HomeMy WebLinkAbout011624-09.1ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 9,01
TO: Mayor and Town Council January 16, 2024
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 3-2024, adopting the Town of Danville's Local Roadway
Safety Plan
BACKGROUND
Included in the FY 2023/24 Capital Improvement Program is CIP C-305, Traffic
Management Program. The preparation of a Local Roadway Safety Plan ("LRSP") is
identified as an element of the project to proactively enhance traffic safety, mobility, and
neighborhood livability. Through the development of a set of guidelines, Caltrans has
defined LRSPs as a means for providing local agencies with a framework to
systematically identify and analyze safety challenges and recommend safety
improvements, and further, provides a proactive approach to addressing safety needs
and demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges. Specifically, LRSPs serve
as an evaluation and planning document that analyzes vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian -
involved collisions and identifies recommendations for corridor and site-specific
countermeasures to enhance roadway safety.
In 2021, the Town was awarded Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds to
prepare an LRSP. In 2022, the Town proceeded to enter into a contract with TJKM
Transportation Consultants to prepare an LRSP.
DISCUSSION
The Town of Danville's Local Roadway Safety Plan ("LRSP") is intended to be a living
document that is routinely reviewed and updated by Town staff in collaboration with
stakeholders and safety partners to reflect evolving collision trends and community
needs and priorities. The document will serve to qualify and better position the Town to
compete for grant funds such as the State -administered Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) and Federal -administered Safe Streets for All (SS4A) Program.
The LRSP provides an analysis of collisions that occurred within the Town of Danville
over a five-year period and identifies collision characteristics such as type, frequency,
severity, crash factors, and high -injury corridors and proceeds to recommend
countermeasures (or mitigation measures) and potential safety projects. It is organized
into eight sections, as follows:
■ Chapter 1
- Introduction
■ Chapter 2
- Safety Partners
■ Chapter 3
- Existing Planning Efforts
■ Chapter 4
- Collision Data and Analysis
■ Chapter 5
- Emphasis Areas
■ Chapter 6
- Countermeasure Identification
■ Chapter 7
- Safety Projects
■ Chapter 8
- Implementation and Evaluation
The LRSP was developed with stakeholder input from key "safety partners" consisting
of Town of Danville staff, Danville Police Department, Danville Chamber of Commerce,
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, and the Contra Costa Transportation
Authority through a series of stakeholder meetings. Public outreach and input were
solicited through the hosting of an interactive website where 322 comments were
received (). In total, there were 361 comments received including stakeholder meetings.
As previously described, it is intended that the LRSP serve as a living document and is
updated every 2-5 years to stay current with collision trends, utilization of emerging
planning and technological analysis tools, and align with various grant program criteria.
This project has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) according to the California Public Resources Code
(§21000 et seq.).
PUBLIC CONTACT
Posting of the meeting agenda serves as notice to the general public.
FISCAL IMPACT
None.
Adopting a Town of Danville Local
Roadway Safety Plan 2 January 16, 2024
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution No. 3-2024, approving the Town of Danville's Local Roadway Safety
Plan.
Prepared by:
A44.1- �-�Xu—,
Andrew Dillard
Transportation Manager
Reviewed by:
Diane J. riedmann
Development Services Director
Attachments: A - Resolution No. 3-2024
B - Town of Danville Local Roadway Safety Plan
Adopting a Town of Danville Local
Roadway Safety Plan 3 January 16, 2024
DocuSign Envelope ID: 920994C9-8266-46AF-AD54-E47E21AD5A2A
RESOLUTION NO. 3-2024
APPROVING THE TOWN OF DANVILLE'S LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, the Town of Danville is committed to prioritizing safety and eliminating
transportation -related injuries, specifically fatal and serious injuries; and
WHEREAS, the Town of Danville 2030 General Plan, Chapter 4 "Mobility", Goal 11
prescribes to "Provide a safe, efficient multi -modal circulation system" and Goal 12, Complete
Streets prescribes to provide streets that "safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrians,
bicyclists and transit users as well as motorists", and
WHEREAS, the Danville Town Council approved funding in the Capital Improvement
Program for the Local Roadway Safety Plan ("LRSP"), CIP C-305; and
WHEREAS, the Town received Highway Safety Improvement Program ("HSIP")
funding to prepare a LRSP; and
WHEREAS, development of the LRSP included input from safety stakeholder groups
including representatives from Town of Danville staff and Danville Police Department;
San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District; San Ramon Valley Unified School District;
Danville Business Community; and the Contra Costa Transportation Authority; and
WHEREAS, public input was solicited via an interactive website in 2022 where 322
comments were received; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP was prepared to align with the vision, goals and strategies of
existing guiding documents including the Town of Danville 2030 General Plan, 2021
Bicycle Master Plan, and Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP analyzes five-year collision history to identify attributes such as
collision severities, trends, factors, modes and locations; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP provides a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety
problems and recommend safety improvements following the Safe System approach; and
WHEREAS, a Safe System approach recognizes that people will make mistakes and
roadway systems should be designed to protect them through redundancies and shared
responsibilities; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP identifies emphasis areas, countermeasures, and potential safety
projects to reduce collision frequency; and
ATTACHMENT A
DocuSign Envelope ID: 920994C9-8266-46AF-AD54-E47E21AD5A2A
WHEREAS, the LRSP provides guidance on the implementation and evaluation of the
effectiveness of the LRSP; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP affirms the Town's commitment to improve safety for all roadway
users and supports the Town of Danville 2030 General Plan, Chapter 4, "Mobility", and
WHEREAS, the LRSP has been found to be Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) according to the California Public Resources Code
(§21000 et seq.); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED, that the Danville Town Council adopts the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
APPROVED by the Danville Town Council at a regular meeting on January 16, 2024, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAINED:
ABSENT:
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
DocuSigneed by:
LP -A. Gt(/Z0.5
895C6C40ADRPARP:..
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY CLERK
PAGE 2 OF RESOLUTION NO. 3-2024
TOWN OF DANVILLE
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
FINAL REPORT
JANUARY 16, 2024
CONTENTS
ExecutiveSummary........................................................................................................................................................................1
1. Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................................4
Whatis an LRSP?.....................................................................................................................................................................4
Process........................................................................................................................................................................................4
StudyArea.................................................................................................................................................................................4
2. Safety Partners............................................................................................................................................................................7
3. Existing Planning Efforts.......................................................................................................................................................11
4. Collision Data and Analysis.................................................................................................................................................19
DataCollection......................................................................................................................................................................22
CollisionData Analysis Results........................................................................................................................................22
Killed and Severe Injury Collisions.................................................................................................................................29
GeographicCollision Analysis.........................................................................................................................................35
CollisionSeverity Weight..................................................................................................................................................41
HighInjury Network............................................................................................................................................................43
Bicycle and Pedestrian High Injury Network.............................................................................................................47
Summary.................................................................................................................................................................................
51
5. Emphasis Areas........................................................................................................................................................................53
The6 E's of Traffic Safety..................................................................................................................................................53
Existing Traffic Safety Efforts in the Town of Danville............................................................................................54
Factors Considered in the Determination of Emphasis Areas.............................................................................56
6. Countermeasure Selection..................................................................................................................................................65
Identification of Countermeasures................................................................................................................................65
CountermeasureToolbox.................................................................................................................................................65
7. Viable Safety Projects............................................................................................................................................................68
8. Implementation and Evaluation........................................................................................................................................72
Implementation....................................................................................................................................................................
72
Monitoringand Evaluation...............................................................................................................................................73
LRSPUpdate...........................................................................................................................................................................74
TAM Local Roadway Safety Plan I i
pnm+iu,e
FIGURES
Figure1. Study Area..................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Figure 2. Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting#1.................................................................................................7
Figure 3. Town of Danville LRSP Project Website..............................................................................................................8
Figure 4. Comments Received via Interactive Map........................................................................................................... 9
Figure 5. Public Comments on Traffic Safety by Location............................................................................................10
Figure 6. Collisions in the Town of Danville (2017-2021).............................................................................................20
Figure 7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions in the Town of Danville (2017-2021) ...............................................21
Figure 8. Collisions by Severity (2017 -2021)....................................................................................................................22
Figure9. Five Year Collision Trend........................................................................................................................................23
Figure 10. Intersection vs Roadway Collisions - All Collisions....................................................................................24
Figure 11. Collision Type - All Collisions vs KSI Collisions...........................................................................................24
Figure 12. Violation Categories: All Collisions vs KSI.....................................................................................................25
Figure 13. Motor Vehicle Involved With: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions................................................................26
Figure 14. Modes: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions............................................................................................................26
Figure 15. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions..................................................................................27
Figure 16. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions..................................................................................27
Figure 17. Time of the Day: All Collisions vs KSI..............................................................................................................28
Figure 18. KSI Collisions by Facility Type............................................................................................................................29
Figure 19. Killed and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021)..........................................................................................30
Figure 20. KSI Collision Type vs Location Type................................................................................................................31
Figure 21. KSI Collisions: Violation Category vs Location Type..................................................................................31
Figure 22. KSI Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved With vs Location Type..............................................................32
Figure 23. KSI Collisions: Lighting vs and Location Type..............................................................................................32
Figure 24. KSI Collisions: Time of Day vs Location Type...............................................................................................33
Figure 25. KSI Collisions by Gender and Age....................................................................................................................34
Figure 26. KSI Collisions by Collision Type and Movement Preceding Collisions of Party at Fault..............34
Figure 27. Town of Danville Broadside Collisions (2017 - 2021)...............................................................................36
Figure 28. Town of Danville Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021)........................................................................................37
Figure 29. Town of Danville Traffic Signals and Signs Collisions (2017 - 2021) ...................................................38
Figure 30. Town of Danville Unsafe Speed Collisions (2017 - 2021)........................................................................39
Figure 31. Town of Danville Hit Object Collisions (2017 - 2021)...............................................................................40
Figure 32. Town of Danville EPDO Score............................................................................................................................42
Figure 33. Town of Danville High Injury Network...........................................................................................................44
Figure 34. Town of Danville Bicycle/Pedestrian EPDO Score......................................................................................48
Figure 35. Town of Danville Bicycle/Pedestrian High Injury Network.....................................................................49
TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan I ii
pnm+iu,e
TABLES
Table 1. Town of Danville Commute to Work Census Data ......................................
Table 2. Collision by Severity and Facility Type..............................................................
Table 3. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 12....................................................................
Table 4. High Injury Intersections........................................................................................
Table 5. High Injury Corridors...............................................................................................
Table 6. High Bicycle & Pedestrian Injury Intersections ..............................................
Table 7. High Bicycle & Pedestrian Injury Corridors.....................................................
Table 8. Existing Programs Summary.................................................................................
Table 9. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies...................................................................................
Table 10. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies................................................................................
Table 11. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies................................................................................
Table 12. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies................................................................................
Table 13. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies................................................................................
Table 14. Emphasis Area 6 Strategies................................................................................
Table 15. Emphasis Area 7 Strategies................................................................................
Table 16. Countermeasures selected for the Town of Danville ................................
Table 17. List of Viable Safety Projects..............................................................................
Table 18. List of Potential Funding Sources.....................................................................
APPENDICES
...................................... 6
.................................... 23
41
..................................................
..................................................
45
..................................................
46
..................................................
50
..................................................
50
..................................................
54
..................................................
57
..................................................
58
..................................................
60
..................................................
61
..................................................
62
..................................................
63
..................................................
64
..................................................
66
..................................................
70
..................................................
72
Appendix A. Summary of Planning Documents...................................................................................................76
Appendix B. Consolidated High Injury Collision Database...............................................................................95
Appendix C. Countermeasure Toolbox...............................................................................................................168
AppendixD. LRSM Excerpt.....................................................................................................................................176
Appendix E. B/C Ratio Calculations.......................................................................................................................282
TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan I iii
pnm+iu,e
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Town of Danville's Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan that creates a
framework to systemically identify and analyze traffic safety related issues and recommend
projects and countermeasures to enhance safety for all modes of transportation. It aims to reduce
killed and severe injury (KSI) collisions through a prioritized list of improvements that can enhance
safety for all modes of transportation on local roadways.
The LRSP takes a proactive approach to addressing safety needs. It is viewed as a guidance
document that can be a source of information and ideas. It can also be a living document that is
routinely reviewed and updated by Town staff and their safety partners to reflect evolving collision
trends and community needs and priorities. With the LRSP as a guide, the Town will be ready to
apply for grant funds, such as the federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). This
document summarizes an analysis of collisions that occurred in Town of Danville, identifies high -
injury locations, and recommends countermeasures at each of these high-risk locations. It is
organized into eight sections as follows:
CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION
The Introduction describes what an LRSP is and details the study area.
CHAPTER 2 — SAFETY PARTNERS
Involvement of safety partners is critical in the success of the LRSP. For the Town of Danville, this
included the Town of Danville Police Department, San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District, San
Ramon Valley School District, Town of Danville Parks, Arts & Recreation, Contra Costa
Transportation Authority and Town of Danville residents. This chapter summarizes the
involvement of the stakeholders in the LRSP process.
CHAPTER 3 — EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS
This chapter summarizes Town, County and regional planning documents and projects that are
relevant to the LRSP. It ensures that the recommendations of the LRSP are in line with existing
goals, objectives, policies, or projects.
CHAPTER 4 — COLLISION DATA AND ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes the data analysis approach and presents preliminary and detailed
collision analysis within the study area. This analysis of KSI collisions is performed by facility type
(intersection and roadway segment). Collision data was obtained from the Town's Crossroads
collision database and the California Highway Patrol's Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) and analyzed for a five-year period from 2017 to 2021. It should be noted that for many
of the collisions within the specified period, safety measures may have been implemented after
the fact, which may result in eliminating or reducing future collisions. For post 2021 collisions,
future reviews and updates of the LRSP will capture those collisions.
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan 1
pnrrviu,e
CHAPTER 5 — EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas are a focus of the LRSP that are identified through the various collision types and
factors resulting in KSI. The seven emphasis areas for Town of Danville are:
1. Improve Intersection Safety (Collisions within 250 feet of an intersection)
2. Address Broadside Collisions & Traffic Signals and Signs Violations
3. Improve Bicycle Safety
4. Address Rear End Collisions and Unsafe Speed Violations
5. Address Hit Object Collisions
6. Improve Camino Tassajara (Intersection & Roadway Segment)
7. Address Downtown Collisions
Cel:l_1a111114:ZI.W4L•111111►1111 11111i[411%111119101
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-risk locations and for the
emphasis areas. Countermeasures were based on approved countermeasures from the Caltrans
Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) used in HSIP grant calls for projects. The intention is to give
the Town potential countermeasures for each location that can be implemented either in future
HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the Town's Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). Non -engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 4 E's strategies,
and are included with the emphasis areas.
CSI: /_12 111 4:iA!Wf_1 9:1 WA ]:Z•al :14 M
A set of five safety projects were created for high-risk intersections and roadway segments using
HSIP approved countermeasures. These safety projects are:
• Project #1: Signalized Intersections (Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates
with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian
Interval (LPI))
• Project #2: Non -Signalized Intersections (Install/upgrade larger or additional stop
signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs, Upgrade intersection
pavement markings, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations)
• Project #3: Roadway Segments (Install or Upgrade signs with new fluorescent
sheeting, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers)
• Project #4: Roadway Segments (Install Separated Bike Lanes, Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing)
• Project #5: Roadway Segments (Install raised pedestrian crossing)
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan 2
pnrrviu,e
CHAPTER 8 — IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in
coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education,
enforcement, and EMS -related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the Town
to reduce KSI collisions for all modes of transportation. After implementing countermeasures, the
performance measures for each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important
measure of success of the LRSP should be reducing KSI collisions throughout the Town. If the
number of KSI collisions does not decrease over time, then the emphasis areas and
countermeasures should be re-evaluated.
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan 3
pnrrviu,e
1. INTRODUCTION
The LRSP is a localized data -driven traffic safety plan that provides opportunities to address
unique roadway safety needs and reduce the number of KSI collisions for all modes. The LRSP
creates a framework to systemically identify and analyze traffic safety-related issues, recommend
safety projects and countermeasures. It facilitates the development of local agency partnerships
and collaboration, resulting in the development of a prioritized list of improvements that can
qualify for HSIP funding. The LRSP is a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and is
viewed as a living document that can be constantly reviewed and revised to reflect evolving trends,
and community needs and priorities.
The systemic approach in preparing the LRSP involves the following steps:
• Develop plan goals and objectives
• Analyze collision data
• Meet with stakeholders/safety partners
• Determine focus areas and identify crash reduction strategies
• Prioritize countermeasures/projects
• Prepare the LRSP
The Town of Danville is located in the San Ramon Valley in Contra Costa County, California. It
covers a total area of 18 square miles. The Town's estimated population is approximately 43,582
(US Census 2020). The study area is mapped in Figure 1 on the following page.
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan 4
pnrrviu,e
Figure 1. Study Area
Town of Danville
TJKM
pnrfvlue
I "..d. 1n RC I .—E— NL .1"I"I'll 3L-, Ed i T,
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Town of Danville
R-1,. as
........... i
L.—ID
Syra
ore 11I* Rd IRrnbn�B
HJ
RR
Alta ft.
Golly P -•
51 Cenre�C!T--
------- ------
z
..........
TJKM
pnrfvlue
I "..d. 1n RC I .—E— NL .1"I"I'll 3L-, Ed i T,
Local Roadway Safety Plan
According to five-year estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS)' 2019 from the U.S.
Census, 74.3 percent of Town of Danville commuters get to work by driving alone, versus 73.7
percent statewide. The second most common method of commuting to work in Danville is Public
Transportation at 6 percent. The different modes of transportation used by Town of Danville
residents to commute to work are shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Town of Danville Commute to Work Census Data
Commute to Work
Town of Danville
California
Drive Alone
74.3%
73.7%
Carpool
5.7%
10.1%
Public Transportation
6%
5.1%
Walked
2.6%
2.6%
Work from Home
10.5%
5.9%
Other
0.9%
2.6%
'American Community Survey (ACS) 2019
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan 6
pnrrviu,e
2. SAFETY PARTNERS
Safety partners are vital to the development and implementation of an LRSP. For Town of Danville,
these include Town staff, the Town of Danville Police Department, San Ramon Valley Fire
Protection District, San Ramon Valley Unified School District, Danville Chamber of Commerce,
Contra Costa Transportation Authority and Town of Danville residents. Stakeholder meetings were
conducted and stakeholders attended two virtual meetings held on May 12, 2022 and October
12, 2022 to review project goals and findings, and to solicit feedback from the group.
Figure 2. Zoom Meeting from Stakeholder Meeting #1
This stakeholder outreach was supplemented by a project website with an interactive platform.
The interactive map was used to solicit input from Town of Danville residents and stakeholders
outside the confines of traditional meetings.
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan 7
pnrrviu,e
Figure 3. Town of Danville LRSP Project Website
ATown of I nr n I nrI n ntiRr n v c n rr^ry M n Kr
In total, 361 comments were received through the project website for Town of Danville LRSP of
which 322 comments were received using the interactive map. Diablo Road, Camino Tassajara and
Hartz Avenue received the most comments, with the main concerns being pedestrian, bicycle
safety and speeding. The comments received via the interactive map are shown in Figure 4, and
summarized in Figure 5. In Figure 4, each dot and line represents a comment provided by a
community member.
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan 8
pnrrviu,e
Figure 4. Comments Received via Interactive Map
Ala o
�i •
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
blo
Blackhawk
•
7
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 9
Figure S. Public Comments on Traffic Safety by Location
80
70
+^ 60
c
v
E50
0
40
o
30
E _
z 20 � ■ .
10
0 ■ ■
0a
�o o\LtiP �0 0 eJ P �P
Pedestrian Safety Bicycle Safety ■ School Safety
■ Intersection Safety/ Corridor Safety ■ Speeding ■ Traffic Red Light & Signs Violations
■ Unsafe Turning
Note: Top 12 corridors with most comments are included in this chart. Category was chosen based on the primary issue listed in
the comment. Each comment was assigned to the major road if at an intersection.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 10
3. EXISTING PLANNING EFFORTS
This chapter summarizes the planning documents, projects underway, and studies reviewed for
the Town of Danville Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The purpose of this chapter is to ensure
the LRSP vision, goals, and E's strategies (Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Equity, and
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) are aligned with prior planning efforts, planned transportation
projects, and non -infrastructure programs for the Town. The documents reviewed are listed below:
1. Town of Danville General Plan I Mobility (2030)
2. Town of Danville Bicycle Master Plan (2021)
3. Diablo Road Trail Feasibility Study (2018)
4. Downtown Parking Management Plan (2010)
5. Downtown Parking Utilization Assessment (2016)
6. Town of Danville Capital Improvement Program and Operating Budget (FY 2021-22)
7. Danville Parks Recreation and Arts Strategic Plan Update (2017-2027)
8. Town of Danville Bicycle Parking Study (2011)
9. Contra Costa Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (2018)
10. CCTA Transportation Safety and Implementation Guide Vision Zero (2021)
11. CCTA Transportation Expenditure Plan (2020)
12. CCTA Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2017)
13. Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (2020)
14. Contra Costa County IHT Active Transportation Corridor Study (2020)
The following sections include brief descriptions of these documents and how they inform the
development of the LRSP. A more detailed list of relevant policies and projects is listed in
Appendix A.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 11
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
TOWN OF DANVILLE GENERAL PLAN I MOBILITY (2030)
The General Plan mobility element identifies safe, reliable and
accessible transportation needs, through policies and standards
to enhance its design and maintenance of all roadways to further
an integrated multi -modal transportation system. The General
Plan also reflects goals to create better and safer communities
like multi -modal circulation system, complete streets,
transportation options, integrating land use and transportation,
mobility and neighborhood quality, and regional leadership. The
effort of the town is to strike a balance between several needs of
transportation and multi- modal options for the users. These
goals and policies inform Town's Local Roadway Safety Plan to
improve roadway safety for active transportation users while
encouraging users to choose walking, bicycling, and transit as a
mode of transportation in Danville to reduce traffic trips and improve environmental quality.
TOWN OF DANVILLE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN (2021)
The Bicycle Master Plan was developed to respond and be
proactive to the needs of the growing cycling population, and
as well, to provide short and long-term strategies for improving
bicycle connectivity and safety by way of identifying, planning
and incorporating modern bicycle facility infrastructure
advancements.The Plan strives to enhance mobility and safety
by creating a well-connected network of bicycle facilities
including safe roadway crossings, on -street bicycle
accommodations, and off-street facilities for cyclists. The Plan
provides measures and strategies to encourage cycling through
the identification of specific infrastructure improvements and
programmatic initiatives to enhance connectivity and
safety for users in Danville. The improvements identified in the
BMP complement the safety improvements and strategies recommended in the Local Roadway
Safety Plan.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 12
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
DIABLO ROAD TRAIL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ( 2018)
The purpose of this study was to explore potential alignments
for a new off-street trail segment along the Diablo Road
corridor to complete a gap in the existing Diablo Road Trail
(aka Barbara Haile Trail) network. The Diablo Road Trail Project
will ultimately provide a contiguous 8 to 10 -foot wide, paved
multi -use trail facility for all non -motorized user groups that
will span from the intersection of Green Valley Road to the
Blackhawk Road corridor and vicinity of Mt. Diablo State Park.
The study recognizes and builds off existing Town plans,
policies and standards that identify the future facility and that
will ultimately provide and complete a major recreational
destination benefiting the community including Danville
residents and visitors.
DANVILLE DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN
The Town of Danville and the former Community Development
Agency (CDA) have made extensive efforts and investments
to provide and manage parking facilities within the Downtown
area. The plan provides guidelines for regulating parking spaces
and facilities such as establishing permit zones, time restrictions,
and curbside uses, and establishes policies, processes, and
DOWNTOWN I f )1T,"Iti I':1RIiIIti6
strategies for managing employee and residential permit parking, NIAN GI MENIii AN
on and off-street parking time zone adjustments, and curb
marking requests - all with the goal to optimize the
Downtown parking supply.
T,
1 -:' : ]I..
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan
pnrrviu,e
13
DOWTOWN PARKING UTILIZATION ASSESSMENT (2016)
Downtown Parking Utilization Assessment evaluates existing
public and private parking condition in the downtown and
develop effective solutions to improve utilization of the existing
parking supply. The plan identifies and balance out the parking
needs of users and merchants, and to support and maintain
economic environment and thrive seeking alternatives to
enhance accessibility, parking and safety for a diverse group of
users. The overall study reflects to consider recommendation for
employee parking, student parking, parking enforcement,
farmers market, and to pursue private — public partnerships for
for utilization of private parking lots for public use. The
improvements identified in the plan implement ample parking for
users during high -demand peak periods in prime location and
short walking distance and duration within the Town.
TOWN OF DANVILLE 5 -YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
The Town of Danville's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
is a multi-year planning document that provides long-term
fiscal sustainability to support the Town's quality of life through
the planning, design and construction of capital improvements. CAPITAL
Specifically, the CIP identifies improvement projects for facilities, IMPROVEMENT
infrastructure and transportation such as traffic signals, bicycle PROGRAM
and pedestrian facilities, streetlights, and pavement management.
The 5 -year CIP also contains a financial plan and operating budget
that assists to prioritize projects to accomplish community goals
and needs. The safety improvements and strategies recommended
in the Local Roadway Safety Plan would be considered for inclusion
in future updates of the CIP.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 14
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
DANVILLE PARKS RECREATION AND ARTS STRATEGIC PLAN UPDATE (2017-2027)
The Danville Parks, Recreation and Arts Strategic Plan Update
establishes a long- range vision and course of action for creating
and sustaining a high quality, interconnected system of parks,
recreation ans arts facilities, services and programs. This plan
update provides strategic recommendations and includes a
variety of tools to preserve Danville's flexibility to respond to
emerging opportunities over the next ten or more years. It
encourages changes and updates in community preferences, best
practices in recreation and arts. This plan is developed through a
community- driven process by conducting intercept events,
online questionnaires, stakeholder interviews, and
community workshops. The plan also focuses on strengthening
active transportation connections and community amenities.
TOWN OF DANVILLE BICYCLE PARKING STUDY (2011)
The Town of Danville's bicycle parking study (2011) investigate
current downtown bicycle parking needs, and recommends
appropriate quantity, type, and location of racks to accommodate
the need or demand for bicycle parking. This study provides
recommendations for bicycle parking standards town wide as well
as a phased implementation of facilities within the downtown
core. The outline of the study identifies bicycle parking needs,
location and its capacities in the town. It also include data
collection to identify potential recommendations for
improvements and phase wise installations of bicycle parking and
evaluation of cost estimates. The Plan focuses of the strengths of
active transportation and strategies for safety improvements
that support the Local Roadway Safety Plan.
r TJKM
pnrfvlue
Town of Danville
2011 Bicycle Parking Study
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 15
CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN PLAN (2018)
Revised in 2018, the Contra Costa Countywide Bike and
Pedestrian Plan entails new policies, best practices and standards
developed over the last decade as well as newly -adopted local
active transportation plans. This plan highlights the need of
increased interest and support for walking and bicycling. The plan
also includes the pedestrian and bicycle collision density, design
for pedestrian facilities, pedestrian priority area, level of traffic
stress for bicycle users, and existing and proposed bicycle
facilities. The improvements identified in this plan will inform the
safety improvements and strategies to be recommended in the
Town's Local Roadway Safety Plan.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION
IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE (2021)
This report defines a framework for the implementation of Safety
Policies related to transportation and mobility within Contra
Costa County. The Safe Systems approach for the integration of
multimodal equity supports the Vision Zero goal of eliminating
severe injuries and fatalities. This approach is especially critical for
people using non -vehicular transportation modes who lack the
physical protection provided to people traveling in motorized
vehicles, which require compliance with carefully designed and
regulated manufacturing requirements. CCTA launched their
Vision Zero Framework & Systemic Safety Approach effort to
serve as the basis for transportation planning, policy, design,
construction, and funding throughout Contra Costa County.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
SAFETY POLICY AND
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 16
CCTA TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE PLAN (TEP) (2020)
The 2020 Transportation Expenditure Plan is a carefully curated
set of solutions designed to bring Contra Costa's transportation
system into the future by moving more people efficiently,
encouraging mode shift, and promoting shared mobility options
for all. The TEP is intentionally designed to be equitable across
the entire County, based on population. This plan reflects the
current progress of transportation projects in Contra Costa
County and the commitment to pursuing transportation policies,
planning, and investments.
� _4
CCTA COUNTYWIDE COMPREHENSIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN (2017)
The 2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (CTP)
provides the policy framework and steps necessary for the CCTA
to achieve its vision. It includes an analysis of challenges and
opportunities; a definition of the vision, goals, and strategies; and
defines how the CTP will be carried out through a Long -Range
Transportation Investment Program and an Implementation
Program, with defined responsibilities and a schedule of activities.
The CTP outlines the various strategies for addressing
transportation and growth management issues within Contra
Costa County.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 17
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY TRANSPORTATION ANALYSIS GUIDELINES (2020)
The Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines
(TAG) are provided to aid in the preparation of traffic analysis for
project applicants and staff. The purpose of this document is to
establish a uniform approach, methodology, and tools to
evaluate the impacts of land -use decisions and related
transportation projects on the County's transportation system.
This is a living document and is updated periodically to reflect
newly acquired data and relevant policies. Capital Road
Improvement and Complete Streets policies mentioned in this
document will serve as a reference while developing the Town's
Local Road Safety Plan.
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY (2020)
The Iron Horse Trail Active Transportation Corridor Study serves
as a major connector for biking and walking corridor. The purpose
of the study also serves health, economic, environmental, and
transportation benefits, connectivity and auto- oriented
infrastructure. The purpose of this document is to establish a`
uniform approach and sustainable and effective routes form
bicyclists, pedestrians, and shared mobility thus improving its = N
connectivity across the region. The Active Transportation Plan also
includes potential trail improvements, intersection connectivity
and improvements and access enhancements of users and Active
accommodate future transportation needs. The plan is updated to ; p - ;
reflect the newest technologies which serves autonomous vehicle
needs, technical, requirements, infrastructure requirements and
operational consideration. The document outlines corridor design, trail intersection, mobility
enhancements strategies for addressing transportation elements.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 18
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
4. COLLISION DATA AND ANALYSIS
This chapter summarizes the results of a collision analysis for collisions that occurred in the Town
of Danville between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2021, consisting ofthe following sections:
• Data Collection
• Collision Data Analysis
• Fatal and Severe Injury Collision Analysis
• Geographic Collision Analysis
• High Injury Network
• Bicycle & Pedestrian High Injury Network
• Summary
The LRSP focuses on systemically identifying and analyzing traffic safety issues and recommends
appropriate safety improvements. The chapter starts with a comprehensive analysis of collisions
of all severity types in the Town of Danville and compares this with the killed and severe Injury
(KSI) collisions. Factors such as collision severity, type of c ollision, primary collision factor, lighting,
weather, and time were analyzed. Following this, a more detailed analysis was conducted for killed
and severe injury (KSI) collisions that have occurred on the Town's roadways, including analyzing
intersection and roadway segment collisions separately. Figure 6 illustrates all the injury collisions
that have occurred in the Town of Danville from 1/1/2017 to 12/31/2021, followed by a map of
bicycle and pedestrian collisions only in Figure 7.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 19
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Figure 6. Collisions in the Town of Danville (2017-2021)
t�
Alamo Town Of Danville
V All Collisions
r-------------
(2017-2021)
. --
;!•
�, dpi✓i�,� �� �;`` ■ ��`� , 'od, , w ♦ ',,
11
�.S • P
%TJ -b IR .
�J . • o ` • I
■ I
i
i
G • s • ...............
• Bfackhawk
----------- , Ipc.amore 1Iley Rd • � rl
i % • • J1 1
i • cam • i
p ryo T• . i
i o � . •► • •: •• assa�aa •• i
---------------
COIIISIQi1 SBVBiIt]I r� y 3. • i i ......... L------------ + 1
• Fatal _.._-._.._.. o� r - _.._.-_..__-_.. i
Severe Injury �o #,, i l
• ❑ the r Visible Injury;'
t
Q Complaint of PainSan Ramon
l�
• Properly Damage Only ;.
r TJKM
pnm+rux
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 20
Figure 7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions in the Town of Danville (2017-2021)
Alamo
I
S;IE�GeR
s o a� •
a
4 ii
t
r f` sycamore Valley Rd
I
I
Town of Danville
Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions
tzu-1 I -zu z-1 )
i
I
N
Collision Severity
• Fatal
Severe Injury
■ Other Visible Injury
❑ Complaint of Pain
• Property Damage Only
•
San Raman
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 21
pnm+rux Y Plan I
Collision data helps to understand different factors that might be leading to collisions and
influencing collision patterns in a given area. For the purpose of this analysis, five -years of
jurisdiction -wide collision data (2017 to 2021) was retrieved from the Town's Crossroads collision
database. Collisions in January -June 2017 were supplemented with data from the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Collisions that occurred on state highways were
excluded. The collision data was analyzed and plotted in ArcMap to identify high-risk intersections
and roadways segments.
COLLISION ANALYSIS BY SEVERITY
There were a total of 642 collisions
reported on the Town of Danville
roads from 2017 to 2021. Out of these,
380 collisions (59%) led to property
damage only, 130 led to a complaint
of pain injury (20%) and 96 collisions
(15%) led to a visible injury. There were
36 KSI (killed and severe injury)
collisions, of which 32 collisions (5%)
led to a severe injury and 4 collisions
(1%) led to a fatality. Figure 8
illustrates the classification of all
collisions based on severity.
Figure 8. Collisions by Severity (2017 -2021)
Property
Damage Only
(PDO)
59%
Fatal Severe Injury
1% 5%
14 Visible Injury
15%
Complaint of
Pain
20%
The analysis first includes a comparative evaluation between all collisions and KSI collisions, based
on various factors including (but not limited to): collision trend, primary collision factor, collision
type, facility type, motor vehicle involved with, weather, lighting, and time of the day. Following
this, a comprehensive analysis is conducted for only KSI collisions. KSI collisions cause the most
damage to those affected and to infrastructure. The LRSP process thus focuses on these collision
locations to proactively identify and counter safety issues leading to these KSI collisions.
The collision data was separated by facility type, i.e. based on collisions occurring on intersections
and roadway segments. For the purposes of the analysis and in accordance with HSIP guidelines,
a collision was designated to have occurred at an intersection if it occurred within 250 feet of it.
The reported collisions categorized by facility type and collision severity are presented in Table
2.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 22
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Table 2. Collision by Severity and Facility Type
Fatal
1
3
4
Severe Injury
4
28
32
Visible Injury
16
80
96
Complaint of Pain
15
115
130
Property Damage Only (PDO)
68
315
380
Total
104
541
642
YEARLY TREND
The number of reported collisions of all severity increased between 2017 and 2019, before falling
in 2020 and rising again in 2021. The year with the highest number of collisions was 2019 (175
collisions), while the year with the lowest number of collisions was 2020 (94 collisions). A total of
36 KSI collisions occurred in the Town of Danville during the study period, overall decreasing until
2020, when KSI collisions started to rise. The least number of KSI collisions occurred in 2019 (3
collisions), while the most occurred in 2021 (10 collisions). Figure illustrates the five-year collision
trend for all collisions, and KSI collisions.
Figure 9. Five Year Collision Trend
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
150
100
175
94
123
9
7
3
7
10
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
Total KSI
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 23
ROADWAY SEGMENT VS.
INTERSECTION
When evaluating the locations of collisions,
most collisions occurred at intersections
and not along roadway segments. In
Danville, 84% of all collisions (538
collisions) occurred at intersections
whereas 16% (104 collisions) occurred on
roadway segments. This classification by
facility type can be observed Figure 10.
Figure 10. Intersection vs Roadway Collisions - All
Collisions
Roadway
Segment
16%
Intersection
COLLISION TYPE 84%
The most commonly occurring collision
types were broadside collisions (25%) and rear end collisions (24%). The top collision types for KSI
collisions were broadside collisions (31%) and hit object collisions (22%). Figure 11 illustrates the
collision type for all collisions as well as KSI collisions.
Figure 11. Collision Type - All Collisions vs KSI Collisions
35%
31%
30%
24%
25%25%
22%22%
22%
20%
15%
13%
10%
8%
6%
3 0/
6%
6% 6% 6%
%
1% p a/o ,
0
0�
ea6
J 5 O
O \e\
der`
Total ■ KSI
r r TJKM Y Y Local Roadway Safety Plan
pnrrviu,e
24
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
For collisions of all severity, the most common violation category was observed to be unsafe speed
(27%) and improper turning (20%). The most common primary violation categories for KSI
collisions were traffic signals and signs (31%) and unsafe speed (16%). Figure 12 illustrates the
violation category for all collisions and KSI collisions.
Figure 12. Violation Categories: All Collisions vs KSI
35%
31%
30%
27%
25%
20%
20%
16%
15%
11° 11% °
9%9%
11% °
10%
7%
7%
' 3%� '
4%� 2%� 1%,
4%'
I
0%
sero dY\� eed d5`�\��r`o\ati1°n e�`e�� Ot\�e� ad �\J\°�
t \��\ °� 6a sakeSP s a� eta �\ °� ram e ° et O
�\v�`a4e -6\S \C � oP�� �a�a�do�s� O�re� C 04 e�vco01
O
O
Total ■ KSI
MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH
For collisions of all severity, 51% of the collisions occurred by motor vehicles colliding with other
vehicles. This was followed by hit object collisions (21%), and bicycle collisions (11%). For KSI
collisions, 39% involved a bicycle, 33% of the collisions involved another motor vehicle, and 19%
involved a fixed object. Figure 13 illustrates the motor vehicle involved with category for all
collisions as well as KSI collisions.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 25
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Figure 13. Motor Vehicle Involved With: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions
60% 51%
50%
40% 33%
30%
20%
10%
10% 5% 6%
0% 0% -
0%
N Co\\\S\oto Q eaeS�C\ate e� \ J "oc ergo\e 600NO'� 10611,
per Qa�\�e
Total ■ KSI
39%
21%19%
11% 11% 3%
�\c�lo�e dp`P>ee� p'�,oet
MODES
In addition to motor vehicle involved with, modes include a more detailed breakdown of the
vehicle type at fault in the accident, including motorcycles and trucks. For collisions of all severity,
the majority were caused by a passenger or other vehicle (82%), followed by truck or bus (10%).
Crashes with other vehicles (53%) also makes up the majority of KSI collisions, but
pedestrian/bicycle caused collisions (28%) rose in percentage significantly. Figure 14 illustrates
the percentage for all collisions as well as KSI collisions by mode.
Figure 14. Modes: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20% 8%
10% 1% _
0%
c\eo�Scoo,�et
Oti e��er\e\e
r
o�'06� e� of
�` QaSSe��
82%
53%
28%
6% , 10% 11%
1% 0%
o� dos S121 -ed
"
s�
Qede
Total ■ F+SI
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 26
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
LIGHTING
For collisions of all severity, 74% of collisions occurred in daylight, while 21% of collisions occurred
in the dark on streets with streetlights. For KSI collisions, a slightly higher percentage of crashes
occurred in nighttime conditions, with 72% of collisions having occurred in daylight and 28% of
collisions occurred in the dark on streets with street lights. Figure 15 illustrates the lighting
condition for all collisions and KSI collisions.
Figure 15. Lighting Conditions: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions
80% 74% 72%
70%
60%
50%
40%
28%
30% 21%
20%
10% 2% 0% 3% 0%
0%
Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Dark - No Street Lights
Total ■ KSI
WEATHER
For all collisions, the vast majority occurred during clear weather conditions (87%). All 36 KSI
collisions occurred during clear weather conditions. Figure 16 illustrates the percent distribution
of weather conditions during occurrence of collisions of all severity as well as KSI collisions.
Figure 16. Weather Conditions: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions
120%
100%
100% 87%
80%
60%
40%
20% 9% 0% 3% 0% 1% 0%
0%
Clear Cloudy Raining Fog/Other
Total ■ KSI
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 27
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
TIME OF THE DAY
For collisions of all severity, the hour with the most number of collisions was between 3:00 p.m.
to 4:00 p.m. (13%), while the hour with the fewest number of collisions was between 4:00 a.m. to
5:00 a.m. (0%). For all KSI collisions, maximum number of collisions occurred between 4:00 p.m.
to 5:00 p.m. (17%). Figure 17 illustrates the percentage of collisions occurring during each hour
of the day for all collisions as well as KSI collisions.
Figure 17. Time of the Day: All Collisions vs KSI
18%
16%
14%
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
0%
00 P0 00 P0 00 P� 00 P� 00 P� 00 PO OOeo OOeo OOeo OC Qo OOQo OOQ�
Total KSI
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 28
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
This section describes a detailed collision analysis performed for KSI collisions occurring at
roadway segments and intersections in the Town of Danville. Of the total 36 KSI collisions that
occurred during the study period, 5 collisions (14%) occurred on roadway segments and 31
collisions (86%) occurred at intersections. This distribution is illustrated in Figure 18.
Figure 18. KSI Collisions by Facility Type
Inters
81
Roadway Segment
14%
Figure 19 maps the KSI collisions that occurred the Town of Danville during the study period.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 29
pnrrvlu,e Y Plan I
Figure 19. Killed and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021)
A I n M n
l. -..-..-.._.j
...........
Town of Danville
Killed & Severe Injury (KSI)
Collisions
N"
L.._.._.._.._.
Sycamore V8i ley Rd
1J. O"h".
(2017-2021)
B I a c k h a %,v k
...........
L-----------------------------
0
Collision Severity
0 Fatal San a rn o n
Severe Injury
TJKM
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 30
COLLISION TYPE AND LOCATION TYPE
The most common KSI collision type was broadside collisions (31%). These collisions were most
likely to occur at intersections, along with hit object collisions and vehicle/pedestrian collisions.
31% of all KSI collisions were a broadside collision that occurred at an intersection. Figure 20
shows killed and severe injury collisions locations as well as the collision type.
Figure 20. KSI Collision Type vs Location Type
35%
31%
3%
30%
3%
3%
1
25%
1
19%
20%
17%
15%
10%
6%
6% 6%
6%
5%
.
3% 3%
3% .
. 3%
0%
a0�
01
� 5
O le\
Roadway ■ Intersection
Jer\
VIOLATION CATEGORY AND LOCATION TYPE
The most common primary violation categories for KSI collisions other than "other." were traffic
signals and signs (14%) and driving under influence, unsafe speed, and improper turning, all at
(11%). Traffic Signals and Signs violations entirely occurred at intersection, while unsafe speed
violations were more balanced between intersections and roadway segments. Figure 21 shows
killed and severe injury collisions as well as the location type and violation category.
Figure 21. KSI Collisions: Violation Category vs Location Type
18%
16% 14%
14%
12% 11% 11% 11%
10% 8% 8%
8%
6%
4% 3%
2%
0%
17%
e 4'- Pe��ot0\a-,\oaSa�dS\�el�llet Cra�O�\���otgao\" '0t\�\�� "'Vodo O,reSaeScat�` O�re�010opet
Roadway ■ Intersection
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 31
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
6%
3%
3%
3%
3%
1
1
1
17%
e 4'- Pe��ot0\a-,\oaSa�dS\�el�llet Cra�O�\���otgao\" '0t\�\�� "'Vodo O,reSaeScat�` O�re�010opet
Roadway ■ Intersection
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 31
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
MOTOR VEHICLE INVOLVED WITH AND LOCATION TYPE
KSI collisions involving bicycles was the most common type occurring at intersections (33% of all
KSI collisions). On roadway segments, the most common collision was with fixed objects, bicycle,
and with other motor vehicles (6% of all KSI collisions each). Figure 22 shows killed and severe
injury collisions locations as well as the collision type.
Figure 22. KSI Collisions: Motor Vehicle Involved With vs Location Type
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
6%
0% -
Q edeS���ar o�e� ewc�e
O1ret
3%
31% 33%
6%
-�\cyc\e
Roadway ■ Intersection
14%
6%
3%
0% —
010
O�ret
LIGHTING VS AND LOCATION TYPE
Most KSI collisions occurred in daylight at intersections (64%), followed by collisions in the dark
on streets with street lights at intersections (22%). Figure 23 shows killed and severe injury
collisions locations as well as lighting conditions.
Figure 23. KSI Collisions: Lighting vs and Location Type
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
8%
Daylight
64%
Roadway ■ Intersection
22%
6%
Dark - Street Lights
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 32
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
WEATHER VS AND LOCATION TYPE
All KSI collisions occurred in clear weather conditions, including a total of 31 intersection collisions
and 5 roadway segment collisions.
TIME OF THE DAY VS AND LOCATION TYPE
The time duration with the most KSI collisions was during 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. These primarily
occurred at intersections. The time period with the most roadway segment KSI collisions was
12pm-3pm (2 collisions), and 9pm-12am (2 collisions). Figure 24 shows fatal and severe injury
collisions by location type and time of day.
Figure 24. KSI Collisions: Time of Day vs Location Type
12
10
s
6
4
2
0
13
Roadway Intersection
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 33
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
GENDER VS AGE
For KSI collisions, the gender of the party at fault was more likely to be male than female (72% of
KSI collisions were caused by a male). The largest age group was 20-29 years (22%). Parties at
fault under 40 years of age accounts for half (50%) of all KSI collisions. Figure 25 illustrates the
gender and age of the party at fault for KSI collisions.
Figure 25. KSI Collisions by Gender and Age
25%
20%
15%
10%
0%
0-14 15-19
20-29
30-39 40-49 50-59
60-69 70-79 80+
■ Female Male
COLLISION TYPE VS. MOVEMENT PRECEDING COLLISION OF PARTY AT FAULT
The most common type of collision for KSI collisions broadside collisions. Of these collisions,
Proceeding Straight was the most common movement preceding the collision of the party at fault
(7 collisions), followed by making left turn (3 collisions). Figure 26 shows distribution of collision
type and the movement by the party at fault preceding the collision.
Figure 26. KSI Collisions by Collision Type and Movement Preceding Collisions of Party at
Fault
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
■
■
M M
Changing Entering Making Left Making U Merging
Lanes Traffic Turn Turn
Broadside ■ Head -On ■ Hit Object ■ Other
Other Proceeding Ran Off Stopped In Traveling
Unsafe Straight Road Road Wrong Way
Turning
Rear -End Sideswipe ■ Vehicle - Pedestrian
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 34
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
This section describes a detailed geographic collision analysis performed for injury collisions
occurring on roadway segments and at intersections in the Town of Danville. The above collision
analysis was used to identify five main collision factors that highlight the top trends among
collisions in Danville. These five collision factors were identified to be broadside collisions, bicycle
collisions, traffic signals and signs violations, unsafe speed violations, and hit object collisions.
Broadside Collisions
Broadside collisions represented the highest proportion of collisions of all severity (2%), a
significant percentage of KSI collisions (31%). Figure 27 shows the distribution of broadside
collisions throughout the Town of Danville between 2017 and 2021.
Bicycle Collisions
Bicycle involved collisions made up 39% of KSI collisions (the most of any category), as well as
11% of all collisions. Figure 28 shows the distribution of bicycle collisions throughout the Town
of Danville between 2017 and 2021.
Traffic Signals and Signs Violations
31% of KSI collisions in Danville were caused by traffic signals and signs violations, the highest of
any violation type among KSI injury collisions. It also caused 11% of all collisions. Figure 29 shows
the distribution of traffic signals and signs violation caused collisions throughout the Town of
Danville between 2017 and 2021.
Unsafe Speed Violations
Unsafe speed was the most common violation type among all collisions (27%), as well as the
second most common violation causing KSI collisions (16%). Figure 30 shows the distribution of
unsafe speed violation caused collisions throughout the Town of Danville between 2017 and 2021.
Hit Object Collisions
Hit object collisions accounted for 22% of all collisions, and remained a significant portion of KSI
collisions (22%). Figure 31 shows the distribution of pedestrian collisions throughout the Town
of Danville between 2017 and 2021.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 35
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Figure 27. Town of Danville Broadside Collisions (2017 - 2021)
Alarm
Town of Danville
Broadside Collisions
(2017-2021)I �
l._.._.._.._.1 ■ L._..r �T
9 y
I �•►
G
.......... ..._.._..1 Y/
I
I
I
I
N
Collision severity
w Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
❑ Complaint of Pain
■ Property damage Only
■ • ' B I a c k h a w k
'y Sycamore Valley Rd r
�U
I
I
•
�am'ryo ra I
n i �•.� F i i
V.4� 3 i
tYy •` L._
_._.._.-
San Raman
r r TJKM
pnm+rux Local Roadway Safety Plan I36
Figure 28. Town of Danville Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021)
Ll
A I a rn o
...........
L- - -- - -- - -- - -
do
q, Ilk
lo'o
`1
01) 0 0
Sycamore Valley Rd
..-.__.._....--T
Collision Severity
.............
0 Fatal
Severe Injury
* Other Visible Injury
* Complaint of Pain
® Property Damage Only
Town of Danville
Bicycle Collisions
0111111'1;d,,,11-1410
San Ramon
(2017-2021)
B I a c k h a w k
------------------ -----------
-----------
TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 37
Figure 29. Town of Danville Traffic Signals and Signs Collisions (2017 - 2021)
C a I
y � I
O + 1
'i o
Alamo Town of Danville
Traffic Signals and Signs
f.'- -� .... - -,--•--._.._-- Violation Collisions
r 1 'L• (2017-2021)
�Q L- ........... j
d wd g �'•
c
oan`o4 .� ___.._
...............
Slackhavvk
n
j
r' t Y• sycamore Valley Red
i • k
i '`•lt Ca�,no rasa
i.,
i
Collision Severityi.._-.... i------------ ------------•--
■ Fatal _.._. i
Severe Injury
• other Visible Injury,`"
Complaint of Pain S a n R a m o n
• Praperty Damage only
r TJKM
pnm+rux
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 38
Figure 30. Town of Danville Unsafe Speed Collisions (2017 - 2021)
r"
11
Ala mo
Town of Danville
Unsafe Speed
Violation Coflisions
(2417-2021)
Biackhawk
L11;
Collision Severity
0 Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Inj
Complaint of Pain
a Property Damage Only
r TJKM
San Ramon
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 39
Figure 31. Town of Danville Hit Object Collisions (2017 - 2021)
r"
Alamo
i' �clPQ` g :e`` •
Town of Danville
Hit Object Collisions
(2017-2021)
■
i •
w '
■
•
Sycamore Valley Rd
Collision Severity
■ Fatal
Severe Injury
• Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
• Property Damage Only
r TJKM
r^■r•r••r
� I
1 r I _.._.._ •
{; • I I
° ° i.._.._.._..�
i
San Ramon
1'.
Yl
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 40
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) method was used to identify the high severity collision
network. The EPDO method accounts for both the severity and frequency of collisions by
converting each collision to an equivalent number of property damage only (PDO) collisions. The
EPDO method assigns a crash cost and score to each collision according to the severity of the
crash weighted by the comprehensive crash cost. These EPDO scores are calculated using a
simplified version of the comprehensive crash costs per HSIP Cycle 12 application. The weights
used in the analysis are shown below in Table 3.
Table 3. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 12
Fatal and Severe Injury Combined 165*
Visible Injury 11
Possible Injury 6
PDO 1
*This is the score used in HSIP Cycle 12 for collisions on roadways segments, to simplify the analysis this study uses the
same score for all KSI collisions regardless of location.
EPDO is used because it provides a methodology for the project team to understand the locations
in Danville that are experiencing the most severe crashes. Because of the high score given to fatal
and severe injury crashes, locations that have these types of crashes are more likely to receive a
higher EPDO score than other locations that may have more collisions, but fewer fatal or severe
injury collisions. Locations that have the highest EPDO scores are selected for inclusion in the High
Collision Network, shown in the next section. Identified intersections are scored based on
collisions occurring at or within 250 feet of the intersection, while roadway segment locations are
identified based on collisions that occur along the segment, except directly at an intersection (0
feet from intersection per SWITRS and TIMS data). Identifying the locations with the most severe
crashes allows the team to focus recommended solutions and countermeasures at these locations.
The EPDO scores for all collisions can then be aggregated in a variety of ways to identify collision
patterns, such as location hot -spots. The weighted collisions for the Town of Danville were
geolocated onto Danville's road network. GIS is then used to calculate the EPDO score for each
roadway segment and intersection town wide, which is then ranked according to its score.
Figure 32 shows the location and geographic concentration of collisions by their EPDO score.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 41
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Figure 32. Town of Danville EPDO Score
Alamo
Town of Danville
EPDO Score
(2017-2021)
---------------
J
............ ....... ycarnore V -11.Y<
EPDO Score
INIMMEW-73M
Low High
San Rat -non
c k h a +,v k
-----------------------------
TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 42
Following the detailed collision analysis, the next step was to identify the high -injury roadway
segments and intersections in Danville. The methodology for scoring the high injury locations is
the same method as used in the severity weight section. Figure 33 shows the top 10 high -collision
roadway segments, and top 10 high -collision intersections.
For the purposes of the high collision network analysis, intersections include collisions that
occurred within 250 feet of it and roadways include all collisions that occurred along the roadway
except for collisions that occurred directly at an intersection. Such collisions are assigned a 0 value
in distance from intersection value column in the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
(SWITRS).
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 43
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Figure 33. Town of Danville High Injury Network
Alamo
. . .. . . . . .. . . J
Sycamore Val !7YOR
............
High Injury Intersection
High Injury Corridor
Town of Danville
High Injury Network
San Raman
TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 44
INTERSECTION RANKINGS
10 intersections were identified as high collision intersections. There were a total of 99 collisions
and 13 KSI collisions that occurred at these intersections. The intersection with the highest score
was Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at Ackerman Dr.
Table 4 lists the top 10 identified high -injury intersections along with their severity weight and
the number of KSI collisions.
Table 4. High Injury Intersections
1 Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at Ackerman Dr
2 Camino Tassajara at Tassajara Ranch
Dr/Blackhawk Plaza Cir
3 Stone Valley Rd at Monte Sereno Rd
4 Crow Canyon Rd at Center Wy/Center Ct
5 Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave
6 Crow Canyon Rd at Tassajara Ranch Dr
7 San Ramon Valley Blvd at Boone Ct
8 Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr
9 Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr
10 Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd
9
2
357
11
2
354
4
2
337
15
1
234
11
1
210
12
1
206
15
1
204
8
1
192
7
1
191
7
1
191
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 45
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
CORRIDOR RANKINGS
10 corridors were identified as high collision corridors. There was a total 217 collisions and 16 KSI
collisions on these corridors. The Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara corridor had the most
KSI collisions with six.
Table 5 lists the collision rate of the top 10 identified high -collision corridors along with the
number of KSI collisions, total collisions, corridor length, and severity weight.
Table S. High Injury Corridors
A Sycamore Valley Road/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Town
Limit
B Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Hartz Wy
C San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr
D Diablo Rd: Danville Blvd to Clydesdale Dr
E Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit
F Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave
G Del Amigo Rd: 200' N of Camino Encanto to Danville Blvd
H Stone Valley Rd: 575' W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley
Rd
Highland Dr: Lonesome Rd to 1,700'W of Lonesome Rd
J Green Valley Rd: Stone Valley Rd to Diablo Rd
88
6
6.0
1312
30
2
0.9
448
30
2
2.1
413
38
1
2.2
317
11
1
0.5
210
4
1
0.2
178
2
1
0.3
171
2
1
0.3
166
1
1
0.3
165
11
0
0.7
66
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 46
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Utilizing the same scoring methodology as the High Injury Network and EPDO score previously, a
high injury network was also developed for only bicycle and pedestrian collisions. Figure 34
details the location and concentration of EPDO score when considering only bicycle and
pedestrian collisions. This is followed by the bicycle/pedestrian high injury network in Figure 35.
The bicycle/pedestrian high injury network represents the top six intersections and top six
roadway segments experiencing more severe bicycle or pedestrian crashes in Danville.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 47
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Figure 34. Town of Danville Bicycle/Pedestrian EPDO Score
A I a m 0
LO
EPOO Score
mqmmmm�
Low High
TJKM
............
0
Town of Danville
Bicycle & Pedestrian
EPDO Score
(2017-2021)
.I
L-- – -- – -- – - - – —
1.d in j i aC K 11 El W j�
Sycamore Valley Rd
r
L- — — — -- — -- — -- — -- — -- — -- — -- — — -
W
L............
San Raman
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 48
Figure 35. Town of Danville Bicycle/Pedestrian High Injury Network
AIarno
i.__-_.._.._.
High Injury Intersection
High Injury Corridor
Town of Danville
Bicycle & Pedestrian
High Injury Network
r
' Blackha'v�,+k
Sycamore Valley Rd
i
1
�d n]ina �ass'3ia�
1
.'y .._.._..-
�n. San Ramon
r r TJKM
pnm+rux Local Roadway Safety Plan I49
INTERSECTION & CORRIDOR RANKINGS
Six intersections were identified as high injury intersections. There were a total of 15 bicycle/pedestrian
injury collisions at these intersections, including six KSI collisions. Six segments were identified as high
injury, with 33 bicycle/pedestrian collisions occurring on them, including eight KSI.
Table 6 lists the bicycle/pedestrian high injury intersections, while Table 7 lists the bicycle/pedestrian
high injury corridors.
Table 6. High Bicycle & Pedestrian Injury Intersections
1
San Ramon Valley Blvd at Sonora Ave
5
1
184
2
San Ramon Valley Blvd at Boone Ct
2
1
176
3
Del Amigo Rd at Glen Rd
2
1
176
4
Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Dr
2
1
176
5
Glen Rd at Hartford Rd
2
1
171
6
Linda Mesa Ave at Patricks PI
2
1
171
Table
7. High Bicycle & Pedestrian Injury Corridors
A
San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr
5
2
2.1
358
B
Diablo Rd: Danville Blvd to Clydesdale Dr
8
1
2.2
222
C
Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Hartz Wy
8
1
0.9
213
D
Camino Tassajara: 1,430' W of Wood Ranch Dr to Town
7
1
2.3
211
Limit
E
Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave
2
1
0.2
176
F
Del Amigo Rd: 200' N of Camino Encanto to Danville Blvd
2
1
0.3
171
G
Highland Dr: Lonesome Rd to 1,700'W of Lonesome Rd
1
1
0.3
165
TAM Local Roadway Safety Plan I i
pnm+iu,e
Between 2017 and 2021, a total of 642 collisions occurred in the Town of Danville, of which 36 resulted
in a killed or severe injury. Among all collisions, the most prominent collision types were broadside and
rear end collisions, while unsafe speed and improper turning were the most common violation types. The
corridor with the highest EPDO score was Sycamore Valley Road/Camino Tassajara from San Ramon
Valley Boulevard to Town Limit, while the intersection with the highest EPDO score was Diablo Road/EI
Cerro Boulevard at Ackerman Drive.
Five prominent collision factors that emerged were: broadside collisions, bicycle collisions, traffic
signals and signs violations, unsafe speed violations, and hit object collisions. Each of these is
described in turn.
Broadside collisions represented the highest proportion of collisions of all severity (31%), a significant
percentage of KSI collisions (25%). Broadside collisions can potentially be mitigated by increasing the
visibility of an intersection through updated pavement markings, new or updated signage, lighting,
advance flashing beacons, and improving sight distance.
Bicycle involved collisions made up 39% of KSI collisions (the most of any category), as well as 11% of all
collisions. These collisions can potentially be mitigated with enhanced bicycle infrastructure, such as
protected bike lanes, bicycle boxes at signalized intersections, green paint for enhanced visibility,
additional lighting, or adding bike lanes/widening shoulders.
31% of KSI collisions in Danville were caused by traffic signals and signs violations, the highest of any
violation type among KSI injury collisions. It also caused 11% of all collisions. Increasing the visibility of
an intersection can help mitigate traffic signals and signs violations, such as upgrading signal hardware,
installing additional or larger STOP signs or other intersection warning signs, upgrading pavement
markings, adding lighting, or installing flashing beacons at or in advance of the intersection.
Unsafe speed was the most common violation type among all collisions (27%), as well as the second most
common violation causing KSI collisions (16%). Speeding can be mitigated through the introduction of
traffic calming, which can be a combination of street narrowing, medians, bulb outs at intersections, or
Complete Streets elements like high visibility crosswalks, bike lanes, and wider sidewalks. Driver education
and speed enforcement, either through radar trailers or officer patrols, can also help to mitigate instances
of unsafe speed violations.
Hit object collisions accounted for 22% of all collisions, and remained a significant portion of KSI collisions
(22%). Hit object collisions can be mitigated through tactics to mitigate run off road collisions, such as
rumble strips, object markers, additional lighting, widening shoulders, or (where appropriate), guard rails.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 51
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
The next steps in the LRSP will be to identify Emphasis Areas based on the collision analysis presented in
this memo. The most prominent collision types, violations, and human behaviors will be selected for
inclusion as an Emphasis Area, as these represent the most prominent traffic safety issues in Danville.
Each Emphasis Area will be accompanied with strategies corresponding to the five E's of safety
(Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Equity and EMS) to comprehensively make the Town of Danville
safer for all modes of transportation.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 52
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
S. EMPHASIS AREAS
Emphasis areas are focus areas for the Local Roadway Safety Plan that are identified through the
comprehensive collision analysis of the identified high injury locations within Danville. Emphasis areas
help in identifying appropriate safety strategies and countermeasures with the greatest potential to
reduce collisions occurring at these high injury locations. They can include (but not be limited to): specific
collision types, human behaviors, facility types, and specific locations or corridors.
This chapter summarizes the top seven (7) emphasis areas identified for Danville. These emphasis areas
were derived from the consolidated high injury collision database (Appendix B) where top injury factors
were identified by combing the data manually. The high injury collision database contains only collisions
occurring at the high injury intersections or along the high injury corridors. Along with findings from the
data analysis, stakeholder input was also considered to refine the emphasis areas specific to Danville.
The following are the identified emphasis areas —
• Improve Intersection Safety (Collisions within 250 feet of an intersection)
• Address Broadside Collisions & Traffic Signals and Signs Violations
• Improve Bicycle Safety
• Address Rear End Collisions and Unsafe Speed Violations
• Address Hit Object Collisions
• Improve Camino Tassajara (Intersection & Roadway Segment)
• Address Downtown Collisions
The LRSP utilizes a comprehensive approach to safety incorporating "6 E's of traffic safety": Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, Encouragement, Evaluation, and Equity. This approach recognizes that not all
locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the 6 E's of traffic safety
is often required to ensure successful implementation of significant safety improvements and reduce the
severity and frequency of collisions throughout a jurisdiction.
Some of the common violation types that may require a comprehensive approach are speeding, failure -
to -yield to pedestrians, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted
driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations,
coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to arrange visible targeted
enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes and injuries.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 53
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
To improve safety, education efforts can be used to supplement enforcement and improve the efficiency
of each strategy. Education can also be employed in the short-term to address high crash locations until
the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented. Encouragement strategies are applied
primarily to address bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns, as it surrounds encouraging students and
residents to walk and bike to their destinations. Evaluation strategies are developed to determine if the
implemented countermeasures/strategies are addressing the known safety issue. Equity is incorporated
as an overarching theme of the LRSP to examine the effects of collisions on disadvantaged communities,
and to recommend improvements in these areas.
The Town of Danville and partner agencies have already implemented safety strategies corresponding to
the 6 E's of traffic safety. The strategies detailed in this memorandum can supplement these existing
programs and concentrate them on high injury collision locations and crash types. These initiatives are
summarized in Table 8.
Table 8. Existing Programs Summary
Document/ Program
Description
E's Addressed
The Danville Town Council adopted the NTMP to address
Danville Neighborhood neighborhood traffic issues using an innovative and community- Education,
Traffic Management based approach. It focuses on reducing traffic concerns on local Enforcement,
Program streets, incorporating modern solutions to traffic calming, and and Engineering
managing appropriate speeds and volumes in residential areas.
The Town of Danville participates in San Ramon Valley Street
Smarts, which works to address traffic safety in Danville and San
San Ramon Valley Street Ramon through educational programs that complement Education,
Smarts ongoing engineering and enforcement efforts. They do so Encouragement
through awareness campaigns, community events, school
activities/discussions, neighborhood initiatives, and more.
To eliminate unnecessary vehicle trips, 511 Contra Costa
encourages students to walk, bike, carpool, or take the bus to
511 Contra Costa school whenever possible. Their Youth Transportation programs Education,
offer tips for safe walking/biking to school, partners with Safe Encouragement
Routes to School, and promotes events such as Walk and Bike
to School Days.
Bicycle Master Plan
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
In 2020, the Town began development of a Townwide Bicycle
Master Plan, funded by the Contra Costa Measure J Engineering,
Transportation for Livable Communities program. The plan was Encouragement,
developed with extensive public input through virtual Education,
workshops and an online webtool that helped develop Enforcement,
recommendations for new bicycle projects and programs that and Evaluation
will shape the future of cycling in Danville.
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 54
The Danville Police Department works in partnership with our
Danville Police diverse community to safeguard the lives, rights and property of Education,
Department the people they serve. With unwavering dedication, the Enforcement,
department provide innovative professional law enforcement EMS
services to our community.
San Ramon Valley Fire
The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District provides all-risk Education,
fire, rescue and emergency medical services to the Town of Enforcement,
Department Danville and San Ramon Valley. EMS
CCTA launched their Vision Zero Framework & Systemic Safety
Approach effort to serve as the basis for transportation planning,
Contra Costa Vision Zero policy, design, construction, and funding throughout Contra
(2017) Costa County. As part of the program, CCTA developed a Engineering
Countywide Vision Zero network and has been working with
each city/town to adopt their own Vision Zero policies.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 55
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
This section presents collision data analysis of collision type, collision factors, facility type, roadway
geometries, and party level data, analyzed for the various emphasized areas. Emphasis areas were
determined by factors that led to the highest amount of injury collisions, with a specific emphasis on fatal
and severe (KSI) injury collisions. Danville experienced a total of 290 collisions at high injury network
locations during the 2017-2021 study period, including 25 KSI collisions. The data presented below in
each emphasis area is based on these collisions.
Each emphasis area is accompanied by comprehensive programs, policies and countermeasures to reduce
collisions on Town roads in that specific emphasis area. It will provide the basis by which the
countermeasure toolbox is developed for each identified high-risk location. Note that Encouragement
strategies will accompany bicycle & pedestrian focused emphasis areas, as these countermeasures tend
to focus on encouraging students and residents to walk and bike or use alternative modes of
transportation.
Note: Engineering countermeasures are based on the Caltrans LRSM and are used in HSIP calls for
projects. They are categorized as follows:
• S = Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
• NS = Non -Signalized Intersections Countermeasures
• R = Roadway Segments Countermeasures
An excerpt of the Caltrans LRSM providing additional details on each countermeasure is included in
Appendix D.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 56
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
EMPHASIS AREA 1 — IMPROVE INTERSECTION SAFETY
Intersection collisions made up most collisions occurring in Danville during the study period, a total of
84% collisions of all severity. 86% of all fatal and severe injury (KSI) collisions occurred at intersections.
The following collision data is based on only intersection collisions on the High Injury Network in Danville,
followed by E's strategies selected to address intersection collisions.
• S02, Improve signal hardware
24% 34%
• S03, Improve signal timing
34%
• S09, Install raised pavement markers
Broadside Collisions Unsafe Speed Violations
Rear End
Collisions
Table
9. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies
NS03, Install signals
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions at intersections.
Number of
warning/regulatory signs
intersections Town
Performance
Agencies/
w • NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections
Strategy
• S10/NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning
• NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
Measure
Organizations
0
Number of
c
0 Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to
+.
Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety
education
Town/Police
improvements are not recognized.
laws regarding traffic signals, stop signs, and turning left or right.
campaigns or
Department
LU
residents reached.
c
a
ETargeted
enforcement at high-risk intersections to monitor right-of-way
Number of tickets
Police Department
L
0
0
violations, speed limit laws and other violations that occur at intersections.
issued.
c
W
• S02, Improve signal hardware
• S03, Improve signal timing
• S09, Install raised pavement markers
• S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
• S21 PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval
NS03, Install signals
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection
Number of
warning/regulatory signs
intersections Town
'is NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
improved.
w • NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections
• S10/NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning
• NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
• NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
• NS13, Install splitter -islands on the minor road approaches
• S12/NS14, Install raised median on approaches
c
0 Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to
+.
Decrease in number
determine if intersection collisions have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if
of intersection Town
improvements are not recognized.
collisions.
W
r TJKM
pnm+iu�e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 57
EMPHASIS AREA 2 — ADDRESS BROADSIDE COLLISIONS & TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND SIGNS
VIOLATIONS
61 (21%) of the high injury network collisions were broadside collisions, including 6 fatal or severe injury
(KSI) collisions. 9% of high injury network collisions were caused by an traffic signals and signs violation,
which also caused 31% of broadside collisions. These two are combined due to the strong correlation
between traffic signals and signs violations and broadside collisions. The following collision data is based
on only broadside injury collisions on the high injury network of Danville, followed by E's strategies to
address them.
31%
Traffic Signals and
Signs Violations
90%
38%
At Intersections Occurred on Sycamore Valley Rd/Camino
Tassajara
Table 10. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury broadside collisions and traffic signals and signs violations.
Strategy Performance Measure Agencies/
Organizations
c
C Number of education
+' Conduct public information and education campaigns for intersection Town/Police
$ campaigns or residents
M safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs and turning left or right. reached. Department
W
Decrease in number of
ETargeted enforcement at high -injury locations where violations that citations and/or warnings
ilead to broadside collisions are more common, such as automobile issued over time due to Police Department
0 right of way and traffic signal/stop sign violations. increased driver
LU compliance.
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
• S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or
operation)
• S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal -mounted)
• S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through
Intersection)
• S16/NSO4/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
NS02, Convert to all -way STOP control (from 2 -way or Yield
control) Number of locations
NS03, Install signals improved to mitigate Town
NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other broadside collisions.
W intersection warning/regulatory signs
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• NS08, Install flashing beacons at stop controlled intersections
• NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.)
• NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
• NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight
Triangles)
• NS13, add splitter -islands on the minor road approaches
• S12/NS14, install raised median on approaches
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 58
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
C
0
m
7
7M -
LU W
Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures
yearly to determine if broadside collisions and traffic signals and signs
violations have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if improvements are
not recognized.
Decrease in number of
broadside collisions and
traffic signals and signs
violations.
Town
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 59
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
EMPHASIS AREA 3 — IMPROVE BICYCLE SAFETY
31 (11%) of collisions on the high injury network involved bicyclists, however, of these 31 collisions, 8
were KSI collisions. The majority of the bicycle collisions (including most severe injury) occurred along the
Danville Blvd running in the western side of the Town. The following collision data is based on only bicycle
collisions on the high injury network of Danville, followed by 4 E's strategies to address them.
• S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
• S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
S21 PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval
L NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands) Number of
y • NS21PB/R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing
= NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) locations Town
UJ • NS23PB, Install pedestrian signal (including HAWK signal) mproved.
• R32PB, Install bike lanes
• R33PB, Install separated bike lanes
• R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
d
E Host Bike to Work Day events or other events to promote riding your bike to Number of
01 school, work, or other day to day destinations. residents or Town/School
`u Host bicycle education events in Danville schools, such as bicycle rodeos to students District
3
V
encourage kids to ride their bikes to school. reached.
c
W
C
rEvaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to Decrease in
= determine if bicycle collisions have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if number of Town
improvements are not recognized. bicycle collisions.
W
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 60
pnrYviue Y Plan I
25% 25%
75%
KSI Collisions Improper Turning Violation
Occurred at Intersections
Table 11. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions involving bicyclists.
Performance Agencies/
Strategy
Measure Organizations
=
G
Conduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of
Number of
education Town/ School
Vpedestrian
safety needs through media outlets, social media, and public events.
campaigns or District/ Police
=
Partner with Safe Routes to School to conduct bicycle and pedestrian safety
u�i
programs in Danville's schools.
residents Department
reached.
Decrease in
C
Targeted enforcement at high -injury locations especially near schools, trails, and
number of
Eother
areas where pedestrians are more present.
citations and/or
iwarnings
issued Police Department
,o
Continue to place a high priority on enforcement of motorist and pedestrian
over time due to
LU
violations that most frequently cause injuries and fatalities among pedestrians.
increased driver
compliance.
• S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
• S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
S21 PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval
L NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands) Number of
y • NS21PB/R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing
= NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) locations Town
UJ • NS23PB, Install pedestrian signal (including HAWK signal) mproved.
• R32PB, Install bike lanes
• R33PB, Install separated bike lanes
• R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB)
d
E Host Bike to Work Day events or other events to promote riding your bike to Number of
01 school, work, or other day to day destinations. residents or Town/School
`u Host bicycle education events in Danville schools, such as bicycle rodeos to students District
3
V
encourage kids to ride their bikes to school. reached.
c
W
C
rEvaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to Decrease in
= determine if bicycle collisions have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if number of Town
improvements are not recognized. bicycle collisions.
W
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 60
pnrYviue Y Plan I
EMPHASIS AREA 4 — ADDRESS REAR END COLLISIONS AND UNSAFE SPEED VIOLATIONS
27% of all injury collisions were a result of unsafe speed, including 102 (35%) of the collisions on the high
injury network (and six (25%) KSI collisions). 77% of unsafe speed violations resulted in a rear -end
collision, and as such these two factors are combined into one emphasis area. The following collision data
is based on only unsafe speed injury collisions on the high injury network of Danville, followed by E's
strategies selected to address unsafe speed caused collisions.
77%
78%
Rear -End Collisions Involved Another Motor Vehicle
77%
Occurred at Intersections
Table 12. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occur due to unsafe speed.
Strategy Performance Agencies/
Measure Organizations
c
0
R Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding unsafe
speed and its dangers.
W
C
ETargeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor unsafe speed.
a
V
0 Deploy a radar trailer at locations where instances of unsafe speed is more prevalent.
c
W
• NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.)
• NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.)
• NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches
• NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
• R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
R26, Install dynamic/ variable speed warning signs
R28, Install edge -lines and centerlines
W •
U R36PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)
• S16/NS04/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout
• Implement traffic calming strategies where appropriate
• Decrease width of travel lanes.
• Decrease curb radius of intersections.
Number of
Town/Police
education
campaigns Department
Number of
Police Department
tickets issued.
Number of
locations Town
improved.
Decrease in
p Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to number of rear -
M determine if rear -end collisions and unsafe speed violations have decreased. Adjust end collisions
M Town
; countermeasures if improvements are not recognized. and unsafe
W speed
violations.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 61
EMPHASIS AREA 5 — ADDRESS HIT OBJECT COLLISIONS
63 (22%) of the high injury collisions were hit object collisions, including 7 fatal and severe injury collisions
(28%). 41% of the hit object collisions occurred due to improper turning violations. The following is based
on only hit object collisions on the high injury network, followed by E's strategies to address them.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 62
54% 2 of 7
29%
Occurred
at Night F +SI Collisions Occurred on Camino Tassajara
Table 13. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury hit object collisions.
Performance
Agencies/
Strategy
Measure
Organizations
Number of
C
Conduct public information and education campaigns on risks that can lead to hit
education
+�
object collisions, such as unsafe speeds, distracted driving, improper turning and
campaigns or
Town/Police
driving under the influence.
residents
Department
W
reached.
Decrease in
number of
a
E
citations and/or
Targeted enforcement at high -injury locations where hit object collisions are more
L
warnings issued
Police Department
0-
common.
over time due to
C
increased driver
compliance.
• S10/NS09, Install flashing beacon as advance warning
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
• R01, Add Segment Lighting
R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone
L
R04, Install Guardrail
Number of
R15, Widen shoulder
locations
Town
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
cR23,
Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
mproved.
W
• R24 or R25, Install curve advance warning signs
• R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
• R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
• R28, Install edge -lines and centerlines
• R31, Install edge -line rumble strips/stripes
C
Decrease in
Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to
number of hit
Town
determine if hit object collisions have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if
W
improvements are not recognized.
object collisions.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 62
EMPHASIS AREA 6 — IMPROVE CAMINO TASSAJARA (INTERSECTIONS AND ROADWAY
SEGMENTS)
A total of 72 (25%) of high injury network collisions occurred along Camino Tassajara, including six (25%)
of KSI collisions. 49% of the collisions occurred due to unsafe speed violations, mostly at intersections.
The following collision data is based on only Camino Tassajara collisions on the high injury network of
Danville, followed by E's strategies selected to address them.
40% 25% 75%
Rear End Collisions Involved Fixed Object Occurred at Intersections
Table 14. Emphasis Area 6 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on Camino Tassajara.
Strategy Performance Agencies/
Measure Organizations
c
Conduct public information and education campaigns on risks of improper driving Number of
+• Town/Police
behaviors occurring on Camino Tassajara, such as unsafe speed and improper education
Department
turning. campaigns
W
d Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections and roadway locations on Camino
ETassjara to monitor violations of driving under influence. Number of
i Police Department
c tickets issued.
c Deploy a radar trailer along Camino Tassajara to warn drivers of unsafe speeding.
W
r TJKM
pnrfviue
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 63
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
• S03, Improve signal timing
• S09, Install raised pavement markers
• S1 1/NS1 2/R21, Improve pavement friction
• NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop/warning/regulatory signs
NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
NS09/S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning
Number of
NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
locations Town
NS13, Install splitter -islands on the minor road approaches
improved.
W
NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
• NS22PB/R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
• NS23PB, Install pedestrian signal (Including HAWK signal)
R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting
• R27, Install delineators, reflectors, and/or object markers
R33PB, Install separated bike lanes
Speed warning signs
M
Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to
Decrease in
= C
R ,o
determine if collisions along Camino Tassajara have decreased. Adjust
collisions on
Town
LU
countermeasures if improvements are not recognized.
Camino
Tassajara.
r TJKM
pnrfviue
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 63
EMPHASIS AREA 7 — ADDRESS DOWNTOWN COLLISIONS
A total of 52 (18%) of high injury network collisions occurred within the Danville Downtown area, including
six KSI collisions (24%). Addressing traffic safety in Downtown Danville is a priority of the Town and as
such is listed as an LRSP emphasis area. The following collision data is based on only the Downtown
collisions on the high injury network of Danville, followed by E's strategies selected to address them.
31% 23% 31%
Unsafe Speed Violations Involved Bicycle or Rear -End Collisions
Pedestrian
Table 1 S. Emphasis Area 7 Strategies
Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions in Downtown Danville.
Strategy Performance Agencies/
Measure Organizations
r_ Conduct public information and education campaigns on risks of improper driving
behaviors occurring in Downtown Danville, such as speeding or violating Number of
+' Town/Police
pedestrian/bicycle right-of-way. education
campaigns Department
�
Outreach to Downtown businesses and collaborate on a safety forum in downtown.
..I
c
a
ETargeted enforcement at high-risk intersections and roadway locations to monitor Number of
0
common violations within downtown, such as unsafe speed. tickets issued. Police Department
c
W
• S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
• S03, Improve signal timing
• S08, Convert signal to mast arm
• S11/NS12/R21, Improve pavement friction
• S09, Install raised pavement markers
S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
• S21 PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
NS02, Convert to all -way STOP control (from 2 -way or yield control)
B NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings
w 0 NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles)
• NS14, Install raised median on approaches
• NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands)
• NS21 PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features
• NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
• NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (Including HAWK signal)
c
0 Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to
determine if collisions in Downtown Danville have decreased. Adjust
countermeasures if improvements are not recognized.
W
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Number of
locations Town
improved.
Decrease in
collisions in Town
Downtown.
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 64
6. COUNTERMEASURE SELECTION
Upon the identification of high-risk locations and Emphasis Areas, the next step was to identify
appropriate safety countermeasures. The Caltrans LRSM provides 82 countermeasures, of which 20 are
eligible in the current HSIP call for signalized intersections, 24 for unsignalized intersections, and 38 for
roadway segments. The LRSM provides guidance on where to apply the countermeasures, including the
crash types each countermeasure would address, and a Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) for each
countermeasure. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) CMF Clearinghouse and published
research papers were reviewed by the project team to gain additional insight on CRFs and effectiveness
of specific countermeasures.
The project team conducted a thorough review of the high -injury locations (intersections and roadway
segments) using aerial photography, Google Maps Street View software, and in-person site visits. Crash
characteristics of all collisions occurring on the High Injury Network were considered. After combining
the physical and collision characteristics, the project team developed a table of preliminary
countermeasures that address each of the seven identified Emphasis Areas. The table was refined by
selecting up to four countermeasures for each high-risk location that were most commonly
recommended among all Emphasis Areas. By doing this, the project team was able to identify
countermeasures with the greatest opportunity for systemic implementation.
Engineering countermeasures were selected for each of the high-risk locations and for the emphasis
areas. These were based on approved countermeasures from the Caltrans LRSM used in HSIP grant calls
for projects. The intention is to give the Town potential countermeasures for each location that can be
implemented either in future HSIP calls for projects, or using other funding sources, such as the CTIP.
Non -engineering countermeasures were also selected using the 6 E's strategies, and are included with
the emphasis areas. The countermeasure toolbox in Appendix C details the draft countermeasures for
each high-risk location and emphasis area, separated by intersections and roadway segments. While not
all of these countermeasures will be included in the resulting safety projects, they are included to give
the Town a toolbox for implementing future safety improvements through other means, such as the CTIP.
Table 16 provides a description of each countermeasure appropriate for Town of Danville along with the
CRF (Crash Reduction Factor), federal funding eligibility, and opportunity for systemic implementation.
An excerpt of the LRSM, detailing each available HSIP countermeasure referenced in the
recommendations tables, is included as Appendix D.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 65
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Table 16. Countermeasures selected for the Town of Danville
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 66
Federal Systemic
Code
Countermeasure Name
Countermeasure Description
CRF Funding Approach
Opportunity
Improve signal hardware:
Includes New LED lighting, signal back plates,
lenses, back -plates with
retro -reflective tape outlining the back plates, or
S02
retroreflective borders,
visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal
15% 90% Very High
mounting, size, and
heads, relocation of the signal heads, or
number
additional signal heads.
Install advance stop bar
Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing,
S20PB
before crosswalk (Bicycle
where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians
15% 90% Very High
Box)
volumes are known to occur.
Modify signal phasing to
Addition of LPI gives pedestrians the
S21 PB
implement a Leading
opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds
o 90 0
60% % Very High
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
before vehicles are given a green indication;
only minor signal timing alteration is required.
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or
Additional regulatory and warning signs at or
NS06
other intersection
prior to intersections will help enhance the
15% 90% Very High
warning/regulatory
ability of approaching drivers to perceive them
signs
Upgrade intersection
Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead"
NS07
pavement markings (NS.I.)
markings and the addition of centerlines and
25% 90% Very High
stop bars
Modify signal phasing to
Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing
NS21 PB
implement a Leading
that have high turning vehicles volumes and
60% 90% Very High
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Install/Upgrade signs with
Additional or new signage can address crashes
R22
new fluorescent sheeting
caused by lack of driver awareness or compliance
15% 90% Very High
(regulatory or warning)
of roadway signing.
Install delineators,
Installation of delineators, reflectors and/or
R27
reflectors and/or object
object markers are intended to warn drivers of an
15% 90% Very High
markers
approaching curve or fixed object that cannot
easily be removed.
Roadway segments noted as having crashes
R32PB
Install bike lanes
between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that
35% 90% High
may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder.
Separated bikeways are most appropriate on
streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or
high bike -vehicle collisions, presumably in an
R33PB
Install Separated Bike
urban or suburban area. Separation types range
45% 90% High
Lanes
from simple, painted buffers and flexible
delineators, to more substantial separation
measures including raised curbs, grade
separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 66
Roadway segments with no controlled crossing
for a significant distance in high -use midblock
Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations.
R35PB crossing (with enhanced Flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and
safety features) pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety
features should be added to complement the
standard crossing elements.
Install raised pedestrian On lower -speed roadways, where pedestrians
R36PB crossing are known to be crossing roadways that involve
significant vehicular traffic.
* Code: S - Signalized intersection improvements
NS - Non -signalized intersection improvements
R - Roadway segment improvements
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
35% 90% Medium
35% 90% Medium
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 67
7. VIABLE SAFETY PROJECTS
This chapter summarizes the process of selecting safety projects as part of the analysis for the Town of
Danville LRSP. The next step after the identification of high-risk locations, emphasis areas and applicable
countermeasures was to identify location specific safety improvements for all high-risk roadway segments
and intersections.
Specific countermeasures and improvements were selected from the 2022 LRSM from Caltrans, where:
• S refers to improvements at signalized locations,
• NS refers to improvements at non -signalized locations, and
• R refers to improvements at roadway segments.
The corresponding number refers to the countermeasure number in the LRSM (2022). The
countermeasures were grouped into safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments. A
total of five safety projects were developed. All countermeasures were identified based on the technical
teams' assessment of viability that consisted of extensive analysis, observations, Town staff input, and
stakeholder/community input. The most applicable and appropriate countermeasures as identified have
been grouped together to form projects that can help make high -injury locations safer.
Table 17 lists the safety projects for high-risk intersections and roadway segments, along with total base
planning level cost (2022 dollar amounts) estimates and the resultant preliminary Benefit -Cost (B/C) Ratio.
The "Total Benefit" estimates were calculated for the proposed improvements being evaluated in the
proactive safety analysis. This "Total Benefit" is divided by the "Total Cost per Location" estimates for the
proposed improvements, giving the resultant B/C Ratio. The B/C Ratio Calculation follows the
methodology as mentioned in the LRSM (2022).
Appendix E lists the detailed methodology to calculate B/C Ratio, as well as the complete cost, benefit
and B/C Ratio calculation spreadsheet.
These safety projects were chosen based on the previously completed collisions analysis, which was used
to identify main collision attributes that were found to be leading factors of fatal and severe collisions in
Town of Danville. These collision factors are shown below, as well as viable safety projects that can help
address these factors.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 68
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Broadside Collisions represented the highest proportion of collisions of all severity (31%), a significant
percentage of KSI collisions (25%). Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include
improving signal timing, installing raised pavement markers, installing intersection lighting, improving
pavement friction, installing/upgrading larger stop signs or other intersection regulatory/warning signs,
and installing flashing beacons as advance warning.
Bicycle Collisions made up 39% of KSI collisions (the most of any category), as well as 11% of all
collisions. Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include installing advance stop bar before
crosswalk (Bicycle Box) and installing marked or separated bike lanes.
Traffic signals and signs violations caused 31 % of KSI collisions in Danville were caused by, the highest
of any violation type among KSI injury collisions. It also caused 11 % of all collisions. Viable safety projects
to help address these violations include installing/upgrading larger stop signs or other intersection
regulatory/warning signs, and installing flashing beacons as advance warning, improving signal hardware
such as lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number.
Unsafe speed was the most common violation type among all collisions (27%), as well as the second
most common violation causing KSI collisions (16%). Viable safety projects to help address these
violations include installing raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection), improving
signal timing, Installing flashing beacons as advance warning, Installing/Upgrading signs with new
fluorescent sheeting, Installing dynamic/variable speed warning signs.
Hit Object Collisions: Hit object collisions represented 22% of all collisions, and remained a significant
portion of KSI collisions (22%). Viable safety projects to help address these collisions include
upgrading/installing signs with new fluorescent sheeting; installing edge line and centerline; adding
intersection lighting, removing or relocating fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone and improving
intersection pavement markings.
The next step in the process after safety projects is to prepare HSIP applications. TJKM has provided a
service to prepare two HSIP Cycle 11 applications for Town of Danville. However, it should be noted that
while the LRSP projects were based on high -injury locations, HSIP applications were expanded to include
many locations across the Town. HSIP is a competitive grant funding source based on a benefit/cost
analysis. The benefit value is calculated automatically based on crash data document by law enforcement
and standard cost data. The cost of some measures may adversely impact the benefit to cost ratio making
the grant application less competitive for funding.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 69
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
Below is the list of identified projects for the Town of Danville, with a preliminary cost estimate for each
location and the resulting benefit -cost ratio of the project (the title of each countermeasure is located in
a separate table below). The cost per location includes construction costs, Plans, Specifications, and
Estimates (PS&E), environmental reporting costs, construction engineering costs, and a 10 percent
contingency. Construction costs are based on industry standards in the Bay Area and TJKM's knowledge
and experience of the area. Our team is consistently updating our unit prices to match current
construction costs.
Table 17. List of Viable Safety Projects
Location CM1 CM2 CM3 Cost
per Total Cost
LoRatio
Project #1: Signalized Intersections (Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with
retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk,
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI))
Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at S02 S20PB S21 PB $51,114.00
Ackerman Dr
Camino Tassajara at
Tassajara Ranch S02 S20PB S21 PB $133,028.00
Dr/Blackhawk Plaza Cir
Crow Canyon Rd at S02 S20PB S21 PB $124,726.00 $558,950 62.28
Center Wy/Center Ct
Crow Canyon Rd at S02 S20PB S21 PB $132,426.00
Tassajara Ranch Dr
Camino Tassajara at S02 S20PB S21 PB $117,656.00
Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr
Project #2: Non -Signalized Intersections (Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other
intersection warning/regulatory signs, Upgrade intersection pavement markings, Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations)
Stone Valley Rd at Monte NS06 $10,745
Sereno Rd
Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa NS06 NS07 $19,810
Ave
$57,638 394.51
Diablo Rd at Clydesdale NS06 NS07 NS21 PB $19,670
Dr
Danville Blvd at Hartford NS06 NS07 $7,413
Rd
Project #3: Roadway Segments (Install or Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting, Install
delineators, reflectors and/or object markers)
Sycamore Valley
Road/Camino Tassajara: R22 R27 $109,352 $201,848 93.95
SRVB to Town Limit
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 70
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
San Ramon Valley Blvd:
Hartz Wy to 350' N of R22 R27 $72,307
Ridgeland Dr
Crow Canyon Rd: Camino R22 R27 $20,188
Tassajara to Town Limit
Project #4: Roadway Segments (Install Separated Bike Lanes, Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossings
Sycmoare Valley Road/
Camino Tassajara:
R33PB
SRVB to Camino Tassajara
Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave:
Del Amigo Rd to Railroad
R33PB
Ave
Crow Canyon Rd: Camino
R33PB
Tassajara to Town Limit
Love Ln: Verona Ave to
Railroad Ave
Stone Valley Rd: 575'W of
Monte Sereno Dr to Green
R33PB
Valley Rd
R32PB R35PB
$127,484
$198,863
$31,987
$101,675
$43,055
$503,064 168.24
Project #5: Roadway Segments (Install raised pedestrian crossing)
Hartz Ave R36PB $90,377 $90,377 46.17
Notes: CM — countermeasure. B/C ratio is the dollar amount of benefits divided by the cost of the countermeasure.
COUNTERMEASURE NAME
• S02 - Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size,
and numberS20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box)
• S21 PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
• NS06 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory
signs
• NS07 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS. I.)
• NS21 PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety
features)
• R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
• R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers
• R32PB - Install bike lanes
• R33PB - Install separated bike lanes
• R35PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)R36PB - Install raised
pedestrian crossing
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 71
8. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
This chapter describes the steps the Town may take to evaluate the success of this plan and steps needed
to update the plan in the future. The LRSP is a guidance document and requires periodic updates to
assess its efficacy and re-evaluate potential solutions. It is recommended to update the plan every two to
five years in coordination with the identified safety partners. This document was developed based on
community needs, stakeholder input, and collision analysis conducted to identify priority emphasis areas
throughout the Town. The implementation of strategies under each emphasis area would aim to reduce
KSI collisions in the coming years.
The LRSP is a guidance document that is recommended to be updated every two to five years in
coordination with the safety partners. The LRSP document provides engineering, education, and
enforcement related countermeasures that can be implemented throughout the Town to reduce KSI
collisions. It is recommended that the Town of Danville implement the selected projects in high -collision
locations in coordination with other projects proposed for the Town's infrastructure development in their
future Capital Improvement Plans. After implementing countermeasures, the performance measures for
each emphasis area should be evaluated annually. The most important measure of success of the LRSP
should be reducing KSI collisions throughout the Town. If the number of KSI collisions does not decrease
over time, then the emphasis areas and countermeasures should be re-evaluated.
Funding is a critical component of implementing any safety project. While the HSIP program is a common
source of funding for safety projects, there are numerous other funding sources that could be pursued
for such projects. (See Table 18 below).
Table 18. List of Potential Funding Sources
Amount Next Applicable
Funding Source Funding Agency Available Estimated Call E's Notes
for Projects
Caltrans, —$450 Can be used for most active
Active California transportation related safety
Transportation Transportation million per 2022 Engineering, projects as well as education
cycle (every Education
Program Commission, programs. Funding available
MTC two years) through Caltrans or MTC
Highway Safety
Improvement Caltrans 2024 Engineering Most common grant source
for safety projects
Program
Education, 10 grants available to address
Office of Traffic California Office Varies by Closes January Enforcement, various components of traffic
Safety Grants of Traffic Safety grant 31St annually Emergency safety P
Response
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 72
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I
For HSIP Cycle 11, two applications were submitted by the Town of Danville for raised crossings at two (2)
intersections (Hartz Avenue at Linda Mesa Avenue and Prospect Avenue), and signal upgrades at 20
intersections. The signal upgrades are recommended as party of Safety Project #1 and the raised crossings
were identified in Safety Project #2.
For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the 4 E -strategies continuously.
Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensure the effectiveness of the countermeasures
for each emphasis area, and help make decisions needed for new strategies. The process would help the
Town make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan's progress and accordingly, update
the goals and objectives of the plan.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 73
Amount
Next
Applicable
Funding Source
Funding Agency
Estimated Call
Notes
Available
for Projects
E's
Affordable
Strategic Growth
Must be connected to
Housing and
Council and
$405
Engineering,
affordable housing projects;
Sustainable
Dept. of Housing
2022
typically focuses on
million
Education
Communities
and Community
bike/pedestrian
Program
Development
infrastructure/programs
California
Focused on bike/pedestrian
Urban Greening
Natural
$28.5 million
2022
Engineering
infrastructure and greening
Resources
public spaces
Agency
Local Streets and
Road
CTC (distributed
$1.5 billion
N/A;
Typically pays for road
distributed by
Engineering
Maintenance and
to local agencies)
statewide
formula
maintenance type projects
Rehabilitation
RAISE Grant
USDOT
—$1 billion
2022
Engineering
Typically used for larger
infrastructure projects
Targets projects that will
Sustainable
California Air
—$19.5
TBD; most
Engineering,
increase transportation
Transportation
recent call in
Resources Board
million
Education
equity in disadvantaged
Equity Project
2020
communities
Funds community -led
Transformative
TBD; most
projects that achieve major
Climate
Strategic Growth
—$90 million
recent call in
Engineering
reductions in greenhouse gas
Council
Communities
2020
emissions in disadvantaged
communities.
Safe Streets and
$200k - $50
Two types of SS4A grants
Roads for All
USDOT
2022
Engineering
available: Action Plan Grants
million
(SS4A)
& Implementation Grants
For HSIP Cycle 11, two applications were submitted by the Town of Danville for raised crossings at two (2)
intersections (Hartz Avenue at Linda Mesa Avenue and Prospect Avenue), and signal upgrades at 20
intersections. The signal upgrades are recommended as party of Safety Project #1 and the raised crossings
were identified in Safety Project #2.
For the success of the LRSP, it is crucial to monitor and evaluate the 4 E -strategies continuously.
Monitoring and evaluation help provide accountability, ensure the effectiveness of the countermeasures
for each emphasis area, and help make decisions needed for new strategies. The process would help the
Town make informed decisions regarding the implementation plan's progress and accordingly, update
the goals and objectives of the plan.
r TJKM
Qnm+iu,e
Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 73
After implementing countermeasures, the strategies should be evaluated annually as per their
performance measures. The evaluation should be recorded in a before -after study to validate the
effectiveness of each countermeasure as per the following observations:
• Number of KSI collisions
• Number of police citations
• Number of public comments and concerns
Evaluation should be conducted during similar time periods and durations each year. The most important
measure of success of the LRSP should be reduction in KSI collisions throughout the Town. If the number
of KSI collisions doesn't decrease initially, then the countermeasures should be evaluated as per the other
observations, as mentioned above. The effectiveness of the countermeasures should be compared to the
goals for each emphasis area.
The LRSP is a guidance document and is recommended to be updated every two to five years after
adoption. After monitoring performance measures focused on the status and progress of the E's
strategies in each emphasis area, the next LRSP update can be tailored to resolve any continuing safety
problems. An annual stakeholder meeting with the safety partners is also recommended to discuss the
progress for each emphasis area and oversee the implementation plan. The document should then be
updated as per the latest collision data, emerging trends, and the E's strategies' progress and
implementation.
r r TJKM Y Safety Local Roadwa 74
pnrrviu,e Y Plan I