Local Road Safety Plan
April 2022
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | i
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction...................................................................................................................................................1 Data Summary.............................................................................................................................................6 Prioritizing Actions...................................................................................................................................39 Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Sample of Key Safety Projects...............................................................................................4 Figure 2 Crash Severity Weighting........................................................................................................6 Figure 3 Total Injury Crashes on Streets Under the City’s Jurisdiction by Year and Mode........7 Figure 4 Fatal and Severe Crashes by Year.......................................................................................8 Figure 5 Weighted Density of Crashes in Santa Monica...................................................................9 Figure 6 Severity of Crashes by Mode..............................................................................................10 Figure 7 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Mode..................................................................11 Figure 8 Crash Type of Fatal and Severe Collisions.......................................................................11 Figure 9 Top Five Primary Crash Factor Violation Category for Fatal and Severe Crashes.....................................................................................................................................12 Figure 10 Priority Network with Pacific Coast Highway Included, 2015-2019...........................13 Figure 11 Top Crash Locations: Signalized intersections, 2015-2019...........................................15 Figure 12 Top Signalized Intersections Overall..................................................................................16 Figure 13 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters)......................................................................................17 Figure 14 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Taking Place After Dark....................................18 Figure 15 Top Crash Locations: Unsignalized intersections, 2015-2019.......................................19 Figure 16 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Overall............................................20 Figure 17 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters).............................................................20 Figure 18 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Taking Place After Dark..............21 Figure 19 Time of Day and Day of Week of All Crashes................................................................22 Figure 20 Time of Day and Day of Week of Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes..........................23 Figure 21 Lighting Conditions by Severity of Crash...........................................................................24 Figure 22 Severity of Crashes by Posted or Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway.............25 Figure 23 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Posted or Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway..................................................................................................................................25 Figure 24 Posted Speeds and Crash Locations Weighted by Severity.........................................26 Figure 25 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by AADT of Primary Roadway...........................27 Figure 26 Injury Level as Percent of Total by AADT of Primary Roadway...................................27 Figure 27 Traffic Volumes and Weighted Crash Locations..............................................................28 Figure 28 Age Distribution of All Parties Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................29 Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ii
Figure 29 Age Distribution of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................30 Figure 30 Age Distribution of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes Compared to 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population............................................................................30 Figure 31 Age of Killed and Severely Injured Victims by Mode.....................................................31 Figure 32 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018............32 Figure 33 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018..................32 Figure 34 Reported Race of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Involved in Fatal and Severe Crashes Compared to Santa Monica Population, 2015-2018.....................................33 Figure 35 All Crashes Involving Pedestrians........................................................................................33 Figure 36 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Pedestrians.............................................................34 Figure 37 All Crashes Involving Bicyclists..............................................................................................35 Figure 38 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Bicyclists...................................................................35 Figure 39 The Priority Network and People of Color by Census Block Group............................37 Figure 40 The Priority Network and CalEnviroScreen Scores..........................................................38 Figure 41 Top Priority Network Segments by CalEnviroScreen Score...........................................39 Figure 42 Top Ten Signalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score..........................................40 Figure 43 Top Ten Unsignalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score......................................41 Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Monica has a long-standing commitment to enhance safety for all road users with the adopted aim to eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes from occurring in the city by 2026. The City has established guiding transportation safety programs, policies, and goals with the following planning documents: Land Use and Circulation Element (2010), Bike Action Plan (2011), Pedestrian Action Plan (2016), Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (2019), and Bike Action Plan Amendment (2020). This long tradition of expanding mobility choices for people that live, work, and play in Santa Monica is founded on creating a transportation network with increased and targeted safety enhancements that serve users of all ages and abilities. This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) builds upon previous work by analyzing the latest available crash data to prioritize safety improvements throughout the City. The LRSP is a technical requirement for the California Department of Transportation’s Highway Safety Improvement Program and will facilitate the City’s efforts to apply for future grant funds.
Vision & Goals
The City’s Vision Zero commitment was adopted on February 23, 2016 with the premise that fatal and severe injury collisions are unacceptable. The premise led to the guiding vision for the Santa Monica Department of Transportation (SaMoDOT): reduce the number of fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2026.
SaMoDOT will achieve this vision byidentifying the measures necessary to care for the wellbeing of everyone, while increasing health, safety, and promoting equitable mobility for all.
Safety Partners
SaMoDOT staff convenes an interdepartmental Vision Zero working group that meets quarterly to review crash data. The internal departmental partners include staff from:
Police
Fire
Public Works
SaMoDOT - Big Blue Bus
SaMoDOT - Mobility
City Attorney’s Office
Office of Communications
The group was created in 2017 to increase the transparency and frequency of crash data sharing between departments. In addition to identifying locations with high concentrations of crashes, the group reviews crash patterns to identify resources that would help prevent future crashes (e.g., developing communication strategies to educate drivers about roadway safety and identifying locations where deployment of City resources would help alleviate a pattern of crashes).
The Vision Zero working group played an integral part in the development of the LRSP and was consulted to verify the crash data and development of the emphasis areas. Each City partner provided specific insight to address roadway safety: Police and Fire provided insightful Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2
perspectives into historic crashes and first-hand knowledge of the daily traffic and crash patterns present in the City; Communications provided input on messaging and outreach; Mobility and Public Works guided the general framework on advancing safety related infrastructure projects; Big Blue Bus led the transit safety discussion; the City Attorney’s Office informed legal considerations.
Process
The LRSP provides an overview of existing conditions and analyzes the last five years (2015-2019) of crash data to update and identify corridors and intersections where the highest number of crashes are taking place. Additional priority was given to crashes that occur in communities with negative health outcomes as identified by the state of California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s CalEnviroScreen tool, a screening tool used to help identify communities disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. This combination of crash intensity and social equity helped develop a plan of action to implement proven safety measures.
Existing Efforts
Since the adoption of the Vision Zero program, SaMoDOTanalyzed crash data from 2006-2016 and identified locations with high concentrations of crashes. This work effort resulted in the Vision Zero Priority Map (Figure 1). Staff used the map to create a work plan to alleviate and prevent future crashes. Figure 2identifies a sample of key safety projects and actions taken or planned to improve safety.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3
Figure 1 Vision Zero Priority Map, 2017
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4
Figure 2 Sample of Key Safety Projects
Project Description Status Result
Safety evaluation of the top 10
priority intersections identified in
the Vision Zero priority map (Figure
1)
Complete All intersections have been evaluated and have a concept design to address safety issues. Six of the
intersections have funding identified to construct the
concept safety improvements.
Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
signal timing at key intersections in
the city
Complete Installed LPIs at 54 intersections since 2018
Colorado Esplanade Complete Installed new pedestrian sidewalk and protected cycletrack on Colorado Avenue between Ocean
Avenue and 5th Street
Pedestrian scrambles Complete Installed a total of 11 pedestrian scrambles in June 2016
Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study Complete Completed safety evaluation of Wilshire Boulevard in February 2020; first phase of safety enhancements to
be installed in 2022
Protected bikeways on Ocean
Avenue and Broadway
Complete Installed 4 block protected bikeway pilot on Broadway in March 2020 and protected bikeway on Ocean
Avenue on 4 blocks in November 2020; Bike Action
Plan Amendment calls for extending the protected
bikeway on these corridors in the future
Pico Boulevard and 3rd Street
connection
Under
construction
Install a new crosswalk, additional Rapid Rectangular
Flashing beacons, and other quick build
improvements
Road safety enhancements around
10 SMMUSD Santa Monica
schools
Four locations
complete,
remaining six
locations in
design
Completed safety improvements at four SMMUSD
school sites. The remaining six sites are in design.
The improvements include curb extensions,
crosswalk and ramp upgrades, enhancements to
existing bicycle facilities, pick-up/drop-off circulation improvements, and new school signage.
Pedestrian crossing improvements
at Olympic Boulevard and 26th
Street
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for design and outreach in 2022
Protected bicycle facility on
Broadway from 5th Street to 26th
Street
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for design and outreach in 2022
Pedestrian safety improvements on
Pico Boulevard between 16th
Street and Cloverfield Boulevard
Funding
secured for
construction
Construction scheduled to start by Spring 2022
Safety study of eastern section of
Pico Boulevard with quick build
safety enhancements
Funding
secured for
design
Funding identified for community engagement and
safety evaluation in 2022
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5
A large proportion of the projects identified in 2016 are in the process of being implemented or are complete. This LRSP will enable the City to refresh the safety data and continue advancing successful transportation safety projects.
Vision Zero Campaign
As part of the ongoing commitment to safety, the Vision Zero program also includes an outreach and education campaign called Take the Friendly Road. The campaign aims to increase traffic safety awareness, improve driving behavior, and highlight capital interventions. The campaign was amplified by participation from local community partners including schools, neighborhood associations, business districts, Santa Monica Safe Streets Alliance, Santa Monica Spoke, and Adopt-a-Walk. These efforts resulted in:
The campaign had over 16 million impressions generated by utilizing digital and traditional media, including advertisements on the Big Blue Bus and Metro buses and Expo trains, banners posted on light poles along Wilshire Boulevard, messages hung on local park and construction site fencing, messages on the digital overhead signage located in the downtown and beach areas, and social media.
In partnership with the Safe Routes to School program, over 1,700 lawn signs were distributed to allow people to show their support for road safety while reinforcing a key campaign message: slow down.
Stop, look, wave stencils were added to crosswalks to remind pedestrians to be vigilant at the ten priority intersections where fatal and severe injury crashes were most prevalent between 2006-2016.
Placement of the campaign logo on all City-issued parking hangtags provided a reminder to drivers to look out for vulnerable road users.
Staff developed an online community feedback map that received over 900 comments from the community. The public input was used to inform the LRSP evaluation and give a nuanced, community-informed understanding of the transportation safety issues impacting the city.
The Take the Friendly Road campaign will continue to be the public facing communication point for the public to learn about capital projects or other safety related initiatives from the City.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6
DATA SUMMARY
Data Sources
The Santa Monica Local Road Safety Plan(LRSP) analysis looks at crashesin Santa Monica from 2015-2019, excluding those that involvedproperty damage only. California Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System (SWITRS) data for 2015-2018 was acquired via the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) developed by SafeTREC at UC Berkeley and is used for 2015-2018 crash data. At the time of the analysis, crash data from 2019 was provisional, meaning it could still be amended. Therefore, 2019 data was acquired from the City of Santa Monica’s Crossroads crash database. The 2015-2018 data sourced from TIMS includes geographic information for96% of all reported crashes. The remaining 4% could not be mapped. The 2019 data from Crossroads includes geographic information for 92% of all reported crashes, with the other 8% unmapped.
The analysis includes only those crashes that occurred on streets under the City’s jurisdiction, with the exception of Pacific Coast Highway (PCH), which is under Caltrans jurisdiction. PCH was included because the City provides enforcement and some regulatory authority on a portion of the highway. Crashes that took place at the intersection of a street under the City’s jurisdiction with a ramp leading to or from U.S. 10 or PCH are also included.
Overall Crash Trends
This section examines where, when, and why most crashes occur, includingpatterns specific to serious injury or fatality crashes.As part of prior safety planning efforts using crashdata from 2006 to 2017, the City identified priority road segments and intersections for safety improvements. Santa Monicahas made great progress investigating the locations identified. For the majority of locations, the City has either installed new safety enhancements, obtained grant funding to advance safety projects, orput in place a planto enhance safety improvements with local resources. Some examples of this work include the new protected bikeway installed on Ocean Avenue; the recently completed Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study, which identifies safety improvement for four priority intersections; and grant funding obtained to install bicyclistand pedestrian crossing improvements at 26th Street and Olympic Boulevard to improve connections to the Metro E (Expo) Light Rail Station. TheLRSP builds upon this foundational work by refreshing the City’s crashanalysis with the newest available data and identifying the next phase of locations to focus education, planning, and engineering resources on.
To identify high-crash locations, crashes are weighted according to their severity. The weighting is based on crash cost estimates from Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual.
Figure 3 Crash Severity Weighting
Crash Type Crash Cost Weight
Fatal and Severe Injury $1,590,000 22
Other Visible Injury $142,300 2
Complaint of Pain $80,900 1
From 2015-2019, there were 2,334 crashes on Santa Monica’s local streets. The greatest number, 500, occurred in 2015. After a decrease in 2016, the number of crashes has gradually trended up again. This is largely due to variation in the number of crashes involving motor vehicles only, as Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 7
the number of crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclistsis fairly consistent year after year. The widespread use of scooters, including the introduction of a system of shared scooters in the fall of 2018, also accounted for a greater number of crashes in the last two years of the study period.
According to a detailed examination of crash records (see below), scooters were involved in 60 and 58 crashes in 2018 and 2019, respectively, after being involved in few crashes the previous three years.
As stated before, this LRSP uses TIMS data for 2015-2018 and Crossroads data for 2019.
However, in response to concerns that scooter crashes were not fully reflected in TIMS data, and were sometimes miscoded in Crossroads, City staff performed a detailed analysis of 2015-2019 Crossroads data to identify a more complete set of scooter crashes.They found a substantially higher number of scooter crashes than were tabulated in the baseline estimate shown in Figure 2.
The more refined estimates for 2015-2019 Crossroads data are as follows:
2015 and 2016: one crash involving a scooter per year; one fatalityor severe injury 2017: seven scooter crashes
2018: 60 scooter crashes; four fatalities or severe injuries 2019: 58 scooter crashes; eight fatalities or severe injuries Figure 4shows crashes by mode and year from the TIMS data, as that is the primary data source used in this report.Given the findings above, however, it should be noted that scooter crashes in Figure 4and throughout this LRSP are underreported.
Figure 4 Total Injury Crashes on Streets Under the City’s Jurisdictionby Year and Mode 339
270
283
301
286
94 82
82 86
73 67
78 90 79
82 5
37 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Injury Crashes
Scooter
Pedestrian
Bicycle
Motor Vehicle Only
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 8
There were 125 fatal and severe injury (FSI) crashes during the 2015-2019 timeframe.Of the five years included in the analysis,2019 saw the highest number of fatal and severe crashes. While fatalities in 2019 were not the highest of any year analyzed, severe injury crashesin 2019 were double those in 2015. Some of this difference may be due to the use of a different data source for 2019(Crossroads instead of TIMS)than for the other years.See Figure 5.
Figure 5 Fatal and Severe Crashes by Year
Figure 6provides a map of all crashes in the city from 2015-2019.For visual clarity, only points representing fatal or severe injury crashes are shown. Crashes are concentrated in downtown Santa Monica—which is bounded by Wilshire Boulevard on the north, Ocean Avenue on the west, Colorado Avenue on the south, and Lincoln Boulevard on the east—and on major east-west arterials, such as Wilshire Boulevard.
2 4
6 3
17 20
21 18
34 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal Severe
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 9
Figure 6 Weighted Density of Crashes in Santa Monica
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 10
Crashes By Mode and Severity
Figure 7 illustrates the severity of crashes by mode.As noted in the previous section, there are discrepancies between TIMS data (used for 2015-2018 data reportingthroughout this LRSP) and Crossroadsdata (used for 2019) with regard to how crashesinvolving scooters are reported. As such, Figure 7 underrepresents the proportion of fatal or severe injury crashes involving scooters.
Figure 7 Severity of Crashes by Mode
Pedestriansare more likely to be involved in a fatal or severe injury crash than any other mode.
While 17% of all crashes involve a pedestrian, they comprise 42% of fatal or severe injury crashes.
Similarly, bicyclists are involved in 18% of all crashes but account for 20% of fatal or severe injury crashes. People riding scooters represent a small portion of total crashes, 2%, but comprise4% of fatal or severe injury crashes. Figure 8 provides a detailed breakdown of the frequency and severity of crashes by mode.
3 40
547
889
1 24
265
127
5 28
9 11
41 192
152
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Percent of Crashes
Motor Vehicle Only Bicycle Scooter Pedestrian
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 11
Figure 8 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Mode
Mode Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Total by
Mode
Percent
FSI
Percent
of all
Crashes
Percent
of FSI
Crashes
Motor Vehicle
Only
3 40 547 889 1,479 3% 63% 34%
Bicycle 1 24 265 127 417 6% 18% 20%
Scooter 0 5 28 9 42 12% 2% 4%
Pedestrian 11 41 192 152 396 13% 17% 42%
Total by Injury
Severity
15 110 1,032 1,177 2,334
Crash Characteristics
The most reportedfatal and severe crash type is vehicle/pedestrian. The second most common is broadside (vehicle/vehicle). Thirty-six fatal or severe crashes did not specify a crash type. Staff reviewed reports for these crashes and were able to determine the crashtype for all but four of them. Figure 9provides a summary of crash type of fatal and severe collisions. Eleven remain in the “other” category. Six of these involve a person riding a motorcycle, scooter, or bicycle losing control of their vehicle; two involve a bicyclist hit by the opening door of a parked car.
Figure 9 Crash Type of Fatal and Severe Collisions
The five most common violations cited in fatal and severe injury crashes were pedestrian violation, in which the person walking commits the violation; unsafe speed; improper turning (related to a prohibited turning movement or required signal); pedestrian right-of-way violation, in which the person walking has the right-of-way; and automobile right-of-wayviolation, in which an automobile’s right-of-wayis violated. These top five categories encompassed82 fatal and 48 28
11 9 8 8 6 4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 12
severe injury crashes, about 66% of all fatal and severe injury crashes, and are summarizedin Figure 10.
Figure 10 Top Five Primary Crash Factor Violation Category for Fatal and Severe Crashes Priority Network
The Priority Network was establishedto identify where to prioritize transportation safety resources.The Priority Network represents the top 50% of crashes weighted by severity.To identify segments to include on thePriorityNetwork, the city’s streets were dividedinto half-mile segments,and the total severity-weighted value of crashes on each half-mile segment was summed. The street segment list wasthen sorted from highest value to lowest. Half-mile street segments were added to the Priority Network until 50% of the total weighted values of all crashes in Santa Monica during the 2015-2019 period was reached. For the 2015-2019 period, the citywide weighted crash value was 10,281. Therefore, the top half-mile segments that cumulatively comprise a weighted value of 5,141 (10,281divided by two)represent the Priority Network.
Crashes at intersections are includedin each half-mile segment of the network. Therefore, it should not be assumed that crashes are evenly distributed over the extents of a segmentincluded in the Priority Network. Rather, crashes may be concentrated at intersections or specific points within the segment and addressing crash patterns atthose locations may remove the street segment from the Priority Network.
In summary, the Priority Network identifies the street segments that represent the highest concentration of crashes weighted by severity. As shown in Figure 11, the Priority Network makes up 14% of Santa Monica’s centerline miles but accounts for over 50% of the city’s crashes weighted by severity.
21 17
16 15
13 0
5 10
15 20
25 Pedestrian
Violation
Unsafe Speed Improper
Turning
Pedestrian Right
of Way
Automobile
Right of Way
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 13
Figure 11 Priority Network with Pacific Coast Highway Included, 2015-2019 Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 14
Top Intersection Locations
In addition to identifying thePriorityNetwork of roadway segments, the top intersection locations in terms of crash rates were mapped to identifywhich intersections would benefit most from safety enhancements.The maps and tables in Figure 12through Figure 19show the intersections with the highest weighted crash rates. To assist with identifyingappropriate safety countermeasures, intersections are divided into two categories: signalized and unsignalized.
Within those two categories, the maps and figures include details on the intersections with the highest overall crash rates, with the highest rates of crashes taking place after dark, and with the highest rate of crashes involving pedestrians, bicyclists, or people riding scooters(referred to as “active modes” in the tables on the following pages). Many intersections are high ranking in more than one type of crash;this is indicated on the maps and in the tables.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 15
Signalized Intersections
Figure 12 Top Crash Locations: Signalized intersections, 2015-2019 Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 16
Figure 13 Top Signalized Intersections Overall
IntersectionName
Total Crash
Weight Total Crashes
Total Fatal
and Severe
Crashes
Top Ten for
Active
Modes?
Top Ten After
Dark?
Colorado Ave and 2nd St 63 13 2 Yes Yes
Pico Blvd and 4th St 63 15 2 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave and 26th St 48 4 2 Yes Yes
Santa Monica Blvd and
6th St
48 5 2 Yes Yes
Olympic Blvd and 26th St 44 2 2 No Yes
Lincoln Blvd and Olympic
Blvd
43 17 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and
20th St
40 15 1 Yes No
Colorado Ave and 4th St 38 13 1 Yes No
Pico Blvd and Neilson
Way
37 11 1 No No
Ocean Park Blvd and
11th St
35 10 1 Yes No
Olympic Blvd and 4th St 35 28 0 No No
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 17
Figure 14 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters)
IntersectionName
Total
Active
Mode
Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Active
Mode
Crashes
Fatal and
Severe
Active
Mode
Crashes
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
After
Dark?
Colorado Ave and 2nd St 59 13 11 2 Yes Yes
Pico Blvd and 4th St 49 15 5 2 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave and 26th St 48 4 4 2 Yes Yes
Ocean Park Blvd and 11th
St
31 10 7 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and
20th St
30 15 6 1 Yes No
Lincoln Blvd and Olympic
Blvd
29 17 5 1 Yes No
Colorado Ave and Stewart
St
28 4 4 1 No No
Colorado Ave and 4th St 27 13 4 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and
6th St
26 5 4 1 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave and 5th St 26 5 3 1 No Yes
Wilshire Blvd and 4th St 26 8 3 1 No No
Santa Monica Blvd and
26th St
26 7 3 1 No Yes
Pico Blvd and Main St 26 8 4 1 No No
Olympic Blvd and
Cloverfield Blvd
26 4 3 1 No Yes
Ocean Park Blvd and 28th
St
26 5 4 1 No No
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 18
Figure 15 Top Signalized Intersections: Crashes Taking Place After Dark IntersectionName
Total After
Dark
Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Crashes
After
Dark
Fatal and
Severe
Crashes
After Dark
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
for Active
Modes?
Olympic Blvd and 26th St 44 2 2 2 Yes No
Colorado Ave and 2nd St 31 13 6 1 Yes Yes
Pico Blvd and 4th St 25 15 4 1 Yes Yes
Santa Monica Blvd and 6th St 25 5 3 1 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave and 5th St 24 5 2 1 No Yes
Santa Monica Blvd and 26th St 23 7 2 1 No Yes
Wilshire Blvd and 6th St 23 3 2 1 No No
Broadway and 20th St 23 6 2 1 No No
Arizona Ave and 26th St 22 4 1 1 Yes Yes
Olympic Blvd and Cloverfield
Blvd
22 4 1 1 No Yes
California Incline and Pacific
Coast Highway
22 2 1 1 No No
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 19
Unsignalized Intersections
Figure 16 Top Crash Locations: Unsignalized intersections, 2015-2019 Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 20
Figure 17 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Overall IntersectionName
Total
Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Fatal and
Severe
Crashes
Top Ten
for Active
Modes?
Top Ten
After
Dark?
Montana Ave and Stanford St 45 3 2 No No
Ocean Park Blvd and 16th St 43 15 1 No No
Airport Ave and Dewey St and 23rd St 36 9 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and 18th St 35 9 1 Yes No
Hill St and 23d St 32 8 1 No No
Santa Monica Blvd and 15th St 31 8 1 No No
Santa Monica Blvd and 16th St 30 7 1 No Yes
Montana Ave and 15th St 29 5 1 Yes Yes
Main St and Strand St 29 7 1 Yes No
Wilshire Blvd and 18th St 29 6 1 No Yes
Figure 18 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Involving Active Modes (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and People on Scooters)
Intersection
Name
Total Active
Mode Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Active Mode
Crashes
Fatal and
Severe
Active Mode
Crashes
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
After Dark?
California Ave
and 6th St
46 2 3 1 No Yes
Airport Ave
and Dewey St
and 23rd St
36 9 9 1 Yes No
Montana Ave
and 15th St
28 5 4 1 Yes Yes
Arizona Ave
and 23rd St
26 5 4 1 No No
Santa Monica
Blvd and 18th
St
25 9 3 1 Yes No
Montana Ave
and 19th St
24 2 2 1 No Yes
Pico Blvd and
3rd St
24 3 2 1 No Yes
Navy St and
23rd St
24 2 2 1 No No
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 21
Intersection
Name
Total Active
Mode Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Active Mode
Crashes
Fatal and
Severe
Active Mode
Crashes
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
After Dark?
Montana Ave
and 16th St
24 4 3 1 No Yes
Main St and
Strand St
24 7 2 1 Yes No
Hill St and 7th
St
24 2 2 1 No Yes
Figure 19 Top Crash Locations at Unsignalized Intersections Taking Place After Dark IntersectionName
Total After
Dark
Crash
Weight
Total
Crashes
Crashes
After Dark
Fatal and
Severe
Crashes
After Dark
Top Ten
Overall?
Top Ten
for Active
Modes?
Montana Ave and 15th St 26 5 3 1 Yes Yes
Montana Ave and 16th St 25 4 4 1 No Yes
California Ave and 14th St 24 3 2 1 No No
Hill St and Lincoln Blvd 23 6 2 1 No No
Montana Ave and 19th St 22 2 1 1 No Yes
Adelaide Dr and 4th St 22 1 1 1 No No
Pico Blvd and 3rd St 22 3 1 1 No Yes
Pico Blvd and 9th St 22 2 1 1 No No
Raymond Ave and Lincoln
Blvd
22 1 1 1 No No
Beach St and 2nd St 22 1 1 1 No No
Wilshire Blvd and 18th St 22 6 1 1 Yes No
Santa Monica Blvd and 16th
St
22 7 1 1 Yes No
California Ave and 6th St 22 2 1 1 No Yes
Hill St and 7th St 22 2 1 1 No Yes
Environmental Characteristics
This section looks at characteristics of the environment in which crashes take place, including time of day and day of week, lighting conditions, proximity to parks and schools, and the speed and traffic volumes of the primary roadway.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 22
Time and Day
Overall, crashes in Santa Monica are concentrated in the afternoonand early evening on weekdays (Figure 20), withthe highest concentration of crashes occurring on Tuesdays from 3 p.m.-6 p.m. Fatal and severe crashes do not show as strong of a pattern but also occur most frequently during the 3 p.m.-6 p.m. time period (Figure 21).
Figure 20 Time of Day and Day of Week ofAll Crashes
Time of Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Grand
Total
12 a.m. - 3 a.m. 14 1 5 6 13 13 18 70
3 a.m. - 6 a.m. 5 7 6 3 5 8 6 40
6 a.m. - 9 a.m. 56 56 49 46 38 26 17 288
9 a.m. - 12 p.m. 64 69 68 59 54 51 44 409
12 p.m. - 3 p.m. 65 85 63 79 77 72 51 492
3 p.m. - 6 p.m. 74 82 79 81 64 58 64 502
6 p.m. - 9 p.m. 51 43 58 61 52 50 51 366
9 p.m. - 12 a.m. 22 17 22 21 27 33 25 167
Grand Total 351 360 350 356 330 311 276 2334
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 23
Figure 21 Time of Day and Day of Week of Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes Time of Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Grand
Total
12 a.m. - 3 a.m. 4 2 1 6 13
3 a.m. - 6 a.m. 2 2 1 1 1 7
6 a.m. - 9 a.m. 5 2 1 1 9
9 a.m. - 12 p.m. 2 3 1 2 1 1 2 12
12 p.m. - 3 p.m. 3 3 2 5 2 2 1 18
3 p.m. - 6 p.m. 3 9 4 3 3 2 8 32
6 p.m. - 9 p.m. 3 1 1 4 4 3 4 20
9 p.m. - 12 a.m. 2 1 2 5 2 2 14
Grand Total 24 20 13 18 16 11 23 125
Lighting Conditions
As shown in Figure 22, the majority of crashes in Santa Monica take place during daylight hours.
About 22% of all crashes take place after dark.Fatal and severe crashes are much more likely to take place after dark, with 75% of fatal and 34% of severe crashes occurring in dark conditions with streetlights present.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 24
Figure 22 Lighting Conditions by Severity of Crash
Parks and Schools
Sixty-nine percentof all crashes in Santa Monica took place withina quarter-mile of a schooland 62% took place withinquarter-mile of a park, though there is no discernable difference in crash rate of pedestrian or bicyclist-involvedcrashes near parks and schools compared to the city as a whole.
Roadway Characteristics
Posted or Prima FacieSpeed
Figure 23 and Figure 24provide insight into the types of crashes occurring on roads with different speed limits.
Streetswith a speed limit of 25 mph—either posted or prima faciewithin a residence or business district—make up 48% of centerline miles, 35% of total crashes,and 34% of fatal and severe crashes. Approximately 5% of crashes occurring on these streets result in fatal or severe injuries.
Streetswith a posted speed limit of 30 mph make up 13% of the centerline miles, 43% of total crashes, and 39% of fatal and severe crashes. Approximately 5%of crashes occurring on these streets result in fatal or severe injuries.
Streets with a posted speed limit of 35 mph make up only 3% of centerline milesbut are the site of 15% of all crashes and 9% of fatal and severe crashes. Approximately 3% of crashes occurring on these streets result in fatal or severe injuries. Posted speed of 40 mph are found only on Olympic Boulevard. Olympic Boulevard makes up 1% of centerline miles, 2% of all crashes, and 2% of fatal and severe injury crashes.
Approximately 5% of crashes occurring on this street result in fatalor severe injuries. Posted speeds of 45 mph are found only on PCH. PCH makes up 1% of street milage, 4% of total crashes, and 14% of fatal and severe crashes.Approximately 18% of crashes occurring on PCH result in fatal or severe injuries.
For a map of posted speeds and crash locations in Santa Monica seeFigure 25. 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Daylight
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights
Dark - No Street Lights
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Not Stated
Total Crashes
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 25
Figure 23 Severity of Crashes by Posted or Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway Figure 24 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by Postedor Prima Facie Speed of Primary Roadway Posted
Speed Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complain
t of Pain
Total
Crashes
Percent
of Total
Crashes
Percent of
FSI Crashes
Percent of
Street
Miles
Less than
25 mph
(includes
alleys)
1 1 5 5 12 1% 2% 33%
25 mph 2 40 390 392 824 35% 34% 48%
30 mph 3 46 431 532 1,012 43% 39% 13%
35 mph 3 8 144 188 343 15% 9% 3%
40 mph 1 1 19 19 40 2% 2% 1%
45 mph 4 14 42 40 100 4% 14% 1%
Total
Crashes by
Severity
15 110 1,032 1,177 2,334
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
25 mph
30 mph
35 mph
40 mph
45 mph
Posted or Prima Facie Speed
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 26
Figure 25 Posted Speeds and Crash Locations Weighted by Severity Crashes on I-10, which has a speed limit of 65 mph, are not included in this analysis.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 27
Average Annual Daily Traffic
Figure 26provides data on crashes by theAverage Annual Daily Traffic (AADT)of streets where they occurred. Higher volume streets tend to experience a greater level of crashes. Given the functionalclassification and characteristic of thesehigher volume roads, special attention will need to be given to safety countermeasures. Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) data is not available for every street in Santa Monica. Data from a 2013 speed and traffic survey conducted by the City and 2019 data purchased from a third-party data source, Streetlight, covers most arterials and collectors and many local streets. Streets in the “No Data” category are typically smaller neighborhood streetswith low daily traffic.
Figure 26 Frequency and Severity of Crashes by AADT of Primary Roadway AADT Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complai
nt of
Pain
Total
Crashes
Percent
of Total
Crashes
Percent
of FSI
Crashes
Percent
of Street
Miles
< 5k 3 48 39 90 4% 2% 5%
5k - 10k 1 9 70 71 151 6% 8% 5%
10k - 20k 35 317 323 675 29% 28% 8%
20k - 30k 5 25 276 338 644 28% 24% 5%
> 30k 6 18 118 173 315 13% 19% 1%
No Data 3 20 203 233 459 20% 18% 76%
Figure 27 Injury Level as Percent of Total by AADT of Primary Roadway 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
< 5k
5k - 10k
10k - 20k
20k - 30k
> 30k
No Data
AADT of Primary Roadway
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 28
Figure 28 Traffic Volumes and Weighted Crash Locations
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 29
Involved Parties
This section looks at the age and reported race and ethnicity of people who were involved in crashes in Santa Monica. The age and race or ethnicity informationfrom crash reports is compared to the distribution of Santa Monica’s population across age and racial/ethnic categories from the 2019 5-year estimates of the U.S. Census American Community Survey.Age and race data are also broken down by mode and injury level.
Age Distribution
The 18-24 age group is overrepresented in crashes. People in this age group are involved in about 16% of all crashes, but make up only 6% of Santa Monica’s population (see Figure 29). The age distribution of pedestriansand bicyclists is similar to that for all parties(Figure 30 and Figure 31). Additionally, a high proportion of pedestrians who were killed or severely injured were age 65 and over (see Figure 32).
Figure 29 Age Distribution of All Parties Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Under 18 18-24 25-39 40-64 Over 65
Percent of Total
Parties Involved in Crash Santa Monica Population
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 30
Figure 30 Age Distribution of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes Compared to the 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population
Figure 31 Age Distribution of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes Compared to 2019 Age Distribution of Santa Monica Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Under 18 18-24 25-39 40-64 Over 65
Percent of Total
Parties Involved in Crash Santa Monica Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Under 18 18-24 25-39 40-64 Over 65
Percent of Total
Parties Involved in Crash Santa Monica Population
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 31
Figure 32 Age of Killed and Severely Injured Victims by Mode Race and Ethnicity
The race and ethnicity of people involved in crashes is reported by the officer who files the report.
This information is not available for the 2019 crash data used in this analysis. The racial and ethnic categories reported for crashes do not align exactly with those used by the U.S.Census, but the percent of total involved parties and percent of total Santa Monica population for comparable categories are shown side by side in Figure 33 and Figure 34to allow for an assessment of whether some demographics are affected by traffic crashes at a disproportionate rate. The data suggest that Black and Hispanic or Latino community members are more likely to be involved in crashes while walking and bicycling, as compared to their share of the overall population in Santa Monica.
Race and ethnicity data is not available at the victim level, meaning there is no specific indication of injury level by race. However, pedestriansand bicyclists are typically the most severely injured parties in crashes with motor vehicles. Figure 35 shows the race and ethnicity of pedestriansand bicyclists who are involved in fatal and severe crashes. Hispanic or Latino people and those whose race was categorized as “other” appear to be disproportionately involved in fatal and severe crashes while walking and bicycling.
1 1 3
2 2
4 9
8 4
11 1
12 6
8 12
3 3
1 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Other
Pedestrian
Bicyclist
Passenger
Driver
Under 18
18 to 24
25 to 39
40 to 64
65 and above
Unknown
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 32
Figure 33 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018 Figure 34 Reported Race or Ethnicity of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes, 2015-2018 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Asian Black Hispanic or Latino White Other
Percent of Total
Pedestrian Santa Monica Total Population
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Asian Black Hispanic or Latino White Other
Percent of Total
Bicyclist Santa Monica Total Population
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 33
Figure 35 Reported Race of Pedestrians and Bicyclists Involved in Fatal and Severe Crashes Compared to Santa Monica Population, 2015-2018
Movement Preceding Crash
This section describes the most common combinations of actions that preceded crashesinvolving pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles.
Pedestrians
Figure 36 All Crashes Involving Pedestrians
Pedestrian Action
(below) | Driver
Action (right)
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn
Making
Right
Turn
Backing Entering
Traffic
Other Grand
Total
Crossing in
Crosswalk at
Intersection
78 92 41 2 1 7 221
Crossing Not in
Crosswalk
35 4 2 7 1 2 51
In Road, Including
Shoulder
32 7 4 7 5 5 60
Not in Road 13 1 1 3 3 6 27
Crossing in
Crosswalk Not at
Intersection
11 1 1 2 15
Not Stated 9 4 4 1 4 22
Grand Total 178 109 52 20 11 26 396
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Asian Black Hispanic or Latino White Other
Percent of Total
Fatal and Severe Injury Santa Monica Total Population
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 34
Figure 37 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Pedestrians Pedestrian Action
(below) | Driver Action
(right)
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn
Making
Right Turn Backing
Entering
Traffic Other
Grand
Total
Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection 16 7 3 1 27
Crossing Not in
Crosswalk 8 1 9
In Road, Including
Shoulder 6 1 2 9
Not in Road 1 1 1 3
Crossing in Crosswalk
Not at Intersection 2 2
Not Stated 1 1 2
Grand Total 34 8 4 2 2 2 52
Top Crash Movements for Pedestrians
The below crash types represent 71% of fatal and severe crashes involving pedestrians. Overall, half of fatal and severe crashes involving pedestrians take place at intersections, and half do not. Pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at intersection/Driver proceeding straight − 20% of all pedestrian crashes
− 31% of fatal and severe pedestriancrashes, most (69%) take place at an unsignalized intersection
− 20% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury Pedestrian crossing not in crosswalk/Driver proceeding straight − 9% of all pedestriancrashes
− 15% of fatal and severe pedestriancrashes, all take place between intersections − 23% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury Pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at intersection/Driver making left turn − 23% of all pedestriancrashes
− 13% of fatal and severe pedestriancrashes, most (71%) take place at signalized intersections
− 8% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury Pedestrian in road/Driver proceeding straight
− 8% of all pedestrian crashes
− 12% of fatal and severe pedestriancrashes,alltake place between intersections − 19% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 35
Bicyclists
Figure 38 All Crashes Involving Bicyclists
Bicyclist Action
(below) | Driver
Action (right)
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn
Making
Right Turn Parked Stopped Other
Grand
Total
Proceeding
Straight 93 74 52 31 12 75 332
Traveling Wrong
Way 5 1 11 0 17
Making Left Turn 8 1 5 14
Entering Traffic 7 1 2 0 10
Other Unsafe
Turning 7 4 11
Other 21 4 0 0 5 12 42
Grand Total 141 81 65 26 17 96 426
Figure 39 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Bicyclists Bicyclist Action (below)
| Driver Action (right)
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn
Making
Right Turn Parked Other Grand Total
Proceeding Straight 7 5 1 3 6 21
Making Left Turn 1 1 0 2
Other Unsafe Turning 1 0 1
Passing Other Vehicle 1 1
Stopped In Road 1 1
Other 1 0 1
Grand Total 10 6 1 2 6 26
Top Crash Movements for Bicyclists
The below crash types represent 58% of fatal and severe crashes involving bicyclists. Fatal and severe crashes involving bicyclists are distributed evenly between signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and between intersections.
Bicyclist proceeding straight/Driver proceeding straight − 22% of all bicyclist crashes
− 27% of fatal and severe bicyclist crashes (3 broadsides, 1 sideswipe, 2 “other”) − 7% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury Bicyclist proceeding straight/Driver making left turn − 17% of all bicyclist crashes
− 19% of fatal and severe bicyclist crashes, with most (80%) at signalized intersections Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 36
− 7% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury Bicyclist proceeding straight/Parked car
− 7% of all bicyclist crashes
− 12% of fatal and severe bicyclist crashes
− 10% of these crashes result in a fatality or severe injury Motor Vehicle Only
Top Fatal and Severe Injury Crash Movements for Motor Vehicle Only The below crash types represent 53% of fatal and severe injury crashes that involve motor vehicles only. Over half (58%) of these crashes take place between intersections, while only 13% take place at signalized intersections.
Driver 1 proceeding straight/Driver 2making left turn − 25% of fatal and severe motor vehicleonly crashes
Both drivers proceeding straight
− 15% of fatal and severe motor vehicleonly crashes, most (71%) take place at unsignalized intersections
Other unsafe turning
− 13% of fatal and severe motor vehicleonly crashes
Equity
Reported information about the race and ethnicity of people involved in crashes has several drawbacks, as described above. The disproportionate impact of traffic crashes in Santa Monica can also be examined geographically. Much of the Priority Network is located in areas of the city that have the greatest concentrations of residents of color (Figure 40). People of color are defined as anyone who identifies as a race other than white or as Hispanic or Latino in the U.S. Census American Community Survey. In Santa Monica, the census block groups with the highest proportions of people of color are along the I-10 corridor and Pico Boulevard. Segments on the Priority Network are found on streets that pass through these census blocks, including Olympic Boulevard, Broadway, Santa Monica Boulevard, Colorado Avenue, Pico Boulevard, 4th Street, Main Street, and Ocean Avenue.
CalEnviroScreenprovides another tool for looking at equity, specifically in the area of environmental justice. CalEnviroScreen is a mapthat combines environmental, health, and socioeconomic factors to identify places in the state that are most affected by pollution. Figure 41 shows the Priority Network over CalEnvironScreen 4.0 Draft scores by census tract. Higher scoring areas bear the greatest pollution burden. High-scoring tracts in Santa Monica are the same areas of the city that have the greatest proportion of residents of color.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 37
Figure 40 The Priority Network and People of Color by Census Block Group Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 38
Figure 41 The Priority Network and CalEnviroScreen Scores Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 39
PRIORITIZING ACTIONS
Priority Candidate Locations
Priority locations for safety countermeasures are identified using a combination of equity and crash data. High crash intersections and street segments on the Priority Network that are located within census tracts with a high CalEnviroScreen score are the highest priority for improvement.
Each location is given a score that reflects the mean percentile of the CalEnviroScreen scores of the census tracts it falls within or borders on. When multiple locations have the same CalEnviroScreen score, the one falling within the census block group with the highest proportion of residents of color, based on U.S. Census American Community Survey 5-year Estimates from 2019, is a higher priority.
Figure 42 Top Priority Network Segments by CalEnviroScreen Score Segment
CalEnviroScreen
Score
Total Collision
Weight Project in Progress
Olympic Blvd from Cloverfield Blvd
St to 28th St
87 84 Olympic Blvd & 26th St: Grant
funding obtained from LA Metro
to install pedestrian and bicyclist
improvements at intersection
Pico Blvd from 26th St to Urban
Ave
87 74 Grant funding obtained for
safety study and installation of
safety improvements for Pico
Blvd east of 28th St
Olympic Blvd from 17th St to
Cloverfield Blvd
83 95 No current project in progress
Pico Blvd from 19th St to 26th St 83 67 ATP project designed and going to construction on Pico Blvd
near Santa Monica College and
Virginia Avenue Park
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 40
Figure 43 Top Ten Signalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score Intersection
CalEnviroScreen
Score
Total Crash
Weight Top Crash Types
Olympic Blvd and 26th St 87 44 All
Night
Olympic Blvd and Cloverfield
Blvd
87 28 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
Night
Colorado Ave and Stewart St 78 28 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved
Lincoln Blvd and Olympic Blvd 78 43 All
Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
Olympic Blvd and 4th St 77 35 All
Colorado Ave and 2nd St 77 63 All
Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
Night
Santa Monica Blvd and 6th St 77 48 All
Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
Night
Arizona Ave and 5th St 77 2 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved
Night
Colorado Ave and 4th St 77 38 All
Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
Pico Blvd and 4th St 67 63 All
Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter
involved
Night
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 41
Figure 44 Top Ten Unsignalized Intersections by CalEnviroScreen Score Intersection
CalEnviroScreen
Score
Total Crash
Weight Top Crash Types
Pico Blvd and 3rd St 67 25 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved Night
Pico Blvd and 9th St 65 23 Night
Main St and Strand St 58 29 All
Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved
Santa Monica Blvd and
18th St
49 35 All
Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved
Santa Monica Blvd and
15th St
49 30 All
Night
Santa Monica Blvd and
16th St
49 31 All
Night
Beach St and 2nd St 48 22 Night
Hill St and 7th St 48 24 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved Night
Hill St and 23d St 46 24 All
Navy St and 23rd St 46 32 Pedestrian, bicyclist or scooter involved Emphasis Areas: What’s next?
The emphasis areas were developed through a combination of data analysis and input from the interdepartmental Vision Zero working group. The emphasis areas provide staff a plan for how to address some of the more persistent crash types that take place in the city.
Emphasis Area: Pedestrians crossing at intersections
In Santa Monica, pedestrianswere involved in 42% of all fatal and severe injury crashes, despite beinginvolved in only 17% of all crashes. Pedestrian victims of fatal and severe injury crashes tend to be older. People in the age group of 65+ are involved in 30% of our fatal and severe injuries but are only 18% of the Santa Monica population. Pedestrians of color, specifically Hispanicor Latinopeople, are overrepresented in fatal and severe crashes (at 23% of pedestrians and only 15% of the Santa Monica population).
The most common type of fatal or severepedestrian crash involves a person crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection and a driver proceeding straight. This type of crash represents 20% of all pedestrian crashes and 31% of fatal and severe pedestrian crashes, with most (69%) occurring at unsignalized intersections.
Goals for Emphasis Area
Conduct detailed safety evaluation of all fatal and severe injury pedestrian crashes.
Investigate at leastfive priority intersections per yearbased on the locations identified in Figure 12andFigure 16. Each crash location will be evaluated based on detailed crash records and field visits with safety partners that will determine the specific treatments for Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 42
short- and long-terminterventions and policy actions to treat the primary cause of the crashes.
Implement recommended treatments.
Strategies for Emphasis Area
Implement proven safety measures that will alleviate the more persistent crash-inducing conditions, including best practice treatments identified by the FHWA andCaltrans, and may include enhancements to lighting and/or improvements to lighting conditions in and around intersections.
Implement safety strategies that eliminate conflicts, such as traffic calming, in and around high pedestrian crash intersections.
Work with internal departments to identify and apply for safety grant funding to further advance safety projects.
Emphasis Area: Crashes involving people bicycling and using shared mobility devices
People riding bicycles and scooters are involved in 20% of all crashes but represent 24% of all fatal and severe injury crashes in Santa Monica, according to the data available from the statewide SWITRS system. Local crashdata suggests that the actual number of crashes involving people on scooters is higher, with 14 resulting in a fatality or severe injury from 2015- 2019. These crashes are undercounted in the state data due to inconsistencies in how scooter use is reported. Bicyclists involved in fatal and severe injury crashes tend to be younger adults. In 43% of fatal and severe injury bicyclist crashes the person bicycling was aged 25-39, an age group that represents only 29% of the population. Bicyclists of color, specifically Black and Hispanic or Latino people, are overrepresented in fatal and severe crashes, at 25% of involved bicyclists and only 19% of the Santa Monica population.
While pedestrian crashes occurred most frequently at unsignalized intersections, crashes involving bicyclists occurred at signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and between intersections at approximately equal frequency. Overall, 27% of fatal and severe injury crashes involving bicyclists take place where both the bicycle and vehicle are proceeding straight.
Goals for Emphasis Area
Conduct detailed safety evaluation of top locations for fatal and severe injury crashes involving bicyclists or people using shared mobility devices. Investigate five intersections per yearbased on the top locations identified in Figure 12andFigure 16. Each crash location will be evaluated based on detailed crash records and field visits with safety partners that will determine the specific treatments for short- and long-term treatments, and policy actions to treat the primary cause of the crashes. Implement recommended treatments with a goal of implementing all safety enhancements within five years.
Work with SMPD to ensure consistent and reliable data with a goal of more uniform data entry for scooters and other sharedmobility devices.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 43
Strategies for Emphasis Area
Complete the planned five-year protected bicycle network as defined in the City’s Bike Action PlanAmendment (2020).
Implement proven safety measures that will alleviate some of the more persistent conditions.
Implement safety strategies that help manage vehicular speeds in and around intersections.
Implement safety enhancements to create protected left turn signals at intersections with persistent left-turn-related bicycle and shared mobility involved crashes. Include a focus on bicycle and scooter safety in traffic safety education materialswith a specific emphasis in developing materials that target the most impacted 25-39 age group. Work with internal departments to identify and apply for safety grant funding to further advance safety enhancements.
Work with Police and Fire to verify and analyze crash data for bicyclists and shared mobility devices.
Emphasis Area: Priority Network – Prioritized by CalEnviroScreen The LRSP identifies the roadway segments that represent the highest concentration (weighted by severity) of crashes in the city. The City will focus resources on investigating these priority segments to develop plans of action. The investigation of roadway segments will be further prioritized based on equity using CalEnviroScreen rankings.
The City is already making progress to address some roadway segments identified in the LRSP priority map. For example, staff recently completed a comprehensive safety evaluation of Wilshire Boulevard and are procuring a contractor to install the safety improvements identified in the plan. In progress work for priority roadway segments will be accelerated when possible and the remaining priority segments will be a priority for funding. This will allow the City to focus resources on streets with the greatest need for traffic safety improvements.
Goal for Emphasis Area
Continue to make progress on in-progress safety projects. Within five years, complete new detailed safety evaluation on the primary corridors in the Priority Network that are in areas of high concentration of the CalEnviroScreen. This focus area includes priority roadway segments located in Downtown Santa Monica, and Santa Monica and Pico Boulevards.
Strategies for Emphasis Area
Identify opportunities to accelerate traffic safety projects already in progress as identified on the Priority Network.
Work with City departments,including Police and Fire,to address safety issues on the Priority Network through education and emergency response efforts.Work with internal departments to identify and apply for funding to conduct comprehensive safety evaluations on roadway segments identified as part of the Priority Network.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 44
Emphasis Area: Speed Management
Unsafe speed is the second most common violation cited in fatal and severe crashes in the City, at 14% of the total. It is the most common violation for fatal and severe crashes involving motor vehicles only, at 28% of the total. About 5% of Unsafe Speed crashes result in a fatality or severe injury. Most fatal and severe crashes due to unsafe speeds take place on the Priority Network, including on Pacific Coast Highway. Streets under the City’s jurisdiction where unsafe speeds resulted in more than one fatality or severe injury include Pico Boulevard, Broadway, and Wilshire Boulevard. Strategies that reduce motor vehicle speeds will be a particular focus as the City conducts safety evaluations and identifies improvements for street segments on the Priority Network.
Streets with a higher posted speed are also associated with a higher rate of fatalities and severe injuries. Thirty-fivemph streets make up only 3% of street centerline miles but are the site of 15% of all crashes and 9% of fatal and severe crashes.
Goal for Emphasis Area
Reduce the numberof crashes in which unsafe motor vehicle speeds are a factor.
Strategies for Emphasis Area
Develop a toolkit of proven safety countermeasures that reduce motor vehicle speeds and are appropriate for streets on the Priority Network.
Ensure speed limits are set appropriately and consistent with recent legislation (Assembly Bill No. 43).
Coordinate withneighboring jurisdictions andlaw enforcement on an enforcement strategy for unsafe speeds on the Pacific Coast Highway.
Evaluation and Implementation
This plan represents a commitment to implement infrastructure that will save lives and improve mobility options for all.
To measure successof the LRSP, the City will evaluate projects two years after implementation by analyzing crashpatternsand, if appropriate, speed patterns and reporting on the findings. The analysis will assess:
1. if the intervention has increased safety for vulnerable road users and
2. if additional measures need to be taken to adjust the design to further enhance safety. The City anticipates that crashdata will be analyzed and refreshed every three years to understand where new crash patterns arise and old problems have been resolved.
Meanwhile, a project work plan that specifically identifies the goals and strategies of each priority location will also be developed and revisited every six years. The Vision Zero Working Group will continue to meet quarterly to discuss progress on the plan goals and to review proposed design interventions. Staff will continue to engage with neighboring cities and agencies in Los Angeles, such as Caltrans, to improve efficiencies related to roadway design and to promote traffic safety across jurisdictions.
Local Road Safety Plan | 2022
City of Santa Monica
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 45
Countermeasures
The City of Santa Monica uses FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures, other FHWA guidance, and Caltrans documentation to identify appropriate countermeasures for high crashlocations and common crashtypes.