City of San Clemente
Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP)
December 2022
Prepared By:
ATTACHMENT 1
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
ii
Executive Summary
San Clemente has created this local roadway safety plan (LRSP), which incorporates a framework to identify, analyze, and develop traffic safety enhancements on the City’s roadway network. The LRSP was developed to address local roadway safety issues and needs. Through the analysis, this report has identified emphasis areas to prioritize for improvement and to inform and further guide safety evaluation and planning for the City’s transportation network.
The emphasis areas are Impaired Driving, Vulnerable Road Users (Bicyclists and Pedestrians), and Aggressive Driving. The LRSP analyzed collision data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patters. 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-collision locations, and 3) develop safety measures using the 5E’s of transportation safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies, to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
Previous work conducted by the City of San Clemente has been successful at reducing the number of traffic injuries throughout the City, and this LRSP is the next step in taking those initiatives further. This is demonstrated in its California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) rankings which identify the City as belonging to the top 40% percentile for safety compared to peer cities in its category. This LRSP analyzes the most recent six-year period of collision data (January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2019) and recent roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of concern. Because of the unusual traffic conditions in 2020 due to the coronavirus pandemic, 2020 data was reviewed only at a qualitative level.
As part of the LRSP development process, the City drafted a vision for traffic safety and outlined the goals that will help mark plan success. The vision is to enhance the transportation network to continually reduce the number of traffic fatalities and serious injury related collisions. The goals were identified as:
x Identify areas with a high risk for collisions.
x Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process. x Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term implementation. x Define safety projects for HSIP and other program funding consideration.
San Clemente’s collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations that have more active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements were identified. 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 that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users. The figures below show the results of collision analysis, including the number of crashes that occurred at each intersection and along each roadway segment in the City.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
iii
Number of Collisions per Intersection (2015-2019)
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
iv
Number of Collisions per Roadway Segment (2015-2019)
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
v
Emphasis areas were developed through coordination with stakeholders, alignment with statewide safety priorities, and evaluation of the types of crashes most common in the City. The emphasis areas that were selected for priority enhancements were:
1. Impaired Driving
2. Vulnerable Road Users (Bicyclists and Pedestrians)
3. Aggressive Driving
The LRSP identified countermeasures for both infrastructure and non- infrastructure improvements. The report then applies Crash Modification Factors (CMFs), which are used to estimate the safety effects of safety improvements to compare and prioritize the improvements. This provides a planning level cost/benefit estimate that the City can use to prioritize improvements.
Site-specific opportunities for improvement were identified for the following 8 case study locations. The case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection designs throughout the City.
1. Segment: Calle del Cerro: Avenida Pico to Avenida Vista Montana (W)
2. Segment: Avenida Pico: I-5 Freeway to San Clemente High School
3. Intersection: I-5 Freeway & Avenida Pico
4. Intersection: El Camino Real & Calle Valle
5. Intersection: Avenida Palizada & El Camino Real
6. Segment: Ave del Mar: El Camino Real & Ola Vista
7. Segment: El Camino Real: Escalones to Avenida Barcelona (Downtown San Clemente)
8. Intersection: El Camino Real & Esplanade
The report also identifies opportunities that can be implemented systemically throughout the City. These opportunities were assembled into the “countermeasure toolbox” shown below, and include both engineering-based and non-engineering countermeasures.
Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These measures can be applied where appropriate as part of ongoing City activities to improve overall safety performance.
City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox (Engineering Opportunities) LRSM ID1 Potential Countermeasures CRF Per Unit
Cost Unit
2 2084 Restrict right-turn on red 28% $10,000 per location 8498 Tighten radius of right-turn lane to
increase line of sight 39% $20,000 per location
NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional
stop signs/other intersections 15% $1,500 per sign
1 S01 through S21PB: Intersection Countermeasures (Signalized) (Local Roadway Safety Manual) NS01 through NS23PB: Intersection Countermeasures (Unsignalized) (Local Roadway Safety Manual) R01 through R38 Roadway Countermeasures (Local Roadway Safety Manual) 2 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse ID-http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/ SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
vi
LRSM ID1 Potential Countermeasures CRF Per Unit
Cost Unit
warning/regulatory signs (stop
signs with LED borders)
NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement
markings (to make more visible) 25% $22,000 per intersection NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement
markings (to make more visible) 35% $50,000 per mile
NS13 Install splitter-islands on the minor
road approaches 40% $20,000 per intersection
NS15
Create direction median openings
to allow/restrict left-turns and Uturns (right-in/right-out)50% $15,000 per structure R01 Add segment lighting 35% $50,000 per mile
R03 Install Median Barrier 25% $20,000 per location
R14 Change lane configurations 30% $12,500 per mile
R22 Install advanced signal warning
signage 15% $1,500 per sign
R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal
curves
40% $1,500 per sign
R26 Install dynamic/variable speed
warning systems 30% $16,000 per sign
R27 install delineators, reflectors, and or
object markers 15% $3,000 per LF
R32PB Install green paint in bicycle lanes 35% $15,000 per intersection R32PB Install bike lane (class III/sharrows) 35% $25 per linear foot S02 Update signal heads to meet
current standards
15% $12,000 per intersection
S03 Improve signal timing (coordination,
phasing, red, yellow, operation)
15% $7,667 per intersection
S07 Provide protected left-turn phase 30% $60,000 per intersection S18PB Install improved pedestrian
crossing
25% $50,000 per intersection
- Close intersection and allow only
pedestrian access to streets 5%* $15,000 per location
-
Enact ordinance restrict on-street
parking where curb lane width is
narrow
5%* $12,000 per location
- Install back-in packing 5%* $50,000 per location
- Install parking meters 5%* $75,000 per location
*These countermeasures do not have documented CRF’s and a conservative 5% CRF was assigned to allow them to show some benefit.
Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures:
The identified non-engineering countermeasures below were derived from the collision analysis and build on existing efforts. These relate to the additional Es of Traffic Safety outside of SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
vii
Engineering. This includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services and Emerging Technologies.
City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox (Non-Engineering Opportunities)
PROPOSED
COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE
ENFORCEMENT
Establish enforcement and
visibility program for aggressive
driving
Local law enforcement; CHP
CHP’s Regulate Aggressive
Driving and Reduce Speed
(RADARS) Program
Continued enforcement in
school zones
Local law enforcement; CHP;
school districts; OCTA; SCAG
Obtain grant funding for
additional personnel in school
zones
Increased enforcement of safe
driving & active transportation
behaviors near busy crosswalk
locations
Local law enforcement; CHP
Obtain grant funding for
additional enforcement near
high pedestrian activity locations
EDUCATION
Campaign to target aggressive
driving and DUIs
Local law enforcement; CHP;
California Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS)
CHP’s Regulate Aggressive
Driving and Reduce Speed
(RADARS) Program
Bicycle and pedestrian safety
campaign
Local law enforcement; OCTA;
SCAG
SCAG’s ‘Go Human’ Campaign;
‘ OTS’ ‘Ride With Traffic’
campaign
Planned educational events at
high activity locations such as
future CV Link locations
Explore safe routes to school
education grants to expand
program
Local school districts; local law
enforcement; OCTA; SCAG
Safe Routes to School Program,
funded by Caltrans
Coordinate safety education
campaigns with SCAG SCAG; local law enforcement
Roadway safety fairs at schools
Education campaign for aging
drivers
EMERGENCY SERVICES
Continue to work on
interdepartmental
communication between City
staff and City police department
and fire department
Local law enforcement & fire
department
Incorporate law enforcement/fire
department as stakeholders on
transportation improvement
projects
Incorporate public health
agencies and fire departments
as stakeholders in safety
projects
Local public health agencies
and fire departments
Adjust safety project
development processes to
include public health and fire
department feedback
EMERGING TECHNOLOGY
Continue to use best practices
for pedestrian crossings at high
pedestrian traffic areas
City Public Works; OCTA;
Caltrans
Continuously update pedestrian
crossing design standards in
accordance with latest best
practices
Utilize new data sources to
monitor traffic conditions and
inform County safety plans
City Public Works; OCTA;
Caltrans
Utilization of data from OCTA
traffic management center
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
viii
PROPOSED
COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE Identify best practices for e-bike
safety and enforcement
City Public Works; local law
enforcement
Increased enforcement near ebike hotspots;
An evaluation and implementation plan were created that identifies actionable items that will help the City achieve the goals and vision set out in this report. This section laid out next steps for the City to continue to capitalize on the analysis and information provided in this report.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
ix
Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. ii 1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 2 VISION AND GOALS ...................................................................................... 2 3 PROCESS ....................................................................................................... 3
3.1 Existing Guidance ........................................................................................................ 3
3.2 Analysis Techniques .................................................................................................... 4
3.3 Statistical Performance Measures ................................................................................ 5 4 SAFETY PARTNERS ...................................................................................... 8
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1 & Field Tour ........................................................................... 8
4.2 Stakeholder Meeting #2 ............................................................................................... 9 5 EXISTING EFFORTS .................................................................................... 10 6 DATA SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 11
6.1 Roadway Network .......................................................................................................11
6.2 Intersections ...............................................................................................................11
6.3 Count Data .................................................................................................................11
6.4 Collision Data ..............................................................................................................11 7 COLLISION ANALYSIS RESULTS .............................................................. 18
7.1 All Collisions ...............................................................................................................18
7.2 Fatalities .....................................................................................................................19
7.3 Injury Levels................................................................................................................19
7.4 Cause of Collision .......................................................................................................19
7.5 Vulnerable Users ........................................................................................................22
7.6 Significant Trends for Passenger Vehicles ..................................................................25
7.7 Behavioral ...................................................................................................................25
7.8 Statewide Comparison ................................................................................................26
7.9 Collision Analysis Rankings ........................................................................................27 8 EMPHASIS AREAS ...................................................................................... 33 9 OPPORTUNITIES ......................................................................................... 35
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements .......................................................................................35
9.2 Non-Infrastructure Improvements ................................................................................36
9.3 General City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox...............................................................40 10 EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION ....................................................... 45
10.1 Evaluation ...................................................................................................................45 SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
x
10.2 Implementation ...........................................................................................................45
10.3 Funding Opportunities .................................................................................................45
10.4 Next Steps ..................................................................................................................48 Table of Figures
Figure 1 – Critical Crash Rate Formula ...................................................................................... 6 Figure 2 – Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion ........................ 7 Figure 3: San Clemente Functional Classification (CRS) and Intersection Type........................12 Figure 4: All Collisions and Fatalities (2015-2019) ....................................................................13 Figure 5: Density of all Collisions at Intersections (2015-2019) .................................................14 Figure 6: Density of all Collisions at Intersections in Downtown San Clemente (2015-2019) .....15 Figure 7 – Density of all Collisions along Roadway Segments (2015-2019) ..............................16 Figure 8: Density of all Collisions along Roadway Segments in Downtown San Clemente ........17 Figure 9: Collision Type by Year (2015-2019) ...........................................................................18 Figure 10: Collisions by Injury Levels (2015-2019) ....................................................................19 Figure 11: Cause of Collisions (2015-2019) ..............................................................................20 Figure 12: Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions by Cause (2015-2019)............................................21 Figure 13: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) ........................................................23 Figure 14: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions in Downtown San Clemente (2015 – 2019) .........24 Figure 15: DUI Collision Time of Day ........................................................................................25 Figure 16: DUI Collisions by Time of Week ...............................................................................26 Table of Tables
Table 1: Existing Documents Reviewed ....................................................................................10 Table 2: Fatal Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2015-2019) .....................................19 Table 3: Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions by Cause (2015-2019) ...............................................20 Table 4: Comparison of Statewide and San Clemente Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions .........26 Table 5: Analysis Rankings – Segments (Top Locations Per Segment Type) ...........................30 Table 6: Analysis Rankings – Intersections (Top Locations Per Intersection Type) ...................31 Table 8: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of San Clemente ..............36 Table 9: City-wide Recommended Safety Projects (Countermeasure Toolbox) .........................41 Table 10: Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures .................................................43
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
1 1 Introduction
San Clemente is a lively coastal community in Southern Orange County known for its beaches, vibrant downtown, and rich history. San Clemente has a population of around 64,558 residents with a median age of 44 years old. With an economy based on tourism, retail, and light manufacturing, the City has varied transportation needs.
This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to focus and guide further safety enhancement to the City’s transportation network. 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 provided the opportunity 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 five E’s of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies to encourage safer driver behavior and reduced collision severities.
The process and analysis performed for the City’s LRSP is described in this document. The plan includes a vision and associated goals for safety, crash history analysis, and specific emphasis areas that represent the most challenge for safety in the City. The plan provides a foundation for decision making and prioritization for safety countermeasures and projects that enhance safety for all modes.
San Clemente has been successful at taking steps to enhance safety for all modes throughout the City. This is supported by their California Office of Traffic Safety rankings identifying it amongst the top 40% tier for safety as compared to peer cities in most categories. This LRSP continues these safety efforts through this plan by identifying areas of emphasis and opportunities for system improvement that can be implemented to enhance safety. This LRSP analyzes the most recent 5-year period of available crash data (January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019) and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of elevated collision activity.
The intent of the LRSP is to:
x Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
x Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
x Develop lasting partnerships
x Support for grant/funding applications, and
x Help prioritize investments in traffic safety.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
2 2 Vision and Goals
The San Clemente 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, influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. This effort is intended to use historical data to identify trends and develop a toolbox of countermeasures applicable to conditions in the City that can be used for proactive identification and implementation of opportunities, without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.
LRSPs have been effective across the country as part of the effort to reduce fatal and severeinjury crashes because they provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. Consistent with these findings, the following Vision, Goals, and Objectives have been established for this project.
VISION: To enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes.
Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for collision.
Objectives:
x Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. x 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:
x Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for collisions based on present characteristics closely associated with severe collisions. x 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:
x Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). x Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied county-wide.
Goal #4: Define safety projects for future HSIP and other program funding consideration.
Objectives:
x Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth-coming cycles to apply for funding.
x Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. x Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP funding consideration.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
3 3 Process
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within San Clemente at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements will be identified. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network are derived. The outcomes will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users.
The following section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within San Clemente at a systemic level. Using a network screening process, locations within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements will be identified. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network are derived. The outcomes will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures that address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users.
3.1 Existing Guidance
This process uses the latest National and State best practices for statistical roadway analysis described as follows.
3.1.1 Local Roads Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) purpose is to encourage local agencies to pursue a proactive approach to identifying and analyzing safety issues, while preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is defined as analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network through either a one-time, network wide analysis, or by routine analyses of the roadway network.3 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 benefit and to be competitive for funding, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and be considerate of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should be a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations that considers both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for patterns such as crash types and severity to aid in the determination of issues causing higher numbers of crashes and the potential countermeasures that could be most effective. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess what conditions may increase safety risk at the site and systematic level.
3 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
4 Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).
These factors are the peer reviewed product of before and after research that quantifies the expected rate of collision reduction that can be expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on how to apply CMFs appropriately.
3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
“The 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.”4 This four-part
manual is divided into Parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.
Chapter 4 of Part B of the HSM discusses the Network Screening process. The Network Screening Process is a tool for an agency to analyze their entire network and identify/rank locations that (based on the implementation of a countermeasure) are most likely to least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of collisions.
The HSM identifies five steps in this process:5
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 principle screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.
5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.
The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks to identify high risk locations based on overall collision histories. In addition to identifying the total number of collisions, this study uses a method referred to as Critical Crash Rate to analyze the data.
3.2 Analysis Techniques
3.2.1 Collision and Network Screening Analysis
Intersections and roadways were analyzed using four collision metrics:
x Number of Collisions
4 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx
5 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
5 x Critical Crash Rate (HSM Ch. 4)
x Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion (HSM Ch. 4) x 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, Unsignalized, Roundabout) and segments by their roadway category (Arterial, Collector, Minor Collector, 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 (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), and 4) driver behavior (impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving). With these additional factors, the locations were further analyzed and assigned a new rank.
3.3 Statistical Performance Measures
3.3.1 Critical Crash Rate (CCR)
Reviewing the number of collisions at a location is a good way to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level but 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.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
6 Figure 1 – Critical Crash Rate Formula
Source: Highway Safety Manual
Data Needs
CCR can be calculated using:
x Daily entering volume for intersections, or VMT for roadway segments; x Intersection control types to separate them into like populations; x Roadway functional classification to separate them into like populations; x Collision records in GIS or tabular form including coordinates or linear measures.
Strengths
x Reduces low volume exaggeration
x Considers variance
x Establishes comparison threshold
3.3.2 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:
x Intersection:
o Signalized
o Unsignalized
o Roundabout
x Roadway Classification:
o Other Principal Arterial
o Minor Arterial
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
7 o Major 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 the 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. This level of difference is known as Local CCR Differential and is shown in Table 5 and Table 6. After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked by their categories according to that level of exceedance. A confidence level of 95% was used for the CCR Calculations. Locations where this level of difference is greater than zero are highlighted in gray in Table 5 and 6.
3.3.3 Probability
The Highway Safety Manual describes the methodology for determining the probability that crash type is greater than an identified threshold proportion. This helps to identify locations where a crash type is more likely to occur.
Data Needs
The probability of a specific crash type can be determined using collisions records with location data, and classifications of the locations (intersections or segments) studied.
Strengths
x Can be used as a diagnostic tool
x Considers variance in data
x 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 San Clemente).
These proportions are then utilized to determine the probability that the proportion of a specific crash type is greater than the long-term expected proportion of that crash type.
Figure 2 – Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
8 Source: Highway Safety Manual
3.3.4 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO)
The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs). This figure is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash. The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site. This figure allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4). 4 Safety Partners
As part of the LRSP, local stakeholders were included in the process to ensure the local perspective was kept at the forefront of this planning effort. In addition to the Project Team which included City Staff, a stakeholder group was organized. This group consisted of members from City departments, Capistrano Unified School District, the City’s Public Safety Committee, Orange County Sheriff’s Department, Orange County Fire Department, and local pedestrian and bicycle activists.
These leaders in the City and community 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, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas.
The summary of the stakeholder meeting(s) are outlined below.
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting #1 & Field Tour
The first stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually using the Microsoft platform on October 11, 2021. At the meeting, stakeholders were 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 10 “case study” locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash analysis process. Potential countermeasures were recommended and discussed. Additionally, potential emphasis/challenge areas were proposed during the meeting to include impaired drivers, young drivers, and aggressive drivers.
Following the stakeholder kickoff meeting, a field tour of the “case study” locations was held on October 18, 2021 with members of the stakeholder group. The group visited each location and SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
9 gave feedback on safety issues present at these locations. This feedback helped to develop the countermeasures explored later in the report.
4.2 Stakeholder Meeting #2
A 2nd stakeholder meeting was held on November 4, 2021 to discuss findings of the field tour, and to identify potential countermeasures and other opportunities for improvement at the case study locations and citywide.
Stakeholder feedback regarding the plan and opportunities were reviewed and incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
10 5 Existing Efforts
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or are on-going within the City of San Clemente were compiled at the start of the LRSP process in order to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. Highlevel key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP. Information reviewed included the following:
Table 1: Existing Documents Reviewed
Document Name Document Year Agency Document
Description
FY 2021 Capital Improvement
Plan
July 2019 for Fiscal
Year 2020-2021
City of San
Clemente
Summary of capital
projects for FY 2021
Centennial General Plan
(Mobility and Complete Streets
Section)
Adopted: February
2014
Amended:
December 2016
City of San
Clemente
Mobility/complete
streets plan
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan 2013 City of San Clemente
Bicycle/Pedestrian
Plan
Climate Action Plan January 2014 City of San
Clemente City Climate Plan
Downtown Paseos Plan December 2015 City of San
Clemente Design Plan
SCAG Strategic Plan 2018
Southern
California
Association of
Governments
(SCAG)
Strategic Plan
Local Profiles Report 2019:
Profile of the City of San
Clemente
May 2019 SCAG SCAG Profile of City
Connect SoCal: The 2020-2045
Regional Transportation Plan /
Sustainable Communities
Strategy of the Southern
California Association of
Governments
2020 SCAG SCAG Regional
Transportation Plan
OCTA Strategic Plan 2014 OCTA County
Transportation Plan
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
11 6 Data Summary
6.1 Roadway Network
The collision analysis is built upon the existing roadway network. The City’s Proposed Mobility and Complete Street from the adopted 2014 Centennial General Plan was used at the base network. Figure 3 illustrates San Clemente’s roadway network categorized using Caltrans’ Classification System. This classification assigned to each corridor roadway segment as either Other Principal Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, or Local road is used in the analysis process. Ultimately, corridors will be compared to roadway segments with similar designations.
6.2 Intersections
The collision analysis requires each intersection be classified by type: Signalized, Unsignalized, or Roundabouts. The safety analysis compares intersection safety performance to locations with similar control types. This information is also displayed in Figure 3.
6.3 Count Data
Vehicular count data is used as part of the analysis process to evaluate the impact of traffic and understand the natural hierarchy of the roadway network. Traffic volume data utilized for this project was pulled from the Master Plan of Arterial Highways volume model data from OCTA. For locations without volume, other resources were utilized to identify a reasonable assumption for individual corridors and classification types.
6.4 Collision Data
Collision data was collected from Crossroads Software for the period from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 to have a complete set of collision data for analysis. We utilize fiveyears of data instead of the standard three 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 following collision trends and patterns. The locations and amount of fatal and severe injury collisions are displayed in Figure 4. The density of collisions at intersections and along roadway segments is shown in Figures 5-8.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
12 Figure 3: San Clemente Functional Classification (CRS) and Intersection Type SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
13 Figure 4: All Collisions and Fatalities (2015-2019)
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
14 Figure 5: Density of all Collisions at Intersections (2015-2019) SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
15 Figure 6: Density of all Collisions at Intersections in Downtown San Clemente (2015- 2019)
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
16 Figure 7 – Density of all Collisions along Roadway Segments (2015-2019) SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
17 Figure 8: Density of all Collisions along Roadway Segments in Downtown San Clemente (2015-2019)
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
18 7 Collision Analysis Results
The following section breaks down the collision data by a variety of input factors and user types.
This information will be used to highlight areas of concern for the City.
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. New data is added to the system in an ongoing basis which means that each time the City updates the analysis, a full 5-year draw from the database, rather than just adding records from the last query should be standard practice. Data used for this report were extracted from Crossroads Software analytics on June 29, 2021 and was current as of that date. Collision data from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 1,336 collisions recorded within San Clemente.
The most common occurring collision types were Sideswipe (23%) and Rear-End (21%). The total number of collisions have been trending downward since 2016, with a significant 4% drop from 2016 to 20196
. In comparison with other cities nationwide, there has been an increasing trend of collisions from 2015 to 2019.
Figure 9: Collision Type by Year (2015-2019)
6 https://cdan.dot.gov/tsftables/National%20Statistics.pdf 0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
No. of Collisions
Year
Vehicle - Pedestrian
Sideswipe
Rear-End
Overturned
Other
Not Stated
Hit Object
Head-On
Broadside
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
19 7.2 Fatalities
During the study period, seven (7) fatal and fifty-six (56) severe injury collisions occurred, as seen in Figure 4. These collisions were mainly concentrated along the City’s arterial roadways, such as El Camino Real, and Avenida Pico. As shown in Table 2 below, a majority fatal and severe injury collisions solely involved vehicles, but there were several collisions that involved pedestrians and bicyclists.
Table 2: Fatal Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2015-2019) Involved With # of Fatal Collisions # of Severe Injury Collisions Vehicle 5 42
Bicycle 1 5
Pedestrian 1 9
7.3 Injury Levels
Figure 10 reported during the time-period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled less than 5% of all collisions.
Figure 10: Collisions by Injury Levels (2015-2019)
7.4 Cause of Collision
The highest cause of all collisions in San Clemente is improper turning at 25%, followed by driving under the influence at 16% and auto right-of-way violation at 15%. Issues with unsafe starting or backing also had a substantial impact on the City, comprising 7% of the collisions.
64.7%
16.8%
13.8%
4.2%
0.5%
Property Damage Only
Complaint of Pain
Other Visible Injury
Severe Injury
Fatal
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
20 Drivers ignoring traffic signals and signs led to 6% of the collisions. shows the distribution of causes of collision in the study period.
Figure 11: Cause of Collisions (2015-2019)
In Figure 11 above, the bottom 10 causes of collisions are shaded white in the chart, and their percentages are listed in the legend of the chart.
The cause of the fatal & severe injury collisions is shown in Table 3 below. The most common cause for fatal and severe injury collisions is driving under the influence (71% and 19%, respectively).
Table 3: Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions by Cause (2015-2019) Collision Cause # of Fatal Collisions # of Severe Injury Collisions
Driving Under Influence 5 11
25%
16%
15%
15%
7%
6%
5%
2%
2%
Improper Turning
Driving Under Influence
Auto R/W Violation
Unsafe Speed
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown
Other Than Driver or Ped
Unsafe Lane Change
Ped R/W Violation
Pedestrian Violation
Wrong Side of Road
Following Too Closely
Other Hazardous Movement
Other Improper Driving
Hazardous Parking
Improper Passing
Other
0.1% Impeding Traffic
0.4%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.7%
0.7%
0.8%
1.1%
1.3%
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
21 Collision Cause # of Fatal Collisions # of Severe Injury Collisions
Improper Turning1 2 5
Auto R/W Violation2 - 9
Impeding Traffic3 - 1
Other Hazardous Movement - 3
Other Than Driver or Ped - 3
Ped R/W Violation - 1
Pedestrian Violation - 3
Traffic Signals and Signs4 - 3
Unknown - 8
Unsafe Speed - 6
Wrong Side of Road - 3
Figure 12: Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions by Cause (2015-2019) 1 Improper Turning is when a driver moves from a direct course when a movement cannot be made with reasonable safety, as defined by the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22107. 2 Auto R/W Violation is when a driver fails to yield the right-of-way to a vehicle properly, as defined by CVC Section 21804.
3 Impeding Traffic is when a driver drives at such a slow speed as to impede or block normal movement of traffic, as defined by CVC Section 22400.
4 Traffic Signals and Signs is when a driver disobeys any traffic sign, signal or traffic control device, as defined by the CVC Section 38300.
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
No. of Collisions
Year
Wrong Side of Road
Unsafe Speed
Unknown
Traffic Signals and Signs
Pedestrian Violation
Ped R/W Violation
Other Than Driver or Ped
Other Hazardous Movement
Improper Turning
Impeding Traffic
Driving Under Influence
Auto R/W Violation
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
22 7.5 Vulnerable Users
7.5.1 Pedestrians
49 pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, resulting in one (1) fatal collision, nine (9) severe injury, and 37 with some form of reported injury or pain. 38% of the pedestrian collisions occurred at night, and about half of these collisions occurred while the pedestrian was crossing the crosswalk.
7.5.2 Bicycle
During the study period, 58 collisions involving bicycles were reported. Of these, one (1) were fatal, and five (5) resulted in severe injuries. The remaining collisions resulted in five (5) property damage only, and 47with some form of reported injury or pain at night. 81% of the collisions occurred during daylight. Most of these collisions were attributed to automobile right-of-way violations.
Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the pedestrian and bicycle collisions in the City during the study period.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
23 Figure 13: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2015-2019) SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
24 Figure 14: Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions in Downtown San Clemente (2015 – 2019) SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
25 7.6 Significant Trends for Passenger Vehicles
x Twenty-seven (27) percent of “party at fault” was drivers age 16 through 25. x Seventeen (17) percent of collisions (229) involved hit objects. Although significant in number, there are no discernable patterns to these collisions. x Nine (9) percent of the “party at fault” was attributed to those age 65 and older. Looking at the expanded range of the “party at fault” for age 55 and older, this group accounts for almost 17% of collisions. Specifics for driver gender was not available in the collision data. x Only four (4) percent of collisions (64) were recorded as having occurred at night without streetlights, or during dusk/dawn. Many of these collisions still occurred at or near intersections.
7.7 Behavioral
7.7.1 Driving Under the Influence
235 collisions, 18% of all collisions, were reported as the driver being under the influence of drugs or alcohol. More than half of collisions took place on arterial roads. Figure 15 and Figure 16 show the distribution of DUI collisions by time of day and day of the week.
Figure 15: DUI Collision Time of Day
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 12
AM
1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 9 AM 10
AM
11 AM
12 PM
1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 PM 9 PM 10
PM
11 PM
# of DUI Collisions
Time of Day
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
26 Figure 16: DUI Collisions by Time of Week
7.7.2 Aggressive Driving
Fifteen (15) percent of the collisions were primarily caused by drivers traveling at unsafe speed or following too closely. These types of collisions are located primarily on major arterials.
7.8 Statewide Comparison
The distribution of San Clemente’s fatal and severe injury collisions compared to statewide figures for several Caltrans Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) challenge areas is shown below in Table 4. Following the Caltrans SHSP Implementation Plan guidance, collision data from 2009 to 2018 was reviewed. The figures below may vary slightly from those mentioned previously due to the differences in the years of the study period. Compared to statewide collisions, the City of San Clemente had lower collisions involving commercial vehicles, young drivers, pedestrian, occupation protection, intersections, and aggressive driving. San Clemente had a higher proportion of fatal & severe injury collisions involving work zones, motorcyclists, aging drivers, bicyclists, impaired driving, distracted driving, and lane departures.
Table 4: Comparison of Statewide and San Clemente Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2009 - 2018)
Challenge Area Statewide
%
San
Clemente
%
%
Difference
San Clemente has a Higher Percentage of Collisions
Work Zones 1.5% 10.0% 8.5%
Motorcyclists 20.8% 26.1% 5.3%
Aging Drivers 11.9% 17.1% 5.1%
Bicyclists 8.4% 10.9% 2.5%
Impaired Driving 25.8% 26.5% 0.7%
Distracted Driving 5.2% 5.7% 0.5%
Lane Departure 43.7% 44.1% 0.4%
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday # of DUI Collisions
Day of the Week
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
27 Challenge Area Statewide
%
San
Clemente
%
%
Difference
San Clemente has a Lower Percentage of Collisions
Commercial Vehicles 6.4% 6.2% -0.2%
Young Drivers 13.6% 13.3% -0.3%
Pedestrians 19.1% 17.5% -1.6%
Occupant Protection 14.8% 12.3% -2.5%
Intersections 23.6% 19.4% -4.2%
Aggressive Driving 33.2% 26.5% -6.7%
7.9 Collision Analysis Rankings
Table 5 and Table 6 show the number of crashes occurring at locations in San Clemente 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 50%.
The tables are ordered by the number of collisions that occurred at that segment or intersection.
All intersections and segments with three or more crashes were included. Locations with fewer than three crashes do not have enough data to infer trends. 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 differential, which highlights whether the collision activity was higher 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 San Clemente crash data to determine what locations might be best to prioritize at the local level. This process highlights locations of collisions that are unusually high for the City to determine intersections and roadway segments that have the greatest risk for users. 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 city-wide 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.
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 San Clemente. Locations with higher than expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for exceedances.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
28 The following provides an example of how to read Table 5 and Table 6, which show the top locations by collisions per type
Table Highlights
- Local CCR Differential:
o Locations with a Local CCR differential of greater than zero are highlighted in Gray - Fatal and Severe Injuries:
o Locations with one or more fatal/severe injuries are highlighted in Light Blue - Remaining Collision Types:
o Cells highlighted in Light Green have a 50% - 75% probability that this crash type is over-represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of San Clemente (as discussed in Section 4.3). Although these locations have a slightly higher probability of this crash type than their counterparts, they are not necessarily highly significant. o Cells highlighted in Light Yellow have a 75% or greater probability that this crash type is over-represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of San Clemente (as discuss in Section 4.3). These locations are highly significant in regard to the number of collisions occurring here and should be further investigated.
Table Definitions:
- Total Collisions: Number of collisions observed at the intersection or segment from January of 2015 through December of 2019.
o It should be noted that roundabouts were not listed in Table 4 - Local Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Differential: The CCR specific to the intersection or segment.
- 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, Distracted, Impaired, Dark, Wet: The number of the collisions with this factor identified as the cause of collision.
Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Collision Type, Collisions Involved With, Collision Behavior, Collision Environment, and Collision Severity are additional characteristics of the collisions and should not be counted as a separate collision. The collision categories are labeled and highlighted in the following order:
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
29 Collision Type: Broadside, Sideswipe, Rear-End, Head-on, Overturned, and Other Collision Involved With: Pedestrian and Bicycle
Collision Behavior: Aggressive, Distracted, and Impaired Collision Environment: Dark and Wet
Collision Severity: Fatal, Serious Injury, Other Visible Injury, Complaint of Pain, PDO 30 SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
Table 5: Analysis Rankings – Segments (Top Locations Per Segment Type) Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
S el Camino Real Arterial Other Principal
E Ave Magdalena - I-5 Fwy Ramp 6 0.6 190 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 Ave del Mar Minor Arterial
N el Camino Real - N Ola Vista 9 2.8 9 0 3 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 Ave Pico I-5 Ramp - San Clemente High School 9 0.7 29 3 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 6 Ave Pico Calle del Cerro - Calle Amanecer 4 -0.08 34 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0Ave Santa Barbara Ave Rosa - S Ola Vista 3 0.5 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3Ave Vaquero Calle Vista Torito - Calle Arco 3 0.6 13 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2Cll del CerroMajor Collector Ave Pico - Ave Vista Montana (W) 6 1.2 190 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 Trafalgar Ln Trafalgar Ln - S Ola Vista 2 0.2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2W Marquita Local N el Camino Real - Calle Puente 4 6.21 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 W Escalones N el Camino Real - Calle Puente 4 6.51 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 42. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 75+% probability that crash 50-75% probability that crash type is over-represented Fatal & Severe Injuries are greater than zero Local CCR Differential is Greater than Zero type is over-represented
31 SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
Table 6: Analysis Rankings – Intersections (Top Locations Per Intersection Type) Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
San Diego Fwy & Ave Pico Signalized Intersections
31 0.5 275 8 5 7 2 5 0 1 3 2 9 0 3 0 1 0 1 3 10 17
W Ave Palizada & N El Camino Real 22 0.1 57 7 4 5 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 6 0 1 0 0 1 5 16Real San Diego Freeway & S El Camino 21 0.4 412 9 1 3 6 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 2 5 3 11Puerta del Sol & Ave Pico 18 0.2 77 6 0 6 2 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 10Ave la Pata & Ave Vista Hermosa 16 0.1 552 10 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 5 6 Ave Presidio & Ave Pico 16 -0.1 36 1 3 6 0 5 0 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 12 N el Camino Real & Ave del Mar 14 0.1 198 0 6 4 0 1 0 2 1 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 9S el Camino Real & Ave Rosa 13 0.0 42 4 1 2 4 0 0 2 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 10 Ave Pico & Camino Vera Cruz 13 0.0 211 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 8 Mares I-5 Freeway & Camino De Los 12 -0.03 191 4 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 8W Canada & N El Camino Real Intersections Unsignalized 19 0.4 79 7 2 5 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 8 9
S El Camino Real & Ave Granada 18 0.3 196 3 6 6 0 0 0 1 2 1 6 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 15 S El Camino Real & W Esplande 12 0.1 364 8 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 6Ave Barcelona & S Ola Vista 9 0.4 226 0 4 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 1 2W Ave Palizada & Loma Ln 9 0.7 9 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 9Real Boca de la Playa & N El Camino 9 0.2 178 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 32 SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
S El Camino Real & Trafalgar Ln 8 0.1 38 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 4N El Camino Real & Ave Serra 8 0.1 13 2 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 7E Marquita & N El Camino Real 7 0.0 27 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 4W Escalones & N El Camino Real 7 0.1 7 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 7Only Crashes 2. Equivalent Property Damage Differential 1. Local Critical Crash Rate 50Fatal & Severe Injuries are greater than zeroLocal CCR Differential is Greater than Zero -75% probability that crash type is over-represented
75+% probability that crash type is over-represented
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
33 8 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Areas are places where the City of San Clemente can strategically focus efforts to have a large impact on transportation safety. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the Vision and Goals developed at the onset of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis. Where these areas aligned, or major challenges were observed, Emphasis Areas and strategies were developed.
Emphasis Area #1: Impaired Driving
Description: Impaired driving, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes proof of drug or alcohol use by the driver, even if the driver is not over the legal limit. Approximately 18% of collisions during the study period reported the driver being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. About 14% of the collisions during the study period resulted in being over the legal limit.
More than half of these took place on arterial roadways. A majority of impaired driving collisions took place between 8 PM and 3 AM.
Goals for Emphasis Area #1:
x Reduce the incidence and severity of collisions attributed to impaired driving x Identify hot spots and key corridors for impaired driving x Apply for funding to implement countermeasures to reduce impaired driving collisions Strategies for Emphasis Area #1:
x Authorize, publicize, and conduct sobriety checkpoints programs x Implement an impaired driving education campaign
x Develop educational programs targeting specific audiences based on age group x Additional enforcement presence
x 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 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Office of Traffic Safety (OTS), and Senate Bill 1 (SB1) grant programs.
Emphasis Area #2: Vulnerable Road Users (Bicycle and Pedestrians) Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable road users, meaning they have the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. Pedestrian and bicycle activity is high in San Clemente. According to the crash analysis, 8 percent of crashes involved pedestrians and bicycles. 93% of these collisions resulted in some form of injury or pain. 20% of pedestrian collisions resulted in fatalities or severe injuries, and 10% of bicycle injuries resulted in fatalities or severe injuries. Electric bicycle (e-bike) usage is high in the City and special attention should be paid to safety of these users.
Goal for Emphasis Area #2:
x Reduce the number of collisions involving vulnerable road users x Identify hot spots and priority corridors for addressing vulnerable road user collisions x Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address pedestrian & bicyclist collisions
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
34 Strategies for Emphasis Area #2:
x Implement pedestrian and bicycle countermeasures at key locations x Install active transportation counters to identify high volume locations and implement infrastructure improvements at these locations
x Establish education and training programs to improve vulnerable road user safety citywide, including focus on electric bicycles
These strategies can 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 these strategies may include Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Active Transportation Program (ATP), State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and Senate Bill 1 (SB1) grand funding programs.
Emphasis Area #3: 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 15 percent of collisions. 3 percent of these collisions resulted in a severe injuries, 33 percent of these collisions resulted in some other form of injury.
Goal for Emphasis Area #3:
x Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive driving in the City x Identify hot spots and priority corridors for aggressive driving x Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address aggressive driving Strategies for Emphasis Area #3:
x Educational campaign to target aggressive drivers
x Increased law enforcement presence near aggressive driving hotspots x Increased coordination with law enforcement and other community organizations These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and community organizations.
Funding sources for these strategies may include Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) and Senate Bill 1 (SB1) grant programs.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
35 9 Opportunities
The following provides more information on general identified issues, crash modification factors, improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of San Clemente, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis.
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 and apply CMFs to compare and select highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce collisions. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase collisions. The application of an appropriate CMF can influence the decision to implement a particular project, and the misapplication of CMFs can lead to misinformed decisions. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include:
1. Selection of an appropriate CMF,
2. Estimation of collisions 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 (https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/local-assistance/documents/hsip/2020/lrsm2020.pdf) and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website (http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/).
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 citywide level and are discussed in General City-Wide Safety Project Recommendations Section
9.3 of this Report.
9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies
From the city-wide analysis, ten project case study locations were selected for further analysis and recommendation. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a case study to organize projects when applying for funding. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their collision histories, the observed crash patterns, and their differing characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.
A Safety Project Case Study was developed for these locations:
1. Segment: Calle del Cerro: Ave Pico to Ave Vista Montana (W)
2. Segment: Ave Pico: I-5 to San Clemente High School
3. Intersection: I-5 Fwy & Ave Pico
4. Intersection: El Camino Real & Calle Valle
5. Intersection: Ave Palizada & El Camino Real
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
36 6. Segment: Ave del Mar: El Camino Real & Ola Vista
7. Segment: El Camino Real: Escalones to Avenida Barcelona (Downtown San Clemente)
8. Intersection: El Camino Real & Esplanade
Appendix A contains the Case Study pages which 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. These case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities.
9.2 Non-Infrastructure Improvements
Non-Infrastructure recommendations have also been proven to impact safety conditions of the transportation network. These education and enforcement measure recommendations are developed to target specific behavior types and populations. Based on a review of the existing plans, policies, and programs within the City, the following topics have been reviewed to identify areas where the City can implement or enhance safety efforts.
Table 7: Summary of Programs, Policies, and Practices for the City of San Clemente Topic Initiatives/ Current Status Implement or Enhance
COMMITTEES / ROLES
Active Transportation
Coordinator
Yes, Senior Traffic Engineering
and others fulfill this role Continue to grow this role Safety or Active
Advisory Committee
Yes, the City has a Public Safety
Committee
Continue regular Public
Safety Committee meetings
Active Transportation
Safety Education
Program
Sherriff & Schools work together
for bicycle safety education (bike
safety rodeo); possible
opportunities for additional
training related to e-bikes
Continue to expand
program for active
transportation safety
POLICY / PLANS
Complete Streets Plan Yes, City Complete Streets Plan
is part of the City's General Plan.
Identify roadways that are
good candidates for
complete street
implementation consistent
with guidance provided in
these plans
Traffic Impact Fees Yes Continue to assess traffic
impact fees
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
37 Topic Initiatives/ Current Status Implement or Enhance Safe Routes to School
Program
Multiple Safe Routes to School
grant funding projects
implemented in the past;
opportunity: comprehensive SRTS
plan
Complete a comprehensive
Safe Routes to School Plan
Traffic Calming Policies Yes
Continue to implement
traffic calming interventions
where appropriate
Speed Surveys Yes, the City conducts Speed
Surveys every 7 years
Continue to update as
required by California
Vehicle Code; review new
guidance from Assembly
Bill 43
Warrants for Stop Signs
and Signals
Yes, the City uses Warrants from
the CA MUTCD.
Continue to use CA
MUTCD warrants; identify
areas where additional
warrants can be used
Planning for Density and
Walkable Areas Yes
Continue to identify areas
for density and walkable
development
Transportation Demand
Management
(TDM)/Vehicle Miles
Travelled (VMT)
Reduction Policy
Currently providing shuttle
services down El Camino Real;
SC Rides, shuttles where there
are no bus routes
Continue to implement
policies that reduce VMT
Traffic Crash Monitoring No Implement a formal traffic
crash monitoring program
Active Transportation
Master Plan
Yes, the City has Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP).
Continue to regularly
update BPMP and
implement interventions laid
out in plans
Does the City have CA
MUTCD-compliant
Pedestrian Signal
Timing?
Yes
Continue to be aware of CA
MUTCD updates and
update timing regularly
Crosswalks at High
Pedestrian Locations Yes
Maintain and improve
crosswalks where
appropriate
Traffic Enforcement
The City contracts with the
Orange County Sheriff for traffic
enforcement. Traffic enforcement
type includes speeding, parking,
stop sign violation, and all
services under the California
Vehicle Code and San Clemente
Municipal Code.
Continue to work with law
enforcement to enforce
traffic safety; identify hot
spots and increase
enforcement
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
38 Topic Initiatives/ Current Status Implement or Enhance Bicycle Policy
City Bicycle Policy is in the City's
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master
Plan
Continue to update bicycle
policy and implement
bicycle interventions where
appropriate
Transit
Regional Rail Services (Metrolink
and Amtrak), OCTA buses, City
trolleys, SC Rides (supplementary
to reduced OCTA routes; through
Lyft/Butterfly); Senior Mobility
Program through Yellow Cabs
Improvements to shuttle
service along El Camino
Real.
Wayfinding
City has a Master Wayfinding
Sign Program for directional signs
for visitors to downtown, beaches,
pier, public parking and train
station.
Continue wayfinding
program; continually update
system
DATA COLLECTION / INVENTORY
Inventory of Pedestrian
Signs and Signals
Asset management program,
constantly updated. Currently
working on signage
Assemble inventory of
pedestrians signs/signals
Inventory/Mapping of
Active Transportation
Routes
No comprehensive map; mapped
on several different maps.
GIS/asset management programs
to work on compiling for sidewalks
Assemble comprehensive
GIS of active transportation
routes, including bikeways
and sidewalks
City Collision Database No, utilize Sherriff’s and TIMS Implement City collision
database with Sheriff and
TIMS data; update regularly
Active Transportation
Volume Counting
Ped/bike volumes are separated
on some volume counts
Continue counting active
transportation volumes;
assemble database of AT
volumes
COORDINATION / FEEDBACK
Citizen Feedback
The public can send feedback to
the City by phone calls, emails or
City website.
Continue to solicit citizen
feedback
Institutional
Coordination
The City coordinates with Caltrans
and other Agencies on various
type of projects as needed.
Continue interdepartmental
coordination
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
39 Topic Initiatives/ Current Status Implement or Enhance School Engagement
City provides adult school
crossing guards to elementary
and middle schools; coordinates
with the school staff and PTA on
traffic and transportation related
projects and issues.
Continue to engage local
school districts
Enforcement/Emergency
Service Engagement
The City law enforcement
services are provided by the
Orange County Sheriff. Law
enforcement services include
investigations, traffic enforcement,
community support, drug
education, parking control, and
crime prevention.
Continue to engage with
local law enforcement
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
40 9.3 General City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox
This evaluation considered city-wide trends to identify countermeasures that would likely provide the most benefit with widespread implementation. Countermeasures for each of the 5E Safety Strategies (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies) were identified. These include both infrastructure recommendations and noninfrastructure recommendations. Table 9 outlines the city-wide safety project recommendations, which is also referred to as the “Countermeasure Toolbox”. Within the toolbox, the description of the countermeasure along with its Local Road Safety Manuel (LRSM) ID number is listed. The next column, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) also known as Crash Modification Factor (CMF), are “multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the lower the CMF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes)7
.”
For each of these countermeasures, a planning level benefit/cost analysis was completed.
Applying the benefit/cost at the city-wide 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 city-wide 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 2020 dollars and not assumed final.
In addition to countermeasures from the LRSM which are included in Table 4, the following engineering improvements are recommended for consideration by the City for implementation. x Posting full time or part time “No Right Turn on Red” signs based on the frequency of collisions. Potential use of blankout signs at signalized intersection should be considered as they can be extended to part time No U Turn restrictions. x Implementation of CAMUTCD compliant signal timing at all intersections which has been shown in recent studies to help reduce pedestrian related collisions. x Policy to regularly evaluate sight distance and visual clearance issues within the City. In addition to built obstructions, landscaping has become an increasingly important issue and is a factor in collisions.
x Restriping corridors to narrow travel and turn lanes widths, using the additional space to stripe wider bicycle facilities.
x Installation of bike detection and bike call buttons at signalized intersections.
Table 10 describes additional recommendations for the remaining categories of traffic safety which includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services, and Emerging Technology.
7 LRSM Version 1.5 (2020), Page 27
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
Table 8: City-wide Recommended Safety Projects (Countermeasure Toolbox) LRSM/ CMF ID Potential Countermeasures CRF Per Unit Cost Unit 2084 Restrict right-turn on red 28% $10,000 per location8498 Tighten radius of rightturn lane to increase
line of sight
39% $20,000 per location
NS06
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop
signs/other intersections
warning/regulatory
signs (stop signs with
LED borders)
15% $1,500 per sign
NS07
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings (to
make more visible)
25% $22,000 per intersection
NS07
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings (to
make more visible)
35% $50,000 per mile
NS13
Install splitter-islands on
the minor road
approaches
40% $20,000 per intersection
NS15
Create direction median
openings to
allow/restrict left-turns
and U-turns (rightin/right-out)
50% $15,000 per structure
R01 Add segment lighting 35% $50,000 per mileR03 Install Median Barrier 25% $20,000 per locationR14 Change lane configurations 30% $12,500 per mileR22 Install advanced signal warning signage 15% $1,500 per signR23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 40% $1,500 per sign SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
42 LRSM/ CMF ID Potential Countermeasures CRF Per Unit Cost Unit R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning systems 30% $16,000 per signR27 install delineators,
reflectors, and or object
markers
15% $3,000 per LF
R32PB Install green paint in bicycle lanes 35% $15,000 per intersectionR32PB Install bike lane (class III/sharrows) 35% $25 per linear foot S02 Update signal heads to meet current standards 15% $12,000 per intersectionS03 Improve signal timing
(coordination, phasing,
red, yellow, operation)
15% $7,667 per intersection
S07 Provide protected left- turn phase 30% $60,000 per intersection S18PB Install improved pedestrian crossing 25% $50,000 per intersection -
Close intersection and
allow only pedestrian
access to streets
5%* $15,000 per location
-
Enact ordinance restrict
on-street parking where
curb lane width is
narrow
5%* $12,000 per location
- Install back-in packing 5%* $50,000 per location- Install parking meters 5%* $75,000 per location *These countermeasures do not have documented CRF’s and a conservative 5% CRF was assigned to allow them to show some benefit.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
43 Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures: These recommended countermeasures were derived from the collision analysis and build on the actions identified in Section 9.2. These relate to the additional Es of Traffic Safety outside of Engineering. This includes Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services and Emerging Technologies.
Table 9: Non-Engineering Safety Strategy Countermeasures PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE ENFORCEMENT Establish enforcement and visibility program for aggressive driving Local law enforcement; CHP CHP’s Regulate Aggressive Driving and Reduce Speed (RADARS) ProgramContinued enforcement in school zones Local law enforcement; CHP; school districts; OCTA; SCAG Obtain grant funding for additional personnel in school zonesIncreased enforcement of safe driving & active transportation behaviors near busy crosswalk locations Local law enforcement; CHP
Obtain grant funding for additional enforcement near high pedestrian activity locations EDUCATION Campaign to target aggressive driving and DUIs Local law enforcement; CHP; California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) CHP’s Regulate Aggressive Driving and Reduce Speed (RADARS) Program Bicycle and pedestrian safety campaign Local law enforcement; OCTA; SCAG SCAG’s ‘Go Human’ Campaign; ‘ OTS’ ‘Ride With Traffic’ campaignPlanned educational events at high activity locations such as future CV Link locations Explore safe routes to school education grants to expand program Local school districts; local law enforcement; OCTA; SCAG Safe Routes to School Program, funded by Caltrans
Coordinate safety education campaigns with SCAG SCAG; local law enforcement Roadway safety fairs at schools Education campaign for aging driversEMERGENCY SERVICES Continue to work on interdepartmental communication between City staff and City police department and fire department Local law enforcement & fire department
Incorporate law enforcement/fire department as stakeholders on transportation improvement projects SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
44 PROPOSED COUNTERMEASURE POTENTIAL PARTNERS EXAMPLES OF COUNTERMEASURE Incorporate public health agencies and fire departments as stakeholders in safety projects Local public health agencies and fire departments
Adjust safety project development processes to include public health and fire department feedback EMERGING TECHNOLOGY Continue to use best practices for pedestrian crossings at high pedestrian traffic areas City Public Works; OCTA; Caltrans Continuously update pedestrian crossing design standards in accordance with latest best practices Utilize new data sources to monitor traffic conditions and inform County safety plans City Public Works; OCTA; Caltrans Utilization of data from OCTA traffic management center Identify best practices for e-bike safety and enforcement City Public Works; local law enforcement Increased enforcement near e-bike hotspots; SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
10 Evaluation & Implementation
10.1 Evaluation
The success of the LRSP will be evaluated using the preliminary process outlined below. This process will be useful to ensure proper implementation of goals and to determine when updates are needed.
x Quarterly progress meetings will be conducted to track the implementation of the plan. In addition, the success of the plan will be evaluated on an annual basis. x An update to the plan should be considered after no more than five years. x Continued monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways by law enforcement.
x Maintain a list of focus areas where there are transportation safety concerns.
10.2 Implementation
The opportunities identified in this report provide more of the systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, the City has the opportunity to concentrate its efforts on the emphasis areas:
1. Impaired Driving
2. Vulnerable Road Users (Bicyclists and Pedestrians)
3. Aggressive Driving
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 the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high benefit-to-cost ratio (by applying City-wide collision rates), allowing projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct collision history, but with conditions that might contribute to future collisions.
10.3 Funding Opportunities
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in San Clemente. 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 San Clemente. The following is a high-level introduction into some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply. The City should also work with regional agencies such as OCTA and SCAG to identify and apply for safety improvement funding.
10.3.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program housed under Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act. This program apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
46 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. Example safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
x New or upgraded traffic signals
x Upgraded guard rails
x Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
x Marked crosswalks
California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.
Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.
10.3.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
x Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
x Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g. safe routes to school) x Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
10.3.3 State Transportation Improvement Program
The State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides state and federal gas tax money for improvements both on and off the state highway system. STIP programming occurs every two years. The programming cycle begins with the release of a proposed fund estimate, followed by California Transportation Commission (CTC) adoption of the fund estimate. The fund estimate serves to identify the amount of new funds available for the programming of transportation projects. Once the fund estimate is adopted, Caltrans and the regional planning agencies prepare transportation improvement plans for submittal. Caltrans prepares the Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP) using Interregional Improvement Program (IIP) funds, and regional agencies prepare Regional Transportation Improvement Programs (RTIPs) using Regional Improvement Program (RIP) funds. The STIP is then adopted by the CTC.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
47 10.3.4 California Senate Bill 1 (SB 1)
SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.
California’s state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
x 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 Active Transportation Program (ATP). x Local Planning Grants: $25 million
10.3.5 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
x Alcohol Impaired Driving
x Distracted Driving
x Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
x Motorcycle Safety
x Occupant Protection
x Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
x Police Traffic Services
x Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
x Roadway Safety and Traffic Records
10.3.6 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program (SCP)
This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The 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:
x Integrated Land Use
o Sustainable Land Use Planning
o Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
o Land Use & Transportation Integration
x Active Transportation
o Bicycle Planning
o Pedestrian Planning
o Safe Routes to School Plans
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
48 x Green Region
o Natural Resource Plans
o Climate Action Plans (CAPs)
o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs
10.4 Next Steps
The City of San Clemente has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. The data-driven analysis process identified collision types, related primary collision factors, and locations of many collisions.
Based on this process, Emphasis Areas were developed. These Emphasis Areas will guide corridor improvements, education programs, and capital improvements for the City.
Using the analyzed data and outputs from this LRSP, the City has the opportunity to complete the following tasks:
x Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users x Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network x Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in San Clemente x Continually review collision data and update the analysis performed in this report x Monitor collision activity at locations where improvements were made to determine their impacts
The City also plans to have the City Council formally approve and adopt the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) in 2021. Based on current Caltrans guidelines, the City can plan to update the LRSP in five years in 2026.
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
Appendix A: Case Study Sheets
Project Template: Location #1
Project Name: San Clemente LRSP
Agency Name: San Clemente
Contact Name: Saeedeh Farivar
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: November 2022
Project Location Description & Maps:
Segment: Calle Del Cerro: Avenida Pico to Ave Vista Montana (W) Similar Segments: Calle Frontera: Ave Pico to Ave Fuentes/Ave Faceta; Camino Vera Cruz: Ave Vista Hermosa to Calle Paradiso
7UDIƄFDQG*HRPHWULF'DWD
7UDIƄF'DWD
$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIƄF
$'7
32,713
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
Collision Data
7RWDO&ROOLVLRQV
6 Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 1
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 1
Top 3 Collision Types
SHUFHQWDJH
Hit-Object (66%)
Rear-End (16%)
Sideswipes(16%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 3
Wet Surface Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
6--
N
6(*0(17
Avenida Pico
Additional Notes:
• Trucks restrictions (no trucks over 4
tons)
• Bike lanes prefer uphill instead of
downhill
• Tree removal from medians, causing
roads to lift
• Speed feedback signs could have more
visibility
• Lighting is an issue here when there is
weather
Calle del Cerro
N
Avenida Vista
0RQWDQD
:
Collision Trends:
Type of
Collision Total
Hit-Object 4
Rear-End 1
Sideswipe 1
A-1
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
&UDVK0RGLƄFDWLRQ
Factor
/560&0),'
<HDU
6DIHW\%HQHƄW
Total
<HDU
Costs
Safety
Related
%&
All
Install/upgrade signs with
QHZƅXRUHVFHQWVKHHWLQJ
(regulatory or warning)
0.85 (R22) $1,512,420 $1,500 1008.28
All Install Chevron signs on
horizontal curves
0.60 (R23) $4,033,120 $9,000 448.12
All Install curve advance
warning signs
0.75 (R24) $2,520,700 $6,000 420.12
All Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
0.70 (R26) $3,024,840 $16,000 189.05
All ,QVWDOOGHOLQHDWRUVUHƅHFWRUV
and/or object markers
0.85 (R27) $1,512,420 $20,000 75.62
Dark
Perform lighting study;
install additional lighting if
necessary
- - $50,000 -
A-2
Project Template: Location #2
Project Name: San Clemente LRSP
Agency Name: San Clemente
Contact Name: Saeedeh Farivar
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: November 2022
Project Location Description & Maps:
Segment: Avenida Pico: I-5 NB to San Clemente High School Similar Segments: Ave Pico: Calle Frontera to Calle del Cerro; Ave Vista Hermosa: Camino Vera Cruz to Sports Park 7UDIƄFDQG*HRPHWULF'DWD
7UDIƄF'DWD
$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIƄF
$'7
42,481
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
Collision Data
7RWDO&ROOLVLRQV
9 Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 0
Top 3 Collision Types
SHUFHQWDJH
Broadside (33%)
Sideswipes (33%)
Hit-Objects (22%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 2
Wet Surface Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
9--
N
6(*0(17
,
Additional Notes:
• Bike lane on WB segment does not
extend past east of I-5.
• If we installed a bike lane on southern
VLGHWKHUHPD\EHDULJKWWXUQFRQƅLFW
by high school
Avenida Pico
N
San
High School
Clemente
Collision Trends:
0 1
2 3
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number of Collisions
Type of
Collision Total
Broadside 3
Sideswipe 3
Hit-Object 2
Rear-end 1
Before Median
Implementation
(2014)
5 collisions
After Median
Implementation
(2015-2019)
9 collisions
A-3
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
&UDVK0RGLƄFDWLRQ
Factor
/560&0),'
<HDU
6DIHW\%HQHƄW
Total
<HDU
Costs
Safety
Related
%&
Ped &
Bike
Install bike lanes on
northern side of Ave Pico
0.65 (R32PB) - $15,000 -
Ped &
Bike
Install crosswalk
by San Clemente High
School (Avenida Pico & San
Clemente High school)
0.75 (S18PB) - $50,000 -
A-4
Project Name: San Clemente LRSP
Agency Name: San Clemente
Contact Name: Saeedeh Farivar
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: November 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location #3
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: I-5 (San Diego Fw) + Ave Pico
Examples of Similar Intersections: I-5 & El Camino Real; I-5 & Camino de Estrella 7UDIƄFDQG*HRPHWULF'DWD
7UDIƄF'DWD
Number of Approaches 6
Total Entering Vehicles 42,481
Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk
Control Type Signalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35MPH
Median East & West
approaches
Collision Data
Total Collisions(2015-2019) 31
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 1
Visible Injury - 3
Top 3 Collision Types Broadside (25%)
Rear-end (22%)
Sideswipe (16%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 8
Wet Surface Collisions 1
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
26 3 2
N N
E Avenida Pico
San Diego Fwy
Collision Trends:
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number of Collisions
Years
Type of Collision Total
Broadside 8
Rear-End 7
Hit-Object 5
Sideswipe 5
Vehicle-Pedestrian 3
Head-On 2
Other 1
Collision Trends:
A-5
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
0RGLƄFDWLRQ
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
%HQHƄW
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
Right-Turn
from I-5
Ramp
Restrict right turns on red from
NB Off-Ramp
0.73 (CMF 2084) $2,601,610 $10,000 260.16
All Tighten radius on right turn(I5NB off-ramp)
0.61 (CMF 8498) $3,689,556 $20,000 184.48
Additional Notes:
• Opportunities for intersection control analysis and queue analysis • Caltrans and City coordination necessary for this location A-6
Project Name: San Clemente LRSP
Agency Name: San Clemente
Contact Name: Saeedeh Farivar
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: November 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location #4
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: El Camino Real + Calle Valle
Examples of Similar Intersections: El Camino Real & Calle Las Bolsas; El Camino Real & Calle Lago 7UDIƄFDQG*HRPHWULF'DWD
7UDIƄF'DWD
Number of Approaches 3
Total Entering Vehicles 25,500
Crosswalk Condition East side crosswalk
Control Type Unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35MPH
Median None
Collision Data
Total Collisions(2015-2019) 3
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 1
Top Collision Types Other (33%)
Sideswipe (66%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 0
Wet Surface Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
201
N N
Calle Valle
El Camino Real
Additional Notes:
• Steep grade
• Blind side – left turn
• Potential exit closure
Collision Trends:
0 1
2 3
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number of Collisions
Years
Type of Collision Total
Sideswipe 2
Other 1 A-7
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
0RGLƄFDWLRQ
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
%HQHƄW
Total 20-Year
Costs Safety Related B/C
All
Install median to restrict leftturns from El Camino Real to Calle Valle
40%
(NS13) $270,240 $25,000 10.81
A-8
Project Name: San Clemente LRSP
Agency Name: San Clemente
Contact Name: Saeedeh Farivar
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: November 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location #5
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: W Ave Palizada+ El Camino Real
Examples of Similar Intersections: El Camino Real & Avenida Presidio; El Camino Real & Avenida Valencia 7UDIƄFDQG*HRPHWULF'DWD
7UDIƄF'DWD
Number of Approaches 4
Total Entering Vehicles 34,500
Crosswalk Condition Crossing with
pedestrian timing
Control Type Signalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 30MPH
Median None
Collision Data
Total Collisions(2015-2019) 22
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 1
Top 3 Collision Types Broadside (31%)
Rear-end (22%)
Sideswipe (18%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 8
Wet Surface Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
19 1 2
Ave Palizada
N N
El Camino Real
Collision Trends:
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number of Collisions
Years
Type of Collision Total
Broadside 7
Rear-End 5
Sideswipe 4
Other 4
Hit-Object 2
Head-On 1
Pedestrain-Vehicle 1
Collision Trends:
A-9
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
0RGLƄFDWLRQ
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
%HQHƄW
Total 20-Year
Costs
Safety
Related B/C
All
Enact ordinance restrict onstreet parking where curb lane width is narrow
0.95 $151,920 $12,000 12.66
Collisions
at Old
Town Plaza
Entrance
Install “keep clear” marking for
left turn into Old Town Plaza 0.95 $40,340 $15,000 2.69 All
Intersection control evaluation
LQFOXGLQJUHFRQƄJXUDWLRQDQG
re-striping)
- - $30,000 -
Additional Notes:
• Left turns at Ave Palizada and Ave de la Estrella create queues • Restriping needed
• /DQHFRQƄJXUDWLRQXSJUDGHVSRVVLEOH
A-10
Project Template: Location #6
Project Name: San Clemente LRSP
Agency Name: San Clemente
Contact Name: Saeedeh Farivar
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: November 2022
Project Location Description & Maps:
Segment: Ave Del Mar: N El Camino Real to N Olas Vista
Similar Segments: Avenida del Mar: Ola Vista to Calle Seville; Avenida Victoria: Monterey Ln to Alameda Ln 7UDIƄFDQG*HRPHWULF'DWD
7UDIƄF'DWD
$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIƄF
$'7
18,000
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH
Collision Data
7RWDO&ROOLVLRQV
9 Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 0
Visible Injury - 0
Top 3 Collision Types
SHUFHQWDJH
Sideswipe (33%)
Other (22%)
Head-On (11%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 1
Wet Surface Collisions 2
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
9--
N
6(*0(17
Olas
Vista
Collision Trends
Ave Del Mar
N
El Camino Real
Collision Trends:
0 1
2 3
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number of Collsions
Years
Type of
Collision Total
Sideswipe 3
Other 2
Broadside 1
Hit-Object 1
Rear-End 1
Head-On 1
A-11
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
&UDVK0RGLƄFDWLRQ
Factor
/560&0),'
<HDU
6DIHW\%HQHƄW
Total
<HDU
Costs
Safety
Related
%&
All Install back-in angle parking
along Avenida Del Mar 0.95 $478,800 $50,000 9.58
All
Implement paid parking
(funding going to support
enhanced shuttle services)
0.95 $478,800 $75,000 6.38
All
Implement/enhance
parking shuttle services in
Downtown Area
0.95 $478,800 $100,000 4.79
Additional Comments
• Back up parking spots
• Parking meters
A-12
Project Template: Location #7
Project Name: San Clemente LRSP
Agency Name: San Clemente
Contact Name: Saeedeh Farivar
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: November 2022
Project Location Description & Maps:
Segments: El Camino Real: W Escalones to Avienda Barcelona (Downtown San Clemente) Similar Segments: El Camino Real: Avenida Algodon to Avenida Valenica El Camino Rea: Avenida Pico to El Portal
7UDIƄFDQG*HRPHWULF'DWD
7UDIƄF'DWD
$YHUDJH'DLO\7UDIƄF
$'7
18000
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 30 MPH
Collision Data
7RWDO&ROOLVLRQV
146
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 2
Visible Injury - 17
Top 3 Collision Types
SHUFHQWDJH
Sideswipe (28%)
Broadside (25%)
Rear-end (19%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 58
Wet Surface Collisions 19
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
130 11 5
N
6(*0(17
Escalones
El Camino Real
N
Avenida
Barcelona
Collision Trends:
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number of Collisions
Years
Collision Trends:
Type of Collision Total
Broadside 37
Sideswipe 41
Rear-End 29
Other 12
Vehicle-Pedestrain 10
Head-On 9
Hit-Object 7
Overturned 1
A-13
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
&UDVK0RGLƄFDWLRQ
Factor
/560&0),'
<HDU
6DIHW\%HQHƄW
Total
<HDU
Costs
Safety
Related
%&
All
Adjust roadway alignment
(one lane in each direction
with a two-way left-turn
lane)
0.70 (R14) $11,889,360 $12,500 951.15
All Install consistent signage
0.85 (R22) $5,944,680 $15,000 396.31
All
Implement ordinance to
prohibit parking when lane
width is narrow
0.95 $1,981,560 $12,000 165.13
All
Improve signal coordination
along El Camino Real
(Escalones to Ave
Barcelona)
0.85 (S03) $5,944,680 $46,000 129.23
All
Implement central parking
lots & parking shuttle in
Downtown area
0.95 $1,981,560 $300,000 6.61
Additional Notes:
• Two lanes in each direction with turning lanes for businesses,commerical, and residential • Signal coordination
A-14
Project Name: San Clemente LRSP
Agency Name: San Clemente
Contact Name: Saeedeh Farivar
Email: [email protected]
Prepared by: Kimley-Horn
Checked by: Jason Melchor, PE
Date: November 2022
Case Study Sheet: Location #8
Project Location Description & Maps:
Intersection: El Camino Real + Esplande
Examples of Similar Intersections: El Camino Real & Avenida Cabrillo; El Camino Real & Avenida Miramar 7UDIƄFDQG*HRPHWULF'DWD
7UDIƄF'DWD
Number of Approaches 3
Total Entering Vehicles 9000
Crosswalk Condition None
Control Type unsignalized
Lighting Yes
Highest Posted Speed Limit 30MPH
Median None
Collision Data
Total Collisions(2015-2019) 12
Fatal and Injury
Collisions
Fatal Injury - 0
Severe Injury - 2
Visible Injury - 1
Top 3 Collision Types Broadside (66%)
Rear-end (8%)
Sideswipe (8%)
Total Nighttime Collisions 4
Wet Surface Collisions 0
INTERSECTION
Collision Breakdown
Veh vs. Veh Veh vs. Ped Veh vs. Bike
12 0 0
N N
Esplande
Collision Trends
Collision Trends:
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Number of Collisions
Years
Type of Collision Total
Broadside 8
Hit Object 1
Rear-End 1
Sideswipe 1
Overturned 1 *
*Left-turn restriction was implemented in 2020
El Camino Real
A-15
Countermeasure Evaluation
Primary
Issues
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash
0RGLƄFDWLRQ
Factor (LRSM/
CMF ID)
20 Year
Safety
%HQHƄW
Total 20-Year
Costs
Safety Related
B/C
Broadsides Install median to restrict left
turns from Esplanade
0.50 (NS15) $9,448,000 $25,000 377.92
Additional Notes:
• Left turn restriction from Esplande onto El Camino Real: people are making left turn regardless of restriction A-16
SAN CLEMENTE LRSP 2022
Appendix B: Full Analysis Rankings Table –
Intersection and Segments
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
San Diego Fwy & Ave Pico Signalized Intersections
31 0.5 275 8 5 7 2 5 0 1 3 2 9 0 3 0 1 0 1 3 10 17
W Ave Palizada & N El Camino Real 22 0.1 57 7 4 5 1 2 0 2 1 2 2 0 6 0 1 0 0 1 5 16 Real San Diego Freeway & S El Camino 21 0.4 412 9 1 3 6 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 4 0 0 0 2 5 3 11 Puerta del Sol & Ave Pico 18 0.2 77 6 0 6 2 4 0 0 0 0 9 0 5 0 0 0 0 4 4 10 Ave la Pata & Ave Vista Hermosa 16 0.1 552 10 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 9 0 0 0 3 0 3 2 5 6 Ave Presidio & Ave Pico 16 -0.1 36 1 3 6 0 5 0 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 4 12 N el Camino Real & Ave del Mar 14 0.1 198 0 6 4 0 1 0 2 1 0 5 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 4 9 S el Camino Real & Ave Rosa 13 0.0 42 4 1 2 4 0 0 2 1 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 10 Ave Pico & Camino Vera Cruz 13 0.0 211 3 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 8 Mares I-5 Freeway & Camino De Los 12 -0.03 191 4 4 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 5 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 8 Coast Hwy & Ave Mendocino 11 0.13 387 5 3 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 2 5 0 4 Real Cll de Los Molinos & N el Camino 11 0.00 65 4 0 3 1 1 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 4 Ave Pico & Cll del Cerro 11 -0.09 200 4 1 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 3 6 Hermosa Cam Vera Cruz & Ave Vista 11 -0.02 195 2 0 6 1 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 2 7 Hermosa San Diego Fwy & Ave Vista 11 -0.08 185 4 1 2 0 2 1 0 1 0 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 8 N el Camino Real & Ave Cabrillo 10 0.00 29 3 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 8 Cam Capistrano & N el Camino Real 10 0.03 189 1 1 6 0 2 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 3 6 Ave Pico & San Clemente HS 10 -0.11 35 8 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 3 6 N Ola Vis & Ave del Mar 9 0.01 19 2 4 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 8 Palizada N Ave de la Estrella & E Ave 9 0.20 19 2 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 B-1
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Dolphin Dr & N el Camino Real 9 0.03 29 0 1 3 0 3 0 2 0 1 3 0 2 0 2 0 0 1 2 6 Ave Pico & Cll Amanecer 9 -0.09 39 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 Cll Agua & Cam de Estrella 9 -0.09 38 2 0 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 6 Cam de Los Mares & Calle Nuevo 9 -0.08 53 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 S El Camino Real & E Ave San Juan 8 0.00 38 1 1 4 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 Ave la Pata & CII Saluda 8 0.38 18 1 1 2 0 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 6 Mares Cam de Estrella & Cam de los 8 -0.11 32 0 1 6 0 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 1 5 Ave Barcelona & Ave Cadiz 7 -0.08 22 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 Ave Estacion & N el Camino Real 7 -0.06 42 2 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 2 Ave Vista Hermosa & Calle Frontera 7 -0.15 22 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 4 Ave la Pata & Ave Pico 7 -0.10 191 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 2 Cam de Los Mares & Ave Vaquero 7 -0.11 355 0 0 2 1 2 1 1 0 1 3 0 2 0 1 0 2 0 4 1 S El Camino Real & Coast Hwy 6 -0.12 40 2 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 3 1 2 S el Camino Real & Ave Victoria 6 -0.13 35 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 W Mariposa & N el Camino Real 6 -0.14 30 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 Ave Pico & Cll Deshecha 6 -0.04 25 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 0 4 Ave Pico & N el Camino Real 6 -0.14 6 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 6 Ave Talega & Ave Vista Hermosa 6 -0.07 21 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 Cam de los Mares & Ocean View Pl 6 -0.13 36 1 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 Ovp S el Camino Real & San Diego Fwy 5 -0.13 35 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 Ave del Presidente & Ave Califia 5 0.12 24 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 3 Cll de Los Molinos & Ave Pico 5 -0.15 25 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 B-2
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Ave Pico & San Clemente HS (S) 5 -0.17 15 0 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 Plaza Pacific & Ave Pico 5 -0.14 20 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 Ave Presidio & Ave Victoria 4 0.72 177 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 Real Ave del Poniente & N el Camino 4 -0.18 28 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 CII Negocio & Cll Amanecer 4 0.46 9 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 Cam de Estrella & Cam Mira Costa 4 -0.17 177 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 2 Padriza Ave Vista Hermosa & Cam la 4 -0.12 14 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 Coast Hwy & E Ave San Gabriel 3 -0.19 176 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Cll de Industrias & Ave Pico 3 -0.20 13 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 Ave Vista Montana & Cll del Cerro 3 -0.01 8 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 Ave Vista Hermosa & Cam Laurel 3 -0.20 3 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cam Vera Cruz & Plaza Pacifica 3 0.18 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 CII Allcante & Ave Pico 3 -0.19 18 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 Cll Sarmentoso & Cam Vera Cruz 3 0.36 13 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Ave Pico & I-5 S 3 -0.20 8 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 Ave Pico & Gateway Village 3 -0.20 13 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 Cam de Estrella & Ave de la Palmas 3 -0.20 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Cam de Estrella & Calle Naranja 3 -0.20 3 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Professional Plaza Cam de los Mares & San Clemente 3 -0.20 8 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 W Canada & N El Camino Real Unsignalized Intersections 19 0.4 79 7 2 5 0 0 0 2 3 2 3 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 8 9
S El Camino Real & Ave Granada 18 0.3 196 3 6 6 0 0 0 1 2 1 6 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 15 B-3
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
S El Camino Real & W Esplande 12 0.1 364 8 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 6 Ave Barcelona & S Ola Vista 9 0.4 226 0 4 0 1 1 0 2 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 1 2 W Ave Palizada & Loma Ln 9 0.7 9 0 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 9 Boca de la Playa & N El Camino Real 9 0.2 178 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 7 S El Camino Real & Trafalgar Ln 8 0.1 38 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 2 4 N El Camino Real & Ave Serra 8 0.1 13 2 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 7 E Marquita & N El Camino Real 7 0.0 27 2 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 2 4 W Escalones & N El Camino Real 7 0.1 7 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 7 N el Camino Real & Avenida Aragon 7 0.0 12 0 0 0 1 6 0 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 Redondel N Ave de la Estrella & Calle 7 2.05 22 0 0 1 1 5 2 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 Cll Extremo & Ave la Pata 7 0.58 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 2 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 1 Cam de Los Mares & Bonanza 7 0.25 37 0 0 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 W Ave Palizada & N Cll Seville 6 0.23 11 0 0 0 1 5 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 Magdalena Cll del Comercio & E Ave 5 0.03 29 0 0 2 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Vis Marina & W Pso de Cristobal 5 1.32 10 0 0 0 1 4 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ave del Mar & Acebo Ln 5 0.00 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ave Victoria & Ave Monterey 5 0.01 5 0 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 S el Camino Real & Ave Cadiz 5 -0.01 10 0 0 0 1 4 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 S Cll Seville & Ave Granada 5 0.25 10 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 Ave Caballeros & E Ave Palizada 5 0.29 10 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Cll Las Bolas & N el Camino Real 5 0.00 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 S el Camino Real & Ave San Diego 4 -0.01 168 0 1 0 0 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B-4
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Coast Hwy & W Ave San Gabriel 4 -0.01 187 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Ave Cornelio & El Camino Real 4 -0.02 14 0 0 1 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Ola Vis & W Ave Gaviota 4 0.05 14 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 Presidente W Ave Valencia & Ave del 4 0.18 4 0 0 0 0 4 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 Ave Victoria & S Cll Seville 4 -0.07 23 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 S Cll Seville & Ave del Mar 4 0.00 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Ave Victoria & S Ola Vis 4 -0.02 14 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 W Mariposa & Cll Puente 4 0.15 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Ave de la Estrella & Cll Cabrillo 4 0.96 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Ola Vis & W Ave Palizada 4 0.02 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 Ave de la Grulla & CII Mirador 4 0.01 4 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Ave del Reposo & Cll Mirador 4 0.96 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ave de la Grulla & N el Camino Real 4 -0.05 177 0 1 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 CII del Carro & Montilla 4 0.58 14 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Cll Frontera & Cll Juarez 4 0.08 14 0 0 0 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Ave Vaquero & Calle Valle 4 0.07 168 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 Cll Campana & Cam de Los Mares 4 -0.05 14 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ovp S el Camino Real & San Diego Fwy 3 -0.05 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Coast Hwy & Ave San Pablo 3 -0.05 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Coast Hwy & W Ave Junipero 3 -0.07 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Real E Ave San Antonio & S El Camino 3 -0.05 32 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Ave Ramona & W Ave Ramona 3 -0.05 167 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 B-5
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
E Ave San Juan & Cll Alcazar 3 0.59 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 S El Cam Real & Coast Hwy 3 -0.07 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 W Esplande & S Ola Vis 3 -0.05 13 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Coast Hwy & W Ave Cordoba 3 -0.06 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Coast Hwy & W Pso de Cristobal 3 -0.06 13 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ave del Mar & Capistrano Ln 3 -0.05 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Ola Vis & Ave Monterey 3 -0.02 176 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 N Cll Seville & Ave Cabrillo 3 0.05 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Ave Palizada & Ave Serra 3 0.07 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Ola Vis & Ave Cabrillo 3 -0.02 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Ave Presidio & La Esperanza 3 0.07 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Ave del Poniente & Cll Puente 3 0.05 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Ave Presidio & La Esperanza 3 -0.01 18 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 W Canada & N Ell Cam Real 3 0.40 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 N el Camino Real & Calle Valle 3 -0.06 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Ave Presidio & Avenida Salvador 3 -0.04 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Ave Pico & Ave Navarro 3 -0.07 13 0 0 1 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Ave Presidio & Gateway Village 3 -0.08 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Via Breve & Cam Capistrano 3 0.05 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Cll del Cerro & Ave la Pata 3 -0.02 181 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Cll Trepadora & Cll Amanecer 3 0.40 167 0 1 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Cll Campana & Cll Canasta 3 0.40 3 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Cam la Pedriza & Cristianitos Rd 3 0.28 3 0 0 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 B-6
Intersection
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Via Blanco & Cam Vera Cruz 3 0.40 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Carretera & Cam Vera Cruz 3 0.59 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Only Crashes 2. Equivalent Property Damage Differential 1. Local Critical Crash Rate 75+% probability that crash type is over-represented 50-75% probability that crash type is over-represented Fatal & Severe Injuries are greater than zero Local CCR Differential is Greater than Zero B-7
Facility Limits
Crashes
Local CCR Differential
1 EPDO
2 Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Other
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Aggressive
Distracted
Impaired
Dark
Wet
Fatal
Serious Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
PDO
S el Camino RealArterial Other Principal
Ramp E Ave Magdalena - I-5 Fwy 6 0.6 190 0 3 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 2 2 Ave del MarMinor Arterial
Vista N el Camino Real - N Ola 9 2.8 9 0 3 1 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 9 Ave Pico High School I-5 Ramp - San Clemente 9 0.7 29 3 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 6Ave Pico Amanecer Calle del Cerro - Calle 4 - 0.08 34 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0Ave Santa Barbara Ave Rosa - S Ola Vista 3 0.5 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 3Ave Vaquero Arco Calle Vista Torito - Calle 3 0.6 13 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 2Cll del CerroMajor Collector Montana Ave Pico - Ave Vista 6 1.2 190 0 1 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 Trafalgar Ln Trafalgar Ln - S Ola Vista 2 0.2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2W MarquitaLocal Puente N el Camino Real - Calle 4 6.21 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 W Escalones Puente N el Camino Real - Calle 4 6.51 4 0 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 41. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes 75+% probability that crash 50-75% probability that crash type is over-represented Fatal & Severe Injuries are greater than zero Local CCR Differential is Greater than Zero type is over-represented
B-8