Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
i
LOCAL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN
LOCAL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN April 2022
Engineer’s Seal & Acknowledgments
ii
Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code
REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION — Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at the location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.
Statement of Protection of Data from Discovery
and Admissions
This study applies a systemic safety approach that identifies certain features on particular roadways that are correlated with specific collision types and frequencies. This broad approach is necessitated by the inherent nature of covering an entire agency’s facilities in one study and the limited scope/budget available to prepare LRSPs. Limited time is available to perform field observations throughout the study area to contextualize the data, and therefore, it is beyond the scope of work to perform in-depth “hot spot” evaluations at all locations.
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
iii
Acknowledgments
The City of Richmond and Contra
Costa County have completed multiple
safety-related plans with more in
progress, and this Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) is an exciting
opportunity to bring together multiple
streams of work for a comprehensive
picture of safety in Richmond.
The 2022 City of Richmond Local
Roadway Safety Plan was primarily funded
through a Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP) grant provided by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and supplemented by a local matching
grant. Additional funding was provided
by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) in relation to a
Vehicle Miles Traveled (MTC) Reduction
Pilot Project. Input was sought from an
advisory group consisting of staff from
the City of Richmond and partner public
agencies. Fehr & Peers assisted the City
of Richmond in preparing the plan.
CALTRANS LRSP GRANT ID: LRSP030
Advisory
Group Members
Councilmember Claudia Jimenez
Richmond City Council, District 6
Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin
Richmond City Council, District 5
Luis Padilla
Fire Inspector, Richmond
Fire Department
Eric Govan
Fire Marshal, City of Richmond
Fire Department
Eric Munson
Deputy Fire Marshall,
Richmond Fire Department
Donovan Decious
Traffic Sergeant, Richmond
Police Department
Tawfic Halaby
Senior Civil Engineer,
City of Richmond
City of Richmond Staff
Patrick Phelan
Infrastructure Administrator
Robin Chee
Engineer II
Lina Velasco
Community Development,
Director, City of Richmond*
Denée Evans
Transportation Services Project
Manager, City of Richmond*
Roberta Feliciano
Senior Planner, City of Richmond*
Emily Carroll
Planner I, City of Richmond*
Lydia Elias
Planner I, City of Richmond*
Nathalie Zaldivar
Intern
Keelan Jones
Intern
Fehr & Peers Team
Ryan McClain, PE
Molly Riddle
Dana Weissman
Gabriela Picado-Aguilar
Kristine Ojascastro
Krystle Li
Lee Reis
Sam Inoue-Alexander
Susie Hufstader
Terence Zhao
*Richmond Staff Advisory
Group Members
Glossary & Table of Contents
iv
Glossary
(A)ADT (annual) average daily traffic
ABAG Association of Bay
Area Governments
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AHSC Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
ATP Active Transportation Program
AV Autonomous Vehicle
B/C Benefit/Cost
BTA Bicycle Transportation Account
BUILD Better Utilizing Investments
to Leverage Development
CDBG Community Development
Block Grant
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
CSSA Complete Streets
Safety Assessment
CCTA Contra Costa
Transportation Authority
CVC California Vehicle Code
DOT Department of Transportation
DUI Driving Under the Influence
EMS Emergency Medical Services
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HSIP Highway Safety
Improvement Program
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
KSI Killed or Severely Injured
LED Light-emitting Diode
LPI Leading Pedestrian Interval
LPP Local Partnership Program
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
LSRP Local Streets and Roads Program
LTF Local Transportation Fund
MTC Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
MUT Median U-Turn
MUTCD Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices
OTS Office of Traffic Safety
PCF Primary Collision Factor
PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
RCUT Restricted Crossing U-Turn
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SCCP Solution for Congested
Corridors Program
SGC Strategic Growth Council
SR2S/SRTS Safe Routes to School
STIP State Transportation
Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System
TCC Transportation Climate Communities
TDA Transit Development Act
TIGER Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
TNC Transportation Network Company
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
v
1 Introduction
Overview of Safe System Approach and
Project Background
2 Vision and Goals
Summary of Safety Vision and Goals for Richmond
3 Safety Partners
Summary of Safety Partners
4 Existing Efforts
Summary of the City’s Safety Efforts
5 Safety Analysis
Summary of Safety Analysis Results, including the
Historic Collision Landscape, Hot Spot Identification, and Development of Crash Profiles through Systemic Analysis 6 Countermeasure Toolbox
Summary of Safety Countermeasures Covering
Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Emergency
Services and Emerging Technology
7 Emphasis Areas and Strategies
Summary of 12 Priority Location Project Recommendations 8 Evaluation and Implementation
Funding Opportunities, and Considerations for
Implementation and Evaluation of Safety Projects
9 Appendices
(A) High Injury Networks, (B) Countermeasure Toolbox
Table of Contents
Page
1 5
7 11
19 31
45 71
79 Chapter 1: Introduction
vi
A Safe System
acknowledges the
vulnerability of the
human body when
designing and operating
a transportation
network to minimize
serious consequences
of crashes
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
1 Introduction
Chapter 1
The City of Richmond is committed
to prioritizing safety and decreasing/
eliminating the amount of traffic
related deaths and serious injuries on
City streets. This Local Road Safety
Plan (LRSP) proactively evaluates
hot spots throughout the City to
identify the proven countermeasures
that can be implemented through
the current and future Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). This
section defines the Safe Systems
approach, an idea which underlies
this LRSP, and provides background
on safety work in Richmond.
What is the Safe
System approach?
Each day, people are killed and seriously
injured on our roads. Crashes can
irreversibly change the course of human
lives, touching victims, their families and
loved ones, and society as a whole.
Through collective action on the part
of all roadway system stakeholders—
from system operators and vehicle
manufacturers, to law enforcement and
everyday users—we can move to a Safe
System approach that anticipates human
mistakes, with the goal of eliminating fatal
& serious injuries for all road users. A Safe
System acknowledges the vulnerability of
the human body – in terms of the amount
of kinetic energy transfer a body can
withstand – when designing and operating
a transportation network to minimize
serious consequences of crashes.
According to the World Health
Organization, the goal of a Safe System
is to ensure that if crashes occur, they
“do not result in serious human injury.”
1 A Safe System approach addresses the
five elements of a safe transportation
system – safe road users, safe vehicles,
safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash
care – in an integrated manner, through a
wide range of interventions (see Figure 1).
The Safe System approach to road safety
started internationally as part of the Vision
Zero proclamation that, from an ethical
standpoint, no one should be killed or
seriously injured on the road system.
2 3 It
is founded on the principle that people
make mistakes, and that the road system
Figure 1. The
Safe System
Approach
Source: Fehr &
Peers for FHWA
Chapter 1: Introduction
2 should be adapted to anticipate and
accommodate human mistakes and
the physiological and psychological
limitations of humans.
4 Countries that
have adopted the Safe System approach
have had significant success reducing
highway fatalities, with reductions in
fatalities between 50 and 70%.
5 The Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) and the Road to Zero Coalition’s
Safe Systems Explanation and Framework
articulate that to anticipate human
mistakes, a Safe System seeks to:
• Separate users in a physical space (e.g.,
sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities),
• Separate users in time (e.g., pedestrian
scramble, dedicated turn phases),
• Alert users to potential hazards,
• Accommodate human injury
tolerance through interventions that
reduce speed or impact force.
Creating a Safe System means shifting
a major share of the responsibility from
road users to those who design the road
transport system. “Individual road users
have the responsibility to abide by laws
and regulations”
6 and do so by exhibiting
due care and proper behavior on the
transportation system. While road users
are responsible for their own behavior,
this is a shared responsibility with those
who design, operate, and maintain the
transportation network: including the
automotive industry, law enforcement,
elected officials, and government bodies.
7 In a Safe System, roadway system
designers and operators take on the
highest level of ethical responsibility.
Background
This will be the first comprehensive
safety plan for the City of Richmond
which provides the City and its major
stakeholders a blueprint for a safe and
more accessible community. This LRSP
will assist the City when it applies for
safety infrastructure funding sources. For
example, the Cycle 11 Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) funding cycle
anticipated in 2022 will require an LRSP for
an agency to be eligible to apply for funds.
About Richmond
The City of Richmond, located in Contra
Costa County, is home to approximately
116,450 people.
8 Richmond residents
identify as 20% White alone, 19% Black
or African American alone, 4% Asian
alone, 2% American Indian and Alaska
Native alone, 1% Native Hawaiian and
other Pacific Islander alone, 31% some
other race alone, and 13% two or more
races. Additionally, approximately 45%
of Richmond’s population identifies as
being of Hispanic or Latino origin and
54% of residents speak a language
other than English at home. The citywide
median household income in 2020 was
$72,463. Several census tracts within
the City are identified as Disadvantaged
Communities based on the State of
California’s measures of health, economic
and environmental factors. Seven of the
City’s census tracts are also in the lowest
quartile for healthcare access according
to the California Healthy Places Index,
including one tract in the 8th percentile.
ITE Safe System
Framework: Focus
on Safe Speeds
The ITE Safe System framework provides
important context for the focus on
safe speeds within a Safe System
approach. For vulnerable users speed
is a determining factor in survivability
– a human’s chance of surviving being
struck by a vehicle increases from
20% at 40 miles per hour to 60% at 30
miles per hour to 90% at 20 miles per
hour. Reducing speed in the presence
of = vulnerable users is a key Safe
System strategy. Approaches include:
• Physical roadway designs
(width, horizontal alignment)
to limit free flow speeds,
• Traffic calming treatments
that induce slower speeds,
• Traffic signal timing that
minimizes high speed flow,
• Traditional or automated enforcement
that discourages speeding.
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
3 Endnotes
1 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/
roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf, p. 9.
2 Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero - Implementing a policy for traffic safety. Safety Science, 47, 826-831.
3 Tingv all, C., & Haworth, N. (1999). An Ethical Approach to Safety and Mobility.
Paper presented at the 6th ITE International Conference Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement. 6-7 September 1999, Melbourne, Australia. 4 Belin, M.-Å., Tillgren, P ., & Vedung, E. (2012). Vision Zero - a road safety policy innovation. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 19, 171-179.
5 W orld Resources Institute (2018). Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths. Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/publication/ sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road-deaths. 6 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/
roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf, p. 9.
7 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/
roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf.
8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171).
Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
4 Together, the vision statement
and goals establish a concise
yet comprehensive focus for
investments in infrastructure,
education, emergency
services, and enforcement
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
5 Vision and Goals
Chapter 2
Vision
Statement
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.
The City of Richmond vision statement
was developed during early stakeholder
meetings and outreach efforts. The
vision statement highlights the central
importance of improving health, safety
and equitable access to multimodal
transportation facilities for all roadway
users. Complementary goals for the LRSP,
developed through stakeholder outreach
and data analysis, represent a mix discrete,
measurable goals for specific facets of the
transportation system set alongside higher-
level holistic objectives for communitywide
health and safety improvements. Together,
the vision statement and goals establish
a concise yet comprehensive focus for
investments in infrastructure, education,
emergency services, and enforcement.
Goal 1: Reducing Collisions
Reduce fatal and serious
injury collisions, particularly
those involving people
walking and biking.
Goal 2: Equity
Ensure equitable traffic safety
investments in neighborhoods
needing them most.
Goal 3: Pedestrian Crossings
Enhance roadway crossings,
especially near schools
and other high pedestrian
activity areas, to promote
and support safe travel for
people walking and biking.
Goal 4: Nighttime Visibility
Improve the visibility of
roadway and sidewalk
users traveling at night.
Goal 5: Safe Speeds,
DUI Prevention
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.
Goal 6: Climate Resiliency
Invest in the next generation of
people in Richmond through
climate-resilient transportation
safety infrastructure,
particularly near schools
and in neighborhoods.
Goal 7: Post-Crash Care
Improve post-crash care
through increased multi-
jurisdictional collaboration
and appropriate emergency
vehicle access.
Goals
Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
6 Priorities for community
outreach included
engagement with
community councils
and partnering with
local organizations
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
7 Safety Partners
Chapter 3
Stakeholders were identified
in collaboration with City of
Richmond staff to ensure the LRSP
included the perspective of various
departments and organizations.
The stakeholder group included
representatives from the following:
• Richmond City Council
• Richmond Community
Development Department
• Richmond Fire Department
• Richmond Police Department
• Richmond Public Works
First Stakeholder Meeting
At the first stakeholder meeting on
June 8, 2021, the group discussed
the LRSP vision and priorities, and
existing safety conditions in the City
of Richmond. An Overview of the Safe
System Approach, existing collision
trends, community concerns, and
sample safety countermeasures were
provided. Additional discussion focused
on prioritization schemes for locating
and implementing countermeasures,
the potential for incorporating green
infrastructure into traffic calming measures,
community outreach strategies, and
project budget and funding. Priorities
for community outreach included
engagement with community councils
and partnering with local organizations
like the RYSE Center and Rich City
Rides. Reported locations of particular
concern to the community included
Carlson Boulevard, Tehama Avenue,
Esmond Avenue, and Garvin Avenue.
Chapter 3: Safety Partners
8 Lastly, a visioning exercise was conducted
to establish a framework for identification
of the LRSP safety vision and goals. The
stakeholder-generated word cloud of
vision priorities is shown in Figure 2.
Second Stakeholder Meeting
At the second stakeholder meeting on
August 30, 2021, the group discussed
the draft vision statement and goals,
existing safety trends, collision profiles
identified via the safety analysis, and
preliminary countermeasures. Feedback
on the vision statement and goals called
for the inclusion of goals pertaining
to transit-specific safety and access,
school-related safety, traffic calming, and
efficient mobility. Stakeholders reported
observed safety trends of concern to the
community including speeding issues,
poor sidewalk condition and gaps,
discomfort riding bikes or using bicycle
facilities adjacent to high-speed traffic,
and poor signal visibility. Stakeholders
emphasized the importance of prioritizing
countermeasures that facilitate safe
connections between modes (i.e.,
colocation of crosswalks and transit bus
stops) and slow speeds to make existing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities safer and
more comfortable. Accounting for the long-
term maintenance of countermeasures
was also identified as an LRSP priority.
Figure 2. Stakeholder responses to the prompt, “What words come to mind when you think of a safety vision for Richmond?”
COMFORT
CREATIVE IDEAS
EASE
ENFORCEMENT
FEWER CARS
HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES
MEDIANS
MORE SAFETY FOR ALL
PROACTIVENESS
PROTECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS
TRAFFIC CIRCLES
WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE STREETS
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
9 Third Stakeholder Meeting
At the third stakeholder meeting on
April 13, 2022, the group discussed
the countermeasure toolbox and
proposed priority projects for emphasis
corridors and collision profiles.
Conclusions pending completion of
this meeting on April 13, 2022.
Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
10 The Richmond General
Plan, Bicycle Master
Plan, and Pedestrian
Plan establish goals
for improving safety
on the transportation
network in Richmond
and set a vision for
infrastructure in the City
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
11 Existing Efforts
Chapter 4
In recent years, the City’s efforts
to improve safety have been most
visible through a range of plans
and programs. These range from
citywide plans that set safety-
focused policies and goals to
corridor plans that detail multimodal
access and safety recommendations
for specific corridors, and area
plans that prioritize improvements
across broader regions. Together,
these existing efforts establish
goals for improving safety on the
transportation network in Richmond
and set a vision for infrastructure in
the City. They are further supported
by ongoing engagement with
the community regarding safety
planning and implementation as
well as systematic enforcement of
Richmond’s existing traffic policies.
Citywide and Area Plans
Richmond General Plan
The Circulation Element of the Richmond
General Plan (2012) lays out a community
vision and policy framework for
transportation planning in Richmond.
In this vision, a grid-based network
balances modes of travel, with traffic
calming, bike routes, trails, and sidewalks
supporting safe and comfortable
conditions for people walking and biking.
The Circulation Element outlines a
place-based circulation classification
system that is tailored to surrounding
land use, street function, and desired
character. This classification system
assigns modal priorities to each
accessway type and provides design
recommendations for each one.
While the General Plan does not
include a transportation safety analysis,
policies and actions in the Circulation
Element set safety as a high priority:
• Policy CR1.5 calls for safe and
convenient walking and bicycling.
• Action CR1.C calls for the
development and implementation
of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans.
• Policy CR3.1 focuses on safety and
accessibility, with focus on walking,
bicycling, and transit. The policy
also emphasizes at-grade railroad
safety, with a dedicated action item
for rail crossing improvements.
• Action CR3.B calls for traffic
calming on streets that experience
speeding or cut-through traffic.
/0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/i255/9/10/6 /10/0/11 /12/i255/13/12/11 /6 /i255/14/15/16/15 Chapter 4: Existing Efforts
12 Richmond Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Richmond Bicycle Master
Plan (2011) sets forth a blueprint for a
145-mile system of bikeways and support
facilities within the City of Richmond.
It focused on connections between
neighborhoods, safe routes to schools
and access to major destinations such as
employment centers, stores and shops,
parks, trails, and open space areas.
The Bicycle Master Plan outlines four main
goals, with Goal 3 focused on making
Richmond’s streets safer for bicyclists,
both during the day and at night. In the
network development and prioritization,
safety was worth three out of twenty
points, scored based on number of
previous bicycle collisions per mile.
The chapter on collision history in the
Bicycle Master Plan identified four
main “hot spot” corridors, which also
all received high priority for bikeway
implementation in the project list:
• 13th Street/Harbour Way
• Macdonald Avenue
• 22nd and 23rd Streets
• Cutting Boulevard
While these key corridors all received
bikeway project recommendations in the
Bicycle Master Plan, new design best
practices including Class IV bikeways are
not reflected in the network. Since 2011, 24
miles of bike facilities have been installed
in Richmond. Key hot spot corridors have
also undergone more in-depth safety and
Complete Street studies, including Harbour
Way, Rumrill/13th Street, and 23rd Street.
Richmond Pedestrian Plan
Completed in 2011, the Richmond
Pedestrian Plan aims to improve the
safety, convenience, and appeal of
walking throughout the City. Central
Richmond, comprised of the Downtown,
Civic Center, transit center and a number
of historic mixed income and low-income
neighborhoods, is the focus of the plan.
The Pedestrian Plan includes a safety
and connectivity analysis with criteria for
project prioritization focusing on proximity
to Pedestrian Improvement Districts
(General Plan), community connectivity,
safety, and ease of implementation.
Top tier projects from the Richmond
Pedestrian Plan include Marina Way,
Nevin Avenue, the Richmond Greenway,
South 23rd Street, Barrett Avenue, 6th
Street, Ohio Avenue, and Harbour Way.
The Pedestrian Plan also includes a
Crosswalk Policy, treatment toolbox,
action plan, and roundabout concept for
Cutting Boulevard at Carlson Boulevard.
Richmond Area Community-
Based Transportation Plan
Led by CCTA and completed in 2020,
the Community-Based Transportation
Plan (CBTP) for the Richmond Area
recommended a series of projects and
programs identified during community
outreach and review of existing studies in
parts of Richmond and several neighboring
areas. These recommendations were
prioritized using evaluation criteria
developed with plan advisors. The CBTP
focuses on addressing the needs of
economically disadvantaged communities
in Contra Costa County through robust
/0/1/2 /3 /i255 /5 /6 /i255
/7/1/8 /9 /10/5 /11 /12
/13 /14 /12 /14 /15 /2 /16 /1 /17 /11 /i255
/13 /18 /17 /11
/19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /20 /21 /24 /i255 /26 /27 /28
/29 /30 /31 /32 /33 /i255/35/30/36 /37 /38 /39/40/37/39 /41 /i255 /42 /30/40/40/43/44 /44 /43 /30 /39 /45 /46 /i255 /23 /47 /47 /48 /49 /50 /23 /51 /50 /48 /46 /i255/52/50/51 /53 /28 /54 /37 /55 /38 /i255 /32 /39 /56 /i255 /57 /37 /37 /38 /44 /58/30/30 /38 /37 /i255 /59 /32 /31 /30 /60 /32 /39 /30 /i255/35/30/33 /41 /44/40/32/39 /61/32/33 /62 /32 /63 /33 /37 /i255 /32 /39 /56 /i255 /29 /43 /36 /32 /63 /33 /37 /i255 /42 /30/40/40/64/39 /43 /41 /43 /37 /44 /i255 /59 /39 /44 /41 /43 /41 /64 /41 /37 /42 /30 /39 /41 /38 /32 /i255 /42 /30 /44 /41 /32 /i255 /42 /30 /64 /39 /41 /65 /i255 /66 /37 /32 /33 /41 /55 /i255 /67 /37 /38 /36 /43 /31 /37 /44 /68/31/41 /30 /63 /37 /38 /i255 /69 /70 /71 /71
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /i255 /6 /4 /3 /2 /i255 /i255 /7 /i255 /i255 /8 /9 /10 /9/11/12/9 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /14 /15 /16 /17 /18 /19 /20 /21 /i255 /16 /17 /23 /19 /21 /i255 /24 /20 /21 /18 /23 /25 /17 /20 /19 /21 /19 /26 /17 /18 /i255 /27 /28 /19 /29 /17 /20 /26 /19 /30 Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
13 community engagement and demographic
analysis to identify issues, priorities,
and potential solutions for mobility.
Based on feedback from a Project
Working Group, the Richmond Area
CBTP selected four criteria for project
prioritization: community priorities,
increased access, financial feasibility,
and ease of implementation. Based on
these criteria, the CBTP outlines a set of
high need and high potential projects
and programs. While a collision analysis
was not central to the CBTP, results of
the robust community outreach process
centered largely on improving safety and
accessibility of the transportation network.
Priorities in Richmond included a focus
on ADA accessibility in North Richmond,
sidewalk gaps and arterial safety along
San Pablo Avenue, and arterial corridor
safety on MacDonald Avenue.
South Richmond Transportation
Connectivity Plan (SRTCP)
Focusing on key corridors in South
Richmond, the South Richmond
Transportation Connectivity Plan (2015)
identifies deficiencies in the existing
transportation system and provides
specific recommendations to improve
multimodal connectivity to and within
the area. Key objectives of the SRTCP
include connecting South Richmond
Neighborhoods to opportunities
for employment, education and
recreation on the South Shoreline
and connecting key opportunity sites
in South Richmond with major transit
hubs at Richmond and El Cerrito BART
stations and the WETA ferry terminal.
With a focus on connectivity, the SRTCP
proposes complete streets designs
for major corridors in South Richmond
including Harbour Way South, Marina
Way South, Hoffman Boulevard, Carlson
Boulevard, Central Avenue, and Bayview
Avenue. Multimodal safety was one of six
criteria to determine project and corridor
prioritization. Since the publication of the
SRTCP, the high priority Carlson Boulevard
Crosstown Connection project has been
implemented. The SRTCP also informed
the development of the more recent
Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete
Streets Plan, with multimodal investments
on Harbour Way designed and funded.
/i255 /i255
/i255
/1 /2 /3 /4 /i255 /6 /7 /i255 /8 /2 /1 /9/10/6/11 /12 /i255 /13 /14 /15 /16 /17 /i255 /8 /18 /19 /17/20/14/21 /22 /i255 /3 /23 /24 /21 /25 /26 /14 /23 /16 /24 /16 /18 /14 /21 /i255 /1 /14 /21 /21 /27 /19 /16 /18 /28 /18 /16 /29 /i255 /30 /31 /24 /21 /i255 /32 /13 /8 /3 /1 /30 /33 /i255 /12 /i255 /8 /i255 /34 /i255 /7 /i255 /3 /i255
/i255
/7 /27 /35 /23 /15 /24 /23 /29 /i255 /36 /37 /38 /39 /i255 /i255
/40 /41 /i255 /43 /44 /44 /45 /46 /40 /43 /47 /40 /45 /41 /i255 /48 /40 /47 /49 /50 /i255 /51/24/31 /31 /24 /19 /27 /i255 /8 /14 /35 /27 /23 /16 /25 /i255 /52 /i255 /3 /14 /22 /22 /i255 /7 /27 /17 /23 /i255 /52 /i255 /30 /27 /27 /23 /25 /i255 /53 /54 /7 /i255
/55 /49 /40 /44 /i255 /56 /57 /45 /58 /59 /46 /47 /i255 /40 /44 /i255 /60 /61 /41 /62 /59 /62 /i255 /40 /41 /i255 /56 /43 /57 /47 /i255 /63 /64 /i255 /43 /i255 /65 /57 /43 /41 /47 /i255 /47 /49 /57 /45 /61 /65 /49 /i255 /47 /49 /59 /i255 /66 /43 /67 /40 /60 /45 /57 /41 /40 /43 /i255 /68 /59 /56 /43 /57 /47 /69 /59 /41 /47 /i255 /45 /60 /i255 /55 /57 /43 /41 /44 /56 /45 /57 /47 /43 /47 /40 /45 /41 /i255 /70 /66 /43 /67 /47 /57 /43 /41 /44 /71 /i255 /66 /45 /69 /69 /61 /41 /40 /47 /64 /72 /73 /43 /44 /59 /62 /i255 /55 /57 /43 /41 /44 /56 /45 /57 /47 /43 /47 /40 /45 /41 /i255 /74 /67 /43 /41 /41 /40 /41 /65 /i255 /56 /57 /45 /65 /57 /43 /69 /75 /i255/i255
Chapter 4: Existing Efforts
14 Corridor and
Neighborhood Plans
The following corridor and area
plans expand on the goals from
the citywide plans and develop
more specific improvement
recommendations throughout the City.
23rd Street Streetscape
Improvement Plan
The 23rd Street Project Report (2009)
focuses on a one-mile stretch of 23rd
Street and 22nd Street within the City of
Richmond, between the Carlson Boulevard
over-crossing at the south to Costa Avenue
at the north and the stretch of 22nd Street
between the Carlson Boulevard over-
crossing at the south to the Brooks Avenue
crossover. The 23rd Street corridor hosts
a major commercial district and provides
a north-south arterial connection between
the Cities of Richmond and San Pablo
and Interstate 580. The recommended
improvements outlined in the report
aim to promote pedestrian and bicycle
safety along the corridor by reducing
the number of travel lanes, widening the
sidewalks, shortening crossing distances
for pedestrians, and improving overall
pedestrian and bicycle visibility.
Rumrill/13th Street
Complete Street Study
The Rumrill Boulevard and 13th Street
Complete Streets Study (2015) was
developed through an intensive
community-based design process focused
on transforming the street into a safe and
friendly place for people and business
by improving conditions for walking,
bicycling, and transit. Both the Cities of
San Pablo and Richmond and community
members of adjacent neighborhoods
identified Rumrill Boulevard/13th Street
as a corridor in need of a safety,
comfort, and placemaking vision for
the corridor. The Study documents the
identification of existing conditions,
alternatives development for corridor-
wide improvements, and a preferred
concept alternative for the community’s
complete streets vision for the corridor.
Y ellow Brick Road Iron Triangle
Walkable Neighborhood Plan
The Y ellow Brick Road Walkable
Neighborhoods Project (2015) addresses
key community-identified barriers, issues,
and opportunities in the community to
design and implement complete streets
improvements along roadways in the
community-identified Y ellow Brick Road
(YBR) network. The routes would connect
the key assets in the neighborhood,
including local elementary schools,
parks, and transit. The Y ellow Brick Road
concept was conceived by local youth
living in the Iron Triangle neighborhood to
safely link key areas in the neighborhood
through bright yellow brick patterns
on the sidewalks and roadways.
Richmond Wellness Trail Study
The 2016 Richmond Wellness Trail Vision
Plan provides a comprehensive plan for a
north-south corridor connecting existing
transit facilities and key destinations,
with the main spine along Marina Way
from the shoreline to Central Richmond.
The locations along the corridor include
the Bay Trail, Ferry Terminal, Greenway,
Walking the Iron T riangle: Y ellow Brick Road Walkable Neighborhoods Project For the City of Richmond’s Yellow Brick Road Walkable Neighborhoods project, we worked collaboratively with Pogo Park to develop and implement an innovative and grassroots community engagement process. Using walk audits, we identified key issues, barriers, and opportunities in the study neighborhoods, such as missing or broken sidewalks, lack of signage, and the need for improved greenery to enhance the pedestrian experience. We later used the input to develop a 48-hour installation, which transformed the 7th Street/Elm Avenue neighborhood into a “living preview” with temporary striping, potted plants, totem pole art installations, and spray chalk to showcase community- driven ideas to improve the streetscape. The public outreach greatly informed the final recommendations included in our project plan.
Fehr & Peers develops strong client relationships by following our core values:
Understand the Issues
Our objective is to work with
Richmond, agency staff, and the
community to gain support for
solutions that can be implemented
within a specified timeline and
budget.
We will listen well to the
immediate needs and ask
questions when we need
clarification.
Develop Feasible Solutions
We understand that what works
in one community may not work
in another. We will work closely
with the City and local agencies to
develop innovative solutions for the
community’s unique needs.
Embrace Creative Solutions
FEHR & PEERS | TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS THAT IMPROVE COMMUNITIES 11 Y ellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Walkable Neighborhood Plan.
Source: Fehr & Peers.
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
15 /0 /1 /2 /3/4/5/6 /7 /i255 /9 /1 /0 /10 /11 /i255/4/1/12 /13 /14 /12 /15 /10 /11 /i255/4/1/12 /13 /i255 /11 /0 /15 /6 /10 /16 /5 /0 /11 /15 /11 /1 /5 /6 /i255 /10 /11 /0 /15 /11 /13 /17 /1 /2 /i255 /16 /12 /15 /6 /i255 /18 /i255 /9 /1 /6 /15 /12 /i255 /0 /13 /16 /5 /0 /11 /i255 /19 /20 /21 /22 /i255 /24 /25 /i255 /26 /20 /27 /28 /29 /24 /30 /31 /32 /i255 /19 /33 /i255 /i255
/34 /35 /36 /37 /24 /30 /38 /34 /22 /39 /40 /40 /41 /31 /i255 /19 /24 /30 /37 /42 /36 /21 /20 /30 /39 /i255 /33 /37 /37 /24 /27 /20 /40 /21 /35 /37 /i255 /43 /30 /27 /44 /i255 /45 /i255 /20 /i255 /i255
/i255
/i255
/0 /47 /48 /49/50/51/52 /53 /i255 /9 /47 /54 /55 /56 /i255/4/47/57 /58 /14 /12 /59 /55 /56 /i255/4/47/57 /58 /i255 /11 /54 /59 /52 /55 /60 /51 /54 /56 /59 /56 /47 /51 /52 /i255 /10 /56 /54 /59 /56 /58 /61 /47 /48 /i255 /16 /57 /59 /52 /i255 /9 /47 /52 /59 /57 /i255 /0 /58 /60 /51 /54 /56 /i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/9 /58 /62 /54 /63 /59 /54 /64 /i255 /65 /66 /67 /68 /i255 /i255
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /3 /6 /i255 /8 /9 /10 /i255 /11 /12 /11 /8 /0 /1 /2 /3/4/5/6 /7 /i255/9/10/11 /11 /6 /10 /12 /12 /i255 /13 /14 /15 /1 /11 /i255 /16 /1 /12 /1 /5 /6 /i255 /17 /11 /15 /6
/18 /19 /20 /21/22/23/24 /25 /26 /i255/28/29
Marina Bay, Richmond BART Station
and Richmond Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center. Using the Pedestrian
Plan and Bicycle Master Plan as a
foundation, the plan proposes a series
of bicycle enhancements and pedestrian
amenities that work in tandem with
the city’s existing infrastructure.
First Mile/Last Mile
Transportation Strategic Plan
The 2017 Richmond First Mile/Last Mile
Transportation Strategic Plan provides
an assessment of existing conditions
and recommended projects addressing
first mile/last mile gaps to ultimately
connect the city’s varied transit services
and enhance its transportation network.
The plan identifies barriers in bicycle,
pedestrian and transit networks leading
up to the Richmond Ferry Terminal and
the Richmond BART Station. With a set of
prioritization criteria that include safety
based on collision history, the study
recommends ten priority projects that will
help to facilitate easy, safe, and efficient
access to Richmond’s transit hubs.
Harbour Way Complete Streets
A concept for a two-way separated cycle
track and pedestrian improvements
was first developed in 2018 as part of a
California Active Transportation Program
grant application. Since then, the concept
has been expanded and updated as part of
the Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete
Streets Plan. Now, a quick-build design
for the Complete Streets improvements
on Harbour Way from the ferry terminal
to Hoffman Boulevard is funded and
will be constructed in 2021 along with
a coordinated complete streets project
on Hoffman and Cutting Boulevards.
Ferry to Bridge to Greenway
Complete Streets Plan
The Richmond Ferry to Bridge to
Greenway Complete Streets Plan
(F2B2G Plan, 2020) envisions valuable
connections for walking and bicycling to
and between the Richmond Ferry, the
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail, and the
Richmond Greenway. The F2B2G Plan,
when implemented, will provide a balance
of permanent regional connections and
local safety improvements for people
of all ages and abilities, including those
in disadvantaged and traditionally
underserved areas of the City including
the Marina Bay, Santa Fe, Iron Triangle,
and Point Richmond neighborhoods.
Chapter 4: Existing Efforts
16 BART Walk and Bicycle
Network Gap Study
The BART Walk and Bicycle Network
Gap Study (2020) evaluated potential
improvements to the pedestrian network
within a half-mile of 17 focus stations. The
study summarizes outcomes and near- to
mid-term recommendations from a series
of stakeholder walk audits that took
place over three years. For the Richmond
BART station, recommendations include
improvements on Nevin Avenue to the
west of the station, safety upgrades at
Barrett Avenue and Marina Way, safer
crossings and bike lane gap closures
on Barrett Avenue, and pedestrian
improvements along 19th Street between
Macdonald and Barrett Avenues.
Engagement
The City of Richmond is currently
conducting a citywide planning and
engagement effort called Travel Safe
Richmond. The goal of TSR is to create
unified policies and infrastructure
recommendations for improving roadway
conditions and safety throughout the
City of Richmond for all users: people
walking, biking, rolling, and driving. Travel
Safe Richmond includes two concurrent
planning efforts: this Local Roadway Safety
Plan (LRSP) and a separate Bicycle and
Pedestrian Action Plan. Input from City
stakeholders and community members
is a critical component of both planning
efforts. A community workshop was
hosted by the City on December 8, 2021,
to share information with the public
about Travel Safe Richmond and gather
feedback on where the City should
make infrastructure improvements. Two
workshops scheduled for spring 2022
will provide additional opportunities
for information sharing and feedback
while a project website and interactive
map allow for ongoing solicitation of
comments from the Richmond community.
Virtual Community Open House
Travel Safe Richmond
Richmond’s approach to improve roadway
safety and make it easier to walk and bike
WE NEED YOUR INPUT!
Please join us for a community
open house and share your
thoughts and concerns about
roadway safety in Richmond.
Date:
Wednesday December 8, 2021
Time:
5:30 - 7:00 PM
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
Visit TravelSafeRichmond.org and click on
the “Events” tab to access
the direct link to the meeting
Contact:
Lydia Elias
Planner, Planning and Building Services
[email protected]
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /i255 /7 /2 /8 /4 /i255 /9 /10 /11 /12/13/14/15 /16 /i255
/1 /2 /3 /4 /i255/5/6/7 /8 /i255 /6 /9 /10 /i255 /1 /11 /12 /13 /12 /7 /14 /i255 /15 /14 /16 /17 /18 /19 /8 /i255 /20 /6 /21 /i255 /22 /16 /23 /10 /13 /i255
/i255
/25 /26 /27 /28 /i255 /29 /30 /29 /30 /i255
/i255
/32/33 /22 /32/15/i255/34/i255/35/32 /4/36/15/33/37/i255 /i255 /38 /39 /40 /27 /41 /42 /43 /39 /44 /40 /44 /45 /43 /27 /46 /i255 /47 /27 /48 /45 /39 /43 /27/49/28/27 /44 /40 /50 /i255 /51 /i255 /52 /39 /53 /40 /27 /i255 /54 /50 /40 /27 /27 /45 /27 /55/i255/i255/i255/40 /27 /56 /i255 /i255
/45 /27 /i255 /40 /41 /41 /43 /57 /45 /40 /44 /45 /43 /27 /i255 /58 /45 /44 /59 /i255 /54 /40 /39 /45 /41 /45 /i255 /38 /39 /40 /27 /41 /42 /43 /39 /44 /40 /44 /45 /43 /27 /i255 /60 /43 /27 /41 /26 /50 /44 /45 /27 /55
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
17 Enforcement
Since 2020, the Richmond Police
Department has leveraged one or more
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants per
year to bolster its capacity to enforce
traffic policies. Grants have primarily
focused on addressing driving under the
influence, but also address traffic safety
issues such as distracted driving and
bicycle and pedestrian safety enforcement
operations. The City’s Engineering and
Capital Improvement Projects department
is charge with conducting speed surveys
and performs or manages updated studies
on an approximately 5-year cycle. Speed
surveys inform ongoing programmatic and
infrastructure improvements throughout
the City. These and other City of Richmond
departments collaborate on planning and
engineering efforts to mitigate persistent
hazards in the public right-of-way and seek
to reduce the occurrence of sideshows
and other unsafe driving practices.
Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
18 This broad collision
assessment for the City
of Richmond will inform
the project prioritization
and countermeasures
for the City
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
19 Safety Analysis
Chapter 5
The City investigated collision records
on local roadways and expressways
from 2015-2019 to describe historic
collision trends and identify high-risk
locations. This information acts as a
primary resource for the Richmond
LRSP, providing the underlying
data to support key analyses.
The data-driven process included:
• Collision Trends: Review of
collision statistics to evaluate
when, where, and why collisions
occur and who is involved.
• High Injury Network: Identification
of corridors with the highest
concentrations of fatal and
serious injury collisions.
• Collision Profiles: Combination
of collision factors to identify 8
prevalent collision types.
• Countermeasure Toolbox: Identification
of effective, nationally proven
countermeasures applicable to different
collision profiles (see Chapter 6).
• Priority Project Locations: Identification
of 4 priority project locations based
on collision density and community
verification (see Chapter 7).
Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
20 Caltrans’ Local Roadway
Safety Manual (LRSM)
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ LRSM states
that safety practitioners should
“consider a wide range of data
sources to get an overall picture
of the safety needs” (p. 14).
Both collision data and contextual
data were collected and analyzed
as part of this plan.
Note: Collision data for 2018 and
2019 was considered provisional
and subject to change at the time
this analysis was conducted.
Collision Analysis Summary
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) instructs safety practitioners to “consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs.” Crash data and contextual data were collected and analyzed as part of this LRSP, as well as anecdotal input from City staff and community stakeholders. This analysis considers injury collisions from 2015 through 2019 available through the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) as of April 2021.TIMS reports injury collisions from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).
Collision databases have been found to
have certain reporting biases, including:
• Collisions involving people walking,
on bicycles, or on motorcycles
are less likely to be reported than
collisions involving people driving
• Property damage collisions are less
likely to be reported compared
to more severe collisions
• Y ounger victims are less
likely to report collisions
• Alcohol-involved collisions
may be under-reported
Race, income, immigration status,
and English proficiency may also
impact reporting, but there is limited
research on these factors. With
those caveats in mind, this analysis
identified several collision trends and
risk factors in Richmond, including:
• People walking and biking
are more likely to be fatally or
severely injured in a collision
• Unsafe speed is the most
frequent factor listed for fatal
and severe collisions
• Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
that a collision will be more severe
• A large share of injuries to
people walking occur when
people are walking in the road
or crossing not in a crosswalk
• A larger share of collisions where
someone was killed or severely injured
(KSI collisions) occurred at night
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
21 45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Collisions by Y ear and Mode
Table 1 provides a summary of collisions
by mode and severity within the 5-year
dataset. From 2015 to 2019, there were
1,670 total injury collisions, and 142
collisions where victims were killed
or severely injured (KSI). On average,
six people were killed each year in
Richmond due to traffic collisions.
People walking and biking are involved
in 20 percent of all injury collisions, but
39 percent of KSI collisions. People
walking are particularly over-represented
in KSI collisions, as they are involved in
only 13 percent of all injury collisions,
but 30 percent of KSI collisions.
The number of collisions for each year
by mode is shown on Figure 3. The
number of collisions per year is on an
overall upward trend through 2019.
This is in line with national trends of
increasing traffic injuries and fatalities.
Collision Type
The three most common collision types
in Richmond are Broadside (39%), Rear
End (17%), and Vehicle/Pedestrian (12%),
as shown in Figure 4. For KSI collisions,
Vehicle/Pedestrian collisions are most
common (28%), followed closely by
Broadside collisions (27%), and with Hit
Object and Head-On collisions being tied
for third-most common (13%). This further
illustrates the disproportionate share
pedestrians make of KSI collisions in the
City. It also shows that Hit Object collisions
are more likely, compared to other collision
types, to result in a fatality or severe injury.
Table 1. Collision Summary
INJURY COLLISIONS (CITY OF RICHMOND, 2015-2019)
Vehicle-Only
Bicycle-
Involved
Pedestrian-
Involved Total
Total 1,342 115* 216* 1,670
Fatal or Severe 87 12 43 142
* Three non-severe injury collisions involved both a bicyclist and a pedestrian.
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number
of Injury
Collisions
Figure 3. Injury Collisions by Y ear and Mode (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Figure 4. Injury Collisions by Collision Type (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021.
All Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Broadside Rear
End
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Head-
On
Sideswipe Hit
Object
Not
Stated
Overturned Other
Killed or
Severely
Injured in a Collision
Severe injuries resulting
from a traffic collision
can result in a number
of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent
disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing
healthcare costs.
Throughout this plan, the
acronym KSI is used to
denote collisions where
someone was killed
or severely injured.
500
400
300
200
100
0 Vehicle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Bicycle Collisions
Chapter 5: Safety Analysis
22 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
100%
50%
0%
Primary Collision
Factor (PCF)
A primary collision factor (PCF) is the
one element or driving action which, in
an investigating officer's opinion, best
describes the primary or main cause
of a collision. In Richmond, the most
common PCFs are Vehicle Right of Way
Violation (23%), Unsafe Speed (18%),
and Traffic Signals and Signs (16%).
For KSI collisions, the most common
PCFs are Unsafe Speed (20%), Traffic
Signals and Signs (15%), and Pedestrian
Violation (13%). Figure 5 compares the
cited primary collision factors for all
injury collisions versus KSI collisions.
The Pedestrian Violation PCF indicates
that the pedestrian violated a rule of
the road, such as crossing outside of a
crosswalk, as opposed to the Pedestrian
Right of Way Violation PCF, where the
vehicle violates the pedestrian’s right of
way. The Pedestrian Violation category
overrepresentation in the data may be
reflective of lack of clear information
related to collision circumstances.
Driving Under the Influence
Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
that a collision will be more severe in
Richmond. While 10 percent of all injury
collisions involve drugs or alcohol, 25
percent of KSI collisions and 35 percent of
KSI pedestrian-involved collisions involve
drugs or alcohol, as shown in Figure 6.
These percentages reflect the portion of
collisions involving one or more parties
determined to be under the influence
of drugs or alcohol. Driving under the
Vehicle
Right of Way
Violation
Unsafe
Speed
Traffic
Signals and
Signs
Improper
Turning
Driving or
Bicycling
Under...
Pedestrian
Right
of Way
Violation
Wrong
Side of
Road
Following
Too Closely
Pedestrian
Violation
Unknown Other
Violation
All Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Figure 5. Injury Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021.
Figure 6. Collisions Involving Drug or Alcohol Impairment (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021.
All Injury Collisions Pedestrian-
Involved Injury
Collisions
KSI - All Collisions KSI - Pedestrian
Collisions
No Drug or Alcohol Impairment Involved or Unknown
Drug or Alcohol Impairment Involved (Non-Driver)
Drug or Alcohol Impairment Involved (Driver)
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
23 Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. influence may not always be listed as the
primary collision factor even if a driver
is found to be under the influence.
Pedestrian Location
As shown in Figure 7, collisions with
people walking frequently involved
pedestrians crossing not in a crosswalk
(31%), or walking in the road, including
the shoulder (19%). For KSI collisions,
pedestrians crossing not in a crosswalk
are an even higher percentage (37%),
again followed by pedestrians in the
road, including the shoulder (29%).
People crossing the street outside of
crosswalks and walking in the road
may indicate that there are unmet
pedestrian desire lines, and could be
evaluated to identify potential locations
for new crosswalks and sidewalks.
Lighting Conditions
A larger share of KSI collisions occur at
night. Collisions between 6PM and 6AM
are 37 percent of all injury collisions, but
54 percent of KSI collisions. Nighttime
crashes also disproportionately affect
people walking, with 47 percent of
pedestrian injury collisions occurring
between 6PM and 6AM. Figure
8 shows the distribution of injury
collisions by mode and time of day.
Nighttime collisions are
more likely than daytime
collisions to result in a
fatality or severe injury.
Figure 7. Pedestrian Actions Preceding Injury Collisions (City of Richmond, 2015-2019)
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Crossing in
crosswalk at
intersection
Crossing not in
crosswalk
In Road,
Including
Shoulder
Not in Road Crossing in
Crosswalk Not
at Intersection
Figure 8. Injury Collisions by Time of Day and Mode (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
12AM -
3AM
3AM -
6AM
6AM -
9AM
9AM -
12PM
12PM -
3PM
3PM -
6PM
6PM -
9PM
9PM -
12PM
All Injury Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Bike Collisions
Chapter 5: Safety Analysis
24 Victim Profile
Fatal and severe collisions are
disproportionately affecting young adults
(ages 15-34). People between the ages
of 15 and 34 are 30 percent of the City’s
population but represent 44 percent
of all injury crashes and 46 percent of
KSI crashes. The age distribution of
collision victims is shown on Figure 9.
Vulnerable age groups (under 15
years old and 65 or older) have not
experienced a disproportionate share
of crashes in Richmond. People under
the age of 15 are 18 percent of the City’s
population but represent less than
10 percent of all injury and KSI injury
crashes. People 65 years and older
are 13 percent of the City’s population
but represent 7 percent of all injury
crashes and 9 percent of KSI crashes.
Compared to other age groups, young
adults (15-34) are more likely to be
involved in collisions with driving under
the influence cited as the primary collision
factor. The 25-34 age group has the
highest percentage of collisions involving
unsafe speed as a primary collision
factor. Figure 10 shows the distribution
of five common primary collision factor
violations across all age groups.
Figure 9. Collision Victim Age Distribution (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Under 15 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+
All Victims
KSI Victims
Total Population
(Richmond)
Figure 10. Primary Collision Factors by Age Group (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Under 15 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+
Unsafe Speed
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Traffic Signals and Signs
Vehicle Right of Way Violations
Pedestrian Violation
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
25 As shown in Figure 11, people identified
as Black or “Other” race are over-
represented in crashes. It is important
to note that race is determined at the
discretion of the reporting officer and is
only reported at the party level. If people
of multiple races are present in a vehicle,
only the driver’s race will be reported.
People identified as Black represent 32
percent of victims, but only 20 percent of
the population of Richmond. As noted at
the beginning of this chapter, race, income,
immigration status, and English proficiency
may impact collision reporting, but there
is limited research on these factors.
Figure 11. Collision Victim Race Distribution (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: American Community Survey 5-Y ear Estimates (2015-2019), Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
All Victims
KSI Victims
Total Population (Richmond)
Asian Black Hispanic White Other
Chapter 5: Safety Analysis
26 Systemic Analysis
Systemic analysis is a proactive
safety approach that focuses on
evaluating an entire roadway network
using a defined set of criteria. It
looks at collision history on an
aggregate basis to identify high-risk
roadway characteristics in addition
to looking at high collision locations.
By merging adjacent road and
intersection features with collision
data, relationships can be uncovered
between contextual factors and
the risk of frequent and severe
collisions. This systemic process
relied on mapping all Richmond
collisions, identifying the City’s
High-Injury Network, and identifying
key safety issues and locations.
High-Injury Network
The City developed a High Injury Network
(HIN) which identifies the corridors with the
highest levels of fatal and serious crashes
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.
There are 257 total roadway miles in
the City of Richmond, but KSI crashes
do not occur on the majority of those
roads. By developing the HIN, the City
is able to focus safety improvements on
priority corridors where the most serious
crashes happen with the most frequency.
Richmond’s HIN accounts for 63% of
all crashes and 74% of KSI crashes,
which occur on just eight percent (22
miles) of Richmond’s roadway network.
When looking at mode-specific HINs,
the motor vehicle specific HIN is shown
to cover eight percent of Richmond’s
roadway network, while the pedestrian-
and bicycle-specific HINs have an even
smaller footprint and cover a mere five
percent of the City’s roadway network.
The HIN map at right shows the the City's
HIN for all modes combined and indicates
where mode-specific pedestrian, bicycle,
and vehicle HIN deviate from the all-
modes network. Separate mode-specific
HIN maps are included in Appendix A.
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
27 High Injury Network
·123
%&580
!"80
Hilltop Dr
Richmond Pkwy
Cutting Blvd
Robert Miller Dr
Rheem Ave
Klose Way
Garvin Ave
Barrett Ave
7th St
23rd St
Harbour Way S
Marina Way S
22nd St
San Pablo Ave
26th St
MacDonald Ave
13th St
Carlson Blvd
Lincoln Ave
Roosevelt Ave
Harbour Way
San Pablo Dam Rd
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.3
Miles
High Injury Network
Multimodal
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained
facilities
Multimodal
Multimodal High
Injury Network
Corridor opportunities on
non-city maintained facilities
·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 High
Injury Network
63% of all crashes occur
on the City’s multimodal
High Injury Network, which
accounts for just 8% of
Richmond’s roadways
Chapter 5: Safety Analysis
28 Collision Typing
In developing systemic analysis, it is
important to understand the relationship
between collision characteristics and the
contextual characteristics of the collision
location. A systemic matrix was developed
to identify the number of collisions for
a given collision characteristic (e.g.
location of pedestrian) and a contextual
characteristic (e.g. posted speed limit
of the roadway). Each combination of a
collision characteristic and a contextual
characteristic represents a collision type.
The highest occurring collision types and
collision types with the largest share of
severe collisions were considered for
further study. This process evaluates
risk across the entire roadway system,
rather than only managing risk at certain
locations where collisions have occurred.
From these matrices, the most frequent
and most severe collision types across
a broad range of roadway and land use
contexts within Richmond were identified.
Collision Profiles
The collision typing and stakeholder
and community feedback informed the
development of eight main collision
profiles. These collision profiles are
listed below, with an explanation of
what makes each a key safety issue.
Unsafe speeds
These collisions occur when vehicles are
traveling at speeds above the posted
speed limit or above an appropriate
speed given environmental conditions.
Traveling at an unsafe speed reduces the
time available for drivers or other roadway
users to maneuver and avoid a collision
and increases the physical consequences
of a collision. This is the top violation for
citywide vehicle-only KSI collisions and
is involved in mid-block collisions with a
fixed object and non-severe rear ends
at or near intersections. Unsafe speeds
are implicated in 25% of pedestrian
and 26% of vehicle KSI collisions.
Driving under the influence
When the driver of a vehicle is under the
influence of alcohol or drugs they may
have impaired judgment, elicit erratic
driving behavior, and exhibit increased
response times to the unexpected
presence of other roadway users or
hazards. Many collisions where someone is
driving under the influence include hitting
fixed objects or parked cars and driving the
wrong way and often result in a fatality or
severe injury. Driving under the influence
is implicated in 16% of pedestrian and 14%
of vehicle KSI collisions in Richmond.
Collisions Involving the
15-24 Age Group
Y oung adult victims, aged 15 to 24 years
old, are the most overrepresented age
group in Richmond KSI collisions. This
age group is more likely to be involved
in collisions involving vehicle right-of-
way violations and driving under the
influence. Highlighted in stakeholder
outreach as a key demographic to
consider in LRSP development, this age
group is involved in 19% of pedestrian
and 23% of vehicle collisions (as drivers
and passengers), respectively, but
represent only 13% of the population.
Stop Sign Violations at Stop-
Controlled Intersections
These violations occur when one party
fails to stop at an all-way or two-way stop-
controlled intersection. This violation is
implicated in 37% of all injury collisions but
42% of KSI collisions indicating collisions
resulting from this violation tend to be
more severe than those occurring at
other intersection types in Richmond. By
mode, this violation is implicated in 13%
of all bicycle collisions and 14% of vehicle
collisions. Furthermore, all violations in
which a driver failed to yield at a stop
sign resulting in a KSI collision occurred
near a school. Six out of seven of the
KSI collisions with this violation occurred
at side street stop intersections.
Left Turns at Signalized
Intersection
This collision occurs when left-turning
vehicles strike pedestrians or other
vehicles at signalized intersections. The
collision often occurs where a driver fails
to observe a pedestrian crossing parallel
to the vehicle’s initial position when the
driver initiates a left turn during the green
signal phase. This action is implicated
in 11% of all pedestrian collisions and 7%
of vehicle KSI collisions in Richmond.
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
29 Pedestrian ROW Violations
at Uncontrolled Crossings
This collision occurs when a driver
violates the pedestrian right-of-way at
uncontrolled crossings such as at two-
way stop-controlled intersections and
mid-block crossings. This is the top
violation for pedestrian-involved injury
collisions, implicated in 21% of pedestrian
KSI collisions. Of these violations, 44%
occurred at nighttime and all took
place on multilane roadways (with more
than one lane in each direction).
Pedestrians Crossing Outside
Crosswalk or Legal Crossings
This violation occurs where pedestrians
cross outside a marked crosswalk or legal
crossing. A legal crossing may include
both marked and unmarked crosswalks
at intersections and marked mid-block
locations. This violation accounts for
approximately 16% of pedestrian KSI
collisions with the majority of these
violations (71%) occurring midblock
where pedestrians are crossing outside
of a crosswalk or else walking in the
roadway, including the shoulder.
Contraflow Bike Riding
This violation occurs where bicyclists travel
in the opposite direction of vehicle traffic,
either in the roadway or on a sidewalk,
often where there are no dedicated
bicycle facilities. This violation presents
safety concerns because motorists do not
anticipate seeing or yielding to bicyclists
traveling against traffic which leaves
both parties susceptible to collisions, for
example when a driver is pulling out of a
driveway. Furthermore, when contraflow
riding leads a cyclist to travel toward
rather than away from a vehicle or other
bike moving with traffic, the gap between
parties closes more quickly leaving
less time for maneuvering and collision
avoidance. This is a top violation for bicycle
collisions implicated in 17% of bicycle
KSI collisions, occurring most often on
roadways with a speed limit of 30-35 mph
and that lack dedicated bicycle facilities.
Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
30 This plan’s focus on the Safe
System approach helps to
provide alignment with current
LRSP guidelines, but also
sets the City of Richmond up
for success in recognition of
emerging safety best practices
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
31 Countermeasure Toolbox
Chapter 6
The full set of countermeasures
recommended for implementation in
Richmond are listed on the following
pages categorized by focus area.
The toolbox containing detailed
descriptions of each countermeasure
along with relevant cost and
implementation characteristics
is included in Appendix B. Note,
approximate countermeasure
costs are categorized as low
($10,000), medium ($10,000-
100,000), and high (greater than
$100,000) for general planning
purposes. Additional considerations
for equitable implementation
of these countermeasures are
noted throughout the chapter.
W
YO
HERE ARE
ONTHE
SAFE S
U
YSTEMJOURNEY ?
Implementing the Safe System approach is our shared responsibility, and we all have a role. It requires shifting how we think about transportation safety and how we prioritize our transportation investments. Consider applying a Safe System lens to upcoming projects and plans in your community: put safety at the forefront and design to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances. Visit safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths to learn more.
Making a commitment to zero deaths means addressing every aspect of crash risks through the five elements of a Safe System, shown below. These layers of protection and shared responsibility promote a holistic approach to safety across the entire transportation system. The key focus of the Safe System approach is to reduce death and serious injuries through design that accommodates human mistakes and injury tolerances.
The Safe System
approach addresses
the safety of all road
users, including
those who walk,
bike, drive, ride
transit, and travel by
other modes.
Vehicles are
designed and
regulated to
minimize the
occurrence and
severity of collisions
using safety
measures that
incorporate the
latest technology.
Humans are unlikely
to survive high-speed
crashes. Reducing
speeds can
accommodate human
injury tolerances in
three ways: reducing
impact forces,
providing additional
time for drivers to
stop, and improving
visibility.
Designing to
accommodate human
mistakes and injury
tolerances can greatly
reduce the severity of
crashes that do occur.
Examples include
physically separating
people traveling at
different speeds,
providing dedicated
times for different
users to move through
a space, and alerting
users to hazards and
other road users.
When a person is
injured in a collision,
they rely on
emergency first
responders to quickly
locate them, stabilize
their injury, and
transport them to
medical facilities.
Post-crash care also
includes forensic
analysis at the crash
site, traffic incident
management, and
other activities.
Safe Road
Users
Safe
Vehicles
Safe
Speeds
Safe
Roads
Post-Crash
Care
THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH VS. TRADITIONAL ROAD SAFETY PRACTICES Traditional
Prevent crashes
Safe System
Prevent deaths and serious injuries
Improve human behavior Design for human mistakes/limitations Control speeding Reduce system kinetic energy
Individuals are responsible Share responsibility
React based on crash history Proactively identify and address risks Whereas traditional road safety
strives to modify human behavior
and prevent all crashes, the Safe
System approach also refocuses
transportation system design and
operation on anticipating human
mistakes and lessening impact
forces to reduce crash severity
and save lives.
SAFE SYSTEM ELEMENTS Figure 12. Safe
System Elements
Source: Fehr & Peers for FHWA
The safety strategies in this chapter
also cover the five elements of a Safe
System, as shown in Figure 12.
California is in the process of adopting
the Safe System approach and a
focus on equity as part of its Strategic
Highway Safety Plan. This plan’s focus
on the Safe System approach helps to
provide alignment with current LRSP
guidelines, but also sets the City of
Richmond up for success in recognition
of emerging safety best practices.
Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
32 Summary of
Countermeasures
Indicates a countermeasure identified
in the Local Road Safety Manual
Bikeways
• Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
• Bicycle Ramp
• Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
• Bike Box
• Bike Detection
• Class II Bike Lane
• Extended Bike Lane to Intersection
• Floating Transit Island
• Green Conflict Striping
• Class IV Separated Bikeway
• Mixing Zone
• Parking Buffer
• Two-State Turn Queue Bike Box
• Extend Green Time for Bikes
• Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign
Intersections & Roadways
• Rumble Strips
• All-Way Stop Control
• Centerline Hardening
• Close Slip Lane
• Directional Median Openings
to Restrict Left Turns
• Guardrail
• Median Barrier
• Roundabout
• Signal
• Intersection Reconstruction
and Tightening
• Lane Narrowing
• Left Turn Enhanced Daylighting/
Slow Turn Wedge
• Paint and Plastic Median
• Paint and Plastic Mini Circle
• Partial Closure/Diverter
• Protected Intersection
• Raised Crosswalk
• Raised Intersection
• Raised Median
• Refuge Island
• Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersection
• Road Diet
• Speed Hump or Speed Table
• Splitter Island
• Straighten Crosswalk
Other
• Access Management/Close Driveway
• Intersection Lighting
• Segment Lighting
• Curbside Management
• Far-Side Bus Stop
• Delineators, Reflectors, and/
or Object Markers
• Median Guardrail
• Speed Limit Reduction
• Relocate Hazardous Utility Poles
• Remove Obstructions For Sightlines
• Upgrade Lighting to LED
• Red Light Camera
ENGINEERING
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
33 Pedestrian Facilities
• Audible Push Button Upgrade
• Add Sidewalk
• Install/Upgrade Pedestrian
Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations
(Signs and Markings Only)
• Co-Locate Bus Stops and
Pedestrian Crossings
• Curb Extensions
• Extended Time Pushbutton
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Pedestrian Countdown Timer
• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
• Landscape Buffer
• Leading Pedestrian Interval
and Pedestrian Recall
• Pedestrian Detection
• Removing Crossing Prohibition
• Restripe Crosswalk
• Upgrade Curb Ramp
• Widen Sidewalk
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Signals
• Retroreflective Tape on Signals
• Supplemental Signal Heads
• Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
• Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
• Extend Y ellow and All Red Time
• Flashing Y ellow Turn Phase
• Pedestrian Scramble
• Prohibit Left Turn
• Prohibit Turns During Pedestrian Phase
• Protected Left Turns
• Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
• Separate Right-Turn Phasing
• Shorten Cycle Length
• Signal Interconnectivity and
Coordination / Green Wave
• Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
• Upgrade Signal Head
Signing & Striping
• Advance Stop Bar
• Advance Yield Markings
• Flashing Beacon as Advance Warning
• LED-Enhanced Sign
• Painted Centerline and Raised
Pavement Markers at Curves
on Residential Streets
• Speed Feedback Sign
• Speed Legends on Pavement
at Neighborhood Entries
• Striping Through Intersection
• Time-Based Turn Restriction
• Upgrade Intersection
Pavement Markings
• Upgrade Signs with
Fluorescent Sheeting
• Upgrade Striping
• Upgrade to Larger Warning Signs
• Wayfinding
• Yield to Pedestrian Sign
Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
34 Engineering
Crosswalk Policy Best Practices
Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings occur
where sidewalks or designated walkways
intersect a roadway at a location where
no traffic control (e.g., traffic signal or
stop sign) exists. This crossing type
occurs at intersections (marked or
unmarked) and at mid-block locations
Figure 13. Application of Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures by Roadway Features Source: FHWA
(where they must be marked). Research
has demonstrated the importance of
marking uncontrolled crossings to
facilitate access to key destinations
while ensuring that additional safety
treatments are applied at these locations
if they have higher traffic speeds and
volumes. The FHWA Guide for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing
Locations proposes countermeasures
based on road conditions, crash
causes, and pedestrian safety issues.
Figure 13 summarizes recommendations
from the guide, includes a comprehensive
matrix and list of FHWA-approved
pedestrian crash countermeasures
suggested for application at
uncontrolled crossing locations per
roadway and traffic features.
Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. The absence of a number (#) signifies that the countermeasure is
generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions
may be considered following engineering judgment.
Signifies that the countermeasure should
always be considered, but not mandated or
required, based upon engineering judgment at
a marked uncontrolled crossing location.
#
POSTED SPEED LIMIT AND AADT
Vehicle AADT
<9,000
Vehicle AADT
9,000-15,000
Vehicle AADT
>15,000
Roadway Configuration ≤30 mph 35mph ≥40mph ≤30 mph 35mph ≥40mph ≤30 mph 35mph ≥40mph 2 lanes
1 lane in each direction
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes
WITH RAISED MEDIAN
1 lane in each direction
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes
WITHOUT RAISED MEDIAN
1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn
lane
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ lanes
WITH RAISED MEDIAN
2 or more lanes in each direction
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ lanes
WITHOUT RAISED MEDIAN
2 or more lanes in each direction
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements
should always occur in conjunction with
other identified countermeasures.
Key
1 High-visibility crosswalk
markings, parking
restrictions on crosswalk
approach, adequate
nighttime lighting levels,
and crossing warning signs
2 Raised crosswalk
3 Advance “Yield Here
To (Stop Here For)
Pedestrians” sign and
yield (stop) line
4 In-street pedestrian
crossing sign
5 Curb extension
6 Pedestrian refuge island
7 Rectangular rapid-
flashing beacon (RRFB)*
8 Road diet
9 Pedestrian hybrid
beacon (PHB)*
*It should be noted that
the PHB and RRFB are
not both installed at the
same crossing location
ENGINEERING
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
35 Demand Considerations
for Crosswalks
Uncontrolled and mid-block crossings
should be identified as a candidate for
marking if there is a demonstrated need
for a crosswalk. Figure 14 provides a
protocol for deciding if a crosswalk is
appropriate. Engineering judgment should
ultimately be used to select locations
appropriate for a marked, uncontrolled
crossing. Enhanced treatments beyond
basic striping and signing should be
considered for uncontrolled locations,
as shown on the facing page.
OR
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
FEASIBLE
OR
25 20 pedestrians per hour
cross (in any two hours,
not necessarily
consecutive)
Location connects two
pedestrian generators such
as a school, park, bus stop,
hospital, neighborhood
serving commercial center,
or multi-family residential
Insufficient need to justify
marked crossing
Nearest appropriately
marked or protected
crosswalk is at least
300 /f_t or more away
Low speed (posted or
prima facie 25 MPH),
2-lane roadway
Direct pedestrians to the
nearest marked or
protected crossing
Pedestrians can be easily
seen from a feasible
stopping sight distance
It is feasible to remove
sight obstruction or lower
the speed limit
Consider installing a stop
sign, signal, or grade
separation
Use Crossing Guidance to
determine treatment
options
Should a crosswalk be installed?
Figure 14. Samples of Decision Tree for Marking Crosswalks Source: Fehr & Peers
ENGINEERING
Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
36 ENGINEERING Crosswalk Markings
Crosswalk markings help drivers know
where to expect pedestrians and provide
guidance for pedestrians crossing the
roadway by defining and delineating
paths on approaches to uncontrolled
and mid-block locations. The use of high
visibility striping is appropriate at both
uncontrolled crossing locations, and
signalized locations as traffic volumes,
speeds, and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
require. There are several treatments
for high visibility markings, including the
continental and triple-four (also called
double continental) markings, shown in
Figure 15. The City of Richmond should
choose a preferred style to use, so it is
Triple-FourContinentalStandard
consistently applied. The City may also
want to adopt a policy of using high
visibility markings at all marked crosswalks
when intersection upgrades occur.
Continental striping is often chosen to
communicate sensitive pedestrian crossing
areas as the designated high visibility
tool. Research shows that continental
crosswalk markings are more visible
to drivers at night than parallel line
markings.
9 Crosswalks with longitudinal
lines parallel to traffic flow allow drivers
to see the marked crosswalk from a
greater distance, when compared with
standard markings. This increased visibility
distance gives drivers more time to safely
stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross.
Additional Resources
9 Fitzpatrick, K., S. Chrysler, V. Iragavarapu, and
E.S. Park. Detection Distances to Crosswalk
Markings: Transverse Lines, Continental Markings,
and Bar Pairs. Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2250. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC, 2011.
Figure 15. Crosswalk
Marking Examples
Source: Fehr & Peers
Triple-four markings include two
dashed lines on the outside with
a clear space in the center to
direct pedestrian traffic and are
often enhanced with outer rows
of raised pavement markers.
They may be less costly to install
and maintain as they require
less paint than a standard
high visibility crosswalk.
Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
37 Education
Traffic safety education plays an important
role in shaping and shifting behavior.
Many cities, such as Seattle, Oakland, and
Los Angeles, are including community
engagement and education to make
streets safer for all. Education on traffic
safety requires a collaborative process
among many stakeholders to achieve
the goal of increased safety. Targeted
education can be directed at vulnerable
populations, with the help of local partners,
and at certain behaviors of drivers,
pedestrian, and bicyclists to deter specific
collision types. Such programs can be
structured classes, such as road school for
cyclists, or outreach campaigns, such as
signs that discourage distracted driving.
Public Education
Media Campaign
A public education media campaign
focused on discouraging drinking and
driving and/or speeding, along with
encouraging increased awareness
of pedestrians and bicyclists at night
and appropriate crosswalk behaviors,
can help promote behavior change.
Messages about safe and responsible
driving, moving over for EMS vehicles,
awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians,
and increasing visibility at night can help
promote behaviors that prevent fatal
and severe collisions. As an example,
collaborating with local radio stations
can help spread the message to drivers.
Richmond can develop targeted outreach
education campaigns that focus on
the common violations that lead to
fatalities and severe injuries. Based on
collision profiles developed for this LRSP,
EDUCATION
education and outreach campaigns
may include the programs listed here.
Partner with Local Schools
on Traffic Safety
Local schools can be partners in promoting
safe driver behavior during school pick-
up and drop offs. Education campaigns
can involve students promoting safer
driving to their parents, such as holding
signs during pick-up and drop offs that
encourage safer driving. 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.
Culturally Relevant Engagement
Community engagement is not a
one-size-fits-all model as different
communities have different needs. By
developing culturally relevant engagement
strategies, all participants are invited into
conversations about safety. Culturally
relevant engagement strategies can help
education and programming around traffic
safety reach a larger audience and be
more impactful. For example, including
cultural markers of a local community, such
as contracting with popular local food
vendors to cater engagement activities,
can be a creative and welcoming way
of engaging residents. Meeting people
"where they are" to gather input on
safety issues at local parks can more
effectively engage parents and children
rather than expecting families to attend
a meeting at a government building.
For drivers this may include:
• Education campaign that emphasizes
that speeding is deadly because unsafe
speeding caused 19 percent of crashes
and 20 percent of KSI crashes.
• Education campaign around
driving under the influence, as 10
percent of Richmond KSI crashes
involve drugs or alcohol.
• Education campaign encouraging drivers
to be aware of left-turn conflicts and
pedestrians in the road because left-
turn vehicle right-of-way violations are
responsible for 2 percent of all KSI and
pedestrian right-of-way violations at
uncontrolled crossings are involved in 15
percent of bicycle and pedestrian KSI.
For people biking:
• Classes that teach bicyclists how to
use on-street bike facilities, especially
for those facility types that are new to
or relatively uncommon in the City.
For people walking:
• Education campaign encouraging
crossing in crosswalks because 10
percent of bicycle and pedestrian
KSI occurred when a pedestrian was
crossing not in a crosswalk. However,
other approaches are also needed to
mitigate pedestrian crashes because
many pedestrian crashes occurred when
a pedestrian was using a legal crossing.
Figure 16. Community
Engagement Examples
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