Agenda - 4/19/2022 (15) — Santa Maria City Council, April 19, 2022

FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 19, 2022

COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: City Council
FROM: City Manager
Prepared by: Interim Director of Public Works
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP).

SUMMARY:

An LRSP provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local roads. An adopted LRSP will be required for an agency to be eligible to apply for federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds.

BACKGROUND:

The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act was signed into law on December 4, 2015. Under FAST, the HSIP, codified as Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.0 §148), is a core federal -aid program to States for the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. Local HSIP projects must be identified based on crash experience, crash potential, crash rate, or other data - supported means.

Federal regulations require each State have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). An SHSP is a statewide data -driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, state, local, and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis (or challenge) areas. The SHSP addresses the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

While the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) can be a means for providing local and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP. The process of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements.

Preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate

a defined need and contribute to the statewide plan. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges.

As a new requirement of HSIP Calls -for -Projects, an LRSP (or its equivalent such as Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) or Vision Zero Action Plan) would be required for an agency to be eligible to apply for federal HSIP funds. HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -Projects is anticipated in April 2022.

The 2022 City of Santa Maria LRSP was principally developed with funding from an allocation of State funds, acquired in 2020 as part of an LRSP Funding Request. This funding request and subsequent request for additional funding were approved by City Council at the November 3, 2020, City Council meeting. The City of Santa Maria received $75,600 from the California Transportation Commission as part of this funding request; the City provided a match of $8,400 for a total plan budget of $84,000 and a 10 percent local match.

Through an exhaustive request for proposals process, the work to prepare the LRSP was awarded to DKS Associates. The project was initiated on July 13, 2021, with a release of the draft plan in January 2022. The final LRSP was completed in February 2022. The final document and the documents prepared as a part of the process can be found at https://www.saferstreetsforsantamaria.com/ .

DISCUSSION:

The LRSP is a document that will facilitate the design and implementation of systemic safety improvements for all roadway users in the City of Santa Maria. The mission and vision of this plan are to progressively reduce fatal and severe injury crashes in Santa Maria. The document details current conditions, documented input from the public and stakeholders to fully understand existing safety improvement concerns, and recommends systemic and proven safety countermeasures to reduce the incidence of severe injury and fatal collisions.

Public outreach was conducted through social media, e -mails, a project website, and place - based pop-up events to capture community input. A community survey was created to understand resident needs. The survey, available in English and Spanish, was distributed at the pop-up events and was also available online on the project website. Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) meetings were also conducted during the development of the LRSP.

Community groups such as SBBIKE and COAST, among others, were invited to the SAG meetings to discuss community survey results, review collision analysis results, and provide input regarding the Vision Statement and Goals of the document.

The Emphasis Areas were developed based on the results of crash data analysis and input from staff, stakeholders, and the public. For the development of strategies, the Emphasis Areas were categorized into groups of Vulnerable Users, Risky Behaviors, and Infrastructure. These Emphasis Areas were identified because the City of Santa Maria has severe injury and fatal collision rates that exceed the Statewide average for these types of crashes. The document provides meaningful and attainable goals for these Emphasis Areas to be reached before the document needs to be updated. These goals focus on reducing fatal and severe injury crashes below the Statewide average rates by 2035, and the document provides strategies to reach these goals.
2 The upcoming HSIP funding cycle represents an opportunity to obtain funding and implement many of the engineering strategies for the highest priority locations identified through the LRSP development process. The LRSP provides countermeasures identified for several locations, along with the associated emphasis area addressed by the countermeasure.

Alternatives
The recommended action is to approve the Resolution stating the City's support for adopting the document which would guide the City's efforts to reduce severe injury and fatal collisions for years to come.

If the City Council chooses not to approve the Resolution, grant funding used for the development of this plan may be forfeited and the City may miss the opportunity to apply for HSIP Cycle 11 grant funds. This decision could lead to Caltrans and the California Transportation Commission to request reimbursement of the grant funds used and jeopardize the City's future eligibility for this type of grant funding.

Fiscal Considerations
Approval of the Resolution will make the City eligible to receive grant funding from future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant cycle. The City's 10 percent contribution of $8,400 was expensed during the Fiscal Year 2021-2022. At this stage in the project, no further funding is requested for allocation, but future allocations may be requested as a local match in HSIP grant applications.

Impact to the Community
The community will be beneficially impacted by the adoption of this plan with the overall objective to reduce severe injury and fatal collisions below the Statewide average by 2035 through the implementation of systemic safety improvements and proven safety countermeasures.

MARK MUELLER, PE
Senior Civil Engineer

BRETT FULGONI
Interim Director of Public Works
Attachments A: Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan
3 FIRLI
Safer Streets for
Santa Maria

SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
APRIL 2022
PREPARED FOR:

CITY OF SANTA MARIA
DKS
8950 CAL CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 340. SACRAMENTO. CA 95826 • 916.368.2000 • DKSASSOCIATES-COM

SHAPING A SMARTER TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE

AN EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
CLIENT City of Santa Maria
DKS Project / Proposal
Number 21135-000
Project /
Proposal Name
Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan
Document Name Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan
Date Document Issued April 19, 2022

VERSION CONTROL

VERSION
NUMBER
DATE

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE AUTHOR

1.0 12/09/2021 Admin Draft Plan JD, JP, HI

2.0 1/21/2022 Draft Plan JD, JP

3.0 3/29/2022 Final Draft Plan JD

4.0 4/5/2022 Final Plan JD

PREPARED FOR CITY OF SANTA MARIA
Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Mark Mueller 1 City of Santa Maria Public Works
David Beas 1 City of Santa Maria Public Works

PREPARED BY DKS ASSOCIATES AND KIMLEY-HORN
DKS
Kimley Morn
Project Manager
Jim Damkowitch 1 DKS Associates
Josh Pilachowski, PhD, PE, RSP1 1 DKS Associates
Haruka Ichikawa 1 DKS Associates
Brandon Kenery 1 DKS Associates
Darryl DePencier 1 Kimley-Horn
Kyle McGowan 1 Kimley-Horn

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 1
MISSION / VISION STATEMENT 2
PROCESS 2
STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP 3
OUTREACH GOALS AND STRATEGIES 4
STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH 4
Stakeholder Advisory group (SAG) Meetings 4
Pop -Up Events 4
COMMUNITY SURVEY 7
Survey Respondents 7
Safety Concerns 9
Safety Improvements and Enforcement 11
EXISTING SAFETY PROGRAMS 13
Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan (2020) 13
DATA SUMMARY 13
DATA SOURCES 13
CRASH RECORD DATA 13
EXISTING CONDITIONS 14
2020 TRAVEL BEHAVIOR IMPACTS 18
HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN) 20
ALL COLLISIONS 20
BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS 22
DETAILED SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING CROSSROADS 27
Roadway Segments 28
Intersections 29
2020 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 32
EMPHASIS AREAS 36
VULNERABLE USERS 36
RISKY BEHAVIORS 36
INFRASTRUCTURE 36
STRATEGIES 36

VULNERABLE USERS 37
Bicyclists 37
Pedestrians 38
Seniors 39
RISKY BEHAVIORS 40
Impaired Driving 40
Distracted Driving 41
INFRASTRUCTURE 42
Intersections 42
IMPROVED DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT 43
LOCATION -SPECIFIC COUNTERMEASURES 44
BROADWAY CORRIDOR (US 101 TO BETTERAVIA RD) 44
MAIN ST CORRIDOR (BLOSSER RD TO US 101) 45
MILLER STREET CORRIDOR (DONOVAN RD TO BETTERAVIA RD) 45 ISOLATED INTERSECTION 46
IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION 47
IMPLEMENTATION 47
EVALUATION 49
SECTION 1. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP MEETING AGENDA 52 SECTION 2. COMMUNITY SURVEY 53
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS 54
SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF CRASH TYPES BY LOCATION 55

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. AGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 8
FIGURE 2. RACE AND ETHNICITY OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 8
FIGURE 3. HOUSEHOLD AND WORK LOCATIONS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS 9 FIGURE 4. MODES AVOIDED DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS 9
FIGURE 5. RESPONSES WHETHER RESPONDENTS KNOW IF THEIR CHILDREN RECEIVE ROADWAY EDUCATION 10
FIGURE 6. RESPONSES TO WHETHER RESPONDENTS' CHILDREN WALK OR BIKE TO SCHOOL 10 FIGURE 7. ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS RESPONDENTS WOULD SUPPORT 11 FIGURE 8. ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS RESPONDENTS WOULD NOT SUPPORT 11 FIGURE 9. TOPICS ENFORCEMENT SHOULD FOCUS ON TO IMPROVE ROADWAY SAFETY 12 FIGURE 10. DISTRIBUTION OF COLLISIONS BY SEVERITY (SWITRS DATA) 15 FIGURE 11. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION 18 FIGURE 12. NUMBER OF COLLISIONS BY YEAR AND SEVERITY 19 FIGURE 13. PERCENTAGE OF COLLISIONS BY YEAR AND SEVERITY 19 FIGURE 14. MAP OF HIGH INJURY CORRIDORS 21
FIGURE 15. MAP OF BIKE- AND PED-INVOLVED HIGH INJURY COLLISIONS 23 FIGURE 16. MAP OF INTERSECTION COLLISIONS 24
FIGURE 17. MAP OF MIDBLOCK COLLISIONS 25
FIGURE 18. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISION HEAT MAP (2013-17) 33 FIGURE 19. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT PRECEDING COLLISION 34
FIGURE 20. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISION BY LIGHTING CONDITION 34 FIGURE 21. PUBLIC PERCEPTION (SOURCE: SANTA MARIA ATP) 35

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. COLLISION SEVERITY (SWITRS DATA 2013 -JULY 2021) 14 TABLE 2. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORIES 16 TABLE 3. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORIES (FATAL & SEVERE COLLISIONS) 17
TABLE 4. TOP 10 CORRIDORS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (2013-7/2021) 20 TABLE 5. TOP 10 INTERSECTIONS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (2013-7/2021) 20 TABLE 6. TOP 10 CORRIDORS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (BIKE & PED) (2013-7/2021) 22 TABLE 7. TOP 5 CORRIDORS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (BIKE & PED) (2013-7/2021) 22 TABLE 8. PEDESTRIAN -INVOLVED COLLISION PROXIMITY TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS 26 TABLE 9. BICYCLE -INVOLVED COLLISION PROXIMITY TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS 26 TABLE 10. ELDERLY PEDESTRIAN COLLISION PROXIMITY TO SENIOR FACILITIES 26 TABLE 11. INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS 30
TABLE 12. TOP PEDESTRIAN COLLISION INTERSECTIONS 32
TABLE 13. TOP BICYCLE COLLISION INTERSECTIONS 32
TABLE 14. TOP INTERSECTION COLLISION CORRIDORS 32

INTRODUCTION
This Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) represents a key step in the City of Santa Maria's continued commitment to transportation safety. The purpose of the Santa Maria LRSP is to use data and stakeholder input to identify, analyze, and prioritize safety projects and programs in the City of Santa Maria that will allow residents and visitors to safely access their desired destinations. Development of the Plan reflects the four "E's" (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services) approach for proactive safety planning.

Education
Engineering
Emergency
Response
During development of this LRSP, a fifth "E" was introduced by the State that focusses on Emerging Technologies. This addresses safety considerations associated with, but not limited to, the introduction/transition of autonomous vehicles and infrastructure, electromobility, micro -mobility, and other mobility trends. This new "E" is not specifically addressed herein but can be addressed in future updates to the plan.

The Santa Maria LRSP provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on Santa Maria's roads. The LRSP is focused on Santa Maria's specific safety needs and issues, while contributing to the overall statewide goals outlined in California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan. The Plan provides a summary of key safety emphasis areas identified through stakeholder outreach and analysis of recent crash data. The emphasis areas provide the framework for this document, with each one providing a focus for two additional elements:

1. Quantitative goals that will be used to evaluate the success of the Plan.

2. Associated strategies to help achieve those goals.

Key steps for the development of the Santa Maria LRSP: Plan Definition; Plan Implementation; and, Plan Accountability are illustrated below.

Introduction and Purpos _ PLAN
Mission and Vision Statement DEFINITION
Collision Analysis Findings
• Emphasis Areas
- Objectives and Goals
Prioritized Strategies and Action Items to Achieve Goals Performance Measures to Evaluate Success
- Funding Sources for Implementation
- Plan for Ongoing Monitoring of Progress and Evaluation of Goals PLAN

IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN

ACCOUNTABILITY
DKS
8950 CAL CENTER DRIVE. SUITE 340. SACRAMENTO, CA 95826 - 916.368.2000 - DKSASSOCIATES.COM

SHAPING A SMARTER TRANSPORTATION EXPERIENCE

AN EMPLOYEE -OWNED COMPANY

The LRSP process is illustrated below. This same process was followed during development of the Santa Maria LRSP.

Mission and
ision Statement
[High
Emphasis'Atea'I
1 coal State
urpose a
Evaluation
MP Strategy -
mr4 Strategy
Strategy
MIL Strategy
Int Strategy -4.1111
Strategy
Strategy II
=W=
Action and
Responsibility
Ultimately, the LRSP identifies the safety needs of the City of Santa Maria and strategies to address those needs, ensuring continued eligibility for State and Federal funding to implement safety projects throughout the City.

MISSION / VISION STATEMENT
The Vision Statement for the LRSP represents a high-level overarching purpose and goal for the plan.

Following review and refinement of the Vision Statement with the City and the Stakeholder Advisory Group, the preferred Vision Statement for the Santa Maria LRSP is as follows:
"To progressively reduce Fatal and Severe Injury crashes in Santa Maria." This Vision Statement was preferred by the majority of the Stakeholder Advisory Group over the more aspirational Vision Zero statement. This was predicated on the desire to establish quantitative goals that were amenable to tracking progress over time (i.e., short- mid- and longer -term) and are achievable within a reasonable time frame. This is consistent with the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) that considers LRSP development as the key first steps towards achieving the Vision Zero goal.

PROCESS
■
One of the critical pieces of this Plan was the formation of a stakeholder advisory group representing a range of needs, priorities, and perspectives throughout the City. These stakeholders include the County of Santa Barbara, the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, local law enforcement, schools, emergency responders, non -profits, and the general public. Further project awareness and opportunity for public input was provided through a community survey.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP
To further assist in development of content and document review, an initial group of potential stakeholders representing emergency and enforcement services, regional agencies and school districts, and relevant public committees were identified and contacted. The Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings were held in September 2021 and January 2022 to discuss topics such as vision statement, project goals, public engagement efforts, emphasis areas, collision analysis and low-cost countermeasures. The agendas of the Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings are attached in Appendix 1.

Below is a list of members of the Stakeholder Advisory Group:

Ana Huynh, Mixteco/Indigena Community Organizing
Project (MICOP)
Angela Montanez, People's Self -Help Housing
Anna McCutchen, Community Partners in Caring
Anna Vela, People's Self -Help Housing
Bill Skeen, Pacific Pride Foundation
Cheryl McGray, Santa Maria Fairpark
Cory Bantilan, Supervisor Steve Lavagnino's office
David Coelho, Catholic Charities
Diane Dostalek, Caltrans
Eder Gaona Macedo, Future Leaders of America
Elisa Pardo, CommUnity
Francisco Didier, Mixteco/Indigena Community
Organizing Project (MICOP)
Genevieve Flores-Haro, Mixteco/Indigena Community
Organizing Project (MICOP)
Geoffrey Wheeler, Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition
Hazel Davalos, CAUSE
Heather Deutsch, Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition,
Coalition for Sustainable Transportation
Ivette Peralta, Planned Parenthood
James Anderson, Pacific Pride Foundation
Jerry Sitton, Santa Maria Joint Union High School
District
Jim Hines, Sierra Club
John Hooten, Hancock College
Joyce Ellen Lippman, Central Coast Commission for
Senior Citizens
Kemba Lawrence, CommUnity
Ken Dahmen, Santa Barbara Bicycle Coalition
Kenny Klein, Santa Maria Joint Union High School
District
Kent Epperson, SBCAG, Traffic Solutions
Laura Arteaga, Central Coast Literacy Council
Lauren Milbourne, Allan Hancock College
Lawanda Lyons -Pruitt, NAACP
Lisa Brabo, Family Service Agency
Lucas Zucker, Cause Now
Maricela Morelos, CAUSE
Mary Jacka, LULAC
Petra Lowen, Seniors, Independent Living
R Curry, Hancock College
Richard Persons, Santa Maria Fairpark
Rigo Hernandez, American GI Forum
Rob Himoto, Santa Maria Valley Railroad
Rosalba Iniguez, Catholic Church
Sarkes Khachek, SBCAG
Shana Pompa, Fighting Back Santa Maria Valley
Tony Cuellar, Santa Maria -Bonita School District
Victor Espinoza, MICOP
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 3

OUTREACH GOALS AND STRATEGIES
The goals of the City's LRSP public outreach program were the following:

1. To provide the public with a clear understanding of the purpose for the Plan and its reliance on the four E's: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services.

2. To ensure maximum participation by all members of our community.

3. To ensure that our outreach efforts reflect diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In addition, the following strategies were used to maximize the outreach process:

Digital notifications via the City's existing eNews database.

Social Media including Facebook and NextDoor.

Project website including online capabilities for meetings, comment capture and surveys.

Partnership with local faith based and community organizations.

Place -based pop-up events to capture community input.

STAKEHOLDER OUTREACH

STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP (SAG) MEETINGS
Focused stakeholder meetings with key partners are valuable because they facilitate a venue for obtaining information from the stakeholders without using surveys, which tend to be viewed as scientific and only produce quantitative data. Focus groups utilize qualitative data collection methods.

Just as in the dynamics of real life, the participants can interact, influence, and be influenced —giving actionable insight into their knowledge of key issues related to housing and regional needs for the City, their community and the groups or people they represent.

Two meetings with representatives from local school districts, law enforcement, emergency responders and the City's Public Works team were held.

POP-UP EVENTS
Santa Maria Elks Rodeo Event (September 4-5)
The City and its consultant team attended the Elks Rodeo event over Labor Day weekend. This entailed setting up a booth on the Saturday parade to promote the project, provide information about the process of developing the Local Road Safety Plan, and to circulate the community survey. On Sunday, the rodeo was attended to circulate the community survey to attendees. A total of 226 surveys were completed: 138 during the Street Fair (Saturday) and 88 at the Rodeo (Sunday). Of the total, 42% were completed in Spanish and 58% were completed in English. It was observed that many of the younger bilingual respondents chose to fill out the survey in English.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Cruisin' Nationals Event and Santa Maria Farmers Market (October 23-24) The City and its consultant team, attended the 40th
Annual Cruisin' Nationals Event. Both Saturday and
Sunday were attended to promote the project, provide
information about the process of developing the Local
Road Safety Plan, and to circulate the community survey.

Concurrent with the Cruisin Nationals event, the Santa Maria Farmers Market event was concurrently attended. A total of 217 surveys were completed: 114 at the Cruisin' Nationals event (Saturday) and 103 at the Crusin' Nationals event and adjacent Farmers Market (Sunday). Of the total, 75% were completed in Spanish and 25% were completed in English. • 40TH ANNUAL CRUISIN' NATIONALS
1701-20:1 e
vjEars� QI•
\KU -7.

P�sttl�

YOU MUST HAVE YOUR ARMBAND FOR ALL OF THE EVENTS

OF EVENTS
Collateral Development/Social Media
The City supported by its consultant team developed a number of tools to support this effort and provide easy access to materials, documents and information about the process. These included:

Dedicated Project Webpage
A dedicated website, SaferStreetsforSantaMaria.com, for this process was developed which include the following:
• Project information and overview and purpose of the Plan. • Listing of all meetings.

Safer Streets fnr
Santa Maria
&lenuiaw • Enginteriwg • Erl%w en! • Emergenry Avon,
Let's Make Santa Maria Safer!
The Santa Mena Loth Maid Safety Plan we p10104011000040011104 idenidyg. anaryai g, and priori0smly raadway safely improvements on Santa Manab roads. The Plan wN yaid, Mum pans opp0rtuales any; 40014y polo0Ual 0olals Vat amid Ilh(Ov0 roadway safety w+drn Vw pry. Tho Plan vow bo locoed on Santa Mom's spent safety needs and L90u00. wt1110 contributing t0 the overall ,*0104040 goals 0510009 in CaNOmla s Statoyt t gtwlay Sa101y plan. 714, WII be a 1101laeeral,v0 anon wtucfl well W.) ,894( partKyabon 00m a Woad range of atakpg40 s incluarg the County ca Santa Barbara the kcal the Santa Berbera Coma4y Asaooa0on of Governments, taw 0nloroomom. schwa,. emergency (05 00001. 000.9(0(011, and Irh ypner0l 00010.

Our goal Is to devote achievable and measurable oounl00n0aswns Ice reduong aoddents.laking a proect00 approach to roadway Wely though the 4 El : Engineering. Enforcement. Educmion. and Emergency Services. Improvement strategies to athlwo these p400110rm0aiures wee men b0 cahgontnd 3400 pri000ted. IdanUtyvg *00,05900'✓b* 0fa50,0,de, tar,mrnkm0ntalon Oro, completed, 1110 Plan .11 af,0 0u4n0 Slope 10 evaluate the S'trategieS Onto Implemented a, order to d0termmo Ih*r erodk0n0s, and 109!100410 memos on future iterations.

We want Mr Ideas,

CLICK HERE TO TAKE OUR
SURVEY
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

• All presentations and materials
produced for SAG and public meetings.
• Frequently Asked Question sheets
regarding the planning process (English
and Spanish).
• All drafts and materials produced for
the Plan.
• Library with all relevant documents.
• Access to complete the Community
Survey. A total of 55 community
surveys were completed online.
• Forms for comment/questions.
• eNews sign-ups.
• Links to the site, online surveys, art,
and information promoting the effort
were provided to Santa Maria Regional
Transit (SMRT) for distribution and/or
posting on their sites.

Social Media
The City's Public Information Officer
coordinated with the several outreach efforts
for the plan namely social media
correspondence, the City's website link to the project website, and e -newsletters.

Available On -Line
FAQ Includes Bar Code
Pop -Up Events
Stakeholder Advisory Group
eNewsletters
Virtual Engagement
W W W.SAFERSTREETSFORSANTAMARIA.COM
Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response We want to make Santa Maria's streets safer for everyone! O 'scea�"i.•mu l�l
1 . R Js. 1' ' p
lot ntenetnse, wlvnny. snJ penwinng wfwas nkes
anpeor nm. oat LA° Ma°, r.u.b.11w Plan nag yea. Inner
gram opp nnnitnt and IAmas pnrmul pox. Ax avoid
eapr.ne °Wwav °lop w,,hn d. cay. 11., £l 4.11 br ia.wwJ ev l4rs:. yaek arey w.Jr sM iwwn, whJ. taas,,b,..
to rb. overall mental. pod. ,wrLned en esil'rn:sl4raeyu IUyhttAy Su I Wen b. toc,u• Jmu] penwnal.

J.mlfsvng eke re.pnsiNt 4.krfndJm I:w empl mentstten.Osp. ..rnplet.d. rM pin °O at n Jughas Asp. to nsbwe eke snow w. .Niue. WnemJ.n cede. ro dat nInt tans atern.'rv.t and
pwnvr r �+ wrr.nw4n.

We vest roue IJrn'
Click below to take our
survey.

Maria
inn C4y0rSint. Wean ea
Ontlelang* Local Rata
Safety plan to nnke
t�1nguW.afpN.rM
auessaa for
every.c Boamnathe
aaycs mCON arkwenne. fn.
writ.n> yaw
exaek e'
1111
eNews
Over the course of the project DKS provided content in the City's Community Newsletter. This included:
• Promote website launch,
• Provide information regarding the Plan process,
• Conduct community survey, and
• Promote opportunities to review proposed strategies and Plan documents.

Collateral Development & Translation Services
The project team developed the following materials and made them available in English and Spanish:

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

• Project (Plan) Description
• Frequently Asked Questions
Diversity and Inclusion Outreach
The team worked collaboratively with local churches, faith -based organizations, members of the Latinx community, and staff from the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments to ensure maximum participation across all socio-economic population groups. Opportunities for Spanish language meetings and one-on-one communication were provided throughout the engagement process.

COMMUNITY SURVEY
A community survey was created to understand stakeholder needs. The survey, available in English and Spanish, was distributed at the outreach events and is also available online. A total of 498 responses were recorded. Not all participants answered all questions. As such, the total number of responses for each question may be less than 498. The English and Spanish versions of the community survey are included in Appendix 2. A summary of the survey results is included in Appendix 1.3.

SURVEY RESPONDENTS
The voluntary survey had questions that helped assess the demographic makeup of respondents.

Survey respondents consisted of 58% females and 42% males. As shown in Figure 1, people between the ages of 25 and 34 was the largest group among the respondents. As shown in Figure 2, 62% of respondents identify as Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin and 29% of respondents identify as white. Thirteen respondents reported they use an assistive mobility device: six use a wheelchair or mobility scooter, five use a walker, support cane, crutches, forearm crutches, or similar, and two use a service dog or a human guide. The majority of respondents live in Santa Maria, with a roughly even distribution between the northwest, northeast, southwest, and southeast parts of the City. The distribution of work locations is more varied, with 27% of respondents working outside of the City. These results are summarized in Figure 3.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 7

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00% •
17 years or
younger
18 - 24 years old 25 - 34 years old 35 - 44 years old 45 - 64 years old 64 - 74 years old 74 years or older FIGURE 1. AGE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
I
t -
American Indian Hispanic, Latinx, Asian Black or African Native Hawaiian White Not listed (please or Alaska Native or of Spanish American or Other Pacific specify) origin Islander
FIGURE 2. RACE AND ETHNICITY OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 8

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
1 Downtown (DT) Northwest Northeast (NE) Southwest (SW) Southeast (SE) I live outside of (NW) the city
0 Home Location • Work Location
FIGURE 3. HOUSEHOLD AND WORK LOCATIONS OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS

SAFETY CONCERNS
Respondents were asked if they avoid any modes of transportation due to roadway safety concerns.

As shown in Figure 4, nearly half of respondents avoid walking and biking. When asked which safety concerns cause the most safety issues, more than half of respondents identified driver inattention and speeding motorists. Among the respondents who have children, 62% did not know if their children receive roadway safety education at school. Only a quarter of the respondents' children walk or bike to school. These responses are shown in Figure 5 and Figure 6. These responses are consistent with responses found in the City's Active Transportation Plan community outreach surveys.

50.00%

45.00%

40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00%

20.00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0.00%
Walking
Biking Car (Driving) Public Transit Not Applicable Other (please (Bus) specify)
FIGURE 4. MODES AVOIDED DUE TO SAFETY CONCERNS
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
9 70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00-

0.00 Yes
No Not Applicable
FIGURE 5. RESPONSES WHETHER RESPONDENTS KNOW IF THEIR CHILDREN RECEIVE ROADWAY

EDUCATION

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20.00%

10.00%

0.00%
1 Yes
No
Not Applicable
FIGURE 6. RESPONSES TO WHETHER RESPONDENTS' CHILDREN WALK OR BIKE TO SCHOOL DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS AND ENFORCEMENT
Respondents were also asked which roadway safety improvements they would and would not support. More than half of respondents expressed support for installation of bike lanes, sidewalks, and protected crosswalks, as shown in Figure 7. A third of the respondents were not opposed to any of the suggested improvements, but a quarter of the respondents expressed concerns about installing speed bumps and speed cameras, as shown in Figure 8. More than half of the respondents expressed that enforcement should focus on impaired/drunk drivers, speeding, and distracted drivers, as shown in Figure 9.

Speed Bumps
Speed Cameras
Roundabouts
Bike Lanes
Sidewalks
Prohibiting Trucks
Electronic Variable Message Signs (e.g., speed warnings) Protected Crosswalks
Signalizing Intersections
More Street Lighting
Reducing Speed Limits
All of the above
Other (please specify)

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
FIGURE 7. ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS RESPONDENTS WOULD SUPPORT Speed Bumps m•
Speed Cameras
Roundabouts
Bike Lanes
Sidewalks
Prohibiting Trucks
Electronic Variable Message Signs (e.g., speed warnings) Protected Crosswalks
Signalizing Intersections
More Street Lighting
Reducing Speed Limits
None
Other (please specify) •

0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00%
FIGURE 8. ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS RESPONDENTS WOULD NOT SUPPORT DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 11

Impaired/Drunk Drivers Enforcement
Speed Limit Enforcement
Red -Light Enforcement
Bicycle Enforcement (cite bicyclist for not properly using the rules of road)
Distracted Driver Enforcement (motorists using
cellphones, etc.)
Other (please specify) ,

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00%
FIGURE 9. TOPICS ENFORCEMENT SHOULD FOCUS ON TO IMPROVE ROADWAY SAFETY In summary, a representative sample of Santa Maria's population were surveyed that closely mirrors the City's overall ethnic and demographic profile. The surveys provided the following key input to inform the plan's development:

Most Vulnerable Modes of Travel / Users - Top Safety Concerns:
• Pedestrians
• Bicyclists
Improvement Types Most Supported:
• Bike Lanes and Sidewalks
• Protected Crosswalks
• Street Lighting
Improvement Types Least Supported:
• Speed Bumps and Speed Cameras
• Reducing Speed Limits
• Truck Prohibitions
Desire Law Enforcement Focus:
• Distracted Drivers
• Impaired Drivers
• Speed Limit Enforcement
• Red Light Enforcement
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 12

SANTA MARIA ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2020)
The Active Transportation Plan was an effort to update the 2009 Bikeway Master Plan and develop a performance -based approach to quantify the societal benefits of the project recommendations, including a citywide analysis of collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists, identification of active transportation projects, and development of a project prioritization process based on factors such as activity generators, safety, equity, level of traffic stress, and community input. The City's 2020 ATP included a significant safety analysis of pedestrian- and bicycle -involved crashes, as well as project identifications. This analysis was combined with updated data and broader analysis to provide a more comprehensive assessment utilized as part of this Plan.

DATA SUMMARY

DATA SOURCES
To support the project analysis, a variety of information related to the existing conditions such as existing safety issues (obtained through collision data) is required. This information was compiled from different sources, including the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and Crossroads (a third -party crash record processing application). The crash data analyzed for this project included all crashes recorded in SWITRS for calendar year 2013 through 2021 for the City of Santa Maria and data from Crossroads for calendar year 2015 through 2021. These datasets were analyzed to identify patterns in collision characteristics, including primary collision factor, severity, and alcohol involvement.

The SWITRS is a database' that serves as a means to collect and process California crash data gathered from a collision scene. SWITRS processes all reported crashes that occurred on California's state highways and all other roadways, excluding private property. SWITRS allows for the creation of custom reports requested by the user based on different criteria including, but not limited to locations, dates, and collision types.

CRASH RECORD DATA
Crash records are available categorized at three different levels: by collision, by party (vehicle), and by victim. All three levels are linked by a unique Case ID for each collision. Crash records provide all data collected by the reporting officer, including crash identification (jurisdiction, route and postmile, location, date, time), demographics (sex, age, race, sobriety, safety equipment usage), environmental (lighting, weather, road surface), and crash details (primary collision factor, type of 1 https://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/index.jsp
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 13

collision, vehicle/party type, severity). The codebook detailing the SWITRS crash record data and format is available on the SWITRS website.

For this project and most other safety analyses, the collision severity is defined in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) as follows:
• Fatal injury: A collision that results in the death of a person within 30 days of the collision. • Severe (incapacitating) injury: A collision that results in broken bones, dislocation, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness, but not death.
• Other visible (non -incapacitating) injury: A collision that results in other visible injuries, including minor lacerations, bruising, and rashes.
• Possible injury (complaint of pain): A collision that results in the complaint of non -visible pain/injury, such as confusion, limping, and soreness.
• Property damage only (PDO): A collision without injury or complaint of pain but resulting in property damage to a vehicle or other object, commonly referred to as a "fender bender."2

EXISTING CONDITIONS
For the LRSP, all collision data was analyzed. A particular focus was placed on fatal and severe injury collisions. Table 1 shows the distribution of all collisions by collision severity and the distribution of bike- and pedestrian -involved collisions by severity.

TABLE 1. COLLISION SEVERITY (SWITRS DATA 2013 -JULY 2021)

CATEGORY

SEVERITY TOTAL
0/0

PED/BIKE
%
1 Fatal 22 0% 11 2%
2 Injury (Severe) 169 1% 75 11%
3 Injury (Other Visible) 690
5%
180 27%
4 Injury (Complaint of Pain) 2,486 19% 272 42%
O PDO 9,839 75% 116 18%
Total
13,206 654
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates 2021
Figure 10 shows the distribution of collisions by severity. There is a significant increase in overall severity for bike- and pedestrian -involved collisions, particularly for Fatal and Severe Injury collisions.
2 PDO collisions do not include mechanical issues, such as a flat tire unless the failure results in a collision with another vehicle or object.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 14

Bike & Ped Collisions All Collisions
Fatal Injury (Severe)
Injury (Other
2% Fatal 1% Visible)
411! 0%
S%
/Injury (Complaint of
161
Pain)
19%
injury (Complaint of
Pain)
42%
FIGURE 10. DISTRIBUTION OF COLLISIONS BY SEVERITY (SWITRS DATA) Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates 2021
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 15

Table 2 shows the distribution of collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Violation category for all collisions using both the SWITRS and Crossroads datasets.

TABLE 2. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORIES

PCF VIOLATION CATEGORY COLLISIONS
N/AB

UNSAFE SPEED
2,909 22%
2,538 19%

IMPROPER TURNING
1,992 15%

AUTOMOBILE RIGHT OF WAY
1,653 12%

DRIVING OR BICYCLING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
1,002 8%

TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
767 6%

UNSAFE STARTING OR BACKING
740 6%

UNKNOWN
319 2%

UNSAFE LANE CHANGE
319 2%

WRONG SIDE OF ROAD
200 2%

FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
197 1%

DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE

NOT STATED

PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY

IMPROPER PASSING

PEDESTRIAN VIOLATION
156 1%
88 1%
87 1%
82 1%
80 1%
TOTALa 13,330
a This is the total for all collisions, but not all PCF Violation categories are displayed PCF not reported. See Section DETAILED SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING CROSSROADS Source: SWITRS; Crossroads; DKS Associates, 2021
The SWITRS dataset alone showed over 35% of collisions had a PCF Violation of "N/A" for both categories, but after cross-referencing Crossroads data, all but 40 collisions with a PCF Violation of "N/A" from the 2015-2021 period were resolved. Almost all the 22% of collisions with a PCF violation category of "N/A" are from 2013-2014, which is not covered by the Crossroads data.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Table 3 shows the distribution of collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Violation category for only Fatal and Severe Injury collisions using both the SWITRS and Crossroads datasets.

TABLE 3. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORIES (FATAL & SEVERE

COLLISIONS)

PCF VIOLATION CATEGORY COLLISIONS
%
N/AA
51 26%

DRIVING OR BICYCLING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
24 12%

AUTOMOBILE RIGHT OF WAY
22 11%

PEDESTRIAN VIOLATION
22 11%

UNSAFE SPEED
20 10%

IMPROPER TURNING
19 10%
PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY 9
5%

TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
8 4%
UNKNOWN 5
3%

WRONG SIDE OF ROAD
4 2%

DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE
3 2%

UNSAFE STARTING OR BACKING
3 2%

IMPROPER PASSING
2 1%

OTHER THAN DRIVER (OR PEDESTRIAN)
2 1%
TOTAL 191
a PCF not reported. See Section DETAILED SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING CROSSROADS Source: SWITRS; Crossroads; DKS Associates, 2021
Like the results for all collision severities, the majority (all but one) of the Fatal and Severe Injury collisions with a PCF Violation category of "N/A" in the SWITRS dataset were resolved after cross- referencing with Crossroads data. The remaining "N/A" collisions are from 2013-2014, which is not covered by the Crossroads data.

Figure 11 shows the distribution of collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation category using the combined SWITRS and Crossroads datasets. After "N/A", the highest PCF Violation categories for all collisions are Unsafe Speed, Improper Turning, and Automobile Right of Way, which comprises almost half of all collisions. However, when analyzing solely Fatal and Severe Injury collisions, the distribution shifts towards Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence and the Pedestrian categories.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 17

Fatal & Severe Collisions All Collisions
■ N/A
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
■ Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug • Traffic Signals and Signs ■ Unsafe Starting or Backing • Pedestrian Violation
• Pedestrian Right of Way • Other
FIGURE 11. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION Source: SWITRS; Crossroads; DKS Associates, 2021
2020 TRAVEL BEHAVIOR IMPACTS
In 2020, travel behavior saw shifts due to lockdowns and building capacity restrictions, among other changes. For the LRSP, collision data was analyzed from 2013 to 2021, including 2020. In the case that 2020 data shows significant outliers, a yearly breakdown of Collision Severity was examined.

Figure 12 shows the number of collisions by year and severity. Figure 13 shows the percentage of collisions by year and severity. Although the overall number of collisions in 2020 saw a decrease compared to previous years, it does not differ significantly. The percentage breakdown of severity in 2020 is very similar to other years. Based on these trends, it is unlikely the 2020 data will compromise the accuracy of the analysis.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 18

1800
1600
1 c 1
Un
0 1400
200
000
800
400
200
600
0 1
310
2013 2014 2015
29 1
221
�o
9-
229
#8�
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■Fatal ■Injury (Severe) ❑Injury (Other Visible) Injury (Complaint of Pain) •PDO FIGURE 12. NUMBER OF COLLISIONS BY YEAR AND SEVERITY
*Note that 2021 only has data up until mid -July
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021
FIGURE 13. PERCENTAGE OF COLLISIONS BY YEAR AND SEVERITY Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
19 HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN)
Collision data was analyzed to identify a High Injury Network (HIN) of corridors and intersections with high numbers of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions. This analysis was performed for total Fatal and Severe Injury collisions and additionally for just bike- and pedestrian -involved collisions.

ALL COLLISIONS
Table 4 and Table 5 show the top 10 corridors and intersections, respectively, based on the number of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions. Shaded facilities are within the State's (Caltrans) right-of-way.

TABLE 4. TOP 10 CORRIDORS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (2013-7/2021) STREET NAME LIMIT 1
LIMIT 2 FATAL SEVERE TOTAL

STOWELL RD
Broadway
Bradley Rd 0 13 13

BROADWAY
Stowell Rd
Enos Dr 2 6 8

DONOVAN RD
Pine St
College Dr 1 7 8

BLOSSER RD
Main St
Stowell Rd 4 3 7

MCCOY LN
Professional Pkwy Caballero Ln
2 4 6

BROADWAY
Newlove Dr
Inger Dr 1 5 6

BROADWAY
Dal Porto
McCoy Ln 1 5 6

COOK ST
Oakley Ave
Broadway 1 5 6

BROADWAY
Morrison Ave
Stowell Rd 0 6 6

MAIN ST
Pine St
College Dr 0 6 6
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021; Shaded rows are located within Caltrans ROW and require Caltrans coordination TABLE 5. TOP 10 INTERSECTIONS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (2013-7/2021) STREET 1
STREET 2 FATAL SEVERE TOTAL

BROADWAY
STOWELL RD 0 4 4
r— BROADWAY
MCCOY LN 1 3 4

BROADWAY

BROADWAY
ENOS DR 1 2 3
NEW LOVE DR 0 3 3
ORCHARD ST 1 1 2
INGER DR 1 1 2

BLOSSER RD
BETTERAVIA RD 0 2 2

LBROADWAY
III COLLEGE DR MAIN ST 0 2 2
1 OAKLEY AVE MAIN ST 0 2 2
BETTERAVIA RD 0 2 2
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021; Shaded rows are located within Caltrans ROW and require Caltrans coordination DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 20

Figure 14 shows a map of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions. Thicker lines denote higher numbers of collisions.
o1IRd
1 W Taylor St
Pa NSS°ID N
z
at
9 Wal ark
Neighborhood I kepi.
env Pewr'ca p4
z
▪ x d
Q 1T.S1 o.
k'Faac.St
a
Sa
Ita Maria Inn
Santa Maria
Airport
9 W Stvnell
W Eno: 0
E Main St
vt to
7 A N
2 ac
e .5
N y 7)
O a
E Stowell Rd
2 t
.(.a Rd 2
holesale9
.ettetrt"a Rd Betters ie RA
Rotary
Centennial
Y1 McCoy Park and
Robin...
0; Qw�
b
Surf
Waller Park
FIGURE 14. MAP OF HIGH INJURY CORRIDORS
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
21 BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
Bike- and pedestrian -involved collisions were analyzed separately to identify corridors and intersections with high numbers of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions involving bikes or pedestrians.

Table 6 shows the top 10 corridors based on the number of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions involving bikes or pedestrians. Shaded facilities are within the State's (Caltrans) right-of-way.

TABLE 6. TOP 10 CORRIDORS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (BIKE & PED) (2013-7/2021) STREET NAME LIMIT 1
LIMIT 2 FATAL SEVERE TOTAL

BROADWAY
Orchard St Alvin Ave 1 6 7

BROADWAY
Newlove Dr
Inger Dr 1 4 5

BLOSSER RD
Church St
Boone St 2 2 4

NEWLOVE DR
Broadway
Miller St 1 3 4

COOK ST
Depot St
Broadway 0 4 4

BROADWAY
Williams St
Donovan 1 2 3

MILLER ST
Enos Dr
Newlove Dr 1 2 3

ORCHARD ST
Broadway
Miller St 1 2 3

COLLEGE DR
Chapel St
Main St 0 3 3

MAIN ST
Elizabeth St College Dr 0 3 3
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021; Shaded rows are located within Caltrans ROW and require Caltrans coordination Table 7 shows the top 5 intersections based on the number of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions involving Bikes or Pedestrians.

TABLE 7. TOP INTERSECTIONS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (BIKE & PED) (2013- 7/2021)
STREET 1
STREET 2 FATAL SEVERE TOTAL

BROADWAY
NEWLOVE DR 0 3 3

BROADWAY
INGER DR 1 1 2

BROADWAY
ORCHARD ST 1 1 2

BLOSSER RD
COOK ST 1 1 2
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021; Shaded rows are located within Caltrans ROW and require Caltrans coordination Figure 15 shows a map of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions for just bike- and pedestrian -involved collisions. Thicker lines denote higher numbers of collisions.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 22

cr
m
z
W Tap or SI
Walmark
Neighborhood M rke•
ce
r
z
0 2
E Oono'ran At!
?z
}
k Foslc� St y s
C,
Sauter Marie
Gomm
Santa Maria Inn P
1n
a.
a.

YY S`ovnrll Rd
-71
Santa Maria
Airport
W Enos Or
'/1 McCoy In
i
1 E Stowell Rd
N
ti
l sRd o
holesale9
Waller Park
AAz
a.

E Main SI
7,
E Stowell Rd
gettaa•,3 Rd Rettrrawe Rd
Rotary
Centennial
Park and
Robin...
0,
, wits.
n
FIGURE 15. MAP OF BIKE- AND PED-INVOLVED HIGH INJURY COLLISIONS Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Cm
I °
° ° 0
•
08 00 8
°
•
000 000x0
Taylor Rd 98 00g 9
b°
0 p 005
Donovan Rd
41%.
_ Main Street Q
/ - r -. r
— 1
P
I `I „ 1
1 I 11 I
n /V
Stowell Rd — • °
1 1
1 0 1� 0 o ,
I zL o $0
I 00 0 lig 9 §
I 0O
000 °c O®
o
Betteravia Rd, _ 0 °
0010 oo e 0 0
0 p o
/ 0 0 °
/
/
Legend
Intersection Crashes
O
0 •
•
•
•
•
•
1 13
26 39
52 65
78 91
0 0 0
0 0
O
•
ar or .
• .J °° co ® I
°
•
•
o
•
•
0 .
00 N.
0_ 00 °
N.
8 0
8 0 0 0 0 `
° ° 0 ••••
o 0

0.8g
g0 Q0 o `.
000° 0 8
° 8 0 O°° ° 8 8 0 ° ° d`.
000 0° I ` S.
0 0 0 I . \'
00 0 00 o8 L •
0 00 n I
8 0-'-0-•
0 i
000 w°0o°o1 .
0 m 8 O 8 0- —00
0 01
0I
® 0 0I
0 • _ 000 .01
I
®0 00
0 0°
4 0 dy
° w • f°
• r , o, ,
60� b` 1
c , •1
0 0 o
‘,I
•
FIGURE 16. MAP OF INTERSECTION COLLISIONS
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, Kimley-Horn, 2021
Betteravia Rd
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 24

Legend
Mid -block Crashes
-o
1-2
3-4
ao 5-6
7-8
Betteravia Rd
Main Street
4-
f
H
r — — _
s.
-
Betteravia Rd
A
FIGURE 17. MAP OF MIDBLOCK COLLISIONS
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, Kimley-Horn, 2021
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
25 Bike- and pedestrian -involved fatal and severe injury collisions were also mapped alongside schools, parks, and senior living facilities/communities. See Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10.

TABLE 8. PEDESTRIAN -INVOLVED COLLISION PROXIMITY TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS

DISTANCE
COLLISIONS % OF TOTAL
PARKS
WITHIN 3 BLOCKS
18 29%
MORE THAN 3 BLOCKS
44 71%

SCHOOLS
WITHIN 3 BLOCKS
27 44%
MORE THAN 3 BLOCKS
35 56%
TOTAL PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS 62
TABLE 9. BICYCLE -INVOLVED COLLISION PROXIMITY TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS

DISTANCE
COLLISIONS % OF TOTAL
PARKS
WITHIN 3 BLOCKS
7 29%
MORE THAN 3 BLOCKS
17 71%

SCHOOLS
WITHIN 3 BLOCKS
8 33%
MORE THAN 3 BLOCKS
16 67%
TOTAL BICYCLE COLLISIONS 24
TABLE 10. ELDERLY PEDESTRIAN COLLISION PROXIMITY TO SENIOR FACILITIES

DISTANCE
COLLISIONS % OF TOTAL
Age 55+
WITHIN 2 BLOCKS
5 20%
MORE THAN 2 BLOCKS

TOTAL COLLISIONS,
PEDESTRIANS AGED 55+
20 80%
25 Age 55-75
WITHIN 2 BLOCKS
5 23%
MORE THAN 2 BLOCKS
17 77%

TOTAL COLLISIONS,
PEDESTRIANS AGED 55-75
22 DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 26

DETAILED SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING CROSSROADS
The same SWITRS and Crossroads datasets reported previously was further analyzed to create a spatial analysis of collisions in the City of Santa Maria. Intersections and roadways were analyzed using the following four collision metrics described in Chapter 4 of the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). • Number of Collisions
• Critical Crash Rate
• Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion • Equivalent Property Damage Only
The initial steps of the collision analysis established sub -populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this study, intersections were grouped by their control type (Signalized, Unsignalized, Roundabout) and segments by their roadway category (Arterial, Collector, Minor Collector, Local). Individual collision rates were calculated for each sub - population. The population level crash rates were then used to assess whether a specific location has more or fewer crashes than expected. These sub -populations were also used to determine typical crash patterns to help identify locations where unusual numbers of specific crash types are seen. The key metrics used in this analysis are described below.

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

Probability of Specific Crash Types Exceeding Threshold Proportion: The network screening process ranks intersections and roadway segments by the number of crashes that occurred at each one over the analysis period, and then identifies areas that had more of a given type of crash than would be expected for that type of location. These crash type factors were:
1) Collision Injury
a. Fatal
b. Serious Injury
c. Other Visible Injury
d. Complaint of Pain
e. Property Damage Only
2) Collision Type
a. Broadside
b. Rear -End
c. Sideswipe
d. Head -On
e. Hit Object
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 27

f. Overturned
g. Bicycle
h. Pedestrian
i. Other
3) Environmental Factors
a. Lighting
b. Wet Roads
4) Driver Behavior
a. Impaired
b. Aggressive
c. Distracted Driving
A threshold proportion is then determined for the specific collision type (the HSM suggests utilizing the proportion of the collision type observed in the entire reference population - in this case the entire City of Santa Maria). These proportions are then utilized to determine the probability that the proportion of a specific crash type is greater than the long-term expected proportion of that crash type. With these additional factors, collision locations were further analyzed and assigned a new rank.

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

This metric allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4).

This finer granularity of analysis provides additional information on the collision characteristics for roadways segment and intersections respectively. The results of this analysis are described below.

ROADWAY SEGMENTS
An analysis of collisions that occurred along roadway segments more than 250 -feet from intersections showed a concentration of collisions along main roadways such as Broadway, Blosser Road, and Santa Maria Way. There were also several local roadway segments that had a concentration of collisions including La Brea Avenue, Topaz Way, and Panther Drive. The most common collision types along roadway segments were sideswipes, rear -ends, and hit object collisions. Injuries were generally less severe in the roadway collisions, with no fatalities or severe injuries occurring on roadway segments. There were few pedestrian and bicycle collisions along roadways, with those generally occurring along Principal and Minor Arterials such as Broadway and Depot Street.

Table 11 shows 5 roadways segments from different functional classification types that are representative of the most common factors on the City's roads. Shaded facilities are within the State's (Caltrans) right-of-way.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTIONS
An analysis of collisions within a 250 -foot radius of signalized intersections showed the largest concentration of collisions along Santa Maria's arterials, including Broadway, Betteravia Road, Main Street, and Bradley Road. The most common collision types at signalized intersections were broadsides, rear -ends, and sideswipes. Signals along Broadway in particular showed the highest collision activity, with 6 out of the 10 highest collision intersections along Broadway. Collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians were also concentrated along these arterials and in particular, along Broadway and Main Street shows 5 intersections that are representative of the most common factors at the City's signalized intersections.

An analysis of collisions within a 250 -foot radius of unsignalized intersections, showed a similar pattern with the highest concentrations of collisions along arterials such as Broadway and Main Street where traffic volumes are also highest. However, there was also locations along smaller roads, such as Miller Street, Blosser Road, and Morrison Avenue with higher numbers of crashes. The most common collision types at unsignalized locations were broadsides, rear -ends, and sideswipes. Eight out of the 10 highest collision intersections are two-way stops. Collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians were concentrated on arterials such as Broadway, as well as smaller roadways such as Morrison Avenue and Newlove Drive.

Table 11 shows a complete listing of City intersections by control type that are representative of the most common factors at City intersections. Shaded facilities are within the State's (Caltrans) right-of-way.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
29 TABLE 11. INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS
Location
No.

Location
No. of
Collisions
Local Critical
Crash
Rate3(CCR)
Differential
Equivalent
Property
Damage
g
Only
(EPDO)
Notes
Other Principal Arterial
1 BROADWAY: NEWLOVE DR

TO BATTLES RD
8 1.30
23 High EPDO; high
number of rear -ends
and aggressive
collisions
Minor Arterial
2 MAIN ST: BRADLEY RD TO

NICHOLSON AVE
3 0.50
3 Collisions occurring
between freeway
ramps
Major Collector
3 BRADLEY RD: AUTO PLAZA

DR TO BETTERAVIA RD
8 2 80
18 High number of rear -
ends; higher EPDO
4 SANTA MARIA WY: SUNRISE

DR TO DAUPHIN ST
4 0.70
34 High EPDO and high
number of broadside
collisions
Local Road
5 PANTHER DR: DOMINGUES

ST TO ALCALA DR
4 2.0
24 High EPDO; near
Pioneer Valley High
School
Signalized Intersections
1 BROADWAY & STOWELL RD
91 0.33
396
High number of rear -
end and aggressive -
related collisions
2 MAIN ST & BLOSSER RD
83 0.05
188
High number of
broadside and
sideswipe collisions
3 BRADLEY RD &

BETTERAVIA RD
74 1.66
368
High local CCR
differential and high
number of aggressive
driving collisions
3 https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec2.cfm DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
30 Location
No.

Location
No. of
Collisions
Local Critical
Crash
Rate3(CCR)
Differential
Equivalent
Property
Damage
Only
(EPDO)
Notes
4 BROADWAY RRDD & PREISKER
62 0.83
444
Fatality and severe
injury; high number of
rear -end and
aggressive driving
collisions
5 BROADWAY & WILLIAMS
ST
50 0.38
282
2 pedestrian & 3
bicycle collisions
Unsignalized Intersections
1 CONCEPCIOST VE & MAIN
33 0.50
102
High number of
collisions, mainly
broadside. High EPDO
2 BROADWAY

AVEMCELHANY
31 0.10
75 High number of
broadside and
sideswipe collisions
3 MILLER ST & ALVIN AVE
29 0.40
44 All way stop with high
number of collisions
4 BLACK RD & STOWELL RD
26 1.20
61 T -intersection with
high number of
collisions
5 BROADWAY & ORCHARD ST
23 0.23
271
One fatality; 2
pedestrian and 3
bicycle collisions
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 31

2020 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
In November 2020, the City of Santa Maria adopted a new Active Transportation Plan. As part of the plan, a collision analysis of SWITRS data from 2013 to 2017 was performed for bicycle and pedestrian collisions. The result of this analysis helps to describe the High Injury Network for bicyclists and pedestrians in the City. Table 12 and Table 13 show the top pedestrian and bicycle collision intersections, respectively. Table 14 shows the three corridors in Santa Maria had the highest rates of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Shaded facilities are within the State's (Caltrans) right-of-way.

A pedestrian and bicycle heat map based on the 2013-17 data is provided in Figure 18. Figure 19 shows the pedestrian movement just preceding the pedestrian collision. Figure 20 shows the effect of lighting on pedestrian and bicycle collisions respectively. Public perception of where pedestrian and bicycle safety issues are is shown in Figure 21.

TABLE 12. TOP PEDESTRIAN COLLISION INTERSECTIONS

INJURY SEVERITY

PRIMARY SECONDARY

ROAD ROAD

PROPERTY COMPLAINT OTHER

DAMAGE OF PAIN VISIBLE

SEVERE FATAL
TOTAL

BROADWAY WILLIAMS ST
0 2 1 0 0 3
MAIN ST MILLER ST 1 2 0 0 0 3
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 TABLE 13. TOP BICYCLE COLLISION INTERSECTIONS

PRIMARY SECONDARY

ROAD ROAD

INJURY SEVERITY

PROPERTY COMPLAINT OTHER

DAMAGE OF PAIN VISIBLE

SEVERE FATAL
TOTAL

ALVIN AVE
LINCOLN ST 1 2 0 0 0 3
BROADWAY GRANT ST 1 1 2 0 0 4
BROADWAY FESLER ST 2 2 0 0 0 4
BROADWAY WILLIAMS ST 0 0 2 0 1 3
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 TABLE 14. TOP INTERSECTION COLLISION CORRIDORS
PRIMARY ROAD LIMIT la
LIMIT 2a BICYCLIST PEDESTRIAN TOTAL

COLLISIONS COLLISIONS

BROADWAY
TAYLOR ST BETTERAVIA RD 35 31 66

MAIN ST BLOSSER RD
US 101 18 17 35

MILLER ST
DONOVAN RD BETTERAVIA RD 16 13 29
TOTAL COLLISIONS 69 61 130
a Approximate limit based on high collision corridors and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision heat map from the 2020 City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 32

Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 stet..

T 1�
14 S:,A°elI f?, 2
OA
di E31iNri,'ly F;7
M . ,
_~lN�
. Y
u"p
FIGURE 18. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISION HEAT MAP (2013-17) E 3t0auE.II F;d
E EaJt va'.1a h'd
EMainS.1
Pr I! Rd
'rear 2013-2017
Collision Density Heat
Ail ap
Low
1 Hgh
Road
Q City Boundary
Awe M
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
33 120
100
80 60
40 9
106
1 Total
73 25
19 FIGURE 19. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT PRECEDING COLLISION
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 Dark • No Street
tights • 3% 8l
Dark • Street lights
29% (67)
Dusk or Dawn
4%(10)
Daylight
64%048)
■ Not Stated
•Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
■ Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
=Crossing Not in Crosswalk
■ In Road, Including Shoulder
■ Not in Road
Js�•AvSUfK1
Dark • Street lights l Ott • 2%(3)
16% (36)
Dusk a OavM
6%04)
0ay1gN
76%067)
FIGURE 20. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISION BY LIGHTING CONDITION Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 34

E Donovan
F 1�
0tr.- •
W Mai St 4 C
Cg= o 0 0 O
s
AO r �,f f �; i,. z,
g Q
O 0
0 0 0 6
O O 00 G - O 00 C O
C
0 CI= O 0 i�nOn c
t F101
OP
\l' Betteravia_Rd
Data De:taim±r
There en wtdttipup mitts"
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 Legend
Sticker Type
Bicycle Safety
Issue or Bicycle
Improvement
Needed
Parking Issue or
Parking
Improvement
Needed
S
•
FIGURE 21. PUBLIC PERCEPTION (SOURCE: SANTA MARIA ATP)
Pedestrian Safety
Issue or
Q Pedestrian
Improvement
Needed
Roads
City Boundary
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas provide a strategic framework for developing and implementing strategies and actions for the LRSP. Emphasis Areas provide quantifiable and achievable goals for each identified crash type and were developed based on the results of crash data analysis and input from staff, stakeholders, and the public. For the development of strategies, the Emphasis Areas were categorized into three broader groups that are described below.

VULNERABLE USERS
Vulnerable road users can be characterized by the amount of protection they have when using the transportation system. For example, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists are more exposed than people in vehicles, making them more susceptible to injury in the event of a crash. In Santa Maria, vulnerable modes make up 45% of all Fatal or Severe Injury crashes. Aging drivers and pedestrians can also be more vulnerable to severe injuries when a crash occurs. For this category, the following Emphasis Areas were identified:
• Bicyclists
• Pedestrians
• Seniors

RISKY BEHAVIORS
Reductions in fatalities and serious injuries can be accomplished by deterring unsafe or risky behaviors made by drivers and other transportation users. For this category, the following Emphasis Areas were identified:
• Impaired Driving
• Distracted Driving

STRATEGIES
Each Emphasis Area includes a set of strategies and responsible stakeholders, along with a preliminary set of actions that will help to achieve or advance the identified goal statements.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
36 VULNERABLE USERS

BICYCLISTS
This emphasis area focuses on crashes which involve someone riding a bicycle. About 90% of fatal and severe injury collisions involving bicyclists occurred on arterial or collector roadways. On these types of roadways, bicycle facilities place users in proximity with fast moving cars with little to no protection, making riders vulnerable to severe injuries in the event of a collision. Crash data show that while only 2.54% of all collisions in Santa Maria involved bicycles, bicyclists are involved in 15% of all fatalities and 10% of all severe injuries. This is much greater than the state average of only 4% of fatalities and 8% of severe injuries involving bicyclists. Older riders are also three times more likely for a crash to result in fatalities or severe injuries. According to the Community Survey, 41% of respondents avoid biking due to roadway safety concerns.

Promote bicycle helmet use and distribute helmets through community events and engage in regular bike safety campaigns using City social media platforms (Education) The City could run promotions that focus on lack of helmets, increasing understanding of the benefits from helmet use, and countering misconceptions about helmet use. Although this strategy has been shown to be more expensive and not as effective as laws mandating adult helmet usage, no States have yet enacted laws requiring adults to wear bicycle helmets, few local jurisdictions 4 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, April 2020
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 37

require people of all ages to wear helmets when bicycling 15 and there is concern that a mandate could decrease bicycle activity.

Provide alternative repercussions for minors bicycling without a helmet, including bicycle traffic school and temporary tickets that can be reversed with receipt of purchase of a bicycle helmet (Enforcement)

PEDESTRIANS
0 This emphasis area focuses on crashes involving someone walking. Pedestrians are some of the most vulnerable users of a roadway network, more likely resulting in fatal or severe injuries. Pedestrian -involved crashes make up less than 3% of total �U �Q crashes but 28% of fatalities and severe injuries. Almost 40% of all pedestrian - involved fatalities and severe injuries occurred when pedestrians attempted an uncontrolled mid -block crossing (not at an intersection). Pedestrian -involved crashes occurring when pedestrians crossed not at a crosswalk are twice as likely to result in a fatal or severe injury as those that occurred in a crosswalk. Data also showed that pedestrians between the age of 55 and 75 make up about 30% of all fatal or severe pedestrian -involved collisions, but only make up 13% of the population, which is a much higher share than any other age group. Of that 30%, about 37% of collisions occurred when crossing in a crosswalk, while about 37% were crossing not in a crosswalk.

Also, about 22% of those collisions were within 2 blocks of a senior living facility/community.

According to the Community Survey, 45% of respondents avoid walking due to roadway safety concerns.

Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash rates for pedestrians below Statewide average rates by 2035 Strategies
Provide safe crossing opportunities at or near locations with high pedestrian -crossing violation occurrences (Engineering)
Pedestrian -crossing violations most often occur at locations where there are established pedestrian desire lines to points of interest and a pedestrian would either have to wait too long or walk too far for a safe crossing opportunity (i.e., undue detour). In places where there is high pedestrian demand and no nearby safe crossing opportunities, addition of protected crossings would improve connectivity and safety. Caltrans has previously included $250,000 in HSIP set - aside grant funding per jurisdiction for improved pedestrian crossings that is not subject to competitive benefit cost ratio thresholds. In the Community Survey, 53% of respondents expressed support for installation of protected crosswalks (striping with flashing beacons). • In locations where sufficient crossings exist or where isolated pedestrian crossings could add a safety concern, based on vehicle speed, line of sight, or other factors, median fences could provide an impediment to pedestrian -crossing violations. (Engineering)
Fences should only be installed where desire lines of high volume pedestrian crossings cannot be safely accommodated by installation of crossing treatments and where there is an existing curbed median to avoid blocking fire access.
5 NHTSA 812478 - Countermeasures That Work, 9th Edition, 2017 DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

• Improve pedestrian safety at high crash occurrence intersections and corridors (Engineering)
The 2020 Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan has identified pedestrian oriented improvements located near recent pedestrian crashes. These projects include improved shared use paths, traffic calming and improved crossings. According to Caltrans, a 35%-55% reduction in crash occurrence can be achieved with the installation of Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacon (RRFBs) and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHBs)6. (LRSM IDs NS 21PB; NS22PB; NS23PB) There is also a 35% reduction in pedestrian crash occurrence for improved pedestrian crossing features including curb radius extension and curb extension, (LRSM ID R35PB) as well as a 35% reduction in pedestrian crash occurrence for installation of raised pedestrian crossing. (LRSM ID R36PB). In the Community Survey, 55% of respondents stated they would support installation of sidewalks. • Improve driver awareness of shared responsibility to be situationally aware and enhance road safety for all users. Use City social media outlet platforms to bring awareness and remind drivers of increased pedestrian activity at the beginning of school year. (Education)
Schools and jurisdictions should provide driver training to increase driver sensitivity to the presence of pedestrians and educate how to identify right of way laws regarding interactions between drivers and pedestrians as well as high risk behaviors. Pedestrian gap acceptance training can help pedestrians make better decisions when crossing roads, including improving pedestrian judgement of speed and distance of oncoming traffic.

SENIORS
O
This emphasis area focuses on crashes which involve someone 65 or older, as a driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist. Seniors are vulnerable to more severe injury and have more difficult recoveries than other roadway users. Seniors also typically have reduced reaction times and may not see small details as easily. The perceived safety risks of using alternative forms of transportation such as walking, biking, or transit can also influence seniors and limit their mode choices. An important component of safety analysis is to help preserve senior independence as long as possible by minimizing roadway conflicts and providing more time for decision making through signage and other tools.

Collisions involving aging roadway users, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes instances where the driver of the motor vehicles is 65 years or older. During the period of 2015-2019, 6% percent of the collisions in the City involved drivers 65 years or older. Of these 6% of collisions, half of these resulted in a fatality or severe injury and either involved a pedestrian or bicyclists. Of pedestrian and bicycle collisions, 30% resulted in a severe injury or fatality. Collisions involving seniors were mostly location in the Downtown Santa Maria area (i.e., Four -Corner Origin area), with concentrations on Main Street (SR 166) and Broadway (SR 135).

Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash rates involving seniors below Statewide average rates by 2035
6 Ca[trans Local Roadway Safety Manual, April 2020
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 39

• Enhance equitable access to the transportation system for senior users Strategies
• Strategies that have had success nationally include driver refresher courses, implementing technology in aging drivers' vehicles, and education campaigns to target aging drivers with messages regarding road safety, common mistakes, and challenges that aging drivers face. (Education)
• Improving driver awareness of the roadway on curves and where objects are located nearby to the roadway can be done with larger and simpler wayfinding and regulatory signage, retroreflective roadway markings and maintenance of signs and roadway striping (Engineering)
According to Caltrans, a 15% reduction in crash occurrence can be achieved with installation of delineators, reflectors and/or object markers. (LRSM ID R27) • Signal timing can be modified to ensure adequate crossing times for aging pedestrians, longer yellow and all -red times in areas with high senior use. (Engineering) Caltrans uses a 15% reduction in crash occurrence for improving signal timing, including coordination and modifying phases, but also only offers 50% funding (LRSM ID S03) • Strategies may also include focused training for enforcement officers to help them recognize when senior drivers are unable to continue driving safely, targeted enforcement of pedestrian right-of-way violations, and increased coordination with community organizations for implementation of training and monitoring programs. (Enforcement)

RISKY BEHAVIORS

IMPAIRED DRIVING
This emphasis area focuses on crashes in which the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). DUI crashes account for 9% of all crashes but make up 25% of fatal and severe injury crashes. In addition, the frequency of fatal and severe injury DUI crashes was disproportionally higher during weekends and late night/early morning (between 10 pm and 2 am) periods. Nearly half of all fatal and severe injury crashes during this period were DUIs, while only a fifth of fatal and severe injury crashes during the other time periods involved an impaired driver.

Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash rates from impaired driving below Statewide average rates by 2035
Strategies
• Continue DUI deterrence actions (Enforcement)
Publicized Sobriety Checkpoints
California is one of 38 states which allow for sobriety checkpoints. Each requires advance publication, neutral stopping criteria, and a reasonable location. However, checkpoints are often not used more frequently due to lack of personnel and/or funding. This is an effective approach, as Studies have shown that checkpoints can reduce alcohol -related fatal crashes by 9%, all alcohol related crashes by 17%, and all crashes by 10%-15%1.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

High -Visibility Saturation Patrols
This approach offers a lower cost, though less effective, alternative to checkpoints. Passive Alcohol Sensors (PAS) allow for probable cause during a sobriety checkpoint or stop.

Integrated Enforcement
DUI detection can be incorporated into special enforcement focused on speeding or seat belt nonuse, which has been found to be especially effective at night, as the behaviors are often related (one study showed 50% overlap between drivers that were speeding and those that were drinking. To fund enforcement efforts, Office of Traffic Safety grants should continue to be utilized. In the Community Survey, 52% of respondents expressed that enforcement should focus on impaired/drunk drivers to improve roadway safety. • Implement a mass media campaign including using City social media outlet platforms aiming to reduce alcohol -impaired driving (Education)
The City should engage bar and restaurant owners in outreach efforts and seek opportunities for public service informational signage (i.e., report DUI drivers signs) at high incident locations. The City should also consider running media campaigns, as they are a standard part of DUI -reducing efforts, with most states running annual campaigns. To fund enforcement efforts, Office of Traffic Safety grants can be utilized.
• Identify locations for repeat sobriety checkpoints and construct infrastructure that minimizes the future cost of implementing checkpoints (Engineering)

DISTRACTED DRIVING
This emphasis area focuses on crashes in which the driver was not paying attention. Collisions involving inattention account for 3.6% of all collision injuries but make up 6% of all fatalities and severe injuries. This indicates that inattention generally results in higher severity crashes. The data also shows that the frequency of fatal and severe injury crashes involving inattention are disproportionately higher during the early evening (between 6 PM and 8 PM). Nearly half of all fatal and severe injury crashes during this period involved inattention, while that period only accounts for a fifth of all fatal and severe collisions. 5.6% of all inattention collisions involved pedestrians or bicyclists, and 33% of those collisions resulted in severe injuries. 6.6% of all pedestrian or bicyclist collisions involved driver inattention. Collisions involving driver inattention occurred mostly in the Downtown Santa Maria area (Four -Corners Origin area), with concentrations along Broadway (SR 135) and Main Street (SR 166). Nearly three-quarters of Community Survey respondents stated that driver inattention causes roadway safety issues in Santa Maria.

Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash rates from distracted driving below Statewide average rates by 2035
• Identify sources of distraction and opportunities to re -focus drivers • Apply for funding through Office of Traffic Safety and other programs that fund education and enforcement initiatives targeting distracted driving
Strategies
• Address distracted driving collisions by implementing education campaigns that informs drivers the sources and dangers of distracted driving and to encourage drivers to travel DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 41

free of distractions. Provide awareness to resources to prevent distraction -free driving through apps or limitations on phones when driving (Education) • Age -specific educational campaigns (specifically for teen drivers) (Education) • High -visibility enforcement of distracted driving (cell phone/text messaging) in the City (Enforcement)
In the Community Survey, 57% of respondents expressed that enforcement should focus on distracted drivers to improve roadway safety.
• Implementation of countermeasures to improve alertness and reduce crashes associated with run-off road or cross center line where roadway configuration (Engineering)
Caltrans presents the following information related to countermeasures:

There is a 15% reduction in crash occurrence for installation of raised pavement markers (LRSM ID R27); a 20% reduction in crash occurrence for installation of centerline rumble strips/stripes (LRSM ID R30); and a 15% reduction in crash occurrence for installation of edgeline rumble strips/stripes. (LRSM ID R31)

INFRASTRUCTURE

INTERSECTIONS
This emphasis area focuses on crashes associated with intersection operations. Crashes observed in I Santa Maria associated with intersections are more than six times as likely to I I L result in fatal or severe injuries than other crashes. 89% of all collisions were l within 250 feet of an intersection. 91% of all pedestrian and bicycle collisions were within 250 feet of an intersection. 40% of all intersection collisions were at or near a signalized intersection.

1.5% of intersection collisions resulted in a fatal or severe injury. 88% of the fatal and severe injury collisions in Santa Maria were within 250 feet of an intersection. The most common types of fatal and severe injury intersection collisions include the following:
• Pedestrian collisions (34%)
• Broadside (28%)
Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash instances at intersections below Statewide average rates by 2035
• Improve intersection safety among all roadway users (motorist, pedestrians, and bicycle users) Strategies
Pursue opportunities to reduce conflicts between movements and users through engineering and regulatory measures, including introduction of roundabouts, Class I multi -use trails, marked crosswalks and/or protected crossings and installing separated intersections for bicyclists among others.
• Implementation of countermeasures to prioritize safe bicycle and pedestrian mobility through intersections (Engineering)
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 42

According to Caltrans, a 25% reduction in pedestrian crash occurrence can be achieved for installation of high visibility crossings at signalized intersections. (LRSM S18PB). In the Community Survey, 53% of respondents expressed support for installation of protected crosswalks (striping with flashing beacons). One example of this is introduction of a leading pedestrian interval. • Improvements in intersection geometry to provide safe routes serving schools and other primary locations (Engineering)
Caltrans uses a 45% reduction in pedestrian crash occurrence for installation of pedestrian refuges and/or raised medians at unsignalized intersections. (LRSM ID NS19PB) Curb extensions can also be included as an intersection improvement to reduce crossing length. • Implementation of countermeasures to increase and enhance intersection visibility (Engineering)
Caltrans states a 15% reduction in crash occurrence can be reached with improvement of signal hardware and appropriate treatments based on roadway size and speed, (LRSM ID S02) as well as a 40% reduction in night crash occurrences for installation of intersection lighting. (LRSM ID S01). In the Community Survey, 41% of respondents expressed support for installation of more street lighting.

Educational campaigns and enforcement activities to promote safer and proper stopping habits at stop signs and signals, rail crossings, and other points of conflict (Education & Enforcement)

IMPROVED DATA COLLECTION AND MANAGEMENT
While not identified by data or stakeholders, comprehensive data collection and data management is a critical part of evaluating safety in Santa Maria as well as ensuring that the effectiveness and success of the strategies outlined in this document and the eventual LRSP. Strategies that will help in this process include:

Goals
• Improve consistency, comprehensiveness, and access to crash data Strategies
Develop and implement an electronic reporting system to improve crash report timeliness, uniformity, accuracy, completeness, accessibility, and integration with related data sets (e.g., roadway inventory, traffic, public health) (Enforcement) Other data sources can potentially be used to improve comprehensiveness of crash data, including the FARS system, hospital case reporting, and insurance claims. • Evaluate type and extent of crash under -reporting and implement necessary actions to address the issue. (Enforcement)
• Collect data that helps safety data analysts and policy makers evaluate transportation safety equity. (Engineering)
• Re-evaluate collision trends and associated countermeasures every 5 years and update the Local Road Safety Plan and associated goals. (Engineering) DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

LOCATION -SPECIFIC COUNTERMEASURES
The upcoming HSIP funding cycle represents an opportunity to obtain funding and implement many of the engineering strategies for the highest priority locations identified through the process. The following section will provide countermeasures identified for each listed location along with the associated emphasis area addressed by the countermeasure.

BROADWAY CORRIDOR (US 101 TO BETTERAVIA RD)
Broadway is the main north -south Principal Arterial through Santa Maria and has regular signalized intersections along the entire corridor with a significant number of uncontrolled driveways and stop - controlled intersections between signals. The corridor generally has two to three travel lanes in each direction with a variety of median treatments including raised and landscaped medians, center two- way left -turn medians, and no median.

Broadway is a high priority corridor for vehicle-, pedestrian-, and bicycle -involved crashes, and many of the intersections along the corridor were identified as high crash frequency hotspots, including the following intersections:
• Broadway & Preisker Lane (Signalized)
• Broadway & Grant Street (Signalized)
• Broadway & Williams Street (Signalized)
• Broadway & Orchard Street (Unsignalized)
• Broadway & McElhany Avenue (Unsignalized)
• Broadway & Fesler Street (Signalized)
• Broadway & Stowell Road (Signalized)
This provides an opportunity for a systemic approach to improving intersections along the entire corridor with a combination of HSIP-eligible improvements. A package of projects for signalized intersections include: Improved signal hardware (HSIP Countermeasure S02), Improved signal timing (HSIP Countermeasure S03), and Advanced Dilemma -Zone Detection (HSIP Countermeasure SO4). Caltrans has already programmed a project to improve signal visibility, install pedestrian countdown signals, and reconstruct curb ramps along Broadway, equivalent to countermeasure S02.

The high-speed nature of the corridor, the wide cross-section, and the large spacing of up to half a mile between some signalized intersections along the corridor also creates a lack of safe crossing opportunities for pedestrians, especially at bus stops near commercial destinations or near senior communities. High -visibility pedestrian crossings at midblock (HSIP countermeasure R35PB) or stop - controlled intersections (HSIP countermeasure NS21PB) will provide safe opportunities for pedestrians to cross, avoiding either high distance detours or crossing at unprotected locations.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 44

The recent Active Transportation Plan has also identified segments along Broadway to install Class II Bicycle Lanes (HSIP countermeasure R32PB) along Broadway between Main Street and Santa Maria Way which is programmed to be implemented by Caltrans in 2022. The plan also identifies facilities that will cross or start at Broadway at high crash -frequency locations, including a Class I Shared Use Path starting at Broadway and Stowell Road heading east and an improved crossing at Broadway and Fesler Street.

MAIN ST CORRIDOR (BLOSSER RD TO US 101)
Main Street is one of the main east -west Arterials through Santa Maria and has regular signalized intersections along the entire corridor with a significant number of uncontrolled driveways and few stop -controlled intersections. The corridor has two travel lanes in each direction with a consistent center two-way left -turn except at signalized intersections which have turn pockets.

Main Street is a high priority corridor for pedestrian-, and bicycle -involved crashes, and for severe and fatal crashes especially between Pine Street and College Drive. Many of the intersections along the corridor were identified as high crash frequency hotspots, including the following intersections:
• Main Street & Blosser Road (Signalized)
• Main Street & Oakley Avenue (Unsignalized)
• Main Street & Miller Street (Signalized)
• Main Street & College Drive (Signalized)
• Main Street & Concepcion Avenue (Unsignalized)
This provides an opportunity for a systemic approach to improving intersections along the entire corridor with a combination of HSIP-eligible improvements. A package of projects for signalized intersections include: Improved signal hardware (HSIP Countermeasure S02), Improved signal timing (HSIP Countermeasure S03), and Advanced Dilemma -Zone Detection (HSIP Countermeasure SO4)
Additional opportunities at the signalized intersection of Main Street and Miller Street include installing curb extensions to help realign the intersection and cat tracks to provide lane guidance for turning vehicles. Main Street and Miller Street is currently under construction with pole replacements, new signal heads, and reconstructed curb ramps.

MILLER STREET CORRIDOR (DONOVAN RD TO BETTERAVIA RD)
Miller Street is a north -south secondary arterial roadway with lower volumes, shorter cross -sections, and a lower density of signalized intersections than Broadway or Main Street. The corridor was identified as a high priority, especially between Enos Drive and Newlove Drive and at the intersection of Miller Street and Alvin Avenue.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 45

The Active Transportation Plan identifies multiple bicycle facilities to improve Bicycle Safety along Miller Street, including implementing Class IV Separated Bikeways (HSIP Countermeasure R33PB) between Donovan Road and Alvin Avenue, Class III Bicycle Routes between Alvin Avenue and Main Street, Class II Bicycle Lanes (HSIP countermeasure R32PB) between Main Street and Morrison Avenue, Class III Bicycle Routes between Morrison Avenue and Stowell Road, and Class IV Separated Bikeways (HSIP Countermeasure R33PB) between Stowell Road and Enos Drive.

The Active Transportation Plan also identifies multiple improved crossings (HSIP countermeasure NS21PB) to improve Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety along Miller Avenue, including an improved crossing across the uncontrolled traffic at Alvin Avenue, Hancock Terrace Path, Park Avenue, and Oak Street.

ISOLATED INTERSECTION
There was an additional high crash severity/frequency intersection that was not located along high priority corridors, but can potentially be added to another systemic application:
• Bradley Road & Betteravia Road (Signalized)
o Given the large size of the intersection and existing turn lanes and medians, Improved signal hardware (HSIP Countermeasure S02) and Advanced Dilemma -Zone Detection (HSIP Countermeasure SO4) at this location can potentially be added to a systemic application for other signalized intersections.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 46

IMPLEMENTATION & EVALUATION
This Local Road Safety Plan is the framework for engaging residents, stakeholders, employers, planners, engineers, enforcement agencies, and emergency medical service providers across the City in improving transportation safety in the City of Santa Maria. While safety -specific plans and programs are critical to achieving the vision for safety in Santa Maria, it also is important that traditional transportation planning, design, operations and maintenance, and programs and policies proactively integrate safety into their decision -making processes. The emphasis areas and strategies in this Plan present short-term safety needs and solutions that can be utilized by stakeholders citywide as funding and implementation opportunities present themselves. Ongoing coordination and collaboration will enhance implementation efforts and set the stage to evaluate progress on policies, programs, and projects.

Using the goals and strategies in the LRSP, planners and engineers can track and plan for safety on the transportation system by:
• Reviewing past, current, and predicted safety trends — Are trends changing? Are the identified strategies reducing fatal and severe crashes within each emphasis area? • Revising safety goals and strategies — Have the goals been achieved early, or are they progressing slower than expected? Are the responsible parties implementing the strategies, and if not, what are the barriers to implementation (funding, staff resources, lacking champions)? • Identifying new projects and strategies to achieve results — Safety research and innovative programs are continually advancing. Are there new and more effective strategies that can be used to better improve safety?
• Monitoring and evaluating system performance — Are systems in place to effectively monitor and evaluate safety throughout the City? Are there opportunities to improve data collection and accuracy/quality?

IMPLEMENTATION
The City of Santa Maria will re-form the Stakeholder Advisory Group on a regular basis to discuss new and ongoing strategy implementations, new strategic and funding opportunities, and barriers to implementation. The purpose of regular meetings is to encourage and to maintain communication across stakeholders and provide accountability for implementation. This Stakeholder Advisory Group should include the representatives from emergency and enforcement services, regional agencies and school districts, and relevant public committees.

The LRSP not only serves to ensure the City remains eligible for State and Federal competitive grant funding opportunities, it also serves as a tool for developing competitive grant applications to fund safety improvements. Some of the key funding sources for safety improvements are listed below.

Many of these sources are competitive.

State/Federal Funding Sources
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Active Transportation Program (ATP)
• Road Repair and Accountability Act (SB-1)
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 47

• Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
• Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) - Planning
• Discretionary/Formula Funding Sources, CMAQ etc.

Local Funding
• Measure A Sales Tax Funds (Discretionary Call for Projects) Additional grant funding sources and opportunities can now be searched using the State's California Grants Portal website. Links to access this website are as follows. https://www.grants.ca.gov/a-new-wav-to-find-grants/
https://www.grants.ca.gov/
®GRANTS
GRANTS
PORTAL
I am
Find Grants About This Site Using This Site For State Agencies ( Select language O) Subscnbe Newt Contact

FIND YOUR OPPORTUNITY
Any Applicant Type
looking for funding in / Any Grant Category p sector with at least 'Any Timcframe p', until the application deadline.

Show Me the Opportunities
SHOW ME EVERYTHING •

ME CALIFORNIA

IV STATE LIBRARY
The California Grants Portal (a project by the
California State Library) is your one
destination to find all grants and loans
The most applicable grant funding program for safety improvements is the State's Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP eligibility is directly contingent upon having an approved LRSP.

This program is highly competitive statewide. To submit a competitive HSIP grant application the importance of demonstrating a positive return on investment is key. This typically requires a benefit - cost of greater than 10/1. It should also explicitly tie the proposed improvement to an LRSP defined Emphasis Area. This LRSP was specifically developed to facilitate these requirements as well as providing strategic information whether to develop a Location Specific vs. Systemic application or target Set Aside Projects allowed under the program.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

EVALUATION
The City of Santa Maria will prepare a memo every two to four years that will summarize crash trends for the City focused on the Emphasis Areas and the stated goals of the current Local Road Safety Plan. This frequency will coincide with the frequency of Caltrans HSIP and ATP funding cycles, allowing the analysis to inform priority projects and funding applications.

More frequent monitoring of safety trends can be performed by reviewing web -based collision statistics reported for the City of Santa Maria by the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). OTS provides Santa Maria collision data and ranks the city relative with like -sized cities statewide. This resource can be used as a surrogate to track progress of the plan between major updates. The LRSP goal of achieving "below statewide average" is analogous to the OTS ranking process which normalizes for city size statewide. OTS reporting does not distinguish between facility types (segment vs. intersection) but the Total Fatal and Injury category can be used as a general indicator for tracking overall progress towards the LRSP goal. The link to the OTS website is:
httos:// www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/ The Emphasis Areas and Strategies identified in the Local Road Safety Plan will be re-evaluated every five years and revised based upon the results of the crash trend analysis.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 49

APPENDIX A
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 50

APPENDIX A CONTENTS
SECTION 1. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP MEETING AGENDAS
SECTION 2. COMMUNITY SURVEY
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF CRASH TYPES BY LOCATION
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 51

APPENDIX A.1. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP MEETING
AGENDA
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Mi
Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response September 20, 2021
Time: 5:30 — 7:30 p.m.

Location: Veteran's Hall
313 W Tunnell Street,
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Subject: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Project: Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan —
Safer Streets for Santa Maria
Introductions (3 min)
• City Santa Maria
• Consultant Team
• Stakeholder Advisory Group
II. Project Goals (5 min)
• Develop proactive approach to roadway safety through the 4 E's (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services)
• Identify a prioritized list of low-cost safety countermeasures/improvements • Develop 3 applications for HSIP Cycle 11 (April 2022) • Get Projects Funded!
III. Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities (5 min)
IV. Project Schedule (5 min)
• See Handout
V. Public Participation (10 min)
• Pivot off recent public engagement efforts
• Public Engagement Plan
- Branding
- Project Website (beta demonstration)
- Community Engagement Activities (Pop Up Events)
- Community Survey

Frit'
Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response September 20, 2021
Date/Time:Sept 20th 5:30 — 7:30 p.m. Project: Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan — Safer Streets for Santa Maria
Location: Veteran's Hall
313 W Tunnell Street,
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Subject: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
I. Introductions
Mark Mueller City of Santa Maria Public Works
Jim Damkowitch, DKS
Josh Pilachowski, DKS
Darryl dePencier, Kimley-Horn
Geoffrey Wheeler, Bicycle Advocate
David Dennis, SB Bike & COAST
Nathan Paul, Santa Maria Railroad
Jim Austin, Santa Maria Fire Department
Rosie Iniguez, Saint John Neumann
II. SAG Input on Project Vision, Goals and Emphasis Areas • SAG agreed with the City's preferred Vision Statement "To progressively reduce Fatal and Severe Injury crashes in Santa Maria."
• SAG agreed with using Statewide Averages as the comparative metric for quantifiable goals (e.g., To reduce below statewide average by facility type (intersection and segment)). • SAG suggested incorporating Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes for Seniors (near senior housing facilities).
• More lighting and safer crossings near churches would help improve safety for people coming and going. More lighting might also help with safety for those concerned about loiterers in the area • Bicycle and pedestrian crash goals should account for potential growth in mode share that might lead to more crashes even as safety is improved and the individual likelihood of crashes goes down • Speed control can be managed more cost-effectively through roadway design and infrastructure than via enforcement. Enforcement efforts should be focused in key areas such as rail crossings and signal compliance.
• The City staff are supportive of roundabouts and intersection treatments, but the public and elected officials are not ready to be enthusiastic about them yet.

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response • A key focus for enforcement should be signal compliance — Miller Street and Stowell Road are continuously subjected to motorists who run red lights. Red light cameras have been tried in the past and got a lot of bad press. New regulation, vendors and technologies might open the door for another attempt.
• Emphasis areas should focus on reducing impaired driving, distracted driving, and unlicensed driving.

III. Stakeholder Roles and Responsibilities
• SAG to assist the City to raise awareness of the project - inform their constituents to visit the Project Website and to take the Community Survey (see Section V below). • SAG to assist is identifying Emphasis Areas (see suggestions in Section II).

IV. Project Schedule
• Project will be completed by April 2022 (will result in up to three Highway Safety Improvement Program applications in April and additional applications in future cycles. • Next SAG Meeting will be held in November (Date TBD)
V. Public Participation
• Public Engagement Plan
- Project Website( www.saferstreetsforsantamaria.com)
- Community Engagement Activities (Pop Up Events e.g. Elk Rodeo, Cruisin Nationals etc.)
- Community Survey (227 completed surveys by September 20th) SAG MinutesSAG 1_LRSP Sept 20 2021 Minutes

Page 2 of 2 ends

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response VI. Community Survey (15 min)
• Results thus far
VII. Vision Statement (10 min)
• High-level overarching purpose and goal for the plan. • Types of Vision Statements
City Recommended:
- To progressively reduce Fatal and Severe Injury crashes in Santa Maria.

VIII. Emphasis Areas (30 min)
• Provide Focus
• Goals (quantifiable and achievable)
City Recommended:
- To reduce below statewide average by facility type (intersection and segment).

IX. Collision Analysis (30 min)
Next Steps (2 min)
Adjourn
SAG AgendaSAG 1 Agenda LRSP Sept 20 2021

Page 2 of 4 ends

Frit'
Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response January 24, 2022
Time: 10:00 AM — 12:00 Noon.

Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/94524673431?pwd=VXBK
UVcwcOcwZkIiTE92ZEpYSGIhdz09
Meeting ID: 945 2467 3431
Passcode: SMLRSP
Subject: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Project: Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan —
Safer Streets for Santa Maria
Introductions (5 min)
• City Santa Maria
• Consultant Team
• Stakeholder Advisory Group
II. Project Goals (10 min)
• Develop proactive approach to roadway safety through the 4 E's (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services)
• Identify a prioritized list of low-cost safety countermeasures/improvements • Develop 3 applications for HSIP Cycle 11 (April 2022) • Get Projects Funded!
III. Project Overview — Project Status (25 min)
• Interim Deliverables
- Vision Statement
- Goals (quantifiable and achievable)
- Collision Analysis Memorandum
- Components Memorandum (i.e., Emphasis Areas)
- Strategy Memorandum
• Public Participation (15 min)
- Public Engagement Plan
- FAQ
- Branding
- Project Website https://www.saferstreetsforsantamaria.com - Community Survey

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement ■ Emergency Response - Community Engagement Activities (Pop Up Events)
IV. Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan Report (50 min)
V. Next Steps (30 min)
- Plan Approval Schedule
- Top 3 Safety Improvements

1. Location Specific

2. Systemic Improvement
- Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application Development Adjourn
SAG AgendaSAG 2 Agenda LRSP January Ming

Page 2 of 4 ends

APPENDIX A.2. COMMUNITY SURVEY
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education ■ Engineering ■ Enforcement ■ Emergency Response Santa Maria Local Roadway Safety Plan
The City of Santa Maria is developing a Local Roadway Safety Plan to make travelling safer, easier, and more accessible for everyone. Be a part of the project by answering a few questions about your experience!

1. Do you avoid any of the following modes of transportation because of safety concerns? (Check all that apply)
❑ Walking
❑ Biking
❑ Car (Driving)
❑ Public Transit

2. In your opinion, of the following safety concerns, what causes the most safety issues in Santa Maria? (Choose up to 3, rank from 1 to 3, where number 1 being the most important) Speeding motorists
Driver Inattention / Distraction
Lack of Enforcement
Alcohol or Drug Impairment
Street/Roadway Design
Intersection Design
Lack of Driver Education
Lack of Roadway Lighting

3. Of the roadway safety improvements below — mark those you would not like to see/support:
❑ Speed Bumps
❑ Speed Cameras
❑ Roundabouts
❑ Bike Lanes
❑ Sidewalks
❑ Prohibiting Trucks
❑ Electronic Variable Message Signs (e.g., speed warnings) ❑ Protected Crosswalks (Striping with Flashing Beacons) ❑ Signalizing Intersections
❑ More street lighting
❑ Reducing Speed Limits
❑ Other:

4. In your opinion, what can enforcement focus on to improve roadway safety in Santa Maria? (Select all that apply)
❑ Impaired/Drunk Drivers enforcement
❑ Speed Limit enforcement
❑ Red-light enforcement
❑ Bicycle enforcement (cite bicyclist for not properly using the rules of road) ❑ Distracted driver enforcement (motorists using cellphones etc.) ❑ Other:

Questions for parents of school -aged children (K-12)

5. Do you know if your child(ren) is/are receiving roadway safety education at school? ❑ Yes
❑ No

6. Do your children walk or bike to school?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Optional questions

7. What is your gender? (Select one)
❑ Female
❑ Male
❑ Not listed (please specify):
❑ Prefer not to answer

8. What category below includes your age? (Select one)
❑ 17 years or younger
❑ 18-24 years old
❑ 25-34 years old
❑ 35 - 44 years old
❑ 45-64 years old
❑ 64-74 years old
❑ 74 years or older
❑ Prefer not to answer

9. How would you describe yourself? (Select all that apply) ❑ American Indian or Alaska Native
❑ Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin
❑ Asian
❑ Black or African American
❑ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
❑ White
❑ Not listed (please specify):
❑ Prefer not to answer

11. Using the map, in what part of the
city do you live?
❑ Downtown (DT)
❑ Northwest (NW)
❑ Northeast (NE)
❑ Southwest (SW)
❑ Southeast (SE)
❑ 1 live outside of the city
❑ Prefer not to answer

12. Using the map, in what part of the
city do you work?
❑ Downtown (DT)
❑ Northwest (NW)
❑ Northeast (NE)
❑ Southwest (SW)
❑ Southeast (SE)
❑ I work outside of the city
❑ I am not presently employed
❑ Prefer not to answer

13. Do you have any other comments or suggestions to improve transportation safety? Thank you for your participation in helping improve safety in your city!

APPENDIX A.3: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Q1
Walking

47.00%
227
Biking

42.86%
207
Car (Driving)

15.73%
76 Public Transit (Bus)

11.18%
54 Not Applicable

17.60%
85 Other (please specify)

0.00%
0 483
Q3
Other (please specify)

0.87%
4 None

31.39%
145
Reducing Speed Limits

12.34%
57 More Street Lighting

4.11%
19 Signalizing Intersections

3.25%
15 Protected Crosswalks

3.68%
17 Electronic Variable Message Signs (e.g., speed warnings)

6.28%
29 Prohibiting Trucks

11.90%
55 Sidewalks

2.16%
10 Bike Lanes

5.41%
25 Roundabouts

14.50%
67 Speed Cameras

23.16%
107
Speed Bumps

25.76%
119
462
Q4
Other (please specify)

5.83%
28 All of the above

4.79%
23 Reducing Speed Limits

27.29%
131
More Street Lighting

43.33%
208
Signalizing Intersections

29.58%
142
Protected Crosswalks

55.42%
266
Electronic Variable Message Signs (e.g., speed warnings)

27.92%
134
Prohibiting Trucks

15.42%
74 Sidewalks

57.50%
276
Bike Lanes

59.58%
286
Roundabouts

27.71%
133
Speed Cameras

23.75%
114
Speed Bumps

21.67%
104
480
477
Other (please specify)

2.94%
14 Distracted Driver Enforcement (motorists using cellphones, etc.)

57.86%
276
Bicycle Enforcement (cite bicyclist for not properly using the rules of road)

15.72%
75 Red -Light Enforcement

33.54%
160
Speed Limit Enforcement

52.41%
250
Impaired/Drunk Drivers Enforcement

50.52%
241
Q6
Yes

30.57%
107
No

64.00%
224
Not Applicable

5.43%
19 350
7 383
Yes

23.76%
91 No

45.17%
173
Not Applicable

31.07%
119
Q9
17 years or younger

2.11%
10 18 - 24 years old

10.53%
50 25 - 34 years old

28.84%
137
35 - 44 years old

25.05%
119
45 - 64 years old

23.79%
113
64 - 74 years old

7.58%
36 74 years or older

2.11%
10 475
Q10
American Indian or Alaska Native

3.46%
16 Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin _

59.61%
276
Asian

1.73%
8 Black or African American

1.73%
8 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0.65%
3 White

30.89%
143
Not listed (please specify)

1.94%
9 463
Q12 & 13
Downtown (DT)
Northwest (NW)
Northeast (NE)
Southwest (SW)
Southeast (SE)
I live outside of the city
450 373
Home Location Work Location Home Work

4.89% 8.31% 22 31

18.67% 11.80% 84 44

24.44% 11.26% 110 42

24.22% 22.79% 109 85

20.67% 18.77% 93 70

7.11% 27.08% 32 101

APPENDIX A.4: SUMMARY OF CRASH TYPES BY LOCATION
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

ROADWAY SEGMENT COLLISION ANALYSIS
:8 o i 3
8 i 1 B 0:
.
4 v
I
y 1p
_.
s
�c
IE
i
Other Principal Arterial
S Broadway
506
Newbye Dr - EBatlle R6 8 1.3 _i
0 0
0 3
9 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
1 1
0 0
S Broadway
528
Inger Dr-Neebre Or
3 0.1 .i
0 0
0®
1 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
2 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 S Broadway
532
Eras Dr- Battles Rd
3 0.1 8
0 0
0 1
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
E Main St
M.nor Arterial
1830
Bradley Rd - Nicolson, Ave
3 0.5 3
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 Bradley Rd
1608
Auto Plac4 Dr eotteravia Rd
8 2.8 18
0 0
0 2
6 2
0 4
1 1
0 0
S Depot Sl
1748
Morrison Ave- W Stowell Rd
6 0.9 21
0 0
1 1
4 1
3 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
Biosd Rd
1050
WStowell Rd- unnamed st s of Stowell Rd
5 0.9 10
0 0
0 1
4 2
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 Bradley Rd
1072
EStowell Rd - Columbia Or
5 013.3 30
0 0
0 1
4 1
1 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
2 1
0 0
0 Santa Maria Way
6 Sunrise Or - Dauphin St
4 0.7 34
0 0
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Miller St
531
Enos Dr - Battles Rd
3 0.6 3
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 College Of
1712
Stowell Rd - Enos Dr
3 0.2 8
0 0
0 1
2 12.
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
Basset Rd
local
la Ikea Are
1753
1691
Bodge St -Knudsen Way
Mosier lid -A St
3 0.2 8
4 1 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
2 3
1 1
1 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
Topaz Way
3914
Stokes - Tiffany Dr
4 7.4 4
0 0
0 0
4 0
1 2
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
4 0
0 Panther Dr
3934
Domingo's St-Akala Dr
4 2.0 J 24
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 1
0 0
1 0
1 1
0 0
0 R4aberg Way
3944
BdwAley Ave -Marla Way
4 .,
4 0
0 0
0 4
1 _
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Creston 5t
4026
Pine St- Poe St
4 22
0 0
0 0
4 1
0 2
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 1. local Critical Crash Rate Differential

2. Equivalent Properly Damage Only Crashes
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS
067006way& W5tow07 Rd
Blower Rd & W Mom St
US101&W McCoy In
5 MIIIer St& E Better/0a Rd
SBroalw,y & ERath-. M
US 101 & 8atrr0a M
e.: 41
105: 83
723 31
331 :3
557 75
733 74 -4.0099
317 74 I�
S Oradl0 Rd /It BarerW4 Rd
N Rrwttw.r) & W Min SI
N OrConn 7 OW 003808.1
SBndleyRO &E Soy/499M
634
6BroMwoy & Cook St
904
N BrwdwW & R•akerI
1874
50roedwa00 Enos Or
576
Miller SI & F Man 9
950 74 0 17
1631 I 68
6)
63 82
50 1002
69 N Powder:39 8W Groot SI
Carlad Or& E 00300003
1%1
1636
Rlor rRd& W Stow.6
663
005
)08
883
322
S5 D71
52 035
S1 177
College Sr 4 EMain SI
N DemmmR&W Main St
1518
1$44
$Cd1903 Dr&BnMr.4Rd
SMillrr St& EStowre Rd
376
S1
51 50
619
50 S Broadway& W Momlon Ave
S Bradley RO&E Main St
N Rrwdway & W66tnN51
Ob,wrRd& W betttravi. Rd
725
989
322
50 3.8
50 .
50 138
1680
326
327 0
481 0
377 0 2 15
aM
492 0
313 0
152 0 0
751 0
147 0 0
120 0 0
141 0 0

76.4 0
323 0
42 -422 277
S Broa4w07 & W Carmen In
Wwdwn & W F•864
379 39
1709 37

1.33 390
DOS 1B8

7.4 391
12: 228
371 177
3 22 coS I4 .. 54 2 b
3 15 65 19 16 40:J 1 3 0
3 23 s 22 16 31 5 6 0
6 13 1, 30 11 33 1 1 1
7 I ti CS IS 1
_ .
516 0 2 3 15 53 19 29 2
t
30 0 1. 30 50 lb LO •M 1 =
333 0 3 13 Mb IS 15 77
50 3 ,
41 13 ' S 25 5 •
37 15 15 ... t 3 0
39 IS 7 76 3 3 0
35 16 7 16 1 0
17 8 22 3 0
34 7! 7 7 3 0
14 e
74 Is , 7
39 14 10
32 241 0 3
21 3 7
3 1
10 39 11 10 24 3
40 70 I 3 13 r 2
.14:• 17 7 8 17
4007 W 0 0 2 5ERA 7El 15 0 4 0
-0.23
97 0 0 3 6 78 7 4 16 3 4 0
1 50 3 10
35 S 0
0 5
37 9 5 0 6
7 19 7 3 0 7
2 } ��00 ---.... 26 9 3 0 4
*u 10 2 0 2
79 f S 7 0 6
4 0 10 3 00 1 4
3 .. 4 4 0 1
. 7
34 30
1 74
77 O 0
O 21
D 2 rY1-'.J
O 7
6 3 •
3 1 4
4 0 Li
5 0 4
3 1 6
3 1 5
7 DJ
2 0 4
3 3 0 4
S Co11888 Rd 1 E StowrO M
1 Broadway & New102e Cr
SOlot.rtrb & W5attlrt Ro
613
30 018
Nlmdawi Aw & F Msn 9
NBro3Own& W"[niceX
mott.r Rd & W CcckY
529
35 538 35
984 34
10,7 3d
-0.12
97 0 0 1 10 75 10 .1_ 15
403 0 1 6 26
3 0..ir 50 0 0 0 9 75 ll- 17
-0.17 94 0 0 2 8 24 7 6 15
9D o 0 7 ) M 1 6
557 33
-003
757
0 1 9 77 9 7
Miller St & Cook St
940 13
Miller 52 &E Foot Or
C011ege 0r & E Donavan R0
N Wwdrd:4&W Alvin Av.

Western AVe& W Man Sr
S Oroa0M03 & Water Me S000Getg Cage
/knot M& la bra Ann
5)4 32
1621
1361
1052
2031
31 70
30 571 77
000 80 0 0 1 9 23 9 0
-001 256 0 2 0 211111
4 .000 O7 0 0 1 0. 22 6 6 0 0
-0 32 86 0 0 7 7 77 3 i1 1 0
-0t02 372 0. 1 1 4 13 2 0
020 95 0 0 2 19 9 4 8® 2
-607
O 1 0
0 2
0 0
1 D
0 1 20
O 16
1 1 1 12
1 0
1 1
12 3 1 0 7
4 4
D 3 D 7
3 4 0 7
3 3 0 0
O 7 • 1 • • 16
07 0 0
Pine St OW MWM St
Millr St &E Batch RO
N RWIIroJO Awl W Alvin An.
1035 26
551 21
1357 a
-025
-0.33
-024
56 0 0
2 231 0 fl 2 5 15 8 3 0
55 0 0 l 5 17 7 3 6 0 1
2IIIC2 . 1 0
3 6 18 3 8 2 7
N Ra11road AW & W WnOean Rd

50.00010 & W Stowell Rd
N Blotter Rd & W O0n0van Rd
1691 23
629 22
-0.32
-031
1564 19
-0.33
A St O W Rest raw,, 0
[knout E3•y & bite Mono. Soot
&WBat
132 18
179 17
362 17
-0.73
452
-0.27
916055190& Gamin to
100,0 e3M&6 rSt
444 17
110 10
038
-051
-646
Cnlleir Or & E •attl.oM
407 II
• • 0 •
O
212 0 1 3 1• 6 2 10 2 0 1
77 0 0 5 1.111Q11 0 1
45 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
48 0 0 1 4 1 1 5 0 0 0 0
37 0 0 0 4 13 0 3 1 0 - 0 0 0
r +�
37 0 0 1 3® 3 3 5 .t . 2 0
42 0 0 1 3 13 7MAW 9 .2 0 1 0 0
52 0 0 0 11 9 7 0 1 0 0 0
41 0 0 1 3 I
3 3 0 1
3 4 21/11
1 2 0 2
3 1 0 0
4 n 2
2 I
7 3 L
D S
3 ', 5
1 O 1
0 1
• 6 0
• ® 3
O 10 0
1 9 1111
O 6 1
1 0
2 0
1 3 1 0 0 1 0
1 10NrSt8, BEOne S<
S 05.70 St & W Iet0et M
UM Nn 5t & W COO, St
131 16
560
10 .021
..44
41 0 0 0 6 11 3 2
45 0 0 '20 2 11 1 3 1
162 0 0 2 11 - 5 1 6
24 0 0 0 1 II 3 1 7
x 0 0 0 0 0 7
34 0 0 0 1 0 3
O 0
2 0
1 0
•
0 1
O 0
D
•j 1
O 6 2
O 1
O 2 0 0 0
O
0 0
O 6 1
2 0
2 0
MIIIa 4&F MrCo in
N Mee St & E Col van Rd
%wises.-&wrentsv r
S $304150988 Cd0mb40r
M,C611and L& F 0706Y
N Rknw•r46* W ANIn Aw
903 19
741 14
1629 14
429
-053
-0.A 1ill 0 0 0 0 5 0
-OM 1 2 0 0 0 0 4 0
417 male 0 7 9 7 0 2 WM 1 1 0 0 4 0
O 0 0 0- 0 7 0
O 1
D 0 0 0 5 2
1 0
7 0
6 0.40 61aty 610Mw5w M
101 Ram•0E0atrmaM
SMIIN, St Caret Coleco
N Soy Rd & F Main 5t
TOwOCemrE 05 Win St
FamherOr& EM671 Sf
M 1)
002 11
840 11
1108 /1
% 12
41 71
I.7 12
-0L g3 0 0
4 7 1 2 0 2 0
-051 58 0 0 I 7
464 22 0 0 1 0 0 1
440 150 5) 1 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 • 4 2
-1131 19D 0 1 1 9 2
-0Sf 169 0 1 7 0 1 7 00
1 0
1 0 0 0
O 2 0 0 0
4 1
O 1
1 0
■ o
1 0
2 0
1 0
1 1
7 O 0
1 0
585 12
1023 12
43 20
-0.52 17 0 0 0 1
-0.46 15 0 0 0 1 2 2 2 0
O 2 0 1 1 1 4 2
2 O
O 0
0 0 I 4 0
1 4 0 • • 0
1 4 0
t 0
1 0
6011ege Or & Boon St
Penn 9&WCoed St
818 10
918 10
• 0 1 0 4 2
-0.60 30 0 0 1 2 7 3 2 2 0 1 0 1 0
-057 25 0 0 0 1 7 1 2 ._11-1 0 0 0 It I
3 0
O 0
O 0
■
0 O 4 1
1 0
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
5 a
o
A
z 4
. S
s -
3 087020.2& W Walter In
47 9
464 I 19
0 0
0 2
7 0
2 4
1 0
0 0
0 5
1 1
0 1
Santa Meta Via 0&Sun n50 Or
91 9

4.55 I 29
0 0
1 2
6 2
2 2
O
0 D
0 2
0 1
0 1
5 Santa Mang Wr7&Miller St
108
9 0.65
178
0 0
1 7
3 1
3 0
®
0 0
0 6
0 0
0 0
El Cemino Real Ram2 4111087 88 ,04 61
292
9 424
1A
0 0
0 0
1_
3 1": 2
0 0
1 0
0 3
0 0
0 0
Bndevne&CBaal0R4
398
9 462
24 0
0 5
1 0
0 0'
0 0
0 0
1 1
7 2
0 3
0 1
0 SSanta Mart W8y& Cal eOr
36 R
066
II
0 0
0 2
6 2
1 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
1 Mae 9&FingrDr
431
R
461
18 0
0 0
2 6
2 0
7 0
0 0
0 0
3 0
2 9(3573 Or& W MICoyt71
213
7 468
13 0
0 0
1 6
2 0
3 0
0 0
0 0
5 1
0 0
0 5ky8W Or 6 lrminel lX
51 6
420
36 0
0 1
1 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
College Dr&Surmaa Or
107
6 469 21
0 0
0 -' $.:
3 2
0 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
SMIIIe'rSI& San Vedro 5t
174
1 009
71 0
0 1
1 4
0 7
1 0
0 0
0 0
4 0
0 0
0 98118740&E Main St
1017
6 465
6 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
0 1
0 0
E1 Camino Rmo&E Donovan R4
Unsignali2ed Intersections
Onnnpdon Ave BF Main 4
1617
1031
4 33
474 19
OS 102
00 0

0. 1
1 6
2 23
0 16
0 7
4 5
0 2
0 2
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 7
4 6
0 3
0 0
01 0
4 0
0 1
6 _35'
7 11
2 1
0 0
0 0
8 2
6 N&oa4w87&WMOI It
1135
32 O5 72
0 1
NBroa4w7v&MOEIham7 Ave
1429',
31 0.1 75
0 0
3 3
8 8
a
2 2
1 0
1 0
5 0
3 0
3 N1/1/1.5c A Nrolow Cr
521
79 06 44
0 0
2 17
11 6
s
1 1
0 1
? j'.,
1 5
1 1
0 4
NM0er 59&EMtnAve
1383
29 0.4 44
0 0
3 2
90 5
6 •
0 0
0 0
0 8
1 4
3 1
SBroadv900bne902
773
27 03 02
0 0
17 6
•
14 1
1 0
1 0
2 12
2 1
0 3
Ka illetn & Baca. Rd
362
26 0.6 418
0 14
13 1
B
1 1
0 2
0 0
8 2
1 4
e.

Mark Rd 8 WS/owe/11d
610
21 61
DO
1 5 70
7 1
7 1
®
1 0
0 8
1 56
0 58roadwW&Elan Or
599
75 03 70
0 01
17 3
5 14
0 2
0 1
0 1
10 1
2 0
1 2
0 11
2 3
0 4
S0roadw6y&PrkAve
749
25 03 243
0 2
14 6
1 11
0 0
0 (homburg Se 487130n Se
1041
75 04 nU
0 0
7 14
8 9
5 1
9 0
0 1
0 4
1 0
0 5
S Thom burg St 8 Morrison Ave
669
73 1.73 1 58
0 0
7 3
18 6
7 1
4 0
0 1
3 0
4 7
3 1
1 Wrvnn Ave a Watson Ayr
739
73 035 43
0 0
0 4.
3 10
4 4
0 0
0 2
0 4
1 7
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 1
-
8 S
6 1
3 0
0 0
1 3
1 2
Igo sir R4 & Boone 51
783
23 020 38
Western Ave& W Caak55
911 , 23
085 53
00 1
4 *8
5 6
1 2
0 0
0 1
7 0
1 1
1 0
0 7
7 u4
6 1
9 •
0 1
0 10
1 D i n
1O7tt18Aw&WMUMS&
1055
73 0A7 3
•
1 1
0 4
01 Oroa4WW&W Ord ail 51
1565
23 023 271
0 10
8 2
6 1

2. 0
2 2
3 SBroad4W&Prah616St
668
22 021 201
0 0
3 2
2 12
0 0
0 1
0 11
2 0
0 0
00594112&Mrnsri Ave
712
22 052 47
0 0
1 3
3 6
4 3
0 0
0 0
5 1
6 1
2 0
0 ¢'
13 11
3 1
1 0
0 0
0 1
1 7
0 7
581otter Rd&WSorraa Ln
411
71 574
410 ioad Ave 80n0Sn Si
1766
21 074
0 0
0 2
7 4
7 2
1 0
0 0
0 4
1 5
0 0
17609067 Ave&Tr711010
1827
21 040 85
0 2
6 0
4 0
2 0
0 23-.
12 4
4 8
1 2
0 1
5Broadwav&liberty St
646
20 1.1: 50
0 1
0 0
0 14
0 2
14 1
2 0
1 0
1 13
1 2
We.tonA8,.&WOmrth St
1010
70 1.77 44
0 0
7 1
7 6
4 2 1 0
0 0
1 4
0 1
0 0
S 10.6074138 love Or
433
19 056 777
_
0 0
2 11
S
7 6
0 3 00
1 3
7 2
0 0
3 3
3 13
5 2 5
2 4 0
0 1
0 Olotser Rd&01151
676
19 073 217
3 1
4 0
1 BenolI06Ave &WM. St
1041
19 025 49
0 0
1 4
14 7
3 1
1 0
0 0
0 1
8 2
0 0
3 Thornburg x&WAlm Ave
1393
19 0.29 29
0 0
0 1
M—.
7 6 5
0 1
0 0
0 1
6 0
3 0
2 0
0 8
2 0
0 2
MOr526E Plan Or
616
18 060 54
0 0
R.
'4
12 6
4 1 9
1 1
0 0
rIYlsrlWW&W xWxell n0
ara
11 u.0u 4•
0 0
0 2
7 i i
•
4 0
0 8
2 u
2 4
0 0
1 1
5 3
8 0
2 0
0 5Bro14way&Orange St
653
18 012 33
0 0
7 0
7 0

3..
0 2
Russet Ave &W Cook St
913
18 1.05 53
0 0
1 12
9 6
1 0
1 0
0 1
0 3
0 1
SOrpr%L&W4okSt
444.
11 035 53
0 0
1 17
12 2
2 0
1 0
0 0
1 5
3 7
3 D
SMiller Si 67 Church St
959
13 0.54 73
0 0
0 7
11 8
2 0
0 1
0 1
0 7
3 0
1 0
0 Western Ave &FederSt
1233
18 0.50 33
0 0
1 1
1 11
5 1
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 5
1 0
0 0
2 10
9 3
2 1
2 0
1 0
1 3
2 0
0 0
McClelland St&E0xWSRd
555
17 040 62
Western Ave &WStowe Rd
607
17 065 32
0 0
1 1
4 5
5y
2 0
0 1
0 0
3 2
5 3
L
0 0
1 4
12 7
1 8 1
1 2
0 0
0 0
6 0
0 0
1 14 B ltneerRd&Fed10 St
1096
17 , 011
F McCoy In&CroR70ad in _
247
18 0.09 46
0 0
0 10
3 0
4 1
0 0
0 0
7 2
7 0
4 Bradley Rd&Crosao0d Ln
286
18 0.51 31
0 0
1 1
4 5
4 1
1 0
1 00
3 0
1 00
Unt4N St&40116:04510
564
16 032 31
0 0
1 1,
7 2
3 :2
1 0
1 0
1 5
1 0
02 0
1 0
8 3
5 0
0 0
0 0
D
2 1
10 1
Smith St& hbnlSon Ave
653 16 149
N 8foa0W87&Bunny Ave
1471 16 404 40
0 0
7-
I II
4 4
5 1
1 0
1 0
2 2
0 2
0 1
Menelland St &F Onnnun60
1607
16 0.45 41
0 0
1 3
17 3
2 5
r'
7 0
0 0
0 4
1 1
0 0
0810.6/67Rd& Southside Pfmy
786
15 07n 10
0 D
1 1
7 4
4 1
00 1
0 3
1 0
00 S7hum burg Si 6 WS/mend
677
15 027 SO
D
0 1:
3 10 6
1 5
1 2
0 0
0 D
2 0
7 00
SBrov7w6v&GmCdedo
705 ' 15 407 25
0 0
0 2
4 5
4 1
1 0
0 0
0 13
0 0
0 InaleyR4&Jones St 7.13 15 023 25
O
0 O
2 4
7 1
1 0
0 1
1 0
3 0
0 0
3 0
0 1
2 12
3 3
J'. -
72'
0 0
0 1
0 6
1 1
1 2
581ossr Rd& Wthurdl St 1
644 15 040 35
114abeth 0& E Min Si
1019 15 225 704
D
1 3
10 3
3 5
O
7 0
1 1
1 5
2 7
0 0
N&ondse. 7. Chaps Si
1116. IS 004 SS
D
0 :.'
9 7
7 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0
0 0
2 &pwllry Aye 8 Feder 51
17071 15 080 VI
D
0 0
0 3
9 4
7 5
I
0 0
1 0
0 1
5 3
7 0
2 1
College Dr&EAh7InAve
1340 15 003 25
0 2
3 2
1 1
10 0
0 1
0 California Blvd &I.nron valley WAN
1 1 14 671 213
0 0
6 9
•
1 2
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 2
0 2
0 0
9 S4
4 0
0 0
0 1
0 7
1 1
0 1
ProteSNna1PIMy&MICo0U1
281 ' 14 1 007 193
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
9 MN, 40.51,111
N Nw1Aw:ry A 0 Canm, SI r
Ilni
1793
14 14
13 071
331
U.3/

0.40 3.13
41 SA
13 O �
I I
r 1
1 1
u I 0
r
0 it
0 I
0 4
3 0
n
8 2
S
2 1
'
4 •1
4 gi r
'1
4 r
1 8
I
4A
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
I
1 0
n
1 I
r
I' I
u 1
r 1
1 3
Weston AVe& Unnamed West /ONhol9noowo Way
764
0 0
SWeam Ave&BOoot St
106
13 23
0 0
0 2
3 0
0 0
1 0
1 ,u4444 310 W0l01 S3
996
13 387
3 0
7 IO
a
5, •
U
n
0 0
0 0
1 1 _I 0
117
N Caw Q'&ChirN0
1067
I)
013 43
963 18
0 0
2 9
S
3 3
1 0
0 0
1 l
3 1
0 1
MW Dr&Fe11HS1
1332
I)
0 0
0 1
3 2
-9y
0 1
0 2
0 0
3 Weston A9411WAAn
1934
13 009
375
019
006
055
335
16 0
0 0
1 ®
4 ..4'.
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 4/We 1
4 7
0 1
Th,MorgSt&Eno, Dr
981
17 77
0 0
1 0

9. 11
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
MBIce St 69/10800
744
12 25
0 0
0 1
1 2
2 0
0 0
0 1
3 0
1 Kathleen Ct&W Man St
796
12 27
17 0
0 0
. 3
9 4
3 3
1 0
0 1
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 khUbe0l St&t Cook St
937
12 0
0 0
1 4
' .7'
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 'g ' 0
1 0
0 Ilncnln St&W Main 4
1074
17 17
0 0
1 3.
4 7
7 9''
oI''
D
0 1
0 ,." -!
3 r':i'
7 0
;.$'1 •
DInN•rSI&WM4,4
1010
13 005
1 22
D
0 0
2 5
f
4 44'.
0 0
0 0
0 3 0
1 0
0 McClelland 92&E AMn Ave
1385
12 0.14
22 0
0 0
2�
5;
1 5,' ,
1 0
0 0
0 0
2 ? 2'
3 0
0 Uncoln St&WAlan Ave
1331
1094
1839
12 12
12 914

9.12 0.05

0.21 Ou/
056

0.56 005
37 0
0 1
1:,4.

B
4 1
3 1
1 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
College Dr 6 N Braley Rd
37 D
0 1
, .3:.

B
3 2
0 0
0 0
1 1
1 0
2 0
0 111
0 1
NSomeway & RoceneeWW
27 0
0 1
1 3
2 4
1 0
0 0
0 ; 4 0
0 0
0 I
MIBO St& 09144184.4.94 , 596
11 21
0 0
0 2
9' .
1 2
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 3
3 Coll eDr6 Cam GAO
709
11 31
0 0
1 2
B
0 3
1 0
0 1
0 1
3 0
4146.11 Ave&Meerimn Ale
747
11 4n
0 0
0 8
2 3
2 '. 7
2 0
0 0
0 3 1
Weston Ave& Orange St
800
11 II
175
26 0
0 0.

JIM
1_
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 3 0
2 0
0 0
0 '-L
SBrfadv40&W0o0M St
023
0 0
0 1 2;•
8 2
2 U{•
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 1
Btooer Rd&CVPI,$St
911 11 '0.ui 31
D
0 1
3 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 AI
lwSt& WC.InlnhSt
2707
31 945 21
11 010 71
II 0.10 20
11 Oua no
11 010 31
0 3
0 0
I
1 0
0 9.
2 2
1 3
2 7
2 3
t
1 2
0 0
0 0
7 0
0 &Inver4 &fier4
1717
3 2
00 0
1 1
0 0
1 1
0 1
1 5
1 4
7 I
3 0I
L it
7 3
1 !
1 I
0 0
0 0
0 1
I
0 1
99411,010 Ave& W Faster A

12.12 0
0 1
1 9&04041/&1303811 St
1109
1613
U
0 U
1 17 2 1 4 2
0 0
0 0
0 Roe A&WDMnoVln R0
1 0
2 8
4 2
0 0
0 0
0 N001Mrf0&7aykXA
1829
11 033
105
0 dl
4 2
0 3
2'
3 0
0 0
0 Arthur I n&(Aar Rd
1924
11 0.54
73 3
A
0 7
5 I
1 11E9
0 2
0 0
1 0
' 4
n
0 0
0,16101 AW 849lrnnM RA
127
10 not
1/9
n
I r i s
/
7 4
1 1
0 0
0 II
j 5

I I I' ''
S CONN. Dr& looth4dr0kwy
113
10 0.33
75 0
0 3
3 7
4 1
7 7
1 1
0 0
0 3
1 I
1 I
1 0
0 I
2 7hornOvg St&LOMa In
434
10 0.47
15 0
0 01
9 7
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 3
Ih010604Si&S0mvathl
466
10 &47
15 0
0 1
1 8
5 1
3 0
0 00
10 u
1 5
u
0 1084109R0&Nera Madre AND
53/
10 9051
'10
0 0
1 0
9 /
1 4
1 1
0 0
1 0
/
2 0
0 0
COnIOrd Aye&C Men A
9B7
10 007
30 0
0 0
j .4-
6 12
4 iigl
3 0
0 0
1 4
0 0
0 1
MW Dr&WMilo St
1033
10 .001
20 0
0 0
2 8
3 5
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
Ranch Sr&CMIInSt
1036
10 .007
30 0
0 1
2 1
2 4
2 0
0 0
1 1
Ili
2 !i>J
0 0
0 911lnherIr6 Dnnlln01r9St
1131
10 3.87
75 3
0 1
1 0
4 4
n
0 0
1 00
11 1
0 0
I
Wary Ave AFAIR 4
1201
10 0.30
20 3
0 1
0 9
7 3
1 0
2 00
0 0
1 0
1 I
0 McClelland St &C Feeler St
1205 10

0.05 25
0 0
0 3
7 5
1 2
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
I
Lincoln St 6 Feder St
1211
10 0.05
25 3
0 03
/
5 1
1 I
0 0
0 0
1 3
1 0
00 NRan10M Ave A el Camino Sr
1787
30 11.14
017
152
27 0
3 0
1 1
1 6
4 7
1 1
II
0 0
1 0
1 a
1 1
11 N hiller 4& el C4m1no St
1299
10 7
4 7
3 1
_:7_
2 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
I
0 NMIIN' 51&MIEIMny Ave
1404
10 012
17 0
0 2
1 0
0 2
1 0
0 1
0®
0 1
1 0
0 0
A McClelland &B4 nny Aye
1460
10 .1.2J,
181
0 ;1
1 1
0 0
'3
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
3 0
0 WNAen Aye &WDonavan Rd
1635 10
W9
35 0
0 1
3 6
1 1
5 2
0 0
0 1
0 4
0 1
0 2
Thornburg A&WD0n9Wn Rd
1649
10 0.02
25 0
0 1
1 8
2 2
5 0
0 0
0 1
0 2
2 3
0 0
Lane Dr& C Oonann RI
1656
10 -0.09
189
0 0
3 6
/
1 1
2 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
1 le 5411!014 AW & III0OenPine7WW
2000
10 0.05
75 0
0 1
1 1
0 1
1 3
0 0
I
I
1 I
'91
4 0
1 0
0 4
0 3
0 1
C01111e0360n81lty R0
198
9 000
141
y ', '
I•
I
n
0 0
0 7
1 2
0 1
S Depot S1&WIWHnnolu Rd
117
9 017
79 0
0 I
7 6
7 2
7 0
7 0
0 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
CntrW. Way &WStowell Rd
033
9 009
33 0
0 0
0 u
0 21
1 6
1 1
1 0
4 7
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
1 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 SBI0HlKd&D0I6D1
077
9 -0.09

0.29 9
14 0
0 0
I
8 1
7 1
1 2
0 An* St010nae51
779
9 3
1 U
0 10
0 0
1 0
0 SHann8 Way &WMen4
787
4 0.15
11 0
03 1 6 1 1 7 1
I
1 0
0 0
3 0
2 0
I
union Wig &WTRIQ
799
9Vali
33 0
0 .1
1 6
0 0
„2-
0 0
1 0
1 I
0 0
0 5 luar0a4Av8&W070k St
`914
9 029
191
0 Ili
1 I
S
2 3
0 1
00 1
0 0
0 0 '..2
klrlabeth A&6N9.ISt
1189
9 029
14 0
0 0
1 8
I.
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
u
0 0
N MIIrt 4& F FeVerSt
1208
4 -0.08
18 0
0 0
1 0
0 7
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 7
0 1
0 1
Rne A&feleSt
1210
9 .0.01.
34 0
0 1
3 5
4 1
3 0
0 0
1 0
1 3
0 1
0 0
McClelland A&Ma'am AW
1405
9 19 0
0 1
0 1
2 1

4. 10
00 1
0 3
0 1
0 1
N9n9vrrRA&WBunny Ave
1419
9 0.09
79 D
0 0
5 0
7 1
0 0
0 0
A
6 1
0 01
NMIIrr St& Runny Ave
1467
9 03N
73 0
0 I
7 0
0 7
2 1
1 0 0 0 1.2,
7 0
1 0
0 Thornburg 4&AgIrr9Ave
1537
9 0.79
78 D
0 7
n
7 1
2 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 u
7 0
0 0 1.7
D
NWIIr040 Ave &WO4Q4MO St
1592
9 0.11
20 0
0 0
4 1
5 M
0 3
0 0
0 1
1 1
N Mlle, St&HedingAW
1603
9 0.09
60 0 0
1 0
0 3
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
0 0
NR1hoed Ave. ARanrho Verde.
1887
9 007
703
0' 1
,S1111
0 1
3 1
2 0
1 1
0 1
0 2
0 0
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
Y C
i
_
Prmkerll)&IPhn1Cn Or
230, 0
!.2r tvi
v
jt..
1 2
S
4 1
2 0
1 0
1 0
0 1
0 1
0 DaNNtOnAvi&Atlantic01
2024
9 ,. 9
U
2 0
0 00
1 0-
U
0 0
0�
V
2 V
'2p
1; y,,
Foamooal In A U41499420 Pkwy
S
8 071
14 0
0 1
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 I
A x&AM14n9Ave
764
6 017
33 0
0 1
'
4 3
0 1
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
Mlhdaon Aw6EXaw46 Rd
40)
6 -007
37 0
OW
1 5
0 0
2 1
2 0
0 0
2 1
1 1
I
Wrayrlelt&.nya I11
4110
0 1■
0 0
0 1

7. 3
I
7 I
I
0 0
0 0
2 0
11 0
0 T,oMneg 41 ARrr.hrlie In
SSS
8 026
16 0
0 I
0 ' 7--
0 S
0 0
0 1
9 0
0 0
7 0
0 Tlnrnliwg Si A R:It11m Rd
567
8 0.02
13 0
0 0
1 7-
7 1
1 0
1 0
0 00
1 ®
1 0
I
181o.ter Nd&gn09Nn Way
75/
6 412
19 0
0 0
1 -7_}
2 I
2 U
'
0 1
00 l
0 1
U
1 CAlly.Or& Orange x
29/
3 -0.OS
16 0
0 0
2 6
2 1
'`
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0 0 0 0
Sr nod St&(Mom It
0/1
8 '2
19 D
0 0
1 ..2
)
is
0 n
D
0 0
n
II
D
n
0 Ehubedlx6CChusth 14
996
6 16
0 0
0 2
6 1
1 7
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 2
0 0
D6P0t51&re4erst
1700
6 6
409
492
16 0
0 0
2 6
1 0
1 1
0 0
0 0irr

0 1
0 1
Stokes& 1 Alvin Ave
1350
33 0
0 1
.11
4 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1'6
2 0
V
0 Western Ave&M9Elhany Ayr
1464
6 021
11 00
I
0 0
0 3
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 )j+.
0 3
0 0
NRUlmld Ave 6 Mc !haw Ave
1476
4 046
24 0
0 1
2 1
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 O
0 0
Mydlan Or&Nike Di
1667
8 WPI
13 0
0 0
1 ,:,::74--1
2 0
1 `;7: '
1 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 Belly In& W Betters,*RO
216
7 410
121
0 a
0 2
4 1
0 ®
1 0
0 0
0 0
U
0 1
1 S Bradley Rd& Auto Kara Or
791
7 007
17 0
0 0
7 5
1 3:,
3 0
0 O
0 0
0 2
Il
0 II
0 Ruin Nana I n 0E 0.11,0wa Rd
378
7 0.14
17 0
0 0
1 F-6=
0 --3:,®
0 0
0 0
0 0
I
0 0
0 unnamed td west of el amino real 6CBeeseraW Rd
395
7 -004
17 0
0 0
2 S
1 2
3 0
0 1
0 0
0 jit. 4
0 1
0 1
(homburg X&Shelia ln
SO4
7 001
2 0
0 0
0 2
1 00
U
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 U
M0CIdland X& NIW/we Dr
522
7 012
12S
0 S
1 1
4 0
2 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
V
0 TIu114,,04X&Um wird St
S10
7 001
17 0
0 0
1 6
7 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 U
1 0
0 Tlanbag X& Buda Rd
543
7 -009
12 0
0 0
1 6
0 2
2 1
1 0
0 1
0 2
1 1St':
0 0
Collage Dr&(Enosd
570
7 -0.31
27 0
0 0IF

2 1
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
SMpu Si 7. W /no, R
S40
7 0.05
194
0-
0 7'
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 I
SRlown Rd A Pervling Si
666
7 012
17 0
0 0
1 6
1 7
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 00
0 We• nn Avn& Penh in/ Si
667
7 016
7 D
0 0
0 7
1 1
1 n
0 0
0 0
'i0�
W.
0 1
10 S Rmkoad Ave&NI0m600 Aw
742
7 7
016
018
7 0
0 0
0 7
1 0
0 2'
U
V
0 0
V
U
1 V
1 17
0 0
1 0
•
1 2
2 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 El
U
0 1004140 Ave &MOIM00 AV/
142
sir*Mm Ave& 1eyplev St
11S
7 S
II
D
0 0
7 0
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
1)
Co11y4Or 6CCxwe St
970
7 .009
17 0
0 0
2 5
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
1 0
0 SOna X&W011•Ih12
1014
7 -0.o)
22 0
0 1
1 S
1111
0 2
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 5100112t60M008
1020
7 412
17 0
0 0
1 L S.
0 t
0 0
0 1
0 1
`
0 0
1 4nnh St&WRUM St
1047
7 628
7 0
0 0
0®
0 1
0 I
0 0
0 0
I
0 0
0 0
N Mlle, w Si&Or rl Sl
1075
7 not
175-
0 0
1 4
0 0
7 1
4 F 1
0 D'
o
1 1
0 0
0 1121beth X&AMx
1160
7 0.:69
7 0
0 0
0'
o
i
3 0
1 0
l
0 0
0 0
0 00009IOYAw &eI CaminoX
1291
7 O5f5
12 0
0 0
1 O
1 1
1 ®
1 U
U
0 l
U
U
o
0 FL MI Ay,. AWANN Ow
13;6
7 0.00
72 D
0 0
4 3
0 3
1 0 0 0 0
0 I
n
7 U
CO
0lwyrr 4&W Alvin Av
1369
7 007
176
0 0
1 5
1 1
3 0
0 A
I
1 1
0 0
0 D
NUU000vm/&Agnes Ave
1519
7 -0.16
26 0
0 0
5 3
2 1
0 0
0 1
0 2
0 1
0 0
Western Ave &Harding ASV
1632
7 012
2 0
0 0
0 0
2 2
1 1
0 0
1 0
2 0
2 0
1 SUN Nil &1UIXgvan Nd
1667
7 -0.12
3/
U
U
1 2
2 2
1 U
1 U
U
1 l
1 1
2 U
U
07wvor St &W Donovan Rd
1626
7 -0.03
7 0
0 0
0 Will
2 IN
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
2 0
MI
We0eml Ave &WDOn0M0 Rd
1663
7 7OM"
402
106
22 0
0 0
0 1
1 3
5 3
3 1
2 2
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
DO
0 0
0 2
0 1
0 1
1 0
0 1
1 SUII*VWav& E Donovan Rd
1664
Moe 4 A6n.M9
1746
7 n .=
7 0
0 0
0 `
1 7
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 U
1 l
I
name Or AMomlllrh
42 6

0.11 16
0 0
0 2
4 0
0 0
I
0 6
0 0'
0 0
0 0
MICa/UI&Crplro9dm
256
6 009
21 00
1 0
6 1
0 0
'.ta
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 MIIlV St A C4110110Pgle 0400
341
6 417
11 0
0 0
1 S
1 1
0 0
U
0 0
0 1
U
0 U
1 0010Mvray& 1151 Porte In
341
6 071
16 0
0 1
0 5
7 727;.

I
0 0
U
0 0
0 11
0 1.1 I
U
Tl0rr4rug Si A Carmen) n
461
6 0.06
16 0
0 0
?
4 1
1 /I -L'
0 I
0 0
0 0
7 0
1 0
I
We860 Ave&5onw 10
497
6 ..)..V1,4#1
%
0 0
1 1
0 1
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 Un<d0 St0Shfel In
116
6 ..4?ii-:
6 0
U
0 0
1 2
1'
0 0
U
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 UntdU St 6NIWI0NOr
129
6 L
16 0
0 1
D
6 2
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0,
U
01 0
SOIedIWR46IIonrakAV*
569
6 416
21 0
0 1
1 4
1 1
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 3
0 1
0 0
Ma40901&(twos 51
605 61=11
0 0
0 1
50 3
0 1
1 00
1 0
1 0
0 1
1 SCx&WStow11 no
612
6 403
11 0
0 9
1 5
2 3
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
2 0
0 1
2MOn it&MoOanaWey
648
6 -0.11
11 00
0 1
SO
1 60
I
0 0
0 I
S
0 0
0 0
ISNh&rOr 6 Pwl Ave
716
6 411
19 0
0 0
1 S
1 1
6 0
0 0
0 0
I
3 0
0 0
0 00n. X& P.,k Ave
755
6 AU
175
0 0
1 4
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 1
00 Ua0*vAw 6k OIaP•St
752
6®
170

0. 0
0 6
0 1
1_
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 I �►0�
01 1
0 Slllndx&Know. Sl
IM
6 O60
6 O
O
0 •
7 1
7 0 _1
0 0
0 D
1 Do
I
0 6
0 0
0 0
0 2110
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1E
0 I
W1w•11 Av A&Nne St
704
6 044
Pine St&Bowe St
Pine X001ongeSt
926
862
6 -0.03
6 180
0 0
0 0
0 0
2`
2 2 't
1 0
1 1
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 t
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
0 0
6 lawyer X&LOn00X
866
6 6
0 0
0 0
3 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
CmIAve 6CenIMAw
673
6 6
0 0
0 0
-3
0 2
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 1
1 0
1 DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
0 1
homburg St &W Cook St
907
6 -0.10
11 0
0 0
1 5
1 1 4 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 a&
College Dr&ECook St
938
6 -0.15
16 0
0 1
0 5
0 2
3 0
0 0
0 1
0 2
0 1
0 0
Leith Sl&WCook St
943
6 096 -
21 0
0 1
1 4
1 ®
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 3
0 III0
1 SR8iroad Ave &Barrett St
945
6 IIII
6 0
0 0
0-
1 7
2 1
00 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 Palisade Cr&E Chun,' St
983
6 16
0 D
0 0
0 2
a
1 1
1 1
2 1
0 0
0 D
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
Oakley Ave & WNW,St
1048
6 4..15
170
D
5 0
0 1
0 D
0 1
0 Conce0don Ave & Chanel St
1062
6 IMF
21 0
0 0
3 2
0 2
0 1
0 0
1 0
3 D
0 1
1 Mabel St &E Chapel St
1076
6 0.31
11 0
0 0
1 5
1 2
1 0
1 0
1 0
0 1
0 1
0 1
N Miler St&Tunnel! St
1241
6 4.09
6 0
0 0
0 ;..
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 D
2 D
0 0
0 Russell Ave&Poole St
1246
6 0.04
16 0
0 0
2 4
11 1
00 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 N Broadway &W Hermosa St
1317
6 4.19
IL
0 0
0 1
5 1
2 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
1 D
1 0
1 NPIIH10e Dr&EAlvin Ave
1355
6 010
175
0 ®
D
I
4 1
1 3
0 0
0 0
I
0 1
D
1 0
N Broadway&Rose Ave
1400
6 4.19
6 0
0 0
0 3.
0 3®
0 0
0 0
D
1 D
1 0
1 N Broadway & Sunset Ave
1520
6 -0.19
16 0
0 1
0 5
3 0
2 1
_2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
N Western Ave&W Orchard St
1581
6 0.09
16 0
0 1
0 5
2 3
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
0 1
0 1
Umdn St&WDonovan Rd
1640
6 -0.07
26 0
0 1
2a
2 1
3 0
0 0
0 0
D
3 1
0 0
0 Oakley Ave &W Donovan Rd
1647
6 -0.02
6 0
0 0
0 3
1 2
0 2
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 N Railroad Ave&W Gram St
1786
6 4.09
330
0 ®
D
1 3
0 1
1 1
1 0
1 1
1 2
Mg
1 0
0 Pone St&W Grant St
1796
6 0.23
6 0
0 0
0 1
2 1
ilIl
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 2
0 0
WnyerSt&Taylor St
1837
6 4.12
21 0
0 0
3 0
1 3
0 1
0 0
0 D
3 D
1 0
0 N Railroad Ave & Canal St
1956
6 -0.02
11 0
0 0
1 5
2 0
2 02
0 0
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 Cesar E Chavez & Haden Pines Way
1989
6 -0.02
21 0
0 1
1 4
0 1
2 1
1 0
0 1
0 2
D
0 0
0 Kee Park Cr&Skyway Cr
35 5

4.21 15
0 0
1 0
4 1
0 1
0®
0 0
0 0
1 D
0 0
0 S Santa Maria Way&Dauphin St
75 5

4.17 35
0 D
1 D
4 2
0 0
0 0
1 0
D
1 D
0 0
0 College Dr&ArdoxC
81 5
-0.17
15 0
0 0
2 3
0 1
. 3
0 1
0 0
0 0
illi
0 0
0 0
McCoy IA & Bradley Rd
162
5 0.30
15 0
0 1
0 a
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 D
1 0
0 Umdn St&Carmen ln
377
5 4.01
10 0
0 0
1 4
0 1
0 1
0 1
0 1
1 D
1 0
1 Shepard Dr&EBattles Rd
396
3 4.17
174
0®
0 1
3 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
SDepot L&Sonya In
488
5 -0.12
5 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
SContepoion Ave&E5[0we11 Rd
615
5 -0.19
15 0
0 D
j2..
3 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
0 2
0 1
0 0
Comepd00 Ave& Sierra Madre Ave
671
5 0.30
15 0
0 0
'3 '
3 2
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 D
0 0
0 Russell Ave &PeNlingSt
706
5 0.30
189
0 Eir
1 1621'-.
1 1
1 00
0 0
0 D
0 D
1 0
Pone L&Rlartison Ave
718
5 -0.08
5 0
D
0 D

1 0
0 0
0 D
0 0
2 D
00 1
Wier St&Oak St
769
5 -0.15
17 D
0 1
I
0 0
0 1
1 1
0 0
0 I
2 0
0 0
0 5 Oakley St& unnamed street ofWChurch St
797
5 -0.20
174
0 EN
0 1
3 1
1 :.3
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 D
2 0
0 lincdn St&Bonne t
824
5 -0.04
15 0
0 1
0 4
1 1
1 1
0 0
1 0
1 1
D
0 0
1 Wryer St&arnge St
895
5 0.30
15 0
0 0
I Tr,,
3 2
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 D
2 0
0 Em Ave&EGeo&St
939
5 4.04
5 0
0 0
0 -
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 EktaMN L& 0y8ressSt
972
5 0.30
5 0
0 0
0 -
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 D
1 0
1 Regal Cr & E MOO St
1037
5 -0.20
20 0
0 D
2 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
Pine St&Chapel L
1094
5 0.02
10 0
0 0
1 4
1 1
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
1 Vine St&Mill L
1160
5 0.30
15 0
0 D
: 3. .
3 1
2 1
0 0
0 1
l
D
2 D
0 1
0 School L&Mill L
1162
5 0.30
5 0
0 0
0 R
0 1
3 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
WRo4evood Dr&Feder St
1234
5 4.01
10 0
0 0
I
40 2
1 1
0 1
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 NCollege Dr&el Camino Si
1306
5 -0.18
20 0
0 1
I
3 2
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
D
0 0
1 Walnut 0r&WAlvin Ave
1375
5 -0.14
15 0
0 D
:9'2
3 1
1 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 D
0 1
Marcia Way &Raaberg Ave
1413
5 0.52
5 0
0 0
0 0®
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
D
0 1
W dm ie St&MIEIh4nyAve
1430
5 0.52
5 0
0 0
0®
2 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
D
1 D
1 1
1 Tlanbur5St&MeElhanyAve
1438
5 -0.04
13 0
0 1
0 2
0 2
2 00
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
Benwlley Ave &Sunset Ave
1579
5 0.30
5 0
0 0
0 1
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 1
1 0
0 N R91I1084 Ave & Donovan Rd
1615
5 0.01
25 0
0 1
2 2
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 Golden Dr& W Donalan Rd
1650
5 4.09
15 0
0 D
2 3
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 D
1 1
1 0
1 Bay Ave &EDonovan Rd
1653
5 -0.13
25 0
0 1
.•2
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 D
0 0
0 N Gendel94n Ln& 09111am9 L
1664
5 :-
30 0
0 0
1 40
2 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
Bamnglon Or&Gaston St
1767
5 (1111
5 0
0 D
0 0jim

1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
0 0
Western Ave& Kingston Dr
1785
5 004
5 0
0 0
0 II
0 1
2 1
0 0
1 0
D
0 D
2 0
0 N Miler Sc&Gram St
1792
5 0.03
21 0
0 ®
0 00
1 1
1 0
0 D
0 1
0 0
00 1
Dwain St&Taylor St
1810
5 4.17
5 0
0 D
0 1
0 3
0 1
0 0
0 0
' '31
D
0 0
0 Suey Rd&limes St
42 4

4.17 4
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 D
0 1
Skyway Cr&Hangar St
72 4
-0.23
23 0
0 ®
D
2 2
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
a
D
0 0
0 FSt&WBeaerava Rd
141
4 -0.22
19 0
0 1
1 2
2 0
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0oldeyAve &WON In
261
4 -0.22
la
0 D
D
2 2
2 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
0 0
0 Skyway Dr&Tarns on
309
4 -0.23
14 0
0 D
2 2
1 0
2 0
0 0
1 0
0 2
D
1 0
0 S College Or&Auto Plata Dr
370
4 4.21
19 0
0 0

1 1
1 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
0 0
0 Miller St&Daniel Dr
373
4 4.20
4 0
0 0
0 _
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
Cemerpame Pkwy&E Betterwis Rd
375
4 4.22
9 0
0 D
1 3
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
D
0 1
1 0
0 Ronald Pl&5thanbugL
620
4 -0.10
4 0
0 0
0 Illr --
1 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Russell Ave&Mariposa Way
679
4 0.28
14 0
0 1
0 3
1 2
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0®
0 1
Miller St&Roble St
724
4 -0.19
6 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
D 0
0 0
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
Farrell Dr&Zones St
729
4 -0.10
14 0
0 1
D
3 1
0 2
0 1
0 D
0 0
0 0
D
Moller St&Morrison Ave
732
4 -0.20
17 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 0
0 Western Ave &Cam Cdegio
734
4 -0.10
9 0
0 0
1 3
2 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
0 0
Oakley Ave &E Chapel St
754
4 0.28
4 0
0 0
D
0 1
2 0
1 0
D
0 0
1 0
0 1
SOtpot St&Park Ave
761
4 -0.18
4 0
0 0
D
..
2 - %2._
D
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 Stint*, St&Panes St
772
4 011
4 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
S Smith St&Boone St
780
4 -0.13
9 0
0 0
1 3
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
Thornburg St&limes St
781
4 028
4 0
0 0
0 `2
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
2% 0
1 0
0 FWrstll Ave&Orange St
902
4 028
14 0
0 1
0 3
1 3
D
1 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 Elizabeth St& Boone St
803
4 -0.10
9 OD
0 1
3 2
1 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
Oakley Ave &WCook St
854
4 -0.13
9 0
0 0
1 3
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
00 0
D
S Railroad Ave &W Orange St
656
4 0.28
14 0
0 1
0 3
1 1
0 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
Lncdn St&Orange St
862
4 0.11
4 0
0 0
D
...
1 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
5 Depot St&Lemon St
868
4 -0.19
4 0
0 0
D
..
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 D
School St&Central Ave
876
4 0.11
4 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
0=0
0 2
1 0
0 0
S Palisade Dr&ECVicessWay
936
4 028
4 0
0 0
0 1
2'
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 2
1 0
0 0
Cu aver St&W Code St
942
4 -0.13
173
0 0
1 2
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 S Depot St&WCypress St
979
4 -0.19
6 0
0 0
D
0 0
I.
1 0
0 0
0 0
2 1
0 1
1 College Dr&EChurch St
991
4 -0.21
4 0
0 0
D
2 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
School St&E Church St
994
4 011
9 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
1 0
0 Thornburg St&W Church St
1009
4 -0.13
4 0
0 0
0 1'
,'
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
Russell Ave& unnamed re N d West Church Sr
1034
4 002
4 0
0 0
0 1
';2
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 1
0 0
S Raolroad Ave &WMain St
1045
4 -0.22
9 0
0 0
1 3
1 1
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 IIj'2
0 0
0 1
Vine St&E Man St
1064
4 -0.23
4 0
0 0
0 2
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 Concord Ave &StonebridgeCr
1091
4 0043
9 0
0 0
1 3
2 1
1 0
0 0
D
0 0
1 0
0 1
D
Dosser Re & sadden Pines Way
1095
4 006
9 0
0 0
1 3
1 1
0 0®
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 Dejoy St &Harding Ave
1105
4 0.28
4 0
0 0
D®
1 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
Llncdn St & Chapel St
1113
4 0.11
177
0 ®
1 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
_
0 0
0 0
1 Vine%t&Chapel St
1119
4 0.28
9 0
0 D
1 3
2 0
D
0 ®
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
0 Thornburg St&Chapel St
1120
4 .0.13
4 0
0 0
D
2 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 ;. -2.'
0 1
1 0
Concerti Ave&E Fester St
1166
4 0.28
4 0
0 0
D
1 1
1 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0®
0 0
Western Ave&d Camino St
1755
4 -0.13
168
0 ®
0 D
3 0
-',? -
0 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
Pine St&el Camino St
1282
4 0.28
14 0
0 D
""i!
2 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 N Railroad Ave & W Hermosa St
1289
4 -0.18
9 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
3 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
0 2
0 0
Mary Dr&WAlvin Ave
1329
4 -0.21
16 0
0 1
0 3
1 0
1 1
1 0
0 0
D
2 0
0 0
0 Russell Ave&Hermosa Dr
1335
4 011
9 0
0 D
1 3
0 1
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
NMIIer St&Hermosa St
1345
4 -0.20
6 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
2 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
Su e7 Rd&EAlvin Ave
1351
4 -0.23
9 D
0 0
1 3
0 0
3 0
1 OD
0 0
1 0
1 0
0 BemWley Ave &WAlvin Ave
1356
4 -0.21
14 0
0 1
0 3
1 1
0 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
Vine St&E Alvin Ave
1385
4 -0.21
4 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
00 1
0 1
Elm Ave&N Thornburg 5t
1409
4 -0.10
4 0
0 D
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
D_
I
D
N Railroad Ave & Patti Ln
1411
4 -0.20
4 D
0 0
0 2. •
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
Western Ave & Fran kln
1415
4 -0.13
9 0
0 0
1 3
2-
1 00
0 00
1 0
1 00
0 0
Lincoln St & W Bun nvAve
1481
4 011
177
0 /0
2 1
1 0
1 0
00 1
0 0®
0 0
Western Ave&Ginter St
1493
4 -0.13
9 0
0 D
1 3
0®
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 1
Western Ave &Agnes Ave
1549
4 -0.10
4 0
0 0
0 2
DO
0 0
D
0 0
00 1
0 0
Panther Dr&Qmtemial St
1567
4 -0.13
14 0
0 D
2 1
1 1
0 1
0 0
0 0
DO
0 0
lmcdn St &Harding Ave
1609
4 0.11
9 0
0 0
1 3
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Pepperaocd Pi& E Donovan Rd
1655
4 -0.18
9 0
0 D
1 3
0 1
0 D
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 D
0 la Salle Dr&Balboa Or
1670
4 028
14 Cr
0 D
2 0
1 1
1 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
1 0
1 N NosserRd & Culp
1697
4 -0.19
4 0
0 0
0 00
1 01110
0 0
0 D ''
10 0
0 N BlosserRd&Raithoverde
1698
4 005
14 D
0 I
0 3
1 00
1 ®
0 0
0 D
DO
0 0
081009t&Cute
1699
4 0.11
9 0
0 0
1 3
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
N Miler St&Williams St
1746
4 .0.08
4 0
0 0
D
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 Lynne Dr&Monroe St
1773
4 -0.06
4 0
0 0
D
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
2 0
1 0
D
Carlota Dr& Paden St
1781
4 -0.13
4 0
0 0
D
0 0
2 1
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 1
0 0
tncdn St&W&ant St
1797
4 -0.02
6 0
0 0
0 2
1 D
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
D
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

DATA SUMMARY

CRASH RECORD DATA
Crash records are available categorized at three different levels: by collision, by party (vehicle), and by victim. All three levels are linked by a unique Case ID for each collision. Crash records provide all data collected by the reporting officer, including crash identification (jurisdiction, route and postmile, location, date, time), demographics (sex, age, race, sobriety, safety equipment usage), environmental (lighting, weather, road surface), and crash details (primary collision factor, type of https://iswitrs.chn.ca.gov/ReDorts/isa/index.iso
D KS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 3

collision, vehicle/party type, severity). The codebook detailing the SWITRS crash record data and format is available on the SWITRS website.

For this project and most other safety analyses, the collision severity is defined in the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) as follows:
• Fatal injury: A collision that results in the death of a person within 30 days of the collision. • Severe (incapacitating) injury: A collision that results in broken bones, dislocation, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness, but not death.
• Other visible (non -incapacitating) injury: A collision that results in other visible injuries, including minor lacerations, bruising, and rashes.
• Possible injury (complaint of pain): A collision that results in the complaint of non -visible pain/injury, such as confusion, limping, and soreness.
• Property damage only (PD0): A collision without injury or complaint of pain but resulting in property damage to a vehicle or other object, commonly referred to as a "fender bender."2

TABLE 1. COLLISION SEVERITY (SWITRS DATA 2013-3ULY 2021) CATEGORY SEVERITY TOTAL % PED/BIKE 'No
1 Fatal 22 0% 11 2%
2 Injury (Severe) 169 1% 75 11%
3 Injury (Other Visible) 690 5% 180 27%
4 Injury (Complaint of Pain) 2,486 19% 272 42%
O PDO 9,839 75% 116 18%
Total
13,206 654
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates 2021
Figure 10 shows the distribution of collisions by severity. There is a significant increase in overall severity for bike- and pedestrian -involved collisions, particularly for Fatal and Severe Injury collisions.
2 PDO collisions do not include mechanical issues, such as a flat tire unless the failure results in a collision with another vehicle or object.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 14

Bike & Ped Collisions All Collisions
Inlwy ('severe) Iniury (Other
Fatal I a
VKibieY
FIGURE 10. DISTRIBUTION OF COLLISIONS BY SEVERITY (SWITRS DATA) Injury (Other Visible)
28%
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates 2021
CraSANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 15

Table 2 shows the distribution of collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Violation category for all collisions using both the SWITRS and Crossroads datasets.

TABLE 2. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORIES

PCF VIOLATION CATEGORY
COLLISIONS 0/0
N/AB
2,909 22%

UNSAFE SPEED
2,538 19%

IMPROPER TURNING
1,992 15%

AUTOMOBILE R/GHT OF WAY
1,653 12%

DRIVING OR BICYCLING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
1,002 8%

TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
767 6%

UNSAFE STARTING OR BACKING
740 6%

UNKNOWN
319 2%

UNSAFE LANE CHANGE
319 2%

WRONG SIDE OF ROAD
200 2%

FOLLOWING TOO CLOSELY
197 1%

DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE
156 1%

NOT STATED
88 1%

PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY
87 1%
IMPROPER PASSING 82
1%

PEDESTRIAN VIOLATION
80 1%
TOTAL' 13,330
°This is the total for all collisions, but not all PCF Violation categories are displayed b PCF not reported. See Section DETAILED SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING CROSSROADS Source: SWITRS; Crossroads; DKS Associates, 2021
The SWITRS dataset alone showed over 35% of collisions had a PCF Violation of "N/A" for both categories, but after cross-referencing Crossroads data, all but 40 collisions with a PCF Violation of "N/A" from the 2015-2021 period were resolved. Almost all the 22% of collisions with a PCF violation category of "N/A" are from 2013-2014, which is not covered by the Crossroads data.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 16

Table 3 shows the distribution of collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF) Violation category for only Fatal and Severe Injury collisions using both the SWITRS and Crossroads datasets.

TABLE 3. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORIES (FATAL & SEVERE

COLLISIONS)

PCF VIOLATION CATEGORY COLLISIONS
0/0
N/AA
51 26%

DRIVING OR BICYCLING UNDER THE INFLUENCE
24 12%

AUTOMOBILE RIGHT OF WAY
22 11%

PEDESTRIAN VIOLATION
22 11%

UNSAFE SPEED
20 10%

IMPROPER TURNING
19 10%

PEDESTRIAN RIGHT OF WAY
9 5%

TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND S/GNS
8 4%

UNKNOWN
5 3%

WRONG SIDE OF ROAD
4 2%

DRIVING UNDER INFLUENCE
3 2%

UNSAFE STARTING OR BACKING
3 2%

IMPROPER PASSING
2 1%

OTHER THAN DRIVER (OR PEDESTRIAN)
2 1%
TOTAL
a PCF not reported. See Section DETAILED SPATIAL ANALYSIS USING CROSSROADS Source: SWITRS; Crossroads; DKS Associates, 2021
191
Like the results for all collision severities, the majority (all but one) of the Fatal and Severe Injury collisions with a PCF Violation category of "N/A" in the SWITRS dataset were resolved after cross- referencing with Crossroads data. The remaining "N/A" collisions are from 2013-2014, which is not covered by the Crossroads data.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 17

Fatal & Severe Collisions All Collisions
■ N/A Unsafe Speed
• Improper Turning
■ Automobile Right of Way
■ Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug • Traffic Signals and Signs ■ Unsafe Starting or Backing ■ Pedestrian Violation
■ Pedestrian Right of Way • Other
FIGURE 11. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR (PCF) VIOLATION CATEGORY DISTRIBUTION Source: SWITRS; Crossroads; DKS Associates, 2021
2020 TRAVEL BEHAVIOR IMPACTS
In 2020, travel behavior saw shifts due to lockdowns and building capacity restrictions, among other changes. For the LRSP, collision data was analyzed from 2013 to 2021, including 2020. In the case that 2020 data shows significant outliers, a yearly breakdown of Collision Severity was examined.

Figure 12 shows the number of collisions by year and severity. Figure 13 shows the percentage of collisions by year anc severity. Although the overall number of collisions in 2020 saw a decrease compared to previous years, it does not differ significantly. The percentage breakdown of severity in 2020 is very similar to other years. Based on these trends, it is unlikely the 2020 data will compromise the accuracy of the analysis.
® SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 13

FIGURE 12. NUMBER OF CCLLISIONS BY YEAR AND SEVERITY
*Note that 2021 only has data up until mid -July
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021
FIGURE 13. PERCENTAGE OF COLLISIONS BY YEAR AND SEVERITY Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates-. 2021
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL RCAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
19 HIGH INJURY NETWORK (HIN)
Collision data was analyzed to identify a High Injury Network (HIN) of corridors and intersections with high numbers of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions. This analysis was performed for total Fatal and Severe Injury collisions and additionally for just bike- and pedestrian -involved collisions.

TABLE 4. TOP 10 CORRIDORS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (2013-7/2021) STREET NAME LIMIT 1
LIMIT 2 FATAL SEVERE
TOTAL

STOWELL RD
Broadway
Bradley Rd 0 13

S ROADWAY
Stowell Rd
Enos Dr 2 6

DONOVAN RD
Pine St
College Dr 1 7

BLOSSER RD
Main St
Stowell Rd 4 3

MCCOY LN
Professional Pkwy Caballero Ln
4 13
7 6

BROADWAY

BROADWAY
Newlove Dr Inger Dr
Dal Porto McCoy Ln
1 6

COOK ST
Oakley Ave

BROADWAY
Morrison Ave
Broadway
Stowell Rd

MAIN ST
Pine St
0 College Dr 0
5 6 6
6 6
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021; Shaded rows are located within Caltrans ROW and require Caltrans coordination TABLE 5. TOP 10 INTERSECTIONS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (2013-7/2021) STREET 1
STREET 2 FATAL SEVERE TOTAL

BROADWAY

STOWELL RD

MCCOY LN

ENOS DR

NEWLOVE DR

ORCHARD ST

INGER DR
4 4
1 3 4
1 2 3
0 3 3
1 1 2
1 1 2

BLOSSER RD

BETTERAVIA RD

BROADWAY

BETTERAVIA RD

COLLEGE DR

OAKLEY AVE

MAIN ST

MAIN ST
0 2 2
0 2 2
0 2 2
0 2 2
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021; Shaded rows are located within Caltrans ROW and require Caltrans coordination DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 20

Figure 14 shows a map of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions. Thicker lines denote higher numbers of collisions.

Wa�ina
Neighborhood Sa NM
to Maria inn
Santa Maria
Airport
Co!o wholesale
Waller Park
F/GURE 14. MAP OF HIGH INJURY CORRIDORS
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021
DKS
Rotary
Centennial
Park and
Robin...

SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
0 21

BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
Bike- and pedestrian -involved collisions were analyzed separately to identify corridors and intersections with high numbers of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions involving bikes or pedestrians.

Table 6 shows the top 10 corridors based on the number of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions involving bikes or pedestrians. Shaded facilities are within the State's (Caltrans) right-of-way.

TABLE 6. TOP 10 CORRIDORS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (BIKE & PED) (2013-7/2021)

STREET NAME
LIMIT 1 LIMIT 2
FATAL
SEVERE
TOTAL

BROADWAY

BROADWAY
Orchard St Alvin Ave
Newlove Dr Inger Dr
1 6
7 BLOSSER RD
Church St Boone St

NEWLOVE DR

COOK ST
Broadway Miller St
Depot St
2 1
2 3
4 4
Broadway 0
4 4

BROADWAY
Williams St Donovan 1
3 MILLER ST
Enos Dr Newlove Dr 1 2 3

ORCHARD ST
Broadway Miller St 1 2 3

COLLEGE DR
Chapel St Main St 0 3 3

MAIN ST
Elizabeth St College Dr
0 3 3
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021; Shaded rows are located within Caltrans ROW and require Caltrans coordination Table 7 shows the top 5 intersections based on the number of Fatal and Severe Injury collisions involving Bikes or Pedestrians.

TABLE 7. TOP INTERSECTIONS FOR FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS (BIKE & PED) (2013- 7/2021)
STREET 1
STREET 2 FATAL SEVERE TOTAL

BROADWAY

BROADWAY
NEWLOVE DR 0 3 3
INGER DR 1 1 2
ORCHARD ST 1 1

DI(S
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Walma
Neighborhood M rke�•.-Sarrte�IMarie r��_:
ilipi
Santa Maria Inn
I;-�
4 Santa Maria
Airport
Waller Park
Rotary i
Centennial
Park and
Robin...

FIGURE 15. MAP OF BIKE- AND PED-INVOLVED HIGH INJURY COLLISIONS Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, 2021
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 23

111 , o
P°°°°000 It';
0 °° °
•
0 • .
p coo oo°oc• °
A°° ° ° Taylor Rd °°g ° o °
Donovan
€0 01i0
43 100 e.
18 15
•
Main Street,
P o°6 014 ocr
0 0 . 2,0 00 • • 4 0 0'81 63: .N.° II I
II !
Stowell Rd —
Betteravia Rd. _
-
/
/
Legend
Intersection Crashes
O 1
0 13
• 26
O 39
O 52
O 65
• 78
• 91
ry a I
o
01 • O 01
O0 000
° 0 -0!
• °
o ©°
— • \
® Q` -, %—
a00
\1
y•
•• \ 1
1 Di
I� \1
I
1 0 0 0
•
FIGURE 16. MAP OF INTERSECTION COLLISIONS
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, Kimsey -Horn, 2021
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
Betteravia Rd
N
A

Legend
Mid -block Crashes
0 1-2
— 3-4
— 5-6
a 7-8
Mart Street
.I
n
' Bettaavia Rd
.1• a
L
•
•
•
•
S.

S.
•
Taylor Rd riik
Oonovai Rd
I
FIGURE 17. MAP OF MIDBLOCK COLLISIONS
Source: SWITRS; DKS Associates, Kimley-Horn, 2021
DKS
,
q
w
Stowell Rd
l
IBattles Rd
tr
I
I
• Betteravia Rd
f
k I
I
I
S.
•
.
raTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 25

Bike- and pedestrian -involved fatal and severe injury collisions were also mapped alongside schools, parks, and senior living facilities/communities. See Table 8, Table 9, and Table 10.

TABLE 8. PEDESTRIAN -INVOLVED COLLISION PROXIMITY TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS

DISTANCE

COLLISIONS
% OF TOTAL
WITHIN 3 BLOCKS
18 29%
MORE THAN 3 BLOCKS
44 71%

SCHOOLS
WITHIN 3 BLOCKS
27 44%
MORE THAN 3 BLOCKS
35 56%

TOTAL PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS
62 TABLE 9. BICYCLE -INVOLVED COLLISION PROXIM/TY TO PARKS AND SCHOOLS

DISTANCE

COLLISIONS
% OF TOTAL
WITHIN 3 BLOCKS
7 29%
MORE THAN 3 BLOCKS
17 71%

SCHOOLS
WITHIN 3 BLOCKS
8 33%
MORE THAN 3 BLOCKS
16 TOTAL BICYCLE COLLISIONS 24
67°k
TABLE 10. ELDERLY PEDESTRIAN COLLISION PROXIMITY TO SENIOR FACILITIES

DISTANCE
COLLISIONS % OF TOTAL
Age 55+
WITHIN 2 BLOCKS
MORE THAN 2 BLOCKS

TOTAL COLLISIONS,
PEDESTRIANS AGED 55+
5 20%
20 80%
25 Age 55-75
WITHIN 2 BLOCKS
5 23%
MORE THAN 2 BLOCKS
17 77%

TOTAL COLLISIONS,
PEDESTRIANS AGED 55-75
DKS
22 SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 26

This metric allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4).

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 23

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 29

TABLE 11 INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS
Location
No.

Location
No. of
Collisions
Local Critical
Crash
Rate3(CCR)
Differential
Equivalent
Property
Damage
Only
(EPDO)
Notes
Other Principal Arterial
1 BROADWAY: NEWLOVE DR

TO BATTLES RD
8 1.3D
23 High EPDO; high
number of rear -ends
and aggressive
collisions
Minor Arterial
2 MAIN ST: BRADLEY RD TO

NICHOLSON AVE
3 0.50
3 Collisions occurring
between freeway
ramps
Major Collector
3 BRADLEY RD: AUTO PLAZA

DR TO BETTERAVIA RD
$

2.80 18
High number of rear -
ends; higher EPDO
4 SANTA MARIA WY: SUNRISE

DR TO DAUPHIN ST
4 0.70
34 High EPDO and high
number of broadside
collisions
Local Road
5 PANTHER DR: DOMINGUES

BETTERAVIA RD
74 1.66
368
High local CCR
differential and high
number of aggressive
driving collisions
' https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/resources/fhwasa09029/sec2.cfm DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 30

Location
No.

Location
No. of
Collisions
Local Critical
Crash
Rate3(CCR)
Differential
Equivalent
Property
Damage
Only
(EPDO)
Notes
4 BROADWAY RRDD & PREISKES
62 0.83
444
Fatality and severe
injury; high number of
rear -end and
aggressive driving
collisions
5 BROADWAY & WILLIAMS
ST
50 0.38
282
2 pedestrian & 3
bicycle collisions
Unsignalized Intersections
1 CONCEPCIOSTAVE &MAIN
33 0.50
102
High number of
collisions, mainly
broadside. High EPDO
2 BROADWAYAVEMCELHANY
31 0.10
75 High number of
broadside and
sideswipe collisions
3 MILLER ST & ALVIN AVE
29 0.40
44 All -way stop with high
number of collisions
4 BLACK RD & STOWELL RD
26 1.20
61 T -intersection with
high number of
collisions
5 BROADWAY & ORCr ARC? ST
23 0.23
271
One fatality; 2
pedestrian and 3
bicycle collisions
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
31 2020 ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
In November 2020, the City of Santa Maria adopted a new Active Transportation Plan. As part of the plan, a collision analysis of SWITRS data from 2013 to 2017 was performed for bicycle and pedestrian collisions. The result of this analysis helps to describe the High Injury Network for bicyclists and pedestrians in the City. Table 12 and Table 13 show the top pedestrian and bicycle collision intersections, respectively. Table 14 shows the three corridors in Santa Maria had the highest rates of bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Shaded facilities are within the State's (Caltrans) right-of-way.

TABLE 12. TOP PEDESTRIAN COLLISION INTERSECTIONS

INJURY SEVERITY

PRIMARY SECONDARY

ROAD ROAD

PROPERTY COMPLAINT OTHER

DAMAGE OF PAIN VISIBLE

SEVERE FATAL
TOTAL
BROADWAY WILLIAMS ST 0 2 1 0
0 3

MAIN ST
MILLER ST 1
0 0
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 TABLE 13. TOP BICYCLE COLLISION INTERSECTIONS

PRIMARY SECONDARY

ROAD ROAD

ALVIN AVE

INJURY SEVERITY

PROPERTY COMPLAINT OTHER

DAMAGE OF PAIN VISIBLE

SEVERE FATAL
TOTAL
LINCOLN ST 1 2 0 0 0 3
BROADWAY GRANT ST 1 1 2 0 0 4
BROADWAY FESLER ST 2 2 0 0 0 4

BROADWAY WILLIAMS ST
0 2 0
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 TABLE 14. TOP INTERSECTION COLLISION CORRIDORS

PRIMARY ROAD
LIMIT 1a
LIMIT 2a

BICYCLIST PEDESTRIAN

COLLISIONS COLLISIONS
TOTAL

BROADWAY

MAIN ST
TAYLOR ST BETTERAVIA RD 35 31 66
US 101 18 w': u - 35

MILLER ST

DONOVAN RD BETTERAVIA RD
16 13
29 TOTAL COLLISIONS
69 61
130
a Approximate limit based on high collision corridors and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision heat map from the 2020 City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
32 Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 Sri Eatla t F -4y
V
a
r
FIGURE 1.8. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISION HEAT MAP (2013-17) 1i,c:y Ln
F
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 OKS
MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
L Eat[r3'.13 AN_
E Main 8_I
Prell P.d
Year 201 3-2017
Collision Density Heat
Map
Lw
Hgh
Road
City Boundary
J r
33 120
100
80 60
40 20
0 a
106
1 73
Total
25 19
FIGURE 19. PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENT PRECEDING COLLISION
Source: City of Santa Mara Active Transportation Plan, 2020 • Not Stated
• Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
* Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
• Crossing Not in Crosswalk
■ In Road, Including Shoulder
• Not in Road
FIGURE 20. PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE COLLISION BY LIGHTING CONDITION Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 34

S O 000
°G C r X O
O c000 c� 0
c 0 8 giu 0 Co o
O 0 0 co G 0� CO 8
0 0
- rvt
'►a,._C" t O
1 DNaDcfaaer
mare are omv,re pouts"
Source: City of Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan, 2020 DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY P_AN • APRIL 2022
Legend
Sticker Type
Bicycle Safety
Issue or Bicycle
Improvement
Needed
Parking Issueor
Parking
Improvement
Needed
0 •
E MainSt
Betteravia Rd
Pedestrian Safety
Issue or
0 Pedestrian
Improvement
Needed
Roads
City Boundary

Emphasis areas provide a strategic framework for developing and implementing strategies and actions for the LRSP. Emphasis Areas provide quantifiable and achievable goals for each identified crash type and were developed based on the results of crash data analysis and input from staff, stakeholders, and the public. For the development of strategies, the Emphasis Areas were categorized into three broader groups that are described below.

INFRASTRUCTURE
Multimodal transportation assets can be constructed or retrofitted to reduce fatal and serious injury crashes. Opportunities to do this include implementing safety treatments at intersections and along and across roadways. For this category, the following Emphasis Areas were identified:
• Intersections
Each Emphasis Area includes a set of strategies and responsible stakeholders, along with a preliminary set of actions that will help to achieve or advance the identified goal statements.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 36

VULNERABLE USERS

BICYCLISTS
8 This emphasis area focuses on crashes which involve someone riding a bicycle. About 90% of fatal and severe injury collisions involving bicyclists occurred on arterial or collector roadways. On these types of roadways, bicycle facilities place users in proximity with fast moving cars with little to no protection, making riders vulnerable to severe injuries in the event of a collision. Crash data show that while only 2.54% of all collisions in Santa Maria involved bicycles, bicyclists are involved in 15% of all fatalities and 10% of all severe injuries. This is much greater than the state average of only 4% of fatalities and 8% of severe injuries involving bicyclists. Older riders are also three times more likely for a crash to result in fatalities or severe injuries. According to the Community Survey, 41% of respondents avoid biking due to roadway safety concerns.

Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash rates for bicyclists below Statewide average rates by 2035 Strategies
Provide a more comprehensive network of bicycle facilities, including implementing and protecting bike lanes and reducing conflict zones between cars and bicycles, along high crash corridors (Engineering)
The 2020 Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan identified 72 bicycle facility projects located along corridors near recent bicycle crashes covering 35.64 miles of roadways. Providing safe alternate facilities away from high crash corridors including wayfinding and crossing treatments can also shift vulnerable users from high volume corridors. Installation of Bike Lanes (Class II) and Separated Bike Lanes (Class II/IV)4 have significant safety benefits of 35%-45% reduction in crash occurrence. (LRSM IDs R32PB; R33PB). In the Community Survey, 57% of respondents stated they would support installation of bike lanes.
• Identify bicycle projects in the Active Transportation Plan that yield competitive Benefit -Cost Ratios, and submit HSIP applications for state funding (Engineering) • Improve driver awareness of shared responsibility to be situationally aware and enhance road safety for all users (Education)
Schools and jurisdictions should provide driver training to increase driver sensitivity to the presence of bicyclists and educate how to identify right of way laws regarding interactions between drivers and pedestrians as well as high risk behaviors. • Promote bicycle helmet use and distribute helmets through community events and engage in regular bike safety campaigns using City social media platforms (Education) The City could run promotions that focus on lack of helmets, increasing understanding of the benefits from helmet use, and countering misconceptions about helmet use. Although this strategy has been shown to be more expensive and not as effective as laws mandating adult helmet usage, no States have yet enacted laws requiring adults to wear bicycle helmets, few local jurisdictions 4 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, April 2020
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

require people of all ages to wear helmets when bicycling 15 and there is concern that a mandate could decrease bicycle activity.
• Provide alternative repercussions for minors bicycling without a helmet, including bicycle traffic school and temporary tickets that can be reversed with receipt of purchase of a bicycle helmet (Enforcement)

PEDESTRIANS
O This emphasis area focuses on crashes involving someone walking. Pedestrians are some of the most vulnerable users of a roadway network, more likely resulting in fatal or severe injuries. Pedestrian -involved crashes make up less than 3% of total D Ocrashes but 28% of fatalities and severe injuries. Almost 40% of all pedestrian- / involved fatalities and severe injuries occurred when pedestrians attempted an uncontrolled mid -block crossing (not at an intersection). Pedestrian -involved crashes occurring when pedestrians crossed not at a crosswalk are twice as likely to result in a fatal or severe injury as those that occurred in a crosswalk. Data also showed that pedestrians between the age of 55 and 75 make up about 30% of all fatal or severe pedestrian -involved collisions, but only make up 13% of the population, which is a much higher share than any other age group. Of that 30%, about 37% of collisions occurred when crossing in a crosswalk, while about 37% were crossing not in a crosswalk.

Also, about 22% of those collisions were within 2 blocks of a senior living facility/community.

According to the Community Survey, 45% of respondents avoid walking due to roadway safety concerns.

Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash rates for pedestrians below Statewide average rates by 2035 Strategies
• Provide safe crossing opportunities at or near locations with high pedestrian -crossing violation occurrences (Engineering)
Pedestrian -crossing violations most often occur at locations where there are established pedestrian desire lines to points of interest and a pedestrian would either have to wait too long or walk too far for a safe crossing opportunity (i.e., undue detour). In places where there is high pedestrian demand and no nearby safe crossing opportunities, addition of protected crossings would improve connectivity and safety. Caltrans has previously included $250,000 in HSIP set - aside grant funding per jurisdiction for improved pedestrian crossings that is not subject to competitive benefit cost ratio thresholds. In the Community Survey, 53% of respondents expressed support for installation of protected crosswalks (striping with flashing beacons). • In locations where sufficient crossings exist or where isolated pedestrian crossings could add a safety concern, based on vehicle speed, line of sight, or other factors, median fences could provide an impediment to pedestrian -crossing violations. (Engineering)
Fences should only be installed where desire lines of high volume pedestrian crossings cannot be safely accommodated by installation of crossing treatments and where there is an existing curbed median to avoid blocking fire access.
5 NHTSA 812478 - Countermeasures That Work, 9"' Edition, 2017 D KS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 33

• Improve pedestrian safety at high crash occurrence intersections and corridors (Engineering)
The 2020 Santa Maria Active Transportation Plan has identified pedestrian oriented improvements located near recent pedestrian crashes. These projects include improved snared use paths, traffic calming and improved crossings. According to Caltrans, a 35%-55% reduction in crash occurrence can be achieved with the installation of Rectangular Rapid -Flashing Beacon (RRFBs) and Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHBs)6. (LRSM IDs NS 21PB; NS22PB; NS23PB) There is also a 35% reduction in pedestrian crash occurrence for improved pedestrian crossing features including curb radius extension and curb extension, (LRSM ID R35PB) as well as a 35% -eduction in pedestrian crash occurrence for installation of raised pedestrian crossing. (LRSM ID R36PB). In the Community Survey, 55% of respondents stated they would support installation of sidewalks. • Improve driver awareness of shared responsibility to be situationally aware and enhance road safety for all users. Use City social media outlet platforms to bring awareness and remind drivers of increased pedestrian activity at the beginning of school year. (Education)
Schools and jurisdictions should provide driver training to increase driver sensitivity to the presence of pedestrians and educate how to identify right of way laws regarding interactions between drivers and pedestrians as well as high risk behaviors. Pedestrian gap acceptance training can help pedestrians make better decisions when crossing roads, including improving pedestrian judgement of speed and distance of oncoming traffic.

Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash rates involving seniors below Statewide average rates by 2035
G Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, April 2020
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 133

RISKY BEHAVIORS

IMPAIRED DRIVING
A This emphasis area focuses on crashes in which the driver was under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI). DUI crashes account for 9% of all crashes but make up d - 25% of fatal and severe injury crashes. In addition, the frequency of fatal and severe injury DUI crashes was disproportionally higher during weekends and late night/early morning (between 10 pm and 2 am) periods. Nearly half of all fatal and severe injury crashes during this period were DUIs, while only a fifth of fatal and severe injury crashes during the other time periods involved an impaired driver.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 40

INFRASTRUCTURE

INTERSECTIONS
This emphasis area focuses on crashes associated with intersection operations. Crashes observed in Santa Maria associated with intersections are more than six times as likely to L result in fatal or severe injuries than other crashes. 89% of all collisions were within 250 feet of an intersection. 91% of all pedestrian and bicycle collisions were within 250 feet of an intersection. 40% of all intersection collisions were at or near a signalized intersection.

1.5% of intersection collisions resulted in a fatal or severe injury. 88% of the fatal and severe injury collisions in Santa Maria were within 250 feet of an intersection. The most common types of fatal and severe injury intersection collisions include the following:
• Pedestrian collisions (34%)
• Broadside (28%)
Goals
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crash instances at intersections below Statewide average rates by 2035
• Improve intersection safety among all roadway users (motorist, pedestrians, and bicycle users) Strategies
• Pursue opportunities to reduce conflicts between movements and users through engineering and regulatory measures, including introduction of roundabouts, Class I multi -use trails, marked crosswalks and/or protected crossings and installing separated intersections for bicyclists among others.
• Implementation of countermeasures to prioritize safe bicycle and pedestrian mobility through intersections (Engineering)
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Educational campaigns and enforcement activities to promote safer and proper stopping habits at stop signs and signals, rail crossings, and other points of conflict (Education & Enforcement)

Goals
• Improve consistency, comprehensiveness, and access to crash data Strategies
• Develop and implement an electronic reporting system to improve crash report timeliness, uniformity, accuracy, completeness, accessibility, and integration with related data sets (e.g., roadway inventory, traffic, public health) (Enforcement) Other data sources can potentially be used to improve comprehensiveness of crash data, including the FARS system, hospital case reporting, and insurance claims. • Evaluate type and extent of crash under -reporting and implement necessary actions to address the issue. (Enforcement)
• Collect data that helps safety data analysts and policy makers evaluate transportation safety equity. (Engineering)
• Re-evaluate collision trends and associated countermeasures every 5 years and update the Local Road Safety Plan and associated goals. (Engineering) DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 43

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 44

Additional opportunities at the signalized intersection of Main Street and Miller Street include installing curb extensions to help realign the intersection and cat tracks to provide lane guidance for turning vehicles. Main Street and Miller Street is currently under construction with pole replacements, new signal heads, and reconstructed curb ramps.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 45

Many of these sources are competitive.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 46

More frequent monitoring of safety trends can be performed by reviewing web -based collision statistics reported for the City of Santa Maria by the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS). OTS provides Santa Maria collision data and ranks the city relative with like -sized cities statewide. This resource can be used as a surrogate to track progress of the plan between major updates. The LRSP goal of achieving "below statewide average" is analogous to the OTS ranking process which normalizes for city size statewide. OTS reporting does not distinguish between facility types (segment vs. intersection) but the Total Fatal and Injury category can be used as a general indicator for tracking overall progress towards the LRSP goal. The link to the OTS website is:
https: // www.ots . ca.00v/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/ The Emphasis Areas and Strategies identified in the Local Road Safety Plan will be re-evaluated every five years and revised based upon the results of the crash trend analysis.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
49 • Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
• Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) - Planning
• Discretionary/Formula Funding Sources, CMAQ etc.

Local Funding
• Measure A Sales Tax Funds (Discretionary Call for Projects) Additional grant funding sources and opportunities can now be searched using the State's California Grants Portal website. Links to access this website are as follows. httos:// www.grants.ca.gov/a-new-way-to-find-grants/
https://www.grants.ca.gov/
'. GRANTS

O GRANT
PORTAL
I am
Find Grants About This Sae Using This Sae For State Agencies Solos: Lingers: r.+ !Mx Very.

FIND YOUR OPPORTUNITY
Any Applicant Type e looking for funding in Any Grant Category a sector with at least Any Timeframe o until the application deadline.

Show Me the Opporwatics
SHOW ME EVERYTHING ^

CALIFORNIA

STATE LIBRARY
The California Grants Portal (a project by the
California State Library) is your one
destination to find all grants and Imam
The most applicable grant funding program for safety improvements is the State's Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). HSIP eligibility is directly contingent upon having an approved LRSP.

DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APP.IL 2022 48

APPENDIX A CONTENTS
SECTION 1. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP MEETING AGENDA
SECTION 2. COMMUNITY SURVEY
SECTION 3: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
SECTION 4: SUMMARY OF CRASH TYPES BY LOCATION
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022 51

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement ■ Emergency Response September 20, 2021
Time: 5:30 — 7:30 p.m.

APPENDIX A.1. STAKEHOLDER ADVISORY GROUP MEETING
AGENDA
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement ■ Emergency Response September 20, 2021
Date/Time:Sept 20th 5:30 — 7:30 p.m. Project: Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan — Safer Streets for Santa Maria
Location: Veteran's Hall
313 W Tunnel) Street,
Santa Maria, CA 93458
Subject: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
I. Introductions
Mark Mueller City of Santa Maria Public Works
Jim Damkowitch, DKS
Josh Pilachowski, DKS
Darryl dePencier, Kimley-Horn
Geoffrey Wheeler, Bicycle Advocate
David Dennis, SB Bike & COAST
Nathan Paul, Santa Maria Railroad
Jim Austin, Santa Maria Fire Department
Rosie Iniguez, Saint John Neumann
II. SAG Input on Project Vision, Goals and Emphasis Areas • SAG agreed with the City's preferred Vision Statement "To progressively reduce Fatal and Severe Injury crashes in Santa Maria."
• SAG agreed with using Statewide Averages as the comparative metric for quantifiable goals (e.g., To reduce below statewide average by facility type (intersection and segment)). • SAG suggested incorporating Safe Routes to Schools and Safe Routes for Seniors (near senior housing facilities).
• More lighting and safer crossings near churches would help improve safety for people coming and going. More lighting might also help with safety for those concerned about loiterers in the area • Bicycle and pedestrian crash goals should account for potential growth in mode share that might lead to more crashes even as safety is improved and the individual likelihood of crashes goes down • Speed control can be managed more cost-effectively through roadway design and infrastructure than via enforcement. Enforcement efforts should be focused in key areas such as rail crossings and signal compliance.
• The City staff are supportive of roundabouts and intersection treatments, but the public and elected officials are not ready to be enthusiastic about them yet.

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering ■ Enforcement ■ Emergency Response • A key focus for enforcement should be signal compliance — Miller Street and Stowell Road are continuously subjected to motorists who run red lights. Red light cameras have been tried in the past and got a lot of bad press. New regulation, vendors and technologies might open the door for another attempt.
• Emphasis areas should focus on reducing impaired driving, distracted driving, and unlicensed driving.

Page 2 of 2 ends

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education ■ Engineering • Enforcement ■ Emergency Response VI. Community Survey (15 min)
• Results thus far
VII. Vision Statement (10 min)
• High-level overarching purpose and goal for the plan. • Types of Vision Statements
City Recommended:
- To progressively reduce Fatal and Severe Injury crashes in Santa Maria.

VIII. Emphasis Areas (30 min)
• Provide Focus
• Goals (quantifiable and achievable)
City Recommended:
- To reduce below statewide average by facility type (intersection and segment).

IX. Collision Analysis (30 min)
Next Steps (2 min)
Adjourn
SAG AgendaSAG_1_Agenda _LRSP Sept 20 2021

Page 2 of 4 ends

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response January 24, 2022
Time: 10:00 AM — 12:00 Noon. Project: Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan — Safer Streets for Santa Maria
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
https://zoom.us/j/94524673431?pwd=VXBK
UVcwcOcwZkliTE92ZEpYSGIhdz09
Meeting ID: 945 2467 3431
Passcode: SMLRSP
Subject: Stakeholder Advisory Committee Meeting
Introductions (5 min)
• City Santa Maria
• Consultant Team
• Stakeholder Advisory Group
II. Project Goals (10 min)
• Develop proactive approach to roadway safety through the 4 Es (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services)
• Identify a prioritized list of 'ow -cost safety countermeasures/improvements • Develop 3 applications for HSIP Cycle 11 (April 2022) • Get Projects Funded!
III. Project Overview — Project Status (25 min)
• Interim Deliverables
- Vision Statement
- Goals (quantifiable and achievable)
- Collision Analysis Memorandum
- Components Memorandum (i.e., Emphasis Areas)
- Strategy Memorandum
• Public Participation (15 min)
- Public Engagement Plan
- FAQ
- Branding
- Project Website https://www.saferstreetsforsantamaria.com - Community Survey

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response - Community Engagement Activities (Pop Up Events)
IV. Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan Report (50 min)
V. Next Steps (30 min)
- Plan Approval Schedule
- Top 3 Safety Improvements

1. Location Specific

2. Systemic Improvement
- Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application Development Adjourn

Page 2 of 4 ends

SAG AgantlaSAG_2_Aganda_LRSP January Mting

APPENDIX A.2. COMMUNITY SURVEY
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Safer Streets for
Santa Maria
Education • Engineering • Enforcement • Emergency Response Santa Maria Local Roadway Safety Plan
The City of Santa Maria is developing a Local Roadway Safety Plan to make travelling safer, easier, and more accessible for everyone. Be a part of the project by answering a few questions about your experience!

1. Do you avoid any of the following modes of transportation because of safety concerns? (Check all that apply)
❑ Walking
❑ Biking
❑ Car (Driving)
❑ Public Transit

2. In your opinion, of the following safety concerns, what causes the most safety issues in Santa Maria? (Choose up to 3, rank from 1 to 3, where number 1 being the most important) Speeding motorists
Driver Inattention / Distraction
Lack of Enforcement
Alcohol or Drug Impairment
_Street/Roadway Design
Intersection Design
_Lack of Driver Education
Lack of Roadway Lighting

Questions for parents of school -aged children (K-12)

5. Do you know if your child(ren) is/are receiving roadway safety education at school? ❑ Yes
❑ No

6. Do your children walk or bike to school?
❑ Yes
❑ No
Optional questions

7. What is your gender? (Select one)
❑ Female
❑ Male
❑ Not listed (please specify):
❑ Prefer not to answer

8. What category below includes your age? (Select one)
❑ 17 years or younger
❑ 18-24 years old
❑ 25 - 34 years old
❑ 35 - 44 years old
❑ 45-64 years old
❑ 64-74 years old
❑ 74 years or older
❑ Prefer not to answer

9. How would you describe yourself? (Select all that apply) ❑ American Indian or Alaska Native
❑ Hispanic, Latinx, or of Spanish origin
❑ Asian
LI Black or African American
❑ Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
❑ White
❑ Not listed (please specify):
❑ Prefer not to answer

10. Do you use an assistive mobility device?
❑ No
❑ Wheelchair or mobility scooter
❑ Walker, support cane, crutches, forearm crutches, or similar ❑ Service dog
❑ Sighted guide
❑ White cane or similar
❑ Other:
3 11. Using the map, in what part of the
city do you live?
E Downtown (DT)
❑ Northwest (NW)
❑ Northeast (NE)
E Southwest (SW)
❑ Southeast (SE)
E 1 live outside of the city
❑ Prefer not to answer

12. Using the map, in what part of the
city do you work?
❑ Downtown (DT)
❑ Northwest (NW)
❑ Northeast (NE)
E Southwest (SW)
❑ Southeast (SE)
❑ I work outside of the city
❑ I am not presently employed
❑ Prefer not to answer

13. Do you have any other comments or suggestions to improve transportation safety? Thank you for your participation in helping improve safety in your city!

APPENDIX A.3: COMMUNITY SURVEY RESULTS
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

Q1
Walking

47.00%
227
Biking

42.86%
207
Car (Driving)

15.73%
76 Put4ic Transit (Bus)

11.18%
54 Not Applicable

17.60%
85 Other (please specify)

0.00%
0 483
03 Other (please specify)

0.87%
4 None

31.39%
145
Reducing Speed Limits

12.34%
57 More Street Lighting

4.11%
19 Signalizing Intersections

3.25%
15 Protected Crosswalks

3.68%
17 Electronic Variable Message Signs (e.g., speed warnings)

6.28%
29 Prohibiting Trucks

11.90%
55 Sidewalks

2.16%
10 Bike Lanes

5.41%
25 Roundabouts

14.50%
67 Speed Cameras

23.16%
107
Speed Bumps

25.76%
119
462
Q4
Other (please specify)

5.83%
28 All of the above

4.79%
23 Reducing Speed Limits

27.29%
131
More Street Lighting
4333%
208
Signalizing Intersections
2958%
142
Protected Crosswalks

55.42%
266
Electronic Variable Message Signs (e.g., speed warnings)

27.92%
134
Prohibiting Trucks

15.42%
74 Sidewalks
5730%
276
Bike Lanes
5958%
286
Roundabouts

27.71%
133
Speed Cameras

23.75%
114
Speed Bumps

21.67%
104
480
QS
Other (please specify)

2.94%
14 Distracted Driver Enforcement (motorists using cellphones, etc.)

57.86%
276
Bicycle Enforcement (cite bicyclist for not properly using the runts of road)

15.72%
75 Red -Light Enforcement

33.54%
160
S eed Limit Enforcement

52.41%
250
Impaired/Dronk Drivers Enforcement
5032%
241
477
126
Yes
3037%
107
No
6400%
224
Not Applicable

5.43%
19 350
Q7
Yes

23.76%
91 No

45.17%
173
Not Applicable

31.07%
119
383
Q9
17 years or younger

2.11%
10 18-24 years old
1033%
50 25-34 years old

28.84%
137
35-44 years old

25.05%
119
45-64 years old

23.79%
113
64-74 years old

7.58%
36 74 years or older

2.11%
10 475
Q10
American Indian or Alaska Native

3.46%
16 Hispanic, Latins, or of Spanish origin

59.61%
276
Asian

1.73%
8 Black or African American

1.73%
8 Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

0.65%
3 White

30.89%
143
Not listed (please specify)

1.94%
9 463
Q12 & 13
Downtown (DT)
Northwest (NW)
Northeast (NE)
Southwest (SW)
Southeast (SE)
I live outside of the city
450 373
Home Location Work Location Home Work

4.89% 8.31% 22 31

18.67% 11.80% 84 44

24.44% 11.26% 110 42

24.22% 22.79% 109 85

20.67% 18.77% 93 70

7.11% 27.08% 32 101

APPENDIX A.4: SUMMARY OF CRASH TYPES BY LOCATION
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

ROADWAY SEGMENT COLLISION ANALYSIS
Other Principal 4tenai
i
R
S Broadway
S06 Newbve Dr• 5Hattle Rd
8 U
23 0
0 0
3 5
0 2
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 1
1 0
0 SBroa1way
520 Inger Dr • Newidve Dr
3 0.1
13 0
0 0
1 1 0
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 5 Broadway
532 Eno"),- Battles Rd
3 0.1
8 0
0 0
1 2
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0,
1 1
0 ', 1
E Main St
1830 Bradley Rd - NIAOIsen Ave
3 03
0 0
0 0
0 1 1
1 0 -.
0 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
51,111001,111
Bradley Rd
1608 Auto Pine W• •
a

'.
18 0
0 0
2 2 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
2 'y _'
0 0 0
50800550
1748 MOOtIMn nee -WRowell R0
6 Ie'_
11 0
0 1
1 1
1 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0 0
Blower Rd
1050 W Stowell Rd•snnamad rte or StoweBRO
5 0.9
30 0
0 0
1 h.
3 .- .
3 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
0 0
Bradley Rd
1072 E5twM Rd-Ctlumha Or
5 333.
10 0
0 0
1 1 1
2 0
1 0
0 0
0 2
1 0
0 0
Santa Marla Way
6 Sunrise Dr- Dauphin St
4 0.7
34 0
0 ,'".
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 , 0
MXIer St
Sal Sower-BattlerRd
3 0.6
3 0
0 0
0 1 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
Caw Or
1712 Stowell Rd -Enos Or
3 01
8 0
0 0
1 2
011-. 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
Blount rid
rocs
lase 859
1753 08orteSt Rnudien Way
10910109001 Rd -810
3 4
02 1.1
8 9
0 0
0 0
0 0
1 1
2 3
1 1
1 0
1 1
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
1 0
1 0
0 0
1 0
Topw We
3914 Notes•11 Or
4 7.4
4 0
0 0
0 4
0 1
2 0
0 0
1 0
0 0
0 4
0 0
Pa Dr
3934 Domingues St -Mode Or
4 20
24 0
0 1
1 1 0
1 0
1 0
0 1
0 1
1 0
0 0
Raaberg Way
3944 BenwleyAve-Marcia Way
4 7.4
a
0 0
0 0.
4 1 2
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
Creston St
4026 PineMOSI
4 36
22 0
0 0
0 4
1 0
2 1
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0

1.04141 Coilloal Crash Rate Differentlai

2. EguMalent Property Damage Only Downes
DKS
>L,il„ MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS
14 16
22 3
SO 6
36 4 5
O 4
35,6x1306& W53gytl173
880Re6 WMin St
5131& WMD*to
5111110R&E80ce1W
SBr-9y6Pee* 30
.. _ . ...
uslm& Better** Rd
5 Bradley 60 5 0 3*3*0Nn Re
N Broadway WMtln2
N Br3faWW & W Nnwm Na
5 Bradley*, EYwreN RI
SR*Iwaz [m9Y
N WUT.M &3,11!03171
50007523004&01154
MAhvY 65 61y0 59
N &39;393026 W Grant Y
0246009560enoyan Rd
&30310 W 9 W Dwell Rd
110400,& EMYnY
N Gem 51.5W11133151.

Pak* 4&BNterWRRd
520,102& Ew3wnim
5434 Y•W M3n.snAW
110067 Re &E MYnY
0,36303&03003302
IY & W BettemM Rd
BmaM&y& W When In
Brock* &*fester Y
C[dege Re&E Smxe9Rd
SBmalwey&Nt9Aa24
8103* PL & WHaulea Rd

10.3943640,0 &E MOO SC
NOIJEUW& W1**51
91030364&WCm%S9 —.

CSt GCN[DY
Be st DE Ere* Dr
Og930&EDeroyanRd
bnaw3 & W Nom AVE'
em A6e0 W Mtn St
000 v&we4temWI116e51ve4y Caner
R161a3ea49e
.24WMNn5
3102 SE WIDOW
034000 Aye LW ADM laze
316544 Me SW Gunman Pa
503100 51 &W Dowd*
N Bluest Rtl 4WOM3YanM
Y GW000eula Rl
40015 ENMn Wmsnaeae Wet
men6urg 2 a w 9101!10334 Re
0101 0Re & 03,0361.6
001,115 UM b 1/01181 St
SCollege Or SE Battle OD
Mu!.,St& 400.2
5 Deft Y LW 0000193/1
WceNS:&WCao6SC
51111e 53 DE Met**
N MOer 36973920415059
Skyway Dr& W falrwy01
50025213390&[31610604
M1191w.1 St&E[DAD
N Dosser aa&w2.00 Ave
Ormn E'py&Ia9Neew Pe
131 Rem&EEltltesNDRa
9&0910516 tam C3le0o
N Suet Rd &E Mon 2
mm(2043E&E ND* Se
940012700& EMMn51
mlege0rb Pena* St
Pine 2 & W 030174
DKS
631 91 033 395
1051 63 005 100
203 31 014 391
361 78 017 228
551 76 523 177
338 74 409 516
372 74 1.66 164
958 74 .017 333
1611 86 0.05 327
614 0 008 481
904 63 7433 322
W u au'
44 576 N 0.21 492
1021 10 405 333
1 1761 SS 033 159
162{ Si o.39 Isx
60 51 022 254
1015 51 416 142
• 1046 53 020 130
S0 613 141
725 90 019 323
no SO 0.33 113
1680 SD 031 261
326 42 AR 277
379 99 409 84
_... •.120 37 423 97
613 36 4.13 97
15 1.15 90
•.994 34 027 90
1567 34 417 94
• 167 35 3.00 252
NO 13 000
38 574 32 401 256
1611 31 409 97
1361 31 432 96
1052 30 402 372
3031 30 D10 95
573 17 0.03 87
1035 16 4M 56
.• 551 33 4.33 231
1357 13 424 58
3051 23 432 212
u9 12 4131 n
_..
3554 19 433 0
132 33 400 43
133 12 451 37
17 4.27 37
206 17 433 43
110 16 492 52
82 I6 446 II
01 16 421 41
360 I3 44 45
905 15 429 352
241 11 493 29
_
1629 10. . . 4♦3.. 36
0 13 455 38
60 13 437 152
660 19 434 53
__.
ll0 13 453 0
26 11 464 22
41 32 440 190
201 li 432 190
905 12 454 196
1023 12 452 17
43 10 446 15
9I8 10 460 30
90 10 457 19
O 1 3 22 65
O 0 3 15 55
▪ 1 3 13 54
O 0 6 18 54
O 0 2 16 38
O 2 4 15 33
O 1 3 20 50
O 1 3 13 57
O 1 1 15 511
o 2 2 14 45
O 1 2 15 45
1 I 2 7 51
O 2 4 13 41
O 1 2 18 37
O 0 5 11 33
O 0 3 14 35
1 0 2 4 44
O 0 1 16 34
O 0 4 6 43
o o 2 I4 3a
O 1 0 10 33
O 0 5 12 32
O 0 I 10 39
O 1 5 4 40
O 1 0 14 27
3 0 2 5 3]
O 0 3 6 23
O 0 I 30 25
O 2 1 6 26
O 0 2 I 26
O 0 0 9 25
O 0
1 0
0 0
O 1
0 0
D D
0 2
O 0
e 0
0 0
O I
0 0
1 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
o e
O 0
O 0
O D
O 0
D 2
D 0
• 0
O 0
1 0
0 D 0
O 0
D 1
3 I
D 1
O 0
o , 0
O 0
O 0
1 9
2 3
t 9
2 3
2 2
3 1
1 0
0 2
0 0
0 0
1 1
0 1
e
]4
22 23
21 75
19 19
22 Is
17 13
14 16
13 13
14 13
9 12
11 11
I1
11 12
11 9
9 u
30 15
16 11 54 2 6 0 1
16 0.0 1 3 0 2
16 31 5 6 0 0
II 33 1 1 1 1
12 39 6 2 0 2
15 38 2 5 D 0
10 44 1 2 0 1
15 22 3 9 0 2
ll 12 33 1 3 1 2
21 14 13 l 3 0 4
B 13 34 1 3 0 1
6 3 33 3 73
13 15
15 16
12 14
15 14
12 13
1 1
8 0
3 3 5 2 2 D 2
3 5 5 2 0 1 D
2 2 11 0 I D 0
8 3 3 1 0 DI
3 2 9 0 2 0 0
3 3 3 I 5 0 0
5 1 6 o D 0 0
3 3 2 0 1 D D
0 3
7 5
2 5
2 29 5 5 0 1
15 18 n 3 D 0
7 ]6 3 3 D 0
7 16 II 1 0 0
8 22 3 6 0 0
7 32 3 3 0 3
8 23 0 3 0 D
7 24 0 3 I 0
10 21 3 7 0 0
3 32 3 I 0 1
13 24 1 2 0 1
3 13 2 ID 0 D
9 17 4 3 2 1
13 15 0 4 0 a
4 16 3 4 0 0
8 15 0 I 0 I
7 21 0 1 OD
6 18 I I 0 I
8 12 0 1 0 1
6 5 l 1 0 2
2 15 0 2 0 I
0 11 1 5 0 I
4 9 6 I 0 4
6 20 0 0 0 0
IS 1 0 0 I
8 13 1 0 0 I
4 3 3 2 7 I
3 8 2 2 U 0
2 17 1 0 0 1
2 8 1 0 0 0
3 6 D 1 0 0
2 10 2 2 0 1
6 8 1 1 0 0
0 3 3 1 0
1 9 0 0 0 1
3 9 9 5 0 0
`I"A MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
3 5 1 3 0 0
5 5 1 2 0 D
D 2 1 3 1 1
4 2 n 2 0 1
1 2 2 1 0 0
1 3 0 2 D 0
2 3 0 0 0
0 2 0 I
1 2 2 7 D D
4 4 0 3 & 0
2 2 0 3 0 0
0 1 0 I
2 6 0 0 0 0
O l
1 0
O 2
0 2
2 0
3 1 5
4 D
O 3
O 1
1 0
2 1
O l
O 1
O 1
D 0
3 0
O 0
O 1
7 1
u
x
1 1
O 0
O 2
O I
1 0
3 2
1 1
1 t
O 0
O 0
1 1
O 0
1 3
3 1 t
D 0
1 2
O 0
3 0
O 0
O 1
1 0
O 0
O 0
O 1
O 0
O 0
O 0
O 9
O 0
3 0
O 0
0 0
O 0
O 0
D o
O 0
1 1
D I
D I
•
1 0
1 0
3t 7 5
39 9 9
39 7 3
28 9 3
46 10 7
29 5 7
B l 11
13 4 4
31 D 9
34 5 5
33 5 n
24 6 8
37 2 2
15 4 2
25 5 7
27 3 2
26 6 6
31 5
31 3
23 4
19 .
19 1
21 2
12 3
20 3
16 4
27 0
12 3
12 1
16 3
23 17 1 2
23 3 I
15 n 4
14 7 5
19 3 1
1l 1 3
li 2 1
15 3 0
6 0 5
9 3 5
13 0
5 3
3 1
3 10
9 3 1 D 2
6 3 0 1 1
10 1 0 0 0
9 1 0. .. 3 0
6 2 2 0 0
5 1 2 0 0
r 0 1 o 9
s 2 7 0 1
S u o n
_..
• D 1 0 0
4 0 2 0 0
0 O 3
O 5
O ..

O 7
0 4
1 2
0 6
1 4
O I
a 3
9 0
0 0
0 0
0 1
0 4
1 6
1 5
0 7
o 4
D 4
O 2
O 5
O 7
O 2
O 0
O 1
0 5
O 2
0 0 2
1 0
U 4
3 s
O 1
0 O I
O 0
D 0
0 _ 1
1 0 0
9 3 l 1 2
A111: D 0 D
4 2._ 0 0.
4 . 2 00 1
4 0. I 0 I
-4 • . 1 0
4 2 0 0
3 0 0 0 0
4 1 1 0

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
sRmaEwa9& W Walerm
Santa 1092.12189 & 5431/5 a Dr
652245 Mw'1a Wry 5M91er 51
El pm110 R eau 0.0700 & E 0906511B M
0,00109&5 L. Battles 111
55650 M014 Wry &(mine Dr
M10 0 50100000
SFYxn Or& W Maley 111
5129602 Dr & terminal Or
0010400,5 Sunrise Dr
S Miller st& nnMnre St

71.600681X& E Mein St
1001/0&E0TWan
unsignllilad Int0rWOcti0n5
Co nc0100 n Ave&c Ma
N Brua0war & W MIII4
N BwdWe2&MONhaM Ave
MZer 590Aae Cr
N MIIer S&EMnn Ave
T Bma009V660050
RSWIBO LOW &Uenvi0 BO
4aa SO 5W 1122611104
BmadvIV6411amC
An/1w & OWM,
Tlorneur8II SW MaM 31
STminBurg SE&Mnlm0M
Wenml OARS Mamma Me
&Daemn& Boone St
Western Ave& W Zan 4
221.0011.6.56/6122210n SB
N Broadway 5 W OMrd st
_ _...._
Y BmadwaY6 Aagmg S[
Depot S 6Mmrsm Ave
581,2299 Rd S W Sonya to
N 0010010 Ave 500000 51
91%11/&140,&Taila5
500010vwy& UbolyS
Weseen ay e& W 0011,31050
59ma9wa05mg,,Or
N0eerwl& 1911
&mxleEAve 501/11.195
nlanburgS & W AMOA&0
14111,050 SE Pan Or
x09171 Way 6W0,000310
SBroMv0V&031301n
1510911120 &W C00Rf[
S Ova 50&W Cook 51
SMIIITS6E CMrt1S
Wen n. AMA FNVS[
11511090 S 65 085189191
Weer AveA 145159241116
N 010543 Rd&Env%
E 19102210 &Cmspme 10
070910009 A Crossroad 10
1154010 515W oa)tlesld
Snlh St & Mm17n Ave
N &09OWW & Bunn Ate
M2ltlifO S 5Ellnual0 Rd
5 Bradley In 215605101219 Maw
nom burg 510 W 500001 R9
s 0manwnv 6 Cam 001ego
001/10010 &1049950
s Moan lb 6W Gorvh S[
01299420 1 56 1026 5,
N 5701004& 000apel St
8030100Ave 4 Polak
Callege Or&EAN1n Ave
C31HOm0 BN0 & Union Volley NOW
Vr0eulmal hoar& 6kCpyln
705
789
846
1019
1106
1202
1340
4) 9 o44 19
5) 9 055 29
108 9 -065 176
292 9 -0.24 14
W 9 062 I4
36 8 066 18
433 6 -0.61 18
323 2 069 12
1035 32 05 107
1135 32 05 32
1429 31 0.1 15
511 Pa O6 99
1383 39 6.1 64
7 17 03 3}
362 26 0.6 418
610 26 12 a
593 25 02 }0
)+9 I5 0.3 249
1041 25 0.4 90
669 23 L23 56
}30 13 005 43
}83 23 00 00
911 23 085 53
• 1099 23 012 53
1565 23 0.}3 2)l
660 22 9.21 101
}1} 22 0.52 4)
481 21 424 )6
182) 21 Oa0 85
646 M 0.17 50
1010 10 122 4l
431 14 00"6 227
676 19 0}3 317
L047 19 U.29 40
1390 19 5.29 29
616 18 560 58
644 IS 940 2R
859 II 0.12 33
913 II 105 53
944 M 035 53 0 0 1 5 12
059 16 654 23 0 0 0 2 11
1233 18 058 33 10 0 1 1 16
559 12 0.40 fit 0 2 0 00
602 17 0.65 32 0 0 1 1 IS
1099 17 011 43 0 0 L 4 12
147 11 009 46 D 0 0 6 10
280 16 0.51 31 0 0 L 1 14
566 16 032 31
653 16 1.04 109
1431 16 4104 40
1607 16 045 41
306 IS 020 30
62) 15 02) 50
ss 00: z5
l5 023 25
Is 008 35
15 005 204
15 039 55
15 080 521
15 -0.03 25
la 071 113
Ml la 007 196
O 0 0
O 0 I
O 1 0
O D 0
O 0 1
O 0 0
O 0 0
O 0 0
2 )
2 6
)
1 8
1 2 6
2 6
1 6
i I
3 3
0 1 1 4
O 0 0 0 6
O 0 4 6
O 0 1 6
O 0 3 3
O D 2 10
O 3 2
• 0 I 9
• 1 3 )
O o 1 5
O 0 I )
7 9
O 0 1 9
O 0 1 3
O D o 4
A 0 1 1
O 0 4
O 0 2 1
1 0 5 1
D 1 J 3
a 0 1 3
D 0 2 6
O 0 1 10
0 0 4 12
O D 0 6 14
0 0 2 1 17
D 2 5 u
0 1 I 3 .3
0 4 I
D D 0 2 17
0 0 2 4 :2
O 0 a 1 15
O 0 1 1 6
O 2 4 2 0
2 2 2 'J 1 2
3 .r 1 0
2 J D 0
O 3 0 3 1
0 1 0
2 0 2 0 4 0
O 3 A 2 II
2 4 1 J 2 U
1 0 3 > 0 0
D 3 2 I a 0
O 0 S I1 0
5 0 4 0 0 D
0 0
0 1
0 0
0 0
0 • 7 5 7 2 0 .
11 2 1 0 0
• 9 8 1 2 1 0
• 5 1 1 0 1
O 5 6 4 D 0 0
6 3 14 0 0 .

B 1 _ 0 2
2 1
1 0 1
1 11 a 5 0 0
B 9 5 1 1 0 0
8 5 1 8 3 J 0 1
3 10 60 4 D 0 0
1 5 5 6 1 3 0 0
B B 5 6 1 1 0 0
1 1 0 0
B E 1 lI 0 5 0 0
B 3 6 a 3 5 0 0
1 3 1 I 5 0 0
O 0
O 0
D 0
0 O 0
O 2 I
• 1 3
O L 1
D 2 a
O 3 7
O U 2
O _ )
1 3
0 2 4
1 0 3
0 0 2
1 0 7
1 a 4
9 9
2 2 1 0 1
O 2 0 0 1
1 01 5 1 0
1 2
7 2 1
B 1 2
1 4 2 1
6 D I
O 0
D I 0 0
O 0
0 O 0
0 1 0 0
O 0
O I
O 0
O 1
O 1
• 0
0 a 0
D 0
O 0
0 0
D 0
O 0
D 1
D 0
D I
O 0
I 0
3 1
0 O 2
D 0
a D
0 I
0 I J 0
5 50
0 0
0 I
4 0 0
3 6
0 0
2 1
3 0 1
O 1
O 0
o 0
O I
2 3 2 I 0 1 D 1 5 1 0 0 1
8 3 S 0 D II 0 0 0 1 1 0 1
4 4 5 1 1 0 I 0 2 3 0 1 0 1
3 2 5 4 ) 4 0 0 04 0
l 4 4 1 3 0 D 1 0 3 I 0 0 0
6 1 5 1 2 0 11 0 0 0 0 2 0 0
1 0 0 0 a 4 3 0 0 0
1 0 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 3
a 3 l 2 0 0 0 1 0 ., 1 1 1 )
3 3 s 0 2 D 1 1 2 2 0 0
0 3 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 D 0 1
a 1 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 5 z 1
3 6 0 0 I 0 ) 3 0 1
D 0 0 0 I 0 2 D 0
5 I
9 0 1 2
• 4 1 4 v
DKS
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2322

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
er 01 Mlll2
x8014mAa5t
em Me6 Unnamed Xreer earth 001301049 0 Way
weaem Ave 4004x02
5 Dmm5t6W0aigelt
N Cane Dr&210O1I5a
Mwv DNS ReserSr._
Ave6WMln Ave
=burlA68nbsOr
Mlle 9640420.0
New et6 WNW X .. .__... _..

LE 70409
01911.016
.rfi&W Ma'n 9..

Nuflelland 200 AW6 Aye
Int teS & W ANNA
CtNlege Cra NBreeleyRd _.. ..
66301W war
MIIIer96Bxdv0M!
0990005 cetoA8lo
AS,, & M0mSM Al. �.

Western/Neat Orange Sr
9ma6way0 W Boone 01
Rd&Cypress
9 96F9»X
Ws* St
AS, I tun Hl to
Inne s 6 W Dm0van Rd
NowerRd 0 TNWWtSO
0010r 10A Cedar Rd
611(1004&WBNtetava Rel
[allege tr690NMde 91x2
RA9101aaln
NRda0t 014062ln
adlet R0 6 Sere Madre Ave
cord Ave NE Maln
Draw NNW st
Rh St&EMIR, Y
mherOr& ogninyes St
ey Ave& F51050
2191and A 6E feeler St
1101516 Feeler 51
Now Ave & el [ammo Sr
er N A el /ammo St
N 411er5t6 MIEltany Ave
McClelland St 6Bunny Ave
sawn Ave& Wilmot/an 90
nburgn & W Dm0vm Rd
LMnoDr& 2061.069d
32dm51 Ave & Weeen Rues Way
College Dr& Bradlee Rd
S Depot 96 W Meerutt9 RI
Wadi Way &W Stowell Rd
Blower Rd &DraOO
e A 51010350
0000WavSWMYns
an
ew WeR&WNW11
RNIroM /we 6 W 63020
. . .5. _..
404494E Fester 53
611141516E Feeler St
ne St&FBIerSt
'dArt St 040ERIN1y Ate
Rd & W BunnyAli
taller A 6 Bunny/We
1189 &ABne,AW
Salim se Ave OW Ooh rd St
ler N & Nx0mgAve
road Alt 6Randq 110101
DKS
1161 14 013 43
1293 14 0.01 56
764 13 033 l
805 13 0.30 13
096 13 0.30 Ii?
1067 13 013 43
1232 13 0.63 IB
1334 13 02.70 00
585 12 035 20
744 12 0.19 25
796 li 0.06 27
337 ix 655 13
1021 12 9715 33
1040 12 105 32
1366 12 611 71
1391 12 014 33
1594 10 11,12 37
1819 12 77.00 77
596 11 0.20 21
003 11 02.03 11
3♦7 11 356 40
070 11 O.S6 1Fi
023 II .7109 26
912 ll 'DM 31
1303 11 049 21
1212 11 610 21
1242 11 3.10 26
1259 ll .006 21
1604 22 518.. .. 31.
1123 1 11 032 1.205
a56 , 21
D 1 4 a
0 3 3 8
0 0 0 13
O 1 11
0 2 37.

O
0 0 7 2 r
O 0 0 1 12
O 0 0 1 17
O 0 1 0 11
O 0 D 4 1
O 0 0 v 9
O 3 0 1 11
O u I 3 a
O 3 177
O 0 0 2 10
O 0 1 3 8
O 0 1 3 8
O 0 1 1 to
O 0 0 2 9
O 0 1 2 A
O D 3 0 9
O 1 0 0 10
O v 0 3 A
O D 1 2 8
O D 1 3 ID
O 0 0 0 00
O 0 1 1 3
O 0 0 1 1
O 0 1 2 8
O 1 1 0 6
O 0 1 0
O ( 1
O D
2 1 5 a 1 0 0
3 1 5 0 ♦ 0 0
3 4 3 1 1 0 O
3 5 4 0 i 0 0
4 4 5 0 0 D d
1 2 1 n 0 0
5 0 1 0 2
e 4 l 0 I 0 0
5 1 3 0 0 0 1
1 i 2 0 3 0 0
4 3 3 0 0 1
4 7 1 0 0 U D
2 2 5 z 0 u 1
5 1 4 1 4 I 0
5 1 5 1 7 0 0
4 1 3 1 1 0 1
5 3 2 0 D 0 0
3 2 4 2 1 0 0
6 1 2 1 1 0 0
O 3 e 1 0 0 1
2 l 2 2 1 0 0 0
1 6 2 1 I 0 D
2 2 4 4 i! 0 0
1 1
0 O
O D
1 0
0 I
0 0
O 0
J 2
O 0
1 2
1 1
O 0
• 0
I I
J 0
0 D 0
O D
u 0
5 0
1 0
2 U
1 Cl
1 1 3
O 3
1 2
O 1
1 0
D 1
2 O 1
O 1
O 2
O 0
1 O l
1 3
O 7
O 1
O 0
1 1
0 3
0 2
O 0
1 0
0 2
0 1
O 1
O 0
O n
0 0-
0 0
O a
O 0
O 0
0 0
O 0
0 0 0
2 0
1 O 0
2 2 2
0 2
1 0
O 1
0 1
O 0
O I
6 I 2 0 2 . 0 00 0 2 0 0
2 5 2 1 0 00 1 0 3 2 3
x 3 2 1 i 0 1 3 I I I 1
1924 1 12
O
2 1 0 3 1
7 0 0 J 0 0 0 0 5 3 L
3 5 0 0 0 0 D 0 2 0 1
B
2 0 0 0 0 4 0
0 2
1 1
1 1
1 O 1
O 0
00 O 1. 0
0 O 5
6 7 10
10 p 0 1 0 1 0
10 047 l 25 0 0 1 1 e
DOl 179
A03 25
2 ' 2
4 2
1 7
ap
466
0 O 3 1
3 D O 0 0 1 0
5 0 0
637 10
505
1 20
0 0
1 0
9 i
1 4
1 1
0 0.
l
0 2
2 0
0 0
907 - 30
DD7
l oo
o
I D
0 4
e
I
2 ♦

9. ;
0 0
0 0
1 4
0 0
0 1
1033110
4101
20 0
D
0 2
8 3
5 1
1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1036 10
4107
32 0
D
1 2
7 7
4 1
1 0
D
0 1_
1'
Y-
2-
2 0
0 0
11331 10 0.62 1 25 0 D 1 1 B 4 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

0.p. 20 0 0 2 3 3
0231 10
1205 10
1211 l 10
1207 10
1199 , 10
1404 ' 20
1468 lO
635 ] 10
1649 20
1656 ' 10
2000 r 10
150 9
332 9
403 ` 9
677 9
719 1 9
787 9
O 0
O 0
1 1 O 0
1 5.05 13
505
514 1 352
512
512

1.21 119
5772
009
505
500
012
009
418
120
015

0.33 0.29
339
408
001

1.03 009
539
5 F
27 27
lfl
O 0
4 2
2 109
•
361
1 2
9 14
2 4
934 1 9
118 1 9
1181 9
1210
93 193
14 18
2 1
9 19
0 1419
1467
1537
1592
1603
187
23 20
a

0.11 0.09
107
1 203
4 >"ITA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022
547 15

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
Reuter Ln IIdn.mn
Derhemn Ave &43141131:01
FVemv sed lA & Midi valley 118V
12 a mamma Ave
6601 Roe &ERowed Rd
630.1065& bores In
anburgll & RomfeIle m
anbur'Or &54310504
O 1088 Rd &enuA101 WAY
11645001 663456(
1304R&Eypen St
�II3aGl61281 part6 R
Depot 514 kilerst
Eacker BE NNn Ave
1iWemErn Avt 11228lnvAve
21620,064 Are&MlFlfl02y Aw
Mgtllenp&Bvl4ep
18063 In SW 95100420 Rd
S Bradev Rd &Auto Plata Or
Au0%en 1n 6460001%190
. .. _ _
%6363 0 weft d d 6463610064 6E4teAae%
ThemburgSt 450e4ln
MIASMA 50&6000%0%
83481 St 4 Wormed St
YU888urgR 6Baths Rd
GCege0r&E660100
S0840 R 6WEmrp
53111,. Rd 80888851
--
Woman Ave& W416552
5 RADw0 1001 46636311 AVE
S oafky Ave 644110011 Ave
ArWere Ave 4440168 St
College Dr & 0 Cybe:851
501400 R& 64011081
IYbed R St Rhin Sr
RNNR&WM0NOOSE 6. tria44
FOube28 &MIOR
n0 88 & W Alvin Ave
(3163200 So & W AMn Ave
N&mdwer II W. Ave
Wecern Ave& Needing Ave
toe, I 601.230510%
(uma SO & W Oonwm iA
women Ave& W Oonoven Rd
5311100Wve&&04nevanM
I101e Sr &61unR
�Lwlge 045 1148631d Or
MOCW N&Uosu0id Ln
11852 & Cm4vOan0 New
S Bmatlwv&Dk Pmoln
- _.... .L. _ ._....._ _
ThvrAulgR 668084N
Nees rmAve&50111 11
Unrein St 691ea.II
uncoin St 611411804401.

S Bmde9Re8RAM6ekAW
_.. _
WaMa06EMs65[
5E St SW Stowell PA
5 • 5.b. Mlrtac46
(feep6 481/Ave
40e31&Park Ave
0-88785e 59 Chapel 5t
Mead R 60ron0R
Russell Ave &Beenest
Poe St E. Beene St
%ne 85Orange Sr
0111190+50 &26311611St
East Ave 6Central Ave
0 9 1 029
2024 9
193
9 19
1 I 1 z
O o as 0 3. 1 0
o : 1 4 3
4 1 "1 2 0 I 0
1 0
a
480
a
a
8 8
351 1 8
WI a
921 18
996 8
1200 8
13511 ft
1464 6 0.11
636' a 006
1663 8 on
236 7 410
191 7 0.07
325 7 414
076
011

0.11 462

0.94 0.28
465
412
405

0.64 044
409
402
O 5 0 2
D D
O 3
O I
6 D II 0 1 0 D
2 3
1 ( 1 5 0
1 I I
D ': 0
D 0
32 13
10 13
13 la
O 1 2
o j D
O 1
O 0
O :0
D o
0 O 0
O 0
O 1 1
o 1
O 12
O ' 0
O 0 0 t 4
0 0
D
. I
1 1
2 6
I ]
2 O 4 3 0 0
O 0 0 2
0 1 0
D ' 2
O 0
2 1 . 2
3 1 4
2 5 I D I 1 1, 0
0 ` 1
D 1I
O 0
D ] D
O 0
O 1
D - 0
O D
D 1 0
O 2 0 0
O 0 D 0
0 z o 2
O 5 0
O 6
O 4 D 3
O t D 0
O 4
O 5 0 0
O 2 D : 0
18 Is
6 6
A
1 5 I 0
1 I 5 1 I 1 0
o f; 0 0
11 24
13 IB1
17 12
0 a
2 1
O 3 I 1 0
O 0 1 I 0 G 0 0
2 L 1 12
1 0 5 I 0
1 3 1 1 0 I' 0 0
2 3 1 4
z
0 D
0 O � o
O 0 1 6 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 0- 0
195
]

0.04 17
0 0 1
D
2 5
1 2
3 I
0 y
0 1
0 0
0 3
0 1
0 1
504
17 604
2 0
0!
0 o
z
z_
s
1 D 1l
0 0
0 0
0 0 1
1 1
V
0 62I
]

0.12 1115
0 1 1
1 I
4 4
-
2 0
0 0
0 1
0 0
D
0 0
0 530
1 0.01
12 0
0 1
0 1
6 3
4:
9 0
0 0
0 I
0 1 1,
0 1
0 0
563 ] 409
1 510 1 7 411
590 I ] .005
12 22
191
O 0 ! 0
O 0 0 4 3
1 6
O 0 2
1 0
0 1
D
1 2 0
0 O 0
14 2
O 0 0 1 1 3 6
O 0
O 0
D 0 1 0 1
0 O D 0
3 j D 1 1
O + 0 1
0 O I f 0
2: 0 3 1 0 1 0
4 ' 0 1 0
1 666 ]
662 ] 0111
142 ] 616
343 ] 010
935
930
1014
3 2 I
1 A
1 4 0
O _ 0
I II 0
O 12
1 0
01 0 2
0 9 0
11 17
17 22
u
O I 1 0
O 01 2
6 O 1
f : IS
7 -609
2 0.03
] 1 .415
0 0 1 1 5
O .0
1 0
1041 ] 006
1025
1140
O 1 1 6 0
0 0
0 1 2 0
O 0
O 12
x
O 0
1 1
D 1 o
D 3 0
O F 1
404
171
0 1 1 4
0 2 0
0 1 1
O 1 3
o 1 1
1 1 0
O I 0
2 i 4
2'
] 066
f 0
] 0.06
7 -0.07
O 1
2 I
1 0
O 0
O 0
I
D
O 0
3 0
O 10
12 1
22 126
26 3 I
0 1 . 0 . 0
2 2
1519
1652
1642
1646
1663
1664
1194

4.16 012
1412
-0.03
402
666
0 0
3 2
1 1
D
34 O 0 D l 0
O I 0 1 3
O 0
O 0
2 ' O
]
] DA1
22 2
16 n
u
16 16
I 5
I 3
D 0 2
3 2
1 4
0 3 1 1
▪ 1
2 O
0 413
009

4.12 411

4.00 640.

0.26 026
1 1
O 0
O 2 0
O 0 2
4 sI
2 1 1
3 1 2
2 2
1 2
1 0
2 0
492
510
523
569 6 .018 21 0 0 I 1 4
605 6 OM 11 o 0 0 1 c .
611 6 4.015 11 11 0 0 D 0 1
646 6 -0.11 11 0 0 D 1 5
316 6 411 It 0 0 D I 5
]55 6 0104 125 V l D 1
156 6 0.25 120 0 I 0 0
700 a 609 6 0 0 D 0 6
M 6 OM 6 0 0 D 0 6
506 6 403 6 0 0 0 D 6
863 6 •80 190 0 1 D ) 3
166 6 000 6 0 0 I 0 6
1129 6 648 6 0 0 D 0 6
1 4
O 0 D
0 6
x 0
O 0
6 16
1 1 2 I 1 0 0 0 0
3 0 1 1 D 0 1 1 0
3 0 0 0 0 1 0 I
1 4 0 1 0 0. D 1
4 0 0 0 9 0 1
1 1 0 0 0 0 1 D
1 1 3 0 0 1 I 1 D
I 2 0 1 0 0 D 0
2 3 0 1 o D D I
g o 0 0 0 D
l 1 D D 2 G
50 0 0 0 D 1 a D
2 0 0 D t 6
0 O 0 1 1
1 0 D 1
O 0 0 0
O 0 0 0
1 0 0
O 1 1 0
0 0
D 0
O 1 0
2 0 . I_
O 1 0
O 0_ 0
I 0 1
1 0 I
DKS
:41ARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • ADR1'_ 2922

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
onburg 51 SW CM 4
College Dr & ECm4 Y
W mw0
_._.

PaMwn Ave&Game Y
"kW.
09MWMe6WMOM4
COMro1Onlae 6919999 St
fl"WIN 415016!14
N Miler Y L Tunnel St
411199 St
N emadvar & W N.mweu
N Palls a000ra EANNAN
&va0wM &Nose pre
Broadway &Sunsets e
N Wince" Ave &WOl*404
SOS W Donovan Rd
09691 Ave & W LWi046161
074011,0a Ave 0WGn0&Y
ne St &W Grant SE
Cunver Y ST3104
N 4011,01* Are 6 Canal
[ear E Chavez 6 WPo* n EFe5 WN
907 6 010
930 6
943 6 111.1
966 6 0;11
9O 5 0]S
1049 6 0.15
[ 1062 6 0.49
[ 1076 6 1 0.31
11 16
21 6
16 lm
21 0 0 0 l
O 0
O 0 t 1 4
O D
O 0 0 x 4
O 1
O 0
O 0 - 0 ` 1
O 7 0 0 0 6
1 1 4 0 0 0 0
0 1 3 I 0 0 0 0

1. I I 1 0 0 0
1 3 I 1 0 0 0
1 1 3 '-2 0 0 0
2 O 0
1 0
2 0 3
2 0 1
2 0 2
O 1 0
O 1 1
O 0 0
1 0
5 0 0 6
o 0 5
0 2 ! 1
0 Y 1
3 1 7 2 0
4 1 l f 1 2 9 2 D
1: 2 1 0 1, 98
1 1( 3 1 0 0 0
3 0
1 0 0 3
2 3 4 0 1 0 I
2 1 3 0, 0
1 t
O 1 1 1 1 f 1
1 2 I 2 11 0
D 1 1
z 0
O 11 1 2 1 1
1 0
2 D
D 0
1 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
0 3 1
1 1 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
1 O 0
O 0
O 0
1 0
1 0 ''. I
2 0 0
O o
O 1
• 0
O 0
1 0
1 1 1
4041s11-113306•9 Or
Santa 61961469 90990616 St
6geDv6RAad _.
6 16
11 171
0 1 0
O 0
O N •
O ' 1
1 1 0
12461 6 .j 11.04
1317 6 -0.19
1351
1406
&I
1766
1056
6 010
6 0 -0.19
I 019
O 1 0 4 2
O D 1 { 5
O 1 1 4
0 0 I 0 7 6
4 0
ll o '
1 _ 0 1
1 0
I 0I t
407
16 16
26 6
O 0 l t' 0 S
1 _ 0 5
O . 1 2
1 I". F 0
O 0 + 3
• 0 i 1
3 : I 1 0
1 : 1
O 0
D 1
O ; 0
O ,0
02 0 2
409
D ; 1 1 3
D 0 6
O 3
O D
O 1 1
0 6 033
O 0
O 1 r 2
-0.12
402
-002
421

4.17 417
030
4101
417

4.12 419
030
030
406
415

4.20 404
030

4.04 030
420
000
1130
030
401
419
416
052
052
404
030
003
400
-013
052
053
004
043
417
11 01
15 15
Is
15 10
104
3 .] 0
2 0
0 0
3 0 0 0
x
0 O 0
1 0
0 0
3 2
619/9941161111406I R0
595011sen
Skase" Dr 5 E Males Rd
0epc9 Y &5rga"A
C01e00Mn Ave6011099560
Concepcion Ave 516346446 6,434
Russ/115w S 1166119180
St 6M1n50 Ave
St MYY
162
377
396
46•
615
671
706
710
769
"7
2 15
15 103
Da4ky516 wn5ne* 398004 N dWeNsch Y
loin SOS RCOrc
0,0000074050000050
WWAve& ECM4
Gem 4&cv>esa4
00605006
L Chacel4
Y 566114
401044 & MG 4
%News *Or& PoYer51
0919.9914 Let [ammo 00 _.
1104 Or SW AIvin Ave
ma WOOS Raa69g460
Nina 9t&&tElham Ave
cmbw94&M0Dhrn7Ave
DenvaleVAre&Sun6Ave
ry RSIImn Ave&0011000(00
an 09& W Ow 300114
0446ve& 10467707016
51070erson N & W169,000
910007&Creston 51
earn Ave & 51041/000.
5418961 504119
m0( st&ravnrss
Sur RI & 004, 00
Cr 51441644
W&¢ttMa04
Ave &M1C440,
P&Tama In
C0egeI&Ado 9114 Or
1104 & 114191 Or
me PIN" E0Mlrnla Rd
es Ntnnburs
1000* Ave& 506401,0,0 WOO
070 504 Roble St
4 17
174
15 DKS
0 x
x
5 972
1037
1094
1160
1162
1334
20 10
15 2
0 10
20 15
4 1375
1413
x
x
143&
1579
1615
1650
1653
1684
1767
O
2 15
25 10
2 2
1292:
1610
0 2
72 '
141

0.23 an
422
423
-021
-0.20
-092
410

0.25 23
19 14
2 4
4 2
2 2
3 370
373
375
620
679
no
4 19
x
x
4 4
14 4 419
x
SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY LAN • APRIL 2022

INTERSECTION COLLISION ANALYSIS (CONT.)
an Ma 19 Cam SWOP
Ace&121904511
Depot St &Pah Ave
st &1nwsSt
&005002
ornburs Y&lanes
<ve&Oran814
&Boone2
SW Coe84
RWrwO Ave& W 2M8e5t
rc041 St & Ownle4
Depot 4&11mpnR
Pool Y&c0Or2&W
Pal0a4e MBE 0lpreloWay
n 0wmowu
Depot 2&WJ2eaa4 —
geDr8EGO0rtA4
Po01Y &E Worth
10004 &WCAatnY
Ned; unnane0 rt N &wen Gunn It
itellroad Ave & W Nam St
St &E NWn St
Concord toe &5lonebn1e0r
Rd & *Wen Ones Way
4&Naee(Are
4& 080022
noY&GNM2
1184 &CNao42
ord Ave&Eae4e'Y
772
4 0.11
0 0
0 D D O D O 1
1110 LJ
O .20 17
4 -041) 9
4 028
418
380
4 413
a 028
4 0.28 1 14
4 410 1 9
a 413 9
D
4 0
4 0
0 0
0 0
o ! 1 0
2 0 ( 0
D D 1. 0
1 0 j 0
O 0 0
D
1 3 0
1 I 0
0 ! 0
I 0 0
O , p.
1 ; 1
2 3 0
1 i o
D D 1 0
1 0 0
1 0
0 1
even Aye &dCAANDA
&e1 Camino2
. 281
O 0 ! 0
O ( 0
O ';; 0
O 0 0 0 1 3
0 ; 0 1 I 0 t 3
O ; 0 0; 0 4
D i ll ' 10 e♦
O 0 0 '!
11 0; 0 0 t
O 1 0 I,; 1 1 2
O 0 0 ;I 0 4
O 0 i 0 j 0 y 4
O ' 0 0; 1. 3
O 0 0 0 1 4
0 ; 4
D 7 3
2 1 1 0 0
0 1
502
1 2 1 , 0
2 1 1 0 0 11 0 0
O 0
0 D
O 0 0
2 0 i 0
O j o 1 1
• D ! D
O 0
2 1 1
x 1 0
1 0 0
2 1 D
1 0
O 0 1
O 0
854
896 4 028 14
0 O 0
o 'i o
O 0
D . 0
D 0
1 0
O 0
0 0
0 0 1 1 0 I D
D 0
O D
O 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O ,
1 O 0
O D
1 0
D n
0 D a
• 0.11 4
868 4
876 a
936
942 4
939
991 •
99♦
1009 4
6034 4
11145 4
1064
1021 4
109s 4
1105 4
1113
1119 4
1120
1166 4
1255 4
1282 4
1289 • 0.18 9
13W a 0.21 14
1135 4 0.11 9
1345 4 0.20 6
• .0.23 9
• 421 14
• All a
1409 4 .•..410 4
1011 a -0.20 0
1415 4 413 9
1x81 4 001 132
1093 4 -0.13 9
1549 a -on i
1563 4 -0.13 14
1609 4 . 0.11 9
1655 • 4.18 9
1670 4 0.20 14
1694 4 -0.19 a
1698 4 405 14
1689
1746
1333
1381
1393
1 2 0 D 0 0
4 4
D.11 1 4
428 a
4 3 13
419 4
421 a
all
-0.13 1 4

0.02 4n
423
408
006
028

0.11 D.28
413
O .28
413

0.30 4
3' 1 o 0 D 0 D
1, 0 1 0 0 0' 2
1 2 1 I D
O 0 0
•
D 0
11 , 0
D
O !0
O D
O 0
D 0
0 a
0 1
0 1
D 4
1 3
a
4 3
2 1
1 I 1
O 0
O 0
O 3:
1 4
102
2 D
O 0
O 1
O 0
O 0 0 1 3
O 0 1 0 a
O 0 0 1 3
O 0 0 1 0
O 0 0 1 3
O 0 1 0 3
O 0 0 0 4
n 0 0 0
O 0 0 0 4
O 0 0 1 3
O 1 1 0 2
0 0 1
o 0 0 0 4
O 0 0 2 2
O 0 0 1 0
168
14 0
O ' 0
O D 4
O i 2 2
O 0
2 2
0 ]
110mcw

0.& W Am b'p
&Na3nowb
10112 sxaee4u

PA & PANAMA
;Way Me&WAN4 /we
I &E AAA Ave
Dn Ave &N mmnbug4
N Wiwi; Aw&Pae1G
e¢an6e&RankN
an St WBonnyAre
an Ave& 015004
00 Ave&60011600
Pamberw& CLMtermld5t
n L&NareOg Me
001,00040 & 11Donovan 94
Ia5310011& Balboa 130
00511/1806 Cot to
2pmr80 & Ranch OYaa
WA P. Cox to
kr2 &04161192
:10011&Wont. St
ad Dr& 1140014
W Gant 2
DKS
O 0 3 0 1 0 0
i D 1 1 1 D 0
D 1 1 1 1 0 0
O 1 ] 0 0 0 0
O 0 3 0 1 D 0
D 1 1 0 0
O 4 0 0 D 0 0
O 3 0 1 0 0 0
2 2 D 0 0 0 0
2 1 O D ... O D__.. 0
1 1 D 1 0- D 0
O 3 D 1 D D 0
2 2 0 0 0 0 0
1 I 1 0 1 D 0
1 0 3 0 D 0 0
0 1 0 D D 0
D 1 1 1 1 D 0
O U I D 3; 0 0
0 0 1 0 0
O n
o
O 0
O 0
O - 0
O D
O 0
O 0
O D
0 O D
O D
O 0
e 0
O 0
O 0
O 0_
D 0
x o
• 5 0
2 D 0
0 D
2 2 0 0
0 0
1 O 0
0 0
O '
o 0
D 0
O D
O 0
D 0
0 0
O 0
O 0
O 0
O 1
O J
O 0
O .0
0 0
0 0
O 0
O 0 0 1
O 0
O 0
1 0
O 0
0 a
011 9
408 4
408
413 •
402 4
O 0 0 0
0 O 0 0 0
O 0 D 0
4 4
2 4
4 SANTA MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN • APRIL 2022

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-36

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF SANTA MARIA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE SANTA
MARIA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP).

WHEREAS, the City of Santa Maria applied to the California Transportation Commission for a grant to prepare the Santa Maria Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP); and WHEREAS, the City Council, at its November 17, 2020, City Council meeting, authorized staff to apply for the LRSP grant funds and appropriate local match funds to prepare the LRSP; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP is consistent with the Caltrans Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) dated March 2021; and
WHEREAS, implementation of the LRSP will enhance public health by reducing severe injury and fatal collisions; and
WHEREAS, adoption of the LRSP will allow the City to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) grant funding.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, as follows:

1. The City Council approves and adopts the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) (Attachment A attached to the Council Agenda Report) which is incorporated herein by reference and dated February 2022; and

2. The Chief Deputy City Clerk is hereby authorized to make minor changes herein to address clerical errors, so long as substantial conformance of the intent of this document is maintained. In doing so, the Chief Deputy City Clerk shall consult with the City Manager and City Attorney concerning any changes deemed necessary.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Santa Maria, California, held this 1591 day of March 2022.

ATTEST:

Chief Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
APPROVEDA • •RM:

Departmgnt Director
Citl Manager

Santa Maria City CouncilApril 19, 2022

Santa Maria City Council
April 19, 2022