San Leandro City Council
October 17, 2022

San Leandro
Local Roadway Safety
Plan (LRSP)
Admin Draft
Prepared for:

City of San Leandro
Date: September 28, 2022
OK17-0204.02
Statement of Protection of Data from Discovery and Admissions Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code

REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND

INFORMATION
— Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at the location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.

Acknowledgements
Sheila Marquises, City of San Leandro
Nicole Noronha Castelino, City of San Leandro
Shawn Allison, City of San Leandro
Hoi-Fei Mok, City of San Leandro
Robin Chee, City of San Leandro
Diann Castleberry, AC Transit
Crystal Wang, AC Transit
Susan Poliwka, BART
Robert Prinz, Bike East Bay
Dave Campbell, Bike East Bay
Patty Breslin, San Leandro 2050
Glossary
(A)ADT (annual) average daily traffic
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AHSC Affordable Housing and Sustainable
Communities
ATP Active Transportation Program
AV Autonomous Vehicle
B/C Benefit/Cost
BTA Bicycle Transportation Account
BUILD Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development
CDBG Community Development Block Grant
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
CSSA Complete Streets Safety Assessment
CCTA Contra Costa Transportation Authority
CVC California Vehicle Code
DOT Department of Transportation
DUI Driving Under the Influence
EMS Emergency Medical Services
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
KSI Killed or Severely Injured
LED Light-emitting Diode
LPI Leading Pedestrian Interval
LPP Local Partnership Program
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
LSRP Local Streets and Roads Program
LTF Local Transportation Fund
MTC Metropolitan Transportation Commission
MUT Median U-Turn
MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control
Devices
OTS Office of Traffic Safety
PCF Primary Collision Factor
PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
RCUT Restricted Crossing U-Turn
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SCCP Solution for Congested Corridors Program
SGC Strategic Growth Council
SR2S/SRTS Safe Routes to School
STIP State Transportation Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records
System
TCC Transportation Climate Communities
TDA Transit Development Act
TIGER Transportation Investment Generating
Economic Recovery
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
TNC Transportation Network Company
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
Table of Contents

1. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 9 Local Road Safety Plan Background..................................................................................................................................... 9 The Safe System Approach ...................................................................................................................................................... 9 About San Leandro....................................................................................................................................................................11

2. Vision & Goals ....................................................................................................................... 12 Vision Statement........................................................................................................................................................................12 Eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on San Leandro’s streets by making travel safer for all modes of transportation and people of all ages and abilities. ...................................................................................................12

3. Safety Partners ...................................................................................................................... 13

4. Existing Efforts ...................................................................................................................... 15 Countywide and Regional Plans and Projects ................................................................................................................15 Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy ..................................15 Alameda County Countywide Transportation Plan (2020) ........................................................................................15 Alameda County Active Transportation Plan (2019)....................................................................................................16 Alameda County Community-Based Transportation Plan (2020)...........................................................................17 Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Program........................................................................................17 Alameda CTC Rail Safety Enhancement Program .........................................................................................................18 BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study (2020) .....................................................................................................18 East Bay Green Way ..................................................................................................................................................................19 Citywide Plans, Policies, and Projects.................................................................................................................................19 San Leandro Vision Zero Policy............................................................................................................................................19 San Leandro 2035 General Plan (2017) .............................................................................................................................19 San Leandro Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan (2017) ...............................................................................................21 San Leandro Crosstown Corridors Study (draft 2022).................................................................................................21 Recent and Underway Infrastructure Safety Projects (Ongoing) ............................................................................22

5. Safety Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 24 Collisions by Year by Mode....................................................................................................................................................24 Collisions by Mode....................................................................................................................................................................25 Collision Type ..............................................................................................................................................................................26 Driving Under the Influence...................................................................................................................................................26 Primary Collision Factor...........................................................................................................................................................27 Pedestrian Location...................................................................................................................................................................27 Time of Day ..................................................................................................................................................................................29 Hot Spot Analysis............................................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.

6. Emphasis Areas & Strategies ............................................................................................... 30 Systemic Analysis Findings.....................................................................................................................................................30 San Leandro Collision Profiles (2015-2019) .....................................................................................................................30 Collision Profile 1: Nighttime Collisions with No Street Lighting .........................................................................33 Collision Profile 2: Unsignalized Intersection on Streets 30 MPH or Over..........................................................34 Collision Profile 3: Pedestrians Crossing at Signalized Intersection ......................................................................35 Collision Profile 4: Pedestrians Crossing Mid-Block.....................................................................................................36 Collision Profile 5: Driving Under the Influence.............................................................................................................37 Collision Profile 6: Driver Making a Left Turn at an Intersection.............................................................................38 Collision Profile 7: Bicyclists at Intersections...................................................................................................................39 Collision Profile 8: Pedestrian Crossing at Unsignalized Intersection...................................................................40 Collision Profile 9: Rear-End Collisions on Arterials .....................................................................................................41 Priority Locations........................................................................................................................................................................42 Davis Street (SR 112) from Doolittle Drive to E. 14th Street (SR 185) ....................................................................43 E 14th Street from Durant Avenue to Castro Street......................................................................................................44 Doolittle Drive from Marina Boulevard to Fairway Drive ...........................................................................................44 Manor Boulevard from Wicks Boulevard to Kesterson Street..................................................................................44 Washington Avenue from Halcyon Boulevard to Lewelling Boulevard................................................................44 Hesperian Boulevard from E. 14th Street (SR 185) to Springlake Drive ................................................................44 Lewelling Boulevard from Hesperian Boulevard to Wicks Boulevard...................................................................44

7. Evaluation and Implementation .......................................................................................... 45 Funding Opportunities.............................................................................................................................................................45 Local and Regional Sources ...................................................................................................................................................45 State Sources ...............................................................................................................................................................................46 Federal Sources...........................................................................................................................................................................48 Implementation Strategies.....................................................................................................................................................49 Oversight & Accountability....................................................................................................................................................49 Coordination & Partnership...................................................................................................................................................49 Evaluation Strategies ................................................................................................................................................................50 Update the Plan Regularly......................................................................................................................................................50 Identify Target Metrics and Measure Goal Performance in Priority Areas..........................................................50 Continue Engagement of Stakeholders ............................................................................................................................50 Appendix A: Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................... 51 Summary of Engineering Countermeasures....................................................................................................................51 Summary of Non-Engineering Countermeasures.........................................................................................................55 Youth Education .........................................................................................................................................................................55 Education Campaigns for Vulnerable Groups ................................................................................................................55 Pilot Demonstration Safety Projects...................................................................................................................................55 Public Information Campaigns .............................................................................................................................................55 Safe Routes to School ..............................................................................................................................................................56 Update City Policies and Standards....................................................................................................................................56 Targeted Enforcement and Deterrence.............................................................................................................................56 Neighborhood Slow Zones ....................................................................................................................................................56 List of Figures
Figure 1: Recent or Active Safety Projects............................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2: Collisions by Year and Mode (2014-2018)............................................................................................................ 25 Figure 3: Collisions by Mode (2014-2018) ............................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 4: Collisions by Type (2014-2018) ................................................................................................................................. 26 Figure 5: Driving Under the Influence (2014-2018) ............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 6: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2014-2018) ........................................................................................... 27 Figure 7: Collisions by Pedestrian Location (2014-2018) ................................................................................................... 28 Figure 8: Time of Day (2014-2018) ............................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 9: Collision Hot Spots......................................................................................................................................................... 42 This page intentionally left blank.
9 1. Introduction
Local Road Safety Plan Background
A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a guide to understanding transportation safety issues citywide in San Leandro using an approach informed by collision data. The LRSP identifies San Leandro’s unique roadway safety needs and a corresponding suite of related safety enhancements. As those safety enhancements are implemented, they will move the City toward achieving its goal of zero traffic fatalities and severe injury collisions on San Leandro’s streets. These goals and policies are also consistent with the statewide California Strategic Highway Safety Plan and the United States Department of Transportation’s (US DOT’s) National Roadway Safety Strategy. The process of preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, providing a road map of strategies to be implemented by a variety of departments and agencies. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates San Leandro’s responsiveness to safety challenges.

This LRSP will assist the City when it applies for safety infrastructure funding sources. For example, the statewide Cycle 11 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) requires applicants to have an LRSP, and the US DOT’s Safe Streets for All (SS4A) funding cycle requires a comprehensive safety action plan, such as an LRSP, for an agency to be eligible to apply for funds.

The Safe System Approach
California is in the process of adopting the Safe System approach with a focus on equity as part of its Strategic Highway Safety Plan. This LRSP’s focus on the Safe System approach helps to provide alignment with current LRSP guidelines, but also sets the City of San Leandro up for success in recognition of emerging safety best practices and helping achieve the City’s Vision Zero goals. Through collective action on the part of all roadway system stakeholders – from system operators and vehicle manufacturers, to law enforcement and everyday users – we can use elements of the Safe System approach to holistically and effectively address the most pressing roadway safety issues in the City of San Leandro.

A Safe System acknowledges the vulnerability of the human body – in terms of the amount of kinetic energy transfer a body can withstand – when designing and operating a transportation network to minimize serious consequences of crashes. According to the World Health Organization, the goal of a Safe System is to ensure that if crashes occur, they “do not result in serious human injury.”1 1 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/ roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf, p. 9
10 The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and the Road to Zero Coalition’s Safe Systems Explanation and Framework articulate that to anticipate human mistakes, a Safe System seeks to:
• Separate users in a physical space (e.g., sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities), • Separate users in time (e.g., pedestrian scramble, dedicated turn phases), • Alert users to potential hazards,
• Accommodate human injury tolerance through interventions that reduce speed or impact force Creating a Safe System means shifting a major share of the responsibility from road users to road designers. “Individual road users have the responsibility to abide by laws and regulations” and do so by exhibiting due care and proper behavior on the transportation system. While road users are responsible for their own behavior, this is a shared responsibility with those who design, operate, and maintain the transportation network: including the automotive industry, law enforcement, elected officials, and government bodies. In a Safe System, roadway system designers and operators take on the highest level of ethical responsibility. This LRSP reflects the Safe System approach through a data driven process that considers the following when analyzing citywide collisions and safety-focused solutions:
• Collision Trends: Review of collision statistics to evaluate when, where, and why collisions occur and who is involved.
• Collision Profiles: Combination of collision factors to identify 8 prevalent collision types. 11 • Countermeasure Toolbox: Identification of effective, nationally proven countermeasures applicable to different collision profiles
• Priority Project Locations: Identification of priority project locations based on collision density and community
verification
About San Leandro
The City of San Leandro is located in Alameda County and is home to approximately 90,489 people (U.S. Census, ACS 5-Year, 2020). San Leandro residents identify as 33% White alone, 34% Asian alone, 10% Black or African American alone, 2% Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander alone, 1% American Indian or Alaska Native alone, 10% some other race alone, and 9% two or more races. Additionally, approximately 27% of San Leandro. population identifies as being of Hispanic or Latino origin.

The ITE Safe System
framework provides
important context for the
focus on safe speeds within a
Safe System approach. For
vulnerable users’ speed is a
determining factor in
survivability – a human’s
chance of surviving being
struck by a vehicle increases
from 20% at 40 miles per
hour to 60% at 30 miles per
hour to 90% at 20 miles per
hour. Reducing speed in the
presence of vulnerable users
is a key Safe System strategy.

Approaches include:
• Physical roadway
designs (width,
horizontal
alignment) to limit
free flow speeds,
• Traffic calming
treatments that
induce slower
speeds,
• Traffic signal timing
that minimizes high
speed flow,
• Traditional or
automated
enforcement that
discourages
speeding.

ITE Safe System
Framework: Focus on Safe
Speeds
12 2. Vision & Goals
The City of San Leandro’s Local Roadway Safety vision statement highlights the central importance of improving health, safety, and equitable access to multimodal transportation facilities for all roadway users.

Complementary goals for the LRSP, developed through stakeholder outreach and data analysis, represent a mix of discrete, measurable goals for specific facets of the transportation system set alongside higher-level holistic objectives for communitywide health and safety improvements. Together, the vision statement and goals establish a concise yet comprehensive focus for investments in infrastructure and education.

Vision Statement
Eliminate fatalities and serious injuries on San
Leandro’s streets by making travel safer for all
modes of transportation and people of all ages
and abilities.
13 3. Safety Partners
Many different agencies and departments affect safety outcomes in San Leandro. Potential partners for collaboration with City of San Leandro Engineering and Transportation staff include:
• San Leandro Police Department (SLPD) – Law enforcement is the core partner representing the E of enforcement. Sworn officers provide valuable input into current behavior that they observe on the roads and are important partners in safety conversations so that jurisdictions can focus enforcement time on behaviors that are most closely associated with injuries and fatalities. • Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) – The Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program is funded by Alameda CTC. It prioritizes student safety, by supporting safe walking and biking to schools. Alameda CTC also takes a safe system approach countywide, and is a major funder of infrastructural projects through the Alameda CTC Commission Sales Tax, Measure BB.
• Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit) – Transit agencies expand mobility options for residents. According to the American Public Transportation Association, transit is 10 times safer per mile than traveling by car2. Transit agencies also bring a perspective to safety conversations based on their vehicles driving many miles on local streets. AC Transit provides local bus service in San Leandro, with routes connecting the city to nearby cities. • Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) - BART provides transit service in San Leandro, connecting the city to other Bay Area cities
• San Leandro Fire Department (SLFD) – It is crucial for emergency first responders to arrive timely to the scene of a crash, to locate and to give the appropriate and immediate care for those affected.

The ideal role of the SFLD is to arrive quickly and locate the injured. The SFLD is usually the first to arrive at the scene.
• Bike East Bay – The nonprofit organization focuses on promoting bicycling as an alternative mode of transportation. It supports improving the safety of everyone who chooses to use an alternative to driving.
• Bike/Walk San Leandro – The group was an outgrowth of the San Leandro Master Plan and advocates to make San Leandro a safer place for those walking and biking. It supports improvements to make the streets of San Leandro safer and easier to walk and to bike. • San Leandro 2050 – This community-based organization envisions a city that eliminates its greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 to reverse the negative effects of climate change everywhere, including San Leandro. They connect with the local community to listen for solutions, ideas, and opportunities within the City, build partnerships, source funding opportunities for projects, and advocate for policies that advance their goal.
• San Leandro Unified School District (SLUSD) and San Lorenzo Unified School District (SLZUSD) – Transportation habits are informed by our experiences as children, and schools are important partners in cultivating positive and safe transportation experiences for young people and families.

Schools are also areas of concentrated activity during arrival and dismissal time, so including schools 2 American Pubic Transportation Association (2018). Public Transit Is Key Strategy in Advancing Vision Zero, Eliminating Fatalities. https://www.apta.com/wpcontent/uploads/Resources/resources/hottopics/Documents/APTA%20VZN%20Transit%20Safety%20Brief%208.20

18.pdf
14 in safety conversations can lead to recommendations for improvements near schools. SLUSD employs an ongoing Alameda County Safe Routes to School program, implemented by Alameda CTC.

The LRSP was developed through a stakeholder group that include representatives of many of the departments and agencies listed above. The group met twice during the plan development: First, to review the makings of a Local Roadway Safety Plan, the Safe Systems Approach, and to review initial findings from the collision analysis, and next to review the collision profiles and associated countermeasures, as well as priority locations and potential projects to be funded through mechanisms such as HSIP and SS4A. The invaluable information and input received from the stakeholders through the course of the development of this Plan have been incorporated into this draft. In these meetings, an emphasis was placed on ensuring safe routes for active transportation, which includes increasing safety and protection for all road users on the streets of San Leandro.
15 4. Existing Efforts
In recent years, City and regional efforts to improve safety have been most visible through a range of plans, programs, and infrastructure projects. Planning efforts include
countywide and citywide plans and policies that utilize the Safe System approach, commit to zero fatalities on San
Leandro streets, and create vision for multimodal safety enhancements in San Leandro. They are further supported by safety related programs, such as the Alameda County Safe Routes to School program; installation of safety related infrastructure, as described in the Countermeasure Toolbox in Appendix A,. The goals and policies in these plans summarized below helped guide the emphasis areas and strategies
included in this LRSP.

Countywide and Regional
Plans and Projects
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy
This policy establishes a strategy for the MTC working with partner agencies to support equitable, datadriven action towards eliminating traffic deaths and serious vehicular injuries in the Bay Area by 2030. The Regional Safety Policy establishes a framework of principles and actions to guide MTC staff in working towards the policy goals:
• Provide regional leadership to promote safety; engaging and incentivizing leadership across jurisdictions; working toward aligning funding policy with safety goals. • Apply a data driven approach to inform safety policy and strategic use of available funds and resources. Regional safety data will be housed at MTC so local jurisdictions can benefit from consistent and reliable data.
• Promote equity in regional safety policies by considering and analyzing impacts on communities of concern and protecting vulnerable roadway users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists. • Support beneficial safety policies and legislation targeting evidence-based solutions to safety problems.
• Engage key regional stakeholders in safety policy development, implementation and collaboration on safety best practices. Provide education and technical assistance within budgetary constraints.

Alameda County Countywide Transportation Plan (2020)
This plan prioritizes projects within Alameda County based on four goals in the transportation vision:
• Accessible, Affordable, and Equitable
• Safe, Healthy, and Sustainable
16 • High Quality and Modern Infrastructure
• Economic Vitality
The second goal of making transportation Safe, Healthy, and Sustainable, aims to create safe multimodal facilities to walk, bike, and access public transportation. The strategies in this plan are grouped into six strategy categories, including the Safe Systems Approach. This group includes the following strategies:
• Improve Safety on the High-Injury Network, with an Eye towards Community Disparities • Support Context-Appropriate Speed Limit Setting and Automated Speed Enforcement Policies • Modernize Interchanges for Multimodal Travel, Including Addressing Pedestrian Experience at Underpasses
• Enhance Safety at At-Grade Crossings
Focus areas to ensure these strategies are successful include focusing on High Injury Streets, Reducing Speeds, and Addressing Key Barrier (such as freeway interchanges and rail crossings).

The City of San Leandro is located in Alameda County’s Central Planning Area. Projects in San Leandro included on the 10-Year Priority Project List are:
• San Leandro Creek Trail: Connecting the Bay Trail and the Ridge Trail, including lighting, barrier railing, and intersection improvements to expand safer walking and biking options in San Leandro • Downtown San Leandro Streetscapes
• San Leandro BART Station Area Safety Improvements
One of the focuses for San Leandro in this plan is to improve transit, walking, and biking through multimodal projects and increase mobility options for all users through transit capacity and access projects. The plan identifies the East 14th Street/Mission Boulevard and Fremont Boulevard Corridor project, which implements multimodal upgrades along the corridor from San Leandro BART station to the Warm Springs area in Fremont. It also includes transit capacity and access improvements such as the modernization of the San Leandro BART station and improved bus corridors located in the City. The San Leandro Creek Trail is also included as a project that expands safer walking and biking in San Leandro, providing lighting, barrier railing, and intersection improvements.

Alameda County Active Transportation Plan (2019)
This plan identifies goals and priorities throughout Alameda County to improve walking and biking in all 15 of its jurisdictions. The plan envisions a transportation system that should inspire people of all ages and abilities to walk and bicycle for everyday transportation, recreation, and health by providing a safe, comfortable, and interconnected network. The priorities of the plan are driven by the concept of impactful investment, which aims to resolve issues or barriers related to walking and biking that are of countywide significance.

The plan’s profile on the City of San Leandro states the following:
• Approximately 4% of the City’s local roadway network constitute the local bicycle High Injury Network (HIN), and 7 miles or 3% of the City’s local roadway network make up the local pedestrian HIN
17 • Jurisdictional boundaries around water barriers in San Leandro have made roadway development difficult, and therefore connectivity for walking and biking is heavily impacted (with the exception of connecting into Oakland across San Lorenzo Creek and into western San Leandro across the San Lorenzo Creek)
• Many streets that intersect with rail lines (BART and freight) present high-stress bicycling environments
Alameda County Community-Based Transportation Plan (2020) Chapter 4: The Central Planning Area Transportation Needs of the Alameda County Community-Based Transportation Plan (CBTP) lays out the transportation needs of San Leandro constituents based on a review of baseline conditions, analysis of past planning efforts, and community engagement. This plan focuses on ways to improve access and mobility for low-income and minority communities. The City of San Leandro is included in the Central County CBTP Study Area, in which 6 pop-up events were held and 228 surveys were collected. This outreach provided the following findings and focus areas regarding the local roadway network in the City from the community:
• Better access to frequent and affordable transit,
• Better personal safety for pedestrians and cyclists,
• Better driving reliability and travel times.

These findings were then translated into priority projects in the CTP:
• Improve safety and transit quality through multimodal corridors that are within or provide access to San Leandro’s CBTP study areas:
o E 14th Street/Mission Boulevard Corridor Projects
o Downtown San Leandro Streetscapes
o East Bay Greenway
• Improve safety and multimodal access within and to San Leandro’s CBTP study areas:
o San Leandro Creek Trail
o Rail Safety Enhancement Program
o San Leandro BART Station Area Safety Improvements
These findings and focus areas were taken into consideration in the creation of the LRSP.

Alameda County Safe Routes to Schools (SR2S) Program
Safe Routes to School is a countywide programmatic commitment, improving infrastructure and organizing and supporting activities that teach and encourage families to safely walk, bike, carpool, or take transit to schools.

As part of the Safe Routes to School program, the County is taking a Safe Systems Approach which includes the following strategies:
• Improve Safety on the High-Injury Network, with an eye towards community disparities • Support context-appropriate speed limit setting and automated speed enforcement policies 18 • Modernize interchanges for safer multimodal travel, including addressing pedestrian experience at underpasses
• Enhance safety at at-grade rail crossings
The program includes the 6 Es Framework:
• Education: Education programs improve traffic safety and awareness. Classroom activities in the K-5 Walk and Roll Educator Guide teach students how to navigate busy streets and make the connection between active transportation, health, and the environment. • Encouragement: Encouragement programs provide incentives and support to help students and families try walking or bicycling instead of driving. Walk and Roll to School Days and other events show that walking and bicycling can be fun.
• Engineering: Engineering, in the form of walk audits, bring engineering experts to assist the community in evaluating streets and identifying improvements for walking and biking to school. • Evaluation: Evaluation programs help schools measure walking and bicycling. Regular parent surveys and student hand-raising tallies indicate how students get to school and what barriers parents feel should be addressed.
• Engagement: Engagement means working alongside students, families, teachers, school leaders, and existing community organizations to build long-term capacity and sustainable programming.

Intentional and active engagement is a core principle of the SR2S Program. • Equity: Equity ensures support for safe, active and healthy opportunities for ALL students in Alameda County.

Alameda CTC Rail Safety Enhancement Program
Individual rail crossings throughout Alameda County were examined to identify crossings and corridors most impacted by rail traffic, and where rail crossings can be improved. The crossings analysis considered several factors including safety, delay, noise, and air quality. The program identifies near-term upgrades with significant and immediate positive safety impacts for local communities. Safety benefits of the projects identified through the program include:
• Improvement of pedestrian safety with an emphasis on schools • Improvement of rail and roadway safety
BART Walk and Bicycle Network Gap Study (2020)
This study identifies conceptual access improvements to make walking and biking to and from 17 BART stations safer and easier, including the San Leandro BART station. It includes a set of “Global Recommendations” and a toolkit for station-specific recommendation strategies. There are several recommendations for increasing safety and active transportation connections to the station. The following recommendations apply to the local roadway outside of the station that are significant to the development of this LRSP:
• Install high-visibility crosswalks with RRFB at several locations:
o Parrott Street under BART tracks
o At Williams Street/UPRR
o At San Leandro Boulvard/Thornton Street
o At W Estudillo/Hays Street
19 • Install high-visibility crosswalk with PHB at several locations:
o At Davis Street (SR 112)/Clarke Street
o At Davis Street (SR 112)/Carpentier Street – currently installed as a collaboration between Caltrans and the City of San Leandro
o At W Estudillo Avenue/San Leandro Boulevard
• Installing Class IV separated bike lanes along several corridors, including Davis Street (SR 112) between Alvarado Street and E. 14th Street (SR 185)
East Bay Greenway
The East Bay Greenway is a proposed regional trail which would link BART stations throughout the inner East Bay. Alameda CTC is the project sponsor for the East Bay Greenway: Lake Merritt BART to South Hayward BART Project (Project). The Project proposes to construct a bicycle and pedestrian facility that will generally follow the BART alignment for a distance of 16 miles and several cities, including San Leandro. The Project will connect seven BART stations as well as downtown areas, schools, and other major destinations.

Benefits of the project include:
• Improve cyclist and pedestrian network connectivity in communities along the BART line • Improve access to regional transit, schools, downtown area and other destinations • Create a facility that is accessible and comfortable for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities
• Improve safety for bicyclists and pedestrians
• Support promotion of a multimodal transportation system and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions
Citywide Plans, Policies, and Projects
San Leandro Vision Zero Policy
The City of San Leandro has joined the national commitment to eliminating traffic deaths and severe injuries.

Several projects have been prioritized in the City to meet this comment, including increasing protection for bicyclists and pedestrians citywide, improving lighting conditions, and overall safety enhancements at both controlled and uncontrolled intersections. Several of the projects and plans below describe the different ways the City has committed to Vision Zero.

San Leandro 2035 General Plan (2017)
This plan presents a vision and strategy for the City’s future. It provides a comprehensive framework for the City’s physical, economic, social, and environmental development. The transportation element specifically addresses the movement of people and goods around and in the City of San Leandro. It presents a series of goals and policies to guide transportation decisions in the near future, including important issues like neighborhood traffic management, parking, traffic safety, and intergovernmental coordination. The following goals particularly focus on safety, and were taken in consideration in this LRSP:
• Goal T-2: Design and operate streets to be safe, attractive, and accessible for all transportation users whether they are pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, or motorists, regardless of age of ability • Goal T-3: Promote and accommodate alternative, environmentally-friendly methods of transportation, such as walking and bicycling
• Goal T-7: Improve traffic safety and reduce the potential for collisions on San Leandro streets 20 The following policies are also relevant to this LRSP:
• Policy T-2.1: Complete Streets Serving All Users and Modes: Create and maintain “complete” streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that serves all users
• Policy T-2.4: Connectivity: Ensure that the design of streets and other transportation features helps to better connect the city’s circulation and facilitate safer and more convenient travel between San Leandro and surrounding communities
• Policy T-3.3: Designing for Multiple User Groups: Recognize the dual needs of experienced cyclists relying on bicycles for commute trips and daily travel and less experienced cyclists using bicycles principally for recreation. Where needed, develop facilities designed to serve each user group, with recreational routes primarily using low volume streets and off street bike path • Policy T-3.7: Removing Barriers to Active Transportation: Reduce barriers to walking and other forms of active transportation such as incomplete or uneven sidewalks, lack of wheelchair ramps and curb cuts, sidewalk obstructions including cars parked on sidewalks, trail gaps, wide intersections, and poor sidewalk connections to transit stops
• Policy T-7.1: Law Enforcement: Aggressively enforce traffic safety laws on San Leandro streets, including speed limits, red light violations, and pedestrian and bicycle lane right-of way violations • Policy T-7.2: Capital Improvements: Identify capital improvements and other measures which improve the safety of bicyclists, pedestrians, and motor vehicles on San Leandro streets 21 San Leandro Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan (2017)
The City of San Leandro Pedestrian &
Bicycle Master Plan is the official
policy document guiding the
development of policies and facilities
to enhance bicycling and walking as
proficient, efficient, and safe
transportation choices for San
Leandro residents, workers, and
visitors.

Goal 6, Improve bicycle and
pedestrian safety for all users of the
road, includes several policies
supporting safety improvements in
the City:
• Policy 3-1: Improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety (actual and perceived through safety measures, with special attention to safety of children walking/bicycling to school) • Policy 3-2: Collision Reduction
• Policy 3-4: Railroad Crossings (ensure grade separated railroad crossings include sidewalks and designated lanes for bicycles)
• Policy 4-2: Safety: Improve actual and perceived safety of children en route to school • Policy 4-3: Safety Awareness and Health Benefits (encourage bicycle and pedestrian safety in schools and through City recreation programs)
San Leandro Crosstown Corridors Study (draft 2022)
The Bancroft Avenue and Williams Street projects were identified through the 2018 San Leandro Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan process, which involved extensive community engagement. Bancroft was identified as a high priority corridor for walking and biking improvements to support children walking and biking to school as well as people of all ages and abilities.

The Plan’s goals include creating a comprehensive walking and biking system, funding and implementing projects that will maximize the amount of biking and walking trips, developing safe and well-connected bicycle and pedestrian systems, maximizing bicycle and pedestrian access to transit, and improving bicycle and pedestrian safety. The Bancroft/Dutton intersection, Woodrow Wilson Elementary School, John Muir Middle School, McKinley Elementary School, Bancroft Middle School, San Leandro High School, Jefferson Elementary School, the Bancroft Avenue/ E 14th Street intersection, and the Bancroft/Oakes intersection were all identified as key pedestrian locations. The Plan includes separated bike lanes recommendation for 22 Williams Street and Bancroft Avenue was called out for further study as separated bike lanes. The project goals are:
• Safety: Develop street designs that provide separated bikeways and improvements for walking that help people feel safer and more comfortable on Bancroft and Williams. • School Access: Improve access for students and families walking and biking to school on Bancroft and Williams
• Multi-Modal Connections: Bancroft and Williams will support access to BART, businesses, parks, and other community destinations for all modes, prioritizing sustainable and active transportation.

Recent and Underway Infrastructure Safety Projects (Ongoing) Several infrastructure safety projects have recently been completed in San Leandro. Additionally, the City has projects underway to progress towards their goals to increase safety and comfort for all users on the road.

These projects overlap with the City’s collision hot spots, or locations of concentrated collisions, as seen in Figure 1.

1. San Leandro Boulevard Road Diet, Crosswalk Enhancements and Bike Lanes

2. Joaquin/E 14th Street (SR 185) Pedestrian Scramble

3. Wick Boulevard/Manor Boulevard Signal Modifications

4. Hesperian Boulevard Separated Bike Lanes

5. East Bay Greenway (Planning Phase)

6. San Leandro Crosstown Corridors (Planning Phase)
23 Figure 1: Recent or Active Safety Projects
24 5. Safety
Analysis This chapter summarizes the safety needs in San Leandro based on the last five years of reported collision data across the city. Crash data and contextual data were collected and analyzed. This analysis considers injury collisions from 2014 through 20183 included in the Transportation Injury Mapping Systems (TIMS), a statewide database that reports injury collisions from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Note that all references to “collisions” in this chapter as reference to injury collisions, and do not include property damage-only collisions.

Collisions by Year by Mode
From 2014 to 2018, there were 976 total injury collisions, and 80 collisions where victims were killed or severely injured4 (KSI). On average, three people are killed each year in San Leandro by traffic violence. The number of collisions for each year by mode in Figure 2. 3 The date ranges reflects the last five years of complete data available as of May 2022. 4 US DOT defines serious injury using the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) 4th Edition “Suspected Serious Injury (A)” as:
• Severe laceration resulting in exposure of underlying tissues/muscle/organs or resulting in significant loss of blood
• Broken or distorted extremity
• Crash injuries
• Suspected skull, chest, or abdominal injury other than bruises or minor lacerations • significant burns
• Collisions involving
people walking,
on bicycles, or on
motorcycles are
less likely to be
reported than
collisions involving
people driving
• Younger victims
are less likely to
report collisions
• Alcohol-involved
collisions may be
under reported
• Race, income,
immigration status,
and English
proficiency may
also impact
reporting, but
there is limited
research on those
factors.

Collision databases have
been found to have
certain reporting biases
including:
25 Figure 2: Collisions by Year and Mode (2014-2018)
Collisions by Mode
People walking and biking are involved in 25 percent of all collisions but 44 percent of KSI collisions, as shown in the figure below. People walking are particularly overrepresented in KSI collisions, as they are involved in only 16 percent of all collisions but 38 percent of KSI collisions.

Figure 3: Collisions by Mode (2014-2018)
50 100
150
200
250
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Pedestrian Bicycle
75%
9%
16%

ALL COLLISIONS
Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
56%
6%
38%

KSI COLLISIONS
Vehicle
26 Collision Type
The three most common collision types in San Leandro are broadside (30%), rear end (21%), and head-on (14%), shown in the figure below. For KSI collisions, vehicle/pedestrian collisions are the most common (31%), followed by head-on collisions (18%), and broadside collisions (16%). This further illustrates the disproportionate impact of KSI collisions on people walking in San Leandro. It also shows that vehicle/pedestrian and head-on collisions are more likely, compared to other collision types to result in a KSI.

Figure 4: Collisions by Type (2014-2018)
Driving Under the Influence
Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood that a collision will be more severe in San Leandro. While 6 percent of all collisions involve drugs or alcohol, 14 percent of KSI collisions involve drugs or alcohol.

Figure 5: Driving Under the Influence (2014-2018)

Broadside Rear End Head-On Vehicle/Pedestrian Sideswipe Hit Object Other 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35% All Collisions KSI Collisions
Drivers in
All Collisions
6%
were under
the influence
Drivers in
KSI Collisions
14%
were under
the influence
27 Primary Collision Factor
In San Leandro, the most common primary collision factors (PCFs) are unsafe speed (24%), vehicle right of way violation (19%), improper turning (13%), and pedestrian right of way violation (9%), as shown in the figure. For KSI collisions, the most common PCFs are improper turning (18%), pedestrian right of way violation (22%), unsafe speed (15%), and pedestrian violation (13%). The pedestrian violation PCF indicates that the pedestrian violated a rule of the road, such as crossing outside of a crosswalk, as opposed to the pedestrian right of way violation PCF (15%), where the vehicle violated the pedestrian’s right of way. The pedestrian violation category overrepresentation in the data may be reflective of lack of clear information related to collision circumstances. The other category includes PCFs that represent less than 1% of all PCFs of collisions in San Leandro, including other hazardous violations, other improper driving, unknown PCFs, and not stated PCFs.

Figure 6: Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2014-2018) Pedestrian Location
Most pedestrian collisions occurred when people were crossing in the crosswalk at an intersection (61%), indicating that additional safety enhancements may be needed at existing marked crosswalks in the city. This group made up just under half of all KSIs (45%), indicating that pedestrians are especially vulnerable to serious injuries. For KSI collisions, pedestrians crossing in crosswalk were a slightly lower percentage (45%), followed by crossing not in crosswalk (19%) and not in road (19%). Not in road collisions include pedestrians being struck while on the sidewalk, or any location adjacent to a road outside of the shoulder. People crossing 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or
Drug
Unsafe Speed
Wrong Side of Road
Improper Turning
Vehicle Right of Way Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way Violation
Pedestrian Violation
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other
Collisions
KSI Collisions
All Collisions
28 the street inside and outside the crosswalks may indicate other contextual factors impacting pedestrian safety such as lighting, high vehicle speeds and volumes, or adequate signage and signal timings.

Figure 7: Collisions by Pedestrian Location (2014-2018) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
In Road, Including Shoulder
Not in Road
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
KSI Collisions
All Collisions
29 Time of Day
Most collisions occur during the day. However, a larger share of KSI collisions occur at night when it is dark outside: Collisions between 7 PM and 6 AM are 27% of all collisions but 40% of KSI collisions, as shown in the figure.

Figure 8: Time of Day (2014-2018)

0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
12AM - 3AM 3AM - 6AM 6AM - 9AM 9AM - 12PM 12PM-3PM 3PM-6PM 6PM-9PM 9PM-12AM All Collisions
KSI Collisions
30 6. Emphasis Areas &
Strategies
Systemic Analysis Findings
This LRSP takes a systemic safety approach including a proactive safety analysis to identify safety patterns across the entire roadway network. It examines collision history on an aggregate basis to identify high-risk roadway characteristics in addition to looking at high collision locations. By merging adjacent land use and roadway features with collision data, relationships can be uncovered between contextual factors and the risk of frequent and severe collisions. This approach guided the selection of nine collision profiles and three priority locations for the City of San Leandro
described below.

To understand the relationship between collision
characteristics and the contextual characteristics of
the collision location, a systemic matrix was
developed that identified the number of collisions for
a given collision characteristic (e.g. location of
pedestrian) and a contextual characteristic (e.g.
posted speed limit of the roadway, roadway
classification, nearby transit stops, and bicycle
infrastructure). This process evaluates risk across the entire roadway system, rather than only managing risk at certain locations where collisions have occurred.

For the City of San Leandro, the data available for contextual assessment included land use data, such as the location of schools and parks, and roadway characteristics, including posted speed limits and signalized versus unsignalized intersections.

Deeper analysis of TIMS data and contextual information regarding roadway type, observed speeds, and proximity to community locations enabled the identification of collision profiles and collision hot spots that capture the majority of collisions and KSI collisions in San Leandro. These collisions profiles are described below.

San Leandro Collision Profiles (2014-2018)
The following nine collision profiles and eight priority locations were identified based on KSI collision analysis and stakeholder input. These profiles represent 83% of all injury collisions and 88% of KSI collisions.

All fatal collisions and KSI collisions involving pedestrians are captured within the profiles. Each collision profile is presented with key statistics (total collisions, KSIs, bic ycle and pedestrian injuries, etc.) and the applicable countermeasures categorized by cost, accompanied by a map with all profile collisions in San Leandro. The collision profiles include:

These Collision Profiles represent:
83% of all Injury Collisions
88% of all KSIs
31 1. Nighttime Collisions with No
Street Lighting: Bicycle collisions,
pedestrian collisions, and vehicle
collisions occurring at night with
no streetlights. This profile
represents 25% of all KSI
collisions, 11% of all pedestrian
collisions, 12% of all bicycle
collisions, 11% of all vehicle
collisions, and 11% of all injury
collisions.

2. Unsignalized Intersections on
Streets with 30 MPH speed
limits or over: Pedestrian, bicycle,
and vehicle collisions involving
30+MPH speeds at unsignalized
intersections. This profile represents 20% of all KSI collisions, 17% of all pedestrian collisions, 26% of all bicycle collisions, 22% of all vehicle collisions, and 22% of all injury collisions.

3. Pedestrians Crossing at Signalized Intersections: Pedestrian collisions involving right of way violations at signalized intersections. This profile represents 15% of all KSI collisions, 50% of all pedestrian collisions, and 8% of all injury collisions.

4. Pedestrians Crossing Mid-Block: Pedestrian collisions that took place when the pedestrian crossed the street between intersections. This profile represents `3% of all KSI collisions, 13% of all pedestrian collisions, and 2% of all injury collisions.

5. Driving Under the Influence: Vehicle collisions and pedestrian collisions involving driving under the influence. This profile represents 10% of all KSI collisions, 1% of all pedestrian collisions, 6% of all vehicle collisions, and 5% of all injury collisions.

6. Driver Making a Left Turn at an Intersection: Bicycle collisions, pedestrian collisions, and vehicle collisions that occurred when the driver made a left turn at an intersection. This profile represents 10% of all KSI collisions, 31% of all pedestrian collisions, 7% of all bicycle collisions, 17% of all vehicle collisions, and 18% of all injury collisions.

7. Bicyclists at Intersections: Bicycle collisions that occur in the intersection at the intersection approach. This profile represents 6% of all KSI collisions, 86% of all bicycle collisions, and 7% of all injury collisions.

8. Pedestrian Crossing at Unsignalized Intersections: Pedestrian collisions involving right of way violations at unsignalized intersections. This profile represents 4% of all KSI collisions, 24% of all pedestrian collisions, and 4% of all injury collisions.

9. Rear-End Collisions on Arterials: Collisions that occur when a vehicle hits another from behind on an arterial street. This profile represents 4% of all KSI collisions, 1% of all pedestrian collisions, 1% of all bicycle collisions, and 18% of all vehicle collisions, and 14% of all injury collisions.

Each of the priority locations is presented on a cutsheet that includes a collision summary, location summary, safety goals, strategies to help the City achieve the identified goals, and relevant grant opportunities. The location summary for each priority location includes the violations and collision types that account for the most severe or highest number of collisions. The strategies, which were selected to address the collision types 32 and violations and contribute to achieving the safety-related goals are identified as primary countermeasures which correspond to the factors identified in the location summary and are best suited for competitive HSIP grant applications.

VIOLATIONS
• 22 collisions occurred due to Unsafe Speed• 20 occurred due to Vehicle Right of Way Violation• 19 Driving Under the In luence of Alcohol or Drug • 17 Improper Turning

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
110
GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• 25 Broadside• 24 Head-on• 19 Rear End• 15 Vehicle/pedestrian• 12 Hit Object• 10 Sideswipe

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 42% of collisions occurred on unsignalized
intersections
• 15% of collisions occurred on signalized
intersections
• Most crashes - 59% of crashes – occurred on
streets with one travel lane in each directionprimarily collector streets • Over 1/3 of collisions (34.5%) occurred on 25
MPH streets
• Increase visibility for people who drive, walk,
and bike at night with intersection, roadway, andpedestrian lighting • Improve visibility of bicycles and pedestrians at
intersections
• Improve traf ic control at unsignalized
intersections
• Reduce the number of collisions involving
pedestrians and bicyclists
• Improve pedestrian and bicyclist visibility at
night

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Nighttime Collisions with No Street Lighting
25% of killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions occurring at night, at intersections and segments without a street light. There is no data for streetlights on the Caltrans main streets.

Segment Lighting Nighttime MediumRadar Speed Feedback Signs Unsafe Speed ShortRoad Diet Unsafe Speed Medium-LongHigh Visibility Crosswalks Pedestrians Crossing Outside Crosswalk, Pedestrian Right of Way Violation MediumRectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Pedestrians Crossing Outside Crosswalk, Pedestrian Right of Way Violation MediumPedestrian Hybrid Beacon Pedestrians Crossing Outside Crosswalk, Pedestrian Right of Way Violation LongRetrore lective Tape on Signals Traf ic Signals and Signs, Signalized Intersections, Nighttime ShortFlashing Beacon as Advance Warning Signalized Intersection Short 20 7 7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN

KSI COLLISIONS

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
110
20 27 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
110
110110
Road Diet Unsafe Speeds
Upgrade to Larger or Install Additional
Warning Signs
Broadside, Major Unsignalized Intersections Short
Directional Median Opening Broadside, Improper Turning, Unsignalized Intersections
Medium
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings Pedestrians Crossing at Unsignalized Intersections ShortInstall Roundabout Major Unsignalized Intersections, Broadside LongImprove Sight Distance Pedestrians Crossing at Unsignalized Intersections ShortHigh-Visibility Crosswalk Markings Pedestrians Crossing Outside Crosswalk ShortPedestrian Hybrid Beacon Pedestrian Right of Way Violation Medium Pedestrian Refuge Island Pedestrians Crossing Outside Crosswalk, 4-5 Lane Roads with 40+ MPH Speeds
Medium

VIOLATIONS
• 51 Vehicle Right of Way Violation• 45 Improper Turning• 40 Unsafe Speed• 17 Wrong Side of Road GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• 69 Broadside• 40 Rear end• 39 Head-on• 26 Vehicle/pedestrian• 15 Hit object• 15 Sideswipe

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Most crashes - 61% of crashes – occurred on
multilane roads
• The speed breakdowns: 30 mph (5 KSIs, 70 total
injuries), 35 mph (4 KSIs, 71 total injuries), 40mph (7 KSIs, 69 total injuries) • While most collisions occurred during daylight,
about 1/3 of collisionsm occured at nighttime
• Improve visibility of pedestrians crossing at
unsignalized intersections
• Decrease the number of fatalities of drivers• Improve traf ic control at unsignalized intersections
• Encourage lower vehicle speeds with roadway
design and signage
• Increase visibility for people who drive and walk
at night with intersection, roadway, and pedestrian lighting

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Unsignalized Intersection on Streets 30 MPH or Over
20% of killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions occurred on streets with 30 MPH or higher at intersections without a traffic signal (i.e. crosswalk may be stop- or uncontrolled).

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
211
16 49 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
2 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
110
110110

VIOLATIONS
• 87% of all crashes occurred when the pedestrian
was crossing in crosswalk at an intersection (68)
• Almost ¾ of all crashes occurred when a driver
violated the pedestrian’s right of way (57)
• 42% of crashes occurred when the driver was
making a left turn (33)
• Just less than ¼ of all crashes occurred when the
pedestrian committed a violation (18)
GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• 67 Vehicle/Pedestrian• 6 Broadside• 4 Head-On

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Most crashes - 60% of crashes – occurred on
multilane roads (47)
• About 1/3 of collisions occurred on 25 MPH
streets (31), and most – 44% - occurred on streetswith a 35 MPH or higher posted speed limitcollisions occurred on streets (35 MPH - 22, 40MPH - 13) • Gaps in Lighting or Missing Lighting (18 at
nighttime, 9 at dusk-dawn, 51 at daylight)
• Improve signal timing and phasing for
pedestrians
• Increase visibility for people who drive and walk
at night with intersection, roadway, andpedestrian lighting (remove maybe afterchecking) • Improve visibility of pedestrians at intersections

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Pedestrians Crossing at Signalized Intersection
15% of killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions occurred when a pedestrian crossed the street at an intersection with a traffic signal.

Advanced Stop Bars Lack of Adequate Gap Short
High Visibility Crosswalks Pedestrians Crossing Outside Crosswalk Short Protected Left -Turns Improper Turning, Pedestrian ROW Violation, Broadside ShortLeading Pedestrian Interval andPedestrian Recall Crossing Pedestrians, Pedestrian ROW Violation ShortImprove Signal Timing (Includes:lengthen clearance intervals; shorten cycle lengths to incentivize crossing
with the lights)
Pedestrian Crossing, Signalized Intersection Short
Pedestrian Scramble Pedestrian Right of Way Violation Medium 4 7

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
78 12
78 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
12 PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
110
110110

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK

VIOLATIONS
• 50% of collisions that occurred were Pedestrian
Violation
• 20% of collisions that occurred were due to
Pedestrian Right of Way Violation
• 80% occurred while Crossing in Crosswalk

TOTAL PEDESTRIAN
COLLISIONS 20
GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• 15 Vehicle/Pedestrian• 10 Broadside

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Most occurred on collector and local streets with
one lane in each direction (8 KSIs, 14 total injuries)
• 20% occurred on high speed (35 MPH) multilane
streets (4 lane)
• Most occurred on streets speed limits of 30+ mph
or more (9 for 30 mph, 4 for 40 mph)
• Almost half occurred at nighttime (9) – not close
to a streetlight
• Increase visibility for people walking at night
with roadway and pedestrian lighting
• Improve visibility of pedestrians crossing local
and collector streets
• Reduce vehicle speeds on collector and local
streets
• Provide safe crossing opportunities on multilane
streets

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Pedestrians Crossing Mid-Block
13% of all killed or severely injury (KSI) collisions occurred when a pedestrian crossed the street in the middle of the street (i.e. away from an intersection). • 10 Severe Injury Collisions• 2 Fatal Collisions
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon or
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Pedestrian Crossing Outside of Crosswalk, Midblock Short Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossings withEnhanced Safety Features Pedestrians Crossing Outside Crosswalk Lane Narrowing Pedestrian Crossing, Unsafe Speed Medium Road Diet Unsafe Speed MediumSpeed humps and other traf ic calming devices Pedestrian Crossing on Local Street Short

KSI COLLISIONS
7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
2010
20 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
10 PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
110
110110

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK

VIOLATIONS
• Driving Under the In luence of Alcohol or Drug
GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• 14 Rear-End• 7 Broadside• 6 Hit Object• 5 Sideswipe• 3 Head-On• 10 Broadside

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Crashes were distributed between midblock (1
KSIs, 17 total injuries) locations, unsignalized Intersections (3 KSIs, 16 total injuries), and signalized intersections (4 KSIs, 14 total injuries) • About 2/3 occurred on collector and local streets
with one lane of traf ic in each direction (5 KSIs,
31 total injuries)
• Half occurred on streets with 25 MPH posted
speed limit (4 KSIs, 24 total injuries) and a thirdwith speeds 35 MPH or more (35 MPH – 2 KSIsand 8 total injuries, 40 MPH – 2 KSIs and 9 totalinjuries) • Almost ¾ occurred in areas at nighttime
• Reduce severity of collisions caused by driving
under the in luence through roadway design
• Reduce driving under the in luence with
enforcement and partnerships
• Increase visibility for people who drive, bike, and
walk at night with intersection, roadway, and pedestrian lighting

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Driving Under the Influence
10% of all killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions occurred when someone drove under the influence or drugs or alcohol. 47 TOTAL COLLISIONS (4 KSI)
• 7 of Citywide Vehicle KSI Collisions• 1 of Citywide Pedestrian KSI Collisions• 4 Fatal Collisions Roadway and Intersection Lighting Nighttime Medium
Extend Yellow and All Red Time Broadside Short
Median Barrier Under the In luence MediumInstall Edge lines & Centerlines Hit Object, DUI, Inattentive Drivers Medium

SECONDARY COUNTERMEASURES
• DUI Related Programs• More info in Programs section (Chapter X, page Y)

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
47 8
1 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
1 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
110
110110

VIOLATIONS
• 29 Improper Turning• 41 Pedestrian Right of Way Violation• 84 Vehicle Right of Way Violation, 80 Vehicle only, 4 bike involved
• 38 Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection (Ped)
GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• 68 Broadside• 58 Head-on• 46 Vehicle/Pedestrian

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Crashes were distributed between signalized
Intersections (6 KSIs, 104 total injuries), andunsignalized intersections (2 KSIs, 73 totalinjuries) • More than ½ (58%) occurred on collector and
local streets with one lane of traf ic in each
direction (5 KSIs, 103 total injuries) and 42% onmultilane streets (3 KSIs, 74 total injuries) • Increase visibility for people who drive, walk,
and bike at night with intersection, roadway, and pedestrian lighting • Improve visibility of bicycles and pedestrians at
intersections
• Improve on current signal design to decrease
vehicle-only collisions

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Driver Making a Left Turn at an Intersection
10% of killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions occurred when a driver was making a left turn at an intersection.
177 TOTAL COLLISIONS (8 KSI)
• 4 of Citywide Pedestrian KSI Collisions• 1 of Citywide Bicycle KSI Collisions• 3 of Citywide Vehicle KSI Collisions• 1 Fatal (Pedestrian) Install protected turn phase Improper Turning Medium
Provide left-turn pocket Improper Turning Medium
Improve sight distance Improper Turning ShortRaised Median Left-Turn Collisions Medium-LongAdvanced Stop Bar Pedestrian Crossing in Crosswalk, Signalized Intersection ShortLeading Pedestrian Interval and Pedestrian Recall
Pedestrian Crossing in Crosswalk, Pedestrian
Crossing Outside Crosswalk Short
Turn Restrictions Improper Turning Medium
Centerline Hardening Improper Turning Short

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
177
8 27 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
110
110110

VIOLATIONS
• 22 Wrong Side of Road• 16 Vehicle Right of Way Violation• 11 Improper Turning GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• 35 Broadside• 7 Head-On• 10 Sideswipe• 7 Vehicle/Pedestrian

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• Crashes were distributed between unsignalized
Intersections (2 KSIs, 31 total injuries), andsignalized intersections (2 KSIs, 22 total injuries) • More than ½ (59%) occurred on collector and
local streets with one lane of traf ic in each
direction
• Primarily 25 mph speed limit (2 KSIs, 26 total
injuries), 30 mph (1 KSIs, 14 total injuries), 35mph (0 KSIs, 21 total injuries), 40 mph (2 KSIs, 12total injuries) • Gaps in Lighting or Missing Lighting (14 in
nighttime – 2 KSIs)
• Provide separate and protected facilities for
people who bike
• Increase visibility for people who walk and bike
at night with intersection, roadway, and pedestrian lighting • Improve visibility of bicycles and pedestrians at
intersections
• Improve traf ic control at unsignalized
intersections
• Improve bicycle visibility at intersections

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Bicyclists at Intersections7% of killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions that involved bicyclists at intersections, with1% occurred when the bicyclist was struck by a right-turning vehicle. 73 TOTAL COLLISIONS (5 KSI)
• 1 of Citywide Pedestrian KSI Collisions• 5 of Citywide Bicycle KSI Collisions (1 involved bike and ped)
• 1 Fatal (Pedestrian)
Green Con gnipirtStcil )elcyciB(edisdaorB trohS
Bike Box Bike Visibility
No Right Turn on Red Vehicle/Bike and Vehicle/Pedestrian Collisions Protected Right-Turn Phase Vehicle/Bike and Vehicle/Pedestrian Collisions Green Con lict Zone Markings Improves Bicyclist VisibilitySeparated Bike Lanes Wrong Side of the Road (Bicycle) MediumProtected Intersections Pedestrians Crossing in Crosswalk, Pedestrians Crossing Outside CrosswalkLeading Pedestrian Interval and Pedestrian Recall
Pedestrian Crossing in Crosswalk, PedestrianCrossing Outside Crosswalk Short 20 7

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
53 4
54 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
4 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
110
110110

VIOLATIONS
• Almost 2/3 (63%) of occurred when drivers
violated the pedestrian’s right of way (24)
• Almost 2/3 (63%) of occurred when pedestrians
were crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection(24)
• About 1/3 (32%) of collisions occurred when the
driver was making a left turn (12)
GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• 37 Vehicle/Pedestrian

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• More than 2/3 (71%) occurred on collector and
local streets with one lane of traf ic in each
direction (3 KSIs, 27 total injuries) and almost 1/3 (29%) on multilane streets (0 KSIs, 11 total injuries) • Primarily 25 mph speed limit (3 KSIs, 17 total
injuries), 30 mph (0 KSIs, 12 total injuries), 35mph (0 KSIs, 3 total injuries), 40 mph (0 KSIs, 6total injuries) • Gaps in Lighting or Missing Lighting (13 at
nighttime - 1 KSI)
• Improve visibility of pedestrians at
stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersections
• Increase visibility for people who drive and walk
at night with intersection, roadway, and pedestrian lighting (remove maybe after checking)

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Pedestrian Crossing at Unsignalized Intersection24% of pedestrian injury collisions occurred when a pedestrian was crossing the street at an intersection without a traffic signal (i.e. crosswalk may be stop- or uncontrolled). 73 TOTAL COLLISIONS (5 KSI)
• 1 of Citywide Pedestrian KSI Collisions• 5 of Citywide Bicycle KSI Collisions (1 involved bike and ped)
• 1 Fatal (Pedestrian)
Intersection Lighting Nighttime Medium
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons or
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons Pedestrian Right-of-Way Medium Advanced Yield Markings Lack of Adequate GapsHigh Visibility Crosswalks Crossing Pedestrians Medium Advanced Warning Signs Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing with Enhanced Safety Features Median Refuge Crossing Pedestrians Medium-Long
Daylighting BroadsideCurb Extensions Pedestrians Crossing Outside CrosswalkAdvanced Stop Bar Pedestrian Crossing in Crosswalk Short 7 7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN

KSI COLLISIONS

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
38 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
3 PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
38 3
110
110110

VIOLATIONS
• 115 Unsafe Speed• 11 Following Too Closely• 5 Driving or Biking Under the In luence of Alcohol or Drug
• 6 Improper Turning• 3 Unsafe Starting or Backing
GOALS

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY

COLLISION TYPES
• Rear end

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• About 60% of collisions occurred near signalized
intersections (1 KSI), and about 25% occurrednear unsignalized intersections (1 KSI, 36 totalinjuries) • All collisions occurred on multilane roadways • 71% of collisions occurred on streets with 35 MPH speed limit or greater (35 MPH – 3 KSIs, 53total injuries) (40 MPH – 0 KSIs, 47 total injuries)(45 MPH – 0 KSIs, 1 total injury) • Most collisions occurred in the daylight
• Reduce vehicle speeds• Improve signal visibility and signal timings• Manage large number of turning vehicles

PRIMARY COUNTERMEASURES

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Rear-End Collisions on Arterials
19% of vehicle injury collisions occurred whena driver rear-ended a car on an arterial street. 141 TOTAL COLLISIONS (3 KSI)
• 1 of Citywide Pedestrian KSI Collisions
Extend yellow and all-red clearance Inadequate Signal Timing Short Road Diet Unsafe Speed Medium
Retrore lective Tape on Signals Traf sngiSdnaslangiSci trohSAdvanced Dilemma-Zone Detection Unsafe Speed ShortSupplemental Signal Heads Traf ic Signals and Signs LongSpeed Feedback Sign Unsafe Speed ShortFlashing Beacon as Advance Warning Signalized IntersectionsSignal Coordination Unsafe Speed, Signalized Intersection 20 KSI COLLISIONS
7 7 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN

KSI COLLISIONS

TOTAL COLLISIONS

KSI COLLISIONS
2 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
1 PEDESTRIAN KSI COLLISIONS
141
3 42
Priority Locations
Eight hot spot locations in the City of San Leandro were identified through data analysis as priorities for safety enhancements. These locations include:

1. Davis Street (SR 112) between Westgate Parkway and E. 14th Street (SR 185)

2. E. 14th Street (SR 185) between the City limit and Castro Street

3. San Leandro Marina

4. Doolittle Drive in the Marina Neighborhood

5. Manor Boulevard

6. Washington Avenue

7. Hesperian Boulevard

8. Lewelling Boulevard
Figure 9: Collision Hot Spots
Davis Street TYPE OF EMPHASIS AREA

CORRIDOR HOT SPOT
Doolittle Drive to E. 14th Street

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY

VIOLATIONS
• Unsafe speed• Vehicle right of way violation• Pedestrian right of way violation 34 TOTAL COLLISIONS (4 KSI)
7 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (3 KSI)1 BICYCLE COLLISIONS (0 KSI)

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY GOALS

COLLISION TYPES
• Vehicle/pedestrian• Broadside• Rear end

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 5-lane roadway with median in some segments• 25-35 mph speed limit• On the state highway system with an interchange • Increase pedestrian visibility
and safety crossing at majorintersections
• Allow adequate time for
pedestrian crossing

COUNTERMEASURES
Protected left turn phasing Medium
LowLowLow
To Address
Leading pedestrian interval To Address
High-visibility crosswalks To Address
To Address

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Pedestrian crossing at signalized intersectionsPedestrian crossing at signalized intersectionsPedestrian crossing at signalized intersectionsPedestrian crossing at signalized intersections Pedestrian scramble COST

RELEVANT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
HSIP ATP Alameda CTC CIP
ShortShortShortShort

E. 14th Street (SR 185) TYPE OF EMPHASIS AREA

CORRIDOR HOT SPOT
Durant Avenue to Castro Street

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY

VIOLATIONS
• Unsafe speed• Vehicle right of way violation• Pedestrian right of way violation 57 TOTAL COLLISIONS (6 KSI)
16 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (4 KSI)
6 BICYCLE COLLISIONS (0 KSI)

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY GOALS

COLLISION TYPES
• Vehicle/pedestrian• Broadside• Rear end

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 3-lane and 4-lane roadway• 25-30 mph speed limit• On the state highway system• Priority bus route and high pedestrian demand

COUNTERMEASURES
Protected left turn phasing To Address
Leading pedestrian interval To Address
High-visibility crosswalks To Address
To Address

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Pedestrian crossing at signalized intersectionsPedestrian crossing at signalized intersectionsPedestrian crossing at signalized intersectionsPedestrian crossing at signalized intersections Pedestrian scramble COST

RELEVANT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
HSIP ATP Alameda CTC CIP
MediumLowLowLow
• Increase pedestrian visibility
and safety crossing at majorintersections
• Allow adequate time for
pedestrian crossing
ShortShortShortShort

Doolittle Drive TYPE OF EMPHASIS AREA

CORRIDOR HOT SPOT
Marina Boulevard to Fairway Drive

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY

VIOLATIONS
• Unsafe speed• Vehicle right of way violation• Improper turning 23 TOTAL COLLISIONS (2 KSI)
2 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (0 KSI)4 BICYCLE COLLISIONS (1 KSI)

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY GOALS

COLLISION TYPES
• Broadside• Rear end

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 4-lane roadway with no median• 40 mph speed limit• Gap in the bikeway network• Gaps in lighting • Reduce vehicle speeds• Reduce vehicle-pedestrian
conflicts at signalizedintersections

COUNTERMEASURES
New crosswalks with enhancements To Address
Protected left turns To Address
Supplemental signal heads To Address
To Address

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Pedestrian crossings at unmarked intersectionsDrivers making left turns at signalized intersectionsDrivers making left turns at signalized intersectionsDrivers making left turns at signalized intersections Extending yellow and red time Road dieting To Address Unsafe speedsAdd lighting To Address Gaps in lighting COST

RELEVANT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
HSIP ATP Alameda CTC CIP
LowLowMediumMediumMediumMedium
Medium
Short
Long
MediumMedium
Short

Manor Boulevard TYPE OF EMPHASIS AREA

CORRIDOR HOT SPOT
Wicks Boulevard to Kesterson Street

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY

VIOLATIONS
• Unsafe speed• Vehicle right of way violation• Pedestrian violation 23 TOTAL COLLISIONS (3 KSI) 3 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (2 KSI)0 BICYCLE COLLISIONS (0 KSI)

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY GOALS

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

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 2-lane roadway• 30 mph speed limit• Narrow sidewalks• Limited marked crossing opportunities • Increase pedestrian visibility
and comfort when crossing atsignalized intersections
• Increase safety at mid-block
crossings
• Decrease vehicle speeds

COUNTERMEASURES
High-visibility crosswalks To Address
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons To Address Pedestrian collisions at uncontrolled crossings and mid-block locations Lane narrowing To Address
To Address

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Pedestrian collisions at uncontrolled crossings and mid-block locations Neighborhood trafϐic calming Unsafe speed
Unsafe speed
COST

RELEVANT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
HSIP ATP Alameda CTC CIP
LowLow
MediumMedium
ShortMedium
LongShort

Washington Avenue TYPE OF EMPHASIS AREA

CORRIDOR HOT SPOT
Halcyon Boulevard to Lewelling Boulevard

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY

VIOLATIONS
• Vehicle right of way violation• Unsafe speed 57 TOTAL COLLISIONS (5 KSI) 8 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (3 KSI)5 BICYCLE COLLISIONS (0 KSI)

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY GOALS

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

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 4-lane and 5-lane roadway with no median• 35 mph speed limit• Freeway interchange• Gaps in the bikeway network• Gaps in lighting • Increase pedestrian visibility
and comfort when crossing atsignalized intersections andmid-block crossings • Increase visibility at nighttime,
or in locations with poorlighting conditions
• Increase safety for bicyclists

COUNTERMEASURES
High visibility crosswalks To Address
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon To Address Drivers not stopping/yielding at crosswalks Median refuge with RRFB To Address
To Address

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Drivers not stopping/yielding at crosswalks
Drivers not stopping/yielding at crosswalks
Road dieting Unsafe speeds
Separated bike lanes To Address Unsafe speedsAdd lighting To Address Gaps in lighting COST

RELEVANT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
HSIP ATP Alameda CTC CIP
LowHighHighMediumMediumMedium
Short
Medium
LongMedium
Long
Medium

Hesperian Boulevard TYPE OF EMPHASIS AREA

CORRIDOR HOT SPOT
E. 14th Street to Springlake Drive

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY

VIOLATIONS
• Unsafe speed• Vehicle right of way violation• Pedestrian right of way violation 38 TOTAL COLLISIONS (3 KSI)
7 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (2 KSI)6 BICYCLE COLLISIONS (0 KSI)

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY GOALS

COLLISION TYPES
• Rear end• Broadside• Vehicle/pedestrian

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 5-lane to 7-lane roadway with median• 40 mph speed limit• Gaps in the bikeway network• Gaps in lighting • Reduce vehicle speeds• Increase pedestrian visibility and comfort when crossing onmajor arterials

RELEVANT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
HSIP ATP Alameda CTC CIP

COUNTERMEASURES
Trafϐic calming measures (road diet,
narrowing lanes) To Address
Extend yellow and all red time To Address
High-visibility crosswalks To Address
To Address

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Pedestrian collisions at signalized, unsignalized, and midblock crossings Rear-end collisionsRear-end collisions
RRFBs or PHBs where appropriate Pedestrian collisions
Add lighting To Address Gaps in lightingRoad dieting To Address Unsafe speedSeparated bikeways To Address Unsafe speed COST
MediumMediumMediumLowLowHighHigh
Long
Short
Medium
Long
Medium
Long
Short

Lewelling Boulevard TYPE OF EMPHASIS AREA

CORRIDOR HOT SPOT
Hesperian Boulevard to Wicks Boulevard

NEAR SCHOOL NEAR RETAIL NEAR PARK IN DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITY

VIOLATIONS
• Unsafe speed• Vehicle right of way violation• Pedestrian right of way violation• Following too closely 51 TOTAL COLLISIONS (3 KSI)
7 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS (2 KSI)4 BICYCLE COLLISIONS (0 KSI)

COLLISION SUMMARY LOCATION SUMMARY GOALS

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

ROADWAY AND CONTEXTUAL FACTORS
• 5-lane roadway with and without median• 35-40 mph speed limit• Gaps in the bikeway network• Gaps in lighting • Increase pedestrian comfort by
reducing crossing distances
• Reduce pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts at signalizedintersections
• Reduce vehicle speeds

COUNTERMEASURES
Conϐlict striping/bike boxes To Address
Protected left turn phasing To Address
Road dieting To Address
To Address

COUNTERMEASURE ISSUE AREA TIME FRAME
Bicycle collisions at intersections
Bicycle collisions at intersections
Curb extensions Unsafe speeds
Unsafe speeds
Separated bikeways To Address Unsafe speeds
COST

RELEVANT GRANT OPPORTUNITIES
HSIP ATP Alameda CTC CIP
LowMediumMediumMedium
Long HighLong
Short
LongMedium

45 7. Evaluation and
Implementation
This chapter describes the process that can be used by the City to evaluate the success of the plan, ensure implementation, and identify funding sources for projects.

Funding Opportunities
Safety projects can be funded through a wide range of sources at the regional, state, and federal levels.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds are largely awarded based on a benefit/cost analysis using a set of Caltrans-approved countermeasures with documented collision reduction factors and historic collision data. While many safety projects will perform well in the HSIP process, others may be successfully funded through other sources that consider additional factors, such as the Active Transportation Program (ATP). The sources below may be used to fund a broad scope of projects targeting air quality and sustainability, affordable housing, and transportation. Successful projects often entail creative solutions that address impact areas beyond transportation safety alone.

Local and Regional Sources
Funding Source Description Frequency/Funding
Cycle
MTC One Bay Area
Grand (OBAG)
The OBAG program funds $375 million over 4 years. Funds will be targeted to address critical climate and focused growth goals of Plan Bay Area 2050, and used to coordinate and deploy strategies that are best suited for regional implementation, such as: Climate Initiatives, Transformational Transit Action Plan near-term investments, Near-term multimodal operational improvements, such as Bay Bridge Forward Priority Development Areas (PDAs), Priority Conservation Areas (PCAs), and other new growth geographies planning and implementation Complete Streets Policy and Regional Active Transportation Plan Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy, Pavement Management Program.

Not Applicable
Alameda County
Transportation
Commission (CTC)
Comprehensive
Investment Plan (CIP)
The Comprehensive Investment Plan (CIP) is Alameda CTC’s near-term strategic planning and programming document through which fund sources administered by Alameda CTC are programmed through a consolidated process to maximize investments towards critical transportation infrastructure and program operations needs that are essential for developing and maintaining the county’s transportation system. Eligible projects include: 1) Bicycle and/or pedestrian capital projects and programs, 2) Complete street and road improvements, 3) Transit-related capital projects, 4) Shuttle and other program operations
Biennial funding
cycle (next in 2024)
46 Funding Source Description Frequency/Funding
Cycle
Developer Fees
California law allows local governments to establish and charge a fee on residential and non-residential developments to fund public facilities and to service population growth. Public facility fees can be charged to new development based on density and traffic impacts, and can go to a variety of public facilities, one being local roadways.

Not Applicable
Lifeline Transportation
Program
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has created the Lifeline Transportation Program to evaluate state and federal funds to provide grants for mobility and accessibility needs in low-income communities across the Bay Area. New guidelines are established for each cycle and the projects must address transportation gaps or barriers identified in community-based transportation plans or other local planning efforts in low-income neighborhoods.

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

Annual funding cycle
Transportation
Development Act Article
3 (TDA3) Funding
Administered through the MTC. TDA3 provides funding annually for bicycle and pedestrian projects. Each county coordinates a consolidated annual request for projects to be funded in the county. Some counties competitively select projects, while other counties distribute the funds to jurisdictions based on population.

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

Frequency: Biennial
funding cycle
California Natural
Resources Agency
Environmental
Enhancement and
Mitigation (EEM)
Program
This program supports projects that “contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities.” According to the program guidelines, projects that fall under the following category can apply: “Mitigation Projects Beyond the Scope of the Lead Agency responsible for assessing the environmental impact of the proposed transportation improvement.”
Frequency: Annual
funding cycle
California Natural
Resources Agency
Urban Greening
Program
This program supports projects that “use natural systems or systems that mimic natural systems to achieve multiple benefits.” Eligible projects include “Non-motorized urban trails that provide safe routes for travel between residences, workplaces, commercial centers, and schools.”
Frequency: Biennial
funding cycle
47 Funding Source Description Funding Timelines
California Office of
Traffic Safety (OTS)
Grant Program
OTS administers traffic safety grants in the following areas:

Alcohol Impaired Driving, Distracted Driving, Drug-Impaired Driving, Emergency Medical Services, Motorcycle Safety, Occupant Protection, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Police Traffic Services, Public Relations, Advertising, and Roadway Safety and Traffic Records. This funding is primarily geared to enforcement and outreach efforts.

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

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

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

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

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

Frequency: Three-year
cycle
Next funding
opportunity: Cycle 2
timeline yet to be
announced, likely winter
2024
Highway Safety
Improvement Program
(HSIP)
California’s Local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with nationally recognized crash reduction factors (CRFs). Local HSIP projects must be identified based on collision experience, collision potential, collision rate, or other data-supported means. There are opportunities to include systemic safety projects as well.

Frequency: Annual
funding cycle
Next funding
opportunity: HSIP Cycle
11 application due
September 12, 2022
SB 1 Local Partnership
Program (LPP)
The purpose of this program is to provide local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees with a continuous appropriation of $200 million annually from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to fund road maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and active transportation projects.

There is also a competitive grant portion of this project.

Frequency: Biennial
funding cycle
Next funding
opportunity: 2022
program guidelines
available summer 2022;
applications due winter
2022.
48 Funding Source Description Funding Timelines
SB 1 Local Streets and
Roads Program (LSRP)
SB 1 dedicated approximately $1.5 billion per year in new formula revenues apportioned by the State Controller to cities and counties for basic road maintenance, rehabilitation, and critical safety projects on the local streets and roads system.

Frequency: Annual
funding cycle
Next Funding
Opportunity: Eligible
project lists due SummerFall 2022.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Federal Sources
Funding Source Description Frequency/Funding
Cycle
Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG)
Program
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program is a flexible program that provides communities with resources to address a wide range of unique community development needs.

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

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

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

Frequency: Annual
funding cycle
Next funding
opportunity: Funding
apportioned via
metropolitan planning
organizations (MPOs)
based on a formula.
49 Funding Source Description Frequency/Funding
Cycle
Safe Streets For All
(SS4A)
The purpose of SS4A grant program is to improve roadway safety by significantly reducing or eliminating roadway fatalities and serious injuries through safety action plan development and implementation focused on all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, public transportation users, motorists, personal conveyance and micromobility users, and commercial vehicle operators. The program provides funding to develop the tools to strengthen a community’s approach to safety and save lives. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law established the SS4A program and approved $6 billion in funding, with $5 billion in advanced appropriations. For fiscal year 2022, $1 billion has been made available for grants under the SS4A program.

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

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

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

Having appointed leadership will be a crucial part of maintaining buy-in and support for the LRSP from not only officials, but the community as well. Some duties could include conducting briefings and presentations at board and agency meetings, collecting and sharing information on a regular basis, and communicating progress on LRSP goals with the public (i.e. the number of projects funded or implemented and the change in number of collisions over time).

Having continued communication and transparency with stakeholders and community members can allow for greater trust and support of the LRSP’s goals. Some other potential strategies include communication across diverse channels beyond the web (e.g. local news, mailers, and social media), actively soliciting and addressing community concerns, regularly publishing or updating more extensive factsheets on plan progress, and regular public meetings using effective community engagement techniques.

Coordination & Partnership
Much like the stakeholder input received throughout the creation of this Plan, coordination and partnership amongst diverse stakeholders will be essential for effective delivery of the LRSP throughout its lifetime. Some strategies that the City should implement include regularly informing leaders and community groups and stakeholders on progress and key milestones, consulting partner agencies early on in the implementation 50 process to gather suggestions and feedback, and ongoing monitoring and coordination of opportunities for partnership via project bundling (e.g. integrating LRSP projects with pavement resurfacing and maintenance).

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

Recommendations include:

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

Identify Target Metrics and Measure Goal Performance in Priority Areas To understand progress and safety conditions, several metrics should be used in LRSP evaluation. Examples of measuring goal performance include:
• Monitoring collisions, specific to the goals outlined in this plan • Monitoring the number of safety infrastructure improvements installed Additional regular measurement of goal progress in priority areas can be performed every year (e.g. tracking collision trends over time). Tracking and sharing the impacts of both engineering and non-engineering countermeasures, project and program implementation, and any other LRSP-related strategies can be a powerful tool for measuring effectiveness, highlighting areas that need further attention and resources, and identifying tasks and deadlines for responsible stakeholder parties.

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

Conduct pre- and post- surveys with community members to measure how their actions and views have shifted after engagement around traffic safety. Local partners can be tasked with disseminating the pre- and post-surveys to residents. Surveys should evaluate whether respondents express a shift in behavior after having participated in traffic safety programming. The metrics for evaluation can also be developed with local partners to ensure accessibility for the public.
51 Appendix A:

Countermeasure
Toolbox
This section contains the full details of all the engineering countermeasures applicable to the City of San Leandro. This countermeasure toolbox details descriptions of each engineering countermeasure along with relevant cost and implementation characteristics. Note, approximate countermeasure costs are categorized as low (up to $10,000), medium ($10,000-$100,000), and high (greater than $100,000).

The toolbox also includes a table of engineering countermeasures that are applicable to San Leandro but not included in the LRSM, and are therefore not approved for HSIP funding. The final table includes countermeasures that might not address a specific collisions profile but could improve safety more generally throughout the City. These countermeasures should be applied in locations that have disproportionate level of fatalities and severe injury collisions.

To address the safety concerns presented within San Leandro, this Plan pairs data-driven crash analysis with proven countermeasures. Countermeasures can be engineering-based physical improvements, as well as nonengineering strategies in areas such as education, enforcement, and outreach. The full set of countermeasures recommended for implementation in San Leandro are listed on the following pages categorized by focus area.

The Engineering Countermeasures Toolbox (Appendix A) include a Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), if applicable, to indicate their relative effectiveness. In contrast to the infrastructure-focused engineering countermeasures, non-engineering countermeasures do not have an associated CRF.

Summary of Engineering Countermeasures
Engineering countermeasures have been studied and proven to reduce collisions based on a set of contextual characteristics, such as the type of collisions and collision locations. Several safety countermeasures have been identified to address the collisions represented by the identified collision profiles in San Leandro. The following summary identifies countermeasures that are found in the Local Road Safety Manual (LRSM). The LRSM reports a CRF that represents the expected effectiveness of a countermeasure in terms of the percentage decrease in crashes of the type affected by the countermeasure. These countermeasures are approved for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding.

Appendix A contains the full details of all the engineering countermeasures applicable to the City of San Leandro. This countermeasure toolbox details descriptions of each engineering countermeasure along with relevant cost and implementation characteristics. The toolbox also includes a table of engineering countermeasures that are applicable to San Leandro but not included in the LRSM, and are therefore not 52 approved for HSIP funding, as well as a table of countermeasures that might not address a specific collisions profile but could improve safety more generally throughout the City. These countermeasures would be applied in locations that have disproportionate level of fatalities and severe injury collisions.

Countermeasure In LRSM?
Bikeways
Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
Bicycle Ramp
Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
Bike Box 
Bike Detection
Class II Bike Lane 
Extend Bike Lane to Intersection
Floating Transit Island
Green Conflict Striping
Class IV Separated Bikeway 
Mixing Zone
Parking Buffer
Two-Stage Turn Queue Bike Box
Extend Green Time For Bikes 
Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign
Intersections & Roadways
Rumble Strips 
All-Way Stop Control 
Centerline Hardening
Close Slip Lane
Directional Median Openings to Restrict Left Turns 
Improved Pavement Friction 
Safety Edge
Guardrail 
Median Barrier 
Roundabout 
Signal
Superelevation at Horizontal Curve Locations
Intersection Reconstruction and Tightening
Lane Narrowing
Left Turn Enhanced Daylighting/Slow Turn Wedge
Paint and Plastic Median
Paint and Plastic Mini Circle
53 Countermeasure In LRSM?
Partial Closure/Diverter
Protected Intersection
Raised Crosswalk 
Raised Intersection
Raised Median 
Refuge Island 
Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersection 
Right Turn Slip Lane
Road Diet 
Speed Hump or Speed Table
Splitter Island 
Straighten Crosswalk
Widen/Pave Shoulder 
Other
Back-In Angled Parking
Access Management/Close Driveway
Intersection Lighting 
Segment Lighting 
Create or Increase Clear Zone
Curbside Management
Far-Side Bus Stop
Delineators, Reflectors, and/or Object Markers 
Impact Attenuators 
Median Guardrail
Speed Limit Reduction
Relocate Select Hazardous Utility Poles
Remove Obstructions For Sightlines 
Upgrade Lighting to LED
Red Light Camera
Pedestrian Facilities
Audible Push Button Upgrade
Add Sidewalk 
Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (Signs and Markings Only) 
Co-Locate Bus Stops and Pedestrian Crossings
Curb Extensions 
Extended Time Pushbutton
54 Countermeasure In LRSM?
High-Visibility Crosswalk 
Pedestrian Countdown Timer 
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon 
Landscape Buffer
Leading Pedestrian Interval and Pedestrian Recall 
Pedestrian Detection
Remove Crossing Prohibition
Restripe Crosswalk
Upgrade Curb Ramp
Widen Sidewalk
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon 
Signals
Retroreflective Tape on Signals 
Supplemental Signal Heads 
Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection 
Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time 
Extend Yellow and All Red Time 
Flashing Yellow Turn Phase
Pedestrian Scramble 
Prohibit Left Turn 
Prohibit Turns During Pedestrian Phase
Protected Left Turns 
Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
Separate Right-Turn Phasing
Shorten Cycle Length
Signal Interconnectivity and Coordination / Green Wave  Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal 
Upgrade Signal Head 
Signing & Striping
Advance Stop Bar 
Advance Yield Markings
Curve Advance Warning Sign 
Flashing Beacon as Advance Warning 
Chevron Signs on Horizontal Curves 
LED-Enhanced Sign 
Painted Centerline and Raised Pavement Markers at Curves on Residential Streets Speed Feedback Sign
55 Countermeasure In LRSM?
Speed Legends on Pavement at Neighborhood Entries
Striping Through Intersection 
Time-Based Turn Restriction
Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings 
Upgrade Signs with Fluorescent Sheeting 
Upgrade Striping
Upgrade to Larger Warning Signs 
Wayfinding
Yield To Pedestrians Sign 
Summary of Non-Engineering Countermeasures
Several non-engineering countermeasures were identified as systematic solutions to the ongoing safety issues in the City of San Leandro.

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

Education Campaigns for Vulnerable Groups
Launch targeted public education campaigns for seniors, non-English speaking populations, or other vulnerable groups.

Pilot Demonstration Safety Projects
Implement pilot demonstration safety projects. Projects can either be implemented on a temporary basis (tactical urbanism) or permanent basis with room for modification (quick builds).

Public Information Campaigns
Launch public safety education campaigns. Example campaign topics include safe speeds, yielding to pedestrians, distracted driving, drinking, and driving, awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians, appropriate crosswalk behavior, rail safety, moving over for EMS vehicles, etc. Campaigns may include yard signs, wall boards/posters in prime injury-corridor neighborhoods, ads on bus exteriors, radio ads, etc. Public education may also involve making safety and crash data publicly available on project websites, the local agency's data portal, social media, and other avenues as appropriate. 56 Safe Routes to School
Expand the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program in partnership with the San Leandro Unified School District and Alameda County.

Update City Policies and Standards
Update policies, standards, and guidelines on topics such as signal timing, street design, street lighting, complete streets, and pedestrian crossings to incorporate current best practices and improve safety for all modes.

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

Neighborhood Slow Zones
Develop a neighborhood slow zone program to allow neighborhoods to request treatments to slow motor vehicles to 15 to 20 mph using traffic calming features, signs, and markings. Selected locations are typically in areas serving children, seniors, public transit users, commercial activity, and pedestrian/bicycle activity. 57