should evaluate whether
respondents express a shift in behavior
after having participated in traffic safety
programming. The metrics for evaluation
can also be developed with local partners
to ensure accessibility for the public.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
77

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
78 This page left intentionally blank

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
79 High Injury Networks
Appendix A

Appendix A: High Injury Networks
80 ·123
%&580
!"80
Cutting Blvd
San Pablo Ave
Barrett Ave
Rheem Ave
Blume Dr
23rd St
Hilltop Dr
7th St
MacDonald Ave
Harbour Way
Ohio Ave
Roosevelt Ave
21st St
Atlas Rd
Richmond Pkwy
High Injury Network
Figure 5High Injury Network
Multimodal
Pedestrian
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained facilities
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
Multimodal
Pedestrian
Corridor opportunities on
non-city maintained facilities
Pedestrian High
Injury Network
·123
%&580
!"80
Cutting Blvd
San Pablo Ave
Barrett Ave
Rheem Ave
Blume Dr
23rd St
Hilltop Dr
7th St
MacDonald Ave
Harbour Way
Ohio Ave
Roosevelt Ave
21st St
Atlas Rd
Richmond Pkwy
High Injury Network
Figure 5High Injury Network
Multimodal
Pedestrian
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained facilities
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
Pedestrian High
Injury Network
64% of all pedestrian-
involved crashes occur
on the City’s pedestrian
High Injury Network,
which accounts for 5% of
Richmond’s roadways

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
81 ·123
%&580
!"80
Marina Way S
Bissell Ave
Barrett Ave
Cutting Blvd
Richmond Pkwy
23rd St
San Pablo Dam Rd
13th St
Carlson Blvd
Ohio Ave
San Pablo Ave
2nd St
22nd St
18th St
High Injury Network
Figure 5High Injury Network
Multimodal
Bicycle
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained facilities
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
·123
%&580
!"80
Cutting Blvd
San Pablo Ave
Barrett Ave
Rheem Ave
Blume Dr
23rd St
Hilltop Dr
7th St
MacDonald Ave
Harbour Way
Ohio Ave
Roosevelt Ave
21st St
Atlas Rd
Richmond Pkwy
High Injury Network
Figure 5High Injury Network
Multimodal
Pedestrian
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained facilities
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
Bicycle High
Injury Network
68% of all bicycle-involved
crashes occur on the City’s
bicycle High Injury Network,
which accounts for 5% of
Richmond’s roadways
Multimodal
Bicycle
Corridor opportunities on
non-city maintained facilities
Bicycle High
Injury Network

Appendix A: High Injury Networks
82 ·123
%&580
!"80
Carlson Blvd
Cutting Blvd
Richmond Pkwy
Barrett Ave
7th St
23rdSt
San Pablo Ave
McBryde Ave
MacDonald Ave
Garvin Ave26thSt
Marina Way S
Harbour Way
22nd St
Rheem Ave
Lincoln Ave
High Injury Network
Figure 5High Injury Network
Multimodal
Vehicle
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained facilities
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
·123
%&580
!"80
Cutting Blvd
San Pablo Ave
Barrett Ave
Rheem Ave
Blume Dr
23rd St
Hilltop Dr
7th St
MacDonald Ave
Harbour Way
Ohio Ave
Roosevelt Ave
21st St
Atlas Rd
Richmond Pkwy
High Injury Network
Figure 5High Injury Network
Multimodal
Pedestrian
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained facilities
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
Vehicle High
Injury Network
56% of all motor vehicle-
involved crashes occur
on the City’s vehicle
High Injury Network,
which accounts for 8% of
Richmond’s roadways
Multimodal
Vehicle
Corridor opportunities on
non-city maintained facilities
Vehicle High
Injury Network

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
83 Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix B

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects8484 What Y ou'll See in
this Toolbox
Local Roadway
Safety Manual
Many of these countermeasures are
recommended for the 10 emphasis
areas included in this report. Most of
the countermeasures are included in
the 2020 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (LRSM) and can be advantageous
for use in Caltrans Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) grant
funding applications. There are many
effective safety countermeasures
beyond those listed in the LRSM, and
several are included in this toolbox.

Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
Rumble strips create noise and vibration
inside the vehicle that alert a driver as they
cross the center or edge line. Often this
alert is strong enough to get the attention
of a distracted or drowsy driver, who
can quickly make a corrective steering
action to return to the roadway safely.

Rumble strips also alert drivers to the lane
limits when conditions such as rain, fog,
snow, or dust reduce driver visibility.

Cost $

LRSM ID R30/R31
Crash Reduction Factor 15-20%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
Key Issue
Rumble Strips
Location
Countermeasure Icon
Countermeasure
Issues and Locations
Countermeasure Title
Countermeasure
Description
Countermeasure cost
represented as low ($),
medium ($$), high ($$$); and
the availability of low cost/
quick build alternatives
Countermeasure code in
LRSM, as well as associated
Crash Reduction Factors
and other information
(if applicable)
Additional reference
information (if applicable)
Countermeasure
Category

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
85 Bikeways
Solid green paint across an intersection
that signifes the path of the bicycle
crossing. Increases visibility and safety of
bicyclists traveling through an intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Contraflow Bicycle Riding
Bicycle
Crossing (Solid
Green Paint)
Macdonald Avenue & 23rd Street
Bikeways
Connects bicyclists from the road to
the sidewalk or a shared use path.

Cost $

N/A
Bicycle Ramp
N/A
Bikeways
A traffic signal directing bicycle traffic
across an intersection. Separates
bicycle movements from conficting
motor vehicle, streetcar, light rail, or
pedestrian movements. May be applicable
for Class IV facilities when the bikeway
is brought up to the intersection.

Cost $$$

N/A
Bicycle Signal/
Exclusive
Bike Phase
N/A

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 86 Bikeways
A designated area at the head of a
traffic lane at a signalized intersection
that provides bicyclists with a safe and
visible way to get ahead of queuing
traffic during the red signal phase.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S20PB
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Bike Box
Contraflow Bicycle Riding
Barrett Avenue & Marina Way
Bikeways
Bike detection is used at signalized
intersections, either through use of
push-buttons, in-pavement loops, or
by video or infrared cameras, to call
a green light for bicyclists and reduce
delay for bicycle travel. Discourages
red light running by bicyclists and
increases convenience of bicycling.

Cost $$

N/A
Bike Detection
N/A
Bikeways
Bike friendly drains avoid placing grating in
the right-of-way that may pose a hazard to
bicyclists by increasing their risk of falling.

Cost $$

Bike-Friendly
Drain

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
87 Bikeways
A bike lane provides dedicated street
space, typically adjacent to outer
vehicle travel lanes, with designated
lane markings, pavement legends, and
signage. Bike lanes improve safety by
reducing conflicts between bicycles and
vehicles on the road and by creating
a road-narrowing effect with striping,
which may reduce vehicle speeds.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R32PB
Crash Reduction Factor 35%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity High
Contraflow Bicycle Riding
Bike Lane
(Class II)
23rd Street
Bikeways
In locations where a bike lane is dropped
due to the addition of a right turn pocket,
the intersection approach may be
restriped to allow for bicyclists to move
to the left side of right turning vehicles
ahead of reaching the intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
Extend Bike
Lane to
Intersection
Contra low Bicycle Riding
22nd Street & 23rd Street
Bikeways
An in-street transit boarding island is used
in conjunction with a Class IV bike facility,
separating transit traffic from bicycle
traffic, reducing confict between the two
modes, and lowering the risk of collision.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Contraflow Bicycle Riding, Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Floating
Transit Island
Macdonald Avenue & 23rd Street

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 88 Bikeways
Green conflict striping is green markings
painted in a dashed pattern on bike lanes
approaching an intersection and/or going
through an intersection. Green conflict
striping improves safety by increasing
the visibility bicyclists and identifying
potential conflict points so bicyclists and
motorists use caution when traveling
toward and through an intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Contraflow Bicycle Riding
Green Conflict
Striping
22nd Street & 23rd Street
Bikeways
A separated bikeway provides dedicated
street space, typically adjacent to
outer vehicle travel lanes, with physical
separation from vehicle traffic, designated
lane markings, pavement legends, and
signage. Physical separation may consist
of plastic posts, parked vehicles, or
a curb. Separated bikeways improve
safety by reducing conflicts between
bicycles and vehicles on the road and
by creating a road-narrowing effect with
buffers or vertical barriers, which may
reduce vehicle speeds. A raised barrier
of plastic posts and painted pavement
is a low-cost/quick build option.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R33PB
Crash Reduction Factor 45%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity High
Contraflow Bicycle Riding, Unsafe Speed
Separated
(Class IV)
Bikeway
Cutting Boulevard
Bikeways
Places a suggested bike lane within
the inside portion of a dedicated motor
vehicle turn lane. Lane markings delineate
space for bicyclists and motorists
within the same lane and indicate the
intended path for bicyclists to reduce
confict with turning motor vehicles.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

N/A
Mixing Zone
N/A

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
89 Bikeways
Pavement markings denoting door zone
of parked vehicles to help bicyclists
maintain safe positioning on the roadway
Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Contraflow Bicycle Riding, Unsafe Speed
Parking Buffer
Cutting Boulevard
Bikeways
Signs communicate to pedestrians that
bicyclists may also use the sidewalk and
that bicyclists must yield to pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Shared
Sidewalk Sign
Bikeways
This roadway treatment provides bicyclists
with a means of safely making a left turn
at a multi-lane signalized intersection
from a bike lane or cycle track on the
far right side of the roadway. In this way,
bicyclists are protected from the flow of
traffic while waiting to turn. Usage could
be mirrored for right-turns from a one-
way street with a left-side bikeway.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

N/A
Two-Stage
Turn Queue
Bike Box
N/A

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 90 Bikeways
Prolongs the green phase when bicyclists
are present to provide additional time
for bicyclists to clear the intersection.

Can occur automatically in the signal
phasing or when prompted with
bicycle detection. T opography should
be considered in clearance time.

Cost $

LRSM ID S03
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 50%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Extend Green
Time For Bikes
N/A
Bikeways
A sign placed on roads with lanes that
are too narrow to allow safe side-by-side
passing to indicate that bicyclists may
occupy the full lane. This discourages
unsafe passing by motorists.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

N/A
Bicycles
May Use Full
Lane Sign
N/A
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
Rumble strips create noise and vibration
inside the vehicle that alert a driver as they
cross the center or edge line. Often this
alert is strong enough to get the attention
of a distracted or drowsy driver, who
can quickly make a corrective steering
action to return to the roadway safely.

Rumble strips also alert drivers to the lane
limits when conditions such as rain, fog,
snow, or dust reduce driver visibility.

Cost $
LRSM ID R30/R31
Crash Reduction Factor 15-20%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
Rumble Strips
Driving Under the Inf uence
Richmond Parkway

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
91 Intersections & Roadways
Centerline hardening is a technique
to make intersections safer for
pedestrians by encouraging drivers
to make left turns at slower speeds.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
Left-Turns
Centerline
Hardening
Cutting Boulevard & S 37th Street
Figure 20. Centerline Hardening
Source: Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), https://www. theurbanist.org/2021/05/13/rainier-ave-crosswalks-to-receive- pedestrian-improvements-in-form-of-hardened-centerlines/ Hardened centerlines are bollards that prevent left-
turners from crossing the centerlines to make a turn.

Rubber speed bumps are often used in conjunction with
hardened centerlines and placed in an intersection.

There are a variety of design configurations.

Intersections & Roadways
An all-way stop-controlled intersection
requires all vehicles to stop before
crossing the intersection. An all-way stop
controlled intersection improves safety
by removing the need for motorists,
bicyclists, and pedestrians on a side-street
stop-controlled intersection to cross free-
flowing lanes of traffic, which reduces the
risk of collision. An “ ALL WAY” sign should
be placed under the octagonal stop sign
at all-way stop-controlled intersections
as required by the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Cost $

LRSM ID NS02
Crash Reduction Factor 50%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
All-Way Stop
Control
N/A

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 92 Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=24
Intersections & Roadways
Modifes the corner of an intersection to
remove the sweeping right turn lane for
vehicles. Results in shorter crossings for
pedestrians, reduced speed for turning
vehicles, better sight lines, and space
for landscaping and other amenities.

Cost $$$

Unsafe Speed, Pedestrian Crossing
Close Slip Lane
23rd Street & Brooks Avenue
Intersections & Roadways
A directional median opening restricts
specific turning movements, such
as allowing a left-turn from a major
street but not from a minor street. A
directional median opening to restrict
left turn improves safety by reducing
the number of conflict points.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S14
Crash Reduction Factor 50%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
N/A
Directional
Median
Openings
to Restrict
Left Turns
N/A
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
A roadway must have an appropriate level
of pavement friction to ensure that drivers
are able to keep their vehicles safely
in the lane. Poor pavement conditions,
especially wet pavement, have been
identified as one of the major contributing
factors in roadway departure crashes.

When a pavement surface is wet, the level
of pavement friction is reduced, and this
may lead to skidding or hydroplaning.

Pavement friction is critical for changing
vehicle direction and ensuring the vehicle
remains in its lane. Traditional friction
courses or high friction surface treatments
should be considered for curves with
numerous wet weather crashes or severe
curves with higher operating speeds.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R21
Crash Reduction Factor 55%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
Improved
Pavement
Friction

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
93 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
When a vehicle leaves the traveled way
and encounters a pavement-shoulder
drop-off, it can be difficult for the driver to
return safely to the roadway. A safety edge
is a treatment intended to minimize drop-
off-related crashes. With this treatment, the
shoulder pavement edge is sloped at an
angle (30-35 degrees) to make it easier
for a driver to safely reenter the roadway
after inadvertently driving onto the
shoulder. This treatment is designed to be
a standard policy for any overlay project.

Cost $

Crash Reduction Factor 8-15%
Crash Type All

Safety Edge
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from
embankment slopes or fixed objects and
dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle.

Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity
of lane departure crashes. However,
guardrail can reduce crash severity only
for those conditions where striking the
guardrail is less severe than going down
an embankment or striking a fixed object.

Cost $$

LRSM ID R04
Crash Reduction Factor 25%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
Driving Under the Influence
Guardrail
S Gerrard Boulevard
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
Barrier in the center of the roadway that
physically separates opposing vehicular
traffic. Median barriers can also help
control access to and from side streets
and driveways, reducing conflict points.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R03
Crash Reduction Factor 25%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Unsafe Speed
Median Barrier
Barrett Avenue Undercrossing

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 94 Intersections & Roadways
A roundabout is a type of circular
intersection in which road traffic is
permitted to flow in one direction around
a central island, and priority is typically
given to traffic already in the junction.

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

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S16/NS04
Crash Reduction Factor Varies
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Low
Roundabout
Unsafe Speeds, Not Stopping, Pedestrian Crossing
Cutting Boulevard & Carlson Boulevard Intersection
Other Reference Information
Currently the CMF Clearinghouse has only
one reference for ped/vehicle collisions which
indicates an increase in crash likelihood. However,
a majority of references for all crash types
show a decrease in collisions. See additional
reference: FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
Traffic signals at intersections control
the flow of traffic. Traffic signals have the
potential to reduce the most severe type
crashes but will likely cause an increase
in rear-end collisions. A reduction in
overall injury severity is likely the largest
benefit of traffic signal installation.

Cost $$$

LRSM ID NS03
Crash Reduction Factor 30%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Low
Not Stopping
Signal
TBD
Figure 21. Examples Markings for One-Lane Roundabouts
Source: CA MUTCD

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
95 Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
Superelevation is the rotation of the
pavement on the approach to and
through a horizontal curve and is intended
to assist the driver in negotiating the
curve by counteracting the lateral
acceleration produced by tracking. In
other words, the road is designed so
that the pavement rises as it curves,
offsetting the horizontal sideways
momentum of the approaching vehicle.

Cost $$

Crash Reduction Factor 40%

Superelevation
at Horizontal
Curve
Locations
Intersections & Roadways
Irregular intersections can be overbuilt
and confusing, presenting safety hazards
to all users. “Squaring up” an intersection
as close to 90 degrees as possible
involves intersection reconstruction to
provide better visibility for all road users,
also reducing high speed turns and
reducing pedestrian crossing length.

Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

TBD
Intersection
Reconstruction
and Tightening
TBD
Intersections & Roadways
Lane narrowing reduces lane widths to
encourage motorists to travel at slower
speeds. Lane Narrowing improves safety
by lowering the risk of collision among
bicyclists, pedestrians, and other motorists.

Cost $

Unsafe Speed
Lane
Narrowing
Cutting Boulevard

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 96 Intersections & Roadways
Uses paint and bollards to extend the
curb and slow left turns at intersections
of one-way to one-way or two-way
streets. Widening the turning radii of
left-turning vehicles expands the feld
of vision for drivers and increases
the visibility of pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Left Turn
Enhanced
Daylighting/
Slow Turn
Wedge
Intersections & Roadways
A painted median with plastic posts
between the two directions of travel.

Reduces vehicular speeding and
discourages risky turning movements,
increasing pedestrian safety.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Paint and
Plastic Median
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=34
Intersections & Roadways
Mini circles use paint and soft hit posts
to replace stop-controlled intersections
with a circular design that slows trafc
and eliminates left turns, also reducing
confict points with pedestrians. Also
helps traffic flow more efficiently.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Paint and
Plastic Mini
Circle

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
97 Intersections & Roadways
A roadway treatment that restricts
through vehicle movements using
physical diversion while allowing
bicyclists and pedestrians to proceed
through an intersection in all directions.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Partial Closure/
Diverter
Other Reference Information
Evolution of the Protected Intersection, Alta
Planning and Design, December 2015. https://
altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-
of-the-Protected-Intersection_AL TA-2015.pdf
Intersections & Roadways
Protected intersections use corner
islands, curb extensions, and colored
paint to delineate bicycle and pedestrian
movements across an intersection. Slower
driving speeds and shorter crossing
distance increase safety for pedestrians.

Separates bicycles from pedestrians
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Protected
Intersection
Intersections & Roadways
A Raised Crosswalk is a pedestrian
crosswalk that is typically elevated 3-6
inches above the road or at sidewalk
level. A Raised Crosswalk improves safety
by increasing crosswalk and pedestrian
visibility and slowing down motorists.

Cost $$

LRSM ID R36PB
Crash Reduction Factor 35%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
N/A
Raised
Crosswalk
N/A

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 98 Other Reference Information
Note: some studies in CMF Clearinghouse show an
increase in crashes. See additional source below
showing decrease. (1) Perkins+Will Consultant
T eam. “Pedestrians at Multi-Modal Intersections.”
Better Market Street Existing Conditions & Best
Practices, Part Two: Best Practices 36-58, City &
County of San Francisco, San Francisco. http://
www.bettermarketstreetsf.org/about-reports-
existing-conditions.html (2) Bhatt, Shailen, Natalie
Barnhart, Mark Luszcz, T om Meyer, & Michael
Sommers. “Delaware T rafifc Calming Design Manual.”
Delaware Department of T ransportation, State of
Delaware, Dover, DE. https://nacto.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/04/DE-T rafc-Calming-Manual_2012.
pdf (3) King, Michael R, Jon A Carnegie, and Reid
Ewing. “Pedestrian Safety through a Raised Median
and Redesigned Intersections.” Journal of the
T ransportation Research Board 1828 (1), 56-66,
T ransportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
https://trid.trb.org/view/663867 (4) Fitzpatrick,
Kay, Mark D Wooldridge, and Joseph D Blaschke.
“Urban Intersection Design Guide: Volume 1–
Guidelines.” T exas T ransportation Institute, T exas
A&M University System, T exas Department of
T ransportation, Austin, TX. https://static.tti.tamu.
edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4365-P2.pdf
Intersections & Roadways
Elevates the intersection to bring vehicles
to the sidewalk level. Serves as a traffic
calming measure by extending the
sidewalk context across the road.

Cost $$$

Raised
Intersection
Intersections & Roadways
Curbed sections in the center of
the roadway that are physically
separated from vehicular traffc.

Raised medians can also help control
access to and from side streets and
driveways, reducing confict points.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S12/NS14/R08
Crash Reduction Factor 25%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Left-Turns, Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Raised Median
Cutting Boulevard, I-580 Approach
Intersections & Roadways
Geometric designs that alter how left-
turn movements occur can simplify
decisions and minimize the potential
for related crashes. Two highly effective
designs that rely on U-turns to complete
certain left-turn movements are known
as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT)
and the median U-turn (MUT).

Cost $$$

LRSM ID NS16
Crash Reduction Factor 50%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Left-Turns
Reduced Left-
Turn Conflict
Intersection
TBD

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
99 Intersections & Roadways
A Raised Median, or Refuge Island,
is a raised barrier in the center of the
roadway that can restrict certain turning
movements and provide a place for
pedestrians to wait if they are unable to
finish crossing the intersection. A Raised
Median improves safety by reducing the
number of potential conflict points with
designated zones for vehicles to turn,
and a pedestrian refuge island improves
safety by reducing the exposure time for
pedestrians crossing the intersection.

Pedestrian refuge areas constructed from
paint and plastic may be implemented as
part of a low-cost/quick build project.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS19PB
Crash Reduction Factor 45%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Pedestrian Crossing
Refuge Island
23rd Street & Esmond Avenue
Intersections & Roadways
A right turn slip lane is a traffic lane
provided at an intersection to allow
vehicles to turn right without actually
entering it and interfering with through
traffic. Where the main intersection is
controlled by traffic signals, a slip lane is
often controlled by yield or stop sign.

Cost $$$

Right Turn
Slip Lane
Figure 22. Refuge Island
Source: Seattle Streets Illustrated, https://streetsillustrated.seattle.gov/design- standards/intersections/pedcrossing/. Fehr & Peers Traffic Calming Toolbox.

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 100
Intersections & Roadways
A Road Diet reduces roadway space
dedicated to vehicle travel lanes
to create room for bicycle facilities,
wider sidewalks, or center turn lanes.

A Road Diet improves safety by
reducing vehicle speeds and creating
designated space for all road users.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R14
Crash Reduction Factor 30%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Unsafe Speed, Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Road Diet
23rd Street
Intersections & Roadways
A raised area that separates the two
directions of travel on the minor street
approach at an unsignalized intersection
or roundabout. Helps channelize traffic
in opposing directions of travel. Typically
installed at skewed intersections or
where speeds on minor roads are high.

Provides a refuge for pedestrians.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS13
Crash Reduction Factor 40%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
N/A
Splitter Island
N/A
ES2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
local economies, such as property values or business
revenues. In other words, while there are myriad
voices linking road diets to both positive and negative economic outcomes, there is very little concrete
evidence to support either claim. York Boulevard: The
Economics of a Road Diet explores this relationship
through case research in the Highland Park
neighborhood of northeast Los Angeles, California.

The backbone of a low- to moderate-density,
mixed residential and commercial neighborhood,
York Boulevard is an ideal corridor for studying the
economic effects of road diets because it creates
a natural experiment. Land uses, socioeconomic
characteristics, and the quantity and types of
businesses remain fairly comparable over the entire
the study corridor, but half of the corridor has a road diet and bicycle lanes and the other half does not.

As Figure ES2 illustrates, the western portion of the
corridor—between Eagle Rock Boulevard and Avenue
55—received a road diet in 2006 and bike lanes in
2010. The eastern half of the York Boulevard corridor,
from Avenue 55 to Figueroa Street, retains its original, Pre-Road Diet
Two auto lanes in each direction, shared with bicycles
Post-Road Diet
One auto lane and one bike lane in each direction, plus a center turn lane FigureTypical road diet conversion ES1
Figure 23. Figure 19 Typical Road Diet Configuration
Source: Fehr & Peers

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
101
Intersections & Roadways
Straightening crosswalks improves
sight lines, making pedestrians more
visible to oncoming drivers, and
may shorten the crossing distance,
reducing the length of time required for
pedestrians to cross an intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Straighten
Crosswalk
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Intersections & Roadways
Widened and paved shoulders, which
may also include flattening the slopes
along the sides of the roadway, create a
separated space for bicyclists and also
provide motor vehicle safety benefits,
such as space for inoperable vehicles to
pull out of the travel lane. The addition
of a paved shoulder to an existing road
can help to reduce run-off-road crashes.

Benefits can be realized for high risk rural
roads without paved shoulders, regardless
of existing lane pavement width. Adding
paved shoulders within horizontal
curve sections may help agencies
maximize benefits of the treatment while
minimizing costs as opposed to adding
paved shoulders to an entire corridor.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R15
Crash Reduction Factor 30%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Widen/Pave
Shoulder
Intersections & Roadways
These traffic calming devices use vertical
defection to raise the entire wheelbase
of a vehicle and encourage motorists to
travel at slower speeds to avoid damage
to the undercarriage of an automobile.

Cost $

Unsafe Speed
Speed Hump
or Speed Table
22nd Street & Roosevelt Avenue

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 102
Other Reference Information
The CMF Clearinghouse has limited research
related to vehicle/pedestrian crashes. See
additional reference: FHWA Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=20
Other
Vehicles entering and exiting driveways
may confict with pedestrians and with
vehicles on the main road, especially at
driveways within 250 feet of intersections.

Closing driveways near intersections
with high collision rates related to
driveways may reduce potential conficts.

Cost $$

Access
Management/
Close Driveway
Other Reference Information
Pedestrian-Level Lighting: FHWA Pedestrian
Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection
System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=8
Other
Lighting is added at an intersection.

Adding intersection and/or pedestrian-
scale lighting at intersections improves
safety by increasing visibility of all road
users. This countermeasure is most
effective at reducing or preventing
collisions at intersections at night.

Cost $$
LRSM ID NS01
Crash Reduction Factor 40%
Crash Type Night
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Intersection
Lighting
Driving Under the Inf uence
Cutting Boulevard
Other
Providing roadway lighting improves
safety during nighttime conditions by
increasing driver awareness, increasing
sight distance, and improving visibility
of pedestrians and bicyclists.

Cost $$
LRSM ID R01
Crash Reduction Factor 35%
Crash Type Night
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Segment
Lighting
Driving Under the Influence
Cutting Boulevard

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
103
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Other
A clear zone is an unobstructed,
traversable roadside area that allows
a driver to stop safely or regain control
of a vehicle that has left the roadway.

The width of the clear zone should be
based on risk (also called exposure).

Key factors in assessing risk include
traffic volumes, speeds, and slopes.

Clear roadsides reduce risk from fixed
objects (such as utility poles) as well as
terrain that may increase the likelihood
of a rollover. Creating or increasing clear
zones within horizontal curve sections
may help agencies maximize benefits
of the treatment while minimizing
costs, as opposed to providing a clear
zone throughout an entire corridor.

Cost $$

Crash Reduction Factor 13-44%
Crash Type All, KSI

Create or
Increase
Clear Zone
Other
Curbside management can better
prioritize reliable transit and safe
bicycling infrastructure, freight deliveries,
passenger pick-ups/drop-ofs,green
stormwater infrastructure, public
spaces, and parking management.

Cost $

Curbside
Management
Other
Far-side bus stops are located immediately
after an intersection, allowing the bus
to pass through the intersection before
stopping for passenger loading and
unloading. Far-side stops encourage
pedestrians to cross behind the
bus for greater visibility and can
improve transit service reliability.

Cost $

Far-Side
Bus Stop

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 104
Other
Delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers are intended to warn drivers
of an approaching curve or fixed object
that cannot easily be removed. They are
generally less costly than Chevron Signs
as they don’t require posts to place along
the roadside, avoiding an additional object
with which an errant vehicle can crash into.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R27
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
N/A
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Other
Impact attenuators bring an errant vehicle
to a more-controlled stop or redirect
the vehicle away from a rigid object.

Impact attenuators are typically used
to shield rigid roadside objects such as
concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail
ends and bridge pillars from oncoming
automobiles. Attenuators should only
be installed where it is impractical
for the objects to be removed.

Cost $$

LRSM ID R05
Crash Reduction Factor 25%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
Impact
Attenuators
Other
The installation of median guardrail is most
suitable for use in traversable medians
having no or little change in grade and
cross slope. While these systems may
not reduce the frequency of crashes
due to roadway departure, they can
help prevent a lane-departure crash
from becoming a head-on collision.

Cost $$

TBD
Median
Guardrail
TBD

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
105
Other Reference Information
TRB Study on Setting Speed Limits
Other
Setting speed limits to reflect the
surrounding context of the roadway and
that meet with driver expectations can
help improve driver respect for speed
limits. Speed limits that appear inconsistent
may be ignored by the majority of drivers
and this may contribute to lack of respect
for speed limit and other traffic laws.

Cost $

Speed Limit
Reduction
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Other
Relocating or removing utility poles
from within the clear zone alleviates the
potential for fixed-object crashes. If utility
poles cannot be completely eliminated
from within the clear zone, efforts can be
made to either relocate the poles to a
greater offset from the road or delineated.

Cost $$

Relocate Select
Hazardous
Utility Poles
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Other
Remove objects that may prevent drivers
and pedestrians from having a clear
sightline. May include installing red curb
at intersection approaches to remove
parked vehicles (also called “daylighting”),
trimming or removing landscaping, or
removing or relocating large signs.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS11
Crash Reduction Factor 20%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
N/A

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 106
Other
Upgrading Lighting to LED replaces
high-pressure sodium light bulbs with
LED light bulbs in street lights. Upgrading
Lighting to LED improves safety by
increasing the visibility of pedestrians in
crosswalks through greater color contrast
and larger areas of light distribution.

Cost $$

Upgrade
Lighting to LED
Other
A red light camera enforces traffic signal
compliance by capturing the image of a
vehicle that has entered an intersection
in spite of the traffic signal indicating red.

The automatic photographic evidence
is used by authorities to enforce traffic
laws and issue traffic violation tickets.

Cost $$

Red Light
Camera
Other
Back-In Angled Parking requires motorists
to back into an angled on-street parking
spot and to drive forward when exiting
a parking spot. Back-in angled parking
improves safety by increasing visibility
of passing vehicles and bicycles while
exiting a spot, particularly if large
adjacent vehicles obstruct sight, and
allows trunk unloading to happen on
the curb instead of in the street.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Back-In Angled
Parking

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
107
Other Reference Information
Data in the CMF Clearinghouse is currently limited to
bicycle/vehicle collisions. See additional reference:

FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=1
Pedestrian Facilities
Adding sidewalks provides a separated
and continuous facility for people to walk
along the roadway. Adding sidewalks
improves safety by minimizing collisions
with pedestrians walking in the road.

Cost $$

LRSM ID R34PB
Crash Reduction Factor 80%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Add Sidewalk
Barrett Avenue Undercrossing
Pedestrian Facilities
A pedestrian crossing at an intersection
or on a segment provides a formalized
location for people to cross the street,
reducing the risk of people crossing
outside crosswalks where drivers
are not expecting them. Crosswalk
striping, signs, and other enhanced
safety features alert drivers that there
may be a pedestrian crossing.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R35PB
Crash Reduction Factor 35%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Install/Upgrade
Pedestrian
Crossing at
Uncontrolled
Locations
(Signs and
Markings Only)
Pedestrian Crossing, Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Cutting Boulevard & S 12th Street
Pedestrian Facilities
Place bus stops and pedestrian
crossings in close proximity to allow
transit riders to cross the street safely.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
Pedestrian Crossing
Co-Locate
Bus Stops and
Pedestrian
Crossings
Cutting Boulevard & S 26th Street

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 108
Other Reference Information
(1) Application of Pedestrian Crossing T reatments for
Streets and Highways, NCHRP, 2016. https://www.
nap.edu/catalog/24634/application-of-pedestrian-
crossing-treatments-for-streets-and-highways
(2) Development of Crash Modifcation Factors
for Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing T reatments,
NCHRP, 2017. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24627/
development-of-crash-modifcation-factors-for-
uncontrolled-pedestrian-crossing-treatments
(3) Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway
Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information
Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/
downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.pdf
Pedestrian Facilities
A curb extension is a traffic calming
measure which widens the sidewalk
for a short distance to enhance the
pedestrian crossing. This reduces the
crossing distance and allowing pedestrians
and drivers to see each other when
parked vehicles would otherwise block
visibility. Paint and plastic curb extensions
are a low-cot/quick build option.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS21PB
Crash Reduction Factor 35%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Pedestrian Crossing
Curb
Extensions
Macdonald Avenue & 22nd Street
Other Reference Information
Audible Push Button Upgrade and Extended
Time Pushbutton: FHWA Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=52
Pedestrian Facilities
A pushbutton that can be pressed to
request extra time for using the crosswalk,
beyond the standard crossing time.

Ideal near senior-serving land uses.

Cost $

Extended Time
Pushbutton
Figure 24. Curb Extension
Source: : Seattle Streets Illustrated, https://streetsillustrated.seattle. gov/design-standards/intersections/pedcrossing/#CurbBulbs

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
109
Pedestrian Facilities
A high-visibility crosswalk has a striped
pattern with ladder markings made
of high-visibility material, such as
thermoplastic tape, instead of paint. A
high-visibility crosswalk improves safety
by increasing the visibility of marked
crosswalks and provides motorists a cue
to slow down and yield to pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S18/NS20
Crash Reduction Factor 25%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 10-20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
Pedestrian Crossing, Pedestrian Right-of-Way
High-Visibility
Crosswalk
Cutting Boulevard & Marina Way S
Pedestrian Facilities
Displays “countdown” of seconds
remaining on the pedestrian signal.

Countdown indications improve safety
for all road users, and are required for
all newly installed traffic signals where
pedestrian signals are installed.

Cost $$

LRSM ID S17PB
Crash Reduction Factor 25%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Pedestrian
Countdown
Timer
Macdonald Avenue & 22nd Street
Pedestrian Facilities
A pedestrian-hybrid beacon (PHB) is used
at unsignalized intersections or mid-block
crosswalks to notify oncoming motorists
to stop with a series of red and yellow
lights. Unlike a traffic signal, the PHB rests
in dark until a pedestrian activates it via
pushbutton or other form of detection.

Cost $$$

LRSM ID NS23PB
Crash Reduction Factor 55%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Low
Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon
Cutting Boulevard & 24th Street

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 110
Pedestrian Facilities
Separating drivers from bicyclists and
pedestrians using landscaping provides
more space between the modes and
can produce a traffc calming effect by
encouraging drivers to drive at slower
speeds, lowering the risk of crashing.

Cost $$

Landscape
Buffer
Other Reference Information
Pedestrian Phase Recall: Evaluation of Pedestrian-
Related Roadway Measures, Pedestrian and
Bicycle Information Center, 2014. http://
www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/
PedestrianLitReview_April2014.pdf
Pedestrian Facilities
At intersection locations that have a high
volume of turning vehicle and have high
pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes, a leading
pedestrian interval gives pedestrians
the opportunity to enter an intersection
3 - 7 seconds before vehicles are
given a green indication. With this head
start, pedestrians can better establish
their presence in the crosswalk before
vehicles have priority to turn left or right.

Cost $
LRSM ID S21PB
Crash Reduction Factor 60%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval and
Pedestrian
Recall
Pedestrian Crossing, Left-Turns
Macdonald Avenue & 23rd Street
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=11
Pedestrian Facilities
An intersection treatment that relies on
sensors to detect when a pedestrian is
waiting at a crosswalk and automatically
triggers the pedestrian “WALK” phase.

Reduces crossings at inappropriate
times and ensures that pedestrians have
enough time to safely cross the roadway.

Cost $$

Pedestrian
Detection

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
111
Pedestrian Facilities
Removes existing crossing prohibitions
and provides marked crosswalk
and other safety enhancements for
pedestrians to cross the street.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=4
Pedestrian Facilities
Periodic restriping of crosswalks
is necessary to ensure the traffic
markings are visible. Crosswalk may be
restriped with high visibility markings.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

TBD
Restripe
Crosswalk
TBD
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=3
Pedestrian Facilities
T actile warning devices must be
detectable to visually impaired
pedestrians. Curb ramps must follow
the DIB 82-06 design guidelines.

Cost $$

Upgrade
Curb Ramp

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 112
Other Reference Information
Audible Push Button Upgrade and Extended
Time Pushbutton: FHWA Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=52
Pedestrian Facilities
Push buttons must comply with the
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
standards for accessibility. Pushbuttons
should be visible and conveniently
located for pedestrians waiting at
a crosswalk. Accessible pedestrian
signals, including audible push buttons,
improve access for pedestrians who
are blind or have low vision. DIB 82-06
includes accessibility design guidance.

Cost $

Audible
Push Button
Upgrade
Pedestrian Facilities
Widening sidewalks provides a more
comfortable space for pedestrians,
particularly in locations with high
volumes of pedestrians, and provides
space to accommodate people in
wheelchairs. Widening sidewalks
improves safety by minimizing collisions
with pedestrians walking in the road.

Cost $$
Widen
Sidewalk
Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Barrett Avenue Undercrossing
Pedestrian Facilities
A rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB)
is a pedestrian-activated flashing light with
additional signage to alert motorists of a
pedestrian crossing. An RRFB improves
safety by increasing the visibility of marked
crosswalks and provides motorists a cue
to slow down and yield to pedestrians.

Cost $$

LRSM ID NS22PB
Crash Reduction Factor 35%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Rectangular
Rapid Flashing
Beacon
Barrett Avenue & 18th Street

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
113
Signals
Retroreflective borders enhance the
visibility of traffic signals for aging and
color vision impaired drivers enabling
them to understand which signal indication
is illuminated. Retroreflective borders
may also alert drivers to signalized
intersections during periods of power
outages when the signals would otherwise
be dark, and non–reflective signal heads
and backplates would not be visible.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S02
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
N/A
Signals
Additional signal heads allow drivers
to anticipate signal changes farther
away from intersections. Supplemental
traffic signals may be placed on
the near side of an intersection,
far-left, far-right, or very high.

Cost $$

LRSM ID S02
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Supplemental
Signal Heads
N/A
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signals
The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
system adjusts the start time of the yellow-
signal phase (i.e. earlier or later) based on
observed vehicle locations and speeds.

The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
system improves safety by minimizing
the number of drivers that are faced with
the dilemma of determining if they should
stop at the intersection or drive through
the intersection based on their speed
and distance from the intersection.

Cost $$

LRSM ID S04
Crash Reduction Factor 40%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
Advanced
Dilemma Zone
Detection
N/A

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 114
Signals
Increases time for pedestrian walk
phases, especially to accommodate
vulnerable populations, such as
children and the elderly.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S03
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 50%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
Pedestrian Crossing
Extend
Pedestrian
Crossing Time
Cutting Boulevard
Signals
Extending yellow and all red time
increases the time allotted for the
yellow and red lights during a signal
phase. Extending yellow and all red
time improves safety by allowing
drivers and bicyclists to safely cross
through a signalized intersection
before conflicting traffic movements are
permitted to enter the intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S03
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 50%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
Extend Y ellow
and All Red
Time
Driving Under the In uence
Cutting Boulevard
Signals
Flashing yellow turn arrow alerts drivers
to proceed with caution and decide if
there is a sufcient gap in oncoming trafc
to safely make a turn. T o be used only
when a pedestrian walk phase is not
called. Protected-only phases should be
used when pedestrians are present.

Cost $$

Flashing Y ellow
Turn Phase

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
115
Signals
A form of pedestrian “WALK” phase
at a signalized intersection in which
all vehicular traffic is required to
stop, allowing pedestrians to safely
cross through the intersection in any
direction, including diagonally.

Cost $

LRSM ID S03
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 50%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Pedestrian
Scramble
N/A
Signals
Prohibitions of left turns at locations
where a turning vehicle may confict
with pedestrians in the crosswalk
or where opposing traffc volume is
high. Reduces pedestrian interaction
with vehicles when crossing.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S15/NS16
Crash Reduction Factor 50%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
N/A
Prohibit
Left Turn
N/A
Signals
Restricts left or right turns during
the pedestrian crossing phase at
locations where a turning vehicle
may confict with pedestrians in the
crosswalk. This restriction may be
displayed with a blank-out sign.

Cost $

Prohibit
Turns During
Pedestrian
Phase

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 116
Signals
A protected left turn can be implemented
at signalized intersections (with existing
left turns pockets) that currently have
a permissive left-turn or no left-turn
protection that have a high frequency
of angle crashes involving left turning,
opposing through vehicles, and non-
motorized road users. Left turns are
widely recognized as the highest-risk
movements at signalized intersections.

Providing protected left-turn phases
for signalized intersections significantly
improve the safety for left-turn
maneuvers by removing the need for
the drivers to navigate through gaps in
oncoming/opposing through vehicles.

Cost $$
LRSM ID S06/S07
Crash Reduction Factor 30-55%
Crash Type All
Left-Turns
Protected
Left Turns
Rheem Avenue & 23rd Street
Other Reference Information
Currently the CMF Clearinghouse does not include
specifc studies; however, permitting right-turns-
on-red shows an increase in ped/vehicle crashes.

Additional information is available at the FHWA
Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=49
Signals
Prohibiting right-run-on-red movements
should be considered at skewed
intersections, or where exclusive
pedestrian “WALK” phases, Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs), sight
distance issues, or high pedestrian
volumes are present. Can help prevent
crashes between vehicles turning
right on red from one street and
through vehicles on the cross street,
and crashes involving pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Prohibit Right-
Turn-on-Red
Other Reference Information
(1) Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway
Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information
Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/
downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.
pdf (2) FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signals
Provides a green arrow phase for
right-turning vehicles. Avoids conficts
between right-turning traffic and
bicyclists or pedestrians crossing
the intersection on their right.

Cost $$$

Separate Right-
Turn Phasing

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
117
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=45
Signals
Traffic signal cycle lengths have a
significant impact on the quality of the
urban realm and consequently, the
opportunities for bicyclists, pedestrians,
and transit vehicles to operate safely
along a corridor. Long signal cycles,
compounded over multiple intersections,
can make crossing a street or walking
even a short distance prohibitive and
frustrating. Short cycle lengths of 60–90
seconds are ideal for urban areas.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Shorten Cycle
Length
Signals
Certain timing, phasing, and control
strategies can produce multiple
safety benefits. Sometimes capacity
improvements come along with the
safety improvements and other times
adverse effects on delay or capacity
occur. The emphasis of improving signal
coordination for this countermeasure is
to provide an opportunity for slow speed
signal coordination. Coordinating signals
to allow for bicyclist progression, also
known as a ‘green wave,’ gives bicyclists
and pedestrians more time to safely cross
through the ‘green wave’ intersections.

Cost $$

LRSM ID S03
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 50%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Signal
Interconnectivity
and
Coordination /
Green Wave
N/A
Signals
At certain hours (eg. late night) a signal
remains red for all approaches or certain
approaches until a vehicle arrives at the
intersection. If the vehicle is going faster
than the desired speed, the signal will not
turn green until after vehicle stops. If the
vehicle is going the desired speed the
signal will change to green before the
vehicle arrives. This signal timing provides
operational beneft to drivers traveling at
the desired speed limit. Can be paired
with variable speed warning signs.

Cost $$

LRSM ID R26
Crash Reduction Factor 30%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
N/A

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 118
Signals
Upgrading Signal Heads replaces
existing 8-inch signal heads with 12-
inch signal heads to comply with the
California MUTCD’s 2014 guidelines.

Upgrading signal heads improves safety
by providing better visibility of intersection
signals and by aiding drivers’ advanced
perception of upcoming intersections.

Cost $

LRSM ID S02
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10

N/A
Upgrade
Signal Head
N/A
Signing & Striping
An advanced stop bar is a horizontal
stripe painted ahead of the crosswalk
at stop signs and signals to indicate
where drivers should stop. An advanced
stop bar improves safety by reducing
instances of vehicles encroaching on
the crosswalk. Creating a wider stop
bar or setting the stop bar further back
may be appropriate for locations with
known crosswalk encroachment issues.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S20PB
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
Pedestrian Right-of-Way, Not Stopping
Advance
Stop Bar
Barrett Avenue & Marina Way
Signing & Striping
Yield lines are placed 20 to 50 feet
in advance of multi-lane pedestrian
crossings to increase visibility of
pedestrians. They can reduce the
likelihood of a multiple-threat crash.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

TBD
Advance Yield
Markings
TBD

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
119
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signing & Striping
A curve advance warning sign notifies
drivers of an approaching curve and
may include an advisory speed limit as
drivers navigate around the curve. This
warning sign is ideally combined with
other infrastructure that alerts drivers
of the curve, such as chevron signs,
delineators, and flashing beacons. A
curve advance warning sign improves
safety by giving drivers additional
time to slow down for the curve.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R24
Crash Reduction Factor 25%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
Curve Advance
Warning Sign
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signing & Striping
A flashing beacon as Advanced
Warning is a blinking light with signage
to notify motorists of an upcoming
intersection or crosswalk. A flashing
beacon improves safety by providing
motorists more time to be aware of and
slow down for an intersection or yield
to pedestrians crossing a crosswalk.

Cost $$

LRSM ID S10
Crash Reduction Factor 30%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
Pedestrian Crossing
Flashing
Beacon as
Advance
Warning
TBD
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signing & Striping
Post-mounted chevrons are intended to
warn drivers of an approaching curve and
provide tracking information and guidance
to the drivers. They can be beneficial
on roadways that have an unacceptable
level of crashes on relatively sharp curves
during periods of light and darkness.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R23
Crash Reduction Factor 40%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
Chevron Signs
on Horizontal
Curves

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 120
Signing & Striping
An LED-Enhanced Sign has LED lights
embedded in the sign to outline the
sign itself or the words and symbols
on the sign. The LEDs may be set to
flash or operate in a steady mode. An
LED-enhanced sign improves safety
by improving the visibility of signs at
locations with visibility limitations or with
a documented history of drivers failing to
see or obey the sign (e.g. at STOP signs).

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS08
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
LED-Enhanced
Sign
N/A
Signing & Striping
A raised pavement marker is a small
device attached to the road and used
as a positioning guide for drivers.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Painted
Centerline
and Raised
Pavement
Markers at
Curves on
Residential
Streets
Signing & Striping
A speed feedback sign notifies drivers
of their current speed, usually followed
by a reminder of the posted speed limit.

A speed feedback sign improves safety
by providing a cue for drivers to check
their speed and slow down, if necessary.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

TBD
Speed
Feedback Sign
TBD

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
121
Signing & Striping
Speed legends are numerals painted on
the roadway indicating the current speed
limit in miles per hour. They are usually
placed near speed limit signposts.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Speed Legends
on Pavement at
Neighborhood
Entries
Signing & Striping
Adding clear pavement markings
can guide motorists through complex
intersections. Intersections where
the lane designations are not clearly
visible to approaching motorists and/
or intersections noted as being complex
and experiencing crashes that could
be attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful
attempt to navigate the intersection
can benefit from this treatment.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S09
Crash Reduction Factor 10%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Striping
Through
Intersection
N/A
Signing & Striping
Restricts left-turns or right-turns during
certain time periods when there may
be increased potential for confict
(e.g., peak periods, school hours).

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Time-Based
Turn Restriction

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 122
Signing & Striping
Upgrading intersection pavement marking
can include “Stop Ahead” markings and
the addition of centerlines and stop
bars. Upgrading intersection pavement
markings can improve safety by increasing
the visibility of intersections for drivers
approaching and at the intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS07
Crash Reduction Factor 25%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
TBD
Upgrade
Intersection
Pavement
Markings
TBD
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signing & Striping
Upgrading signs with fluorescent
sheeting replaces existing signs with new
signs that can clearly display warnings
by reflecting headlamp light back to
vehicles. Upgrading signs with fluorescent
sheeting improves safety by increasing
visibility of signs to drivers at night.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R22
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Upgrade
Signs with
Fluorescent
Sheeting
N/A
Signing & Striping
Restripe lanes with refective striping
to improve striping visibility and clarify
lane assignment, especially where
the number of lanes changes.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

TBD
Upgrade
Striping
TBD

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
123
Signing & Striping
Upgrading to larger warning signs replaces
existing signs with physically larger signs
with larger warning informaiton. Upgrading
to larger warning signs improves safety
by increasing visibility of the information
provided, particularly for older drivers.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS06
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
TBD
Upgrade
to Larger
Warning Signs
TBD
Signing & Striping
A network of signs that highlight
nearby pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Can help to reduce crossings at
locations with poor sight distance or
limited crossing enhancements.

Cost $

Wayfinding
Signing & Striping
“Yield Here to Pedestrians” signs alert
drivers about the presence of pedestrians.

These signs are required with advance
yield lines. Other sign types can be
placed on the centerline in the roadway.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS06
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
Pedestrian Right-of-Way
Yield T o
Pedestrians
Sign
TBD

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 124
Non-Engineering: Better Data
Improve the accuracy, breadth, and
consistency of crash data by creating
a near-miss and unreported crash
database, developing a standardized
electronic reporting form for all crashes,
forming agreements with shared mobility
operators to acquire crash data, and/or
creating a multi-jurisdiction crash database
that can be updated by paramedics,
police, City staff, and hospitals.

Improve Crash
Data Collection
Non-Engineering: Education
Partner with local bike shops and other
partners to host events/fairs to educate
residents on bicycle safety. For example,
host rides to introduce residents
to new bicycle facilities as they are
opened; offer tune ups at safety fairs.

Bicycle Safety
Education
Events
Launch a countywide transportation
safety education campaign targeting
youth that covers a wide range of topics,
such as alcohol and drug impairment,
speeding, and potentially distracted
driving. Local schools can also be partners
in promoting safe driver behavior during
school pick-up and drop offs. Educational
campaigns that involve both students
and parents can be more impactful as
they involve parents, who are actually
driving, and students, who may not only
remind their parents but also retain safe
driving behavior if they eventually drive.

Non-Engineering: Education
TBD
Y outh
Education
TBD

ENGINEERING
Launch a countywide transportation
safety education campaign targeting
youth that covers a wide range of topics,
such as alcohol and drug impairment,
speeding, and potentially distracted
driving. Local schools can also be partners
in promoting safe driver behavior during
school pick-up and drop offs. Educational
campaigns that involve both students
and parents can be more impactful as
they involve parents, who are actually
driving, and students, who may not only
remind their parents but also retain safe
driving behavior if they eventually drive.

Non-Engineering: Education
TBD
Y outh
Education
TBD
Launch a countywide transportation
safety education campaign targeting
youth that covers a wide range of topics,
such as alcohol and drug impairment,
speeding, and potentially distracted
driving. Local schools can also be partners
in promoting safe driver behavior during
school pick-up and drop offs. Educational
campaigns that involve both students
and parents can be more impactful as
they involve parents, who are actually
driving, and students, who may not only
remind their parents but also retain safe
driving behavior if they eventually drive.

Non-Engineering: Education
TBD
Y outh
Education
TBD
Non-Engineering: Better Data
Improve the accuracy, breadth, and
consistency of crash data by creating
a near-miss and unreported crash
database, developing a standardized
electronic reporting form for all crashes,
forming agreements with shared mobility
operators to acquire crash data, and/or
creating a multi-jurisdiction crash database
that can be updated by paramedics,
police, City staff, and hospitals.

Improve Crash
Data Collection

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
125
Non-Engineering: Education
Launch targeted public education
campaigns for seniors, non-
English speaking populations,
or other vulnerable groups.

Education
Campaigns
for Vulnerable
Groups
Non-Engineering: Education
Implement pilot demonstration safety
projects. Projects can either be
implemented on a temporary basis
(tactical urbanism) or permanent basis
with room for modification (quick builds).

Pilot
Demonstration
Safety Projects
Launch public safety education campaigns.

Example campaign topics include
safe speeds, yielding to pedestrians,
distracted driving, drinking and driving,
awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians,
appropriate crosswalk behavior, rail
safety, moving over for EMS vehicles, etc.

Campaigns may include yard signs, wall
boards/posters in prime injury-corridor
neighborhoods, ads on bus exteriors,
radio ads, etc. Public education may also
involve making safety and crash data
publically available on project websites,
the local agency’s data portal, social
media, and other avenues as appropriate.

Non-Engineering: Education
TBD
Public
Information
Campaigns
TBD

ENGINEERING
Launch a countywide transportation
safety education campaign targeting
youth that covers a wide range of topics,
such as alcohol and drug impairment,
speeding, and potentially distracted
driving. Local schools can also be partners
in promoting safe driver behavior during
school pick-up and drop offs. Educational
campaigns that involve both students
and parents can be more impactful as
they involve parents, who are actually
driving, and students, who may not only
remind their parents but also retain safe
driving behavior if they eventually drive.

Non-Engineering: Education
TBD
Y outh
Education
TBD
Launch a countywide transportation
safety education campaign targeting
youth that covers a wide range of topics,
such as alcohol and drug impairment,
speeding, and potentially distracted
driving. Local schools can also be partners
in promoting safe driver behavior during
school pick-up and drop offs. Educational
campaigns that involve both students
and parents can be more impactful as
they involve parents, who are actually
driving, and students, who may not only
remind their parents but also retain safe
driving behavior if they eventually drive.

Non-Engineering: Education
TBD
Y outh
Education
TBD
Launch a countywide transportation
safety education campaign targeting
youth that covers a wide range of topics,
such as alcohol and drug impairment,
speeding, and potentially distracted
driving. Local schools can also be partners
in promoting safe driver behavior during
school pick-up and drop offs. Educational
campaigns that involve both students
and parents can be more impactful as
they involve parents, who are actually
driving, and students, who may not only
remind their parents but also retain safe
driving behavior if they eventually drive.

Non-Engineering: Education
TBD
Y outh
Education
TBD

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Countermeasures Included in Priority Projects 126
Non-Engineering: Maintenance
A smoothly paved surface free of debris
enhances safety for vehicles and bicyclists.

Cost

Keep
Roadways
Clear of Debris
Non-Engineering: Partnerships
Establish a Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) program in partnership
with school districts.

Cost

TBD
Safe Routes
to School
TBD
Non-Engineering: Policies
and Programs
Update policies, standards, and guidelines
on topics such as signal timing, street
design, street lighting, complete
streets, and pedestrian crossings to
incorporate current best practices
and improve safety for all modes.

Cost

Update City
Policies and
Standards

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
127
Non-Engineering: Policies
and Programs
Develop a neighborhood slow zone
program to allow neighborhoods to
request treatments to slow motor
vehicles to 15 to 20 mph using traffic
calming features, signs, and markings.

Selected locations are typically in
areas serving children, seniors, public
transit users, commercial activity,
and pedestrian/bicycle activity.

Cost

Neighborhood
Slow Zones
Non-Engineering: Policies
and Programs
When developing a program of targeted
enforcement and deterrence, use collision
history and corridors on the High Injury
Network as one criterion for where to
concentrate enforcement efforts. Add extra
patrols to look for distracted drivers as part
of a statewide distracted driving campaign,
with focus on where data indicates that
the most traffic safety benefit can be
realized. Implement deterrence policies
that are highly visible, such as publicized
sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrol, and
other forms of high visibility enforcement
that are effective for safety outcomes.

Cost

Targeted
Enforcement
and Deterrence

ENGINEERING

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional LRSM Countermeasures 128
Bikeways
Prolongs the green phase when bicyclists
are present to provide additional time
for bicyclists to clear the intersection.

Can occur automatically in the signal
phasing or when prompted with
bicycle detection. T opography should
be considered in clearance time.

Cost $

LRSM ID S03
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 50%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Extend Green
Time For Bikes
N/A
Intersections & Roadways
An all-way stop-controlled intersection
requires all vehicles to stop before
crossing the intersection. An all-way stop
controlled intersection improves safety
by removing the need for motorists,
bicyclists, and pedestrians on a side-street
stop-controlled intersection to cross free-
flowing lanes of traffic, which reduces the
risk of collision. An “ ALL WAY” sign should
be placed under the octagonal stop sign
at all-way stop-controlled intersections
as required by the California Manual on
Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

Cost $

LRSM ID NS02
Crash Reduction Factor 50%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
All-Way Stop
Control
N/A
Intersections & Roadways
A directional median opening restricts
specific turning movements, such
as allowing a left-turn from a major
street but not from a minor street. A
directional median opening to restrict
left turn improves safety by reducing
the number of conflict points.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S14
Crash Reduction Factor 50%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
N/A
Directional
Median
Openings
to Restrict
Left Turns
N/A

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
129
Intersections & Roadways
A Raised Crosswalk is a pedestrian
crosswalk that is typically elevated 3-6
inches above the road or at sidewalk
level. A Raised Crosswalk improves safety
by increasing crosswalk and pedestrian
visibility and slowing down motorists.

Cost $$

LRSM ID R36PB
Crash Reduction Factor 35%
Crash Type Ped and Bike
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
N/A
Raised
Crosswalk
N/A
Intersections & Roadways
A raised area that separates the two
directions of travel on the minor street
approach at an unsignalized intersection
or roundabout. Helps channelize traffic
in opposing directions of travel. Typically
installed at skewed intersections or
where speeds on minor roads are high.

Provides a refuge for pedestrians.

Cost $$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS13
Crash Reduction Factor 40%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
N/A
Splitter Island
N/A
Other
Delineators, reflectors and/or object
markers are intended to warn drivers
of an approaching curve or fixed object
that cannot easily be removed. They are
generally less costly than Chevron Signs
as they don’t require posts to place along
the roadside, avoiding an additional object
with which an errant vehicle can crash into.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R27
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Delineators,
Reflectors,
and/or Object
Markers
N/A

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional LRSM Countermeasures 130
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Other
Remove objects that may prevent drivers
and pedestrians from having a clear
sightline. May include installing red curb
at intersection approaches to remove
parked vehicles (also called “daylighting”),
trimming or removing landscaping, or
removing or relocating large signs.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS11
Crash Reduction Factor 20%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
Remove
Obstructions
For Sightlines
N/A
Signals
Retroreflective borders enhance the
visibility of traffic signals for aging and
color vision impaired drivers enabling
them to understand which signal indication
is illuminated. Retroreflective borders
may also alert drivers to signalized
intersections during periods of power
outages when the signals would otherwise
be dark, and non–reflective signal heads
and backplates would not be visible.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S02
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Retroreflective
Tape on Signals
N/A
Signals
Additional signal heads allow drivers
to anticipate signal changes farther
away from intersections. Supplemental
traffic signals may be placed on
the near side of an intersection,
far-left, far-right, or very high.

Cost $$

LRSM ID S02
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Supplemental
Signal Heads
N/A

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
131
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signals
The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
system adjusts the start time of the yellow-
signal phase (i.e. earlier or later) based on
observed vehicle locations and speeds.

The Advanced Dilemma-Zone Detection
system improves safety by minimizing
the number of drivers that are faced with
the dilemma of determining if they should
stop at the intersection or drive through
the intersection based on their speed
and distance from the intersection.

Cost $$

LRSM ID S04
Crash Reduction Factor 40%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
Advanced
Dilemma Zone
Detection
N/A
Signals
A form of pedestrian “WALK” phase
at a signalized intersection in which
all vehicular traffic is required to
stop, allowing pedestrians to safely
cross through the intersection in any
direction, including diagonally.

Cost $

LRSM ID S03
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 50%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Pedestrian
Scramble
N/A
Signals
Prohibitions of left turns at locations
where a turning vehicle may confict
with pedestrians in the crosswalk
or where opposing traffc volume is
high. Reduces pedestrian interaction
with vehicles when crossing.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S15/NS16
Crash Reduction Factor 50%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 20
Federal Funding Eligibility 90%
Systemic Opportunity Medium
N/A
Prohibit
Left Turn
N/A

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional LRSM Countermeasures 132
Signals
Certain timing, phasing, and control
strategies can produce multiple
safety benefits. Sometimes capacity
improvements come along with the
safety improvements and other times
adverse effects on delay or capacity
occur. The emphasis of improving signal
coordination for this countermeasure is
to provide an opportunity for slow speed
signal coordination. Coordinating signals
to allow for bicyclist progression, also
known as a ‘green wave,’ gives bicyclists
and pedestrians more time to safely cross
through the ‘green wave’ intersections.

Cost $$

LRSM ID S03
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 50%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Signal
Interconnectivity
and Coordination
/ Green Wave
N/A
Signals
At certain hours (eg. late night) a signal
remains red for all approaches or certain
approaches until a vehicle arrives at the
intersection. If the vehicle is going faster
than the desired speed, the signal will not
turn green until after vehicle stops. If the
vehicle is going the desired speed the
signal will change to green before the
vehicle arrives. This signal timing provides
operational beneft to drivers traveling at
the desired speed limit. Can be paired
with variable speed warning signs.

Cost $$

LRSM ID R26
Crash Reduction Factor 30%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
Speed
Sensitive Rest
in Red Signal
N/A
Signals
Upgrading Signal Heads replaces
existing 8-inch signal heads with 12-
inch signal heads to comply with the
California MUTCD’s 2014 guidelines.

Upgrading signal heads improves safety
by providing better visibility of intersection
signals and by aiding drivers’ advanced
perception of upcoming intersections.

Cost $

LRSM ID S02
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10

N/A
Upgrade
Signal Head
N/A

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
133
Signing & Striping
An LED-Enhanced Sign has LED lights
embedded in the sign to outline the
sign itself or the words and symbols
on the sign. The LEDs may be set to
flash or operate in a steady mode. An
LED-enhanced sign improves safety
by improving the visibility of signs at
locations with visibility limitations or with
a documented history of drivers failing to
see or obey the sign (e.g. at STOP signs).

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID NS08
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity High
N/A
LED-Enhanced
Sign
N/A
Signing & Striping
Adding clear pavement markings
can guide motorists through complex
intersections. Intersections where
the lane designations are not clearly
visible to approaching motorists and/
or intersections noted as being complex
and experiencing crashes that could
be attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful
attempt to navigate the intersection
can benefit from this treatment.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID S09
Crash Reduction Factor 10%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Striping
Through
Intersection
N/A
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signing & Striping
Upgrading signs with fluorescent
sheeting replaces existing signs with new
signs that can clearly display warnings
by reflecting headlamp light back to
vehicles. Upgrading signs with fluorescent
sheeting improves safety by increasing
visibility of signs to drivers at night.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available
LRSM ID R22
Crash Reduction Factor 15%
Crash Type All
Expected Life 10
Federal Funding Eligibility 100%
Systemic Opportunity Very High
N/A
Upgrade
Signs with
Fluorescent
Sheeting
N/A

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional Non-LRSM Countermeasures 134
Bikeways
Connects bicyclists from the road to
the sidewalk or a shared use path.

Cost $

N/A
Bicycle Ramp
N/A
Bikeways
A traffic signal directing bicycle traffic
across an intersection. Separates
bicycle movements from conficting
motor vehicle, streetcar, light rail, or
pedestrian movements. May be applicable
for Class IV facilities when the bikeway
is brought up to the intersection.

Cost $$$

N/A
Bicycle Signal/
Exclusive
Bike Phase
N/A
Bikeways
Bike detection is used at signalized
intersections, either through use of
push-buttons, in-pavement loops, or
by video or infrared cameras, to call
a green light for bicyclists and reduce
delay for bicycle travel. Discourages
red light running by bicyclists and
increases convenience of bicycling.

Cost $$

N/A
Bike Detection
N/A

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
135
Bikeways
Places a suggested bike lane within
the inside portion of a dedicated motor
vehicle turn lane. Lane markings delineate
space for bicyclists and motorists
within the same lane and indicate the
intended path for bicyclists to reduce
confict with turning motor vehicles.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

N/A
Mixing Zone
N/A
Bikeways
This roadway treatment provides bicyclists
with a means of safely making a left turn
at a multi-lane signalized intersection
from a bike lane or cycle track on the
far right side of the roadway. In this way,
bicyclists are protected from the flow of
traffic while waiting to turn. Usage could
be mirrored for right-turns from a one-
way street with a left-side bikeway.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

N/A
Two-Stage
Turn Queue
Bike Box
N/A
Bikeways
A sign placed on roads with lanes that
are too narrow to allow safe side-by-side
passing to indicate that bicyclists may
occupy the full lane. This discourages
unsafe passing by motorists.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

N/A
Bicycles
May Use Full
Lane Sign
N/A

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional Non-LRSM Countermeasures 136
Intersections & Roadways
Uses paint and bollards to extend the
curb and slow left turns at intersections
of one-way to one-way or two-way
streets. Widening the turning radii of
left-turning vehicles expands the feld
of vision for drivers and increases
the visibility of pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Left Turn
Enhanced
Daylighting/
Slow Turn
Wedge
Intersections & Roadways
A painted median with plastic posts
between the two directions of travel.

Reduces vehicular speeding and
discourages risky turning movements,
increasing pedestrian safety.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Paint and
Plastic Median
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=34
Intersections & Roadways
Mini circles use paint and soft hit posts
to replace stop-controlled intersections
with a circular design that slows trafc
and eliminates left turns, also reducing
confict points with pedestrians. Also
helps traffic flow more efficiently.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Paint and
Plastic Mini
Circle

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
137
Intersections & Roadways
A roadway treatment that restricts
through vehicle movements using
physical diversion while allowing
bicyclists and pedestrians to proceed
through an intersection in all directions.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Partial Closure/
Diverter
Other Reference Information
Evolution of the Protected Intersection, Alta
Planning and Design, December 2015. https://
altaplanning.com/wp-content/uploads/Evolution-
of-the-Protected-Intersection_AL TA-2015.pdf
Intersections & Roadways
Protected intersections use corner
islands, curb extensions, and colored
paint to delineate bicycle and pedestrian
movements across an intersection. Slower
driving speeds and shorter crossing
distance increase safety for pedestrians.

Separates bicycles from pedestrians
Cost $$$
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Protected
Intersection
Other Reference Information
Note: some studies in CMF Clearinghouse show an
increase in crashes. See additional source below
showing decrease. (1) Perkins+Will Consultant
T eam. “Pedestrians at Multi-Modal Intersections.”
Better Market Street Existing Conditions & Best
Practices, Part Two: Best Practices 36-58, City &
County of San Francisco, San Francisco. http://
www.bettermarketstreetsf.org/about-reports-
existing-conditions.html (2) Bhatt, Shailen, Natalie
Barnhart, Mark Luszcz, T om Meyer, & Michael
Sommers. “Delaware T rafifc Calming Design Manual.”
Delaware Department of T ransportation, State of
Delaware, Dover, DE. https://nacto.org/wp-content/
uploads/2015/04/DE-T rafc-Calming-Manual_2012.
pdf (3) King, Michael R, Jon A Carnegie, and Reid
Ewing. “Pedestrian Safety through a Raised Median
and Redesigned Intersections.” Journal of the
T ransportation Research Board 1828 (1), 56-66,
T ransportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
https://trid.trb.org/view/663867 (4) Fitzpatrick,
Kay, Mark D Wooldridge, and Joseph D Blaschke.
“Urban Intersection Design Guide: Volume 1–
Guidelines.” T exas T ransportation Institute, T exas
A&M University System, T exas Department of
T ransportation, Austin, TX. https://static.tti.tamu.
edu/tti.tamu.edu/documents/0-4365-P2.pdf
Intersections & Roadways
Elevates the intersection to bring vehicles
to the sidewalk level. Serves as a traffic
calming measure by extending the
sidewalk context across the road.

Cost $$$

Raised
Intersection

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional Non-LRSM Countermeasures 138
Intersections & Roadways
Straightening crosswalks improves
sight lines, making pedestrians more
visible to oncoming drivers, and
may shorten the crossing distance,
reducing the length of time required for
pedestrians to cross an intersection.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Straighten
Crosswalk
Other Reference Information
The CMF Clearinghouse has limited research
related to vehicle/pedestrian crashes. See
additional reference: FHWA Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=20
Other
Vehicles entering and exiting driveways
may confict with pedestrians and with
vehicles on the main road, especially at
driveways within 250 feet of intersections.

Closing driveways near intersections
with high collision rates related to
driveways may reduce potential conficts.

Cost $$

Access
Management/
Close Driveway
Other
Curbside management can better
prioritize reliable transit and safe
bicycling infrastructure, freight deliveries,
passenger pick-ups/drop-ofs,green
stormwater infrastructure, public
spaces, and parking management.

Cost $

Curbside
Management

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
139
Other
Far-side bus stops are located immediately
after an intersection, allowing the bus
to pass through the intersection before
stopping for passenger loading and
unloading. Far-side stops encourage
pedestrians to cross behind the
bus for greater visibility and can
improve transit service reliability.

Cost $

Far-Side
Bus Stop
Other Reference Information
TRB Study on Setting Speed Limits
Other
Setting speed limits to reflect the
surrounding context of the roadway and
that meet with driver expectations can
help improve driver respect for speed
limits. Speed limits that appear inconsistent
may be ignored by the majority of drivers
and this may contribute to lack of respect
for speed limit and other traffic laws.

Cost $

Speed Limit
Reduction
Other Reference Information
FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Other
Relocating or removing utility poles
from within the clear zone alleviates the
potential for fixed-object crashes. If utility
poles cannot be completely eliminated
from within the clear zone, efforts can be
made to either relocate the poles to a
greater offset from the road or delineated.

Cost $$

Relocate Select
Hazardous
Utility Poles

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional Non-LRSM Countermeasures 140
Other
Upgrading Lighting to LED replaces
high-pressure sodium light bulbs with
LED light bulbs in street lights. Upgrading
Lighting to LED improves safety by
increasing the visibility of pedestrians in
crosswalks through greater color contrast
and larger areas of light distribution.

Cost $$

Upgrade
Lighting to LED
Other
A red light camera enforces traffic signal
compliance by capturing the image of a
vehicle that has entered an intersection
in spite of the traffic signal indicating red.

The automatic photographic evidence
is used by authorities to enforce traffic
laws and issue traffic violation tickets.

Cost $$

Red Light
Camera
Other Reference Information
Audible Push Button Upgrade and Extended
Time Pushbutton: FHWA Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=52
Pedestrian Facilities
Push buttons must comply with the
Americans with Disability Act (ADA)
standards for accessibility. Pushbuttons
should be visible and conveniently
located for pedestrians waiting at
a crosswalk. Accessible pedestrian
signals, including audible push buttons,
improve access for pedestrians who
are blind or have low vision. DIB 82-06
includes accessibility design guidance.

Cost $

Audible
Push Button
Upgrade

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
141
Other Reference Information
Audible Push Button Upgrade and Extended
Time Pushbutton: FHWA Pedestrian Safety
Guide and Countermeasure Selection System.
http://www.pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/
countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=52
Pedestrian Facilities
A pushbutton that can be pressed to
request extra time for using the crosswalk,
beyond the standard crossing time.

Ideal near senior-serving land uses.

Cost $

Extended Time
Pushbutton
Pedestrian Facilities
Separating drivers from bicyclists and
pedestrians using landscaping provides
more space between the modes and
can produce a traffc calming effect by
encouraging drivers to drive at slower
speeds, lowering the risk of crashing.

Cost $$

Landscape
Buffer
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=11
Pedestrian Facilities
An intersection treatment that relies on
sensors to detect when a pedestrian is
waiting at a crosswalk and automatically
triggers the pedestrian “WALK” phase.

Reduces crossings at inappropriate
times and ensures that pedestrians have
enough time to safely cross the roadway.

Cost $$

Pedestrian
Detection

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional Non-LRSM Countermeasures 142
Pedestrian Facilities
Removes existing crossing prohibitions
and provides marked crosswalk
and other safety enhancements for
pedestrians to cross the street.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Remove
Crossing
Prohibition
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=3
Pedestrian Facilities
T actile warning devices must be
detectable to visually impaired
pedestrians. Curb ramps must follow
the DIB 82-06 design guidelines.

Cost $$

Upgrade
Curb Ramp
Signals
Flashing yellow turn arrow alerts drivers
to proceed with caution and decide if
there is a sufcient gap in oncoming trafc
to safely make a turn. T o be used only
when a pedestrian walk phase is not
called. Protected-only phases should be
used when pedestrians are present.

Cost $$

Flashing Y ellow
Turn Phase

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
143
Signals
Restricts left or right turns during
the pedestrian crossing phase at
locations where a turning vehicle
may confict with pedestrians in the
crosswalk. This restriction may be
displayed with a blank-out sign.

Cost $

Prohibit
Turns During
Pedestrian
Phase
Other Reference Information
Currently the CMF Clearinghouse does not include
specifc studies; however, permitting right-turns-
on-red shows an increase in ped/vehicle crashes.

Additional information is available at the FHWA
Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=49
Signals
Prohibiting right-run-on-red movements
should be considered at skewed
intersections, or where exclusive
pedestrian “WALK” phases, Leading
Pedestrian Intervals (LPIs), sight
distance issues, or high pedestrian
volumes are present. Can help prevent
crashes between vehicles turning
right on red from one street and
through vehicles on the cross street,
and crashes involving pedestrians.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Prohibit Right-
Turn-on-Red
Other Reference Information
(1) Evaluation of Pedestrian-Related Roadway
Measures, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information
Center, 2014. http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/
downloads/PedestrianLitReview_April2014.
pdf (2) FHWA Manual for Selecting Safety
Improvements on High Risk Rural Roads
Signals
Provides a green arrow phase for
right-turning vehicles. Avoids conficts
between right-turning traffic and
bicyclists or pedestrians crossing
the intersection on their right.

Cost $$$

Separate Right-
Turn Phasing

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional Non-LRSM Countermeasures 144
Other Reference Information
FHWA Pedestrian Safety Guide and Countermeasure
Selection System. http://www.pedbikesafe.org/
PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=45
Signals
Traffic signal cycle lengths have a
significant impact on the quality of the
urban realm and consequently, the
opportunities for bicyclists, pedestrians,
and transit vehicles to operate safely
along a corridor. Long signal cycles,
compounded over multiple intersections,
can make crossing a street or walking
even a short distance prohibitive and
frustrating. Short cycle lengths of 60–90
seconds are ideal for urban areas.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Shorten Cycle
Length
Signing & Striping
A raised pavement marker is a small
device attached to the road and used
as a positioning guide for drivers.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Painted
Centerline
and Raised
Pavement
Markers at
Curves on
Residential
Streets
Signing & Striping
Speed legends are numerals painted on
the roadway indicating the current speed
limit in miles per hour. They are usually
placed near speed limit signposts.

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Speed Legends
on Pavement at
Neighborhood
Entries

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
145
Signing & Striping
Restricts left-turns or right-turns during
certain time periods when there may
be increased potential for confict
(e.g., peak periods, school hours).

Cost $
Low Cost / Quick Build
alternative available

Time-Based
Turn Restriction
Signing & Striping
A network of signs that highlight
nearby pedestrian and bicycle facilities.

Can help to reduce crossings at
locations with poor sight distance or
limited crossing enhancements.

Cost $

Wayfinding
Non-Engineering: Better Data
Improve the accuracy, breadth, and
consistency of crash data by creating
a near-miss and unreported crash
database, developing a standardized
electronic reporting form for all crashes,
forming agreements with shared mobility
operators to acquire crash data, and/or
creating a multi-jurisdiction crash database
that can be updated by paramedics,
police, City staff, and hospitals.

Cost

Improve Crash
Data Collection

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional Non-LRSM Countermeasures 146
Non-Engineering: Education
Partner with local bike shops and other
partners to host events/fairs to educate
residents on bicycle safety. For example,
host rides to introduce residents
to new bicycle facilities as they are
opened; offer tune ups at safety fairs.

Cost

Bicycle Safety
Education
Events
Non-Engineering: Education
Launch targeted public education
campaigns for seniors, non-
English speaking populations,
or other vulnerable groups.

Cost

Education
Campaigns
for Vulnerable
Groups
Non-Engineering: Education
Implement pilot demonstration safety
projects. Projects can either be
implemented on a temporary basis
(tactical urbanism) or permanent basis
with room for modification (quick builds).

Cost

Pilot
Demonstration
Safety Projects

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
147
Non-Engineering: Maintenance
A smoothly paved surface free of debris
enhances safety for vehicles and bicyclists.

Cost

Keep
Roadways
Clear of Debris
Non-Engineering: Policies
and Programs
Update policies, standards, and guidelines
on topics such as signal timing, street
design, street lighting, complete
streets, and pedestrian crossings to
incorporate current best practices
and improve safety for all modes.

Cost

Update City
Policies and
Standards
Non-Engineering: Policies
and Programs
Develop a neighborhood slow zone
program to allow neighborhoods to
request treatments to slow motor
vehicles to 15 to 20 mph using traffic
calming features, signs, and markings.

Selected locations are typically in
areas serving children, seniors, public
transit users, commercial activity,
and pedestrian/bicycle activity.

Cost

Neighborhood
Slow Zones

Appendix B: Countermeasure Toolbox, Additional Non-LRSM Countermeasures 148
Non-Engineering: Policies
and Programs
When developing a program of targeted
enforcement and deterrence, use collision
history and corridors on the High Injury
Network as one criterion for where to
concentrate enforcement efforts. Add extra
patrols to look for distracted drivers as part
of a statewide distracted driving campaign,
with focus on where data indicates that
the most traffic safety benefit can be
realized. Implement deterrence policies
that are highly visible, such as publicized
sobriety checkpoints, saturation patrol, and
other forms of high visibility enforcement
that are effective for safety outcomes.

Cost

Targeted
Enforcement
and Deterrence

Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)
City Council Meeting
5/24/22
1 Page 497 of 690
Travel Safe Richmond

OVERVIEW OF ROADWAY SAFETY
Travel Safe Richmond is a two-pronged
approach to improving roadway safety
for all users
• Local Roadway Safety Plan
• Bike and Pedestrian Action Plan
2 Page 498 of 690
Agenda
• Overview of an LRSP
• State of Roadway Safety in Richmond
• Outreach
• Safety Vision for Richmond
• Collision Profiles
• Priority Corridors
3 Page 499 of 690
What is a Local
Road Safety
Plan (LRSP)?
• Crash data review
• Trend identification
• Countermeasure
selection
• Project development
4 Page 500 of 690
State of Roadway
Safety in Richmond
5 Page 501 of 690
Severity of
Collisions

SAFETY IN RICHMOND
• 142 collisions where
victims were killed or
severely injured
between 2015 and
2019
• On average, 6 people
are killed each year
142,
8%
1531,
92%
Fatal & Severe Collisions
All Other Injury Collisions6 Page 502 of 690
Injury Collisions By
Year

SAFETY IN RICHMOND
100
200
300
400
500
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number of Collisions
Vehicle Collisions Pedestrian Collisions Bicycle Collisions7 Page 503 of 690 Collisions by Mode
(2015-2019)

SAFETY IN RICHMOND
80%
7%
13%
All Injury Collisions
61%8%
30%
Fatal & Severe Collisions
 Vehicle Collisions
 Bicycle Collisions
 Pedestrian Collisions
8 Page 504 of 690
9 Page 505 of 690
Outreach
Community workshops
Stakeholder meetings
Interactive Webmap
Draft Plan review
Source: City of Richmond
10 Page 506 of 690
“Traffic safety impacts the health and
comfort of all those who live and
travel in the City of Richmond. The
implementation of this plan is a step
towards making the transportation
system safer and more equitable for
users of all transportation modes.”Vision Statement
11 Page 507 of 690
Goals

VISION STATEMENT AND GOALS
Reduce fatal and serious injury collisions, particularly those involving people walking and biking.

Reducing Collisions
Ensure equitable traffic safety investments in neighborhoods needing them most.

Equity
Enhance roadway crossings, especially near schools and other high pedestrian activity areas, to promote and support safe travel for people walking and biking.

Crossings
Improve the visibility of roadway and sidewalk users traveling at night.

Nighttime Visibility
Encourage safe driving practices (such as driving at lower speeds, obeying railroad crossing controls, and avoiding driving under the influence) through roadway design and outreach.

Safe Speeds, DUI
Prevention
Invest in the next generation of people in Richmond through climate-resilient transportation safety infrastructure, particularly near schools and in neighborhoods.

Climate Resiliency
Improve post-crash care through increased multi-jurisdictional collaboration and appropriate emergency vehicle access.

Post-Crash Care
12 Page 508 of 690
Unsafe Speeds

COLLISION PROFILE
• Trend: KSI collisions involving
speeding vehicles hitting fixed
objects mid-block
• Trend: speeding resulting in non-
severe rear ends at/near
intersections
• Countermeasures: road diet, traffic
calming
25%
of bicycle KSI
collisions
26%
of vehicle KSI
collisions
13 Page 509 of 690
Driving Under the
Influence

COLLISION PROFILE
• Trend: KSI collisions involving
drivers under the influence
hitting fixed objects/parked
cars or driving the wrong way
• Countermeasures: rumble
strips, targeted outreach
16%
of pedestrian
KSI collisions
14%
of vehicle KSI
collisions
14 Page 510 of 690
15-24 Age Group

COLLISION PROFILE
19%
of pedestrian
KSI victims
23%
of driver or
passenger KSI
victims
• Trend: 15-24 year olds (13% of
population) are the most
overrepresented age group in KSI
collisions
• Trend: 15-24 year olds are more
likely to be involved in collisions
involving vehicle right of way
violations and DUIs
• Countermeasures: targeted
education15 Page 511 of 690
Stop Sign Violations

COLLISION PROFILE
• Trend: bicycle collisions and KSI
vehicle collisions involving stop
sign violations at two-way stop-
controlled intersections
• Countermeasures: All-way stop,
advanced stop bars
13%
of bicycle
collisions (all)
14%
of vehicle KSI
collisions
16 Page 512 of 690
Left Turns at Signals

COLLISION PROFILE
• Trend: left-turning vehicles
striking pedestrians or other
vehicles at signalized
intersections
• Protected left-turn phase, left-
turn calming, high visibility
crosswalks
11%
of pedestrian
collisions (all)
7%
of vehicle KSI
collisions
17 Page 513 of 690
Pedestrian ROW
Violations at
Uncontrolled Crossings

COLLISION PROFILE
• Trend: KSI collisions involving
vehicles violating pedestrian
right-of-way at uncontrolled
crossings (two-way stop-
controlled intersections and
mid-block crossings)
• Enhanced crosswalks, beacons,
curb extensions, median refuge
21%
of pedestrian
KSI collisions
18 Page 514 of 690
Pedestrians Crossing
Outside of Legal
Crossings

COLLISION PROFILE
• Trend: KSI collisions involving
pedestrians crossing outside of
legal crossings (mid-block or at
prohibited intersection
crossings)
• 38% of these collisions occurred
within one block of a bus stop
• Countermeasures: new
midblock crossings, pedestrian
barricades
13%
of pedestrian
KSI collisions
19 Page 515 of 690
17%
of bicycle KSI
collisions
Contraflow Bike
Riding

COLLISION PROFILE
• Trend: bicyclists traveling in the
opposite direction of vehicle
traffic where there are no
dedicated bicycle facilities
• Bike facilities
20 Page 516 of 690
Emphasis Areas
Locations:
• 23rd Street north of Grant Avenue
• 23rd Street and 22nd Street Couplet
• Barrett Avenue from Harbour Way to 24th Street
• Cutting Boulevard from Hoffman Boulevard to Carlson Boulevard 21 Page 517 of 690
22 Page 518 of 690
Emphasis Areas
Countermeasures:
• Road diet
• Bicycle facilities
• Enhanced crossings
• Traffic calming
• Protected left-turn phasing
23 Page 519 of 690
Next Steps
Next Steps:
• Adopt LRSP – June/July 2022
• Apply for HSIP funding for near-term projects – September 2022 • Implement LRSP strategies with all roadway projects - ongoing 24 Page 520 of 690

May 24, 2022

Mayor's Office

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Tom Butt

Subject:

Street Sweeping
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed policy direction will require budget appropriations for signs, enforcement staff, and possibly street sweeping equipment.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

The City Council has been struggling with this subject for over 20 years, most recently April 19, 2022.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Recent research has found that road dust is a significant source of PM2.5 pollution in Richmond and poses a major risk to both public health and health of San Francisco
Bay
RECOMMENDED ACTION: DIRECT the city manager to incorporate into the 2022-23 budget funding to provide: new street sweeping signage
in neighborhoods that have not previously been signed;
repairs/replace existing deteriorated signage in
neighborhoods that have previously been signed;
sufficient staff and equipment to perform scheduled street sweeping operations in all neighborhoods; sufficient
enforcement staff to issue citations for vehicles not
moved on designated street sweeping days and times.

AUTHORIZE vehicle towing operations in areas where
citations have not provided sufficient motivation for
residents to move vehicles – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom
Butt 510-620-6503).

AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022

DISCUSSION:

In the last 20 years, the Richmond City Council has continued to waffle over street cleaning policy, pondering whether moving vehicles on sweeping days should be mandatory or voluntary. Most of the City’s neighborhoods have been signed for years with violators at least threatened with citations and/or towing.

There is a clear resentment from neighborhoods that have embraced street sweeping against those neighborhoods that have arm wrestled certain City Council members to exempt them from mandatory compliance for moving vehicles on street sweeping days, Although there are at least two neighborhoods without signs (Richmore Village and Carriage Hills South) that appear to generally respect the requirement to move vehicles, there are only two other neighborhoods (Richmond Annex and Annex Panhandle) that are generally not in compliance and continue to resist signs and citations.

Whether street sweeping is legally required, and further, whether signs and citations are legally required by regulatory agencies enforcing the Clean Water Act remains murky.

What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that street sweeping is a critical component of improving human health and keeping pollutants out of creeks and San Francisco Bay. Among the best practices of an effective streety sweeping program is the motivation provided by signs and citations to move vehicles on sweeping days.

It is ironic that members of the City Council who hold themselves up as protectors of the environment are leading the charge to make vehicle removal on sweeping days voluntary, reducing the effectiveness of the program, increasing pollution of waterways and San Francisco Bay and posing a significant human health hazard, all to simply cater to the convenience of residents in a few selected neighborhoods.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Street Sweeping in Richmond, May 15, 2022

Street Sweeping in Richmond

Mayor Tom Butt
May 15, 2022

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 2 of 39

Contents
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Why Sweep Richmond Streets? .................................................................................................................... 3 History of Street Sweeping in Richmond .................................................................................................... 10 A Regulatory Issue ................................................................................................................................... 10 Street Sweeping Begins in 2000 .............................................................................................................. 11 The Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Complain .......................................................................... 12 Panhandle Annex Signs Removed ........................................................................................................... 13 Citywide Neighborhood Votes on Street Sweeping ................................................................................ 14 Three Neighborhoods Approved for Voluntary Program ....................................................................... 15 The 2009 Permit ...................................................................................................................................... 16 The 2015 Permit ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Proposed 2020 Street Sign Installation Reignites Controversy .............................................................. 17 City Council Halts Signs and Citations ..................................................................................................... 31 Inaction 2020-2022 ................................................................................................................................. 32 Human Health, Road Dust, Coho Salmon and Street Sweeping ............................................................. 33 General Plan 2030 ................................................................................................................................... 37 Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 38

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 3 of 39

Executive Summary
For over twenty years, the Richmond City Council has struggled with polices related to street sweeping, mostly whether moving parked vehicles on sweeping days should be voluntary or mandatory.

Mandatory parked vehicle moving, with signs and citations, has been the practice in most of the city for years with apparent acceptance and effectiveness.

The most visible holdouts have been the Richmond Annex and Annex Panhandle neighborhoods (home of Councilmembers McLaughlin and Martinez), which have once again flexed their political muscles to keep signs and citations out of their neighborhoods. They insist that voluntary compliance has been effective or will be with the use of additional notification strategies, although the historical evidence suggests otherwise.

Ultimately, street sweeping is most importantly about reducing significant human health hazards and reduction of pollutants in waterways and San Francisco Bay. Will the environment win, or will the convenience of residents prevail?
Why Sweep Richmond Streets?
Street sweeping has been a contentious subject in Richmond for decades, and Richmond is not alone.

Streets are swept for two primary reasons (1) remove visible trash and improve the appearance of the neighborhood, and (2) remove stormwater pollutants before they drain into creeks and then San Francisco Bay. The latter is prohibited by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (1972).1 The State of California also regulates pollutants in stormwater via the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne)(California Water Code (Wat. Code§ 13000 et seq.) In 1969, the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -Cologne) (California Water Code (Wat. Code§ 13000 et seq.) was adopted as the principal law governing water quality in California.

Porter-Cologne institutes a comprehensive program to protect the quality and “beneficial uses”(or “designated uses” under federal parlance) of the state’s water bodies. Beneficial uses include, but are not limited to, “domestic, municipal, agricultural, and industrial supply; power generation; recreation; aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; and preservation and enhancement of fish, wildlife , and other aquatic resources or preserves” (Wat. Code §13050, subd. (f)). Regulatory protection of beneficial uses is carried out, in part, through water quality objectives established in each regional water quality control plan (basin plan) (Wat. Code § 13241). Under Porter -Cologne, the regional water quality control boards (regional water boards) adopt basin plans in which they designate the beneficial uses of the waters of the region and establish water quality objectives to protect those beneficial uses. Basin plans are required to include a plan of implementation to ensure that waters achieve the water quality objectives.2

1 The official text of the CWA continues to be available in the United States Code from the US Government Printing Office
2 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/docs/01_final_sed.pdf , page 3

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 4 of 39

Many pollutants are liquids or fine particles that are not readily visible, including mercury, PCBs, furans, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, selenium, copper, zinc, microplastics3 and 6PPD, which is essentially a preservative to keep car tires from breaking down too quickly.4,5 The term pollutant is defined in CWA section 502(6) and defines pollutant very broadly and includes any type of industrial, municipal, or agricultural waste (including heat) discharged in to water. For regulatory purposes, pollutants are grouped into three categories: conventional, toxic, and nonconventional.
• Conventional pollutants are those defined in CWA section 304(a)(4) and include Biological Oxygen Demand, Total Suspended Solids, fecal coliform, pH, and oil and grease. • Toxic (priority) pollutants are those defined in CWA section 307(a)(1) and include 126 metals and manmade organic compounds.
• Nonconventional pollutants are those that do not fall under either of the above categories (conventional or toxic pollutants) and include parameters such as chlorine, ammonia, nitrogen, phosphorus, chemical oxygen demand (COD), and whole effluent toxicity (WET). 6 In 2005, the Richmond Public Services Department wrote:

Street sweeping is one of the most visible aspects of the Public Services Department for the citizens and the traveling public. Clean streets and gutters not only give the city an overall clean appearance, but aids in helping reduce traffic accidents and pollution in our byways and waterways. Street Sweeping is an important part of the wo rk done by the City’s Public Services Department. These efforts are vital in maintaining compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions of the Clean Water Act. Under these provisions the Environmental Protection Age ncy (EPA) in coordination with the state, the regulated community, and the public, implements and conducts oversight of the NPDES permit. The permit provisions are designed to control point sources of pollution within the city. Since its introduction in 1972, the NPDES permit program is responsible for significant improvements to water quality. 7 In order to effectively clean streets, street sweepers must be able to clean the gutters where pollutants collect, pushed by gravity, wind and water. It is pretty well demonstrated that voluntary vehicle moving on street sweeping days, at least in Richmond, does not work. People are, however, more motivated by citations and fines, and the law requires a sign in order for the police to cite. The size of the sign is not discretionary; it is dictated by the California Vehicle Code.

The Environmental Protection Agency notes:

Street sweeping services are provided by either municipal or contracted personnel. The overall effectiveness of a street cleaning program is primarily a function of the frequency and regularity of the cleanings. The frequency of street sweeping is determined by need, the number of miles to be served, and local budget constraints. Other factors for consideration include climatic conditions (e.g. rainfall frequency and season), the size of particles captured by the cleaning, and

3 https://www.sfei.org/projects/microplastics
4 https://www.sfei.org/news/toxic-tire-contaminant-found-bay-area-stormwater#sthash.a0JfZluh.dpbs 5 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6525/185.abstract 6 https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters 7 Street Sweeping Update, March 25, 2005, http://www.tombutt.com/forum/2005/050325.htm

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 5 of 39

street-parking regulations. Because parked cars prohibit the streetcleaner from removing curbside litter, enforcement of parking regulations is essential.8

One of the disputes about street sweeping is whether it is mandatory, and if so, by whom, and what the penalties are for not sweeping or not sweeping effectively.

See the summary from “San Francisco Stormwater Permit9” below. Permittees, including the City of Richmond, are required to “implement trash controls in all areas, except 'Low' trash generating areas, using a combination of trash capture devices and institutional controls.10” Much of Richmond, falls into the Medium (yellow) or high (red) trash generation categories.

Figure 1 - Bay Area Trash Generation by Area (San Francisco Bay Stormwater Permit (California))

8 United States Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water, Washington, D.C.EPA 832-F-99-038September 1999Combined Sewer Overflow Management Fact Sheet Pollution Prevention, https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/pollutna.pdfal
9 https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters 10 “institutional controls,” includes street sweeping

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 6 of 39

Goal: 0% trash by 2022
Area: 2,576 Square Miles
Population: 7 million people
Baseline trash load: ~1.3 - 2.5 million pounds per year Links: 2009 Municipal Regional Permit (PDF) | 2015 Municipal Regional Permit Exit In the San Francisco Bay Area, portions of the Bay and most of its tributaries had been 303(d) listed for trash. Rather than establishing individual TMDLs, in 2009 trash provisions were included in the Phase 1 Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit, which covers 76 MS4 permittees. Using land use data, areas were categorized into 'Low' 'Medium', 'High' and 'Very High' trash generating areas on the basis of gallons of trash produced (for example, Medium Trash Generation areas produce 5-10 gallons/acre/year). Permittees are required to implement trash controls in all areas, except 'Low' trash generating areas, using a combination of trash capture devices and institutional controls.

The permit requires at least 5,700 acres to be treated by full capture devices. By 2015, over 25,000 acres were covered by these systems, demonstrating that trash capture can be an effective solution. A unique feature of this permit is a 'hotspots' requirement that applies to creek or shoreline areas with the most trash. Each permittee must identify one 'hotspot' for every 30,000 residents and do at least one cleanup of each hotspot every year. Hotspot cleanups are particularly effective in removing trash from non-point sources such as illegal dumping. In addition, permittees may claim percentage reductions for reducing the sources of trash through measures like street-sweeping.

Below is the California Statewide Trash Policy:11

11 https://www.epa.gov/trash-free-waters/clean-water-act-and-trash-free-waters

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 7 of 39

Figure 2 - California Statewide Trash Policy
Goal: 0% trash by 2030
Area: 164,000 square miles
Population: 39 million people
Baseline trash load: Unknown
Links: Policy Document | Video Exit
Statewide, 73 water bodies are listed for trash or debris impairments. Based on lessons learned in Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area, California adopted a statewide policy to address trash uniformly in areas without trash TMDLs and/ or permits. The policy establishes a narrative water quality standard for trash that applies to all state waters and requires all stormwater permits to be modified or reissued to include trash provisions. Stormwater permittees, like cities and counties, will create a trash implementation plan to reach zero trash within 10 years of the newly adopted permits, but no later than 2030.

Each plan must address high trash-generating areas such as 1) high-density residential areas (10+ dwelling/acre), 2) industrial and commercially-zoned land, 3) mixed urban, 4) public transit corridors, 5) on- and off- ramps in high trash areas, and 6) rest areas and park-and-rides. The policy will apply to approximately 17,000 permittees and will require treatment and control of trash for more than 600 square miles. Compliance may be demonstrated through either 1) use of trash capture devices on an entire stormwater system, or 2) some combination of trash capture devices and institutional controls like

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 8 of 39

street sweeping, sufficient to reach reductions equivalent to full capture. The policy also allows local regulators the option to require trash controls for non-point sources of trash, such as heavily used campgrounds, picnic areas, beaches and marinas. This approach is more efficient since it doesn't require a TMDL for each water body, which can be time consuming and expensive. It does require immediate action for controlling stormwater sources of trash, which are the main transport pathway.

The San Francisco Bay Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit does not have prescriptive language that requires street sweeping, except for corporation yards and construction sites. Rather, the trash-related receiving water limitations identified in the San Francisco Bay MRP do not place numeric targets on trash but uses the 2009 permit required that permittees reduce trash from their storm sewer systems by 40 percent by July 1, 2014.12
The 2015, Final Staff Report Including the Substitute Environmental Documentation Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan for the Ocean Waters of California to Control Trash and Part 1 Trash Provisions of the Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California had recommendations for a future permit that included references to street sweeping:

Require the sole use of institutional controls. In this option, NPDES storm water permits would contain requirements that permittees comply with the prohibition of discharge through the sole use of institutional controls (such as street sweeping, clean-up events, education programs, additional public trash cans and increased collection frequency expanded recycling and composting efforts, and adoption of regulatory source controls). This option would meet the goal of preventing trash from entering state waters and provide statewide consistency. However, permittees should have flexibility to determine the most effective means of controlling trash because of particular conditions of sites, types of trash, and the resources available for maintenance and operation. Therefore, this approach is not recommended

5.2.2 Street Sweeping An institutional control that would likely to be used for compliance with the final Trash Amendments would be continuation of or increasing street sweeping. Street sweeping minimizes trash loading to storm drain systems and water bodies by removing trash from streets and curbs. Maintaining a regular street sweeping schedule reduces the buildup of trash on streets and prevents trash from entering catch basins and the storm drain system.

Street sweeping can also improve the appearance of roadways and urban ar eas. There are three types of street sweepers expected to be utilized for compliance with the final Trash Amendments: mechanical, vacuum filter, and regenerative air sweepers (U.S. EPA2012b).

• Mechanical sweepers use a broom to remove particles from the st reet curb and a water spray to control dust. The removed particles are carried by a cylindrical broom to a conveyor belt and into a storage hopper (Federal Highway Administration 2012). • Vacuum-assisted sweepers also use brooms to remove particles. The removed particles, however, are saturated with water and transported by a vacuum intake to the hopper.

Vacuum-assisted dry sweepers use a specialized brush that allows the vacuum system to recover almost all particulate matter. A continuous filtration system p revents very fine

12 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/docs/01_final_sed.pdf , page 8

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 9 of 39

particulate matter from leaving the hopper and trailing on the street behind the sweeper (Federal Highway Administration 2012).
• Regenerative air sweepers blow air onto the pavement and immediately vacuum it back to entrain and capture accumulated sediments. A dust separation system regenerates air for blowing back onto the pavement (Federal Highway Administration 2012).

No definitive independent studies have yet been staged to determine the best sweeping system (U.S. EPA2012b). It is expected, however, that local agencies may use a combination of types of street sweeper to maximize efficiency (CASQA 2003a). In the Los Angeles Region, use of certain sweeper types is dictated by South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1186, whic h requires local agencies to acquire or use only respirable particulate matter certified sweepers beginning January 1, 2000. Furthermore, Rule 1186.1 requires local agencies to acquire alternative fuel or less polluting street sweepers beginning July 1, 20 02 (South Coast Air Quality Management District 2006).

Increasing the frequency of street sweeping in areas with high traffic volume and trash accumulation would further reduce trash loading to the waterways. Increases in street sweeping are expected before the rainy season begins. A successful street sweeping program would be expected to include accurate recordkeeping of curb-miles swept, proper storage and disposal of street sweepings, regular equipment maintenance, and parking policies that restrict parking in problematic areas and notify residents of sweeping schedules (CASQA 2003a).

Using modern and efficient street sweepers may reduce the need for other structural storm water controls and may prove to be more cost-effective than certain structural controls, especially in more urbanized areas with greater areas of pavement (U.S. EPA2012b). 13

In summary, there appears to be no prescriptive order for street sweeping in Richmond, but a street sweeping program has been adopted as an effort to comply with the trash reduction goals of the regional permit.

Richmond, however, is not the only city struggling to meet trash reduction goals.

Oakland isn’t the only city struggling to comply with the regulations, which apply to the labyrinth of curbside drains, gutters, underground concrete channels, pipes and catch basins that take water off city streets and direct it toward the sea.

Last July, 26 of the 70 cities and other municipalities in Alameda, Contra Costa, Santa Clara, San Mateo and Solano counties fell short of the reduction target, which was then 60 percent.

Oakland had cut its output 44.6 percent by last year. Collectively, the Bay Area had achieved a 50 percent reduction compared with 2009 — the equivalent of a million gallons of trash.

The goals were set eight years ago after the water quality board required local agencies to measure the garbage flowing from storm drains. Regulators were concerned about the 2 million gallons of trash found bobbing in Bay Area waterways, about half of it plastic groc ery bags, candy wrappers, lids, straws and chip bags.

For each city, compliance is calculated by measuring how much detritus local cleanup programs pull off the streets or out of the drains. More weight is given to the most effective measures, like

13 https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/trash_control/docs/01_final_sed.pdf , pages 97-98

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 10 of 39

installing hydrodynamic separators, which capture all garbage flowing down a drain. The amounts cleaned are subtracted from the 2009 baseline.

The crackdown is important, conservationists say, because the waste leaches toxins, flows into the bay and winds up in the ocean, where the plastic breaks down into tiny pieces that are ingested by marine mammals, fish and birds.

It was an indifferent attitude about litter, experts say, that created the enormous floating garbage patch in the North Pacific, a stew that marine biologists consider an ecosystem catastrophe.

In Oakland, where 8,000 storm drain inlets dump into a myriad of creeks, channels and the Oakland Estuary, one of the trashiest waterways is Damon Slough near the Coliseum complex.

The muddy banks were strewn last week with aerosol cans, juice bags, hypodermic needles, straws, tennis balls, liquor bottles, candy wrappers and numerous plastic bags.

“All of the trash in here is from storm drains at the Coliseum or wind blown from the parking lot,” said David Lewis, executive director of the nonprofit Save the Bay, as he stood next to the foul - smelling slough. “There are five or six creeks that all empty into this area here. It is the pathway, the water column, and it circulates all over.”

The stepped-up mandate this year is likely to trip up at least as many cities and agencies as last year, including San Jose, Richmond, Vallejo, San Leandro and Berkeley. 14

History of Street Sweeping in Richmond
A Regulatory Issue
Street sweeping became a regulatory issue in Richmond in 1999 with the issuance of California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Order No. 99-058, NPDES Permit No. CA0029912 for Contra Costa cities and county, including the City of Richmond.

The permit required implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) to “reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable.”15 In the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater Management Plan, 1999-2004, which implements Order No. 99-058, NPDES Permit No. CA0029912, street sweeping is listed as one of “The following activities will be conducted during the next five-year period.” Performance standards included four pages of detailed requirements, including:16
• MUNI-8: Each agency will discourage allowing residents to “opt out” of its street sweeping program. • MUNI-16: Each agency will take appropriate measures to keep curbed areas clear during street sweeping.

Measures may include but are not limited to posting “no stopping,” “no parking,” assigns in business

14 Oakland targeted in Bid to Cut Trash Flow into SF Bay, May 31, 2017, https://savesfbay.org/oakland-targeted-in- bid-to-cut-trash-flow-into-sf-bay
15 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region Order No. 99-058, NPDES Permit No.

CA0029912, page 9
16 Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater Management Plan, 1999-2004, Table5.1, pages 1-4

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 11 of 39

districts, near large apartment complexes, etc., posting street sweeping signs on streets where appropriate, and, distributing newsletters and other public education materials notifying residents and business es of street sweeping schedules.

In order to be in compliance, the Richmond Public Works Department ramped up street sweeping, ordering two new sweepers and increasing sweeping to twice a month in six neighborhoods.17 Street Sweeping Begins in 2000
On April 28, 2000, Assistant City Manager Leveron Bryant, provided a memo to Isiah Turner, City Manager, summarizing progress on street sweeping to begin on May 15, 2000, beginning with North Richmond, Santa Fe, Belding Woods, Coronado, Cortez/Stege and Pullman. The service was to be expanded to include “twice-per-month sweeping…to include all neighborhood council areas,” “The Hilltop/Fairmede, Richmond Annex, Parchester and Carriage Hills neighborhood council areas will be targeted for September 2000”18
The plan called for installation of signs, and citations after a 30-day grace period.19 The Office of Neighborhood Services initiated a comprehensive public education program at the beginning of 2001 with a presentation to the City Council.20 The public education program included:21 • Present street sweeping plan/schedules at 39 neighborhood council meetings • Present street sweeping plan/schedules at Richmond Coordinating Council meetings • Police cadets will distribute fliers to homes, libraries • Seek placement of notices in Richmond Sanitary billings • Place feature story in neighborhood newsletters
• Send news releases to the press and neighborhood newsletter editors • Mail community notices in advance of sign posting (English, Spanish and Laotian) • 3-minute video will illustrate streets being swept with and without parked vehicles, to be shown at community meetings and KCRT
• KCRT interview with Isiah Turner and Ray Lambert
On March 16, 2001, City Council members were provided a packet of meeting notices.22 The initial contract for sign installation was awarded to Bay Hawk, Inc. on December 10, 2001, with a Notice to Proceed on January 9, 2002.

On September 5, 2001, officers of the Panhandle Neighborhood Council wrote to Richmond City Council members with several criticism of the program, including:

17 Memo dated October 19, 1999, from Arlanders Etheley, Public Works Superintendent to Mayor and Councilmembers
18 Memo, April 28, 2000, Assistant City Manager Leveron Bryant, to Isiah Turner, City Manager 19 ibid
20 Public Services Street Sweeping, Street Sweeping Awareness Program, presented by Raymond Lambert, February 13, 2001.
21 Study Session, City Council meeting of February 23, 2001 22 Memo dated March 16, 2001, “Town hall Meetings re: Street Sweeping – Information Only,” from Leveron Bryant to Mayor and City Council

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 12 of 39

• Not coordinating with garbage pickup
• Sweeping both sides of streets on the same day, making parking compliance difficult The group noted:

Finally, the City Council must have the will to devise a plan to have cars ticketed that do not observe the street sweeping signs. Citing cars that fail to follow this ordnance is simply a part of city life that has been ignored in Richmond for far too long. Perhaps the revenue from the tickets could be put back in the street sweeping program.

The Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Complain
On May 2, 2002, the same group of Panhandle Neighborhood Council officers complained again about sweeping both sides of streets on the same day and failure to coordinate garbage pickup with street sweeping.23
On June 6, 2002, the City of Richmond distributed additional educational materials, including the advice, “Your neighborhood council area is scheduled for posted street sweeping signs in the near future. You will be notified via your neighborhood council meeting, newsletter and the City web site.” By July of 2002, Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex residents were beginning to revolt, writing letters objecting to signs as “ugly,” complaining that there was insufficient parking available to allow moving of cars, questioning the regulatory basis and advocating for a voluntary program like that in El Cerrito.

On June 17, 2002, Raymond lambert wrote to Jeff Jones, President of the Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council, clarifying the regulatory and statutory basis for signs and ticketing:24 The street sweeping sign installation program is part of the City of Richmond’s Joint Municipal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). Our Storm Water Permit is CA0029912, Order No. 93-105.

Street Sweeping is a NPDES Program under Section 22507.6 of the California Vehicle Code, which states:
22507.6. Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the parking or standing of vehicles on designated streets or highways, or portions thereof, for the purpose of street sweeping. No ordinance or resolution relating to the parking or standing of commercial vehicles in a residential district shall be effective with respect to any commercial vehicle making pickups or deliveries of goods, wares, or merchandise from or to any building or structure located on the restricted street or highway, or for the purpose of delivering materials to be used in the repair, alteration, remodeling, or reconstruction of any building or structure for which a building permit has previously been obtained. No such ordinance or resolution shall be effective until the street or highway, or portion thereof, has been sign-posted in accordance with the uniform standards and specifications of the Department of Trans portation, or local authorities have caused to be posted in a conspicuous place at each entrance to the street a notice not less than 17 inches by 22 inches in size, with lettering not less than one inch in height, setting forth

23 Letter dated May 2, 22002, from seven Panhandle Neighborhood Council officers to Rich McCoy 24 Letter dated June 17, 2002, from Raymond lambert to Jeff Jones, President, Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 13 of 39

the day or days and hours parking is prohibited. As used in this section, “entrance” means the intersection of any street or streets comprising an area of restricted parking for street -sweeping purposes on the same day or days and hours with another street or highway not subject to such a parking restriction, or subject to parking restrictions on different days and hours. (Amended by Stats. 1982, Ch. 466, Sec. 115.)

On June 24, 2002, 16 Richmond Annex residents submitted a petition against street sweeping signs.

With political pressure building from the Richmond Annex, the City Council on July 16, 2002, approved a 90-day moratorium on street sweeping signs. I was the only member opposing.25 The matter came up again at the September 10, 2002 City Council meeting. Following a failure to adopt a motion the item was continued for two weeks.26
On September 18, 2002, Jeff Jones, Richmond Annex Neighborhood Council President wrote Mayor Anderson and the City Council opposing the street sweeping sign program and advocating the El Cerrito voluntary program.

On September 21 through September 24, 2002. City Council members received multiple letters from Richmond Annex residents protesting street sweeping signs.

On September 24, 2002, the City Council took up the issue again, approving a voluntary street sweeping program for the entire city and no tickets for one year with the results to be evaluated in six months.27 Panhandle Annex Signs Removed
At the same meeting, the City Council voted to remove the street sweeping signs already installed in the Richmond Annex.28,29
On September 26, 2002, City Manager Isiah Turner directed Director of Public Services Rich McCoy to implement a voluntary street sweeping program.

On October 8, 2002, Councilmember Penn placed an item on the Agenda to “Consider the Matter of a Comprehensive Street Sweeping Program for the City of Richmond.” Penn was concerned that the Council has adopted a citywide program change without input from anyone outside the Richmond Annex.

There were many speakers concerned about a city-wide voluntary program. The Council did not take a vote, but City Manager Isiah Turner committed to present the Council with a plan for consideration in two weeks.30

25 Summary of City Council Actions Regarding Street Sweeping 26 ibid
27 Resolution 127-02
28 Ibid
29 Resolution 128-02
30 City Council Minutes of October 8, 2002.

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 14 of 39

On October 22, 2002, the Council considered a “Proposed Citywide Street Sweeping Program” that had both mandatory and voluntary options. The mandatory option had signs and full enforcement. The voluntary option had no signs and no enforcement.

Citywide Neighborhood Votes on Street Sweeping
In order to qualify for the voluntary option, a neighborhood had to show 2/3 consent and require 80% compliance, based on warning citations issues. There was to be a one-year monitoring period.31 The item passed on a 7-2 vote.32
The residents of every neighborhood were polled as to which option they wanted, and the results were presented to the Public Safety Committee on June 12, 2003. Option1, mandatory installation of signs and full enforcement was the default and did not require return of ballots. Option 2, voluntary with no signs and no enforcement required a 2/3 vote. 40,885 ballots were mailed, and 1,386 returned. Carriage Hills South was the only neighborhood that qualified for Option 2, the volunteer program. However, the Committee recommended making an exception and adding Richmore Village and the Richmond Annex to the voluntary program.33
On March 23, 2003, I wrote in my E-FORUM:34
A Clean Sweep?
I have forwarded all comments received in response to the March 9, 2003, E -FORUM “Street Sweeping Ballot Hits the Streets.” to the Richmond Public Services Department. Meanwhile, I have attempted to craft a general response to those who have offered their opinions and to propose some program guidelines and policy modifications that may render the overall program palatable to a majority of residents.

The recently circulated ballot generated a lot of criticism, and it probably would have been wise to have run it up the flagpole before mailing it. However, the program appears to be salvageable with some changes. Here are my comments and suggestions:

NEIGHBORHOOD STREET CLEANING AND VOLUNTARY PARKING MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Some citizens and neighborhood groups have maintained that their streets are not dirty enough to require sweeping or that the neighbors, themselves, keep the streets clean The cleanliness of a street may be more perception than fact. Everyone knows what a trashy street looks like, but the most damaging pollutants that originate on streets are those not readily observable, including such things as tire dust, brake dust and oil drippings from vehicles. One study claims that each tire loses about 6 pounds of rubber each year. Richmond has about 35,000 households, and if each household had only one vehicle that loses half its rubber in Richmond, that would produce 420,000 pounds of rubber annually that ends up in San Francisco Bay. This is known as “non -point source” (NPS) pollution, but when the runoff carrying it enters a storm drain system, it eventually becomes a “point source” that is regulated by the Federal Clean Water Act and Richmond’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program.

31 Agenda Report and attachments, October 22, 2002,
32 City Council Minutes, October 22, 2002.
33 Staff Report for June 12, 2003, Public Safety Committee meeting 34 http://www.tombutt.com/forum/2003/030323b.htm

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 15 of 39

Citizens have legitimate concerns about many inconveniences related to a street sweeping programs, but we have to remember that, in the end, it's not about aesthetics, parking, or personal convenience; it's about the environment. If a voluntary parking management plan can achieve the same resul ts as a mandatory one, then the objective is achieved. If not, then some neighborhoods may have opted for environmental degradation while others make the required sacrifices.

The administration’s benchmark of 80 percent compliance to maintain a voluntary p arking management program seems reasonable.

ELECTION
The requirement for a 2/3 “protest” vote to opt out of mandatory parking management seems excessive. I recommend that it be reduced to 51 per cent. This is consistent with state law relating to the establishment of a benefit district, and it was the method used to ballot Richmond’s wastewater rate increases. There were many complaints about the appearance of the ballot -- how it resembled junk mail -- about the effectiveness of the distribution, and so forth. Sure, perhaps it could have been done better, but those neighborhoods that have strong feelings on the subject are well -organized and can probably compensate for any shortcomings through outreach, activism and community organizations. It doesn't make sense to me to go through the time and expense of doing it all over again at this point.

SIGNS
The administration’s program for small signs on neighborhood streets and larger signs on arterials seems reasonable, as does the plan to utilize existing utility or other poles for mounting. If three signs per block on each side of the street is not a legal requirement for enforcement, then a reduction to two signs, one near each end of the block, would seem reasonable where residents appear to be offended by the signs.

SWEEPING LOGISTICS
Streets in neighborhoods with any significant level of on-street parking should be swept on alternate days for each side of the street. In some neighborhoods, parking flexibility to sweep both sides of the street simultaneously simply doesn't exist. In others, such as some of the newer El Sobrante Valley developments, this will probably not be a problem.

Also, in older neighborhoods with dense on-street parking, sweeping should take place only between the hours of 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM, preferably within a four-hour block. This is a pattern used by many cities, and it seems to work well. This is a period when the maximum number of people will be at work, at school or doing errands and when people who stay home should be able to find a parking place somewhere besides in front of their home once a month.

Ideally, sweeping schedules should coincide with garbage collection.

Three Neighborhoods Approved for Voluntary Program
At its June 17, 2003, meeting, the City Council approved three neighborhoods for the volunteer program: Richmore Village, Carriage Hills South and the Richmond Annex, approved the mandatory program for the remainder of the city, and requested a progress report in six months.

Because of a citizen complaint about lack of enforcement in September of 2004, Interim City Manager Batchelor asked if there was enforcement. Willie Haywood responded, “Ticketing will begin mid-October ’04 (gratis ticketing), formal ticketing will begin Jan. ’05. Delay was due to being short staffed.” At the Public Safety and Public Services Committee Standing Committee meeting of March 10, 2005, staff reported a plan to commence courtesy ticketing for 60 days, then commence formal parking citations.

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 16 of 39

On June 18, 2004, Administrative Chief Janet Schneider wrote a memo to Mayor McLaughlin and the City Council summarizing a Contra Costa County Clean Water Program study showing “higher levels of PCBs in storm drain sediments in two drainage areas located in Richmond than any other site in Contra Costa County.” The study concluded that “street sweeping does remove 1.0 kg of PCBs annually.” The 2009 Permit
On October 14, 2009, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco bay Region issued a new Order R2-2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CA612008.

The order prohibited discharge of other than stormwater:

A. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS A.1. The Permittees shall, within their respective jurisdictions, effectively prohibit the discharge of non-stormwater (materials other than stormwater) into, storm drain systems and watercourses. NPDES-permitted discharges are exempt from this prohibition. Provision C.15 describes a tiered categorization of non -stormwater discharges based on potential for pollutant content that may be discharged upon adequate a ssurance that the discharge contains no pollutants of concern at concentrations that will impact beneficial uses or cause exceedances of water quality standards. A.2. It shall be prohibited to discharge rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.35
The 2015 Permit
On November 19, 2015, a new permit was issued.

The order prohibited discharge of other than stormwater:

B. The Water Board finds stormwater discharges from urban and developing areas in the San Francisco Bay Region to be significant sources of certain pollutants that cause or may be causing or threatening to cause or contribute to water quality impairment in waters of the Region. Furthermore, as delineated in the CWA section 303(d) list, the Water Board has found that there is a reasonable potential that municipal stormwater discharges cause or may cause or contribute to an excursion above water quality standards for the following pollutants: mercury, PCBs, furans, dieldrin, chlordane, DDT, trash, and selenium in San Francisco Bay segments; pesticide associated toxicity, and trash in urban creeks; and trash and low dissolved oxygen in Lake Merritt, in Alameda County. In accordance with CWA section 303(d), the Water Board is required to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for these pollutants to these waters to gradually eliminate impairment and attain water quality standards. Therefore, pollutant control actions and further pollutant impact assessments by the Permittees are warranted and required pursuant to this Order. 36 C. DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS A.1. The Permittees shall, within their respective jurisdictions, effectively prohibit the discharge of non-stormwater (materials other than stormwater) into storm drain systems and watercourses. NPDES-permitted discharges are exempt from this

35 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco bay Region issued a new Order R2 -2009-0074, NPDES Permit No. CA612008, page 8
36 California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco bay Region issued a new Order R2-2015-049, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008, pahge 3

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 17 of 39

prohibition. Provision C.15 describes a tiered categorization of non -stormwater discharges based on potential for pollutant content that may be discharged upon adequate assurance that the discharge contains no pollutants of concern at concentrations that will impact beneficial uses or cause exceedances of water quality standards. A.2. It shall be prohibited to discharge rubbish, refuse, bark, sawdust, or other solid wastes into surface waters or at any place where they would contact or where they would be eventually transported to surface waters, including flood plain areas.37
D. The Permittees shall comply with Discharge Prohibitions A.1 and A.2 and Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2 through the timely implementation of control measures and oth er actions as specified in Provisions C.2 through C.15. Compliance with Provisions C.9 through C.12 and C.14 of this Order, which prescribe requirements and schedules for Permittees identified therein to manage their discharges that may cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards (WQS) for pesticides, trash, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and bacteria, shall constitute compliance during the term of this Order with Receiving Water Limitations B.1 and B.2 for the pollutants and th e receiving waters identified in the provisions. Compliance with Provision C.10, which prescribes requirements and schedules for Permittees to manage their discharges of trash, shall also constitute compliance with Discharge Prohibitions A.1 and A.2 during the term of this Order for discharges of trash. If exceedance(s) of (WQS), except for exceedances of water quality standards for pesticides, trash, mercury, PCBs, and bacteria that are managed pursuant to Provisions C.9 through C.12 and C.14, persist in receiving waters notwithstanding the implementation of the required controls and actions, the Permittees shall comply with the following procedure: a. Upon a determination by either the Permittee(s) or the Water Board that discharges are causing or contributing to an exceedance of an applicable (WQS), the Permittee(s) shall notify, within no more than 30 days, and thereafter submit a report to the Water Board that describes controls or best management practices (BMPs) that are currently being implemented, and the current level of implementation, and additional controls or BMPs that will be implemented, and/or an increased level of implementation, to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants that are causing or contributing to the exceedance of water quality standards. The report may be submitted in conjunction with the Annual Report, unless the Water Board directs an earlier submittal, and shall constitute a request to the Water Board for amendment of this NPDES Permit. The report and application for amendment shall include an implementation schedule. The Water Board may require modifications to the report and application for amendment; and b. Submit any modifications to the report required by the Water Board within 30 days of notification. 38 Proposed 2020 Street Sign Installation Reignites Controversy The City Council Minutes of May 26, 2020:

I-7. The matter to approve the installation of 575 street sweeping parking restriction signs in the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Neighborhoods was introduced by Public Works Director Yader Bermudez. Discussion ensued. The Council requested the documents that tied this matter to environmental guidelines. The following speakers gave comments via email, eComments, or telephone: Caroline Johnson, Grover G, Lee Huo, Sara Sunstein, Tally Craig, Gayle McLaughlin, Kirk Essler, Madalyn Law, Monica Olivares, Stefanie Silvia, Naomi Williams, and Margaret Child.

37 Ibid, page 5
38 Ibid, page 6

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 18 of 39

(At approximately 11:03 p.m., a motion made by Councilmember Willis, seconded by Councilmember Johnson, extended the meeting to complete the discussion for item I-7 by the unanimous vote of the City Council). Further discussion ensued for item I -7. The Council requested that the industrial areas documented as the highest in pollutants, such as Sims Metal and Levin Terminal, be swept more often and verified. On motion of Councilmember Willis, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, continued the matter for 90 days to allow staff time to work with the residents to develop a reasonable compromise regarding street sweepi ng signage to reach compliance passed by the unanimous vote of the City Council.

The following is from Richmond Standard:

City Council gives Annex 90 days on street sweeping compliance May 28, 2020
https://richmondstandard.com/richmond/2020/05/28/city-council-gives-annex-90-days-on- street-sweeping-compliance/

Figure 3 - In May 2020, Richmond city staff presented several photos, including this one, of vehicles blocking street sweeping ability in the Annex neighborhoods of Richmond.

By Kathy Choutea
The Richmond City Council voted unanimously during its Tuesday meeting to g ive Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex neighborhoods 90 days to comply with the citywide Street Sweeping Volunteer Program.

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 19 of 39

The City Council discussed whether or not to approve $30,000 in funding for the installation of 575 street sweeping parking restriction signs in those neighborhoods—as well as enforcement of the restrictions.

Currently, the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex are exempted from the citywide Street Sweeping Program in lieu of the Volunteer Program, under the agreement that residents will move their vehicles in a timely manner to allow for street sweeping of their neighborhoods. Per the agreement, parking restriction signs have not been installed and enforcement have not been performed, according to the Public Works Department.

According to Public Works Director Yader Bermudez, the neighborhoods have not been abiding by the agreement, causing street sweepers to have to navigate around cars and not be able to sufficiently clean the streets. The increased amount of debris has not only increase d blight in these areas, but also has entered the storm water system.

Concurrently, the department is working to meet the city’s National Pollutant Discharge System (NPDS) permit requirements. The permit calls for cities adopting best practices for keeping pollutants out of the storm drain system and out of the bay, per Mayor Tom Butt. “In regard to the environment, we are out of compliance in those two neighborhoods because we’re not able to sweep the gutter,” said Bermudez. “It is a compliance issue.” And so the city proposed using parking restriction signs and enforcement to gain compliance.

Residents took issue with that plan. Mayor Tom Butt said a number of people sent him emails in protest.

During the City Council’s discussion, Councilmember Eduardo Martinez, who said he lives in the Richmond Annex, noted that he believes the need for stop signs, particularly on Carlson Blvd., is a more pressing issue.
“People want to know why we’re not getting stop signs and we are getting street sweeping signs instead,” he said. Bermudez indicated that his department is working on it.

The discussion also touched on costs and the issue of equity regarding how these neighborhoods are exempt from the street sweeping program while others aren’t. “You can’t have a program without moving cars. And if people don’t move their cars voluntarily, then you have enforcement,” said the mayor during the meeting. “It’s inequitable for all of the neighborhoods in Richmond to be in the program and abiding with it and the Richmond Annex and Richmond Panhandle get a free ride,” he added.

In the end, the City Council moved forward with an idea initially suggested by Mayor Butt as a compromise: giving the residents of the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex a timetable for compliance with the aforementioned agreement, set at 90 days.

Councilmember Melvin Willis made the motion for a continuance that encompassed the neighborhood outreach and 90 day timetable, Councilmember Eduardo Martinez seconded it and a roll call vote was made with all councilmembers voting in favor of it.

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 20 of 39

Watch the video of the City Council’s street sweeping decision here.

Over the last few months of 2020, the Public Works Department has provided multiple photos showing substantial non-compliance with vehicle removal on street sweeping days.

Figure 4 - 8/27/2020, Santa Cruz and San Mateo Sweeping 4th Thursday

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 21 of 39

Figure 5 - 8/27/2020 San Mateo and Santa Cruz Sweeping 4th Thursday

Figure 6 - 8/27/2020, Plumas and Mendocino Sweeping 4th Thursday

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 22 of 39

Figure 7 - 8/27/2020, Huntington and Santa Clara Sweeping 4th Thursday

Figure 8 - 8/27/2020, Carlson and Sutter Sweeping 4th Thursday,

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 23 of 39

Figure 9 - 8/27/2020, Carlson and Sutter Sweeping 4th Thursday

Figure 10 - 8/27/2020, Carlson and Santa Cruz Sweeping 4th Thursday

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 24 of 39

Figure 11 - 8/27/2020, Carlson and Santa Clara Sweeping 4th Thursday

Figure 12 - 8/27/2020, Shasta and Carlson Sweeping 4th Thursday

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 25 of 39

Figure 13 - 11/30/2020

Figure 14 - 11/30/2020

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 26 of 39

Figure 15 - 11/30/2020

Figure 16 - 11/30/2020

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 27 of 39

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 28 of 39

Figure 17 - 11/30/2020

Figure 18 - 11/30/2020

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 29 of 39

Figure 19 - 11/30/2020
The following is from the September 17, 2020, Richmond Standard:

Richmond to resume street sweeping citations Oct. 1
September 17, 2020
https://richmondstandard.com/richmond/2020/09/17/richmond -to-resume-street-sweeping- citations-starting-oct-1/

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 30 of 39

In May
2020, Richmond city staff presented several photos, including this one, of vehicles blocking street sweeping ability in the Annex neighborhoods of Richmond.

Starting October 1, the Richmond Police Department Parking Unit will resume issuing citations to vehicles that are not moved for street sweeping, police announced today.

Residents and visitors are asked to move their vehicle during designated street sweeping dates and times. “Even if it appears the street sweeper has already passed by, you may be issued a citation” as parking enforcement officers won’t know when the vehicle wa s parked there, police said.
“We are resuming issuing citations due to numerous complaints of trash and debris accumulating on the street,” police said. “This is due to the street sweepers not being able to access the streets due to vehicles being parked on them.”
On November 30, 2020, Public Works Director Yader Bermudez emailed the City Council:

From: Yader Bermudez <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 12:06 PM
To: Tom Butt <[email protected]>; Nat Bates <[email protected]>; Ben Choi <[email protected]>; Ben Choi <[email protected]>; Demnlus Johnson <[email protected]>; Eduardo Martinez
<[email protected]>; Jael Myrick <[email protected]>; Jael Myrick <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]> Cc: Laura Snideman <[email protected]>; Robert Chelemedos <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Annex
Please find additional pictures related to next Council Meeting o n December 1, 2020, Item J-2, APPROVE the installation of 575 street sweeping parking restriction signs in the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Neighborhoods and in regard to Mr. Grover’s email to Councilmembers dated November 29, 2020, which provided some selected pictures that relate to ONLY the Panhandle Annex Neighborhood.

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 31 of 39

The pictures attached represent the whole Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex Neighborhoods.

Additionally, the San Francisco Regional Water Board concerns about the City needs to increase reduction of PCBs/Mercury loads to be in compliance with the reissua nce of the Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP). The Francisco Regional Water Board is in the process of implementing more stringent requirements as condition for the new City’s Stormwater NPDES permit (MRP) renewal. Therefore, Public Works D epartment recommends that Council approve the installations of these 575 street sweeping parking restriction signs.

From: Robert Chelemedos
Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 11:12 AM
To: Yader Bermudez <[email protected]>
Cc: Carlos Castro <[email protected]>
Subject: Annex
Here are some streets that are not moving their cars in September, the last month of the trial period.

First 6 are on September 24th (Annex)
7,8,and 9 South/West Annex September 24th
Robert Chelemedos
Streets Superintendent
City of Richmond
Engineering and CIP
#6 – 13th Street
Richmond, CA 94801
(510) 231-3007 – Ofc
(510) 231-3013 – Fax

After a multi-month hiatus due to COVID-19, the Public Works Department notified the public that citations would again be issues beginning October 1, 2020.

Is street sweeping still happening during this time? Do we need to move our cars? Yes, street sweeping is still occurring. Starting October 1, 2020, citations will be issued for vehicles not moved during their designated street sweeping times. Residents requiring special consideration can contact Sgt. D. Decious at 510-621-1578 for additional assistance.

City Council Halts Signs and Citations
An agenda item on the December 1, 2020 City Council Agenda requested approval to install 575 street sweeping signs in the Richmond Annex and Panhandle Annex. It appeared again on the December 22, 2020, Agenda. It was continued both times.

The item was again agendized for the January 19, 2021, City Council meeting, along with an additional item on the same subject.

DISCUSS and DIRECT staff to suspend ticketing during the COVID -19 Shelter-in-Place Order and come back to the Council in three months with options to modify the Street Sweeping Program

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 32 of 39

for ALL interested neighborhoods - Councilmember McLaughlin (620-6636) and Councilmember Martinez (620-6593).

On January 19, 2021, The City Council majority voted to suspend ticketing and come back to the City Council in three months with options for all neighborhoods.

H-3. The matter to discuss and direct staff to suspend ticketing during the COVID -19 Shelter-in- Place Order and come back to the Council in three months with options to modify the Street Sweeping Program for ALL interested neighborhoods was introduced by C ouncilmembers McLaughlin and Martinez. Discussion ensued. The Council requested staff to verify that the proposed alternatives to street sweeping signs described with item H-3 complied with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements described with item H-2; and to provide the cost for such alternatives. The following speakers gave comments via teleconference: Franco DeMarinis, Garland Ellis, Naomi Williams, Karen Franklin, Kathleen Erwin, Roberta Boucher, Michele Rappaport, and Tarnel Abbott. Further discussion ensued. A motion was made by Councilmember Willis approving item H-3, seconded by Councilmember McLaughlin. Further discussion ensued. The council recommended staff start working on a neighborhood street sweeping notification system immediately to help all neighborhoods begin compliance. The motion suspended ticketing in all neighborhoods with current signage at least until the shelter-in-place was lifted; directed staff to research revisions to the City of Richmond’s Street Sweeping Program that included: use of city reminder notifications by email, phone, and/or text to all interested residents on street sweeping days; allowed ALL interested neighborhoods to opt into a voluntary compliance process (with potential removal o f signage); ceased any plans to install new signage in any neighborhood while modifications were under study by staff and the Council; explore making temporary signs available to interested residents; and return to the Council in three months with options to consider for modification of the Street Sweeping Program by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Jimenez, Johnson, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, and Vice Mayor Bates. Noes: Mayor Butt. Absent: None. Abstained: None.

Inaction 2020-2022
After the December 19, 2021, vote by the City Council, nothing happened until April 19, 2022, when Councilmember Willis agendized a somewhat confusing item addressing street sweeping: “Reinstate the Issuance of Citations in the Street Sweeping Program.”
The Agenda Report stated:

During the Shelter in Place Order, the City Council voted to suspend ticketing of vehicles that were not moved on Street Sweeping days. The City Council took this position because the pandemic created many hardships for residents in Richmond and residents were confined to their homes. Suspending the ticketing process provided a sense of relief for residents because they wouldn’t receive a citation on Street Sweeping days. During the Shelter in Place Order, it was appropriate to suspend components of the program; however, the Order has been lifted and the streets are extremely blighted with debris. Complaints of the unsightly condition of the streets have increased. In order AGENDA REPORT32 Page 2 of 2 April 19, 2022, for the Street Sweeper to effectively clean the streets, cars need to be moved on designated streets according to the schedule. In order to prepare residents for the reinstatement of ticketing, a 90 -day notification/warning period is recommended. In addition, the City Council needs infor mation from the Parking Enforcement Division of the Richmond Police Department regarding their

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 33 of 39

capacity to provide warning notices of the reinstatement of ticketing within 90 days of reinstating this component of the program. The City Council also needs in formation from the Streets Division, Public Works Department, on their ability to reinstate the Street Sweeping program to its full capacity to clean our streets and prevent debris from entering the San Francisco Bay. The effective date of the reinstatement should be in accordance with the Parking Enforcement Division’s and the Streets Division’s capacity to do so.

DISCUSS and APPROVE reinstating the citation component of the Street Sweeping Program with a 90- day notification/warning period – (Councilmember Melvin Willis 510-412-2050).

There followed a rather circular argument about signage. It was pointed out that in order to motivate residents to move vehicles, there need to be consequences, such as citations and towing. In order to cite or tow, state law requires warning signs.

Ultimately, the City Council again kicked the can down the road and requested staff to figure it out and report back sometime in the future.

Human Health, Road Dust, Coho Salmon and Street Sweeping From a health and environmental standpoint, the most important result of street sweeping is the debris you cannot see.

Recent research has revealed that a chemical found in car tire debris kills coho salmon returning to spawn.39 For the first time in years, endangered Coho salmon have been spotted in tributaries of San Francisco Bay.40
High levels of organic and inorganic contaminants in street dust represent a source of dual potential risk to stormwater and air quality.

Further, studies have indicated that as much as 85 % of ambient airborne particulate matter (PM 10), exposure to which is associated with several adverse health effects, can arise from accumulated street dust (Amato et al. 2010a). 41

39 https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/presspacs/2022/acs -presspac-march-2-2022/substance- derived-from-tire-debris-is-toxic-to-two-trout-
species.html#:~:text=Every%20time%20it%20rains%2C%20fish%20living%20downstream%20of,of%20coho%20sal mon%20across%20the%20U.S.%20West%20Coast.
40 https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Nearly-extinct-coho-salmon-spawns-in-Bay-Area- 16761425.php#:~:text=Spawning%20season%20typically%20happens%20in%20December%20and%20January%2C ,to%20SPAWN.%20Even%20those%20numbers%20are%20encouraging%2C%20however . 41 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267815452_Street_Dust_Implications_for_Stormwater_and_Air_Qualit y_and_Environmental_Management_Through_Street_Sweeping

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 34 of 39

Parked cars pose a significant interference to street sweeping.

Parked car interference can have a significant negative effect on the ability of street sweepers to pick up accumulated particulate material. Since it is reasonable to assume that all street dirt accumulation essentially occurs within the width of a parked car, access to the curb is denied for the entire length of the parked cars along with the additional distance it takes for the sweeper to maneuver around parked cars. The most skilled sweeper operators can minimize this additional interference to a distance of approximately the length of a single car on both sides of one or more parked cars. So a good program minimizes parked car interference by sweeping at night in commercial or industrial areas and during the day for residential areas. It also uses and e nforces residential parking restrictions where they are warranted.42 The AB 61743-driven Community Emissions Reduction Plan44 is providing surprising and compelling evidence that marine and rail operations, along with vehicles and trucks, are the source of most of the hazardous PM 2.5 particulates in Richmond.45 This is counterintuitive from the widely held belief that Chevron is the biggest threat. While Chevron remains a significant source of PM2.5 particulates, its impact on health is relatively small compared to other sources.

42 https://www.tymco.com/street-sweeping-101/
43 AB 617, which passed in 2017, mandates that the state improve air quality in disadvantaged communities like Richmond & includes grants for improving community-based monitoring and emissions reduction plans. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/community-air-protection-program/communities/richmond-north- richmond-san-pablo
44 In 2021, at the recommendation of CARB staff, the CARB Board selected the Richmond, San Pablo Community to transition and develop a community emissions reduction program, in addition to continued implementation of the 2018 Community Monitoring Plan.
https://www.baaqmd.gov/community-health/community-health-protection-program/richmond-area-community- health-protection-program
45 http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 35 of 39

Figure 20 – While Chevron emissions as a source of PM2.5 far exceed that of road dust, the impact of road dust on human health is far higher. Source: Richmond – North Richmond – San Pablo Community Path to Clean Air, Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) Community Steering Committee Meeting #154, May 16, 2022, presentation. (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf)

Figure 21 - As a source contribution to cancer risk, Vehicles and Trucks (including road dust) and marine and dominate, far exceeding that of Chevron. Source: Richmond – North Richmond – San Pablo Community Path to Clean Air, Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) Community Steering Committee Meeting #154, May 16, 2022, presentation. (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf)

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 36 of 39

Figure 22 - Of the vehicle and truck sources of PM2.5, road dust makes up 68 percent. Source: Richmond – North Richmond – San Pablo Community Path to Clean Air, Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) Community Steering Committee Meeting #154, May 16, 2022, presentation. (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf) Of the Vehicle and Trucks component, road dust contributes 68 percent of the total PM 2.5 particulates.

Road dust represents a growing portion of on-road emissions inventories due to recent reductions in vehicle exhaust emissions; this category is currently the subject of a study by CARB, Caltrans and EPA.46
One of the recommended strategies for reduction is street sweeping:

Control road dusts trough street sweeping and/or reducing trackout from construction projects and industrial sites.

46 Ibid

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 37 of 39

Figure 23 - Street sweeping is recommended as a way to control road dust. Source: Richmond – North Richmond – San Pablo Community Path to Clean Air, Community Emissions Reduction Plan (CERP) Community Steering Committee Meeting #154, May 16, 2022, presentation. (http://www.tombutt.com/pdf/path%20to%20clean%20air.pdf) General Plan 2030
The Richmond General Plan supports best management practices to improve water quality. Although street sweeping is not specifically identified, it is a well establish best management practice.

Finding 3: The City is making efforts to improve water quality in creeks and Bays, but stormwater runoff and long-term viability of the watersheds remains a concern. Federal, state and local regulations protect water quality, recharge areas and the overall watershed. To meet these regulations, the City is continually evolving and adapting best management practices. Ways to reduce impacts from urban and stormwater runoff include:
• Integrating stormwater management techniques to minimize runoff; • Encouraging water conservation efforts by residents, businesses and industry. • Working with regional stakeholders to protect and restore watershed viability and protect the health of wildlife and natural habitat; and
• Creating an integrated watershed management approach and best management practices aligned with local, state and federal priorities. 47
Policy CN3.2 Water Quality Work with public and private property owners to reduce stormwater runoff in urban areas to protect water quality in creeks, marshlands a nd water bodies and the bays. Promote the use of sustainable and green infrastructure design, construction and maintenance techniques on public and private lands to protect natural resources. Incorporate

47 http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8812/70-Conservation-Natural-Resources-and-Open- Space?bidId=

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 38 of 39

integrated watershed management techniques and to improve surface water and groundwater quality, protect habitat and improve public health by coordinating infrastructure and neighborhood planning and establishing best practices for reducing non-point runoff. See also:

HW9.3
Action CN3.A NPDES Compliance and Permit Continue to comply with the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit and continue to implement the following action steps:
• Maintain municipal infrastructure (sewer systems, roads, corporation yards, buildings) to reduce pollutants that flow into water courses;
• Require development to comply with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program Stormwater Guidebook;
• Work with developers to ensure compliance with the City’s minimum standards and NPDES requirements;
• Encourage all projects to use pervious pavements, cluster structures, disconnect downspouts, minimize land disturbance and utilize micro- detention such as low impact development (LID); • Require adequate source control measures to limit pollution generation in businesses including draining non-stormwater discharges such as swimming pools, trash and food compactor racks, vehicle outdoor storage, fire sprinkler test water and equipment washing; • Require businesses that may be susceptible to polluting stormwater to implement best management practices (BMPs) including covering drains and storage precautions for outdoor material storage, loading docks, repair and maintenance bays and fueling areas; • Inspect contamination sites to prevent illicit discharges;
• Inspect municipal storm drains to eliminate illicit discharges and prevent illegal dumping; • Educate the public about stormwater pollution prevention methods and provide incentives for public participation;
• Adopt an integrated pest management (IPM) policy or ordinance and advocate IPM through public education;
• Manage waste generated from the cleaning and treating of copper architectural featur es including copper roofs; and
• Adopt a local ordinance for installing a sanitary sewer connection and prohibiting discharges of copper-based chemicals or other fungicides from pools, spas and fountains. See also: HW9.L.

Conclusion
In the last 20 years, the Richmond City Council has continued to waffle over street cleaning policy, pondering whether moving vehicles on sweeping days should be mandatory or voluntary. Most of the City’s neighborhoods have been signed for years with violators at least threatened with citations and/or towing.

Street Sweeping in Richmond Page 39 of 39

There is a clear resentment from neighborhoods that have embraced street sweeping against those neighborhoods that have arm wrestled certain City Council members to exempt them from mandatory compliance for moving vehicles on street sweeping days, Although there are at least two neighborhoods without signs (Richmore Village and Carriage Hills South) that appear to generally respect the requirement to move vehicles, there are only two other neighborhoods (Richmond Annex and Annex Panhandle) that are generally not in compliance and continue to resist signs and citations.

Whether street sweeping is legally required, and further, whether signs and citations are legally required by regulatory agencies enforcing the Clean Water Act remains murky.

What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that street sweeping is a critical component of improving human health and keeping pollutants out of creeks and San Francisco Bay. Among the best practices of an effective streety sweeping program is the motivation provided by signs and citations to move vehicles on sweeping days.

It is ironic that members of the City Council who hold themselves up as protectors of the environment are leading the charge to make vehicle removal on sweeping days voluntary, reducing the effectiveness of the program, increasing pollution of waterways and San Francisco Bay and posing a significant human health hazard, all to simply cater to the convenience of residents in a few selected neighborhoods.

May 24, 2022

Finance Department

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Anil Comelo, Interim Deputy City Manager
Delmy Cuellar, Interim Director of Finance

Subject:

Receive Update on the Refinancing of the Pension
Obligation Bonds (POBs)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 6, 2021; October 5, 2021; December 7, 2021

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

On April 26th, the City Council gave direction to City staff to proceed with the refinancing of the 2005 Pension
Obligation Bonds (2005 POBs). City staff and the finance team will update City Council on the proposed schedule
and mechanics of both the refinancing bonds and the
existing interest rate swap agreement
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE update on the refinancing of the 2005 POBs –
Finance Department (Anil Comelo/Delmy Cuellar 510-
620-6600).

DISCUSSION:

The City currently has the following outstanding two series of 2005 POBs: (i) an approximately $18 million principal amount series maturing in 2023 (the "B-1 Bonds"), and (ii) an approximately $130 million principal amount series maturing in 2034 (the "B- 2 Bonds"). The City needs to refinance the $130 million series. The City is also party to two interest rate swaps (the “Swaps”) associated with the 2005 Bonds. However, the AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022
swap for the B-2 Bonds (the “B-2 Swap”) is subject to mandatory early termination on August 1, 2023, before which time the City will need to either (a) arrange financing to pay the market value of the B-2 Swap upon such early termination or (b) amend the B-2 Swap to remove, reduce, or delay the mandatory early termination. City staff is clear that the goal is to refinance the POBs with minimal cost and risk (recognizing that there is an inverse relationship between cost and risk). City staff will be seeking to provide the City Council with any private placement offers from banks and other qualified purchasers. Additionally, the City Council will likely also be provided with the option to direct City staff to seek conventional financing as publicly offered municipal bonds.

The City's finance team has determined that the termination payment for the B-2 Swap decreases as interest rates decline, and increases as interest rates increase. While the recent increase in interest rates has driven up the cost of projected annual debt service on the proposed refinancing of the 2005 POB's, the estimated termination payment has declined. On October 5, 2021, the City Council was told that the termination payment was approximately $36 million. It now appears to be around $22 million due to increases in interest rates. However, again, this decrease in potential cost to the City has been matched by a potential increase in annual debt service costs. Consequently, this means that while the termination payment has declined significantly since the October 5, 2021 City Council presentation, the City's overall costs for the 2005 POBs remains about the same.

Debt service on the 2005 POB's was secured by appropriations from the general fund and paid by the following revenue sources:

 Revenues from the City's pension tax override ("PTO") ad valorem tax levy of 0.14 percent of assessed valuation

 All other legally available General Fund revenues

The PTO revenue is not directly pledged to the 2005 POB's, but is instead defined as being legally available to pay up to 86 percent of the annual debt service costs. This 86 percent limitation reflects a 2003 State Appellate Court decision. The Court ruled that the City of Huntington Beach could only use its own pension tax override revenues to pay for CalPERS costs related to employee benefits in place prior to July 1, 1978, the date that Proposition 13 went into effect. Consequently, the annual costs of new employee benefits added after July 1, 1978, cannot be paid for using pension tax override revenues. The City of Huntington Beach chose not to appeal that decision to the State Supreme Court, and the decision has been precedential since then. In 2005, the City's consultant, Bartel Associates, calculated that about 86 percent of debt service on the 2005 POB's could be paid from pension tax override revenues. This calculation will be updated for the purposes of refinancing the 2005 POBs this year.

At present, the City's CalPERS expenses eligible to be paid from PTO revenues under the Huntington Beach decision significantly exceed the approximately $24 million per year in annual PTO revenue. However, it is possible that eligible annual CalPERS expenses may decline to below annual PTO revenue in about 15 years when the