The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7.1 Local Roadway Safety PlanCELEBRATING STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL DUBLIN CALIFORNIA Agenda Item 7.1 DATE: January 10, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Linda Smith, City Manager SU B.ECT : Local Roadway Safety Plan Prepared by: Sai Midididdi, Associate Civil (Traffic) Engineer EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will receive a report and consider adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan, which provides a local -level assessment of roadway safety and identifies high -risk locations, appropriate safety improvements, and strategies to improve safety for roadways in the City of Dublin. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution Adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act. FINANCIAL IMPACT: All Staff costs and consultant costs associated with the preparation of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) are funded by the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) project, Local Roadway Safety Plan, CIP No. ST0122. The CIP project budget includes $72,000 from the State of California State Transportation Improvement program to assist with the preparation of the LRSP. Any improvement projects implementing LRSP recommendations will be funded by the CIP project, Traffic Signal and Roadway Safety Improvements, CIP No. ST0123, or by future CIP projects subject to City Council approval. DESCRIPTION: Background Federal regulations require each state to have a Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). A SHSP is a statewide data -driven traffic safety plan that coordinates the efforts of a wide range of organizations to reduce traffic accident fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. In coordination with federal, State, local, and private sector safety stakeholders, the SHSP establishes Page 1 of 6 842 goals, objectives, and emphasis (or challenge) areas. The SHSP addresses the 4Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. While the SHSP is used as a statewide approach for improving roadway safety, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides local and rural road owners with an opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the success of the SHSP. Dublin's LRSP aligns with the 2020-2024 California SHSP's guiding principles that integrate social equity and encourage the implementation of proven countermeasures and emerging technologies. The LRSP uses the Safe System approach endorsed by the United States Department of Transportation and Caltrans to identify ways Dublin and its partners can protect all roadway users. It includes engineering and non -engineering recommendations to improve traffic safety in identified emphasis areas within Dublin. To develop Dublin's LRSP, Staff applied for and received a grant of $72,000 from the California Transportation Commission (CTC) in September 2020. On March 16, 2021, the City Council adopted a Resolution Approving a Funding Agreement with the State of California for the LRSP. Starting in 2022, the Federal Aid Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) began requiring an LRSP for an agency to be eligible to apply for HSIP funds and for discretionary funds including Measures BB, Vehicle Registration Fee (VRF), and Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA). Summary of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP): The LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in Dublin, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions with an implementation plan. Ultimately, the LRSP creates a data -driven decision -making framework to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways. The LRSP is organized into five main sections: • Vision & Goals —Establishes a larger vision for transportation safety in Dublin and sets goals for how to get there. • Plan Development —Details the collaborative and data -driven planning process that involved stakeholder and community engagement. • Existing Conditions —Provides an analysis of collisions and traffic safety trends in Dublin. • Toolbox —Lists proven engineering countermeasures and strategies that can improve roadway safety. • Recommendations and Implementation —Prioritizes short- and long-term projects and sets a strategy for assessing progress toward established goals. The LRSP recommends site -specific as well as systemic safety improvements that can be applied citywide. The five main sections of the LRSP are described in more detail below. Page 2 of 6 843 Vision and Goals Based on the findings from the existing conditions analysis and feedback from the Traffic Safety Committee, the vision and goals for the Plan were developed. Vision The City of Dublin will prioritize safety in all projects and will reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions even as the City continues to grow. The City will use data and Safe System principles recommended by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) to promote safety in all actions. Goals • Implement safety countermeasures to reduce the risk of future collisions. • Analyze data to identify and prioritize opportunities to improve roadway safety. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in Dublin's agencies, businesses, and residents. Plan Development Community and stakeholder engagement was key to the successful development of the LRSP. Stakeholders who can provide a diversity of viewpoints on the goal and emphasis area development and who will be appropriate parties for implementation action items were identified in the LRSP. The project team led a Traffic Safety Committee meeting engaging City stakeholders in the plan development process. The Traffic Safety Committee includes staff from Dublin Police Services and the Public Works Department's Transportation and Operations Division and Maintenance Division. Based on these discussions and findings from the data analysis, safety for vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and bicyclists, were identified as a key emphasis area for this plan. The project team utilized robust community input from the updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan to inform understanding of the key safety issues faced in the City of Dublin. As a part of the LRSP development, the project team also identified a list of community stakeholders, including representatives from local and regional transportation agencies, advocacy groups, and various community -based organizations that were key in the implementation of the Plan. Existing Conditions The existing conditions analysis was conducted to identify safety emphasis areas. Based on the emphasis area, the Plan identifies appropriate engineering countermeasures and non -engineering strategies to reduce collisions. This analysis covered: • Summary of Existing Safety -Related Plans, Policies and Programs: The project team reviewed and summarized relevant safety -related plans, policies, and programs. • Review and Evaluation of Collision Data: The project team analyzed collision data from 2016-2020 and prepared a technical memorandum summarizing findings, including a list of high collision locations and crash risk factors. This memorandum included charts and exhibits illustrating key findings related to collision factors, such as personal Page 3 of 6 844 attributes/human factors (e.g., driver impairment, behavior), vehicular and equipment factors (e.g., braking, occupant restraints), and roadway and environmental factors (e.g., speed limits, roadway geometric design). • Identification of High -Collision Locations: A citywide analysis was conducted to identify corridors and intersections with the highest concentration of collisions. A ranked list of high -collision intersections and roadway segments was prepared based on crash frequency and severity. This helps identify high -priority locations that are also competitive for further grant application cycles. • Field Observations: Based on the identified locations, the project team conducted field observations for five locations to develop potential engineering solutions. • Emphasis Areas: Based on the collision analysis, high collision locations, and field observations, the project team identified five emphasis areas that deserve special focus and priority and help guide the LRSP's recommended actions and implementation strategies. Emphasis areas represent crash factors whose reduction would have the greatest overall effect on traffic safety. The emphasis areas were as follows: pedestrian collisions, nighttime safety, aging drivers (65 and older), signalized arterial/local intersections, and aggressive and impaired driving. Toolbox A toolbox was included in the LRSP to group information on proven strategies and countermeasures that are effective at reducing fatal and serious injuries on roadways. These encompassed both proven engineering countermeasures and non -engineering strategies promoted by the Federal Highway Administration the California SHSP, and Caltrans Local Road Safety Plan Guidelines to improve safety for all modes of transportation and for users of all ages and abilities. Engineering countermeasures include roadway improvements, such as pavement markings, curb and median designs, signage, and traffic control, among others. Non -engineering strategies include education, enforcement strategies, and emerging technology to improve roadway safety. Both countermeasure types work together, creating the layers of safety that are critical to a Safe System. Each countermeasure catered to addressing at least one out of the five high -priority safety issues. The LRSP goes beyond the list of improvements and strategies and recommends innovative ideas, such as quick builds, that are short-term and low-cost so that the City can consider implementing them as pilot projects to improve roadway user safety. Recommendations and Implementation Safety Projects The project team identified site -specific low-cost/short term, medium-cost/medium term and higher-cost/long term improvements for 20 priority locations based on the collision analysis and stakeholder input. In addition, the Plan identified systemic treatments that were aligned with the emphasis areas and can be applied at other locations in the City. The Plan details and provides guidance for the City to identify where and how these improvements can be implemented. Page 4 of 6 845 Based on the identified improvements for priority locations, the project team prepared and submitted one competitive grant application in the 2022 Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) Cycle 11 for signalized intersection improvements at 14 locations. The application included project descriptions, vicinity/location maps, project schematic layouts, cost estimates, and a collision list and diagram for the proposed locations. The grant project selection announcement is expected in early January 2023, according to Caltrans. Implementation Strategy The Plan identifies action items and performance measures for implementation and eventual evaluation. Near -term and long-term action items are listed with performance measures. The Plan also identifies a list of potential funding sources —grants such as the Caltrans Active Transportation Program, HSIP, California Office of Traffic Safety, regional funding, and federal funding sources, which strategically position the City to apply for and be competitive for the grant funding. In addition, CIP Project No. ST0123, Traffic Signal and Roadway Safety Improvements has been included in the adopted CIP 2022-2027 (Attachment 4), which will partially provide for feasibility, design, construction, and modification of traffic signals and roadway safety improvements at locations prioritized and recommended by the LRSP. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262- Feasibility and Planning Studies, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. The LRSP includes strategies and location data that may be used to develop future projects; however, any future action would require approval, funding, and independent evaluation under CEQA. In addition, the LRSP is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 - Information Collection. Finally, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the commonsense exemption, in that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the LRSP would result in physical alteration of the environment, and the action has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment. STRATEGIC PLAN INITIATIVE: Strategy 3: Infrastructure Maintenance and Reinvestment Objective b: Provide on -going condition assessments of aging City facilities and assets Strategy 5: Safe and Accessible Community Objective b: Continue to engage with the community using all appropriate methods to share and exchange information. Page 5 of 6 846 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: A copy of this Staff Report was sent to Alameda County Transportation Commission's Independent Watchdog Committee. The City Council Agenda was posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Resolution Adopting the Local Roadway Safety Plan and Finding the Plan Exempt From the California Environmental Quality Act 2) Exhibit A to the Resolution - Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan 3) Appendices to the Local Roadway Safety Plan 4) CIP Project No. ST0122 Local Roadway Safety Plan 5) CIP Project No. ST0123 Traffic Signal and Roadway Safety Improvements Page 6 of 6 847 Attachment I RESOLUTION NO. 23-xx A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN ADOPTING THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND FINDING THE PLAN EXEMPT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT WHEREAS, a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a critical planning, policy, and implementation document that supports the City's efforts to improve the safety of its transportation infrastructure for all modes and for people of all ages and abilities; and WHEREAS, to pursue safety grant funds through the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program administered by Caltrans and discretionary funds including Measure BB, Vehicle Registration Fee, and Transportation Fund for Clean Air administered by the Alameda County Transportation Commission, a local agency must have an LRSP or equivalent planning document; and WHEREAS, the LRSP is aligned with the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan's guiding principles and uses the Safe System approach endorsed by the United States Department of Transportation and Caltrans' commitment to achieve its vision of no fatalities and severe injuries on California roadways by 2050; and WHEREAS, this LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in Dublin, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions, site -specific as well as systemic safety improvements with an implementation plan; and WHEREAS, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) certain projects require review for environmental impacts and, when applicable, environmental documents to be prepared; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the LRSP was examined to determine if environmental review is required. The analysis concluded that the LRSP is exempt from CEQA review as follows: • The LRSP qualifies for the statutory exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262- Feasibility and Planning Studies, a project involving only feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions which the agency, board, or commission has not approved, adopted, or funded does not require the preparation of an EIR or Negative Declaration. The LRSP includes strategies and location data that may be used to develop future projects; however, any future action would require approval, funding, and independent evaluation under CEQA. In addition, the LRSP is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 - Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15304 - Minor Alterations to Land, and CEQA Guidelines Section 15306 - Information Collection. Finally, under CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), the commonsense exemption, in that it can be seen with Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 1 of 2 848 certainty that there is no possibility that adoption of the LRSP would result in physical alteration of the environment, and the action has no potential to have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council did consider the LRSP and CEQA exemptions, as presented by Staff; and WHEREAS, the location and custodian of the documents or other material which constitute the record of proceedings for the project is the City of Dublin Public Works Department, 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, CA 94568. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made a part of this Resolution. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that on the basis of the findings above and the record as a whole, the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby find that the project is exempt from CEQA and directs Staff to file the Notice of Exemption with the Office of Planning and Research, Alameda County Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Dublin does hereby adopt the Local Roadway Safety Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 10th day of January 2023, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk Reso. No. XX-23, Item X.X, Adopted 01/10/2023 Page 2 of 2 849 'Attachment 2 C 'NTENTS Contents 1 Glossary 2 Introduction 4 A Commitment to Safety 4 Why Local Roadways Matter 4 Improving Safety in Dublin and Beyond 4 What is an LRSP? 7 Plan Overview 7 Dublin's Safety Emphasis Areas 8 Vision and Goals 10 Plan Vision 10 Plan Goals 10 Plan Development 13 LRSP Roadmap 13 Working Together 14 Dublin's Existing Safety Efforts 16 Engagement and Outreach 20 Existing Conditions 23 Dublin Safety Today 23 Descriptive Trends Analysis 24 Priority Intersections and Roadways 30 Toolbox 35 Available Countermeasures 35 Available Strategies 44 Recommendations and Implementation 46 Site Specific Treatments 46 Systemic Treatments 53 Action Items and Performance Measures 63 851 LOSSARY Aggressive driving includes behaviors such as speeding, tailgating, running traffic signals or signs, and other reckless maneuvers. Challenge areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions identified by the California Department of Transportation's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). These areas, when addressed, have the most potential to improve roadway safety. Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions. Emphasis areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues that deserve special focus in Dublin based on local trends. Impaired driving describes operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a substance, including alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, or some prescription medications. Local roadway safety plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local - level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways. Local roadways are all roadways not part of the State Highway System. Local roadways can be owned by cities or counties. In this plan, local roadways are Dublin owned. Primary collision factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation. Proven Safety Countermeasures are a series of 28 countermeasures and strategies promoted by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). These countermeasures can help address safety issues related to speed management, intersections, roadway departures, and pedestrians and bicyclists. For more, visit https://highways.dot.gov/safety/proven-safety- countermeasures. The Safe System approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA SafeSystem Brochur e V9 508 200717.pdf. Safety partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that Dublin can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects. Strategies are non -engineering tools that can help address roadway user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety. Vulnerable roadway users are those at greater risk of death or serious injury from crashes because they lack the physical protection afforded by a motor vehicle. Bicyclists and pedestrians are vulnerable roadway users. 852 - . , •„;,14.p. • 1.; • •••-- ' 4 cUr INTRODUCTION A Commitment to Safety This Local Roadway Safety Plan, or LRSP, outlines a plan to ensure Dublin residents, visitors, and those who travel through the community get home safely. Dublin is among the fastest growing communities in the country. From 2010 to 2021, Dublin's population grew by 37 percent.1 With increasing numbers of residents and visitors driving, walking, and biking along Dublin's roadways, it has never been more important to address transportation safety issues in the community. Why Local Roadways Matter Local roadways are all roadways not part of the State Highway System. Nationwide, local roadways are less traveled than State highways but have a higher rate of fatal and severe injury collisions.2 Efforts to improve local roadway safety —such as this LRSP—play a crucial role in identifying where and why fatal and severe injury collisions happen and actions that can help eliminate them. Because no two communities are exactly alike, this LRSP identifies and prioritizes safety improvements specifically for safety issues on Dublin roadways. This LRSP is a living document designed to be flexible and to respond to evolving community needs. It's recommended that this LRSP be revisited and updated every five years, consistent with best practices. 1 Pop -Facts Demographic Snapshot Summary, "Dublin, CA (city)" (2021), https://dublin.ca.gov/238/Community-and-Economic-Profile. Improving Safety in Dublin and Beyond Improving local roadway safety in Dublin is just one part of larger nationwide and statewide efforts to reduce fatal and severe injury collisions. ALIGNING WITH THE CALIFORNIA'S STRATEGIC HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN (SHSP) The 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) sets out California's vision, goals, and objectives for reducing fatal and severe injury collisions on public roadways (local roadways and state highways). To draw this roadmap, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) led efforts to analyze collision data and collaborate with traffic safety partners across the state. As a result, the SHSP identified California's 16 challenge areas, or areas with the most potential to improve roadway safety. Of the challenge areas, six were identified as high -priority areas, or areas with the greatest opportunity to reduce death and severe injury. Historically, the SHSP has used the five Es (education, enforcement, engineering, emergency response, and emerging technologies) to organize strategies. In 2021, state transportation officials shifted focus and adopted guiding principles that integrate social equity, create a Safe System 2Anderson et al. Noteworthy Practices: Addressing Safety on Locally -Owned and Maintained Roads A Domestic Scan, FHWA-SA-09-019, (2010). 4 854 approach, and encourage implementation of proven countermeasures and emerging technologies. Local jurisdictions within the State have begun to implement strategies to eliminate traffic deaths and severe injuries using the SHSP's guiding principles and challenge areas. CREATING A SAFE SYSTEM The United States Department of Transportation adopted the Safe System approach as its core strategy in January 2022.3 The following month, Caltrans released Director's Policy 36, which commits the state to the Safe System approach to achieve its vision of no fatalities and severe injuries on California's roadways by 2050 and safer outcomes for all communities.4 These efforts build from the Federal Highway Administration's promotion of the Safe System approach as a strategy to eliminate all traffic deaths. The Safe System approach aims to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all roadway users. It works toward eliminating roadway deaths based on six key principles: • Deaths and severe injuries are unacceptable. • Humans make mistakes. • Humans are vulnerable. • Responsibility is shared. • Safety is proactive. • Redundancy is critical. 3 National Roadway Safety Strategy, United States Department of Transportation, January 2022 https:/ /www transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-Safety- Strategy.pdf SHSP Challenge Areas (High -priority areas for Dublin in bold) • Active Transportation: Pedestrians and Bicyclists • Impaired Driving • Intersections • Lane Departures • Speed Management/Aggressive Driving • Aging Drivers • Commercial Vehicles • Distracted Driving • Driver Licensing • Emergency Response • Emerging Technologies • Motorcyclists • Occupant Protection • Work Zones • Young Drivers 4 California Department of Transportation Director's Policy 36, February 15, 2022 https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/dp 36- ally.pdf 5 855 There are five elements (or layers) to a Safe System (see Figure 1): • Safe Roadway Users —All roadway users, including bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit -riders, should be able to travel safely. • Safe Vehicles —Vehicles should be designed and regulated to reduce the frequency and severity of collisions. • Safe Speeds —The faster a vehicle is travelling, the greater its risk to human life. Safe speeds are speeds that reduce impact forces, improve stopping time, and improve visibility. • Safe Roadways —Roadway design can accommodate human mistakes and improve injury tolerances through strategies, such as physically separating those travelling different speeds or using signage to alert drivers to hazards. • Post -Collision Care —If a collision does occur, first responders must assess, stabilize, and transport those who were injured. Forensic investigation or incident management teams are also important parts of post -collision care. This LRSP uses a Safe System approach to identify ways that Dublin and its safety partners can create layers to help protect all roadway users —even when they make mistakes. To build redundancy in the local transportation system, Dublin and its teaming partners can • Establish a vision, goals, and partnerships to help implement the plan. • Identify systemic engineering countermeasures and use them proactively rather than reactively. • Provide educational materials to communicate key roadway safety information to residents, business owners, and visitors. • Review policies, guidelines, and standards to prioritize safety. Figure 1. Safe System Elements tei re L Safe Road Users Post -Crash Care injury is &Ina The Safe System Approach i` Safe Roads ,64 Safe Vehicles ns►:ility is Shale' wJ Safe Speeds • Overlap roadway stakeholder efforts to create a culture of traffic safety • Identify potential funding and coordination sources for project implementation. (For more on Dublin's safety partners, see page 14.) This plan and its recommendations can help create a Safe System in Dublin. However, State and federal policy —like legislation to allow automated speed enforcement and continued regulation of vehicle safety standards — will be essential to complete the Safe System categories that local agencies cannot directly affect. 6 856 What is an LRSP? An LRSP provides a local -level assessment of roadway safety and identifies locations, countermeasures, and strategies to improve safety on local roadways. An LRSP is a multi -disciplinary approach to traffic safety that creates partnership opportunities with safety partners (including other agencies) who can help implement recommendations. LRSPs are one of FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures, and these plans provide crosscutting efforts to prioritize investments. To assist with implementation of engineering strategies, FHWA provides more than $2 billion each year in Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds for States to address roadway safety challenges on all public roadways. To pursue HSIP grant funds in California (estimated at $210 million for Cycle 11 in 2022), a local agency must have an LRSP or equivalent planning document. Dublin's access to these funds will help make its roadways safer for all users. For more on the FHWA's safety strategy, visit https. / /www.transportation.gov/NRSS. Plan Overview This LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in Dublin, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions and an implementation plan. Ultimately, this LRSP creates a data -driven decision - making framework to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways. The plan is organized into five main sections: Vision & Goals —Establishes a larger vision for transportation safety in Dublin and sets goals for how to get there. Plan Development —Details the collaborative and data -driven planning process. Existing Conditions —Provides an analysis of collisions in Dublin. Toolbox —Lists proven countermeasures and strategies that can improve roadway safety. Recommendations and Implementation —Prioritizes short- and long-term projects and sets a strategy for assessing progress toward established goals. 857 Dublin's Safety Emphasis Areas Like the State's SHSP challenge areas, emphasis areas guided this LRSP's development as well as its recommended actions and implementation strategies. From 2016 through 2020, there were 13 reported fatal and severe injury collisions in Dublin. The city has five emphasis areas that deserve special focus based on local trends: Pedestrian Collisions In Dublin, pedestrian collisions account for 28 percent of all fatal and severe injury collisions. Nighttime Safety Sixty percent of Dublin's fatal and severe injury pedestrian collisions occur in dusk, dawn, or dark conditions. Aging Drivers Collisions involving drivers 65 and older account for 22 percent of all fatal and severe injury collisions. Signalized Arterial/Local Intersections Nearly 45 percent of Dublin's fatal and severe injury collisions occur at intersections. These locations also see many rear end and broadside collisions. In Dublin, hit object collisions —the most frequent type of fatal and severe injury collision — primarily occur at signalized intersections. Aggressive and Impaired Driving Aggressive driving accounts for over 15 percent of fatal and severe injury collisions in Dublin and includes several behaviors, such as speeding, tailgating, running traffic signals or signs, and making other reckless maneuvers. Impaired driving accounts for over 25 percent of fatal and severe injury collisions in Dublin and includes collisions in which the driver was using alcohol and/or illicit, prescribed, or over-the-counter drugs. 858 VISION AND GOALS Plan Vision The City of Dublin will prioritize safety in all projects and will reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions even as the city continues to grow. The City will use data and Safe System principles recommended by FHWA and SHSP to promote safety in all actions. Plan Goals The following goals will guide collaborative planning efforts with the Traffic Safety Committee and other partners: 0 Implement safety countermeasures to reduce the risk of future collisions. > Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions in identified emphasis areas.5 > Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on all City roadways. > Implement systemic engineering countermeasures at identified priority locations and other applicable locations along City roadways. Dublin is expected to continue its growth in the future. With a greater population and total vehicle miles traveled, the total exposure risk will increase. The City can monitor total and fatal and severe injury collisions and a number normalized by annual population to understand if fatal and severe injury collisions are increasing, decreasing, or staying constant. An absolute reduction in fatal and severe injury collisions is still desired. a Analyze data to identify and prioritize opportunities to improve roadway safety. > Monitor the number of fatal and severe injury collisions and review and summarize the number of fatal and severe injury collisions to see if total numbers are decreasing, increasing, or remaining constant. > Maintain or increase annual safety expenditures to proactively implement proven countermeasures to target emphasis areas. > Track and apply for safety -related grants to implement safety countermeasures in line with emphasis areas. > Review FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures, updated Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, and other resources to consider new countermeasures that can address emphasis areas. > Revisit and update this plan, including identified emphasis areas and priority locations, at least every five years. Promote a culture of roadway safety in Dublin's agencies, businesses, and residents. > Continue to collaborate with the Traffic Safety Committee and other partners to continue efforts to eliminate fatalities and severe injury collisions on public roadways within the city. (For more on Dublin's safety partners, see page 14.) 6 The Local Roadway Safety Manual is a technical resource published by Caltrans and updated with each HSIP funding cycle (approximately every two years). It includes research -backed information and funding eligibility for safety countermeasures. It is available online at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/shsp/resources. 1O 860 > Continue to share resources on a regular basis with Dublin Police Services and the Office of Communications to maintain relevant information for non -engineering strategy implementation. > Continue to coordinate safety improvements and non - engineering safety strategies across jurisdictions and through Alameda CTC, Tri-Valley Transportation Council, and other relevant committees. • Countermeasures & Strategies To build a Safe System in Dublin, this LRSP provides both engineering countermeasures and non - engineering strategies promoted by the FHWA, the California SHSP, and Caltrans LRSP guidelines. Engineering countermeasures include pavement markings, curb and median designs, signage, and traffic control, among others. Non -engineering strategies use tools including education, equitable enforcement strategies, and emerging technology to improve roadway safety. Both countermeasure types work together, creating the layers of safety that are critical to a Safe System. AC! PLAN DEVELOPMENT This plan was developed in collaboration with City staff and using collision data and best practices resources. LRSP Roadmap Identify Stakeholders Collect Data r • Source: FH1/A, 'Local Road Safety Plans," January 2021), https. / /safety fhwa.dot.gov/LR SPDIY/ # Implement Solutions a Choose Proven Solutions 7 Analyze Data Identify collision types & high -risk areas 13 1 863 Working Together Continuing longstanding partnerships with community organizations and building new ones will promote interagency collaboration and create a culture of roadway safety. These agencies have been, or can be, valued partners: Police Services Dublin Police Services forms enforcement location priorities based on its review of collision history. Continuing to leverage City relationships with Dublin Police Services through the Traffic Safety Committee will help keep police services abreast of emphasis areas and high -risk locations for roadway users. Dublin Police Services could also help administer recommended programs like speed trailers. Dublin Schools Dublin schools can be partners in administering educational programs for students, staff, and families that encourage safe transportation behaviors. The Dublin Unified School District, Quarry Lane School, and other private schools, preschools, and after -school programs can also be valuable partners. Transit Agencies Transportation agencies and providers such as BART, Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority (LAVTA/Tri-Valley Wheels, and Contra Costa County Connection) can provide promotion for education campaigns and help identify engineering solutions at locations of shared interest or jurisdiction. Recommended Safety Partners City Manager's Office and Department of Public Information City Council Dublin Police Services Alameda County Fire Department Alameda County Department of Public Health Dublin Unified School District Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) Livermore-Amador Valley Transit Authority County Connection Bike East Bay Center for Independent Living (CRIL) Hayward Other Community -based Organizations Chamber of Commerce 14 864 Community Groups & Local Organizations Community groups can provide feedback on safety issues and help encourage communication with the public about safety campaigns and future projects. Health advocacy or active transportation groups like Bike East Bay can help coordinate education classes through schools or at City - sponsored events. (For a full list of stakeholders identified collaboratively with the Dublin Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Update (2022), see Appendix A.) City Offices This LRSP was primarily developed by the Public Works Department, and other departments will be essential to the plan's implementation. The City Manager's Office and the Office of Communications receive information and help disseminate information to the community. Critical pieces of information that come through this office include community events, news, fact sheets, and FAQs. Collaboration with this department is essential to effectively relay information on safety education, project news, community engagement, and other roadway safety initiatives. The Community Development Department plays an important role in elevating safety through community planning and development review and efforts. The Economic Development Office maintains strong relationships with local businesses and can facilitate conversations and information about safety goals, initiatives, and upcoming projects. Alameda County Fire Department The Alameda County Fire Department (ACFD) already provides guidance on safety improvement projects during the design review process. This invaluable partnership helps improve emergency response services and assessments of proposed safety countermeasures. Dublin's Existing Safety Efforts This LRSP builds on existing plans, policies, and programs that support safe, accessible, equitable, and multimodal transportation. The most relevant documents pertaining to local roadway safety are included below, along with an explanation of how their goals, policies, programs, and recommendations informed this LRSP. Dublin Traffic Safety Reports and Studies (2018) Every three years, traffic safety performance reports have identified intersections and street segments with collision rates higher than the statewide average for similar locations and offer potential safety improvements. The most recent study was completed in 2018. The intersections and segments identified in these reports helped the LRSP project team identify and vet key locations and safety improvements. This LRSP will replace these studies moving forward. Complete Streets Policy (City Council Resolution 199-12) (2012) Complete streets are designed to make space for all roadway users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and motor vehicle drivers. The Complete Streets Policy identifies complete streets planning as an integral part of providing mobility needs for all users and furthering the health, safety, welfare, economic vitality, and environmental wellbeing of the community. This LRSP includes multimodal safety recommendations intended to provide complete streets. Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2022) The updated 2014 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will include recommendations to guide Dublin's approach to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The update inventories existing conditions; analyzes existing barriers to walking and biking; provides program, policy, and infrastructure recommendations; and presents a prioritization framework to identify a tiered list of projects for implementation. The updated plan prioritizes safety in facility design and policy implementation. The updated plan also identifies local biking and walking high -injury networks, or HINs based on six years of collision data from 2014 to 2019. (To view the HINs in more detail, see Appendix E.) The LRSP aligns its high -collision locations and countermeasures with the updated Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan's priorities and recommendations. This LRSP also incorporates community feedback collected as part of the updated plan's public outreach efforts. Alameda County Countywide Active Transportation Plan (2019) The Alameda County Transportation Commission (Alameda CTC) Countywide Active Transportation Plan (CATP) aims to improve pedestrian and bicyclist safety by prioritizing projects, policies, and programs that will address the greatest safety needs and by optimizing investments through corridor -level analyses and performance evaluations. This CATP created profiles for each community in the county and includes local pedestrian and bicycle HINs based on collision data from 2012 to 2016. In total, eight miles of City roadways are part of a pedestrian or bicycle HIN. This LRSP identifies projects along local HINs that would be prioritized for capital investment opportunities through the Alameda CTC. 16 866 Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan (2020) The recently updated Downtown Dublin Streetscape Plan aims to develop pedestrian -oriented environments on commercial throughways, downtown local streets, crosstown boulevards, and parkways. LRSP goals and project recommendations align with this plan's emphasis on safe and comfortable facilities for people walking and biking. Eastern Dublin Specific Plan (Updated 2022) This plan establishes a planning framework for the future growth and development of approximately 3,300 acres of the largely unincorporated area east of Camp Parks. To reduce reliance on single -occupant vehicles, the plan features a comprehensive multimodal transportation and circulation system that will accommodate regional and local automobile traffic and encourage people to choose alternative modes of transportation, like walking, cycling, bus, ridesharing, light rail, or BART. This LRSP coordinates its project recommendations with those identified in the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. The LRSP also aligns its goals with the larger multimodal goals of the Eastern Dublin Specific Plan. Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (2020) The Downtown Dublin Specific Plan combines and replaces five existing specific plans: Downtown Core, Dublin Downtown, Village Parkway, West Dublin BART, and a portion of San Ramon Road. The plan sets a vision for a pedestrian -friendly downtown. This LRSP aligns its downtown project recommendations with the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan's guiding principles. Both systemic and location -specific recommendations in this LRSP align with Dublin's vision of pedestrian -friendly streets and a roadway system traversable by foot or bike. Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan (2014) This plan ensures that future development in Dublin's historic core will remain sensitive to the area's historic past. The plan also formalizes the City's commitment to preserving and enhancing remaining historic, cultural, and archeological resources. Safety project recommendations in this LRSP account for the identified safety, pedestrian -experience, and placemaking goals set out in the Dublin Village Historic Area Specific Plan. Dublin Crossing Specific Plan (2013) The Dublin Crossing Specific Plan outlines the development of 189 acres in the center of Dublin, north of Interstate 580 and Dublin Boulevard, on a portion of the former Camp Parks Reserve Forces Training Area. The project includes residential units, commercial uses, parks, open space, and a school. To create a well-connected and environmentally -conscious community for all users, the plan examines land use, development standards, design guidelines, and streetscape design. Safety project recommendations in this LRSP incorporate streetscape and design guidelines identified in the Dublin Crossing Specific Plan area whenever possible. 17 867 Safe Routes to School Alameda CTC manages the Alameda County Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program. Through direct assistance and partnerships with local jurisdictions and school districts, SR2S promotes active transportation choices for parents and students traveling to school. School staff, parent volunteers, Dublin Police Services, and Dublin's Public Works staff continue to work together to create school safety assessments, which report street conditions and utilization around schools and make infrastructure and programmatic recommendations. Alameda CTC maintains a SR2S webpage with resources and school safety assessments at participating schools. The LRSP project team used SR2S recommendations to develop engineering countermeasures for systemic solutions throughout Dublin and site -specific solutions near schools. 8 For more on the SR2S webpage and school safety assessments, visit https://alamedacountysr2s.org/our- program/school-safety-assessments / #dublin. For Dublin SR2S maps, visit https://dublin.ca.gov/349/Safe-Routes-to-School. 18 868 Figure 2: Dublin Specific Plan Areas Specific Plan Areas Downtown Dublin Crossing Dublin Village HistaricArea Eastern Dublin Schools Parks Dublin City Limits 10411i DUBLINwilKITTELSON CALII ORNIA &ASSOCIATES Specific Plan Areas Dublin LRSP 19 869 Engagement and Outreach This LRSP was developed concurrently with the ongoing 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan update, which organized a series of public engagement events. Because safety is central to both plans' recommendations, those public activities and feedback inform locations, priorities, and input for this LRSP. The 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan project team conducted an extensive public survey, hosted two public workshops, and conducted a series of pop-up events at the Dublin Farmers' Market, the Alamo Creek trail head, and at a local St. Patrick's Day event. At these pop -ups, City staff and project team members received input on what infrastructure would best meet the needs of Dublin's residents, business owners, workers, and other visitors who walk and bike. Survey respondents indicated that safety and vehicle speeds were primary concerns when walking or biking. By incorporating the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan's high -injury network findings and listening directly to community needs, this LRSP reflects community - driven desires to improve safety and encourage more multimodal transportation choices on Dublin's local roadway system. Figure 3. Pop-up Community Engagement at a St. Patrick's Day Event Figure 4. Webmap for the 2022 Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan r iF Asco oideas I' ' Praise ' Problems \oQuestfons ■ �uvermare CStanyvd cn�'`n �v Keyhoa-d shortcuts !/ap data 2022 Google Terra of Use Report a map error 21 871 CONDITION Dublin Safety Today Traffic safety is a priority in Dublin, and collision data help identify where safety improvements are needed the most. The California Office of Traffic Safety provides comparative crash rankings for cities statewide. For 2019, the most recent year comparisons are available, Dublin ranked in the best -performing 40th percentile (i.e., fewest injury/fatal collisions) of similarly sized California cities.? Because Dublin is a rapidly growing urban city, it shows some expected safety trends (pedestrian involvement and intersection collisions) when compared to the state as a whole. The city's fatal and severe injury collisions-18 reported from 2016 through 2020 —are trending at least 10 percent higher than the State average in three areas: • Aging Drivers • Pedestrians • Intersections The share of fatal and severe injury collisions that occur at intersections in Dublin is about three times higher than the statewide average (72 percent compared to 23 percent) (see Figure 5). 7 California Office of Traffic Safety Crash Rankings are available online at https: //wwwots.ca.gov/media-and-research/crash-rankings-results/. Figure 5. Dublin Collisions Compared to Statewide Average in Challenge Areas. Commercial Vehicles 0% 7% 11% Bicyclists 7% Aging Drivers Young Drivers Pedestrians Motorcyclists Intersections Impaired Driving Aggressive Driving Lane Departures 22% 12% 17% 15% 11% 17% 18% 28% 23% 28% 28% 17% 34% 33% 46% • Dublin Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Share (2016-2020) • Statewide Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Share (2010-2017) 72% 23 873 These collisions predominately occur at intersections of arterial and minor roadways. Five of the SHSP high -priority areas align with this LRSP's emphasis areas and goals: intersections, pedestrians, bicyclists, impaired driving, and speed management/aggressive driving. Some of the differences between the city's collisions and the statewide average simply come from Dublin being an urban area and much of California being rural. Because cities have more intersections and larger populations, they also have more potential for collision conflict and more people walking and biking. (For a complete discussion of collisions in Dublin, see Appendix B.) About the Data To assess citywide safety performance, the project team analyzed collision patterns and identified priority intersections and roadways using a location -specific network screening. This analysis used reported collision data from 2016 through 2020. At the time of analysis, 2020 was the most recent year for which complete collision data were available. s California Highway Patrol's SWITRS database collects and process data from collision scenes. Scene data includes information such as location, date, and collision type. For more, visit Descriptive Trends Analysis Analysis of reported collisions from the 2016 to 2020 Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) dataset identified Dublin's high -priority emphasis areas for safety improvement.8 The emphasis areas guide LRSP recommendations and project prioritization to maximize limited resources to improve safety Reported Collisions in Dublin, 2016-2020 1,455 FROM 2016-2020 290 COLLISIONS A YEAR 4-18 TOTAL COLLISIONS TOTAL FATAL & SEVER INJURY COLLISIONS 4 PER YEAR https://www.chp.ca.gov/programs-services/services nformation/switrs-internet-statewide-integrated- traffic-records-system. 24 874 In this analysis, fatal and severe injury collisions are generally grouped together because the difference between death and a severe injury can depend on factors such as emergency response time or the victim's health rather than the collision type. Understanding Collision Severity Collision severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury experienced. Fatal —A person dies due to injuries sustained in the collision. Serious Injury —A person has major, visible injuries like broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer's assessment of "other visible injuries." Moderate Injury —A person has significant and visible injuries like bruises or minor lacerations. Moderate injury collisions are sometimes referred to as "other visible injury" collisions. Minor Injury —A person has injuries that are not apparent from the outside. Examples include limps, neck pain, or confusion. Minor injury collisions are sometimes referred to as "compliant of pain" or "suspected injury" collisions. Property Damage Only (PDO)—There were no injuries sustained. 875 Figure 6. Collision Tree: Dublin Collisions by Location, Severity, and Mode TOTAL COLLISIONS Total Collisions:1,455 Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions:18 INTERSECTION TOTAL COLLISIONS 1,224 (84%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 13 (72%) SIGNAL TOTAL COLLISIONS 844 (58%) FATAIJSEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 8 (44%) UNSIGNALIZED TOTAL COLLISIONS 380 (26%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 5 (28%) PEDESTRIAN TOTAL COLLISIONS 26 (2%) FATALJSEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 2 (11%) Of° BICYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 34 (2%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS1(6%) ONC4-16.� 0 MOTOR VEHICLE & MOTORCYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 785 (54%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 5 (28%) PEDESTRIAN TOTAL COLLISIONS 24 (2%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 3 (17%) • OtO BICYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 11 (1%) FATALJSEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 0 (0%) 41141161641 MOTOR VEHICLE & MOTORCYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 345 (24%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 2 (11%) SEGMENT TOTAL COLLISIONS 231 (16%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 5 (28%) . PEDESTRIAN TOTAL COLLISIONS 3 (<1%) FATAIJSEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 0 (0%) Of° BICYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 11 (1%) FATAIISEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS1 (6%) MOTOR VEHICLE & MOTORCYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 217 (15%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 4 (22%) Reported callirionr by location, City of Dubk'n, January 2016 - December 2020 26 876 KEY TAKEAWAYS INTERSECTIONS ARE HIGHER RISK LOCATIONS 84°/ of reported collisions 72°/of fatauryl andcollisionssevere inj OCCURRED AT AN INTERSECTION AAA•pri MORE THAN of fatal and severe injury collisions in Dublin occur at an intersection and involve a pedestrian or bicyclist. 1[j/ MORE THAN 1/2 of Dublin's pedestrian collisions —and all of its fatal pedestrian collisions —occurred while the pedestrian was crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection. Signalized intersections are the most common location for general collisions and fatal/severe injury collisions. 411.aiiNoVULNERABL• E ROAD USERS 53 COLLISIONS INVOLVED PEDESTRIANS 5 of which were fatal or severe injury collisions (4% of total collisions but 28% of fatal and severe injury citywide). 56 2 COLLISIONS INVOLVED BICYCLISTS of which were severe injury collisions (4% of total reported but 11% of fatal and severe injury citywide). TIME OF COLLISIONS ALTHOUGH MOST COLLISIONS OCCUR IN DAYLIGHT CONDITIONS MORE THAN in + of fatal or severe injury + collisions occur in dark or dusk conditions A majority of pedestrian fatal and severe injury collisions occur in dark or dusk conditions. PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS Reported primary collision factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation. 27 877 COLLISION TYPES AND FACTORS • Rear end • Broadside • hit object MOST RESULTING IN FREQUENT OF FATAL AND COLLISION SEVERE INJURY TYPES • Vehicle/Pedestrian • Hit object I TI2o% ®� of Dublin's fatal and severe injury collisions involved alcohol or drugs 75% OF REAR END COLLISIONS are most frequently associated with unsafe speed 68% OF HIT OBJECT COLLISIONS are caused by three PCFs: improper turning, unsafe speed, and driving/ bicycling under the influence. MOST COM PRIMARY COLLISION Unsafe Speed Improper Automobile Ck.,! Turning right of way violation MON REPORTED account for more than Together these 50% of all reported collisions. OF BROADSIDE COLLISIONS are associated with automobile right of way §33% are associated with traffic signals and signs Broadside collisions are likely associated with driveway access or intersections. 64114-51% OF VEHICLE/PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS are attributed to either a pedestrian or a driver violating the other's right of way. 28 878 Figure 7: Collisions by Type and Severity Rear End Broadside Hit Object Sideswipe Head -On Other Vehicle/Pedestrian Not Stated Overturned 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 50 100 150 200 250 300 • Severe Injury/Fatal • Other Injury • Property Damage Only Figure 8: Collisions by Reported Primary Collision Factor 350 400 450 Unsafe Speed ( Improper Turning I�� Automobile Right of Way Traffic Signals and Signs Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Unknown Unsafe Lane Change • Other Improper Driving ■� Unsafe Starting or Backing Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) I■M Not Stated 1� Wrong Side of Road •■ • Severe Injury/Fatal • Other Injury • Property Damage Only 250 300 350 400 450 29 879 RECOMMENDED EMPHASIS AREAS According to Dublin's collision patterns identified in the descriptive trends analysis, the greatest opportunity to improve city roadway safety is to target the following emphasis areas: eji 4• Pedestrian Collisions Nighttime Safety Aging Drivers (65 and Older) Signalized Arterial and Minor Roadway Intersections Aggressive and Impaired Driving Priority Intersections and Roadways I5'* 5 INTERSECTIONS ROADWAY SEGMENTS After mapping collision data, a network screening was conducted to identify intersections and roadway segments with the highest collision frequency and severity. Priority locations were first based on the relative frequency and severity of collisions and then refined to emphasize locations with common characteristics associated with citywide emphasis areas. For example, the project team revised the list to prioritize signalized intersections on arterial roadways, locations with pedestrian collisions, and other emphasis areas with collision history. Improvements have been identified for these 15 priority intersections and 5 priority roadway segments (shown in the table and map on the next pages). 30 880 Table 1: Top 20 Priority Locations # Location** Annualized Location Collision Types Severity Score2 Total Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes Average Collision Rate3 Caltrans Average Collision Rate for Reference Population4 1 Dublin Blvd & Arnold Rd SI 59.9 17 2 0.29 0.42 2 Dublin Blvd & Village Pkwy SI 49.4 43 1 0.55 0.42 3 Dublin Blvd & Donlon Way UI 42.1 6 1 0.21 0.24 4 San Ramon Rd & Amador Valley Blvd SI 41.1 18 1 0.30 0.42 5 Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd SI 37.2 65 0 0.48 0.42 6 Dougherty Rd (north of Willow Creek Dr to south of 8th St), 0.75 mi R 36.2 8 1 0.17 1.34 7 Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr to Gleason Dr) - 0.75 mi R 35.5 4 1 0.30 1.34 8 Village Pkwy (northern city limits to north of Tamarack R 35.3 8 1 0.55 1.34 Dr), 0.69 mi 9 Amador Valley Blvd (Burton St to Dougherty Rd) - 0.75 mi R 34.1 3 1 0.18 1.27 10 Regional St (Amador Valley Blvd to south of Saint Patrick R 33.9 6 1 1.20 1.27 Way), 0.40 mi 11 San Ramon Rd & Shannon Ave SI 29.3 8 1 0.21 0.42 12 Dublin Blvd & Dublin Ct SI 27.3 13 1 0.18 0.42 13 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd SI 25.8 34 0 0.45 0.42 31 881 14 Central Pkwy & Grafton St SI 24.3 3 1 0.32 0.42 15 Hacienda Dr & Martinelli Way* SI 18.5 28 0 0.44 0.42 16 Dublin Blvd & Hacienda Dr SI 16.6 33 0 0.47 0.42 17 Dougherty Rd & Sierra Ln SI 15.6 23 0 0.43 0.42 18 Dublin Blvd & San Ramon Rd SI 14 35 0 0.33 0.42 19 Village Pkwy & Amador Valley Blvd SI 13.3 17 0 0.32 0.42 20 Dublin Blvd & Sierra Ct SI 13.2 21 0 0.27 0.42 1 Sl=signalized intersection; UI=unsignalized intersection; R=roadway 2 Severity score is calculated based on Caltrans costs of collision outcomes and is normalized to be expressed in terms of equivalent property damage only collisions (PDOs). The relative severity values are as follows: fatal/severe injury collisions are 119.9 equivalent PDOs at signalized intersections, 190.8 at unsignalized intersections, and 165.2 along roadways; moderate injuries are 10.7; and minor injuries are 6.1. For example, a signalized intersection with an annualized crash severity score of 48, for example, could represents the equivalent of 48 PDO collisions per year, two fatal/severe injury collisions over 5 years (119.9*2/5 = 48), or some combination of severity levels resulting in the same score. 3 Average Collision rate is presented for intersections as the number of collisions per million vehicles entering the intersections and for roadway segments as the number of collisions per million vehicle miles traveled along the roadway segment. 4 References are based on statewide Caltrans state highway collision rates. For roadways, the comparison reference population is a three-year "Suburban roadways" average ending 2019; for intersections, the comparison reference population is a one-year (2019) collision rate for intersections by control type. The data used for comparison are available online at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/research-innovation-system-information/annual-collision-data. 32 882 Figure 9: Priority Locations Map • Priority Intersections Priority Roadways Parks Dublin City Limits DUBLIN 11 San Ramer,5hariu^ Rmador ValleviSen Raman • •2D ubinvinage • !. Du6R rfPoupreir 10 Rppyrtif St * 1Mb 12 Dubi fDubin ■ 25 Dubii r..Si«, 18➢ubllnlSan Ran,. n} — % 3Dublin. Dar Ion 1 Aencid•Dubin 13 6unbmTassaJa 16o15Mortnell?1-1avnda URNIA Emil&AfiSOc1�ATTES Priority Locations Dublin LRSP 33 883 Ti 'LBOX Improving safety and addressing emphasis areas will take a coordinated effort and a combination of the available strategies presented in this section. More information on countermeasures and strategies can be found in the Countermeasure Toolbox in Appendix C and the Strategy Toolbox in Appendix D. Available Countermeasures These engineering countermeasures are proven effective treatments to reduce collision risk. Selected countermeasures were tailored to reduce collisions and improve safety for issues specific to Dublin's signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadways. Identifying opportunities to implement these countermeasures can help address safety issues on Dublin's local roadways. Combining these countermeasures with non -engineering strategies can also target roadway user characteristics and behaviors. Proven Safety Countermeasures Throughout this section, look for this icon: I" This flag denotes that a recommendation is one of FHWA's proven safety countermeasures, a set of tools and strategies that are effective in reducing fatal and serious injuries on roadways. These tools address speed management, roadway departure collisions, intersections, and pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Some proven countermeasures — like local roadway safety plans —cut across categories. For more, visit https: / / safety. fhwa.dot.gov/provencount ermeasures/. Countermeasures vs. Strategies Countermeasures: These are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions. Strategies: These are non -engineering recommendations that can help address the other portions of a Safe System and build a culture of safety in Dublin. 35 885 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Table 2. Available Signalized Intersection Countermeasures Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID* Documented Collision Reduction Factor** Cost Estimate*** $—under $50,000 $$—$50,000—$100,000 $$$—greater than $100,000 Applicable Emphasis Areas 0 0 MOTOR VEHICLE TREATMENTS I■ Add intersection lighting SOlt 40% I" Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number S02t 15% I" Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, S031 15% yellow, or operation) Provide advanced dilemma -zone detection for high-speed approaches N/A N/A Install left -turn lane and add turn phase S06/S07t 55% • Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal -mounted) S08 30% 36 886 Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID* Documented Collision Reduction Factor** Cost Estimate*** $—under $50,000 $$—$50,000—$100,000 $$$—greater than $100,000 Applicable Emphasis Areas 0 0 I" Install raised median on approaches S12t 25% $II Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left turns and S14t 50% U-turns (signalized intersection) $i • I" Install flashing beacons as advance warning S10t 30% $ • • • Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersection) S09t 10% $• • • • No Right Turn on Red (RTOR)1 N/A N/A Centerline hardening) N/A N/A N/A • • • • Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) S16t 35-67%** Varies • • • Install painted safety zone N/A N/A • PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST TREATMENTS Install pedestrian countdown signal heads S17PBt 25% • • 37 887 Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID* Documented Collision Reduction Factor** Cost Estimate*** $—under $50,000 $$—$50,000—$100,000 $$$—greater than $100,000 Applicable Emphasis Areas 0 0 Install pedestrian crossing S18PBt 25% $uu • • Install pedestrian scramble S19PBt 40% $ • • Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (bicycle box) S20PBt 15% • • I■ Modify signal phasing to implement a leading S21PBt 60% pedestrian interval (LPI) $uuu • • * CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2022, LRSM). If a CM ID is listed, the treatment is eligible for federal funding through HSIP and more information is available at Local Roadway Safety —A Manual for California's Local Road Owners. If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not funded through HSIP. Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 11. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator. **Documented collision reduction factors are derived either from the LRSM or the FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. An "N/A" indicates that a documented, research -backed collision reduction factor does not exist. *** Cost estimates developed based on safety projects and bid prices from 2019-2021. Costs do not include any additional construction, right-of-way, or soft costs. Construction costs continue to fluctuate and should be checked against more recent data if possible. t Countermeasure is 90% through federal funding in the current HSIP cycle (Cycle 11, 2022). $ Countermeasure is 50% reimbursable through federal funding in the current HSIP cycle. Cost per approach II Cost per crossing III Cost includes countdown timer, controller, signal head, and software 38 888 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS Table 3. Available Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID* Documented Collision Reduction Factor** Cost Estimate*** $—under $50,000 $$—$50,000—$100,000 $$$—greater than $100,000 Applicable Emphasis Areas �4 MOTOR VEHICLE TREATMENTS I• Add intersection lighting NS01 t 40% Create directional median openings to allow and restrict NS15t 50% left -turns and U-turns $u • Install painted safety zone N/A N/A • • I■ Install raised medians (refuge islands) NS19PBt 45% $u Install or upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning or regulatory signs NS06t 15% $ • • Upgrade intersection pavement markings NS07t 25% IN Install transverse rumble strips on approaches NS10t 20% $u 39 889 Countermeasure (CM) Name CM ID* Documented Collision Reduction Factor** Cost Estimate*** $—under $50,000 $$—$50,000—$100,000 $$$—greater than $100,000 Applicable Emphasis Areas 0 0 Install splitter islands on the minor roadway approaches NS13t 40% $u • • • • PEDESTRIAN TREATMENTS Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations NS21PBt (with enhanced safety features) 35% • • Install pedestrian signal or pedestrian hybrid beacon NS23PBt 55% * CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2022, LRSM). If a CM ID is listed, the treatment is eligible for federal funding through HSIP and more information is available at Local Roadway Safety - A Manual for California's Local Road Owners. If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not funded through HSIP. Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 11. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator. **Documented collision reduction factors are derived either from the LRSM or the FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. An "N/A" indicates that a documented, research -backed collision reduction factor does not exist. *** Cost estimates cover the countermeasure only and do not include any additional construction, right-of-way, or civil costs. t Indicates that the countermeasure is eligible for 90% reimbursement through federal funding in the current HSIP cycle (Cycle 11, 2022). This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator. Cost per approach $$$ II Cost per square foot 40 890 ROADWAYS Table 4. Available Roadway Countermeasures Countermeasure (CM) Name Documented CM Collision ID* Reduction Factor Cost Estimate* $—under $50,000 $$—$50,000—$100,000 $$$—greater than $100,000 Applicable Emphasis Areas 0 0 MOTOR VEHICLE TREATMENTS I■ Add lighting R01t 35% $i I• Use a roadway diet (reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a R14t 30% two way left -turn and bike lanes) $u Corridor access management N/A Varies Varies I• Install edgeline rumble strips or stripes R31t 15% $u Install delineators, reflectors, and/or object R27t 15% marker Install/upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting R22t 15% (regulatory or warning) 41 891 Countermeasure (CM) Name Documented CM Collision ID* Reduction Factor Cost Estimate* $—under $50,000 $$—$50,000—$100,000 $$$—greater than $100,000 Applicable Emphasis Areas 0 0 Install speed feedback signs R26t 30% • • • PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST TREATMENTS Install or upgrade pedestrian crossing with R35PBt 35% enhanced safety features $ • • Install raised pedestrian crossing R36PBt 35% $$ • • I■ Install separated bike lanes R33PBt 45% * CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2022, LRSM). If a CM ID is listed, the treatment is eligible for federal funding through HSIP and more information is available at Local Roadway Safety - A Manual for California's Local Road Owners. If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not funded through HSIP. Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 11. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator. **Documented collision reduction factors are derived either from the LRSM or the FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. An "N/A" indicates that a documented, research -backed collision reduction factor does not exist. *** Cost estimates cover the countermeasure only and do not include any additional construction, right-of-way, or civil costs. t Indicates that the countermeasure is eligible for 90% reimbursement through federal funding in the current HSIP cycle (Cycle 11, 2022). Cost per light II Cost per mile III Cost per foot • • • 42 892 INNOVATIVE IDEA QUICK BUILD AND DEMONSTRATION PROJECT GUIDANCE Agencies around the country use quick build and demonstration projects to improve roadway user safety. Sometimes called tactical urbanism, quick builds and demonstration projects use easy -to -install materials like paint or posts that test flexible solutions to traffic or safety issues.9 Quick builds offer Dublin easy and cost-effective ways to prevent pedestrian collisions, improve nighttime safety, and improve signalized arterial and minor roadway intersections. PeopleForBikes' Quick Builds for Better Streets and the Street Plans Collaborative's Tactical Urbanist's Guide to Materials and Design provide excellent guidance for implementing quick builds. Potential partners: Local Community Organizations (see Appendix A), Dublin Unified School District, and the Office of Communications A quick -build parklet on Grand Avenue, Oakland, CA ■ 1 9 PeopleForBikes (2016). Quick Builds for Better Streets: A New Project Delivery Model for U.S. Cities, 2016PeoplefoBikes Quick-Builds-for-Better-Streets.pdf (nacto.org) 43 893 Available Strategies Identifying opportunities to implement these non -engineering strategies can help support countermeasures and build a safety culture in Dublin. For complete descriptions of these strategies and their partners, see Appendix D. The strategies are organized into four categories; each is described below. (![ EDUCATION To build a culture of safety, the public should have access to traffic safety information. Public education and collaboration help bridge gaps in knowledge that influence roadway user behavior. EQUITABLE ENFORCEMENT Even with engineering countermeasures in place, roadway users can fail to obey traffic laws and cause collisions of varying severity. Police enforcement has been traditionally used as a strategy to increase driver awareness, educate drivers on roadway violations, and reduce traffic collisions. However, if enforcement strategies are to improve overall safety in a community, traffic laws must be applied equitably. Directed enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities. When rigorously evaluated for intent and impact, the following enforcement strategies can help provide equitable and successful outcomes: • Speed Monitoring Trailers • Progressive Ticketing • Speed Enforcement in School Zones • High Visibility Saturation Patrols • Collision vs. Citation Evaluation Programs EMERGENCY SERVICES In partnership with emergency medical services (EMS), the following strategies can improve regionwide response times and coordination by sharing real-time information: • Local Hospital or Outreach Group Partnerships • Emergency Services Coordination EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES • New traffic safety technology can enhance the benefits of ▪ Dublin's other engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services efforts. Some helpful technologies include artificial intelligence and deep learning software, crosswalk motion sensors, also called PUFFIN crossings 44 894 RECOMMENDATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION These treatments represent the improvements with the greatest potential to help reduce fatal and severe injury collisions and build a culture of safety in Dublin. Site Specific Treatments This project matrix represents a list of high -priority, achievable improvements at priority locations. Locations were identified using the descriptive trends analysis. The matrix is organized by short-term, medium -term, and long-term opportunities. This list is not exhaustive, as many of these treatments can be applied elsewhere in Dublin. Table 5: Site -Specific Projects Location Location Low -Cost, Short -Term Countermeasures' * Medium -Cost, Medium - Term Countermeasures' Higher -Cost, Long - Term Countermeasures' 1. Dublin Blvd & Arnold SI Blvd > S21PB. Implement leading pedestrian interval (LPI) > Evaluate or consider implementing no right turn on red (RTOR) where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Restripe as high visibility crosswalk (HVC) > S03. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation). > S02. Improve signal hardware > Consider installing protected intersection elements > Evaluate need for double left turn lane in eastbound direction and consider repurposing space. > Consider realigning curb ramps so all marked crosswalks are perpendicular to travel lanes 46 896 Location Location Low -Cost, Short -Term Countermeasures' Medium -Cost, Medium - Term Countermeasures' Higher -Cost, Long - Term Countermeasures' 1 2. Dublin Blvd & Village Pkwy SI > S21PB. Implement LPI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > S03. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation) > S02. Improve signal hardware > Modify existing median for pedestrian refuge island > Align crosswalk to remove skew, shorten crossing, and reduce curb radii > Consider installing protected intersection elements > Remove channelized right -turn lane in northbound direction. 3. Dublin Blvd & Donlon Way2 UI > Install painted safety zone and centerline hardening. > NS19PB:Install pedestrian refuge island > Consider change of traffic control (evaluate warrants and consider roundabout) 4. San Ramon Rd & Amador SI Valley Blvd > S21PB. Implement LPI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Restripe as High Visibility Crosswalk (HVC) > S03. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation) > Modify existing median for pedestrian refuge island and to reduce curb return radius > Consider installing protected intersection elements > Remove channelized right -turn lane in southbound and westbound directions 47 897 Location Location Low -Cost, Short -Term Countermeasures' Medium -Cost, Medium - Term Countermeasures' Higher -Cost, Long - Term Countermeasures' 5. Dublin Blvd & Dougherty SI Rd > S21PB. Implement LPI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Restripe as HVC > S03. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation) > S09. Install raised pavement markers and striping within the intersection. > R33PB. Install separated bike lanes in eastbound direction > Consider installing protected intersection elements > Corridor access management 6. Dougherty Rd (south of Willow Creek Dr and north of Camp Parks Blvd), 0.75 mi R > R26. Install speed feedback signs. > Corridor access management > Evaluate need for double left -turn lane at Dougherty Road (northbound) and for U-turn lane at Dougherty Road (southbound); consider repurposing space 7. Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr to Gleason Dr), 0.75 mi R > R26. Install speed feedback signs > Evaluate need for pedestrian crossing at Turnberry Dr. 8. Village Pkwy (northern city limits to north of Tamarack Dr), 0.69 mi R > R26. Install speed feedback signs > R33PB. Install separated bike lanes in southbound and northbound directions 48 898 Location Location Low -Cost, Short -Term Countermeasures' Medium -Cost, Medium- Higher -Cost, Long - Term Countermeasures' Term Countermeasures' 9. Amador Valley Blvd (Burton St to Dougherty Rd), 0.75 mi R > R26. Install speed feedback signs > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Restripe as HVC. > R33PB. Install buffered bike lanes in eastbound and westbound directions > Consider installing protected intersection elements at signalized intersections > Centerline hardening at intersection roadways > Study need for marked crossing at Dublin Meadows Street; 10. Regional St (Amador Valley Blvd to south of Saint Patrick Way), 0.40 mi > R33PB. Install buffered bike lanes in southbound and northbound directions > Add midblock pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features > Corridor Access Management 11. San Ramon Rd & Shannon Ave SI > S21PB. Implement LPI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Modify existing median for pedestrian refuge island > Consider installing protected intersection elements > Reevaluate need for separate right -turn lanes on northbound and southbound approaches 49 899 Location Location Short -Term Countermeasures) Medium -Cost, Medium- Higher -Cost, Long- Low-Cost,Type* Term Countermeasures' Term Countermeasures' 1 12. Dublin Blvd & Dublin Ct3 SI > S21PB. Implement LPI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > S02. Improve signal hardware > Consider installing protected intersection elements 13. Dublin Blvd & Tassajara SI Rd > S21PB. Implement LPI across southbound, eastbound, and westbound legs > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Restripe as HVC > S03. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation). > S02. Improve Signal Hardware > S09. Install raised pavement markers and striping within the intersection > Consider installing protected intersection elements 14. Central Pkwy & Grafton St SI > S21PB. Implement LPI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > S02. Improve Signal Hardware > Modify existing median for pedestrian refuge island > Consider installing protected intersection elements 50 900 Location Location Short -Term Countermeasures) Medium -Cost, Medium- Higher -Cost, Long- Low-Cost,Type* Term Countermeasures' Term Countermeasures' 15. Martinelli Way & Hacienda Dr SI > S21PB: Implement LPI; Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing. > S02. Improve signal hardware. > R33PB. Install separated bike lanes in southbound and northbound directions > Consider installing protected intersection elements > Corridor access management 16. Dublin Blvd & Hacienda SI Dr > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Restripe as HVC > S03. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation) > S02. Improve signal hardware > S09. Install raised pavement markers and striping within the intersection > Corridor access management 17. Dougherty Rd & Sierra Ln4 SI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Restripe as HVC > Install painted safety zone. > S03. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation). > Install concrete curb radii reductions. 18. Dublin Blvd & San Ramon Rd SI > Evaluate or consider implementing no > Consider installing RTOR where right turn conflicts with protected intersection pedestrian crossing elements > Restripe as HVC 51 901 Location Location Low -Cost, Short -Term Countermeasures' Medium -Cost, Medium - Term Countermeasures' Higher -Cost, Long - Term Countermeasures' 19. Amador Valley Blvd & SI Village Pkwy > S21PB. Implement LPI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > Restripe as HVC > S03. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation) > S02. Improve signal hardware > Consider installing protected intersection elements > Remove channelized right turn lane in eastbound, southbound, and westbound directions 20. Dublin Blvd & Sierra Ct SI > Evaluate or consider implementing no RTOR with pedestrian signals where right turn conflicts with pedestrian crossing > S21PB: Implement LPI > S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, or operation) > S02. Improve signal hardware > Consider installing protected intersection elements * Signalized Intersection (SI); Unsignalized Intersection (UI); Roadway (R) 1: Where provided, treatment IDs (e.g., "S21PB") indicate countermeasure (CM) IDs, which refer to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LR.SM) (April 2022). If a CM ID is listed, the treatment is eligible for federal funding through HSIP and more information is available at Local Roadway Safety —A Manual for California's Local Road Owners. If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not funded through HSIP. Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 11. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the State HSIP coordinator. 2: Intersection improvements installed in 2018 (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon) 3: Location includes at least one private roadway 4: Intersection improvements installed in 2019 (Class II bike lanes installed through along Dougherty Road and constructed median installed along north leg of intersection) 52 902 Systemic Treatments LEADING PEDESTRIAN INTERVALS & RIGHT -TURN -ON -RED RESTRICTIONS Emphasis Areas Addressed When paired, leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs), or variations on that treatment, and right -turn -on -red restrictions are a low-cost treatment that can be applied systemically to reduce the risk of pedestrian collisions, especially in areas with a high level of existing or anticipated pedestrian activity (see Figure 10). Research has shown that LPIs may lose their intended benefits when right turns on red that conflict with the crossing are not restricted.10 When using an LPI, right turns on red should be restricted parallel and perpendicular to the treated crossings, since right -turning drivers from both streets would otherwise proceed and conflict with crossing pedestrians. 10 Hubbard, Sarah ML, Darcy M. Bullock, and John H. Thai. "Trial implementation of a leading pedestrian interval: lessons learned." ITE journa178.10 (2008): 32. At some locations —particularly those near freeways with highly peaking traffic and with very high volumes of right turns (exceeding 200 vehicles per hour) —traffic operations and queueing may be a concern. NCHRP Report 969: Traffic Control Strategies for Pedestrians and Bicyclists explains some options for these locations: • For LPIs providing a head -start along a minor street, adding an LPI typically has no effect on traffic operations. • LPIs and right -turn -on -red restrictions can be implemented for certain times of day. • At locations with very high volumes of right turns, full protection between vehicle and pedestrian movements may be preferred. NCHRP Report 969 offers information on such options.l l • If the pedestrian phase is push-button actuated, then the additional LPI phase will only be triggered when a pedestrian is present. 11 The report is available online at https://wwwtrb.org/Main/Blurbs/182635.aspx 53 903 EXTENDING THE WAITING AREA A typical LPI is anywhere from 3 to 7 seconds, but the length of an LPI may be determined by how long it takes a pedestrian to reach the conflict zone (see Figure 10). If a pedestrian waiting area is far enough ahead of the stop line, the LPI may be very short or unnecessary. Figure 10: Geometric Requirements that Govern Leading Pedestrian Interval Timing (left); Leading Through Interval Application (center and right) �9�ati4f� Setbaflk • 4.r WeglANYVVIAWIAWAVANA Awe ',Wow WietebieetelLWIAWAVAWAVIANIFte 494reikeeit4WWWW514.4reir4W PAW r r 4444,141. Note: dPed = the distance a pedestrian covers to reach the middle of the conflict zone dRT = the distance a right -turning vehicle covers to reach the middle of the near edge of the conflict zone Source: NCHRP Report 969 54 904 LEADING THROUGH INTERVAL Leading through intervals (LTIs) allow vehicle through movements, pedestrian movements, and bicycle movements to proceed while holding left and right turns long enough for pedestrians to have a partially protected crossing. The LTI can be implemented with or without exclusive right -turn lanes (see Figure 9). NCHRP Report 969 also recommends other applications, including when full protection should be considered. The locations shown in Figure 10 are initial candidates for implementing LPIs and right -turn -on -red restrictions. The City may choose to evaluate these locations to compare queueing impacts of implementing LPI or LTI at these locations against the safety benefits of providing the treatment. There may be other locations identified with a high level of existing or anticipated pedestrian activity as part of future plans or development review; this treatment may also be appropriate at such locations. 55 905 Figure 11. Near -Term Leading Pedestrian Interval Opportunities LPI Recommendations Downtown Specific Plan Parks Dublin City Limits DUBLIN CALIFORNIA San R arnonZh arm an ;E:: II KITTELSON Ii &ASSOCIATES r."..' Ai I.- •• .• g .. ... mador''ValleyfYillaue .. C ...Z; ::!•1,,,I........ = ,l lfl 7'. ,,...,„...., s Cab:r1 ollauh..-e2 rl • m 13 wlifra saa. 140.1on ,Cent 1 DuMinMin0 Dubnasjra 2006,,err4• 12 0ublin.ublin 15 i/Hiendesi •-• 1M40 0 Near -Term Leading Pedestrian Interval Opportunities Dublin LRSP 56 906 NIGHTTIME VISIBILITY Two key engineering countermeasures can help improve nighttime safety in Dublin: (1) roadway and pedestrian -scale lighting, and (2) signal visibility improvements. ROADWAY AND PEDESTRIAN -SCALE LIGHTING Emphasis Areas Addressed 8 In general, Dublin has lighting along roadways, at intersections, and at crossings. Along roadways with four or more lanes, supplemental pedestrian -scale lighting may be required to adequately light the sidewalk and crossing locations. The 2022 FHWA Pedestrian Lighting Primer offers design criteria for pedestrian lighting and outlines a process for creating local pedestrian lighting standards based on pedestrian facility type and pedestrian activity. The primer includes a flowchart to help determine suitable pedestrian lighting applications (see Figure 12). The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Roadway Lighting Design Guide, 7th Edition also offers roadway lighting guidelines and criteria. These processes and criteria that are simply provided as examples. Reviewing this guidance, considering amending or adopting local standards with respect to pedestrian lighting, and conducting a lighting review at locations identified in the Implementation section of this LRSP will help promote nighttime pedestrian safety throughout the city. Figure 12: Example Pedestrian -Scale Lighting. Source: 2012 Seattle DOT Pedestrian Lighting Citywide Plan Figure 13 on the following page shows locations that meet the following criteria: • Annualized collision severity score of at least 10 (an average of approximately 10 property -damage -only collisions per year, or one moderate injury collision per year); and at least • One third of collisions occurring at night or one fatal/severe injury collision occurring at night 57 907 Figure 13: Recommended Pedestrian Lighting Criteria Selection Flowchart. Refer to other Applicable Resources CRITERIA SELECTION PROCESS Urban High ROADWAY ADJACENT? YES CROSSWALK No PED VOLUME LEVELS 10 lux sc URBAN OR RURAL Rural Urban YES Low/ Medium 2 lux vertical 2 cd/m2 Source: 2022 FHWA Pedestrian Lighting Primer URBAN OR RURAL Rural 1 cd/m2 PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING? YES FHWA Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Cro s swalk 20 vertical lux Average b CRITERIA SELECTED ivlinimum maintained average pavement luminace from RP-8-18 NO CRITERIA SELECTED Add 2 Lux SC and 0.5 cd/m3 58 908 Figure 14. Nighttime Collision Priority Intersections DpVONA CR "2 09 s" Eyo PO Ol fl/ OR z o o o Ku, Zy 30 q 2 P L a p a� �Vkwy/Ama o aoDR y y Valley Blvd Valley Blvd y • Dougherty t •San Ramon A ^VAil Rd?Amador „r9 y 2 Valley Blvd Pe�,N e`• • Dublin Blvd/San Ram DODublin y`— Blvd/Don`-- � DOUGHERTY RD c 4 HACIENDA DR CENTRAL PW G 4 jetlN^ 0 jkl-S 4 � A 3 GLEASON DR Rd/Houston PI •Dublin so ,,N •Dublin • Dublin Blvd/Hacienda Dr Blvd/Village RA • Dublin BlvdfDougherty Rd Blvd/Arnold Rd Pkwy *Dublin Blvd/Dublin Ct 00 ANYONE W V ryIADOEN Wy N s •Central PkwylGrattan St • Dubtin Blvdfrassajara Rd 09 ap �OPW 'tenon Rd/Bent Tree Dr •Dublin BlvdlFallon Rd ©G"Ofl —-- — - -- - • Nighttime Crash Intersections Dublin City Limits I` KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES Mlles 0 Nighttime Crash Priority Intersections Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Dublin, CA J9 909 SIGNAL VISIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS Emphasis Areas Addressed 8 At signalized intersections, simple hardware improvements can improve signal visibility and address patterns of broadside, rear -end, nighttime, and red -light -running collisions. These hardware upgrades improve signal visibility and have been shown to reduce related collisions by as much as 15 percent: • Lenses with LED lighting increase traffic signal visibility. • Back -plates with retroreflective borders improves signal head visibility during daytime and nighttime conditions. • Mounting assemblies include mast arms, span wires, and side - mounted vehicular signals. Upgrading the mounting assembly may improve signal hardware longevity. • Larger lenses may improve signal visibility. HSIP Cycle 11 funding was pursued in September 2022 to improve signal hardware at 14 signalized intersections, primarily along arterials and the HIN (see Figure 15). Locations where this treatment can be proactively applied should continue to be identified. Figure 15: Retroreflective backplates improve signal visibility. Source: Eliobed Suarez on Unsplash. 60 Figure 16: Signal Hardware Improvement Locations Identified for HSIP Cycle 11 7 °Mg C 9 San Ramon Rd/Shannon SWAN Nall a"1 v fi Amador ', Valley Blvd/San Ramon Rd Dui! Ramon Rd • Blvd/San BRIGHTO+ ."L TANIA R'i` 0P9 P Am ado r Valley Blvd/Village Pkwy YO YDR Dublin Blvd/Village Pkwy '\ a DOUGHERTY RD In CZ w Sierra ri ln/Dougherty Rd w M SORT', DUBLIN %- Dublin Dublin /t}ubIli CY Blvd/Dougherty RdLi Du In • L. BNd/SierraCt ARLETfCT 49.0, ^1437 Dublin City Limits i Pertinent Intersections KITTELSON u` &ASSOCIATES Arnold Rd/Dublin Blvd n Ramon • as •, • - DUBLIN 5- Pleasanton ti 4 d GLEASON DR -74MER GLEN DR CENTRAL PIN CC o • .Dublin Blvd/Hacienda Dr aMARTINELLI Wig& Martinelli Wy/Hacienda Dr iiACIENDA DR Dublin Blvd/Tassajara Rd • BRANNIGAN $T lfvermor.! a poskmo WV Grafton St/Central Pkwy ■ Miles 0 Vicinity Map - Signalized Intersection Improvements Dublin, CA HSIP Cycle 11 61 911 OTHER SYSTEMIC OPPORTUNITIES CENTERLINE HARDENING Emphasis Areas Addressed Centerline hardening is an intersection treatment that reduces the speed of turning vehicles and improves pedestrian visibility. The basic hardened centerline treatment consists of five pieces of rubber curb and bollards and/or rubber speed bumps installed on the centerline and extending at a maximum of six feet into the intersection. The treatment can be implemented in a low-cost fashion with quick -build materials. Because centerline hardening can calm left turns, this treatment can be proactively implemented at intersections with left -turn geometry that otherwise allow for high-speed left turns. Figure 17. Centerline Hardening Example in Oakland, California Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc. 62 912 Action Items and Performance Measures Aligning action items with goals and identifying metrics for measuring success helps track progress toward a safer Dublin for everyone. The listed performance measures can be used in subsequent plan updates to assess progress. Table 6. Goals, Action Items, and Performance Measures IMPLEMENT SAFETY COUNTERMEASURES TO REDUCE RISK OF FUTURE COLLISIONS. Action Items Near Term and Ongoing • Identify opportunities to implement short-term countermeasures at prioritized locations (see Site Specific Treatments). • Study the need for roadway and pedestrian -scale lighting at the prioritized locations with nighttime collision history (see Figure 13 on page 59) • Pursue HSIP and Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) grant funding Long Term • Identify opportunities to implement low-cost, systemic application countermeasures identified in this plan as part of all projects (such as development review, repaving, and new projects) • Track future grant opportunities and pursue safety project grants with each available funding cycle (see Appendix F: Funding) • Revisit medium- and long-term countermeasures (see Site Specific Treatments) for inclusion in City's Capital Improvement Program or for future grant funding opportunities (see Appendix F: Funding) Performance Measures ✓ Number of fatal and injury collisions (all levels) in identified emphasis areas ✓ Number of fatal and severe injury collisions citywide ✓ Grant money received for safety projects ✓ Annual expenditure on safety improvements 63 913 Goal Action Items Performance Measures ANALYZE DATA TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE OPPORTUNITIES. Near Term and Ongoing • Review collision data in subsequent plan updates to evaluate progress on emphasis areas and for fatal/severe injury collision frequency. • Compare the City's internal collision database with publicly available collision data in subsequent plan updates to identify potential missing collisions in either database. • Continuously engage with the community to identify and document locations of concern, in recognition that collision data do not tell the whole story. Long Term • Update the LRSP goals and emphasis areas with subsequent plan updates. • Evaluate need for traffic control change or additional crossing improvements at locations with anticipated growth (e.g., as part of development review) ✓ Number of fatal and injury collisions (all levels) in identified emphasis areas ✓ Summary of feedback received (quantity, type, and location) regarding safety issues ✓ Number of safety improvements implemented at priority locations ✓ Number of systemic countermeasures applied to address emphasis areas 64 914 Goal Action Items Performance Measures PROMOTE A CULTURE OF ROADWAY SAFETY IN DUBLIN'S AGENCIES AND RESIDENTS. 1 Near Term and Ongoing • Continue to engage with Dublin schools through existing venues like the Traffic Safety Committee to plan and promote school educational training and encouragement using school resource officers, bicycle rodeos, or other events at Dublin schools. • Establish educational programs to reduce driving under the influence and aggressive driving. • Work with the City Office of Communications to regularly communicate with the public on roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle safety. Use findings in this plan to align messaging priorities with emphasis areas. • Continue to coordinate with Dublin Police Services on location and emphasis areas and deploy speed trailers in mutually -agreed -upon HIN locations. Long Term • Continue to share best practices related to safety and coordinate with Alameda CTC and its member agencies. • Continue to identify opportunities to acquire grant funds or partner with local advocacy organizations for other educational opportunities. • Review City policies, standards, and guidelines, and identify updates that would promote evolving safety best practices. ✓ Number of events hosted, and summary of educational activities led by the City ✓ Frequency of communication with identified partners on safety initiatives ✓ Recency of guidelines and standard drawings (revisit for updates at least every five years) ✓ Number of safety improvements implemented at priority locations Attachment 3 PPENDIX A: COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDERS This section presents community stakeholders which can be valuable for future safety -related engagement and outreach. Organization Website Number & Email WHEELS https://www.wheelsbus.com/ 925-828-0231 info@lavta.org Dial -a -Ride https://www.wheelsbus.com/ 925-455-7510 info@lavta.or. Bike East Bay The Trail Group Valley Spokesmen Bicycle Club Indians in Dublin, Ca Asian Pacific Islander American Public Affairs Integrity in Action Chamber of Commerce Innovation Tri-Valley Dublin Senior Foundation Dublin Community Foundation New Life Church Muslim Community Center Valley Christian Center https://bikeeastbay.org/ Not Available https://www.valleyspokesmen.org Facebook Link https://www.apapa.org Dublin-integrity-in-action.org http.//www.dublinchamberofcommerce.org Not Available Not Available http.//www.dublinfoundation.org/v http.//www.newlifeinfo.com https://mcceastbay.org/ www.comediscovervcc.org kri s ti@bikeeastbay. or Not Available 925-828-5299 webmaster@valleyspokesmen.org Not Available 916-928-9988 info@apapa.org info@dublinintegrityinaction.org 925-828-6200, Inge Houston, CEO/President, ceo@dublinchamberofcommerce.or. Lynn Naylor, CEO, lnaylor@innovationtrivalley.org 925-833-1866 614-889-2001 925-355-9200 925-485-1786 contact@mcceastbay.org 925-560-6202 l 917 Organization Website Number & Email Blazing Fire Church https://blazingfire.org/home 925-264-9161 info@blazingfire.or. Dublin Art Collective Facebook.com/DublinArtCa https://dacarts.org/contact/ Sri Panchamukha https://panchamukhahanuman.org/ 510-926-7638 Hanuman Temple pmhtemple@gmail.com Dublin Fighting Irish http://www.dublinfightingirish.org 510-714-1439 irishyouthfootball@yahoo.com Tri-Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau Tri-Valley YMCA Women's Club of Dublin/San Ramon Dublin Sister City Association Dublin Partners in Education Dublin Lions Club Girl Scouts Not Available Not Available https://dsrwomensclub.org/ Facebook Link www.dpie.org Not Available https.//www.crossroadsgirlscouts.com/ 925-846-8910 925-263-4444 925-828-0231 dsrwcmail@gmail.com 925-899-4771 925-828-2551 x8024 925-828-6636 steve6gd@yahoo.com 800-447-4475 crossroadsgirlscouts@gmail.com Boy Scouts of http://www.sfbac.org/about/ebscoutshop 925-785-4518 America jalewis@bsamail.org Dublin Historical Preservation http://dhpa.org/ dhpaorg@gmail.com Association 925-462-4518 Dublin 4-H https://www.dublin4h.com/ cnattu@gmail.com badami@gmail.com Child Care Links https://behively.org/ 925 417 8733 hello@behively.org BART BART.gov Kamala Parks, KParks2@bart.gov Senior Support Programs of the Tri- Not Not Valley Available Available Alameda County Safe Routes to School http://alamedacountysr2s.org/ info@alamedacountysr2s.org 2 918 Organization Website Number & Email Kaiser Permanente Zeiss Meditec Vagaro HQ TriNet HQ Patelco Credit Union HQ AEye HQ Ross Stores HQ Graybar Chabot Las Positas Community College District Dublin San Ramon Services District Camp Parks Tri-Valley Career Center Federal Corrections Institute Alameda County (Courthouse, Office of Emergency Services, County Jail) https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org www.zeiss.com www.vagaro.com www.trinet.com www.patelco.org www.aeye.ai https://corp.rossstores.com/ contact-us-corp www.graybar.com www.clpccd.org www.DSRSD.com https: //home.army.mil/parks/index.php https://www.trivalleycareercenter.org/ hdps.//www.bop.gov/locations/ institutions/dub/ https.//www.alamedacountysheriff.org/ Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/ FacilityDirectory/56/33 Ronald Wetter, Community & Governmental Relations Manager, ronald.wetter@kp.org Mark Boyd, Sr. Facilities Manager, mar.boyd@zeiss.com Kerry Melchoir, Director of Operations, kerrymelchior@vagaro.com Jay Meyer, Director of Facilities, jay.meyer@trinet.com Cara Houck, Community and Corporate Social Responsibility Specialist, chouck@patelco.org Jennifer Deitsch, Communications Director Lynn Mayate, Corporate HR, lynn.mayate@rocs. com Kristian Reyes, Kristian.Reyes@graybar.com Julia Dozier, District Executive Director, jdozier@clpccd.org Judy Zavadil, zavadil@dsrsd.com Brian Lucid, Analyst, brian.m.lucid.civ@mail.mil Sarah Holtzclaw, Program Manager, soltzclaw@clpccd.org DUB-ExecAs sistant-S@bop.gov 925-833-7500 925-803-7800 3 919 PPENDIX B: COLLISION ANALYSIS MEMO I�KITTELSON \ &ASSOCIATES 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505 Oakland, CA 94612 P 510.839.1742 Technical Memorandum October 11, 2022 To: Sai Midididdi, TE; Pratyush Bhatia, PE, TE City of Dublin From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. RE: Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Project# 26647 TASK 3.2 - COLLISION ANALYSIS MEMO This memorandum summarizes five years of collision data (2016 - 2020) and trends within the City of Dublin (City) as part of the Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). It is organized into the following sections: 1. Executive Summary 2. Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends o All Road Users o Pedestrians o Bicyclists o Comparison with Strategic Highway Safety Plan o Recommended Emphasis Areas 3. Network Screening Findings 4. Next Steps The data used for this analysis were compiled from SWITRS and Crossroads databases as detailed in Attachment A. 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The following presents a summary of findings from this report. All findings are explained in further detail throughout the remainder of the report. 1.1 Collision Patterns and Trends 1.1.1 ALL ROAD USERS Descriptive analysis of reported collisions found the following: • 1,455 collisions were reported (291 per year average), including 18 fatal/severe injury collisions (3.6 per year average). • Intersection collisions are more frequent than segment collisions, representing 82% of reported collisions and 74% of fatal/severe injury collisions. • Rear end, broadside, and hit object collisions are the most frequent collision types. Among fatal/severe injury collisions, the two most common types are vehicle/pedestrian and hit object collisions. Therefore, those four collision types were the focus of detailed analysis. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 921 October 11, 2022 Page 2 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Executive Summary • Unsafe speed, improper turning, and automobile right of way1 are the most frequently reported primary collision factors, together accounting for 54% of all reported collisions. Driving/bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drug, unsafe speed, and improper turning together account for 50% of fatal/severe injury collisions. 1.1.2 BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS Descriptive analysis of bicycle- and pedestrian -involved collisions found the following: • 53 collisions (4% of reported) involved pedestrians, including 5 fatal/severe injury collisions (28% of fatal/severe injury citywide). • 4 of the fatal/severe injury collisions occurred in dark or dusk conditions. • 56 collisions (4% of reported) involved bicyclists, including 2 severe injury collisions (11 % of fatal/severe injury citywide). 1.1.3 COMPARISONS TO STATEWIDE AVERAGES • The City has at least a 10% higher share of fatal and severe injury collisions than the statewide levels2 for the following challenge areas: o Aging driver collisions (22% compared to 12%) o Pedestrian collisions (28% compared to 17%) o Intersection collisions (72% compared to 23%) 1.1.4 EMPHASIS AREA RECOMMENDATIONS • Pedestrian collisions: These collisions account for 28% of all fatal/severe injury collisions as compared to 17% of all statewide fatal/severe injury collisions. Pedestrian collisions occurred mostly at intersections. • Nighttime safety: A disproportionate share of fatal/severe injury collisions, including pedestrian collisions, occur in dusk/dawn or dark conditions. • Aging drivers: These collisions account for 22% of all fatal/severe injury collisions as compared to 12% of all statewide fatal/severe injury collisions. • Signalized local/arterial intersections: These intersections constitute the plurality of rear end and broadside collisions. Hit object collisions, which are the most frequent fatal/severe injury collision types, also primarily occur at signalized intersections. • Driver behavior: Including impaired driving and aggressive driving. o Impaired Driving account for over 25% of all fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin. o Aggressive Driving accounts for over 15% of all fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin. 1 This is a reported primary collision factor that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to oncoming traffic. This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic. 2 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan 2020-2024: https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety- programs/documents/shsp/2022-shsp-full-report-2020-2024-a 1 1 y.pdf Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 922 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 3 Executive Summary 1.2 Network Screening Findings • Intersection and roadway locations were evaluated based on five-year collision frequency and severity. A collision severity score was calculated and used to identify priority locations. • 15 priority intersections are identified. • 5 priority roadways are identified. The identified priority locations based on collision severity score are presented in Table 1. The top scoring intersections and segments were reviewed to determine priority locations for safety improvements and upcoming HSIP applications. The final list of priority locations may change from the table below. Table 1. Priority Intersections and Roadways based on Collision Severity Score e Location Location Type Collision Severity Score Total No. Collisions Priority Intersections 1 Arnold Rd & Dublin Blvd 2 Dublin Blvd & Village Pkwy Sig. Int. Sig. Int. 3 Donlon Way & Dublin Blvd Unsig. Int. 4 Amador Valley Blvd & San Ramon Rd Sig. Int. 59.9 49.4 42.1 41.1 17 43 6 18 Fatal / Severe Injury Collisions 2 1 1 1 Other Injury Collisions 8 15 3 9 PDO Collisions 7 27 2 8 5 Regional St & Regional Common Unsig. Int. 38.8 5 1 0 4 6 Winding Trail Ln & Rolling Hills Dr Unsig. Int. 38.0 1 1 0 0 7 Lucania St & Brighton Dr Unsig. Int. 38.0 1 1 0 0 8 Tyne Ct & Penn Dr Unsig. Int. 38.0 1 1 0 0 9 Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd Sig. Int. 37.2 65 0 22 43 10 San Ramon Rd & Shannon Ave Sig. Int. 29.3 8 1 3 4 11 Dublin Ct & Dublin Blvd Sig. Int. 27.3 13 1 1 11 12 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd Sig. Int. 25.8 34 0 16 18 13 Grafton St & Central Pkwy Sig. Int. 24.3 3 1 0 2 14 Bent Tree Dr & Fallon Rd Sig. Int. 23.9 1 1 0 0 15 Martinelli Way & Hacienda Dr Sig. Int. 18.5 28 0 10 18 Priority Roadways Dougherty Rd (north of Willow Creek Dr to south of 8th St) - 0.75 1 mi 2 Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr to Gleason Dr) - 0.75 mi Arterial Arterial 36.2 8 1 2 5 35.5 4 1 1 2 Village Pkwy (northern city limits to 3 north of Tamarack Dr) - 0.69 mi Collector 35.3 8 1 1 6 4 Amador Valley Blvd (Burton St to Dougherty Rd) - 0.75 mi Arterial 34.1 2 1 1 0 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 923 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 4 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Location Location Type Collision Severity Score Total No. Collisions Fatal / Severe Injury Collisions Other Injury Collisions PDO Collisions Tassajara Rd (northern city limits to 5 Fallon Rd) - 0.50 mi Arterial 33.1 2 Note: Priority locations are based on collision severity scores and may change. 0 2 CITYWID •LL SION PATTERNS AND TRENDS This section presents citywide collision patterns and trends. This analysis focuses on identifying behavioral and roadway patterns associated with injury and fatal collision outcomes. By analyzing reported collisions together, systemic trends and emphasis areas across locations can be identified. From these, countermeasures can be selected in subsequent project tasks. Analysis emphasis is given to fatal/severe injury collisions because these outcomes represent life -changing events. Preventing all collisions from occurring may not be a realistic goal, but an focus on safety should emphasize reducing the most severe outcomes that occur on roadways. Fatal and severe injury collisions are typically grouped together in this analysis because the difference between those outcomes is often a difference in emergency response time or the health conditions of the parties involved rather than the collision itself (the circumstances of such collisions are often similar and can therefore be analyzed together). 2.1 Collision Data The database is comprised of the most recent five years of reported collisions available on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and the City's data in the Crossroads software, representing January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020. These data sources were merged into a consolidated database that consists of 1,455 reported collisions. Methods and decisions relating to the merging of these databases are described in Attachment A. Collision severity is coded according to the highest degree of injury experienced, and the data used for this analysis includes the following coded severity levels (listed in descending order): • Fatal: death because of injuries sustained in the collision. • Severe Injury: Injuries include, for example, broken bones, severe lacerations, or other injuries that go beyond the reporting officer's assessment of "other visible injuries." • Moderate Injury: (Also referred to as other visible injury), an injury, other than those described above, that is evident to observers at the scene of the collision —for example, bruises or minor lacerations. • Minor Injury: (Also referred to as complaint of pain or suspected injury). Internal or other non -visible injuries —for example, a person limps or seems incoherent. • Property damage only (PDO): No injuries sustained For simplicity in presentation, moderate injury and minor injury collisions are frequently collapsed into a single other injury category. 2.2 All Road Users The findings in this section are organized as follows: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 924 October 11, 2022 Page 5 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends • Collision severity • Collision location • Collision type • Primary collision factor • Temporal trends • Other factors 2.2.1 COLLISION SEVERITY A total of reported 1,455 collisions are present in the compiled database. The collisions are from the period of January 1, 2016, through December 31, 2020. A summary of collision severity and road user type is presented in Table 2. Pedestrians and bicyclists are each involved in 4% of reported collisions across all locations and severity levels but represent larger shares of injury and fatal collisions. Pedestrian and bicyclist trends are explored in more detail in subsequent sections. Table 2: Road Users Involved and Collision Severity, Dublin, 2016-2020 Road Users Involved Number of Fatal Collisions Number of Severe Injury Collisions Number of Moderate Injury Collisions Number of Minor Injury Collisions Number of Property Damage Collisions Total Reported Fatal / Severe Injury Collisions (% of Column) Total Reported Collisions (% of Column) Pedestrian Involved Bicycle Involved Motor Vehicle Only or Vehicle -Fixed Object Total Reported Collisions 1 1 2 4 20 21 7 5 (28%) 53 (4%) 2 24 22 8 2 (11%) 56 (4%) 10 1 1 1 293 932 11 (61%) 16 155 336 947 18 (100%) 1,347 (92%) 1,455 (100%) Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. Note: There is one crash that is coded as both a pedestrian and bicyclist involved collision. Therefore, total reported collisions will not add up to the pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicle collisions. 2.2.2 COLLISION LOCATION Reported collisions are broken down by location and further broken down into type of intersection control and pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle collisions (Figure 1). The following trends are present: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 925 October 11, 2022 Page 6 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends • Most collisions (84%) occur at intersections. • Signalized intersections represent most collisions (58%) and the plurality of fatal/severe injury collisions (44%). • Just over one third of fatal/severe injury collisions occur at an intersection and involve a pedestrian or bicyclist (34%). • Segment collisions, when they occur, are more likely severe than intersection collisions (2% of segment collisions are fatal/severe injury, compared to 1% of intersection collisions). Figure 1: Reported Collisions by Location, Dublin, 2016-2020 TOTAL COLLISIONS Total Collisions:1,455 Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions:18 INTERSECTION TOTAL COLLISIONS 1,224 (84%) FATALISEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 13 (12 » SIGNAL TOTAL COLLISIONS 844 (58%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS B (44%) PEDESTRIAN TOTAL COLLISIONS 26 (2%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 2 (11%) cfa BICYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 34 (2°) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 1 (6%) Ai 3 I t MOTOR VEHICLE & MOTORCYCLE TOTALCOLUSIONS185 (54%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS S (28%) UNSIGNALIZED TOTAL COLLISIONS 380 (26%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 5 (28%) SEGMENT TOTALCOLLISIONS231(I6%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 5 (28%) PEDESTRIAN TOTAL COLLISIDNS24 a%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS3(17%) BICYCLE TOTAL COLLISIDNS11(1%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 0 (09L) MOTOR VEHICLE & MOTORCYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 345 (Z4%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 2 (11%) • PEDESTRIAN TOTAL COLLISIONS 3 (c1%) FATAL{SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 0 (0%) BICYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 11 (1%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS' (6%) AA* MOTOR VEHICLE & MOTORCYCLE TOTAL COLLISIONS 21) (15%) FATAL/SEVERE INJURY COLLISIONS 400 Reported collisions by location, City of Dublin, January 2016 - December 2020 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 926 October 11, 2022 Page 7 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends 2.2.3 COLLISION TYPL Reported collision types indicate the movements most frequently resulting in collisions and severe outcomes. Figure 2 presents the distribution of collision types and severity levels. • The three most frequent collision types are rear end, broadside, and hit object. These three collision types account for 69% of all reported collisions. • The three most frequent collision types resulting in fatal or severe injury are vehicle/pedestrian, other, and hit object. Vehicle/pedestrian and hit object collisions together account for 69% of fatal/severe injury collisions. • These four collision types —rear end, broadside, hit object, and vehicle/pedestrian, are focus collision types for this analysis given that they represent a substantial portion of collisions, injuries, and roadway deaths in the City. Figure 2: Collisions by Type and Severity, Dublin, 2016-2020 Collision Count 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 Rear End Broadside Hit Object Sideswipe Head -On Other Vehicle/Pedestrian Not Stated Overturned Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 2.2.4 PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR • Severe Injury/Fatal • Other Injury • Property Damage Only Reporting officers identify a primary collision factor (PCF) for each collision. There are a number of different PCFs from which an officer can select in filling out a report, corresponding to various California Vehicle Code (CVC) violations. It is up to the officer's judgment and information available at the scene for them to select the single factor they deem most relevant to the collision. Figure 3 presents collisions by reported PCF and severity. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 927 October 11, 2022 Page 8 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends • The three most frequent PCFs Citywide are unsafe speed, improper turning, and automobile right of way3 . These three PCFs account for 54% of reported collisions. • The most frequent PCFs that result in fatal or severe injury are driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drug, unsafe speed, and improper turning. These three PCFs account for 50% of fatal/severe injury collisions. Figure 3: Collisions by PCF and Severity, Dublin, 2016-2020 Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Automobile Right of Way Traffic Signals and Signs Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Unknown Unsafe Lane Change Other Improper Driving Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. Collision Count 0 100 200 300 I Elm F 1 2.2.4.1 Primary Collision Factor and Collision Type 400 500 • Severe Injury/Fatal • Other Injury • Property Damage Only For the focus collision types listed in the previous section - rear end, broadside, hit object, and vehicle/pedestrian—associated PCFs are further analyzed. Table 3 presents this cross tabulation. The table shows: • Rear end collisions are most frequently associated with unsafe speed (72% of collisions). • Broadside collisions are associated most frequently with automobile right of way4 or traffic signals and signs5 (32% and 33% respectively). These are likely associated with driveway access or intersections and are explored in more detail later. • 68% of hit object collisions are caused by three PCFs: improper turning, unsafe speed, and driving/bicycling under the influence. • 51% of vehicle/pedestrian collisions are attributed to either a pedestrian or a driver violation the other's right of way. More detailed trends are explored in Section 2.3. 3 This is a reported PCF that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right- of-way to oncoming traffic. This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic. 4 This is a reported primary collision factor that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic. 5 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to adhere to traffic control (e.g. running a stop sign or red signal indication). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 928 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 9 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends • Three fatal or severe injury collisions involving bicyclists are recorded as other collision types. Bicyclist - involved collisions are analyzed and discussed in Section 2.4. Table 3: Collision Type by PCF (PCFs Sum to 100%), Dublin, 2016 - 2020 Primary Collision Factor Automobile Right of Way Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Improper Turning Other Improper Driving Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian) Pedestrian Right of Way Pedestrian Violation Traffic Signals and Signs Unknown Unsafe Speed Unsafe Starting or Backing Wrong Side of Road Other PCFs Total Reported Collisions Collision Type Rear End (% of Column) 1% Broadside (% of Column) 2% 5% - 9% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 727 7% 0% 1% 1% 0% 33% 9% Hit Object (% of Column) 0% 15% 7% 7% 0% 0% 1% 6% Vehicle / Pedestrian (% of Column 2% 0% 0% 10% 0% 29% 22% 2% 2% 6% 3% 2% 1% 2% 3% 5% 8% 406 (100%) Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 309 (100%) 291 (100%) 6% 0% Other (% of Column) 2% 7% 7% 7% 4% 0% 4% 1 11% 9% 3% 51 (100%) 57 (100%) Notes: The three highest PCFs for each collision type are If there is a tie for the third highest, all tied PCFs are highlighted. Only focus collision types are shown and totaled in this table (three most frequent or three most frequent among fatal/severe injury). PCFs with less than 6% share across listed collision types are grouped into the "Other PCFs" category to improve legibility. Totals may not sum to 100% due to rounding. 2.2.4.2 Primary Collision Factor and Roadway Characteristics The previous sections established focus collision types and their most frequent PCFs citywide. This section analyzes the frequency of location types for each collision type and PCF combination to provide greater detail on potential emphasis areas for the City. Location characteristics are further analyzed using intersection type and roadway functional class. The following were analyzed: • Rear end collisions at intersections: 28% of citywide collisions are rear end, the most frequent collision type (Table 4). 84% of rear end collisions occurred at an intersection. • Broadside collisions at intersections: 21 % of citywide collisions are broadside, the second most frequent collision type (Table 5). 84% of broadside collisions occurred at an intersection. • Hit Object collisions at intersections: 33% of fatal/severe injury collisions are hit object, the most frequent collision type among fatal/severe injury (Table 6). 76% of hit object collisions occurred at an intersection. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 929 October 11, 2022 Page 10 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Vehicle/pedestrian collisions were the second most frequent collision type among fatal/severe injury collisions and are analyzed in detail in Section 2.3. Rear end collisions are analyzed by intersection type and PCFs in Table 4. Rear end collisions at intersections most frequently occur at signals (74% of collisions) and with a reported PCF of unsafe speed (75%) . • Among rear end collisions at intersections, 137 (46%) occur at signalized intersections of arterials with locals/collectors and 81 (27%) occur at signalized arterial/arterial intersections. • Most of these collisions have a reported PCF of unsafe speed. Table 4: Rear End Collisions by Intersection Type, Intersecting Functional Class, and PCF, Dublin, 2016-2020 Intersection Type Intersecting Functional Class Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Unsafe Starting or Backing Total Signalized 5 a 1) oca L•l•7IMr•Tj 12 2 2 12 81 11 137 8 0 0 uu a) a) 0 0 U U Ts Ts 0 0 3 Unsignalized 4 3 5 0 oca I F i 2 2 25 29 0 0 uu a) a) 0 0 U U 00 7 10 Total 27 17 23 228 2 26 42 298 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. Notes: Local roads were taken to include collector and residential roads. Collisions with an unknown intersecting functional class were omitted from this table (4 collisions). Collisions at an intersection with a freeway ramp were omitted from this table (4 collisions). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 930 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 11 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Broadside collisions are analyzed by intersection type and PCFs in Table 5. Broadside collisions at intersections most frequently occur at signals (79%) and with a reported PCF of traffic signals and signs.6 Among broadside collisions at intersections, 126 (54%) occur at local/arterial signalized intersections. Table 5: Broadside Collisions by Intersection Type, Intersecting Functional Class, and PCF, Dublin, 2016-2020 Intersection Type Intersecting Functional Class Automobile Right of Way7 Improper Turning Traffic Signals and Signs8 Unknown Total Signalized 13 6 23 11 53 3•zK•_tr&=i i4M 1 Unsignalized 30 i 1 0 10 1 0 17 17 3 5 3 0 2 2 14 0 26mg, Total 78 25 102 28 233 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. Notes: Local roads were taken to include collector and residential roads. Collisions with an unknown intersecting functional class were omitted from this table (4 collisions). Collisions at an intersection with a freeway ramp were omitted from this table (4 collisions). 6 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to adhere to traffic control (e.g. running a stop sign or red signal indication). 7 This is a reported primary collision factor that indicates one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to yield right-of-way to conflicting traffic. 8 This is a reported PCF that indicated one of several California Vehicle Violation codes indicating a failure to adhere to traffic control (e.g. running a stop sign or red signal indication). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 931 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 12 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Hit object collisions are analyzed by intersection type and PCFs in Table 6. Hit object collisions at intersections most frequently occur at signals (107 of 171 collisions, or 63%) and with a reported PCF of improper turning. Among hit object collisions at intersections, the most frequently occurring location and PCF combinations are improper turning at arterial/local signalized intersections (21%). Table 6: Hit Object Collisions by Intersection Type, Intersecting Functional Class, and PCF, Dublin, 2016-2020 Intersection Type Intersecting Functional Class Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug Improper Turning Other Improper Driving Unsafe Speed Total Signalized 8 7 7 22 16 3 77 Unsignalized I371' 7['11:737M7M! 3 3 8 • aria o a + Loca .1 8 3 .12 3 4 8 11 53 Total 37 72 14 48 171 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. Notes: Local roads were taken to include collector and residential roads. Collisions with an intersecting with a freeway ramp were omitted from this table (2 collisions). 2.2.5 TEMPORAL TRENDS 2.2.5.1 Year -Over -Year On average, there are 291 reported collisions per year and 3.6 reported fatal/severe injury collisions per year between 2016 and 2020. Total reported collisions increase year -over -year from 2016 to 2019. In 2020, collisions dropped below previous years (Table 7). This trend holds true for other injury and PDO collisions, but severe injury collisions have the greatest number of collisions in 2020 while total collisions drop significantly. Single -year trends are not necessarily indicative of improved or decreased safety performance given and may be sensitive to random fluctuations. Collision totals for 2020 may be provisional, given that the California Highway Patrol -maintained SWITRS database is updated over time and collision data can take over a year to process and include. Further, cities in the United States experienced a decrease in traffic volumes in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic but an increase in traffic fatalities.9 While 2020 totals appear lower than previous years, its data should not be directly compared or used in isolation as indication of roadway safety performance. 9 https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 932 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 13 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Table 7: Collisions by Year, Dublin, 2016-2020 Year 2016 Collision Count 288 Fatal 1 Severe Injury 4 104 PDO 179 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total 294 323 346 204 1,455 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 0 0 1 0 2 2 101 191 4 108 211 1 125 219 5 52 147 16 490 947 2.2.5.2 Time -of -Day and Day -of -Week Collisions are further analyzed by time -of -day and day -of -week. ■ The highest concentration of collisions occurs between Tuesday and Friday between 8 am and 6 pm (Table 8). ■ One half of all fatal and severe injuries (9) occur between 8 pm and 2 am (Table 9). ■ Trends are similar on weekdays and weekends but AM, midday, PM peaks are more noticeable on weekdays than weekends (Figure 4). Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 933 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 14 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Table 8: Collisions by Time -of -Day and Day -of -Week, Dublin, 2016-2020 Hour of Day Sun f111 Tues Weds Thurs W.71 Sat 12:00 AM - 12:59 AM 1:00 AM - 1:59 AM 2:00 AM - 2:59 AM 3:00 AM - 3:59 AM 4:00 AM - 4:59 AM 5:00 AM - 5:59 AM 6:00 AM - 6:59 AM 7:00 AM - 7:59 AM 8:00 AM - 8:59 AM 9:00 AM - 9:59 AM 10:00 AM - 10:59 AM 11:00 AM - 11:59 AM 12:00 PM - 12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM - 2:59 PM 3:00 PM - 3:59 PM 4:00 PM - 4:59 PM 5:00 PM - 5:59 PM 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM 8:00 PM - 8:59 PM 9:00 PM - 9:59 PM 10:00 PM - 10:59 PM 11:00 PM - 11:59 PM 5 1 1 3 4 2 2 3 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 4 4 7 12 6 5 7 8 16 27 7 10 11 13 5 11 8 10 4 15 10 17 12 16 18 22 14 11 19 10 8 11 14 17 11 14 17 20 5 9 17 24 12 17 15 12 13 12 14 3 12 16 12 12 4 10 7 4 8 10 7 13 3 1 8 2 6 4 1 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. Figure 4: Hourly Collisions by Weekday/Weekend, Dublin, 2016-2020 20 Q 18 CD' 8 2 0 6 < 4 0 • 2 O 0 Average Weekday Average Weekend a • < • < < • < a < < a < Q Q o o • 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N • Cri 00 N O Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 1 4 4 2 3 2 1 2 3 1 1 3 2 6 4 5 9 8 5 15 21 3 10 4 4 15 11 11 12 23 8 13 15 13 18 18 16 15 15 10 19 20 11 15 17 9 19 7 14 13 12 15 7 6 10 10 7 9 7 6 5 6 3 7 3 23 7 4 6 2 4 o o o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o Hour of Day Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 934 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 15 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Table 9: Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions by Time -of -Day and Day -of -Week, Dublin, 2016-2020 Hour of Day 12:00 AM - 12:59 AM 1:00 AM - 1:59 AM 2:00 AM - 2:59 AM 3:00 AM - 3:59 AM 4:00 AM - 4:59 AM 5:00 AM - 5:59 AM 6:00 AM - 6:59 AM 7:00 AM - 7:59 AM 8:00 AM - 8:59 AM 9:00 AM - 9:59 AM 10:00 AM - 10:59 AM 11:00 AM - 11:59 AM 12:00 PM - 12:59 PM 1 1 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM - 2:59 PM 3:00 PM - 3:59 PM 4:00 PM - 4:59 PM 5:00 PM - 5:59 PM 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM 8:00 PM - 8:59 PM 9:00 PM - 9:59 PM 1 10:00 PM - 10:59 PM 1 11:00 PM - 11:59 PM Sun Mon Tues Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 2.2.6 OTHER FACTORS 1 Weds 1 1 1 Thurs 1 Fri Sat 1 1 1 Along with driver contributing factors, collisions can also be related to environmental and behavioral factors that are present. Data allow us to examine trends relating to these factors, which include lighting, weather, road surface conditions and alcohol/drug involvement. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 935 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 16 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends 2.2.6.1 Lighting Most collisions occur in daylight conditions (Table 10). For collisions that result in a fatality or severe collision, over half of the collisions occur during dark or dusk conditions. Table 10: Collisions by Lighting, Dublin, 2016-2020 Lighting Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dusk - Dawn Dark - No Street Lights Not Stated Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning Total Collision Count Collision Share Severe/Fatal Collision Count Severe/Fatal Collision Share 1,027 71% 8 44% 326 22% 7 39% 60 4% 2 11% 25 2% 0 0% 15 1% 0 0% 2 0% 1 6% 1,455 100% 18 100% Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 2.2.6.2 Other The following factors are also analyzed to determine relationship between the factors and the severity of collisions. • Weather: No disproportionate relationship is found between all collisions and fatal/severe injury collisions by weather condition. 85% of collisions and 83% of fatal/severe injury collisions occur in clear conditions. • Road Surface: No disproportionate relationship is found between all severities and fatal/severe injury collisions by road surface condition. 91% of collisions and 100% of fatal/severe injury collisions occur on dry road surfaces. • Alcohol/Drug Involvement: Analysis shows a disproportionate relationship between all severities and fatal/severe injury collisions by alcohol/drug involvement. 10% of collisions and 19% of fatal/severe injuries involve alcohol/drugs. 2.3 Pedestrians Of the 1,455 total reported collisions, there are 53 that involved pedestrians. Of these collisions, five (9%) result in a fatality or severe injury. Trends in pedestrian collisions are analyzed and discussed below, including: • Pedestrian action and location • Time -of -day and day -of -week • Lighting Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 936 October 11, 2022 Page 17 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends 2.3.1 PEDESTRIAN ACTION AND LOCATION California collision data include vehicle/pedestrian collisions as a separate collision type. Therefore, we can use the supporting pedestrian action variable in the data to obtain the officer's assessment of where the collision occurred and what the pedestrian was doing before the collision (Figure 5). • 50 vehicle/pedestrian collisions were within 250 feet of an intersection. • 3 vehicle/pedestrian collisions occurred along a roadway segment. • The most frequent pedestrian action was crossing in crosswalk at intersection (55% of pedestrian collisions). Figure 5: Pedestrian Collisions by Pedestrian Action Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection ■ Crossing Not in Crosswalk Not in Road Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection r In Road, Including Shoulder ' 0 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. • Fatal Crashes ■ Severe Injury • Other Injury Property Damage Only 10 20 30 40 Collision Count To better understand the nature of pedestrian -vehicle interactions, pedestrian collisions at intersections are isolated and analyzed by driver and PCF. There are 36 reported pedestrian collisions resulting injury (minor, moderate, or severe) or death that occur at an intersection. Table 11 breaks down pedestrian intersection collisions by control type, driver action, and cited PCF. The table indicates a somewhat even distribution of driver movements. The most frequently cited PCFs at signalized intersections indicate the presence of turning right-of-way conflicts at signalized intersections. The following PCFs are most frequent: • Pedestrian right of way: This PCF indicates that the pedestrian had the right-of-way. • Pedestrian violation: This PCF indicates that the pedestrian violated the CVC. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 937 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 18 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Table 11: Injury and Fatal Pedestrian Collisions at Intersections: Location, Driver Movements, and PCF, Dublin, 2016-2020 Driver Movement Preceding Collision Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Making Left Turn Total Pedestrian Right of Way 2 5 5 12 Pedestrian Violation Traffic Signals and Signs Other Improper Driving Improper Passing Signalized Total a ►ze. n erse Unsafe speed Unknown Pedestrian violation Pedestrian right of way Not Stated Improper turning Unsignalized Total Total 3 1 2 3 9 15 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 2 1 1 1 1 3 11 1 6 1 1 1 1 7 21 3 1 3 3 2 3 2 1 3 15 10 36 Note: Driver movements (i.e., backing, entering traffic, slowing/stopping, stopped in road, other) associated with three or fewer total collisions are excluded from this table for legibility. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 938 October 11, 2022 Page 19 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends 2.3.2 TIME -OF -DAY AND DAY -OF -WEEK Collisions involving pedestrians are distributed throughout the week with concentrations during the morning and evening peak travel periods (Table 12). Fatal and severe injury collisions are distributed throughout the day, with 3 of the 5 collisions occurring between 6:00 PM and 2:00 AM. Table 12: Pedestrian Collisions by Time -of -Day and Day -of -Week, Dublin, 2016-2020 12:00 AM - 12:59 AM 1:00 AM - 1:59 AM 2:00 AM - 2:59 AM 3:00 AM - 3:59 AM 4:00 AM - 4:59 AM 5:00 AM - 5:59 AM 6:00 AM - 6:59 AM 7:00 AM - 7:59 AM 8:00 AM - 8:59 AM 9:00 AM - 9:59 AM 10:00 AM - 10:59 AM 11:00 AM - 11:59 AM 12:00 PM - 12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM - 2:59 PM 3:00 PM - 3:59 PM 4:00 PM - 4:59 PM 5:00 PM - 5:59 PM 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM 8:00 PM - 8:59 PM 9:00 PM - 9:59 PM 10:00 PM - 10:59 PM 11:00PM-11:59PM Sun Mon Tues 1 2 1 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 2.3.3 LIGHTING 1 Weds 1 1 Thurs Fri 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sat 1 1 1 Most pedestrian collisions occur during daylight conditions. However, most pedestrian collisions that result in fatality or severe injury, however, occur during dark or dusk -dawn conditions (Table 13). Collision shares should be interpreted with caution for fatal and severe injuries given that there are five reported fatal/severe injury pedestrian collisions. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 939 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 20 Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Table 13: Pedestrian Collisions by Lighting, Dublin, 2016-2020 Lighting Collision Count Collision Share Severe/Fatal Collision Count Severe/Fatal Collision Share Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dusk - Dawn Dark - No Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 37 8 6 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 20% 20% 40% 0% 20% 2.4 Bicyclists Of the 1,455 total reported collisions, there are 56 that involved bicyclists. 2 of these (4%) result in severe injury. No fatal collisions involving a bicyclist are reported. 2.4.1 COLLISION TYPE AND SEVERITY Most bicyclist collisions are categorized by collision type as other (55%). This is common for bicycle collisions because there is not a specific bicycle -related collision type for an officer to select. The next biggest share of collisions is categorized as broadside (23%) (Figure 6). Figure 6: Bicyclist Collisions by Type and Severity, Dublin, 2016-2020 Other Broadside Rear End Sideswipe Head -On Overturned Hit Object • ■ Severe Injury • Other Injury Property Damage Only 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Collision Count Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 940 October 11, 2022 Page 21 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan 2.4.2 TIME -OF -DAY AND DAY -OF -WEEK Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Collisions involving bicyclists are distributed throughout the week and throughout the day (Table 14). Table 14: Bicyclist Collisions by Time -of -Day and Day -of -Week, Dublin, 2016-2020 12:00 AM - 12:59 AM 1:00 AM - 1:59 AM 2:00 AM - 2:59 AM 3:00 AM - 3:59 AM 4:00 AM - 4:59 AM 5:00 AM - 5:59 AM 6:00 AM - 6:59 AM 7:00 AM - 7:59 AM 8:00 AM - 8:59 AM 9:00 AM - 9:59 AM 10:00 AM - 10:59 AM 11:00 AM - 11:59 AM 12:00 PM - 12:59 PM 1:00 PM - 1:59 PM 2:00 PM - 2:59 PM 3:00 PM - 3:59 PM 4:00 PM - 4:59 PM 5:00 PM - 5:59 PM 6:00 PM - 6:59 PM 7:00 PM - 7:59 PM 8:00 PM - 8:59 PM 9:00 PM - 9:59 PM 10:00 PM - 10:59 PM 11:00PM-11:59PM Sun 2 1 Mon 1 1 Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 2.4.3 LIGHTING Tues 1 Weds Thurs 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Fri 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Sat Most collisions involving bicyclists happen during daylight conditions. Both bicyclist collisions that result in severe injury occurred during daylight conditions (Table 15). Table 15: Bicyclist Collisions by Lighting, Dublin, 2016-2020 Lighting Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dusk - Dawn Dark - No Street Lights Collision Count 42 8 5 1 Collision Share 75% 14% 9% 2% Severe/Fatal Collision Count 2 0 0 0 Severe/Fatal Collision Share 100% 0% 0% 0% Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021. 2 1 1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 941 October 11, 2022 Page 22 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends 2.5 Comparison with Strategic Highway Safety Plan The California 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan is a statewide traffic safety plan that provides guidance to influence development of statewide goals, strategies, and performance measures for local agencies and stakeholders statewide. The SHSP focuses on 16 challenges areas (the 10 bolded challenge areas are subsequently compared to Dublin collision history). The remaining are not compared because the data available for this project do not readily and reliably provide for these : Aging Drivers (R_65 years Ili Emerging Technologies r Speed Management/ old) • Impaired Driving Aggressive Driving • Bicyclists • Intersections • Work Zones • Commercial Vehicles • Lane Departures • Young Drivers (15-20 • Distracted Driving - Motorcyclists years old) • Driver Licensing Occupant Protection • Emergency Response Pedestrians Figure 7 compares the share of fatal/severe injury collisions by challenge area between Dublin's 2016-2020 collision history and the statewide averages presented in the SHSP (based on 2010-2017 collision history). The City has at least a 10% higher share of fatal and severe injury collisions than the statewide levels for the following challenge areas: • Aging Drivers (22% compared to 12%) • Pedestrians (28% compared to 17%) • Intersections (72% compared to 23%) Given the number of fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin (18 over 5 years), only the intersection difference shows statistical significance when compared to statewide average. Nonetheless, the pedestrian and aging driver categories merit focus in LRSP emphasis area and goal development. The SHSP also classifies Intersections, Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Impaired Driving and Speed Management/Aggressive Driving as five of their high priority areas that would be similar to Dublin's LRSP emphasis area and goal development. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 942 October 11, 2022 Page 23 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends Figure 7: Dublin vs. Statewide Challenge Area Involvement, Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions Challenge Area Commercial Vehicles Bicyclists Aging Drivers Young Drivers Pedestrians Motorcyclists Intersections* Impaired Driving Aggressive Driving Lane Departures 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Share of Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions • Dublin Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Share (2016-2020) ■ Statewide Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Share (2010-2017) Source: SWITRS, 2021; City of Dublin, 2021; 2020-2024 SHSP *Indicates difference is statistically significant at the 95% confidence level based on a difference of proportions t-test. 2.6 Recommended Emphasis Areas Based on the analysis presented in Sections 2.2 through 2.5, recommended emphasis areas for the City include: • Pedestrian collisions: These collisions account for 28% of all fatal/severe injury collisions as compared to 17% of all statewide fatal/severe injury collisions. • Nighttime safety: A disproportionate share of fatal/severe injury collisions, including pedestrian collisions, occur in dusk/dawn or dark conditions. • Aging drivers: These collisions account for 22% of all fatal/severe injury collisions as compared to 12% of all statewide fatal/severe injury collisions. • Signalized local/arterial intersections: These intersections constitute the plurality of rear end and broadside collisions. Hit object collisions, which are the most frequent fatal/severe injury collision types, also primarily occur at signalized intersections. • Driver behavior: Including impaired driving and aggressive driving. o Impaired Driving account for over 25% of all fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin. o Aggressive Driving accounts for over 15% of all fatal/severe injury collisions in Dublin. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 943 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 24 Network Screening Findings 13 NETWORK SCREENING FINDINGS Kittelson developed collision severity scores for two analysis scenarios; intersection collisions and roadway collisions. The collision severity scores will help the City identify priority locations for safety improvement projects. 3.1 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) Kittelson used the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) score performance measure from the AASHTO Highway Safety Manual, which assigns weighting factors to collisions by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) collisions. The EPDO performance measure accounts for locations with the highest impact (e.g., locations with high severity collisions and/or high quantity of collisions) and closely aligns with Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. The EPDO calculation was performed for all public intersections and roadway segments, not including state highway facilities. The EPDO performance measure is described below. Moving forward throughout this document, the EPDO performance measure is referred to as a collision severity score. The collision severity score assigns weight to individual collisions based on the collision severity and location of the collision (Table 16). Weights, provided by the 2020 Caltrans' Local Roadway Safety Manual, are based on the cost of property -damage -only (PDO) collisions, assigning each collision with a score relative to a PDO collision. Table 16: Collision Weights by Severity and Location Type Location Type Signalized Intersection Unsignalized Intersection Roadway Fatal Collisions Weighting by Severity Severe Injury Moderate Minor Injury Property Injury Damage Only 119.55 190.23 119.55 190.23 10.70 10.70 6.08 6.08 1.00 1.00 164.66 164.66 10.70 6.08 1.00 Source: Caltrans, Local Roadway Safety: A manual for California's Local Road Owners (Version 1.5), 2020. The weights prioritize fatal and severe injury collisions equally to recognize that a death versus a severe injury is often a function of the individual involved (i.e., age or physical fitness) or of emergency response time. Therefore, both outcomes represent locations where the region may equally value improvements. Collision weights vary by location due to the relative costs associated with the collision severity at the location types. Specifically, unsignalized intersections have a higher cost for fatal and severe collisions because fatal and severe collisions at these locations tend to result in more severely injured persons on average. Intersection Methodology Kittelson first identified signalized and unsignalized intersections in the City roadway network and then defined collisions as intersection or segment collisions. An intersection collision is defined as a collision that occurs within 250 feet of the intersection. These collisions were spatially joined and summarized in ArcGIS to show the total number of collisions by severity at each intersection. Where intersections were less than 500 feet from each other, collisions were assigned to the nearest of the two intersections. Collisions occurring Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 944 October 11, 2022 Page 25 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings more than 250 feet from any intersection were separated to be used in the roadway segment analysis discussed below. The collision severity score is calculated by multiplying each collision severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula: Collision Severity Score = Fatal weight * # of fatal collisions + severe injury weight * # of severe injury collisions + moderate injury weight * # of moderate injury collisions + minor injury weight * # of minor injury weight collisions + property damage only collisions The collision severity score is annualized by dividing the score by the number of years (five) of collision data used in the analysis. Roadway Methodology After completing the intersection analysis, Kittelson used the collisions reported more than 250 feet from the nearest intersection to conduct a separate segment analysis. A Python script in ArcGIS allowed for splitting the Dublin roadway network into overlapping half -mile (0.5) segments, incrementing the segments by one quarter (0.25) of a mile. This methodology helps to identify portions of roadway with the greatest potential for safety improvements. After splitting the network, the Python script spatially joined non -intersection collisions to each segment. Like the intersection methodology above, collisions were summarized by severity, and the totals were multiplied by the collision severity weights for roadway segments. The weighted collision severity scores of the collisions were totaled and annualized by the number of years of collision data (five) to generate an annualized collision severity score. 3.2 Results 3.2.1 NETWORK SCREENING RESULTS This analysis scenario included total reported collision from the last 5 years of data. For intersection locations, the collision severity scores ranged from zero (no reported collisions during the 5 years) to 59.87. For the half -mile roadway segments, the collision severity scores ranged from zero to 36.16. Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the results of the collision severity scoring by percentiles for intersection locations and roadway segments, respectively. Intersections or segments are excluded from the figures if no collisions were reported at that location. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 945 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 26 Network Screening Findings Figure 8. Intersection Collision Severity Scores Crash Severity Scores (Percentile) • 90 ]m:, W,cenllLe{6-!e - 59 am • eo . Int w 451. a.45. 111.761 0 • 700, wrc.a 10.70. 4.161 Is.KITTELSON B ASSOCIATES Au9�� CMe YmS, n Intersection Screening Results Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Dublin, CA Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 946 October 11, 2022 Page 27 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Network Screening Findings Figure 9. Roadway Collision Severity Scores Gash Severity Scores �.9a • Iran Perini. lase. s6.i6P - 60• can feetelik63.71- SSP/ 0 i9V, POLE.. 1010 3351 KITTELSON • &ASSOCIATES Detan Overeat 0 Roadway Screening Results Dublin tncal Roadway Safety Pian Dshlin, CA Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 947 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 28 Network Screening Findings 3.2.2 PRIORITY LOCATIONS Kittelson identified priority intersections and segments using the annualized collision severity score for intersections and segments. The top 15 intersections (top 5th percentile) and 5 roadway segments (top 8th percentile) were identified. The resulting list of priority locations is provided in Table 17 and shown in Figure 10. The top scoring intersections and segments were reviewed to determine priority locations for safety improvements and upcoming HSIP applications. The final list of priority locations may change from the table below. Table 17. Priority Intersections and Roadways Location Location Type Collision Severity Score Total No. Collisions Priority Intersections 1 Arnold Rd & Dublin Blvd 2 Dublin Blvd & Village Pkwy Signalized Intersection 59.9 17 Signalized Intersection Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions 2 49.4 43 1 Other Injury Collisions 8 15 PDO Collisions 7 27 Unsignalized 3 Donlon Way & Dublin Blvd Intersection 42.1 6 1 3 2 4 Amador Valley Blvd & San Ramon Rd Regional St & Regional 5 Common 6 Winding Trail Ln & Rolling Hills Dr 7 Lucania St & Brighton Dr 8 Tyne Ct & Penn Dr Signalized Intersection 41.1 18 1 9 8 Unsignalized Intersection 38.8 5 1 0 4 Unsignalized Intersection 38.0 1 1 0 0 Unsignalized Intersection 38.0 1 1 0 0 Unsignalized Intersection 38.0 1 1 0 0 Signalized 9 Dublin Blvd & Dougherty Rd Intersection 37.2 65 0 22 43 10 San Ramon Rd & Shannon Ave 11 Dublin Ct & Dublin Blvd 12 Dublin Blvd & Tassajara Rd Signalized Intersection 29.3 8 1 3 4 Signalized Intersection 27.3 13 1 1 11 Signalized Intersection 25.8 34 0 16 18 Signalized 13 Grafton St & Central Pkwy Intersection 24.3 3 1 0 2 14 Bent Tree Dr & Fallon Rd Signalized Intersection 23.9 1 1 0 Signalized 15 Martinelli Way & Hacienda Dr Intersection 18.5 28 0 10 Priority Roadways 0 Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 948 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 29 Network Screening Findings e Location Dougherty Rd (north of Willow Creek Dr to south of 8th St) - 1 0.75 mi 2 Fallon Rd (Signal Hill Dr to Gleason Dr) - 0.75 mi Village Pkwy (northern city limits to north of Tamarack Dr) 3 - 0.69 mi 4 Amador Valley Blvd (Burton St to Dougherty Rd) - 0.75 mi Location Type Arterial Arterial Collector Arterial Tassajara Rd (northern city 5 limits to Fallon Rd) - 0.50 mi Arterial Collision Severity Score 36.2 35.5 Total No. Collisions 8 4 Fatal/Severe Injury Collisions 1 1 Other Injury Collisions 2 1 PDO Collisions 5 2 35.3 8 1 1 6 34.1 2 1 1 0 33.1 2 1 0 1 Note: Priority locations are based on collision severity scores and may change. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 949 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Figure 10. Priority Intersections and Roadways ■ a Rlerth Intersed.. criarI) -enaih Rowweln [nerq p.innh i�rwsedlwx{Tirr IIl ^ Prlcdh Roadweya [iwr II I 14, KITTELSON &ASSOCIATES s ....Env um. Page 30 Network Screening Findings 0 high Priority Intersections and Roadways Dublin Local Roadway Set Plan Dublin, [Y Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 950 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 31 Next Steps 4 NEXT STEPS The findings presented above will be discussed, reviewed, and confirmed with City of Dublin staff. The findings will be used to develop countermeasure profiles for the most relevant safety treatments for the City based on identified collision risk and common collision patterns and trends. This analysis will also be used to determine the locations and projects most likely to provide the greatest potential collision reduction. Kittelson and the City will work together to identify locations for field observation and project development. Collectively, the information in this memorandum and follow-on recommendations from the next steps will be incorporated into the City's final LRSP. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 951 October 11, 2022 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 32 Next Steps Attachment A Collision Database Review Memorandum Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 952 KITTELSON \\ &ASSOCIATES 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505 Oakland, CA 94612 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM October 7, 2021 To: Sai Midididdi, TE City of Dublin From: Mike Alston, RSP; Erin Ferguson, PE; Grace Carsky; Jackson Lynch RE: Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Project# 26647 TASK 3 — TECHNICAL LISION DATABASE REVIE This memorandum presents an overview of the collision data available for the City of Dublin (City) and a recommendation on the appropriate data source to use in the development of the Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). It is organized into the following sections: • Data Sources • Database Findings • Recommendations Kittelson compared collisions provided by the City from its database in Crossroads software to collisions obtained from the public California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database. Several discrepancies were found between the total number of collisions and recorded collision severity in the databases, so Kittelson consulted police reports provided by the City to check a sample of collisions from both databases and make a recommendation. The findings and recommendations of this memorandum establish the approach to compile a consolidated collision database for the Dublin LRSP. That database will be used for the high - collision locations analysis (Task 3.2), the identification of safety goals and countermeasures (Task 4), and the identification of geographic priorities for future projects (Task 5). Kittelson recommends using SWITRS collision records and recorded severities for the 2016-2020 period and augmenting with the 141 unique collisions from the Crossroads database to create a complete and consolidated dataset for the forthcoming LRSP analysis efforts. DATA SOURCES Kittelson obtained the most recently reported collision data from the City's Crossroads collision database, representing collisions occurring July 2015 through February 2021. Kittelson obtained collision dated from the SWITRS database for the same period (July 2015 through February 2021). The five most recent available years of complete data (January 2016 to December 2020) will be used for the project's analysis and were therefore analyzed to compare databases. Police reports for a sample of collisions were obtained from the City and compared to the matching records in each database. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 953 October 7, 2021 Page 2 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Task 3.2 - Technical Collision Database Review DATABASE FINDINGS The Crossroads database included 1,366 collisions between January 2016 and December 2020. The SWITRS database included 1,314 collisions during the same period (Figure 1). These collisions were categorized into different severities (Table 1). The total number of fatal and severe injury collisions was equal between the two data sources, but there were clear discrepancies between the level of other injury collisions and total collisions reported annually. Figure 1. Total Number of Collisions, 2016-2020 350 300 277 261 c 0 250u) 8 200 E 100 Z 50 0 2016 280 266 2017 309 280 2018 • Crossroads • SWITRS 329 316 1 2019 171 1 191 2020 Table 1. Crossroads and SWITRS Collision Severities Crossroads SWITRS Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Total 2 2 15 141 327 829 1,366 1,314 15 277 86 986 Kittelson used collision time, date, and location to cross-reference collision reports between Crossroads and SWITRS. Each database contained unique collision records not present in the other database. Of the 1,366 Crossroads collisions, 141 were unique to the database and not included in the SWITRS database. Of the 1,314 SWITRS collisions, 89 were unique to the database. 1,225 collision records were in both databases, and 431 of these were coded with different collision severities between the two databases (Table 2). Most notable is the discrepancy of one collision coded as a severe injury collision in SWITRS and a property damage only (PDO) collision in Crossroads. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 954 October 7, 2021 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Page 3 Task 3.2 - Technical Collision Database Review Table 2. Comparison Matrix of Crossroads and SWITRS Collision Severities - All Common Collisions SWITRS Collision Severity Fatal Severe Injury Other Injury Complaint of Pain PDO Total Fatal 2 2 Severe Injury 14 14 Other Visible Injury 18 246 264 Complaint of Pain 75 1 1 77 PDO 1 38 70 759 868 Total 2 15 131 317 760 1,225 Note: Bold numbers indicate the number of collisions that were recorded with the same collision severity in both the Crossroads and SWITRS databases. Police reports for three collisions with different severities were obtained to check the police reports' recorded severity at the time of the event against the Crossroads and SWITRS databases. One report (D2003567) was selected due to the wide discrepancy between the severity reporting: Crossroads recorded the collision as PDO collision while SWITRS recorded the collision as a severe injury collision. The other two collisions were selected at random as representative other collision records with discrepancies: one where Crossroads recorded a higher level of severity and one where SWITRS recorded a higher level of severity. Table 3 presents the findings of the police report comparison. Report D2003567 determined the collision to result in a severe injury, and Report D1900667 determined the collision to result as an other visible injury collision. However, both were entered as PDO collisions in Crossroads. The SWITRS database matched the severity of the police reports. Report D1602575 determined the collision to result as an other visible injury in the collision description, but neither database matched this coding. Crossroads did not match the police reports for any of the three reported collisions; SWITRS matched for two of the three. Table 3. Comparison Matrix of Crossroads and SWITRS Collision Severities - Specific Collisions Crossroads SWITRS Crossroads Severity SWITRS Severity Determined Severity Report No. Case ID D2003567 9204895 Property Damage Only Severe Injury D1602575 8131511 Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only D1900667 8810265 Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury RECOMMENDATIONS After comparing the Crossroads and SWITRS databases against each other and verifying severity of a sample of collision records using police reports, Kittelson recommends using SWITRS collision records and recorded severities for the 2016-2020 period and augmenting with the 141 unique collisions from the Crossroads database to create a complete and consolidated dataset for the forthcoming LRSP analysis efforts. This verification step also highlights the need for database maintenance. As the main source of information for city staff to review collision history, having accurate collision information is Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 955 October 7, 2021 Page 4 Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Task 3.2 - Technical Collision Database Review important. The City could review their Crossroads data input methodologies and could consider regularly taking a sample of police reports and comparing those against data entered into the Crossroads database to verify accuracy of the Crossroads data. Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 956 PPENDIX C: COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURES This section presents engineering countermeasures — treatments to reduce crashes and improve safety on roadways — organized by treatment location type: ► Signalized intersections ► Unsignalized intersections ► Roadways Treatments that are applicable to more than one location type are listed in all applicable categories. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS This section presents recommended engineering countermeasures at signalized intersections in Dublin. Detailed description of each measure is provided further in the document. Table 1: Summary of Signalized Intersection Countermeasures and Related Information 1 Countermeasure Name ICM ID* Documented Crash Reduction Factor** Federal Funding Eligibility through HSIP*** Cost Estimate' Emphasis Area Page Reference Motor Vehicle Treatments Add intersection lighting S01 40% Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number SO2 15% Provide advanced dilemma -zone detection for high-speed SO4 40% approaches Install left -turn lane and add turn phase Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal -mounted) Install raised median on S06/S07 55% S08 30% 100% 100°/ 100% 90% 100% Nighttime Safety, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections Nighttime Safety, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections Signalized Local/Arterial approaches Intersections S12 25% 90% $ - $$$ 3 4 5 6 7 8 958 Countermeasure Name CM ID* Documented Crash Reduction Factor** Federal Funding Eligibility through HSIP*** Cost Estimate' Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and U-turns (signalized intersection) Signalized intersection conspicuity treatments S I 4 50% Varies Varies No Right Turn on Red (RTOR)' N/A N/A Centerline hardening' Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) N/A N/A S16 35-67%** 90% $ - $$ Varies $ - $$ N/A $ N/A N/A 100% Emphasis Area Page Reference Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial 9 Intersections Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections, Driver Behavior 13 Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial 10 Intersections Pedestrian Crashes 11 Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 12 Pedestrian/Bicycle Treatments Install pedestrian countdown signal heads Install pedestrian crossing Install pedestrian scramble Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Pedestrian Crashes, SI7PB 25% 100% $ Signalized Local/Arterial 13 Intersections SI8PB 25% 100% SI9PB 40% 100% S20PB 15% Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian S21PB 60% Interval (LPI) Install painted safety zone Install Protected Intersection Elements N/A N/A N/A N/A Pedestrian Crashes, $ Signalized Local/Arterial 16 Intersections Pedestrian Crashes, $ Signalized Local/Arterial 17 Intersections 100% $ Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial 18 Intersections Pedestrian Crashes, 100% $ Signalized Local/Arterial 19 Intersections N/A Pedestrian Crashes, $ Signalized Local/Arterial 20 Intersections N/A $ - $$$ Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial 21 Intersections *CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2020, LRSM). If a CM ID is not listed, the countermeasure is not listed in the LRSM. Local Roadway Safety - A Manual for California's Local Road Owners **Documented crash reduction factors are derived either from the LRSM or the FHWA's Proven Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. An "N/A" indicates that a documented, research -backed crash reduction factor does not exist. ***Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 10. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the state HSIP coordinator. t $ - $50,000 or less; $$ - $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ - $100,000 or more 2 959 MOTOR VEHICLE TREATMENTS Add Intersection Lighting Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Federal Ideal for Crash Reduction Funding Cost Estimate Systemic Factor Eligibility Application? Nighttime Safety, Nighttime Signalized Local/Arterial 40% 100% $ Yes Intersections What is it? Lighting may be improved at an intersection, its approaches, or a roadway segment to make drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, enhance drivers' available sight distances, and improve the visibility of non -motorists at an intersection. In commercial areas or in downtown areas where there is more pedestrian activity, pedestrian -scale lighting may be placed over sidewalks to help pedestrians navigate the intersection safely. Intersection lighting improvements may be considered at intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. What are some considerations for use? These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of night-time crashes have occurred at a signalized intersection. Avoid placing the light source behind pedestrians at crossing locations (Figure 1). Figure 1. Example of Intersection Lighting Source: FHW/A Informational Report on Lighting Design for Midblock Crosswalks 3 960 Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Back -Plates with Retroreflective Borders, Mounting, Size, and Number Crash Types Emphasis Areas Documented Federal Ideal for Addressed Addressed Crash Reduction Funding Cost Estimate Systemic Factor Eligibility Application? Rear -end, Broadside Nighttime Safety, Signalized Local/Arterial 40% 100% $ Y Intersections What is it? ► Lenses: New lenses with LED lighting increases visibility of the traffic signal. ► Back -plates with retroreflective borders: This treatment warns drivers of the upcoming signalized intersections by making signal heads more visible in daytime and nighttime conditions. Signal hardware upgrades may be considered where crash patterns indicate visibility of the intersection or signal heads may benefit from enhancements. ► Mounting: Mounting assemblies include mast arms, span wires, and side -mounted vehicular signals. Upgrading the mounting assembly may improve the longevity of the signal hardware. ► Size and Number: Increasing the size and/or numbers may improve visibility of the signal. What are some considerations for use? This treatment may be considered when high frequencies of broadside, rear -end, or other conflicting movement crashes are occurring at a signalized intersection related to signal conspicuity. Figure 2. Signal with Retroreflective Borders Source: FHWA 4 961 Provide Advanced Dilemma -Zone Detection for High Speed Approaches Crash Types Emphasis Areas Addressed Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Ideal for Cost Estimate Systemic Application? Rear -end Nighttime Safety, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 40% 100% What is it? This treatment consists of adding new advance detection and signal hardware to detect vehicles that may approach the intersection in the "dilemma zone" of deciding whether to stop or proceed during a yellow phase. The detection system modifies the signal timing to reduce the numbers of drivers needing to make this decision and the potential for conflicts due to phase changes. Providing advanced dilemma -zone detection can help reduce conflicts due to late -entering vehicles proceeding through the intersection or conflicts arising from hard -stopping vehicles due to the dilemma of whether to proceed or stop during the yellow phase of a signal. Advanced dilemma -zone detection can help reduce the frequency of red-light violations, crashes associated with phase changes, and may provide operational benefits. What are some considerations for use? This treatment may be considered when high frequencies of crashes involve hard -stopping vehicles resulting in rear -end crashes, or there is a pattern of crashes related to late -entering vehicles or vehicles running red lights. Figure 3. Example Layout of Dilemma -Zone Detection Cart M *Oft CarlVorer and Enlisrr .d a IM Source: FHWA 5 962 Install Left -Turn Lane and Add Turn Phase Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Crashes related to left -turning vehicles (broadside, rear - end, sideswipe) Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 55% 90% $ - $$$ Y What is it? This treatment consists of adding a new protected left -turn phase to a signal where left -turns are currently permitted and, if no left -turn lane currently exists, adding a left -turn lane to allow left -turning vehicles to queue separately from through movement traffic. This treatment includes both adjustments to signal timing as well as new signal hardware to provide for the protected movement. Protected left -tun phasing can help reduce rear -end or sideswipe crashes related to left -turn vehicle conflicts with oncoming traffic or vehicles behind them where permitted left -turns are allowed. This phasing removes the need for left -turning drivers to navigate through gaps in opposing through vehicles. What are some considerations for use? These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of crashes involving left -turning vehicles are occurring at a signalized intersection. Adding a protected phase will likely require new signal heads, may require a new mast arm and pole if the existing mast arm could not support the new signal heads, and may require roadway widening. Figure 4. Example of Protected Left -Turn Lane and Phase Source: Google Earth 6 963 Convert Signal to Mast Arm (from Pedestal -Mounted) Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Rear -end, broadside Signalized Local/Arterial 30% 100% Intersections What is it? Conversion of pedestal -mounted intersections to mast arms can improve visibility of the traffic signals. Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. What are some considerations for use? These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of broadside, rear -end, night-time or other conflicting movement crashes are occurring at a signalized intersection that may be related to intersection and signal conspicuity. Figure 5. Example of Mast Arm Source: AA Roads 7 964 Install Raised Median on Approaches Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Signalized Broadside Local/Arterial Intersections 25% 90% What is it? This treatment consists of adding new raised medians on the approaches to intersections to control and restrict movements from access points (e.g., driveways from commercial and retail areas) on the approach to a signalized intersection. Adding raised medians can help reduce conflicts by restricting access -related movements to the roadway on the approaches to an intersection. The raised medians prohibit left -turns into and out of driveways that may be located within the influence area of the intersection to reduce potential conflicts. What are some considerations for use? These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of crashes involve left -turning vehicles on the approach to any intersection are present or there is other evidence of access -related crashes on the intersection approaches. At signalized intersections, the addition of raised medians and median noses can be installed to create pedestrian refuge islands, providing an additional benefit to pedestrians and bicyclists crossing the intersection. However, implementation of these treatments will need to balance access to businesses where restrictions occurred with safety benefits in commercial and retail areas. Figure 6. Example of Raised Median Source: Kittelson 8 965 Create Directional Median Openings to Allow (and Restrict) Left -Turns and U-Turns Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Ideal for Cost Estimate Systemic Application? Broadside, Rear -end, Pedestrian, Sideswipe (involving left turns) Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 50% 90% What is it? This treatment may be used at signalized or unsignalized intersections and mid -block locations on roadways that have turning movement crashes near the intersection or at driveway access points. This treatment can improve access control at intersections and mid -block roadway segments. Application of this countermeasure should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need to restrict or accommodate the movement. Raised medians next to left -turn lanes at intersections can offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection. What are some considerations for use? A clustering of similar turning movement -related crashes may indicate a candidate movement to restrict. Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive countermeasures would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. Figure 7. Diagram of a Directional Median Opening Source: Texas A&M Transportation Institute 9 966 No Right Turn on Red (RTOR) Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections N/A N/A $ Y What is it? This treatment restricts motorists from turning right during the red light. In California, turning right on red is not a default condition of the existing laws. Drivers in California are advised of this restriction with the posting of "No Turn on Red" signs (static or dynamic), according to the sign specifications for MUTCD R10-11 in California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD). Dynamic signs can be used to restrict right turns during certain times of day or during certain signal phases. What are some considerations for use? No RTOR treatments may be considered at signalized intersections, specifically at intersections with medium to high motor vehicle turning volumes and pedestrian volumes. This treatment may be considered at intersections with exclusive pedestrian phase, and school crossings. Figure 8. Example of Dynamic No Right Turn Sign (can be Figure 9. MUTCD R10-11 Sign included on red phase) Source: Flickr 2018 NO TURN ON RED Source: Traffic Signs 10 967 Centerline Hardening Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian and Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes N/A N/A N/A Y What is it? The Basic Hardened Centerline treatment consists of five pieces of rubber curb and bollards and/or rubber speed bumps installed on the centerline and extending at maximum of six feet into the intersection. This is a turn calming treatment that addresses intersections with left and right turns. The Complete Hardened Centerline treatment includes five pieces of rubber curb and bollards and/or rubber speed bumps, "No Parking" markings and slow turn wedge/box markings coupled with flexible plastic posts. What are some considerations for use? A Basic Hardened Centerline treatment is installed where one-way or two-way road meets at two-way road. A Complete Hardened Centerline treatment is installed where one-way road meets a two-way road. Figure 10. Basic Centerline Hardening Source: NYC.GOV Source: Kittelson 11 968 Convert Intersection to Roundabout (from Signal) Crash Types Emphasis Areas Addressed Addressed Documented Federal Crash Reduction Funding Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? All Signalized Local/Arterial 35-67% 100% $ - $$$ N Intersections What is it? This treatment consists of installing a roundabout as traffic control at an intersection. A roundabout is a type of circular intersection without traffic signals or stop signs, where drivers travel counterclockwise around a center island. When entering the roundabout, drivers yield to existing traffic, then enter the intersection and exit in their desired direction. Roundabouts are designed to eliminate left turns by requiring traffic to exit to the right of the circle. Roundabouts are installed to manage vehicular speeds through the intersection, improve safety at intersections by eliminating broadside and head-on crashes, and help traffic flow more efficiently. What are some considerations for use? This treatment may be considered at any intersection with a high frequency of reported crashes, traffic delays, complex geometry (more than four approach roads), frequent left -turns, and/or relatively balanced traffic flows. Roundabouts work well for intersections with low -to -moderate traffic speeds, and lower traffic volumes. Per the NCHRP 672: Roundabout Informational Guide, the typical daily service volumes for four -leg roundabouts are as follows: ► Up to 15,000 veh/day for a mini -roundabout with desirable entry design speed of 15-20 mph, ► Up to 25,000 veh/day for a single -lane roundabout with desirable entry design speed of 20-25 mph, and, ► 25,000 — 45,000 veh/day for a multi -lane roundabout (2-lane entry) with desirable entry design speed of 25-30 mph. Figure 11. Example of Roundabout Source: Kittelson 12 969 CONSPICUITY TREATMENTS Countermeasure Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Install flashing beacons as advance Rear -end, warning (Signalized Broadside Intersection) Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 30% 100% $ - $$ Y Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Wet, Night, All Nighttime Safety, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections, Driver Behavior 10% 100% $ Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning Y What is it? Flashing beacons are highway traffic signals operates in a flashing mode. This treatment leads to increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and improve driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source. What are some considerations for use? Flashing beacons should be 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. Figure 12. Example of Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning Source: Kittelson 13 970 Install Raised Pavement Markers and Striping What is it? Raised pavement markers and striping through the intersection can clarify the preferred path of travel through the intersection to help avoid potential conflicts. Providing more effective guidance through an intersection will minimize the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its appropriate lane and encroaching upon an adjacent lane. This treatment should be used where signalized intersection footprints are large, skewed, or have multiple turn lanes for a given movement. What are some considerations for use? Raised pavement markers and striping should be used where signalized intersection footprints are large, skewed, or have multiple turn lanes for a given movement. They are most effective at intersections where the lane designations are not clearly visible to approaching motorists and/or intersections noted as being complex and experiencing crashes that could be attributed to a driver's unsuccessful attempt to navigate the intersection. Figure 13. Example of Raised Pavement Markers and Striping Source: Traffic Works 14 971 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE TREATMENTS Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads Crash Types Emphasis Areas Addressed AL Addressed Documented Federal Ideal for Crash Reduction Funding Cost Estimate Systemic Factor Eligibility Application? Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial 25% 100% $ Y Intersections What is it? Pedestrian countdown signals contain a timer display and count down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON'T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON'T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON'T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than cross illegally. What are some considerations for use? This treatment may be considered at signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with "WALK"/"DON'T WALK" indicators and where there have been pedestrian crashes. Figure 14. Example of Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Source: Maricopa Association of Governments 15 972 Install Pedestrian Crossing Crash Types Emphasis Areas Addressed Addressed i Documented Federal Ideal for Crash Reduction Funding Cost Estimate Systemic Factor Eligibility Application? Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial 25% 100% $ Y Intersections What is it? This treatment alerts drivers and enhances pedestrian and bicycle safety at pedestrian crossings. Installing pedestrian crossings at intersections can improve pedestrian and bicycle safety by designating a dedicated portion of the roadway for pedestrian and bicycle crossing. This helps to reduce pedestrian -related crashes that occur within 50 feet of an intersection. The use of high -visibility crosswalk markings, pedestrian countdown signals, and appropriate signs can enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety at pedestrian crossings. What are some considerations for use? This treatment may be considered at signalized intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left -turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double -right or double -left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase. Caltrans HSIP does not provide reimbursement for visibility enhancements to existing marked crosswalks at signalized intersections. However, such improvements (like restriping transverse lines as high -visibility crosswalks) still provide visibility benefit and are worth consideration. Figure 15. Example of Pedestrian Crossing at a Signalized Intersection Source: NACTO 16 973 Install Pedestrian Scramble Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 40% 100% $ Y What is it? This treatment allows pedestrian movements in all directions simultaneously, including diagonally. This is a traffic signal operation that functions differently than a standard signal operation because it allows for an exclusive pedestrian phase, i.e., all pedestrians to cross in any direction while all vehicles are stopped. What are some considerations for use? Pedestrian scrambles may be implemented along with No Right Turn on Red treatment at intersections with high pedestrian volumes. Figure 16. Example of Pedestrian Scramble Source: Wall Street of the Rockies 17 974 Install Advance Stop Bar before Crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 15% 100% $ Y What is it? Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety. Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. It also allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers (This dedicated space is often referred to as a bike -box.) What are some considerations for use? This treatment should be used at signalized intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur. Figure 17. Diagram of Advance Stop Bar Before Crosswalk and Bike Box At red lights motorists must stop and wait behind the stop bar. Source: BikePGH Cyclists can ride into the bike box while waiting on a green light. 18 975 Modify Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections 60% 100% $ Y What is it? LPIs provide pedestrians a head start when crossing at a signalized intersection. LPIs can be easily programmed into existing signals to give pedestrians the "Walk" signal a minimum of 3 to 7 seconds before motorists are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before motorists have priority to turn left at the intersection. LPIs can be provided automatically with each phase or provided only when actuated (actively or passively). LPIs increase visibility of crossing pedestrians and reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles. This treatment increases the likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians. What are some considerations for use? LPIs may be considered at signalized intersections, specifically at intersections with medium to high motor vehicle turning volumes and pedestrian volumes. LPIs may be considered at locations with particularly high elderly populations, high crash history, or at school crosswalks. Figure 18. Example of Leading Pedestrian Interval Source: Go Active Long Beach 19 976 Painted Safety Zone Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections N/A N/A $ Y What is it? Painted safety zones provide a low-cost curb extension that improves pedestrian safety at intersection corners in three ways: ► Creating distance between turning vehicles and waiting pedestrians ► Slowing vehicle turning movements ► Improve visibility between drivers and crossing pedestrians What are some considerations for use? Painted safety zones do not extend the sidewalk or create a formal waiting area but do provide low-cost improvements wherever vehicles are turning across pedestrian or bicyclist paths. Verify vehicle turn templates for vehicles expected to make turns at the treatment intersection. Figure 19: Example Painted Safety Zone Source: SFMTA 20 977 Protected Intersection Elements Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections N/A N/A What is it? The elements that form what is commonly called a "protected intersection" combine to achieve the following design goals: Ilimi Protected Intersection Element IDesign Outcome Bicycle lane extension through intersections (see A" in Improve bicyclist and pedestrian visibility to turning drivers Figure 20b) Bicycle signals and signal phasing, including Leading Bicycle/Pedestrian Interval (LBI/LPI) Curb extensions and curb radius reductions (see "B" in Figure 20b) Two -stage bicycle turn box (see "C" in Figure 20b) High visibility crosswalk markings (see "D" in Figure 20b) No Turn on Red signs Improve bicyclist and pedestrian visibility to turning drivers Separate modal movements in time by giving bicyclists and pedestrians a "head start" when the signal turns green Shorten crossing distance for bicyclist and pedestrians Improve bicyclist and pedestrian visibility to turning drivers Reduce vehicle speeds Simplify left -turn movement and reduce conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles Improve crossing conspicuity Eliminate conflicts between turning motor vehicles and pedestrians/ bicyclists What are some considerations for use? Protected intersection elements are applicable at both signalized and unsignalized intersections. Some elements are eligible for HSIP funding: ► S21PB: Leading pedestrian intervals ► R33PB: Install separated bicycle lanes (if bicycle lanes do not already exist in the location) 21 978 Figure 20: Example Protected Intersections (a) Concept Visualization (b) Paseo Padre Parkway/Walnut Avenue, Fremont, California. Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc; Google Earth 22 979 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS This section presents recommended engineering countermeasures at unsignalized intersections in Dublin. Table 2: Summary of Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures and Related Information Countermeasure Name Add intersection lighting Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and u- turns r- CM ID* NS01 NS15 Install painted safety zone N/A Install raised medians (refuge islands) Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations Non -Signalized Intersection Conspicuity Treatments Install transverse rumble strips on approaches Install splitter islands on the minor road approaches NS19PB Varies. See page references. Varies. See page references. NS10 NS13 Documented Crash Reduction Factor** 40% Federal Funding Eligibility through HSIP*** 100% 50% 90% N/A 45% Varies. See page references. Varies. See page references. 20% 40% N/A 90% Varies. See page references. Varies. See page references. 90% 90% Cost Estimate' $ - $$$ $ - $$$ *CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April 2020). Emphasis Area Nighttime Safety Pedestrian Crashes Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections Pedestrian Crashes Varies. See page references. Varies. See page references. Driver Behavior Driver Behavior Page Reference 3 9 20 24 25 26 29 30 **Documented crash reduction factors are derived either from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual April2020) or the FHWA's Proved Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. ***Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated 9. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the state HSIP coordinator. t $ - $50,000 or less; $$ - $50,000 to $100,000; $$$ - $100,000 or more th Caltrans HSIP Cycle 23 980 Install Raised Medians (Refuge Islands) Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian & Pedestrian Bicycle Crashes 45% 100% $ Y What is it? A pedestrian refuge island is a median with a refuge area that is intended to help protect pedestrians who are crossing the roadway. A refuge island allows the pedestrians to focus on identifying adequate gap in traffic for one direction at a time. This treatment reduces the crossing distance for pedestrians and creates a place for refuge to allow multiple -stage crossings. Refuge island positions pedestrians in the sightline of drivers approaching the intersection. This treatment could also be used as a retrofit opportunity for roads that have medians that do not provide an adequate refuge. What are some considerations for use? Per the FHWA Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations, refuge islands may be considered under the following roadway conditions: 1 ► Any ADT + 2 or 3 lanes (without a raised median) + any posted speed limit ► ADT >_ 9,000 + 4 or more lanes (without a raised median) + any posted speed limit ► Any ADT + 4 or more lanes (without a raised median) + > 35 mph posted speed limit This treatment may be considered at locations with inadequate conspicuity/visibility of the crosswalk and/or crossing pedestrian, excessive vehicle speed, or lack of pedestrian separation from traffic during long crossings. Figure 21. Example of Pedestrian Refuge Island Source: NACTO Figure 22. Example of Median (not a Refuge Island) Source: Naples News 1 Source: Field Guide for Selecting Countermeasures at Uncontrolled Pedestrian Crossing Locations (dot.gov) 24 981 Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations Countermeasure Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Signs and markings Pedestrian only & Bicycle With enhanced safety features Pedestrian Crashes Pedestrian & Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes 25% 100% 35% 100% $ Y Y What is it? Signs and markings only —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 high -visibility crossing patterns ("ladder" or "zebra" style) at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. With enhanced safety features —Enhanced safety features include flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features. ► Flashing beacons are added at crossings under the pedestrian sign. When a pedestrian crosses the street, the lights flash, alerting drivers to yield before the intersection. ► Curb extensions are an extension of the sidewalk zone or curb line into the roadway zone at intersections. Curb extensions are intended to increase safety, calm motorized traffic, and create additional space for pedestrians and the boulevard and furnishing zone. ► Advance yield/stop line include the stop bar or "sharks teeth" yield markings placed 20 to 50 feet in advance of a marked crosswalk to indicate where vehicles are required to stop. What are some considerations for use? Both these treatments should be used at non -signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. Figure 23. Example of a High Visibility Pedestrian Crossing Figure 24. Example of a Curb Extensions and Advanced Stop Bar Source: NACTO Source: Move Culver City 25 982 CONSPICUITY TREATMENTS Countermeasure Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning or regulatory signs Rear -end, right- angle, or turning crashes Driver related to lack Behavior of driver awareness 15% 100% $ Y Upgrade intersection pavement markings Rear -end, right- angle, or turning crashes Driver related to lack Behavior of driver awareness 25% 100% $ Y Install Pedestrian Signal or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Pedestrian and Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes 55% 100% $$$ I\ Install/Upgrade Larger or Additional Stop Signs or Other Intersection Warning/Regulatory Signs What is it? Installing larger warning or regulatory signs at or in advance of an intersection can increase the visibility of the intersection, thereby increasing the ability of approaching drivers to perceive the intersection. The effectiveness of this strategy is greatest when implementation involves a combination of regulatory and warning signs appropriate for the conditions on an unsignalized intersection approach. What are some considerations for use? Signs should be used at approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear -end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach. Figure 25. Example of Warning Signs Source: ITE Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings What is it? 26 983 Upgrades to intersection pavement markings include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of centerlines and stop bars for stop -controlled approaches. Providing visible stop bars and clearer delineation of lanes on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection. What are some considerations for use? Upgraded intersection pavement markings should be used at unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear -end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. They are also effective at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Figure 26. Example of Upgraded Intersection Pavement Markings Source: City of San Antonio Public Works Department 27 984 Install Pedestrian Signal (Including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon [HAWK]) What is it? A Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) is a hybrid beacon used to control traffic and reverts to all dark until a pedestrian activates it via a push button or other form of detection. When activated, the beacon displays a sequence of flashing and solid lights that indicate when vehicles must stop and when pedestrians should cross. PHBs provide active warning to drivers when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. PHBs have been shown to significantly increase driver yielding behavior at uncontrolled crosswalks, with motorist yielding rates exceeding 90% (FHWA, 2014). What are some considerations for use? Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons may be considered at locations with long pedestrian delay due to few available gaps in traffic, drivers not yielding to pedestrians in crosswalks, or noted conflicts at crossing locations. Figure 27. Example of Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Source: FHWA 28 985 Install Transverse Rumble Strips or Optical Speed Bars on Approaches Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Ideal for Areas Crash Reduction Funding Cost Estimate Systemic Addressed Factor Eligibility Application? All Driver Behavior 20%1 90%1 $1 1: Information presented relates to transverse rumble strips. What is it? Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. They can be used at any stop or yield approach intersection, often in combination with advance signing to warn of the intersection ahead. Optical speed bars are transverse bars are spaced progressively closer together at an increasing rate as the driver travels along the roadway. The intent is that the reduced spacing gives the driver the perception of acceleration, causing the driver to slow down. What are some considerations for use? Transverse rumble strips may generate noise generated by vehicles driving over them, so care must be taken to minimize disruption to nearby residences and businesses. Figure 28. Example of Transverse Rumble Strips Source: Vision Zero North Dakota Figure 29. Example of Optical Speed Bars Source: Speed Reduction Mitigation Strategies on Rural Highways at Two -Way Stop Control Intersections and Curves 29 986 Install Splitter Islands on the Minor Road Approaches Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Ideal for Areas Crash Reduction Funding Cost Estimate Systemic Addressed Factor Eligibility Application? Broadside, Rear -end Driver Behavior 40% 90% $ N What is it? This treatment consists of adding a raised median island at minor street intersection approaches. Raised splitter islands create a physical separation between vehicles turning onto the stop -controlled approach and vehicles stopped on that same approach. The splitter island also increases the visibility of the intersection, clarifies movements at the intersection, and provides a space for a secondary stop sign on the approach, if desired. What are some considerations for use? Splitter islands may be considered when high frequencies of crashes are related to conflicting movements resulting from movements onto or off minor street approaches. Splitter islands should also be designed to accommodate appropriate design vehicles while still being large enough to be visible to drivers and provide a refuge area for crossing pedestrians. Figure 30. Example of Splitter Island on Minor Road Approach Source: FHWA 30 987 ROADWAYS This section presents recommended engineering countermeasures along roadways in Dublin. Table 3: Summary of Roadway Intersection Countermeasures and Related Information r Countermeasure Name CM ID* Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility through HSIP*** Cost Emphasis Page Estimate Area Reference Add lighting RO1 35% 100% $ Nighttime 32 Safety Road diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add Pedestrian a two way left -turn and R14 30% 90% $ Crashes 32 bike lanes) Corridor access Pedestrian management) N/A Varies. N/A $ - $$$ Crashes 34 Install ed eline rumble Driver strip gs/stripes R31 15% 100% $-$$$ Behavior 35 Install separated bike R33PB 45% 90 /° ° $ - $$ Bicycle 36 lanes Crashes Varies. See Varies. See Varies. See Crosswalk visibility Varies. See page enhancements page reference. page $ $$$ page 37 reference. reference. reference. Roadway/intersection Varies. See Varies. See approach conspicuity page Varies. See page page $ $$ Driver 39 treatments reference. reference. reference. Behavior Speed management Varies. See Varies. See page Varies. See Driver treatments) page reference. page $ Behavior 42 reference. reference. 'Countermeasure not included in LRSM. *CM ID refers to the Countermeasure ID from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (April2020). **Documented crash reduction factors are derived either from the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual April2020) or the FHWA's Proved Safety Countermeasures resource, unless otherwise noted. ***Funding eligibility indicates the designated federal contribution level for approved HSIP projects in California associated with Caltrans HSIP Cycle 9. This is subject to change from one cycle to the next and should be confirmed with the state HSIP coordinator. 31 988 Add Segment Lighting Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Federal Ideal for Crash Reduction Funding Cost Estimate Systemic A. Factor Eligibility Application? Nighttime Nighttime Safety 35% 100% $ Y What is it? Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception -reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non -motorist's visibility and navigation. Segment lighting improvements may be considered at segments with patterns of rear -end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure crashes on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics. What are some considerations for use? These treatments may be considered at locations with substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. Patterns of rear -end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics. Figure 31. Example of Roadway Segment Lighting Source: Pensacola Voice 32 989 Road Diet (reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left -turn and bike lanes) Crash Types M. Emphasis IIIDocumented Federal Addressed Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Head-on, Hit object, Unsafe Speed Pedestrian Crashes 30% 90% $ N What is it? Road diets reduce the number of travel lanes on the roadway and provide space to implement pedestrian and bicyclist related treatments including adding bike lanes, and median crossing islands. The most common road diet configuration involves converting a four -lane roadway into three travel lanes (with one lane in each direction and a two-way left -turn lane), often supplemented with bike lanes. Figure 12 shows an example of road diet, i.e., reconfiguration of the roadway. Road Diets are intended to improve access management, increase pedestrian and bicyclist access, and enhance roadway safety. What are some considerations for use? Road diets may be considered for application at priority pedestrian and bicycle routes or in urban and suburban areas with multilane roadways. This treatment may be considered when any of the following factors are observed on site: ► Presence of left -turning conflicts between bicyclists and motor vehicles; or ► Desire to better accommodate pedestrian and bicycle travel. Figure 32. Example of Road -Diet (Roadway Cross -Section Before and After Reconfiguration) Source: Victoria Transport Policy Institute 33 990 Corridor Access Management Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian and Bicycle, All Pedestrian Crashes Varies. N/A $ - $$$ Y What is it? Access management refers to the design, application, and control of entry and exit points along a roadway. This includes intersections with other roads and driveways that serve adjacent properties. Thoughtful access management along a corridor can simultaneously enhance safety for all modes, facilitate walking and biking, and reduce trip delay and congestion. The following access management strategies can be used individually or in combination with one another: ► Reduce density through driveway closure, consolidation, or relocation. ► Manage spacing of intersection and access points. Limit allowable movements at driveways (such as right -in/ right -out only). ► Place driveways on an intersection approach corner rather than a receiving corner, which is expected to have fewer total crashes. ► Implement raised medians that preclude across -roadway movements. ► Utilize designs such as roundabouts or reduced left -turn conflicts (such as restricted crossing U-turn, median U-turns, etc.). ► Provide turn lanes (i.e., left -only, right -only, or interior two-way left). ► Use lower speed one-way or two-way off -arterial circulation roads. What are some considerations for use? Successful corridor access management involves balancing overall safety and mobility for all users along with the needs of adjacent land uses. Figure 33. Access Management Strategies. Driveway Consolidation O. Fewer driveways spaced further apart allow for more orderly merging of traffic and presents fewer challenges to drivers. Source: FHWA Turning Bays Raised Medians Dedicated left, right, and U-tum lanes Road medians help reduce conflict, keep through traffic flowing by streamline access to businesses, providing space outside of the through improve safety, and increase traffic lanes for turning vehicles. flow. 34 991 Install Edgeline Rumble Strips/Stripes Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Run-off Road, Hit Object Driver Behavior 15% 100% $ - $$$ Y What is it? Edgeline rumble strips alert drivers that are drifting out of their travel lane before they depart the roadway, providing the driver time to correct and stay in their lane. The Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual recommends installing rumble strips along an entire corridor, instead of just in certain spots. Rumble stripes —so called when the pavement marking is in the rumble strip —provide enhanced marking in wet or dark conditions. What are some considerations for use? Edgeline rumble strips may have special requirements when installing in locations with residential land uses related to noise. If bicyclists are expected to ride in proximity of the edgeline, stripes should be used to provide for bicyclist comfort and safety. Figure 34. Example of Edgeline Rumble Strips Source: FHWA 35 992 Install Separated Bike Lanes Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Documented Federal Areas Crash Reduction Funding Addressed Factor Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Pedestrian, Bicycle Driver Behavior 45% 90% $ - $$ Y What is it? Separated bike lanes can range from painted buffers and flexible delineators to raised curbs, grade separation, and parking lanes. Separated bike lanes are the most appropriate in urban and suburban areas, on roadways with high volumes of bicycle traffic, or where a high number of bike -vehicle collisions have occurred. What are some considerations for use? The cost of the treatment can be low to high, depending on whether roadway widening, right of way, or environmental impacts are involved. Treatments should also include signage and markings directing cyclists to appropriate paths, and for motorized users to be aware of where bicyclists are traveling. Figure 35. Example of Separated Bike Lane Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. 36 993 CROSSWALK VISIBILITY ENHANCEMENTS Crash Countermeasure Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Pedestrian and Bicycle Install raised pedestrian crossing Pedestrian and Bicycle Pedestrian Crashes 35% 100% $$ - $$$ Pedestrian Crashes 35% 90% Y Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (with Enhanced Safety Features) What is it? This treatment should be used at roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high -use midblock crossing areas and/or multi -lane roads locations. Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety. The enhanced safety elements, which may include curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting, combined with pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. What are some considerations for use? When installing or upgrading a pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features, care must be taken to warn drivers of the potential for pedestrians crossing the roadway and enhanced improvements added to the crossing increase the likelihood of pedestrians crossing in a safe manner. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. Figure 36. Example of Enhanced Mid -Block Crossing Source: NACTO 37 994 Install Raised Pedestrian Crossing What is it? Raised crossings are a vertical traffic control measure that can reduce vehicle speeds, improve pedestrian visibility to approaching drivers, and improve pedestrian and bicyclist crossing safety by improving drivers yielding. The raised crossing encourages drivers to reduce their speed and provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Signs and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate travel paths should be used in combination with this countermeasure. What are some considerations for use? In combination with installing a raised pedestrian crossing, better guidance signs and markings for non - motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths. Figure 37. Example of Raised Pedestrian Crossing IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIII llllllllllll1r 111111111111 Source: PedBikeSafe 38 995 ROADWAY DEPARTURE TREATMENTS Countermeasure Crash Types Addressed Emphasis Areas Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone Hit Object Driver Behavior 35% 90% $ - $$ Y Install delineators, reflectors and/or object marker All Driver Behavior 15% 100% Y Install/upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) Head-on, Run- off Road, Sideswipe, Night Nighttime Safety, Driver Behavior 15% 100% ' Y Remove or Relocate Fixed Objects Outside of Clear Recovery Zone What is it? Removing or relocating roadside fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage, trees, or other fixed objects provides a clear recovery zone that allows drivers to correct their path of travel when they leave the roadway. This treatment is particularly effective outside of curves, along lane drops and in traffic islands where fixed object crashes are more common. A clear recovery zone should be developed on more rural context roadways, as space is available. What are some considerations for use? A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate. Figure 38. Example of Clear Recovery Zone Center Line of Roadway law Traveled Way Clear Zone Source: United States Army 39 996 Install Delineators, Reflectors and/or Object Marker What is it? This treatment consists of adding delineators, reflectors, or object markers on the approach and through a horizontal curve. Delineators, reflectors, and object markers provide drivers with a visual cue of the approaching horizontal curve and help drivers navigate safely through the curve. What are some considerations for use? Delineators, reflectors and object markers may be considered at any horizontal curve where visibility of the approaching curve is limited or providing guidance through the curve via delineation may provide safety benefits. These treatments may be considered when high frequencies of run -off -road crashes related to a horizontal curve are identified. Figure 39. Example of Roadside Delineators Source. Pathmark Traffic Products 40 997 Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting (Regulatory or Warning) What is it? Installing and/or or upgrading signs with fluorescent sheeting provides drivers with a visual warning of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement that they may have missed with existing signs. This treatment is appropriate on roadway segments with a history of head-on, nighttime, non - intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes. What are some considerations for use? New fluorescent sheeting should be installed in combination with additional treatments such as installing or adding chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocating existing signs. Figure 40. Example of Fluorescent Sign Source: 3M 41 998 SPEED MANAGEMENT TREATMENTS Crash Emphasis Countermeasure Types Areas Addressed Addressed Documented Crash Reduction Factor Federal Funding Eligibility Cost Estimate Ideal for Systemic Application? Install dynamic speed warning signs Variable speed limit Appropriate speed limit for all users All Driver Behavior Winter crashes Driver (October - Behavior March) All Pedestrian Crashes, Driver Behavior 30% 100% $ Y 31.6%3 N/A N/A N Install Dynamic Speed Warning Signs Varies. N/A N/A Y What is it? This treatment consists of installing dynamic speed feedback signs on the roadway. Speed feedback signs provide drivers with feedback about their speed in relationship to the posted speed limit. What are some considerations for use? Dynamic speed warning signs may be considered on roadways that have higher incidence of crashes due to excessive speeds, and on relatively sharp curves. Figure 41. Example of Dynamic Speed Warning Signs SPEED LIMIT 35 Source: Radar Sign 42 999 Appropriate Speed Limit for All Users What is it? Posted speed limits are often the same as the legislative statutory speed limit. Agencies with designated authorities to set speed limits, which include States, and sometimes local jurisdictions, can establish non - statutory speed limits or designate reduced speed zones, and a growing number are doing so. Based on international experience and implementation in the United States, the use of 20 mph speed zones or speed limits in urban core areas where vulnerable users share the road environment with motorists may result in further safety benefits. California Assembly Bill 43, passed in 2021, allows local jurisdictions to reduce speed limits in key areas. What are some considerations for use? When setting appropriate speed limits, agencies should consider a range of factors such as pedestrian and bicyclist activity, crash history, land use context, intersection spacing, driveway density, roadway geometry, roadside conditions, roadway functional classification, traffic volume, and observed speeds. To achieve desired speeds, agencies often implement other speed management strategies concurrently with setting speed limits, such as self -enforcing roadways, traffic calming, and speed safety cameras. 43 1000 PPENDIX D: STRATEGY TOOLBOX STRATEGY TOOLBOX This section presents available non -engineering solutions to improve safety on local roadways in Dublin. The strategies require a champion either among, or in coordination with, City staff. The Local Roadway Safety Plan includes recommendations for how these strategies may be implemented, in recognition that EDUCATION STRATEGIES To build a culture of safety, the public must have access to traffic safety information. Public education and collaboration help bridge gaps in knowledge that influence roadway user behavior. The following strategies provide opportunities to educate and learn from the community: EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS Roadway safety education programs help people develop safer driving habits, learn how to take alternative modes of transportation, and have a deeper understanding of municipal laws. Key topics for education programs include: ► Roadway safety for children ► Young driver safety ► Vulnerable roadway user safety ► Dangers of impaired driving ► Dangers of distracted driving (e.g., using cell phones and text messaging while driving) Several organizations offer specialized educational training programs: ► American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) resources and courses: https. / /www.aarp.org/auto /driver -safety/ ► CarFit program sponsored by American Automobile Association (AAA), AARP, and the American Occupational Therapy Association (AOTA): https.//www.car-fit.org/ Potential partners: Dublin Unified School District, California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Department of Public Health, local community organizations (e.g., Bike East Bay, Community for Independent Living), City of Dublin Public Information Office, Dublin Police Services 1 1002 TRANSPORTATION SAFETY CAMPAIGN Designed to dovetail with community education efforts, transportation safety campaigns use strategic marketing, advertising, and engagement to foster community awareness of a shared responsibility for roadway safety. Successful messaging reaches audiences using a variety of approaches. Campaigns should be created in partnership with various community stakeholders, including other planning organizations and jurisdictions. This section presents ideas for a Dublin transportation safety campaign that can be tailored to accommodate limited staff, resources, and budget. Campaign Tools Branding: A logo, font standards, and color palette help create a recognizable brand for print and digital products. The City of Dublin already has well established brand standards. Social Media Strategy & Schedule: A social media campaign is a great way to reach target audiences. Different demographics use different platforms, so careful implementation can help agencies reach new groups. Social media strategy should use graphics, text, and a post release schedule to create a storyline that Dublin residents can follow and participate in. Multimedia: Strong campaigns engage audiences through many types of media and events. ► Print —Campaign events should have ready -to -share print materials to engage interested stakeholders who may not have time to stick around and learn more. ► Radio and Video —Radio and video spots can help spread the word about a safety campaign. ► School Resources —School -based programs can help teach young people that their actions as roadway users have consequences that impact others. Safety Messaging Safety messages and infographics on posters and in social media can be tailored to identified safety emphasis areas. These messages link behavioral elements to safety performance trends and educate drivers to be alert and aware to help reduce these collision types. Each safety message should come with a supporting statistic that underscores why this safety message is important, and the larger campaign should provide a timeframe for when to publicize each safety message. This plan provides the supporting statistics that could be used in a campaign. Figure 1: Example Safety Communications Graphic Developed for Tigard, Oregon Almost 1 In 4pedestrian crashes in Tigard resulted in death or lite-changing injury between 2013-2017. Half were within Y-mile of a school. WHEN STUDENTS ARE WALKING, ARE YOU WATCHING? 2 1003 Implementation and Partnerships Successful campaigns use supportive partnerships with jurisdictions, organizations, and individuals to share the messages throughout the community. Partnerships can help ensure campaign branding, tone, and materials clearly and correctly communicate safety messaging. Potential partners: Dublin Unified School District, California Department of Motor Vehicles, Alameda County Department of Public Health, local active transportation organizations, Department of Public Information 1004 EQUITABLE ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES Even with engineering countermeasures in place, road users can fail to obey traffic laws and cause crashes of varying severity. Police enforcement has been traditionally used as a strategy to increase driver awareness, educate drivers on roadway violations, and reduce traffic crashes. However, if enforcement strategies are to improve overall safety in a community, traffic laws must be applied equitably. Directed enforcement strategies should be undertaken with due caution to avoid inequitable enforcement activities and be rigorously evaluated to determine the strategy's intent and impact. Dublin Police Services leadership has diligently worked to ensure members of the organization demonstrate a commitment to modeling practices that are contemporary and at the forefront of the policing profession and traffic enforcement operations. Dublin Police Services recognizes and fully embraces equity and prioritizes all traffic safety concepts and efforts for people or communities that have been marginalized by poverty and discrimination. SPEED MONITORING TRAILERS Speed monitoring devices can be used to improve road user behavior and decisions. This strategy was chosen due its applicability to the safety emphasis areas of driver behavior, particularly aggressive driving. Portable speed trailers visually display a driver's real-time speed compared to the speed limit and may be effective at reducing speeds and increasing awareness of local speed limits. Portable speed trailers are also deployed to areas of Dublin that warrant traffic calming measures. These devices are most effective when the trailer flashes "SLOW DOWN" or flashes a bright white light that mimics a photo speed camera or a blue and red light that mimics a police car when drivers are moving too fast. In some cases, back-up speed enforcement by officers may be needed when radar speed trailers are used. Potential partners: Dublin Police Services and local community organizations Figure 2: Example Speed Monitoring Trailer Source: PEDSAFE 4 1005 PROGRESSIVE TICKETING Progressive ticketing can be used to improve road user behavior and decision -making. This strategy was chosen due its applicability to the safety emphasis areas of driver behavior, particularly aggressive driving. Issuing tickets has traditionally been used as the strongest strategy of an enforcement program and is usually reserved for changing unsafe behaviors that other strategies failed to change or that pose a real threat to road user safety. There are three main steps in an effective progressive ticketing program: 1. Education —Establish community awareness of the problem. The public needs to understand drivers are speeding and the consequences of this speeding for road safety. Raising awareness about the problem will change some behaviors and create public support for the enforcement efforts to follow. This is done through proactive enforcement initiatives. 2. Warning —Announce what action will be taken and why. It is common practice to allow the public time to change behaviors before ticketing starts. Fliers, signs, newspaper stories and official warnings from officers can all serve as reminders. 3. Ticketing —After the warning period, if offenders continue their unsafe behaviors, officers issue tickets. It is inevitable that these enforcement initiatives increase interactions between law enforcement officers and community residents. Dublin Police Services is aware of the impact these interactions could have on community members experiencing poverty and discrimination and recognizes those sensitive circumstances and addresses them with the utmost professionalism. Potential partners: Dublin Police Services, City of Dublin, and Department of Public Information Office SPEED ENFORCEMENT IN SCHOOL ZONES Speed enforcement in school zones can be used to improve driver behavior and decision -making. This strategy was chosen due its applicability to the safety emphasis areas of driver behavior, particularly aggressive driving. Strict enforcement of speed laws in school zones is one law enforcement tool that can improve safety for children walking and bicycling to school and drivers. Potential approaches include a zero -tolerance policy for speeders in school zones and an increase in fines for drivers who violate the posted school zone speed limit. Potential partners: Dublin Police Services HIGH VISIBILITY SATURATION PATROLS High visibility saturation patrols can be used to improve road user behavior and decision -making. This strategy was chosen due its applicability to the safety emphasis areas of driver behavior, particularly impaired driving. A saturation patrol (also called a blanket patrol or dedicated driving while intoxicated (DWI) patrol) consists of many law enforcement officers patrolling a specific area, looking for drivers who may be impaired. These patrols usually take place at times and locations where impaired driving collisions commonly occur. Like publicized sobriety checkpoints, the primary purpose of publicized saturation patrols is to deter driving after drinking by increasing the perceived risk of arrest. The patrols can be paired with publicity around stepped -up enforcement efforts. Figure 3 shows the location of Dublin collisions that involved the influence of drugs or alcohol. Potential partners: Dublin Police Services, Department of Public Information Office 5 1006 Figure 3: Driving Under the Influence Collisions OAVO L% q0 • Y BRIGHTO o �' ty iAV�p�p?, • OP • $ c • `Or`°9C0. 'y 41:1' CK . ' Oa` • O • 'v 94" DP b ii AAh • Z wl • OLBIrN A, ."EAD `'A d • • •�y • 1.9 ♦• hN • AO • O4',ELT • Severelnjury • Other Injury • PDO Dublin ❑ry Limits KITTELSON linki &ASSOCIATES • • ' IINELLI WY• • • �gE1ry q� 5• • • ~ AN TON• E« MAOOEN kf gVITEE0AIa • CFNrgA, pWr• 'd • • GLEASON DR • O gg •0� • 4'S Driving Under the Influence Collisions Dublin Local Roadway Safety Plan Dublin, CA 6 1007 COLLISION VS. CITATION EVALUATION PROGRAMS It is important to evaluate enforcement actions and to center social equity in doing so. Collision vs. citation evaluation programs are joint efforts between local government agencies and law enforcement to monitor and document the effectiveness of increased enforcement in lowering traffic collision rates at intersections. In Dublin, a collision vs. citation evaluation strategy can assess whether enforcement strategies are effective and equitable. Disaggregating and evaluating collision and citation data by race and ethnicity will help promote an equitable approach to community safety and well-being. FHWA and the US Department of Justice provide online resources for establishing a collision vs. citation program as part of a data -driven approach to traffic safety. For more, see https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/data-driven-approaches-crime-and-traffic-safety- ddacts-operational-guidelines. Potential partner: Dublin Police Services 1008 EVALUATING EDUCATION OR EQUITABLE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS Quantifying campaign results can be difficult, but an execution and evaluation framework can help identify actions, recommendations, and opportunities for improvement. An evaluation framework will help track progress and aide future programs. An evaluation framework can help capture how residents feel about a campaign, what resonated, and what opportunities for change exist. For example, the Fresno Council of Governments' transportation safety campaign Safe Roads Save Lives used a framework to help them understand whether audience behaviors changed, where the campaign was succeeding, and what aspects needed improvement (see Figure 4). Dublin could easily adapt this table to its programs. Figure 4: Sample Evaluation Framework—Fresno's Safe Roads Save Lives Campaign Part of Campaign Branding Social Media Strategy Print Materials Radio and Video Resources School Resources Overall Campaign Evaluation Metrics • Brand/Campaign Recognition • Approval of Campaign Look/Style • Intercept survey • Online survey • Number of materials produced • Types of materials most requested • Location of material distribution • Language of materials requested • Creation of materials • Airtime • Number of participating schools • Types of resources used at each school • Behavior change Evaluation Methods • Intercept survey • Online survey • Data counts • Tracking of jurisdiction, organizational, or individual participation • Material inventory • Location tracking • Count of type of resource used • Survey of type of media where the resource was shared (e.g., genre of radio station, television program, etc.) • School counts • Annuals surveys of schools • Before/after collision data • Survey of transportation stakeholders —law enforcement, jurisdictions, transportation advocates, etc. —on the efficacy of the campaign Fresno Council of Governments Regional Safety Plan (2021), retrieved from https://www.fresnocog.org/project/2021-regional- safety-plan-local-road-safety-plan/. 8 1009 EMERGENCY SERVICES Whether a person survives a collision often depends on their access to medical care. Reaching a hospital within 60 minutes can significantly improve collision outcomes, and rural and remote areas or congestion can create additional delays for emergency response teams. Nearby hospitals (The San Ramon Regional Medical Center on Alcosta Bouelvard in San Ramon) (Stanford Health Care—ValleyCare on Santa Rita Road in Pleasanton) are regionally convenient but require of travel outside city limits. The strategies in this section focus on partnerships with emergency medical services (EMS) that will improve regionwide response times and coordination by sharing real-time information. PARTNER WITH LOCAL HOSPITALS OR OUTREACH GROUPS At the collision site, bystanders are often the first people who can offer help. This is especially true in rural or remote areas. Organized through partnerships with local hospitals and outreach groups, public bystander training courses can help reduce severity outcomes. These courses educate community members on safe ways to help at the scene of a collision and can help people feel more comfortable giving aid in an emergency. Potential partners: Alameda County Department of Public Health, Alameda County Fire Department EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATION Working with local hospitals and other stakeholders can help maximize efficiency with response times through evidence -based techniques, including • Using registry data and EMS records to determine reasons for delay in transport for both ground and helicopter EMS • Considering process improvement initiatives to increase EMS documentation and data collection • Identifying equipment upgrades, training, or enhancements that would improve patient outcomes. Potential partners: Alameda County Department of Public Health COUNTY 911 TEAM COLLABORATION Working with the local 911 team during project planning and design activities will help identify opportunities to improve EMS access and location identification. The 911 team will be key partners for enforcement strategies, EMS grant opportunities, and efforts to develop or modify a system that allows County 911 dispatchers to input reported roadway issues and send the information to the appropriate agency (i.e., the City, County, or other jurisdiction). Potential partners: Alameda County Department of Public Health 9 1010 EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES New traffic safety technology —like artificial intelligence and deep learning —can enhance the benefits of Dublin's other engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency services efforts. USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND DEEP LEARNING Artificial intelligence and deep learning on traffic video feeds (such as existing closed-circuit television, or CCTV, traffic cameras) can automatically analyze traffic flow for effective and immediate roadway safety diagnosis and conflict evaluation. Combining artificial intelligence and vehicle -to -everything (V2X technology can predict vehicle and pedestrian intent and prevent conflicts that may result in collisions. Dublin could apply this technology to test effectiveness of countermeasures or to supplement collision data by identifying conflicts or near -misses on its roadways. Example Application The City of Bellevue, Washington, used a video - based network -wide conflict analysis to support a community Vision Zero project. This work used large-scale network screening to analyze video data from traffic surveillance cameras. Software analyzed traffic volumes, speeds, and near -misses at 40 intersections with varied population densities and land use. This project helped Bellevue understand what factors impact its transportation network's safety and leverage that information to select improvements and evaluate outcomes) Video detection of road user trajectories can detect near - misses and conflicts. Photo source: National Operations Center of Excellence, https://bit.ly/3vuXfMG. 1 City of Bellevue (2020). Video -based Network -wide Conflict Analysis to Support Vision Zero in Bellevue (WA). Retrieved from https://safety.transoftsolutions.com/city-of-bellevue/. 10 1011 CROSSWALK MOTION SENSORS Pedestrian user-friendly intelligent intersections, or PUFFIN crossings, are mid -block push-button applications used widely in the United Kingdom. PUFFIN crossings have a pedestrian signal and include sensors that detect pedestrians waiting to cross and within the crosswalk. Because the crosswalk detects crossing pedestrians, it can extend the signal to extend the phase if necessary. Studies in the United Kingdom showed pedestrian safety benefits with PUFFIN installation.2 PUFFIN crossings may be useful at signalized crossings where older adults, children, or people with disabilities cross frequently. Tucson, Arizona, and Portland, Oregon, have implemented PUFFIN crossings that can extend the crossing phase. Alternative vendors exist that provide similar technological solutions. More information about PUFFIN crossings, visit http.//www.pedbikesafe.org/pedsafe/ countermeasures detail.cfm?CM NUM=55. Pedestrian sensor at a signalized crossing. 2 Maxwell, A. and J. Kennedy. Study Compares Accident Frequency at Puffms and Crossings Using Farside Facilities. Traffic Engineering and Control, Vol. 51, No. 8, 2010, 317-321. 11 1012 APPENDIX E: BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN HIGH INJURY NETWORKS Pedestrian High Injury Network Alameda County San Ramon TIP i e92 O o G 00 �n/A DR Dougherty Hills Open Space AV 113MWOND 7TH ST 12TH ST 8TH ST J u 6TH ST p A O 5i1 O Pam` 2 FRS YAOJ� Q S HORIZON PW "ENTRALPW /gg 0 O 4��CCORK O� p Q AF 0 2 02 C \�Sp\RAr-ION C��L�o� lac �'q a A W CrPP�/� �O� �SIERRP�� DUBLIN BL FCI Contra Costa County BRODER BL GLEASON DR D 3 Q 9 02 ��F Civic Plaza O Z \ SCARLETT CT DUBLIN BL Pleasanton 0 6 ce Q N ovgO N R,4 . vcy DNS/DE DR PUSPpES DR Fallon Sports Park 0 0 a 0 COLLIER CANYON RD Livermore DUBLIN IC&assoLSON CALIFORNIA 0 1 Mile 0 I I Figure 5 Pedestrian High Injury Network Dublin, California 1014 re 8- Bicycle High Injury Network - Final.mxd rLL a Bicycle High Injury Network Alameda County \Sp\RAT DUBLIN BL San Ramon o� w Crq. C O Di/ w 7.4 s y 9 Ro 2sF �0 2 0 DUBLIN IC&assoLSON CALIFORNIA 7G O',A DR O z 0 0 GLEASON DR PFR S�� 20 CENTRAL PW Contra Costa County O o RA�GFRo �(3`' c 0 Dougherty Hills RFFkVF a Open Space �aR a ,r,� Q O 7 0 D 2 = 4i A 12TH 52 O BRI GHTON 0R - m FCI y0.\, STH ST BRODER BL 7TH ST °w 6TH ST P 0 J s HORIZON PW 97 F; 0 F99 cc 0 CORK Q .� <F� z o rJ h q w VI ,S. S/ERRA\ DUBLIN BL Q' Pleasanton w N 9v-' N RM n 2 0 2 2 m Emerald Glen Park ti0 RrliSIDE DR 2 2 0 LL MADDEN WY Fallon Sports 6 Park 0 Q Y a 0 0 OLLIER CANYON RD Livermore 1 Mile 0 Figure 8 Bicycle High Injury Network Dublin, California 1015 PPENDIX F: FUNDING FUNDING Both Federal and State agencies offer funding for regional and local transportation projects, policies, and programs. FEDERAL FUNDING Congestion Management & Air Quality (CMAQ) Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) program provides flexible funding for State and local governments' transportation projects and programs to meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and its amendments. CMAQ money supports transportation projects that reduce mobile source emissions in areas designated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to be in nonattainment or maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards. See MTC's One Bay Area Grant (OBAG) program for how CMAQ funding is distributed within the nine -county Bay Area. OBAG disburses federal funds in accordance with MTC's regional transportation priorities and associated land -use and housing goals. https: / /www.transportation.gov/sustainability/climate/federal-programs-directory-congestion-mitigation- and-air-quality-cmaq Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program FHWA\ The Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act converts the long-standing Surface Transportation Program (STP) into the Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). The STBG provides flexible funding address State and local transportation needs. Funding may be used to preserve and improve conditions and performance on the following: Federal -aid highway, bridge and tunnel projects on qualifying public roads; pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure; and transit capital projects, including intercity bus terminals. OBAG disburses federal funds in accordance with MTC's regional transportation priorities and associated land -use and housing goals. https. / /www.fhwa.dot.gov/specialfunding/stp/ Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) National Park Service The LWCF matches grants for states and local governments to acquire and develop public outdoor recreation areas and facilities. The LWCF has provided more than $16.7 billion to state and local governments to acquire new federal recreation lands. Projects can include open space acquisition, small city and neighborhood park development, and trail or greenway construction. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/lwcf/index.htm 1017 Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program National Park Service The RTCA program supports community -led natural resource conservation and outdoor recreation projects nationwide. The National Park Service helps community groups, nonprofits, Tribes, and State and local governments design trails and parks, conserve and improve river access, protect special places, and create recreation opportunities. https: / /www.nps.gov/orgs/rtca/index.htm OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS Because the continued existence of these grant programs is at the discretion of Congress, research the current state of funding before considering these sources. Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) The RAISE Discretionary Grant program provides a unique opportunity for USDOT to invest in roadway, rail, transit, and port projects that promise to achieve national objectives. Previously known as Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) and Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) Discretionary Grants, the eligibility requirements of RAISE allow project sponsors at the state and local levels to obtain funding for multimodal, multi -jurisdictional projects that are more difficult to support through traditional department of transportation programs. https://www.transportation.gov/RAISEgrants Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant USDOT The INFRA Grants program funds transportation projects that focus on rebuilding existing infrastructure. To be eligible, projects must be on the National Highway System; a railway/highway grade separation project; a freight project that is rail or intermodal; or improve freight movement within an intermodal facility. Most governmental bodies (e.g., unit of local government, port authority, groups of jurisdictions) are eligible applicants. Minimum awards for large projects are $25 million and $5 million for small projects. https. / /www.transportation.gov/grants /infra -grants -program Infrastructure Jobs and Investment Act (IIJA) USDOT The bipartisan IIJA provides the basis for FHWA programs and activities through September 30, 2026. The IIJA makes a once -in -a -generation investment of $350 billion in highway programs and includes the largest dedicated bridge investment since the construction of the Interstate Highway System. New programs under the law focus on rehabilitating bridges in critical need of repair, reducing carbon emissions, increasing system resilience, removing barriers to connecting communities, and improving mobility and access to economic 1018 opportunity. Many of the new programs include eligibility for local governments, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Tribes, and other public authorities. One program, the Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Grant Program, has appropriated $5 billion over the next five years, with up to $1 billion available in fiscal year 2022. Funding is available for the following activities: • Comprehensive safety action plans • Planning, design, and development activities in support of an Action Plan (like this LRSP) • Projects and strategies identified in an Action Plan (like this LRSP) More information on the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law is available at https.//www.fhwa.dot.gov/bipartisan- infrastructure-law/. A list of examples of SS4A funding -eligible activities is available at https. / /www.transportation.gov/grants /SS4A. STATE FUNDING Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) SB1, the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, is a long-term transportation reform and funding package. The bill includes new revenues that address a variety of transportation projects, such as roadway safety improvements, street repair, transit, and roadway and bridge construction. SB 1 provides more than $5 billion annually to transportation projects throughout California. httr ://rebuildincica.ca.cgov/ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Caltrans The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the core federal -aid programs in the federal surface transportation act, Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST). HSIP aims to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and severe injuries on all public roads —including non -State-owned public roads and roads on Tribal land —by funding eligible projects such as crosswalk markings, rapid flashing beacons, curb extensions, speed feedback signs, guard rails, pedestrian refuge islands, slurry seal, and other pavement markings. https: / /dot. ca.gov/programs /local -assistance / fed -and -state -programs /highway -safety -improvement - program Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants California Office of Traffic Safety OTS strives to eliminate traffic deaths and injuries by granting funds to local and state public agencies for programs that enforce traffic laws, educate the public in traffic safety, and provide varied and effective means of reducing fatalities, injuries, and economic losses from collisions. https./ /www.ots.ca.gov/grants/ 1019 Active Transportation Program (ATP) Grants California Transportation Commission (CTC) The ATP consolidates existing federal and state transportation programs, including the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP), Bicycle Transportation Account (BTA), and State Safe Routes to School (SR2S), into a single discretionary grant program that focuses on making California a national leader in active transportation. The ATP aims to encourage active transportation by increasing the proportion of trips made by bicycle or on foot; increasing non -motorized user safety; reducing greenhouse gases; enhancing public health; and ensuring that disadvantaged communities share fully in program benefits. https: / /catc.ca.gov/programs /active -transportation -program State -Local Partnership Program (LPP) CTC Created by the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017 through SB1, the Local Partnership Program (LPP) annually appropriates $200 million from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account to local and regional transportation agencies that have passed sales tax measures, developer fees, or other imposed transportation fees. Funds are awarded for roadway maintenance and rehabilitation, sound walls, and other transportation improvement projects. LPP also funds local and regional agency projects that improve aging infrastructure, roadway conditions, active transportation, and health and safety. Consistent with the intent behind SB1, the CTC intends this program to balance the need to direct increased revenue to the State's highest transportation needs and the need to fairly distributing the economic impact of increased funding. https: / / catc.ca.gov/programs /sb1 /local -partnership -program Sustainable Transportation Grant Program Caltrans The Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant Program was created to support the Caltrans mission: provide a safe, sustainable, integrated, and efficient transportation system to enhance California's economy and livability. Eligible planning projects must have a transportation nexus and ideally demonstrate that they directly benefit the multimodal transportation system. Sustainable Communities Grants will also improve public health, social equity, environmental justice, the environment, and provide other important community benefits. https: / /dot. ca.gov/programs /transportation-planning/regional-planning/ sustainable -transportation - planning -grants State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP) Caltrans SHOPP is the "fix -it -first" program from the State Highway System (SHS). SHOPP funds repair and preservation, emergency repairs, safety improvements, and some highway operational improvements on the SHS. Although SHOPP is intended for projects on statutorily designated State-owned roads, highways (including the interstate system), and bridges, it can be used for associated bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Revenues for the SHOPP are generated by federal and State gas taxes and are fiscally constrained by the State Transportation Improvement Program Fund Estimate that is produced by Caltrans and adopted by the CTC. 1020 https: / /dot. ca.gov/programs / financial -programming/ state-highway-operation-protection-program-shopp- minor-program-shopp State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) CTC The STIP is a biennial, five-year plan adopted by the CTC for future allocations of certain State transportation funds for State highway improvements, intercity rail, and regional highway and transit improvements. State law requires the CTC to update the STIP biennially, on even -numbered years, with each new STIP adding two new years to prior programming commitments. CTC staff recommendations are based on the combined programming capacity for the Public Transportation Account (PTA) and State Highway Account (SHA) as identified in the fund estimate adopted by the CTC. To be included in the STIP that is adopted by the CTC, projects must first be nominated by the MTC in its Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP), or by Caltrans in its Interregional Transportation Improvement Program (ITIP). https://catc.ca.gov/programs/state-transportation-improvement-program Recreational Trails Program (RTP) California Department of Parks and Recreation RTP annually provides federal funds for recreational trails and trail -related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the FHWA and at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP). Eligible non - motorized projects include acquisition of easements and fee simple title to property for recreational trails and recreational trail corridors; and development or rehabilitation of trails, trailside, and trailhead facilities. https://www.parks.ca.gov/?page id=24324 Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC) Program California Strategic Growth Council The AHSC program aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through projects that implement land -use, housing, transportation, and agricultural land preservation practices to support infill and compact development and that support related and coordinated public policy objectives. The AHSC program includes transportation focuses related to reducing air pollution, improving conditions in disadvantaged communities, supporting or improving public health, improving connectivity and access to jobs, increasing options for mobility, and increasing transit ridership. Funding for the AHSC Program is provided from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), an account established to receive cap -and -trade auction proceeds. https://sgc.ca.gov/programs/ahsc/ Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program California Strategic Growth Council Established by Assembly Bill 2722, the TCC program funds development and implementation of neighborhood -level transformative climate community plans that include multiple coordinated greenhouse gas emissions reduction projects that provide local economic, environmental, and health benefits to disadvantaged communities. The TCC Program helps realize the State's vision of vibrant communities and 1021 landscapes and demonstrates how meaningful community engagement coupled with strategic investments in transportation, housing, food, energy, natural resources, and waste can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and pollution, advance social and health equity, and enhance economic opportunity and community resilience. The TCC Program funds both implementation and planning grants. While the program can fund a variety of projects, transportation -related projects can include developing active transportation and public transit projects; supporting transit ridership programs and transit passes for low-income riders; expanding first/last mile connections; building safe and accessible biking and walking routes; and encouraging education and planning activities to promote increased use of active transportation modes. https: / /sgc.ca.gov/programs /tcc/ Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (EEM) Grant Program California Natural Resources Agency The EEM program authorizes the California State Legislature to allocate up to $7 million each fiscal year from the Highway Users Tax Account. EEM projects must contribute to mitigation of the environmental effects of transportation facilities. The EEM Program does not generally fund commute -related trails or similar bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. However, EEM does fund recreational and nature trails as part of storm water management or green infrastructure projects. https: / / catc.ca.gov/programs / environmental -enhancement -mitigation Urban Greening Grant Program California Natural Resources Agency Part of the California State Senate Bill 859, the Urban Greening Program is funded by the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to support the development of green infrastructure projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other benefits. To maximize economic, environmental, and public benefits, priority is given to projects in disadvantaged communities. The Urban Greening Program funds projects that reduce greenhouse gases by sequestering carbon, decreasing energy consumption, and reducing vehicle miles traveled while transforming the built environment into places that are more sustainable, enjoyable, and effective at creating healthy and vibrant communities. These projects will establish and enhance parks and open space by using natural solutions to improve air and water quality, reducing energy consumption, and creating more walkable and bikeable trails. https://filessesources.ca.gov/grants/urban-greening/ Environmental Justice (EJ) Small Grants Program California Environmental Protection Agency EJ Small Grants provide funding to help eligible non-profit community organizations and federally - recognized Tribal governments address environmental justice issues in areas disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and hazards. EJ Small Grants are awarded on a competitive basis with a maximum amount $50,000 per grant. EJ Small Grants can be used for a variety of environmental purposes and to augment community engagement, health, trainings, and programmatic opportunities in underserved communities. https://calepa.ca.gov/envjustice/funding/ 1022 Attachment 4 Number ST0122 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN Program PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will provide for developing a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The LRSP will prioritize safety for all users, and provide a framework to identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local roads Aligning with federal regulations, the State's Strategic Highway Safety Plan, and the vision for California, the LRSP would guide the City to data driven solutions for safer streets. It would identify the stakeholders, use safety data to identify safety issues, choose proven solutions, identify the implementation process, and support future safety investments. The LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs, improve transportation safety by reducing the risk of fatality and injury and improve responsiveness to safety challenges. The LRSP along with the current update of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan will propose a transportation system that promotes multi -modal transportation options and community safety. The key goal of the LRSP is to provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel along the City's roadways through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network for all users. The LRSP is anticipated to be completed in summer 2022. The State of California contributed $72,000 towards this project. ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: None MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works ESTIMATED COSTS PRIOR YEARS 2022-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 2022-2023 BUDGET 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE YEARS TOTALS 9100 Salaries & Benefits 9200 Contract Services $5,826 $37,475 $15,454 $77,105 9400 Improvements TOTAL $2,120 $21,280 $114,580 $2,120 FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS 2022-2023 BUDGET 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE YEARS TOTALS State Transportation 2206 Improvement Measure BB Sales Tax - 2214 (Local Streets Fund TOT $43,301 $28,699 $65,980 $43,301 $94,679 $72,000 $65,980 $137,980 ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT Attachment 5 Number ST0123 TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND ROADWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS Program PROJECT DESCRIPTION STREETS This project will provide for feasibility, design, and construction and modification of traffic signals and roadway safety improvements at locations prioritized and recommended by Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). LRSP is anticipated to be completed by summer 2022. Improvements may include upgrading the signal equipment such as traffic signal poles/mast arms, vehicle and pedestrian signal heads, signal controllers, cabinet upgrades, streetlighting/safety lighting improvements, signal phasing and timing changes, signing and striping improvements, and other alternatives. The project will also provide for evaluating the design and installation of protected intersection elements. ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT: TBD MANAGING DEPARTMENT: Public Works 2022-2027 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM STIMATED COSTS PRIOR YEARS 2022-2023 BUDGET 2023-2024 2024-2025 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE YEARS TOTALS 9100 Salaries & Benefits 9200 Contract Services TOTAL $10,400I $49,600 $60,000 $10,400 $99,600 $110,000 jmir $20,800 $149,200 $170,000 FUNDING SOURCE PRIOR YEARS 2022-2023 BUDGET 2025-2026 2026-2027 FUTURE YEARS Measure BB Sales Tax - Bike & 2215 Pedestrian Fund (ACTC) Measure BB Sales Tax - Local 2214 Streets Fund (ACTC $30,000 $55,000 $30,000 $55,000 $60,000 $110,000 $85,000 $85,000 $170,000 ANNUAL OPERATING IMPACT