Agenda packet — Ukiah City Council, September 18, 2024 (part 4 of 5)

City of Ukiah
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
Document Highlights
 GOAL 5: Enhance the Environment - Assist in greenhouse gas reduction by encouraging and facilitating non-motorized vehicle trips.
 GOAL 6: Allow for Regional Connections- Provide nonmotorized connections to adjacent streets and land uses including transit, shopping, institutional, office, and residential areas.
 GOAL 7: Implementation Funding - Develop a funding,
financing, and implementation strategy identifying eligible grant sources and/or potential development requirements supporting construction.

Projects
 Segment S10 from East Gobbi Street to Clara Avenue: The southern half of this segment between Gobbi Street and
Perkins Street is funded for construction in 2015.
 Segment S9 from Norgard Lane to East Gobbi Street: Along with Segment S10, this paved pathway would connect NWP
Rail Trail, Phase 1 (East Gobbi Street-Clara Avenue) to the south and provide a connection from the south and north ends of the city.
 Segment S11 from Clara Avenue to Brush Street: This
segment would connect to Mazzoni Street which provides
direct access to the current campus of Redwood
Academy/Accelerated Achievement Academy.

Mendocino County Safe
Routes to School Plan (2014)
Goals
Goal 1: Improve the health of Mendocino County children by focusing attention on and increasing active travel to school.

Objective A: Increase the number of students walking and bicycling to school
Objective B: Annually increase the number of children exposed to Safe Routes to School education and encouragement activities Objective C: Increase the number of county residents that are familiar with Safe Routes to School and resources available Goal 2: Support school travel routes that are accommodating, safe, convenient, and “complete” for all modes.

Objective A: Increase funding for walking, bicycling and transit investments near schools
Objective B: Review school connections and potential Safe Routes to School needs during project development for all county roads
Objective C: Incorporate Safe Routes to School policies, priorities, and design guidance into future county general plan updates Objective D: Limit traffic speeds and volumes along key routes to schools
Goal 3: Maximize interagency cooperation in all Safe Routes to School project and programs in an effort to build a sustainable program.

Page 406 of 594 ends

City of Ukiah
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
Document Highlights
Objective A: Establish an ongoing countywide Safe Routes to School program that serves all interested schools in Mendocino County.

Objective B: Seek and secure outside grant funding for Safe Routes to School programs and activities, and leverage local funding for school area improvements
Mendocino County Regional
Transportation Plan & Active
Transportation Plan (2022)
Goals:
 Provide an assessment of the current modes of transportation as well as identify potential new travel options for the region.  Predict future needs for travel and goods movement.
 Identify specific actions and improvements in order to address the needs of mobility and accessibility.
 Identify guidance and documentation of public policy
decisions by local, regional, state and federal officials regarding transportation expenditures and financing.
 Identify needed transportation improvements to serve as a foundation for development of other programs such as the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP).
 Promote consistency between other transportation plans developed by local, state and federal agencies in responding to statewide and interregional transportation issues and needs.
 Involve community-based organizations as part of the public, federal, state and local agencies, tribal governments, as well as elected officials, early in the transportation planning process so as to include them in discussions and decisions on the social, economic, air quality and environmental issues related to transportation.

Mendocino Council of
Governments 2024 Regional
Transportation Improvement
Program (2024)
Projects:
 North State Street Intersection and Interchange
Improvements, Ukiah - Along North State Street, from Ford Road/Empire Drive to the northbound on/off-ramps of U.S. 101. Install medians, landscape and aesthetic features, and a roundabout at the KUKI Lane intersection
 Roundabout at Low Gap and North Bush, Ukiah -
Construction of a new roundabout to replace an all way STOP controlled intersection
 Ukiah Downtown Streetscape, Ph 2 - Will encourage walking and biking in downtown commercial area along major arterial, increasing access to business, and beautifying downtown. In addition to implementing several objectives of the RTP, this project implements the Ukiah Downtown Streetscape
improvement Plan, approved by the City of Ukiah in 2009. It is also consistent with the Ukiah Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. This will add to downtown streetscape
improvements funded through other sources.

Page 407 of 594 ends

City of Ukiah
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
APPENDIX B. CONSOLIDATED COLLISION DATABASE

Page 408 of 594 ends

CASE_ID ACCIDENT_YEAR PROC_DATE JURIS COLLISION_DATE COLLISION_TIME Hour_ 9446171 2021 24‐05‐2022 00:00:00 2303 9/10/2021 0:00 1800 18 9519915 2022 13‐02‐2023 00:00:00 2303 24‐12‐2022 00:00:00 1725 17 9374421 2021 17‐12‐2021 00:00:00 2303 3/10/2021 0:00 653 6 9425877 2021 29‐03‐2022 00:00:00 2303 21‐11‐2021 00:00:00 1839 18 9500485 2022 6/10/2022 0:00 2303 7/8/2022 0:00 2319 23
9050813 2020 20‐03‐2020 00:00:00 2303 8/1/2020 0:00 1140 11 9106980 2020 16‐09‐2020 00:00:00 2303 27‐05‐2020 00:00:00 1916 19 9121510 2020 21‐07‐2020 00:00:00 2303 7/2/2020 0:00 732 7 9378644 2021 21‐12‐2021 00:00:00 2303 22‐09‐2021 00:00:00 2054 20 9484757 2022 29‐08‐2022 00:00:00 2303 9/7/2022 0:00 1328 13 9500295 2022 18‐11‐2022 00:00:00 2303 3/9/2022 0:00 924 9 9500579 2022 10/10/2022 0:00 2303 9/9/2022 0:00 1539 15 9525274 2022 13‐02‐2023 00:00:00 2303 15‐11‐2022 00:00:00 1153 11 9526711 2022 14‐03‐2023 00:00:00 2303 21‐10‐2022 00:00:00 2345 23 9068003 2020 12/3/2020 0:00 2303 5/1/2020 0:00 1029 10
9120552 2020 29‐07‐2020 00:00:00 2303 1/4/2020 0:00 1459 14 9120626 2020 31‐07‐2020 00:00:00 2303 25‐02‐2020 00:00:00 1457 14 9121511 2020 16‐07‐2020 00:00:00 2303 13‐02‐2020 00:00:00 819 8 9148846 2020 18‐09‐2020 00:00:00 2303 18‐07‐2020 00:00:00 1838 18 91668611 2021 3/1/2022 0:00 9150 19‐12‐2021 00:00:00 22 0 9243859 2021 15‐04‐2021 00:00:00 2303 11/2/2021 0:00 1106 11 9243900 2020 21‐04‐2021 00:00:00 2303 31‐12‐2020 00:00:00 1143 11 9249300 2020 22‐04‐2021 00:00:00 2303 11/12/2020 0:00 1637 16 9278073 2021 12/7/2021 0:00 2303 3/5/2021 0:00 2236 22
9278751 2021 17‐06‐2021 00:00:00 2303 13‐04‐2021 00:00:00 1507 15 9321861 2021 29‐09‐2021 00:00:00 2303 16‐07‐2021 00:00:00 1307 13 9322058 2021 29‐09‐2021 00:00:00 2303 2/7/2021 0:00 1951 19 9325300 2021 12/10/2021 0:00 2303 28‐06‐2021 00:00:00 1133 11 9343729 2021 22‐10‐2021 00:00:00 2303 2/6/2021 0:00 1130 11 9414462 2022 17‐03‐2022 00:00:00 2303 12/1/2022 0:00 1436 14 9416678 2022 30‐03‐2022 00:00:00 2303 8/1/2022 0:00 1445 14 9416768 2022 12/4/2022 0:00 2303 13‐01‐2022 00:00:00 1749 17 9484870 2022 29‐08‐2022 00:00:00 2303 25‐06‐2022 00:00:00 1013 10 9500292 2022 10/10/2022 0:00 2303 14‐07‐2022 00:00:00 1724 17 9509881 2022 7/12/2022 0:00 2303 14‐10‐2022 00:00:00 1508 15 9509882 2022 7/12/2022 0:00 2303 19‐10‐2022 00:00:00 1025 10 9509883 2022 7/12/2022 0:00 2303 28‐10‐2022 00:00:00 1127 11 9510317 2022 8/12/2022 0:00 2303 6/9/2022 0:00 1742 17
9203244 2020 6/1/2021 0:00 2303 3/7/2020 0:00 1140 11
9243665 2021 22‐04‐2021 00:00:00 2303 15‐01‐2021 00:00:00 1542 15 9414404 2021 28‐03‐2022 00:00:00 2303 30‐11‐2021 00:00:00 1720 17 9439015 2022 26‐05‐2022 00:00:00 2303 28‐03‐2022 00:00:00 2109 21 9441468 2022 24‐05‐2022 00:00:00 2303 11/3/2022 0:00 858 8 9457182 2022 12/7/2022 0:00 2303 27‐05‐2022 00:00:00 1454 14

Page 409 of 594 ends

Page 410 of 594 ends

Page 411 of 594 ends

CASE_ID
9446171
9519915
9374421
9425877
9500485
9050813
9106980
9121510
9378644
9484757
9500295
9500579
9525274
9526711
9068003
9120552
9120626
9121511
9148846
91668611
9243859
9243900
9249300
9278073
9278751
9321861
9322058
9325300
9343729
9414462
9416678
9416768
9484870
9500292
9509881
9509882
9509883
9510317
9203244
9243665
9414404
9439015
9441468
9457182
BEAT_NUMBER PRIMARY_RD SECONDARY_RD DISTANCE DIRECTION
2 EAST GOBBI ST SOUTH ORCHARD AV 766 E
S DORA ST W PERKINS ST 118 S
12 SOUTH STATE ST HASTINGS AV 290 S
2 SOUTH STATE ST OBSERVATORY AV 80 S
1 NORTH STATE ST GARRETT DR 163 S
NORTH STATE ST MAGNOLIA ST 149 S
2 SOUTH ORCHARD AV PEACH ST 24 E
1 NORTH STATE ST MAGNOLIA ST 1S
1 EAST GOBBI ST SOUTH STATE ST 287 E
2 APPLE AV CHERRY ST 160 N
1 SOUTH STATE ST TALMAGE RD 32 N
1 SCOTT ST N SCHOOL ST 0
2 SOUTH STATE ST WASHINGTON AV 122 N
SOUTH ORCHARD AV PEACH ST 44 N
1 NORTH MAIN ST EAST PERKINS ST 0
1 NORTH STATE ST MAGNOLIA ST 248 S
1 NORTH OAK ST WEST SMITH ST 0
2 EAST GOBBI ST S ORCHARD ST 191 E
2 SOUTH STATE ST WABASH AV 254 N
901 GOBBI ST MAIN ST 144 W
2 EAST PERKINS ST SOUTH ORCHARD AV 37 W
1 NORTH STATE ST MAGNOLIA ST 203 S
2 SOUTH STATE ST S ENTRANCE TO QUALITY INN 17 S
2 AIRPORT PARK BL COMMERCE DR 485 S
2 SOUTH STATE ST FREITAS AV 107 S
2 S DORA ST JONES ST 23 N
2 SOUTH STATE ST WABASH AV 177 N
2 AIRPORT PARK BL AIRPORT PARK BL 1100 17 W
2 AIRPORT PARK BL COMMERCE DR 19 E
MAIN ST PERKINS ST 0
2 S DORA ST WEST MILL ST 0
1 NORTH STATE ST SCOTT ST 250 S
2 EAST PERKINS ST SOUTH ORCHARD AV 204 W
2 AIRPORT PARK BL COMMERCE DR 375 N
1 EAST PERKINS ST RT 101 53 E
2 SOUTH STATE ST OBSERBATORY AV 0
2 AIRPORT PARK BL PRO COMMERCE DR 350 S
2 SOUTH STATE ST OBSERVATORY AV 0
2 AIRPORT PARK BL AIRPORT PARK BL 1200 3 W
1 EAST PERKINS ST SOUTH ORCHARD AV 116 W
2 SOUTH STATE ST OBSERVATORY AV 0
1 SOUTH STATE ST OBSERVATORY AV 0
1 NORTH STATE ST FORD ST 263 S
2 AIRPORT PARK BL TALMAGE RD 405 S

Page 412 of 594 ends

Y Y BC N
N Y A‐ N
Y Y A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
N N A‐ N
N Y B‐ N

N Y BC N
N Y A‐ N
N Y C‐ N
N N A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
Y Y A‐ N
Y Y A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
N N A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
Y Y A‐ N
N N A‐ N
Y Y A‐ N
N Y A‐ N
N Y B‐ N
Y Y A‐ N
Y Y B‐ N
N N A‐ N
N N A‐ N

Page 413 of 594 ends

Page 414 of 594 ends

Page 415 of 594 ends

Page 416 of 594 ends

Page 417 of 594 ends

A N E IA
F G BD

A N C EA

A N G BE

A N G BD
N C EA

A N D CA
N D CA

A N D CA
N F JA
N C CA

A N H GA
N C CA

C F G BD

A N D CA
N C EA
N G BB
N D CA

A N G BD

F N D CA
N C CA
N D CA
N C CA
N E IA

G N D JA
N C CA

A N D CA

A N D CA
N G BB
N D GA

A N B EA
N B CA

A N G BE
N D CA
N D CA
N D GA
N B CA
N E IA
N A CA

A N A CA

A N G BD

B N C CA
N E IA

Page 418 of 594 ends

Page 419 of 594 ends

Page 420 of 594 ends

Page 421 of 594 ends

Page 422 of 594 ends

Page 423 of 594 ends

Page 424 of 594 ends

CASE_ID
9446171
9519915
9374421
9425877
9500485
9050813
9106980
9121510
9378644
9484757
9500295
9500579
9525274
9526711
9068003
9120552
9120626
9121511
9148846
91668611
9243859
9243900
9249300
9278073
9278751
9321861
9322058
9325300
9343729
9414462
9416678
9416768
9484870
9500292
9509881
9509882
9509883
9510317
9203244
9243665
9414404
9439015
9441468
9457182
SECONDARY_RAMP LATITUDE LONGITUDE COUNTY CITY POINT_X
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1957855
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2123489
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2049026
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.205574
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2103577
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2093582
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1989517
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2094879
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2055359
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2030411
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.205368
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2095108
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2050629
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1989517
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2066727
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2092743
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2098389
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1977921
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2048264
‐ 39.1434288 ‐123.2054672 MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2054138 ‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1991959
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2093124
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.205501
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1986694
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2061539
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2114792
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2047958
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1987391
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1988678
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2066727
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2112808
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2081528
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1997757
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1989136
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1964545
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2056198
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.198742
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2056198
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1988545
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1994705
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2056198
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2056198
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.2083511
‐ MENDOCINO UKIAH ‐123.1986847

Page 425 of 594 ends

39.14492416 1 6

39.14890289 1 165 8

39.13337708 1 165

39.13761139 1 6

39.16433334 1 165 7

39.16101456 1 11

39.14883041 1 11 2

39.16140747 1 6

39.1434288 1 6

39.13985825 1 165 4

39.13641739 1 6

39.15361786 1 165 6

39.13450241 1 6

39.14895248 1 165 2

39.15018845 1 6 3

39.16074753 1 6

39.15093994 1 165 5

39.1446991 1 6

39.13280487 1 6

39.14345932 1 165 10

39.15140915 1 6

39.1608696 1 6

39.13719 1 6

39.13138199 1 11

39.14102936 1 11

39.14541245 1 6

39.13259506 1 11

39.13554392 1 6

39.13264847 1 6

39.15018845 1 165 3

39.14469147 1 165 9

39.15292358 1 6

39.1513176 1 6

39.13372803 1 11

39.15162253 1 165

39.13783264 1 165 1

39.131725 1 165

39.13783264 1 11 1

39.13259666 1 11

39.15136719 1 6

39.13783264 1 6 1

39.13783264 1 165 1

39.15596008 1 11

39.13483429 1 6

Page 426 of 594 ends

Page 427 of 594 ends

City of Ukiah
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
APPENDIX C: AVERAGE ANNUAL FATALITY RATES CALCULATION

Page 428 of 594 ends

Average Annual Fatality Rate
Notes on Sources and methodology
Total Fatalities: NHTSA. 2017‐2021 and 2018‐2022 data on Persons Killed in Fatal Crashes. Accessed from:
https://cdan.dot.gov/query
Population, and Disadvantaged population share: Data from USDOT ETCE based on National Results, The population data from ETCE used for two time frame are constant 2020 ACS population data, hence there is no difference between 2017‐2021 and 2018‐2022 periods. Accessed from:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/0920984aa80a4362b8778d779b090723/page/ETC‐Explorer‐‐‐ National‐Results/
Average Annual Fatality Rate: Calculated per 100,000 persons. Methodology used as prescribed by the Safe Streets for All Grant 2024 instructions accessed from:
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024‐02/SS4A‐FY24‐Calculate‐Fatality‐Rate.pdf Average Fatalities Per Year:
୘୭୲ୟ୪ ୊ୟ୲ୟ୪୧୲୧ୣୱ
ହ

City Year
Total Fatalities
Population
% of
Disadvantaged
census tracts
Disadvantaged
Population
Average Annual
Fatalit
y Rate
Average
Fatalities Per
California 2017-2021 19894 39300000 37% 36% 10.4 3978.8 Mendocino County 2017-2021 136 87100 35% 31% 28.2 27.2
Ukiah 2017-2021 4 16900 75% 72% 4.73 0.8
California 2018-2022 20438 39300000 37% 36% 0.0 4087.6
Mendocino County 2018-2022 123 87100 35% 31% 2.4 24.6
Ukiah 2018-2022 2 16900 75% 72% 2.37 0.4

Page 429 of 594 ends

City of Ukiah
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
APPENDIX D: EQUITY EMPHASIS COMMUNITIES COLLISION

ANALYSIS

Page 430 of 594 ends

Equity Emphasis Communities Collision Analysis
USDOT Equitable Transportation Community (ETC) Explorer Census Tract Data Remarks: Census tract‐wise data was downloaded from the explorer from the National Results section.

Relevant columns have been retained in the table presented below.

Census Tract FIPS Code (2020) Census Tract
Transportation
Insecurity Percentile
Rank
Health Vulnerability
Percentile Rank
Environmental Burden
Percentile Rank
Social Vulnerability
Percentile Rank
Climate & Disaster
Risk Burden Percentile
Rank
Disadvantaged
Communities Index
Score
Disadvantaged
Communities Index
Percentile Rank
Disadvantaged
Communities Indicator
6045011300 Tract 113 72 38 22 82 16 3 53 0
6045011400 Tract 114 25 75 40 39 43 2 18 0
6045011501 Tract 115.01 64 17 84 73 45 3 78 1
6045011502 Tract 115.02 35 51 89 92 55 4 83 1
6045011600 Tract 116 15 80 81 87 81 4 84 1
6045011700 Tract 117 84 35 27 49 16 3 47 0
Collision Analysis
Other
Communities
EEC Other
Communities
EEC
Equity Indicator # Collisions Percentage
All Collisions 12 75 14% 86%
KSI Collisions 3 12 20% 80%
Collision Severity All Collisions KSI Collisions
Fatal Injury 0% 0% 0% 0%
Serious Injury 25% 16% 100% 100%
Minor Injury 33% 28% 0% 0%
Complain of Pain 42% 56% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Type of Collision All Collisions KSI Collisions
Head-On 8% 4% 0% 0%
Sideswipe 0% 5% 0% 0%
Read End 8% 17% 0% 8%
Broadside 42% 48% 67% 25%
Hit Object 8% 8% 0% 0%
Overturned 0% 1% 0% 8%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 25% 15% 33% 50%

Page 431 of 594 ends

Other
Communities
EEC Other
Communities
EEC
Other 8% 1% 0% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Violation Category All Collisions KSI Collisions
DUI 0% 11% 0% 25%
Pedestrian Right of
Way
8% 7% 0% 25%
Pedestrian Violation 8% 4% 0% 0%
Traffic Signals and
Signs
8% 9% 0% 8%
Other Hazardous
Violation
0% 1% 0% 0%
Unsafe Speed 33% 15% 67% 17%
Wrong Side of Road 17% 5% 0% 0%
Improper Passing 0% 1% 0% 0%
Improper Turning 0% 23% 0% 8%
Automobile Right of
Way
25% 24% 33% 17%
Total 97% 100% 100% 100%
Motor Vehicle
Involved With
All Collisions KSI Collisions
Not stated 0% 1% 0% 0%
Other Object 0% 0% 0% 0%
Pedestrian 25% 16% 33% 50%
Other Motor Vehicle 42% 52% 33% 17%
Motor Vehicle on
Other Roadway
0% 1% 0% 0%
Parked Motor
Vehicle
0% 7% 0% 8%
Bicycle 25% 9% 33% 17%
Animal 0% 0% 0% 0%
Fixed Object 0% 9% 0% 0%
Other Object 8% 4% 0% 8%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Mode All Collisions KSI Collisions
Not Stated 8% 9% 33% 8%
Passenger Car 42% 57% 33% 58%
Motorcycle/Scooter 0% 1% 0% 8%
Pickup or Panel
Truck
8% 11% 33% 0%

Page 432 of 594 ends

Other
Communities
EEC Other
Communities
EEC
Truck or Truck
Tractor
0% 4% 0% 8%
Other Bus 8% 0% 0% 0%
Bicycle 17% 11% 0% 17%
Other Vehicle 0% 1% 0% 0%
Pedestrian 8% 5% 0% 0%
Moped 8% 0% 0% 0%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%
Lighting All Collisions KSI Collisions
Daylight 58% 75% 67% 50%
Dusk - Dawn 8% 5% 33% 8%
Dark - Street Lights 33% 20% 0% 42%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100%

Page 433 of 594 ends

City of Ukiah
Local Road Safety/Action Plan
APPENDIX E: LRSM 2024

Page 434 of 594 ends

Local Roadway Safety Manual
A Manual for California's Local Road Owners
Version 1.7 April 2024

Page 435 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | i Document History
Version 1.0: 4/20/2012
The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance developed the first version of the Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.0) in 2012 to support the Cycle 5 HSIP call-for-projects.

Version 1.1: 4/26/2013
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 5, Caltrans updated Appendix B: “Table of Countermeasures and Crash Reduction Factors” to better clarify text in “Where to use”, “Why it works”, and “General Qualities” for several of the countermeasures included in the original manual.

No other changes were made to the Local Roadway Safety Manual as part of Version 1.1.

Version 1.2: 03/10/2015
Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 6, Caltrans made minor updates to the text of the document as needed for achieving consistency with overall Caltrans local HSIP guidance documents. The following sections were updated: 1.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.2, and Appendix B, E, F & G.

Version 1.3: 04/29/2016
Caltrans made updates to the text of the document as needed in the following sections: 4.2, 5.1 and Appendix B.

Version 1.4: 06/08/2018
3/30/18 - Caltrans made updates to the crash costs in Appendix D, some of the website links in Appendix G, and some other texts of the document.
6/8/18 - Countermeasure S22 (“Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)”) is added.

Version 1.5: April 2020
Caltrans added a few more countermeasures (e.g. Pedestrian Scramble, Install Separated Bike Lanes, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections, and Curve Shoulder widening), renumbered the countermeasures and updated the crash costs in Appendix D.

Version 1.6: April 2022
For Cycle 11 Call-for-projects, Countermeasure S04 (Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches) was deleted and Countermeasure NS05mr (Convert intersection to mini-roundabout) added. The HSIP Funding Eligibility was changed to 90% except for S03, of which the HSIP Funding Eligibility stays at 50%. The crash costs in Appendix D were updated.

Version 1.7: April 2024
For Cycle 12 Call-for-projects, Countermeasures SI14 (Install right-turn lane (S.I.) ) and R32 (Speed Safety Cameras) were added. All countermeasures were re-numbered. The crash costs in Appendix D were updated.

Page 436 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | ii Future Updates:

In the future, Caltrans anticipates that additional changes will be needed to keep the Local Roadway Safety Manual consistent with future Calls-for-Projects’ Guidelines and Application Instructions. In addition, new local HSIP programs, improvements to California data on local roadways, data analysis tools, and the latest safety research and methodologies may give rise to the need to make more significant changes to this manual.

Page 437 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | iii Table of Contents

1. Introduction and Purpose...................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities .................................................. 2

1.2 Safe System Approach .................................................................................................................. 2

1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety..................................................................................... 3

1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem............................................................................................... 4

1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification......................................................................... 5

1.6 Implementation Approaches........................................................................................................ 6

1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies................................................................................... 9

1.8 Summary of information in this Document ................................................................................ 10

2. Identifying Safety Issues...................................................................................................................... 14

2.1 State and Local Crash Databases ................................................................................................ 15

2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)........................................................................... 17

2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports................................................................................................. 18

2.4 Observational Information.......................................................................................................... 18

2.5 Public Notifications..................................................................................................................... 19

2.6 Roadway Data and Devices......................................................................................................... 19

2.7 Exposure Data ............................................................................................................................. 20

2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits................................................................................. 21

3. Safety Data Analysis............................................................................................................................. 22

3.1 Quantitative Analysis.................................................................................................................. 22

3.2 Qualitative Analysis..................................................................................................................... 24

4. Countermeasure Selection .................................................................................................................. 27

4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors ..........28

4.2 List of Countermeasures............................................................................................................. 29

5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects ............................................................................. 35

5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements...............................................35

5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements ................................................... 37

5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio ............................................................................................................... 37

5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements ..........................38

6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements.............................................................................. 39

6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures........................................................................ 39

6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources ................................................................................................ 39

6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations ............................................................ 40

7. Evaluation of Improvements............................................................................................................... 41 Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Application Process............................................................................. 42 Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures ..................................................................................... 43 B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized ............................................................................... 46 SI01NT, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.)........................................................................................ 46 SI02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number................. 46 SI03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) .................................................................... 47 SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems................................................................................................. 47 SI05, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before)...................................... 48

Page 438 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | iv SI06, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) ........................................................................... 49 SI07, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted)................................................................................................. 49 SI08, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) ......................................................................... 50 SI09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.)................................................................................................... 50 SI10, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)............................................................................ 51 SI11, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)............................................................................................................... 51 SI12PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches .............................................................................................. 52 SI13, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.)..................................... 52 SI14, Install right-turn lane (S.I.)........................................................................................................................................ 53 SI15, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)........................................................................................................ 54 SI16RA, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) ............................................................................................. 55 SI17RA, Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from signal).............................................................................. 56 SI18PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads ......................................................................................................... 56 SI19PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)................................................................................................................................ 57 SI20PB, Pedestrian Scramble ............................................................................................................................................. 57 SI21PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)................................................................................... 58 SI22PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)........................................................ 58 B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized........................................................................ 59 NS01NT, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)......................................................................................................................... 59 NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control)........................................................................... 59 NS03, Install signals ............................................................................................................................................................ 60 NS04RA/NS05RA, Convert intersection to roundabout................................................................................................... 60 NS06RA/NS07RA, Convert intersection to compact roundabout.................................................................................... 61 NS08, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs...................... 61 NS10, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections .................................................................................... 62 NS11, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) .............................................................................................. 63 NS12, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches..................................................................................................... 63 NS13, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)............................................................................. 64 NS14, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments).......................................................................... 64 NS15, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches........................................................................................... 65 NS17, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.)................................. 66 NS18, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) ................................................................................................... 67 NS19, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.).................................................................................................................................... 68 NS20, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) ............................................................................................ 68 NS21PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands).............................................................................................................. 69 NS22PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only)........................................... 69 NS23PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)................. 70 NS24PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)........................................................................................... 70 NS25PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) ...................................................... 71 B.3 Roadway Countermeasures........................................................................................................ 72 R01NT, Add Segment Lighting............................................................................................................................................ 72 R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone.......................................................................... 72 R03, Install Median Barrier ................................................................................................................................................ 73 R04, Install Guardrail .......................................................................................................................................................... 73 R05, Install impact attenuators .......................................................................................................................................... 74 R06, Flatten side slopes ...................................................................................................................................................... 74 R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail................................................................................................................. 75 R08, Install raised median .................................................................................................................................................. 75 R09, Install median (flush) ................................................................................................................................................. 76 R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing......................................................................................................................... 76 R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes .................................................................................................................... 77

Page 439 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | v R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) ......................................................................................................................... 77 R13, Add two-way left-turn lane ........................................................................................................................................ 78 R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes)........................................................ 78 R15, Widen shoulder........................................................................................................................................................... 79 R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) ................................................................................................................. 79 R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves)........................................................................................................ 80 R18, Flatten crest vertical curve......................................................................................................................................... 81 R19, Improve curve superelevation................................................................................................................................... 81 R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic................................................................................................................. 82 R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ............................................................................ 82 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) .................................................... 83 R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves ............................................................................................................... 84 R24, Install curve advance warning signs ......................................................................................................................... 84 R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) ........................................................................................... 85 R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs......................................................................................................... 85 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers .............................................................................................. 86 R28, Install edge-lines and centerlines .............................................................................................................................. 87 R29, Install no-passing line................................................................................................................................................. 88 R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes .................................................................................................................... 88 R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes....................................................................................................................... 89 R32, Speed Safety Cameras................................................................................................................................................. 89 R33PB, Install bike lanes..................................................................................................................................................... 90 R34PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes ................................................................................................................................. 91 R35PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) ............................................................................ 92 R36PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features).............................................................. 93 R37PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing ......................................................................................................................... 94 R38PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)............................................................................................. 94 R39AL, Install Animal Fencing ........................................................................................................................................... 95 Appendix C: Summary of “Recommended Actions”................................................................................... 96 Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations................................................................................... 100 Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS ............................101 Appendix F: List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................. 102 Appendix G: References............................................................................................................................ 103

Page 440 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 1

1. Introduction and Purpose
The information in this document is geared towards local road managers and other practitioners with responsibility for operating and maintaining local roads, regardless of safety-specific highway training.

The primary goal of this document is to provide an easy-to-use and comprehensive framework of the steps and analysis tools needed to identify locations with roadway safety issues and the appropriate countermeasures. For novice practitioners, the concepts and framework will be new, while experienced safety practitioners may find this manual to be mostly review. In both cases, the manual will provide the practitioners with a good understanding of how to complete a proactive safety analysis and ensure they have the best opportunity to secure HSIP safety funding during Caltrans calls-for-projects.

It’s expected that novice and experienced practitioners will utilize this manual to help position their local agency to better compete in future Caltrans’ calls-for-projects for safety programs. Inexperienced local roadway practitioners are also a target audience for this manual to gain exposure to the basic concepts that make up a proactive safety analysis of a local agency’s roadway network.

The intent of this manual is to focus on key safety activities that every local agency should conduct on an annual basis (or as established by the agency) with the objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes within their jurisdiction. This manual defines this overall process as a “proactive safety analysis” approach to roadway safety. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM), documents a very similar process and refers to it as the “Roadway Safety Management Process.” While the process in this document is similar and suggests the same primary elements, the HSM goes into significantly more detail, focuses more on scientific and mathematical equations behind the process, and intends to provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall processes to be applied by individual agencies across the nation. In contrast, this manual attempts to streamline the discussion; and make accommodations for the more novice safety practitioners, provide an adequate understanding of the process to complete an initial safety analysis of their roadway network, and instruct them on how to prepare applications that will compete well in Caltrans’ statewide calls-for-projects. In general, this manual is intended to follow the research and methodologies presented in the HSM; however, to support Caltrans’ statewide calls-forprojects process, it is important to note this manual deviates from the HSM in areas related to countermeasure selection and benefit / cost calculations. The logic behind these deviations is explained at the specific topic sections.

This manual is not intended to cover many of the day-to-day basics of traffic engineering including:
maintain standard signage per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD); maintain sight distance (cut vegetation, remove parking); maintain a recovery zone; work with local traffic law enforcement; monitor collisions; address complaints; and manage litigation. These activities are understood to be critical elements of a local agency’s traffic engineering responsibilities, but are not within the intended scope of this document.

Page 441 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 2

1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities California’s local roads are managed by more than 600 local agencies, including: cities, counties, and tribal governments. These local roads vary from flat multi-lane urban arterials to rural gravel roads in mountainous areas. California local agencies invest extensive resources on roadway safety every year, yet many roadways operate with outdated or insufficient safety features. A portion of these roadways even lack basic signing, pavement markings, alignment, and traffic control devices. Limited funding often prevents agencies from constructing safety projects, which can be expected. At the same time, the lack of safety data, design challenges, and lack of adequate training also hinder local agencies’ accurate evaluation of their roadway network safety issues, which is more preventable.

Many small California local agencies are challenged by a lack of crash data. Without data, they have no way to identify High Crash Concentration Locations (HCCLs) or high risk roadway features, which can leave them “flying blind” with respect to the safety of their overall roadway network. Without data and analysis results, local officials may overreact when a tragic crash occurs, resulting in resources being spent in areas that will not maximize the overall application of safety funds. In conjunction with the collision mapping and analysis tools developed by UC Berkeley’s SafeTREC, this document helps ensure all California local agencies have direct access to data on fatal and injury crashes within their jurisdictions and the analysis tools to effectively assess and prioritize future safety projects.

1.2 Safe System Approach
The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law on November 15, 2021. Under IIJA, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), codified as Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.C §148), is a core federal-aid program to States for the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The IIJA emphasizes the “safe system approach”:

Safe system approach means a roadway design that emphasizes minimizing the risk of injury or fatality to road users; and that (i) takes into consideration the possibility and likelihood of human error; (ii) accommodates human injury tolerance by taking into consideration likely accident types, resulting impact forces, and the ability of the human body to withstand impact forces; and (iii) takes into consideration vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)).

FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation’s roads. The Safe System approach addresses the safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. It involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces

Page 442 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 3 to reduce crash severity and save lives. FHWA encourages States to prioritize safety in all Federal-aid investments and in all appropriate projects, using not only HSIP funding but also other Federal-aid funding.

The IIJA emphasizes the importance of vulnerable road user ( non-motorized road user) safety in the HSIP by adding a definition for vulnerable road users, creating a vulnerable road user special rule, and requiring States to develop and update a vulnerable road user safety assessment. All of these provisions address the increasing number of fatalities involving vulnerable road users on U.S. roads. It is imperative that States consider the needs of all road users as part of the HSIP. Investment in highway safety improvement projects that promote and improve safety for all road users, particularly vulnerable road users, aligns with the IIJA and will help Build a Better America. States and other funding recipients should prioritize projects that maximize the existing right-of-way for accommodation of non-motorized modes and transit options that increase safety, equity, accessibility, and connectivity. Projects that separate users in time and space, match vehicle speeds to the built environment, and increase visibility (e.g., lighting) advance implementation of a Safe System approach and improve safety for vulnerable road users.

1.3 The State’s Role in Local Roadway Safety
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California’s HSIP safety funding intended for local roadway safety improvements. This funding primarily comes to the state through two federal programs: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)—a federal-aid program focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and the Active Transportation Program (ATP)—a federal aid and state funded program focused on improving safety and the overall use of non-motorized, active transportation modes of travel. Under SAFETEA-LU, High Risk Rural Roads Program (HR3) was established to focus on addressing rural road safety needs. Under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), it is now a ‘special rule’ under HSIP that if triggered, directs that a certain amount of HSIP funds will need to be allocated for those rural roads that meet the definition.

Caltrans’ administration of these programs encompasses many responsibilities, including: establishing program guidance; reviewing applications for improvements on local roadways; ranking applications/projects on a statewide basis; selecting projects for funding based on the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and injuries; programming the selected projects in the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP); and assisting with programming and delivery issues throughout the delivery of the local agency projects. One goal for developing this document is to improve Caltrans’ overall data-driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and to maximize the long-term safety improvements across California. To show the relationship between Caltrans’ project selection process and this manual, a diagram showing the HSIP Call-for-Projects Process is provided in Appendix A.

Page 443 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 4 Many State Departments are also actively engaged in California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Caltrans developed the SHSP in a cooperative process with local, State, federal, and private sector safety stakeholders. The SHSP is a data-driven, comprehensive plan that established statewide goals, objectives, integrated the five E’s of traffic safety— engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. This manual directly supports many of the emphasis areas of the California SHSP. Local agencies are encouraged to participate in ongoing SHSP update efforts and can find more information on the SHSP at the following website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safetyprograms/shsp.

Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) The state-funded Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) was established in 2016. The intent of the SSARP was to assist local agencies in performing a collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway networks, and developing a list of systemic low-cost countermeasures that can be used to prepare future HSIP and other safety program applications. Late 2019, the program was evolved to Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) so that the focus is not just engineering solutions but also include safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, Education and emergency response.

The state funding for the LRSP/SSARP program is made available by exchanging the local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funds for State Highway Account (SHA) funds.

For more information, please visit the LRSP/SSARP webpage at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/localassistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans.

1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem
Approximately 3,000 people die in California traffic crashes every year, representing nearly 10% of all traffic fatalities in the United States. Fifty-seven percent of these fatalities occur on local roadways, while only forty-three percent occur on the California State Highway System. A comparison of rural and urban roadways shows that local rural roadways have fatality rates 2 to 3 times higher than urban roadways per vehicle miles traveled. Based on these statistics, the total annual cost of local roadway fatal crashes to California is over $8 billion, while only $120 million is available annually in HSIP safety funds.

These statistics demonstrate the large and complex safety issues facing California. Through the development of this document, Caltrans is striving to help local agencies proactively identify high risk roadway features, roadway network locations/corridors with the highest safety needs, and encourage them to select effective low-cost improvements, whenever appropriate.

Page 444 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 5

1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification
Safety issues are identified on local roadways through a wide range of approaches. Although no single approach works best for all local agencies, some are far more effective at improving long-term roadway safety. Many agencies, often larger ones, have staff whose full-time job is dedicated to roadway safety; allowing them to focus on safety initiatives, be trained in the latest safety research, and have access to safety analysis data, tools and procedures. These agencies often utilize a ‘proactive’ approach to analyze their roadway network and identify safety issues.

At the same time many agencies, often the smaller ones, lack the financial ability to dedicate large portions of their staff resources to analyze safety issues and their staff has limited access to roadway safety training, safety expertise, and the latest safety analysis tools and procedures. Unfortunately, this can often result in identifying their safety issues in ‘reaction’ to tragic events.

The following is a basic outline of the differences in proactive vs. reactive identification approaches used by local agencies:

Reactive Approach
For this document, an agency is considered to be utilizing a reactive approach to roadway safety if they primarily identify safety improvements in reaction to:
• Recent crashes triggering safety investigations
• Specific crash concentrations triggering safety investigations • Stakeholder identification of locations with safety issues and requests for improvements • New funding becoming available
Crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort. They may also miss many opportunities to effectively utilize low-cost, systemic type improvements. This document encourages local agencies to adopt a more proactive approach to their roadway safety.

Proactive Approach
An agency is considered to be using a proactive approach to roadway safety if they go beyond the elements of a reactive approach and identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of their entire roadway network, in one of the following ways:
• One-time, network-wide safety analysis of their roadways driven by new source of funding. • Routine safety analyses of the roadway network (Preferred Approach!) Agencies with a proactive approach utilize both systemic and spot location improvements (as defined in section 1.5 below). Applying improvements systemically across an entire corridor or network allows an agency to proactively address locations that have not had crash concentrations in the past, but have

Page 445 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 6 similar features as those currently experiencing high levels of crashes. In addition, even though a spot location improvement may be based on ‘past’ crashes, agencies making improvements based on countermeasures with proven crash reduction factors at their highest crash locations often have the best chance of proactively reducing future crashes.

This document encourages safety practitioners to pursue a proactive approach and routinely analyze the safety of their roadway networks to yield the best overall safety results.

1.6 Implementation Approaches
When an agency proactively identifies their safety issues throughout their roadway network, it is likely they will find high crash concentrations at intersections, roadway segments, and corridors. The safety practitioner should consider which implementation approach to utilize. Typical approaches include:
• Systemic Approach
• Spot Location Approach
• Comprehensive Approach incorporating human behavior issues Each of these approaches has benefits and drawbacks. As Local agency practitioners identify their safety issues and analyze the data for crash patterns, they should be open to implementing a combination of these approaches, as documented in Sections 2 and 3 of this manual.

Systemic Approach
The Systemic Approach is primarily based on application of proven safety countermeasures at multiple crash locations, corridors, or geographic areas. Implementation of the Systemic Approach is generally based on ‘system-wide’ crash data with the estimates of the impacts being made in terms of benefits measured in traffic crash reduction and deployment cost. Identified locations experiencing high levels of crashes and locations with similar geometric features can be treated systemically with low-cost, proven safety countermeasures. Note: The term “Systemic” used throughout in this manual is often exchanged with the term “Systematic” in many national safety documents and research studies. In general, safety practitioners will find these terms interchangeable. This manual uses “Systemic” to match the new HSM and the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse.

Benefits of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Widespread effect. The Systemic Approach addresses safety issues at a large number of locations or on an entire local roadway network. It can also generate projects that combine HCCLs and locations with the potential for crashes and still have high Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratios. An example of this type of project could be upgrading pavement delineation and warning signs along a rural corridor:
crashes may not have occurred on every curve or segment along the corridor, but all of the corridor’s pavement delineation and warning signs can be upgraded at one time. For urban applications, an example could be protecting the left-turn phase of signalized intersections with

Page 446 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 7 existing left-turn pockets: severe crashes may not have occurred at each of the left-turn movements, but with minor changes to the signal hardware and signing, all or many of a city’s unprotected left-turn phases can be protected with one safety project. • Crash type prevention. By focusing on a predominant crash type, an agency can address locations that have not experienced significant numbers of these types of crashes, but have similar characteristics or conditions as existing HCCLs. The resulting B/C ratios for these types of projects will be less than if only HCCLs are included; but by using low-cost countermeasures and including as many high crash locations as possible, the resulting B/C ratios should still be high enough to allow agencies to proactively address locations that have not experienced high numbers of these types of crashes. For urban areas, projects improving pedestrian crossings can be good examples of the Systemic Approach. By applying the countermeasures systemically, the agency can often justify these projects based on relatively high B/C ratios, even though some of the improvement locations have not experienced enough crashes to yield moderate-to-high B/C ratios on their own. • Cost-effectiveness. Implementing low-cost solutions across an entire system or corridor can be a more cost-effective approach to addressing system-wide safety issues. Even though this approach does not address all (or total) safety issues for a given location, the deployment of low-cost countermeasures often result in the highest overall safety benefit for an agency with limited safety funding. An example of this would be an agency choosing to install rumble stripes along an entire corridor for equal or less money than realigning a small portion the roadway to fix a single curve. • Reduced data needs. The Systemic Approach can be used without a detailed crash history for specific locations, thereby reducing data needs. For example, consider a long rural corridor, which includes a section that passes through an Indian Reservation: Even if there is no documented crash data for the portion of the corridor that passes through the reservation, the entire limits can be treated with the same low-cost improvements. As long as there are sufficient past crashes documented for the entire corridor, the project will still have a reasonably high B/C ratio.

Drawbacks of the Systemic Approach may include:
• Justifying improvements can be difficult. Because this approach does not always address locations with a history of crashes and active stakeholders, it can be difficult to justify the improvements. The Systemic Approach will rarely include a recommendation for a large-scale safety improvement at a single location. Since large-scale projects usually garner attention from decision makers, the media, elected officials, and the general public, safety practitioners often need to make additional efforts to explain the Systemic Approach and its benefits to those groups. Safety practitioners can utilize the high B/C ratios of these systemic projects to convey their benefits compared to high-profile, single location projects with lower B/C ratios.

Spot Location Approach
The Spot Location Approach is typically based on an analysis of crash history to identify locations that have significantly higher crashes and treat them accordingly. It is important to practitioners to

Page 447 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 8 understand that for many locations, safety issues can be complicated and sometimes the most appropriate fixes are not quick, easy or cheap.

Benefits of the Spot Location Approach may include:
• Focus on demonstrated needs. The Spot Location Approach focuses directly on locations with a history of crashes and specifically addresses those crashes. Intersection improvements are some of the most common spot location projects. Intersections tend to have higher concentrations of crashes resulting from opposing traffic movements. These high crash concentrations often require stand-alone improvements to adequately resolve the safety issues. • Justifying improvements can be easy. Because this approach addresses locations with a history of crashes, it is usually easy to justify improvements. For urban areas, reconfiguring/ reconstructing an entire intersection can be a good example of an effective Spot Location Approach. Large urban intersections can have extremely high crash concentrations, making major changes to the intersection the only way to significantly reduce future crashes. With these types of scenarios, even the highest cost countermeasures can be cost effective. • If low-cost countermeasures are used, this approach can prove very cost effective. The Spot Location Approach does not always have to include moderate or high cost improvements. It is often appropriate for local agencies to make low-cost improvements at one location at a time. Ongoing maintenance and development projects offer great opportunities for these low-cost improvements to be constructed with no additional expense to local agencies.

Drawbacks of the Spot Location Approach may include:
• Assumption that the past equals the future. This approach assumes locations with a history of crashes will continue to experience the same number and type of crashes in the future. When agencies do not account for the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean), moderate to high cost projects can be erroneously justified. Practitioners can mitigate this by using 5 years of crash data when analyzing their roadways. In addition, significant changes to land use or roadway characteristics in or around proposed projects can either increase or decrease the expected number of future crashes.
• Minimal overall benefit to the roadway network. Some local agencies use this approach with medium and high cost improvements at locations which do not represent their worst high crash concentration locations. The result can be projects with low B/C ratios and overall safety benefits that are not as high as if they utilized a Systemic Approach. This drawback can be minimized by safety practitioners who analyze their entire roadway network, propose spot location fixes only at their highest crash locations, and utilize lower cost countermeasures wherever appropriate.

The Spot Location Approach to traffic safety is ideally implemented along with the Systemic Approach to provide the best combination of safety treatments. For instance, the Spot Location Approach can be applied at locations where low-cost countermeasures are not expected to be effective in significantly

Page 448 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 9 reducing future crashes or at those locations that have had low-cost countermeasures previously installed systemically but, after an assessment, continue to show a higher-than-average crash rate.

Comprehensive Approach
The Comprehensive Approach introduces the concept of the “5 E’s of Safety”: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies. This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the “5 E’s of Safety” is often required to achieve marked improvement in roadway safety. For instance, some roadway segments will be identified for which targeted enforcement is an appropriate countermeasure. Some of the most common violations are speeding, failure-to-yield, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to deploy visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes. To improve safety, education and outreach efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement efforts. Enforcement and/or education can also be effectively utilized as short-term ways to address high crash locations, until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented.

1.7 Our “Safety Challenge” for Local Agencies
Caltrans, FHWA and Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) “challenge” local agencies to initially commit one or more days to understanding and applying the concepts and tools outlined in this manual. Experienced safety practitioners working in agencies currently using a proactive approach can quickly review the topics in the manual and consider/test some of the new tools (e.g., TIMS) identified within it. In contrast, novice safety practitioners may need several days to better understand the underlying concepts in this manual to be able to complete the basic elements of a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network. In these situations, the room for knowledge growth, internal process improvements, and expected safety benefits will be even greater, which should more than offset the additional time invested.

By utilizing this simple framework for identifying, analyzing and implementing a proactive approach for improving safety on their roadways, practitioners will have a better understanding of their agencies’ unique safety issues, the proven low-cost countermeasures that can reduce crashes, and the existing and future funding to implement the projects. This small investment of time will help local agencies achieve significant reductions in future fatalities, injuries and overall crashes. We believe these local agencies may also gain the added unexpected benefit of improved job satisfaction of those involved, as there are few more rewarding tasks than knowing that your efforts will result in future roadway users arriving safely at their destination instead of becoming statistics.

Page 449 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 10

1.8 Summary of information in this Document
This document provides information on effectively identifying California’s local roadway safety issues and the countermeasures that address them, ultimately leading to the effective implementation of safety projects that improve safety on local roadways. The document is not intended to be a comprehensive guide for roadway design and improvement or the only guide local agencies utilize for their safety analysis of their roadways.

Caltrans also expects this document will directly support its efforts in selecting local agency safety projects. The expectation is that as local agencies throughout the state utilize the proactive safety analysis approach outlined in this document, their applications for HSIP and ATP projects will include lower cost improvements at locations with the highest safety needs. This will improve Caltrans’ datadriven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and maximize the safety benefits across California.

The proactive safety analysis framework incorporated in this document is summarized in Figure 1.

Page 450 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 11 Figure 1: Local Roadway Safety: Proactive Safety Analysis Approach

Page 451 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 12 The above flowchart illustrates how each of the individual sections of this document work together to make up a proactive safety analysis approach. These sections are briefly outlined below:

Section 2 of this manual provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used.

Section 3 summarizes the types of analyses that can be conducted to determine what roadway countermeasures should be implemented. This section is the link between the data (Section 2) and the selection of appropriate countermeasures (Section 4). It provides definitions and examples of the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be considered when evaluating roadway safety issues.

Section 4 provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown to improve safety on local roads. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). The interrelationship between CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are defined and used interchangeably throughout this document.

Section 5 defines a methodology for calculating a B/C ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects’ overall cost effectiveness at this point in the safety analysis, including: refining the project’s costs and/or changing the mix of countermeasures and locations.

Section 6 identifies existing and new funding opportunities for safety projects that local agencies should be considering. This section also briefly discusses some unique project development issues and strategies for safety projects as they proceed through design and construction.

Section 7 presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well as those that should be limited or discontinued.

Appendix A presents a flowchart of the HSIP Call-for-projects application process. This flowchart demonstrates how this document interacts with Caltrans Call-for-projects.

Appendix B contains Detailed Tables of countermeasures discussed in Section 4. This table includes detailed information about each countermeasure, including: where to use, why it works, general qualities (time, cost and effectiveness), crash type(s) addressed, crash reduction factor, and specific values for use in Caltrans HSIP calls-for-projects.

Appendix C includes a summary of “recommended actions” involved in a proactive safety analysis.

Page 452 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 13 Appendix D contains the formulas used to calculate the B/C ratio of safety projects.

Appendix E presents TIMS tutorials that are available to assist local agencies in completing Caltrans callfor-projects application requirements and attachments. The tutorials include examples for Spot Location projects and systemic projects.

Appendix F presents a list of the abbreviations used in this document.

Appendix G presents a list of references.

Page 453 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 14

2. Identifying Safety Issues
This document encourages local agency safety practitioners to proactively analyze their roadway networks with the intention of yielding the best overall safety benefits. When utilizing a proactive safety analysis approach, practitioners need to consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs.

There are a number of information sources that can be accessed to get a clearer picture of the roadway safety issues on the roadway network. These can be formal or informal sources, including:

Formal sources:
• State and local crash databases
• SafeTREC’s TIMS website (or locally preferred mapping software) • Law enforcement crash reports and citations
• Field assessments
Informal sources:
• Observational information from road maintenance crews, law enforcement, and first responders • Citizen notification of safety concerns
Examining crash history will help practitioners identify locations with an existing roadway safety problem, and also identify locations that are susceptible to future roadway crashes. In addition to location identification, this data can provide information regarding crash causation that ultimately provides insight into identifying potentially effective countermeasures.

Emphasis on data-driven decisions is indicative of reliability and efficiency. The more reliable the data, the more likely the decisions regarding safety improvements will be effective. However, detailed, reliable crash data are not available in all areas. Under this circumstance, the practitioner should use the best available information and engineering judgment to make the best decisions. In an effort to mitigate these situations, UC Berkeley SafeTREC has developed the TIMS website, which includes GIS mapping tools to access fatal and injury crashes statewide. This site is now available to all California local agencies. See Section 2.2 for more details on TIMS.

It is generally accepted that at least 3 years, or preferably 5 years, of crash data be used for an analysis; additional years of crash data can provide better information. For low volume roadways and/or when only severe crashes are analyzed, more years of crash data may be necessary for an effective evaluation.

Due to the randomness of crashes in a given year, a multi-year average of safety data will smooth outlier years of relatively high or low roadway crash rates. This concept is commonly referred to as “regression to the mean” and is critical in helping safety practitioners avoid making wrong inferences as they analyze their roadway network data. An example of this is an agency making a high-cost improvement at

Page 454 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 15 a location in response to one or two tragic crashes. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) includes more details on regression to the mean and methods to reduce the random nature of crashes.

There are some circumstances where additional years of crash data may not always be advantageous.

First, it’s important for practitioners to recognize that as more years of crash data are used, they need to consider changes in traffic patterns, physical infrastructure, land use, and demographics that may affect their projection of future crashes. Second, if practitioners only focus on many years of past crash data, they could miss emerging safety issues and crash trends. For these reasons, if practitioners sense one or more factors affecting crashes have changed or may be changing, they should consider looking at the crash data for the specific area on a yearly or 3-year moving average to expose any changes and crash trends that are occurring.

2.1 State and Local Crash Databases
California has a central repository for storing crash data called SWITRS, which stands for Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. SWITRS is a comprehensive data source for doing roadway safety analysis that includes almost all public roads in the database except tribal roads which are currently not included. SWITRS information is available to California’s local agencies, although many agencies have had difficulty identifying, extracting and utilizing their crash records from SWITRS. All California local agencies, especially those that currently have difficulty accessing and mapping crash data, are encouraged to utilize the SafeTREC TIMS website to access and map SWITRS data.

This document focuses on the SafeTREC TIMS website as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. At the same time, this document also acknowledges that TIMS currently does not offer some of the features currently available in some of the commercially available crash analysis software packages. For this reason, local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor supplied crash analysis software. See section 2.2 for more details on TIMS.

Many agencies utilize one of several crash analysis software packages (e.g., Crossroads) to manage and access their crash records. Their use can be costly, but allows local road practitioners to identify locations with multiple roadway crashes, conduct an analysis that can produce predominant crash types, and identify associated roadway features that may have contributed. One drawback to agencies managing and updating their own individual databases is that the statewide database may become outdated and may not include the updated crash details like geo-coded locations. Agencies that manage and update their own individual databases are encouraged to share all updates, including any geocoding information, with the SWITRS data managers at the California Highway Patrol. This will allow updated geo-coding and other crash features to be available on a statewide basis.

Page 455 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 16 Recommended Action: Obtain at least 5 years of network-wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This data will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics.

As practitioners gather formal and informal information relating to the safety of their roadway network, they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin-maps to help track and manage this data. (These spreadsheets/pin-maps should capture much of the data gathered in each of Sections 2.1 through 2.8). A spreadsheet and/or pin-map can serve as a database to help an agency identify locations and crash characteristics representing their greatest safety issues and guide them in identifying appropriate countermeasures.

The following spreadsheet is offered as an example, but each agency’s spreadsheet should be reformatted to include data to meet their needs. Agencies should consider printing their spreadsheets on ‘legal’ or ’11 x 17’ paper for easy review of their data.

General Information Crash Information Evaluation / Action Location &
Date
Source/Type
of
information
Safety
Issue/Problem
Nature of
Crashes
Time
of
Day
Weather/Traffic
Conditions
Staff
Evaluation
Recommend
Action
Resolution
1) Intersection “X”
1) Feb 7, 2010 Input from law
enforcement
Clearance Intervals
need adjustment
V1-WB V2-SB
Side-swipe
21:30 Dry, Night,
Free-flowing
R. Jones
2/26/10
Increase allred intervalCompleted
2/26/10
1) Mar 9, 2010 Citizen
Complaint
Ped Crossing unsafe
due to RT turns
N/A N/A N/A R. Jones
3/12/10
No RT on Red
(Need study)
2) Intersection “Y”
2)
3) Roadway Segment
(PM 5.3 to PM 7.8)
PM 6.4 to 6.8
Sep 29, 2011
Maintenance
data
Extensive skid marks.

Speed of Travel?
General WB:

ROR
N/A Dry
Free-flowing
J. Smith
10/1/11
High Friction
Overlay
Preparing
HSIP App.

PM 7.1
Jan 5, 2011
Input from law
enforcement
Stop Sign missing N/A N/A N/A J. Smith
1/5/11
Informed
Maintenance
New sign
1/5/11
An example of a pin-map, which could be modified to capture much of the data gathered in Section 2, is shown in the following section as part of the TIMS output.

Page 456 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 17

2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS)
The Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, has developed a powerful website with tools for California’s local agencies to gather data for their safety analyses. Their Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) website provides safety practitioners with California crash data (SWITRS, i.e. Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) and collision mapping and analysis tools. California local agencies are encouraged to utilize TIMS at:
https://tims.berkeley.edu/
Site Features:
• Applications to query map and download geo-referenced SWITRS data. • Summary tables based on data included in SWITRS individual crash reports. These summary tables can be generated based on specified data fields or spatial limits. • Virtual field review by connecting the crash location to Google maps and Google Street View, allowing the examination of the existing roadway infrastructure and dimensions. • A ‘Help Tab’ that provides step-by-step instructions.

Please note that SafeTREC is not able to incorporate all SWITRS crashes into TIMS due to poor crash location descriptions in the crash reports. Currently, TIMS includes the majority of California fatal and injury crashes but does not include Property Damage Only collisions.

Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency’s data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or purchased software applications) can help the safety practitioner complete or assist with each of the actions in Sections 2.1 through 2.8. This website includes several tutorials specifically designed to support the individual sections of this document. Local practitioners may find the TIMS output files as a great starting point to build their tracking spreadsheet discussed in the recommendation of Section 2.1.

Page 457 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 18

2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports
Both State and local law enforcement officials can be an important source of roadway crash data. The actual law enforcement crash reports can be valuable in identifying the location and contributing circumstances to roadway crashes (e.g., did the highway hardware and features operate as intended:
end treatment worked, no barrier in the passenger compartment, pavement not slippery when wet, signs visible, signal timing, etc.). The following variables can and should be extracted and compiled from the crash reports:
• Location
• Date and time
• Crash type
• Crash severity
• Weather conditions
• Lighting conditions
• Sequence of events and most harmful
events
• Contributing circumstances
• Driver Variables: age of driver, DUIs, use of
seat belt, etc.

Similar to the crash database, the information in the crash reports can be used to assist in the identification of potential infrastructure and non-infrastructure safety treatments and the deployment approach.

Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data.

2.4 Observational Information
Law enforcement officers, local agency maintenance crews, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can serve as valuable resources to identify problem areas. Since they travel extensively on local roads, they can continuously monitor roads for actual or potential problems (e.g., poor delineation, fixed objects near the roadway, missing signs, signs of vehicles leaving the road). Law enforcement observations of driver behavior and roadway elements can provide valuable information to the local road agency. Additionally, law enforcement officers are sometimes aware of problem areas based on citations written, even if crashes related to the violations have not yet occurred. Road maintenance crews may keep logs of their work, including sign and guardrail replacements, debris removal, and edge drop-off repairs. These logs can provide supplemental information about crashes and HCCLs that may not have been reported to law enforcement. Finally, Emergency Medical Service Crash Reports can provide an entirely different perspectives and set of observations relating to crash occurrences.

Page 458 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 19 Information obtained from road maintenance crews, law enforcement officers, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can help support all three methods of implementation approaches: Spot Location treatments, systemic deployments, and the Comprehensive Approach. Often, traffic violations such as speeding and impaired driving lend themselves to education and enforcement solutions to address these behaviors and supplement the intended infrastructure countermeasures.

Recommended Action: Add information received from law enforcement, road maintenance crew, and Emergency Medical Service observations to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet and/or pin-maps. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them.

2.5 Public Notifications
Occasionally, when unsafe situations are observed, local citizens may notify the local government by email, letter, telephone, or at a public meeting. Information identifying safety issues on local roads may also come from community or regional newspapers, newsletters, correspondence, and from local homeowner and neighborhood associations. These sources can serve as indicators that a safety issue may exist and may warrant further review and analysis to determine the extent of the issues. Citizen reports can be tracked along with official crash data; however, safety practitioners should not regard these reports as factual, unless proven by other methods. Local safety databases should only contain objective and verifiable data.

Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited. Add information received from public notifications to tracking spreadsheets and/or pin-maps once confirmed.

2.6 Roadway Data and Devices
It is also valuable to obtain information about the existing roadway infrastructure. Currently, many local agencies have few of their roadway characteristics in a database. For these agencies, the establishment of a roadway database could be a long-term goal. The following roadway characteristics are often used to assist practitioners in safety analyses of roadway segments:
• Roadway surface (dirt, aggregate, asphalt, concrete)
• Roadway geometry (horizontal, vertical, flat)
• Lane information (number, width)
• Shoulder information (width, type)
• Median (type, width)
• Traffic control devices present (signs, pavement marking, signals, rumble stripes etc.)

Page 459 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 20 • Roadside safety hardware (e.g., guardrail, crash cushions, drainage structures) The TIMS site, described in Section 2.2, can provide safety practitioners with much of this roadway data virtually by using Google Maps and Google Street View. By utilizing TIMS (and/or private for-profit vendors), safety practitioners can save hours and even days of driving during the initial steps in the safety analysis of their network. Once agencies start to define individual safety projects for funding and future construction, actual field reviews are needed to ensure a complete understanding of the project location and context.

As local practitioners gather information about their existing roadway infrastructure, they need to determine whether it complies with the minimum standards for signs, breakaway supports, signals, pavement markings, protective barriers, etc. Practitioners should use the most current California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), which provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel.
6 In addition to ensuring compliance with the MUTCD, geometric standards for sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation should also be evaluated.

Roadway information can be combined with crash data to help local practitioners identify appropriate locations and treatments to improve safety. For example, if a local rural segment is experiencing a high number of horizontal curve-related crashes, analysis of the inventory of roadway elements could reveal that the roadway does not have sufficient signage installed in advance of many of those curves to give motorists warning of the pending change in roadway geometry.

Recommended Action: Identify and track roadway characteristics for the intersections, roadway segments, and corridors, including compliance with the minimum standards. At a minimum, this should be done for locations being considered for safety improvements, but ideally agencies would establish an extensive database of roadway data to help them proactively identify high risk roadway features.

2.7 Exposure Data
The number of crashes can sometimes provide misleading information about the most appropriate locations for treatment. Introducing exposure data helps to create a more effective comparison of locations. Exposure data provides a common metric to the crash data so roadway segments and intersections can be compared more appropriately, helping local agencies prioritize their potential safety improvements.

The most common type of exposure data used on roadway segments is traffic volume. Ideally, volume would be broken down by pedestrians, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, and large trucks. A count of the number of vehicles and non-motorized users can provide information for comparison. For example, if

Page 460 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 21 two roadway segments have the same number of crashes but different traffic volumes, the segment with fewer vehicles (i.e., less exposure) will have a higher crash rate, meaning that vehicles were more likely to experience a crash along that roadway segment. In situations where traffic volume is not available, segment length or population can serve as an effective exposure element for comparison.

Recommended Action: Consider the availability of exposure data and track it along with the other crash data to help prioritize potential locations for safety improvements.

2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits
Local road practitioners should always consider conducting field assessments in conjunction with their collection of crash data to help identify problem locations. An assessment can be as informal as driving, walking or virtually viewing the road network looking for evidence of roadway crashes. Ideally, informal field assessments are to be performed by multidisciplinary teams that include a traffic safety expert, law enforcement personnel, and others. The team can visit several sites and document evidence of crashes or deficiencies on the roadway or roadside, including: damaged trees or fences, skid marks, ruts on the shoulder, car parts on the shoulder, and/or pavement drop-offs. This information, along with observations of actual driver-behavior, can be used to develop recommendations for improvement.

Field reviews can also be more formalized such as in conducting a Road Safety Audit (RSA). A RSA is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road by an independent, multidisciplinary team. The team examines and reports on existing or potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for safety improvements for all road users. Agencies considering RSAs for the first time are encouraged to consider requesting support from FHWA. For more information on FHWA’s free RSA support, go to their website at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/.

Informal field assessments and more formal RSAs provide an opportunity for local safety practitioners to gather and summarize all of the information sources discussed in Section 2. They can also be used to identify potential project delivery obstacles. The field assessments/RSAs should identify major environmental, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational issues that need to be considered when applying countermeasures.

Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identify the most appropriate countermeasures. It’s recommended that local agencies develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken. The information gathered during the assessments should be added to the agency’s tracking spreadsheet, as discussed in section 2.

Page 461 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 22

3. Safety Data Analysis
Proactive safety analysis will assist in making informed decisions on the type, deployment levels, and locations for safety countermeasures. This builds on the previous discussions on information sources that identify safety issues. ‘Safety Data Analysis’ is one of the most critical steps in an agency’s overall proactive safety analysis approach. Ideally, agencies regularly analyze the safety data for their entire roadway networks to identify and prioritize the locations with the most severe safety issues. This step is often skipped by agencies reacting to a recent tragic crash and the corresponding public outcry, which may leave their most critical safety locations undetected.

As agencies analyze their safety data, they will need to select the implementation approach that most effectively address the safety issues identified; Systemic Approach, Spot Location Approach, Comprehensive Approach, or a combination of these approaches. For example, if a high number of crashes are occurring at a particular curve or along a short segment of roadway, a spot treatment may be appropriate. However, systemic treatment of multiple locations experiencing similar crash types may be necessary and most beneficial for reducing overall fatalities and injuries. These implementation approaches were described in Section 1.5. With all of the approaches, safety practitioners should be looking for patterns in the crash data and not just the total number of crashes. These patterns include:
types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, time of day, etc. Identifying and analyzing the patterns in the crash data will help ensure the most appropriate countermeasure is selected and the safety problems are effectively addressed.

3.1 Quantitative Analysis
Crash data analysis is used to determine the extent of the roadway safety issues, the priority for application of scarce resources, and the selection of appropriate countermeasures. The two main quantitative analysis methods for roadway crashes are crash frequency and crash rate.

Crash Frequency
Crash frequency is defined as the number of crashes occurring within a determined study area. A practitioner can determine crash volumes using methods discussed in Section 2, including: State crash database (SWITRS), TIMS, local agency crash databases, law enforcement crash reports, pin-maps, etc.

The practitioner should analyze the data to identify locations and crash characteristics with the highest frequency. There are numerous methods to assist practitioners in this process. Each agency will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples of the methods used to determine Crash Frequency:
• Summarize the crashes by attributes such as type, severity and location to identify patterns in the crash data and the most significant problem locations.
o Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments. It is common to weight more severe crashes higher in this process.

Page 462 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 23 • Spatially display the sites on a pin-map or a GIS software package. o For small or rural agencies with lower volume roadways, network-wide pin-maps may be all that is needed to identify the highest priority locations. • Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles, types of crashes, and pedestrians involved in the crashes.

As stated earlier, this manual acknowledges many local agency safety practitioners may have their preferred methods for completing these analyses. For those agencies that do not and for those willing to try something new, Caltrans recommends using the TIMS website along with the processes outlined in this document to complete these analyses.

Once the crash frequency information is collected and displayed, the practitioner can complete a methodical analysis by geographic area, route, or a cluster analysis to determine which locations have experienced a high or moderate level of crashes. The resulting crash information can be further analyzed for recurring patterns or events. As agencies consider their locations with high levels of crashes, they should understand the overall random nature of crashes and the concept of “regression to the mean”, as discussed in Section 2. Otherwise, if the natural variations in crash occurrence are not accounted for, a site might be selected for study when the number of crashes is randomly high, or overlooked when the number of crashes is randomly low.

Crash Rate
Crash rate analysis can be a useful tool to determine how a specific roadway or segment compares with similar roadway types on the network. A simple count of the number of crashes can be inadequate when comparing multiple roadways of varying lengths and/or traffic volume. Local agencies are also encouraged to compare their crashes with those occurring in similar areas around the state; doing so will help in determining just how severe the number and types of crashes are in the local area. When working with limited budgets, Crash Rates are often used to prioritize locations for safety improvements that will achieve the greatest safety benefits with limited resources. Where traffic volume data is unavailable, other information can be used to provide exposure information. One often-used factor is the length of the roadway segment on each route studied. Comparing the number of roadway crashes per mile or per intersection can help an agency identify potential opportunities to improve safety. The FHWA Roadway Departure Safety and Intersection Safety manuals include the following formulas for calculating crash rates on roadway segments and intersections:

Page 463 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 24 The crash rate for crashes on a roadway is calculated as:

R = (C x 100,000,000) / (V x 365 x N x L)
Where:

R = Crash rate for the road segment expressed as crashes per 100 million vehicle-miles of travel, C = Total number of crashes in the study period
V = Traffic volumes using Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes N = Number of years of data
L = Length of the roadway segment in miles
The crash rate for crashes at an intersection is calculated as:

R = (1,000,000 x C) / (365 x N x V)
Where:

R = Crash rate for the intersection expressed as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) C= Total number of intersection-related crashes in the study period N = Number of years of data
V = Traffic volumes entering the intersection daily
Similar to Crash Frequency, there are numerous methods for local safety practitioners to utilize Crash Rate in their safety data analysis and each will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples:
• Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments with the highest crashes in relationship to roadway length, traffic volumes, and/or population density.
• Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate. • Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate.

Even though crash frequency and crash rate are helpful for local agency safety practitioners to effectively rank their most critical locations for improvements, the lack of reliable statewide traffic volumes for all roadway types precludes Caltrans from using the crash rate methodology in their statewide project scoring and ranking processes for the HSIP (discussed in more detail in Section 5).

Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of the roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies. Safety practitioners should look for patterns in the crash data, including: types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, roadway characteristics, time of day, intersection control, etc.

3.2 Qualitative Analysis
Qualitative analysis considers the physical characteristics of the roadway network, through the examination of maps, photographs, and field assessments. Certain roadway infrastructure characteristics relate to design standard and compliance issues and should continually be identified and upgraded on a network-wide basis (e.g., signing and pavement delineation characteristics relating to CAMUTCD compliance as discussed in more detail below). Other roadway characteristics are more important as they relate to locations with high crash frequencies and rates (e.g., well defined pedestrian

Page 464 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 25 paths crossing the roadway or a high number of utility poles/fixed objects adjacent to the edge of travel way). All of these characteristics should to be accounted for in an agency’s proactive safety analysis.

Ensuring Compliance with CA-MUTCD and Design Standards
It is important for local agencies to continually evaluate their roadways for compliance with the minimum safety standards. The CA-MUTCD provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. In addition to ensuring compliance with the CA-MUTCD, geometric standards should be evaluated as they relate to sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super-elevation. Many local agencies have their own specific roadway design standards, while others rely on Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual 7 , FHWA’s “Green
Book” policy manual8 and PEDSAFE guide9
, and AASHTO’s Roadside Design Guide10. If the traffic control devices or roadway geometry are not in compliance, appropriate devices/countermeasures should be installed. Non-compliance is an important consideration that can affect road safety and may have liability implications for a jurisdiction. Using CA-MUTCD compliant devices results in uniformity among California roadways and serves to meet road user expectations.

Field Assessments
While the qualitative analysis of compliance issues should continually occur on a network-wide basis, a qualitative analysis should also occur for each of the locations and corridors identified as a result of a ‘Quantitative Analysis’. The consideration of roadway infrastructure characteristics in conjunction with crash frequency or crash rate gives a more complete picture of overall safety and should be used in an agency’s identification and prioritization process for locations needing safety improvements. The qualitative assessment of HCCLs can be completed through the examination of maps and photographs, but the importance of in-field assessments by multi-disciplinary teams should not be underestimated. In some cases, field reviews of all potential project locations may not be practical, so safety practitioners are encouraged to utilize internet-mapping tools to view maps and photographs and virtually visit these sites from their offices.

Actual field visits or RSAs can be done at the highest priority locations before or during the countermeasure selection process. In many cases, field assessments are often the only way for practitioners to identify potential countermeasure implementation and project delivery obstacles.

Without in-field assessments, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational constraints can be overlooked, including: sensitive environmental resources (widening may not be feasible next to wetlands), roadway users (rumble strips may not be feasible on roadways with high bicycle volumes and narrow shoulders), or nearby roadway stakeholders (flashing beacons may be problematic for adjacent residents.) Assessments can provide critical information for local practitioners as they prioritize their crash locations and select countermeasures with the greatest potential for cost effective deployment.

Recommended Action: Incorporate qualitative analysis elements into agency’s proactive analysis approach. Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify locations with roadway

Page 465 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 26 infrastructure characteristics that relate to both compliance issues and high crash frequencies/rates. As part of field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures. Rather than reviewing all crash sites individually, agencies may find the use of Internet mapping tools offers significant time savings. For agencies without a preferred virtual field review method, the SafeTREC TIMS website automatically links the SWITRS crash locations to Google Maps and Google Street View.

Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin-maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2.

Page 466 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 27

4. Countermeasure Selection
Once locations and crash problems are identified as illustrated in Sections 2 and 3, the safety practitioners will need to select the set of proposed safety improvements to reduce the likelihood of future crashes. Individual elements of standard safety improvements are referred to as countermeasures and most countermeasures have corresponding Crash Modification Factors (CMFs).

When applied correctly, CMFs can help agencies identify the expected safety impacts of installing various countermeasures to reduce crashes. CMFs are multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the lower the CMF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes the countermeasure is expected to reduce. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as (1 – CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). NOTE: Given that CRF values can be more intuitive when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes; this document shows CRF values in the countermeasure tables. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout the text of this section and in other sections of this document.

In an effort to stretch the limited highway safety funding, local transportation agencies are encouraged to identify and implement the optimal combination of countermeasures to achieve the greatest benefits. Combined with crash cost data and project cost information, CRFs can help safety practitioners compare the B/C ratio of multiple countermeasures and then choose the most appropriate application for their proposed safety improvement projects.

As agencies consider the overall scope/cost of their projects, they also need to consider the number of locations to which each countermeasure may be applied in order to maximize the B/C ratio and the overall effectiveness of their limited safety funding. For HCCLs with varying causes, the Spot Location Approach may be the most appropriate. In contrast, the Systemic Approach should be considered where a high proportion of similar crash types tend to occur at locations that share common geometric or operational elements. In these situations, installing the same low-cost safety countermeasure at multiple locations can increase the cost effectiveness of the safety improvement, allowing an increased number of treatments to be applied.

It is important to note that there are many safety issues and corresponding countermeasures that are more “maintenance” in nature (e.g., visibility issues relating to the need for brush clearing and roadway departure issues relating to the need to replace shoulder backing). As these issues are identified when investigating crash locations, it’s expected that the local safety practitioners would take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in the short-term. For this reason, most of the common maintenance-type safety countermeasures are not included in this document.

Page 467 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 28

4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors
Selecting an appropriate countermeasure and corresponding CMF is similar to choosing the right tool for a job. In some cases, a countermeasure and CMF may not be perfect, but will still work well enough to get the job done by providing a reasonable estimation of the countermeasure's effect. In other cases, using an improper countermeasure or CMF may do more harm than good. Applying a CMF that does not fit a specific situation may give a false sense of the countermeasure's safety effectiveness and may result in an increased safety problem.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is leading a concerted effort to develop information on CMFs and makes it available to State and local agencies to assist with highway safety planning. The CMF Clearinghouse, a free online database introduced in 2009 and accessible at http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/, details the varying quality and reliability of CMFs available to transportation professionals.

FHWA has identified three main considerations to assure appropriate selection of CMFs for a given countermeasure: the availability of relevant CMFs, the applicability of available CMFs, and the quality of applicable CMFs. The following sections detail these considerations and describe how Caltrans recommended CRF and service life values meet these criteria.

Availability: The availability of a CMF that applies to a specific situation depends on whether research has been conducted to determine the safety effects of a particular countermeasure or combination of countermeasures, and whether researchers have documented it. The CMF Clearinghouse contains more than 2,900 CMFs and receives quarterly updates to include the latest research.

At this point, Caltrans has established a small subset of 82 countermeasures and a single CRF for each of these countermeasures that must be used when submitting applications for Caltrans statewide calls-forprojects. This methodology allows for a statewide data-driven process that facilitates a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. (The reason for limiting the number of countermeasures is further explained below under “applicability”).

Applicability: In general, once a local safety practitioner determines that one or more CMFs exist for a specific countermeasure, the next step is to determine which CMF is the most applicable. Applicability depends on how closely the CMF represents the situation to which it will be applied. Safety practitioners should evaluate the potentially applicable CMFs, eliminating any that are not appropriate for the situation. Practitioners should only choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project based on factors including but not limited to: urban areas vs. rural areas; low vs. high traffic volumes; 2-lane vs. 6- lane roadways; individual vs. combination treatments; signalized vs. non-signalized intersections; and minor crashes vs. fatal crashes. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect will likely be over or underestimated.

Page 468 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 29 The mix of countermeasures and CRFs included in this document is intended to meet Caltrans’ goal for a data-driven award process for local agencies to follow that allows for a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. Where possible and appropriate, the CRF value intended for use in statewide callsfor-projects is based on research studies that specifically established the CRF to be used for ‘all’ project areas, roadway types, and traffic volumes. Where not all applicability factors have already been established by prior research, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to approximate CRFs for countermeasures often utilized by local agencies.

Quality: Often a search of the CMF Clearing House results in multiple CMFs for the same countermeasure. A practitioner needs to examine the quality of each CMF. The quality of a CMF can vary greatly depending on several factors associated with the process of developing the CMF. The primary factors that determine the quality of a CMF are the study design, sample size, standard error, potential bias, and data source. The CMF Clearinghouse provides a star rating for each based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 indicates the highest quality. The most reliable CMFs in the HSM are indicated with a bold font.

Wherever possible, the CRFs included in this document are based on research that has a CMF Clearinghouse star rating of 3 or more. For countermeasures that do not have corresponding research of a star rating of 3 or more but were deemed important to provide flexibility to local practitioners, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to establish CRFs based on the best available research.

4.2 List of Countermeasures
The list of countermeasures discussed in this section is not an all-inclusive list, and only includes those available in the Caltrans’ HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects. Only thoroughly researched countermeasures with a readiness to be applied by local agencies on a statewide basis are utilized. In addition, the California Local HSIP program places further restrictions on the eligibility of some countermeasures to meet the most critical needs on California local roadways. Practitioners are encouraged to utilize the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse for a more comprehensive list as they establish their local agency specific set of proposed improvements and prioritize their projects.

The countermeasures listed in the following three tables have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories, as the consideration of non-motorized travel is important for all roadway classifications and locations. The countermeasures included in these tables are also used in the HSIP Analyzer. When selecting countermeasures and CMFs to apply to their specific safety needs, local agency safety practitioners should consider the availability, applicability, and quality of CMFs, as discussed in section 4.1.

Page 469 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 30 Only Crash Types, CRFs, Expected Lives, and HSIP Funding Eligibility of the countermeasures for use in Caltrans local HSIP program are provided in this section. Fields in the countermeasure tables are:
• Crash Types - “All”, “P & B” (Pedestrian and Bicycle), “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”. • CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Funding Eligibility – the maximum HSIP reimbursement ratio for HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects. o Eighty-one (85) countermeasures: 90%
o One (1) countermeasure: 50% (CM No. SI03: Improve signal timing, as this CM will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.) • Systemic Approach Opportunity - Opportunity to Implement Using a Systemic Approach: “Very High”, “High”, “Medium” or “Low”.

The list of countermeasures presented in this section is intended to be a quick-reference summary.

Appendix B of this manual provides more details on each of these countermeasures including Where to use, Why it works, General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness), and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse (Crash Types Addressed and range of Crash Reduction Factor).

Recommended Action: At this point, agencies should use all information and results obtained by completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic ‘engineering judgment’ is required and that this manual should not be used as a simple cheat-sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding.

Page 470 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 31 Table 1. Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
SI01NT Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium SI02 Signal Mod. Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number All 15% 10 90% Very High
SI03 Signal Mod. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High SI04EV Signal Mod. Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Emergency Vehicle 70% 10 90% High
SI05 Signal Mod. Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) All 55% 20 90% Low
SI06 Signal Mod. Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% High SI07 Signal Mod. Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium SI08 Operation/
Warning Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High SI09 Operation/
Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 10 90% Medium SI10 Operation/
Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium SI11 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium SI12PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low SI13 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium
SI14 Geometric Mod. Install right‐turn lane (S.I.) All 15% 20 90% Medium SI15 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium SI16RA Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low SI17RA Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low SI18PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian countdown signal heads P & B 25% 20 90% Very High SI19PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) P & B 25% 20 90% High SI20PB Ped and Bike Pedestrian Scramble P & B 40% 20 90% High SI21PB Ped and Bike Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) P & B 15% 10 90% Very High SI22PB Ped and Bike Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P & B 60% 10 90% Very High

Page 471 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 32 Table 2. Countermeasures for Non-Signalized Intersections No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF
Expecte
d Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
NS01NT Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium NS02 Control Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) All 50% 10 90% High NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 20 90% Low
NS04RA Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05RA Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Low NS06RA Control Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Medium NS07RA Control Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Medium
NS08 Operation/ Warning Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs All 15% 10 90% Very High
NS09 Operation/ Warning Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 10 90% Very High NS10 Operation/ Warning Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections All 15% 10 90% High NS11 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% High NS12 Operation/ Warning Install transverse rumble strips on approaches All 20% 10 90% High NS13 Operation/ Warning Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 10 90% High NS14 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium NS15 Geometric Mod. Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches All 40% 20 90% Medium NS16 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium NS17 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and uturns (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS18 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS19 Geometric Mod. Install right-turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 20 90% Low NS20 Geometric Mod. Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low NS21PB Ped and Bike Install raised medians / refuge islands (NS.I.) P & B 45% 20 90% Medium NS22PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90% High
NS23PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium
NS24PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium NS25PB Ped and Bike Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% Low

Page 472 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 33 Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R01NT Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium R02 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone All 35% 20 90% High R03 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Median Barrier All 25% 20 90% Medium R04 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Guardrail All 25% 20 90% High R05 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install impact attenuators All 25% 10 90% High R06 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes All 30% 20 90% Medium R07 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail All 40% 20 90% Medium R08 Geometric Mod. Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium R09 Geometric Mod. Install median (flush) All 15% 20 90% Medium R10PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low R11 Geometric Mod. Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes All 25% 20 90% Low R12 Geometric Mod. Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) All 25% 20 90% Medium R13 Geometric Mod. Add two-way left-turn lane All 30% 20 90% Medium R14 Geometric Mod. Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) All 35% 20 90% Medium
R15 Geometric Mod. Widen shoulder All 30% 20 90% Medium R16 Geometric Mod. Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) All 45% 20 90% Medium R17 Geometric Mod. Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) All 50% 20 90% Low R18 Geometric Mod. Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 20 90% Low R19 Geometric Mod. Improve curve superelevation All 45% 20 90% Medium R20 Geometric Mod. Convert from two-way to one-way traffic All 35% 20 90% Medium R21 Geometric Mod. Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% High

Page 473 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.7) Page | 34 Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways (Continued)
No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash
Type CRF
Expected
Life
(Years)
HSIP
Funding
Eligibility
Systemic
Approach
Opportunity?
R22 Operation/ Warning Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) All 15% 10 90% Very High
R23 Operation/ Warning Install chevron signs on horizontal curves All 40% 10 90% Very High R24 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs All 25% 10 90% Very High R25 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 10 90% High R26 Operation/ Warning Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs All 30% 10 90% High R27 Operation/ Warning Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers All 15% 10 90% Very High R28 Operation/ Warning Install edge-lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High R29 Operation/ Warning Install no-passing line All 45% 10 90% Very High R30 Operation/ Warning Install centerline rumble strips/stripes All 20% 10 90% High R31 Operation/ Warning Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R32 Operation/ Warning Speed Safety Cameras All 20% 10 90% High R33PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 20 90% High R34PB Ped and Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes P & B 45% 20 90% High R35PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 20 90% Medium R36PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R37PB Ped and Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R38PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R39AL Animal Install animal fencing Animal 80% 20 90% Medium

Page 474 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 35

5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects
Practitioners need to consider the expected B/C ratio of their proposed projects. This is an important step in a proactive safety analysis process because it provides two key pieces of information: First, it defines the cost effectiveness of the proposed projects; and second, it gives the safety practitioner a means to help prioritize their safety projects both inside the agency’s traffic safety section and against other proposed operational and maintenance projects competing for funding.

5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Sections 2 through 4 provide the practitioner all the information needed to calculate the expected ‘Benefit’ of the proposed safety projects. The resulting expected benefit value is derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding CMFs to the expected crashes. It is of critical importance for the practitioner to understand that misapplication of a CMF will lead to misinformed decisions. Four main factors need to be considered when applying countermeasures and CMFs to calculate the expected benefit value: (1) how to estimate the number of expected crashes without treatment, (2) how to apply CMFs by type and severity, (3) how to apply multiple CMFs if multiple treatments are to be included in the same project, and (4) how to apply a benefit value by crash severity. The following text explains how these factors affect the expected benefit value in more detail.

Estimating expected crashes without treatment: Before applying CMFs, local safety practitioners first need to select countermeasures and CMFs. The CMF is applied to the expected safety performance (expected crashes) without any treatment in order to estimate the expected crashes with the treatment.

The reduction in expected crashes multiplied by the expected costs per each crash gives the practitioner the expected benefit.

As mentioned earlier in this manual, the random nature of roadway crashes suggests that over time the number of crashes at any particular locations will change. This concept is known as “regression to the mean” and it gives rise to the concern that a site might be selected for study when the crashes are at a randomly high fluctuation, or overlooked from study when the site is at a randomly low fluctuation. The HSM presents several methods for estimating the expected safety performance of a roadway or intersection including the Empirical Bayes method, which combines observed information from the site of interest with information from similar sites to estimate the expected crashes without treatment.

Another common way to minimize the impact of regression to the mean is to increase the number of years of crash data being analyzed.

For statewide calls-for-projects, Caltrans strives to ensure that all projects are fairly ranked based on a consistent statewide approach. Given this, Caltrans has avoided using methodology requiring agencies to mathematically adjust their crash data (e.g., Empirical Bayes) and instead has opted to use 3 to 5 years of “observed crashes” in estimating “expected crashes.” Applying CMFs by type and severity: Section 4.1 of this manual discusses the application of CMFs and the need for them to represent the situation to which they will be applied. It also stresses the need for

Page 475 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 36
practitioners to choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project. In many circumstances, estimating the change in crashes by type and severity is useful; however, local safety practitioners only can use this approach when CMFs exist for the specific crash types and severities in question. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect may be over- or underestimated. (For example: past research relating to installing a channelized left turn lane, has estimated CMFs as high as 68% for Right-Angle crashes of all severities and as low as 11% for Rear-End crashes with severities of only fatal and injury).

Applying multiple CMFs: In real-world scenarios, transportation agencies commonly install more than one countermeasure per project as part of their safety improvement program. This leads to the question, "What is the safety effect of the combined countermeasures?" The calculation methods that Transportation agencies use include: applying the CMF for the single countermeasure expected to achieve the greatest reduction, applying CMFs separately by crash type and summing them to get a project-level effect, and applying CMFs based on a review of crash patterns, etc. Regardless of the specific method employed, “engineering judgment” is required when combining multiple CMFs and it is important for local agencies to apply their method consistently throughout their analysis to ensure a fair comparison of projects.

One common practice is to assume that CMFs are multiplicative when they are applied to the same set of crash data. In other words, each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit when implemented in combination with other countermeasures. The multiplicative method is a common, generally accepted method and is presented in the HSM and in the CMF Clearinghouse. This method is also used in the HSIP calls-for-projects.

To allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis, Caltrans only allows up to three (3) individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project location site. The CMFs are multiplicative if there are multiple countermeasures, i.e. each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit based on the remainder of the crashes after the effect of the prior countermeasures, not the original number of the crashes.

More information on these requirements and procedures are provided in the documents (Application Form Instructions, etc.) for each call-for-projects.

Applying benefit value by crash severity: The last step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is to multiply the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the “cost” of crashes. In other words, the expected “benefit” value for a project is actually the expected “reduction in costs” value from reducing future crashes. There are many sources for the costs of crashes (e.g., HSM, FHWA & National Safety Council) and some of the sources vary widely depending on how they account for the economic value of a life and when the numbers were last updated.

Page 476 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 37
When calculating the “benefit” to be used in calculating an improvement’s B/C ratio, it is important for the practitioner to consider whether a total benefit value for the “life” of the improvement is needed or if the benefit value should be annualized (i.e., benefit per year). Whichever method is used to calculate the overall cost of the improvements must also be used for calculating the benefit.

Caltrans has currently chosen to use published Cost-of-Crash values from the first edition of the HSM and increase the values by 4% annually. These values may be updated in the future, when updated costof-crash values are published by FHWA or another national source. The specific values for each of the crash severities and the formulas uses to calculate the total benefit are shown in Appendix D.

Recommended Action: Prepare Total Benefit estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements After calculating the expected benefit of the proposed safety projects, the next step for the practitioner is to develop an estimate of the Total Project Costs. These costs need to include both the construction costs and the project development and administration costs. The most common approach to estimating construction costs is through an “Engineer’s Cost Estimate.” A Template for Detailed Engineer’s Estimate and Cost Breakdown by Countermeasures is included in the HSIP Analyzer. When calculating the administration costs for a project, the complexity of the improvements must be accounted for: Low-cost countermeasures, typically used in the Systemic Approach, often have minimal environmental and rightof-way impacts and require minimal design effort. In contrast, many medium to high cost improvements tend to have greater impacts to the environment and right-of-way and require significant design efforts.

It’s crucial to account for these differences to accurately determine the true B/C ratio of the projects and prioritize them correctly.

When an agency is initially evaluating several potential locations and countermeasures as part of their proactive safety analysis or in preparing for Caltrans call-for-projects, they should consider first using rough ‘ballpark’ cost estimates using previous projects that had similar scope, if possible. Ballpark cost estimates can allow the practitioner to quickly establish B/C ratios for all of their potential projects and identify the projects with high cost effectiveness and with a reasonable chance of receiving HSIP funding in a Caltrans call-for-projects.

Recommended Action: Prepare ‘Total Project Cost’ estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio
In general, the B/C ratio is calculated by taking a project’s overall benefit (as calculated in Section 5.1) and dividing it by the project’s overall cost (as calculated in Section 5.2). There are, however, several

Page 477 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 38
methods and input-factors available for calculating a project’s B/C ratio and practitioners may want to consider other methods as defined in the HSM.

Based on Caltrans’ need for a fair, data-driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call-forprojects, Caltrans requires the B/C ratio for all applications to be completed using the same process.

Applicants must utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. Additional details and formulas included in the calculation are included in this document as Appendix D.

Recommended Action: Calculate the B/C ratio for each of the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis.

5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements
By implementing a comprehensive proactive safety analysis approach, agencies will likely identify more potential safety projects than they can fund and deliver. It will be important for an agency to prioritize their projects internally before funding is sought. It is not uncommon for projects to have a B/C ratio as low as 0.1 or as high as 100. Once the relative cost effectiveness of an agency’s potential projects has been established, the projects with low to mid-ranged B/C ratios should be reassessed. Projects with very low initial B/C ratios may be dropped while projects with low to mid ranged B/C ratios may be redefined by changing the limits of the proposed improvements to focus on higher crash locations or incorporating lower-cost countermeasures. This reiterative process is illustrated in Figure 1 in Section 1 of this document.

At the conclusion of this step, the local agency should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. Ideally, there will be a variety of low cost safety projects and potentially a few higher cost roadway reconstruction projects. How each local agency prioritizes their list of safety improvements will vary, but projects with the highest B/C ratios should generally have a high overall priority. It should be understood that available funding will play a key role in local agency prioritization (e.g., higher-cost projects may have to wait for funding to become available while low-cost improvements with lower B/C ratios can be constructed with in-house maintenance crews), but in the goal of maximizing overall safety benefits, the role of politics and public influence should be minimized.

Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits to maximize the number of fatal and injury crashes addressed within the limits. Consider lower cost countermeasures in areas where high and medium cost countermeasures resulted in low B/C ratios.

Page 478 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 39

6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements
Funding strategies for implementing safety projects need to vary as widely as local agency’s roadway types, project costs, and proposed improvements. At this point in the proactive safety analysis process, local agencies should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. There are likely a wide range of ‘approaches’ to fund each of these projects.

This section of the document discusses some of the most common approaches.

6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures
For projects utilizing low-cost countermeasures, the total project cost may be low enough that the agency can construct the project using its existing roadway funding by utilizing the ongoing activities of their roadway maintenance staff and equipment. Other low-cost projects (e.g., overlays, sealcoats, drainage, signing, and striping projects) may be more important to incorporate into larger maintenance projects. It is common for agencies to have 1-, 5-, and 10-year plans for making these standard maintenance improvements. With upfront planning and coordination between agency staff, the lowcost safety projects identified through the proactive safety analysis can be incorporated with minimal costs to an agency’s maintenance program. Maximizing the cost effectiveness of the program may even allow the transportation managers to justify increasing the funding for their overall roadway maintenance program.

In addition to their maintenance program, transportation managers should also strategically seek out planned capital improvement and development projects that can incorporate low and medium cost countermeasures identified in their safety analysis. Local agencies may also find opportunities to partner with private enterprises and insurance companies to fund special safety projects that further both organizations’ strategic goals.

Recommended Action: Survey planned maintenance, developer and capital projects to determine whether they overlap any of the proposed safety projects. Where projects overlap, leverage the existing funding sources to include safety countermeasures.

6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources
In addition to the HSIP Program, the Division of Local Assistance’s web site includes several other Caltrans administered funding programs:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance
Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures.

Page 479 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 40

6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations In general, roadway safety projects don’t garner the same level of attention from decision makers, media, elected officials, and the general public, that large operational and development-driven projects do. As a result, local safety practitioners and project sponsors often find their projects have difficulty in competing for the agencies’ limited project delivery resources. Establishing and implementing a comprehensive safety analysis process can assist safety practitioners in delivering their safety programs in many ways, including:
• Credibility and awareness to individual projects and delivery schedules. • Increased stakeholders tracking and delivery of a project when low-cost improvements are incorporated into ongoing maintenance and capital projects. • An increased focus on low-cost countermeasures typically corresponds to projects with less environmental, right-of-way and other impacts; resulting in projects that have streamlined project delivery processes and short construction schedules.

Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to “toot their own safety-horn.”

Page 480 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 41

7. Evaluation of Improvements
Evaluation of the effectiveness of roadway treatments following installation should be used to guide future decisions regarding roadway countermeasures. Field reviews should also be conducted shortly after the project is completed to insure the project is operating as intended.

A record of crash history and countermeasure installation forms the foundation for assessing how well the implemented strategies have performed. An important database to maintain is a current list of installed countermeasures with documented “when/where/why” information. Periodic assessments will provide the necessary information to make informed decisions on whether each countermeasure contributed to an increase in safety, whether the countermeasure could or should be installed at other locations, and which factors may have contributed to each countermeasure’s success.

In order to perform the assessment, it is necessary to collect the required information for a certain period after strategies have been deployed at the locations. The time period varies, but whenever possible, 3 to 5 years is recommended to reduce the effects of the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean). The information required may consist of public input and complaints, police reports, observations from maintenance crews, and local and State crash data.

It is important to keep the list of safety installations up-to-date since it will serve as a record of countermeasure deployment history (see table below for an example). By using this type of system, assessment dates can be scheduled to review the crashes and other pertinent information on segments where roadway countermeasures have been installed. Making “after” assessments will inform the practitioner on the effectiveness of past improvements and can provide data to help justify the value of continuing and expanding the local agency’s safety program in the future.

Location Type of Countermeasure
Installed
Date
Installed
Crashes Before
(Duration and
Severity)
Crashes After
(Duration and
Severity)
Comments
Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet or database to track future safety project installations and record 3 or more years of “before” and “after” crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen.

Page 481 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 42
Appendix A: HSIP Call-for-Projects Application Process

Page 482 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 43
Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures
The intent of the information contained in this appendix is to provide local agency safety practitioners with a list of effective countermeasures that are appropriate remedies to many common safety issues.

The tables in Section 4.2 present a quick summary of the specific values that the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance uses to assess and select projects for its calls- for-projects. In addition to the same information as in Section 4.2, this appendix also includes notes for Caltrans HSIP calls-for-projects and “General information” regarding where the countermeasure should be used, why it works, the general qualities that can be used to suggest the potential complexity of installation, and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse on the type of crashes where the countermeasure is best used and a range of their expected overall effectiveness.

The countermeasures have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non-Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories.

Caltrans gives careful consideration to the fair application of its calls-for-projects process. Starting in 2012, the award of safety funding has been solely based on a determined benefit-to-cost ratio for each project. The fixed set of countermeasures and CRFs included in these tables are intended to allow for all projects to be evaluated consistently and fairly throughout the project selection process. However, at this time, there are no CRFs/CMFs available for several safety improvements, such as: "dynamic/variable speed regulatory signs", "non-motorized signs and markings (regulatory and warning)", "Square-up (reduce curve radius) turn lanes" and non-infrastructure elements. These safety improvement items can be included in project applications, but they will not be included into the B/C ratio calculations, unless the safety improvements meet the intent of other separate countermeasures included in the attached lists. Caltrans is interested in adding these countermeasures (and many others) to these tables once CRFs/CMFs have been established. Caltrans will continue to periodically update this list of allowable countermeasures and CRFs as new safety research data becomes available. With this in mind, Caltrans is interested in feedback and suggestions from local agency safety practitioners on the overall countermeasure list as well as specific details of individual countermeasures, including locally developed safety effectiveness information.

Caltrans used the following references to assist its team in developing the information shown in the following tables. Safety Practitioners are encouraged to utilize these references for a more expansive list of countermeasures and CRFs / CMFs.

The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse
https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/
NCHRP Report 500 Series: Volumes 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and others https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152868.aspx

Page 483 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 44
Highway Safety Manual (HSM)
http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org
Pedestrian and Bicycle - Tools to Diagnose and Solve the Problem https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/
FHWA Local and Rural Road / Training, Tools, Guidance and Countermeasures for Locals https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/
For each countermeasure (CM):
(Title) CM No., CM Name
• CM No. is
o SI01NT through SI22PB for Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized, o NS01NT through NS24PB for Intersection Countermeasures – Unsignalized, or o R01NT through R39AL for Roadway Countermeasures.

Some CM Numbers have two letters at the end – this is used to quickly identity the specific feature of the CM. For example, “NT” - reducing night crashes, “PB” – reducing Pedestrian and Bicycle crashes, “EV” – countermeasure toward Emergency Vehicle involved crashes, “AL”- countermeasure toward Animal involved crashes, and “RA” – roundabout.

For HSIP Calls-for-projects:
• Funding Eligibility - 90% or 50%.
• Crash Types Addressed - “All”, “Pedestrian and Bicycle”, “Night”, “Emergency Vehicle”, or “Animal”.
• CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls-for-projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Notes - Specific requirements are provided for utilizing the countermeasure on applications for Caltrans statewide calls-for-projects.
•
General Information:
• Where to use – Roadway segments and intersections with specific common characteristics can be addressed with similar countermeasures that are most effective. • Why it works – A discussion of the benefit of a countermeasure is important to determine its appropriateness in addressing certain roadway crash types at areas with specific issues as determined by the data and roadway features.
• General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness) – This category is more subjective and can vary substantially. ‘Time’ refers to the approximate relative time it can take to implement the countermeasure. Costs can vary considerably due to local conditions, so ‘cost’ represents the relative cost of applying a countermeasure. A relative overall ‘effectiveness’ is also provided for some countermeasures. All of this subjective information may not be applicable to the unique circumstances for the agency and should not be utilized without verification by the safety practitioner.

Page 484 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 45
• FHWA CMF Clearinghouse
o Crash Types Addressed – In order to effectively reduce the number and severity of roadway crashes, it is necessary to match countermeasures to the crash types they are intended to address. Depending on the type of problem, one or more of a range of countermeasures could be the most effective way to reduce the number and severity of future crashes.
o Crash Reduction Factor – The crash reduction factor (CRF) is an indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes it is expected to reduce. Note: As mentioned earlier in this section, the effectiveness of a countermeasure can also be expressed as a Crash Modification Factor (CMF), which is defined mathematically as 1 – CRF. However, this document uses CRFs as they can be more insightful when analyzing roadways for potential “reductions” in crashes. There is a range of CRF values that exist for each of the countermeasures (or similar countermeasures). The range of CRFs is provided to give local safety practitioners a clear understanding that they may need to go to the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse to find the most appropriate countermeasure and CRF for their specific projects and local prioritization.

Page 485 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 46
B.1 Intersection Countermeasures – Signalized
SI01NT, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% "night" crashes 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).

Why it works:

Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 20-74% SI02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the upgraded signals. This CM does not apply to improvements like "battery backup systems", which do not provide better intersection/signal visibility or help drivers negotiate the intersection (unless applying past crashes that occurred when the signal lost power). If new signal mast arms are part of the proposed project, CM "S2" should not be used and the signal improvements would be included under CM "S7".

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections with a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached. Signal intersection improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro-reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.

Why it works:

Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion for drivers.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Installation costs and time should be minimal as these type strategies are classified as low cost and implementation does not typically require the approval process normally associated with more complex projects. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 0-46%

Page 486 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 47
SI03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 50% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new signal timing. For projects coordination signals along a corridor, the crashes related to side-street movements should not be applied. This CM does not apply to projects that only 'study' the signal network and do not make physical timing changes, including corridor operational studies and improvements to Traffic Operation Centers (TOCs).

In Caltrans calls for projects, this CM has a HSIP reimbursement ratio of 50%, considering that it will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.

General information
Where to use:

Locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections. Signalization improvements may include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations.

Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety.

Why it works:

Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce multiple safety benefits. Sometimes capacity improvements come along with the safety improvements and other times adverse effects on delay or capacity occur. Corridor improvements often have the highest benefit but may take longer to implement. Projects focused on capacity improvements (without a separate focus on signal timing safety needs) may not result in a reduction in future crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In general, these low-cost improvements to multiple signalized intersections can be implemented in a short time. Typically these low cost improvements are funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, some projects requiring new interconnect infrastructure can have moderate to high costs making them more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual project.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41% SI04EV, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Emergency Vehicle - only 70% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "E.V." crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pre-emption system.

General information
Where to use:

Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles Why it works:

Providing emergency vehicle preemption capability at a signal or along a corridor can be a highly effective strategy in two ways; any type of crash could occur as emergency vehicles try to navigate through intersections and as other vehicles try to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicles. In addition, a signal preemption system can decrease emergency vehicle response times therefore decreasing the time in receiving emergency medical attention, which is critical in the outcome of any crash.

When data is not available for past crashes with emergency vehicles, an agency may consider combining the E.V. pre-emption improvements into a comprehensive project that also makes significant signal hardware and/or signal timing improvements.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs for installation of a signal preemption system will vary from medium to high, based upon the number of signalized intersections at which preemption will be installed and the number of emergency vehicles to be outfitted with the technology.

The number of detectors, a requirement for new signal controllers, and the intricacy of the preemption system could increase costs. This CM is considered systemic as it is usually implemented on a corridor-basis.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Emergency Vehicle - only CRF: 70%

Page 487 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 48
SI05, Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left-turn phase that are experiencing a large number of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left-turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left-turning vehicles (angle, rear-end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.

Why it works:

Left-turn lanes allow separation of left-turn and through-traffic streams, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Leftturn phasing also provides a safer opportunity for drivers to make a left-turn. The combination of left-turn storage and a left turn signal has the potential to reduce many collisions between left-turning vehicles and through vehicles and/or non-motorized road users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementation time may vary from months to years. At some locations, left-turn lanes can be quickly installed simply by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. Installing a protected left turn lane and phase where none exists results in a high Crash Reduction Factor and is often highly effective.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 17 - 58 %

Page 488 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 49
SI06, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn phases. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn (unless the single left is unprotected and the proposed double left will be protected).

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left-turn or no left-turn protection that have a high frequency of angle crashes involving left turning, opposing through vehicles, and non-motorized road users. A properly timed protected left-turn phase can also help reduce rear-end and sideswipe crashes between left-turning vehicles and the through vehicles as well as vehicles behind them. Protected left-turn phases are warranted based on such factors as turning volumes, delay, visibility, opposing vehicle speed, distance to travel through the intersection, presence of non-motorized road users, and safety experience of the intersections. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.

Why it works:

Left turns are widely recognized as the highest-risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left-turn phases (i.e., the provision for a specific phase for a turning movement) for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left-turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles. Where left turn pockets are not protected, the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase often conflicts with these left turn maneuvers. Drivers focused on navigating the gaps of oncoming cars may not anticipate and/or perceive the non-motorized road users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

If the existing traffic signal only requires a minor modification to allow for a protected left-turn phase, then the cost would also be low. The time to implement this countermeasure is short because there is no actual construction that has to take place. Inhouse signal maintainers can perform this operation once the proper signal phasing is determined so the cost is low. In addition, the countermeasure is tried and proven to be effective. Has the potential of being applied on a systemic/systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Sideswipe, Broadside CRF: 16 - 99% SI07, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the converted signal heads that are relocated from median and/or outside shoulder pedestals to signal heads on master arms over the travel-lanes. Projects using CM "S7" should not also apply "S2" in the B/C calc.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections currently controlled by pedestal mounted traffic signals (in medians and/or on outside shoulder) that have a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals in advance to safely negotiate the intersection. Intersections that have pedestal-mounted signals may have poor visibility and can result in vehicles not being able to stop in time for a signal change. Care should be taken to place the new signal heads (with back plates) as close to directly over the center of the travel lanes as possible.

Why it works:

Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming intersection.

Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Dependent on the scope of the project. Costs are generally moderate for this type of project. There is usually no right-of-way costs, minimal roadway reconstruction costs, and a shorter project development timeline. At the same time, new mast arms can be expensive. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to moderate costs, some locations may result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear-End, Angle CRF: 12 - 74%

Page 489 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 50
SI08, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 10% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and influence areas of the new pavement markers and/or markings.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections where the lane designations are not clearly visible to approaching motorists and/or intersections noted as being complex and experiencing crashes that could be attributed to a driver’s unsuccessful attempt to navigate the intersection.

Driver confusion can exist in regard to choosing the proper turn path or where through-lanes do not line up. This is especially relevant at intersections where the overall pavement area of the intersection is large, and multiple turning lanes are involved or other unfamiliar elements are presented to the driver.

Why it works:

Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. When drivers approach and traverse through complex intersections, drivers may be required to perform unusual or unexpected maneuvers. Providing more effective guidance through an intersection will minimize the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its appropriate lane and encroaching upon an adjacent lane.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs of implementing this strategy will vary based on the scope and number of applications. Applying raised pavement markers is relatively low cost but can be variable and determined largely by the material used for pavement markings (paint, thermoplastic, epoxy, RPMs etc.). When using this type delineators, an issue of concern is the cost-to-service-life of the material. (Note: When HSIP safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.) When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, All CRF: 10 - 33% SI09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new flashing beacons.

General information
Where to use:

At signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply.

Why it works:

Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs. This combined with a relatively high CRF, can result in high B/Cs for locations with a history of crashes and lead to a high effectiveness.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear End, Angle CRF: 36 - 62%

Page 490 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 51
SI10, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.

General information
Where to use:

Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.

Why it works:

Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 % SI11, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts.

Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections noted as having turning movement crashes near the intersection as a result of insufficient access control.

Application of this CM should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need to restrict or accommodate the movement.

Why it works:

Raised medians next to left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive CMs would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. The result is This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. Raised medians can often be installed directly over the existing pavement. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle CRF: 21 -55 %

Page 491 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 52
SI12PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian-generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walk-phase. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with signal timing and shoulder/sidewalk treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside the intersection crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely depending on the type and placement of the median fencing. Impacts to transit and other land uses may need to be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, this CM can be effective as a spot-location approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25- 40% SI13, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and U-turns (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings.

General information
Where to use:

Why it works:

Restricting turning movement into and out of an intersection can help reduce conflicts between through and turning traffic. The number of access points, coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway, contributes to crashes. Affecting turning movements by either allowing them or restricting them, based on the application, can ensure safe movement of traffic.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can be implemented quickly. The cost of this strategy will depend on the treatment. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51%

Page 492 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 53
SI14, Install right-turn lane (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new right-turn lanes.

General information
Where to use:

A right‐turn lane may be appropriate in situations where there are an unusually high number of rear‐end collisions on a single major road approach. The need for right turn lanes should be assessed on an individual approach basis. Many collisions at signalized intersections are related to right‐turn maneuvers. It is also important to ensure that the right‐turn lanes are of sufficient length to allow vehicles to decelerate and "queue up" before turning, ideally without affecting the flow of through traffic. When considering new right‐turn lanes, potential impacts to non‐motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.

Why it works:

The provision of right‐turn lanes can minimize collisions between vehicles turning right and following vehicles, particularly on high‐volume and high‐speed major roads. Installation of a right turn lane at a signalized intersection is expected to reduce total crashes and improve overall intersection delay.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, right‐turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right‐of‐way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction.

Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear‐End CRF: 14-27%

Page 493 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 54
SI15, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left-Turn Conflict.

General information
Where to use and Why it works:

Reduced left-turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left-turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left-turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT).

Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT):

The RCUT intersection modifies the direct left-turn and through movements from cross-street approaches. Minor road traffic makes a right turn followed by a U-turn at a designated location (either signalized or unsignalized) to continue in the desired direction.

The RCUT is suitable for a variety of circumstances, including along rural, high-speed, four-lane, divided highways or signalized routes. It also can be used as an alternative to signalization or constructing an interchange. RCUTs work well when consistently used along a corridor, but also can be used effectively at individual intersections.

Median U-turn (MUT)
The MUT intersection modifies direct left turns from the major approaches. Vehicles proceed through the main intersection, make a U-turn a short distance downstream, followed by a right turn at the main intersection. The U-turns can also be used for modifying the cross-street left turns.

The MUT is an excellent choice for heavily traveled intersections with moderate left-turn volumes. When implemented at multiple intersections along a corridor, the efficient two-phase signal operation of the MUT can reduce delay, improve travel times, and create more crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years, depending on whether additional R/W is required. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/RearEnd/All CRF: 34.8-100%

Page 494 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 55
SI16RA, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in influence area of the new roundabout. This CM is not intended for compact roundabouts (SI17RA).

The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left-turn movements.

Why it works:

The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements are not present in a roundabout. The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection. This helps keep the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing their potential for conflicts.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Provision of a roundabout requires substantial project development. The need to acquire right-of-way is likely and will vary from site to site and depends upon the geometric design. These activities may require up to 4 years or longer to implement. Costs are variable, but construction of a roundabout to replace an existing signalized intersection are relatively high. The result is this CM may have reduced relative-effectiveness compared to other CMs.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 35 - 67%

Page 495 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 56
SI17RA, Convert intersection to compact roundabout (from signal) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT and the project location (Rural/Urban). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.

General information
Where to use:

Compact roundabouts are characterized by a small inscribed circle diameter (80-100 ft). Compact roundabouts offer most of the benefits of regular roundabouts with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. They are best suited to environments where speeds are already low and environmental constraints would preclude the use of a larger roundabout. Compact roundabouts may require minimal additional pavement, and in many cases existing curb or sidewalk can be left in place. As a result, compact roundabouts rarely require the purchase of right of way. Compact roundabouts are similar to single-lane roundabouts regarding design vehicle assumptions, ability to process traffic volumes, and signing.

Compact roundabouts are intended to be pedestrian and bicyclist-friendly because their perpendicular approach legs require very low vehicle speeds to make a distinct right turn into and out of the circulatory roadway. Capacity should not be a critical issue for this type of roundabout to be considered.

Why it works:

Compact roundabouts may be an optimal solution for a safety or operational issue at an existing intersection where there is insufficient right-of-way for a standard roundabout installation. The benefits of compact roundabouts are the compact size, operational efficiency, traffic safety improvement and traffic Calming.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Construction costs for compact roundabouts vary widely depending upon the extent of sidewalk modifications or other geometric improvements and the types of materials used. In most cases, compact roundabouts have been installed with little or no pavement widening. Construction costs can be moderate for compact roundabouts that include raised islands and pedestrian improvements.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: NA CRF: NA SI18PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new countdown heads.

General information
Where to use:

Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.

Why it works:

A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON’T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than jaywalk.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs and time of installation will vary based on the number of intersections included in this strategy and if it requires new signal controllers capable of accommodating the enhancement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25%

Page 496 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 57
SI19PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left-turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double-right or double-left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. Another 22 percent of pedestrian crashes involve a pedestrian either running across the intersection or darting out in front of a vehicle whose view was blocked just prior to the impact. Finally, 16 percent of these intersection-related crashes occur because of a driver violation (e.g., failure to yield right-of-way). When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements may be funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25% SI20PB, Pedestrian Scramble
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection with the new pedestrian crossing.

General information
Where to use:

Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district.

Why it works:

Pedestrian Scramble has been shown to reduce injury risk and increase bicycle ridership due to its perceived safety and comfort.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Not involving any additional R/W, Pedestrian Scramble should not require a long development process and should be implemented reasonably soon. A systemic approach may be used in implementing this CM, resulting in cost efficiency with low to moderate cost.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: -10% to 51%

Page 497 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 58
SI21PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection-crossing with the new advanced stop bars.

General information
Where to use:

Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur.

Why it works:

Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety.

Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. It also allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers (This dedicated space is often referred to as a bike-box.) General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 35% SI22PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 60% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing with the newly implemented Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI).

General information
Where to use:

Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.

Why it works:

A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn right or left. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of crossing pedestrians; (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; (3) Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs for implementing LPIs are very low, since only minor signal timing alteration is required. This makes it an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be incorporated into pedestrian safety action plans or policies and can become routine agency practice. When considered at a single location, the LPI is usually local-funded. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 59%

Page 498 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 59
B.2 Intersection Countermeasures – Non-signalized
NS01NT, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

Non-signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).

Why it works:

Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non-motorized users as lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost. For rural intersections, studies have shown the installation of streetlights reduced nighttime crashes at unlit intersections and can be more effective in reducing nighttime crashes than either rumble strips or overhead flashing beacons. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 25- 50% NS02, Convert to all-way STOP control (from 2-way or Yield control) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. CA-MUTCD warrant must be met.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all-way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all-way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior. MUTCD warrants should always be followed.

Why it works:

All-way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection, reducing through and turning speeds, and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be present. Advance public notification of the change is critical in assuring compliance and reducing crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The costs involved in converting to all-way stop control are relatively low. All-way stop control can normally be implemented at multiple intersections with just a change in signing on intersection approaches, and typically are very quick to implement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 6 - 80%

Page 499 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 60
NS03, Install signals
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new signals. All new signals must meet MUTCD "safety" warrants: 4, 5 or 7. Given the over-arching operational changes that occur when an intersection is signalized, no other intersection CMs can be applied to the intersection crashes in conjunction with this CM.

General information
Where to use:

Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, left-turn). Consideration to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic control have been utilized as the installation of a traffic signal often leads to an increased frequency of crashes (rear-end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met. Refer to the CA MUTCD, Section 4C.01, Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals.

Why it works:

Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase in rear-end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Typical traffic signal costs fall in the medium to high category and are affected by application, type of signal and right-of-away considerations. Projects of this magnitude should only be considered after alternate and lesser means of correction have been evaluated. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 74% NS04RA/NS05RA, Convert intersection to roundabout
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited.

Why it works:

Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and stop/yield-controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-ofway to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all-way stop-controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left-turn and right-angle movements.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Construction of roundabouts are usually relatively costly and major projects, requiring the environmental process, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation under an agency’s long-term capital improvement program. Even with roundabouts higher costs, they still can have a relatively high effectiveness.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left-turn, Angle CRF: 12 - 78 %

Page 500 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 61
NS06RA/NS07RA, Convert intersection to compact roundabout For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT and the project location (Rural/Urban). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes.

General information
Where to use:

Why it works:

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: NA CRF: NA NS08, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the influence area of the new signs. The influence area must be determined on a location by location basis.

General information
Where to use:

The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.

Why it works:

The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 55%

Page 501 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 62
NS09, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pavement markings. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing pavement markings in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing pavement markings and striping.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars.

Why it works:

The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections will provide approaching motorists with additional information at these locations. Providing visible stop bars on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection. Drivers should be more aware that the intersection is coming up, and therefore make safer decisions as they approach the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Pavement marking improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of markings. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wear-locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 13 - 60% NS10, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the stop-controlled approaches / influence area of the new beacons.

General information
Where to use:

Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non-Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post-mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop-controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs.

Why it works:

Flashing beacons provide a visible signal to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where night-time visibility of intersections is an issue.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs.

Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 5-34%

Page 502 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 63
NS11, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new beacons placed in advance of the intersection.

General information
Where to use:

Non-Signalized Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's awareness of approaching intersection or controls at a downstream intersection.

Why it works:

Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Flashing beacons are intended to reinforce driver awareness of the stop or yield signs and to help mitigate patterns of crashes related to intersection regulatory sign violations. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of flashing beacons requires minimal development process, allowing flashing beacons to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option).

In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 36 - 62% NS12, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new rumble strips.

General information
Where to use:

Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. They can be used at any stop or yield approach intersection, often in combination with advance signing to warn of the intersection ahead. Due to the noise generated by vehicles driving over the rumble strips, care must be taken to minimize disruption to nearby residences and businesses.

Why it works:

When motorists are traveling along the roadway, they are sometimes unaware they are approaching an intersection. This is especially true on rural roads, as there may be fewer clues indicating an intersection ahead. Transverse rumble strips warn motorists that something unexpected is ahead that they need to pay attention to.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Use of transverse rumble strips requires minimal development process, allowing transverse rumble strips to be installed within a short time period. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach, although care should be taken to not over-use this CM. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high-wearlocations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 35%

Page 503 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 64
NS13, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the significantly improved new sight distance. Minor/incidental improvements to sight distance would not likely result in the CRF shown below.

General information
Where to use:

Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway.

Why it works:

Adequate sight distance for drivers at stop or yield-controlled approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall safety at unsignalized intersections. By removing sight distance restrictions (e.g., vegetation, parked vehicles, signs, buildings) from the sight triangles at stop or yield-controlled intersection approaches, drivers will be able see approaching vehicles on the main line, without obstruction and therefore make better decisions about entering the intersection safely.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Projects involving clearing sight obstructions on the highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing sight obstructions on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way.

In general, this CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. Usually only high-cost removals would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding. Note:

When federal safety funding is used to remove vegetation that has the potential to grow back, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 11 - 56% NS14, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip-seal or open-graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement.

General information
Where to use:

Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Non-signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.

Why it works:

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 %

Page 504 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 65
NS15, Install splitter-islands on the minor road approaches For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new splitter island on the minor road approaches.

General information
Where to use:

Minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections where the presence of the intersection or the stop sign is not readily visible to approaching motorists. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections where the speeds on the minor road are high. In creation of a splitter island allows for an additional stop sign to be placed in the median for the minor approach.

Why it works:

The installation of splitter islands allows for the addition of a stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous. Additionally, the splitter island on the minor-road provides for a positive separation between turning vehicles on the through road and vehicles stopped on the minor road approach.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Splitter islands at non-signalized intersections can usually be installed with minimal roadway reconstruction and relatively quickly. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear-End CRF: 35 - 100 % NS16, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered nonparticipating.

General information
Where to use:

Where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and operation of an intersection. Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable.

Why it works:

Raised medians with left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians also prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive approaches would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, the need for providing alternative access ways should be considered. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 20 - 39 %

Page 505 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 66
NS17, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and u-turns (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings.

General information
Where to use:

Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear-end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, they should be used in conjunction with efforts to provide alternative access ways and promote driveway spacing objectives.

Why it works:

Agencies are increasingly using access management techniques on urban and suburban arterials to manage the number of conflicts experienced at an intersection. A key element of access management is to restrict certain movements, create directional median openings, or close median openings that are deemed too close to an intersection.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can usually be implemented quickly. Costs are highly variable but in many cases could be considered low. In some cases this strategy may involve acquiring access or constructing replacement access; those actions will significantly increase the cost of the project. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 51%

Page 506 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 67
NS18, Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left-Turn Conflict.

General information
Where to use and Why it works:

Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT):

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/RearEnd/All CRF: 34.8-100%

Page 507 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 68
NS19, Install right-turn lane (NS.I.)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new right-turn lanes. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all-way stop intersections.

General information
Where to use:

Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.

Why it works:

The strategy is targeted to reduce the frequency of rear-end collisions resulting from conflicts between vehicles turning right and following vehicles and vehicles turning right and through vehicles coming from the left on the cross street. Right-turn lanes also remove slow vehicles that are decelerating to turn right from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Right-turn lanes can increase the length of the intersection crossing and create an additional potential conflict point for non-motorized users.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, right-turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction.

Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 14 - 26 % NS20, Install left-turn lane (where no left-turn lane exists) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left-turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single-left into double-left turn. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all-way stop intersections.

General information
Where to use:

Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major-road approaches. When considering new left-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.

Why it works:

Adding left-turn lanes remove vehicles waiting to turn left from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rearend collisions. Because they provide a sheltered location for drivers to wait for a gap in opposing traffic, left-turn lanes may encourage drivers to be more selective in choosing a gap to complete the left-turn maneuver. This strategy may reduce the potential for collisions between left-turn and opposing through vehicles.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, left-turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 9 -55 %

Page 508 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 69
NS21PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the crossing with the new islands. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.

Why it works:

Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised (i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. They can stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before completing their crossing.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Median and pedestrian refuge areas are a low-cost countermeasure to implement. This cost can be applied to retrofit improvements or if it is a new construction project, implementing this countermeasure is even more cost-effective. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 30 - 56 % NS22PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. These markings will often be different for controlled verses uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder", "zebra" or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or “yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including:
continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 25 %

Page 509 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 70
NS23PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the new crossing (influence area) with enhanced safety features. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt).

General information
Where to use:

Non-signalized intersections where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic.

They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with turn pockets. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Incorporating advanced "yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the types of enhanced features that will be combined with the standard crossing improvements. The need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications will also be a factor. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have relatively high B/C ratios based on past non-motorized crash history.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 37% NS24PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB.

General information
Where to use:

Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.

Why it works:

RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 – 47.4%

Page 510 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 71
NS25PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 55% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new signal.

For HAWK or other pedestrian signals, the justification may be Warrant 4, 5 and/or 7, or passing the test in Figure 4F-1/4F-2 in Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD. Please refer to Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD for more details
General information
Where to use:

Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non-motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) (also called High-Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk.

Why it works:

Adding a pedestrian signal has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic.

Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of nonmotorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

The cost of improvements are generally high, but can vary dependent on the type of signal and overall scope of the project. In most cases the project duration can be short. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 15 - 69%

Page 511 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 72
B.3 Roadway Countermeasures
R01NT, Add Segment Lighting
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area.

General information
Where to use:

Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rear-end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics.

Why it works:

Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non-motorist's visibility and navigation.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

It expected that projects of this type may be constructed in a year or two and are relatively costly. There are several types of costs associated with providing lighting, including the cost of providing a permanent source of power to the location, the cost for the luminaire supports (i.e., poles), and the cost for routinely replacing the bulbs and maintenance of the luminaire supports.

Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 18 - 69 % R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new clear recovery zone (per Caltrans' HDM).

General information
Where to use:

Known locations or roadway segments prone to collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate.

Why it works:

While this strategy does not prevent the vehicle leaving the roadway, it does provide a mechanism to reduce the severity of a resulting crash. A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. Removing or moving fixed objects, flattening slopes, or providing recovery areas reduces the likelihood of a crash.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Projects involving removing fixed objects from highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing objects on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way. This CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. High-cost removals or removals implemented using a systematic approach would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object CRF: 17 - 100 %

Page 512 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 73
R03, Install Median Barrier
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls-for-Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new barrier.

General information
Where to use:

Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross-overs are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO and non-severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. It is recommended to review the warrants as outlined in Chapter 7 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual when considering whether to install median barriers.

Why it works:

This strategy is designed to prevent head-on collisions by providing a barrier between opposing lanes of traffic. The variety of median barriers available makes it easier to choose a site-specific solution. The main advantage is the reduction of the severity of the crashes. The key to success would be in selecting an appropriate barrier based on the site, previous crash history, maintenance needs, and median width.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

This strategy would in many cases be possible to implement within a short period after site selection. Costs will vary depending on the type of median barrier selected and whether the strategy is implemented as a stand-alone project or incorporated as part of a reconstruction or resurfacing effort. Maintenance costs and worker exposure will also vary depending on the type of barrier selected. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 0 - 94 % R04, Install Guardrail
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new guardrail. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged rail).

For projects proposing to upgrade existing guardrail to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing rail conditions suggests the upgraded guardrail may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM).

General information
Where to use:

Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run-off-the-road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes. New and upgraded guardrail and end-treatments must meet current safety standards; see Method for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for more information. Caltrans (or other national accepted guidance) slope/height criteria need to be considered and documented.

Why it works:

Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Strategies range from relatively inexpensive too costly. Costly projects may include those that upgrade existing guardrail applications to more semi-rigid and rigid barrier systems over extended distances. In general, this CMs can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 11 - 78 %

Page 513 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 74
R05, Install impact attenuators
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new attenuators. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged attenuators). For projects proposing to upgrade existing attenuators to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing attenuator conditions suggests the upgraded attenuators may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM).

General information
Where to use:

Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators should only be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed. New and upgraded barrier end-treatments must meet current safety standards; see MASH for more information.

Why it works:

Attenuators bring an errant vehicle to a more-controlled stop or redirect the vehicle away from a rigid object. Attenuators are effective at absorbing impact energy and increasing occupant safety. They also tend to draw attention to the fixed object, which helps drivers steer clear of the fixed objects.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs depending on the scope of the project, type(s) used, and associated ongoing maintenance costs. Time to install is fairly quick once site is identified.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 50 % R06, Flatten side slopes
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new side slopes. Minor/incidental flattening of side slopes would not likely result in the CRF shown below and may not be appropriate for use in Caltrans B/C calculations.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways experiencing frequent lane departure crashes that result in roll-over type crashes as a result of the roadway slope being so severe as to not accommodate a reasonable degree of driver correction. When there is a need to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes without installing a barrier system that could result in increased numbers of crashes.

Why it works:

Flattened slopes provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. Steep slopes, ditches or unprotected hazardous drops-offs adjacent to a travel lane offer little opportunities to correct an inappropriate action by a driver and can result in sever crashes.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Roadside modifications range from relatively inexpensive to very costly. Strategies that include creating safer side slopes where none exists can be moderately expensive based on the scope of the project and the associated clearing, grading, etc. The potential for high environmental and right-of-way impacts is high which can take several years to clear. In other cases This CM can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 62 %

Page 514 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 75
R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of both the removed guardrail and the new side slopes.

General information
Where to use:

Locations where high number of crashes originate as a lane departure and result in collision with guardrail or a fixed object located on the side slope shielded by guardrail. The guardrail may or may not meet current standards. Even though guardrails are generally installed to reduce the severity of departure crashes, they still can result in severe crashes in some locations.

Why it works:

Flattened side slopes and an unobstructed clear zone provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. The existing guardrail may help protect the steep slopes, fixed objects, or unprotected hazardous drops-offs adjacent to a travel lane, but removing all of these obstacles generally improves safety.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Roll Over, Fixed Object CRF: 42% R08, Install raised median
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety-effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing a raised median is a more restrictive approach in that it represents a more rigid barrier between opposing traffic. Application of raised medians on roadways with higher speeds is not advised - instead a median barrier should be considered. Including landscaping in new raised medians can be counterproductive to the HSIP safety goals and should only be done in ways that do not increase drivers’ exposure to fixed objects and that will maintain driver's sight distance needs throughout the life of the proposed landscaping. Agencies need to consider and document impacts of additional turning movements at nearby intersections.

Why it works:

Adding raised medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the travel lane. Raised median may also be used to limit unsafe turning movements along a roadway.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In some cases this strategy may be a retrofit into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder.

These raised medians can be installed directly over the existing pavement. Cost and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median. The surface treatment of the raised median also significantly affects their cost-effectiveness: standard concrete or other hardscape surfaces are usually more cost effective than landscaped medians. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase due to excavation, backfill/top-soil, water-connection, irrigation, planting, maintenance needed for the landscaping. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non-safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 20 - 75 %

Page 515 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 76
R09, Install median (flush)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new flush median. The new median must be a minimum of 4 feet wide (or "wider" if a narrow median exists before the proposed project).

General information
Where to use:

Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Roadways with oversized lanes offer an opportunity to restripe the roadway to reduce the lanes to standard widths and use the extra width for the median.

Why it works:

Adding medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a narrow buffer median between opposing flows, thereby providing a greater opportunity to correct an errant maneuver and further reinforce the limits of the travel lane. Application widths can vary based on the available cross section and intended application.

Additional safety can be provided by combining this CM with rumble strips.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 15 - 78 % R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing.

General information
Where to use:

Roadway segments with high pedestrian-generators and pedestrian-destinations nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid-block crossing. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.

Why it works:

Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside designated pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25 - 40%

Page 516 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 77
R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new accel/decel lanes on high speed roadways. Significant improvements to the merge length for lane-drop locations is also an acceptable use of this CM.

General information
Where to use:

Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed is reached and areas that do not provide the opportunity to safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement. This CM can also be used to improve the safety of merging vehicles at a lane-drop location.

Why it works:

A lane that does not provide enough deceleration length and storage space for turning traffic may cause the turn queue to back up into the adjacent through lane. This can contribute to rear-end and sideswipe crashes. An acceleration lane is an auxiliary or speed-change lane that allows vehicles to accelerate to highway speeds (high speed roadways) before entering the throughtraffic lanes of a highway. Additionally, if acceleration by entering traffic takes place directly on the traveled way, it may disrupt the flow of through-traffic and cause rear-end and sideswipe collisions.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs are highly variable. Where sufficient median or shoulder space exists it may be possible to provide acceleration/deceleration lanes at a moderate cost. Where the roadway must be widened and additional right-of-way must be acquired, higher costs and a lengthy time-to-construct are likely. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Sideswipe, Rear-End CRF: 10 - 75 % R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft)
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years
Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls-for-Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the widened lanes. Widening must a minimum of 1 foot.

General information
Where to use:

Horizontal curves or tangents and low speed or high speed roadways identified as having lane departure crashes, sideswipe or head-on crashes that can be attributed to an existing pavement width less than 10 feet.

Why it works:

Increasing pavement width can affect almost all crash types. A common practice is to widen the traveled way on horizontal curves to make operating conditions on curves comparable to those on tangents. Speed is a primary consideration when evaluating potential adverse impacts of lane width on safety. On high-speed, rural two-lane highways, an increased risk of cross-centerline head-on or cross-centerline sideswipe crashes is a concern because drivers may have more difficulty staying within the travel lane.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Costs will depend on the amount of reconstruction necessary and on whether additional right-of-way is required. In general, this is one of the higher-cost strategies recommended, but it can also be very beneficial. Since this is a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher-hazard roadways.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 5 - 70 %

Page 517 of 594 ends

4/18/2024 Local Roadway Safety Page | 78
R13, Add two-way left-turn lane
For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane, where an existing median did not already exist.

General information
Where to use:

Roadways having a high frequency of drivers being rear-ended while attempting to make a left turn across oncoming traffic.

Also can be effective for drivers crossing the centerline of an undivided multilane roadway inadvertently.

Why it works:

Two-way left-turn lanes provide a buffer between opposing directions of travel and separate left turning traffic from through traffic. They can also help to allow vehicles to begin to accelerate before entering the through-traffic lanes. They reduce the disruption of flow of through-traffic and reducing rear-end and sideswipe collisions. For some roadways the option of converting a four-lane undivided arterials to two-vehicle-lane roadways with a center left-turn lane and bike lanes should be considered (see "Road Diet" CM.)
General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

In some cases this strategy may be retrofitted into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder and can ultimately be as simple as restriping the roadway. Costs and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median, requiring new right-of-way, and having significant environmental impacts. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location as the B/C ratios will vary from low to high.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 8 - 50 % R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) For HSIP Cycle 12 Call-for-projects
Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years
Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane striping. "Intersection" crashes can only be applied when they resulted from turning movements that had no designated turn lanes/phases in the existing condition and the Road Diet will provide turn lanes/phases for these movements. This CM does not apply to roadway sections that already included left turn lanes or two way left turn lanes before the lane reductions. New bike lanes are also expected to be part of these projects. if any pavement is planned to be removed for the purpose of adding landscaping, planterboxes, or other non-roadway user features, the cost should be non-participating.

General information
Where to use:

Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left-turn, and rear-end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four-lane design. It may also result in congestion levels that contribute to other crashes.

Why it works:

The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes. In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. In addition to increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on-street parking.

General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness):

Implementation would require more time than in other low-cost treatments to complete environmental analyses, traffic studies and public input. Projects that only require new lane markings and minor signalization modifications will have relatively low cost and can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. These striping and signal modification costs should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM. (If additional signal hardware improvements are being made, over what is needed for the road diet, then the Improve Signal Hardware CM may also be used.) Often road diet projects need a seal-coat placed on the roadway to fully remove the old striping. These seal coats are considered part of the proper installation of this CM. In contrast, structural-overlays should not be considered part of this CM and are not considered eligible for funding in the California Local HSIP.

FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 26 - 43 %

Page 518 of 594 ends

Ukiah City CouncilSeptember 18, 2024

Ukiah City Council
September 18, 2024