Yucaipa City Council
September 25, 2023

Agenda Item No.

CITY OF YUCAIPA

AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Fermin Preciado, Director of Development Services/City Engineer Landon Kern, Assistant City Engineer I,VW
Todd Gutjahr, Public Works Analy
FOR: City Council Meeting of September 25, 2023
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 2023-38 - Approval and Adoption of the Local Roadway Safety Plan for the City of Yucaipa
RECOMMENDATION:

That the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 2023-38 approving and adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) for the City of Yucaipa.

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:

For many years, the City has aggressively pursued federal, state, and local grant funding to help fund and construct Capital Improvement Program (CIP) infrastructure projects. With direction from the City Council, staff has also pursued partnerships with other agencies to help fund and construct infrastructure projects that provide multiple benefits to residents of the City of Yucaipa.

The City has completed many traffic improvements as a result of successful grant funding applications under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) administered by Caltrans.

HSIP grant eligibility requirements have been updated and now require local jurisdictions to develop a Citywide LRSP, in order to be eligible for HSIP and other grant funding administered by Caltrans.

An LRSP identifies and analyzes roadway safety concerns, resulting in recommendations for potential roadway safety improvements in an effort to enhance public safety and emergency response throughout the City of Yucaipa.

On February 12, 2023, the City Council awarded a contract in the amount of $52,460 to KOA of Monterey Park, CA for the preparation of the LRSP and authorized a contract contingency in the amount of $4,040 and the amount of $3,500 for contract administration and staff time for a total cost of $60,000.

The LRSP was developed by KOA and City staff through collaborations with stakeholders, resulting in a final report that includes a prioritized list of improvements and recommendations that have been identified within the City of Yucaipa. The LRSP provides a framework that organizes stakeholders and the general public to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway

improvements. Stakeholders included residents, the Yucaipa Police Department, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, the Yucaipa Fire Department, Omnitrans and the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District.

Several recommended improvements identified in the LRSP are associated with projects that are already included in the FY24 CIP. If approved, staff will evaluate the other recommendations for improvements identified in the LRSP as protentional future CIP projects. The adoption of the LRSP allows staff to apply for HSIP and other grant opportunities. Therefore, staff recommends the City Council Adopt Resolution No. 2023-38 approving and adopting the LRSP for the City of Yucaipa
FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact as a result of this proposed Council action.

Attachment:

1. Resolution No. 2023-38

2. City of Yucaipa LRSP
Approved by: ---�� z

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO.2023-38

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA

APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, Federal regulations require that each State has a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), and while the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a means for providing local road owners with an opportunity to address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP; and
WHEREAS, starting in 2022, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Call for Projects, will require that an agency have an approved LRSP to be eligible to apply for federal HSIP funds; and
WHEREAS, the City of Yucaipa submitted a LRSP preparation Funding Application to Caltrans, and in March of 2021 received notification that a $54,000 LRSP grant with a required $6,000 City match was approved; and
WHEREAS, the Scope of Work of the project included preparation of the City's LSRP through acquiring and analyzing traffic and collision data, identifying partners to review the data, selecting emphasis areas, developing safety strategies and countermeasures, and adopting the final plan; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP will play a critical role in addressing traffic collision risks and may identify specific or unique conditions that contribute to traffic collisions within the City and will provide a blueprint for future projects with costs associated with each project; and WHEREAS, in August 2022, staff released a Request for Qualifications/Proposals (RFQ/P) for the Development of a Local Roadway Safety Plan; and WHEREAS, in February 2023, City Council awarded a contract with KOA, awarding the planning and development of the LSAP to KOA; and
WHEREAS, stakeholder meetings were held with the community, the Yucaipa Police Department (San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department), the Yucaipa Fire Department (CAL FIRE), Omnitrans, and the Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District to present the purpose of the LRSP, the results of the citywide crash pattern and trend analysis for crash severity and roadway user type (pedestrian and bicycle crashes), and priority locations identified from the citywide crash analysis; and
WHEREAS, stakeholder meeting attendees and guidance was provided for the feedback sought regarding priority locations, areas with known safety issues/high-risk behaviors including near schools and parks, and desired roadway infrastructure improvements and safety programs and stakeholder packet responses were collected and addressed in the LRSP, with the final priority projects determined based on stakeholder's responses and Caltrans criteria; and WHEREAS, the approval of the LRSP would enable City staff to submit the HSIP grant applications, with the goal of receiving funds to implement the LRSP-identified priority projects.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YUCAIPA HEREBY FINDS, DETERMINES, ORDERS, AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Yucaipa approves and adopts the City of Yucaipa's Local Roadway Safety Plan dated September 2023, and attached and incorporated to this Resolution.

PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 25`" day of September, 2023.

Justin Beaver, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ana V. Sauseda, CMC
Director of General Services/City Clerk

ATTACHMENT 2

Prepared for:

City of Yucaipa
Prepared By:

KOA Corporation
KO(wv4,A

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND..............................................................................................................................

1.2 OVERVIEW OF YUCAIPA.............................................................................................................

1.3 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PROCESS..................................................................................

1.4 PROJECT MISSION AND GOALS..............................................................................................

1.5 DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES..........................................................................................

1.6 SAFETY STAKEHOLDERS.............................................................................................................

1.7 PUBLIC MEETING ............... ....................... ................................... .................................................

2.0 METHODOLOGY
1 .............................................................................................1 ............................................................. ..................... 1 ............................................................................................. 2 ............................................................................................. 3 ............................................................................................. 4 ............................................................................................. 5 .................................................................................. 5 0 3.0 COLLISION ANALYSIS 9

3.1 CITYWIDE COLLISION DATA .................................................... ... ........ ........................................................... .................................................. ....................... 9

3.1.1 CRASHES BY YEAR AND SEVERITY............................................................................................................................................................................ 9 3.1.2 CRASH BY TIME OF DAY AND DAY OF WEEK.........................................................................................................................................................10

3.1.3 CRASH TYPE............................................................................................................................................................................................................10

3.1.4 CRASH CAUSES.......................................................................................................................................................................................................1 1 3.1.5 CRASH INVOLVED WITH.........................................................................................................................................................................................13

3.1.6 LIGHTING CONDITIONS.........................................................................................................................................................................................14

3.1.7 PEDESTRIAN CRASHES...........................................................................................................................................................................................14

3.1.8 BICYCLE CRASH CAUSE.........................................................................................................................................................................................A S

3.1.9 AT -FAULT PARTIES.................................................................................................................................................................................................15

3.2 COMPARISON WITH CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZE................................................................................................................................................................16

3.3 FOCUSED CRASH NETWORK...............................................................................................................................................................................................17

3.3.1 INTERSECTIONS......................................................................................................................................................................................................17

3.3.2 MIDBLOCK..............................................................................................................................................................................................................18

3.3.3 SEGMENT................................................................................................................................................................................................................19

3.4 SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS......................................................................................................................................................................................I..............19

3.4.1 INTERSECTION SAFETY........................................................... ................................................................ ............................................................... 19

3.4.2 SPEED MANAGEMENT............................................................................................................................................................................................20

3.4.3 ROADSIDE SAFETY..................................................................................................................................................................................................21

3.4.4 BICYCLE SAFETY......................................................................................................................................................................................................22

3.4.5 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY...............................................................................................................................................................................................22

3.4.6 DRIVING UNDER THE INFLUENCE..........................................................................................................................................................................23

3.4.7 DISTRACTED DRIVING............................................................................................................................................................................................23

3.4.8 EQUITY ........................ ................................................................................................................................................... ............... ......................... 24

4.0 SAFETY TOOLBOX 28

4.lBACKGROUND .......................................... ............................................................................................................................................................................... 28 4.2ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES .............................................................................................................................................................................. 28 4.2.1sIGw^uED INTERSECTIONS ................................................................................................................................................................................. ma
4lzNON-SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES -----___-'-----__-----_--_—'--.'----'-_31 42JROADWAY COUNTERMEASURES .................................................. ................... .......................... ..................................................... ................... ao 4aEDUCATION COUNTERMEASURES ........................................................................................................ ........... ............................................................... 35

4.4ENFORCEMENT COUNTERMEASURES ................................................................................. ....................................................... .................................... so
4aEMERGENCY SERVICE COUNTERMEASURES ......................................................................... 5]]PRIORITY PROJECTS 38

5.lPROJECT IDENTIFICATION ........................................................................................ ....................................................... ----au szCITYWIDE SIGNAL HARDWARE UPGRADES —............................................... ................................ ---------.--''3o

5.3 CITYWIDE SIGNAL TIMING IMPROVEMENTS .......................................................... ......................................................................... ............................. 42 s*ROADWAY COUNTERMEASURES ............ .................................................................................................... ..................................................................... 46

5.5nTHER PROJs3/PROGRAm

6.0 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) EVALUATION

LIST OF FIGURES
53 pIGUnsl'lYucAIPxmomnYmAp_----------------
a
FIGURE 1'aHEALTHY PLACES INDEX COMPOSITE SCORE
s
FIGURE»'1COLLISION SEVERITY ................................................................................................................................................................................................ y
FIGURE faCRASH ovTIME OF DAY -'-'----
lu
FIGURE s'3CRASH ovDAY orWEEK .......................... .................................................. ......................... ............................................................................... 10 FIGURE}* COLLISION TYPE .......................................... ___ ....................................................................................................................................................... n
FIGUREf*CAUSE oFCRASH ..................................................................................................................... .......................... .................................13 FIGURE a'sHIGH CRASH LOCATIONS (BY spoOCOST) '__----_'--'---'—'- ....................................................................................

FIGURE*7BROADSIDE COLLISIONS .......................................... ........................................................................................................................................... pIGupoz-onEAnswooOuu8owa_'_--'----'---__--'-----____—_'---'_--_---'----__'. 2e
FIGURE *yHIT OBJECT COLLISIONS ........... .............................................................. _...................................................................................................... 26 FIGURE*lnBICYCLE COLLISIONS ............................................... ............................... ........................................................................................................... za
FIGURE a-nPEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS ... ................. ................................................................... ......................................... '........................................ zr FIGURE3-lzDISADVANTAGED AREAS ..................................................... ............................................................................................... ............................. z,
FIGURE S-lSIGNAL LOCATIONS |wvucmn^....................................................................................................................................................................... ]9
FIGURE 5-uSIGNAL COORDINATION LOCATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................. m
LIST opTABLES
TABLE 1'1PROJECT VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS
4 TABLE *1CRASHES avYEAR AND SEvpmTY............................... ....................... ........................................................................... ................................... 9 TABLE 3'zCOLLISION TYPE —'-------'--------_-----.---'-'---'_—'----'---_------.-----n TABLE *3CAUSE orCRASH .......................
lz
TABLE }-* TOTAL CRASHES INVOLVED WITH ........................................................................................................................................................................ l3
TABLE 3'5FAT«L AND SEVERE INJURY CRASHES INVOLVED 0oV......................................... ......... ................................................................... 14 TABLE3'6CRASH ovLIGHTING CONDITION .......................... .............................................................................................................................................. 14 TABLEa'7PEDESTRIAN CRASHES ....................................... —............................................................................................................................................... ls
TABLEa-uBICYCLE CRASHES ................ ......................................... ....................... .......................... --.................................................................... --'ls
TABLE a'9AGE OFAT-FAULT PARTY ....................................... '--_—_--_---'_---lo TABLE *'luOTSRANKINGS (2019) __—__-_17
TABLE 3'l1TOP 10INTERSECTION COLLISION LOCATIONS (BY CRASH COST) --............................ ........................................ ......................... l8

TABLE 3-12 TOP 10 INTERSECTION COLLISION LOCATIONS (BY NUMBER OF COLLISIONS) ................................................................................18 TABLE 3-13 MIDBLOCK COLLISION LOCATIONS BY TOTAL COLLISIONS.....................................................................................................................18 TABLE 3-14 SEGMENT COLLISION RATES (ALL COLLISIONS)...........................................................................................................................................19 TABLE 3-15 FREQUENT BROADSIDE COLLISIONS................................................................................................................................................................20 TABLE 3-16 FREQUENT REAR END COLLISIONS...................................................................................................................................................................21 TABLE 3-17 FREQUENT HIT OBJECT COLLISIONS.................................................................................................................................................................21 TABLE 3-18 TOTAL BICYCLE COLLISIONS...............................................................................................................................................................................22 TABLE 3-19 TOTAL PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS.......................................................................................................................................................................23 TABLE 4-1 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES SELECTED FOR FURTHER STUDY...................................................................................................29 TABLE 5-1 SIGNAL UPGRADE LOCATIONS.............................................................................................................................................................................40 TABLE5-2 INTERSECTION COLLISIONS...................................................................................................................................................................................40 TABLE 5-3 S02 S17PB CONSTRUCTION ITEMS......................................................................................................................................................................41 TABLE 5-4 S02 S17PB PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS.....................................................................................................................................................41 TABLE 5-5 S02 S17PB BENEFIT - COST.....................................................................................................................................................................................42 TABLE 5-6 S03 COUNTERMEASURE COLLISIONS.................................................................................................................................................................43 TABLE5-7 S03 CONSTRUCTION ITEMS...................................................................................................................................................................................44 TABLE 5-8 S03 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COSTS..................................................................................................................................................................45 TABLES-9 S03 BENEFIT - COST..................................................................................................................................................................................................45 TABLE 5-10 R27 R31 COUNTERMEASURE LOCATIONS......................................................................................................................................................46 TABLE 5-11 R27 R31 COUNTERMEASURE COLLISIONS.....................................................................................................................................................47 TABLE 5-12 R27 R31 CONSTRUCTION ITEMS........................................................................................................................................................................47 TABLE 5-13 R27 R31 COUNTERMEASURE PROJECT COSTS..............................................................................................................................................48 TABLE 5-14 R27 R31 COUNTERMEASURE BENEFIT - COST...............................................................................................................................................48 TABLE 5-15 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY FUNDING SOURCES SUMMARY ........... ........................................ ................................................................ 51

APPENDIX
APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDER SUMMARY
APPENDIX B: TOTAL COLLISIONS BY INTERSECTION
APPENDIX C: MIDBLOCK COLLISIONS BY SEGMENT
APPENDIX D: TOTAL COLLISIONS BY SEGMENT
APPENDIX E: CALTRANS COUNTERMEASURE LIST

List of Abbreviations
AASHTO
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ATP
Active Transportation Program
ADT
Average Daily Traffic
B/C; BCR
Benefit Cost Ratio
Caltrans
California Department of Transportation (Division of Local Assistance) CA-MUTCD (California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices)
CM
Countermeasure
CMF
Crash Modification Factor
CRF
Crash Reduction Factor
"5 E's of Safety"
Education, Enforcement Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies
EMS
Emergency Medical Services
EPDO
Equivalent Property Damage Only
FHWA
Federal Highway Administration
HCCL
High Crash Concentration Location
HR3
High Risk Rural Roads Program
HSIP
Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM
Highway Safety Manual
KSI
Killed or Seriously Injured
LRSP
Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSM
Caltrans Local Roadway Safety, a Manual for California's Local Road Owners OTS
Office of Traffic Safety (California)
PDO
Property Damage Only
RSA
Roadway Safety Audit
SafeTREC
Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley
SHSP
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SWITRS
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS
Transportation Injury Mapping System (a product of SafeTREC)

INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) program in 2019 to provide funding for local agencies to identify safety needs and recommend projects to address these needs. The LRSP program evolved from the state -funded Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) established in 2016. Both of these programs were developed to enable identification of safety needs at the local level in support of the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP).

Yucaipa was selected as one (1) of 250 local agencies in California (as of April 12, 2021) to receive Caltrans funding to develop a Local Road Safety Plan. Development of the Yucaipa LRSP will enable the City to meet the eligibility requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding; which Caltrans will require for all future HSIP cycles.

This LRSP evaluates roadway safety in the City of Yucaipa. The LRSP utilizes data analysis to improve roadway safety through investments in the five (5) E's of traffic safety — Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies. The process of preparing a LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements.

1.2 OVERVIEW OF YUCAIPA
Yucaipa is located at the base of the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County, seventy (70) miles east of Los Angeles and thirty-five (35) miles west of Palm Springs. Yucaipa is a mid -sized city with a population of 54,739 in 2021. Figure 1-1 shows the location of Yucaipa in a regional context. Yucaipa lies along the Interstate 10 (1-10) freeway corridor, which links the city with the cities of San Bernardino, Ontario, and Los Angeles to the west and Palm Springs to the east. State Route 38 (SR-38) traverses the northwest corner of the city, and heads north up the mountain towards Big Bear Lake. The City encompasses twenty- eight (28) square miles and maintains thirty-four (34) signalized intersections and five (5) roundabouts with several more under design and construction.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 1

Figure 1-1 Yucaipa Vicinity Map
RMANUi
�L I

1.3 LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN PROCESS

INTRODUCTION
N
f-
I
"Woo
i I ,
The Yucaipa LRSP follows a six (6) step process developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and used by Caltrans to guide the development and review of LRSPs. The six (6) steps include:
0 THE LRSP

Q DEVELOPMENT
• PROCESS
O O
identifyEstablish
Strategies Leadership
O
Determine Analyze
Emphasis Safety Data
Areas
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 2

INTRODUCTION

1. Establish Leadership
a. Develop a stakeholder working group
b. Develop a vision and goals

2. Analyze Safety Data
a. Gather data
b. Complete crash data analysis

3. Determine Emphasis Areas
a. Define emphasis areas
b. Identify priority locations based on crash data analysis

4. Identify Strategies
a. Identify safety countermeasures that address emphasis areas and high priority locations

5. Prioritize and Implement Strategies
a. Apply countermeasures and strategies to develop safety projects b. Evaluate safety projects
c. Develop implementation strategies

6. Evaluate and Update
a. Describe the process to update safety data in order to determine success of countermeasures
b. Describe the process to review countermeasures to determine if additional efforts are needed

1.4 PROJECT MISSION AND GOALS
The Yucaipa LRSP is guided by the vision that improvements to traffic safety can be achieved by addressing locations identified by crash patterns with engineering countermeasures and through traffic safety education and enforcement. The mission of this LRSP, shown in Table 1-1, is to achieve a reduction in collisions, and in particular, in fatal and serious injury collisions on local streets through a multi -agency approach that utilizes education, enforcement, engineering, emergency service, and emerging technology strategies.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 3

INTRODUCTION
Table 1-1 Project Vision, Mission and Goals
Address locations identified by crash patterns using
Vision engineering countermeasures and through traffic safety education and enforcement.

Achieve a reduction in collisions through a multi -agency Mission approach that utilizes education, enforcement, and engineering strategies.
• Save lives and prevent serious injuries on local roads and streets.
• Reduce the severity of collisions through the
Goals implementation and monitoring of LRSP recommendations • Improving safety in school zones
• Improving driver awareness of speeding, texting, and
drinking while driving

1.5 DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
Areas of Yucaipa can be defined as disadvantaged based on the composite scope from the Healthy Places Index (HPI). The HPI combines 25 community characteristics, like access to healthcare, housing, education, income, and more, into a single indexed HPI score. The healthier a community, the higher the HPI score. HPI disadvantaged areas are shown in Figure 1-2 where scores are in the lower 25th percentile as compared to all other tracts in California.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 4

INTRODUCTION
Figure 1-2 Healthy Places Index Composite Score
HPI Score (3.0)
Pei centile Ranking
less —r More healthy ccmmunity
conditions
ei
Tracts -

1.6 SAFETY STAKEHOLDERS
Local safety partners representing the 5 E's of traffic safety were engaged to collaboratively address roadway safety in Yucaipa. Participants included representatives from:
• Yucaipa Police Department (Contracted with San Bernardino County) • Yucaipa Fire Department (Contracted with CAL FIRE)
• OmniTrans
• Yucaipa-Calimesa Joint Unified School District
• Community members
Stakeholders provided the following input on transportation safety issues by completing a questionnaire.

The questionnaire and a summary of responses is provided in Appendix A.

1.7 PUBLIC MEETING
A public meeting was held on May 18, 2023. A presentation was made that provided information describing the purpose of the project, a summary of the collision analysis, and a description of potential safety countermeasures. Input was received related to observed transportation safety concerns, the types of transportation projects that should be considered, and types of education, enforcement or emergency response activities to be considered. A summary of input from the meeting are provided in Appendix A.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 5

METHODOLOGY

2.0 METHODOLOGY
This section of the report describes the data sources and methodology used to analyze collision data.

2.1 COLLISION DATA SOURCES
The collision data was drawn from three sources. The collision data was derived between 2017 and 2021 from the California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. The University of California Berkeley's Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) provided comparative information on crash history in Yucaipa. The California Office of Traffic Safety Rankings (OTS) contributed comparative collision data for the year 2019 for Yucaipa and cities in California with a similar population.

The California Highway Patrol's SWITRS database contains data on statewide collisions. The SWITRS application provides geographically- and temporally -targeted collision reports in an electronic format.

SWITRS was used to evaluate data on Yucaipa collisions between 2017 and 2021 both in aggregate and classified by control type (signalized, non -signalized, and midblock locations).

2.1.2 TIMS
The TIMS database contains geocoded collisions included in the SWITRS database. TIMS geocodes SWITRS collisions that involve either an injury or fatality (i.e., excluding property damage -only collisions). Thus, TIMS provides local agencies with an efficient and straightforward tool to conduct geographic analysis. TIMS data was used to identify prominent transportation safety issues in the City. 213 OTS
The OTS rankings compare traffic safety statistics among cities in the state of California with similar populations. The statistics focus on the victims killed and injured in crashes. Cities can use these comparisons to see the areas in which they underperform. The OTS collision ranking system compares cities of similar population sizes. Yucaipa belongs to the OTS Group C, which contains 105 California cities with a population between 50,001 and 100,000.

2.2 IDENTIFYING LOCATIONS FOR ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES Crash data analysis for this LRSP was conducted using collision data from the SWITRS collision database.

The collision records include a variety of information about each collision, including the location, date, time of the day, crash type, crash severity, primary violation category, transportation mode of the involved parties, and movement of the involved parties prior to the collision. Per California state law, motor vehicle collisions must be reported when vehicle or property damage exceeds $1,000, or when any of the parties suffer an injury or fatality. Collisions with no injured parties or little property damage might not be reported and, therefore, are not included in the collision database.

Caltrans' Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California's Local Road Owners, Version 1.6, April 2022 (LRSM) encourages a pro -active rather than reactive approach to safety issue identification. Traditionally, agencies using a reactive approach have located and implemented safety projects solely based on recent crashes, specific crash concentrations, or safety issues raised by stakeholders.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 6

METHODOLOGY
A pro -active approach is preferred, according to the LRSM, because with traditional methods, "crash concentrations and crash trends maybe missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort." A pro -active approach would identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of the entire roadway network. For this document, the process for identifying candidate locations for safety improvements considers any one of the following three factors:
• An extensive crash history at high -collision frequency locations providing insight into which roadway characteristics are associated with certain types of crashes • Professional engineering judgment regarding the availability of feasible engineering countermeasures to fix the safety issues
• Applicability of the engineering countermeasures at other locations with roadway characteristics associated with similar types of crashes regardless of their crash history The LRSM guidelines require analyzing at least three to five years of the most recent crash data. Five years of crash data usage adheres to the maximum threshold permitted by the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for a safety infrastructure project application for federal funding.

2.2.11 Ranikinc, Function
A candidate intersection or roadway segment for safety improvements does not necessarily need to demonstrate a history of high orsevere collisions to be considered forfurther evaluation. However, locations with high numbers of collisions are often good starting points for safety analysis due to the rich information provided by the collision history. Two ranking methods were utilized to identify high collision frequency intersections and roadway segments: Average Crash Frequency and Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores. A brief description of each of the methods is provided in the following sections.

7.2.2 Average Crash Frequency
Average Crash Frequency is the most basic method for assessing collision incidence. The analysis tallies the numbers of collisions at each location in the roadway network over the five year period, both in aggregate and by a category of interest (e.g. level of severity, collision type, and others). The analysis then ranks intersections or roadway segments based on the collisions' frequency.

2.2.3 EPDO Scores
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scores assign weighting factors to crashes by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) collisions. The weight generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the cost of fatal/severe injury crashes and non -severe injury collisions. The weights by crash severity come from the 2022 LRSM.
• Fatal and Severe Injury at signalized intersections — $1,787,000 • Fatal and Severe Injury at non -signalized intersections — $2,843,000 • Fatal and Severe Injury at Roadway — $2,461,000
• Other Visible Injury — $159,900
• Compliant of Pain — $90,900
• PDO — $14,900
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 7

METHODOLOGY

2.3 PROPOSING ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
After ranking the intersections and roadway segments, the following steps were used to propose engineering countermeasures:
• Reviewed crash details (party involved, movement before the crash, primary collision factor, violation code, time of the day, and others) at high -risk locations • Reviewed field conditions
• Assessed the nature of prevalent crash types with respect to the intersection's control type, geometrical features, and signal phasing/timing
• Reviewed current conditions and recent historical conditions via Google Map Street View, whenever necessary, to check whether any geometry, signal, or signage changes have been made in the past few years
• Evaluated and screened countermeasures from the LRSM or Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse( http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org , a searchable database that can be easily queried to identify CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 8

COLLISION ANALYSIS

3.0 COLLISION ANALYSIS

3.1 CITYWIDE COLLISION DATA
An analysis of citywide collision trends was completed using five years of collision data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021. SWITRS is a database that collects and processes data gathered from a collision scene. A five-year analysis period is consistent with the HSIP guidelines and includes the most recent data available. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) staff and its local law enforcement provided comparative information on collisions in Yucaipa and San Bernardino County. During this period a total of 1,408 crashes were reported in the city along local roadways.

3.1.1 Crashes by Year and Severity
Collisions are classified by the severity to the involved parties. Severity categories include collisions with a fatality, severe injury, visible (but not severe) injury, complaint of pain injury, and property damage only (collision resulted in only damage to the vehicle or other property). While the focus of the LRSP is on injury and fatal collisions, property damage only collision data is included in the data analyzed to provide the total collisions. For the five-year analysis period, the number of crashes by severity are listed by year in Table 3-1, including the averages over the analysis period. Crash severity for the five-year period is illustrated in Figure 3-1. The highest number of collisions occurred in 2019 but decreased from that level during the COVID year of 2020, and also in 2021. Four percent of the total collisions involve either a fatality or severe injury.

Table 3-1 Crashes by Year and Severity
Collision Severity
Year
Total
Average
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Fatal
7 2
1 1
2 13
3 1%
Severe Injury
7 7
10 7
7 38
8 3%
Visible Injury
28 29
31 36
39 163
33 12%
Complaint of Pain
56172
69 46
37 280
56 209/c
Property Damage Only
183
194
2131
1321
1921
9141
1831
65%
Total Collisions
1 2811
3041
3241
2221
2771
1408
-
Figure 3-1 Collision Severity
1% 3%
12%
20%
65%
Fatal Severe Injury Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 9

COLLISION ANALYSIS

3.1.2 Crash by Time of Day and Day of Wee4;
Figure 3-2 provides a summation of collisions by time of day and Figure 3-3 by day of the week. The percentage of total collisions has been highest during the p.m. commuter peak period between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. More collisions occur on Friday, Wednesday, and Monday than on other days.

Figure 3-2 Crash by Time of Day
1■111111
Figure 3-3 Crash by Day of Week
Sunday
Saturday
Friday !
Thursday
Wednesday 906
Tuesday
Monday WE ._.
01 5% 104

3.1.3 Crash Type
Table 3-2 and Figure 3-4 describe the total collisions by collision type for each year and for the five-year period. The broadside crash pattern was the most common collision type for all the collisions at twenty- eight percent (28%). Broadside crashes often occur at intersections or driveways because of drivers failing to yield or obey stop -controls, or where a gap in traffic is misjudged where a turning vehicle collides with a vehicle traveling through the intersection. Rear end crashes accounted for twenty-two percent (22%) of CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 10

COLLISION ANALYSIS
the collisions and often occur where traffic speeds change such as near signalized intersections where a driver does not react in time to a change of traffic signal, or where vehicles slow to turn into driveways. Hit - object crashes included vehicle collisions with parked cars, poles or other objects within or outside the roadway, and accounted for sixteen percent (16%) of the total collisions.

Table 3-2 Collision Type
Collision Type
Year
Total
Average
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Broadside
88 86
85 71
71 401
80 28%
Rear End
52 72
80 44
58 306
61 22%
Hit Object
32 53
47 37
55 224
4S
16%
Sideswipe
49 39
52 23
33 196
39 14%
Head -On
28 32
27 21
32 140
28 10%
Vehicle/Pedestrian
9 8
12 7
6 42
8 3%
Overturned
9 5
7 6
10 37
7 3%
Not Stated
6 5
6 6
10 33
7 2%
Other
8 4
8 7
2 29
6 2%
Total Collisions
281
3041
3241
2221
2771
1408
Figure 3-4 Collision Type
0 3/
2%
2%
3%
28%
10%
14%
16%
22%
■ Broadside
■ Rear End
Hit Object
Sideswipe
■ Head -On
■ Vehicle/Pedestrian
■ Overturned
■ Not Stated
■ Other
The cause of collisions is listed in Table 3-3 and shown in Figure 3-5. The most frequent cause of collisions has been unsafe speed (27%), followed by automobile right of way violation (19%), improper turning (14%), and traffic signals and signs (9%). Unsafe speed crashes often occur at intersections and are a result of vehicle speeding approaching an intersection when a signal changes, not slowing resulting from changing conditions, or from disobeying posted speed limits. Improper turning violations occur when vehicles fail to CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 11

COLLISION ANALYSIS
turn properly. Auto right of way occurs where a collision occurs between vehicles within the right-of-way.

Traffic signal and sign violations are a result of motorists failing to see or observe these traffic control devices.

Table 3-3 Cause of Crash
Collision Cause
Year
Total
Average
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Unsafe Speed
61 100
92 59
68 380
76 27%
Automobile Right of Way
61 64
50 40
46 261
52 19%
Improper Turning
58 33
47 26
34 198
40 14°%
Traffic Signals and Signs
2S
241
31 17
28 125
25 9%
Unknown
23 21
25 18
26 113
23 8%
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
15 15
18 23
33 104
21 7%
Following Too Closely
5 3
9 8
12 37
7 3%
Unsafe Starting or Backing
4 91
9 5
4 31
6 2%
Wrong Side of Road
5 9
6 5
6 31
6 2%
Unsafe Lane Change
3 9
6 3
7 28
6 2%
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
6 3
4 3
3 19
4 1%
Other Hazardous Violation
1 3
5 4
4 17
3 1%
Other Improper Driving
5 31
7 21
17 3
1%
Improper Passing
4 2
5 5
16 3
1%
Pedestrian Violation
2 1
6 4
2 15
3 1%
Pedestrian Right of Way
3 4
3 2
1 13
3 1%
Hazardous Parking
1 1
2 0
0%
Brakes
11 1
0 0%
Total Collisions
2811
3041
3241
222
277
1408
-
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 12

Figure 3-5 Cause of Crash

COLLISION ANALYSIS
0% 5?,e lV710 15% 20% 25% 30`io
Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
Improper Turning
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown
�
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Folloxving Too Closely
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Wrong Side of Road
Unsafe Lane Change
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Other Hazardous Violation
a
Other Improper Driving
Improper Passing
Pedestrian Violation
Pedestrian Right of Way
0 Hazardous Parking
i
Brakes

3.1.5 Crash Involved With
Table 3-4 summarizes what type of object was involved with each crash. Most crashes involved a collision with another motor vehicle (61 %). Three percent (3%) of the crashes involved collisions with pedestrians and two percent (2%) of the crashes involved collisions with bicycles.

Table 3-4 Total Crashes Involved With
Crash Involved With
Year
Total
Average
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Other Motor Vehicle
176
188
196
135
161
856
171
61 %
Fixed Object
44 63
54 40
68 269
54 19%
Parked Motor Vehicle
25 27
35 17
24 128
26 9%
Pedestrian
9 8
13 7
5 42
81 3%
Other Object
7 6
5 7
9 34
7 2%
Bicycle
9 4
9 5
1 28
6 2%
Non -Collision
3 1
5 6
2 17
3 1%
Not Stated
4 1
2 3
7 17
3 1%
Motor Vehicle on Other Roadway
3 5
41 1
13 3
1%
Animal
1 1
1 3
1 0%
Train
1 1 1
1 Total Collisions
1 2811
304
324
2221
2771
1408
4--o"',
-
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 13

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Table 3-5 shows the type of object that was involved in the collision for fatal and severe crashes. Most of the severe injury crashes involved either other motor vehicles (43%), fixed objects (22%), or pedestrians (20%).

Table 3-5 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes Involved (KSI) KSI Crash Involved With
Year
Total
Average
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Other Motor Vehicle
3 4
7 3
5 22
4 43%
Fixed Object
5 2
1 3
11 2
22%
Pedestrian
3 3
2 1
1 10
2 20%
Other Object
1 1
2 4
1 8%
Non -Collision
1 1
1 3
1 6%
Bicycle
1 1
0 2%
Total KSI Collisions
14 9
11 8
9 51
-
-
Table 3-6 shows that approximately forty percent (40%) of the collisions occurred at night or at dusk.

Seven percent (7%) of the collisions occurred on unlit streets.

Table 3-6 Crash by Lighting Condition
Lighting
Year
Total
Average
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Daylight
188
180
193
130
159
850
170
60%
Dark - Street Lights
59 89
86 70
82 386
77 27%
Dark - No Street Lights
20 20
30 10
19 99
20 7%
Dusk - Dawn
9 11
13 11
15 59
12 4%
Not Stated
4 4
2 1
11 2
1%
Dark - Street Lights Not
Functioning
1 1
1 3
1 0%
Total Collisions
281
304
324
222
277
1408
-

3.1.7 Pedestrian Crashes
Table 3-7 shows pedestrian actions for crashes involving pedestrians. The percent of pedestrian collisions that occurred within a crosswalk at an intersection or midblock was thirty-five percent (35%). Most of the remaining collisions occurred outside crosswalks with pedestrians crossing the street or walking along the road.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 14

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Table 3-7 Pedestrian Crashes
Pedestrian Action
Year
Total
Average
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
In Road, Including Shoulder
2 5
5 3
3 18
4 41%
Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection
2 2
5 2
2 13
3 30%
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
2 1 2
3 1
8 2
18%
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at
Intersection
1 1
2 0
5%
Not in Road
2 2
0 5%
Pedestrian not stated
1 1
0 2%
Total Pedestrian Collisions
9 8
13 8
6 44
-
.� `2 " rlfr!e (7ra5in rPagcc
Table 3-8 lists bicycle crashes by cause. Twenty-five percent (25%) of the bicycle crashes occurred in automobile right-of-way. Twenty-nine percent (29%) of the bicycle crashes occurred on the wrong side of the road either by the vehicle or bicycle. Bicycle crashes occurred as a result of unsafe speeds (14%) or when either the vehicle or the bicycle did not correctly adhere to traffic signals or stop signs (14%).

Table 3-8 Bicycle Crashes
Bicycle -Involved Collision
Cause
Year
Total
Average
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Wrong Side of Road
2 1
3 2
8 2
29%
Automobile Right of Way
2 3
2 7
1 25%
Traffic Signals and Signs
2 2
4 1
14%
Unsafe Speed
2 1 1
1 4
1 14%
Other Hazardous Violation
1 11
1 1
3 1
11%
Improper Turning
2 1
2 0
7%
Total Bicycle Collisions
91 4
91 51
1 28
-
-

3.1.9 At -Fault Parties
Information was collected about the parties causing the collision (at -fault party) and the people that were involved in the accident (not at fault). As shown in Table 3-9, younger drivers (under 25 years) accounted for twenty-nine percent (29%) of the known collisions. Older drivers (65+) accounted for eleven percent (11%) of these collisions.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 15

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Table 3-9 Age of At -Fault Party
Age
Year
Total
Percent
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Younger Drivers (24 or lower)
73 78
70 50
51 322
23%
25-29
18 34
25 33
23 133
9%
30-34
26 25
35 15
27 128
9%
35-39
22 24
27 12
19 104
7%
40-44
15 13
27 14
14 83
6%
45-49
14 13
13 7
8 55
4%
50-54
10 15
10 6
5 46
3%
55-59
12 14
15 9
10 60
5%
60-64
12 10
16 14
8 60
5%
Older Drivers (65 or higher)
25 32
25 17
31 130
9%
Unknown
54 46
61 45
81 287
20%
Total Collisions
281
304
324
222
277
1408
-

3.2 COMPARISON WITH CITIES OF SIMILAR SIZE
Yucaipa falls under Group C in the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Crash Ranking system. Group C consists of 105 cities in the state of California with a population between 50,000 and 100,000. Table 3-10 shows the City's crash ranking among these cities, where 1 being the highest or worst and 105 being the lowest or best. This data is for 2019, the most recent non-COVID year. The City's traffic safety performance ranked below the 5011 percentile in two crash type categories shown below:
1411 rank for motorcycle related collisions
261h rank for pedestrians under age 15 related collisions For other categories, the City ranked above the 501h percentile:
• The City ranked 741h for total collision fatalities and injuries • The City ranked 871h for injury and fatality collisions with alcohol involved o Ranked 62nd for injury and fatality collisions with alcohol involved age 21 or lower o Ranked 981h for injury and fatality collisions with alcohol involved age 21-34 • The City ranked 63rd for injury or fatality collisions involving pedestrians o The City ranked 551h for killed or injured pedestrians over 65 years of age • The City ranked 851h for injury or fatality collisions involving bicyclists o The City ranked 6011 for killed or injured bicyclists less than 15 years of age • The City ranked 661h for speed related collisions
• The City ranked 62"d for nighttime (the period between 9:00 pm and 3:00 am) injury and fatality collisions
• The composite ranking is an aggregate of several rankings (drinking age 21-34, drinking under age 21, alcohol involved, hit and run). For this measure, the City ranked 571h out of the 105 cities compared.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 16

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Table 3-10 OTS Rankings (2019)
Type Of Crash
Victims Killed
or Injured
OTS Ranking
Total Fatal and Injury
153
74/105
Alcohol Involved
11 87/105
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21
0 62/105
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 — 34
0 98/105
Motorcycles
12 14/105
Pedestrians
11 63/105
Pedestrians < 15
3 26/105
Pedestrians 65+
2 55/105
Bicyclists
5 85/105
Bicyclists < 15
1 60/105
Composite
57 88/105
Speed Related
26 66/105
Night Time (9 PM - 3 AM)
11 62/105

3.3 FOCUSED CRASH NETWORK
The focused crash network involved identifying the intersections and midblock collision locations that have the highest Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) crash costs. The EPDO crash costs are a cost associated with the severity of each crash consistent with the LRSP Manual (Benefit/Cost Ratio Calculations).

3.3.1 Inters�z,tions
Intersection crash locations were identified by reviewing the number of crashes at each intersection throughout the City. The 10 highest intersection collision locations by crash cost are listed in Table 3-11, with all intersections shown in Figure 3-6. The 10 highest intersection collision locations by number of collisions are shown in Table 3-12. The full list of intersection collision data is provided in Appendix B.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 17

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Table 3-11 Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations (by Crash Cost) No.

Intersection
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
Only (PDO)
Total
Collisions
Crash Costs
1 YUCAIPA BL & 4TH ST
1 3
8 14
26 2,850,300
2 YUCAIPA BL & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
9 28
39 2,832,800
3 YUCAIPA BL & 3RD ST
1 3
6 13
23 2,675,200
4 OAK GLEN RD & CALIMESA BL/14TH ST
1 2
6 17
26 2,586,100
5 YUCAIPA BL & 14TH ST/SAND CANYON RD
1 21
7 101
20 2,573,900
6 YUCAIPA BL & 16TH ST
1 2
1 12
16 2,115,100
7 YUCAIPA BL & AVENUE E/HAMPTON RD
1 4
15 20
2,113,100
8 STONEWOOD DR & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
4 2
8 2,082,500
9 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 5TH ST
1 1
2 10
14 2,027,100
10 YUCAIPA 8L & 12TH ST
1 1
1 6
9 1,893,000
Table 3-12 Top 10 Intersection Collision Locations (by Number of Collisions) No.

Intersection
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage Only
(PDO)
Total
Collisions
1 YUCAIPA BL & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
9 28
39 2

YUCAIPA VALLEY CIR & YUCAIPA BL
2 11
20 33
3 OAK GLEN RD & AVENUE E
1 10
17 28
4 YUCAIPA BL & 4TH ST
1 3
8 14
26 5
OAK GLEN RD & CALIMESA BL/14TH ST
1 2
6 17
26 6
YUCAIPA BL & 3RD ST
1 3
6 13
23 7
YUCAIPA BL & 5TH ST
3 1
18 22
8 OAK GLEN RD & CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
5 3
12 20
9 YUCAIPA BL &AVENUE E/HAMPTON RD
1 4
15 20
10 YUCAIPA BL & 14TH ST/SAND CANYON RD
1 1 2
71 0
20 Midblock crash locations were identified by reviewing the number of crashes at each midblock crash location along each street. These locations are 250 feet or more from a major intersection. The 10 highest locations in order of midblock crash costs in Table 3-13. The full list of midblock collision data is provided in Appendix C.

Table 3-13 Midblock Collision Locations by Total Collisions No.

Intersection
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage Only
(PDO)
Total
Collisions
1 OAK GLEN RD & CALIMESA BL/14TH ST
1 2
2 2
9 16
2 YUCAIPA BL & 5TH ST
1 2
3 8
14 3

YUCAIPA BL & OAK GLEN RD
2 7
5 14
4 OAK GLEN RD & BRYANT ST
1 3
4 4
12 5
AVENUE E &4TH ST
1 2
6 9
6 CALIMESA BL & AVENUE G
1 1
3 3
8 7
OUTER HWY 10 & LIVE OAK CANYON RD
1 7
8 8
WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 2ND ST
3 5
8 9
YUCAIPA BL & 3RD ST
1 2
5 8
10 AVENUE E& 14TH ST
1 1
sl
7 CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 18

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Total collisions were computed for each major street. Total collisions include both the intersection collisions (defined by primary street) and midblock collisions along the defined segment. The calculation of total crash rates provides comparative information for roadway segments by considering the exposure to traffic volumes and length of the segment. The collision crash costs were tabulated for primary corridors in Yucaipa.

The total collisions, collision severity and collision rates for the 12 highest segments in Yucaipa are listed in Table 3-14. The full list of segment collision data is provided in Appendix D.

Table 3-14 Segment Collision Rates (all collisions)
Setjment
Street
Corridor
All
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
PDO
Crash Costs
1 YUCAIPA BL
OUTER HWY 10 S TO OAK GLEN RD
146
2 5
18 32
89 17,463,900
2 YUCAIPA BL

OAK GLEN RD TO BRYANT ST
214
2 3
21 44
144
16,413,100
3 OAK GLEN RD
OUTER HWY 10 S TO YUCAIPA BLVD
84 2
1 8
19 54
8,163,700
4 OAK GLEN RD

YUCAIPA BLVD TO CHAGALL RD
78 1
5 10
19 43
13,072,000
5 BRYANT ST

MILL CREEK RD TO OAK GLEN RD
30 11
11 8
2,561,600
6 BRYANT ST

OAK GLEN RD TO YUCAIPA BLVD
23 5
10 8
1,626,900
7 BRYANT ST

YUCAIPA BLVD TO WILDWOOD CANYON RD
32 1
5 4
221
2,917,700
8 WILDWOOD CANYON RD
OAK GLEN RD TO BRYANT 5T
28 1
1 1
5 20
3,992,800
9 WILDWOOD CANYON RD
BRYANT ST TO COLORADO 5T
60 1
5 10
44 3,695,700
10 STH ST

COUNTY LINE RD TO OAK GLEN RD
58 4
8 8
38 8,651,000
11 AVENUE E
GRANT ST TO 8TH ST
51 1
2 3
8 37
6,336,200
12 14TH ST / SAND CANYON RD

CAMPUS DR TO OAK GLEN RD
46 1
7 10
28 3,767,500

3.4 SAFETY EMPHASIS AREAS
Safety emphasis areas provide a focus for developing projects and programs. Based on the collision data analysis, these are the transportation safety emphasis areas to consider in addressing the goals of the LRSP.
• Intersection safety
• Speed management
• Roadside safety
• Bicyclist Safety
• Pedestrian Safety
• Driving under Influence (DUI)
• Distracted Driving

3.4.1 intersection Safety
Seventy-seven percent (77%) of collisions occurred at intersections (250 feet to the center of the intersection). The most frequent collision type within intersection areas are broadside collisions. Broadside collisions constituted thirty-two percent (32%) of collisions and often occur at intersections and can result where drivers fail to yield or obey stop -controls, where a gap in traffic is misjudged, or a when a CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 19

COLLISION ANALYSIS
turning vehicle fails to yield the right of way to another vehicle. Broadside collisions can be affected by driver error, driver inattention, signal timing and signal or sign visibility.

The locations of the most frequent broadside collisions are listed in Table 3-15 and with all intersection shown in Figure 3-7.

Table 3-15 Frequent Broadside Collisions
No.

Intersection
Broadside
1 YUCAIPA VALLEY CIR & YUCAIPA BL
20 2

YUCAIPA BL & OAK GLEN RD
17 3

OAK GLEN RD & AVENUE E
12 4
YUCAIPA BL & 3RD ST
9 5
YUCAIPA BL & 16TH ST
9 6
YUCAIPA BL & 13TH ST
8 7

OAK GLEN RD & CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
7 8
YUCAIPA BL & 4TH ST
6 9
YUCAIPA BL & 10TH ST
6 10
AVENUE E & 5TH ST
6 11
AVENUE D & 14TH ST
6 12

COUNTY LINE RD & CALIMESA BL
6 13

YUCAIPA BL & BRYANT ST
5 14

YUCAIPA BL & AVENUE E
5 15

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & CALIFORNIA ST
5 3.4.2 Speed Management
Twenty-two percent (22%) of total intersection collisions were caused by drivers involved in Rear End collisions. Rear -end crashes often occur under congested scenarios where motorists do not react in time to a slowing of traffic downstream, or in cases where drivers are distracted under uncongested conditions.

Rear -end crashes constituted the second most frequent collision type in Yucaipa, with speeding the primary factor in 57% of the rear -end collisions.

The most frequent locations of collisions involving rear end are listed in Table 3-16 and with all intersection shown in Figure 3-8.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 20

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Table 3-16 Frequent Rear End Collisions
No.

Intersection
Rear End
1 YUCAIPA BL & OAK GLEN RD
9 2
YUCAIPA BL & 4TH ST
8 3
YUCAIPA BL & 5TH ST
7 4

OAK GLEN RD & CALIMESA BL
7 5

YUCAIPA VALLEY CIR & YUCAIPA BL
6 6
YUCAIPA BL & 6TH ST
6 7
WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 5TH ST
6 8
YUCAIPA BL & 14TH ST
6 9
YUCAIPA BL & 3RD ST
5 10

OAK GLEN RD & CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
4 11
YUCAIPA BL & 10TH ST
4 12
YUCAIPA BL & 2ND ST
4 13
AVENUE E & 5TH ST
4 14
COUNTY LINE RD & 5TH ST
4 15

OAK GLEN RD & AVENUE E
3 Hit object was the third most frequent collision type at fifteen percent (15%). On urban streets, hit objects involved locations with changes in street width or where objects such as utility poles, fire hydrants, trees or signs are located close to the street. The locations of hit object collisions are listed in Table 3-17 and with all intersection shown in Figure 3-9. The location of Outer Highway 10 and Live Oak Canyon has been addressed by a recent intersection project.

Table 3-17 Frequent Hit Object Collisions
No.

Intersection
Hit Object
1 OUTER HWY 10 & LIVE OAK CANYON RD
7 2
YUCAIPA BL & 5TH ST
5 3
OAK GLEN RD & 5TH ST
5 4

YUCAIPA BL & OAK GLEN RD
4 5
OUTER HWY 10 & 16TH ST
4 6

YUCAIPA VALLEY CIR & YUCAIPA BL
3 7
YUCAIPA BL & 2ND ST
3 8
AVENUE E & 2ND ST
3 9
AVENUE E & 3RD ST
3 10

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & OAK GROVE RD
3 11
YUCAIPA BL & 6TH ST
2 12
YUCAIPA BL & 16TH ST
2 13
WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 5TH ST
2 14
AVENUE E & 5TH ST
2 15

YUCAIPA BL & HAMPTON RD
2 CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 21

COLLISION ANALYSIS

3.4.4 Bicycle Safety
Bicycle -related collisions accounted for two percent (2%) of the total collisions, with only one bicycle related collision resulting in a severe injury and no fatalities. The primary factor for bicycle collisions are conflicts with automobiles along a travel lane and bicycles traveling in the wrong lane. The locations of all bicycle collisions are listed in Table 3-18 and shown in Figure 3-10.

Table 3-18 Total Bicycle Collisions
Intersection
Bicycle
Collisions

OAK GLEN RD & BRYANT ST
3 YUCAIPA BL & 5TH ST
3 4TH ST 12361 & 4TH ST
1 AMARYLLIS LN & 7TH ST
1 AVENUE E & STH ST
1 AVENUE E & 7TH ST
1 BRYANT ST & AVENUE A
1 COUNTY LINE RD & 5TH ST
1 COUNTY LINE RD & CALIFORNIA ST
1 DATE AV & CALIFORNIA ST
1 EUREKA AV & 4TH ST
1 EUREKA AV & 8TH ST
1 OAK GLEN RD & 2ND ST
1 OAK GLEN RD & AVENUE E
1 SUNNYSIDE DR & BRYANT ST
1 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 2ND ST
1 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 5TH ST
1 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 6TH PL
1 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & CALIFORNIA ST
1 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & CALIMESA BL
1 YUCAIPA BL & 12TH ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 13TH ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 3RD ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 4TH ST
1 TOTAL COLLISIONS
28 3.4.5 Pedestrian Safety
Three percent (3%) of all collisions involved a pedestrian. Pedestrian collisions can involve a higher level of collision severity than many auto only collisions. The locations of all pedestrian collisions are listed in Table 3-19 and shown in Figure 3-11.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 22

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Table 3-19 Total Pedestrian Collisions
Intersection
Pedestrian
Collisions
YUCAIPA BL & 4TH ST
4 EUREKA AV & CALIFORNIA ST
2 YUCAIPA BL & BRYANT ST
2 YUCAIPA BL & OAK GLEN RD
2 AVENUE D & 12TH ST
1 AVENUE E & 2ND ST
1 AVENUE E & 5TH ST
1 AVENUE E & 7TH ST
1 BRYANT ST & BEECH AV
1 CALIM ESA BL & AVENUE 1
1 CARTER ST & BRYANT ST
1 CEDAR ST & AVENUE B
1 COUNTY LINE RD & 5TH ST
1 CUSTER ST & AVENUE D
1 DATE AV & ADAMS ST
1 DOUGLAS ST & AVENUE A
1 MARBETH RD & MARBETH PL
1 OAK GLEN RD & 2ND ST
1 OAK GLEN RD & AVENUE E
1 OAK GLEN RD & BRYANT ST
1 OAK GLEN RD & CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
1 PECAN AV & 3RD ST
1 SUNLIGHT DR & 3RD ST
1 VIEWPOINT CT & 5TH ST
1 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 2ND ST
1 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & CALIMESA BL
1 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & OAK MESA DR
1 YALE DR & STONEWOOD DR
1 YUCAIPA BL & 10TH ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 11TH ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 12TH ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 17TH ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 3RD ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 5TH ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & 7TH ST
1 YUCAIPA BL & CHINABERRY ST
1 TOTAL COLLISIONS
42 3.4.6 Driving Under the Influence
Driving under the influence (DUI) was a frequent collision factor. DUI was the primary factor for seven percent (7%) of total collisions.

3.4.7 Distracted Driving
Distracted driving refers to any activity that diverts the driver's attention, thereby preventing them from driving safely. Common examples of distracted driving activities include non -hand -free mobile phone use, CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 23

COLLISION ANALYSIS
eating and drinking, and conversation. Although it is difficult to obtain distracted driving statistics from SWITRS data, this area of emphasis will be included in the LRSP. s.4.b
Equity refers to the review of collisions by socio-economic characteristics. Figure 3-12 compares high collision locations with the poverty status of the population.

Figure 3-6 Hiyh Crash Locations (by EPDO Cost)
1 41�Yla:aca �
]I S:'ATRi Gdls�cna 120fi: a:l1
�'� • WX 000aL
• 1500 000 - I NCO Y50
• 11D]0000. 2.000
• Dvt 52000.0..0
Pi
(�'
ONrca �
1 r-'
.41
.�
•r
— — —
— ` - — — — — — l
I
•tea 1 J 1 1
1'U✓ � 1 _) I
i,-, (/� •mil 1 L� ;i, �f f /i — _ -- � 'i
I
1 ---- _---——---1
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 24

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Figure 3-7 Broadside Collisions
Figure 3-8 Rear End Collisions
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 25

COLLISION ANALYSIS
Figure 3-9 Hit Object Collisions
Figure 3-10 Bicycle Collisions
..a
1 r� • �' ��a�,�jU
ur r�
I
e y
J
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 26

Fiqure 3-11 Pedestrian Collisions
S'.YITRS CWII s1201730211
PNeslnanlnti'slve0 Cyl�a.Pnb
1 '
t
• +
r
�1
1 — 1 WLePa EPUMary
.. ��
Y
D DB 12
vows
� 1
..e�_-
1 Fiaure 3-12 Disadvantaaed Areas
1 � 1
TiTJ I
I5u
— — — — — — — — — — — — —
1 ` S — — — — --- — — — — —

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

COLLISION ANALYSIS
1 1
,
1 C`y o1 Yucaipa
C`y o1 Yucaipa
— — —
SVOTRS CPIhtiDns 12017.20211
— — — — — — —
T1
t Co7aslDn SeYenp'
I +J :a1al
1 1
se.en inl�
aver
` Perctnl PORulallan Bebw PPverly
i�
519.1'a
Yuca9a Eou , L
11 i Cdbs- keatm p
Hvhaal
1 s�ks
4 1-2 1
1 1 �
r'
1 1 1

SAFETY TOOLBOX

4.0 SAFETY TOOLBOX

4.1 BACKGROUND
A safety toolbox was developed to address safety emphasis areas in Yucaipa. The toolbox strategies are based on the review of high -priority corridors and intersections where safety improvements are most needed to achieve the goals in the LRSP. Safety countermeasures include strategies from the five (5) E's of roadway safety improvement related to collision patterns and emphasis areas. • Engineering addresses roadway infrastructure improvements to prevent crashes or reduce the severity of collision when they occur. Engineering safety countermeasures have been developed by Caltrans and are described in LRSM.
• Education provides drivers information about making good choices, such as not texting while driving, avoiding alcohol or medications that affect the level of consciousness, wearing a seatbelt, or informing people about the rules of the road.
• Enforcement of traffic laws and a visible police presence tend to deter motorists from unsafe driving behavior.
• Emergency services provide rapid response and quality of care when responding to collisions that cause injury, by stabilizing victims and transporting them to other facilities.

4.2 ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES
Caltrans has used information from the Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse and three other FHWA published safety manuals — Roadway Departure Safety, Intersection Safety, and Roadways Safety Information Analysis — in conjunction with its own research with the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) to develop the Caltrans LRSM.

The countermeasures listed in this section are those considered to best address Yucaipa's high crash intersections and roadway segments. The City of Yucaipa has received HSIP funding in the past, including recent funding for left turn modification. The countermeasure list for current needs is provided in Table 4- 1 and indicates the crash type, crash reduction factors (CRF), federal funding eligibility for HSIP projects, and the systemic opportunity for countermeasures. A description of each countermeasure follows.

The countermeasures listed address the high crash intersections and roadway segments. The countermeasure list indicates the crash type, CRF, federal funding eligibility for HSIP projects and the systemic opportunity.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 28

SAFETY TOOLBOX
Table 4-1 Engineering Countermeasures Selected for Further Study Crash
Expected
Funding
Potential
No.

Countermeasure Description
Type
CRF
Life
Eligibility
Funding
(Years)
Source
Signalized Intersections:

S02
Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Back -Plates,
All
15%
10 90%
HSIP
Mounting, Size, and Number
S03
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases,
All
o
15 /0
10 o
50%
HSIP and
red, yellow, or operation)
Local
S10
Install flashing beacons as advanced warning
All
30%
10 90%
Local
S17PB
Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads
P&B
25%
20 90%
HSIP
Non -Signalized Intersections:

NS03
Install signals
All
30%
20 90%
HSIP
NSO4
Convert Intersection to Roundabout (from all-
All
Varies
20 90%
HSIP
way stop)
NS05
Convert Intersection to Roundabout (from 2-
All
Varies
20 90%
HSIP
way stop or yield control)
NS20PB
Install pedestrian crossings
P&B
25%
10 90%
HSIP and
Local
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at
NS21PI3
uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety
P&B
35%
20 90%
HSIP
features)
Roadway Segments:

R02
Relocate fixed objects
All
35%
20 90%
HSIP
R14
Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two
All
35%
20 90%
HSIP
way left -turn and bike lanes)
R27
Install delineators, reflectors and or object
All
15%
10 90%
HSIP or
markers
Local
R31
Install edgeline rumble strips / stripes
All
15%
10 90%
HSIP
The information included in the countermeasures are:
• Crash Types - "All", "P & B" (Pedestrian and Bicycle), "Night", "Emergency Vehicle", or "Animal". • CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls -for- projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years.
• Federal Funding Eligibility— the maximum federal reimbursement ratio. • Systemic Approach Opportunity - Opportunity to Implement Using a Systemic Approach: "Very High", "High", "Medium" or "Low"
The countermeasure description refers to each countermeasure with an identification letter and number.

The full list of Caltrans HSIP approved countermeasures is provided in Appendix E. This list consists of thoroughly researched countermeasures used by Caltrans that apply to signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadways.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 29

SAFETY TOOLBOX
The following engineering countermeasures were identified to best address the systemic collision patterns and higher crash locations in Yucaipa for signalized intersections.

S02. Improve Signal Hardware: lenses, back -plates with retro-reflective borders, new signal mountings, increased signal head size, and number of signal heads.

Improved signal hardware applies at signalized
intersections with broadside and rear -end crashes
where drivers have difficulty seeing traffic signals
sufficiently in advance. This countermeasure can
include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro-
reflective tape outlining the back plates, visors to
increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, additional signal heads, the
addition of near side signals, or high mount signals at locations where intersection visibility may be affected.

Potential Locations: Major signalized intersections
Use of Retro -reflective Tape
S03. Improve Signal Timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Improving signal timings can be effective in reducing certain crash patterns at multiple signalized intersections along a corridor. Signal timing improvements may include adding phases such as protected left turns, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher -risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations. The coordination of multiple signals will require new interconnected infrastructure that can have moderate to high cost to implement. split
cycle' length
LOGaI
CIDck
Real -Time
Clock
Example signal timing plan where red and yellow times would be adjusted (FHWA) Potential Locations: Yucaipa Boulevard, Oak Glen Road
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 30

SAFETY TOOLBOX
510. Install flashing beacons as advance warning
This countermeasure is used at signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply, due to grades, curves or obstructions. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source. <+
Potential Locations: Oak Glen Road at Stonewood Drive, on 51h Street approaching Wildwood Canyon Road, east approach 500 to 1500 feet east, Oak Glen Road and Calimesa Boulevard.

Solar powered
flashing beacon
S17P13. Install pedestrian signal countdown heads
Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes. A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON'T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing.

Accessible pedestrian signal (APS) devices are eligible under the se -aside of pedestrian crossing enhancement provided that the cost is no more than 20% of the total project.

Potential Locations: 41h Street and Yucaipa Boulevard, 3rd Street and Yucaipa Boulevard, 10" Street and Yucaipa Boulevard, Yucaipa Boulevard and Bryant Street, Yucaipa Boulevard and Oak Glen Road, 2"d Street and Oak Glen Road

4.2.2 Non -Signalized Intersection CountermeasL
NS03. Install Signals
Traffic signals are a form of traffic control that is used at intersections.

Traffic signals are used to prevent broadside collisions related to left turns. A traffic signal warrant study is required to add a new traffic signal. In order to be funded by HSIP, an intersection must meet Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) warrants Warrant 4: Pedestrian Volume, Warrant 5: School Crossing or Warrant 7: Crash Experience. When this countermeasure is considered, no other intersection countermeasure can be applied in combination.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 31

SAFETY TOOLBOX
Potential Locations: To be determined, as per warrant analysis NS20PB. Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) This countermeasure is used at non -signalized
intersections where pedestrians are known to be
crossing and where there is no marked crosswalk
and, significant vehicular traffic. Pedestrian crossings are especially important at school crossings and
intersections with right and/or left turns pockets.

Pavement markings delineate a portion of the
roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.

These markings will often be different for controlled
versus uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder",
"zebra" or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled
crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver
awareness to the pedestrian exposure at the
crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or "yield"
markings provides an extra safety factor.

Potential Locations: Calimesa Boulevard and Avenue I, Yucaipa Blvd and 171h Street, California Street and Eureka Avenue
NS21 PB. Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features)
This countermeasure is associated with a wide variety of pedestrian -focused roadway improvements including curb extensions, raised crosswalks, flashing beacons, and other pedestrian crossing safety facilities. These safety improvement features are used at non -signalized intersections to complement standard crossing elements. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing and provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple -threat' danger to pedestrians.

Potential Locations: Yucaipa Blvd and 2nd Street, Avenue E and 2"d Street, and Avenue E and 3rd Street CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 32

SAFETY TOOLBOX
i
Example of pedestrian crossing enhancements
"_7.3 Roadway Countr,�rPneasure_.

R02. Remove or relocate objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone This countermeasure addresses hit object I
collisions. This countermeasure can be used forknown locations or roadway segments prone tocollisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, fire hydrants, and other
fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end
of lane drops, and in traffic islands. Signs and
other objects can be removed at low cost. Utility
relocation can be high cost and where right-of-
way is limited, may not be possible. Alternatively,
additional higher visibility markings can be used. ;am� Potential Locations: Yucaipa Boulevard from V Street to 17th Street and Wildwood Canyon Road.

R14. Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left -turn and bike lanes) Road diets reduces the width of the travel lanes in favor of adding bike lanes or a two way left -turn lane.

The application of this strategy seeks to combat excessive speeding and reduces the likelihood of serious head-on crashes. The installation of addition bike lanes would contribute to increased bicycle safety as well as the safety of on -street parking. Compared to other low -coast treatments the implementation of road diets would take more time but projects that only require new lane markings will have relatively low cost.

Potential Locations: Chapman Heights Road and Oak Glen Road CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 33

SAFETY TOOLBOX
R27. Install Delineators, Reflectors and or Object Markers Delineators, reflectors and/or object markers can be used to warn drivers of an approaching curve, a change in roadway width, or a fixed object that cannot easily be removed.

Potential Locations: Yucaipa Boulevard from 111 Street to 17th Street and Wildwood Canyon Road. Also any spot location where additional markers may be needed.

R31. Install Edgeline Rumble Strips / Stripes
Edgeline striping or edgeline rumble strips can be used on any roadway where there is a history of roadway departure crashes. This countermeasure can be used systemically along the entire route where collisions have been identified. The rumble strip alerts drivers if they are leaving the roadway and can provide time to recover. It provides enhanced marking and is especially effective in dark or wet conditions.

Potential Locations: Entire stretch of Wildwood Canyon Road and Oak Glen Road from Bryant Street to city limit.

NSO4/NS05. Convert Intersection to Roundabout (from all -way stop, 2-way stop or yield control) Roundabouts provide an alternative to signalize or stop -controlled intersections. This countermeasure can be used at intersections with moderate traffic volumes and provides fewer conflict points than traditional intersections. Crashes at roundabout intersections are usually less severe do to the lower entry and exit velocity of vehicles within roundabouts. While effective, roundabouts are more costly and have longer acquisition, right-of-way, and implementation timelines.

Potential Locations: To be determined, as per project location, roundabout size, and ADT.

A%
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 34

SAFETY TOOLBOX

4.3 EDUCATION COUNTERMEASURES
Education Programs at Schools
School education programs include campaigns to educate students about factors affecting safety such as school crossing safety. For high school students, education programs can include the dangers of speeding, texting and driving under the influence. Education strategies can include the following:
• Expand school safety programs to bring police officers to Elementary School, Middle School and High Schools that will address speeding and texting while driving. • Start a social media campaign at local Middle and High schools, encouraging students to post videos on the danger of using their phones while driving. • Host hands-on bicycle safety events at local schools. These can include Bicycle Safety Skills Programs, which teach students how to operate bicycles safely, and walk/bike to school days, carnival -like events featuring interactive educational activities about bicycling. • Host hands-on pedestrian safety events at local schools. These can include pedestrian safety skills programs -teaching students how to cross the street safely and walk/bike to school days, carnival - like events featuring interactive educational activities about walking. • Host interactive pedestrian education programs at local schools. These include pedestrian rodeos, enclosed training courses with challenges addressing different skill areas (e.g., rules of the road, blind spots, and directions to look in when crossing the street).

Education Programs for the General Public
General public programs include campaigns to educate the public about factors affecting vehicle safety such the dangers of speeding, texting and driving under the influence. These can include safety posts, tweets, billboards or even more detailed bicycle safety or vehicle safety programs. One example is the safety education program "Go Human" led by SCAG. Other possible activities include:
• Provide bike safe programs for persons of all ages and training courses for first-time adult riders
• Set up portable changeable message signs to display drunk driving, distracted driving, speeding, and other factors.
• Create a social media campaign related to travel speeds • Investigate related programs such as the Go Human program operated by SCAG to increase safety awareness of all travel modes.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 35

SAFETY TOOLBOX

4.4 ENFORCEMENT COUNTERMEASURES
Police Enforcement
Strategies for providing additional police enforcement for speeding and for driving under the influence include:
• The Police Department participates in the California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Program every year. This grant
provides funding to hold DUI checkpoints, DUI saturation patrols and traffic enforcement operations that focus on primary collision factors.
• Implement targeted enforcement programs to focus
police resources to areas where bicyclists face a high risk of collision or tend to engage in unsafe practices.
• Coordinate with the Yucaipa Police Department on
bicycle rules and safety considerations, so that
enforcement of bicycle -related traffic violations can
occur.
• Periodically enforce locations with high crossing activity to monitor and cite traffic law violations by motorists and pedestrians.
• Continue to deploy police officers equipped with radar or LIDAR laser speed gun technology at strategic locations to ticket speeding drivers. Provide additional offices and equipment for officers to enforce speeding and red light running.
• Utilize a Checkpoint Program to provide enforcement of DUI laws. • Hold monthly Traffic Safety Meetings with Yucaipa PD
Use of Automated Enforcement
Strategies to reduce vehicle speeds include use of speed feedback signs at locations where traffic calming is needed, or provision of automated equipment to identify speeding vehicles.

4.5 EMERGENCY SERVICE COUNTERMEASURES
Emergency service countermeasures include
enacting strategies targeted at reducing
response time for first responders, thus
increasing the chance of survival for a person
involved in a crash. This can include signal
pre-emption for emergency vehicles.
lil iO_
OP
' _ Av �.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 36

SAFETY TOOLBOX

4.6 OTHER PROGRAMS
Other approaches outside of the data driven local roadway safety plan approach are described below:

Reducing Speed Limits
Excessive speed has been identified as a major factor in collisions. The City has conducted speed surveys in 2013, 2018, & 2023. A speed survey is required to be completed on a regular basis and is used to establish speed limits consistent with the California Vehicle Code and the California Manual on Traffic Control Devices. Speed limits are based on a number of factors, including the existing characteristics of a roadway and determining the speed in which eight -five percent (85%) of vehicles do not exceed. The process to establish speeds has been reviewed. In 2024, there will be additional flexibility to lower speed limits in a number of cases. New CVC Section 22358.7, also passed through AB 43, would allow a further five (5) mph reduction in the speed limit based on eighty-five (85) percentile speeds for designated safety corridors or where high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians are present beginning June 30, 2024.

Neighborhood Traffic Calming
The Yucaipa City Council adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan in 2008. The objective of this program is to establish a systematic approach to address excessive speeds by identifying physical and visual traffic control devices that can be implemented along neighborhood residential streets and in some cases along collector routes. This process involves identifying a process to handle traffic calming requests, describe traffic calming measures and prioritize projects. Since 2008, the city has approved multiple mitigation measures that have addressed speeding, sight distance and parking issues in residential areas.

Active Transportation Plans
Active Transportation Plans identify projects and programs to develop pedestrian and bicycle networks that improve safety. The City of Yucaipa has prepared a Bicycle Plan that identified new bicycle routes to add including 27.5 miles of Class 2 bicycle routes, for a total of 45 miles at the buildout of the route map.

Key planned bicycle routes include:
• Oak Glen. 12 miles of mostly Class 2 routes extending from 1-10 in west Yucaipa through the community to Oak Glen.
• Yucaipa Boulevard. 7 miles of exclusively Class 2 routes extending the length of the City past Chapman Heights, City Hall, and Uptown.
• Wildwood Canyon. 7 miles of exclusively Class 2 routes extending eastward from 1-10 in west Yucaipa to Wildwood Canyon Park.

Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Plans
Safety around schools can be addressed comprehensively by conducting a safe routes to school study.

This project type involves working with schools, the school district and parents to identify potential improvements to the pedestrian and bicycle systems that can be used by students. The City of Yucaipa has completed a SRTS Plan. This plan identifies school crosswalks, new sidewalk, ADA curb ramps, and school signage improvements for areas around the Dunlap Elementary School.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 37

PRIORITY PROJECTS

5.0 PRIORITY PROJECTS

5.1 PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
This section describes safety projects and programs that address high collision locations. The safety project investments described in this section are those that provide the highest potential to address existing collision patterns.

Safety projects were developed using the traffic safety toolbox discussed in Section 4. This section describes locations where the countermeasure are applied, the collisions addressed, construction and project development costs, and the effectiveness of the countermeasure. Project benefits and Benefit/Cost ratios are listed for each project group, and were calculated using the HSIP Analyzer form provided by Caltrans for use in preparing HSIP applications.

The information presented in this section, closely follows the format for HSIP applications. As a reference for HSIP applications, the minimum project cost is $200,000 and for the previous HSIP Cycle 11, the minimum B/C ratio for a project to be considered was 3.5. However, given the competitiveness of the last round of HSIP applications, the average B/C ratio of the approved projects was 12.3.

The types of projects identified for HSIP funding include:
1) Signal hardware upgrades
2) Signal coordination and timing on major routes
3) Provide pedestrian countdown heads at signalized intersections with higher pedestrian travel 4) Roadway edge lines and object marking to address nighttime collisions 5) Advance warning of traffic signals in locations where visibility is limited Also described are non-HSIP safety projects and programs to pursue locally without HSIP funding. These are projects provide safety benefits, but may not be included in the LRSM countermeasures or do not meet the anticipated HSIP cost-effectiveness thresholds.

The types of projects identified for local funding include:
1) Projects addressing objects close to right of way
2) A project that supports emergency vehicle access
3) Description of safety programs
4) Additional studies identified

5.2 CITYWIDE SIGNAL HARDWARE UPGRADES
Collisions at signalized intersections can be addressed by providing improvements to signal hardware by improving the visibility of traffic signals. Hardware upgrades can also include adding pedestrian countdown heads at locations with high pedestrian crossings or where pedestrian related collisions have occurred. Hardware upgrades also include providing a flashing beacon to warn drivers of a signal ahead at locations where signal visibility is restricted.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 38

PRIORITY PROJECTS
LRSP Countermeasures
Caltrans allows up to three countermeasures to be included in a single application. This project includes the following three LRSP countermeasures:

S0.2. Jfnpiov'l Signal HaYdware: lenses; back -plates with borders.

Caltrans have identified improving the placement and visibility of signal heads as an approach to address broadside, rear end and other intersection collisions This project will increase signal visibility by replacing back plates, and by adding reflective borders at 31 intersections.

S17PB. Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads
This countermeasure is the installation of pedestrian countdown signal heads to provide pedestrian safety benefits at six signalized intersection locations. The project also includes adding ADA compliant push buttons at the same six intersections.
5 l0 Install FlashirJg G3 2acons as Advance Warning
Advance warning flashing beacons will be provided at three locations where drivers' vision of traffic control may be impacted by grades, curves or obstructions.

Project Location
The location of signalized intersections are shown in Figure 5-1. The specific locations for signal improvements by replacing back plates and providing pedestrian signal countdown heads at locations of higher pedestrian activity are listed in Table 5-1.

Figure 5-1 Signal Locations in Yucaipa
Controlled Intersections 8 „E
w^Ll. KE
Q Existing S;gnafiiad Mtetxttions
c Future Signaued Interwamns
@Es 1,, Roundabout MR+s�•c[ims
.'7i Proposed Roundabout Intersectims
r G
p 0 Dau sEH au
G
A
meassL. ;F
0 0 l iva:ae g_a' G G G 0
0 0
a©@
pulenuE 0 G
G G
,., F. G
�
{ - asWC C
~
5 s ai
a�S
F'.O t E
_ h as
8 AHEM.£ E
n
///(.�yyy`iii IE
t
O
KEMCKY
�/ Y
_
t�
a
_
qc
a{r
6 y�
',"'E
:O ©
cou— trvE
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 39

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Table 5-1 Signal Upgrade Locations
No.

Street
Back Plate
Pedestrian
Countdown
Install Flashing
Beacons
Yucaipa Boulevard
1 Avenue E / Hampton Rd
x*
2 Chinaberry St
x
3 16th St
x
4 14th St / Sand Canyon Rd
x
5 13th St
x
6 12th St
x
7 10th St
x
x
8 Oak Glen Rd
x*
x
9 Yucaipa Valley Cir
x
10 7th St
x
11 6th St
x
12 5th St
x
13 4th St
x
x
14 3rd St
x*
x
15 Bryant St
x
x
Oak Glen Road
17 14th St / Calimesa Blvd
x
x
18 Avenue
x
19 Chapman Heights Rd
x
20 Sth St
x
21 Stonewood Dr
x*
x
22 2nd St
x
x
23 Sunn side Dr
x
24 Bryant St
x
Bryant Street
25 Fir Ave
x
Wildwood Canyon Road
26 5th St
x
x
Sand Canyon Road
27 Campus Dr (North)
x
28 Campus Dr (South)
x
29 Chapman Heights Rd
x
Avenue E
30 California St
x
County Line Road
31 Calimesa Blvd
x
*Existing city project for intersection improvements including modified left hand turn, signal timing, and high visibility borders Collision Data (2017-2021)
Table 5-2 lists the number, severity and type of collisions addressed by the project.

Table 5-2 Intersection Collisions
Collision Severity
Severe
Other Visible
Complaint of
Property Damage
Fatal
Iniury
Iniury
Pain
Only
9 13
62 123
330
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 40

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Pedestrian Severity
Severe
Other Visible
Complaint of
Property Damage
Fatal
Injury
Injury
Pain
Only
3 2
8 3
2 Project Cost Estimate
Table 5-3, lists estimated project costs to include the construction items, mobilization, and traffic control.

Project development and implementation costs are shown in Table 5-4. This countermeasure is ninety percent (90%) funded by Caltrans, with a local share for this project of $59,396.

Table 5-3 S02 S17PB Construction Items
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total
1 Retro-reflective Back plate Tape
EA *
31 $ 5,200
$ 161,200
2 Signal Countdown Heads
EA
48 $ 1,650
$ 79,200
3 ADA Push Buttons
EA
6 $ 15,000
$ 90,000
4 Mobilization
LS
1 $ 40,000
$ 40,000
5 Traffic Control
LS
1 $ 20,000
$ 20,000
Total
$ 390,400
Contingencies (15% of Construction)
$ 58,560
Total Construction Cost
$ 448,960
*Per intersection
Table 5-4 S02 S17PB Project Development Costs
Description
Total Cost
HSIP Total %
HSIP Funds
Local /
Other
Funds
Environmental
$25,000
90%
$22,500
$2,500
PS&E
$60,000
90%
$54,000
$6,000
Subtotal - PS&E
$85,000
90%
$76,500
$8,500
Right of Way Engineering
$0
90%
$0
$0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities
$0
90%
$0
$0
Subtotal - Right -of -Way
$0
90%
$0
$0
Construction Engineering
$60,000
90%
$54,000
$6,000
Construction Items
$448,960
90%
$404,064
$44,896
Subtotal - Construction
$508,960
90%
$458,064
$50,896
Project Total
$593,960
90%
$534,564
$59,396
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 41

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Project Benefit — Cost Ratio
The project benefits were calculated using HSIP crash reduction factors. Project benefits divided by total costs provides the Benefit/Cost ratio. As shown in Table 5-5, the Benefit/Cost ratio is 106.79. Based on project need and effectiveness, this project is recommended for a future HSIP funding application.

Table 5-5 S02 S17PB Benefit - Cost
Total Benefit
Total Cost
Benefit/Cost Ratio
$63,430,357
1 $593,960
106.79

5.3 CITYWIDE SIGNAL TIMING IMPROVEMENTS
Traffic safety at intersections can be addressed by adjusting signal timing and phasing. Signal timing measures that improve traffic safety include using protected signal phasing, adjusting signal phase sequence, increasing yellow clearance times, and increasing red clearance times. Signal timing and safety can also be improved through signal coordination, which involves providing a connection between signals managed by a central traffic control center. This is accomplished by upgrading signal hardware to include cameras and/or advanced loops placed in the pavement, with traffic signals interconnected by fiber infrastructure. Much of the needed infrastructure, specifically conduits, is in place for interconnecting traffic signals along major corridors. For this project, the signal timing and coordination improvements described above were analyzed for all signalized intersections along Yucaipa Boulevard and Oak Glen Road. The twelve controller timing parameters that are commonly used are listed below:

Controller Timing Parameters Summary

1. WALK - Establishes the length of the WALK interval.

2. PED CLEARANCE - Establishes the length of flashing DON'T WALK interval.

3. MINIMUM GREEN - Establishes the length of initial state of green interval.

4. PASSAGE TIME - Establishes the increment of right-of-way (green) time extension for each vehicle actuation during the green interval.

5. MAXIMUM GREEN - Establishes the maximum limit to which the green interval can be extended on a phase in the presence of a serviceable demand on a conflicting phase.

6. ADDED INITIAL - Density feature. Establishes number of seconds by which each vehicle (actuation) increases the initial state of green during non -green time on the phase

7. MAXIMUM INITIAL - Density feature. Establishes the maximum limit to which the initial interval can be extended on a phase.

8. TIME B4 REDUCTION - Density feature. Establishes a preset time before the allowed gap (Passage Time) begins to reduce.

9. TIME TO REDUCE - Density feature. Establishes time in which the allowed gap is reduced from passage time to minimum gap, after the time before reduction has expired.

10. MINIMUM GAP - Density feature. Establishes minimum value to which allowed gap between actuations on phase with green can be reduced upon expiration of time to reduce.

11. YELLOW CHANGE - Establishes the length of yellow interval following the green interval.

12. RED CLEARANCE - Establishes the length of red clearance interval following the yellow interval.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 42

PRIORITY PROJECTS
LRSP Countermeasure
This project includes this LRSP countermeasure:

S03. Improve Signal Tinning (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Broadside, rear end collisions and other collision types within intersections areas are addressed by improving signal timing to extend yellow and red times, and by providing protected left turn phasing.

This project will include analysis to optimize signal timing and implement the changes in the field.

Project Location
This countermeasure is applied to support corridor -wide signal coordination on Yucaipa Boulevard and Oak Glen Road at 18 signalized intersections as shown in Figure 5-2.

Figure 5-2 Signal Coordination Locations
o �
Signal timing and coordination
m 4

CAK GLEN RD
cNOGMI'
N C��
Chi RD
TE,WNESS:.E St
G G X
N
5 AVENUE E
o U
�Vo KET+TUCKr

DATE ST

C C C C C OO Q D
G G G = AVENUE D
°o AVENUE E 4'a, .�'A O
t � G
GGiow�O 5
lko'Now CANTON RD
CALIA4ESA aL/D O
AvENUE G - G v+
AVENUE H _ G IN. G
AVENUE ( G G G o
o .1 OO OO 0
Collision Data (2017-2021)
Table 5-6 lists the number, severity and type of collisions addressed by the project.

Table 5-6 S03 Countermeasure Collisions
Severity
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage
5 4
33 76
193
MEy' rM
COU" UNE RD
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 43

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Project Cost Estimate
Table 5-7, lists estimated project costs to include the construction items, mobilization, and traffic control.

Conduit is in place between signals for much of the project length. Signal connection costs consist of primarily fiber and conduit repair at three locations. The three signals located on Oak Glen Road and 1-10 are not included in this project, as they should be coordinated with Caltrans, and would be a separate coordinated system. Project development and implementation costs are shown in Table 5-8. This countermeasure is fifty percent (50%) funded by Caltrans, with a local share for this project of $727,175.

Table 5-7 S03 Construction Items
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total
1 Yucaipa Boulevard Signal
Connection
LF
14000
$ 20
$ 280,000
Oak Glen Boulevard Signal
Cconnection
LF
4000
$ 20
$ 80,000
2 Upgrade Naztec or Traconex
390 type controllers to 2070
ATC
EA
18 $ 6,000
$ 108,000
3 Timing
EA
18 $ 3,500
$ 63,000
4 Video or Loop detection
EA
18 $ 16,000
$ 288,000
5 Mobilization
LS
1 $ -
$ 100,000
6 Traffic Control
LS
1 $ -
$ 50,000
Total
$ 969,000
Contingencies (15% of Construction)
$ 145,350
Total Construction Cost
$ 1,114,350
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 44

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Table 5-8 S03 Project Development Costs
Description
Total Cost
HSIP
Total %
HSIP Funds
Local /
Other Funds
Environmental
$50,000
50%
$25,000
$25,000
PS&E
$145,000
50%
$180,000
$72,500
Subtotal - PS&E
$195,000
50%
$97,500
$97,500
Right of Way Engineering
$0
50%
$0
$0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities
$0
50%
$0
$0
Subtotal - Right -of -Way
$0
50%
$0
$0
Construction Engineering
$145,000
50%
$180,000
$72,500
Construction Items
$1,114,350
50%
$557,175
$557,175
Subtotal - Construction
$1,259,350
50%
$629,675
$629,675
Project Total
$1,454,350
50%
$727,175
$727,175
Project Benefit — Cost Ratio
The project benefits were estimated using the HSIP crash reduction factor for this countermeasure of fifteen percent (15%) applied to the preventable collisions listed above. Project benefits divided by total costs provides the Benefit/Cost Ratio. As shown in Table 5-9, the Benefit/Cost ratio is 6.42. This Benefit/Cost Ratio is lower than the likely HSIP threshold for funding.

A second smaller intersection coordination project was tested to see if a higher Benefit -Cost Ratio could be achieved. This project included the 10 intersections on Yucaipa Boulevard between 3rd Street and 16tn Street. It resulted in a Benefit/Cost ratio of 8.18. Focusing this countermeasure on Yucaipa Boulevard provides a more competitive project, but this ratio is still below the anticipated level needed for funding.

Table 5-9 S03 Benefit — Cost
Full Project:

Total Benefit
Total Cost
Benefit/Cost Ratio
$9,343,140
$1,454,350

6.42 Yucaipa Boulevard Only:

Total Benefit
Total Cost
Benefit/Cost Ratio
$6,738,331
$823,575

8.18 CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 45

PRIORITY PROJECTS

5.4 ROADWAY COUNTERMEASURES
Roadway countermeasures address collision patterns along the roadway but not within the intersection area. For Yucaipa, roadway countermeasures were investigated that addressed hit objects, roadway departures and nighttime driving issues. Two countermeasures were determined to best address these types of collisions.

R27 install Delineators, Reflectors and/or Object Nlarkei's R31, Install Edgeline Rumble Strips / Stripes
Project Description
This project addresses all types of collisions, but in particular addresses nighttime collisions and hit object collisions by providing edge line reflective rumble strips. At these locations, collisions have occurred on roads having no curbs, on roadway curves, where the roadway width changes, roads with narrow or no shoulders, or where utility poles, mailboxes and other objects are located close to the road. The use of painted edgeline rumble strips is a countermeasures that can provide vehicles warning if leaving the roadway. Reflective delineators will also be added in front of objects that may be near to a curb or edge of pavement, or at places where lanes narrow.

Project Locations
Locations where the countermeasure would address existing collisions are listed in Table 5-10.

Table 5-10 R27 R31 Countermeasure Locations
Corridor
From
To
Wildwood Canyon Road
Calimesa Boulevard
61h Street
Avenue E
Dunlap Boulevard
101h Street
Avenue E
81h Street
3rd Street
Bryant Street
Carter Street
North City Limit
Avenue E looking east toward 515t.

Wildwood Canyon east of Calimesa Blvd.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 46

Collision Data (2017-2021)
Table 5-11 lists the number, severity and type of collisions addressed by the project.

Table 5-11 R27 R31 Countermeasure Collisions
Collision Severity
Property
Other Visible
Complaint of
Damage
Fatal
Severe Injury
Injury
Pain
Only (PDO)
1 1
10 15
33 Project Cost Estimate

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Project costs were estimated consistent with HSIP format to include the construction items, mobilization, and traffic control. Project development and implementation costs are shown in Table 5-12. Table 5-13 shows the total cost following Caltrans HSIP project implementation.. This countermeasure is ninety percent (90%) funded by Caltrans, so that the local share for this project would be $29,540.

Table 5-12 R27 R31 Countermeasure Construction Items
Item Description
Unit
Quantity
Unit Cost
Total
1 Install edgeline rumble
strips
LF
42,000
$3
$126,000
2 Delineators
EA
20 $2,000
$40,000
3 Mobilization
LS
1 $25,000
$10,000
4 Traffic Control
LS
1 $40,000
$20,000
Total
$196,000
Contingencies (1 S% of Construction)
$29,400
Total Construction Cost
$225,400
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 47

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Table 5-13 R27 R31 Countermeasure Project Costs
Description
Total Cost
HSIP
Total %
HSIP
Funds
Local /
Other Funds
Environmental
$10,000
90%
$9,000
$1,000
PS&E
$30,000
90%
$27,000
$3,000
Subtotal - PS&E
$40,000
90%
$36,000
$4,000
Right of Way Engineering
$0
90%
$0
$0
Appraisals, Acquistions & Utilities
$0
90%
$0
$0
Subtotal - Right -of -Way
$0
90%
$0
$0
Construction Engineering
$30,000
90%
$27,000
$3,000
Construction Items
$225,400
90%
$202,860
$22,540
Subtotal - Construction
$255,400
90%
$229,860
$25,540
Project Total
$295,400
90%
$265,860
$29,540
Project Benefit — Cost Ratio
The project benefits are estimated using the HSIP crash reduction factor for this countermeasure of fifteen percent (15%) applied to the preventable collisions listed above. When more than one countermeasure is used, the lowest crash reduction factor must be used for the entire project. Project benefits divided by total costs provides the Benefit/Cost Ratio. As shown in Table 5-14, the Benefit/Cost ratio is 15.74.

Table 5-14 R27 R31 Countermeasure Benefit - Cost
Total Benefit
Total Cost
Benefit/Cost Ratio
$4,648,792
$295,400

15.74 5.5 OTHER PROJECTS / PROGRAMS
Other projects and programs have been identified that address safety concerns that are either low-cost and would not be part of a HSIP grant, or are program related.

Emergency Response
An emergency response project is fire station access on Yucaipa Boulevard west of 131h Street. At this location, fire engine access is restricted by a median. To improve the ease of making a movement across the median, a median break could be provided as shown in Figure 5-3. Flashing signals would be activated by the fire truck to alert vehicles to stop, therefore enhancing access safety when utilized.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 48

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Figure 5-3 Fire Station Access
Objects Near Roadway
Additional measures to address hit object could include:
• Increase the visibility of fire hydrants by repainting as needed. • Add additional reflective delineators to any identified fixed objects located close to the curb or edge of roadway, or as observed to need additional delineation. • Consider street lighting on collector road corridors, where night collisions identified. • Address spot locations by providing addition pavement marking or reflective delineators.

Unsignalized Intersections
While a majority of intersection collisions occur at signalized intersections, data showing collision patterns at unsignalized locations is also provided in this report. The data showed no large concentrations or patterns that could be part of a systemic HSIP application. Projects for unsignalized intersections can be completed as part of the current city capital improvement process.

Bicycle and Pedestrian Projects
The traffic safety information developed in this report can be used for future bicycle and pedestrian project evaluations to more fully address these needs. In addition, this project provides stakeholder and public input where there are pedestrian and bicycle concerns. Concerns that were identified include the need for sidewalks, improved crosswalks, ADA compliant curb ramps, improved access to bus stops, and bicycle lanes.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 49

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Traffic Calming
The Yucaipa City Council adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Plan in 2008. This process is used to address speed and mitigate traffic concerns in residential areas on local streets or collector streets only. A number of public comments listed locations where traffic calming strategies could be investigated as part of this program.

Speed Study
As per state law, speed surveys are required to be completed. As the City completes a speed survey update, consideration of new CVC Section 22358.7, passed through AB 43, will allow a further five (5) mph reduction in the speed limit based on eighty-five (85) percentile speeds for designated safety corridors or where high concentrations of bicyclists or pedestrians are present.

5.6 FUNDING SOURCES
For projects utilizing low-cost countermeasures, the total project cost may be low enough that the agency can construct the project using its existing roadway funding by utilizing the ongoing activities of their roadway maintenance staff and equipment.

For larger safety projects, a primary funding program is the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) that funds roadway improvements on public roadways. Caltrans administer this federal program. Also at the federal level, the Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment Program funds technology to promote safety and efficiency in the transportation system.

There are several other state and federal grant programs that fund roadway safety projects. The California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP) encourages bicycle and pedestrian use in the state by funding programs that increase bike or pedestrian mode share or improve bicycle or pedestrian safety. Caltrans also administers the Sustainable Communities Grant Program, which awards grants to municipal projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support Multi -modal transportation and support state policies like the 2040 California Transportation Plan. The California Office of Traffic Safety awards grants for projects addressing any one or more of ten priority areas, including Driving Under the Influence, Distracted Driving, Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety, Police Enforcement, Safety Data Collection, and Marketing/Publicity Campaigns.

The U.S. Department of Transportation has developed a new Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) discretionary, which offers grant funding to address fatalities and serious injuries. The two types of grants are Action Plan Grants that provide funds for planning and conceptual engineering, and Implementation Grants that provide funding for design and construction. A number of cities in California were awarded funding for the program's first year in 2022. The SS4A program will continue on an annual basis through the year 2026.

Table 5-15 provides a list of transportation safety programs and funding sources.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 50

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Table 5-15 Transportation Safety Funding Sources Summary Agency
Source
Eligible Programs
Any work on public roads,
Areas Addressed
Federal Highway
Highway Safety
bikeways and pedestrian
Administration
Improvement Program
paths/trails. For the most part,
Safety projects
(FHWA)
(HSIP)
only engineering projects are
eligible.

Funds advanced transportation
and congestion management
Advanced Transportation
technologies to improve safety,
Federal Highway
and Congestion
efficiency and performance.

Digital Enforcement;
Administration
Management Technologies
Examples of funded project types
Technology Partnerships
(FHWA)
Deployment Program
include advanced traveler
information systems, data
collection, and analysis efforts3.

Local government projects that
improve the safety or increase the
California
mode share of bicycling and
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Department of
Active Transportation
walking. Additional program
Engineering projects,
Transportation
Program (ATP)
objectives include reducing
Education and Enforcement
(Caltrans)
emissions and enhancing public
health'.

The program awards
"Competitive Grants" to local
governments. These grants
Active Transportation
prioritize projects that reduce
California
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Department of
Sustainable Communities
support multi -modal
Transportation
Grant Program
transportation, involve
(Caltrans)
stakeholder/ community
engagement and support related
plans like the California
Education
Transportation Plan and California
Complete Streets Frameworks .

Funds for action grants and
U.S. Department
Safe Streets and Roads for
Planning, design and
of Transportation
All (SS$A)
implementation grants to address
construction
fatal and severe injury crashes
Driving under the influence of
Programs should address one of
Drugs/Alcohol (DUI)
Distracted Driving
ten priority areas (six relevant
ones listed to the right). Grant
Pedestrian/Bike Safety
California Office
Office of Traffic Safety
recipients should expect to wait
of Traffic Safety
(OTS) Grants
up to 90 days before being
reimbursed/funded, and should
Police Enforcement
be able to provide traffic safety
Roadway Safety and Data
data tojustify funded programs6.

Collection
Social Media/Marketing
CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 51

PRIORITY PROJECTS
Sources:

7. Highway Safety Improvement Program Guidelines, April2016

2. Highway safety improvement program, Pub. L. No. 148, 23 US Code (2075). httos:// www.low . cornell. edu/uscode/text/23/148.

3. Advanced Transportation and Congestion Management Technologies Deployment. February 2016. https://miww . fh wa. dot. gov/fastact/factsheets/ad vtranscongmgm tfs. cfi n.

4. 2027 Active Transportation Program Guidelines. March 25, 2020, Resolution G-20-37,

5. California Department of Transportation. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program, December2079.

6. California Office of Traffic Safety Grant Manual for Federal Fiscal Year2020. December2019.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 52

LRSP EVALAUATION

6.0 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)

EVALUATION
Evaluating the effectiveness of roadway treatments following installation to reduce collisions can guide future decisions regarding roadway countermeasures. After safety projects are provided, the effectiveness of the LRSP can be measured by reviewing collision data provided from the California Office of Traffic Safety' collision ranking system and California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)z on an annual basis. The collision trends following the LRSP's adoption provide indicators of the plan's success.

In order to perform the assessment, it is necessary to collect the required information for a certain period after strategies have been deployed at the locations. A spreadsheet or database can be developed to track future safety project installations and record three or more years of "before" and "after' crash information at those locations. The collision analysis should break out collisions by the following categories. • Total collisions
• Fatality and severe injury collisions
• Pedestrian collisions
• Bicyclist collisions
• Collisions that involved bicyclists and pedestrians that are over 65 or under 15 • Information related to project type
These categories are included in both the OTS and SWITRS statistics. The Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual recommends calculating an average number of collisions for the most recent three years. The City can then plot the three-year average against the averages for past years to derive a general trend line. A downward -sloping trend line indicates an improvement in safety conditions. An upward sloping trend line suggests that additional safety measures should be considered. In the latter instance, the City should conduct further review and update the plan.

California Office of Traffic and Safety. https://www.ots.co.gov/ots-and-traffic-safety/ z UC Berkeley Transportation Injury and Safety Mapping System. httt)s://tims.berkelev.edu/help/SWITRS.phl2#intro to SWITRS CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP Page 53

Appendix A -
Stakeholder Summary
CITY OF YUCAIPA i LRSP

APPENDIX

APPENDIX
Yucaipa LRSP Stakeholder Survey Results

1. What are one or two of the major traffic safety concerns in the City of Yucaipa? • Drivers are seen running first second of red lights
• Traffic light needed on Bryant Street and Highway 38
• Traffic calming needed on Washington Street and 71h Street, drivers utilizing as side street route to bypass congestion to get on freeway
• Stop sign and posted speed sign need on Tahoe Drive due to excessive speeding • Lack of stop sign and speed enforcement

2. Are there any pedestrian or bicycle safety concerns or locations that should be addressed? • Vehicles not yielding to pedestrian right of way
• Pedestrian and bicycle safety concerns caused by drivers • More than half of the 60 Omnitrans bus stops in Yucaipa are not ADA compliant o Four bus stops are missing sidewalks
o Five bus stops are missing curb ramps for connecting passengers • Distracted and speeding drivers within the City
• More bike lanes along arterial streets
• Concern for pedestrian safety along Wildwood Canyon Road near Sunnyside Drive especially during school hours
• Lack of crosswalk/crossing guard at Wildwood Elementary • Inadequate sidewalks
o Dunlap in Yucaipa for families and students to walk to school o Avenue
o Tahoe Drive
o Entrance to Yucaipa High School near crosswalk

3. Do you have any information that can help the project team a) Any concerns in school zones?
• Speed bumps/humps around elementary and middle schools and the surrounding neighborhood
• More traffic enforcement at drop-off and pickup times • Increase visibility of posted speed signs
• Illegal U-turns being done in front of Valley Elementary b) Locations where posted speeds may be too high?
• Residential areas can benefit from posted 25 MPH speed limit signs • Bryant Street corridor between Highway 38 and Oak Glen Road • Yucaipa Boulevard and Oak Glen Road corridors
• Tahoe Drive near Park View Middle School
c) Other factors you would mention?
• Upkeep on faded and missing limit lines, yellow delineators and lane line markings

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
o Yucaipa Boulevard
o Bryant Avenue
o Wildwood Canyon
• Increase focus on traffic safety around schools in Yucaipa • Speed Feedback signs near schools
• Reinforcing parking designated areas near schools with signage

4. Are there any policies or programs (such as education to students, city public information or public announcements, etc.) that you feel should be developed to improve safety? • Reinforce and educate on intersection safety to reduce severe injuries and fatalities • Encourage the City to work with Omnitrans to improve bus stop amenities including sidewalks, improved crosswalks, and ADA-compliant curb ramps
• Improve first -last mile access to bus stops including bicycle routes • Additional traffic deputies to enforce speeding and other traffic violations • Education program for public including students on bicycle safety and general rules of the road
o Bicycle rules to follow are often the same as vehicle codes • Providing students, parents, and the schools with local traffic statistics/collision history would be beneficial

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
Yucaipa LRSP Public Meeting Presentation
Safety countermeasures

L A& KOA

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
• Prepare a data driven safety plan to

THE LRSP
reduce fatalities and serious injuries DEVELOPMENT

PROCESS
• Create a framework to systematically 6
identify and analyze safety problems
• Recommend safety improvements (for
funding from the Caltrans HSIP and
from other sources)
3 KOA
The data is from the California Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System (SWITRS) funded by California
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS)
SWITRS contains all collisions that were reported to CHP from local and governmental agencies
This project reports data for a 5 year period, 2017-2021

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
Collision Severity
Yew
Total
Average
Pwoent
2017
2018
2019
20M
2021
Fatal
7 2
i
1 2
13 3
1%
51 Fatal or
Severe Inlury
7 7
10 7
7 38
B
3%
Severe Injury
Visible Inluiy
29 29
31 36
39 '63
33 12%
Crashes
Complaint of Pain
56 72
69 46
37 280
56 20%
Pro er Dan eOrh

1.93 19+:
132
192
914
Total Collisio ns
291
3D4
3b1
27i
5 Impact of COVID shown
in 2020
Top 3 Types — Broadside. Rear End and Hit Object
6 CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP
Kr!lP(P,A
KOK

.rude y—d
aimono-d "NEE,?4IN,
T'A. w;nax.,nd c..n
Vn:inP.r--'11i.yrl�nr�Iln�!rr r�+Inth-0P,W nr —
I,�.nr•,r, �
I h,.dr St.nlm�rr 0..n Ang �
Vo—F, Sido nl P,na,l
Crash Involved With

APPENDIX
Biggest Reasons for Collisions are:
• Travel Speed
• Right Of Way Conflicts
• Not Following Traffic Signals
Bicycle — 2%
Pedestrians — 3%
�heron;ec, ■ Parked vehicle — 9%
Peck •,1rL�n Other vehicles — 61 %
Fixed object — 19%
Parked Idotor Vehide -
"wd (]blare -
01he Motor WhAe
056 104r, AM 30"1� 40,v 5G,
8 CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP
K®rA
KO,A

----------------
- --------------�--'------.'a"------ -\ -------
9 APPENDIX
Reflects crash severity
and frequency
KO,A
,
6 -----------------
Y V - • �1
♦ a ,
---------------
,o KOPA

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
.- -_ - k - - --- ;
9 -------- - - - - --- " ------ - - - - --
,
y ,
_
j
KOMA

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

Local Roadway Safety
A_M_an"] for California's Local Road Owners
I
w
am— .,,___..,........ _..TREc
14 CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP
F.C.
cm.*Wm"a Dacdpdm
Signaked MprAcWm:

S(l:

Imp,oae Signal H,rd, a . Lc-ses, 33c
Plotes, Mounting, Six, and Plumber
503
Imp—e 5'9^.a I inn ny tCWrtlination,
phases. red, ye.41—. or operation)
S10
Instal! frashing beacons as advarcej
warning
S17p0
Install C, a d.", signal heads
Non-SbWmMzad Intusa6wx
NS03
Install signa's
NS20PB
I ,wl ped.vr oosslnya
Roadway SagrlMnts
Rot
Relocate Bred objects
Instal' Aelincator„ ref lectors and or object
R2%
m 11-
R31
Install M1yelme mmblc 0,q),/ 5lrpea

APPENDIX
LRSM Countermeasures
Signalized intersections
Non -signalized intersections
Roadways
KOA

Improve Signal Hardware
15 16
Signal Countdown Heads
Flashing Beacons Signal Timing
M +
These can reduce crashes approaching and intersection or making turns within and intersection. ®®
Add Traffic Signal Add Crosswalk
Signal can help with controlling traffic at an intersection Crosswalks can make pedestrian crossing more visible. Other features can be added.

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
KOA
KO,A

Install delineators, reflectors
andlor object markers
Install Edgeline Rumble Strips
Help vehicles to stay on roadway and to see objects close to road.

These are most effective at night.
,7

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
KO,A

EDUCATION
Safety programs at
schools
Safety programs for public
Social media campaign for
no-texting

ENFORCEMENT
DUI Checkpoints
Speed checks
Speed feedback signs
20 CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
PLANS

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL
PLANS
Additional study to focus on
pedestrian and bicycle travel

NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC

CALMING PLAN
Used to address speeds and
safety on residential streets

SPEED STUDY
New speed study can
incorporate new legislation to
potentially lower speeds

APPENDIX
KO,A

APPENDIX

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
Todd Gutjahr Clyde Prem Ali Shahzad
City of Yucaipa KOA Corporation KOA Corporation
[email protected] [email protected] [email protected] KOA

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX
Appendix 6 -
Total Collisions by Intersection

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

Total Collisions by Intersection
Intersection
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Property
Damage Only
(PDO)
Total
Collisions
Crash Costs
EPDO
Score
EPDO
Rank
YUCAIPA SL & 4TH ST
1 3
8 14
26 2,850,300
285.0
1 YUCAIPA BL & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
9 28
39 2,832,800
283.3
2 YUCAIPA BL & 3RD ST
1 3
6 13
23 2,675,200
267.5
3 OAK GLEN RD & CALIMESA BL/14TH ST
1 2
61 17
26 2,586,100
258.6
4 YUCAIPA BL & 14TH ST/SAND CANYON RD
1 2
71 10
20 2,573,900
257.4
5 YUCAIPA BL & 16TH ST
1 2
1 12
16 2,115,100
211.5
6 YUCAIPA BL & AVENUE E/HAMPTON RD
1 4
15 20
2,113,100
211.3
7 STONEWOOD DR & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
4 2
8 2,082,500
208.3
8 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & STH ST
1 1
2 10
14 2,027,100
202.7
9 YUCAIPA BL & 12TH ST
1 1
1 6
91 1,893,000
189.3
10 YUCAIPA BL & 18TH ST
1 2
3 6
1,791,700
179.2
11 OAK GLEN RD & 13TH ST
1 21
25 1,778,400
177.8
12 PECAN AV & 3RD ST
1 2
2 5
1,778,400
177.8
12 AVENUE G & 5TH ST
1 1
3 5
1,772,200
177.2
14 SUNNYSIDE DR & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
1 3
1,745,600
174.6
15 FAIRVIEW DR & 5TH ST
1 1
2 1,732,300
173.2
16 OAK GLEN RD & 2ND ST
1 1
3 5
1,710,8001
171.1
17 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & OAK GROVE RD
1 1
3 5
1,710,800
171.1
17 DOUGLAS ST & AVENUE E
1 3
4 1,629,900
163.0
19 CALIMESA BL & AVENUE I
1 2
3 1,616,600
161.7
20 TENNESSEE ST & 17TH ST
1 1
2 1,603,300
160.3
21 YUCAIPA BL & 1ST ST
1 1
2 1,603,300
160.3
21 DATE AV & ADAMS ST
1 1
1,590,000
159.0
23 NW EDDISON POLE #4728928E & BRYANT ST
1 1
1,590,000
159.0
23 OAK GLEN RD & FREMONT ST
1 1
1,590,000
159.0
23 OUTER HWY 10 & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
1,590,000
159.0
23 PENDLETON DR & FREMONT ST
1 1
1,590,000
159.0
23 SUNLIGHT DR & 3RD ST
1 1
1,59Q000
159.0
23 YUCAIPA VALLEY CIR & YUCAIPA BL
2 11
20 33
1,440,500
144.1
29 OAK GLEN RD & AVENUE E
1 10
17 28
1,177,400
117.7
30 OAK GLEN RD & CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
5 3
12 20
1,113,800
111.4
31 YUCAIPA BL & 10TH ST
3 5
9 17
951,100

95.1 32

YUCAIPA BL & STH ST
3 1
18 22
747,200

74.7 33
YUCAIPA BL & 13TH ST
2 41
5 11
674,700

67.5 34
AVENUE D & 14TH 5T
3 2
6 11
668,500

66.9 35
YUCAIPA BL & 7TH ST
3 2
6 11
668,500

66.9 35
COUNTY LINE RD & 5TH ST
3 1
7 11
600,900

60.1 37

OAK GLEN RD & BRYANT ST
2 3
5 10
593,800

59.4 38
YUCAIPA BL & 6TH 5T
1 3
14 18
571,200

57.1 39

OAK GLEN RD & COLORADO ST
3 1
4 8
561,000

56.1 40
OUTER HWY 10 & LIVE OAK CANYON RD
2 21
7 11
539,500

54.0 41
YUCAIPA 8L & 15TH 5T
2 2
4 8
499,600

50.0 42

COUNTY LINE RD & CALIMESA BL
1 3
5 9
451,500

45.2 43

SAND CANYON RD & CAMPUS DR
3 1
4 440,200

44.0 44
WILDWOOD CANYON RD &4TH ST
2 1
5 8
432,000

43.2 45
YUCAIPA BL & 11TH ST
1 3
2 6
411,600

41.2 46
AVENUE E & 3RD ST
4 4
8 376,800

37.7 47

CALIFORNIA ST & AVENUE E
1 21
5 8
370,600

37.1 48

COUNTY LINE RD & CALIFORNIA ST
2 1
3 365,500

36.6 49
AVENUE E & 4TH ST
1 2
4 7
357,300

35.7 50

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & CALIMESA BL
2 4
6 337,8001

33.8 51
YUCAIPA BL & 2ND ST
2 13
15 334,700

33.5 52

DATE AV & BRYANT ST
1 2
2 5
330,700

33.1 53
YUCAIPA BL & 17TH ST
3 6
9 322,500

32.3 54
CEDAR AV & 4TH ST
1 2
1 4
317,400

31.7 55
AVENUE E & 7TH ST
1 21
3 304,100

30.4 56
AVENUE E & 13TH ST
3 4
7 295,900

29.6 57

BRYANT ST & BRYANT CT
2 2
284,600

28.5 58
WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 6TH PL
1 1
4 6
276,400

27.6 59
SAND CANYON RD & 16TH ST
3 1
4 256,000

25.6 60
OAK GLEN RD & 5TH 5T
2 7
9 254,900

25.5 61

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & CALIFORNIA ST
2 7
9 254,900

25.5 61

CARTER ST & BRYANT ST
1 1
2 4
249,800

25.0 63

BRYANT ST & AVENUE A
1 1
1 3
236,500

23.7 64

CALIMESA BL & AVENUE G
1 1
1 3
236,500

23.7 64

FIR AV & BRYANT ST
1 1
1 3
236,500

23.7 164

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & BRYANT ST
2 5
7 228,300

22.8 67

YUCAIPA BL & BRYANT ST
1 11
12 227,200

22.7 68

AVENUE D & LOTH ST
1 1
2 223,200

22.3 69
AVENUE E & 10TH ST
1 1
2 223,200

22.3 69
LOCKWOOD DR & 3RD ST
1 1
2 223,200

22.3 69
WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 3RD ST
1 6
7 222,100

22.2 72
RT 10 & LIVE OAK CANYON RD
21 4
6 215,000

21.5 73
OUTER HWY 10 & 16TH ST
1 5
6 208,800

20.9 74
KENTUCKY ST & 14TH ST
1 4
5 195,500

19.6 75
AVENUE H & 3RD ST
1 3
4 182,200

18.2 76
EUREKA AV & CALIFORNIA 5T
1 3
4 182,2D0

18.2 76
WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 6TH ST
1 3
4 182,200

18.2 76
AVENUE D & 13TH ST
2 1
3 175,100

17.5 79

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & SUNDANCE CT
2 1
3 175,1001

17.5 79

YUCAIPA BL & CALIFORNIA ST
1 7
8 174,000

17.4 81
AVENUE E & 5TH ST
13 13
172,900

17.3 82

NEBRASKA LN & COLORADO ST
2 3
168,900

16.9 83

OAK MESA DR & MORNINGSIDE DR
1 2
3 168,900

16.9 83
AVENUE E & 1ST ST
2 2
161,800

16.2 85

BRYANT ST & AVENUE E
2 2
161,800

16.2 85

JUNIPER AV & BRYANT ST
2 2
161,800

16.2 85

BRYANT ST & AVENUE H
1 1
2 155,600

15.6 88

CALIFORNIA ST & AVENUE H
1 1
2 155,600

15.6 88
COUNTY LINE RD & 3RD ST
1 1
2 155,600

15.6 88
NEBRASKA LN & 6TH ST
1 1
2 155,600

15.6 88

PENDLETON AV & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
2 155,600

15.6 88
RT 10 & COUNTY LINE RD
1 1
2 155,600

15.6 88

SUNNYSIDE DR & BRYANT ST
1 1
2 155,600

15.6 88
AMARYLLIS LN & 7TH ST
1 1
142,300

14.2 95
AVENUE D & 12TH ST
1 142,300

14.2 95
AVENUE E & 16TH ST
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

BRYANT ST & ADAMS ST
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

BRYANT ST & AVENUE G
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

CEDAR ST & AVENUE B
1 1
142,300

14.2 95
CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD & 10TH ST
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

DOUGLAS ST & AVENUE A
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

FAIRPORT WY & DEERFIELD DR
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

FIR AV & DEER VALLEY RD
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

IVY ST & FREMONT ST
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

MOUNTAIN VIEW ST & BRYANT ST
1 1
142,300

14.2 95
OAK GLEN RD & EDISON POLE 4719274E
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

OAK GLEN RD & JAMES BIRCH RD
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

OAK GLEN RD & OAK CREST DR
1 1
142,300

14.2 95

PARADISE LN & AVENUE D
1 1
142,300

14.2V95

PEACH TREE RD & CEDAR AV
1 1
142,300

14.2SUNNYSIDE

DR & HOLLOW CREEK DR
1 1
142,300

14.2TAHOE

DR & SUNNYSIDE DR
1 1
142,300

14.2TENNESSEE

LN & OVERCREST DR
1 1
142,300

14.2TOPAZ

ST & BRYANT ST
1 1
142,300

14.2 WILDWOOD CANYON RD & BUTTERFLY DR
1 1
142,300

14.2 95
YUCAIPA BL 34635 & YUCAIPA BL
1 142,3D0

14.2 95

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & MESA GRANDE DR
1 3
4 120,800

12.1 118
AVENUE H & 2ND ST
1 2
31 107,500

10.8 119
FOREST OAKS DR & 5TH ST
1 2
3 107,500

10.8 119

OAK GLEN RD & AVENUE D
1 2
3 107,500

10.8 119
WASHINGTON DR & 7TH ST
1 2
3 107,500

10.8 119

YUCAIPA BL & CHINABERRY ST
1 2
3 107,500

10.8 119
AVENUE E & 2ND ST
8 8
106,400

10.6 124
AVENUE E & 14TH ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125
AVENUE H & 5TH PL
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125
AVENUE J & 5TH ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125
COLORADO ST & 9TH ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125
COUNTY LINE RD & 4TH ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125

DATE AV & CALVIN ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125

HOLMES ST & AVENUE H
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125

IVY AV & BRYANT ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125
KENTUCKY ST & 13TH ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125

MOUNTAIN VIEW LN & DOUGLAS ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125

OAK GLEN RD & ANNANDALE RD
1 1
2 94,200
94 125
STONEWOOD DR & 5TH ST
1 1
2 94,200
1 9.4
125

YUCAIPA CREEK RD & 6TH ST
1 1
2 94,200

9.4 125
RT 10 & OAK GLEN RD
7 7
93,100

9.3 138
AVENUE A & 1ST ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
AVENUE C & 2ND AV
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
AVENUE C & 4TH ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
AVENUE G & 3RD ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
BELLA VISTA DR & 3RD ST
1 1
1 80,900

8.1 139

BRYANT ST & ACACIA AV
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

BRYANT ST & BEECH AV
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
CALIFORNIA ST 13121 & CALIFORNIA ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
CALIMESA BL POLE #11552BE & AVENUE G
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

CEDAR AV & CALIFORNIA ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

COUNTY PL & COLORADO ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

CUSTER ST & AVENUE D
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

DATE AV & CALIFORNIA ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

MARBETH RD & MARBETH PL
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

MESA GRANDE DR & CHERRYWOOD DR
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

MILL CREEK RD & BRYANT ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
OAK GLEN RD & 10TH ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

OAK GLEN RD & CASA BLANCA AV
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

OAK GLEN RD & OAK GLEN AV
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
OAK GLEN RD 33398 & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
OUTER HWY 10 & EDISON POLE #4421193E
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
RT 10 & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

SHAFER RANCH RD & BRYANT ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

SUNNYSIDE AV & BRYANT ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

SUNNYSIDE DR & SHADOW WOOD DR
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
VIEWPOINT CT & 5TH ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
WASHINGTON DR & 8TH ST
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

YALE DR & STONEWOOD DR
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

YUCAIPA BL & CRESTVIEW DR
1 80,900

8.1 139

YUCAIPA BL & MACKAY DR
1 80,900

8.1 139

YUCAIPA BL & OHIO CT
1 1
80,900 1

8.1 139
YUCAIPA BL & OUTER HWY 10
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

YUCAIPA REGIONL PK RD & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
80,900

8.1 139

YUCAIPA VALLEY CIR & YUCAIPA REGIONAL PARK RD
1 1
80,900

8.1 139
WILDWOOD CANYON RD & 2ND ST
5 5
66,500

6.7 173
AVENUE G & 6TH PL
4 4
53,200

5.3 174

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & OAK MESA DR
4 4
53,200

5.3 174

YUCAIPA BL & DOUGLAS ST
4 4
53,200

5.3 174
AVENUE D & 16TH ST
3 3
39,900

4.0 177
AVENUE E & 8TH ST
3 3
39,900

4.0 177

BRYANT ST & AVENUE D
3 3
39,900

4.0 177

CALIFORNIA ST & AVENUE G
3 3
39,900

4.0 177
OUTER HWY 10 & ALTA VISTA DR
3 3
39,900

4.0 177

YUCAIPA BL & CRILLY LN
3 3
39,900

4.0 177
YUCAIPA BL & RT 10
3 3
39,900

4.0 177
ACACIA AV & 2ND ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184
AVENUE B & 3RD ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184
AVENUE C & 2ND ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184
AVENUE D & 15TH 5T
2 2
26,600

2.7 194
AVENUE E & 9TH ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184

CALIMESA BL & AVENUE J
2 2
26,600

2.7 184
COLORADO ST & 8TH ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184

COUNTY LINE RD & BRYANT ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184

CRAMER RD & CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
2 2
26,6001

2.7 184

DUNLAP BL & AVENUE E
2 2
26,600

2.7 184
MICHAEL LN & 2ND ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184

MOUNTAIN VIEW ST & CALIFORNIA ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184

PARK AV & COUNTY LINE RD
2 2
26,600

2.7 184
SUNLIGHT DR & 4TH ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184
TARA LN & 2ND ST
2 2
26,600

2.7 184

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & COLORADO ST
2 21
26,600

2.7 184

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & OAK VIEW RD
2 2
26,600

BL & JEREMIAH MACKAY WY
2 2
26,600
14TH ST & 14TH ST
1 1
13,300
4TH ST 12170 & 4TH ST
1 1
13,300
423184YUCAIPA
4TH ST 12361 & 4TH ST
1 1
13,300
AVE DEL RIO & 14TH ST
1 1
13,300
AVE DEL RIO & 2ND ST
1 13,300

AVENUE A & 2ND ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

AVENUE A & ADAMS ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE A 35193 & AVENUE A
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

AVENUE C & ADAMS ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE D & 11TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE D & 1ST ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE D & 2ND ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE D & 3RD ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

AVENUE D & ADAMS ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE D 32284 & AVENUE D
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE D 32898 & AVENUE D
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE E & 6TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

AVENUE E & ADAMS ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE E 32021 & AVENUE E
1 1
13,3001

1.3 202
AVENUE E 33838 & AVENUE E
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE E 33892 & AVENUE E
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE E 33980 & AVENUE E
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
AVENUE H & 5TH ST
1 13,300

1.3 202
BARCELONA RD & 6TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
BEECH AV & 1ST ST
1 1
13,3D0

1.3 202
BRUSHY HOLLOW DR & 9TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

BRYANT CT & AVENUE E
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CALIFORNIA ST & AVENUE A
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CALIFORNIA ST & AVENUE C
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CALIFORNIA ST & AVENUE D
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
CALIFORNIA ST 12726 & CALIFORNIA ST
1 13,300

1.3 202

CALIMESA BL & AVENUE H
1 13,3001

1.3 202
CAPE COD LN & 3RD ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CARTER AV & BRYANT ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
CEDAR AV & 2ND ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CEDAR AV & ADAMS ST
1 13,300

1.3 202
CEDAR RD & 3RD ST
1 13,300

1.3 202
CELLA LN & 2ND ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD & BLUEGRASS RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
CORNELL DR 35417 & CORNELL DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CRAFTON POINTE DR & CRAFTON HILLS DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CRAMER RD & BRANDON RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

CUSTER ST & BONITA DR
1 13,300

1.3 202
DATE ST & 3RD ST
1 13,300

1.3 202
DEERFIELD DR 11594 & DEERFIELD DR
1 13,300

1.3 202
DEWEY AV 34936 & DEWEY AV
11 13,300

1.3 202
DOUGLAS ST & AVENUE 0
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

DOUGLAS ST & AVENUE H
1 13,300

1.3 202

DOUGLAS ST & COUNTY LINE RD
1 13,300

1.3 202
DOUGLAS ST 11964 & DOUGLAS ST
1 13,300

1.3 202
DUNLAP BL & 14TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
EDISON POLE #1182168E & 4TH ST
1 13,300

1.3 202
EDISON POLE #4338231 E & 2ND ST
1 13,300

1.3 202
EDISON POLE #4380657E & 2ND ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 1 202
EDISON POLE #4671234E & COLORADO ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
EDISON POLE #782632E & AVENUE 1
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
EDISON POLE 1215151E &4TH ST
1 13,300

1.3 202
ENOCH AV & 7TH ST
1 13,300

1.3 202

ENOCH AV & COLORADO ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
EUREKA AV & 3RD ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
EUREKA AV & 8TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
EUREKA AV 34564 & EUREKA AV
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
FAIRWAY DR & 10TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

FAITH DR & CALIFORNIA ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

FREMONT ST & AVENUE H
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

FREMONT ST & COUNTRY RIDGE RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

FRFEMONT ST & AVENUE E
1 1
13,3001

1.3 202

GOLD MOUNTAIN RD & CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
GOLDEN GATE CT 11423 & GOLDEN GATE CT
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

GRANT ST & AVENUE H
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

GRAPE AV & COUNTRY LN
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

HAMPTON RD & AVENUE E
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
HIDDEN COVE CT & 5TH PL
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

HOLMES ST & COUNTY LINE RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
KELLY LN & 12TH ST
13,300

1.3 202

KELLY LN & 3RD ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

KENTUCKY ST & DUNLAP BL
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

KINBERLY LN & CALIFORNIA ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

LA FLORE DR & BRYANT ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

LARKSPUR WY & FIR AV
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

LIBERTY RD & CIENAGA DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
LILY RD & 6TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
MOBILE HOME ENTRANCE & 6TH PL
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

OAK GLEN RD & DUMP ACCESS RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
OAK GLEN RD & EDISON POLE #4437649E
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
OAK GLEN RD & EDISON POLE 3487600E
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

OAK RIDGE DR & MESA GRANDE DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
OAKWOOD PL & 5TH ST
1 1
13300

1.3 202

OLD OAK TRL & CARTER ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

ORO FIND CT & BLUEGRASS RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
OUTER HWY 10 & 17TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

OVERCREST LN & LINWOOD TER
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

PANORAMA DR & BRYANT ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

PANORAMA DR & BRYANT ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
PEACH TREE CIR & 4TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

PEMBROOK PL & LANSFORD ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

PENDLETON AV & HIGHLAND AV
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

PINE VIEW DR & MEADOW VIEW LN
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

PINEHURST DR & CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
PINEHURST DR 33942 & PINEHURST DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
POWER POLE #1456326E & CALIMESA BL
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
POWER POLE 4603351E & STH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

PRINCETON DR & CAMPUS WY
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

PRINCETON DR & HARVARD WY
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
ROSEMONT DR & 5TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SAN JUAN AV & AVENUE H
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SAND CANYON RD & CRAFTON HILLS DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SANTA ROSA DR & BRYANT ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SHADOW HILLS DR & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SHARON WY & MESA GRANDE DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SHASTA ST & AVALON AV
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SIDANA RD & AVENUE H
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SIERRA VISTA RD & BRYANT ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SNOW VIEW CT & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
SOUTHWIND WY & 10TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SOUTHWIND WY & EAGLE POINT DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

STONEWOOD DR & MAPLEWOOD LN
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

STONEWOOD WY & OAK GLEN RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SUMERLIN PL & PINEHURST DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SUNNYSIDE DR & HEATHERVALE DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
SUNNYSIDE DR 10969 & SUNNYSIDE DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

SUNNYSLOPE DR & SAGE AV
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
TENNESSEE ST & 18TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
THUNDERBIRD WY & 13TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
TURNER LN & 3RD ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
VIA BUENA DR & 5TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

VIA BUENA DR & VIA BARCELONA ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
VICKEY ST & 2ND ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
VIEW DR & 3RD ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WALLACE WY & LIMESTONE CT
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WALLACE WY & NORTHRIDGE RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
WALLACE WY & WALLACE WAY 33495
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
WALLACE WY & WALLACE WAY 683
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
WASHINGTON DR & 9TH ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WASHINGTON DR & ADAMS ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WILDWOOD CANYON DR & BUTTERFLY DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WILDWOOD CANYON DR & OAK VIEW RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & CALICO BL
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & COUNTY LINE RD
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
WILDWOOD CANYON RD & DOUGLAS 5T
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & JOHN WAYNE WY
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & SCENIC CREST DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

WILDWOOD CANYON RD & VITA LN
1 1
113,3001

1.3 1 202

WILDWOOD VIEW DR & MESA SOL DR
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
YUCAIPA BL & 2ND ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

YUCAIPA BL & ADAMS ST
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

YUCAIPA BL & BORDEN LN
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

YUCAIPA BL & CUSTER
1 1
13,300

1.3 202
YUCAIPA BL & EDISON POLE #95233BE
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

YUCAIPA BL & GLADYS LN
1 1
13,300

1.3 202

APPENDIX
Appendix C -
Midblock Collisions by Segment

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

Midblock Collisions by Segment
Segment
Broadside
Head -On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Total
Collisions

YUCAIPA BL
12 7
7 1
2 12
13 3
57 BRYANT ST
8 S
7 1
1 3
2 3
30 CALIMESA BL
8 5
3 2
2 2
3 4
1 30

OAK GLEN RD
5 11
8 11
3 71
3 28

AVENUE E
2 6
2 S
7 1
23 WILDWOOD CANYON RD
3 4
6 6
2 21
STH ST
2 1
4 1
1 1
3 2
2 17
2ND ST
4 1
1 3
3 1
13 LIVE OAK CANYON RD
2 2
1 1
1 2
9 4TH ST
3 1
1 3
8 3RD ST
2 3
1 1
7 COUNTY LINE RD
2 3
1 1
7 14TH ST
1 1
1 3
6 OUTER HWY 10
2 1
1 2
6 6TH ST
1 1
2 4

AVENUE H
1 1
21 4

CALIFORNIA ST
1 3
4 WILDWOOD REST AREA
1 31
4 CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
1 1
1 3

SAND CANYON RD
1 1
1 3
16TH ST
1 1
2 7TH ST
1 1
2 AVENUE B
2 2

AVENUE D
1 1
2 AVENUE G
1 1
2 CARTER ST
11 1
2 CEDAR AV
1 1
2 DATE AV
1 1
2 DUNLAP BL
1 1
2 PENDLETON RD
2 2

WILDWOOD VIEW DR
2 2
13TH ST
1 1
15TH ST
1 1
17TH ST
1 1
6TH PL
1 1

ARBOR WY
1 1

AVENUE A
1 1

AVENUEI
11 1

BRYANT CT
1 1

CANYON VIEW DR
1 1

EAGLE POINT DR
1 1

GREENBLUFF WY
1 1

HOLMES ST
1 1
IVY ST
1 1

MARIPOSA ST
1 1

OAK MOUNTAIN DR
1 1

PENDLETON OR
1 1

PINEHURST DR
1 1

WASHINGTON DR
1 1

WILD HORSE CANYON RD
1 1

Appendix D -
Total Collisions by Segment

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX

Total Collisions by Segment
Segment
Broadside
Head -On
Hit Object
Not Stated
Other
Overturned
Rear End
Sideswipe
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Total
Collisions

YUCAIPA BL
121
30 34
10 4
3 94
50 14
360

OAK GLEN RD
58 8
27 4
2 7
33 20
3 162

AVENUE E
22 11
18 3
17 16
1 88

WILDWOOD CANYON RD
24 91
20 1
1 2
191
12 1
88 BRYANT ST
24 14
13 1
1 4
14 11
3 85
5TH ST
17 5
12 1
1 2
13 5
2 58

CALIMESA BL
14 7
6 3
2 3
8 8
2 53
2ND ST
6 2
5 1
1 9
11 2
37 3RD ST
11 2
5 1
2 5
8 1
35 14TH ST
11 3
2 1
1 9
5 32

CALIFORNIA ST
10 1
4 2
1 81
3 1
30 COUNTY LINE RD
14 3
3 6
3 1
30 OUTER HWY 10
4 3
13 1
3 2
26 4TH ST
7 4
1 10
3 25
AVENUE
4 2
5 1
8 1
21 LIVE OAK CANYON RD
5 4
2 1
1 3
3 19
6TH ST
5 4
2 2
1 14

SAND CANYON RD
4 1
4 1
21 2
14 AVENUE D
4 1
2 1
3 2
13 CHAPMAN HEIGHTS RD
1 4
3 1
1 1
11 COLORADO ST
1 4
5 1
11 7TH ST
2 2
1 1
1 1
8 16TH ST
4 1
1 1
7 6TH PL
1 2
2 2
7 AVENUE G
2 21
1 1
1 7

DOUGLAS ST
1 1
3 1
6 13TH ST
2 1
1 1
5 ADAMS ST
1 2
1 1
5 DATE AV
1 3
1 5

DUNLAP BL
1 1
1 1
1 5

WASHINGTON DR
1 1
1 1
1 5
10TH ST
1 21
1 4

CEDAR AV
2 2
4 PINEHURST DR
2 1
1 4

SUNNYSIDE DR
1 1
1 1
4 WILDWOOD REST AREA
1 3
4 17TH ST
2 1
3 8TH ST
2 1
3 AVENUE A
2 1
3 AVENUE B
2 1
3 CARTER ST
1 t
1 3

WALLACE WY
1 2
3 12TH ST
1 1
2 15TH ST
1 1
2 AVENUEI
1 1
2 BRYANT CT
1 1
2 EUREKA AV
1 1
2 FIR AV
1 1
2 HOLMES ST
1 1
2 IVY ST
1 1
2 KENTUCKY ST
1 1
2 OAK MESA DR
1 1
2 PENDLETON AV
1 1
2 PENDLETON RD
2 2

TENNESSEE ST
1 1
2 WILDWOOD CANYON DR
1 1
2 WILDWOOD VIEW DR
2 2
11TH ST
1 1
18TH ST
1 1
1ST ST
1 1
2ND AV
1 1
5TH PL
1 1

ACACIA AV
1 1

ARBOR WY
1 1

CANYON VIEW DR

COUNTRY RIDGE RD

CRAFTON POINTE DR

FOREST OAKS DR
,FRFEMONT ST

GOLDEN GATE CT

GREENBLUFF WY

HEATHERVALE DR
CT
-LIMESTONE

MAPLEWOOD LN

MESA GRANDE DR

MILLCREEKRD

OVERCREST DR

OVERCREST LN

PANORAMA DR
1PEMBROOK PL

PENDLETON DR
�PRINCETON DR
m -ff. mal

SOUTHWIND WY

IWILD HORSE CANYON RD
'YUCAIPA REGIONAL PARK RD
,YUCAIPA VALLEY CIR

Appendix E -
Caltrans Countermeasure List

CITY OF YUCAIPA I LRSP

APPENDIX

N
C
U
al
L
al
C
M
aj
C
C
0 Z
E
0 ar
H
m
aJ
E
a

4.1 7
O
u
N
aJ
m
H
mp
7 E
>
j
7 7
7 7
7 m
E t
xL3D
S
n
Lo_n
3 sto
Lo_a
t
-a
-0
3 3
Len
3 a
cvc
o
o
cc°a
v
a)
cvc
cvc
V) a O
C
S
J
J
J
G
>
x
S
x
x
cv
C
G
cv
G
G
G
J
Jp
cvc
G
S
cvc
G
cvc
G
J
bD +T+
C
'O
a: C
o
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
a
a
o
0 o
a
hn
V) 7=
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 0
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
2 LL W
0)
m
Ol
m
01 0)
0)
01 a)
a)
0)
a)
m
0)
LT
01 Ol
Ol
01 m
a)
a)
LT
m
V a
a - m
O_ J y
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
a
0 O
O
O
O
W
N
N
N
N
.-i
ri
1-1
ci
1-1
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
.-i
N
N
N
u
O
V
O
Ln
O
m
m
>
m
>
O
m
to
ri
Ln
N
un
-1
O
M
O
N
O
N
Ln
Ln
O
a'
Ln
N
O
Ln
O
Ln
O
(N
Ln
M
Ln
't
Ln
N
Ln
rf)
Ln
m
Ln
Ln
Cl.
f
L
s
m
m
m
m
m
u
z
a
a
a
a
s
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
LL
LL
LL
a
in-
_0
m
Y
O
C
C
L
o
°
y
'
°
3 ^
c
u
cu
v
w
c
v
x
V
O
N
a
DD
Cp
c
C
N
N
.�
O
0 O
o
E
c
E
m
a0
u
E
2 p
m
m
c
uu
m
.2
O
C
L
Y
H
a
N
v
^
—
'O
a
H
O
++
U
a
-0
N
CO
0 3
v
o
=
a
Ln
cn
u
m
c
x
o
m
x
T
h
to
Y
c
z
)
`
m
2—
a
U
W
cr
m
o
c
z
m
u
m
n
3 Ln
Z
a
C
J
o
c
O
m
3 E
a
c
m
a^
m=
_°
m
Vi
�
u
N
O
7 n
m
i
O
U
OC
ut
m
Z
a
O
a
E
Y
t;
m
3 Q
c
p
Z
O
O
E
n
O
Y
ai
=5
E
U
Lt
u
en
mu
11eoDo
u
}'
O
>
tl0
O
a
CO
L
V)�
cgi
-p
a
E
M
'
-E:
1 o
C
C
en
c
uo
m
u
b0
O`
c
E
m
a
>
Y
m
H
uL
O
C
O
Y-
a
m
U
L/1
a
a
w
v
c^
W
C
a
c
a
m
a
C
c
Z
E
0 0
0 0
0 c-0
a
_u
p
o
o
3\
N y
a
M
V,
c
$
c
m
o
ou
°u
c
E
u°
c
a
c°
n' m
°c°
z
=
T
m
m
y
C
m
—
C
m
c
m
u
)
ti_
Ln
m
-u
c
O
m O
V
a
a
H
C
m
m
—
m
C
p_
C
O
3 N
a
s ro
vai
en
-O
E
_
a
E
O
F-i
�
C
a
E
m
c
a
en
=_
N
o
c
e0
a
a
,
c
T
N
m
Y
a
-M en
Y
L
C
N
y
U .--.
++
C
�
Ln
O
m
C
C
a
C
e0
Ln
H
C
�-
vai
_
a
J
L
�..�
++
vai
a
-O O
vl
e0
y
a
.0
Ln
d
a
a
.Ui
t'�t
.0
L'
e0
a
a
aca
c
a
o
o
c
'O
>
Y
m
Y
76 Y
M
m m
m
m
7 0
C
H
C
c
C
Y L
h m
en
a
+m+
Ln
+m+
h
Y
Y
m
�n
0 u
a
o
u
c
o
u
0 u
o
u
c 3
x
c
c
c
E
E
c
c
u
c
c
c
c E
c c
a
c
c
_
_
_
_
_
-
-
-
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
eo
bn
m
mb.0
m
w
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
-cc
--c
--
--
--
-c
C
G
C
C
C
C
Y_
Y
Y
Y_
Y_
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
U
V
U
U
V
V
ecn
___
_
_
C
o
C
0 C
0 .-
C
0 C
0 .-
C
. 0
C
0 .-
m
m
m
m
m
O
O
O
O
0 "
-
m
m
a
s
a
a
a
0)
c
c
_
m
m
m
m
m
E
E
E
E
E
E
m
m
m
m
m
cx
-CC
C
C
C
C
a
a
a
a
a
a
s
O
O
0 O
O
O-0
-0
-0
-p
>.

W
O
O
O
0 O
a
C-
C.

Q
C.

C_
C_
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
H
u
u
u
u
u
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 0
0 l7
l7
0 C_
0_
E
m
a.
on
LL
m
a
m
a
m
LL
ri
N
M
G}
Ln
Ln
<o
r.
00 O1
O
r-I
N
m
Gr'
Ln
w
r
00 01
O
r-I
fV
M
O
O
Ln
O
N
O
Ln
O
V)
O
V)
O
Ln
O
V)
O
V)
O
Ln
O
Vl
r-I
Ln
r
Ln
rl
Ln
r1
L/)
ri
L/1
ri
Ln
ri
V)
.--i
Ln
�--�
Vl
r-I
L/)
N
Vl
N
Ln
N
Vl
N
V)
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
z
Z
z
Z
z
z
Z
Z
z
Z
z
Z
Z
z
Z
Z
a
N
N
O
fV

T
Lou
_C
�°°
-CO
m
E
m
E
°°
E
E
E
E
E
C
7 2
x
7 S
7 7
7 7
7 2
2 x
s
v
v
m
Lon
ai
v
m
tea,
v
0 Loa
m_
a
v
0 ate,
ate,
0 eo
c
to
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 S w
LL
O
O
C)
Ol
C)O
l!1
Ol
O
T
C)
Ol
C)
Ol
C)O
Ol
O
C)
01 C)
Ol
C)O
Ql
Ol
O
01 O
Dl
O
C11
O
Ol
O
Ol
O
Ol
O
01 M
cu
_
E
CJ M
x '� }
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
W J �.r
N
r-I
I -I
.1
N
N
cV
H
H
ci
N
N
N
N
N
f4
fV
N
H
H
LL
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ro
o
o
o
o
0 d'
O
to
V1
O
Vl
O
O
O
O
In
In
O
O
ro
l
tll
O
In
O
I�
Vl
m
m
i
1-1m
Vl
N
M
In
Vl
>
N
N
d'
.-{
lD
U
Q
a,
b0 u
O L
m
m
m
m
m
m
fG
CC
w>
cO
_
_
—
06 co
o
co
co
u
z
a
a
a
a
s
a
a
a
s
D
a
a
a
n
a
a
a
a
v
v
�
m
0 o
v
a
>
O_
C
o
u
U
°
?
Y
y
Q)
O
i+
Y
VI
x
Y
Q)
C
v
O
0 L
00 ra
a)v
0 v
v
>.L
MD
CU
7 co
a,
'C
3 v
fC
v
7 =
O
a
TJ
_
o
Ql
>
aJ
aL
E
°
vi
u
v
u
to
ocn
ru
u
C
O_
.0
O
4!
3 u
N
C
Y
.Y
..�
L
H
O
n
n
�-
n
C
y
ti
al
O
u
j
a]
p
C
m
`
N
o
N
u
m
L
m
0a
c
C
N
0 C
E
E
a,
c
aE
7 YCU
m
c
v
h0
—
au
_
c
al
_0Q
d
`
_
c
a
n
°
C
C
O
Q
v
L
O
CL
f°
U
E
`^
O
cL
m
C
C
O
O
OD
ar
L
E
N
b0
`1 E
v
a/
U
Y
a]
C
M
L
.0
w
'YD
C
O
E
.0
t5 7
3 c
00 L
C
0 v
N
C
a,
C
.0
0 0
O
YO
7 L
h0
ro
L
on
c
a,
a
o
w
c
v
E
E
u
c
o
a
a
c
Z
c
>
a
_0
E
v
m
E
o
u
u
.p
0 C
L
,�,
u
a,
O
>
a,
4!
c
C
7 u
a
E
fO
c
Y
(6
.(U
E
°
a/
c
1M
a)
n
O
C '�
C
O O
O
C
>
-O
In
U
w
N
in
C
ro
'�
H
-0
-O
C
In
E
w
O_
.�
vi
�
Cl-
v�i
VI
V
_°
C
-0
>
bD
Y
0 c
a,
� ,fl
a,
�
�
�
�
n
-0
V
i
n
n
w
C
O C
O
=
= N
_0
al
=
=
O
=
=
N C
a,
_—
H=
3 -
n 7
O
n
Y
In
Y (a
In
>
O
C
+�'
Y
In
n
Y
vl
Fes+
In
7 Y
7 'O
>
C
H
Yn
'O
0 -0
O
v°
¢
E E
E
c
c CL
a
U
c
c
E
c
c
`,
u I
w
u
c
c
a
c
g
-o
'ri
-a
-o
-6
0 0
0 0
0 _°
�°
_°
_°
�
U
V
U
U
U
Y_
,C
Y_
Y
Y_
0 O
ccO
G
O
0 2
0 C
O od
'Y
C
0 b0
C
0 '
'i
i
U
U
`
a0
U
cc
-0
m
'D
M
-0
M
-0
a,
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
C
2 C
@
`m
C
2 c
aJ
E
a,
E
a,
E
a1
E
al
E
C
C
ns
C
m
C
m
C
m
a
L
c
oa
c
en
c
C
on
c
oa
c
an
a`,
n
n
m
n
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
W
>,
H
on
n
in
m
in
in
in
in
O
O
O �i
v
(7
v
0 v
0 v
0 v
0 v
D_
v
aL
v
a
v
a
w
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
C
N
m
L!1
lD
I�
W
O1
O
N
M
d
« 1
I'D
I,
M
M
O
c l
Z
O
VI
O
V)
O
V)
O
In
CD
In
In
O
V
O
V7
In
ti
V
V)
H
V
H
V)
I-i
V)
cl
V)
li
Vl
H
V1
I-i
V)
N,
V)
Vl
N
M
I
N
N
O
N
0 W

Y
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
vo a
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
0 >
>
>
o- 0-
v
v
m
sCL
v
v
v
v
3 v
v
v
v
v
3 3
v
v
m
_m
w
Ln Q O
2 x
I
°
�
�
2 �
�
°
°
2E
2 2
ca
c =
LL
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 V) M °q
S LL W
o
Q)
0 O)
0 Q)
o
0)
O
0)
0 Q)
0 O>
0 Ol
0 Ol
0 07
0 Ol
o
Ol
O
01 0
T
(D
0)
O
Ol
0 01
0 0)
0 (7)
0 Q1
0 Q)
v
V
v
x �° y
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 00
00 0
00 0
0 0
0 0
W .J
aV
N
N
N
i
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
aV
N
N
N
N
lV
aV
N
c-I
LL
o
0 0
0 0
0 o
a
o
0 0
0 o
a
o
0 0
0 0
0 OQ
CG
V)
V)
V)
V)
V)
O
O
Vl
V)
V)
V)
V)
0 V)
O
V)
0 U)
V)
V)
V)
U
M
M
N
N
(N
M
V
N
11 M
N
N
M
M
M
V)
N
V
M
V)
a)
Y
m
a
m
o6
u
z
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
LL
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
Y_
C
a
O
C
N
N
a7
>
v
E
0 Y
Y
v
v
v
�
�
H
v
n
v
3 u
3 0
0 >
1n
a)
—
n
7 V
C
n
O
T
u
w
O
m
c
v
=
o
O
Y
u
0 7
4 v
Y
=
a]
a]
>O
C
v
C
7 C
2 C
=
0 E
—
v
s
v
a
—
O
v
v
o
c
_0
v
c
v
Y
'^
c
f0
a)
m
E
C
>
0 0
v
v
w
O
-O
m
V
v
`
`
C
.0
ba
U
tw
v
v
M
c
s
°
E
>
0 .-
v
1°
m
v
3 z
t
=
c
c
O
—
Y
�
v
�
>�
u
n
O
7 =
O
1a
f°
+z
O
n
O
v
E
�
Z
:c
¢�
N
c
O
>
3 E
fai 0
C
c
c
v
E
o
v
fa
n
v
o
v
_0
D
v
v
-o
v
=
m
3 „
'
L
7 o
O
L
v
7 u
O
tU
n
E
v
m
l7
E
of
•(0
E
al
V
fa
0 a)
^
L
v
V
v
v
v
Y
W
v
>
—
—
—
_
_
—
—
n
—
ns
—
=
3 c
�
>
c
>
>
-o
E
'�
v
v
a)>
0 C
Y
C
C
m
a:LL
m
C
C
C
C
0 c
T
3 U
Q
K
Q
C2
U
LL
U
ai
N
a)
l
aa)
a))
v
a/
N
u
u
u
u
u
u
1c
Y
ro
Y
1v
Y
)a
Y
Y
1a
Y
Vf
V1
N
N
H
N
O
O
O
O
O
O
-O
2 'O
'O
"0
'O
a)
a)
v
y
y
O
O
O
O
o
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
o
0 L
E
LE
!E
t
LE
L
2 2i
2 2
2 2
2 �
2 2
2 2
2 1n
v)
v)
V)
V)
V)
u
u2
u
u
u
2 u
u
u
L
.

Y
.

Y
L
•�
.Y
l
L
dO
a)
a)
a)
a)
al
a)
Y
a)
Y
a)
v
V
(Va)
v
v
a)a)
v
v
Y
(U
Y
a)
v
c
0 O
0 0
0 0
a)
0'
r
E
E
E
E
E
E
o
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 en
v
v
(V
v
a)
v
v
v
v
a)
a)
a)
a)
v
v
v
v
(V
a)
v
�--
J
Of
0�
of
w
cr
cc
l7
0 0
l7
0 0
l7
C7
0 l7
l7
l7
(7
(7
M
LL
O
ri
O
N
O
m
O
V
O
V)
O
a0
O
1-
O
00 O
a)
0 CD
-q
N
M
Gt
V)
I --I
l0
.-1
(,
c-I
00 1-4
O1
H
0 N
1-1
N
Z
cr
K
cr
K
K
=
aC
K
LL'
cr
cr
v
M
N
N
O
N
00 r
T
7 m
en
ca
en
oa
co
E
E
E
E
E
p p
2 x
2 2
2 2
7 7
7 7
7 Q. n
T
T
T
L
L
T
`
`
L
L
L
L
j. n O-
a
a
a
b0
dD
a
a
a
00 00
00 00
a
a
a
a
a
v) Q O
>
>
>
2 2
>
>
>
2 2
2 2
to
c =
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 o
0 0
N °D
o
0 0
0 O
O
o
0 0
0 0
o
O
0 o
O
O
2 LL W
01 a)
cn
cn
Ol
(n
a)
m
Ol
Ql
Ol
Ql
0)
Ol
Q1
Q1
Ol
v
u
a
x `� ?
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0 O
O
O
W
-4
-1
-4
c i
N
N
N
N
f V
N
N
u-
o
0 o
a
o
0 0
0 0
o
a
o
a
o
0 0
2'
Vl
0 Ln
(D
O
Ul
Ul
Ul
O
u1
U)
Ln
0 V1
Ln
Ln
0 V
ti
C
N
rn
m
11 N
V
N
H
m
c*
00 m
m
m
00 L
a
m
m
m
m
m
m
E
E_
Q-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
0 0(6
0�
0o
0�
c�
a
a
a
a
a
a
Q
a
a
a
LL
a
a
a
m
LL
C
a
`o
a
o
{'
i
>
>
T
v
3 a,
N
m
c
c
o
o
�
a
m
a
Y
00 C
u
C
m
a
�
9 E
°
a
t
LL
cc
m
c
ba
c
m
c
co
u
on
a
a
N
H
a
c
L
C
yUj
>
m
00 o
u
m
m
eNo
tin
to
3 o
c
O
\
o
0 O`
i
a
c
N
OU
c
c
a
a
=
a
o
u
N
O
C
E
n
O
Y
N
a
+'
C
_o
LL
_C
3 3
3 w
u
a�
0 aj
U
3 N
ai
n
000
Z
00 C
c
r0
-
E
m
(9
H
K
i
'V
a
a
ma
f9
a
a
-0c
a
U
'O
U
YO
a
C
n
C
a
a
a
Y
-
a
ru
0 `
fo
m
N
-
-
c
_
n7
-o
c
of
cn
>
a)
>
c
v
n
aY
v
a
w
o0`n
a
0 E
n
L
7 7
T
a
-0
O
a
tw
_0
Y
CL
a
CL
H
a
_E
C
:3
+�+ L
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
+m+
4m+
Y
Y
Y
Y
O
V
N
C 3
-
C
Vf
C
-
Vf
C
-
Vt
C
-
N
C
-
V1
C
-
VI
C
-
1I1
C
-
C
-
VI
C
-
Vf
C
-
VI
C
-
N
C
-
Vf
C
-
C
-
C
-
00 00
G0
m
C0
011
00 00
OD
00 C
C
C
C
C
C
c
c
C
c
C
c
c
C
C
C
c
c
C
C
rm
cm
(m
fm
rm
fm
cm
fm
rm
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
O
O
O
O
..0
O
_
O
_
O
_
O
_
O
_
O
'O
-0
'O
'O
'0
-0
a
O
n1
a7
t0
C
C
C
C
C
c
�a
a
v
`a
`a
v
v
v
v
v
a)
m
a
m
ns
ns
A
E
a
a
a`i
p
-0
-0
-0
>
Q
n
a
n
n
n
n
n
n
a
a
a
a
a
a
a
c
F
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
m
LL
LL
LL
aL
a
Q
m
m
m
m
m
m
d
LL
LL
o
a
N
N
ONO
0 m
m
M
It
Ln
M
m
N
N
`4
ar
N
cc:

N
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
c^/1
m
m
Ln
M
0 N
75 Ln
c
T
Q)
Ln
T
fS5
3 D
m
O
w
U
0 J
N
N
O
N
0 DO
d\'