AGENDA ITEM NO.3
AGENDA STAFF REPORT
City of West Covina I Office of the City Manager
DATE: September 6, 2022
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Carmany
City Manager
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CITY OF WEST COVINA LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the following resolution to approve and adopt a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which is a requirement for public agencies to be eligible to apply for future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding:
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-91 — A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST
COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
BACKGROUND:
A Local Road Safety Plan ("LRSP") is a road safety planning document that provides a holistic analysis of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle crash data, and provides a roadmap for implementation of safety improvements. Beginning in 2022, it is required that all state, county, and local agencies adopt an LRSP to be eligible to receive Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funds. These funds are used for planning documents, preliminary engineering documents, and construction improvements to mitigate safety -related issues at intersections and roadways. The cost of preparation of the LRSP was paid for through state grant funding from Caltrans with matching funds from the City.
DISCUSSION:
The LRSP provides a framework for identification, analysis, and prioritization of roadway safety improvements on local roads. The LRSP was developed using the process outlined by Caltrans to provide a systematic approach to providing safety improvements. The plan is data driven, using a comprehensive analysis of five years of collision data. The collision analysis provides various citywide collision statistics, such as collisions per year; collisions involved with vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, or property; types of injury collisions; and collision causes. The process results in a list of improvements and actions that address the areas of highest need, as supported by the data.
The LRSP identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City's transportation network. The LRSP will guide the City to look at ways to set goals and measures that encourage a safe, well-connected transportation network for people using all modes of transportation and prioritizes safe travel of people over expeditious travel of motor vehicles and aims to achieve significant
declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by the year 2050.
In order to apply for the local HSIP funds, an agency must have completed their LRSP or an equivalent of the LRSP, such as Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) or Vision Zero Action Plan. Caltrans recommends that the LRSP (or its equivalent) and its update be approved by the agency's Board or Council.
LEGAL REVIEW:
The City Attorney's Office has reviewed the resolution and approved it as to form.
C611�ffegl
The City Council has the following options:
1. Approve Staffs recommendation; or
2. Provide alternative direction.
Prepared by: Jana Robbins, PTP, RSP, Project Manager
Fiscal Impact
FISCAL IMPACT:
The LRSP enables the City to apply for grant funding through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
Attachments
Attachment No. 1 - Resolution No. 2022-91
Attachment No. 2 - Local Roadway Safety Plan
CITY COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Protect Public Safety
Enhance City Image and Effectiveness
A Creative and Active Communuty
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-91
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND
ADOPTING THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS:
WHEREAS, a Local Road Safety Plan ("LRSP") is a road safety planning document that provides a holistic analysis of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle crash data, and provides a roadmap for implementation of safety improvements; and WHEREAS, all state, county, and local agencies are required to adopt an LRSP to be eligible to receive Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funds; and WHEREAS, the City's LRSP was developed using the process outlined by the California Department of Transportation ("Caltrans") to provide a systematic approach to providing safety improvements and guide the City to look at ways to set goals and measures that encourage a safe, well-connected transportation network for people using all modes of transportation, and prioritizes safe travel of people over expeditious travel of motor vehicles and aims to achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by the year 2050.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF WEST COVINA, CALIFORNIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP).
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and shall enter the same in the book of original resolutions and it shall become effective immediately.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 2022.
Dario Castellanos
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Thomas P. Duarte
City Attorney
ATTEST
Lisa Sherrick
Assistant City Clerk
I, LISA SHERRICK, Assistant City Clerk of the City of West Covina, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-91 was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of West Covina, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6th day of September, 2022, by the following vote of the City Council:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Lisa Sherrick
Assistant City Clerk
�• ATTACHMENT NO.2
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLA
(LRSP)
w
u
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRS P)
AUGUST 2022
1. Introduction...............................................................................................................................................1
2. Vision and Goals.......................................................................................................................................2
3. Process..................................................................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Guiding Manuals..................................................................................................................................4
3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual..................................................................................................... 5 3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual................................................................................................................ 5 3.2 Analysis Techniques............................................................................................................................6
3.2.1 Collision Analysis..........................................................................................................................6
3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis.........................................................................................................6
3.3 Future Analysis....................................................................................................................................7
4. Safety Partners......................................................................................................................................... 8 4.1 Stakeholder Meeting............................................................................................................................8
5. Existing Efforts..........................................................................................................................................8
6. Data Summary ........................................................................................................................................11
6.1 Roadway Network.............................................................................................................................11
6.2 Collision Data....................................................................................................................................11
7. Crash Safety Trends...............................................................................................................................15
7.1 All Collisions......................................................................................................................................15
7.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries................................................................................................................16
7.3 Injury Levels......................................................................................................................................16
7.4 Cause of Collision..............................................................................................................................17
7.5 Vulnerable Users...............................................................................................................................17
7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions..................................................................................................................17
7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions........................................................................................................................17
7.6 Other Significant Trends.............................................................................................................19
7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results............................................................................19
8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas.....................................................................................33
8.1 Best Practices Evaluation..................................................................................................................33
8.2 Emphasis Areas................................................................................................................................36
8.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Impaired Driving..........................................................................................36
8.2.2 Emphasis Area #2: Intersection Improvements..........................................................................36
8.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Aggressive Driving......................................................................................37 ES-2
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRS P)
AUGUST 2022
8.2.4 Emphasis Area #4: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists).....................................37
9. Countermeasure Toolbox........................................................................................................................39
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements.............................................................................................................39
9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process...........................................................................................39
9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies.......................................................................................................40
9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................65
10. Funding Sources & Next Steps.............................................................................................................68
10.1 Funding............................................................................................................................................68
10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program....................................................................................68
10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program..................................................................................68
10.1.3 California SB 1..........................................................................................................................69
10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants..................................................................................69
10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program...............................................................................70
10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program............................................................70
10.1.7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act....................................................................................70
10.2 Implementation Plan........................................................................................................................71
10.2.1 Monitoring.................................................................................................................................71
10.2.2 Analysis Update........................................................................................................................71
10.2.3 Implementation Strategies........................................................................................................71
10.3 Next Steps.......................................................................................................................................72 AppendixA — Analysis Rankings..................................................................................................................A ES-3
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRS P)
AUGUST 2022
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 : Functional Classification & Signalized Intersections..........................................12 Figure 2: All Collisions(2017-2021).......................................................................................13 Figure 3: Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions(2017-2021).........................................................14 Figure 4: Collision Type by Year(2017-2021)........................................................................15 Figure 5— Collisions by Injury Levels(2017-2021)...............................................................16 Figure 6 — Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions(2017-2021).......................................................18 Figure 7 — Collision Network Screening Analysis Results - Intersections (2017-2021)...... 20 Figure 8 - Collision Network Screening Analysis Results - Roadways (2017 - 2021).........21
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 — Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox........................................................................ 7 Table 2 — Review of Existing City Plans................................................................................. 9 Table 3 — Review of Existing City Projects............................................................................10 Table 4 — Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved ..................16
Table 5 - Cause of Collisions (2017-2021).............................................................................17 Table 6 — Analysis Rankings: Intersections (Top 10 Per Type)...........................................28 Table 7 — Analysis Rankings: Segments (Top 10 Per Type)................................................30 Table 8 — Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices.....................................................33 Table 9 - Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox............................................................66
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 2022
The City of West Covina Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City's transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high -crash locations, high -risk locations, as well as city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City's transportation network allows for opportunities to:
1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,
2. Improve safety at specific high -crash locations, and
3. Develop safety measures using the four E's of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
With this LRSP, the City continues its safety efforts by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic
5-year
collisions
recommendations to enhance safety.
The City's vision is to enhance the transportation network Fatalities
and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes, and the goals for the City of West Covina include the following:
serious
Injuries
Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.
Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safe
p �
Occurred at
Signalized
program and the systemic process.
Intersections
Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- occurred at
and long-term.
Unsignalized
Intersections
Goal #4: Define safety projects for HSIP and other
program funding consideration.
Due to
Aggressive
This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data
Driving
(January 1, 2017 — December 31, 2021) and roadway
improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas prpa^9 d
of increasing concern.
Further, the collision history was analyzed to identify Involving
locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their Pedestrians &
Bicyclists
collision histories or their similarities to other locations with more active collision patterns. Using a network screening Source: West Covina SWITRS Data(2017-2021)
process, locations were identified within the City that will most likely benefit from safety
enhancements. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were ES-5
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRS P)
AUGUST 2022
derived. The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non - infrastructure safety measures to address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users.
Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.
Emphasis Area #1: Impaired Driving
Emphasis Area #2: Intersection Improvements
Emphasis Area #3: Aggressive Driving
Emphasis Area #4: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) The following 10 case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the City.
1. West Covina Pkwy & Vincent Ave
2. Valinda Ave & Cameron Ave
3. Azusa Ave: Michelle St to Francisquito Ave
4. Amar Rd & Witzman Dr
5. Azusa Ave & Amar Rd
6. Hollenbeck St & Vine Ave
7. Citrus St & Cortez St
8. Citrus St & Garvey Ave
9. Rowland Ave: Azusa Ave to Homerest Ave
10. Lark Ellen Ave & Badillo St
These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer -term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing.
Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These opportunities were assembled into the "countermeasure toolbox" shown below.
ES-6
Z
J
CL
r
Lal
LL
4 L4 �%
J
O ■r
�0�y
ii
J
u
a
n
04 C
n
N
N
C
C
U
c
O
C
0 C
O
co
O
U
N16
0 C
C
C
C
C
O)
N
m
m
01 01
m
U
f/1
O
n
U
0 0
w
N
0 °
L
a
n
d
O
L
L
o
conn
o.
o.
o.
.
a
°'
n
o
0 0
0 0
CD
CD
o
m
o
C
V
o
ro
W
N
1 M
7 �
N
oc
N
�
�3
V3
EA
�
H3
EA
fH
• CD
0 LO
0 LO
0 CD
0 CD
0 LO
0 LO
0 CD
0 0
0 CD
0 0
1°
L°
L°
CD
` M
N
N
Cl)
N
M
M
0 0
C
p
O
O
O
N
N
L
c
N
ccU
>
N
m
m
U U
d
U
E
(n
L
L
L
Co
n
co
c
U
c
ci
c
U
c v
Z,
co
y
U
m
U
m
V
m
C
03 0I
(0
L
(6
(6
t
Co n
01 L
> (6
N
y
N
N
N
N
N
L
o
o
0 o
L N
L
C
m°
m
m
m
co
C
a
m
3 m
3 m
Co
rn m
3 o
y
c
y
c
c
C
3 o
0 3
c
O
c
C
O
c
C
O
C
c
c--
O>
N C
.0
.0
C'
0°
U
U
U
C`
O 0)
t-
U
.L..
tS
.L..
:E
L 0
O
N
C
J
C
J
y
C
J
'- d
N
C
U O
C
C
C
C
C
C
3 7
(�
�_m�_m�_m�a_�
U)
�.@�o�o�a��
E
vi
E
N
E
N
c
n
c
C
C
c
c
CD
c
N
00 o
°°
N
U
w°
w°
E o
m'-
0 N
L
N
L
N
L
-0 to
N
p
T
p
T
p
N to
N'
y'
N
C
N
C
0 N
cocoN
c
c
c
N d=
-"
3 E
3 v
c
m
3 'o
c
D
T C.)v
m
co
rn
rn
rn
c
cco
m
o
m
o
m
o
3 J
0 E
0 E
0 E°
c
@
(0
(0
0 C
C
C
N
U
N
C
N
L
N
0 y
0`
O
U
N
y
N
2 C
N
C�
(0
n
C
O_
C
m
a
N 0)
U
01 0
0°
U
O-
(6
ON
N
O
>
°
N
m
a
c
U
W
N
a
C
m
7 C
@
c
01 c
C
rn
(°
I
C
0)
O
O
N
U
L
?� 3
N
'C
.N
-C
O
N
0 C
N
.c
N N
Z al
c�
m
d
c 0
0 co01
3 c
�
d
E
v
0)
m
0 N
rn
L
d
L
d
c
n
°
o
m
3 �' °°
c
3 E
Co
o
d
°~
v
0 C
16 c°
c
>
c°i
e
CD
m
"
3 m
°
E
m
E
C L
o.
m
° d
rn 0)
rn
a
m
U
.0.c
Ca
N
°
m
o
m
C
N
.m .�
.N N
.N
@
N
>
N
01 0
N
>
C
N
N
r
N
>
L
01 O.°
m
>
N
O
(�
@
N
E
N
N
N
.N
N
n O
L
c0
C
>
C
LL
m
N
m
O
? L
U
n CL
'—
~
>
O
C
—
C°
N
(0
(0
C
—
O
S
N
L
(0
a
—
N
N
c
o
@
...
.O.
N
o
c
E
o
c
c
c
E
o
0 0
a
�
z
z
z
z
ai
Of
�
Of
z
z
W
Z
J
a
Lal
LL
4 L4 �%
J
Q Y
ii
J
u
a
n
04 0
N
N
t!1
C7
Q
CL
O
O
O
O
O
c
c
N
N
N
N
N
N
U
N
0 E
E
a
i
E
U
12 i
a
a
U
L
c
c
0)
c
L
d
C
c
CL
O.
O.
O.
n
n
O.
0. 0
Do
0 0
0 0
o
o
ro
o
ro
v
v
ro
N
c0
7 0
0 0
CD
04 CDo
oM
Cl)
W)
�
'0
0 0
0 0
0 0
00 0
u4
u)
uO
CD
0 CDu4
0N
1 Cl)
I
CO
Cl)
N
N
p
c
a)
c
d
o
c
a
O
.T.
0 .-T.
aL..
E c
O 'j
7 N
O
a)
ca O
N
O L
0) Co
L n
O
C
y
N
U
0 N
C
a
d
V
a .>
C L C
0)
N
X C
O
J
Co
N
N
L "O
N O
N
c N
U N�
C .w
O
N
C
N N
0 L N
L O
a
Co m
'� 0
co co
co
n N
T
O
C O.
O
y
N
y
c
c
N
C
C V
'@
N
L M
c
0 0
c
O) O
0 0)
N C C
C O
N
.0.
N
c0
L N
.>
N U
m p
N
L
3 L
N 0 N
J
L_ J
L_ O E
N n
N c
0 "O
3 L
C
U)co
o 3
`0) t N
_T
c?
3 y
3 c
" a o
3 > v
s
c t
cc
w
An
L C
U
0 c
0 C
N
y W N
m
O
'O
c),
L 0
_
?� N p
_
L N
0 O p)
Q) N
y c�
c 0 T
0 N 0`
a
O a
.7
L
O
=
O
0'
n
L_
N ca
N
U N
m°
rn a)
o
o c
U o
a
3 v
N L
E
N
(0
c
r m
-o
d
Q) d ui
d v
c
a
L
L
N
03 p
O
C N
C (0 O
C c
C N
�
N c
'O
y
N
N 0
� E
V
Y
p
N
O
N
N
T
O O
0 2
Z'
N
N
N
J
�p
O
p
3 c
a`)
N
'� v
N >
'gip o p-m
N
o
n
c-0
m e
N
c
2 c
—
c c
O
c A E
c c
c c
(q a
m
O
p
O)
O) L
O) c0
U
Ui
.`0..
U
a
c
O
Eli
c
ro
c
N
m
N
N
L
f0
O. N
N
0)
.0
c
.i
V
c0
O
N
V y
U)
c
N
O
C
C
O O)
n
`
N
c0
C
N
N
N C
0 cp
C
c
O)
c6
C
O Y
N C
(0 .-
O
N
Co
y
U)
`
o
O
p
N 0
c
N
w
v
c
o
p
C
d E
N
f0
L v;
N
+
U
D
o o
E
X
a) o
m
N
CD
m
Co E
0 E
N N
c
T
C
co
N
C0
0)
V
'30` O C
+
N
w N
U
v;
-
n�
'E o
v
L))
m
e
m
`o
m
03 d U
�a
L a)
a
m
o
a m
o
a
m
n
co
C
-0
4)
N N
L
>
O.
O
N
0)>
_
E L
_.3
E
_
2 O
C_
(L
m
m
m
N
N
O.
N
coV
I--
O_
d
d
h
CC)
M
(n
(n
(n
fn
fn
a'
m
fn
W
N
W
Z
.d
J
a
W
Li
3mi
mi
o `.
cz
J
mi
W
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST2022
Near -term action items were identified to accelerate the City's achievement of the goals and vision of this LRSP. The City can:
Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users, Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network, and Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in West Covina.
The City will regularly monitor and update the analysis performed in this plan. A full plan update will be due five years from the City Council's adoption of this plan which will maintain eligibility for HSIP funding.
ES-10
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202
Located in Los Angeles County about 20 miles east of Downtown Los Angeles, the City of West Covina is a suburban city with a population of 109,501 according to the 2020 census. West Covina is a medium-sized city with shopping, food, entertainment, and outdoor recreation. Based on University of California Berkeley's Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters, West Covina's economic losses due to traffic injuries amounted to approximately $430M from 2017 to 2021. This report identifies factors associated with the most vehicle crashes particular to the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes This Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City's transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high -crash locations, high -risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City's transportation network allows for the following opportunities:
1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users,
2. Improve safety at specific high -crash locations, and
3. Develop safety measures using the four E's of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response) to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes.
West Covina has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the City and with this LRSP, West Covina is continuing to prioritize safety in its planning processes. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) most recently ranked West Covina 27 out of 59 peer cities for traffic injuries after normalizing for population and VMT in 2019. With number one (1) in the OTS crash rankings considered the highest, or "worst," this positions the City at slightly below average for roadway safety performance. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of Crossroads crash data from January 1, 2017 — December 31, 2021 and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern.
The intent of the LRSP is to:
• Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks
• Reduce the number of fatal and severe -injury crashes • Develop lasting partnerships
• Support for grant/funding applications, and
• Prioritize investments in traffic safety.
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202
The West Covina LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non -infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. Through historical data and trends, proactive identification and safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur.
As cities across the country have implemented LRSPs and systemically addressed the conditions leading to fatal and severe -injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found that LRSPs effectively improve safety. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. This project's vision, goals, and objectives have been established to reflect discussions with West Covina staff, various stakeholders identified by City staff, and a review of existing plans/policies in the area.
To enhance the transportation network for all users to move towards zero traffic fatalities and serious injuries
Goal #7: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes.
Objectives:
• Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. • Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists).
Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process.
Objectives:
• Demonstrate the systemic process' ability to identify locations with higher risk for crashes based on present characteristics closely associated with severe crashes. • Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon.
Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term.
Objectives:
• Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). • Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied city-wide. 2 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST2022
Goal #4: Define safety projects for future Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) and other program funding consideration.
Objectives:
• Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth -coming cycles to apply for funding.
Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies.
Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP and other funding consideration.
Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan.
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202
The primary goal for the City of West Covina and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community.
Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for a LRSP.
FHWA encourages the following:
• The establishment of a working group (stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP • A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern • The identification of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively
Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps:
• Establish leadership
• Analyze the safety data
• Determine emphasis areas
• Identify strategies
• Prioritize and incorporate strategies
• Evaluate and update the LRSP
This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and developed emphasis areas. The LRSP recommendations consider the four E's of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response.
3.1 Guiding Manuals
This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within West Covina at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the City that will benefit from safety enhancements and derives crash risk factors based on historic crash data using a network screening process. The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non -infrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics and related driving behaviors contributing to crashes. This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described.
4 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202
3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual
The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California's Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) encourages local agencies to pursue a proactive approach when identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is the analyzation of safety in an entire roadway network through either a one-time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.' According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), "the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California's federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements." To provide the most beneficial and competitive funding approach, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should reflect a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates.
These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the potential effective countermeasures. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels.
Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs.
3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations.2 This four-part manual is divided into the following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors.
In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, the "Network Screening Process" is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes.
' Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx
5 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202
The HSM identifies five steps in this process:3
1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied.
2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities.
3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available.
4. Select Screening Method: There are three principal screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected.
5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results.
The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories.
3.2 Analysis Techniques
3.2.1 Collision Analysis
The initial steps of a collision analysis involve establishing sub -populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type (signalized and unsignalized), and segments were grouped by their roadway category (principal arterial, secondary arterial, collector, local). Individual collision rates were then calculated for each sub -population. The population level collision rates were used to assess the number of collisions at a specific location. These sub -populations were also used to determine typical collision patterns to highlight locations where an unusual number of specific collision types occurred.
3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis
The network screening process lists intersections and roadway segments by the number of collisions over the analysis period and identifies areas with a higher number of a given collision type than would be expected for the location.
The different collisions were organized by the following categories:
3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2. 0 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST202
1. Collision injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only),
2. Collision type (broadside, rear -end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other),
3. Environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and
4. Driver behavior (impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving).
3.3 Future Analysis
The City can plan to conduct regular collision monitoring as described in Section 10.2. The City will then refresh the analysis and update the LRSP every 5 years to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding, as described in Section 10.2.
7 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202
Local stakeholders were included in the development of this report to ensure the local perspective was maintained at the forefront of planning efforts. A stakeholder group of City staff and external partners consisted of representatives from the West Covina Police Department, the West Covina Fire Department, and local school districts.
The local stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City's transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas. The summary of the stakeholder engagement is below.
4.1 Stakeholder Meeting
The stakeholder meeting was conducted virtually on August 18, 2022. At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study.
In addition to the overview, stakeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge at ten "case study" locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash analysis process. Emphasis/challenge areas were discussed, specifically aggressive driving and impaired driving as a major factor in collisions throughout the City.
4.2 Outreach Survey
The stakeholders were also invited to share their experiences and insight in a SurveyMonkey survey. They were asked to share their safety concerns, travel patterns, and potential improvements they would like to see on City roadways.
Stakeholder feedback was reviewed and incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP.
Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or on -going were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation -related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety -related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP.
Table 2 outlines the relevant existing City plans and their improvements and funding sources.
Table 3 outlines the relevant existing City projects and their timelines. 91 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202
Table 2 — Review of Existing City Plans
socument aame I ransportation
• The City of West Covina General Plan is a long-term planning document which supports in implementing policies, programs and guidance on the physical General Plan structure of the City.
• The City of West Covina Active Transportation Plan aims to improve the City's streets in terms of comfortability, safety for all users by providing a vision and Active Transportation prioritized strategies.
Plan
51 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202:-
Table 3 — Review of Existing City Projects
Name
Timeline
TransportationProject
The Grove at Merced
Development of a residential community with a goal to
Specific Plan
February 2022
promote healthy transportation decisions to increase the use of transit, walking and biking.
Development of a residential community which is consistent Vincent Place
March 2021
with the General Plan Policy by providing alternative
Residential Project
transportation modes due to the proximity to bus stops and other commercial and recreational facilities.
Development of a residential community which is planned to Cameron II Project
May 2021
provide alternative transportation modes due to the proximity to bus stops and other commercial and recreational facilities.
Funding
Install left turn phasing at signalized locations with existing HSIP Cycle 10 Project
received 2021
left turn pockets, and install signal hardware improvements to the lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders 10 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202:.
This section describes the data sources used for the analysis process of this LRSP.
6.1 Roadway Network
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Road System (CRS) GIS database was used to build the base roadway network used for this analysis. Intersections and roadway segments were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be compared with similar facilities or control type. Functional Classifications were imported from the city's General Plan and confirmed by city staff.
Information on intersection traffic control was provided by the city and included in the analysis network. The collision analysis requires each intersection to be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized. Figure 1 illustrates the City of West Covina's roadway functional classification and intersection control type, respectively, as used for this study.
6.2 Collision Data
Collision data was collected from Crossroads software for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021, displayed in Figure 2. Five years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw collision data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges faced throughout the city. Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the collision trends and patterns detailed in Section 7. The locations of fatal and severe injury collisions are displayed in Figure 3.
11 ED
•
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST202?
Figure 2: All Collisions (2017-2021)
gele=Et
Baldwin Park
e
aP¢ C
i QJ t�
CeO9LP
8 //�� � p C
0 OUV
p
Y^� °
._�LO�iyh p0
yp E Do ii blegrove St
Pe 4
Valinda
P¢
yJti E Falrgrove Ave �
2 e AmAm- Rcno0�
H e ve ^ m
C
W ,ag Ln
nc U5try HUIt
Retreat„an
Center
La Puente ,y
°a
�^ st
vaney BI e
Covina E Baaiup St
E Puence st
E Rowland Se
0 wvm
pp °
0 G° O
IS93fr
Jose
aye
R nmlanJ SI O
San Icse Ave
"".ads,
Evrat�,at°` N
Las Angeles
Otterbein Royal vats Gou
' Rowland Course
Heiqhts 'AV
V
r
13 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST202'<
Figure 3: Fatal & Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021)
14 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST202?
The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the City -maintained roadway system based on collision records spanning from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021.
This section contains the results of the analysis, which included the evaluation of West Covina's fatal and serious injury (generally denoted as K+SI) collisions, statewide K+SI collisions, pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, collision severity levels, and collision causes.
7.1 All Collisions
This report utilized collision data for a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on city streets. Data used for this report was extracted from Crossroads Software on March 16, 2022 and was current as of that date.
Collision data from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 5,044 collisions recorded within West Covina.
During this time, the most common occurring collision types were Broadside (31 %) and Rear -End (26%). The total number of collisions varied throughout the study period, with a peak in 2018, as shown in Figure 4.
1400
1200
1000
c
0 800
0 U
0 600
0 Z 400
M
J,
Figure 4: Collision Type by Year (2017-2021)
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
■ Broadside ■ Head -On ■ Hit Object
■ Not Stated ■ Other ■ Overturned
■ Rear -End ■ Sideswipe ■ Vehicle - Pedestrian
Source: West Covina Crossroads Database (2017-2021)
15 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST2022
7.2 Fatalities & Severe Injuries
During the study period, 29 fatal collisions and 75 severe injury collisions occurred during the study period, as seen in Figure 3. Table 4 outlines the fatal collisions categorized by modes involved.
Table 4 — Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2017- 2021)
Involved With
Bicycle
# of Fatal Collisions
1 # of Severe Injury
Collisions
5 Fixed Object
6 16
Non - Collision
-
2 Other Motor Vehicle
8 34
Other Object
-
2 Parked Motor Vehicle
-
6 Pedestrian
14 10
7.3 Injury Levels
As shown in Figure 5, 67.2% of the collisions reported during the time -period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 2.1 % of all collisions.
Figure 5— Collisions by Injury Levels (2017-2021)
1.5% 0.6%
• Property Damage Only
• Complaint of Pain
• Other Visible Injury
Severe Injury
• Fatal
Source: West Covina Crossroads Database (2017— 2021)
16 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST202-
7.4 Cause of Collision
The highest recorded cause of collisions in West Covina during the study period is Unsafe Speed at 24.4%, followed by Improper Turning at 19.5%, and Auto R/W Violation at 17.5%. Table 5 shows the distribution of collision cause.
Table 5 - Cause of Collisions (2017-2021)
Primary Collision Factor
Percent
Unsafe Speed
24.4%
Improper Turning
19.5%
Auto R/W Violation
17.5%
Ignoring Traffic Signals and
Signs
14.0%
Unsafe Lane Change
4.3%
Driving Under Influence
4.3%
Other Improper Driving
2.7%
Unsafe Starting or Backing
2.7%
Following Too Closely
1.8%
Unknown
1.5%
Ped R/W Violation
1.2%
Wrong Side of Road
1.0%
Pedestrian Violation
1.0%
Other Hazardous Movement
0.8%
Improper Passing
0.7%
Other Than Driver or Ped
0.5%
Other
0.5%
Other Than Driver
0.1%
Hazardous Parking
0.1%
Impeding Traffic
0.0%
Grand Total
100.0%
Source: West Covina Crossroads Database (2017 — 2021)
7.5 Vulnerable Users
7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions
154 pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, resulting in 14 fatal collisions, 10 severe injuries, and 115 collisions with some form of reported injury or pain. Figure 6 shows the locations of pedestrian collisions during the study period.
7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions
During the study period, 98 collisions involving bicycles were reported. There was 1 fatal injury, 5 resulted in severe injuries, and 80 resulted in some form of reported injury or pain. Figure 6 shows the location of bicycle collisions during the study period. 17 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST202:
Figure 6 — Pedestrian & Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021)
ow I
Vincent w arrow ewy
rz
z
D o E_
E Cypress St ➢ E Cypre, St r
n,Il S 5t " _— a m
—� Badill 6aa°Illo St __ Covina Ega tllllo St
Baldwin Park, II10
4�9�a
C�
�
P
i�
P¢
y `x,
2 Se0
4 m
oP
S
Vallnda
E F-13r, qw
A mar Rtl
E PueOte St
E RoMl ,,d St
1 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST2022
7.6 Other Significant Trends
In addition, the following trends were observed:
34% of collisions occurred at night or during the dusk/dawn hours.
Drivers aged 16-20 were at fault in 10% of all collisions.
Drivers aged 65+ were at fault in 9% of all collisions.
7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results
Figures 7 and 8 below show the results of the collision network screening analysis, with the number of collisions at both intersections and mid -block roadway segments. 19 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST2022
Figure 7 — Collision Network Screening Analysis Results - Intersections (2017- 2021)
•
f
C •
�
. �i
\ •'a` is
Cb • i
000
0. 9
��
°®
E
Valinda
f
o ®.
�0
ry Hivs �'kq
Cernei O • ®®
O • O
La Puente • , ••
NWMEE711
Legend
No. of Collisions per
Intersections
• 1
0 O
O
• 108
•�• ® O
Soy.
Hills
Marne \\
V'1eP Ai
1 N8
Rowland
Heights
all
•
C'J
E ead�uo sc `ovina _
Rowlai
i ei g ha Y
L
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST202-
Table 6 and 7. show the number of crashes occurring at the top ten locations in West Covina by crash type for the locations that will be studied further in the Report, and highlights locations in which the probability of those crash types exceeding the threshold proportion is greater than 33%. Appendix A provides a full list of analysis rankings for all intersection and segment locations.
The tables are ordered by the number of collisions that occurred at that segment or intersection.
To be statistically significant, only locations where more than two collisions occurred are represented. At locations with two or less collisions, random chance can account for crash history as much or more than specific roadway characteristics.
After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked against other similar locations within the City by their categories according to the expected proportion of that crash type within West Covina. Locations with higher -than -expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for exceedances.
Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Collision Severity, Type, Involved With, and Behavior are additional characteristics of the collisions and should not be counted as a separate collision.
The following provides an example of how to read Tables 6 and 7.
Table Definitions:
• Total Collisions: Number of collisions observed at the intersection or segment from January of 2017 through December of 2021.
• Severity: The number of severe injury and fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Fatality: The number of fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period. • Broadside, Sideswipe, Rear -End, Head -On, Hit Object, Overturned, Other, Pedestrian, Bicycle: The number of these types of collisions that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Other: The number of miscellaneous collision types (mostly single vehicle) that occurred at this location in the study period.
• Aggressive, Dark, Wet: The number of the collisions with this factor identified as the cause of collision.
`*a
Z
Q
J
a
W
LL
Q
�a
Q
3J
Q v
Q
0 a
J
Q
0 J
N
N
0 N
F
YI
7 a
N
a
m
a m
m
Mod
N
-
-
-
N
-
'• o
.+
o
0 0
o O
O
O
O o
o
O
O
O
O
v
m
m
ry
O
O
O
O
• .�
o
0 0
0 0
.�
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 • o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 a
m
m
v
m
a
O
O
.mi
.ni
.bi
m ti
m
n
ao a
n
m
N
n
m
m
CL
N rl N N
ei ei
N
N
rl
rl
'i
••. o
.i
N m m in
in
v ro o
�n m in m a
O]
e'I
N rl e'I
m
O
m
0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
o
.•. vi
a
m
n
a
m a m o
m n ry
a a M N
o m
o n
ei 1!1
b m n
a n o
rl N rl
a
m N b o n
01 W N 01 n
N O M M a O b M
,ielauejam• N a a O M N
O O O O O, O 9 C 6
M N
rl �
O O
M l0 N n O]
N N lD M
O O O O O
l0 1!1 V1 a a a
a C m
N N N N N
v
>b
j
6 a
O
W
>
c
v
w
E
Y
N
0 >
a
v
K
E
oiF
a
E
a
3 °a
°a
3 o71
E
a
w
•b
a
03 03
o of
of
�w
C
o
m
E
m�
E
¢
V1
>
VI
>
VI
H
VI
E
y
f
>
VI
Z
Z
w
N
N VI
VI
N
N
N
`m
E
a
00 N
Z
Q
J
`a
r
F
W
LL
�a
Q
3J
Q v
0 a
J
IQ
V
0 J
N
N
0 N
F
H
]
LOR
T
i�
T
N
Z
Q
J
a
W
LL
�a
Q
3J
Q v
Q
0 a
J
V
0 J
N
N
0 N
F
H
]
.+
.+
0 O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
M
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
'I
O
O
O
ei
O ei
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 •�
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
adimsepiS O
M
O
O
O N
N
N
00d
O
O
O
O
O
O N
O
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 IDPJ
O
O
O
O
O
O
O 010
O
O
O
O
Oa• .+ w
O
m
m
m
ry O
ti
o
m
a
N
N
N O O
O
O
O
O
w �o m
in
e
m
m
m
m w
0 N
e
e
e
v
v
�
V
N
v
a
c
¢
s
v
m
3 3
>
m
z
m
o E
c
n
�
�
p
v
v
o
m
a
`m
E
w
a
m
E
N
y
w
3 c
z
n
zo
o
v
¢
¢
s
¢¢
w
c
v
w
¢
Q
¢
¢
¢
¢
Q
c
o
v
o
`v
m
w
w
y
>
>
c
c
c
>
>
c 3
E
Y
x
m
o
c >
u
3 u
m
N
N
VI
VI
a
VI
N
z
VI
VI21
3 P.
Z
Q
J
a
W
LL
Q
�a
Q
3J
Q v
Q
0 a
J
tQ
Y
0 J
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ei
O
O 'I
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O O O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
O o
0 o
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
O
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 •. o
0 0 0
0 .+
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 • O
O
o .y
o
0 0 0
0 0
.�
o
.� .�
o
O
eel
ei
'I
ei
O
O
ei ei
N
1 I. ei
N
'I
V
N
eel N
N
'I
N
o
O
o 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ® o
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 n
W N
o
O
m
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
^
^
;t9a
>
a
c
j
W
w
w
�-
a
u o > y
m
w
�
w
E
m e
E a
v a >
a
a
w
'n
�r mQ
cin
Tin
H
Q
a
�
T'o
z c
o
2 ?
E 3
u
3 O
a
`
E c
y
a
a
m
f0
1E
w i
aTi >
at
s`o 0
2 a
2-
2 E c
u
u
u
3 z
o
3 r
Cl)
Z
Q
J
a
F
W
LL
�a
Q
3J
Q v
Q
0 a
J
Q
V
0 J
0 N
m
a
D
L
N
U
to
c
m
N
a
6 LD
O
w
N
M
►DWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202;
8.1 Best Practices Evaluation
Table 7 identifies existing plans and policies that were recently completed, or are planned, or on -going within the City of West Covina. The intent of this review is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City that may impact the safety analysis process. It will also identify opportunity areas where the City could adopt non -infrastructure countermeasures. This table also ties each topic and enhancement to the emphasis areas that are laid out in Section 8.2.
Table 8 — Summary of Program, Policies, and Practices
Topic
Initiatives/ Current Status
Opportunities for
Implementation or Enhancement
COMMITTEES/ROLES
Does the City have an
There is no dedicated role, but
Formalize Active Transportation
Active Transportation
Principal Engineer applies for ATP
Coordinator role and assign to
Coordinator?
funding
appropriate staff member
Does the City have a
City Traffic Commission that meets
Continue to hold Traffic
Safety or Active
monthly to discuss Traffic Safety
Commission Meetings and
Transportation Advisory
issues brought up by residents,
regularly identify areas of concern
Committee?
staff and businesses.
and Dotentials for improvement.
Does the City have an
Implement an Active
Active Transportation
Safety Education
None at this time
Transportation Safety Education
Program?
program
POLICY / PLANS 1117
Does the City have a
Complete Streets policies are
Continue to follow Complete
Complete Streets Plan?
present in latest General Plan
Streets policies as streets are
(2016)
upgraded and re -paved
Develop a plan to start assessing
Does the City assess
Traffic Impact Fees for new
Traffic Impact Fees?
No
development, this will allow to
have additional funds for traffic
safety improvements.
Does the City have a Safe
The City's Active Transportation
Continue to regularly update Safe
Routes to School
Plan included safe routes to school
Routes to School program to
program?
assessment and list of projects
reflect changing trends
City utilizes Traffic Calming
measures accepted in the
Does the City implement
CAMUTCD such as updated
Continue to apply traffic Calming
Traffic Calming Policies?
signage, striping, speed reduction
Policies and implement where
measures. These are brought to
appropriate.
the Traffic Commission every
month.
33 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 2022
Topic
Initiatives/ Current Status
Opportunities for
Im lementation or Enhancement
Speed Surveys are conducted on
Continue to conduct speed
Does the City regularly
a as needed basis and in most of
surveys on an as -needed basis
conduct Speed Surveys?
the Traffic Calming Requests and
and update citywide as required by
reviews that are taken to Traffic
CA MUTCD.
Commission monthly.
Does the City utilized
Warrants for Stop Signs
City uses CA MUTCD warrants
Continue to utilize warrants for
and Signals?
and engineering judgement
stop signs and signals
Most development is low density
Is the City planning for
residential. New developments
Continue to accommodate for
Density and Walkable
provide sidewalk. Trails are
provided if on master trails plan.
Pedestrians and bicyclists in new
Areas?
Very low pedestrian volumes
development
except surrounding schools.
Does the City have
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) or
City currently has TDM and VMT
Continue implementing TDM and
Vehicle Miles Travelled
policies
VMT policies
(VMT) Reduction
policies?
Does the City perform
Very little is done on traffic crash
Regularly monitor crash data to
Traffic Crash Monitoring?
monitoring. Data is kept on SWITRS statewide database.
identify any trends or hotspots
Does the City have an
The City completed an Active
Continue to regularly update Active
Active Transportation
Transportation Plan and the City's
Transportation Plan
Master Plan?
General Plan Circulation Element
Does the City have
MUTCD-compliant
Yes
Continue to implement MUTCD
Pedestrian Signal
compliant pedestrian signal timing
Timing?
Does the City implement
Continue to implement crosswalks
Crosswalks at high
Yes
at high pedestrian volume
pedestrian locations?
locations
What type of traffic
City has a police department. They
Continue to enforce traffic laws in
enforcement does the
do the typical speed and signal
collision and aggressive driving
City conduct?
enforcement and every few
hotspots
months put up DUI checkpoints.
What is the City's Bicycle
None at this time
Formalize bicycle policies in City's
Policy?
transportation element
What types of transit
Public Transportation through LA
Coordinate with transit agencies to
does the City have?
Metro and Foothill Transit
identify any transit -related
improvements to traffic safety
What types of wayfinding
No formal wayfinding the signs are
Identify areas where wayfinding
does the City have?
likely in the large commercial
signage could contribute to
shopping centers.
increased roadway safety
34 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 2022
Topic
Initiatives/ Current Status
Opportunities for
Implementation or Enhancement
DATA COLLECTION / INVENTORY
Does the City have an
Currently no inventory of
Create GIS database of pedestrian
Inventory of Pedestrian
pedestrian signs, but working to
signals and signs
Signs and Signals?
have GIS inventory.
Does the City have an
Continue to regularly update
Inventory/Mapping of
City has inventory and map of
inventory; assemble in GIS if
Active Transportation
active transportation routes
appropriate
Routes?
Does the City utilize
Crossroads Database for
City currently utilizes SWITRS
Continue to utilize Crossroads
collisions?
database
database and regularly update
Does the City have Active
Currently only taking traffic counts
Implement Active Transportation
Volume counting key locations
Transportation Volume
at development projects, no formal
gauge active transportation
toau transportation
Counting?
program
usage
COORDINATION / FEEDBACK
City has an active transportation
portal where residents can give
What ways can citizens
comments on ATP, and also the
Continue to solicit citizen feedback
give feedback about
City has an online work order form
on traffic safety and transportation
roadway safety?
available to residents where they
planning efforts
can place comments or concerns
related to traffic safety
What types of
Coordination with other
Timing of private developments
Continue coordinate with
City organization does
that are required to construct street
development department and other
your department
improvements
City departments
perform?
What types of School
The City is constantly in
Engagement does the
communication with the school
Continue to identify areas of
City perform?
districts in West Covina regarding
coordination with local schools
safety.
What types of Law
Continue to identify areas of
Enforcement/Emergency
Engagement with police and fire
coordination with police and fire
Service Engagement
department
department
does the Cityperform?
01 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202;
8.2 Emphasis Areas
Emphasis areas represent crash factors that are common in the City and provide the opportunity to reduce the largest number of traffic injuries with strategic investment. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis.
8.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Impaired Driving
Description: Impaired driving crashes are a high priority challenge area within the Caltrans SHSP. Caltrans defines these as crashes where any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver is present, even if the driver was not over the legal limit. 219 crashes (4.3%) were reported as the driver being under the influence of alcohol or drugs. 6 of these crashes resulted in a fatality and 8 in a severe injury. Almost 2/3 of these crashes (149) resulted in Property Damage Only.
Goal for Emphasis Area #1:
• Reduce the number of crashes attributed to impaired driving • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for countermeasures to reduce impaired driving • Apply for funding to implement countermeasures to reduce impaired driving crashes Strategies for Emphasis Area #1:
• Authorize, publicize, and conduct sobriety checkpoints programs • Implement an impaired driving education campaign
• Develop educational programs targeting specific audiences based on age group • Additional enforcement presence
• Create effective media campaigns in both visual and print media These strategies will be implemented by the City, law enforcement, and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include OTS, NHTSA, and SB1 grant programs.
8.2.2 Emphasis Area #2: Intersection Improvements
Description: Collisions involved at intersections, interchanges, and other roadway access.
About 88% of total of collisions took place at or near intersections. 31.3% of the fatal and severe injury collisions in West Covina involved intersections, compared to 23.8% statewide.
Goal for Emphasis Area #2:
• Reduce the number of crashes at intersections, interchanges, and other roadway access. • Identify hot spots and prioritize locations for intersection improvements. • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address collisions at intersections for improvement.
Kul
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
MRSP)
AUGUST 202;
Strategies for Emphasis Area #2:
• Engineering improvements are not limited but could include backplates with reflective borders, left -and right turn lanes at two-way controlled intersections, and protected left -turn movements.
These strategies can be implemented by the City with assistance from emergency services and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, OTS, and SB1 grant programs.
8.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Aggressive Driving
Description: Aggressive driving, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes several behaviors including speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Aggressive driving behaviors (unsafe speed or following too closely) accounted for 40.2 percent of collisions.
Aggressive driving was the cause of 5 fatal collisions and 29 severe injury collisions.
Goal for Emphasis Area #3:
• Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive driving in the City • Identify hot spots and priority corridors for aggressive driving • Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address aggressive driving Strategies for Emphasis Area #3:
• Educational campaign to target aggressive drivers
• Increased law enforcement presence near aggressive driving hotspots • Increased coordination with law enforcement and other community organizations These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Highway Patrol (CHIP), and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs.
8.2.4 Emphasis Area #4: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable users, meaning they possess the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. These groups need appropriate infrastructure to travel to key destinations such as schools, workplaces, and core commercial areas. The City's Circulation element lays out plans and standards for non -motorized transportation. Of the 252 crashes involving vulnerable road users, 15 resulted in a fatal injury and 15 resulted in a severe injury. The City can aim to implement countermeasures to further protect these users from injury.
MrA
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST2022
Goals for Emphasis Area #4:
Improve active transportation infrastructure by adding pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, and other amenities to make it safer for employees and community members to get to key destinations such as school, commercial centers, transit centers, and recreation areas Encourage healthier lifestyles through active transportation infrastructure Apply for HSIP and other funding to implement countermeasures to address vulnerable road user crashes
Strategies for Emphasis Area #4:
Install high -visibility crosswalk markings at the intersection of key destinations Ensure all signalized intersections have completed crosswalks Provide dedicated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to and from bus stops Provide signage (e.g., pedestrian crossing ahead) to help drivers expect to slow down for pedestrians and bikes
Install bicycle lanes along key corridors
Install bicycle storage facilities in public areas, such as parks and schools, to encourage bicycle use
Install curb extensions
Install ADA ramps
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with new controller Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations Establish rotating enforcement targets for high visibility campaigns These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SIB 1, and SS4A grant programs.
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202;
This section provides information on general identified issues, crash reduction factors, improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of West Covina, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on data analysis, stakeholder input, and site visits.
9.1 Infrastructure Improvements
9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process
Part D of the HSM provides information on CMFs for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to estimate the safety effects of highway improvements, specifically to compare and select highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce crashes. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase crashes. A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is directly connected to the CMF and is "mathematically defined as (1 — CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes) 4." CMFs can help decision makers weigh potential alternative projects, but are only one measure of a project's value and should be considered part of a larger decision making process. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all CMFs are as reliable as others. The FHWA maintains a federal depository of CMFs and includes a star rating system to help users determine which CMFs are bolstered by the best and most thorough research. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include:
1. Selection of an appropriate CMF;
2. Estimation of crashes without treatment;
3. Application of CMFs by type and severity; and,
4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments.
Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a city-wide level and are discussed in Section 9.2 City -Wide Countermeasure Toolbox. 4 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 27.
4.01 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 2022
9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies
From the city-wide analysis, 10 project case study locations were selected for further evaluation and countermeasure development. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a balanced understanding of common safety patterns at a variety of location types that can be used to associate countermeasures with specific roadway configurations and conditions. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits.
A Safety Project Case Study was developed for each of the following locations:
1. West Covina Pkwy & Vincent Ave
2. Valinda Ave & Cameron Ave
3. Azusa Ave: Michelle St to Francisquito Ave
4. Amar Rd & Witzman Dr
5. Azusa Ave & Amar Rd
6. Hollenbeck St & Vine Ave
7. Citrus St & Cortez St
8. Citrus St & Garvey Ave
9. Rowland Ave: Azusa Ave to Homerest Ave
10. Lark Ellen Ave & Badillo St
The following pages summarize conditions at each location, and potentially beneficial countermeasures. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer -term.
The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. These case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities. The monetary benefits are calculated from the latest Caltrans injury level cost data. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at $2.19 million, Other Visible Injury collisions at $142,300, Complaint of Pain collision at $80,900, and Property Damage Only collisions at $13,300
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Intersection: Vincent Ave & West Covina Pkwy
Example of Similar Intersections: Sunset Ave & Merced Ave, Azusa Ave & Merced Ave 1, Vmrrnt Avr R West Covina Pkwy
. ,r CoNga PkW •r
Y r
0 r
Legend
Broadside -}
Sideswipe ..q
Rear -end �i�
Head -an —
Hit -object w
Vehicle -Pedestrian ��-
Parked Car �p
Not Stated +?-
F_p
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
68 collisions
- 21 Broadsides
- 15 Rear -ends
26 Sideswipes
1 Hit -object
1 Head-on
1 Not Stated
3 Vehicle -Pedestrian
Kimley>»Horn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
68 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
2 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Sideswipe (38%)
Broadside (31%)
Rear -end (22%)
Dark Collisions
17 Impaired Collisions
1 • Long crossing distance for pedestrians
• WB crosswalk is missing
• Signal heads are 8" size
• Pedestrian countdown heads can be updated
Collision Data
Number of Approaches
4 Total Entering Vehicles
39,340
Crosswalk Condition
Fair
Control Type
Signal
Lighting
Well -lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
63 3
0 Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Review left -turn
15%
$958,260
$14,400
66.55 phasingto
(S03)
determine adequate
timing
Complete crosswalk
25%
$1,597,100
$74,400
21.47 on westbound
(S18PB)
approach
Implement Leading
60%
$3,833,040
$45,600
84.06 Pedestrian Interval
(S21PB)
(LPI) timing
Kimley »Horn
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install high -visibility
25%
$1,597,100
$74,400
21.47 crosswalk
(S1813B)
Upgrade signal
15%
$958,260
$12,000
79.86 heads
(S02)
Install
15%
$958,260
$12,000
79.86 retroreflective
(S02)
backplates
Upgrade pedestrian
25%
$1,597,100
$43,680
36.56 countdown heads
(S17PB)
Install Advanced
40%
$2,555,360
$76,800
33.27 Dilemma Zone
(SO4)
Detection systems
KimlepMorn
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Intersection: Valinda Ave & Cameron Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Orange Ave & Francisquito Ave, Cameron Ave & California Ave
2. Valinda Ave & Cameron Ave
.lnlnl On AV2
Legend
Broadside —4
Sideswipe .K
Rear -end F-
Head-on —
Hit -object �
Vehicle -Pedestrian —.-
Parked Car �p
Not Stated 17,
S
Lo—
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
Note: fatal and severe injury collisions are shown in red 0 ISMJI'«,
IT
3y'4Z ta`f 1
M T
(�
K ♦
7 f
AP
48 collisions
23 Broadsides
- BRear-ends
0 Sideswipes
1 Hit -object
6 Head-on
5 Not Stated
- 1 Vehicle -Pedestrian
Kimley>»Horn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
48 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Broadside (48%)
Rear -end (17%)
Head-On(13%)
Dark Collisions
16 Impaired Collisions
3 Collision Data
Number of Approaches
4 Total Entering Vehicles
35,728
Crosswalk Condition
Fair
Control Type
Signal
Lighting
Well -lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
46 1
0 There has been a request for protected left -turn phasing here Signal poles are not ADA compliant in sidewalk
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install protected
30%
$879,000
$45,600
19.28 left -turn phasing
(S07)
Update pedestrian
25%
$732,500
$43,680
16.77 countdown heads
(S17PB)
Install edgeline
25%
$732,500
$30,240
24.22 striping along
(R28)
roadways to
delineate parking
and travel lines
Kimley>))Horn
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Ensure ADA
5%
$146,500
$80,000
1.83 compliant
sidewalks/crossing
Install Leading
60%
$1,758,000
$45,600
38.55 Pedestrian Interval
(S21PB)
(LPI) timing
Install
15%
$439,500
$26,400
16.65 retroreflective
(S02)
backplates
Kimley>»Horn
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Segment: Azusa Ave: Michelle St to Francisquito Ave
Example of Similar Segments: Vincent Ave: Marbury St to Teresa St, Sunset Ave: Eckerman Ave to Rowland Ave,
3. Azusa Ave: Michelle St to Francisquito Ave
t
-A
% P
r-A
4:'
I
Legend
Sideswipe—k
Rear -end
Parked Car P
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
Note fatal and severe injury collisions are shown in red I.
6 collisions
3 Rear.'end,
35ideswipes
Kimley)))Horn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
6 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Rear -end (50%)
Sideswipe (50%)
Dark Collisions
2 Impaired Collisions
1 Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
59,497
Lighting
Well -lit
Median
Landscape median
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
45 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
6 0
0 Signal synchronization project on Azusa
There has been a request for ADA improvements along Azusa Ave Speeding common south of this location along Azusa Ave
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install edgeline
25%
$69,100
$20,160
3.43 striping along Azusa
(R28)
Ave to delineate
parking and travel
lanes
Kimley »Horn
.. _ ..................-..I.... -..
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
. . _1_.—_—1..1... 11-1 1 ..,...
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Intersection: Amar Rd & Witzman Dr
Example of Similar Intersections: Sunset Ave & Rowland Ave, Irwindale Ave & Salvatiera St i
o-
4. Imai I?cl & tVItL I,xI Di
i
Legend
Broadside �}
Sideswipe �
Rear -end
x
Hit -object
TWO-WAY STOP
INTERSECTION
Note: fatal and severe injury collisions are shown in red My
Ak
22 collisions
148roadsides
- 3 Rear -ends
- 4Sideswipes
1 Hit -object
Kimley»)Horn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
22 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Broadside (64%)
Sideswipe (18%)
Rear End (14%)
Dark Collisions
6 Impaired Collisions
0 Part of this location in LA County jurisdiction
High number of broadsides
High visibility paints on median is faded
Collision Data
Number of Approaches
4 Total Entering Vehicles
38,717
Crosswalk Condition
None Present
Control Type
Stop sign
Lighting
Sufficient Lighting
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
45 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
21 0
0 Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install speed
30%
$84,780
$22,800
3.72 feedback sign on
(R26)
southbound
approach to Amar
Rd
Kimley>))Horn
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
Intersection: Azusa Ave & Amar Rd
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Example of Similar Intersections: Azusa Ave & Arrow Hwy: Vincent Ave & W Covina Pkwy: Sunset Ave & Amar Rd n
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
Kimley»)Horn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
122
Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Sideswipe (37%)
Rear -end (33%)
Broadside (16%)
Dark Collisions
39 Impaired Collisions
5 Collision Data
Number of Approaches
4 Total Entering Vehicles
83,418
Crosswalk Condition
Fair
Control Type
Signal
Lighting
Well -lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
45 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
108
6 0
Major improvements have recently been completed here
Azusa Ave is a major cut -through
There is video detection here
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install Advanced
40%
$2,603,560
$76,800
33.90 Dilemma Zone
(SO4)
Detection system
Install audible
5%
$325,445
$50,000
6.51 pedestrian push
button
Install
15%
$976,335
$26,400
36.98 retroreflective
(S02)
backplates
Kimley>>>Horn
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install high visibility
25%
$1,627,225
$74,400
21.87 crosswalk
(518PB)
Install Leading
60%
$3,187,140
$45,600
69.89 Pedestrian Interval
(S21PB)
(LPI) timing
Refresh lane striping
5%
$325,445
$10,000
32.54 Kimley>»Horn
rr v�cs.r r�amc. vvcar a.vvn:a �r\.�r
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
rr cF., ca Y. neu:cy-nvu:
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Intersection: Hallenbeck St & Vine Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Lark Ellen Ave & Vine Ave, Hallenbeck Ave & Cortez St O
6. Hollenbeck St & Vine Ave
Vine A�,rPt'.t:
Legend
Broadside -4
Sideswipe -y
Rear -end �F+
Head-on �t
Hit -object �w
Vehicle -Pedestrian �-
Parlxd Car tiP
FOUR -WAY -STOP
INTERSECTION
Note: fatal and severe injury collisions are shown in red rj Q\ �
I :j
r9 ./01
18 collisions
- 6Broadsides
4 Rear -ends
- 3Sideswipes
2 Hit -object
1 Head-on
2 Vehicle -Pedestrian
Kimley>»Born
Collision Data
Total Collisions
18 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Broadside (33%)
Rear End (22%)
Head On (17%)
Sideswipe (17%)
Dark Collisions
5 Impaired Collisions
1 - • Visit Notes
Collision Data
Number of Approaches
4 Total Entering Vehicles
14,647
Crosswalk Condition
Fair
Control Type
Stop sign
Lighting
Sufficient Lighting
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
14 2
0 Improvements will be made here due to high collision activity Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install moveable
30%
$733,800
$22,800
32.18 speed feedback
(1126)
signage
Install edgeline
25%
$611,500
$40,320
15.17 striping
(1128)
Install high visibility
15%
$366,900
$48,000
7.64 flashing stop sign
(NS08)
Kimley>»Horn
Potential
Countermeasures
Crash Reduction
Factor
(LRSM/CMF ID)
20 Year Safety
Benefit
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Ratio
Install reflective
15%
$366,900
$14,400
25.48 tape on stop sign
(R22)
pole
Install high visibility
35%
$856,100
$45,600
18.77 crosswalk
(N521PB)
Kimley >)Horn
rr v�cs.c r.amc. vvcar a.vvnia �r\.�r
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
Intersection: Citrus St & Cortez St
rr cpar ca Y. nuuicy-nvui
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Example of Similar Intersections: Hollenbeck Ave& Vine Ave, Service Ave & California Ave
FOUR-WAY-STOP
INTERSECTION
7. c o c� St & r orb 1 St Note: fatal and severe injury collisions are shown in red Air
iurtei St i � .nor
tt _—
Legend \- rk' is °t
Broadside
26collisions
Sideswipe —y r ilY - 16 Broadsides
Bear -end 2 Rear -ends
Head-on ISideswipes
Hit -Object 3Hh-object
Vehicle -Pedestrian —.- N c' - 1 Head-on
Parked Car yp 3 Vehicle -Pedestrian
Kimley>»Horn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
26 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
1 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Broadside (62%)
Vehicle -Pedestrian (12%)
Hit Object (12%)
Dark Collisions
8 Impaired Collisions
0 Flashing stop signs installed here in July 2022
Collision Data
Number of Approaches
4 Total Entering Vehicles
16,498
Crosswalk Condition
Fair
Control Type
Stop sign
Lighting
Sufficient Lighting
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
20 3
0 Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install curb bulb outs
32%
$1,082,464
$70,000
15.46 Install moveable
30%
$1,014,810
$22,800
44.51 speed feedback
(1126)
signs
Kimley>))Horn
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Intersection: Citrus St & Garvey Ave
Example of Similar Intersections: Garvey Ave & Azusa Ave: Covina Pkwy & Garvey Ave
8. c b,.o yt & G.n rcy A¢'
L
Legend
n
J
j _ �
' •
177� T. •-T � � .
r
•
�. Norma Ave
�� :�� •i•
��
i
f
Broadside y}
Sideswipe —A
Rear -end �H
Head-on �t
Hit -object +r
Vehicle -Pedestrian �-
Not Stated ?,
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
Note: fatal and severe injury collisions are shown
sWo�
M30 collisions
9 Broadsides
6 Rear -ends
6 Sideswipes
4 Hit -object
2 Head-on
2 Not Stated
1 Vehicle -Pedestrian
KimlepMorn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
30 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Broadside (30%)
Sideswipe (23%)
Rear -end (20%)
Dark Collisions
13 Impaired Collisions
0 Collision Data
Number of Approaches
4 Total Entering Vehicles
36,686
Crosswalk Condition
Fair
Control Type
Signal
Lighting
Well -lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
35 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
23 1
0 Issues with right -turn lane on NB Citrus Street, drivers continue north past intersection from this lane Congestion on NB Citrus St leading to 1-10 Freeway
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install lane guidance
5%
$56,210
$4,000
14.13 striping and lane
guidance signage
Install
15%
$169,530
$26,400
6.42 retroreflective
(S02)
backplates
Install Leading
60%
$678,120
$45,600
14.87 Pedestrian Interval
(S21PB)
(LPI) timing
Kimley »Horn
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install Advanced
40%
$452,080
$76,800
5.89 Dilemma Zone
(SO4)
Detection System
Kimley »Horn
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Segment: Rowland Ave: Azusa Ave to Homerest Ave
Example of Similar Segments: Badillo St: Azusa Ave to Rimsdale Ave, Arrow Hwy: Irwindale Ave to 4th St
9. Rowland Ave: Azusa Ave to Homerest Aveell
-
-Trw-
f� f
a R
kaal r V•
R
{ - +Note: fatal and severe injw
id Ave
�:,
Legend
Broadside �}
Sideswipe
I
i
Rear -end
Head-on
4,
Bicycle —A
a
Parked Car p
`_ +R a wr!p *7.
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
collisions are shown in red
7' - rR—TIM
./ �•� ".ram �I
lOcollisions
5 Broadsides
TTTfff''' a Td... I Rear -ends
2 Sideswipes
0% - 1 Head-on
1 Bicycle
Kimley>»Horn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
10 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
0 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Broadside (60%)
Sideswipe (33%)
Rear -end (7%)
Dark Collisions
2 Impaired Collisions
0 Collision Data
Average Daily Traffic
(ADT)
11,544
Lighting
Well -lit
Median
Landscape Median
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
40 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
14 0
1 Housing development will be built here on north side of Rowland Ave Speeding is an issue here
Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install edgeline
25%
$99,300
$60,480
1.64 striping
(R28)
Install Keep Clear
15%
$59,580
$8,400
7.09 sign in median
(NS06)
opening 300' west
of Azusa Ave
Install speed
30%
$119,160
$22,800
5.23 feedback signage on
(1126)
Rowland Ave
Kimley »Horn
Agency Name: City of West Covina
Contact Name: Michael Ackerman
Email: [email protected]
Intersection: Lark Ellen Ave & Badillo St
Checked by: Kyle McGowan
Date: August 2022
Example of Similar Intersections: Azusa Ave & San Bernadino Rd, Badillo St & Orange Ave n
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
Kimley>»Horn
Collision Data
Total Collisions
41 Fatal and Severe Injury
Collisions
2 Top 3 Collision Types (%)
Broadside (66%)
Rear -end (12%)
Sideswipe (10%)
Dark Collisions
11 Impaired Collisions
0 This location has planned HSIP funding
Collision Data
Number of Approaches
4 Total Entering Vehicles
23,540
Crosswalk Condition
Fair
Control Type
Signal
Lighting
Well -lit
Highest Posted Speed
Limit
45 Collisions Involved With
Vehicular
Pedestrian
Bicycle
41 0
0 Potential
Crash Reduction
20 Year Safety
Total 20-Year Costs
Safety Related B/C
Countermeasures
Factor
Benefit
Ratio
(LRSM/CMF ID)
Install protected left-
30%
$2,158,950
$45,600
47.35 turn collisions here
(S07)
Install high visibility
25%
$1,799,125
$74,400
24.18 crosswalk here
(S18PB)
Install Leading
60%
$4,317,900
$45,600
94.69 Pedestrian Interval
(S21PB)
(LPI) timing
Kimley>))Horn
JCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 202;
9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox
This evaluation considered citywide trends to identify countermeasures that would likely provide the most benefit with widespread implementation. Table 8 outlines the citywide safety project opportunities, which is also referred to as the "Countermeasure Toolbox". Within the toolbox, the description of the countermeasure along with its Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) ID number is listed. The next column, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), are "multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected reduction in number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes)." For each of these countermeasures, a planning level benefit/cost analysis was completed.
Applying the benefit/cost at the citywide level was estimated assuming some randomness in crash distribution. The location characteristics, such as whether there is a traffic signal, and the type of crashes, were used at the citywide level to calculate an average cost of crashes that the countermeasure might reduce. The benefit per location was then factored out to a 20-year lifecycle savings, with an Opinion of Project Probable Cost (OPCC) for the initial installation costs and a per -year maintenance cost estimate. The cost shown in Table 8 should be considered initial planning costs using 2022 dollars and not assumed final.
r
H
7 C
C
(LJ
c
0 C
0 C
O
m
O
(J
m
0 C
C
C
C
C
N
—
O)
N
0)
0)
m
01 01
U
N
N
d
U
0 0
y
N
w
o
L
a
0. m
O
L
L
L
O.
@
m0.
m0.
O.
C.
C.
O.
N
N
C
N
a
a
a
a
n
o
CD
o
CD
m
o
CD m
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ro
0 N
1 N
N
N
N
N
V
V3
V3
V9
Q9.
6FJ
V3
V3
V9
V3
V>
V3
•(D
0 LO
0 LO
0 CD
0 CD
0 0
0 LO
0 CD
0 LO
0 CD
0 CD
0 LO
0 LO
CD
I
M
N
N
M
N
M
M
CD
c
o
o
0 C
m
c
N
c
N
c
am
CD
a
>
y
y
5 ?. y�
U
i
U
2 U
L
E
C
E
L
L
L
Z
n
m
3.o
c
U
c
rn
U
c
rnO
U
L0m
v`yN
tccC
m
m
0)
ar
Mc N
V
m
V
m
U
m
0I
0 co
m
co
m
U:Ey
CL
e
rL
com
mm=
mU
m
U
O.
d
d
N
m
rn
m@
m@
m
M'm
L
`m
y
0 0
c
O
c
O
C
c
o
c j
N
N
L
'>
L>
0 3
'cam
'c
am
'E
5 L o
N m
3 L
0 U
"y"
i
y
y N
C.)O
C
C
C
C
C
C
j
y
O
d
O)
N
01 N
01 N "O
y
N
`—a
E
!�
E
!�
E
N
C-0
y
O)
a
c
c
c
c
c
t
m c
E2.
o
o
o
cCID
c
3 y
N
0 y
0 y
c
E°
m
L
L
L
a
N—
N
y
C
N
_0N
.ca
y•
N
y=
N
y
N
N
c
T
m
p
T
m
p
T
m
p
y
3 N
N
m
co.@
o-
'
3 c
3 c
3 c
T cco
y
U
m
O
m
O
m
0 3
c0
E2N
C
N
N
N
M O
01 U
c 'N
C
J
m
m
m
m
O
0 C.)=
y
y
a
L
N
C
C
C
O)
C
O)co
CDU
m
�
C
UN
y
N
L
O1
U
O
2 N
0)
y
Oc
0.Om
C
c
m
m
_0rU
N
7 O
c
`
cm
rnO
c0
OLo
I.
U
Co
N
E
y
3 m
o
am
W
`o>
E
c
.�
c�
m L
c
L
3 S
aa)
o
-0
C
y-
y
o a
y
L
N
E
c
y
U
0 Co
'L
c
m
m
m 3
.L'
3 0
C
O
c
Co
m
Y
p
O
Co
U
N
a
O F
N y=
y
0 m
3 coi
m
N
3 co
c
n
CDCO
21 U
N
N
j
L
0 m
0)
O)
'O
U
uj
E
N
m
0 m
C
'my' 0)
'm0 N
y
d
y
m
co
j
O
co
m
N
>
m
°0
m
-0Nrn
UI
U
N
E
m�
c0.
r
c
.N
_
O
S
N
m
--.
O
c
— O
0 0
co
0 U
N
L
o
c
E
C.)c
c
c
.m.
c
c
w0
0 0
a
N
m
It
U')
m
r--
U)
z
z
z
z
�
�
cli
co
z
z
R
0_
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
C
O
E
C
C
a)
N
N
N
U
0 E
L
L
N
L
a)
L
L
N
L
U
a>
O.
U
L
C
C
m
C
L
a)
C
C
C
0-
n
o.
a
o.
n
n
a
o.
0 ro
o
0 0
0 0
o
o
to
o
0 v
0 N
CO
le
f0
p
(O
Ni(O
00 CO
r
V
V9
' o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 • N
M
V
M
M
N
N
fc0
c
a>
c
a>
c
No
°3
`La
m=
6a
c�
m.3
3 0 O
N
O N_
0 0) (a
L O
N
N
U
N
N
0-
a
L>
C L C
0)
o
X C
j
m
N C
O
l0/)
O
Oa
a)
O.
C
m "O
O
a)
0 N
a mca
L
m
I m 0
co co
C O
d N
�. y
, y
O
O)
C C O.
O O--0
L
c
01 O
0) a> 03
0 C
C a1
m
> as
m
C
m
c -0
L_ a>
U .-
a) U
U .-
a) U
N
E
0) o
y CL
L N
n
N0
J >.
L J
L a)
a)
c
3 L
N c
N C
a)
U
m
.3 a 0
w> U
L
c L
C
C
0)
y V) a)
0)
O .0
C N
C N
p
m
O
V) m m
C
a) C a)
C >,
C to r0
'y
'V C
O m
O a)
3 j
L
O .N
2 U N
0 N O)
0 E �.
L
0 m
O w
O o
C a)
0 O
O C
U— C
a)
3 'NO
N n
N n
or
m 'v
N
�' a m
y c0i
CL
c
�_ 0
rn
rn
E a
C
a) a) N
m a
0 C
0 0
ao
a)
aL
a>
a
'
N
N m
E0
Y
U
N
O
N
N
>.
m 0
N
N 0
N
m
a)
N
o
J
m
3 c
�
'@ a
>
76 o o
N i
'-
0 .� a
01 C
C
C
2 c
—
c c
m
c E
c c
c c
'o
0 O)
O) L
E
0) m
0 C
d m
y
C
a)
C
0 O
c
L
m
a)
O
ca
U
C
E
m
m
m
a)
N
U M
Lp_
N
l6
S
0 c
a o)
Ci
m
m
0>
m
N
w
3 o
c
c°
�
aa)) a
C
Q y
a> j
fa .-
O
a)
j
N
N
E
w
5@
N
v
c
o
c ami
m E
0 aa>>a.
m
t y
3 b
o m
E m
m
N d
d12 (D -0U
O
C a)
N
c
C
N y
0 '3L0
>i
N
U
a)
O) C
.-
O.
O
m L C
O
a
m
N m
t0J
m
C
N
N or
c
L>
>.
U
m
a
m
o.
L w
a
a
m m
m
U
m
@
U
O1
N
m
O.'m0
m
L L
C
C
C a
>
)
C
L
m
0 C
a
m
> 0
y a)
0 a)
—
C
j O
>
0 O.
w
O.
Z
co c
2 o.
CD
L
o
E
E
a
o
c
a
—
m
m
m
m
N
d
N
m
n
0 a
a
a
uO
0 0
0 co
m
m
U)
cn
�
04 n
fD
)CAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 2022
10.1 Funding
Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in West Covina. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout West Covina. This section provides a high-level introduction to some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply.
10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program that apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal -aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non -motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include:
• New or upgraded traffic signals
• Upgraded guard rails
• Pedestrian warning flashing beacons
• Marked crosswalks
• Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual California's local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call -for -projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California.
Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at:
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information — including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.html.
HSIP Cycle 11 applications are due in September 2022.
10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program
Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non -motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include:
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects
• Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g., safe routes to school) • Non -infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) ;:i:3
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at:
httij:// www.dot.ca.ciov/hci/LocalProcirams/ato/.
10.1.3 California SB 1
The California SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements.
California's state -maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state's growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including:
• Local Street and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation: $1.5 billion o This funding is dedicated to improve local road maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through projects such as restriping and repaving. • Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million
o This will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP.
• Local Planning Grants: $25 million
10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants
This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas:
o Alcohol Impaired Driving
o Distracted Driving
o Drug -Impaired Emergency Medical Services
o Motorcycle Safety
o Occupant Protection
o Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety
o Police Traffic Services
o Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program
o Roadway Safety and Traffic Records
PLAN
10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program
This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy efforts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories:
• Integrated Land Use
o Sustainable Land Use Planning
o Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
o Land Use & Transportation Integration
Active Transportation
o Bicycle Planning
o Pedestrian Planning
o Safe Routes to School Plans
• Green Region
o Natural Resource Plans
o Climate Action Plans (CAPs)
o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs
10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program This program has allocated $1 B annually for the next 4 years for local cities, counties, MPOs, and other roadway owners (excepting state DOTs) for safety improvement grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is not benefit / cost based.
Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project's alignment with the Safe Systems approach. There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in -kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agency and Implementation grants are open to agencies with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway Safety Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100K to $1M and Implementation grants are expected to range from $1M to $20M.
Grant applications are due in September 2022. Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan and the City's adoption of a Vision Zero resolution makes the City eligible to apply for SS4A implementation grants.
10.1.7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
In November 2021, the President signed into law the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above, this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for improvements and investment in the transportation sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over 5 years for competitive RAISE grants for transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these grant programs continue to be developed, City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue.
)CAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST 2022
10.2 Implementation Plan
Once the Local Roadway Safety Plan has been completed, the City can plan to regularly review and monitor collision data for trends and changes. The City can also plan to prioritize and implement certain improvements that were identified in this plan.
10.2.1 Monitoring
The City can plan to regularly monitor the success of the LRSP and its related implementations by performing the following steps. This before and after analysis can be performed every second year. The City can also meet with the Sheriff department quarterly to discuss roadway safety issues and compare to the latest collision analysis.
• Pull yearly collision data from Crossroads database to determine year -over -year trend • Utilize Crossroads or GIS software to review the number of collisions occurring at specific locations. Locations where improvements have been made should receive priority for monitoring.
• Based upon changes in collision activity, determine efficacy of improvements and adjust strategies going forward
10.2.2 Analysis Update
The City can plan to update the analysis every two years as part of a monitoring program, as described in Section 10.2.1. Every 4 years the City will perform a major update to the analysis and the Local Roadway Safety Plan by performing the following steps. This update will maintain eligibility for the HSIP grant funding for the City. This analysis should continue to focus on both systemic and location -specific safety needs.
11. Obtain updated Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data from the Crossroads database
12. Use Excel software to update the collision trend analysis completed in Section 7, continue to compare new collision to historic trends
13. Update the roadway shapefile with any new or upgraded roadways
14. Update the intersection shapefile with any new or upgraded intersections
15. Re -run the GIS collision tool to determine the number of collisions at intersections and roadways within the updated study period. The City can plan to run the collision tool for all collisions, as well as the collision types identified in Section 3.2.2
16. Update the collision analysis performed in this report, including the collision analysis tables shown in Section 7.7
17. Review the Collision Toolbox to determine if any additional countermeasures should be considered for implementation in the City
10.2.3 Implementation Strategies
The opportunities identified in this report provide systemic and location -specific countermeasures that can be implemented within the City. Implementation will be dictated by funding and available resources, this 71 PLAN
guidance is preliminary and subject to change. Over the near -term and mid-term, the City can concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas. • Aggressive Driving
• Intersection Improvements
• Impaired Driving
• Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists)
Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to collisions within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project -specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit.
Projects that address these focused areas citywide can be developed with a high benefit -to -cost ratio (by applying City-wide collision rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct collision history, but with conditions that might contribute to future collisions. For location -specific improvements, the City can utilize benefit -cost ratio calculations to help prioritize projects as funding and resources become available. The countermeasure toolbox in Table 8 also identified a potential prioritization timeline for each improvement, based on cost, effectiveness and feasibility.
This project prioritization process will help the City be ready for the funding opportunities identified in Section 10.1. Project prioritization will also help to guide the projects as they are taking into the design and construction project. Coordination with City departments will be key in the completion of these implementations.
The City can also plan to implement the non -engineering improvements identified throughout this report, including actions related to Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. These actions will require coordination with internal and external stakeholders, such as City departments, law enforcement, local government organizations, and local community organizations. Early buy -in and engagement from these stakeholders will be key to the success of these actions.
To aid in these actions, the City can assemble a `Task Force' of representatives from different City departments, such as Public Works, Development Services, and Public Safety. This task force will be instrumental in the monitoring, analysis update, project development and project implementation outlined in this plan.
10.3 Next Steps
The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and the safety efforts overall. • Develop investment program to help achieve the City's Vision Zero goals • Work with state and partner agencies on implementation of large-scale programs and policies • Incorporate safety analysis findings in future updates of safety programs • Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance, and funding opportunities F&A
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
AUGUST2022
F11
Z
Q
.1
a
W
LL
Q
a
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
Q
u
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
tP
N
V
M
V
M
M
M
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
V
m
m
ry
0 -
O
O
O
O
I
O
O
O
0 0
0 O
O
O
-
O
O
o
.i
.i
.
O
ti
O
O
0 0
O
O
'i
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
• .
m
.�
m
.�
.+
.+
.+
.�
.+
O
O
N
O
N
.•
a
m
m
a
.+
M
a
m
ry
ry
ry
m
•n
..
.r
ao
ti
N
v
N
r
m
m
�
M
N
apispeois
0 I.
N
VI
M
VI
VI
O
CO
V1
V
LO
M
1!1
O
M
N
N
fl
N
N
rl
N
N
N
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o
O
O
O
O
m
0 S
o
0 a
a
a
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 o
g
o
q
o
o
c
4 n
N
O
w
M
M
'i
'i
O
a0
a0
a0
b
�
�o
•n
M
�n
v
v
v
v
a
a
M
M
M
m
'a
z
3 c
p
Y
w
w
m
m
ry
o
v
w
Z
ry
w
E
3 3
3 E
w
03 d
d
w
3 d
d
a03w
>>
a.03>
a.
a=
a>
a
a
a>
a>
a
L
c
c
w
c
o
—
—
w
—
o
m
y
y
w
a
a
a
y�
c
c
U•
VI
VI
VI
N
f
N
Z
Z
N
VI
VI
Z
V1
V1
V1
a
Z
Q
.1
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
u
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
N
m
ry
o
m
ry
o
o
+
+Hry
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
N
N
l0
M
N
b
'i
a
M
0000.,o
o.,o�
o�aoo
00000000000000000
O
O
O
.+
0 0
0 0
0 ..
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
M
'I
N
N
m
m
O
N
O
ei
N
ei
N
N
N
N
N
N
'i
N
N
N
N
fl
N
rl
Of
M
M
t0
I�
m
N
n
m
1�
M
b
b
m
r
Arnful ajgjklA Jag70 0 Ill ml e©©©
in H H muumuu i
i!!!!!!mmmmmmmm !!RMP
I
1!1
m
N
M
l0
M
Ill
IIIIN
M
rl
N
ry
m
Na
O
rl
rl
rl
N
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
l0
l0
Ill
Ill
V
C
M
M
N
N
N
O
M
M
M
M
m
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
N
N
N
N
N
Z
W
Z
O
�
A
E
W
�
0 0`
n
ti
°�
¢
w
¢
¢
W
OE
w
w
m
m
W
w w
v w
> N
w
(mN
ly
o71
a
2 071
a
a¢
>
W
071
v
m
w°1
a
H
071
a
a
H
Z
>>
Z
W
of
a
c
w
1 W
o3
a
w
a
m
3 K
W
03 a¢
a
..
c
yl
Nf
a
Q
o¢
w
a
w
E
N
uw
Q
c
E
m
u
w
c
o
v
W
Cu
x
a
-
Z
Z
Z
V1 Z
VI
VI
VI
VI
Z
Z
Z
Z
N
N
N
N
VI
N
a
Z
Q
J
loof
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
u
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
N
N
'I
N
ei
N
ei
ei
O
O N
N
N
ei
O
N
' I O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
00 O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
OO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O070
O
.+
O
O
O
O
• I
O
O
ei
ei
ei
O
ei
O N
N
ei
O
O
.� N
'I
N
m
ei
ei
N
ei
O
O
N O
ei
N
N
of
b
b
a
m
m
m
of
.i
vl
O a
a
m
m
ry
b
^'
ti
m
m
n
m
a
a
m
b
ao
ao
ao
n
M
CO
O]
ill
n
M
N
V
b b
V
v1
V
ul
t0
v)
N
N
Vl
V
N
ei
ei
N
ei
N N
M
N
V
'I
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
w
• I p
b
b
N
m
N
O
N
b
m
n n
N
N
b
N
V
M
p�
Vf
b of b m M
0 O N O
p
N
O O O O O O O O
O O O O 9 9 O
n
n
l0
b
b
1!1
0 N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
T
T
�
C
Q
4 E
¢
C
ry
M
;;
a
o
=
a
«
o
v
T
v
E
0 `o
.3
a
m
a
m
c
o
v
v
v
`-
w
v
�
$
u
a
v
N
m
m
>
u
u
l7
Ek
m
>
O
O
M
O
O
N
VI
VI
VI
Z
0 VI
Z
VI
N
Z
Z
N
N
Z
V1
V1
M
Q
Z
Q
J
loof
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
u
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 ' I O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
_ - - o
o
m
�
m
�e
ao
�e
•n
o
a
ao
n
ao
m
0000000000�00000�0
o00000000000000000
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
.'+
'
O
O
O
O
•.
o
.�
O
o
.�
O
o
.�
.�
O
O
.• N
N
'I
O
O
N
O
N
N
N
N
O
'I
'I
M
ul
M
n
M
•/1
O
N
V
N
M
m
M
n
V
•ll
ei
ei
M
V
N n
�O
V
• I. co
m
m
.mi
.rvi
.rvi
m
ti
'^ ti w
�
n
N
O
•ll
N
N
V
V
.-I
N
M
N
N
O
N
ei
M
ei
N
O
O
M N N
ei
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
�n
•n
m
a
m
a
•v
M
�o
m
a
ry
m
ry
m
N
•n n o o ry ., a ., m a ry
m o a
n
O O O O O O O O O O O
O O O
O
.i
.i
O
O
O
m
m
m
a0
n
n
n
10 10
10 10
10 Vf
N
N
N
N
N
ei
ei
eel
eel
ei
ei
'I
'I
'I
'I
'I
'I
.-I
L
m
S
d
.3
>
d
O
OE
a
06 06
0 M
d
7 >
d
�'
.3
Q
>
Y
OyJ
d
VI
d
d
7 Q
Q
>
mi
d
T
d
d
N
m
'D
Z
y,
U•
N
M
Z
N
Z
IL/1
6 VI
O
Z
VI
VI
Z
Z
Q
N
N
N
U
N
V
VI
Z
a
N
N
0 N
F
N
7 7
OMMMMMMMMMMM
MMMl
come
on
a
a
alalaaaaaa
lemma
�000000000aaaaaa�
o
ccNNccicc
eel
ONN
NONMNNO
cccal
Mimi
cell
me
Ml
O
M
eMOeeaaele
l
OMMMMma
No
Neel
�LOMALcc
aNNNmN
l
©©MMMMMM
©M©©aa©
tin ul a gjk1A MM eeeeaem ee eeNc
ONE HE HHUMMUM I
MAAAAAA AAA AAAA9
N
C
w
V
V
tO
N
V
V
V
C
N
N
N
1� VI
lO
C
O
N
a
O
N
O1
M N
N
M
N
N
In
In
M
M
N
N
M
0 0
0 o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
•i
ei
ei
ei
ei
'I
'I
'I
'I
ei
ei
'I
'I
'I
'I
'I
'I
1 a
d
2 N
w ;
O Q
Z Z N
d> >
a a a a> Q d a> a
w v E a a i m LL 0 2 v J Lj o`
w
o
u in ?i °� E M 03 3 03 3 ii 03 a `-° 03 a
a
N VI VI i VI VI Z Z VI N N Z Z N N VI
LO
Q
N
N
0 N
F
Vl
7 7
m0
000000IIIIIIC
omm00000000000000
000000000000000�
0000000000000000�
moll
mmmomommmmo
m
mmmmmmmmmmmm
pu3,eaa m©ommm©m© ©0
I
MI
©M
MENNEN
I
4 NMml
m
N
N
N
NR9
o
ry
ry
o
.
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 '^
m
m
co
w
a
m
m
w
m
ro
N
N
N
N
O1
H
ry
m m
m
N
m
m
a
a0
a
�
a
a
a
a
a
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 �
m
m
m
m
m
m
ao
ao
ao
ao
N
N
N
N
N
a
a c
QN
2, n n > 4 N n n
u ry y 2° v 3 3"'A m
w
u °' "' y y °j c w p m �' w
ti o
°° 3 �a
o 3
3 3 2 z z u
% N N f N i Z N Zm Z N Z Z N N
B
Z
Q
.1
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
u
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
O
O
O N
.
.
.
N
.
.
N
O
O
O
'I
-
' I O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O O
.
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
I O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O O
o00
0..0000000000000
- I O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
• I •y
•y o
0 o
m
o
.+
ry
o
o
.�
.�
.�
.�
N .�
0 0
o a
r
m
ry
r
m
.+
ry
a
o
ry
m
m
N
• I.
m
m o
�n
m
in
in
a
N
m
•c
m
N
m
ti m
ry
ti
,�
,�
,�
,�
,�
.i
.i
0 0
0 �n
m
a
ry
a
m N
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
00 O
O
00 O
O
• I a
o
m m
°m0 0
.�
.�
m
au
N
m
r
N
e
n
n
a
m
�n
a M
a aayo
v+
m
G
c0
G
m
jellu__ .mi W
N
t0
M
M
M
N
I�
V
V
M O
O O O O
.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O O
m
N
N
m
M
M
n
n
n
b
O
i
Q
i
0 m
a
z
�
c
�
`
w
Z
v
E E
m
n
v
n
a
a
g
o
v
¢'
m
a'
N
V C
d
T
N
O
p
O
C
q
q
d
N
E
2 3
w
w
3 3
-`
=
d
a
Em
E
w
w
3 3
3 03
03 03
03 03
03 03
.6
u
u
^'
v
v
v
03 Nf
`E
w
v
E
o
o
m
Z
Z
Z N
VI
VI
VI
VI
Q
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
Z
N
n
Q
Z
Q
J
loof
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
u
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O O
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 O
O-
O
O O
O
0 0 0
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
.+
O
'
ry
ry
v
ry m
m
m
m
O
m
ry
O
m
ry
00000.,00000000000000
0 0
0 0
0 00
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
.� 'I
O O
O
ei
O O
ei
O
ei
O
O
O
O
eel
ei
O
O
N
'I
N
ei
N
N
O
ei
M
ei
N
'I
N
�y
N W
W M
N V
ei
M
Vf
O
�O
M
eel
eel
�p
N
N
• .. �n
m �n
M
�c �c
�c
�c
a
�n
a
�c
n
m
v
'I
O
N N
O
ei
O
O
ei
ei
O
'I
O
O
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O 010
O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
M c0
ry .i
� b
b
O
.i
O
C
T
O
T
a0
m
O
01 O
n Oq N
b
O T
•�
•�
O Ll1 M
O]
VI V
N
N
O
O
O
O
.�
O
O
O V O
M O
M O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p
p
p
ti
ti
ti
ti
ti
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
00 `w
>
m¢¢
a
v
c
i¢
H
z
a
s
a
3 c
>
a
c
a
y
E
Z
'>
2 f0
'o
u
E
u
m
�°
3 Q
E°
W
a
W_
3 3
E
w
06 >
O
M
'o
01 v
o
c
a
3 c
a
a
C
r
v
C
W
c
C
O
v
m
C
`
�
N
VI
VI
Z
Z
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
N
N
i
N
N
Z
N
VI
VI
VI
B
Z
Q
.1
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
u
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 '1 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0-
o
o
O
O
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0-
0 0
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
•.
O
O
ei
O
O
O
c
.• o
.,
.,
o
0 0
0 0
.�
.�
o
o
.�
o
0 o
O
O
O
o
N
O
rl
N
N
'i
N
rl
'i
O
O
O
O
N
ei
'i
O
N
a
V V
M
O
ei
M
M
N
N
ei
N
N
ei
�
'I
O
• .. n �n
n
M
•n
•n
•n
a
•n
a
•n
a
a
a
a
�n
a
�n
'I
'I
O
N
N
N
N
N
N
ei
ei
ei
N
N
N
N
N
N
'I
'1
O
'I
'I
ei
ei
ei
ei
O
ei
ei
O
O
ei
'I
O
'I
'I
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 • 1'
N
N
N
'I
V
N
N
N
M
N
ei
�
N
�
�
N
N
'I
N
N
N
M
M
N
M
l0
V
p
O
0 O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
O
m
m
m
ao
ao
ao
ao
ao
ao
ao
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
�
a
>
T
Y
a
a
O
W
L
03 in
o
>
m
w
j
>
a
C
v
>
2 3
!E
0 m
a
s
a
w;
w
03 o
071
v
NI
i
3 06
v
o
w
,�
Nf
o3
N.>
¢
¢
0 0
00 3
¢>
¢
v>
v
v
3 eri
o`
v
a
c
v
Y
v
m
3 c
V1
Z
0 VI
Z
VI
VI
f
Z
N
0 N
N
N
N
VI
VI
Z
0 Z
Q
J
loof
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
u
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 O
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.+
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
.+
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.+
O
m
ry
ry
O
ry
ry
ry
.+
000..00000000000000
o00000000000000000
1 O
O
O
O
O
O
c
.+
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 •. O
o
.,
o
0 0
0 0
0 ..
o
0 0
0 0
.,
o
.• o
.,
O
o
o
..
o
0 0
..
o
0 0
..
o
o
O
o
• 1
V
N
V
M
M
M
p
M
M
O
.'I
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
.�-i
m
O
.`ia
O
0 0
06 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
d
o
0 0
0 1�
b
b
b
b
b
b
b
vl
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
VI
Vf
VI
7 Q
O
U
y
J
>
3 m
a
¢
w
_m
>
a
Q
c
c
v
c
>
v
E
v
w
z
m>
=•
n
a
c
m>>
i
Y
v
c
'
m
`w
a
v
m
3 E
w
3 13
3 o
z
W
w
3 >
°'�
'
"'
03 3
03 m
°'�
6 cd
3 H
yj
03 071
v
>
y°
r
u3
3 a
03 ij
H
03 ¢
0 v
¢
v
d
G
m
m
n
v
Se
r
'c
c
t
E
w
U
F
Z
N
N
y
Q
N
U
W
6 C
Z
V1
V1
VI
Z
Z
Z Z
O
r
Q
Q
.I
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
Q
J
Q
V
0 J
N
N
0 N
F
Vl
7 7
Ol0©QO©©
©0©
r�li0©00�1
O11000
o00mmmmm000�
a01000000
mm000mlOC
D
lmmmmmm
m0
milli
33*031H 11 mm m Ommmmmm00l
T
T
Q
Z
Q
.1
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
tQ
V
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 ' I O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O-
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
•. o
.,
O
O
O
o
.�
o
.�
.�
o
0 0
0 .,
o
O
O
o
.• O
O
O
O
O
o
.�
.�
o
0 0
0 0
o
O
O
o
M
'I
O
O
O
O
ei
ei
O
ei
ei
O
O
N
'I
O
N
N
O
ei
O
O
ei
O
O
O
eel
N
N
N
• 1
N
M
O
O
N
m
N
O
M
eel
M
M
O
O
'I
O
O
O
O
O
ei
ei
O
O
ei
O
O
O
'I
O
O
'I
'I
ei
O
ei
O
O
O
O
O
ei
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
• 1. Vf
C
T
^
V
n
OI
C
C
O1
C
N
C
M
eml
earl
V
eai
�
�p
m
n
n
p
c0
c0
O
n
O
rl
O
O
O
G
G
O
C
C
C
O
O
O
6 a
o
a
v
�
a
a
o
m
�
L
"O
�
�
U
0•
V
>
H
W
O
p
a
w
3 v
a
o
3 yj
w
a
o
.�
3 03
w
`o
q
3 3
.3
w
J
w
m
o3
3 .3
ob
cd
o3
03 p
a
H
>
v
>3
Z
v
071
071
a
a
a
o
3 aw
C
muo
e
a>
a>
oo
v
v
v
y
T
o
N
O
N
L
N
F
F
C
N
N
C]
S
ym
ym
>
O
N
Z
V1
�
V1
J
4 VI
VI
N
N
Q
N
Q
N
N
N
VI
VI
VI
N
r
Q
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 7
Is
Inammommillmall
�00000000000000000
�00000000000000000
seeeeeeeeee
sasses
rm
�pu3 JeaN
'I
O
O
O
O
O
'I
N
N
M
O
rl
N
N
rl
N
O
O
'I
'I
ei
O
O
O
O
O
ei
O
ei
ei
O
O
'I
O
O
ei
ei
O
O
ei
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
m
ry
m
a
a
a
ry
ry
�
�
ry
nyy
m
m
�
.vi
.vi
.vi
0 0
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
i
o
0 0
0 0
a
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
v
L
L
d
`w
a>
L
�
�
C
E
`e
L
c
c
3 Z
s
E
a
=
=
o
L°
y
o
ua
ry
yw
N
VI
VI
VI
VI VI
0 VI
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
M
r
Q
Z
Q
J
loof
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
V
0 J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0000000000000000000
o000000000000000000
-. 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
•. o
.,
O
o
.�
.�
O
o
o
.�
.�
o
0 0
0 0
.• O
.-I
.-I
N
O
ei
ei
O
O
O
ei
ei
O
O
O
ei
O
O
O
N
O
N
.-I
O
ei
ei
O
O
O
O
ei
ei
O
.-I
N
• I.
N
ei
ei
N
N
N
eel
ei
N
N
O
.-I
O
O
O
O
O
.
.
.
O
O
ei
ei
ei
O
O
O
O
.-I
O
O
O
O
O
ei
ei
O
O
O
O
O
O
ei
ei
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
m
m
ao
m
m
ao
ao
ti
n
m
�
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.°i-i
o
0 0
.a-i
o
0 0
0 0 0 0
o
c
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
c
o
0 0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a v m m
d
O
a
do
>
d
C
=
d
d
J
(L
3 '�
pasialul«'
z
�n
m
3 E
a
s
E
o
c
>
3 E
3 a
a
c
m
a
O`
w
Q
y
r
c
Y
�
g
.3
c
y
w
w
w
w
"'
'0
o
z
m
E
Q
w
c
3 o
5 E
m
n
�_
2 c
c
E
c
c
d
E
E
m'
Z
v�i
Z
vdi
V1
l7
V1
a
t
VI
>
H
VI
u
=
N
N
N
N
N
VI
VI
v
Q
Z
Q
.1
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
tQ
V
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 0
0 0
0 0
-
o
0 o
O
o
0 o
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
.+
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
.+
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 11
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
m
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
..00000000000000000
- I o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 •.
o
o
.,
o
..
O
o
o
O
O
O
O
O
o
o
.,
.• o
.,
o
o
O
O
O
o
..
o
..
O
O
O
O
o
.,
o
N
.I
N
• I .1
N
O
N
N
.I
N
.0
O
O
.I
O
O
.I
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
.I
.9
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
• I�
m
m
.+
m
ao
n
�c
�
ao
m
m
m
ao
m
m
m
�
m
.Mi
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
a
a
>
c
¢
o
`E
a
c
E
m
w
>
°1
w
o`
v¢
S
Q
m
u
o
E
0'
E
3 3
i
•�,
N
3 3
�'
03 .a
�a
06 N
w
3 �
3 oa
m
m
3 06
w
v
m
m
c
C
c
=
>
a
a
m
3 p
c
c
cF
N
VI
VI
VI
VI
�
VI
VI
VI
N
N
N
N
N
N
VI
VI
LO
r
Q
N
N
0 N
F
Vl
7 7
.111111©©Ilim
Mae
I
00000mmmmmommmmomo
vaaaaaaaaaa
mammal
omm
maaaamaaaam
as
seeeeeeeeeee
eases
pu3 Jeaa a oaoaa omommmmo
'I
'I
O
O
ei
rl
ei
O
O
O
ei
O
ei
O
O
O
'I
'I
ei
N
N
N
N
N
ei
N
N
o
O
.+
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
co
m
m
m
m
m
W
m
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
o
c
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
w
0 w
a
T
V
�
d
Q
a
w
�
3 C
O
Ly
N
a
U
N
T
VI
>
Q
W
Q
W
C
Q
12 N
Y
c
E
3 03
3 m
3 vi
a1
01 "'
(7
3 w
wl
03 Qa
>
Q
N
W
U
p
a
C
Q
a
LU
O
LU 'O
VI
Q
Q
V
Y
m
m
>
m
°O
10 =
w
m
O
y
3 _d
3 w
m
y°°
>
y°
E
E
a
m
w
a
a
m
3 L
x
u
O
x
O
t7
u
t7 a
m
<
U
w
r
u
m
v
w
v
v
v
v
v 0
v
z
3 w
v
v
z
r
Q
Z
Q
.1
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
tQ
V
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 0
0 0
.+
0 0
0 .
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0-
0 0
0 O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
- -- O
O
O
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
•. o
.,
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ..
o
.• o
0 0
.,
o
o
..
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
..
o
o
.,
• 1 .I
.-I
O
N
N
.-I
N
N
N
O
N
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 a
o
�o
ao
ao
n
ao
.o
.o
m
.o
in
m
m
co
c
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
v
j
¢
N
¢
W
�
d
C
v
>
C
d
v
_
3 >
06 y�
v
v
o
0 >
v
x
o
>
Q
>
o
a
o
w
p
E
a
E
m
v
o¢
3 E
>
>
v
a
o
a
2 �
m
d
12 ¢
w
.a
z
.a
0.6 z
0 w
>
071
o
—
m
¢
v
N
o
u
v
o
v
m
N
v
-dp
m
m
o
c
2 c
y
w
m
m
c
c
—
a
0 N2
2 N
y�
y�
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0 Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
0 Z
Q
.I
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
V
O
J
N
N
O
N
F
Vl
7 7
fo,
R
Z
J
a
W
LL
Q
a
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
V
O
J
O I .y
O O
.+
O
'+
O
O
O
O
O
I -1 O
O O
O
'+
O
O
O
O
'I
O
O
O
O
O
O o f O
N I N
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
ei
O
O
O
ei
O
O
O
O
N
O
'I
O
O
O
.i
O
O
O
.i
O
O
0 I .y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0 O
0 O
o
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
O
O N
O -
0 O
0 O
V
0 0
O O
N N
O H
O
N
O
ei
O
O
'I
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
TOO
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
� N eel N M N ei ei N M ei N ei a
® VNI O N ervi N O N N 0 VI
O O O O O O O p
�I-I-I-I
m
N
a
O
d
>
a
3 w
o
c
c
a
s
o
d
«
s o
LL
w
>i
'LL
a
w
�u
wa3�33
3 LLa
w
a
w
u"
3a za
„
n n
c
z
>aQ
o`
o
a'
d
K
N
N
d N
W
C
YI
YI p[
v«di
u«di
v«di
Q a
E
a
a
m
u
n
VI
N
VI
VI
VI
N
N
a
M
M
Z
�
J
M
J
VI
r
Q
Z
Q
.I
a
W
LL
Q
a
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
9z
J
Q
u
O
J
0 o
O
0 O
O
O
O
O
0 O
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 O
O
0 O
O O
O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 O O O
0 .+
O
O
O
O
0 O
0 O N
N
O
O
0 0 0 0
0 o
O
O
O
o
0 0
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 O O O O
ei N 'I N
ei eel eel
'I
M ry O vl
V M M
O O O O m O
O G G
O
O
a a M M m tD
V m m
m
M
m
M
m
o
—
3 «w
3 0
Z
w
`o w
H
o
3 a
n
w m
a>
>
a
u
w
m e
E
T M
j L Q�
C�
N N
M
�
Z
Z
j
u
u
u
3 z
0 o
0�
w
3 3
VI
V1
N
N
w S
CD
N
Q
Z
Q
.1
a
W
LL
Q
3 °C
J
Q v
Q
O
J
Q
u
O
J
N
N
N
N
n
m
`m
0 O
O
N
N
6 O
O
ei
N
U
O
O
O
a
0 0
0 0
$
e
m
O
O
O
0 0
0 o
n
0 0
0 o
O
o
'I
O
ei
N
d
N
O
N
a
A
N
N
Lm
i
U
o
�
L_
a
N
0 0
0 0
a
0 0
0 0
0 rn
w
,y
m
ao
o
m
II
N M N
w m
a
N
N
N
N
a m m
6 N
N
O
�
a
o
3 n
o
w
3 L
U
N
w
> Q
C C
�
t
3 > >
0 m
a
v
a
N
� m
o
E
T
w
m O
V O
O
O
j
a
�
O
a
u m
I I
C
J
LL
t/�
fi N
N
Q