TFC2205.SR.JD
CITY OF SIMI VALLEY
MEMORANDUM
M
ay 16, 2022
TO
: City Council
F
ROM: Department of Public Works
S
UBJECT: ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CITY OF SIMI
VALLEY LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is re commended that the City Council adopt attached Resolution No. 2022- 25 (page 4) approving the City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan.
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
A Local Road Safety Plan (“Plan”) is a road safety planning document that provides a holistic analysis of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle crash data, and provides a roadmap for implementation of safety improvements. Beginning in 2022, it is required that all state, cou nty, and local agencies adopt a Plan to be eligible to receive Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funds. These funds are used for planning documents, preliminary engineering documents, and construction improvements to mitigate safety -related issues at intersections and roadways.
I
n the past, the City has benefitted from HSIP funds to produce a street sign inventory, and recently a grant was awarded to install improved traffic signal heads and reflective tape to improve visibility (construction scheduled to commence in 2022). Staff intend s to apply for additional grant funding in the upcoming HSIP Cycle 6, for which a call for projects is expected to occur this month. S taff recommends that the City Council adopt the Plan to provide a roadmap for C ity traffic safety improvements, and to maintain eligibility to receive HSIP funds in the future.
FINDINGS AND ALTERNATIVES
T
he City retained the consulting firm Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., to prepare the Plan.
Preparation of the Plan was made possible through S tate funding in the amount of $80,000, including a local match requirement of $8,000, which was included in the FY 2021-22 Budget.
AGENDA ITEM NO.
Consent (8)
TFC2205.SR.JD
In accordance with the draft Plan:
“[The] Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis, as well as at specific locations to identify high- crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns.”
Conducted in conjunction with City staff, preparation of the Plan included outreach to various City stakeholders to identify areas of concern: Simi Valley Police Department, Ventura County Fire, and S imi Valley Unified School District. Stakeholders were asked to review the preliminary collision analysis, and assist in identify ing ten case study locations. Stakeholders then participated in a field diagnostic meeting for each location to identify potential safety improvement measures to mitigate the issues identified.
The draft Plan being presented for adoption memorializes the areas of concern, case study locations, potential funding sources, and estimated construction costs for grant funding applicat ions. Intended to be a living document, the Plan is to be periodically updated as projects are constructed, thereby accomplishing projects in the Plan and allowing for identification of new emphasis areas and safety improvements.
For the upcoming grant cycle, staff intend s to apply for funding to install protected left - turn phasing at various intersections throughout the City. Signalized intersections with high crash rates for “failure to yield” to oncoming traffic have been identified; installation of left -turn phasing at locations with no protected phasing, or protected- permissive phasing, has been shown to reduce these types of collisions significantly, and will provide a significant benefit to residents.
It is noted that the Plan is a planning tool. It is a roadmap for potential safety improvements at various locations in the City, though certain constraints may present difficulties or limit the City’s ability to implement them. As the various case studies allow for application of safety modifications to similar locations throughout the City, the City is not limited to the case study locations contained in the Plan.
The following alternatives are available to the City Council:
1. Adopt the attached Resolution No. 2022-25 approving the City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan;
2. P rovide other direction to staff.
Staff recommends Alternative No. 1.
2 TFC2110.SR.JD
SUGGESTED CITY COUNCIL MOTION
I move to adopt Resolution No. 2022- 25 approving the City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan.
SUMMARY
A Local Road Safety Plan (“Plan”) is a road safety planning document that provides a holistic analysis of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle crash data, and provides a roadmap for implementation of safety improvements. To remain eligible to receive grant funding from the HSIP in 2022 and subsequent years, a Plan was developed. It is recommended that the City Council adopt attached Resolution No. 2022-25, approving the City of Simi Valley Plan.
____________________________________
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
Prepared by: Justin Link, Principal Engineer
INDEX Page
Resolution No. 2022-25…………………………………. .................... 4 Attachment A – City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan ............. 6 3 TFC2205.RES.JD
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-25
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI
VALLEY APPROVING THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY LOCAL
ROAD SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework for organizing stakeholders to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural roads; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP will promote safety for all road users in the City of Simi Valley; and
WHEREAS, an LRSP will be required for an agency to be eligible to apply for federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds; and
WHEREAS, the City has benefitted from HSIP funds to produce a street sign inventory, and recently a grant was awarded to install improved traffic signal heads and install reflective tape to improve visibility; and
WHEREAS, the City is desirous of applying for and receiving HSIP grant funding in the future to design and construct roadway safety improvement projects in the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIMI VALLEY DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1
. The City Council of the City of Simi Valley does hereby approve the City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan.
SECTION 2
. The City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Simi Valley all necessary documents to implement and carry out the purpose of this resolution.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall cause a certified resolution to be filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 16
th day of May, 2022.
4 RES. NO. 2022-25
TFC2110.RES.JD
Attest:
Lucy Blanco, City Clerk Keith L. Mashburn, Mayor of the City of Simi Valley, California
Approved as to Form: Approved as to Content:
David L. Caceres, City Attorney Brian Paul Gabler, City Manager
Ronald K. Fuchiwaki
Public Works Director
5 City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
i September 2021
City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
Local Road Safety Plan
September 2021 | Final
City of Simi Valley
ATTACHMENT A
6 City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
i September 2021
City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... ES-1
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
2. VISION AND GOALS ............................................................................................................ 2
3. PROCESS ............................................................................................................................. 3
3.1 Guiding Manuals .................................................................................................................................. 3
3.1.1 Local Roads Safety Manual .......................................................................................................... 4
3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual ................................................................................................................ 4
3.2 Analysis Techniques ............................................................................................................................ 5
3.2.1 Collision Analysis .......................................................................................................................... 5
3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis ......................................................................................................... 5
4. SAFETY PARTNERS ............................................................................................................ 7
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting ............................................................................................................................ 7
5. EXISTING EFFORTS ............................................................................................................. 8
6. DATA SUMMARY.................................................................................................................. 9
6.1 Roadway Network ............................................................................................................................... 9
6.2 Intersections ........................................................................................................................................ 9
6.3 Collisions ............................................................................................................................................. 9
7. CRASH SAFETY TRENDS ...................................................................................................10
7.1 Severity Level .................................................................................................................................... 10
7.2 Cause of Collision .............................................................................................................................. 14
7.3 Highest Occurring Collision Types .................................................................................................... 15
7.4 Aggressive, Distracted, and Impaired Collisions ............................................................................... 16
7.4.1 Aggressive Driving ...................................................................................................................... 16
7.4.2 Distracted Driving........................................................................................................................ 18
7.4.3 Impaired Driving .......................................................................................................................... 18
7.5 Lane Departure .................................................................................................................................. 18
7.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions ..................................................................................................... 18
7.6.1 Pedestrian Collisions .................................................................................................................. 19
7.6.2 Bicycle Collisions ........................................................................................................................ 19
7.7 Time of Day ....................................................................................................................................... 22 7 City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
ii September 2021
City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
8. EMPHASIS AREAS ..............................................................................................................24
8.1 Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving ............................................................................................. 24
8.2 Emphasis Area #2: Impaired Driving ................................................................................................. 24
8.3 Emphasis Area #3: Small-Scale Infrastructure ................................................................................. 25
8.4 Emphasis Area #4: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) ............................................ 25
9. COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ........................................................................................27
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements ............................................................................................................. 27
9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process ........................................................................................... 27
9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies ....................................................................................................... 28
9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox .................................................................................................. 49
10. EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION ................................................................................51
10.1 Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ 51
10.2 Implementation ................................................................................................................................ 51
10.3 Funding ............................................................................................................................................ 51
10.3.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program .................................................................................... 52
10.3.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program .................................................................................. 52
10.3.3 California SB 1 .......................................................................................................................... 53
10.3.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants .................................................................................. 53
10.3.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program ............................................................................... 54
10.4 Next Steps ....................................................................................................................................... 54 8 City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
iii September 2021
City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 – Collisions by Severity ...........................................................................................10 Figure 2 – Intersection Fatal & Serious Injury Collisions Map .............................................12 Figure 3 – Collisions by Primary Collision Factor ................................................................14 Figure 4 – Collisions by Type ................................................................................................. 15 Figure 5 – Aggressive, Distracted, and Impaired Driving Collisions ...................................16 Figure 6 – Intersection & Segment Aggressive Driving Collisions Map ............................17 Figure 7 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions .......................................................................19 Figure 8 – Intersection Pedestrian Collisions Map ...............................................................20 Figure 9 – Intersection Bicycle Collisions Map .....................................................................21 Figure 10 – Total Collisions by Hour of Day..........................................................................22 Figure 11 – Total Collision by Lighting Conditions ..............................................................23 Figure 12 – Total Collisions by Day of Week .........................................................................23 L
IST OF TABLES
Table 1 – Existing Documents Reviewed ............................................................................... 8 Table 2 – Collisions by Severity .............................................................................................11 Table 3 – Simi Valley K+SI Collisions Compared to Statewide K+SI Collisions .................13 Table 4 – Countermeasure Toolbox .......................................................................................49 9 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
ES-1
September 2021
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Simi Valley Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high- crash locations, high- risk locations, as well as city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for opportunities to:
1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,
2. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, a
nd
3. Dev
elop safety measures using the four E’s of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
Supported by their California Office of Traffic Safety
(OTS) ranking, Simi Valle y has successful ly taken
steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the City
and placed in the top 2 0 percent tier for safety as
compared to peer cities in most categories. With this
LRSP, t he City continues its safety efforts by
identifying areas of emphasis and systemic
recommendations to enhance safety.
The City’s vision is to enhance the transportation
network and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes, and t he goals for the City of Simi
Valley include the following:
Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for
crashes.
Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive
safety program and the systemic process.
Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for
near-, mid- and long-term.
Goal #4: Define safety projects for HSIP and
other program funding consideration.
This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash
data (January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019) and
roadway improvements to assess historic trends,
patterns, and areas of increasing concern.
3,072 5-year
collisions
11Fatalities
113 Serious
Injuries
45%
Occurred at
Signalized
Intersections
41%
Occurred at
Unsignalized
Intersections
27%
Due to
Agressive
Driving
15% Impaired
Driving
6%
Involving
Pedestrians
& Bicyclists
Source: Simi Valley Collision Database (2015-2019)
10 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
ES-2
September 2021
Further, the collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations with more active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations were identified within the City that will most likely benefit from safety enhancements. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were derived. The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non- infrastructure safety measures to address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users.
Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.
Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving
Emphasis Area #2: Impaired Driving
Emphasis Area #3: Small-Scale Infrastructure
Emphasis Area #4: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) Ten (10) case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the City. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost -effective safety benefits. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer- term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements.
An evaluation/implementation plan was created, and actionable items were identified to help the City achieve the goals and vision of this LRSP. Using the analyzed data and outputs from this LRSP, the City has completed or plans to complete the following tasks:
• Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users, • Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network, and • Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capita l
i
mprovements to design a safer transportation network in Simi Valley.
It was recommended that the City Council formally adopt this plan, and to update the plan once every five years.
11 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
1 September 2021
1. INTRODUCTION
Located in Southeast Ventura County, t he City of Simi Valley is the county’s third largest city . It has many historical landmarks and recreational attractions , including the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, which brings visitors from across the country.
Based on University of California Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and California Department of Transportation ( Caltrans) Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters , Simi Valley’s economic losses due to traffic injuries were over $260M from 2015 through 2019. This report identif ies factors associated with the most vehicle crashes particular to the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes.
This Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City’s transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of c rash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and city -wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City’s transportation network allows for the following opportunities:
4. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,
5. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and
6. Dev
elop safety measures using the four E’s of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response) to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
Simi Valley has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the City and with this LRSP, Simi Valley is continuing to prioritize safety in its planning processes. Ranking well above average for roadway safety performance, Simi Valley placed 49th of 59 peer cities regarding traffic injuries by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in 2018. It is noted that number one (1) in the OTS crash rankings is considered the highest, or “worst”. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of Crossroads crash data from January 1, 2015 – December 31, 2019 and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.
The intent of the LRSP is to:
• Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes
• Develop lasting partnerships
• Support for grant/funding applications, and
• Prioritize investments in traffic safety.
12 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
2 September 2021
2. VISION AND GOALS
The Simi Valley LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non- infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclist, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. Through historical data and trends , proactive identification and safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.
As cities across the country have implemented LRSPs and systemically addressed the conditions leading to fatal and severe-injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found that LRSPs effectively improve safety. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. This project’s vision, goals, and object ives have been established t o reflect discussions with Simi Valley staff, various stakeholders identified by City staff, and a review of existing plans/policies in the area.
Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.
Objectives:
• Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. • Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists).
Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.
Objectives:
• Demonstrate the systemic process’ ability to identify locations with higher risk for crashes based on present characteristics closely associated with severe crashes. • Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon.
Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.
Objectives:
• Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). • Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied city-wide.
Goal #4: Define safety projects for future Highway Safety Improvement Plan ( HSIP) and other program funding consideration.
Objectives:
• Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth- coming cycles t
o apply for funding.
• Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. • Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP and other funding consideration. • Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Visi on Z
ero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan. 13 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
3 September 2021
3. PROCESS
The primary goal for the City of Simi Valley and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.
Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for a LRSP.
FHWA encourages the following:
• The establishment of a working group (stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP • A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern • The identification of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
• Establish leadership
• Analyze the safety data
• Determine emphasis areas
• Identify strategies
• Prioritize and incorporate strategies
• Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and developed emphasis areas. The LRSP recommendations consider the f our E's of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response.
3.1 Guiding Manuals
This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Simi Valley at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the City that will benefit from safety enhancements and derives crash risk factors based on histo ric crash data u sing a network screening process. The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics and related driving behaviors contributing t o crashes. This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described.
14 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
4 September 2021
3.1.1 Local Roads Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) encourage s local agencies to pursue a proactive approach when identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is the analyzation of safety in an entire roadway network through either a one -time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.1 According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), “ the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) – Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements.” To provide the most beneficial and competitive funding approach , the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should reflect a list of locat ions that are most likely to benefit from cost -effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates.
These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the potential effective countermeasures. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels.
Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs.
3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ( AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations. 2 This four-part manual is divided into the following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.
In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, t he “Network Screening Process” is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.
1 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx
15 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
5 September 2021
The HSM identifies five steps in this process:3
1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis.
This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the s
creening method that can be applied.
2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.
3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to ev
aluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance m
easure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.
4. Select Screening Method: There are three principal screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and di
sadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.
5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and ana
lysis and evaluate the results.
The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories. After identifying the total number of crashes, this study uses a method referred to as “Critical Crash Rate” to analyze the data.
3.2 Analysis Techniques
3.2.1 Collision Analysis
The initial steps of a collision analysis involve establishing sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type ( signalized and unsignalized), and segments were grouped by their roadway category (primary arterial, secondary arterial, collector, local). Individual collision rates were then calculated for each sub-population. The population level collision rates were used to assess the number of collisions at a specific location. These sub- populations were also used to determine typical collision patterns to highlight locations where an unusual number of specific collision types occurred.
3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis
The network screening process lists intersections and roadway segments by the number of collisions over the analysis period and identifies areas with a higher number of a given collision type than would be expected for the location.
3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2. 16 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
6 September 2021
The different collisions were organized by the following categories:
1. Collision injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage onl
y),
2. Collision type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other),
3. Environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and
4. Dr
iver behavior (impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving). 17 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
7 September 2021
4. SAFETY PARTNERS
Local stakeholders were included in the development of this report to ensure the local perspective was maintained at the forefront of planning efforts. A stakeholder group of City staff and external partners consisted of members of City staff, representatives from the S imi Valley Police Department, and local school districts.
The local stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the city’s transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas. The summary of the stakeholder meeting(s) is outlined below.
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting
The stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually. At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study.
In addition to the overview, s takeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge at ten “case study” locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash analysis process. Potential countermeasures were recommended and discussed, and s takeholder feedback regarding the plan and recommendations was reviewed and incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP.
18 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
8 September 2021
5. EXISTING EFFORTS
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or on -going were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City . The reviewed documents are tabulated in Table 1. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety -related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP.
Table 1 – Existing Documents Reviewed
DOCUMENT DOCUMENT
YEAR AGENCY TYPE/DESCRIPTION
5-Year Capital
Improvements
Program
2019 Simi Valley
Projects and programs that will result in capital
construction projects or plan development over a 5-year planning horizon for Fiscal Years 2019-20 to 2023-24
Bicycle Master
Plan 2008 Simi Valley
Blueprint for developing a bikeway system of on-street
and off-street facilities that connect to other regional bike systems, as well as support facilities and programs
General Plan
Chapter 5 –
Mobility and
Infrastructure
2012 Simi Valley Contains goals, policies, and actions related to transportation and mobility
Arroyo Simi
Greenway
Specific Plan
2011
Amended
June 2018
Simi Valley Planning document that guides the revitalization of the Arroyo Simi and development of a scenic greenway
The Enclave
Specific Plan 2019 Simi Valley
Planning document that provides a regulatory framework
for the development and use of approximately 12.83 acres of land located in Simi Valley
Runkle Canyon
Specific Plan 2004 Simi Valley
Guides residential development of the 1,595-acre site for construction of 461 attached and detached single-family dwellings and a public neighborhood park
West End Specific
Plan 2019 Simi Valley
Planning document that provides development standards
for the development of the industrial and commercial
development target area in the western end of the City
along the 118 Freeway west of First Street
Whiteface Specific
Plan – Volume II
Dry & Tapo
Canyons/Lost
Canyons
2014 Simi Valley Plan defines the residential unit types and locations in addition to imaginative community design concepts
Ventura County
Regional Bikeway
Wayfinding Plan
2017
Ventura County
Transportation
Commission
(VCTC)
Plan identifies regional bicycle routes, informs
prioritization of locations for bike infrastructure
improvements, and develops a consistent bicycle
wayfinding sign design for regional bike routes throughout Ventura County
Transportation
Emergency
Preparedness
Plan
2020
VCTC/
Santa Barbara
County
Association of
Governments
(SBCAG)
Caltrans-funded plan developed conjointly by VCTC and
SBCAG to address the transportation challenges related
to disasters that affect one or both countries
Quarterly
Development
Summary & Maps
2020 Simi Valley
Provides a comprehensive list of residential, commercial, industrial, wireless telecommunications facility, and
Citywide projects in review, recently approved, or under construction as of the end of 2020
19 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
9 September 2021
6. DATA SUMMARY
This section describes the data sources used for the analysis process of this LRSP.
6.1 Roadway Network
During the collision analysis, roadway s were separated by functional classification to stratify results and ensure consistency in the roadway analysis. Using the City’s General Plan roadway classification system, each roadway segment in the network was categorized as a primary arterial, secondary arterial, collector, or local road. Each r oadways’ safety performance was only compared with roads containing similar functional design and capacity (i.e., only primary arterials were compared to primary arterials).
6.2 Intersections
In addition to categorizing roadway segment s, the collision analysis also required the classification of each intersection within the City. Intersections were classified by control type , signalized or unsignalized. The safety analysis only compared intersection safety performance with similar control types (i.e., signalized intersections were only compared to signalized intersections).
6.3 Collisions
Collision data from the five-year period of January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019 was used during the collision analysis. The year 2020 data was not included in the analysis due to the atypical travel and safety patterns that may not be representative of future years. Data from the study period provided sufficient information to identify potential trends in collisions by location and type, while ensuring that long-term technology and cultural changes did not affect the data results.
The collision data was obtained from Crossroads Software. Crossroads has access to the latest police reports, allowing validation of the City’s data with TIMS, which provides access to California injury and fatal crash data. Crossroads Software provides the most up-to-date law enforcement records geocoded into a Geographic Information System (GIS) format for the network screening process. Collision records were allocated to each intersection and roadway network segment. 20 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
10 September 2021
7. CRASH SAFETY TRENDS
The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the City-maintained roadway system based on collision records spanning from January 1, 2015 through December 31, 2019.
This section contains the results of the analysis, which included the evaluation of Simi Valley ’s fatal and serious injury (generally denoted as K+SI) collisions , statewide K+SI collisions, pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, collision severity levels, and collision causes.
7.1 Severity Level
Collision impact, specifically the highest degree of injury or type of damage which occurred, plays a key role in assessing the environment and safety factors around the collision site. Over the observed time period (2015-2019), there w ere a total of 1 1 fatal collisions and 113 collisions resulting in serious injury on City roadways, as shown in Figure 1.
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015-2019)
Figure 1 – Collisions by Severity
Table 2 tabulates the collisions by severity type that specifically occurred at intersections and roadway segments.
11 113
458
927
1562
0 200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Fatal Serious Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only
COLLISIONS
SEVERITY
21 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
11 September 2021
Table 2 – Collisions by Severity
SEVERITY
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTIONS SEGMENTS TOTAL
COLLISIONS % COLLISIONS % COLLISIONS % COLLISIONS %
Fatal 4 <1% 3 <1% 4 <1% 11 <1%
SI1 44 1% 44 1% 25 1% 113 4%
OVI2 220 7% 181 6% 57 2% 458 15%
COP3 510 17% 298 10% 118 4% 926 30%
PDO4 594 19% 721 24% 240 8% 1,555 51%
Total 1,372 45% 1,247 41% 444 14% 3,063 100%
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015-2019)
1. Serious Injury, 2. Other Visible Injury, 3. Complaint of Pain, 4. Property Damage Only Over 85 percent of collisions in the City of Simi Valley occurred at intersections, while over 50 percent of the collisions were Property Damage Only (PDO) . The data also indicates that K+SI collisions accounted for about five (5) percent of all collisions. Figure 2 illustrates the intersection K+SI collisions throughout the city. Table 3 tabulates a comparison of Simi Valley and California statewide collisions by severity and year; Simi Valley percentages that are proportionally higher than the statewide percentages are shown in bold.
22 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
12 September 2021
Figure 2 – Intersection Fatal & Serious Injury Collisions Map 23 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
13 September 2021
Table 3 – Simi Valley K+SI Collisions Compared to Statewide K+SI Collisions Severity State/City 2014* 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019*
Fatal
Statewide 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% -
Simi Valley - 0.2% 0.5% 0.2% 0.5% 0.5%
Serious Injury
Statewide 2.4% 2.4% 2.3% 2.5% 2.9% -
Simi Valley - 4.5% 2.3% 3.6% 4.8% 3.2%
Other Visible
Injury
Statewide 12.5% 12.3% 11.5% 12.0% 12.7% -
Simi Valley - 15.3% 16.4% 14.9% 14.6% 13.7%
Complaint of
Pain
Statewide 25.8% 26.1% 25.9% 25.3% 24.2% -
Simi Valley - 27.3% 37.0% 33.9% 29.4% 25.9%
Property
Damage Only
Statewide 58.5% 58.5% 59.5% 59.5% 59.5% -
Simi Valley - 52.8% 43.7% 47.4% 50.6% 56.7%
*2014 collisions not analyzed for Simi Valley; 2019 collision data not available for statewide at the time of this study Sources:
1. Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015-2019)
2. California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (2014 – 2018) 24 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
14 September 2021
7.2 Cause of Collision
Figure 3 illustrates Simi Valley’s collisions by Primary Collision Factor (PCF). Unsafe maneuvers were identified as the most common PCF, accounting for 72 percent of the total collisions. Driver impairment was revealed as the second most common PCF at 12 percent followed by traffic signals and signs at nine (9) percent.
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015 – 2019)
Figure 3 – Collisions by Primary Collision Factor
Auto R/W Violation
27%
Improper Turning
18%
Unsafe Speed
17%
Driving Under
Influence
12%
Other
Unsafe/Hazardous
Movements
10%
Traffic Signals and
Signs
9%
Other/Unknown
5%
Ped Violation
2%
25 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
15 September 2021
7.3 Highest Occurring Collision Types
Approximately 3,072 collisions occurred within the City of Simi Valley during the 5 -year study period. Of the 3,072 collisions, over 86 percent occurred at intersections (45 percent at signalized intersections and 41 percent at unsignalized intersections), while the remaining 14 percent occurred along mid -block roadway segments. Figure 4 shows the breakdown of collisions by collision type and location type. Broadside collisions are consistently the most common collision type within the city, making up 35 percent of all collisions. The second most common are rear end collisions, which make up 21 percent of all collisions. Within the City of Simi Valley, 25 percent of all reported collisions involved lane departures. Caltrans defines collisions involving lane departure as those with collision types listed as ‘Head-On’, ‘Hit Object’, or ‘Overturned’, which is discussed further in Section 7.5 Lane Departure. Collisions involving pedestrians and bicycles are discussed further in Section 7.6 Pedestrians and Bicycle Collisions.
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015 – 2019)
Note: Nine (9) collisions occurred on private property and were not captured by the tool, thus the total of the number collisions shown in the figure is 3,063
Figure 4 – Collisions by Type
1084
355
652
157
572
28 74
117
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Broadside
Sideswipe
Rear End
Head On
Hit Object
Overturned
Pedestrian
Bicycle
COLLISIONS
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
26 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
16 September 2021
7.4 Aggressive, Distracted, and Impaired Collisions
Figure 5 shows a summary of aggressive, distracted, and impaired collisions by intersections and segments. This section further elaborates on these collision factors.
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015 – 2019)
Figure 5 – Aggressive, Distracted, and Impaired Driving Collisions
7.4.1 Aggressive Driving
The California SHSP ’s data definition for aggressive driving is a collision where the primary collision factor violation category is one of the following: unsafe speed, following too closely, traffic signals/signs, failure to heed stop signal, failure to heed stop sign, unsafe speed, or reckless driving. There were 837 aggressive driving collisions between 2015- 2019, accounting for 27 percent of collisions within the City of Simi Valley. Figure 6 shows intersection and segment aggressive driving collisions within the city.
837
50 456
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Aggressive Distracted Impaired
COLLISIONS
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
27 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
17 September 2021
Figure 6 – Intersection & Segment Aggressive Driving Collisions Map 28 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
18 September 2021
7.4.2 Distracted Driving
Distracted driving is another newer challenge area within the SHSP that identifies collisions where the driver of a motor vehicle was using an electronic device or otherwise not paying attention. The SWITRS database includes an attribute for inattention as a factor in collisions and contains a specific field for cell phone use. Both collisions with inattention and handheld cell phone use have been trending toward more occurrences in recent years. There were 50 distracted driving collisions between 2015 and 2019 accounting for two ( 2) percent of collisions within the City of Simi Valley. Distracted driving collisions tend to be under -reported, as it is often difficult for a responding officer to attribute the cause of crashes in the absence of direct observation or self - reported behavior.
7.4.3 Impaired Driving
Collisions involving drugs or alcohol include all collisions with evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver. This differs from impaired driving statistics in that drivers do not need to exceed the legally defined threshold of intoxication to be counted. Caltrans considers any level of alcohol consumption to have the potential to impact driver responsiveness and decision making.
Approximately 15 percent of collisions within Simi Valley were associated with alcohol or drugs.
In Simi Valley, collisions related to impaired driving represent 20 percent of all fatal and serious injury collisions, which is less than the state average of 25 percent. Eight (8) of the impaired driving collisions resulted in fatalities (67 percent of all fatal collisions), while 17 of the impaired driving collisions resulted in serious injuries (15 percent of all serious injury collisions). According to the 2018 California OTS rankings 4, the City of Simi Valley ranks 41 out of 59 cities with populations between 100,001 – 250,000 for alcohol-involved collisions. Simi Valley has lower than the average number of alcohol-involved collisions compared to similar-sized cities.
7.5 Lane Departure
Caltrans considers head-on, hit object, and overturned collisions as lane departure collisions. This also includes instances where a vehicle runs off the road or crosses into the opposing lane prior to the collision. There were 763 lane departure collisions over the study period, making up approximately 25 percent of all collisions in the City. Of the 763 lane departure collisions, five (5) were fatal, 38 were reported with serious injury, 113 with visible injuries, and 126 with complaints of pain. Six (6) of these collisions occurred on private property and were not captured during the network screening process.
7.6 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions
The majority of pedestrian and bicycle collisions occurred at intersections as shown in Figure 7. 4 Number 1 in the OTS Crash Rankings is considered the highest, or “worst.” So, if a City were ranked 1/59, they would have the highest number of collisions for that crash type. For more details follow this link: https://www.ots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/?wpv-wpcf-year=2018&wpv-wpcf- city_county=Simi+Valley&wpv_filter_submit=Submit
29 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
19 September 2021
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015 – 2019)
Figure 7 – Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions
7.6.1 Pedestrian Collisions
Over the span of 2015-2019, a total of 75 pedestrian-involved collisions occurred, making up 2.4 percent of all collisions within the city. One (1) pedestrian collision occurred on private pr operty and was not captured during the network screening process, and therefore was not displayed in Figure 7. Of the 75 pedestrian- involved injury collisions, two were fatal, 12 were reported with serious injury, 32 with visible injuries, and 27 with complaints of pain. According to the 2018 California OTS rankings, the City of Simi Valley ranks 53 out of 59 cities with populations between 100,001 – 250,000 for pedestrian-involved collisions, indicating that Simi Valley has significantly fewer pedestrian -involved collisions compared to similar -sized cities. Figure 8 illustrates the intersection locations with pedestrian collisions within the City.
7.6.2 Bicycle Collisions
There were 117 bicycle-involved collisions over the study period, making up 3.8 percent of all collisions in the City. Of the 117 bicycle-involved collisions, none were fatal, 17 were reported with serious injury, 51 with visible injuries, and 42 with complaints of pain. According to the 2018 California OTS rankings, the City of Simi Valley ranks 31 out of 59 cities with populations between 100,001 – 250,000 for bicycle-involved collisions. Simi Valley has slightly less than the average number of bicycle -involved collisions compared to similar -sized cities. Figure 9 illustrates the intersection locations with bicycle collisions within the City. 74 117
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
Pedestrian Bicycle
COLLISIONS
Signalized Unsignalized Segment
30 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
20 September 2021
Figure 8 – Intersection Pedestrian Collisions Map
31 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
21 September 2021
Figure 9 – Intersection Bicycle Collisions Map
32 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
22 September 2021
7.7 Time of Day
The time of day can influence collision activity due to factors such as level of exposure due to traffic volume (i.e., higher AM and PM peak commute hours) and visibility (i.e., dark conditions or glare from the sun). Crossroads data includes information on the time of day and lighting conditions of each collision. Figure 10 shows the total number of collisions over the five -year period by hour of the day. The peak morning and evening commute times from 7:00 – 9:00 AM and 5:00 – 7:00 PM, respectively, experience the highest number of collisions. Figure 11 shows
the percentage breakdown of reported collisions by lighting conditions. Approximately 65 percent of collisions occurred during daylight, while 32 percent occurred during dark conditions; three (3) percent of all collisions (102 collisions) occurred during dawn or dusk. As Simi Valley is oriented on an east -west grid, collisions may be attributed to glare impacting visibility of intersection controls. Figure 12 shows the total number of collisions over the five- year period by day of the week. Over 76 percent of all collisions occurred during a weekday.
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015 – 2019)
Figure 10 – Total Collisions by Hour of Day
50 61
47 29 22
35 66
180
144
84 95
117
152
169
191
224
238
311
243
154
133 123
79 80
45 0
50 100
150
200
250
300
350
12-1 AM
1-2 AM
2-3 AM
3-4 AM
4-5 AM
5-6 AM
6-7 AM
7-8 AM
8-9 AM
9-10 AM
10-11 AM
11AM-12PM
12-1 PM
1-2 PM
2-3 PM
3-4 PM
4-5 PM
5-6 PM
6-7 PM
7-8 PM
8-9 PM
9-10 PM
10-11 PM
11PM-12AM
Not Stated
COLLISIONS
HOUR
33 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
23 September 2021
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015 – 2019)
Note: Dark represents collisions with/without streetlights present, and where streetlights are not functioning.
Figure 11 – Total Collision by Lighting Conditions
Source: Simi Valley Crossroads Database (2015 – 2019)
Figure 12 – Total Collisions by Day of Week
Daylight
65%
Dark
32%
Dusk - Dawn
3%
Daylight Dark Dusk - Dawn
355
468 466 478
444
482
374
5 0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Sunday
Monday
Tuesday
Wednesday
Thursday
Friday
Saturday
Not Stated
COLLISIONS
DAY
34 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
24 September 2021
8. EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas offer places where the City of Simi Valley can strategically focus its efforts to provide a large impact on transportation safety. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.
8.1 Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving
Description: Aggressive driving, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes several behaviors including speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Aggressive driving behaviors (unsafe speed or following too closely) accounted for 837 crashes or 27 percent of collisions within the City of Simi Valley.
Goals for Emphasis Area #1:
• Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive driving in the City • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for aggressive driving • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address aggressive driving Strategies for Emphasis Area #1:
• Install speed warning signs at “high risk” intersections • Implement advanced dilemma zone detection
• Narrow lane sizes to reduce speeding along City roadways • Educational campaign to raise awareness about speeding and aggressive driving • Conduct routine speed surveys to keep speed limits current and enforceable • Increased law enforcement presence near aggressive driving hotspots • Target key intersections/road segments and review striping/signage through roadway assessments
• Additional focused traffic enforcement presence using an equity lens • Increased coordination with law enforcement and other community organizations These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and community organizations.
Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, OTS and Senate Bill 1 ( SB 1) grant programs.
8.2 Emphasis Area #2: Impaired Driving
Description: Impaired driving crashes are a high priority challenge area within the Caltrans SHSP. Caltrans defines these as crashes where any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver is present, even if the driver is not over the legal limit. Approximately 15 percent of collisions within Simi Valley were associated with alcohol or drugs . Eight (8) of the impaired driving collisions 35 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
25 September 2021
resulted in fatalities (67 percent of all fatal collisions), while 17 of the impaired driving collisions resulted in serious injuries (15 percent of all serious injury collisions).
Goals for Emphasis Area #2:
• Reduce the number of crashes attributed to impaired driving • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for countermeasures to reduce impaired driving • Apply for funding to implement countermeasures to reduce impaired driving crashes Strategies for Emphasis Area #2:
• Authorize, publicize, and conduct sobriety checkpoints programs • Implement an impaired driving education campaign
• D
evelop educational programs targeting specific audiences based on age group • Additional enforcement presence
• C
reate effective media campaigns in both visual and print media These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and community organizations.
Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, OTS, and SB 1 grant programs.
8.3 Emphasis Area #3: Small-Scale Infrastructure
Description: According to the FHWA, roadway factors that may impact the safety of a particular roadway include facility pavement condition, access control, speed, roadway cross -section and traffic volumes. This emphasis area notes the importance of these factors, categorized as roadway geometry, in the City of Simi Valley to maintain safe facilities.
Goals for Emphasis Area #3:
• Increase roadway safety by improving roadway geometry Strategies for Emphasis Area #3:
• Install raised median
• Improve signal hardware
• Upgrade intersection striping and pavement markings
• Improve sight distance at intersecti
on
8.4 Emphasis Area #4: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists)
Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable users, meaning they possess the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. These groups need appropriate infrastructure to travel to key destinations such as schools, workplaces, and core commercial areas. The City’s Circulation element lays out plans and standards for non- motorized 36 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
26 September 2021
transportation. However, some City roads lack active transportation infrastructures such as sidewalks, crosswalks, bike lanes, intersection control, and speed controls that help provide a safe and comfortable environment for a ctive transportation users. Of the 192 crashes involving vulnerable road users, two resulted in a fatal injury and 29 resulted in a severe injury. The City should aim to implement countermeasures to further protect these users from injury.
Goals for Emphasis Area #4:
• Improve active transportation infrastructure by adding pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, and other amenities to make it safer for employees and community members to get to key destinations such as school, commercial centers, transit centers, and recreation areas • Encourage healthier lifestyles through active transportation infrastructure • Apply for HSIP and other funding to implement countermeasures to address vulnerable road user crashes
Strategies for Emphasis Area #4:
• Provide outreach, education, and enforcement to encourage more separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic
• Install high-visibility crosswalk markings at the intersection of key destinations • Ensure all signalized intersections have at least one marked crosswalk • Provide dedicated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to and from bus stops • Install adequate street lighting
• Widen street shoulders
• Provide signage (e.g., pedestrian crossing ahead) to help drivers expect to slow down for pedestrians and bikes
• Install bicycle lanes along key corridors
• Install bicycle storage facilities in public areas, such as parks and schools, to encourage bicycle use
These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments ( SCAG), California Highway Patrol ( CHP), and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, A ctive Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, and SB 1 grant programs. 37 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
27 September 2021
9. COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
This section provides information on general identified issues, crash reduction factors, improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of Simi Valley, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on data analysis, stakeholder input, and site visits.
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements
9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process
Part D of the HSM provides information on CMFs for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to estimate the safety effects of highway improvements, specifically to compare and select highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce crashes. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase crashes. A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is directly connected to the CMF and is “mathematically defined as (1 – CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes)
5.” CMFs can help decision makers
weigh potential alternative projects, but are only one measure of a project's value and should be considered part of a larger decision making process. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all CMFs are as reliable as others. The FHWA maintains a federal depository of CMFs and includes a star rating system to help users determine which CMFs are bolstered by the best and most thorough research. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include:
1. Selection of an appropriate CMF;
2. Estimation of crashes without treatment;
3. Application of CMFs by type and severity; and,
4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments.
Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a city-wide level and are discussed in Section 9.2 City-Wide Countermeasure Toolbox. 5 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 27. 38 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
28 September 2021
9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies
From the city -wide analysis, ten (10) project case study locations were selected for further evaluation and countermeasure development. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a balanced understanding of common safety patterns at a variety of location types that can be used to associate countermeasures with specific roadway configurations and conditions. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.
A Safety Project Case Study was developed for each of the following locations:
1. Unsignalized Intersection: Wood Ranch Parkway and Long Canyon Road
2. Segment: Fitzgerald Road from Haven Avenue to Whitcomb Avenue
3. Signalized Intersection: Erringer Road and Royal Avenue
4. Segment: Los Angeles Avenue from Galt Street to Erringer Road
5. Signalized Intersection: Erringer Road and Cochran Street
6. Signalized Intersection: Tapo Canyon Road and Los Angeles Avenue
7. Segment: Tapo Street from Gentle Brook Lane to Cochran Street
8. Signalized Intersection: Tapo Canyon Road and Alamo Street
9. Segment: Santa Susana Pass Road from Lilac Lane to Rocky Peak Road
10. Unsignalized Intersection: Yosemite Avenue and Mt Sinai Drive The following pages summarize conditions at each location, and potentially beneficial countermeasures. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer -term.
The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. These case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities. 39 ♦
40 41
♦
42 43
♦
44 45
♦
46 47
♦
48 49
♦
50 51
♦
52 53
♦
54 55
♦
56 57
♦
58 59
City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
49 September 2021
9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox
The city -wide safety project opportunities, which is also referred to as the “Countermeasure Toolbox” is outlined in Table 4. Within the toolbox, the description of the countermeasure along with its CMF or LRSM identification (ID) number are listed. The next column, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), is an “indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes the countermeasure is expected to reduce
6.”
For each of these countermeasures, a planning level benefit-to-cost analysis was completed. The benefit-to-cost at the city -wide level was estimated assuming a typical crash distribution. The location characteristics, such as the presence of traffic signals and the type of crashes, were used at the city -wide level to calculate an average cost of crashes that the countermeasure might reduce. The benefit per location was then extrapolated to a 20- year life-cycle savings, with an Opinion of Project Probable Cost (OPPC) for the initial installation costs and a per -year maintenance cost estimate. The cost estimates are based on the year 2021 dollars and are also shown in Table 4.
Table 4 – Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure CMF/
LRSM ID CRF Crash
Type
Total 20-Year
Total Costs Per Unit
Prohibit left turns with “no left
turn” sign
390
(CMF) 64% All $1,000 per sign
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
S21PB 60% P&B $15,000 per
intersection
Change right-turn lane
geometry to increase line of
sight (approach level)
8498
(CMF) 59% All $22,000 per
intersection
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
NS12 55% All $1,000,000 per
intersection
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and U-turns
NS15 50% All $100,000 per structure
Replace standard stop sign
with flashing LED stop sign
6602
(CMF) 41.5% All $1,500 per sign
Add intersection lighting
(NS.I.) NS01 40% Night $60,000 per
intersection
Install advanced dilemma
zone detection system S04 40% All $34,000 per
intersection
Installation of colored bicycle
lanes at signalized
intersection
3258
(CMF) 39% All $25 per linear foot
Install bike lanes R32PB 35% P&B $25 per linear foot
6 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 27.
CMF: Crash Modification Factor
LRSM: Local Roadway Safety Manual
P&B: Pedestrian & Bicycle
NS.I.: Non-Signalized Intersection
60 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
50 September 2021
Countermeasure CMF/
LRSM ID CRF Crash
Type
Total 20-Year
Total Costs Per Unit
Install signals NS03 30% All $250,000 per
intersection
Implement Road Diet
(Reduce travel lanes from 4
to 3, add a two-way left-turn
and bike lanes, and widen
sidewalk)
R14 30% All $1,000,000 per quarter
mile
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs R26 30% All $16,000 per sign
Provide protected left-turn
phase (left-turn lane already
exists)
S07 30% All $100,000 per
intersection
Install guardrail R04 25% All $230 per linear foot
Install shared path 9250
(CMF) 25% P&B $1,000 per sign
Improve sight distance to
intersection (Clear Sight
Triangles)
NS11 20% All $5,000 per vegetation
maintenance
Prohibit on-street parking 153
(CMF) 20% All $1,000 per sign
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or other
intersection
warning/regulatory signs
NS06 15% All $1,500 per sign
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)
R22 15% All $1,500 per sign
Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes R31 15% All $2 per linear foot
Install improved signal
hardware (lenses, back-
plates with retroreflective
borders, mounting, size, and
number)
S02 15% All $12,000 per
intersection
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
S03 15% All $8,000 per
intersection
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (Bicycle
Box)
S20PB 15% P&B $20,000 per
intersection
Implement Safe Routes to
School Program
2200
(CMF) 13% P&B $20,000 per plan
Install raised pavement
markers and striping
(Through Intersection)
S09 10% All $22,000 per
intersection
Closure or complete
relocation of all driveways
from functional area of
intersection
442
(CMF) 7% All Developer
driven per driveway
61 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
51 September 2021
10. EVALUATION & IMPLEMENTATION
10.1 Evaluation
The success of the LRSP will be evaluated using the preliminary process outlined below. This process will be useful to ensure the proper implementation of goals and to determine when updates are needed.
• Quarterly progress meetings will be conducted to track the implementation of the plan. In add
ition, the success of the plan will be evaluated on an annual basis. • An update to the plan should be considered after no more than five years. • Continued monitoring and recording of traffic incidents on local roadways by law enforcement. • Maintain a list of focus areas where there are transportation safety concerns.
10.2 Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP can be accomplished through several avenues , including development of projects, establishment of new policies and programs, and development/strengthening of relationships with stakeholders.
Near- & Mid-Term Emphasis Areas
The opportunities identified in this report provide systemic countermeasures that can be applied within the City. Over the next three to five years, the City will likely get the most benefit from concentrating its efforts on the emphasis areas:
1. Aggressive Driving
2. Impaired Driving
3. Small-Scale Infrastructure
4. Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists)
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicate that these factors were the most frequent influences contributing to collisions within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project- specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these emphasis areas would be most beneficial. Projects that address these focused areas can be developed with a high benefit -to- cost ratio (by applying City-wide crash rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct crash history, but with conditions that might contribute to future crashes.
10.3 Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Simi Valley . The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety 62 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
52 September 2021
improvements throughout Simi Valley. This section provides a high-level introduction to some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.
10.3.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program that apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
• New or upgraded traffic signals
• Upgraded guard rails
• Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
• Marked crosswalks
• Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual California’s local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.
Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/
. California specific HSIP information – including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.
10.3.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non- motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g., safe routes to school) • Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
.
63 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
53 September 2021
10.3.3 California SB 1
The California SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.
California’s state -maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state’s growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
• Local Street and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation: $1.5 billion ● This funding is dedicated to improve local road maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through projects such as restriping and repaving.
• Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
● This will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
• Local Planning Grants: $25 million
10.3.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
• Alcohol Impaired Driving
• Distracted Driving
• Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services
• Motorcycle Safety
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
• Police Traffic Services
• Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
• Roadway Safety and Traffic Records
64 City of Simi Valley Local Road Safety Plan
City of Simi Valley
Local Road Safety Plan | Final
54 September 2021
10.3.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program
This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The Sustainable Communities Program ( SCP) provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy efforts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories:
• Integrated Land Use
● Sustainable Land Use Planning
● Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
● Land Use & Transportation Integration
• Active Transportation
● Bicycle Planning
● Pedestrian Planning
● Safe Routes to School Plans
• Green Region
● Natural Resource Plans
● Climate Action Plans (CAPs)
● Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs
10.4 Next Steps
The City of Simi Valley has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. The data-driven analysis process identified crash types, related primary crash factors, and locations of many crashes. Based on this process, emphasis areas and recommendati ons were developed, guiding corridor improvements, education programs, and capital improvements for the City.
Using the analyzed data and outputs from this LRSP, the City has completed or plans to complete the following tasks:
• Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users • Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network
• Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in Simi Valley .
The C
ity Council formally approved and adopted the LRSP in 2021. Based on current Caltrans guidelines, the City will plan to update the LRSP in five years in 2026. 65