Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) — Riverside City Council, December 13, 2022

ES-1

ES-2
Acknowledgements
The 2022 Riverside Local Roadway Safety Plan was funded through a grant from the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The City of Riverside, along with stakeholders and partner agencies, worked to develop a plan that aims to increase roadway safety for all users of the City’s roadway network. The study was managed by Brett Craig, PE, TE, and Philip Nitollama, TE of the City’s Department of Public Works, Traffic Engineering Division, in coordination with a stakeholder group. A consulting team led by Kimley-Horn and Associates assisted the City of Riverside and the stakeholder group in preparing this Plan.

Project Partners
City of Riverside
• Brett Craig, PE, TE
• Philip Nitollama, TE
Riverside Police Department
• Lt. Jeff Spencer
• Sgt. Ryan Taack
Riverside Unified School District
• Ken Mueller
• Sergio San Martin
University of California, Riverside
• Irma Henderson
Riverside Bicycle Club
• Eric Lewis
Riverside Community Health Foundation
• Shene Bowie-Hussey
Riverside Downtown Partnership
• Janice Penner
Riverside Transit Authority
• Jennifer Nguyen
Consultant Team
Kimley-Horn:
• Jason Melchor, PE
• Kyle McGowan, AICP

ES-3
(Per Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)] REPORTS

DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS,AND INFORMATION—Notwithstanding any other provision 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 a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.)
TO BE SIGNED BY ____________________________

ES-4

Table of Content s
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ ES-7

1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 1

2. Vision and Goals ....................................................................................................................................... 3

3. Process ..................................................................................................................................................... 5

3.1 Guiding Manuals .................................................................................................................................. 5

3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual ..................................................................................................... 6

3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual ................................................................................................................ 6

3.2 Analysis Techniques ............................................................................................................................ 7

3.2.1 Collision and Network Screening Analysis ................................................................................... 7

3.2.2 Statistical Performance Measures ................................................................................................ 8

3.3 Future Analysis .................................................................................................................................. 11

4. Safety Partners ....................................................................................................................................... 12

4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1..................................................................................................................... 12

4.2 Field Tour Stakeholder Workshop ..................................................................................................... 12

4.3 Stakeholder Meeting #2..................................................................................................................... 12

5. Existing Efforts ........................................................................................................................................ 12

6. Data Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 18

6.1 Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................. 18

6.2 Collision Data .................................................................................................................................... 18

7. Crash Safety Trends ............................................................................................................................... 22

7.1 All Collisions ...................................................................................................................................... 22

7.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries ................................................................................................................ 23

7.3 Injury Levels ...................................................................................................................................... 24

7.4 Cause of Collision .............................................................................................................................. 24

7.5 Vulnerable Users ............................................................................................................................... 25

7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions .................................................................................................................. 25

7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions ........................................................................................................................ 25

7.6 Nighttime Collisions ..................................................................................................................... 27

7.7 Other Significant Trends ............................................................................................................. 27

7.8 Statewide Comparison ................................................................................................................ 27

7.9 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results ............................................................................ 28

ES-5

8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas ..................................................................................... 38

8.1 Best Practices Evaluation .................................................................................................................. 38

8.2 Emphasis Areas ................................................................................................................................ 41

8.2.4 Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) ..................................... 41

8.2.1 Emphasis Area #2: Impaired Driving .......................................................................................... 42

8.2.2 Emphasis Area #3: Intersection Improvements .......................................................................... 43

8.2.3 Emphasis Area #4: Aggressive Driving ...................................................................................... 43

9. Countermeasure Toolbox........................................................................................................................ 45

9.1 Infrastructure Improvements ............................................................................................................. 45

9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process ........................................................................................... 45

9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 46

9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox .................................................................................................. 79

10. Funding Sources & Next Steps ............................................................................................................. 83

10.1 Funding Sources ............................................................................................................................. 83

10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program .................................................................................... 83

10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program .................................................................................. 83

10.1.3 California SB 1 .......................................................................................................................... 84

10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants .................................................................................. 84

10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program ............................................................................... 85

10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program ............................................................ 85

10.1.7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act .................................................................................... 85

10.2 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................................................ 86

10.2.1 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................. 86

10.2.2 Analysis Update ........................................................................................................................ 86

10.2.3 Implementation Strategies ........................................................................................................ 86

10.3 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 87 APPENDIX A ............................................................................................................................................... 88

ES-6

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 - Riverside City Profile ................................ ................................ .............................. 1 Figure 2 – Critical Crash Rate Formula ................................ ................................ .................. 8 Figure 3 – Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion .............10 Figure 4 – Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections ................................ .........19 Figure 5 – All Collisions (2017-2022) ................................ ................................ .....................20 Figure 6 – Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2022) ................................ .......................21 Figure 7 – Collision Type by Year (2017-2022) ................................ ................................ ......22 Figure 8 – Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2022) ................................ .......................23 Figure 9 – Collisions by Injury Levels (2017-2022) ................................ ............................... 24 Figure 10 – Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions (2017-2022) ................................ .....................26 Figure 11 – Collision Network Screening Analysis Results - Intersections ........................29 Figure 12 - Collision Network Screening Analysis Results – Mid-block Collisions ...........30

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Review of Existing City Plans ................................ ................................ ................13 Table 2 – Review of Existing City Projects ................................ ................................ ............14 Table 3 – Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved ...................23 Table 4: - Cause of Collisions (2017-2022) ................................ ................................ ............24 Table 5: Comparison of Statewide and Riverside Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes ..............27 Table 6– Analysis Results: Intersections (Top 20 Per Type) ................................ ...............28 Table 7 – Analysis Results: Segments (Top 20 Per Type) ................................ ....................31 Table 8 – Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices ................................ .....................38 Table 9 - Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox ................................ ............................80

ES-7

Executive Summary
Riverside has created a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which identifies a framework to identify, analyze, and develop traffic safety enhancements on the City’s roadway network. The LRSP was developed in response to local issues and needs. Through the analysis, this report has identified emphasis areas to inform and further guide safety evaluation and planning for the City’s transportation network. The LRSP also analyzes collision data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of collision history on the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to:

1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,

2. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and

3. Develop safety measures using the four E’s of safety:

Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and
Emergency Response to encourage safer driver
behavior and better severity outcomes.

With this LRSP, the City continues its safety efforts by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic recommendations to enhance safety.

The City’s vision is to enhance the transportation network and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes, and the goals for the City of Riverside include the following:

Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.

Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.

Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.

Goal #4: Define safety projects for HSIP and other
program funding consideration.

This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data (July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2022) and roadway improvements to
assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

Further, the collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations with more 16,081 5-year
collisions
89Fatalities
327 Serious
Injuries
45%
Occurred at
Signalized
Intersections
39%
Occurred at
Unsignalized
Intersections
30%
Due to
Agressive
Driving

7.4% Impaired
Driving

5.4%
Involving
Pedestrians &
Bicyclists
Source: Riverside Collision Database (2017- 2022)

ES-8

active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, loc ations were identified within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were derived. The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures to address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users.

Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.

Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) Emphasis Area #2: Impaired Drivers
Emphasis Area #3: Intersection Improvements
Emphasis Area #4: Aggressive Driving
The following 12 case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the City.

1. Signalized Intersection: Market St & 6th St

2. Roadway Segment: Mission Inn Ave – Redwood Dr to Scout Ln

3. Roadway Segment: Main St – Spruce St to Poplar St

4. Signalized Intersection: 14th St & Olivewood Ave

5. Unsignalized Intersection: Victoria Ave & Lincoln Ave

6. Unsignalized Intersection: Washington St & Lincoln Ave

7. Signalized Intersection: Van Buren Boulevard & Wood Rd

8. Unsignalized Intersection: Tyler St & Hemet St

9. Signalized Intersection: Tyler St & Magnolia Ave

10. Signalized Intersection: Van Buren Blvd & Arlington Ave

11. Signalized Intersection: Van Buren Blvd & Jurupa Ave

12. Roadway Segment: Central Ave – Fremont St to Wilderness Ave These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patte rns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost -effective safety benefits. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations

ES-9

with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing.

Additionally, this information can be used to help the City app ly for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These opportunities were assembled into the “countermeasure toolbox” shown below. The toolbox shows the crash reduction factor, which is the factor used to estimate the expected reduction in number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). The toolbox also shows the countermeasure ID number from the California Local Roadway Safety Manual.

ES-10

Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox
ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
S02 Improve signal hardware; lenses, back-plates
with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number

Signalized intersections with significant broadside
and rear-end collisions due to signal visibility
15% $26,400 per intersection
S04 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
system
Signalized intersections with significant right-angle
and rear-end collisions due to unsafe stopping
during yellow phases
40% $76,800 per intersection
S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning for
signalized intersections
Locations with sight distance issues 30% $10,200 per beacon S17PB1 Install audible pedestrian push button systems Signalized intersections with crosswalks 25% $11,000 Per intersection S18PB Install high visibility crosswalk for signalized
intersections
Signalized intersections with no marked crossing
and pedestrian heads, with significant turning
movements
25% $74,400 per intersection
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Signalized Intersections – especially those with
high pedestrian activity
60% $45,600 per intersection
NS03 Install signals Unsignalized intersections with significant collision activity where warrants are met
30% $378,000 per intersection
NS05mr Convert intersection to mini-roundabout Intersections with lower vehicle speeds, with posted speed limits of 30 mph or less
30% $100,000 per location
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $8,400 per sign
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled
Intersections
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $12,000 per beacon

1 This countermeasure typically covers pedestrian countdown signal heads, but can be also used for audible pedestrian push butt ons

ES-11

ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
NS14 Install raised median on approaches for
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized intersections where related or
nearby turning movements affect the safety and
operation of an intersection
25% $1,068 per LF
NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and markings only)
Unsignalized intersections with high pedestrian
activity where sufficient sight distance is available
25% $34,800 per intersection
NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
Unsignalized intersections and mid-block
pedestrian crossings
35% $30,000 Per location
R08 Install raised median Locations with a high number of head-on collisions
25% $1,068 per LF
R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two-
way left-turn and bike lanes)
Roadway segments with high number of
sideswipe collisions
30% $79,200 per mile
R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves Roadway segments that have a significant amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
40% $2,400 per sign
R24 Install curve advance warning signs Roadway segments that have a significant amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
25% $2,400 per sign
R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing
beacon)
Roadway segments that have a significant
amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
30% $12,000 per beacon
R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Roadway segments with a significant number of collisions due to unsafe speeds.
30% $22,800 per sign
R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines

Roadway segments with collisions that resulted in
run-off-road right/left, head-on, or opposite-
direction-sideswipe.
25%

$100,800

per mile
R32PB Install bike lanes Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions 35% $76,800 per mile

ES-12

ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions and/or high bicycle traffic volumes, where
sufficient space is available for the selected
separation measure
45%

$120,000

per mile
R21 Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction
Surface Treatments)
Areas where there are significant crashes or
skidding, and areas near curves, loop rams,
intersections, and areas with short stopping or
weaving distances
55% $33 Per square yard
-* Refresh lane guidance markings Locations with faded lane guidance markings/striping
5% $6,000 per location
-* Install curb extensions Intersections with high pedestrian activity 5% $20,000 per extension *The City is not limited to the countermeasures in this toolbox and can utilize other approved countermeasures in its roadway safety pl anning.

ES-13

Near-term action items were identified to accelerate the City’s achievement of the goals and vision of this LRSP. The City can:
• Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users, • Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network, and • Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in Riverside.

The City will be regularly monitored and update the analysis performed in this plan. A full plan update will completed five years from the City Council’s adoption of this plan which will maintain eligibility for HSIP funding.

1 1. Introduction
Located in Riverside County about 50 miles southeast of Downtown Los Angeles , the City of Riverside is a city with a population of 314,998 according to the 2020 census. Figure 1 shows vital statistics for the City of Riverside.

Figure 1 - Riverside City Profile

Source: City of Riverside
Riverside is a medium-sized city with shopping, food, entertainment, and outdoor recreation.

Based on University of California Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters, Riverside’s economic losses due to traffic injuries amounted to approximately $1.3B from 2017 to 2021. This report identifies factors associated with the most vehicle crashes particular to the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes.

This Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high -crash locations, high-risk locations, and city -wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for the following opportunities:

1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,

2. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and

2 3. Develop safety measures using the four E’s of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response) to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.

Riverside has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the City a nd with this LRSP, Riverside is continuing to prioritize safety in its planning processes. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) most recently ranked Riverside 8 out of 15 peer cities for traffic injuries after normalizing for population and VMT in 2019. With number one (1) in the OTS crash rankings considered the highest, or “worst,” this positions the City at slightly below average for roadway safety performance. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of Crossroads crash data from July 1, 2017 – June 30, 2022 and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.

The intent of the LRSP is to:
• Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
• Develop lasting partnerships
• Support for grant/funding applications, and
• Prioritize investments in traffic safety.

3 2. Vision and Goals
The Riverside LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. Through historical data and trends, proactive identification and safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.

As cities across the country have implemented LRSPs and systemically addressed the conditions leading to fatal and severe-injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found that LRSPs effectively improve safety. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. This project’s vision, goals, and objectives have been established to reflect discussions with Riverside staff, various stakeholders identified by City staff, and a review of existing plans /policies in the area.

VISION: To enhance the transportation network for all users to move towards zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries

Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.

Objectives:
• Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. • Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists).

Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.

Objectives:
• Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for crashes based on present characteristics closely associated with severe crashes. • Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon.

Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.

Objectives:
• Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). • Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied city-wide.

4 Goal #4: Define safety projects for future Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) and other program funding consideration.

Objectives:
• Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth -coming cycles to apply for funding.
• Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. • Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP and other funding consideration. • Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan.

5 3. Process
The primary goal for the City of Riverside and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choi ces for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.

Guidance on the LRSP process is provid ed at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for a LRSP.

FHWA encourages the following:
• The establishment of a working group (stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP • A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern • The identification of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
• Establish leadership
• Analyze the safety data
• Determine emphasis areas
• Identify strategies
• Prioritize and incorporate strategies
• Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and developed emphasis areas. The LRSP recommendations consider the f our E's of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response.

3.1 Guiding Manuals
This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Riverside at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the City that will benefit from safety enhancements and derives crash risk factors based on historic crash data using a network screening process. The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics and related driving behaviors contributing to crashes. This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described.

6 3.1.1 Local R oadway Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) encourage s local agencies to pursue a proactive approach when identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is the analyzation of safety in an entire roadway network through either a one -time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.2 According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), “ the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.” To provide the most beneficial and competitive funding approach , the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should reflect a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost -effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates.

These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the potential effective countermeasures. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels.

Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs.

3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. 3 This four-part manual is divided into the following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.

In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, t he “Network Screening Process” is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.

2 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 3 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx

7 The HSM identifies five steps in this process:4

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

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

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

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

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

The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories.

3.2 Analysis Techniques

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

The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. These crash type factors were 1) collision injury

4 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2.

8 (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only), 2) collision type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other), 3) environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), 4) driver behavior (aggressive), a nd 5) driver impairment. With these additional factors, the locations were further analyzed and assigned a new rank.

From the results of the network screening analyses, a short-list of locations was chosen based on crash activity, crash severity, crash patterns, location type, and area of the City of Riverside to provide the greatest variety of locations covering the widest range of safety opportunities for safety toolbox development. The intent is to populate the safety toolbox with mitigation measures th at will be applicable to most of the crash activity in the city. Ten locations will ultimately be selected for mitigation analysis.

3.2.2 Statistical Performance Measures
Critical Crash Rate (CCR)
Reviewing the number of collisions at a location is a method used to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level; however, it does not give a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment daily. The Highway Safety Manual describes the Critical Crash Rate method which provides a statistical review of locations to determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first step in analyzing for patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that location, and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging.

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

Figure 2 – Critical Crash Rate Formula

SOURCE: HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

9 DATA NEEDS
CCR can be calculated using:
• Daily entering volume for intersections, or VMT for roadway segments; • Intersection control types to separate them into like populations; • Roadway functional classification to separate them into like populations; • Collision records in GIS or tabular form including coordinates or linear measures.

STRENGTHS
• Reduces low volume exaggeration
• Considers variance
• Establishes comparison threshold

CCR Methodology
The Process of analyzing the CCR and comparing locations (separately by intersections and segments) is a multi-step process. The following is a high-level description of the process undertaken to develop the initial ranking of locations.

The first step in the process was to establish a city-wide crash rate for each facility population. These populations are broken into two categories with sub-categories:
• Intersection:
o Signalized
o Unsignalized
• Roadway Classification:
o Major Arterial
o Minor Arterial
o Collector
o Local
The individual crash rate for each location was then calculated based on the associated traffic volume.

This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. The next step was to establish a Significance Threshold. This Threshold was used to determine what level of exceedance (how much the crash rate exceeded the critical crash rate) a location must have based on traffic volume to provide a high level of confidence that the collision occurring at th e location is not random. For this study, a confidence level of 95% was used. The local crash rates were then compared to Significance Threshold to see if each location exceeded the expected CCR and if so, by how much. After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked by their categories according to that level of exceedance.

Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs). This figure is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only

10 crashes at each site. This figure allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4).

Probability
The Highway Safety Manual describes the methodology for determining the probability that crash type is greater than an identified threshold proportion. This helps to identify locations where a crash type is more likely to occur.

DATA NEED S
The probability of a specific crash type can be determined using collisions records with location data, and classifications of the locations (intersections or segments) studied.

STRENGTHS
• Can be used as a diagnostic tool
• Considers variance in data
• Not affected by selection bias
The HSM methodology first determines the frequency of a specific collision type at an individual location, then determines the observed proportion of that collision type relative to all collision types at that location.

A threshold proportion is then determined for the specific collision type; HSM suggests utilizing the proportion of the collision type observed in the entire reference population (e.g. throughout the entire City of Riverside).

These proportions are then utilized to determine the probability that the proportion of a specific crash type is greater than the long-term expected proportion of that crash type.

Figure 3 – Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion

SOURCE: HIGHWAY SAFETY MANUAL

11 3.3 Future Analysis
The City will conduct regular collision monitoring as described in Section 10.2. The City will then refresh the analysis and update the LRSP every 5 years to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding, as described in Section 10.2.

12 4. Safety Partners
Local stakeholders were included in the development of this report to ensure the local perspective was maintained at the forefront of planning efforts. A stakeholder group of City Public Works staff and external representatives from the Riverside Police Departmen t, Riverside Unified School District, University of California, Riverside , Riverside Bicycle Club, Riverside Community Health Foundation, Riverside Downtown Partnership, and Riverside Transit Authority.

The local stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, City Public Works and consultant staff met to discuss pot ential countermeasures and challenge areas through a field visit. The summary of the field visit meeting are outlined below.

4.1 Stakeholder Meetin g #1
The first stakeholder meeting was conducte d virtually on August 4 , 2022 . At the meeting, stakeholders w ere introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study.

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

4.2 Field Tour Stakeholder Workshop
On August 8, 2022, the project team visited each of the 12 “case study” locations to identify potential issues that are contributing to the collision patterns. Potential countermeasures were identified and discussed.

4.3 Stakeholder Meeting #2
The second stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually on September 1, 2022. During this meeting case study locations were presented to the stakeholders with a list of observations and potential countermeasures. Emphasis/challenge areas were discussed, specifically aggressive driving and impaired driving as a major factor in collisions throughout the City. Stakeholder feedback was reviewed and incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP.

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

Table 1 outlines the relevant existing City plans and their improvements and funding sources.

Table 2 outlines the relevant existing City projects and their timelines.

13 Table 1 – Review of Existing City Plans
Document Name Transportation Policies/Improvements
General Plan 2025
(Circulation and
Community Mobility
Element)
• Outlines citywide improvements pertaining to housing, public safety, land use and urban design, circulation and community mobility, education, and more • Highlights the community’s involvement in implementing changes for the City Pedestrian Target
Safeguarding Plan
(PTS)

(part of PACT
document)
• Outlines design recommendations for six high priority zones in the City, such as Main Street Pedestrian Mall, University Village, and Ryan Bonaminio Park • Provides building perimeter and public space security recommendations to protect pedestrians from unauthorized vehicles entering public spaces • Aims to promote safe walkability in the City
Active Transportation
Plan (AT Plan)

(part of PACT
document)
• Establishes policies, infrastructure recommendations, and supporting programs for walking, bicycling, and other transportation modes
• Outlines funding sources, infrastructure projects, and implementation strategies • Identifies and prioritizes bicycle and pedestrian projects • Appendices A & B contain intersections with pedestrian/bicycle involved collisions

Complete Streets
Ordinance (CS)

(part of PACT
document)
• Outlines improvements for the development of pedestrian paths, street connectivity for all users, and the integration of public gathering spaces placed in the City of Riverside
• Identifies design guidelines for Complete Streets implementations

Trails Master Plan
(TMP)

(part of PACT
document)
• Provides the City of Riverside’s most updated version of its trail network, design, maintenance, and funding to its residents, advocates, and developers • Recommends new trail and gap closures, including trails along Main Street, Hole Ave, Mitchell Ave, and Wood St
• Integrates the City’s transportation network with trail facilities

14 Table 2 – Review of Existing City Projects
Project Name Timeline Transportation Policies/Improvements Current
La Sierra
Neighborhood
Sidewalk
Improvements
Estimated
Completion in
Winter 2022
Improvements to sidewalks in La Sierra Neighborhoods
FY 20-21 Arterial
and Minors
Maintenance, Phase
2 Estimated
Completion in
Late Summer
2022
Asphalt concrete pavement restoration for various streets FY 20-21 SB-1
Traffic Improvements
Estimated
Completion in
Late Summer
2022
Various traffic improvements from SB-1 funding
FY 19-20 SB-1
Maintenance
Improvements,
Phase 2
Estimated
Completion in
Late Summer
2022
Various maintenance improvements from SB-1 funding
Van Buren Blvd.
widening from
Jurupa Ave. to the
Northerly City Limits
Estimated
Completion in
Spring 2023
Widening the east side of Van Buren Blvd along with
installing new UT and streetlights
SR-91/Adams Street
Interchange
Reconfiguration
Estimated
Completion in
Spring 2023
Rehabilitating the SR-91 and Adams St interchange
Adair Sidewalk – Jo
Jo Way to Randolph
Street
TBD
New concrete sidewalks and American Disability Act-
compliant truncated domes along Adair Avenue
Market Street Bridge
Replacement Over
the Santa Ana River
Estimated
Completion in
2024
Replacing and Improving the Market Street Bridge
Berry Road
Widening – Selina
Street to Bush
Avenue
Summer 2022 Widening Berry Road from 20 ft to 34 ft to match rest of road Third St Grade Sep
Project TBD Grade separation projects along Third Street Mission Boulevard
Bridge Replacement
at Santa Ana River
Estimated
Completion in
Winter 2023
Replacing and Improving Mission Boulevard Bridge
Orange Street
Widening
Improvement Project
TBD
Construction of new gutter and curb to go along with
concrete pavement rehabilitation

15 Project Name Timeline Transportation Policies/Improvements HSIP Cycle 7 TBD
Install High Friction Surface Treatment at Five Locations, Construct 2 HAWK Signals, Deploy new signal timing plans for 35 Traffic Signals in the Downtown Area
HSIP Cycle 8
TBD
Install new model 2070 controllers, with an upgraded
controller software and central system.

Completed
Bicycle
Improvements State-
Aid Project No.

ATPL-5058(96)
Completed Downtown Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements
Central/Canyon
Crest/Watkins Bike
Lanes
Completed Install cycle tracks, bike lanes, pedestrian arrows Indiana Widening at
Pierce Street
Completed
Spring 2021
Constructing new utilities and new traffic signals in
preparation for a new high school on the intersection
Magnolia Ave.

Improvements from
Buchanan to
Banburry
Federal Aid Project:

STPL-5058(102)
Completed
01/13/21
Widening the street to provide a third lane and to provide on- and off-ramps to SR-91
2018-2019 SB-1
Maintenance and
Traffic Improvements
Completed
01/29/21
Allocating SB-1 funding for various improvements and
maintenance
Iowa Avenue
Improvements from
Martin Luther King to
University
Completed
02/26/21 Providing new UT and two travel lanes in each direction City-Wide Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Improvements
Completed
03/11/21
Various improvements for bicycle lanes and pedestrian
walkways
Adair Ave and Bonita
Sidewalk
Improvements
Completed
Spring 2022
Improvements to Adair Avenue and Bonita Sidewalk
including new concrete
Wells-Arlanza
Sidewalk
Improvements
Federal-Aid Project
No. ATPL-5058(101)
Completed
01/08/19
Improving the sidewalk for safe walking routes to nearby schools
2016-2017 Arterial
and Minor Streets
Maintenance
Completed
09/27/18 Asphalt concrete pavement restoration for various streets

16 Project Name Timeline Transportation Policies/Improvements 2015-2016 CDBG
Street Improvements
for Holding Street,
Lime Street and
Evans Street
Completed
12/15/17
Utilizing CDBG to add truncated domes and other various sidewalk improvements
Street Widening at
Quiet Lane and
Blehms St
Completed
06/19/18 Widening Quiet Lane and Blehms St
2016-2017 CDBG
Street Improvements
Project
Completed
08/03/19
Utilizing CDBG to add truncated domes and other various sidewalk improvements
2017-2018 Arterial &
Minor Streets
Maintenance Phase I
Completed
04/26/19 Asphalt concrete pavement restoration for various streets 2017-2018 SB-1
Maintenance &
Traffic Improvements
Completed
10/18/19
Utilizing SB-1 funding for various traffic improvements and maintenance
2016-2017 CDBG
ADA Footpath
Improvements for
Redwood Drive,
Locust Street and
Fairmount Park
Completed
11/09/19
Creating ADA improvements to sidewalks such as truncated domes
2017-2018 Arterial &
Minor Streets
Maintenance Ph 2
Completed
09/20/18 Asphalt concrete pavement restoration for various streets Citywide Dynamic
Speed Feedback
Sign Installation
Completed
10/26/18 Dynamic Speed Feedback Sign Installation
Selkirk Avenue
Street Improvements
Completed
03/21/19 Various improvements along Selkirk Avenue
2017-2018 CDBG
ADA Footpath and
Street Improvement
Completed
05/01/19
Utilizing Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) to
add truncated domes and other various sidewalk
improvements
2017-2018 CDBG
Street Improvements
for Wilbur Street and
Sidewalk
Improvements for
Cook Avenue
Completed
12/19/19
Utilizing CDBG to add truncated domes and other various sidewalk improvements

Indian Hill Road
Slope
Completed
11/01/19
Installation of a 100 ft retaining wall to support street right of way

17 Project Name Timeline Transportation Policies/Improvements Alessandro
Boulevard at Royal
Hill Drive Pedestrian
Ramp Repairs
Completed
09/06/17 Pedestrian ramp repairs at Alessandro Bl and Royal Hill Dr 2018-2019 CDBG
ADA Footpath and
Street Improvements
Completed
04/21/20
Utilizing CDBG to add truncated domes and other various sidewalk improvements
Norte Vista Sidewalk
Improvements Completed Improving sidewalks to accommodate foot traffic for local schools
Victoria at
Washington
Southbound Merge
Lane
Completed Installation of Southbound Merge Lane to reduce intersection delay
Tyler Widening –
Wells Avenue to
Hole Avenue
Completed
Winter 2021 Widening four travel lanes with raised center median

6. Data Summary
This section describes the data sources used for the analysis process of this LRSP.

6.1 Roadway Network
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Road System (CRS) GIS database was used to build the base roadway network used for this analysis. Intersections and roadway segments were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be compared with similar facilities or control type. Functional Classifications were imported from the city’s General Plan and confirmed by city staff.

Information on intersection traffic control was provided by the city and included in the analysis network. The collision analysis requires each intersection to be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized. Figure 4 illustrates the City of Riverside’s roadway functional classification and intersection control type, respectively, as used for this study.

6.2 Collision Data
Collision data was collected from Crossroads software for the period from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022, displayed in Figure 5. This figure zoomed into each City ward is provided in Appendix A. Five years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw collision data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges faced throughout the city. Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the collision trends and patterns detailed in Section 7. The locations of fatal and severe injury collisions are displayed in Figure 4. This figure zoomed into each City ward is provided in Appendix A.

Figure 4 – Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections

Figure 5 – All Collisions (2017-2022)

Figure 6 – Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2022)

7. Crash Safety Trends
The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the City-maintained roadway system based on collision records spanning from July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2022. This section contains the results of the analysis, which included the evaluation of Riverside’s fatal and serious injury (generally denoted as K+SI) collisions, statewide K+SI collisions, pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, collision severity levels, and collision causes.

7.1 All Collisions
This report utilized collision data for a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on city streets. Data used for this report was extracted from Crossroads Software on July 5, 2022 and was current as of that date. Collision data from July 1 , 2017, through June 30 , 202 2 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 16,081 collisions recorded within Riverside.

During this time, the most common occurring collision types were Rear-Ends (28%) and Broadsides (24%). The total number of collisions declined throughout the study period, with a decline in collisions with each ensuing year, as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 7 – Collision Type by Year (2017-2022)

Source: Riverside Crossroads Database (2017-2022)

0 500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
July 2017 -
June 2018
July 2018 -
June 2019
July 2019 -
June 2020
July 2020 -
June 2021
July 2021 -
June 2022
No. of Collisions
Study Years
Rear-End
Broadside
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Head-On
Vehicle - Pedestrian
Other
Overturned
Not Stated

23 7.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries
During the study period, 89 fatal collisions and 327 severe injury collisions occurred during the study period, as seen in Figure 6. This figure zoomed into each City ward is provided in Appendix A. Table 3 outlines the fatal and severe injury collisions categorized by modes involved.

Table 3 – Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2017- 2022)
Involved With # of Fatal Injury
Collisions
# of Severe
Collisions
Other Motor Vehicle 36 144
Fixed Object 23 62
Pedestrian 21 62
Bicycle 4 25
Parked Motor Vehicle 1 13
Other Object 3 8
Non - Collision - 8
Motor Vehicles on Other
Roadway 1 5

Figure 8 – Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2022)

19 22 24 28 19
62 90
52 66
57 0
20 40
60 80
100
120
July 2017 -
June 2018
July 2018 -
June 2019
July 2019 -
June 2020
July 2020 -
June 2021
July 2021 -
June 2022
No. of Collisions
Study Years
Severe Injury
Fatal

24 7.3 Injury Levels
As shown in Figure 9, 60% of the collisions reported during the time-period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 3% of all collisions.

Figure 9 – Collisions by Injury Levels (2017-2022)

Source: Riverside Crossroads Database (2017 – 2022)

7.4 Cause of Collision
The highest recorded cause of collisions in Riverside during this time period is Improper Turning at 28.3%, followed by Unsafe Speed at 19.2% and Other Improper Driving at 11.2%. Issues with Drivers Ignoring Traffic Signals and Signs also had a substantial impact on the City, comprising

10.4% of the collisions.

Table 4: - Cause of Collisions (2017-2022)
Primary Collision Factor No. of Collisions %
Improper Turning 4500 28.32%
Unsafe Speed 3050 19.20%
Other Improper Driving 1777 11.19%
Traffic Signals and Signs 1656 10.42%
Auto R/W Violation 1591 10.02%
Driving Under Influence 1176 7.40%
Unsafe Starting or Backing 542 3.41%
Unknown 385 2.42%
Wrong Side of Road 219 1.38%
25%
1%
12%60%
2%
Complaint of Pain
Fatal
Other Visible Injury
Property Damage Only
Severe Injury

25 Primary Collision Factor No. of Collisions %
Pedestrian Violation 187 1.18%
Not Stated 169 1.06%
Other Than Driver 152 0.96%
Unsafe Lane Change 138 0.87%
Ped R/W Violation 130 0.82%
Improper Passing 79 0.50%
Other Hazardous Movement 62 0.39%
Hazardous Parking 25 0.16%
Following Too Closely 21 0.13%
Impeding Traffic 8 0.05%
Other Equipment 8 0.05%
Other 5 0.03%
Lights 3 0.02%
Other Than Driver or PED 1 0.01%
Brakes 1 0.01%
Source: Riverside Crossroads Database (2017 – 2022)

7.5 Vulnerable Users

7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions
509 pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, resulting in 21 fatal collisions, 62 severe injuries, and 369 collisions with some form of reported injury or pain.

Figure 10 shows the locations of pedestrian collisions during the study period. This figure zoomed into each City ward is provided in Appendix A. The top 3 primary collision factors for these collisions were pedestrian violation (36.6%), pedestrian right-of-way violation (25.5%), and other improper driving (16.9%).

7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions
During the study period, 354 collisions involving bicycles were reported. Of these, 4 were fatal, 25 were severe injuries, and 277 were some forms of reported injury or pain. Figure 10 shows the location of bicycle collisions during the study period. This figure zoomed into each City ward is provided in Appendix A. The top 3 primary collision factors for bicycle collisions were drivers/bicyclists on the wrong side of the road (29.7%), drivers/bicyclists ignoring traffic signals and signs (17.4%), and automobile right-of-way violations (14.7%).

26 Figure 10 – Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions (2017-2022)

27 7.6 Nighttime Collisions
The following nighttime trends were observed:
• 38% of collisions occurred at night or during dusk/dawn hours. • 4% of nighttime collisions involved pedestrians.
• 2% of nighttime collisions involved bicycles.

7.7 Other Significant Trends
In addition, the following trends were observed:
• 27% of collisions occurred at night or during the dusk/dawn hours. • Drivers aged 16-20 were at fault in 15.7% of all collisions. • Drivers aged 65+ were at fault in 12.8% of all collisions.

7.8 Statewide Comparison
A comparison of fatal & severe injury collision data to the State averages were conducted for data from 2016-2018 (the most recent statewide data available). These numbers may vary slightly from those mentioned previously, due to the differences in the years of the study period. The following are areas where Riverside’s collision rates are higher or lower than those of the State. These numbers specifically compare the proportion of fatal and seri ous injury crashes that have the characteristics listed in Table 5.

Table 5: Comparison of Statewide and Riverside Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes (2016-2018)
Challenge Areas
Statewide Riverside
F+SI Collisions
(2016-2018)
% of F+SI
Collisions
(2016-2018)
F+SI Collisions
(2016-2018)
% of F+SI
Collisions
(2016-2018)
% Point
Difference
Total 48,182 100.0% 383 100.0% -
Impaired Driving 11,318 23.5% 121 31.6% 8.1%
Young Drivers 5,873 12.2% 73 19.1% 6.9%
Aggressive Driving 15,997 33.2% 144 37.6% 4.4%
Improper Use of Occupant
Protection 6,635 13.8% 54 14.1% 0.3%

28 Challenge Areas
Statewide Riverside
F+SI Collisions
(2016-2018)
% of F+SI
Collisions
(2016-2018)
F+SI Collisions
(2016-2018)
% of F+SI
Collisions
(2016-2018)
% Point
Difference
Lane Departure 20,232 42.0% 161 42.0% 0.0%
Bicyclists 3,491 7.2% 27 7.0% -0.2%
Distracted Driving 2,253 4.7% 17 4.4% -0.2%
Commercial Vehicles 3,153 6.5% 21 5.5% -1.1%
Work Zones 623 1.3% 0 0.0% -1.3%
Aging Drivers (65+) 6,337 13.2% 34 8.9% -4.3%
Intersections 11,471 23.8% 45 11.7% -12.1%
Pedestrians 9,303 19.3% 12 3.1% -16.2%
Motorcyclists 10,446 21.7% 3 0.8% -20.9%

7.9 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results
Figure 11 and Figure 12 below show the results of the collision network screening analysis, with the number of collisions at both intersections and mid-block roadway segments. These figures zoomed into each City ward are provided in Appendix A.

29 Figure 11 – Collision Network Screening Analysis Results - Intersections (2017-2022)

30 Figure 12 - Collision Network Screening Analysis Results – Mid-block Collisions (2017-2022)

31 Table 6 and 7 show the number of crashes occurring at the top 20 locations in Riverside by crash type for the locations that will be studied further in the Report, and highlights locations in which the probability of those crash types exceeding the threshold proportion is greater than 33%.

The tables are ordered by the number of collisions that occurred at that segment or intersection.

To be statistically significant, only locations where more than two collisions occurred are represented. At locations with two or less collisions, random chance can account for crash history as much or more than specific roadway characteristics.

The tables are separated into sub-sections visible by the blue gradient. The first two columns, Collisions and CCR, represent the level of crash activity in absolute terms, and as relative to other similar locations, respectively.

Per guidance from the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) each sub-population of locations was ranked according to the number of collisions. The second column shows the CCR, which highlights whether or not the collision activity was higher or lower than the average for the sub- population based on the individual segment or intersection volume. This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. All averages used in the CCR calculation were established based on City of Riverside crash data to determine what locations might be best to prioritize at the local level. This process highlights locations of collisions that are unusual for the City to determine Riverside’s challenge areas, and not problems faced by peer cities that do not apply in Riverside. The remaining columns total collisions by type, to evaluate each sub-population and understand what proportion of crashes in the City are of a particular type. The citywide proportion was compared with the local intersection or segment specific proportion to determine which locations have more of a given crash type than would be expected when considering the City average. A confidence level of 95% was used for the CCR Calculations. For this study, two categories of ranges were highlighted:
• Light Gray: >50% probability that this crash type is over-represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Riverside. Although these locations have a slightly higher probability of this crash type than their counterparts, they are not necessarily highly significant. • Dark Gray: >75% probability that this crash type is over-represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Riverside. These locations are highly significant in regard to the number of collisions occurring here and should be further investigated.

After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked against other similar locations within the City by their categories according to the expected proportion of that crash type within Riverside. Locations with higher -than-expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for exceedances.

32 Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Collision Severity, Type, Involved With, and Behavior are additional characteristics of the collisions and should not be counted as a separate collision.

The following provides an example of how to read Tables 6 and 7.

Table Definitions:
• Total Collisions: Number of collisions observed at the intersection or segment from July of 2017 through June of 2022.
• Severity: The number of severe injury and fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Fatality: The number of fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period. • Broadside, Sideswipe, Rear-End, Head-On, Hit Object, Overturned, Other, Pedestrian, Bicycle: The number of these types of collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Other: The number of miscellaneous collision types (mostly single vehicle) that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Aggressive, Dark, Wet: The number of the collisions with this factor identified as the cause of collision.

28 Table 6– Analysis Results: Intersections (Top 20 Per Type) No.

Intersection
Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Signalized Intersections
1 Tyler St & Magnolia Ave 6 147 0.76 1046 2 2 10 29 10
4 26 39 50 4 9 0 8 10 2 24 4 6 1 4
2 Iowa Ave & W Blaine St 1 105 0.74 776 1 2 7 22 73 21 25 34 7 11 0 2 4 2 22 2 6 3 2 3 Van Buren Blvd & Arlington Ave 3/6 103 0.29 1142 3 2 6 32 60 17 20 43 4 10 0 5 4 2 42 2 7 1 6 4 Van Buren Blvd & California Ave 5 84 0.33 592 0 2 6 24 52 24 19 27 2 6 0 2 4 2 32 1 8 0 2 5 Van Buren Blvd & Jurupa Ave 3 80 7.18 779 3 0 11 20 46 18 8 37 5 8 0 3 1 1 46 1 5 2 3 6 La Sierra Ave & Magnolia Ave 6 79 0.23 437 0 1 8 23 47 20 17 31 5 3 0 1 2 2 32 3 4 0 1 7 Chicago Ave & University Ave 2 79 0.29 367 0 1 5 15 58 16 14 31 3 6 0 2 5 1 22 0 4 1 2 8 La Sierra Ave & Indiana Ave 6 78 0.22 187 0 0 5 12 61 13 19 34 3 6 0 0 4 2 25 0 3 0 3 9 Alessandro Blvd & Chicago Ave 2 74 -0.03 870 0 4 3 22 45 11 22 29 2 8 0 2 0 2 33 2 8 0 5 10 Van Buren Blvd & Indiana Ave 5 66 0.21 365 1 0 3 21 41 13 13 34 1 3 0 0 1 0 32 1 2 0 2 11 Olivewood Ave & 14th St 1 64 2.72 515 0 2 8 9 45 17 18 18 2 5 0 2 2 2 21 3 5 0 5 12 Madison St & Indiana Ave 4 62 0.83 172 0 0 3 16 43 15 14 24 2 3 0 1 1 0 20 1 1 2 3 13 Iowa Ave & University Ave 2 62 0.19 301 0 1 2 11 48 12 15 21 0 5 1 4 3 1 12 2 3 0 0 14 Tyler St & Hole Ave 6 61 0.20 234 0 0 10 15 36 26 12 14 2 3 0 1 2 1 25 1 0 0 1 15 Wood Rd & Van Buren Blvd 4 59 0.02 694 1 2 8 13 35 5 18 17 5 3 2 3 5 1 19 1 3 0 5 16 Van Buren Blvd & Philbin Ave 6 58 0.23 183 0 0 5 15 38 19 12 16 3 1 0 1 5 1 21 1 3 1 3

29 No.

Intersection
Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
17 Pierce St & Magnolia Ave 7 56 4.75 229 0 0 10 15 31 15 6 22 2 9 0 1 1 3 23 4 6 0 3 18 Van Buren Blvd & Colorado Ave 6 55 4.65 214 0 0 7 18 30 16 9 20 3 5 0 1 1 3 25 0 5 1 3 19 Mission Grove Pkwy S & Alessandro Blvd 2/4 54 0.21 150 0 0 2 15 37 8 16 22 0 3 0 5 1 0 16 0 4 3 5 20 Cole Ave & Van Buren Blvd 4 53 0.17 216 0 0 11 11 31 11 14 15 5 4 0 2 2 1 19 1 6 1 5 Unsignalized Intersections
1 Shopping Center Driveway & Arlington
Ave 3 49 0.55 317 1 0 6 9 33 3 10 27 1 7 0 1 0 2 21 0 3 0 3 2 Market St & 6th St 1 30 0.45 119 0 0 5 8 17 12 7 7 0 0 0 1 3 1 5 1 0 0 2 3 Adams St & Diana Ave 5 26 0.97 240 0 1 1 8 16 6 6 6 3 5 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 2 4 Jackson St & Audrey Ave 6 23 1.52 212 0 1 1 3 18 7 9 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 1 5 McMahon St & Arlington Ave 3 23 0.20 113 0 0 4 10 9 10 4 2 1 2 1 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 6 Jones Ave & Magnolia Ave 6 21 0.23 383 1 1 1 5 13 2 5 8 0 3 0 1 2 2 3 1 2 0 1 7 Pegasus Dr & Arlington Ave 3 21 0.25 111 0 0 4 10 7 12 3 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 8 Tyler St & Hemet St 6 20 0.09 214 0 1 1 4 14 4 6 7 0 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 9 Harold St & Arlington Ave 6 19 0.21 93 0 0 5 5 9 5 0 5 1 8 0 0 0 0 4 1 5 0 0 10 La Cadena Dr W & Primer St 1 18 0.19 58 0 0 2 4 12 4 6 2 0 4 0 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 11 Polk St & Collett Ave 6 17 0.18 77 0 0 2 8 7 9 1 5 1 0 0 0 1 1 10 1 0 1 1 12 Washington St & Lincoln Ave 4 17 0.24 211 0 1 0 6 10 11 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 7 1 1 0 0 13 Tyler St & Gould St 7 17 0.38 37 0 0 1 2 14 6 3 4 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 3 14 Lake St & Arlington Ave 7 17 0.16 72 0 0 3 5 9 5 4 3 2 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 15 Locust St & Mission Inn Ave 1 17 0.23 231 0 1 2 6 8 6 5 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 16 Mitchell Ave & Wells Ave 6 16 0.54 51 0 0 1 5 10 6 2 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 9 1 0 1 1

30 No.

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes
= Local CCR Differential > 1.0 = Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 = Local CCR Differential < 0.33

= 90-100% probability that crash type if over-represented = 80-90% probability that crash type is over-represented = 70-80% probability that crash type is over-represented

31 Table 7 – Analysis Results: Segments (Top 20 Per Type) No. Facility Limits Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Major Arterial

1 Van Buren
Blvd
Jurupa Ave -
Bradford St 7 25 0.69 80 0 0 1 9 15 0 7 13 0 4 0 0 1 0 12 0 1 0 1 2 Van Buren
Blvd
Lincoln Ave -
Indiana Ave 5 24 0.57 89 0 0 2 9 13 12 1 5 0 3 0 1 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 3 Mission Inn
Ave
Redwood Dr to
Scout Ln 1 22 0.03 598 1 2 2 11 16 1 3 11 5 11 1 0 0 1 8 0 3 11 3 4 Van Buren
Blvd
Arlington Ave -
Morris St 7 14 -0.07 217 0 1 3 2 8 1 3 3 1 5 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 5 Van Buren
Blvd
Challen Ave -
Duncan Ave 6 14 0.68 54 0 0 2 4 8 4 0 1 0 8 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 0 6 Van Buren
Blvd
Wells Ave -
Audrey Ave 6 13 0.81 58 0 0 2 5 6 2 4 4 0 2 0 1 0 1 5 0 1 0 0 7 Arlington
Ave
Tyler St - Jones
Ave 7 11 1.14 26 0 0 0 3 8 7 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 1
8 Arlington
Ave
Pegasus Dr - Van
Buren Blvd 7 11 0.85 358 0 2 1 2 6 2 2 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 9 Van Buren
Blvd
Jackson St -
Arlington Ave 7 11 0.46 205 0 1 1 4 5 3 1 2 2 2 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 0 1 10 Magnolia
Ave
Buchanan St -
Pierce St 7 11 0.04 537 0 3 2 3 3 2 1 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 11 Magnolia
Ave
Elizabeth St -
Merrill Ave 3 10 0.47 377 0 2 3 2 3 2 0 2 1 3 0 2 0 1 3 1 2 0 1 12 Arlington
Ave
Decamp Ct -
Jefferson St 5 9 0.28 39 0 0 1 4 4 2 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0

32 No. Facility Limits Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
13 Arlington
Ave
Ben Lomand
Way - Rutland
Ave
7 9 0.17 33 0 0 2 1 6 0 4 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0
14 Van Buren
Blvd
Garfield St -
California Ave 6 9 0.14 58 0 0 3 4 2 3 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 1 1 15 Van Buren
Blvd
Ccshp Rd - Van
Buren Blvd 5 9 -0.07 58 0 0 4 2 3 0 0 3 0 6 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 16 Market St Rivera St - Santa
Ana River Trail 1 7 -0.04 27 0 0 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 17 Magnolia
Ave
La Sierra Ave -
Castle Oak Dr 6 7 0.54 22 0 0 0 3 4 0 1 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 18 Van Buren
Blvd
Van Buren Blvd -
Cleveland Ave 5 7 0.05 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 19 Main St Spruce St -
Poplar St 1 6 0.57 180 1 0 0 2 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 20 Arlington
Ave
Harold Ave -
Copperlantern
Dr
7 6 0.01 16 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0
Minor Arterial

1 W Blaine St Iowa Ave - I-215
NB Off-Ramp 1 27 5.12 96 0 0 4 6 17 10 3 4 4 4 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 2 2 Pierce St Sh-91 - Pierce St 7 25 1.61 234 0 1 1 7 16 10 2 8 0 4 1 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 1 3 Central Ave Fremont St -
Wilderness Ave 3 21 1.29 298 1 0 8 7 5 2 2 4 0 12 0 1 0 0 6 0 2 1 0 4 University
Ave
Iowa Ave -
Cranford Ave 2 18 1.37 241 0 1 3 6 8 7 3 2 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0

33 No. Facility Limits Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
5 Central Ave
SR-91 EB Off-
Ramp -
Alleyway West
of Rumsey Dr
3 17 0.31 53 0 0 0 7 10 3 5 3 1 3 0 0 2 0 4 1 1 0 0
6 Alessandro
Blvd
Gloucester Way
- Alessandro
Blvd
3 16 0.62 229 1 0 4 2 9 1 3 3 0 9 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 5
7 Alessandro
Blvd
Cannon Rd –
Trautwein Dr
(including
Communications
Center Dr)
4 15 0.02 233 0 1 3 5 6 1 0 5 0 7 0 0 2 0 4 0 3 0 1
8 Iowa Ave Marlborough
Ave - Spruce St 1 13 0.10 47 0 0 3 1 9 3 3 0 0 6 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 9 W Blaine St Rustin Ave -
Iowa Ave 1 13 0.86 58 0 0 2 5 6 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 3 1 3 0 1 0 0 10 Chicago
Ave
University Ave -
12th St 2 13 0.96 206 0 1 2 2 8 4 3 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 11 Tyler St
SR-91 WB Off-
Ramp - Hemet
St
6 13 0.53 18 0 0 0 1 12 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0
12 Chicago
Ave
Marlborough
Ave - Spruce St 1 12 0.60 47 0 0 1 5 6 4 4 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 13 Iowa Ave
Massachusetts
Ave - W Blaine
St
1 12 0.63 37 0 0 1 3 8 4 3 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0
14 Central Ave
SR-91 WB Off-
Ramp - Riverside
Ave
3 12 1.15 61 0 0 3 4 5 5 4 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0
15 Iowa Ave W Blaine St - W
Linden St 1/2 11 0.66 56 0 0 2 5 4 5 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 16 La Sierra
Ave
Schuyler Ave -
Whitford Ave 7 11 0.91 209 0 1 2 3 5 4 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0

34 No. Facility Limits Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
17 Van Buren
Blvd
Prairie Way -
Wood Rd 4 11 0.34 21 0 0 0 2 9 1 3 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 18 Martin
Luther King
B
Canyon Crest Dr
- Iowa Ave 2 10 0.00 199 1 0 1 3 5 1 2 5 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 0 19 Chicago
Ave
Chicago Ave -
Keswick Ave 3 10 0.40 74 0 0 4 5 1 0 2 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 1 20 Sycamore
Canyon
Blvd
Motorfair Dr -
Eastridge Ave 2 10 -0.06 40 0 0 2 2 6 0 0 3 0 6 1 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 2 Collector

1 Indiana Ave La Sierra Ave -
Wickham Dr 6 15 4.94 70 0 0 2 7 6 9 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 Indiana Ave Washington St -
Madison St 4 13 0.29 226 0 1 3 4 5 5 2 2 1 1 0 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 3 Jackson St Audrey Ave -
Colony Pl 6 11 2.27 26 0 0 1 1 9 2 3 2 2 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Cypress
Ave
Montgomery St
- Warren St 6 9 2.02 19 0 0 1 0 8 3 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 Panorama
Rd
Rockhill Way -
Olivewood Ave 2/3 7 0.56 22 0 0 1 1 5 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 Cypress
Ave
Challen Ave -
Rutland Ave 6 7 2.32 185 0 1 1 1 4 1 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 Palm Ave Pine St -
Beechwood Pl 1 6 0.33 25 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 8 Indiana Ave Verde St -
Jefferson St 4 6 0.20 45 0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 9 Indiana Ave Gibson St - Van
Buren Blvd 5 6 1.04 184 0 1 1 1 3 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0

35 No. Facility Limits Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
10 Box Springs
Blvd
Lochmoor Dr -
Box Springs Blvd 2 5 0.86 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 11 Rutland
Ave
Trey Ave -
Cypress Ave 6 5 1.48 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 12 Philbin Ave Van Buren Blvd -
Harold St 6 5 1.58 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 13 Harrison St Magnolia Ave -
County Farm Rd 6 5 0.84 25 0 0 0 4 1 3 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 14 Victoria
Ave
Rumsey Dr -
Central Ave 3 4 0.42 14 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 Indiana Ave
Alleyway South
of Arlington Ave
- Jane St
3 4 0.91 28 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0
16 Wells Ave Van Buren Blvd -
Harold St 6 4 0.57 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 17 Wells Ave Crest Ave -
Halsey Pl 6 4 0.85 168 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 18 Monroe St Diana Ave -
Magnolia Ave 5 4 -0.12 19 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 19 Orange St Hiawatha Pl - 1st
St 1 3 0.28 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
20 Jefferson St Willow Ave -
California Ave 5 3 0.18 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Local
1 Canyon
Springs
Pkwy W
Corporate
Centre Pl -
Canyon Springs
Pkwy E
2 42 63.98 345 0 1 6 16 19 20 7 2 0 4 0 4 5 0 0 2 0 1 1 2 Park Sierra
Dr
Diana Ave -
Magnolia Ave 6 21 18.92 250 0 1 2 9 9 14 1 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2

36 No. Facility Limits Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
3 Placentia
Ln
Leland Pl - N
Main St 1 19 8.44 569 0 3 4 4 8 6 3 3 3 3 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 2 2 4 Sierra Vista
Ave
Pierce St -
Riverwalk Pkwy 7 15 2.76 204 0 1 1 3 10 1 6 1 1 4 1 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 1 5 Loma Vista
St
West Linden St
W - West
Linden St E
2 9 6.31 24 0 0 1 1 7 1 4 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0
6 Eastridge
Ave
Sycamore
Canyon Blvd -
Box Springs Blvd
2 9 0.56 43 0 0 3 1 5 3 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0
7 La Cadena
Dr W
Bowman St -
Interchange Dr 1 8 5.68 28 0 0 1 2 5 5 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 Palmyrita
Ave
Iowa Ave -
Ardmore St 1 7 3.17 26 0 0 2 0 5 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 9 Banbury Dr Allenby St -
Diana Ave 6 7 2.73 22 0 0 1 1 5 0 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Valley
Springs
Pkwy
Eucalyptus Ave -
Gateway Dr 2 6 6.83 16 0 0 0 2 4 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 Riverwalk
Pkwy
Sierra Vista Ave
- Raley Dr 7 6 -0.10 45 0 0 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 12 Citrus St
Iowa Ave -
Building
Driveway
1 5 2.13 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0
13 Palmyrita
Ave
Prospect Ave -
Iowa Ave 1 5 1.85 25 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 14 Box Springs
Blvd
River Crest Dr -
Eastridge Ave 2 5 2.05 20 0 0 1 1 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 15 Emerald St Madison St -
Grace St 4 5 23.30 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 Bushnell
Ave
Mitchell Ave -
Cameo Ct 7 5 3.86 20 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1

37 No. Facility Limits Ward
Crashes
Local CCR Differential1
EPDO2
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
17 Jones Ave Wells Ave -
Hedrick Ave 7 5 3.77 25 0 0 1 2 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 18 Northrop
Dr
Mission Village
Dr - E
Alessandro Blvd
2/4 5 2.37 5 0 0 0 0 5 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0
19 Lively St Hines Ave -
Hines Ave 6 5 3.76 5 0 0 0 0 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 20 Diana Ave Tyler St -
Banbury Dr 6 5 4.12 20 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0

1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Property Damage Only
Crashes

= Local CCR Differential > 1.0 = Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 = Local CCR Differential < 0.33

= 90-100% probability that crash type if over-represented = 80-90% probability that crash type is over-represented = 70-80% probability that crash type is over-represented

38 8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas

8.1 Best Practices Evaluation
Table 8 identifies existing plans and policies that were recently completed, or are planned, or on-going within the City of Riverside. The intent of this review is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City that may impact the safety analysis process. It will also identify opportunity areas where the City could adopt non-infrastructure countermeasures. This table also ties each topic and enhancement to the emphasis areas that are laid out in Section 8.2.

Table 8 – Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices
Topic Initiatives/ Current Status Opportunities for
Implementation or Enhancement

COMMITTEES / ROLES
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Coordinator?
Yes, role is outlined in the Active
Transportation Plan (part of the
PACT)
Continue Active Transportation
Coordinator role; Plan to maintain
the role through personnel
changes
Does the City have a
Safety or Active
Transportation Advisory
Committee?
City has a Transportation Board
Committee
Continue to have board committee
meeting to discuss roadway and
transportation safety issues and
efforts
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Safety Education
Program?
Yes, the Riverside Police
Department (RPD) conducts a
monthly Bicycle and Pedestrian
Safety Operations training program
funded by California Office of
Traffic Safety.

Continue education efforts led by
RPD

POLICY / PLANS
Does the City have a
Complete Streets Plan?
Yes, the City of Riverside PACT
includes a Complete Streets
Ordinance
Regularly update Complete Streets
Ordinance; Continue to plan for
complete streets improvements as
part of regular planning process
Does the City assess
Traffic Impact Fees?
City currently assesses impact
fees
Continue to assess Traffic Impact
Fees and apply funding to
transportation improvements
Does the City have a Safe
Routes to School
program?
No, however the City did apply and
implement SRTS grants, most
recently ATP Cycle VI
Implement a Safe Routes to
School program with funding,
utilize collision analyses to refocus
efforts
Does the City implement
Traffic Calming Policies?
The City installs mini roundabouts,
bulbs, road diets, changes in road
texture
Continue to implement traffic
calming policies where necessary

39 Does the City regularly
conduct Speed Surveys?
Yes, updated once every seven
years.

Continue to update as required by
California Vehicle Code; review
Does the City utilized
Warrants for Stop Signs
and Signals?
Yes Continue to utilize warrants for
stop signs and signals
Is the City planning for
Density and Walkable
Areas?
Planned as part of Active
Transportation Plan (ATP). The
City has also recently adopted a
Housing Element.

Continue to plan for walkable
areas; utilize collision analysis to
refocus efforts
Does the City have
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) or
Vehicle Miles Travelled
(VMT) Reduction
policies?
The City is working on a VMT
Mitigation program. However,
there are existing programs – RTA
Bus Pass Option, County of
Riverside VMT Mitigation options,
and CAPCOA 2021 Handbook.

The City requires developers to
meet VMT requirements outlined in
the TIA guidelines.

Continue to expand efforts to align
TDM and VMT reduction policies
with state guidelines
Does the City perform
Traffic Crash Monitoring?
Yes, the City has the CrossRoads
software and conducts Traffic
Crash Monitoring to address traffic
safety concerns from the public.

Spot monitoring is not a citywide
evaluation.

Continue to utilize Crossroads
database for spot monitoring;
complete citywide monitor on
regular basis
Does the City have an
Active Transportation
Master Plan?
Yes, the City of Riverside PACT
includes an Active Transportation
Plan.

Continue to implement Active
Transportation Plan
Does the City have
CAMUTCD-compliant
Pedestrian Signal
Timing?
Yes, all City traffic signals have
CAMUTCD-compliant pedestrian
signal timing.

Continue to update pedestrian
signal timing as new standards are
developed. Explore the
implementation of bicycle signal
timing and bicycle detection at key
locations.

Does the City implement
Crosswalks at high
pedestrian locations?
Yes
Continue to implement these
improvements where feasible;
keep updated with best practices
regarding pedestrian
improvements
What type of traffic
enforcement does the
City conduct?
Speeding, stop violations, parking
violations, red light, failure to yield
to pedestrians, commercial vehicle
weight limit and axle restriction
violations, and other routine traffic
enforcement.

Continue to enforce traffic laws at
key locations; Apply for OTS
funding to expand enforcement
activities
What is the City's Bicycle
Policy?
City has a Bicycle Master Plan and
Bicycle Program
Continue to implement and update
Bicycle Master Plan and Program;
Utilize collision analysis to refocus
efforts if needed
What types of transit
does the City have?
Riverside Transit Authority (bus),
Metrolink (rail)
Identify areas of high transit usage
and focus collision analysis efforts
at these locations

40 What types of wayfinding
does the City have?
City has traditional wayfinding
signs
Identify areas where wayfinding
can be expanded, including
pedestrian and destination
wayfinding

DATA COLLECTION / INVENTORY
Does the City have an
Inventory of Pedestrian
Signs and Signals?
The City has an inventory of
signals, flashing beacons, and
HAWK signals. We have an
inventory of pedestrian signs.

Continue to take inventory of these
signals as they are
updated/installed; Incorporate
inventory into GIS database
Does the City have an
Inventory/Mapping of
Active Transportation
Routes?
Yes, we have a trail master plan in
the PACT document.

Continue to update inventory as
active transportation routes are
expanded; Incorporate into GIS
database
Does the City utilize
Crossroads Database for
collisions?
City utilizes Crossroads database Continue to utilize Crossroads database and regularly update
Does the City have Active
Transportation Volume
Counting?
We have traffic count data for spot
intersections that have been
counted and from traffic studies.

Continue to update database of
volumes; Incorporate into GIS
database

COORDINATION / FEEDBACK
What ways can citizens
give feedback about
roadway safety?
Citizens can make requests online
or by calling 311.

Citizens give feedback via surveys,
emails, meetings, etc.

Continue to expand ways that
citizens can give feedback.

Incorporate requests into GIS
maps to show hotspots for
requests.

What types of
Coordination with other
City organization does
your department
perform?
Riverside Police Department,
Riverside Unified School District,
Riverside Public Utilities, Riverside
Fire Department, Riverside Parks
& Rec, Riverside Public Health,
Transportation Board
Continue to engage across
departments and organizations;
continue to involve these
organizations in collision analysis
and countermeasure development
process
What types of School
Engagement does the
City perform?
City has quarterly meetings with
the school districts and UCR. City
has used OTS grant funding for
Safety Education events at
elementary schools.

Continue school engagement
processes
What types of Law
Enforcement/Emergency
Service Engagement
does the City perform?
The City has its own Police & Fire
Departments. Staff member from
RPD coordinates safety outreach
programs
Continue to engage law
enforcement and fire department in
roadway safety planning

41 8.2 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas represent crash factors that are common in the City and provide the opportunity to reduce the largest number of traffic injuries with strategic investment. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.

8.2. 4 Emphasis Area # 1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable users, meaning they possess the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. This emphasis area is inclusive of wheelchairs and those on scooters and skateboards. These groups need appropriate infrastructure to travel to key destinations such as schools, workplaces, and core commercial areas. Of the 863 crashes involving vulnerable road users, 25 resulted in a fatal injury and 87 resulted in a severe injury. The City should aim to implement countermeasures to further protect these users from injury.

Goals for Emphasis Area #1:
• Improve active transportation infrastructure by adding pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, and other amenities to make it safer for employees and community members to get to key destinations such as school, commercial centers, transit centers, and recreation areas • Encourage healthier lifestyles through active transportation infrastructure • Apply for HSIP, ATP, SS4A, and other funding to implement countermeasures to address vulnerable road user crashes
Strategies for Emphasis Area #1:
• Provide outreach, educati on, and enforcement to encourage more separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic
• Install high-visibility crosswalk markings at the intersection of key destinations • Ensure all signalized intersections have completed crosswalks • Provide dedicated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to and from bus stops • Install adequate street lighting and increase lighting levels in conflict areas • Widen street shoulders
• Provide signage (e.g., pedestrian crossing ahead) to help drivers expect to slow down for pedestrians and bikes
• Install bicycle lanes along key corridors
• Install bicycle storage facilities in public areas, such as parks and schools, to encourage bicycle use
• Install bicycle markings (including green paint in conflict zones) • Install bicycle detection with discrimination capability on key corridors

42 • Install curb extensions
• Install ADA ramps
• Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) • Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations • Install audible pedestrian push button systems at signalized intersections • Establish rotating enforcement targets for high visibility campaigns • Work closer with local advocacy groups and bicycle clubs (such as the Inland Empire Biking Alliance and Riverside Bicycle Club) to assist in prioritizing bicycle improvements • Work with rail operators to improve safety at rail crossings These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include OTS, NHTSA, and SB1 grant programs.

8.2.1 Emphasis Area # 2: Impaired Driving
Description: Impaired driving crashes are a high priority challenge area within the Caltrans SHSP. Caltrans defines these as crashes where any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver is present, even if the driver was not over the legal limit. 7.4% were reported as the driver being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 6.74% of all fatalities and 14.07% of all severe injuries were attributable to impaired driving.

Goal for Emphasis Area #2:
• Reduce the number of crashes attributed to impaired driving • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for countermeasures to reduce impaired driving • Apply for funding to implement countermeasures to reduce impaired driving crashes Strategies for Emphasis Area #2:
• Authorize, publicize, and conduct sobriety checkpoints programs • Implement an impaired driving education campaign
• Develop educational programs targeting specific audiences based on age group • Additional enforcement presence
• Create effective media campaigns in both visual and print media

These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include OTS, NHTSA, and SB1 grant programs.

43 8.2.2 Emphasis Area # 3: Intersection Improvements
Description: Collisions involved at intersections, interchanges, and other roadway access.

About 82% of total of collisions took place at or near intersections. 12.1% of the fatal and severe injury collisions in Riverside took place at or near intersections, compared to 23.8% statewide.

Goal for Emphasis Area #3:
• Reduce the number of crashes at intersections, interchanges, and other roadway access.
• Identify hot spots and prioritize locations for intersection improvements. • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address collisions at intersections for improvement.

Strategies for Emphasis Area #3:
• Engineering improvements are not limited but could include:
o backplates with reflective borders
o left-and right turn lanes at two-way controlled intersections o protected left-turn movements
o battery back-up systems
o intersection safety lighting
o high visibility crosswalks
• Collaborate with Caltrans to prioritize safety at interchanges and promote walking and bicycling
These strategies can be implemented by the City with assistance from emergency services and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, OTS, and SB1 grant programs.

8.2.3 Emphasis Area # 4: Aggressive Driving
Description: Aggressive driving, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes several behaviors including speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Aggressive driving behaviors (unsafe speed or following too closely) accounted for 30 percent of collisions. 16 percent of these collisions resulted in a fatality, 28 percent of these collisions resulted in a severe injury, and 9 percent of these collisions resulted in some other form of injury.

Goal for Emphasis Area #4:
• Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive driving in the City • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for aggressive driving • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address aggressive driving

Strategies for Emphasis Area #4:
• Educational campaign to target aggressive drivers

44 • Increased law enforcement presence near aggressive driving hotspots • Increased coordination with law enforcement and other community organizations • Engineering strategies such as:
o Dynamic speed feedback signs
o Temporary speed radar trailers

These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and other community partners. Funding sources for the se strategies may include HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs.

45 9. Countermeasure Toolbox
This section provides information on general identified issues, crash reduction factors, improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of Riverside, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on data analysis, stakeholder input, and site visits.

9.1 Infrastructure Improvements

9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process
Part D of the HSM provides information on Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to estimate the safety effects of highway improvements, specifically to compare and select highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce crashes. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase crashes.

A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is directly connected to the CMF and is “mathematically defined as (1 – CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes) 5.” CMFs can help decision makers weigh potential alternative projects, but are only one measure of a project's value and should be considered part of a larger decision making process. Furtherm ore, it is important to note that not all CMFs are as reliable as others. The FHWA maintains a federal depository of CMFs and includes a star rating system to help users determine which CMFs are bolstered by the best and most thorough research. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include:

1. Selection of an appropriate CMF;

2. Estimation of crashes without treatment;

3. Application of CMFs by type and severity; and,

4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments.

Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a city-wide level and are discussed in Section 9.2.

5 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) 2022. Page 27.

46 9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies
From the city -wide analysis, twelve (12) project case study locations were selected for further evaluation and countermeasure development. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a balanced understanding of common safety patterns at a variety of locati on types that can be used to associate countermeasures with specific roadway configurations and conditions. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.

A Safety Project Case Study was developed for each of the following locations:

1. Signalized Intersection: Market St & 6th St

2. Roadway Segment: Mission Inn Ave – Redwood Dr to Bridge

3. Roadway Segment: Main St – Spruce St to Poplar St

4. Signalized Intersection: 14th St & Olivewood Ave

5. Unsignalized Intersection: Victoria Ave & Lincoln Ave

6. Unsignalized Intersection: Washington St & Lincoln Ave

7. Signalized Intersection: Van Buren Boulevard & Wood Rd

8. Unsignalized Intersection: Tyler St & Hemet St

9. Signalized Intersection: Tyler St & Magnolia Ave

10. Signalized Intersection: Van Buren Blvd & Arlington Ave

11. Signalized Intersection: Van Buren Blvd & Jurupa Ave

12. Roadway Segment: Central Ave – Fremont St to Wilderness Ave The following pages summarize conditions at each location, and potentially beneficial countermeasures. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer -term.

The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. These case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities. The monetary benefits are calculated from the latest Caltrans injury level cost data 6. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at $2.46 million, Other Visible Injury collisions at $159,900, Complaint of Pain collision at $90,900, and Property Damage Only collisions at $14,900.

6 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) 2022. Page 97.

Case Study Sheet: Location #1
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Market St & 6th St
Example of Similar Intersections: Market St & 11th St, Brockton Ave & 12th St

HAWK SIGNAL

INTERSECTION

Project Name: Riverside LRSP
Agency Name: City of Riverside
Contact Name: Brett Craig, PE, TE, Senior Traffic Engineer Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: October 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 30
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (40%)
Sideswipe (23%)
Rear-End (23%)
Dark Collisions 11
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 25,524
Crosswalk Condition Good
Control Type Hawk Signal
Lighting Well Lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
26 3 1
Field Visit Notes
• HAWK signal present
• Lots of construction going on nearby
• Several pedestrian collisions here
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install signals 30%
(NS03) $475,440 $378,000 1.26
Install high visibility
crosswalks on N/S
crosswalks
25%
(NS20PB) $111,600 $34,800 3.21
Install green bicycle
paint in conflict
zones
35%
(R32PB) $156,240 $29,184 5.35
Case Study Sheet: Location #1
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Improve signal
hardware; lenses,
back plate with
retroreflective
borders, mounting,
size, and number
15%
(S02) $237,720 $26,400 9.00
Install dynamic
speed feedback
signs
30%
(R26) $475,440 $45,600 10.43
Install audible
pedestrian push
button systems
25%
(S17PB) $111,600 $11,000 10.15
Case Study Sheet: Location #1
Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Mission Inn Ave: Redwood Dr to Scout Lane
Example of Similar Segments: Van Buren Bl: Arlington Ave to Morris Ave; Market St: Rivera St – Santa Ana River Trail

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: October 2022
Project Name: Riverside LRSP
Agency Name: City of Riverside
Contact Name: Brett Craig, PE, TE, Senior Traffic Engineer Email: [email protected]

2. Mission Inn Ave: Redwood Dr to Scout Ln
Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 66
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
3 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (30%)
Broadside (26%)
Hit Object (20%)
Dark Collisions 22
Impaired Collisions 4
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
18,836
Lighting Well-lit
Median Double yellow
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
51 0 1
Field Visit Notes
• County bridge project will straighten curve near bridge (look at cross-section) • Roadway near park is constrained by retaining walls and path • Several head on and run-off collisions along Mission Inn Ave Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install raised median 25%
(R08) $8,941,100 $2,883,600 0.91
Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
30%
(R26) $3,136,650 $45,600 68.79
Install high-visibility
crosswalks at
Redwood Dr
25%
(S18PB) $20,225 $74,400 0.27
Install High Friction
Surface Treatment
55%
(S11) $5,750,525 $462,000 12.45
Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install LED edge-lit
Chevron signs
15%
(NS08) $1,568,325 $12,000 130.69
Case Study Sheet: Location #2
Case Study Sheet: Location #3
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Main St: Spruce St to Poplar St
Example of Similar Segments: Brockton Ave from 12th St to 13th St, Main St from 1st St to 2nd St

ROADWAY

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 6
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 4 Collision Types (%) Sideswipe (50%)
Broadside (17%)
Other (17%)
Rear-End (17%)
Dark Collisions 2
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
13,132
Lighting Well-lit
Median Double yellow
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
5 0 1
Field Visit Notes
• ADT: 10,408 (March 2011)
• 35 mph speed limits
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Implement a Road
Diet (including
zipper parking in
median; consistent
with the Northside
Specific Plan)
30%
(R14) $717,510 $15,048 47.68
Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
30%
(R26) $717,510 $45,600 15.73
Install edge-lines
and centerlines
25%
(R28) $597,925 $19,152 31.22
Install bicycle lanes
and signage
45%
(R33PB) $985,500 $16,800 58.66
Install bicycle
sharrows
35%
(R32PB) $766,500 $7,680 99.80
Case Study Sheet: Location #3
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: 14th St & Olivewood Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Van Buren Blvd & Cypress Ave, La Sierra Ave & Collett Ave

SIGNALIZED

INTERSECTION
Project Name: Riverside LRSP
Agency Name: City of Riverside
Contact Name: Brett Craig, PE, TE, Senior Traffic Engineer Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: October 2022

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 64
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
2 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (28%)
Sideswipe (28%)
Broadside (27%)
Dark Collisions 22
Impaired Collisions 5
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 9,972
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
54 2 2
Field Visit Notes
• Lane guidance signs for 91 freeway are not consistent with direction (sign on intersection says 91 South, but signs further down say 91 West)
• Lane guidance markings are faded
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Improve signal
hardware; lenses,
back plate with
retroreflective
borders, mounting,
size and number
15%
(S02)
$1,026,750 $26,400 38.89
Install high visibility
crosswalks
25%
(S18PB)
$606,625 $74,400 8.15
Install audible
pedestrian push
buttons
25%
(S17PB)
$606,625 $11,000 55.15
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Modify signal
phasing to
implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
60%
(S21PB) $1,455,900 $5,000 291.18
Refresh lane
guidance markings 5% $342,250 $6,000 57.04
Review lane
guidance signs for
SR-91
5% $342,250 Varies Varies
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Victoria Ave & Lincoln Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Victoria Ave & Maude St, 14th St & Pine St

FOUR-WAY-STOP

INTERSECTION
STOP
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: October 2022
Project Name: Riverside LRSP
Agency Name: City of Riverside
Contact Name: Brett Craig, PE, TE, Senior Traffic Engineer Email: [email protected]

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 3
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 2 Collision Types (%) Broadside (33%)
Vehicle-Pedestrian (33%)
Dark Collisions 3
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 25,524
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Stop sign
Lighting Sufficient Lighting
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
25 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
0 1 1
Field Visit Notes
• Free right turn SB
• Pedestrians cross diagonally
• Victoria Ave (Frontage Rd) is underutilized
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install pedestrian
crossing at
uncontrolled
locations
25%
(NS20PB) $567,725 $34,800 16.31
Close free right turn
and reconfigure 5% $114,210 $30,000 3.81
Close access to
Victoria Ave
frontage road to
allow for simpler
intersection
reconfiguration
5% $114,210 $25,000 4.57
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install intersection
safety lights
40%
(NS01) $913,680 $25,000 36.55
Install stop signs to
free right turns
15%
(NS06) $342,630 $8,400 40.79
Install LED stop signs 15%
(NS08) $342,630 $12,000 28.55
Install curb
extensions
35%
(NS21PB) $794,815 $80,000 9.93
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Case Study Sheet: Location #6
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Washington St & Lincoln Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Kansas Ave & 12th St, Pennsylvania Ave & Sedgwick Ave

FOUR-WAY-STOP

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 17
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 5 Collision Types (%) Broadside (65%)
Sideswipe (18%)
Vehicle-Pedestrian (6%)
Head-On (6%)
Rear-End (6%)
Dark Collisions 6
Impaired Collisions 1
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 21,160
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Stop sign
Lighting Sufficient Lighting
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
15 1 1
Field Visit Notes
• Majority of collisions are broadsides
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Convert intersection
to mini-roundabout
30%
(NS05mr) $842,520 $100,000 8.43
Install/upgrade
larger or additional
stop signs or other
intersection
warning/regulatory
signs
15%
(NS06) $421,260 $33,600 12.54
Install Flashing
Beacons at Stop-
Controlled
Intersections
15%
(NS08) $421,260 $48,000 8.78
Case Study Sheet: Location #6
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install high visibility
crosswalks
25%
(NS20PB) $567,725 $34,800 16.31
Install curb
extensions 5% $140,420 $80,000 1.76
Install traffic signal 30%
(NS03) $842,520 $378,000 2.23
Install LED edge-lit
stop signs
15%
(NS08) $421,260 $12,000 35.11
Case Study Sheet: Location #6
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Van Buren Blvd & Wood Rd
Example of Similar Intersections: Magnolia Ave & Jackson St, Van Buren Blvd & California Ave

SIGNALIZED

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 59
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
3 Top 5 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (29%)
Sideswipe (31%)
Broadside (9%)
Head-On (9%)
Vehicle-Pedestrian (9%)
Dark Collisions 21
Impaired Collisions 3
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 50,944
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
50 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
46 5 1
Field Visit Notes
• Rear-ends and sideswipes were most common collision types • WB crosswalk is not present – crosswalk was removed after 2011 • MLK Jr High School to the south
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Improve signal
hardware; lenses,
back plate with
retroreflective
borders, mounting,
size, and number
15%
(S02)
$1,383,840 $26,400 52.42
Provide Advanced
Dilemma Zone
Detection system
40%
(S04)
$3,690,240 $76,800 48.05
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install high visibility
crosswalks
25%
(S18PB) $1,205,050 $74,400 16.20
Modify signal
phasing to
implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
60%
(S21PB) $2,892,120 $45,600 63.42
Install audible
pedestrian push
button systems
25%
(S17PB) $2,306,400 $11,000 209.67
Install bicycle lanes
with green conflict
zone paint
25%
(R32PB) $1,687,070 $19,200 87.87
Case Study Sheet: Location #7
Case Study Sheet: Location #8
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Tyler St & Hemet St
Example of Similar Intersections: Market St & Northbend St, Peck Ave & 3rd St

ONE-WAY STOP

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 20
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-End (40%)
Sideswipe (30%)
Broadside (15%)
Dark Collisions 10
Impaired Collisions 1
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 41,594
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Stop controlled on
Hemet St
Lighting Well Lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
16 2 1
Field Visit Notes
• Currently no left-turns from Hemet St onto Tyler St, but several drivers observed making the illegal left turn • Crosswalk striping is faded
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Extend median to
prevent left-turn
collisions
25%
(NS14) $727,425 $53,400 13.62
Install crosswalks on
SB Tyler St across
Hemet St
25%
(NS20PB) $603,300 $34,800 17.34
Case Study Sheet: Location #8
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Tyler St & Magnolia Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: La Sierra Ave & Magnolia Ave, Alessandro Blvd & Chicago Ave

SIGNALIZED

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 147
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
4 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Sideswipe (27%)
Rear-end (34%)
Broadside (18%)
Dark Collisions 43
Impaired Collisions 6
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 58,714
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 MPH
Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
123 10 2
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install bicycle
striping and green
conflict zone paint
35%
(R32PB) $1,854,790 $19,200 96.60
Improve signal
hardware; lenses,
back plate with
retroreflective
borders, mounting,
size, and number
15%
(S02)
$2,086,845 $26,400 79.05
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Provide Advanced
Dilemma Zone
Detection system
40%
(S04) $5,564,920 $76,800 72.46
Modify signal
phasing to
implement a
Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI)
60%
(S21PB) $3,179,640 $45,600 69.73
Install audible
pedestrian push
button system
25%
(S17PB) $1,324,850 $11,000 120.44
Case Study Sheet: Location #9
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Van Buren Blvd & Arlington Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Van Buren Blvd & Magnolia Ave, La Sierra Ave & Pierce St

SIGNALIZED

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 103
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
5 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (42%)
Sideswipe (20%)
Broadside (17%)
Dark Collisions 47
Impaired Collisions 7
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 63,320
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
45 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
86 4 2
Field Visit Notes
• Controller replacement and fiber project here
• Video detection present
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
on approaches
30%
(R26)
$4,557,180 $91,200 49.97
Install bike lanes
with green conflict
zone paint
35%
(R32PB)
$2,384,445 $29,184 81.70
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install high visibility
crosswalks
25%
(S18PB) $1,703,175 $74,400 22.89
Refresh lane
guidance striping 5% $759,530 $6,000 126.59
Install audible
pedestrian push
buttons
25%
(S17PB) $1,703,175 $11,000 154.83
Case Study Sheet: Location #10
Case Study Sheet: Location #11
Project Location, Description & Maps
Intersection: Van Buren Blvd & Jurupa Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Victoria Ave & Arlington Ave, Central Ave & Canyon Crest Dr

SIGNALIZED

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 80
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
3 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear-end (%)
Sideswipe (%)
Broadside (%)
Dark Collisions 38
Impaired Collisions 5
Collision Data
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 5,415
Crosswalk Condition Fair
Control Type Signal
Lighting Well-lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
55 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
70 1 1
Field Visit Notes
• Skewed intersection with free right turn lanes
• EB crosswalk not present
• High speeds on SB Van Buren Bl approach
• Bike lanes on all approaches
Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install green bicycle
paint in conflict
zones
35%
(R32PB)
$78,120 $29,184 2.68
Install flashing
beacons as advance
warning (S.I.)
30%
(S10)
$3,129,810 $20,400 153.42
Case Study Sheet: Location #11
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install pedestrian
crossing on missing
leg
25%
(S18PB) $55,800 $74,400 0.75
Install audible
pedestrian push
button
25%
(S17PB) $55,800 $11,000 5.07
Install EB dual left
turns (convert #1 EB
thru to EB-thru and
left-turn lanes)
5% $13,410 $15,000 0.89
Case Study Sheet: Location #11
Case Study Sheet: Location #12
Project Location, Description & Maps
Segment: Central Ave: Fremont Ave to Wilderness Ave
Example of Similar Segments: Jurupa Ave from Columbus St to Ordway St, Central Ave from Acorn St to Wilderness Ave

ROADWAY

SEGMENT
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: September 2022
Project Name: Riverside LRSP
Agency Name: City of Riverside
Contact Name: Brett Craig, PE, TE, Senior Traffic Engineer Email: [email protected]

Project Location, Description & Maps
Collision Data
Total Collisions 21
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 4 Collision Types (%) Hit Object (57%)
Rear-End (19%)
Sideswipe (10%)
Broadside (10%)
Dark Collisions 8
Impaired Collisions 0
Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
10,632
Lighting Well-lit
Median Raised & Painted
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
50 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle
8 0 0
Field Visit Notes
• High number of hit object/run off road collisions
• High speeds along Central Ave, especially straight section Countermeasure Evaluation
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install raised median 25%
(R08) $597,925 $2,563,200 0.23
Install chevron signs
on horizontal curves
40%
(R23) $956,680 $14,400 66.44
Install curve advance
warning signs
25%
(R24) $597,925 $4,800 124.57
Case Study Sheet: Location #12
Countermeasure Evaluation (continued)
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install curve advance
warning signs
(flashing beacon)
30%
(R25) $717,510 $24,000 29.90
Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
30%
(R26) $717,510 $45,600 15.73
Install Separated
Bike Lanes along
Central Ave corridor
45%
(R33PB) $985,500 $51,240 19.23
Install High Friction
Surface Treatment
55%
(R21) $1,315,435 $733,326 1.79
Case Study Sheet: Location #12

79 9.2 City -wide Countermeasure Toolbox
This evaluation considered citywide trends to identify countermeasures that would likely provide the most benefit with widespread implementation. Table 9 outlines the citywide safety project opportunities, which is also referred to as the “Countermeasure Toolbox”. Within the toolbox, the description of the countermeasure along with its Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) ID number is listed. The next column, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), are “multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected reduction in number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes).” For e ach of these countermeasures, a planning level benefit/cost analysis was completed.

Applying the benefit/cost at the citywide level was estimated assuming some randomness in crash distribution. The location characteristics, such as whether there is a traffic signal, and the type of crashes, were used at the citywide level to calculate an average cost of crashes that the countermeasure might reduce. The benefit per location was then factored out to a 20 -year lifecycle savings, with an Opinion of Project Probable Cost (OPCC) for the initial installation costs and a per-year maintenance cost estimate. The cost shown in Table 9 should be considered initial planning costs using 2022 dollars and not assumed final.

80 Table 9 - Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox
ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
S02 Improve signal hardware; lenses, back-plates
with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and
number

Signalized intersections with significant broadside
and rear-end collisions due to signal visibility
15% $26,400 per intersection
S04 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
system
Signalized intersections with significant right-angle
and rear-end collisions due to unsafe stopping
during yellow phases
40% $76,800 per intersection
S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning for
signalized intersections
Locations with sight distance issues 30% $10,200 per beacon S17PB7 Install audible pedestrian push button systems Signalized intersections with crosswalks 25% $11,000 Per intersection S18PB Install high visibility crosswalk for signalized
intersections
Signalized intersections with no marked crossing
and pedestrian heads, with significant turning
movements
25% $74,400 per intersection
S21PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Signalized Intersections – especially those with
high pedestrian activity
60% $45,600 per intersection
NS03 Install signals Unsignalized intersections with significant collision activity where warrants are met
30% $378,000 per intersection
NS05mr Convert intersection to mini-roundabout Intersections with lower vehicle speeds, with posted speed limits of 30 mph or less
30% $100,000 per location
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $8,400 per sign
NS08 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled
Intersections (LED edge lit)
Unsignalized intersections with crash history
showing running stop signs 15% $12,000 per beacon

7 This countermeasure typically covers pedestrian countdown signal heads, but can be also used for audibl e pedestrian push buttons

81 ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
NS14 Install raised median on approaches for
unsignalized intersections
Unsignalized intersections where related or
nearby turning movements affect the safety and
operation of an intersection
25% $1,068 per LF
NS20PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled
locations (new signs and markings only)
Unsignalized intersections with high pedestrian
activity where sufficient sight distance is available
25% $34,800 per intersection
NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB)
Unsignalized intersections and mid-block
pedestrian crossings
35% $30,000 Per location
R08 Install raised median Locations with a high number of head-on collisions
25% $1,068 per LF
R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 4 and
add a two-way left-turn and bike lanes)
Roadway segments with high number of
sideswipe collisions
30% $79,200 per mile
R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves Roadway segments that have a significant amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
40% $2,400 per sign
R24 Install curve advance warning signs Roadway segments that have a significant amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
25% $2,400 per sign
R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing
beacon)
Roadway segments that have a significant
amount of collision activity at sharp curves.
30% $12,000 per beacon
R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Roadway segments with a significant number of collisions due to unsafe speeds.
30% $22,800 per sign
R28 Install edge-lines and centerlines

Roadway segments with collisions that resulted in
run-off-road right/left, head-on, or opposite-
direction-sideswipe.
25%

$100,800

per mile
R32PB Install bike lanes Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions 35% $76,800 per mile R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes Locations with a high number of bicycle collisions and/or high bicycle traffic volumes, where
sufficient space is available for the selected
separation measure
45%

$120,000

per mile

82 ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply?
Crash
Reduction
Factor
Per Unit
Cost Unit
R21 Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction
Surface Treatments)
Areas where there are significant crashes or
skidding, and areas near curves, loop rams,
intersections, and areas with short stopping or
weaving distances
55% $33 Per square yard
-* Refresh lane guidance markings Locations with faded lane guidance markings/striping
5% $6,000 per location
-* Install curb extensions Intersections with high pedestrian activity 5% $20,000 per extension *The City is not limited to the countermeasures in this toolbox and can utilize other approved countermeasures in its roadway safety planning.

83 10. Funding Sources & Next Steps

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

10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program that apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non -motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
• New or upgraded traffic signals
• Upgraded guard rails
• Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
• Marked crosswalks
• Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.

Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP informati on – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.

HSIP Cycle 11 applications are due in September 2022.

10.1.2 Caltran s Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicy cling, improve mobility and safety for non -motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g., safe routes to school) • Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement)

84 This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/.

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

California’s state -maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
• Local Street and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation: $1.5 billion o This funding is dedicated to improve local road maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through projects such as restriping and repaving. • Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
• Local Planning Grants: $25 million

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

85 10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program
This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The Sustainable Communities Program ( SCP) provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy efforts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories:
• Integrated Land Use
o Sustainable Land Use Planning
o Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
o Land Use & Transportation Integration
• Active Transportation
o Bicycle Planning
o Pedestrian Planning
o Safe Routes to School Plans
• Green Region
o Natural Resource Plans
o Climate Action Plans (CAPs)
o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs

10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program This program has allocated $1B annually for the next 5 years for local cities, counties, MPOs, and other roadway owners (excepting state DOTs) for safety improvement grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is not benefit / cost based.

Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project’s alignment with the Safe Systems approach. There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in -kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agency and Implementation grants are open to agencie s with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway Safety Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100K to $1M and Implementation grants are expected to range from $1M to $20M.

Grant applications are due in September 2022.

10.1. 7 Infrastructu re Investment and Jobs Act
In November 2021, the President signed into law the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above, this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for imp rovements and investment in the transportation sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over 5 years for competitive RAISE grants for transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these grant programs continue to be developed, City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue.

86 10.2 Implementation Plan
Once the Local Roadway Safety Plan has been completed, the City can plan to regularly review and monitor collision data for trends and changes. The City can also plan to prioritize and implement certain improvements that were identified in this plan.

10.2.1 Monitoring
The City can plan to regularly monitor the success of the LRSP and its related implementations by performing the following steps. This before and after analysis can be performed every second year. The City can also meet with the Sheriff department quarterly to discuss roadway safety issues and compare to the latest collision analysis. • Pull yearly collision data from Crossroads database to determine year-over-year trend • Utilize Crossroads or GIS software to review the number of collisions occurring at specific locations. Locations where improvements have been made should receive priority for monitoring.
• Based upon changes in collision activity, determine efficacy of improvements and adjust strategies going forward

10.2.2 Analysis Update
The City can plan to update the analysis every two years as part of a monitoring program, as described in Section 10.2.1. Every 4 years the City will perform a major update to the analysis and the Local Roadway Safety Plan by performing the following steps. This update will maintain eligibility for the HSIP grant funding for the City. This analysis should continue to focus on both systemic and location-specific safety needs.

1. Obtain updated Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data from the Crossroads database

2. Use Excel software to update the collision trend analysis completed in Section 7, continue to compare new collision to historic trends

3. Update the roadway shapefile with any new or upgraded roadways

4. Update the intersection shapefile with any new or upgraded intersections

5. Re-run the GIS collision tool to determine the number of collisions at intersections and roadways within the updated study period. The City can plan to run the collision tool for all collisions, as well as the collision types identified in Section 3.2.2.

6. Update the collision analysis performed in this report, including the collision analysis tables shown in Section 7.7.

7. Review the Collision Toolbox to determine if any additional countermeasures should be considered for implementation in the City

10.2.3 Implementation Strategies
The opportunities identified in this report provide systemic and location-specific countermeasures that can be implemented within the City. Implementation will be dictated by funding and available resources, this

87 guidance is preliminary and subject to change. Over the near-term and mid-term, the City can concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas. • Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians and Bicyclists)
• Aggressive Driving
• Impaired Driving
• Intersection Improvements
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to collisions within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project-specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of th e most benefit.

Projects that address these focused areas citywide can be developed with a high benefit -to-cost ratio (by applying City-wide collision rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct collision history, but with conditions that might contribute to future collisions. For location -specific improvements, the City can utilize benefit-cost ratio calculations to help prioritize projects as funding and resources become available. The countermeasure toolbox in Table 8 also identified a potential prioritization timeline for each improvement, based on cost, effectiveness and feasibility.

This project prioritization process will help the City be ready for the funding opportunities identified in Section 10.1. Project prioritization will also help to guide the projects as they are taking into the design and construction project. Coordination with City departments will be key in the completion of these implementations.

The City can also plan to implement the non-engineering improvements identified throughout this report, including actions related to Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. These actions will require coordination with internal and external stakeholders, such as City departments, law enforce ment, local government organizations, and local community organizations. Early buy-in and engagement from these stakeholders will be key to the success of these actions.

To aid in these actions, the City can assemble a ‘Task Force’ of representatives from different City departments, such as Public Works, Development Services, and Public Safety. This task force will be instrumental in the monitoring, analysis update, project development and project implementation outlined in this plan.

10.3 Next Steps
The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and the safety efforts overall. • Develop investment program to help achieve the City’s Vision Zero goals • Work with state and partner agencies on implementation of large-scale programs and policies • Incorporate safety analysis findings in future updates of safety programs • Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance, and funding opportunities

88 APPENDIX A – LRSP MAPS BY RIVERSIDE CITY WARD

WARD 1

Figure 1- Roadway Functional Classification and Signals

Figure 2- All Collisions (July 2017 – July 2022)

Figure 3- Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(16)
(70)

Figure 4- Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(83)
(113)

Figure 5- Collisions Analysis Results – Intersections (July 2017 – June 2022)

Figure 6- Collisions Analysis Results – Mid-block (July 2017 – June 2022)

WARD 2

Figure 1- Roadway Functional Classification and Signals

Figure 2- All Collisions (July 2017 – July 2022)

Figure 3- Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(13)
(47)

Figure 4- Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(54)
(83)

Figure 5- Collisions Analysis Results – Intersections (July 2017 – June 2022)

Figure 6- Collisions Analysis Results – Mid-block (July 2017 – June 2022)

WARD 3

Figure 1- Roadway Functional Classification and Signals

Figure 2- All Collisions (July 2017 – July 2022)

Figure 3- Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(20)
(47)

Figure 4- Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(62)
(68)

Figure 5- Collisions Analysis Results – Intersections (July 2017 – June 2022)

Figure 6- Collisions Analysis Results – Mid-block (July 2017 – June 2022)

WARD 4

Figure 1- Roadway Functional Classification and Signals

Figure 2- All Collisions (July 2017 – July 2022)

Figure 3- Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(7)
(20)

Figure 4- Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(20)
(31)

Figure 5- Collisions Analysis Results – Intersections (July 2017 – June 2022)

Figure 6- Collisions Analysis Results – Mid-block (July 2017 – June 2022)

WARD 5

Figure 1- Roadway Functional Classification and Signals

Figure 2- All Collisions (July 2017 – July 2022)

(2,663)

Figure 3- Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(16)
(45)

Figure 4- Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(53)
(56)

Figure 5- Collisions Analysis Results – Intersections (July 2017 – June 2022)

Figure 6- Collisions Analysis Results – Mid-block (July 2017 – June 2022)

WARD 6

Figure 1- Roadway Functional Classification and Signals

Figure 2- All Collisions (July 2017 – July 2022)

Figure 3- Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(6)
(58)

Figure 4- Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(55)
(111)

Figure 5- Collisions Analysis Results – Intersections (July 2017 – June 2022)

Figure 6- Collisions Analysis Results – Mid-block (July 2017 – June 2022)

WARD 7

Figure 1- Roadway Functional Classification and Signals

Figure 2- All Collisions (July 2017 – July 2022)

Figure 3- Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(9)
(34)

Figure 4- Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (July 2017 – June 2022)

(24)
(40)

Figure 5- Collisions Analysis Results – Intersections (July 2017 – June 2022)

Figure 6- Collisions Analysis Results – Mid-block (July 2017 – June 2022)

Riverside City CouncilDecember 13, 2022

Riverside City Council
December 13, 2022