Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
011624-09.1 Danville Local Roadway Safety Plan_Draft-bjb comments
TOWN OF DANVILLE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN DRAFT REPORT January 23, 2023 CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 1. Introduction 4 What is an LRSP? 4 Process 4 Study Area 4 2. Safety Partners 7 3. Existing Planning Efforts 11 4. Collision Data and Analysis 19 Data Collection 22 Collision Data Analysis Results 22 Killed and Severe Injury Collisions 29 Geographic Collision Analysis 35 Collision Severity Weight 41 High Injury Network 43 Bicycle and Pedestrian High Injury Network 47 Summary 51 5. Emphasis Areas 53 The 6 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 Countermeasure Toolbox 65 7. Viable Safety Projects 68 8. Implementation and Evaluation 72 Implementation 72 Monitoring and Evaluation 73 LRSP Update 74 Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 i FIGURES Figure 1. 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 Figure 9. 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 1 ii TABLES Table 1. Town of Danville Commute to Work Census Data 6 Table 2. Collision by Severity and Facility Type 23 Table 3. EPDO Score used in HSIP Cycle 12 41 Table 4. High Injury Intersections 45 Table 5. High Injury Corridors 46 Table 6. High Bicycle & Pedestrian Injury Intersections 50 Table 7. High Bicycle & Pedestrian Injury Corridors 50 Table 8. Existing Programs Summary 54 Table 9. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies 57 Table 10. Emphasis Area 2 Strategies 58 Table 11. Emphasis Area 3 Strategies 60 Table 12. Emphasis Area 4 Strategies 61 Table 13. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies 62 Table 14. Emphasis Area 6 Strategies 63 Table 15. Emphasis Area 7 Strategies 64 Table 16. Countermeasures selected for the Town of Danville 66 Table 17. List of Viable Safety Projects 70 Table 18. List of Potential Funding Sources 72 APPENDICES Appendix A. Summary of Planning Documents 76 Appendix B. Consolidated High Injury Collision Database 95 Appendix C. Countermeasure Toolbox 168 Appendix D. LRSM Excerpt 176 Appendix E. B/C Ratio Calculations 282 TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 iii 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. effrLI KM Local Roadway Safety Plan J 1 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 CHAPTER 6 — COUNTERMEASURE IDENTIFICATION 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. CHAPTER 7 — SAFETY PROJECTS 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) TJ KM Local Roadway Safety Plan J 2 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan J 3 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan J 4 Figure 1. Study Area Town of Danville Town of Danville AV an part on SH,perfinkr e� c Cuter Ronal ed M� 5 M.ado. Lrpe Rt Soutces .1. HERE am ay: horamenIF udp.,E RCANeo ,Gease,ICM. IAA... Ordnance 5uney E:ri caoan. MEP., Asn nn(Hone Kongt (HI Open:WE:Mapuamnbulore. and .no 615 US Domm nryaN - Local Roadway Safety Plan 5 According to five-year estimates from the American Community Survey (ACS)1 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 ommute to Wor own of Danville California Drive Alone Carpool Public Transportation 74.3% 73.7% 5.7% 10.1% 6% 5.1% Walked 2.6% Work from Home Other 2.6% 10.5% 5.9% 0.9% 2.6% 'American Community Survey (ACS) 2019 https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?q= Danville%20town,%20California&t=Transportation&tid=ACSDT5Y 2019.608141 &moe=false «(iiKM Local Roadway Safety Plan J 6 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 School District, Town of Danville Parks, Arts & Recreation, 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 Local Roadway Safety Plan Stakeholder Meeting #1 May 12, 2022 11:00 am 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan J 7 Figure 3. Town of Danville LRSP Project Website Pr \ Report Concern ) ( co'lslpai Histpry :'"tet :ace— Town of Danville Prpject Updates Intowt- Provide Feedback ) (J Subscribe & c LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN 4 4* Project Overview The Town of Danville is developing a comprehensive Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The LRSP would enable the Town to enhance traffic safety for all modes of transportation and for all ages and abilities, The overarching goal is to develop a successful LRSP by utilizing the historic collision database to create a decision-making process that relies on a partnership with stakeholders and public outreach using the five 'E's of traffic safety Engineering. Encouragement, 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. TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 8 Figure 4. Comments Received via Interactive Map Civilian Conservation Carps Cutswat Preserve Artist Point 41, Curry Canyon Cave Pou Land Sank • • 0• w+ • • i • Land ea nk 5:141Ramon Reyionat Medirat Cent • • (TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 9 Figure 5. Public Comments on Traffic Safety by Location Number of Comments 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 al 1 1 • • ■ \c/R••• ata ��a \tea ��a Qa �e Oc \iia Qa �e �e \o al 0 Q� o� �tiP \50 0 eA aP �P O�a� �ayy �\\e ecco •`�a� NO mac aca °ce Ja\\ ey5 5�e` La 't Oo at << O(.. ice, �,0 ��o�e \tea" Qco • Pedestrian Safety Bicycle Safety • Intersection Safety/ Corridor Safety • Speeding • Unsafe Turning • School Safety • Traffic Red Light & Signs Violations 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. TJ KM 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 Study (2018) 4. Downtown Parking Management Plan (2010) 5. Downtown Parking Utilization Assessment (2016) 6. Town of Danville Capital Improvement Program 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 Bike 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 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 11 TOWN OF DANVILLE GENERAL PLAN 1 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 THF TOWN (}F °ANV I7.I.F -2030 GENERAL PLAN TOWN OF DANVILLE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN (2021) Bicycle Master Plan is a 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 strive to enhance mobility and safety by creating a well-connected network of bicycle facilities including safe roadway crossings, on -street bicycle accommodation and off-street facilities of the users. This document suggests various measures to elevate bicycle in Danville neighborhoods. The Bicycle network plan reflects infrastructure improvements for enhancing connectivity and safety for users in Danville. The improvements identified in this plan will inform the safety improvements and connecivity strategies to Town's Local Roadway Safety Plan. environmental quality. TOWN OF DANVILLE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN be recommended in the Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 12 DIABLO ROAD TRAIL ( 2018) The purpose of this study is to explore potential alignments through this property for an off-street trail and complete this gap in the Town's comprehensive trail network. The Diablo Road Trail project would ultimately provide a contiguous 8 to 10 -foot wide, off-street, paved multi -use trail facility for all user groups including pedestrians and bicyclists. The plan through policies and standards has addressed key benefits of major connectivity to community services, health and recreation opportunities and major economic impacts, contributing access to business, support to local business and attracting tourists. The plan will help guide design growth, while embracing concepts of transit accessibility, pedestrian friendly design, high-quality development and inclusiveness. The improvements identified in this plan will inform the safety improvements and strategies to Local Roadway Safety Plan. Diablo Road Trail Conceptual Alignment and Feasibility Analysis Final August 2018 be recommended in the Town's DANVILLE DOWNTOWN PARKING MANAGEMENT PLAN (2021-2022) The Town of Danville and the Community Development Agency (CDA) have made an effort towards managing parking requirements within the Downtown area. With additional funding and improved design the plan reflects proposed public parking spaces in the downtown area, including issues related to supply, location and time restrictions. The parking utilization study strategizes to assess existing parking policies, patterns, and utilization within. The plan reflects recommendation related to parking implementation actions and the expansion and redevelopment of the existing permit parking program through the proposed implementation of permit sales and management system. These include but do not limit to on -street parking regulations, municipal parking lot regulations, parking enforcement and parking time zone modifications. The plan through policies addressed key objectives which reflect proposed improvements and parking operate and manage site parking requirements. xiouoe[u�.,lb DOWNRIAVN PARKING. NAGI A1ENT PLAN Prryartd iaAu.bOm.,lir Inanpen.ums D111,1011 rm2010wrr 12. 2010 and standards has management to TJ KM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 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 suply. 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 recommnedation for employee parking, student parking, parking enforcement, farmers market, and to pursue private — public partnetships for for utilization of private parking lots for public use. The improvemnts 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. of DorVIIle Downtown Parking 17tlllrallon Assessment F1.11,...,1-1,1. I9. 2015. s nf.• Is TOWN OF DANVILLE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (2021/2022) The Town of Danville's 5 -Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-year planning instrument for long-term fiscal sustainability and support Town's quality of life by providing improved design, construction and renovation of major capital projects. It also identifies downtown improvements projects like town wide bicycle parking, street light improvements, sewer and drainage improvements, and traffic signals. The 5 -Year financial plan is developed by Town Staff and is adopted by the Town Council as a guide for prioritization of various projects to accomplish community goals. The CIP reflects to meet annual goals and funding availability, prioritized capital projects and community needs. These improvements influence Danville's built and natural environment and help guide the trajectory of future growth CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM or change. The improvements identified in this plan will inform the safety improvements and strategies to be recommended in the Town's Local Road Safety Plan. «JKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 14 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 oftools to preserve Danville's flexibility to respond to emerging oppurtunities over the next ten or more years. It encourages changes and updates in community preferences, best practives in recreation and arts. This plan is developed through a community- driven process by conducting intercept events, online questionnaire, stakeholder interviews, community workshop. The plan also focuses strenghts of active transportation connections, community amentities and trail system within the town. 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 to be recommended in the Town's Local Roadway Safety Plan. TJ KM Town of Danville 2011 Bicycle Parking Study Febro,, 21. 2212 Ate 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. Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan CONTRA COSTA COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY IMPLEMENTATION GUIDE (2021) This report layout a framework for Safety Policy and implantation in Contra Costa County. The Safe System Approach integrating 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 multi -ton 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. POLICY AND t " transportation LJ authority Contra Costa Countywide Transportation Safety Policy and Implementation Guide 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. 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. 2017 Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan Voliinno 1 Aelepted,rnaber XL - 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 toolset 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 Transportation Analysis CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STUDY (2020) The Iron Horse Trail Active Transporation Corridor Study serves as a major connector for biking ang walking corridor. The purpose of the study also serves health, economic, enviornmenetal, and transportation benefits, connectivity and auto- oriented infrastructure. The purpose of this document is to establish a uniform approach and sustainble and effective routes form bicyclists, pedestrians, and shared mobility thus improving its connectivty across the region. The Active Transportation Plan also includes potential trail improvements, intersection connectivity and improvemnets and access enhancements fo users and aaccomodate future transportation needs. The plan is updated to reflect the newest technologies which serves autonomous vehicle needs, techical, requirments, infrstrucuture requirements and operational consideration. The document outlines corrider design, enhancements strategies for addressing transportation elements. TJ KM trail Active Transportation Corridor Study intersection, mobility Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 18 4. COLLISION DATA AND ANALYSIS This chapter summarizes the results of the collision analysis of collisions that have occurred in the Town of Danville between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2021, as part of the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). This chapter includes the 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 collision, 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. TJ KM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 19 Figure 6. Collisions in the Town of Danville (2017-2021) Alamo 1; { 1 b�•' 1 1 • L • # *Nook ,ate • '-•a....,�, 1 •' • j; 4 • • • • • • • • • Town of Danville All Collisions (2017-2021) Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury • Other Visible Injury • Complaint of Pain • Property Damage Only i j San Ramon • Blackhawk 74.00,__,,irripir Ill • • • i •• • • • 1 I t Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 20 Figure 7. Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions in the Town of Danville (2017-2021) Alamo • • • '•, •• te'a\\ a Town of Danville Bicycle and Pedestrian Collisions (2017-2021) Blackhawk. Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury • other Visible Injury • Complaint of Pain • Property Damage only r San Ramon Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 21 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. f:ollision Data Analysis Results COLLISION ANALYSIS BY SEVERITY Figure 8. Collisions by Severity (2017 -2021) There were a total of 642 collisions reported on the Town of Danville Fatal Severe Injury 1% 5% roads from 2017 to 2021. Out of these, Visible Injury 380 collisions (59%) led to property \NA15% damage only, 130 led to a complaint of pain injury (20%) and 96 collisions (15%) led to a visible injury. There were Property 36 KSI (killed and severe injury) Damage only (PDO) collisions, of which 32 collisions (5%) 59% Complaint of led to a severe injury and 4 collisions Pain 20% (1%) led to a fatality. Figure 8 illustrates the classification of all collisions based on severity. 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 22 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 200 180 150 160 140 120 100 100 80 60 40 20 9 7 0 175 123 94 3 7 10 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 TJ 4/11Crini Total KSI 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% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 6% 3% 1 24% 25% 13% 6% TJ KM 8% 31% 22%22% 1% 0% 22% 6% 6% 6% 11 • cc‘ e'c• eo` ea ao et a�• ,off<<• mea �<oa O Jai eae o \Q der` Total ■ KSI Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 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% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 31% 27% 20% 16% 9/0 °9/° 11° 11% 9% 11%% ° 7% 7% ' 3%2%1 ' 4%2 2% 1%4% , 4%' \�K\`- of c6ao�`r� Sa�eSpeed a�d5��os e��tt�`�� �\�a�� o�e�er ra�Ot�`�e e oK�oad et t��` Or�oo�� • J\��v�`ae eS�atti`�.� �� �K\cScQ°c\a \�ctop PJto��3� 1,a d-.053 de( ( ��S�d e�\���oQ o�ret\ Ot\ sa4 '(ca c Oar de 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 25 Figure 13. Motor Vehicle Involved With: All Collisions vs KSI Collisions 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 0% co\\\S\ot� 51% -33% 10% 5% 6% - edeS�C\a��er\c\e �er\c\e �\o �o 0\ er Pa��ed Total • KSI 39% 21% 19% - 1% 3% mom 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% 10% 0% 8% 1% 82% 53% 28% 6% ■ Scooset Je -0 �\c� \e c\e of o�,oet _:.2N (Sc of s�t` Pas Total ■ F+SI (Cr16-1-1R1 1% 0% Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 26 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% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 74% 72% 2% 0% 21% 28% 3% 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% 87% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 100% 1 Clear (rttrTJ KM 9% 0% Cloudy Total ■ KSI 3% 0% 1% 0% Raining Fog/Other Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 27 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% 11' P� 2��P� �'��P0 6'��P� $'��P� 1000P� 12'O�e� L0e A0e� 6�oe° `b��e� 1o'O�e0 TJ KM --Total KSI Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 28 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 Roadway Segment 14% Intersection 86% Figure 19 maps the KSI collisions that occurred the Town of Danville during the study period. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 29 Figure 19. Killed and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) Alamo 1. -L Town of Danville Killed & Severe Injury (KSI) Collisions (2017-2021) 44:0 ®®u 1 fk* 9.0 'ir,%w its l 44 Ott, %1 A W WW2&ArAS"-q4 Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury Blackhawk f San Ramon ° TJ KM 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% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 6% 6% 3% 3% 3% InII A= 'Aim- Roadway • Intersection 19% 17% 6% 6% . 3% ea •\ate �Qe ce 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% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 11% i 11% 8%1 r�r 11% 3% 14% 8% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 1 1 1 17% �C\ve�`e Seed �`a��e .(0\ \a \°� S���s e�e�� �t\Jet a°�`�� ���\�Q, d�re� et\� �Sa�e a�`ec e�� 3`��\0 ?X' -\-` �\o� �rar °�� e�0 O�\�\����d J�Sake\ \�ptoP PJ�o`h�ta�\`S\�°a�a�a'-' 0,,y aeS\atc\°Ocre'kV. P O' �� Roadway ■ Intersection Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 31 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% - eS,�c\ar Qed 3% e\\e ods -6( J 31% I 6% 33% Roadway • Intersection 14% 6% 3% 0% - c'c 6 c\l'edpple O'ret Oo1e 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% L_ Roadway • Intersection 6% 22% Dark - Street Lights Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 32 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 2;°a.` '6° C� 9 P' to 3'6 9 a�.1ti TJ KM Roadway Intersection pcoa� 6- 12 99° Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 33 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% 5% 0% I• 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 1 Changing Entering Making Left Making U Merging Other Proceeding Ran Off Stopped In Traveling Lanes Traffic Turn Turn Unsafe Straight Road Road Wrong Way Turning ■ Broadside • Head -On • Hit Object • Other Rear -End • Sideswipe • Vehicle - Pedestrian cTJ KM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 34 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. ttr6—`.11-1R1 Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 35 Figure 27. Town of Danville Broadside Collisions (2017 - 2021) Alamo Town of Danville Broadside Collisions (2017-2021) • • Biackhawk Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury • other Visible Injury • Complaint of Pain • Property Damage only San Ramon Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 36 Figure 28. Town of Danville Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021) -J Alamo 00 11 v14-4 •.**wifili 41-wgi74-k vo, itits 4 ii 1 gdefit*‘41,...., lir %Iv* 1 * \ fti ItWl..)- lk k ' 14 11".6% - al".., scf • Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury • Other Visible Injury • Complaint of Pain • Property Damage Only Town of Danville Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021) Blackhawk San Rarnon TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 37 Figure 29. Town of Danville Traffic Signals and Signs Collisions (2017 - 2021) Alamo 4./ Town of Danville Traffic Signals and Signs Violation Collisions (2017-2021) 1 • Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury G . Other Visible Injury • Complaint of Pain • Property Damage Only ! ...„,.. ) ! ..........: San Rarnon Blackhawk /tip e. 7 TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 38 Figure 30. Town of Danville Unsafe Speed Collisions (2017 - 2021) Alamo �.' i i � •ter • /r �d f // `///� ...3 C • Town of Danville Unsafe Speed Violation Collisions (2017-2021) • i • I ' . Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury • Other Visible Injury • Complaint of Pain • Property Damage Only • Blackhawk San Ramon TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 39 Figure 31. Town of Danville Hit Object Collisions (2017 - 2021) Ii4\44. Alamo ti �gfi*J�• • a _-3 680 sr i • • 4o 416 9' • Town of Danville Hit Object Collisions (2017-2021) * r Af imp laii Blackhawk �i Collision Severity • Fatal Severe Injury • Other Visible Injury • Complaint of Pain • Property Damage Only San Ramon Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 40 1' 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 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 TI MS 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. TJ KM Local Roadway Safety Plan I 41 Figure 32. Town of Danville EPDO Score Town of Danville EPDO Score (2017-2021) Blackhawk EPDO Score Low High �1. San Ramon 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). Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 43 Figure 33. Town of Danville High Injury Network Alamo ..__.. ; A/ 0'6 4i Town of Danville High Injury Network Blackhawk • High injury Intersection High Injury Corridor IL si I,. i vaStamb• o,, wsysylki. ,5 , Ow-. \ ...„,, --' 1.1 San Ramon 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 Total Injury SI Severity Collisions Collisions Weight 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 11 4 15 2 2 357 354 2 337 1 234 5 Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave 11 1 210 6 Crow Canyon Rd at Tassajara Ranch Dr 12 1 206 7 San Ramon Valley Blvd at Boone Ct 15 1 204 8 Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr 8 1 192 9 Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr 7 1 191 10 Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd 7 1 191 Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 45 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 5. High Injury Corridors A Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: Cavalry Ct to Town 88 6 6.0 1312 Limit B Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Hartz Wy 30 2 0.9 448 C San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr 30 2 2.1 413 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 38 1 2.2 317 11 1 0.5 210 4 1 0.2 178 G Del Amigo Rd: 200' N of Camino Encanto to Danville Blvd 2 1 0.3 171 H J Stone Valley Rd: 575' W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley Rd Highland Dr: Lonesome Rd to 1,700' W of Lonesome Rd Green Valley Rd: Stone Valley Rd to Diablo Rd 2 1 0.3 166 1 1 0.3 165 11 0 0.7 66 Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 46 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 47 Figure 34. Town of Danville Bicycle/Pedestrian EPDO Score Town of Danville Bicycle & Pedestrian EPDO Score (2017-2021) Blackhawk. ycamore Valley Rd. EPDO Score High } San Ramon Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 48 Figure 35. Town of Danville Bicycle/Pedestrian High Injury Network Alamo clo ,,,k41.... II 1% - k,I *Ipet4.4' k i � wo i r NI k . . . „T1 . vi A -N6 Kid t eli ,i%Il..-1 rivxdo lefaWd r--' ' ' " ta""Oto W.41111i 0 01"1 `* % 7 Town of Danville Bicycle & Pedestrian High Injury Network • High Injury Intersection High Injury Corridor Blackhawk San Ramon TJ KM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 49 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 Intersection 1 San Ramon Valley Blvd at Sonora Ave 2 San Ramon Valley Blvd at Boone Ct 3 Del Amigo Rd at Glen Rd 4 5 1 184 2 1 176 2 1 176 Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Dr 2 5 Glen Rd at Hartford Rd 6 Linda Mesa Ave at Patricks PI 1 176 2 1 171 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 C Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Hartz Wy D Camino Tassajara: 1,430' W of Wood Ranch Dr to Town Limit E Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave F Del Amigo Rd: 200' N of Camino Encanto to Danville Blvd 8 1 2.2 222 8 1 0.9 213 7 1 2.3 211 2 1 0.2 176 2 1 0.3 171 G Highland Dr: Lonesome Rd to 1,700' W of Lonesome Rd 1 1 0.3 165 Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 i 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 Blvd/Camino Tassajara from Cavalry Ct to Town Limit, while the intersection with the highest EPDO score was Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Rd at Ackerman Dr. 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 51 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. retrIKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 52 5. 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 53 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. San Ramon Valley Street Smarts 511 Contra Costa The Town of Danville participates in San Ramon Valley Street Smarts, which works to address traffic safety in Danville and San Ramon through educational programs that complement Education, 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 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 ((��TJKM In 2020, the Town began development of a Townwide Bicycle Master Plan, funded by the Contra Costa Measure J Transportation for Livable Communities program. The plan was developed with extensive public input through virtual workshops and an online webtool that helped develop recommendations for new bicycle projects and programs that will shape the future of cycling in Danville. Engineering, Encouragement, Education, Enforcement, and Evaluation Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 54 Danville Department Police San Ramon Valley Fire Department The Danville Police Department works in partnership with our diverse community to safeguard the lives, rights and property of Education, the people they serve. With unwavering dedication, the Enforcement, department provide innovative professional law enforcement EMS services to our community. The San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District provides all-risk fire, rescue and emergency medical services to the Town of Danville, Diablo located in Contra Costa County. 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 Countywide Vision Zero network and has been working with each city/town to adopt their own Vision Zero policies. Education, Enforcement, EMS Engineering Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 55 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 56 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. 24% 34% 34% Broadside Collisions Unsafe Speed Violations Rear End Collisions Table 9. Emphasis Area 1 Strategies Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions at intersections. Performance Agencies/ Strategy Measure Organizations 0 +o u u LU W Enforcement 1 d W Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws regarding traffic signals, stop signs, and turning left or right. Number of education campaigns or residents reached. Town/Police Department Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections to monitor right-of-way Number of tickets Police Department violations, speed limit laws and other violations that occur at intersections. issued. • 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 warning/regulatory signs • NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings • 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 Number intersections improved. of Town C i0+ Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to Decrease in number = determine if intersection collisions have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if of intersection Town To improvements are not recognized. collisions. W 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% 90% 38% Traffic Signals and At Intersections Occurred on Sycamore Valley Rd/Camino Signs Violations 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 Enforcement Conduct public information and education campaigns for intersection safety laws regarding traffic lights, stop signs and turning left or right. Number of education campaigns or residents reached. Town/Police Department Decrease in number of Targeted enforcement at high -injury locations where violations that citations and/or warnings lead to broadside collisions are more common, such as automobile issued over time due to Police Department right of way and traffic signal/stop sign violations. increased driver 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) • NS03, Install signals • NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other 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 Number of locations improved to mitigate broadside collisions. Town ((&eTJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 58 Evaluation 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 retrIKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 59 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. 25% KSI Collisions 25% 75% 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 Measure 0 a0 W Enforcement Encouragement Strategy Conduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of pedestrian safety needs through media outlets, social media, and public events. Partner with Safe Routes to School to conduct bicycle and pedestrian safety programs in Danville's schools. Targeted enforcement at high -injury locations especially near schools, trails, and other areas where pedestrians are more present. Continue to place a high priority on enforcement of motorist and pedestrian violations that most frequently cause injuries and fatalities among pedestrians. • S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads • S2OPB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) • S21 PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval • NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands) NS21PB/R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) NS23PB, Install pedestrian signal (including HAWK signal) R32PB, Install bike lanes R33PB, Install separated bike lanes R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) Host Bike to Work Day events or other events to promote riding your bike to school, work, or other day to day destinations. Host bicycle education events in Danville schools, such as bicycle rodeos to encourage kids to ride their bikes to school. Evaluation Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to determine if bicycle collisions have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if improvements are not recognized. Number of education campaigns or residents reached. Decrease in number of citations and/or warnings issued over time due to increased driver compliance. Number of locations improved. Number of residents students reached. Agencies/ Organizations Town/ School District/ Police Department Police Department Town or Town/School District Decrease in number of bicycle collisions. Town ((&eTJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 60 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% Rear -End Collisions 78% 77% Involved Another Motor Vehicle 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. Performance Agencies/ Measure Organizations Enforcement a W Strategy Conduct public information and education campaign for safety laws regarding unsafe speed and its dangers. Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations to monitor unsafe speed. Deploy a radar trailer at locations where instances of unsafe speed is more prevalent. • 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 • R36PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) • S16/NSO4/NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout • Implement traffic calming strategies where appropriate • Decrease width of travel lanes. • Decrease curb radius of intersections. Number education campaigns of Town/Police Department Number of Police Department tickets issued. Number of locations improved. Decrease in Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to number of rear - determine if rear -end collisions and unsafe speed violations have decreased. Adjust end collisions countermeasures if improvements are not recognized. and unsafe speed violations. Town Town 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. 54% 2 of 7 Occurred at Night F +SI Collisions Table 13. Emphasis Area 5 Strategies 29% Occurred on Camino Tassajara Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury hit object collisions. 0 m Enforcement tst W Evaluation Strategy Conduct public information and education campaigns on risks that can lead to hit object collisions, such as unsafe speeds, distracted driving, improper turning and driving under the influence. Targeted enforcement at high -injury locations where hit object collisions are more common. • 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 • R04, Install Guardrail • R15, Widen shoulder • R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) • R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves • 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 Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to determine if hit object collisions have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if improvements are not recognized. Performance Agencies/ Measure Organizations Number of education campaigns or residents reached. Decrease in number of citations and/or warnings issued over time due to increased driver compliance. Number of locations improved. Town/Police Department Police Department Town Decrease in number of hit Town object collisions. 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% Rear End Collisions 25% 75% 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. Performance Agencies/ Measure Organizations 0 c v W Enforcement Strategy Conduct public information and education campaigns on risks of improper driving behaviors occurring on Camino Tassajara, such as unsafe speed and improper turning. Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections and roadway locations on Camino Tassjara to monitor violations of driving under influence. Deploy a radar trailer along Camino Tassajara to warn drivers of unsafe speeding. • S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number • S03, Improve signal timing • S09, Install raised pavement markers • S11/NS12/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 NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) NS13, Install splitter -islands on the minor road approaches 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 Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to determine if collisions along Camino Tassajara have decreased. Adjust countermeasures if improvements are not recognized. Number of education campaigns Town/Police Department Number of Police Department tickets issued. Number of locations improved. Decrease in collisions on Camino Tassajara. Town Town � nn 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% Unsafe Speed Violations 23% Involved Bicycle or Pedestrian 31% Rear -End Collisions Table 15. Emphasis Area 7 Strategies Objective: Reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions in Downtown Danville. Strategy Performance Agencies/ Measure Organizations 0 w W Conduct public information and education campaigns on risks of improper driving behaviors occurring in Downtown Danville, such as speeding or violating Number pedestrian/bicycle right-of-way. education campaigns Outreach to Downtown businesses and collaborate on a safety forum in downtown. of Town/Police Department Enforcement Targeted enforcement at high-risk intersections and roadway locations to monitor Number of Police Department common violations within downtown, such as unsafe speed. tickets issued. • 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 • • S2OPB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) • S21 PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Number of • • NS02, Convert to all -way STOP control (from 2 -way or yield control) locations Town 'a� • NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings improved. W • NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) • NS14, Install raised median on approaches • NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands) • NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features • NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) • NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (Including HAWK signal) Evaluation Evaluate implemented programs and engineering countermeasures yearly to Decrease in determine if collisions in Downtown Danville have decreased. Adjust collisions in Town countermeasures if improvements are not recognized. Downtown. ((&eTJKM 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 un -signalized 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. 7ountermeasure Toolbox 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. ((��TJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 65 Table 16. Countermeasures selected for the Town of Danville Code Countermeasure Name Countermeasure Description CRF Federal Funding Systemic Approach Opportunity Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with SO2 retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number S20PB Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Modify signal phasing to S21 PB implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) N S06 N S07 NS21PB Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Install/Upgrade signs with R22 new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R32PB Install bike lanes R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes Includes New LED lighting, signal back plates, retro -reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads. Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur. Addition of LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication; only minor signal timing alteration is required. Additional regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections will help enhance the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them 15% 90% Very High 15% 90% Very High 60% 90% Very High 15% 90% Very High Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of centerlines and 25% 90% Very High stop bars Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes. 60% 90% Very High Additional or new signage can address crashes caused by lack of driver awareness or compliance 15% 90% Very High of roadway signing. Installation of delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. 15% 90% Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that 35% 90% 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 urban or suburban area. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation measures including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. 45% 90% Very High High High ((etrTJKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 66 R35PB R36PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Install raised pedestrian crossing Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high -use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. 35% On lower -speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant vehicular traffic. 35% 90% 90% Medium Medium * Code: S - Signalized intersection improvements NS - Non -signalized intersection improvements R - Roadway segment improvements retrIKM 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 68 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. Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 69 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 Location Total Cost B/C Ratio 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 Ackerman Dr SO2 S2OPB S21PB $51,114.00 Camino Tassajara at Tassajara Ranch SO2 S2OPB S21PB $133,028.00 Dr/Blackhawk Plaza Cir Crow Canyon Rd at Center Wy/Center Ct Crow Canyon Rd at Tassajara Ranch Dr Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr SO2 S2OPB S21PB $124,726.00 SO2 S2OPB S21PB $132,426.00 SO2 S2OPB S21PB $117,656.00 $558,950 62.28 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 Sereno Rd Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd NS06 $10,745 NS06 NS07 $19,810 NS06 NS07 NS21PB $19,670 NS06 NS07 $7,413 $57,638 394.51 Project #3: Roadway Segments (Install or Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers) Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: R22 R27 $109,352 SRVB to Town Limit $201,848 93.95 «JKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 70 San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of R22 Ridgeland Dr Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit R22 R27 R27 $72,307 $20,188 Project #4: Roadway Segments (Install Separated Bike Lanes, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing) Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: R33PB SRVB to Camino Tassajara Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Railroad R33PB Ave R33PB Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave Stone Valley Rd: 575' W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley Rd R33PB R32PB R35PB $127,484 $198,863 $31,987 $101,675 $43,055 Project #5: Roadway Segments (Install raised pedestrian crossing) $503,064 168.24 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 • SO2 - 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.) • NS21PB - 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 (tretIKM 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 Funding Source Funding Agency Amount Available Next Estimated Call for Projects Applicable E's Notes Active Transportation Program Highway Safety Improvement Program Office of Traffic Safety Grants Caltrans, California Transportation Commission, MTC Caltrans California Office of Traffic Safety -$450 million per cycle (every two years) Varies by grant 2022 2024 Closes January 31St annually Engineering, Education Engineering Education, Enforcement, Emergency Response Can be used for most active transportation related safety projects as well as education programs. Funding available through Caltrans or MTC Most common grant source for safety projects 10 grants available to address various components of traffic safety � nn Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 72 Funding Source Funding Agency Amount Available Next Estimated Call for Projects Applicable iiii, Notes E's Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Urban Greening Local Streets and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Strategic Growth Council and Dept. of Housing and Community Development California Natural Resources Agency CTC (distributed to local agencies) —$405 million 2022 $28.5 million 2022 $1.5 billion statewide RAISE Grant USDOT —$1 billion Sustainable Transportation Equity Project Transformative Climate Communities Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) California Air Resources Board Strategic Growth Council USDOT -$19.5 million '$90 million $200k - $50 million N/A; distributed by formula Engineering, Education Must be connected to affordable housing projects; typically focuses on bike/pedestrian infrastructure/program s Focused on bike/pedestrian Engineering infrastructure and greening public spaces Engineering 2022 Engineering TBD; most recent call in 2020 TBD; most recent call in 2020 2022 Engineering, Education Typically pays for road maintenance type projects Typically used for larger infrastructure projects Targets projects that will increase transportation equity in disadvantaged communities Funds community -led projects that achieve major Engineering reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in disadvantaged communities. Engineering Two types of SS4A grants available: Action Plan Grants & Implementation Grants For HSIP Cycle 11, two applications were submitted by the City 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. «JKM 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. RSP UpdL. 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. retrIKM Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 74 APPENDICES Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 78 APPENDIX A. SUMMARY OF PLANNING DOCUMENTS Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 76 TJ KM Table 1: Matrix of Planning Goals, Policies, and Projects Docum t Hi. The General Plan designates streets using the following categories: Major Arterial, Minor Arterial, Major Collector, Minor Collector, and Neighborhood Access Streets. The remaining streets are local streets that have the sole function of providing access to adjoining land uses. Town of Danville General Plan' Mobility (2030) Goals and Policies • 11: Multi -modal circulation system Provide a safe, efficient multi -modal circulation system. o Policy 11.01: Support balanced transportation improvements which make all modes of travel more efficient, attractive, convenient, and safe. o Policy 11.03: Implement physical and operational improvements to improve the transportation system o Policy 11.04: Evaluate planned road improvements based on adjacent land uses, street function, and the desired character of the street in addition to access, safety, and engineering considerations o Policy 11.06: Create a connected circulation system in which it becomes easier to walk or bicycle from one point in Danville to another. On cul-de-sacs and dead- end streets, encourage pedestrian and bicycle paths that extend through to nearby streets, making it easier to reach destinations such as schools, parks, shopping, and public transit. o Policy 11.07: Reduce traffic hazards on Danville's roadways through design, signage, enforcement of traffic laws, and traffic safety education. Accident data (including data for pedestrian and bicycle accidents) should be monitored to identify problem locations and to allow prioritization of safety improvements. o Policy 11.08: Maintain roadways and traffic control devices in safe and effective operating condition. o Policy 11.10: Recognize the special needs of persons with mobility limitations, including youth, seniors, and persons with disabilities, in the planning and operation of Danville's transportation system and services. • Goal 12: Complete Streets 10 Document Highlights Create walkable neighborhoods and shopping areas, with streets that safely and comfortably accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users as well as motor vehicles. o Policy 12.01: Design major roadways to function as "complete streets" which balance the needs of automobiles with the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, and other forms of travel. o Policy 12.09: Seek grant funding for capital improvements which enhance travel choices, improve connectivity, and make it easier to walk or bicycle within downtown Danville • Goal 13: Transportation Choice Create viable transportation alternatives to the single occupant automobile. o Policy 13.05: Create and maintain a safe and effective system of bikeways, including an integrated network of off-road bicycle trails, dedicated on -road bicycle lanes, and signed bicycle routes along Danville streets. o Policy 13.06: Review all planned road improvement projects to ensure that the needs of pedestrians, bicyclists, and persons with special needs are considered. o Policy 13.07: Support educational programs which promote bicycle and pedestrian safety, and the health benefits of bicycling and walking • Goal 15: Mobility and neighborhood Quality Reduce the adverse effects of vehicle traffic on Danville's neighborhoods and natural environment. o Policy 15.02: Implement neighborhood traffic management measures, including physical changes and traffic control devices which increase neighborhood livability and street ambiance, discourage through traffic on residential streets, discourage speeding, and/or ensure vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle safety. o Policy 15.09: Identify and implement additional measures which reduce traffic congestion around Danville's school campuses while ensuring safe, efficient transportation for students, parents, and faculty. Vision 11 TJ KM Highlights Town of Danville Bicycle Master Plan (2021) The Town of Danville will strive to enhance mobility and safety by creating a well-connected network of bicycle facilities inclusive of safe roadway crossings, on -street bicycle accommodation and off-street facilities designed for a wide variety of users and trip purposes. Goals: • Goal 1: Connectivity Provide comfortable safe, and connected facilities for all types of users. o Objective 1: Provide comfortable, safe, and connected bicycle facilities • Goal 2: Safety: Enhance bicycle safety with projects, policies and programs. o Objective 1: Reduce frequency and severity of bicycle collisions through the implementation of systematic safety improvements and street designs that prioritize safety for vulnerable road users o Objective 2: Prioritize bicycle access and safety along roadways within one mile of all K-12 schools in Danville o Objective 3: Support third party bicycle safety and education efforts with funding and/or organizational capacity (bicyclists ex. Street Smarts or 511) o Objective 4: Work with local police to train officers on safe bicycling practices and current laws related to bicycling o Objective 5: Maintain line of sight and riding surfaces along corridors and at intersections as a maintenance function. • Goal 3: Collaboration and Transparency: Develop a network of bicycle facilities through a collaborative process that builds and maintains community trust. • Goal 4: Institutional: Establish a culture of biking both at the organizational and community levels. o Increase engagement of other departments (ex. Police, Fire/EMS, others) to help develop policies that are conducive towards improving conditions for people biking 12 TJ KM 'Mr "Illail o Ensure coordinated departmental response to bicycle related traffic collisions Diablo Road Trail Study (2018) Guiding Principles of the Study: • Policy 12.07 - Close gaps in the Town's bicycle and pedestrian trail system in order to create a more fully connected logical, comprehensive system of facilities for non- motorized transportation. • Policy 17.14 - Enhance Danville's trail system by closing gaps in the existing system, providing adequate access points, and extending trails to achieve better connectivity to all areas of the town. Furthermore, the General Plan specifically supports the construction of a "bike/walkway along Diablo Road from Green Valley Road to Mt. Diablo Scenic Boulevard" as a consistent recommendation with the 2009 Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. In addition to implementing adopted goals, recommendations in the Danville 2030 General Plan, Recreation & Arts Strategic Plan, Countywide Bicycle and and Town wide Trails Master Plan, closing this gap will key benefits to Danville residents and visitors. • Connectivity • Health and Recreation • Economic Impacts policies, and Danville Parks, Pedestrian Plan, provide several Downtown Parking Management Plan (2010) As a part of the 2008 Economic Development Strategy Update, the Town Council authorized undertaking a parking utilization study ("study") to assess existing parking policies, patterns, and utilization within the downtown. A key component of the parking assessment study was to obtain input from local business organizations, merchants, and patrons of the downtown. The key findings of the Study were: • While there are "hot spot" areas during peak periods, in general, the current parking supply in the downtown is sufficient for existing needs; and • A comprehensive parking strategy needs to be adopted to more efficiently and effectively manage this parking supply. The plan reflects recommendation related to parking implementation actions and the expansion and redevelopment of the existing permit 13 TJ KM Highlights parking program through the proposed implementation of permit sales and management system. • On -Street Parking Regulations • Municipal Parking lot regulations • Parking enforcement • Parking Time Zone Modifications In order to effectively manage a comprehensive permit parking program, the Town has implemented a new permit management software system. The permit management system is a web based application that effectively streamlines permit sales and staff management duties. • Downtown Employee Permit Parking • One- Day/Special Event Permit Parking • Overnight / Oversize Vehicle Permit Parking • Residential Permits It is the objective of this policy to install curb markings to meet the needs of the community while following the standards of practice for installation of curb markings. Additionally, this policy establishes the standards and procedures by which curb marking requests are reviewed and implemented. The Town of Danville identifies four general types of parking zones. These are: no parking zones, time limited parking zones, loading zones, and disabled parking zones for the physically challenged. Downtown Parking Utilization Assessment (2016) The overarching goal of the assessment is to identify and balance the parking needs of patrons and merchants, and to support and maintain a vibrant economic environment where businesses and special events continue to thrive while seeking alternatives to enhance accessibility, parking and safety for a diverse group of users. • Extensive data collection of on -street and off-street parking for the six (6) Sub -Areas within the Downtown Area and the Sycamore Valley Park and Ride Lot located at the southeast periphery of the Downtown Area. • Evaluation of the current parking supply, demand and utilization; and comparison with prior data collected in August 2015 and data from the 2009 Downtown Parking Assessment Study. 14 Document Highlights • Development of parking strategies that balance needs of various users, including residents, employees and visitors of downtown destinations and special events. • Review of the existing Employee Permit Parking Program, freight loading zones, enforcement practices, timed parking areas, etc. and consideration of necessary refinements to improve utilization and overall parking program effectiveness. • Review of parking supply/demand conditions for the Sycamore Valley Park and Ride Lot, Farmers' Market and San Ramon Valley High School. Key Findings and Recommendations: The study analyzed on -street and off-street parking conditions for weekdays as well as Saturdays. The following key findings and recommendations have been developed based upon the newly collected data, field observations, comparison with prior studies, staff feedback and stakeholder interviews. • Parking time limits • Employee permit parking • Freight loading zones • Student parking • Farmers market • Enforcement • Parking slots or T's • Paid Parking • Parking Benefit district • Private -public parking assessments Town of Danville Capital Improvement Program FY (2021- 22) The Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a capital investment plan that supports the quality of life in Danville by providing for the design, construction and renovation of major capital projects that benefit a broad segment of the community. Projects in the CIP include: • Acquisition of land • Construction of new building, parks, improvements or facilities including engineering, design transportation and other pre - construction costs • Major equipment or furnishing requirements for new buildings 15 TJ KM Highlights A number of criteria and/or considerations are applied in determining the appropriateness of each CIP project, including: • Consistency with the Town's General Plan , and/or applicable adopted and established Town policies; • Benefit to the broader public good and positive benefit to cost ratio; • Potential impact upon Town operating expenditures; • The need to meet State, Federal or other legal mandates and requirements; • The needs to mitigate an identified health or safety problem; • Consideration of geographic equity in providing improvements and facilities throughout the Town; • The need to balance project design, management and inspection with available CIP staffing Projects on-going: • Town -wide sidewalk repairs: Design and construction of Town -wide sidewalk repair projects consistent with completed sidewalk survey. Ongoing repairs to address deficient sidewalk sections and reduce liability exposure. Annual downtown tree well repairs. Ongoing sidewalk repairs in downtown area. • Traffic Management Program: Implementation of Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) and the Arterial Management Program through installation of traffic calming/safety devices including speed humps, signs/pavement markings, crosswalk enhancements (RRFBs), radar display signs, curb bulb -outs. • Traffic Signal and street light maintenance program; Maintenance for 53 Town and County owned signalized intersections, repaint 241 street lights, and 2 banner poles. • Traffic signal interconnect system: Provides ongoing support for infrastructure maintenance and upgrades for the traffic signal interconnect network, and annual software support and maintenance services or the traffic management software (TMS) system. • Bicycle Parking Project: Replace bicycle racks at the Library/Community Center. Identify potential locations for bicycle e -lockers in the downtown area. 16 TJ KM Highlights Proceed with replacement of existing bicycle lockers with 16 B- lockers and bicycle racks at Park & Ride using BAAQMD funding procured as part of Park & Ride project. Research/deploy new bicycle rack designs to promote bicycling to the downtown. • Park and ride expansion project: The facility helps reduce the number of vehicles and vehicle trips travelling on 1-680 on weekdays and serves as a transit hub for the public and private bus services. Presently, the facility is operating at close to capacity on weekdays. This project will expand the existing Park and Ride facility to the east, adding approximately 116 parking spaces. • Iron Horse Trail crosswalks and flashing Beacons: Completed replacement of illuminated crosswalks systems at IHT crossings on Green brook Drive, El Capitan Drive and Paraiso Drive with new RRFB systems, flashing LED STOP signs and trail crossing illumination systems. • Pavement Management: The pavement management program is an annual effort approved by the Town Council to maintain the Town's street system at a high level of service. A proactive approach to pavement maintenance prevents more costly pavement repairs in the future. • Downtown traffic signal modernization: This project includes the modernization of traffic signals in the Downtown area to bring up to current standards. Project elements include ADA accessible pedestrian signals (audible and touchless sensors), bicycle/vehicular video detection systems, traffic video monitoring hardware, and signal head upgrades. Project will be phased based on funding availability. Grant funding will also be pursued. Danville Parks Recreation and Arts Strategic Plan Update (2017-2027) The 2017 Plan Update identifies the following Vision Principles: • Parks are community places • Parks are interwoven into the community • Community members are engaged in creating community spaces and becoming park stewards • Amenities are located to promote comfort and sociability of public spaces • Activities enhance the use of public spaces and community sociability 17 Document Highlights • Partnerships sustain parks, recreation, and the arts • Cultural arts enhance the livability of the community This is followed by the following Strategic Directions • Sustaining and reinvesting in the System • Active Transportation Trails and Pathways • High Impacts Arts Programming • Recreation for All • Community Stewards and Partnership Town of Danville Bicycle Parking Study (2011) The recommendations include increasing bicycle parking capacity in Downtown Danville from 121 bicycles to 215. The majority of the bicycle parking spaces would be located either individually on the sidewalk on in a series in public areas. "Post and loop" racks are most expensive and are recommended only on sidewalk locations along Hartz and on public land. The Bicycle Parking Study recommends 27 new bicycle parking locations and 11 updated racks to accommodate existing bicycling in Danville. This chapter provides a strategy for implementing this Study's recommendations in prioritized phases that leverages private investment and opportunities to install bicycle parking. • Phase 1: Bicycle parking located on private property and within the project limits of upcoming new developments. • Phase 2: Bicycle parking located in non -sidewalk areas that can currently accommodate bicycle parking, or locations that can be accommodated as part of upcoming street improvement projects. • Phase 3: Replacement of existing sub -standard bicycle racks and bicycle parking located on the sidewalk adjacent to parking. Danville's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (1996) The program has been effective in reducing traffic concerns on local streets throughout Danville. The program to keep pace with modern traffic engineering technologies by incorporating new traffic calming measures. Goals: • Neighborhood Livability: This goal strives to provide opportunities for neighbors to socially interact without traffic distracts or threats, establish a sense of neighborhood identity, and balance the multiple users of a public roadway and the needs of a neighborhood. • Citizen Participation and education: This goal strives to provide an educational forum where residents can be actively 18 Document High .. involved in evaluating that advantages and disadvantages of traffic management efforts. Through the NTMP process, residents can obtain an understanding of traffic calming and traffic safety techniques available in the program. Goals and Policies of the General Plan: • Goal 1: Assure that future development complements Danville's existing small town character and established quality of life. Policy 1.08: Protect existing residential areas from intrusion of incompatible land uses and disruptive traffic to the extent reasonable possible. • Goal 12: Provide for safety and efficient vehicular movement on Town of Danville streets. Policy 12.01: Maintain roadways and traffic control devices in safe and effective operating condition. Policy 12.06: Consider implementation of technologically advanced tools to enforce traffic regulations and monitor traffic conditions. • Goal 14: Minimize the intrusion of through traffic on residential streets. Policy 14.01: Implement neighborhood traffic management measures, including physical changes and traffic control devices, which increase neighborhood livability and street ambience, discourage speeding, and ensure vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle safety. Contra Costa Countywide Bike and Pedestrian Plan (2018) Goals • Encourage more people to walk and bicycle • Increase safety and security for pedestrians and bicyclists • Create a safe, connected, and comfortable network of bikeways and walkways for all ages and abilities • Increase the livability and attractiveness of Contra Costa's communities and districts • Equitably serve all of Contra Costa's communities while ensuring that public investments are focused on projects with the greatest benefits Objectives • Increase the share of trips made by walking and bicycling in Contra Costa 19 TJ KM Highlights • Reduce the rate of pedestrian and bicycle fatalities and injuries per capita • Increase the number of miles of low -stress bikeways in Contra Costa • Increase the number of jurisdictions in Contra Costa with bicycle, pedestrian, or active transportation plans Integrate complete street principles and best practices into Authority funding and design guidance. • A. SIGNAL TIMING & PHASING o Additional Signal Heads o Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time o Flashing Yellow Turn Phase o Leading Pedestrian Interval o Pedestrian Phase Recall o Replace Permissive with Protected Left Turn o Pedestrian Scramble o Reduce Cycle Lengths o Coordinated Signal Operation o Extend Green Time for Bikes o Extend Yellow and All Red Time • B. INTERSECTION & ROADWAY DESIGN Contra Costa Countywide o Close Slip Lane Transportation Safety Policy and o Raised Intersection Implementation Guide (2021) o Convert Two -Way Stop to All -Way Stop o Install Sidewalk o Protected Intersection o Raised Median o Lane Narrowing o Road Diet o Widen Shoulder o Roundabout o Signal Head Improvements o Traffic Circles o Programmable Signals/Visors/Louvers o Edge Line/Center Line Rumble Strips o Hardened Centerlines • C. BIKEWAY DESIGN o Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint) o Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase 20 Document Highlights o Bike Detection o Class I Bicycle Path or Mixed Use Trail o Bike Box o Class 11 Bike Lane o Class IV Separated Bikeway o Green Bike Lane Conflict Zone Markings o Two -Stage Turn Queue Bike Box • D. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS o Install Pedestrian Countdown Timer o Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) o Curb Extension o High -Visibility Crosswalk o Pedestrian Median Barrier o Raised Crosswalk o Pedestrian Refuge Island o Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) o Reduce Curb Radius o ADA -Compliant Directional Curb Ramps and Audible Push Buttons o Extended Time Push Button • E. SIGNS & MARKINGS o Prohibit Right -Turn -on -Red o Advance Yield Markings o Advance Stop Markings o Pedestrian Signs • F. OTHER o Access Management o Intersection & Street Scale Lighting • Remove Obstructions for Sightlines CCTA Transportation Expenditure Plan (2020) Goals • Relieve Traffic Congestion on Highways and Interchanges • Make Bus, Ferry, Passenger Train, and BART Rides Safer, Cleaner, and More Reliable • Provide Accessible and Safe Transportation for Children, Seniors, Veterans, and People with Disabilities • Improve Transportation in Our Communities Projects 21 TJ KM Highlights • Enhance 1-80, 1-580 (Richmond -San Rafael Bridge), Transit, and BART Corridor Improve Transit Reliability Along the 1-80 Corridor Relieve Congestion and Improve Local Access Along the 1-80 Corridor Improve Traffic Flow on Major Roads in West County Enhance Ferry Service and Commuter Rail in West County Improve Traffic Flow and Local Access to Richmond -San Rafael Bridge Along 1-580 and Richmond Parkway Seamless Connected Transportation Options CCTA Countywide Comprehensive Transportation Plan (2017) • GOAL 1: Support the efficient, safe, and reliable movement of people and goods using all available travel modes • GOAL 2: Manage growth to sustain Contra Costa's economy, preserve its environment and support its communities • GOAL 3: Expand safe, convenient and affordable alternatives to the single -occupant vehicle • GOAL 4: Maintain the transportation system • GOAL 5: Continue to invest wisely to maximize the benefits of available funding Contra Costa County Transportation Analysis Guidelines (2020) Transportation Policy Framework • Senate Bill 743 — California Environmental Quality Act • County General Plan • Growth Management Element • Transportation and Circulation Element • Capital Road Improvement & Preservation Program • Complete Streets • Contra Costa County Complete Streets Principles Contra Costa County Complete Streets Implementation Measures • Vision Zero Contra Costa County • County Ordinance Code • Section 74-4.006 — Electric Vehicle ("EV") Charging Chapter 82-16 — Off -Street Parking • Chapter 82-32 — Transportation Demand Management • Title 9 - Subdivisions • Contra Costa Transportation Authority • CCTA Technical Procedures 22 TJ KM Highlights • CCTA Countywide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan • CCTA Action Plans for Routes of Regional Significance Contra Costa County Active Transportation Corridor Study (2020) Vision • The Study envisions a trail that can serve as an active transportation spine that supports the region's mobility goals and continues to provide a treasured recreational resource for users of all ages and abilities. • These goals drive the focus of the study to ensure that the recommended priority projects are consistent with the existing context of the trail as well as the vision presented by the community during the engagement process. Goals: • Safety: Enhances trail condition and improves traffic and intersection safety. • Mobility: Provides connections to transit, trails and on -street facilities, accommodators users demand and enhances user comfort. • Access & Equity: Provides access to jobs, destinations, parks and open space, and health services, presents opportunities for new access points. • User Experience: Improves trail conditions and amenities, presents opportunities for storm water filtration, ecology, new amenities, and place making. • Project Synergy: Included local agency collaboration to ensure alignment with planned projects and existing land use and allows for future expansion of new technologies. 23 APPENDIX B. CONSOLIDATED HIGH INJURY COLLISION DATABASE Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 95 Accident_N ACCIDENT_Y Collision 1.53E+14 2021 2 -Dec -21 5.45E+12 2017 21 -Jun -17 2.76E+13 2017 5 -Jul -17 8.18E+12 2017 7 -Aug -17 2.32E+13 2017 18 -Aug -17 9.88E+13 2017 12 -Sep -17 4.12E+13 2017 18 -Sep -17 6.82E+13 2017 13 -Oct -17 2E+13 2017 1 -Nov -17 2.76E+13 2017 2 -Nov -17 2.52E+13 2017 2 -Nov -17 5.25E+13 2017 16 -Nov -17 8.22E+13 2017 27 -Nov -17 7.88E+13 2017 19 -Dec -17 9.64E+13 2017 22 -Dec -17 8.72E+13 2018 28 -Jan -18 3E+13 2018 13 -Feb -18 1.89E+13 2017 12 -Nov -17 7.64E+12 2018 13 -Apr -18 4.03E+13 2018 19 -Mar -18 8.38E+13 2019 10 -Oct -19 1.54E+14 2021 5 -Jun -21 5.92E+13 2018 14 -Apr -18 1.53E+14 2021 20 -Oct -21 1.52E+14 2021 14 -Sep -21 8.2E+13 2018 18 -Jun -18 5.43E+13 2018 13 -Jul -18 2.12E+13 2018 23 -Jul -18 5.82E+13 2018 20 -Aug -18 1.15E+13 2018 14 -Sep -18 6.81E+13 2019 15 -Feb -19 8.16E+12 2018 27 -Sep -18 6.44E+13 2018 30 -Sep -18 6.68E+13 2018 14 -Dec -18 4.82E+13 2019 11 -Jan -19 1.34E+13 2019 9 -Apr -19 5.63E+13 2019 16 -Jul -19 5.11E+13 2019 18 -Jul -19 1.53E+13 2019 6 -Aug -19 4.1E+13 2019 24 -Aug -19 2.8E+13 2019 27 -Aug -19 Collisio_1 1:14 PM 7:12 PM 7:27 AM 8:08 AM 11:58 AM 5:07 AM 9:51 AM 3:15 PM 3:12 AM 3:30 PM 8:45 PM 4:27 PM 5:38 PM 11:52 AM 12:52 PM 6:35 AM 3:40 PM 1:54 AM 4:33 PM 4:03 PM 1:05 PM 3:30 PM 9:45 AM 10:58 PM 8:15 AM 1:17 PM 6:45 PM 10:45 AM 6:09 PM 4:55 PM 2:00 PM 8:30 AM 2:20 AM 5:48 AM 8:03 AM 10:55 AM 8:00 PM 3:35 PM 2:35 PM 10:40 AM 9:50 AM Hour 13 19 7 8 11 5 9 15 3 15 20 16 17 11 12 6 15 1 16 16 13 15 9 22 8 13 18 10 18 16 14 8 2 5 8 10 20 15 14 10 9 Collisio_2 Thursday Wednesday Wednesday Monday Friday Tuesday Monday Friday Wednesday Thursday Thursday Thursday Monday Tuesday Friday Sunday Tuesday Sunday Friday Monday Thursday Saturday Saturday Wednesday Tuesday Monday Friday Monday Monday Friday Friday Thursday Sunday Friday Friday Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Tuesday Saturday Tuesday HIN Collisions.xls Primary_Ro 501 DANVILLE BLVD CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAM I NO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA Accident_N 1.53E+14 DANVILLE OAKS PLACE 5.45E+12 SYCAMORE VALLEY RD 2.76E+13 WOOD RANCH DR 8.18E+12 MANSFIELD DR 2.32E+13 GLASGOW DR 9.88E+13 TASSAJARA RANCH RD 4.12E+13 JASMINE WAY 6.82E+13 CONEJO DR 2E+13 SHERBURNE HILLS RD 2.76E+13 CONEJO DR 2.52E+13 HILL MEADOW DR 5.25E+13 SYCAMORE VALLEY RD 8.22E+13 CONEJO DR 7.88E+13 SHERBURNE HILLS RD 9.64E+13 CROW CANYON RD 8.72E+13 GLASGOW DR 3E+13 BLACKHAWK RD 1.89E+13 A STREET 7.64E+12 DIABLO VISTA 4.03E+13 CONEJO DR 8.38E+13 HILL MEADOW DR 1.54E+14 LAWRENCE RD 5.92E+13 CONEJO DR 1.53E+14 WOOD RANCH RD 1.52E+14 GLASGOW DR 8.2E+13 WOOD RANCH RD 5.43E+13 CONEJO DR 2.12E+13 BUCKINGHAM DR 5.82E+13 MESSIAN PL 1.15E+13 BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR 6.81E+13 SYCAMORE VALLEY RD 8.16E+12 HOLBROOK DR 6.44E+13 WOODSIDE DR 6.68E+13 GLASGOW DR 4.82E+13 LAWRENCE RD 1.34E+13 CREEKSIDE AVE 5.63E+13 BUCKINGHAM DR 5.11E+13 RASSANI DR 1.53E+13 LIVERPOOL ST 4.1E+13 HILL MEADOW DR 2.8E+13 LIVERPOOL ST Secondary 2 Distance_i 329 56 1661 174 1153 400 682 60 153 26 1076 18 80 22 575 469 72 1 46 175 17 395 136 600 33 80 20 268 28 171 104 240 550 1206 9 37 50 355 275 521 856 Direction Intersecti SOUTH N East Y West N East Y East N West N East N West Y East Y East Y West N East Y East Y East Y West N West N East Y East Y West Y East Y South Y WEST N East Y EAST N EAST Y East Y West Y East N East Y East Y East Y East Y East N East N East Y West Y West Y West N West N West N East N HIN Collisions.xls X 0 6137592.204 6146044.414 6156206.377 6139799.073 6151809.634 6156713.165 6152687.687 6142991.894 6152772.661 6140267.846 6137554.731 6152825.957 6142886.654 6150393.437 6138482.65 6151033.92 0 0 6152919.672 0 0 6152881.212 0 0 6147642.809 6152727.229 6153707.899 6138926.328 6152374.584 0 6144338.342 6145408.711 6139839.754 6157543.996 6144102.155 6153397.616 6153093.521 6148848.356 6140742.904 6149942.25 Y Latitude 0 37.82708732 2122933.352 37.81606868 2118005.828 37.80305833 2116670.71 37.79965111 2121889.017 37.81320081 2116445.476 37.7987734 2116693.085 37.79971256 2116315.057 37.79867444 2119659.863 37.80707927 2116301.816 37.79863808 2121562.525 37.81230422 2122927.103 37.81605152 2116293.127 37.79861422 2119737.873 37.80729349 2116647.97 37.79932948 2122819.941 37.81575724 2116559.609 37.79908683 0 37.79922691 0 37.79966985 2116277.555 37.79857146 0 37.81092655 0 37.79970867 2116284.02 37.79858921 0 37.8006546 0 37.81519584 2117317.142 37.80116711 2116309.019 37.79865786 2116341.159 37.79874612 2122598.515 37.81514918 2116363.38 37.79854795 0 37.81610273 2118777.192 37.8051766 2118217.179 37.80363873 2121855.046 37.81310752 2116682.743 37.79968415 2118914.826 37.80555457 2116272.175 37.79855668 2116258.74 37.79851979 2116992.826 37.8002765 2121275.616 37.81151633 2116705.933 37.79948865 Longitude -122.0057907 -121.9681899 -121.9385979 -121.9027994 -121.9605509 -121.9186449 -121.9010455 -121.914977 - 121.9495005 - 121.9146829 - 121.9589283 - 121.9683196 - 121.9144984 -121.9498647 -121.9235461 -121.9651075 -121.9213295 -121.92265 -121.8977386 -121.9141741 -121.9555091 -121.9001945 -121.9143072 -121.9313497 - 121.9634459 - 121.9330657 - 121.9148401 - 121.9114462 - 121.9635717 - 121.9166898 -121.9680118 -121.9445031 - 121.9407982 -121.9604101 -121.8981701 -121.9453207 -121.91252 -121.9135724 -121.9288934 -121.9572841 -121.9251076 3 Accident_N Highest_De CoII_1 CoII_2 CoII_3 CoII_4 CoII_0 EPDO_Score Number_Inj Number KiI Party_at_F Primary_Co Hit_and_Ru 1.53E+14 5.45E+12 2.76E+13 8.18E+12 2.32E+13 9.88E+13 4.12E+13 6.82E+13 2E+13 2.76E+13 2.52E+13 5.25E+13 8.22E+13 7.88E+13 9.64E+13 8.72E+13 3E+13 1.89E+13 7.64E+12 4.03E+13 8.38E+13 1.54E+14 5.92E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+14 8.2E+13 5.43E+13 2.12E+13 5.82E+13 1.15E+13 6.81E+13 8.16E+12 6.44E+13 6.68E+13 4.82E+13 1.34E+13 5.63E+13 5.11E+13 1.53E+13 4.1E+13 2.8E+13 Property Damage Only Fatal Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury o o 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 1 0 0 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 1 0 0 o o 1 0 0 o o 1 0 0 1 165 1 11 11 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 6 6 6 1 1 6 6 1 1 11 6 11 1 11 11 11 HIN Collisions.xls 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Turning 1 Improper Turning 1 Improper Turning 1 Other Hazardous Movement 1 Driving Under Influence 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 0 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unknown 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Traffic Signals and Signs 1 Driving Under Influence 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Turning 1 Driving Under Influence 1 Other Hazardous Movement 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Passing 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Lane Change No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor No Misdemeanor No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No No No No Accident_N 1.53E+14 5.45E+12 2.76E+13 8.18E+12 2.32E+13 9.88E+13 4.12E+13 6.82E+13 2E+13 2.76E+13 2.52E+13 5.25E+13 8.22E+13 7.88E+13 9.64E+13 8.72E+13 3E+13 1.89E+13 7.64E+12 4.03E+13 8.38E+13 1.54E+14 5.92E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+14 8.2E+13 5.43E+13 2.12E+13 5.82E+13 1.15E+13 6.81E+13 8.16E+12 6.44E+13 6.68E+13 4.82E+13 1.34E+13 5.63E+13 5.11E+13 1.53E+13 4.1E+13 2.8E+13 Collisio_3 Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Hit Object Broadside Broadside Hit Object Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Overturned Rear -End Rear -End Sideswipe Overturned Sideswipe Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Hit Object Sideswipe Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Vehicle - Pedestrian Rear -End Rear -End Sideswipe Rear -End Other Other Involved_W Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Bicycle 4 Pedestrian No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection No No No No No No Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved HIN Collisions.xls Private_Pr FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Violation Violatio_1 22350 22107 22107 22107 23123 5 23152 A 22350 22350 22107 22350 22350 22350 22350 22350 22107 22350 22107 22350 22350 22350 22350 22350 22107 22350 22350 22350 22350 21453 23152 22107 22350 22107 23152 21950 22350 22350 21755 22350 22350 21658 Weather Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Raining Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Raining Clear Clear Clear Clear A Clear F Clear Raining Clear Clear F Cloudy A Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear A Clear Road_Surfa Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Accident_N 1.53E+14 5.45E+12 2.76E+13 8.18E+12 2.32E+13 9.88E+13 4.12E+13 6.82E+13 2E+13 2.76E+13 2.52E+13 5.25E+13 8.22E+13 7.88E+13 9.64E+13 8.72E+13 3E+13 1.89E+13 7.64E+12 4.03E+13 8.38E+13 1.54E+14 5.92E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+14 8.2E+13 5.43E+13 2.12E+13 5.82E+13 1.15E+13 6.81E+13 8.16E+12 6.44E+13 6.68E+13 4.82E+13 1.34E+13 5.63E+13 5.11E+13 1.53E+13 4.1E+13 2.8E+13 Road_Condi No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Lighting Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight 5 Right_of_W No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor HIN Collisions.xls F FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Party_Numb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Party_Type Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Bicyclist Party_Age 18 21 19 47 19 46 38 33 22 44 17 18 36 20 68 29 82 0 22 15 19 57 60 16 16 32 19 18 29 23 19 17 50 21 18 67 44 36 28 77 78 Party_Sex Male Male Male Female Female Female Female Female Male Female Female Female Female Male Male Female Female Female Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Female Female Male Male Female Female Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Race_1 W H H 0 W W 0 W W W W W 0 W W W A 0 H W B 0 W B W W 0 W A W A H W W W W H W W Accident_N Directio_1 1.53E+14 SOUTH 5.45E+12 East 2.76E+13 East 8.18E+12 West 2.32E+13 West 9.88E+13 South 4.12E+13 East 6.82E+13 East 2E+13 East 2.76E+13 West 2.52E+13 West 5.25E+13 East 8.22E+13 East 7.88E+13 West 9.64E+13 East 8.72E+13 West 3E+13 West 1.89E+13 7.64E+12 East 4.03E+13 East 8.38E+13 East 1.54E+14 EAST 5.92E+13 West 1.53E+14 EAST 1.52E+14 WEST 8.2E+13 West 5.43E+13 West 2.12E+13 West 5.82E+13 East 1.15E+13 West 6.81E+13 East 8.16E+12 West 6.44E+13 East 6.68E+13 West 4.82E+13 East 1.34E+13 East 5.63E+13 East 5.11E+13 East 1.53E+13 East 4.1E+13 West 2.8E+13 East Movement_P Proceeding Straight Other Unsafe Turning Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Other Unsafe Turning Ran Off Road Proceeding Straight Ran Off Road Proceeding Straight Changing Lanes Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Slowing / Stopping Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Other Unsafe Turning Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Ran Off Road Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Passing Other Vehicle Entering Traffic Proceeding Straight Changing Lanes 6 special_in Associated Cell Phone Not In Use Inattention Cell Phone Handsfree In Use Violation Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Handheld In Use Inattention Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use Vision Obscurements Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Handheld In Use Violation Cell Phone Handsfree In Use Inattention Cell Phone Not In Use Other Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use Inattention Cell Phone Not In Use Inattention Cell Phone Not In Use Inattention Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use Violation Cell Phone Not In Use Violation Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Handheld In Use Inattention Cell Phone Not In Use Violation Cell Phone Not In Use Vision Obscurements Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use Violation Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls Party_Sobr HNBD Impairment Not Known Sleepy - Fatigued HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Under Drug Influence HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Under Drug Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD Under Drug Influence HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Vehicle_Ty Vehicle_1 1 2 1 1 7 1 1 8 1 1 1 7 1 7 22 1 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 7 7 1 1 1 22 1 7 1 1 1 1 7 1 22 8 4 4 Vehicle_Ye 2014 2015 2013 2000 2008 2005 2000 2011 2007 2008 2016 1998 2016 2001 2016 2006 2015 0 1997 2001 2014 2005 2012 2017 2011 2012 2014 2014 2002 1991 2005 2011 2016 2013 2017 2007 2010 2014 2010 0 2019 Accident_N Vehicle_Ma 1.53E+14 FIAT 5.45E+12 YAMAHA 2.76E+13 TOYOTA 8.18E+12 MERCEDES -BENZ 2.32E+13 TOYOTA 9.88E+13 LEXUS 4.12E+13 HONDA 6.82E+13 HONDA 2E+13 TOYOTA 2.76E+13 FORD 2.52E+13 GMC 5.25E+13 TOYOTA 8.22E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 7.88E+13 TOYOTA 9.64E+13 FORD 8.72E+13 VOLVO 3E+13 FORD 1.89E+13 TOYOTA 7.64E+12 HONDA 4.03E+13 CHEVROLET 8.38E+13 FORD 1.54E+14 CADILLAC 5.92E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 1.53E+14 TOYOTA 1.52E+14 ACURA 8.2E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 5.43E+13 HYUNDAI 2.12E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 5.82E+13 CHEVROLET 1.15E+13 HONDA 6.81E+13 TOYOTA 8.16E+12 HYUNDAI 6.44E+13 KIA 6.68E+13 SUBARU 4.82E+13 FORD 1.34E+13 JEEP 5.63E+13 FORD 5.11E+13 DODGE 1.53E+13 FORD 4.1E+13 TREK 2.8E+13 RITCHEY Vehicle_Mo 500 Y2FR3 TACOMA C280 FJ CRUISER ES330 ACCORD ODYSSEY CAMRY ESCAPE TERRAIN 4RUNNER GLE350 SEQUIA F450 XC90 ESCAPE ACCORD TAHOE FOCUS SRX E350 RAV4 M DX PASSAT SONATA JETTA AVALANCHE ACCORD SEQUOIA SONATA SEDONA CROSSTREK FUSION LIBERTY EXPEDITION RAM 1500 E-150 TBI -2725 LOGIC Speed_Limi Extent_of 25 Moderate 45 Moderate 45 Major 45 Major 45 Major 5 Minor 45 Major 45 Moderate 45 Major 45 45 Moderate 45 45 45 Moderate 45 Moderate 45 Rollover 45 0 Unknown 45 Major 45 Minor 45 Moderate 45 Moderate 45 Minor 45 Major 45 Major 45 Major 45 Minor 45 Moderate 45 Moderate 45 Major 45 Major 45 Minor 45 Moderate 45 Rollover 45 Minor 45 Major 30 Major 45 Minor 45 Moderate 45 Major 45 Minor 7 Safety_Equ Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - No Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap Belt Used Lap Belt Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes M/C Helmet Driver - No HIN Collisions.xls Party_Nu_1 Party_Ty_1 2 Driver 0 0 0 2 Driver 2 Parked Vehicle 0 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 0 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Pedestrian 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver Party_Ag_1 Party_Se_1 75 F 998 998 998 40 Male 49 998 32 Male 998 52 Female 35 Male 998 51 Female 28 Male 63 Female 998 77 Male 998 41 Female 53 Female 998 998 998 17 M 41 M 68 Female 47 Female 32 Female 998 50 Male 998 66 Male 65 Male 998 13 Female 71 Female 78 Male 54 Female 22 Female 78 Female 80 Female Accident_N Race_2 Directio_2 1.53E+14 W SOUTH 5.45E+12 2.76E+13 8.18E+12 2.32E+13 A West 9.88E+13 4.12E+13 6.82E+13 H East 2E+13 2.76E+13 W West 2.52E+13 H West 5.25E+13 8.22E+13 0 East 7.88E+13 W West 9.64E+13 W West 8.72E+13 3E+13 W West 1.89E+13 7.64E+12 A East 4.03E+13 W East 8.38E+13 1.54E+14 5.92E+13 1.53E+14 0 EAST 1.52E+14 0 WEST 8.2E+13 A West 5.43E+13 H West 2.12E+13 W West 5.82E+13 1.15E+13 W West 6.81E+13 8.16E+12 0 West 6.44E+13 B East 6.68E+13 4.82E+13 W South 1.34E+13 W East 5.63E+13 0 East 5.11E+13 W West 1.53E+13 W East 4.1E+13 H West 2.8E+13 0 East Movement_1 Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Parked Slowing / Stopping Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight 8 special_1 Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Associat_1 Party_So_1 None Apparent HNBD None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Cell Phone Handsfree In Use None Apparent Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Handheld In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Handheld In Use Cell Phone Not In Use HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD None Apparent HNBD Vision Obscurements HNBD None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Vehicle_2 Vehicle_3 1 0 0 0 8 1 0 26 0 1 1 0 1 1 7 0 1 0 7 8 0 0 0 1 1 7 1 1 0 1 0 1 22 0 60 1 1 7 1 1 1 Vehicle_4 2020 0 0 0 2016 1998 0 2010 0 2006 2007 0 2005 2017 2010 0 2015 0 2013 2014 0 0 0 2013 2019 2018 2016 2004 0 2010 0 2016 2016 0 0 2014 2009 2018 2004 2006 2005 Accident_N Vehicle_5 Vehicle_6 1.53E+14 SUBARU OUTBACK 5.45E+12 2.76E+13 8.18E+12 2.32E+13 HONDA ODYSSEY 9.88E+13 HONDA CIVIC 4.12E+13 6.82E+13 HINO 185 2E+13 2.76E+13 BMW 3251 2.52E+13 DODGE 2500 5.25E+13 8.22E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ C230 7.88E+13 HONDA CIVIC 9.64E+13 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 8.72E+13 3E+13 CADILLAC SRX 1.89E+13 7.64E+12 MERCEDES -BENZ M1350 4.03E+13 DODGE GRAND CARAVAN 8.38E+13 1.54E+14 5.92E+13 1.53E+14 SCION FR -S 1.52E+14 TESLA 3 8.2E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ GLA 250 5.43E+13 BUICK LACROSSE 2.12E+13 MAZDA 3 5.82E+13 1.15E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 6.81E+13 8.16E+12 PORSCHE 6.44E+13 CHEVROLET 6.68E+13 4.82E+13 1.34E+13 TOYOTA 5.63E+13 TOYOTA 5.11E+13 KIA 1.53E+13 BMW 4.1E+13 HYUNDAI 2.8E+13 BMW JETTA PANAMERA COLORADO AVALON COROLLA SORENTO 325CI ELANTRA 325 Speed_Li_1 25 0 0 0 45 Moderate 0 Moderate 0 45 None 0 45 45 Minor 0 45 45 Moderate 45 Moderate 0 45 0 45 Moderate 45 Moderate 0 0 0 45 Major 45 Moderate 45 Minor 45 Minor 45 Minor 0 45 Moderate 0 45 Minor 45 Minor 0 45 45 Major 0 Major 45 Minor 45 Minor 45 Moderate 45 Minor 9 Extent_o_1 Safety_E_1 Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap Belt Used Lap Belt Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap Belt Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness HIN Collisions.xls Used Used Used Used Used Used Age_At_Fau #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 40-49 #REF! 30-39 #REF! #REF! 30-39 #REF! #REF! 20-29 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 15-20 40-49 #REF! 40-49 30-39 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 0-14 #REF! #REF! #REF! 20-29 #REF! #REF! Broad 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TrafSigns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Speed Bike HitObj 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 10 Accident N ACCIDENT Y Collision Collisio 1 Hour Collisio 2 Primary_Ro 8.22E+13 7.59E+13 3.57E+12 9.93E+13 4.05E+13 1.12E+13 1.39E+13 4.68E+13 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 7.6E+13 4.91E+13 4.85E+13 1.53E+14 3.35E+11 5.44E+13 6.13E+12 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.51E+14 9.4E+13 1.37E+13 5.44E+13 4.11E+13 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 2.83E+13 8.82E+13 5.97E+12 8.16E+13 5.78E+13 2019 30 -Aug -19 2019 24 -Sep -19 2019 26 -Sep -19 2019 7 -Oct -19 2019 19 -Nov -19 2020 12 -Jan -20 2020 24 -Feb -20 2020 5 -May -20 2020 17 -Jul -20 2020 20 -Sep -20 2020 28 -Oct -20 2020 9 -Dec -20 2021 23 -Jan -21 2021 16 -Feb -21 2021 26 -Mar -21 2021 24 -Apr -21 2021 23 -May -21 2021 2 -Jun -21 2021 8 -Dec -21 2017 11 -Jul -17 2017 2 -Oct -17 2018 27 -Oct -18 2021 15 -Oct -21 2018 9 -Apr -18 2019 25 -Aug -19 2020 1 -Mar -20 2020 22 -Jul -20 2020 2 -Nov -20 2020 2 -Nov -20 2021 16 -Apr -21 2017 15 -Aug -17 2017 22 -Sep -17 2018 23 -Mar -18 2018 11 -Jun -18 2021 19 -Jul -21 2021 24 -Jul -21 2019 2 -Feb -19 2018 2 -Jun -18 2019 19 -Sep -19 2019 20 -Nov -19 2019 26 -Dec -19 9:10 AM 8:19 AM 6:00 PM 8:06 AM 3:52 PM 6:45 PM 4:45 PM 8:58 AM 6:25 AM 1:35 PM 6:21 PM 1:40 PM 5:09 PM 6:44 PM 5:21 PM 9:29 PM 6:44 PM 7:26 PM 3:11 PM 1:44 PM 9:42 AM 3:40 AM 10:14 PM 1:24 PM 5:37 PM 2:39 PM 5:16 PM 2:32 PM 6:20 PM 8:16 PM 8:27 AM 1:14 PM 7:10 PM 9:35 AM 4:10 PM 1:19 PM 3:35 PM 9:05 AM 3:20 PM 3:25 PM 10:11 PM 9 8 18 8 15 18 16 8 6 13 18 13 17 18 17 21 18 19 15 13 9 3 22 13 17 14 17 14 18 20 8 13 19 9 16 13 15 9 15 15 22 Friday Tuesday Thursday Monday Tuesday Sunday Monday Tuesday Friday Sunday Wednesday Wednesday Saturday Tuesday Friday Saturday Sunday Wednesday Wednesday Tuesday Monday Saturday Friday Monday Sunday Sunday Wednesday Monday Monday Friday Tuesday Friday Friday Monday Monday Saturday Saturday Saturday Thursday Wednesday Thursday HIN Collisions.xls CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD CROW CANYON RD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD Accident_N 8.22E+13 7.59E+13 3.57E+12 9.93E+13 4.05E+13 1.12E+13 1.39E+13 4.68E+13 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 7.6E+13 4.91E+13 4.85E+13 1.53E+14 3.35E+11 5.44E+13 6.13E+12 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.51E+14 9.4E+13 1.37E+13 5.44E+13 4.11E+13 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 2.83E+13 8.82E+13 5.97E+12 8.16E+13 5.78E+13 WOOD RANCH DR OLD BLACKHAWK RD RASSANI DR HILL MEADOW DR CONEJO DR HANSEN LN TASSAJARA LN SHERBURNE HILLS RD WOOD RANCH DR LAWRENCE RD BLACKHAWK RD CROW CANYON RD RASSANI DR TASSAJARA RANCH RD SHERBURNE HILLS RD GLASGOW DR OLD BLACKHAWK RD MANSFIELD DR LAWRENCE RD CAMINO TASSAJARA TASSAJARA RANCH DR CENTER WAY TASSAJARA RANCH DR SENTRY LANE CAMINO TASSAJARA TASSAJARA RANCH DR CENTER WAY CENTER WAY CENTER WAY TASSAJARA RANCH DR DANVILLE OAK PL DANVILLE OAK PL EL CERRO BLVD LA GONDA WAY EL CERRO BLVD LA GONDA WAY EL CERRO BLVD RAILROAD AVE DANVILLE OAK PL LA GONDA WAY EL CERRO BLVD Secondary 11 Distance_i 5 5 38 5 40 56 62 53 250 22 30 569 12 150 25 1170 225 40 101 120 39 18 206 13 394 26 55 127 37 50 436 150 192 500 30 330 50 146 360 130 560 Direction East East East East West West East East EAST W EST EAST WEST WEST WEST WEST EAST EAST EAST WEST South South North NORTH South South North SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH EAST South South South North NORTH EAST North North South North South HIN Collisions.xls Intersecti Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N Y N Y Y N Y N X Y 6147573.613 2117346.071 6149118.829 2116920.705 6153484.162 2116287.935 6141195.175 2121007.248 6152707.458 2116312.038 6158285.001 2116680.182 6142351.232 2120142.043 6142911.535 2119719.381 6147803.438 2117261.671 6157513.011 2116683.706 6150992.589 2116567.073 6150399.423 2116647.562 6153435.145 2116278.138 6152057.593 2116413.802 6142848.875 2119765.832 6139812.121 2121878.12 6149331.12 2116862.984 6156073.617 2116652.523 6157434.052 2116686.241 6150942.034 2116453.846 6150597.657 2114506.145 6150871.721 2115973.793 0 0 0 0 6150901.949 2116182.838 6150621.315 2114566.634 6150860.57 2115901.65 6150850.322 2115830.384 6150863.329 2115919.437 6150628.991 2114589.374 6126871.103 2127035.852 6126682.305 2127250.593 6126552.805 2127369.121 6127003.917 2126882.78 0 0 0 0 6126359.587 2127514.767 0 0 6126821.981 2127093.841 6127251.656 2126608.173 6126810.427 2127107.531 Latitude 37.80124656 37.80007844 37.79859996 37.81077936 37.79866615 37.79967712 37.8084034 37.80724272 37.80101478 37.7996868 37.79910732 37.79932836 37.79857305 37.79868642 37.80737027 37.81317088 37.79991993 37.79960117 37.79969376 37.79879639 37.79344774 37.7974781 37.79407145 37.79353505 37.79805216 37.79361385 37.79727998 37.79708428 37.79732883 37.7936763 37.82693712 37.82752682 37.82769298 37.82651676 37.82815041 37.8247669 37.82809295 37.8251668 37.82709636 37.82576266 37.82713396 Longitude - 121.9333052 -121.9279573 - 121.9122205 -121.9557187 - 121.9149085 -121.8956056 - 121.9517177 -121.9497786 - 121.9325098 -121.8982774 - 121.9214725 -121.9235254 - 121.9123901 -121.9177868 - 121.9499954 -121.9605057 - 121.9272226 -121.9032589 - 121.8985506 -121.9216475 - 121.9228397 -121.921891 - 121.9223848 -121.922744 - 121.9217863 -121.9227578 - 121.9219296 -121.921965 -121.92192 -121.9227313 - 122.0054206 -122.0060743 - 122.0066983 -122.0049607 - 122.0073018 -122.003114 - 122.0073673 -122.0035446 - 122.0055907 -122.004103 - 122.0056307 12 Accident_N Highest_De CoII_1 CoII_2 CoII_3 CoII_4 CoII_0 EPDO_Score Number_Inj Number KiI Party_at_F Primary_Co Hit_and_Ru 8.22E+13 7.59E+13 3.57E+12 9.93E+13 4.05E+13 1.12E+13 1.39E+13 4.68E+13 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 7.6E+13 4.91E+13 4.85E+13 1.53E+14 3.35E+11 5.44E+13 6.13E+12 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.51E+14 9.4E+13 1.37E+13 5.44E+13 4.11E+13 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 2.83E+13 8.82E+13 5.97E+12 8.16E+13 5.78E+13 Severe Injury Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Severe Injury Complaint of Pain Severe Injury Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Severe Injury Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only o 1 o 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 1 0 0 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 1 0 o 1 o 0 0 o o 0 1 0 o 1 o 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o 1 o 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 1 0 0 o 1 o 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 165 1 0 1 0 0 6 2 0 6 2 0 11 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 1 0 11 1 0 6 1 0 6 2 0 11 1 0 6 1 0 165 2 0 6 1 0 165 1 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 165 1 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 6 2 0 11 2 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 1 0 165 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 HIN Collisions.xls 1 Other Hazardous Movement 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Turning 1 Driving Under Influence 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Traffic Signals and Signs 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Lane Change 1 Other Improper Driving 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Starting or Backing 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Driving Under Influence 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Turning 1 Other Improper Driving 1 Driving Under Influence 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Turning 1 Auto R/W Violation 1 Driving Under Influence 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 0 Other Than Driver 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Improper Turning 1 Improper Turning No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No No No No Accident_N 8.22E+13 7.59E+13 3.57E+12 9.93E+13 4.05E+13 1.12E+13 1.39E+13 4.68E+13 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 7.6E+13 4.91E+13 4.85E+13 1.53E+14 3.35E+11 5.44E+13 6.13E+12 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.51E+14 9.4E+13 1.37E+13 5.44E+13 4.11E+13 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 2.83E+13 8.82E+13 5.97E+12 8.16E+13 5.78E+13 Collisio_3 Vehicle - Pedestrian Broadside Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Other Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Broadside Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Hit Object Hit Object Rear -End Broadside Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Broadside Sideswipe Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Sideswipe Rear -End Sideswipe Other Involved_W Pedestrian Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Parked Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Fixed Object Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle 13 Pedestrian Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection No Pedestrian No Pedestrian No Pedestrian No Pedestrian No Pedestrian No Pedestrian No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved HIN Collisions.xls Private_Pr Violation Violatio_1 FALSE 21451 A FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 23152 A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 21451(a) FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 21658(a) FALSE 21209(a) FALSE 22350 FALSE 22106 FALSE 22350 FALSE 23152 G FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE FALSE 23152 A FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 21801 A FALSE 23152 A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22107 Weather Road_Surfa Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Cloudy Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Raining Wet Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Accident_N 8.22E+13 7.59E+13 3.57E+12 9.93E+13 4.05E+13 1.12E+13 1.39E+13 4.68E+13 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 7.6E+13 4.91E+13 4.85E+13 1.53E+14 3.35E+11 5.44E+13 6.13E+12 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.51E+14 9.4E+13 1.37E+13 5.44E+13 4.11E+13 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 2.83E+13 8.82E+13 5.97E+12 8.16E+13 5.78E+13 Road_Condi No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Holes - Deep Ruts No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Lighting Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights 14 Right_of_W Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / F FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE HIN Collisions.xls Party_Numb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Party_Type Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Party_Age 73 37 34 34 50 39 74 54 57 19 21 19 18 33 82 21 24 25 33 17 62 23 17 23 57 46 19 59 18 0 50 56 20 35 37 21 68 52 61 17 29 Party_Sex Race_1 Female W Female W Female W Female W Female A Male 0 Male W Female A Male W Male W Male 0 Male W Female W Male H Female A Male W Male 0 Female W Female B Male W Female W Male W Male A Male W Female W Male 0 Male H Female 0 Female 0 Male W Female 0 Female W Male H Male W Male H Male W Male W Male W Female W Male 0 Male W Accident_N Directio_1 8.22E+13 South 7.59E+13 West 3.57E+12 West 9.93E+13 West 4.05E+13 East 1.12E+13 East 1.39E+13 East 4.68E+13 East 1.48E+14 EAST 1.49E+14 EAST 1.49E+14 WEST 1.5E+14 EAST 1.5E+14 NORTH 1.5E+14 EAST 1.51E+14 EAST 1.51E+14 WEST 1.51E+14 WEST 1.51E+14 WEST 1.53E+14 EAST 7.6E+13 North 4.91E+13 North 4.85E+13 East 1.53E+14 NORTH 3.35E+11 South 5.44E+13 West 6.13E+12 West 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.51E+14 9.4E+13 1.37E+13 5.44E+13 4.11E+13 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 2.83E+13 8.82E+13 5.97E+12 8.16E+13 5.78E+13 SOUTH NORTH NORTH EAST North South North North SOUTH SOUTH South South South North North Movement_P Making Left Turn Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Other Unsafe Turning Other Unsafe Turning Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Ran Off Road Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Parking Maneuver Proceeding Straight Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Passing Other Vehicle Ran Off Road Proceeding Straight Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Slowing / Stopping Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Entering Traffic Proceeding Straight special_in Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Handsfree In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Not Stated Cell Phone Handsfree In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Not Stated Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use 15 Associated Vision Obscurements None Apparent Vision Obscurements None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent Inattention None Apparent Inattention None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation Violation None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation Inattention Stop and Go Traffic Violation None Apparent None Apparent Violation Inattention None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls Party_Sobr HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD Sleepy - Fatigued HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Other Physical Impairment HNBD HNBD HNBD Sleepy - Fatigued Vehicle_Ty Vehicle_1 7 1 8 1 1 8 7 Vehicle_Ye 2013 2017 2019 2018 2001 2012 2001 8 2012 1 2019 1 2013 1 2004 7 2016 1 2004 1 2004 1 2016 1 2003 1 2013 1 2012 7 2017 1 2002 1 2016 1 2011 1 2016 1 2006 1 2018 7 2017 1 2007 8 2017 1 2013 1 2004 1 2015 1 2016 1 2011 1 2013 22 2003 1 2006 7 2014 4 0 1 2015 22 2017 7 2019 Accident_N Vehicle_Ma 8.22E+13 JEEP 7.59E+13 FORD 3.57E+12 HONDA 9.93E+13 HYUNDAI 4.05E+13 CADILLAC 1.12E+13 HONDA 1.39E+13 TOYOTA 4.68E+13 TOYOTA 1.48E+14 HYUNDAI 1.49E+14 NISSAN 1.49E+14 BMW 1.5E+14 JEEP 1.5E+14 HONDA 1.5E+14 TOYOTA 1.51E+14 LEXUS 1.51E+14 HYUNDAI 1.51E+14 HYUNDAI 1.51E+14 TOYOTA 1.53E+14 MITSUBISHI 7.6E+13 TOYOTA 4.91E+13 AUDI 4.85E+13 BMW 1.53E+14 BMW 3.35E+11 JEEP 5.44E+13 ACURA 6.13E+12 LAND ROVER 1.48E+14 TOYOTA 1.49E+14 TOYOTA 1.49E+14 ACURA 1.51E+14 HONDA 9.4E+13 LEXUS 1.37E+13 FORD 5.44E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 4.11E+13 TOYOTA 1.52E+14 FORD 1.53E+14 HONDA 2.83E+13 JEEP 8.82E+13 PINARELLO 5.97E+12 MERCEDES -BENZ 8.16E+13 FORD 5.78E+13 LAND ROVER Vehicle_Mo GRAND CHEROKEE ESCAPE ODYSSEY ELANTRA CATERA ODYSSEY SEQUOIA SIENNA ELANTRA SENTRA 330C1 COMPASS ACCORD PRIUS GS300 ELANTRA ELANTRA PRIUS OUTLANDER HIGHLANDER Q5 M3 328 GRAND CHEROKEE RDX RANGE ROVER COROLLA SIENNA I LX CIVIC RX350 FOCUS 300 PRIUS F-350 CR -V GRAND CHEROKEE F10 S -CLASS F-150 RANGE ROVER Speed_Limi 25 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 25 45 45 45 45 45 45 40 40 45 30 40 5 40 45 40 40 40 25 25 25 25 35 25 35 25 25 25 25 16 Extent_of Safety_Equ Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Rollover Unknown Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Rollover Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Rollover Unknown Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Minor M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Not Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used HIN Collisions.xls Used Used Used Party_Nu_1 Party_Ty_1 2 Pedestrian 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 0 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Parked Vehicle 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 0 0 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Parked Vehicle Party_Ag_1 Party_Se_1 61 Female 18 Male 53 Female 60 Female 57 Female 998 998 20 Male 998 62 M 53 M 51 F 12 M 50 F 59 M 998 998 Not Stated 52 M 47 F 43 Male 45 Female 998 998 998 998 45 Male 43 M 50 F 41 F 998 38 Male 72 Male 998 50 Female 45 F 52 F 38 Male 74 Female 28 Male 49 Male 30 17 Accident_N Race_2 Directio_2 Movement_1 special_1 Associat_1 8.22E+13 W South CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 7.59E+13 H West Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 3.57E+12 A West Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 9.93E+13 W West Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Handsfree In Use None Apparent 4.05E+13 B East Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.12E+13 1.39E+13 4.68E+13 H East Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 W EAST Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.49E+14 A WEST Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.5E+14 A EAST Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.5E+14 0 SOUTH Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.5E+14 W EAST Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.51E+14 W EAST Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 WEST Parked CeII Phone Not In Use 1.51E+14 W WEST Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 1.53E+14 A EAST Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 7.6E+13 H North Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 4.91E+13 0 North Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 4.85E+13 1.53E+14 3.35E+11 5.44E+13 6.13E+12 0 West Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 1.48E+14 W SOUTH Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 1.49E+14 A NORTH Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 1.49E+14 0 NORTH Stopped In Road Cell Phone Not In Use 1.51E+14 9.4E+13 W South Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent 1.37E+13 W South Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use None Apparent 5.44E+13 4.11E+13 H North Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 1.52E+14 W SOUTH Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 1.53E+14 W SOUTH Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 2.83E+13 W South Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 8.82E+13 W South Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 5.97E+12 W South Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 8.16E+13 H North Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 5.78E+13 Parked None Apparent None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Uninvolved Vehicle None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls Party_So_1 HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable Vehicle_2 Vehicle_3 60 4 7 1 1 0 0 8 0 1 1 7 4 1 1 0 31 4 7 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 Vehicle_4 0 0 2013 2007 2010 0 0 2001 0 2014 2016 2007 0 2018 2017 0 2011 0 2020 2016 2014 0 0 0 0 2009 1 2016 7 2015 1 2001 0 0 4 0 1 2014 0 0 1 2001 8 2020 7 2021 22 2015 8 2005 7 2007 7 1999 22 2008 Accident_N Vehicle_5 8.22E+13 7.59E+13 JUICED BIKES 3.57E+12 PORSCHE 9.93E+13 BMW 4.05E+13 INIFINITI 1.12E+13 1.39E+13 4.68E+13 MAZDA 1.48E+14 1.49E+14 HYUNDAI 1.49E+14 BMW 1.5E+14 ACURA 1.5E+14 DIAMONDBACK 1.5E+14 TESLA 1.51E+14 CHEVROLET 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 VOLVO 1.51E+14 FUJI 1.53E+14 HYUNDAI 7.6E+13 CHEVROLET 4.91E+13 JEEP 4.85E+13 1.53E+14 3.35E+11 5.44E+13 6.13E+12 FORD 1.48E+14 FORD 1.49E+14 INFINITI 1.49E+14 TOYOTA 1.51E+14 9.4E+13 PARLEE 1.37E+13 LAND ROVER 5.44E+13 4.11E+13 TOYOTA 1.52E+14 CHRYSLER 1.53E+14 FORD 2.83E+13 RAM 8.82E+13 TOYOTA 5.97E+12 FORD 8.16E+13 HONDA 5.78E+13 FORD Vehicle 6 OCEAN CURRENT CAYENNE Z4 FX35 MPV ELANTRA 5351 MDX MODEL S VOLT ROUBAIX PALISADE EXPRESS COMPASS ESCAPE ESCAPE QX80 CAMRY DEDA LR4 COROLLA PACIFICA EXPLORER 2500 SIENNA ESCAPE CR -V F-350 Speed_Li_1 Extent_o_1 25 45 Minor 45 Minor 45 Major 45 Moderate 0 0 45 Moderate 0 45 Moderate 45 Minor 45 Moderate 25 None 45 Major 45 Minor 0 45 Minor 45 Minor 45 Moderate 40 40 Major 0 0 0 0 40 Major 45 Rollover 40 Moderate 40 Minor 0 25 Major 25 Minor 0 25 Minor 35 Minor 25 Major 35 Moderate 25 Minor 25 Major 25 Moderate 0 Major 18 Safety_E_1 Not Required Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Not Stated HIN Collisions.xls Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Age_At_Fau #REF! 15-20 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 15-20 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 0-14 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 40-49 40-49 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 40-49 #REF! 40-49 #REF! 30-39 #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 #REF! 30-39 #REF! 20-29 40-49 30-39 Broad 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TrafSigns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Speed Bike HitObj 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accident_N 3.17E+13 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 2.81E+13 1.5E+14 2.57E+11 4.34E+13 4.65E+13 2.12E+13 3.85E+13 4.21E+13 6.23E+13 9.63E+13 6.1E+13 5.82E+13 8.99E+13 8.1E+13 7.73E+13 6.06E+13 9.22E+13 9.13E+13 2.05E+13 1.67E+13 4.26E+13 8.13E+13 1.32E+13 5.69E+13 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 5.07E+13 7.99E+13 4.41E+13 3.91E+13 3.41E+13 8.81E+13 1.49E+14 1.52E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 ACCIDENT_Y Collision 2020 6 -Jan -20 2021 31 -Mar -21 2021 31 -Mar -21 2018 8 -Oct -18 2021 21 -Jan -21 2017 11 -Jul -17 2017 10 -Aug -17 2017 21 -Oct -17 2017 26 -Dec -17 2018 18 -Jan -18 2018 4 -Feb -18 2018 16 -Mar -18 2018 18 -Apr -18 2018 15 -Jun -18 2018 2 -Aug -18 2018 16 -Aug -18 2018 15 -Sep -18 2018 15 -Oct -18 2018 15 -Oct -18 2018 5 -Dec -18 2018 27 -Dec -18 2019 8 -Jan -19 2019 31 -May -19 2019 11 -Jun -19 2019 25 -Jun -19 2019 18 -Aug -19 2019 25 -Aug -19 2021 21 -Oct -21 2021 27 -Oct -21 2019 2 -Nov -19 2019 12 -Nov -19 2018 19 -Sep -18 2020 28 -Jan -20 2020 28 -Feb -20 2020 8 -Mar -20 2020 22 -Sep -20 2021 17 -Aug -21 2021 7 -Jan -21 2021 8 -Apr -21 2021 1 -Jun -21 2021 11 -Nov -21 Collisio_1 8:44 AM 2:33 PM 2:50 PM 3:11 PM 4:20 PM 2:21 PM 5:11 PM 2:00 PM 3:20 PM 10:05 PM 8:15 PM 6:50 PM 1:48 PM 6:35 PM 3:40 PM 1:35 PM 2:20 AM 4:04 PM 4:04 PM 7:48 AM 12:20 PM 6:49 AM 8:36 AM 10:00 AM 12:57 PM 12:56 AM 9:40 AM 3:31 PM 3:15 PM 1:30 PM 8:40 AM 10:27 AM 10:16 AM 4:40 PM 4:59 PM 1:15 PM 12:33 PM 2:55 PM 4:48 PM 9:29 AM 5:39 PM Hour Collisio_2 8 Monday 14 Wednesday 14 Wednesday 15 Monday 16 Thursday 14 Tuesday 17 Thursday 14 Saturday 15 Tuesday 22 Thursday 20 Sunday 18 Friday 13 Wednesday 18 Friday 15 Thursday 13 Thursday 2 Saturday 16 Monday 16 Monday 7 Wednesday 12 Thursday 6 Tuesday 8 Friday 10 Tuesday 12 Tuesday 0 Sunday 9 Sunday 15 Thursday 15 Wednesday 13 Saturday 8 Tuesday 10 Wednesday 10 Tuesday 16 Friday 16 Sunday 13 Tuesday 12 Tuesday 14 Thursday 16 Thursday 9 Tuesday 17 Thursday HIN Collisions.xls Primary_Ro DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DEL AMIGO RD DEL AMIGO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD Accident_N 3.17E+13 DANVILLE OAK PL 1.51E+14 LA GONDA WAY 1.51E+14 LA GONDA WAY 2.81E+13 GLEN RD 1.5E+14 DANVILLE BLVD 2.57E+11 RT 680 NB ONRAMP (W) 4.34E+13 EL PINTADO RD 4.65E+13 CLYDESDALE DR 2.12E+13 EL PINTADO RD 3.85E+13 GREEN VALLEY RD 4.21E+13 VIA HERMOSA 6.23E+13 CAMINO TASSAJARA 9.63E+13 MATADERA WAY 6.1E+13 MC CAULEY RD 5.82E+13 RT 680 NB ONRAMP (W) 8.99E+13 HARTZ AVE 8.1E+13 RT 680 SB OFFRAMP 7.73E+13 ARROYO DR 6.06E+13 ARROYO DR 9.22E+13 ACKERMAN DR 9.13E+13 RT 680 NB ONRAMP (W) 2.05E+13 MC CAULEY RD 1.67E+13 RT 680 NB ONRAMP (W) 4.26E+13 RT 680 SB OFFRAMP 8.13E+13 EL PINTADO RD 1.32E+13 FRONT ST 5.69E+13 RT 680 NB ONRAMP (W) 1.53E+14 BOBBIE DR 1.53E+14 ROSE ST 5.07E+13 GREEN VALLEY RD 7.99E+13 ARROYO DR 4.41E+13 SERENA LANE 3.91E+13 BOBBIE DR 3.41E+13 ALAMATOS DR (W) 8.81E+13 VIA HERMOSA 1.49E+14 RT 680 NB ONRAMP (W) 1.52E+14 VIA HERMOSA 1.5E+14 VIA HERMOSA 1.51E+14 CLYDESDALE DR 1.51E+14 CAMINO TASSAJARA 1.53E+14 ROSE ST Secondary 20 Distance_i 280 28 255 166 125 88 566 769 614 134 386 125 423 32 95 90 3 150 140 152 112 137 205 50 412 15 51 115 155 182 32 104 125 166 230 75 40 174 38 30 40 Direction South NORTH SOUTH West WEST East East West East East West West East East East East East South South East East West West East East West East SOUTH EAST East South West North East East EAST EAST WEST WEST EAST EAST HIN Collisions.xls Intersecti N Y N Y Y Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y X Y 6126769.892 2127154.551 6127319.304 2126531.844 6127508.268 2126321.174 6125319.366 2127109.02 6125926.953 2127692.308 6130437.952 2125551.144 6129533.841 2125567.186 6135917.428 2129986.988 6129581.812 2125565.52 6134897.427 2129942.484 6130572.381 2125548.029 6131706.498 2125677.611 6134253.908 2129522.161 6134799.499 2129915.394 6130444.947 2125550.895 6128270.191 2125495.059 6130133 2125561.032 6132110.899 2126504.091 6132111.092 2126514.089 6132301.491 2128255.906 6130461.943 2125550.562 6134648.334 2129840.115 6130145.163 2125561.161 6130179.982 2125560.315 6129379.877 2125570.224 6128761.081 2125614.561 6130400.975 2125552.456 0 0 0 0 6134945.237 2129946.746 6132114.588 2126622.033 0 0 6132120.226 2127278.889 6131240.992 2125562.505 6131187.773 2125563.23 6130424.96 2125551.605 0 0 6130784.368 2125547.132 6136634.971 2130121.555 6131845.142 2125745.366 6128470.029 2125557.387 Latitude 37.82726308 37.82555305 37.82497453 37.82697871 37.82858049 37.82300658 37.82290398 37.83532764 37.82289941 37.83520543 37.82299803 37.82335388 37.83405117 37.83513103 37.8230059 37.82270591 37.82303374 37.8256235 37.82565095 37.8304312 37.82300499 37.83492431 37.82303409 37.82303177 37.82291232 37.82303408 37.82301019 37.82709206 37.82297861 37.83521713 37.82594738 37.83216175 37.8277482 37.82303778 37.82303978 37.82300785 37.82298833 37.82299557 37.83569718 37.82353994 37.82287707 Longitude -122.005771 -122.0038688 -122.0032145 -122.0109687 -122.0088651 -121.9929836 -121.996202 -121.97434 -121.996036 -121.9778718 -121.9925182 - 121.9885919 -121.9801 - 121.9782109 - 121.9929594 - 122.0005767 -121.9940393 -121.9871919 -121.9871912 -121.9867715 -121.9929005 -121.9787343 -121.9939972 -121.9938767 -121.9967351 - 121.9988773 - 121.9931116 - 121.9873347 - 121.9994897 - 121.9777062 -121.9871791 -121.9826166 -121.9873991 -121.9902035 -121.9903877 -121.9930286 -121.9911359 -121.9917843 -121.9718555 -121.988112 -121.9998849 Accident_N 3.17E+13 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 2.81E+13 1.5E+14 2.57E+11 4.34E+13 4.65E+13 2.12E+13 3.85E+13 4.21E+13 6.23E+13 9.63E+13 6.1E+13 5.82E+13 8.99E+13 8.1E+13 7.73E+13 6.06E+13 9.22E+13 9.13E+13 2.05E+13 1.67E+13 4.26E+13 8.13E+13 1.32E+13 5.69E+13 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 5.07E+13 7.99E+13 4.41E+13 3.91E+13 3.41E+13 8.81E+13 1.49E+14 1.52E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 Highest_De Complaint of Pain Severe Injury Complaint of Pain Severe Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Severe Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain CoII_1 CoII_2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 CoII_3 CoII_4 CoII_O EPDO_Score 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 165 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 165 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 165 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 Number_Inj 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 HIN Collisions.xls Number KiI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Party_at_F 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 23 Primary_Co Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Other Improper Driving Auto R/W Violation Improper Turning Wrong Side of Road Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Driving Under Influence Other Improper Driving Other Improper Driving Improper Turning Improper Turning Driving Under Influence Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Following Too Closely Unsafe Speed Auto R/W Violation Improper Turning Improper Turning Improper Turning Unsafe Lane Change Unsafe Speed Unknown Improper Turning Unknown Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Other Than Driver Other Hazardous Movement Other Improper Driving Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Following Too Closely Traffic Signals and Signs Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Driving Under Influence Hit_and_Ru No No No No No No No Felony No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Accident_N 3.17E+13 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 2.81E+13 1.5E+14 2.57E+11 4.34E+13 4.65E+13 2.12E+13 3.85E+13 4.21E+13 6.23E+13 9.63E+13 6.1E+13 5.82E+13 8.99E+13 8.1E+13 7.73E+13 6.06E+13 9.22E+13 9.13E+13 2.05E+13 1.67E+13 4.26E+13 8.13E+13 1.32E+13 5.69E+13 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 5.07E+13 7.99E+13 4.41E+13 3.91E+13 3.41E+13 8.81E+13 1.49E+14 1.52E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 Collisio_3 Broadside Rear -End Rear -End Other Other Hit Object Broadside Rear -End Sideswipe Hit Object Sideswipe Sideswipe Broadside Sideswipe Hit Object Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Broadside Sideswipe Broadside Hit Object Sideswipe Rear -End Hit Object Broadside Sideswipe Sideswipe Rear -End Sideswipe Sideswipe Broadside Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Other Rear -End Rear -End Vehicle - Pedestrian Involved_W Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Bicycle Fixed Object Bicycle Bicycle Parked Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Bicycle Parked Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Pedestrian 22 Pedestrian No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved Crossing In Crosswalk Not At Intersection HIN Collisions.xls Private_Pr Violation Violatio_1 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE FALSE 21804(a) FALSE 22107 FALSE 21650 1 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 23152 B FALSE 22107 FALSE FALSE 22107 FALSE 22107 FALSE 23152 A FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 21703 FALSE 22350 FALSE 21804 A FALSE 22107 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22107 FALSE 21658 A FALSE 22350 FALSE FALSE 22107 FALSE FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE FALSE 23123 5 FALSE 21209 A FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 21703 FALSE 21453A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 23153B Weather Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Raining Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Raining Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Road_Surfa Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Accident_N 3.17E+13 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 2.81E+13 1.5E+14 2.57E+11 4.34E+13 4.65E+13 2.12E+13 3.85E+13 4.21E+13 6.23E+13 9.63E+13 6.1E+13 5.82E+13 8.99E+13 8.1E+13 7.73E+13 6.06E+13 9.22E+13 9.13E+13 2.05E+13 1.67E+13 4.26E+13 8.13E+13 1.32E+13 5.69E+13 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 5.07E+13 7.99E+13 4.41E+13 3.91E+13 3.41E+13 8.81E+13 1.49E+14 1.52E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.53E+14 Road_Condi No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Lighting Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights 23 Right_of_W No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / F Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE FALSE Factor FALSE HIN Collisions.xls Party_Numb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Party_Type Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Party_Age 24 19 18 70 26 56 62 83 65 19 53 44 9 34 16 68 25 66 76 16 64 31 17 40 36 22 0 73 60 40 26 59 50 48 24 66 33 59 18 26 40 Party_Sex Male Female Female Female Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Male Male Female Female Male Female Male Female Male Male Male Female Female Race_1 W W W W 0 W W W W A W W W W W W W 0 W W W H W H W H Accident_N 3.17E+13 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 2.81E+13 1.5E+14 2.57E+11 4.34E+13 Directio_1 South SOUTH SOUTH North NORTH West South 4.65E+13 East 2.12E+13 East 3.85E+13 East 4.21E+13 South 6.23E+13 East 9.63E+13 North 6.1E+13 West 5.82E+13 West 8.99E+13 West 8.1E+13 East 7.73E+13 South 6.06E+13 North 9.22E+13 East 9.13E+13 South 2.05E+13 West 1.67E+13 West 4.26E+13 East 8.13E+13 West 1.32E+13 East 5.69E+13 East 1.53E+14 NORTH 1.53E+14 WEST 5.07E+13 West 7.99E+13 North 4.41E+13 East 3.91E+13 North 3.41E+13 West 8.81E+13 East 1.49E+14 WEST 1.52E+14 EAST 1.5E+14 WEST 1.51E+14 EAST 1.51E+14 WEST 1.53E+14 EAST Movement_P Making U Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Entering Traffic Making Right Turn Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Entering Traffic Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Making Right Turn Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Other Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Other Unsafe Turning Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn special_in Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Not In Use Handsfree In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handheld In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handsfree In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handsfree In Use Handheld In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use 24 Associated Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Vision Obscurements None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Inattention None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation Entering - Leaving Ramp Inattention None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Previous Collision Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent Inattention None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls Party_Sobr HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Other Physical Impairment HNBD HNBD Sleepy - Fatigued HNBD HBD Not Under Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence Vehicle_Ty Vehicle_1 22 7 1 4 8 1 7 7 1 1 1 1 4 1 7 1 22 7 22 7 1 26 22 7 1 1 99 1 7 26 1 1 1 7 7 7 1 4 1 1 1 Vehicle_Ye 2002 2016 2009 0 2019 2007 2014 2006 2015 2006 2000 2017 0 2015 2014 1997 2016 2004 2004 2002 2003 2016 2013 2001 2002 2004 0 2010 2019 2009 2010 1998 2014 2018 2011 2018 2008 0 2011 2013 2019 Accident_N Vehicle_Ma 3.17E+13 FORD 1.51E+14 FORD 1.51E+14 2.81E+13 GIANT 1.5E+14 FORD 2.57E+11 MERCEDES -BENZ 4.34E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 4.65E+13 FORD 2.12E+13 HYUNDAI 3.85E+13 SUBARU 4.21E+13 BUICK 6.23E+13 TOYOTA 9.63E+13 FITBIKE 6.1E+13 MAZDA 5.82E+13 FORD 8.99E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 8.1E+13 TOYOTA 7.73E+13 LEXUS 6.06E+13 CHEVROLET 9.22E+13 JEEP 9.13E+13 ACURA 2.05E+13 AUTOCAR 1.67E+13 FORD 4.26E+13 CHEVROLET 8.13E+13 VOLVO 1.32E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 5.69E+13 FORD 1.53E+14 TOYOTA 1.53E+14 AUDI 5.07E+13 FORD 7.99E+13 FORD 4.41E+13 TOYOTA 3.91E+13 CHEVROLET 3.41E+13 LAND ROVER 8.81E+13 ACURA 1.49E+14 FORD 1.52E+14 MERCEDES -BENZ 1.5E+14 FELT MOUNTAIN BIKE 1.51E+14 BMW 1.51E+14 HONDA 1.53E+14 BMW Vehicle_Mo F250 EXPLORER 3281 TRANSIT GL450 C55 ESCAPE AZERA IMPREZA CENTURY 4RUNNER BF 22 CX -5 EXPLORER C230 TACOMA LX450 2500 PICKUP LIBERTY 3.2TI F-150 SUBURBAN S60 GOLF SHELBY COBRA CAMRY Q7 F-750 MUSTANG CAMRY VOLT RANGE ROVER MDX EXPLORER E -CLASS HYBRID 3281 CIVIC 3301 Speed_Limi 25 25 25 15 25 30 35 35 30 35 15 25 Extent_of Moderate Moderate Minor Major None Minor None Moderate Rollover Major Minor Minor 0 None 35 Minor 35 25 Moderate 35 Major 35 Moderate 35 Moderate 35 Minor 25 Minor 35 Minor 30 Minor 30 Major 30 Minor 25 Major 30 Unknown 35 Minor 25 Moderate 35 Minor 25 Major 35 Major 35 Minor 25 Moderate 25 Major 30 Moderate 25 Major 30 None 35 Major 35 Moderate 25 None 25 Safety_Equ Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Shoulder Harness Used Lap Belt Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - No Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness HIN Collisions.xls Used Used Used Party_Nu_1 Party_Ty_1 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 0 2 Bicyclist 2 Bicyclist 2 Parked Vehicle 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Bicyclist 2 Parked Vehicle 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Pedestrian Party_Ag_1 Party_Se_1 32 Female 28 F 34 M 47 Female 19 M 998 13 Male 26 Male 68 998 32 Male 56 Male 46 Female 24 Male 998 59 Male 998 42 Female 66 Male 998 14 Male 64 Male 58 Female 998 22 Female 21 Female 998 79 M 998 Not Stated 53 Male 64 Male 55 Male 57 Female 56 Male 998 48 F 56 F 80 M 76 F 18 M 29 F Accident_N Race_2 Directio_2 Movement_1 special_1 3.17E+13 B South Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 1.51E+14 W SOUTH Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 1.51E+14 0 SOUTH Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 2.81E+13 0 West Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 1.5E+14 W WEST Traveling Wrong Way CeII Phone Not In Use 2.57E+11 4.34E+13 W East Traveling Wrong Way CeII Phone Not In Use 4.65E+13 W East Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 2.12E+13 East Parked 3.85E+13 4.21E+13 W West Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 6.23E+13 W East Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 9.63E+13 A East Entering Traffic Cell Phone Not In Use 6.1E+13 H West Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 5.82E+13 8.99E+13 W West Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 8.1E+13 7.73E+13 W North Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 6.06E+13 0 North Slowing / Stopping CeII Phone Not In Use 9.22E+13 9.13E+13 W East Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 2.05E+13 A West Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 1.67E+13 0 West Making Right Turn CeII Phone Not In Use 4.26E+13 8.13E+13 A West Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 1.32E+13 W East Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 5.69E+13 1.53E+14 W NORTH Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 1.53E+14 WEST Parked Not Stated 5.07E+13 W West Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Not In Use 7.99E+13 W North Stopped In Road Cell Phone Not In Use 4.41E+13 W West Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 3.91E+13 A North Stopped In Road CeII Phone Not In Use 3.41E+13 W East Proceeding Straight CeII Phone Not In Use 8.81E+13 1.49E+14 0 WEST Stopped In Road 1.52E+14 W EAST Stopped In Road 1.5E+14 W NORTH Proceeding Straight 1.51E+14 W EAST Stopped In Road 1.51E+14 W WEST Slowing / Stopping 1.53E+14 A NORTH Proceeding Straight 26 CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Handsfree In Use Associat_1 None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Vision Obscurements Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Party_So_1 HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD None Apparent HNBD Previous Collision HNBD None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Not Under Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Not Under Influence Vehicle_2 Vehicle_3 1 1 1 1 4 0 4 4 7 0 1 1 7 22 0 7 0 7 7 0 4 1 1 0 1 7 0 4 7 7 1 8 22 8 0 7 1 7 1 7 60 Vehicle_4 2005 2019 1999 2012 0 0 0 0 2017 0 2013 2017 2014 1996 0 2017 0 2012 2016 0 2011 2017 2018 0 2013 2005 0 0 2013 2006 2001 2013 0 2015 0 2016 2020 2011 2003 2013 0 Accident_N Vehicle_5 3.17E+13 DODGE 1.51E+14 MINI COOPER 1.51E+14 TOYOTA 2.81E+13 LEXUS 1.5E+14 NINER 2.57E+11 4.34E+13 4.65E+13 FUJI 2.12E+13 JAGUAR 3.85E+13 4.21E+13 NISSAN 6.23E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 9.63E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 6.1E+13 FORD 5.82E+13 8.99E+13 FORD 8.1E+13 7.73E+13 JEEP 6.06E+13 LEXUS 9.22E+13 9.13E+13 SENSOR 2.05E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 1.67E+13 AUDI 4.26E+13 8.13E+13 NISSAN 1.32E+13 TOYOTA 5.69E+13 1.53E+14 PEDEGO 1.53E+14 GMC 5.07E+13 FORD 7.99E+13 BMW 4.41E+13 CHEVROLET 3.91E+13 LSV 3.41E+13 FORD 8.81E+13 1.49E+14 GMC 1.52E+14 VOLKSWAGEN 1.5E+14 NISSAN 1.51E+14 LEXUS 1.51E+14 LEXUS 1.53E+14 _ Vehicle_6 NEON COROLLA ES350 BICYCLE 770 F -PACE LEAF GL350 GL550 F450 EXPLORER GRAND CHEROKEE LX450 GT SD S5 MAXIMA HIGHLANDER ACADIA ESCAPE 5251 EXPRESS TRANSIT CONNECT TERRAIN ATLAS MURANO SC430 RX450H Speed_Li_1 Extent_o_1 25 Major 25 Major 25 Moderate 25 Minor 25 Minor 0 35 None 35 Major 30 Major 0 35 Minor 25 Minor 0 None 35 None 0 25 Moderate 0 35 Minor 35 Moderate 0 25 Minor 35 Major 30 Minor 0 30 Major 25 Minor 0 35 0 Minor 35 Minor 25 Moderate 35 Moderate 35 None 25 Major 0 30 Major 25 Minor 30 None 35 Major 35 Minor 0 27 Safety_E_1 Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes M/C Helmet Driver - No Not Stated Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Used Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used HIN Collisions.xls Age_At_Fau 30-39 20-29 30-39 40-49 15-20 #REF! 0-14 20-29 #REF! #REF! 30-39 #REF! 40-49 20-29 #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! 0-14 #REF! #REF! #REF! 20-29 20-29 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! #REF! 15-20 20-29 Broad 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TrafSigns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Speed Bike HitObj 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Accident_N 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 3.75E+13 2.41E+13 7.29E+13 4.04E+13 2.89E+13 3.04E+13 7.91E+13 8.16E+13 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 2.74E+13 6.25E+13 2.49E+11 2.14E+13 9.71E+13 5.91E+13 7.88E+13 8.51E+12 5.08E+13 4.65E+13 1.93E+13 1.48E+14 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 9.51E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+13 1.92E+13 7.09E+13 6E+13 6.73E+13 4.08E+13 6.78E+13 1.37E+13 5.14E+13 4.95E+13 2.34E+13 ACCIDENT_Y Collision 2021 14 -Nov -21 2021 8 -Dec -21 2019 24 -May -19 2019 2 -Aug -19 2019 20 -Aug -19 2019 13 -Sep -19 2019 15 -Nov -19 2020 15 -Jan -20 2020 2 -Mar -20 2020 13 -Jun -20 2020 15 -Sep -20 2020 30 -Dec -20 2018 8 -Mar -18 2021 15 -Jul -21 2017 5 -Sep -17 2018 13 -Apr -18 2018 23 -Aug -18 2019 16 -Jan -19 2019 22 -Mar -19 2019 7 -May -19 2019 6 -Jul -19 2019 23 -Jul -19 2019 13 -Aug -19 2019 17 -Sep -19 2019 26 -Oct -19 2020 10 -Aug -20 2021 4 -Feb -21 2021 15 -Aug -21 2018 12 -Dec -18 2021 7 -Aug -21 2017 29 -Jul -17 2017 12 -Dec -17 2018 10 -Jun -18 2019 23 -Aug -19 2017 20 -Sep -17 2017 3 -Jul -17 2018 9 -Feb -18 2018 21 -Mar -18 2018 30 -Oct -18 2018 8 -Dec -18 2018 28 -Dec -18 Collisio_1 9:39 PM 2:56 PM 3:42 PM 2:20 PM 8:41 AM 10:00 AM 3:00 PM 8:12 AM 5:16 PM 9:25 AM 4:20 PM 7:59 PM 7:45 AM 9:13 PM 2:45 PM 12:30 PM 1:45 AM 3:17 PM 5:05 PM 3:21 PM 3:55 PM 1:14 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 1:30 PM 8:57 AM 2:22 AM 1:55 AM 11:45 AM 8:30 AM 1:30 AM 10:10 AM 5:15 PM 12:41 PM 7:33 PM 3:40 PM 12:10 AM 2:50 PM 7:03 PM 28 Hour Collisio_2 21 Sunday 14 Wednesday 15 Friday 14 Friday 8 Tuesday 10 Friday 15 Friday 8 Wednesday 17 Monday 9 Saturday 16 Tuesday 19 Wednesday 7 Thursday 21 Thursday 14 Tuesday 12 Friday 1 Thursday 15 Wednesday 17 Friday 15 Tuesday 15 Saturday 13 Tuesday 13 Tuesday 14 Tuesday 17 Saturday 18 Monday 13 Thursday 8 Sunday 2 Wednesday 1 Saturday 11 Saturday 8 Tuesday 1 Sunday 10 Friday 17 Wednesday 12 Monday 19 Friday 15 Wednesday 0 Tuesday 14 Saturday 19 Friday HIN Collisions.xls Primary_Ro DIABLO RD DIABLO RD GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY GREEN VALLEY HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE LOVE LN LOVE LN LOVE LN LOVE LN PARKING LOT OF 3496 CAMINO TASSAJARA SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD Accident_N Secondary 1.53E+14 BOBBIE DR 1.53E+14 ALAMATOS DR (W) 3.75E+13 DIABLO RD 2.41E+13 DIABLO RD 7.29E+13 WAINGARTH WAY 4.04E+13 HOPE LN 2.89E+13 DONNA LN 3.04E+13 HOPE LN 7.91E+13 HOPE LN 8.16E+13 CAMEO DR 1.49E+14 HOPE LN 1.5E+14 CAMEO DR 9.63E+13 GREEN VALLEY CT 1.52E+14 GREEN VALLEY CRT 2.74E+13 DIABLO RD 6.25E+13 RAILROAD AVE 2.49E+11 DIABLO RD 2.14E+13 LINDA MESA AVE 9.71E+13 LINDA MESA AVE 5.91E+13 CHURCH ST 7.88E+13 LINDA MESA AVE 8.51E+12 LINDA MESA AVE 5.08E+13 PROSPECT AVE 4.65E+13 PROSPECT AVE 1.93E+13 DIABLO RD 1.48E+14 CHURCH ST 1.5E+14 PROSPECT AVE 1.52E+14 DIABLO RD 9.51E+13 HARTZ WAY 1.53E+14 HARTZ WAY 1.52E+13 VERONA AVE 1.92E+13 RAILROAD AVE 7.09E+13 RAILROAD AVE 6E+13 IRON HORSE TRL 6.73E+13 CAMINO TASSAJARA 4.08E+13 TOWN AND COUNTRY DR 6.78E+13 TOWN AND COUNTRY DR 1.37E+13 TOWN AND COUNTRY DR 5.14E+13 PODVA RD (N) 4.95E+13 LIVERY MERCANTILE SHOPPING CENTER 2.34E+13 TOWN AND COUNTRY DR 29 Distance_i Direction Intersecti 200 SOUTH 3 SOUTH 40 North 178 North 196 North 32 North 435 North 7 South 50 North 44 South 112 SOUTH 21 NORTH 180 North 78 NORTH 156 South 54 East 2 East 345 North 406 North 185 North 94 South 180 North 102 South 178 North 176 South 143 SOUTH 5 NORTH 63 NORTH 69 North 85 NORTH 162 East 185 West 500 West 528 North 240 West 76 North 56 South 203 South 355 North 127 South 31 North HIN Collisions.xls X Y 6132112 2126954.065 6131072 2125563 6134763.1 2129942.4 6134759.92 2130080.237 6134785.464 2132919.654 6134862.675 2133272.788 6134687.409 2131875.584 6134857.408 2133234.185 6134864.552 2133290.688 6134866.401 2131013.04 6134838.193 2133130.986 6134863.851 2131077.762 0 0 0 0 6128277.965 2125334.353 6127559.732 2126250.652 6128188.249 2125459.438 6127793.411 2125962.446 6127754.473 2126009.401 6128792.126 2124840.022 6128068.1 2125620.327 6127896.148 2125833.351 6128534.564 2125041.941 6128345.289 2125246.092 6128290.241 2125318.564 6129049.129 2124636.271 6128453.365 2125111.433 0 0 0 0 0 0 6126685.602 2125977.994 6127256.382 2126037.94 6126998.885 2125858.032 6127115.149 2125939.534 0 0 6129420.603 2122929.623 6129446.115 2122800.116 6129475.128 2122656.012 6129748.639 2121277.67 6129637.192 2121833.135 6129429.286 2122885.468 Latitude 37.82685918 37.82303914 37.8352052 37.83558371 37.84338433 37.84435408 37.8405172 37.84424807 37.84440323 37.8381453 37.84396467 37.83832303 37.84104076 37.84074881 37.82226459 37.82478086 37.82260809 37.82398941 37.82411836 37.8209071 37.82304991 37.8236349 37.82146159 37.82202222 37.82222123 37.82034757 37.82165243 37.8227725 37.81931471 37.81934254 37.82403211 37.82419673 37.82370268 37.82392649 37.79904397 37.81571134 37.8153557 37.81495997 37.81117486 37.81270024 37.81559008 Longitude - 121.9871881 -121.9907885 - 121.9783369 -121.9783479 - 121.9784192 -121.9781518 - 121.9787588 -121.9781701 - 121.9781453 -121.9779792 - 121.9782366 -121.977988 - 121.9787747 -121.9787381 - 122.0005498 -122.0030364 - 122.0008604 -122.0022273 - 122.0023621 -121.9987698 - 122.0012764 -122.0018717 - 121.9996615 -122.0003167 - 122.0005073 -121.9978802 - 121.9999426 -122.0010319 - 121.9965954 -121.9965801 - 122.0060626 -122.0040865 - 122.004978 -122.0045755 - 121.9202416 -121.9963223 - 121.996234 -121.9961336 - 121.9951868 -121.9955726 - 121.9962923 30 Accident_N Highest_De CoII_1 CoII_2 CoII_3 CoII_4 CoII_0 EPDO_Score Number_Inj Number KiI Party_at_F Primary_Co Hit_and_Ru 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 3.75E+13 2.41E+13 7.29E+13 4.04E+13 2.89E+13 3.04E+13 7.91E+13 8.16E+13 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 2.74E+13 6.25E+13 2.49E+11 2.14E+13 9.71E+13 5.91E+13 7.88E+13 8.51E+12 5.08E+13 4.65E+13 1.93E+13 1.48E+14 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 9.51E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+13 1.92E+13 7.09E+13 6E+13 6.73E+13 4.08E+13 6.78E+13 1.37E+13 5.14E+13 4.95E+13 2.34E+13 Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only 1 11 6 1 11 1 11 6 1 11 11 6 1 11 1 1 1 1 6 6 11 1 1 11 1 11 6 11 6 1 165 11 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1 1 HIN Collisions.xls 0 Driving Under Influence 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Starting or Backing 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Other Hazardous Movement 1 Improper Turning 1 Improper Turning 1 Improper Turning 0 Other Than Driver 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Unsafe Starting or Backing 1 Unsafe Starting or Backing 1 Improper Turning 1 Improper Turning 1 Auto R/W Violation 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Other Hazardous Movement 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Other Hazardous Movement 1 Improper Turning 1 Improper Turning 1 Pedestrian Right of Way 1 Unsafe Lane Change 1 Unsafe Speed 0 Driving Under Influence 1 Auto R/W Violation 1 Improper Turning 1 Unsafe Starting or Backing 1 Improper Turning 1 Unknown 1 Following Too Closely 0 Improper Turning 1 Auto R/W Violation 1 Driving Under Influence 1 Unsafe Speed 1 Driving Under Influence No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor No No No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No Accident_N 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 3.75E+13 2.41E+13 7.29E+13 4.04E+13 2.89E+13 3.04E+13 7.91E+13 8.16E+13 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 2.74E+13 6.25E+13 2.49E+11 2.14E+13 9.71E+13 5.91E+13 7.88E+13 8.51E+12 5.08E+13 4.65E+13 1.93E+13 1.48E+14 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 9.51E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+13 1.92E+13 7.09E+13 6E+13 6.73E+13 4.08E+13 6.78E+13 1.37E+13 5.14E+13 4.95E+13 2.34E+13 Collisio_3 Hit Object Head -On Rear -End Broadside Rear -End Sideswipe Rear -End Vehicle - Pedestrian Hit Object Hit Object Hit Object Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Sideswipe Other Rear -End Other Broadside Rear -End Sideswipe Sideswipe Other Vehicle - Pedestrian Broadside Hit Object Hit Object Broadside Broadside Hit Object Sideswipe Vehicle - Pedestrian Overturned Hit Object Broadside Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Involved_W Fixed Object Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Other Object Fixed Object Bicycle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Parked Motor Vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Parked Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Bicycle Bicycle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Non - Collision Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle 31 Pedestrian No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved Crossing Not In Crosswalk No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved HIN Collisions.xls Private_Pr FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Violation 23152A 22107 22350 22106 22350 22350 22350 21950 22107 22107 22107 22350 22350 22106 22106 22107 22107 21801 22350 22517 22107 22350 22517 22107 22107 21950(a) 21658(a) 22350 23152A 21804 22107 22106 22107 21703 22107 21801 23152 22350 23152 Violatio_1 Weather Fog Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear A Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy A Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear A Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear A Cloudy A Clear Clear A Clear Road_Surfa Not Stated Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Accident_N 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 3.75E+13 2.41E+13 7.29E+13 4.04E+13 2.89E+13 3.04E+13 7.91E+13 8.16E+13 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 2.74E+13 6.25E+13 2.49E+11 2.14E+13 9.71E+13 5.91E+13 7.88E+13 8.51E+12 5.08E+13 4.65E+13 1.93E+13 1.48E+14 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 9.51E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+13 1.92E+13 7.09E+13 6E+13 6.73E+13 4.08E+13 6.78E+13 1.37E+13 5.14E+13 4.95E+13 2.34E+13 Road_Condi No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Other No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Obstruction On Roadway No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Lighting Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - No Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights 32 Right_of_W No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls No Controls No Controls No Controls Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Present / Present / Present / Present / Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor HIN Collisions.xls F FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Party_Numb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Party_Type Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Party_Age 34 43 17 34 40 61 17 48 80 22 56 78 19 18 28 44 52 25 75 45 50 28 32 54 37 50 64 34 22 35 52 17 16 23 41 69 80 23 39 25 55 Party_Sex Race_1 Female W Female W Male 0 Male H Female 0 Female W Male A Female A Female 0 Male W Female H Male A Male W Male W Male 0 Female W Male B Male 0 Male W Female W Female W Male W Male 0 Male H Female 0 Female W Male W Female H Male W Male H Male W Female W Female W Male H Female W Female W Female W Male W Female B Male A Female W Accident_N 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 3.75E+13 2.41E+13 7.29E+13 4.04E+13 2.89E+13 Directio_1 NORTH NORTH South South South North South 3.04E+13 South 7.91E+13 North 8.16E+13 South 1.49E+14 SOUTH 1.5E+14 NORTH 9.63E+13 North 1.52E+14 WEST 2.74E+13 North 6.25E+13 West 2.49E+11 East 2.14E+13 North 9.71E+13 South 5.91E+13 North 7.88E+13 North 8.51E+12 North 5.08E+13 North 4.65E+13 North 1.93E+13 North 1.48E+14 SOUTH 1.5E+14 NORTH 1.52E+14 NORTH 9.51E+13 North 1.53E+14 NORTH 1.52E+13 North 1.92E+13 North 7.09E+13 East 6E+13 West 6.73E+13 East 4.08E+13 North 6.78E+13 West 1.37E+13 North 5.14E+13 East 4.95E+13 South 2.34E+13 South Movement_P Other Unsafe Turning Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Entering Traffic Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Other Unsafe Turning Other Unsafe Turning Making Right Turn Ran Off Road Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Backing Backing Making Right Turn Making Left Turn Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Parked Making U Turn Proceeding Straight Parked Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Ran Off Road Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Backing Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Entering Traffic Making U Turn Backing Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight special_in Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handheld In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handheld In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handheld In Use Handheld In Use 33 Associated Violation None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic Violation None Apparent Inattention Violation None Apparent Vision Obscurements Violation Violation None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent Violation None Apparent Inattention None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent Violation Violation Inattention None Apparent Violation None Apparent Violation Violation Violation HIN Collisions.xls Party_Sobr HBD Under Influence HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Other Physical Impairment HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Impairment Unknown HBD Under Influence Not Applicable HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD HBD Under Influence Vehicle_Ty Vehicle_1 1 7 1 22 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 7 22 7 1 7 25 1 7 8 1 1 7 1 7 7 22 1 22 1 4 7 22 26 7 4 1 1 1 1 7 Vehicle_Ye 2021 2012 2011 2001 2013 2015 2010 2004 2017 2013 2009 1999 2011 2007 2004 2012 2018 2004 2009 2014 2019 2018 2008 1999 2015 2018 2016 2013 2010 2014 2015 2016 2017 2017 2016 0 2000 2002 2006 2002 2017 Accident_N Vehicle_Ma 1.53E+14 MAZDA 1.53E+14 FORD 3.75E+13 TOYOTA 2.41E+13 FORD 7.29E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 4.04E+13 AUDI 2.89E+13 PORSCHE 3.04E+13 LINCOLN 7.91E+13 LINCOLN 8.16E+13 FORD 1.49E+14 VOLKSWAGEN 1.5E+14 TOYOTA 9.63E+13 TOYOTA 1.52E+14 LAND ROVER 2.74E+13 MERCURY 6.25E+13 HONDA 2.49E+11 VOLVO 2.14E+13 TOYOTA 9.71E+13 TOYOTA 5.91E+13 TOYOTA 7.88E+13 FORD 8.51E+12 HYUNDAI 5.08E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 4.65E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 1.93E+13 HONDA 1.48E+14 LAND ROVER 1.5E+14 NISSAN 1.52E+14 HONDA 9.51E+13 TOYOTA 1.53E+14 CHEVROLET 1.52E+13 FUJI 1.92E+13 NISSAN 7.09E+13 CHEVROLET 6E+13 FORD 6.73E+13 INFINITI 4.08E+13 SEROTTA 6.78E+13 HONDA 1.37E+13 NISSAN 5.14E+13 CHRYSLER 4.95E+13 LEXUS 2.34E+13 FORD Vehicle_Mo MAZDA3 EXPLORER PRIUS F-350 JETTA A7 CARRERA 4S LS M KC FOCUS TIGUAN 4RUNNER TACOMA RANGE ROVER GRAND MARQUIS PILOT VNR CAMRY RAV4 SIENNA FUSION SONATA TIGUAN JETTA PILOT RANGE ROVER FRONTIER INSIGHT TUNDRA SILVERADO OVAL ROGUE SILVERADO F-550 QX80 02 ACCORD SENTRA 300B ES300 EXPLORER Speed_Limi 35 25 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 25 0 25 25 25 25 25 10 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 30 10 25 25 25 0 30 25 30 0 30 30 Extent_of Minor Minor Moderate Minor Major Moderate Moderate None Major Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Major None Minor Minor Minor Minor Moderate Moderate Minor None Minor Moderate None Minor Rollover Major Major Minor Minor Moderate None None Major Moderate Minor Minor Moderate 34 Safety_Eq u Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Required Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Not Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Shoulder Harness Used Not Required Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used HIN Collisions.xls Party_Nu_1 0 Party_Ty_1 Party_Ag_1 Party_Se_1 998 62 M 41 Female 51 Female 52 Female 62 16 Male 18 Male 998 998 50 M 998 19 Male 40 F 21 Male 998 998 49 Male 42 Female 67 Female 54 Male 19 Male 43 Female 68 Male 38 27 M 74 M 998 Not Stated 998 998 58 Male 11 Male 998 69 Female 47 Female 998 998 52 Male 998 24 Female 20 Female 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Parked Vehicle 2 Driver 2 Pedestrian 0 0 2 Bicyclist 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Parked Vehicle 0 0 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 2 Parked Vehicle 2 Bicyclist 2 Pedestrian 2 Parked Vehicle 0 0 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 0 2 Driver 2 Pedestrian 0 0 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver Accident_N 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 W 3.75E+13 A 2.41E+13 A 7.29E+13 W 4.04E+13 2.89E+13 W 3.04E+13 W 7.91E+13 8.16E+13 1.49E+14 W 1.5E+14 9.63E+13 W 1.52E+14 W 2.74E+13 W 6.25E+13 2.49E+11 2.14E+13 W 9.71E+13 W 5.91E+13 W 7.88E+13 W 8.51E+12 H 5.08E+13 W 4.65E+13 W 1.93E+13 1.48E+14 W 1.5E+14 W 1.52E+14 9.51E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+13 W 1.92E+13 W 7.09E+13 6E+13 W 6.73E+13 W 4.08E+13 6.78E+13 1.37E+13 B 5.14E+13 4.95E+13 H 2.34E+13 W 35 Race_2 Directio_2 Movement_l W EST South South South South West Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Parked Stopped In Road SOUTH Proceeding Straight North WEST North North North North North North North North NORTH EAST NORTH Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Parked Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Parked Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Parked special_1 Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Not Stated Cell Phone Not In Use Not Stated East Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Not In Use West Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Not In Use West Passing Other Vehicle Cell Phone Not In Use North Cell Phone Not In Use South Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Not In Use South Stopped In Road Cell Phone Not In Use South Stopped In Road Cell Phone Not In Use Associat_1 None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls Party_So_1 HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD Not Applicable Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Vehicle_2 Vehicle_3 0 4 1 8 7 1 1 60 0 0 4 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 4 22 4 1 7 4 22 4 60 1 0 0 1 4 0 1 60 0 0 Vehicle_4 0 0 2015 2017 2018 2014 2016 0 0 0 0 0 2016 2020 2008 0 0 2017 0 2001 0 2007 2017 0 2013 2021 0 2021 0 0 2006 0 0 2010 0 0 0 1 2007 0 0 1 2018 1 2017 Accident_N 1.53E+14 1.53E+14 RALEIGH 3.75E+13 AUDI 2.41E+13 TOYOTA 7.29E+13 VOLVO 4.04E+13 HONDA 2.89E+13 TOYOTA 3.04E+13 7.91E+13 8.16E+13 1.49E+14 ORBEA 1.5E+14 9.63E+13 FORD 1.52E+14 TESLA 2.74E+13 TOYOTA 6.25E+13 2.49E+11 2.14E+13 CHEVROLET 9.71E+13 HELIX 5.91E+13 TOYOTA 7.88E+13 TREK 8.51E+12 TOYOTA 5.08E+13 LAND ROVER 4.65E+13 LOOK 1.93E+13 CHEVROLET 1.48E+14 SPECIALIZED 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 TOYOTA 9.51E+13 1.53E+14 1.52E+13 FORD 1.92E+13 TREK 7.09E+13 6E+13 HONDA 6.73E+13 4.08E+13 6.78E+13 1.37E+13 NISSAN 5.14E+13 4.95E+13 HONDA 2.34E+13 FORD Vehicle 5 Vehicle 6 VENTURE 2.0 I E Q7 SIENNA XC90 ACCORD COROLLA ORCA MUSTANG WL CAMRY IMPALA LYNSKEY TACOMA MADONE CAMRY RANGE ROVER 585 1500 TARMAC TACOMA RANGER 820 CIVIC SENTRA CIVIC FOCUS Speed_Li_1 Extent_o_1 0 25 Moderate 30 Minor 30 Moderate 30 Moderate 0 Major 30 Moderate 30 0 0 30 Moderate 0 30 Moderate 30 Major 25 Minor 0 0 25 Moderate 25 None 25 Minor 25 Major 10 Minor 25 Minor 25 None 0 Moderate 25 Major 25 25 Major 0 0 25 Minor 25 Moderate 0 25 0 0 0 30 Minor 0 30 Minor 30 Major 36 Safety_E_1 Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated M/C Helmet Passenger - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Not Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Not Stated M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Not Required Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Required Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used HIN Collisions.xls Age_At_Fau #REF! #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! #REF! 15-20 15-20 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 15-20 40-49 20-29 #REF! #REF! 40-49 40-49 #REF! #REF! 15-20 40-49 #REF! 30-39 20-29 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 0-14 #REF! #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 20-29 15-20 Broad TrafSigns Speed Bike HitObj 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accident_N 2.14E+13 1.38E+13 6.13E+13 9.73E+13 7.85E+13 8.07E+13 7.45E+13 3.83E+12 9.64E+13 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 9.17E+13 1.5E+14 2.39E+13 1.81E+12 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 5.51E+13 6.99E+13 4.32E+13 6.5E+13 8.18E+12 4.84E+13 3.31E+13 4.48E+13 8.37E+13 5.38E+13 1.55E+13 1.07E+13 7.03E+13 5.19E+13 9.88E+13 4.36E+13 ACCIDENT_Y Collision 2019 15 -Jan -19 2019 3 -Apr -19 2019 23 -May -19 2019 3 -Sep -19 2019 9 -Nov -19 2019 11 -Nov -19 2019 12 -Nov -19 2019 11 -Dec -19 2020 3 -Feb -20 2020 13 -Sep -20 2020 9 -Oct -20 2020 21 -Oct -20 2020 22 -Nov -20 2021 4 -May -21 2021 12 -May -21 2021 24 -Jun -21 2021 11 -Aug -21 2021 12 -Oct -21 2019 12 -Nov -19 2020 29 -Dec -20 2018 29 -Mar -18 2019 4 -Nov -19 2021 3 -Aug -21 2021 11 -Aug -21 2021 10 -Dec -21 2017 18 -Jul -17 2018 17 -Dec -18 2017 14 -Jun -17 2017 19 -Oct -17 2017 2 -Dec -17 2018 10 -May -18 2018 7 -Jun -18 2018 18 -Jul -18 2018 7 -Sep -18 2018 1 -Oct -18 2019 3 -Jan -19 2019 6 -Feb -19 2019 25 -Feb -19 2019 28 -Feb -19 2019 13 -Mar -19 2019 25 -Apr -19 Collisio_1 3:47 PM 9:34 AM 4:07 PM 3:06 PM 3:16 PM 4:15 PM 4:45 PM 7:10 PM 2:40 PM 9:58 AM 6:45 PM 3:00 PM 12:29 PM 5:53 PM 3:33 PM 1:01 PM 4:08 PM 10:59 AM 4:50 PM 3:29 PM 10:25 AM 2:03 PM 3:26 AM 3:30 PM 12:07 PM 10:35 AM 7:02 AM 12:00 PM 8:53 AM 1:11 PM 3:50 PM 6:00 PM 10:11 AM 7:40 AM 9:08 AM 11:00 PM 8:30 AM 2:22 PM 3:40 PM 6:19 AM 3:01 PM Hour Collisio_2 15 Tuesday 9 Wednesday 16 Thursday 15 Tuesday 15 Saturday 16 Monday 16 Tuesday 19 14 9 18 15 12 17 15 13 16 10 16 15 10 14 3 15 12 10 7 12 8 13 15 18 10 7 9 23 8 14 15 6 15 Wednesday Monday Sunday Friday Wednesday Sunday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Wednesday Tuesday Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Friday Tuesday Monday Wednesday Thursday Saturday Thursday Thursday Wednesday Friday Monday Thursday Wednesday Monday Thursday Wednesday Thursday HIN Collisions.xls SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN SAN Primary_Ro RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD RAMON VALLEY BLVD STONE VALLEY RD STONE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD SYCAMORE VALLEY RD Accident_N Secondary 2.14E+13 GREENBROOK DR 1.38E+13 GREENBROOK DR 6.13E+13 BOONE CT 9.73E+13 SYCAMORE SQUARE SHOPPING CENTER 7.85E+13 LIVERY MERCANTILE SHOPPING CENTER 8.07E+13 MIDLAND WAY 7.45E+13 GREENBROOK DR 3.83E+12 9.64E+13 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 9.17E+13 1.5E+14 2.39E+13 1.81E+12 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 5.51E+13 6.99E+13 4.32E+13 6.5E+13 8.18E+12 4.84E+13 3.31E+13 4.48E+13 8.37E+13 5.38E+13 1.55E+13 1.07E+13 7.03E+13 5.19E+13 9.88E+13 4.36E+13 OAK CT PODVA RD (N) MIDLAND WAY SYCAMORE VALLEY RD PODVA RD (S) FOUNTAIN SPRINGS DR SYCAMORE VALLEY RD PODVA RD (N) TOWN AND COUNTRY DR BOONE CT BOONE CT LIVERY MERCANTILE SHOPPING CENTER LIVERY MERCHANTILE HARTZ WAY PODVA RD (S) MIDLAND WAY TOWN AND COUNTRY DR TOWN AND COUNTRY DR MONTE SERENO DR GREEN VALLEY RD MORNINGHOME RD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD BROOKSIDE DR CAMINO RAMON SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD CAMINO RAMON BROOKSIDE DR PARK HILL RD GREENBROOK DR CAMINO RAMON CAMINO RAMON OLD ORCHARD DR SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD 38 Distance_i 57 130 145 15 58 467 175 50 308 707 200 17 368 196 225 71 80 68 58 6 106 142 251 211 92 77 538 55 53 215 19 81 17 432 50 371 490 92 26 483 183 Direction North South North North South South North South South SOUTH NORTH NORTH NORTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH South SOUTH South South NORTH SOUTH NORTH West West West East East East East East East West West East West East West East HIN Collisions.xls Intersecti Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y N N Y Y N Y X Y 6132911.795 2114411.902 6132979.916 2114237.77 6129519.613 2122446.192 6129611.28 2121972.751 6129624.591 2121900.975 6131103.75 2118807.009 6132875.473 2114524.144 6129384.671 2123201.01 6130119.646 2120755.501 6131178.944 2118579.093 6129694.709 2121543.892 6130589.758 2120236.813 6132663.104 2115300.689 6129695.502 2121539.972 6130055.326 2120807.959 6129448.989 2122785.394 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6133591.927 2133465.199 6134238.139 2133577.359 6133684.019 2121284.194 6129787.925 2121350.024 6132253.939 2121310.174 6131014.996 2121339.635 6129815.922 2121349.894 6131012.997 2121339.673 6132470.85 2121303.972 6136817.312 2122523.948 6134758.606 2121325.148 6131485.78 2121326.026 6130904.006 2121341.045 6135117.135 2121494.866 6129282.81 2121426.763 6129917.911 2121351.374 Latitude 37.79252658 37.79204839 37.81438378 37.81308365 37.81288654 37.80456384 37.79283481 37.8164566 37.80974092 37.80393795 37.81190594 37.80831654 37.79496731 37.81189518 37.80988498 37.81531527 37.81374653 37.81377196 37.81290097 37.81304082 37.81885401 37.80797036 37.80629375 37.81493785 37.81575478 37.84488246 37.84519046 37.8113224 37.81137356 37.81139375 37.81147465 37.8113732 37.81147476 37.81137671 37.81494441 37.81147898 37.81143728 37.81147852 37.81194505 37.81158429 37.81137727 Longitude - 121.9839429 -121.9837071 - 121.9959796 -121.9956623 - 121.9956162 -121.9904322 - 121.9840686 -121.9964467 - 121.9939026 -121.9901719 - 121.9953735 -121.9922755 - 121.9848037 -121.9953707 - 121.9941252 -121.9962241 - 121.9958226 -121.9958414 - 121.9956598 -121.9957027 - 121.9965131 -121.9920669 - 121.9912187 -121.996184 - 121.9964217 -121.9825524 - 121.9803146 -121.9815979 - 121.9950508 -121.986548 - 121.9908365 -121.9949539 - 121.9908434 -121.9857972 - 121.9708722 -121.9777821 - 121.9892069 -121.9912207 -121.976541 -121.9967992 - 121.9946009 39 Accident_N Highest_De CoII_1 CoII_2 CoII_3 CoII_4 CoII_O EPDO_Score Number_Inj Number KiI Party_at_F Primary_Co Hit_and_Ru 2.14E+13 1.38E+13 6.13E+13 9.73E+13 7.85E+13 8.07E+13 7.45E+13 3.83E+12 9.64E+13 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 9.17E+13 1.5E+14 2.39E+13 1.81E+12 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 5.51E+13 6.99E+13 4.32E+13 6.5E+13 8.18E+12 4.84E+13 3.31E+13 4.48E+13 8.37E+13 5.38E+13 1.55E+13 1.07E+13 7.03E+13 5.19E+13 9.88E+13 4.36E+13 Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Fatal Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Severe Injury Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Fatal Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Severe Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o 1 o 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 1 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 1 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o 1 0 0 0 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 o o 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 11 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 165 1 1 11 1 0 6 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 165 3 0 1 0 0 6 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 165 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 6 1 0 6 1 0 1 0 0 11 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 165 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 HIN Collisions.xls Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Impeding Traffic Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Other Equipment Other Improper Driving Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Improper Turning Unsafe Lane Change Improper Turning Other Improper Driving Other Than Driver Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Improper Turning Improper Turning Pedestrian Right of Way Other Hazardous Movement Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Improper Turning Other Than Driver Unsafe Speed Unsafe Lane Change Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Other Hazardous Movement Other Than Driver Traffic Signals and Signs Unsafe Speed Unsafe Starting or Backing Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Other Improper Driving Unsafe Lane Change No No No No Misdemeanor No No No No No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No No No No No Accident_N 2.14E+13 1.38E+13 6.13E+13 9.73E+13 7.85E+13 8.07E+13 7.45E+13 3.83E+12 9.64E+13 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 9.17E+13 1.5E+14 2.39E+13 1.81E+12 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 5.51E+13 6.99E+13 4.32E+13 6.5E+13 8.18E+12 4.84E+13 3.31E+13 4.48E+13 8.37E+13 5.38E+13 1.55E+13 1.07E+13 7.03E+13 5.19E+13 9.88E+13 4.36E+13 Collisio_3 Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Rear -End Sideswipe Rear -End Sideswipe Sideswipe Other Other Rear -End Hit Object Broadside Broadside Rear -End Vehicle - Pedestrian Broadside Rear -End Rear -End Broadside Broadside Hit Object Rear -End Sideswipe Rear -End Rear -End Broadside Rear -End Other Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Hit Object Sideswipe Involved_W Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Parked Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle 40 Pedestrian No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved No Pedestrian Involved Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved HIN Collisions.xls Private_Pr Violation Violatio_1 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22400 A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 24002 A FALSE 21208 B FALSE 22350 FALSE 22102 FALSE 22107 FALSE 21658(a) FALSE 22107 FALSE 21208(b) FALSE FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22107 FALSE 21950(a) FALSE 21461 A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22107 FALSE CVC22107 FALSE FALSE 22350 FALSE 21658 A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 21451 A FALSE FALSE 21453 A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22106 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE FALSE 21658 A Weather Cloudy Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Fog Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Road_Surfa Wet Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Accident_N 2.14E+13 1.38E+13 6.13E+13 9.73E+13 7.85E+13 8.07E+13 7.45E+13 3.83E+12 9.64E+13 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 9.17E+13 1.5E+14 2.39E+13 1.81E+12 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 5.51E+13 6.99E+13 4.32E+13 6.5E+13 8.18E+12 4.84E+13 3.31E+13 4.48E+13 8.37E+13 5.38E+13 1.55E+13 1.07E+13 7.03E+13 5.19E+13 9.88E+13 4.36E+13 Road_Condi No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Lighting Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Dusk - Dawn Daylight 41 Right_of_W Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls No Controls Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls No Controls No Controls Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Present / Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor HIN Collisions.xls F FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Party_Numb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Party_Type Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Party_Age 17 21 55 54 25 46 65 28 59 29 79 72 67 76 27 77 18 40 18 37 67 46 23 76 28 70 16 52 18 49 69 20 70 16 34 27 17 21 39 92 46 Party_Sex Race_1 Female H Male 0 Male W Female W Male 0 Male B Male W Male H Male H Male W Male W Female W Male W Male W Female W Female W Male W Female F Female A Male W Female W Male H Female W Female W Female B Male W Female A Male W Male W Female W Female A Male W Female W Female W Male B Female W Female W Male H Male H Male W Female A Accident_N Directio_1 2.14E+13 South 1.38E+13 West 6.13E+13 North 9.73E+13 South 7.85E+13 South 8.07E+13 South 7.45E+13 South 3.83E+12 9.64E+13 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 9.17E+13 1.5E+14 2.39E+13 1.81E+12 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 WEST 1.53E+14 NORTH 5.51E+13 East 6.99E+13 East 4.32E+13 West 6.5E+13 West 8.18E+12 West 4.84E+13 East 3.31E+13 West 4.48E+13 East 8.37E+13 West 5.38E+13 East 1.55E+13 East 1.07E+13 East 7.03E+13 West 5.19E+13 East 9.88E+13 South 4.36E+13 West North South SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH NORTH SOUTH EAST NORTH NORTH South NORTH South South SOUTH Movement_P Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Making U Turn Other Unsafe Turning Changing Lanes Making Right Turn Making U Turn Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Parking Maneuver Making Left Turn Making Left Turn Changing Lanes Making Left Turn Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Other Unsafe Turning Making Left Turn Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Parking Maneuver Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Entering Traffic Ran Off Road Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Changing Lanes Parking Maneuver Passing Other Vehicle special_in Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handheld In Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handsfree In Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Handsfree In Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Use Use Use 42 Associated None Apparent Violation Violation None Apparent None Apparent Violation Violation None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Inattention None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent Runaway Vehicle None Apparent None Apparent Inattention Inattention None Apparent Runaway Vehicle Inattention Inattention None Apparent None Apparent Vision Obscurements None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls Party_Sobr HNBD HNBD HBD Impairment Unknown HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD Other Physical Impairment HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Other Physical Impairment HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Other Physical Impairment Vehicle_Ty Vehicle_1 1 1 7 1 1 7 4 1 22 1 99 1 4 1 22 7 1 7 1 7 1 22 1 1 1 7 1 22 1 26 7 1 1 1 27 22 8 1 1 1 7 Vehicle_Ye 2015 2009 2018 2005 2015 2001 0 1993 0 2015 0 2010 0 2003 1999 2020 2010 2019 2010 1998 2013 2005 2018 2017 2017 2001 2016 2008 1995 2013 2005 1997 2017 2006 2009 1995 1999 2000 2018 2018 2018 Accident_N Vehicle_Ma 2.14E+13 TOYOTA 1.38E+13 INFINITI 6.13E+13 FORD 9.73E+13 TOYOTA 7.85E+13 HONDA 8.07E+13 CHEVROLET 7.45E+13 TREK 3.83E+12 HONDA 9.64E+13 LSV 1.49E+14 FORD 1.49E+14 UNK UNK WHITE 1.49E+14 LEXUS 1.5E+14 GIANT 1.51E+14 FORD 1.51E+14 TOYOTA 1.52E+14 ACURA 1.52E+14 ACURA 1.53E+14 MERCEDES -BENZ 9.17E+13 HONDA 1.5E+14 TOYOTA 2.39E+13 AUDI 1.81E+12 FORD 1.52E+14 CHEVROLET 1.52E+14 BMW 1.53E+14 MAZDA 5.51E+13 JEEP 6.99E+13 FORD 4.32E+13 HONDA 6.5E+13 TOYOTA 8.18E+12 GMC 4.84E+13 LEXUS 3.31E+13 MAZDA 4.48E+13 HONDA 8.37E+13 BMW 5.38E+13 FREIGHTLINER 1.55E+13 FORD 1.07E+13 TOYOTA 7.03E+13 FORD 5.19E+13 TESLA 9.88E+13 TESLA 4.36E+13 TOYOTA Vehicle_Mo CAMRY G37 EXPLORER PRIUS CIVIC SUBURBAN 630 CIVIC TRANSIT LS460L RINCON FOCUS TACOMA MDX TL GLS 450 CIVIC 4RUNNER A4 F-250 VOLT 2301 MAZDA3 WRANGLER FOCUS RIDGELINE CAMRY SIERRA RX330 MIATA ACCORD 3251 CASCADIA F-250 SIENNA FOCUS MODEL 3 MODEL S RAV4 Speed_Limi 40 25 30 30 35 40 45 30 35 40 30 35 40 30 35 30 30 30 30 30 25 35 40 30 35 35 25 45 35 45 35 35 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 15 35 43 Extent_of Safety_Equ Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Unknown Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Not Used Unknown Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap Belt Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap Belt Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Rollover Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap Belt Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used HIN Collisions.xls Party_Nu_1 Party_Ty_1 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Parked Vehicle 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Pedestrian 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Parked Vehicle 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 0 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 0 2 Driver Party_Ag_1 Party_Se_1 18 Female 998 61 Male 58 Female 45 Female 998 54 Male 18 Male 48 Female 29 Not Stated 79 M 64 F 52 M 34 M 71 F 998 16 M 42 F 45 Female 67 F 51 Male 74 Female 998 Not Stated 47 F 50 M 998 17 Female 17 Male 30 Female 58 Male 62 Male 51 Female 70 Male 26 Female 998 998 18 Male 20 Female 998 998 73 Female Accident_N Race_2 2.14E+13 A 1.38E+13 6.13E+13 W 9.73E+13 W 7.85E+13 W 8.07E+13 7.45E+13 W 3.83E+12 A 9.64E+13 W 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 W 1.49E+14 W 1.5E+14 W 1.51E+14 A 1.51E+14 W 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 X 1.53E+14 W 9.17E+13 W 1.5E+14 C 2.39E+13 W 1.81E+12 W 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 0 1.53E+14 W 5.51E+13 6.99E+13 W 4.32E+13 W 6.5E+13 W 8.18E+12 W 4.84E+13 W 3.31E+13 W 4.48E+13 W 8.37E+13 W 5.38E+13 1.55E+13 1.07E+13 W 7.03E+13 W 5.19E+13 9.88E+13 4.36E+13 W Directio_2 Movement_1 South Stopped In Road North South South South North South SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH NORTH SOUTH SOUTH SOUTH South EAST North South Not Stated SOUTH NORTH East West West West North West North West Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Parked Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Not Stated Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Parked Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Parked Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road East Stopped In Road West Proceeding Straight West Stopped In Road 44 special_1 CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use Not Stated CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use Not Stated CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use Associat_1 None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD Party_So_1 None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent Not Applicable None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD Violation HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent Not Applicable None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD None Apparent HNBD HIN Collisions.xls Vehicle_2 Vehicle_3 1 0 7 1 7 0 2 22 7 1 22 22 2 4 1 0 22 7 1 60 1 1 8 7 4 0 7 22 1 1 4 7 4 7 0 0 1 7 0 0 7 Vehicle_4 2017 0 2012 2015 2019 0 2014 2008 2017 2017 2020 2006 2016 0 2013 0 2012 2017 2015 0 1998 2008 2010 2018 0 0 2016 2016 2017 2011 0 2010 2017 2003 0 0 2006 2010 0 0 2019 Accident_N 2.14E+13 1.38E+13 6.13E+13 9.73E+13 7.85E+13 8.07E+13 7.45E+13 3.83E+12 9.64E+13 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 9.17E+13 1.5E+14 2.39E+13 1.81E+12 1.52E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+14 5.51E+13 6.99E+13 JEEP 4.32E+13 CHEVROLET 6.5E+13 GMC 8.18E+12 SCION 4.84E+13 BACCHETTA 3.31E+13 LEXUS 4.48E+13 IBIS 8.37E+13 HONDA 5.38E+13 1.55E+13 1.07E+13 NISSAN 7.03E+13 CHEVROLET 5.19E+13 9.88E+13 4.36E+13 TOYOTA Vehicle_5 Vehicle_6 FORD FIESTA NISSAN HONDA SUBARU TRIUMPH GMC JEEP FORD HONDA TOYOTA DUCAT! CERVELO HYUNDAI FORD JEEP INFINITI HONDA CHRYSLER FORD MERCEDES -BENZ CROSS COUNTRY LEAF CR -V ASCENT THUNDERBIRD SIERRA GRAND CHEROKEE TRANSIT RIDGELINE TACOMA MONSTER 1200 CSC T3 SONATA SUPER DUTY GRAND CHEROKEE QX80 ACCORD SEBRING_ E -SERIES GLS450 M25 PATRIOT COLORADO ACADIA XB BELLA RX450 H HAKKALUGI PILOT 350Z EQUINOX RAV4 Speed_Li_1 Extent_o_1 40 Minor 0 30 Minor 30 Minor 35 Minor 0 45 Moderate 30 35 Minor 40 Major 30 Major 35 Minor 40 Major 30 35 Major 0 30 Unknown 30 Moderate 30 Minor 30 30 Moderate 35 Moderate 40 Minor 30 Moderate 35 Major 0 25 Moderate 45 Major 35 Minor 45 Major 35 Minor 35 Minor 40 Minor 45 Moderate 0 0 45 Major 45 Minor 0 0 35 Minor 45 Safety_E_1 Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Required Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Not Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap Belt Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used HIN Collisions.xls Age_At_Fau 15-20 #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! 15-20 40-49 20-29 #REF! #REF! #REF! 30-39 #REF! #REF! 15-20 40-49 40-49 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! 15-20 15-20 30-39 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 20-29 #REF! #REF! 15-20 15-20 #REF! #REF! #REF! Broad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 TrafSigns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Speed Bike HitObj 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Accident_N 5.51E+13 7.31E+13 7.5E+13 9.65E+12 1.87E+13 7.26E+13 1.5E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 7.55E+13 5.22E+13 2.46E+12 1.52E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+14 ACCIDENT_Y Collision 2019 20 -Jun -19 2019 12 -Jul -19 2019 1 -Sep -19 2019 8 -Sep -19 2019 7 -Oct -19 2019 12 -Dec -19 2020 8 -Jan -20 2020 8 -Sep -20 2020 24 -Nov -20 2021 18 -Feb -21 2021 26 -Feb -21 2021 20 -Apr -21 2021 11 -May -21 2021 17 -May -21 2021 20 -Jun -21 2018 4 -May -18 2017 11 -Aug -17 2019 21 -Oct -19 2021 27 -Jul -21 2018 18 -May -18 2021 11 -Aug -21 2021 9 -Apr -21 15 -Jan -18 2019 21 -Jan -19 2019 9 -Oct -19 2020 16 -Dec -20 2021 3 -Mar -21 2018 5 -Dec -18 2020 11 -Feb -20 2017 1 -Aug -17 2017 8 -Oct -17 2021 18 -Feb -21 2021 24 -Jun -21 2017 27 -Aug -17 2018 10 -Dec -18 2019 11 -Jan -19 2020 15 -Apr -20 2021 26 -Jun -21 2018 8 -Mar -18 2018 25 -Sep -18 2021 5 -Jun -21 7.8863E+13 2018 2.08E+13 4.42E+13 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 8.93E+13 8.7E+12 3.95E+13 2.43E+13 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+13 9.2E+13 1.01E+13 4.52E+13 1.52E+14 4.12E+13 5.42E+13 1.5E+14 Collisio_1 7:04 PM 4:57 PM 8:39 AM 1:36 PM 11:25 AM 5:00 PM 2:19 PM 3:42 PM 4:12 PM 4:30 PM 3:17 PM 4:50 PM 8:01 AM 3:50 PM 11:21 AM 3:11 AM 11:16 AM 3:56 PM 2:55 PM 9:39 PM 3:06 PM 5:31 PM 2:56pm 2:38 PM 7:30 AM 5:45 PM 6:50 PM 7:49 PM 11:18 AM 6:18 PM 12:53 AM 4:50 PM 10:21 PM 2:47 PM 2:47 PM 1:35 PM 11:38 AM 9:50 PM 7:00 PM 7:40 AM 3:45 PM Hour 19 16 8 13 11 17 14 15 16 16 15 16 8 15 11 3 11 15 14 21 15 17 141 Collisio_2 Thursday Friday Sunday Sunday Monday Thursday Wednesday Tuesday Tuesday Thursday Friday Tuesday Tuesday Monday Sunday Friday Friday Monday Tuesday Friday Wednesday Friday Monday Primary_Ro SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY SYCAMORE VALLEY HIGHLAND DR RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD 14 Monday 7 Wednesday 17 Wednesday 18 Wednesday 19 Wednesday 11 Tuesday 18 Tuesday 0 Sunday 16 Thursday 22 Thursday 14 Sunday 14 Monday 13 Friday 11 Wednesday 21 Saturday 19 Thursday 7 Tuesday 15 Saturday HIN Collisions.xls DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD 195 HARTZ WAY CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA CAMINO TASSAJARA Accident_N 5.51E+13 7.31E+13 7.5E+13 9.65E+12 1.87E+13 7.26E+13 1.5E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 7.55E+13 5.22E+13 2.46E+12 1.52E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+14 7.8863E+13 2.08E+13 4.42E+13 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 8.93E+13 8.7E+12 3.95E+13 2.43E+13 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+13 9.2E+13 1.01E+13 4.52E+13 1.52E+14 4.12E+13 5.42E+13 1.5E+14 Secondary SYCAMORE VALLEY PARK & RIDE SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD MORNINGHOME RD CAMINO RAMON SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD CAMINO RAMON BROOKSIDE DR CAMINO RAMON CAMINO RAMON RT 680 NB ONRAMP RT 680 NB ONRAMP RT 680 NB ONRAMP RT 680 SB ONRAMP CAMINO RAMON 680 N OFF RAMP NB 1-680 OFF RAMP OLD ORCHARD DR SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD WESTERN END OF SYCAMORE VALLEY RD CENTER MEDIAN RT 680 NB ONRAMP TUNBRIDGE DR LONESOME RD HARTFORD RD HARTFORD RD HARTFORD RD HARTFORD RD W. LINDA MESA BLACKHAWK PLAZA CIR LAWRENCE RD LAWRENCE RD LAWRENCE RD LAWRENCE RD TASSAJARA RANCH RD TASSAJARA RANCH RD TASSAJARA RANCH RD TASSAJARA RANCH RD TASSAJARA RANCH RD TASSAJARA VILLAGE DR TASSAJARA VILLAGE DR TASSAJARA VILLAGE DR 47 Distance_i Direction 95 455 437 455 200 334 76 570 195 30 180 230 13 150 244 21 66 510 65 18 65 200 17 88 30 22 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 East East East East East East WEST EAST EAST EAST W EST W EST EAST W EST EAST East West East EAST East EAST EAST West South North SOUTH SOUTH Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated HIN Collisions.xls Intersecti Y N N N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y X 6131090.985 6130189.87 6134175.87 6131450.787 6129934.909 6130068.886 6130920.005 6132608.776 6131190.921 6131025.994 6130490.009 6130440.01 6130682.994 6129914.025 6131239.889 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6124478.481 6124400.633 6124434.985 6124450.801 0 6152206 6157535 6157535 6157535 6157535 6152206 6152206 6152206 6152206 6152206 6151944 6151944 6151944 Y 2121338.307 2121349.051 2121273.085 2121326.703 2121351.621 2121350.949 2121340.864 2121299.448 2121334.767 2121339.423 2121346.82 2121347 2121345.17 2121351.318 2121332.974 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2128951.389 2129040.008 2129001.029 2128982.978 0 2116392 2116683 2116683 2116683 2116683 2116392 2116392 2116392 2116392 2116392 2116430 2116430 2116430 Latitude 37.811471 37.81137089 37.81133601 37.81143914 37.81137794 37.8113761 37.81147802 37.81136429 37.81146128 37.81147407 37.81136476 37.81136525 37.81136023 37.81137711 37.81145636 37.81137213 37.81137653 37.81266648 37.81133549 37.81187997 37.81141903 37.81359111 37.81120196 37.83203808 37.83228144 37.8321744 37.83212483 37.82301438 37.79862655 37.79968486 37.79968486 37.79968486 37.79968486 37.79862655 37.79862655 37.79862655 37.79862655 37.79862655 37.7987309 37.7987309 37.7987309 Longitude - 121.9905735 -121.9936595 - 121.9797991 -121.989328 -121.994542 -121.9940783 - 121.9911653 -121.9853198 - 121.9902275 -121.9907984 - 121.9926206 -121.9927937 - 121.9919526 -121.9946143 - 121.9900581 -121.9919445 - 121.9922494 -121.9752013 - 121.9949345 -121.9972999 - 121.9917871 - 121.9731312 -122.007325 -122.01388 - 122.0141495 -122.0140306 - 122.0139758 -122.0018127 - 121.9172732 -121.8982013 - 121.8982013 -121.8982013 - 121.8982013 -121.9172732 - 121.9172732 -121.9172732 - 121.9172732 -121.9172732 - 121.9181799 -121.9181799 - 121.9181799 Accident_N 5.51E+13 7.31E+13 7.5E+13 9.65E+12 1.87E+13 7.26E+13 1.5E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 7.55E+13 5.22E+13 2.46E+12 1.52E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+14 7.8863E+13 2.08E+13 4.42E+13 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 8.93E+13 8.7E+12 3.95E+13 2.43E+13 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+13 9.2E+13 1.01E+13 4.52E+13 1.52E+14 4.12E+13 5.42E+13 1.5E+14 Highest_De Complaint of Pain Severe Injury Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Fatal Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Severe Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Severe Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only CoII_1 CoII_2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CoII_3 CoII_4 0 1 0 0 48 CoII_0 EPDO_Score 0 6 0 165 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 6 165 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 165 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 165 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 Number_Inj 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 HIN Collisions.xls Number KiI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Party_at_F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Primary_Co Traffic Signals and Signs Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Unsafe Lane Change Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Hazardous Parking Unsafe Speed Unsafe Lane Change Driving Under Influence Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Other Than Driver Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Unknown Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Driving Under Influence Driving Under Influence Traffic Signals and Signs Improper Turning Traffic Signals and Signs Driving Under Influence Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Auto R/W Violation Auto R/W Violation Driving Under Influence Unsafe Speed Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Hit_and_Ru No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Misdemeanor No No Misdemeanor No No No No No No No No No No Accident_N 5.51E+13 7.31E+13 7.5E+13 9.65E+12 1.87E+13 7.26E+13 1.5E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 7.55E+13 5.22E+13 2.46E+12 1.52E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+14 Collisio_3 Rear -End Sideswipe Hit Object Rear -End Sideswipe Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Sideswipe Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Other Rear -End Sideswipe Hit Object Rear -End Sideswipe Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Involved_W Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian 49 Pedestrian Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved 7.8863E+13 Other Bicycle No Pedestrian Involved 2.08E+13 4.42E+13 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 8.93E+13 8.7E+12 3.95E+13 2.43E+13 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+13 9.2E+13 1.01E+13 4.52E+13 1.52E+14 4.12E+13 5.42E+13 1.5E+14 Rear -End Rear -End Rear -End Hit Object Rear -End Broadside Head -On Hit Object Other Rear -End Head -On Broadside Broadside Broadside Rear -End Sideswipe Broadside Broadside Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Parked Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Object Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Pedestrian Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved Involved HIN Collisions.xls Private_Pr Violation Violatio_1 FALSE 21453 A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 21658A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22515(a) FALSE 22350 FALSE 21658(a) FALSE 23152 A FALSE 22350 FALSE 22107 FALSE FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 22350 FALSE 23152A FALSE 23152 B FALSE 21453 A FALSE 21453 FALSE 22107 FALSE 21453(a) FALSE 23152A FALSE 21453 A FALSE 21453 A FALSE 21453 C FALSE 21453 C FALSE 23152A FALSE 22350 FALSE 21453 A FALSE 21453(a) Weather Road_Surfa Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Other Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Clear Dry Clear Clear Cloudy Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Accident_N 5.51E+13 7.31E+13 7.5E+13 9.65E+12 1.87E+13 7.26E+13 1.5E+14 1.49E+14 1.49E+14 1.5E+14 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 1.52E+14 7.55E+13 5.22E+13 2.46E+12 1.52E+14 9.63E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+14 7.8863E+13 2.08E+13 4.42E+13 1.5E+14 1.51E+14 8.93E+13 8.7E+12 3.95E+13 2.43E+13 1.5E+14 1.52E+14 1.53E+13 9.2E+13 1.01E+13 4.52E+13 1.52E+14 4.12E+13 5.42E+13 1.5E+14 Road_Condi No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Obstruction On Roadway No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Lighting Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Other Daylight 50 R i g ht_of_W Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Factor Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Factor Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Factor Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Factor Functioning Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor No Controls Present / Factor No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight No Controls Present / Factor No Controls Present / Factor No Controls Present / Factor No Controls Present / Factor No Controls Present / Factor Functioning No Controls Present / Factor Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Factor Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning HIN Collisions.xls F FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Party_Numb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Party_Type Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Party_Age 69 71 39 40 73 49 38 27 41 24 41 17 28 54 21 26 20 21 67 40 52 47 74 74 18 21 50 48 42 62 17 33 50 51 54 22 24 31 43 40 22 Party_Sex Male Male Male Male Female Female Male Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Male Male Female Male Male Female Male Male Male Male Male Male Male Female Female Female Male Female Male Male Male Male Female Race_1 H W W w W W W H w W W 0 F W A 0 W 0 0 A W H W A W W H W H W W W W W W H B 0 W w A Accident_N Directio_1 5.51E+13 West 7.31E+13 East 7.5E+13 East 9.65E+12 East 1.87E+13 West 7.26E+13 West 1.5E+14 WEST 1.49E+14 WEST 1.49E+14 EAST 1.5E+14 WEST 1.5E+14 WEST 1.51E+14 WEST 1.51E+14 WEST 1.51E+14 EAST 1.52E+14 EAST 7.55E+13 East 5.22E+13 East 2.46E+12 West 1.52E+14 WEST 9.63E+13 West 1.52E+14 WEST 1.51E+14 WEST 7.8863E+13 East Movement_P Proceeding Straight Merging Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Changing Lanes Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Slowing / Stopping Stopped In Road Making Left Turn Merging Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Changing Lanes Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight special_in Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Not Stated Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Not In Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use Use 51 Associated Other None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent Violation Stop and Go Traffic Inattention Stop and Go Traffic Runaway Vehicle None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent 2.08E+13 North 4.42E+13 South 1.5E+14 NORTH 1.51E+14 NORTH 8.93E+13 North 8.7E+12 West 3.95E+13 West 2.43E+13 East 1.5E+14 SOUTH 1.52E+14 EAST 1.53E+13 West 9.2E+13 East 1.01E+13 West 4.52E+13 East 1.52E+14 EAST 4.12E+13 East 5.42E+13 East 1.5E+14 WEST Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Ran Off Road Parking Maneuver Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Other Unsafe Turning Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Cell Phone Not In Use Not In Use Handsfree In Use Handheld In Use Not In Use Not In Use Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Not Stated Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use None Apparent None Apparent Inattention Violation Violation None Apparent Inattention None Apparent None Apparent Other None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent Violation Violation HIN Collisions.xls Party_Sobr HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD Other Physical Impairment HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HBD Under Influence Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD Vehicle_Ty Vehicle_1 1 2 1 3 8 1 1 1 7 7 Vehicle_Ye 2007 2013 2001 2016 2007 2008 2012 2006 1998 2000 1 2018 7 2018 48 2015 22 2017 41 2018 1 2009 1 2007 1 2012 1 2018 1 2005 1 2010 1 2010 4 2017 7 2017 1 2014 1 2013 7 2019 7 2014 22 2006 7 2005 1 2003 4 0 1 2018 1 2015 1 2001 8 2016 1 2019 1 2016 1 2004 7 2007 1 2013 Accident_N Vehicle_Ma 5.51E+13 TOYOTA 7.31E+13 TRIUMPH 7.5E+13 CHEVROLET 9.65E+12 DUCATI 1.87E+13 CHRYSLER 7.26E+13 HONDA 1.5E+14 SUBARU 1.49E+14 HONDA 1.49E+14 CHEVROLET 1.5E+14 HONDA 1.5E+14 CHEVROLET 1.51E+14 HONDA 1.51E+14 DODGE 1.51E+14 RAM 1.52E+14 FORD 7.55E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 5.22E+13 FORD 2.46E+12 HONDA 1.52E+14 HONDA 9.63E+13 FORD 1.52E+14 AUDI 1.51E+14 ACURA Vehicle_Mo YARIS THUNDERBIRD CORVETTE 933 TOWN & COUNTRY CIVIC FORESTER CIVIC TAHOE CR -V VOLT H R -V CHARGER 2500 TRANSIT JETTA FUSION CIVIC CLARITY ECONOLINE A6 TSX Speed_Limi 30 35 45 45 35 35 35 45 35 45 35 35 35 35 45 45 35 45 35 45 35 45 7.8863E+13 FUJI 2.08E+13 HYUNDAI 4.42E+13 AUDI 1.5E+14 VOLKSWAGEN 1.51E+14 CHEVROLET 8.93E+13 FORD 8.7E+12 CHEVROLET 3.95E+13 LEXUS 2.43E+13 BMW 1.5E+14 TREK 1.52E+14 AUDI 1.53E+13 TOYOTA 9.2E+13 TOYOTA 1.01E+13 NISSAN 4.52E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 1.52E+14 BMW 4.12E+13 BMW 5.42E+13 ACURA 1.5E+14 HONDA E -TRAVERSE 25 SANTA FE A4 PASSAT TAHOE EXPLORER 4500 GX470 5251 SKYE S5 CAMRY AVALON NV JETTA 3401 325C1 MDX ACCORD 35 35 35 35 0 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 Extent_of Major Moderate Major Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Major Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Moderate Minor Moderate Major Minor Minor Moderate Minor Moderate Minor Moderate Major Moderate Major Major Rollover Major Major Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Major Minor Major Moderate 52 Safety_Equ Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Required Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Not Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness HIN Collisions.xls Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Party_Nu_1 Party_Ty_1 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Parked Vehicle 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver Party_Ag_1 Party_Se_1 18 Female 52 Male 998 65 Male 37 Male 57 Male 998 19 M 56 F 48 F 50 F 60 M 998 61 F 73 M 998 23 48 Male 24 M 43 Male 27 F 17 F 19 Male 37 Male 37 M 998 50 41 Female 19 Female 998 59 M 19 M 41 Male 72 Female 30 Female 34 Male 58 M 59 Male 34 Female 36 F Accident_N Race_2 Directio_2 5.51E+13 W West 7.31E+13 W East 7.5E+13 9.65E+12 W East 1.87E+13 H West 7.26E+13 W West 1.5E+14 1.49E+14 W WEST 1.49E+14 W EAST 1.5E+14 W WEST 1.5E+14 W WEST 1.51E+14 0 WEST 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 W EAST 1.52E+14 W EAST 7.55E+13 5.22E+13 2.46E+12 A West 1.52E+14 0 WEST 9.63E+13 A West 1.52E+14 B WEST 1.51E+14 W WEST 7.8863E+13 2.08E+13 W North 4.42E+13 0 South 1.5E+14 W NORTH 1.51E+14 8.93E+13 8.7E+12 W North 3.95E+13 W East 2.43E+13 1.5E+14 0 EAST 1.52E+14 0 EAST 1.53E+13 0 East 9.2E+13 W West 1.01E+13 W East 4.52E+13 H North 1.52E+14 0 EAST 4.12E+13 East 5.42E+13 W South 1.5E+14 W NORTH Movement_1 Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Slowing / Stopping Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Stopped In Road Proceeding Straight Stopped In Road Parked Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Stopped In Road Slowing / Stopping Making U Turn Making Left Turn 53 special_1 Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Associat_1 Party_So_1 None Apparent HNBD None Apparent Not Applicable None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD Vehicle_2 Vehicle_3 1 1 0 22 8 1 0 1 7 7 1 1 0 1 7 0 0 22 1 1 1 7 1 1 1 0 7 1 1 0 1 7 1 7 1 8 7 1 7 1 Vehicle_4 2016 2019 0 2000 2003 2017 0 2000 2017 2019 2018 2014 0 2012 2015 0 0 2018 2019 2016 2016 2018 2014 2016 2013 0 2013 2008 2006 0 2012 2018 2016 2018 2011 1999 1998 2001 2017 2014 Accident_N Vehicle_5 5.51E+13 JEEP 7.31E+13 BMW 7.5E+13 9.65E+12 FORD 1.87E+13 TOYOTA 7.26E+13 VOLKSWAGEN 1.5E+14 1.49E+14 NISSAN 1.49E+14 MERCEDES -BENZ 1.5E+14 TOYOTA 1.5E+14 LAND ROVER 1.51E+14 BMW 1.51E+14 1.51E+14 TOYOTA 1.52E+14 FORD 7.55E+13 5.22E+13 2.46E+12 FORD 1.52E+14 HONDA 9.63E+13 TOYOTA 1.52E+14 HONDA 1.51E+14 AUDI 7.8863E+13 2.08E+13 FORD 4.42E+13 HONDA 1.5E+14 VOLKSWAGEN 1.51E+14 8.93E+13 HONDA 8.7E+12 SUBARU 3.95E+13 VOLKSWAGON 2.43E+13 1.5E+14 DODGE 1.52E+14 ACURA 1.53E+13 ACURA 9.2E+13 TOYOTA 1.01E+13 NISSAN 4.52E+13 FORD 1.52E+14 MERCEDES -BENZ 4.12E+13 HONDA 5.42E+13 GMC 1.5E+14 NISSAN Vehicle_6 PATRIOT 4301 F-450 TUNDRA GOLF MAXIMA G63 RAV4 RANGE ROVER 320i AVALO N EDGE TRUCK F-150 INSIGHT SEQUOIA CIVIC Q5 EDGE PILOT BEETLE CRV IMPREZA BEETLE CHARGER MDX MDX RAV4 ALTIMA E150 ML320 ACCORD YUKON VERSA Speed_Li_1 Extent_o_1 0 Minor 35 Minor 0 45 Minor 35 Minor 35 Moderate 0 45 Moderate 35 Minor 45 Moderate 35 Minor 35 Minor 0 35 Moderate 45 Minor 0 0 45 Minor 35 Minor 45 Moderate 35 Minor 45 Minor 35 35 35 0 0 25 45 0 45 45 45 45 45 25 45 45 45 0 Moderate Minor Moderate Minor Major Major Minor Major Moderate Major Moderate Major Moderate Minor Major Minor 54 Safety_E_1 Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap Belt Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Not Stated Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness HIN Collisions.xls Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Age_At_Fau 15-20 #REF! #REF! #REF! 30-39 #REF! #REF! 15-20 #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 20-29 40-49 20-29 40-49 20-29 15-20 15-20 30-39 30-39 #REF! #REF! 40-49 15-20 #REF! #REF! 15-20 40-49 #REF! 30-39 30-39 #REF! #REF! 30-39 30-39 Broad TrafSigns 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 Speed Bike HitObj 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Accident_N ACCIDENT_Y 5.68E+13 1.97E+13 2.92E+12 8.32E+13 8.35E+13 3.38E+13 6.36E+13 7.66E+13 1.48E+14 1.53E+14 4.1E+13 1.03E+13 6.21E+13 3.73E+13 1.52E+14 3.13E+13 9.48E+13 1.53E+14 1.87E+13 7.66E+13 3.38E+13 7.06E+11 2.5E+12 1.9E+13 6.64E+13 9.93E+13 4.94E+13 6.73E+13 8.49E+13 5.07E+12 1.51E+14 4.29E+13 8.84E+12 2.03E+13 9.67E+13 9.57E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+13 3.92E+13 6.28E+13 1.49E+14 Collision Collisio_1 3:20 PM 1:59 PM 7:10 PM 12:50 PM 8:37 AM 4:40 PM 9:46 PM 10:10 AM 7:50 AM 10:13 PM 5:04 PM 5:13 PM 3:54 PM 9:50 AM 5:40 PM 12:29 PM 10:49 PM 4:28 PM 6:20 PM 6:17 PM 6:06 PM 1:56 PM 1:56 PM 11:54 AM 6:03 PM 9:55 AM 10:50 AM 3:20 PM 3:10 PM 5:50 PM 8:52 AM 1:48 PM 11:30 AM 3:35 PM 11:20 AM 9:05 AM 11:12 PM 3:04 PM 7:08 PM 8:02 PM 12:41 PM 2017 22 -Jul -17 2017 8 -Aug -17 2017 2 -Nov -17 2018 26 -May -18 2018 12 -Jun -18 2019 28 -Feb -19 2019 16 -Mar -19 2019 18 -Nov -19 2020 11 -Aug -20 2021 16 -Jul -21 2018 3 -Dec -18 2019 29 -Jul -19 2019 19 -Sep -19 2020 29 -May -20 2021 6 -Jun -21 2017 8 -Nov -17 2019 1 -Mar -19 2021 16 -Oct -21 2018 27 -Dec -18 2017 16 -Jul -17 2018 22 -Jan -18 2018 15 -Sep -18 2018 15 -Sep -18 2018 16 -Oct -18 2019 30 -Sep -19 2017 23 -Oct -17 2019 24 -Jan -19 2019 9 -Mar -19 2019 10 -Aug -19 2019 7 -Dec -19 2021 10 -May -21 2017 10 -Aug -17 2018 30 -Mar -18 2018 17 -Apr -18 2018 25 -Apr -18 2019 8 -Mar -19 2021 19 -Jul -21 2017 20 -Oct -17 2017 15 -Sep -17 2017 2 -Oct -17 2020 17 -Oct -20 Hour 15 13 19 12 8 16 21 10 7 22 17 17 15 9 17 12 22 16 18 18 18 13 13 11 18 9 10 15 15 17 8 13 11 15 11 9 23 15 19 20 12 Collisio_2 Saturday Tuesday Thursday Saturday Tuesday Thursday Saturday Monday Tuesday Friday Monday Monday Thursday Friday Sunday Wednesday Friday Saturday Thursday Sunday Monday Saturday Saturday Tuesday Monday Monday Thursday Saturday Saturday Saturday Monday Thursday Friday Tuesday Wednesday Friday Monday Friday Friday Monday Saturday HIN Collisions.xls CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON CROW CANYON DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DANVILLE BLVD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD DIABLO RD HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE HARTZ AVE SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD SAN RAMON VALLEY BLVD Primary_Ro RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD RD Accident_N 5.68E+13 1.97E+13 2.92E+12 8.32E+13 8.35E+13 3.38E+13 6.36E+13 7.66E+13 1.48E+14 1.53E+14 4.1E+13 1.03E+13 6.21E+13 3.73E+13 1.52E+14 3.13E+13 9.48E+13 1.53E+14 1.87E+13 7.66E+13 3.38E+13 7.06E+11 2.5E+12 1.9E+13 6.64E+13 9.93E+13 4.94E+13 6.73E+13 8.49E+13 5.07E+12 1.51E+14 4.29E+13 8.84E+12 2.03E+13 9.67E+13 9.57E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+13 3.92E+13 6.28E+13 1.49E+14 CENTER WAY CENTER WAY CENTER WAY CENTER WAY CENTER WAY CENTER WAY CENTER WAY CENTER WAY CENTER WAY TASSAJARA RANCH DR TASSAJARA RANCH DR TASSAJARA RANCH DR TASSAJARA RANCH DR TASSAJARA RANCH DR TASSAJARA RANCH DR HARTFORD RD HARTFORD RD HARTFORD RD ACKERMAN DR CLYDESDALE DR CLYDESDALE DR CLYDESDALE DR CLYDESDALE DR CLYDESDALE DR CLYDESDALE DR EL CERRO BLVD EL CERRO BLVD EL CERRO BLVD EL CERRO BLVD EL CERRO BLVD EL CERRO BLVD LINDA MESA AVE LINDA MESA AVE LINDA MESA AVE LINDA MESA AVE LINDA MESA AVE LINDA MESA AVE W LINDA MESA BOONE CT BOONE CT BOONE CT Secondary 56 Distance_i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Direction Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated Not Stated HIN Collisions.xls Intersecti Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y X 6150869 6150869 6150869 6150869 6150869 6150869 6150869 6150869 6150869 0 6150613 6150613 6150613 6150613 6150613 6124421 6124421 0 6132150 6136672 6136672 6136672 6136672 6136672 6136672 6132150 6132150 6132150 6132150 6132150 6132150 6128005 6128005 6128005 6128005 6128005 0 0 6129548 6129548 6129548 Y Latitude 2115956 37.79742924 2115956 37.79742924 2115956 37.79742924 2115956 37.79742924 2115956 37.79742924 2115956 37.79742924 2115956 37.79742924 2115956 37.79742924 2115956 37.79742924 0 37.79357122 2114542 37.7935462 2114542 37.7935462 2114542 37.7935462 2114542 37.7935462 2114542 37.7935462 2129018 37.832221 2129018 37.832221 0 37.83221251 2128246 37.830404 2130130 37.83572037 2130130 37.83572037 2130130 37.83572037 2130130 37.83572037 2130130 37.83572037 2130130 37.83572037 2128246 37.830404 2128246 37.830404 2128246 37.830404 2128246 37.830404 2128246 37.830404 2128246 37.830404 2125690 37.82324124 2125690 37.82324124 2125690 37.82324124 2125690 37.82324124 2125690 37.82324124 0 37.82321328 0 37.82321738 2122304 37.8139933 2122304 37.8139933 2122304 37.8139933 Longitude - 121.9219004 -121.9219004 - 121.9219004 -121.9219004 - 121.9219004 -121.9219004 - 121.9219004 -121.9219004 - 121.9219004 -121.9226316 - 121.9227866 -121.9227866 - 121.9227866 -121.9227866 - 121.9227866 -122.014079 - 122.014079 -122.0140581 - 121.987296 -121.9717272 - 121.9717272 -121.9717272 - 121.9717272 -121.9717272 - 121.9717272 -121.987296 - 121.987296 -121.987296 - 121.987296 -121.987296 - 121.987296 -122.0014948 - 122.0014948 -122.0014948 - 122.0014948 -122.0014948 - 122.0014909 -122.0014796 - 121.9958813 -121.9958813 - 121.9958813 Accident_N 5.68E+13 1.97E+13 2.92E+12 8.32E+13 8.35E+13 3.38E+13 6.36E+13 7.66E+13 1.48E+14 1.53E+14 4.1E+13 1.03E+13 6.21E+13 3.73E+13 1.52E+14 3.13E+13 9.48E+13 1.53E+14 1.87E+13 7.66E+13 3.38E+13 7.06E+11 2.5E+12 1.9E+13 6.64E+13 9.93E+13 4.94E+13 6.73E+13 8.49E+13 5.07E+12 1.51E+14 4.29E+13 8.84E+12 2.03E+13 9.67E+13 9.57E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+13 3.92E+13 6.28E+13 1.49E+14 Highest_De Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Severe Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Severe Injury Severe Injury Severe Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Other Visible Injury Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Severe Injury Property Damage Only Property Damage Only Property Damage Only CoII_1 CoII_2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 57 CoII_3 CoII_4 CoII_0 EPDO_Score 1 0 0 11 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 165 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 165 0 0 0 165 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 165 1 0 0 11 1 0 0 11 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 6 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 165 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 Number_Inj 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 HIN Collisions.xls Number KiI 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Party_at_F 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 Primary_Co Auto R/W Violation Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Improper Turning Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Traffic Signals and Signs Unknown Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Improper Turning Traffic Signals and Signs Driving Under Influence Auto R/W Violation Unsafe Speed Unsafe Speed Auto R/W Violation Improper Turning Traffic Signals and Signs Driving Under Influence Unsafe Speed Unknown Auto R/W Violation Traffic Signals and Signs Auto R/W Violation Unsafe Starting or Backing Auto R/W Violation Auto R/W Violation Unsafe Starting or Backing Auto R/W Violation Auto R/W Violation Auto R/W Violation Improper Turning Auto R/W Violation Hit_and_Ru No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Accident_N 5.68E+13 1.97E+13 2.92E+12 8.32E+13 8.35E+13 3.38E+13 6.36E+13 7.66E+13 1.48E+14 1.53E+14 4.1E+13 1.03E+13 6.21E+13 3.73E+13 1.52E+14 3.13E+13 9.48E+13 1.53E+14 1.87E+13 7.66E+13 3.38E+13 7.06E+11 2.5E+12 1.9E+13 6.64E+13 9.93E+13 4.94E+13 6.73E+13 8.49E+13 5.07E+12 1.51E+14 4.29E+13 8.84E+12 2.03E+13 9.67E+13 9.57E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+13 3.92E+13 6.28E+13 1.49E+14 Collisio_3 Vehicle - Pedestrian Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Hit Object Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Hit Object Rear -End Hit Object Broadside Broadside Head -On Broadside Rear -End Rear -End Broadside Other Broadside Broadside Hit Object Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Broadside Head -On Broadside Broadside Involved_W Pedestrian Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Bicycle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Non - Collision Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Fixed Object Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle Other Motor Vehicle 58 Pedestrian Private_Pr Violation Violatio_1 Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection FALSE 21453 B No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453C No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22107 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22350 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22350 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22107 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 23152 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21801 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22350 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22350 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21801 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22107 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 23152 B No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22350 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453 C No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21453(c) No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21802 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22106 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21801 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21802 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22106 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21800(a) No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21802 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21804 A No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 22107 No Pedestrian Involved FALSE 21802(a) HIN Collisions.xls Weather Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Not Stated Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Cloudy Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Raining Clear Raining Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Clear Road_Surfa Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Wet Dry Wet Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Dry Accident_N 5.68E+13 1.97E+13 2.92E+12 8.32E+13 8.35E+13 3.38E+13 6.36E+13 7.66E+13 1.48E+14 1.53E+14 4.1E+13 1.03E+13 6.21E+13 3.73E+13 1.52E+14 3.13E+13 9.48E+13 1.53E+14 1.87E+13 7.66E+13 3.38E+13 7.06E+11 2.5E+12 1.9E+13 6.64E+13 9.93E+13 4.94E+13 6.73E+13 8.49E+13 5.07E+12 1.51E+14 4.29E+13 8.84E+12 2.03E+13 9.67E+13 9.57E+13 1.52E+14 1.51E+13 3.92E+13 6.28E+13 1.49E+14 Road_Condi No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Loose Material On Roadway No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition No Unusual Condition Lighting Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - No Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - No Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Daylight Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dusk - Dawn Dark - Street Lights Daylight 59 Right_of_W Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning No Controls Present / No Controls Present / Functioning Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor Factor HIN Collisions.xls F FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE FALSE Party_Numb 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Party_Type Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Bicyclist Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Driver Party_Age 63 45 23 19 47 18 18 87 59 81 56 79 16 28 50 47 26 24 28 36 63 30 30 37 72 47 45 18 33 55 55 16 19 18 65 92 20 17 31 28 16 Party_Sex Race_1 Male B Female 0 Male 0 Male A Female W Male A Male W Male W Male 0 Male Female W Female W Male 0 Female W Female 0 Female H Male W Male W Male H Male W Male W Male W Male W Female W Male W Female W Female W Female 0 Male H Male A Female W Male W Male A Female W Female W Female W Male W Female W Male H Male 0 Female W Accident_N 5.68E+13 1.97E+13 2.92E+12 8.32E+13 8.35E+13 3.38E+13 6.36E+13 7.66E+13 1.48E+14 1.53E+14 4.1E+13 1.03E+13 6.21E+13 3.73E+13 1.52E+14 3.13E+13 9.48E+13 Directio_1 North North South South South North South South EAST NORTH North North North North NORTH North North 1.53E+14 WEST 1.87E+13 West 7.66E+13 East 3.38E+13 East 7.06E+11 East 2.5E+12 East 1.9E+13 East 6.64E+13 West 9.93E+13 East 4.94E+13 North 6.73E+13 West 8.49E+13 East 5.07E+12 West 1.51E+14 EAST 4.29E+13 West 8.84E+12 East 2.03E+13 West 9.67E+13 East 9.57E+13 East 1.52E+14 EAST 1.51E+13 East 3.92E+13 North 6.28E+13 West 1.49E+14 WEST Movement_P Making Right Turn Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Ran Off Road Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Making Right Turn Proceeding Straight Making Right Turn Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Making Left Turn Making Left Turn Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Proceeding Straight Making Left Turn Making Left Turn Making Left Turn special_in Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Handsfree In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Handsfree In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use 60 Associated None Apparent None Apparent Other None Apparent None Apparent Inattention None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Inattention None Apparent Vision Obscurements None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent Uninvolved Vehicle Inattention Violation None Apparent None Apparent Violation HIN Collisions.xls Party_Sobr HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD Not Applicable Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HBD Under Influence HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Vehicle_Ty Vehicle_1 1 1 1 1 7 1 86 7 1 1 Vehicle_Ye 2015 2004 2008 2004 2011 2015 2016 2017 2019 2014 1 2006 1 2011 7 2014 1 2014 1 2016 7 2013 1 2007 1 2007 1 2014 22 1969 1 2015 1 2005 1 2005 7 2008 4 0 1 2016 1 2017 1 2012 7 2007 1 2005 7 2020 7 2015 1 2002 1 2015 7 1999 7 2005 1 2009 1 2017 1 2005 1 2016 1 2020 Accident_N Vehicle_Ma 5.68E+13 TESLA 1.97E+13 MITSUBISHI 2.92E+12 AUDI 8.32E+13 VOLVO 8.35E+13 FORD 3.38E+13 MAZDA 6.36E+13 CHEVROLET 7.66E+13 AUDI 1.48E+14 HONDA 1.53E+14 TOYOTA 4.1E+13 LEXUS 1.03E+13 TOYOTA 6.21E+13 HONDA 3.73E+13 FORD 1.52E+14 LEXUS 3.13E+13 LINCOLN 9.48E+13 TOYOTA 1.53E+14 MERCEDES -BENZ 1.87E+13 HONDA 7.66E+13 CHEVROLET 3.38E+13 VOLVO 7.06E+11 HONDA 2.5E+12 HONDA 1.9E+13 JEEP 6.64E+13 FUJI 9.93E+13 HYUNDAI 4.94E+13 HONDA 6.73E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 8.49E+13 DODGE 5.07E+12 HONDA 1.51E+14 FORD 4.29E+13 TOYOTA 8.84E+12 LEXUS 2.03E+13 KIA 9.67E+13 LEXUS 9.57E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ 1.52E+14 ACURA 1.51E+13 NISSAN 3.92E+13 LEXUS 6.28E+13 HONDA 1.49E+14 BMW Vehicle_Mo MODEL S OUTLANDER A4 S60 EXPLORER 3 COLORADO Q5 CLARITY CAM RY RX3OO CAM RY CR -V MUSTANG NX200T NAVIGATOR PRIUS C -CLASS ACCORD C10 XC70 CIVIC CIVIC CHEROKEE GRAND FON TUCSON CIVIC C230 NITRO ACCORD EXPLORER 4 RUNNER IS300 FORTE RX300 ML350 TL ROGUE CIVIC 330d Speed_Limi 40 40 35 35 40 40 45 40 25 40 0 40 40 40 45 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 30 35 35 30 35 35 25 25 25 25 25 25 0 45 0 25 Extent_of Minor Major Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Major Minor Minor Major Moderate Major Moderate Rollover Minor Major Major Major Minor Minor Minor Minor Major Minor Major Rollover Major Major Major Moderate Major Moderate Moderate Major Major Minor Minor Minor 61 Safety_Eq u Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap Belt Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Unknown Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap Belt Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used M/C Helmet Driver - Yes Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness HIN Collisions.xls Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Party_Nu_1 Party_Ty_1 2 Pedestrian 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 0 2 Bicyclist 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 0 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver 2 Driver Party_Ag_1 Party_Se_1 66 Female 17 Female 44 Female 61 Male 30 Female 34 Male 38 Female 54 Female 60 M 998 16 Female 18 Female 17 Female 57 Male 998 51 Female 998 66 M 56 Male 57 Male 58 Male 19 Male 19 Male 59 Female 998 70 Male 50 Female 998 17 Male 53 Male 24 F 16 Female 39 Female 19 Female 65 Male 46 Male 17 M 68 Female 49 Female 68 Female 53 F Accident_N Race_2 Directio_2 Movement_1 5.68E+13 0 West 1.97E+13 W West Proceeding Straight 2.92E+12 W West Proceeding Straight 8.32E+13 W West Proceeding Straight 8.35E+13 A South Making Left Turn 3.38E+13 W East Proceeding Straight 6.36E+13 0 East Making Left Turn 7.66E+13 W East Making Left Turn 1.48E+14 W SOUTH Proceeding Straight 1.53E+14 4.1E+13 W South Making Left Turn 1.03E+13 W West Making Left Turn 6.21E+13 W West Making Left Turn 3.73E+13 A West Proceeding Straight 1.52E+14 3.13E+13 H North Stopped In Road 9.48E+13 1.53E+14 W SOUTH Proceeding Straight 1.87E+13 W North Proceeding Straight 7.66E+13 W West Proceeding Straight 3.38E+13 W West Proceeding Straight 7.06E+11 H East Stopped In Road 2.5E+12 H East Stopped In Road 1.9E+13 W West Proceeding Straight 6.64E+13 9.93E+13 W West Making Left Turn 4.94E+13 W East Proceeding Straight 6.73E+13 8.49E+13 W West Making Left Turn 5.07E+12 W East Proceeding Straight 1.51E+14 W EAST Proceeding Straight 4.29E+13 W North Proceeding Straight 8.84E+12 A North Proceeding Straight 2.03E+13 W South Proceeding Straight 9.67E+13 0 North Proceeding Straight 9.57E+13 W South Proceeding Straight 1.52E+14 W SOUTH Proceeding Straight 1.51E+13 0 North Proceeding Straight 3.92E+13 W South Making Left Turn 6.28E+13 W South Proceeding Straight 1.49E+14 A SOUTH Proceeding Straight 62 special_1 CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use CeII Phone Not In Use Associat_1 None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Violation None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls Party_So_1 HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Not Applicable Not Applicable HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known HNBD HNBD HNBD HNBD Vehicle_2 Vehicle_3 60 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 7 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 4 7 7 1 1 1 1 0 7 7 0 1 1 7 7 1 1 7 1 6 1 1 1 1 Vehicle_4 0 2015 2017 2016 2011 2015 2017 2002 2014 0 2018 2017 2018 2019 0 2006 0 0 2015 2016 2013 2007 2007 2013 0 2016 2007 0 2012 2013 2004 2016 2007 2015 2015 1999 2018 2011 2012 2016 2012 Accident_N Vehicle_5 Vehicle_6 5.68E+13 1.97E+13 FORD FIESTA 2.92E+12 FORD FUSION 8.32E+13 TOYOTA TACOMA 8.35E+13 TOYOTA CAMRY 3.38E+13 LEXUS 15250 6.36E+13 BMW 13 7.66E+13 HONDA ODYSSEY 1.48E+14 HONDA PILOT 1.53E+14 4.1E+13 JEEP CHEROKEE 1.03E+13 HONDA CIVIC 6.21E+13 HONDA CIVIC 3.73E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ E300 1.52E+14 3.13E+13 CHEVROLET COBALT 9.48E+13 1.53E+14 FACTOR BICYCLE 1.87E+13 TOYOTA HIGHLANDER 7.66E+13 FORD EXPLORER 3.38E+13 MERCEDES -BENZ GL450 7.06E+11 NISSAN ALTIMA 2.5E+12 NISSAN ALTIMA 1.9E+13 BMW 335X1 6.64E+13 9.93E+13 GMC YUKON 4.94E+13 CHEVROLET TAHOE 6.73E+13 8.49E+13 KIA FORTE 5.07E+12 AUDI A6 1.51E+14 HONDA PILOT 4.29E+13 JEEP WRANGLER 8.84E+12 INFINITI G35 2.03E+13 TOYOTA COROLLA 9.67E+13 HONDA ACCORD 9.57E+13 HONDA ACCORD 1.52E+14 TOYOTA TACOMA 1.51E+13 KIA SPORTAGE 3.92E+13 FORD 6.28E+13 TOYOTA CAMRY 1.49E+14 TOYOTA CAMRY Speed_Li_1 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 40 0 0 25 25 25 0 35 0 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 0 35 30 0 35 30 30 25 25 25 25 25 25 0 45 30 30 63 Extent_o_1 Safety_E_1 Not Stated Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap Belt Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Minor Major Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Used Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Moderate Major Major Minor Minor Major None In Vehicle Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Used Used Used Used Used Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Minor Lap/Shoulder Harness Used Moderate Moderate Major Moderate Major Major Moderate Major Major Moderate Minor Minor Moderate Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness Lap/Shoulder Harness HIN Collisions.xls Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Used Age_At_Fau #REF! 15-20 40-49 #REF! 30-39 30-39 30-39 #REF! #REF! #REF! 15-20 15-20 15-20 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 15-20 15-20 #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! #REF! 15-20 #REF! 20-29 15-20 30-39 15-20 #REF! 40-49 15-20 #REF! 40-49 #REF! #REF! Broad 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 TrafSigns 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 Speed 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 HitObj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Accident _N ACCIDENT_Y Collision Collisio_1 Hour Collisio_2 Primary_Ro 3.96E+13 2018 26 -Jan -18 8:57 PM 20 Friday STONE VALLEY RD 1.53E+14 2021 5 -Oct -21 1:15 PM 13 Tuesday STONE VALLEY RD 1.48E+14 2020 4 -Aug -20 2:56 AM 2 Tuesday STONE VALLEY RD HIN Collisions.xls 65 Accident_N 3.96E+13 MONTE VISTA HIGH SCHOOL 1.53E+14 MONTE VISTA HIGH SCHOOL 1.48E+14 MONTE SERENO DR Secondary Distance_i Direction Intersecti 0 Not Stated Y 0 Not Stated Y 0 Not Stated Y X 6133668 0 6133668 Y Latitude Longitude 2133477 37.84491487 -121.982289 0 37.84486311 -121.9822502 2133477 37.84491487 -121.982289 HIN Collisions.xls 66 Accident _N Highest_De CoII_1 CoII_2 CoII_3 CoII_4 CoII_O EPDO_Score Number_Inj Number_KiI Party_at_F Primary_Co Hit_and_Ru 3.96E+13 Property Damage Only 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 Unsafe Speed No 1.53E+14 Complaint of Pain 0 0 0 1 0 6 1 0 1 Pedestrian Right of Way No 1.48E+14 Severe Injury 0 1 0 0 0 165 1 0 1 Unsafe Speed No HIN Collisions.xls Accident_N Collisio_3 Involved_W 3.96E+13 Hit Object Fixed Object 1.53E+14 Vehicle - Pedestrian Pedestrian 1.48E+14 Hit Object Fixed Object 67 Pedestrian No Pedestrian Involved Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection No Pedestrian Involved HIN Collisions.xls Private_Pr Violation FALSE 22350 FALSE 21950(a) FALSE 22350 Violatio_1 Weather Road_Surfa Clear Dry Clear Dry Clear Dry Accident_N Road_Condi 3.96E+13 No Unusual Condition 1.53E+14 No Unusual Condition 1.48E+14 No Unusual Condition Lighting Dark - Street Lights Daylight Dark - Street Lights 68 Right_of_W F Functioning FALSE Functioning FALSE No Controls Present / Factor FALSE HIN Collisions.xls Party_Numb Party_Type Party_Age Party_Sex Race_1 1 Driver 19 Male W 1 Driver 17 Male W 1 Driver 24 Male H Accident_N Directio_1 Movement_P 3.96E+13 West Making Left Turn 1.53E+14 EAST Making Left Turn 1.48E+14 EAST Proceeding Straight special_in Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use Cell Phone Not In Use 69 Associated None Apparent Stop and Go Traffic None Apparent HIN Collisions.xls Party_Sobr HNBD HNBD Impairment Not Known Vehicle_Ty Vehicle_1 Vehicle_Ye 1 2008 1 2020 7 2005 Accident_N Vehicle_Ma 3.96E+13 SATURN 1.53E+14 SUBARU 1.48E+14 INFINITI Vehicle_Mo VUE W RX RX35 70 Speed_Limi Extent_of Safety_Equ 45 Major Lap/Shoulder Harness Used 25 None Unknown 35 Rollover Lap/Shoulder Harness Used HIN Collisions.xls Party_Nu_1 Party_Ty_1 0 2 Pedestrian 0 Party_Ag_1 Party_Se_1 998 17 M 998 71 Accident_N Race_2 Directio_2 Movement_1 special_1 Associat_1 3.96E+13 1.53E+14 A NORTH Proceeding Straight Cell Phone Handheld In Use Violation HNBD 1.48E+14 HIN Collisions.xls Party_So_1 Vehicle_2 Vehicle_3 Vehicle_4 0 60 0 0 0 0 Accident_N 3.96E+13 1.53E+14 1.48E+14 Vehicle_5 Vehicle_6 Speed_Li_1 Extent_o_1 0 25 0 72 Safety_E_1 Age_At_Fau Broad TrafSigns Speed Bike HitObj #REF! 0 0 1 0 1 15-20 0 0 0 0 0 #REF! 0 0 1 0 1 Not Required HIN Collisions.xls APPENDIX C. COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 168 High-risk Intersections ID MI= Intersection Diablo Rds= Control (HSIP-Eligible CM -®' Consolidated CMsEA-llmprove Additional CM -Refer to MM. 2020) (non HSIP" CM2 CM3 MK -®'" EA- 2 Intersection Collisions& Safety Signs CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 -®' -®' Address Broadside EA - 4 Address Rear End EA- 6lmprove Camino EA -5 Address Hit Object EA -2 Address TraffM Signals and EA- 3 Improve Bicycle Safety Collisions and Unsafe Speed Tassa(ara(Intersection & Violations Violations Collisions Roadway Segment) GNU CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 ME CM2 CM3 CM1 On CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CMI ------------- Downtown Collisions GNU CM3 2 M= Camino Tassajara at Tassarara Ranch 0r/Blackhawk Plaza Or Signalized 502509 ntrallea ®�� 520PB Replace pylons an Tassajara Ranch 509 502 ®------—NEENNZIEIM------ 509 502 R - 502 509 0--®" -a Rced meman on minor road approac.5 MC -®" -®®' --- --------- jjjjjj= St0PCantraled MEIM®®� -• ®®�®®� II �� a --®® ---®E -mMINMI I =I= s op controll. ®®®® Directional median ®®®®®ZEM---®NEIM -®®NIZEN a®MEIMMENEMEN ------ME--MICEM---- a St op Cont roll ea MIZIE. ®MEENNZIEM ®jjjjj®®jjjjj®jjjjREM®EMEIZI®i ®NZIEM I ---- MEM R Rcon trplled ---- --®EZIEENZEN---------------- Code Countermeasure Name HSIP/Non-HSIP Cade 501 Add Intersection lighting 502 Improve 4gnal hardware:lenses, back.plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 503 Improve signal timing(coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) 505 Install emergency vehicle pre-emption 506 Install left -turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left -turn lane or phase before) SOP Provide protected left turn phase (left turnlane already exsts) 508 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestahmounted) 509 Install sed pavement markers and striping(Through Intersection) 510 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (5.1.) 511 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 512 Install raised meman on approaches (5.1.) 513PB Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches 514 Create directional median openings to allow(and restrict)left-tu ns and U-turns 515 Reduced Left,Turn Conflictns (51.) 516 Convert intersectron to roundabout (from signal) 517PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads 518PB Install pedestrian crossing(5. I.) 519PB Pedestrian Scramble 520PB Install advance bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) 521PB Mod ;0381 phasing to rmplement a Leading Pedestrian Inte a (LP1) Countermeasure Name. N501 Add intersection lighting (NSA.) N502 Convert to all -way STOP control (from 2 -way or yield control) N503 Install Signals N504 Convert Intersection to roundabout from all wav stool N505 N505mr N506 Convert ineersectron to roundabout fro ways[ p or yrem co rot) Convert intersection to Install/upgrade amini-roundabout ddie onal ndabon toptsigns or other intersect n warning/regulatory5gns N507 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS 1.) N508 Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections N509 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (35.1,) N510 Install umble strips on approaches N511 Improve sight distance tointersection(Clear Sight Triangles) N512 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) N513 Install splitter -islands on the minor road approaches N514 Install (sed median on approaches (NS .1.) N515 Create directional meman openings to allow (and restrict) left-tu ns and ti -tor s (55.1.) N516 Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections (351.) N517 Install right -turn lane (951 1.) N518 Install left -turn lane (where no left -turn lane exists) 9919PB Install raised medians (refuge islands) N520PB N521PB N522PB NS23PB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locatlons(argon and markings 0,4) Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safetyfeatures) Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (5500) 1 Install Pedestrian Signal (Including Pedestrian Hyland Beacon(HAWK)) Town of Danville High Injury Network San Hamm High -tisk Roadway Segments ID Roadway Segment EA - 2 Consolidated CMs AddMonalCM FA - ilmprove Intersection Safety Collisions (HSIP-Eligible - Refer to MM. 2020) (non-HSIP)•' Si CM1 CM2 CM3 CM4 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 Address Broadside EA - 4 Address Rear End EA - 6Improve EA- 5 Address Hit Object &Traffic Signals and EA-3Improve Bicycle Safety Collisions and Unsafe Speed Tassaj ns Violations Violations Collisions Roadway CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 CM1 Camino EA - T Address Downtown ra (Intersection & Segment) Collisions CM2 CM3 CM1 CM2 CM3 MEIZIMIZEMEMIZE Additional weedfeedback signs -- INZEIMMEEMEMINEZEMMZEME:IMM:IMMEINEBOSI--- B Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo 33 to Hartz Wy R36PB crosswalks at Linda Mesa and 322 R2] R32PB Prospect _----� R32PB R36PB 322 R2] Rot R2] ---- R36PB R2J 722 C San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wyto3SO N of ftidgeland Dr R08 Restrict left turns in downtown area; R22 R27 R33 PB improve sight distance at intersections •••••U R33Pa ■■ R22 R27 ■ R02 327 331 ■■■ R08 ■■ © IEEIMMEENEEEIN ________NZIM._._________ FCue Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave R24 R23 R23 R35PB Scurve warning signs and chevrons through _----� R32PB R35PB R22 R2] R28 R24 R23 R2J --- R22 R2J 0 Del Amigo Rd: 20o'Nof Camino Encanfo to Danville Blvd R36PB Object markers on power poles close to _----- ft22 R2J 328 road 332 38 R3686 R28 R27 022 R2] ------- © a 5tone Valle Rd:575'W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley Rd 11EIZIMMEMEEMMEM INZEMMEIMMECE -----I IIINZEMMZEME:0MMZEMMIENI_____ MIIME:BINMIME Code ROl Add Segment Lighting Countermeasure Name Rot Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone R03 Install Median Barrier RO4 Install Guardrail ROS Install Impact attenuators R0G Flatten side slopes R07 Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail ROS Install raised median ROB Install med2n (flush) R1OPB Install pedestrian median fencing R11 Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes R12 Widen lane (Initially less than 10 ft) 313 Add two-way left -turn lane (without reducing travel lanes) R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left -turn and bike la es) R15 Widen shoulder R16 Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) R17 Improve horizontal allmnment(flatten curves) R18 Flatten crest vertical curve R19 Improve curve superelevation 0.20 Convert from two-way to ane -way traffic R21 Improve pavement faction (High Friction Surface Treatments) R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new Fluorescent sheeting(regulatory or warning) R23 Stall chevron signs on horizontal curves R24 Install curve advance warning signs R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R28 Install edge -lines and centerlines R29 Install no -passing line R30 Install centerline rumble strips/strives 331 stall edgeline rumble strips/stripes 132P6 Install hike lanes R33PB Install Separated Blke Lanes R34P8 Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) 636PB Install raised pedestrian crossing R3JPB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon IRFB) R38 Install Animal Fencing A1a.'ma Town of Danville High Injury Network • Ho Inl,ry Imnraenign Hph In1wY Gorrdo• San Ramon Strategy * Performance Measure Organizations to be involved Education Conduct public information and education campaign for intersection safety laws, unsafe speeds, distracted driving, and driving under the influence. Number of education campaigns Town/Police Department Conduct pedestrian safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of pedestrian safety needs through media outlets and social media. Number of education campaigns Town/School District/Police Department Conduct bicycle safety campaigns and outreach to raise their awareness of bicycle safety needs through media outlets and social media. Number of education campaigns Town/School District/Police Department Enforcement Targeted enforcement at high-risk locations. Number of tickets issued. Police Department Increase the number of personnel who have completed Advanced Roadside impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training Number of personnel who have completed Advanced Roadside impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) training Police Department Emergency Medical Services (EMS) S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems EMS vehicle response time. Town/Fire Department Increase the number of EMS/fire control personnel taking Traffic Incident Managmenet Training Number of EMS/fire control personnel taking Traffic Incident Managmenet Traising Fire Department Town of Danville LRSP CM Toolbox for Intersections Signalized Sr. No. Code Countermeasure Name CM Description CRF Federal Funding Systemic Approach Opportunity HS P/Non-HSIP Code Systemic Approach Opportunity 1 NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) 1 501 Add intersection lighting Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium 2 502 Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and Includes New LED lighting, signal back plates, retro -reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads. 15% 90% Very High 3 503 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) Includes adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher -risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations. 15% 50% Very High 4 305 Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles 70% 90% High 5 506 Install left -tum lane and add turn phase (signal has 90 Inft-turn lane or phase before) Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left -turn phase that are experiencing a large umber of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left -turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left -turning vehicles (angle, rear -end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left -turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major -road approaches. 55% 90% Low 6 507 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) Left turns are widely recognized as the highest -risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left -turn phases for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left - tum maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles 30% 9056 High 7 508 Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal -mounted) Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers. 3096 90% Medium 8 509 Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. When drivers approach and traverse through complex intersections, drivers may be required to perform unusual or unexpected maneuvers 10% 90% Very High 9 510 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (5.1.) Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. 30% 90% Medium 10. 311 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes 55% 90% Medium 11 312 Install raised median on approaches (5.I.) Raised medians next to left tum lanes at intersections offer a cost effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections 25% 90% Medium 12 513P0 Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian -generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians 1 -walking across the travel lanes at mid -block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walk -phase. 30% 90% Low 13 314 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and U-turns (S..) Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear -end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (Involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection 50% 90% Medium 14 515 Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections (5.1.) Reduced left -turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left -turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U- tums to complete certain left -turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT). 50% 90% Medium I5 516 Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left -turn movements. Varies 90% Low 16 S17PB Install pedestrian Countdown signal heads Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes. 25% 90% Very High 17 51898 Install pedestrian crossing (5.1.) Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections. with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left -turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double - right or double -left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase. 25% 90% High 18 519PB Pedestrian Scramble Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase ata signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district. 40% 90% High 19 52098 Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur. 1596 90% Very High 20 52198 Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Addition of LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication; only minor signal timing alteration is required. 60% 90% Very High Unsianalized Sr. No. Code Countermeasure Name CM Description CAP Federal Funding Systemic Approach Opportunity 1 NS01 Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Provision of lighting at intersection. 40% 90% Medium 2 N502 Convert to all -way STOP control (from 2 -way or yield control) Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all -way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate,and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all -way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior. 50% 90% High 3 N503 Install Signals Installation of traffic signals 25% 90% Low 4 5504 Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left -turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate -volume unsignalized intersections. Varies 90%. Low 5 94505 Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2 -way stop or Yield control) Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left -turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate -volume unsignalized intersections. Varies 90% Low 6 SOSmr Convert intersection to mini -roundabout Mini -roundabouts are characterized by a small diameter (45-90 ft) and traversable islands (central island and. splitter islands). 30% 90% Medium 7 94506 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warping/regulatoryigns Additional regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections will help enhance the ability of approaching drivers to percleve them 15% 90% Very High 8 5507 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (945.1.) Typical improvements include 'stop Ahead" markings and the addition of centerlines and stop bars 2596 90% Very High 9 NSOS Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non -Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post -mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop -controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs. 15% 90% High 10 5509 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (945.1.) Installation of advance flashing beacoms to call drivers attention to intersection control signs 3096 90% High 11 94510 Install transverse rumble strips on approaches Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. 2096 90% High 12 NS11 Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway. 2096 90% High 13 5512 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Non -signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance. 5596 90% Medium 14 5513 Install splitter -islands on the minor road approaches The installation of a splitter island allows for the addition of a stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous. 4096 90% Medium 15 94514 Install raised median on approaches (945.1.) Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable. 25% 90% Medium 16 5515 Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and u -turns (55.1.) Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear -end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection. 50% 90% Medium 17 NS16 Reduced Left -Tum Conflict Intersections (945.1.( Reduced left -turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left -turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. 50% 90% Medium 18 94517 Install right -turn lane (55.1.) Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right -turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right -turn lanes, particularly 00high-volume and high-speed major -road approaches. When considering new right -turn lanes, potential impacts to non -motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. 20% 90% Low 19 5518 Install left -turn lane (where no left -turn lane exists) Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left -turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left -turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major -road approaches. When considering new left -turn lanes, potential impacts to non -motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. 35% 90% Low 20 NS19PB Install raised medians (refuge islands) Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, ora crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic ata time. 45% 90% Medium 21 NS2OPB Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) Non -signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk. 25% 90% High 22 NS21PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) Non -signalized intersections where pedestrians are known to be crossing Intersections that Involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with turn pockets.flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. 3596 90% Medium 23 NS22PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian -activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFB5 are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings. 35% 90% Medium 24 NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non -motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) (also called High -Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. 55% 90% Low CM Toolbox for Roadway Segments Sr. No. Code Countermeasure Name CM Description CRF Federal Funding Systemic Approach Opportunity 1 001 Add Segment Lighting Provision of lighting along roadways. 35% 100% Medium 2 R02 Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone Known locations or roadway segments prone to collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right- of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate. 35% 9096 High 3 R03 Install Median Barrier Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross -overs are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO and non- severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. 25% 100% Medium 4 R04 Install Guardrail Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where itis clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run -off -the -road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes. 25% 100% High 5 R05 Install impact attenuators Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators should only be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed. 25% 100% High 6 R06 Flatten side slopes Roadways experiencing frequent lane departure crashes that result in roll-over type crashes as a result of the roadway slope being so severe as to not accommodate a reasonable degree of driver correction. When there isa need to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes without installing a barrier system that could result in increased numbers of crashes. 30% 100% Medium 7 R07 Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail Locations where high number of crashes originate as a lane departure and result in collision with guardrail or a fixed object located on the side slope shielded by guardrail. The guardrail may or may not meet current standards. Even though guardrails are generally installed to reduce the severity of departure crashes, they still can result in severe crashes in some locations. 40% 90% Medium B ROS Install raised median Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing a raised median is a more restrictive approach in that itrepresents a more rigid barrier between opposing traffic. 25% 90% Medium 9 Rog Install median (flush) Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Roadways with oversized lanes offer an opportunity to restripe the roadway to reduce the lanes to standard widths and use the extra width for the median. 15% 90% Medium 10 R1OPB Install pedestrian median fencing Roadway segments with high pedestrian -generators and pedestrian -destinations nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians 1 -walking across the travel lanes at mid -block locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid -block crossing. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution. 35% 9096 Low 11 R11 Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed Is reached and areas that do not provide the opportunity t0 safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement. 25% 90% Low 12 R12 Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) Horizontal curves or tangents and low speed or high speed roadways identified as having lane departure crashes, sideswipe or head-on crashes that can be attributed to an existing pavement width less than 10 feet. 25% 9096 Medium 13 1113 Add two-way left -turn lane (without reducing travel lanes) Roadways having a high frequency of drivers being rear-ended while attempting to make a left turn across oncoming traffic. Also can be effective for drivers crossing the centerline of an undivided multilane roadway inadvertently. 3096 90% Medium 14 R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from Oto 3 and add a two way left -turn and bike lanes) Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left -turn, and rear -end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four -lane design. 30% 90% Medium 15 R15 Widen shoulder Roadways that have a frequent incidence of vehicles leaving the travel lane resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. The probability of a safe recovery is increased if an errant vehicle is provided with an increased paved area in which to initiate such a recovery. 30% 90% Medium 36 616 Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only/ Roadway curves noted as having frequent lane departure crashes due to inadequate or no shoulders, resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. 45% 90% Medium 17 R17 Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) Roadways with horizontal curves that have experienced lane departure crashes as a result of a roadway segment having compound curves ora severe radius. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns. 5096 90% Low 18 R18 Flatten crest vertical curve The target for this strategy is usually unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance due to vertical geometry and with patterns of crashes related to that lack of sight distance that cannot be ameliorated by less expensive methods. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving. clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns. 25% 90% Low 19 1219 Improve curve superelevation Roadways noted as having frequent lane departure crashes and inadequate or no superelevation. Safety can be enhanced when the superelevation is improved or restored along curves where the actual superelevation is less than the optimal. 45% 90% Medium 20 R20 Convert from two-way to one-way traffic One-way streets can offer improved signal timing and accommodate odd -spaced signals. One-way streets can simplify crossings for pedestrians, who must look for traffic in only one direction. While studies have shown that s i n of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes and the number of conflict points, conversion nts,one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. 35% 90% Medium 21 R21 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes 55% 10096 High 22 R22 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or Warning) Additional or new signage can address crashes caused by lack of driver awareness or complaince of roadway signing. 15% 10096 Very High 23 R23 Install chevron signs en horizontal curves Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. 24 R24 Install curve advance warning signs Addition of advance curve warning signs; may also include horizontal alignment and/or advisory speed warning signs 25% 100% Very High 25 R25 Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves. Flashing beacons in conjunction with warning signs should only be used on horizontal curves that have en established severe crash history to help maintain their effectiveness. 26 R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Includes the addition of dynamic speed warning signs (also known as Radar Speed Feedback Signs) 30% 100% High 27 R27 Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers Installation of delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. 15% 100% Very High 28 R28 Install edge -lines and centerlines Any road with a history of run -off-road right, head-on, opposite -direction -sideswipe, or run -off -road -left crashes is a candidate for this treatment -install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate. 25% 10096 Very High 29 R29 Install no -passing line Roadways that have a high percentage of head-on crashes suggesting that many head-on crashes may relate to failed passing maneuvers. No -passing lines should be installed where drivers "passing sight distance' is not available due to horizontal or vertical obstructions. 4556 100% Very High 30 0.30 Install centerline rumble strips/stripes Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be used an virtually any roadway—especially those with a history of head- on rashes. 20% 100% High 31 R31 Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes Shoulder and edge line milled rumble strips/stripes should be used on roads with a history of roadway departure crashes. 15% 10016 High 32 R32PB Install bike lanes Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder. 35% 9016 High 33 R33PB Install Separated Bike Lanes Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high hike -vehicle collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation measures including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. 45% 90% High 34 R34PB Install sidewalk/pathway (m avoid walking along roadway) Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate. B0% 90% Medium 35 R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) Roadway segments with no controlled crossing fora significant distance in high -use midhlock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing Islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. 35% 9096 Medium 36 R36PB Install raised pedestrian crossing On lower -speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant vehicular traffic. 35% 90% Medium 37 R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian -activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings 35% 100% Medium 38 R38 Install Animal Fencing At locations with high percent of vehicular/animal crashes (reactive) or where there is a known high percent of animals crossing due to migratory patterns (proactive). 8096 9096 Medium APPENDIX D. LRSM EXCERPT Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 176 Local Roadway Safety A Manual for California's Local Road Owners Version 1.6 April 2022 Created by Caltrans in conjunction with FHWA and SafeTREC for the express benefit of California Local Agencies. U. S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Safe Transportation Research & Education Center SafeTREC Document History Version 1.0: 4/20/2012 The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance developed the first version of the Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.0) in 2012 to support the Cycle 5 HSIP call -for -projects. Version 1.1: 4/26/2013 Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 5, Caltrans updated Appendix B: "Table of Countermeasures and Crash Reduction Factors" to better clarify text in "Where to use", "Why it works", and "General Qualities" for several of the countermeasures included in the original manual. No other changes were made to the Local Roadway Safety Manual as part of Version 1.1 Version 1.2: 03/10/2015 Based on feedback and lessons learned from Cycle 6, Caltrans made minor updates to the text of the document as needed for achieving consistency with overall Caltrans local HSIP guidance documents. The following sections were updated: 1.2, 4.2, 5.1, 6.2, and Appendix B, E, F & G. Version 1.3: 04/29/2016 Caltrans made updates to the text of the document as needed in the following sections: 4.2, 5.1 and Appendix B. Version 1.4: 06/08/2018 3/30/18 - Caltrans made updates to the crash costs in Appendix D, some of the website links in Appendix G, and some other texts of the document. 6/8/18 - Countermeasure 522 ("Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)") is added. Version 1.5: April 2020 Caltrans added a few more countermeasures (e.g. Pedestrian Scramble, Install Separated Bike Lanes, Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections, and Curve Shoulder widening), renumbered the countermeasures and updated the crash costs in Appendix D. Version 1.6: April 2022 For Cycle 11 Call -for -projects, Countermeasure SO4 (Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high-speed approaches) was deleted and Countermeasure NSO5mr (Convert intersection to mini -roundabout) added. The HSIP Funding Eligibility was changed to 90% except for S03, of which the HSIP Funding Eligibility stays at 50%. The crash costs in Appendix D were updated. Future Updates: In the future, Caltrans anticipates that additional changes will be needed to keep the Local Roadway Safety Manual consistent with future Calls -for -Projects' Guidelines and Application Instructions. In addition, new local HSIP programs, improvements to California data on local roadways, data analysis tools, and the latest safety research and methodologies may give rise to the need to make more significant changes to this manual. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1i Table of Contents Foreword 1 1. Introduction and Purpose 2 1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities 3 1.2 Safe System Approach 3 1.3 The State's Role in Local Roadway Safety 4 1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem 5 1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification 6 1.6 Implementation Approaches 7 1.7 Our "Safety Challenge" for Local Agencies 10 1.8 Summary of information in this Document 11 2 Identifying Safety Issues 15 2.1 State and Local Crash Databases 16 2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 18 2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports 19 2.4 Observational Information 19 2.5 Public Notifications 20 2.6 Roadway Data and Devices 20 2.7 Exposure Data 21 2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits 22 3. Safety Data Analysis 23 3.1 Quantitative Analysis 23 3.2 Qualitative Analysis 25 4. Countermeasure Selection 28 4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors 29 4.2 List of Countermeasures 30 5 Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects 36 5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements 36 5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements 38 5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio 38 5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements 39 6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements 40 6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures 40 6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources 40 6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations 41 7. Evaluation of Improvements 42 Appendix A: HSIP Call -for -Projects Process 43 Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures 44 B.1 Intersection Countermeasures - Signalized 47 S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I.) 47 502, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number 47 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) 48 S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems 49 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 ii 506, Install left -turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left -turn lane or phase before) 49 S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) 50 S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal -mounted) 50 S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) 51 S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) 51 S11, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 52 S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) 52 S13PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches 53 S14, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and U-turns (S.I.) 53 S15, Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections (Si.) 54 S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) 55 S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads 55 S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing (S.I ) 56 S19PB, Pedestrian Scramble 56 S20PB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) 57 S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) 57 B.2 Intersection Countermeasures - Non -signalized 58 NS01, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) 58 NS02, Convert to all -way STOP control (from 2 -way or Yield control) 58 NS03, Install signals 59 NSO4, Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) 59 NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2 -way stop or Yield control) 60 NS05mr, Convert intersection to mini -roundabout 60 NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs 61 NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections 62 NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) 62 NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches 63 NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) 63 NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 64 NS13, Install splitter -islands on the minor road approaches 64 NS14, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) 65 NS15, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and u -turns (NS.I.) 65 NS16, Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) 66 NS17, Install right -turn lane (NS.I.) 67 NS18, Install left -turn lane (where no left -turn lane exists) 67 NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands) 68 NS20PB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) 68 NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) 69 NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 69 NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) 70 B.3 Roadway Countermeasures 71 RO1, Add Segment Lighting 71 R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone 71 R03, Install Median Barrier 72 R04, Install Guardrail 72 R05, Install impact attenuators 73 R06, Flatten side slopes 73 R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail 74 R08, Install raised median 74 R09, Install median (flush) 75 R10PB, Install pedestrian median fencing 75 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 iii R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes 76 R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) 76 R13, Add two-way left -turn lane 77 R14, Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left -turn and bike lanes) 77 R15, Widen shoulder 78 R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) 78 R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) 79 R18, Flatten crest vertical curve 80 R19, Improve curve superelevation 80 R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic 81 R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 81 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) 82 R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 83 R24, Install curve advance warning signs 83 R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) 84 R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs 84 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers 85 R28, Install edge -lines and centerlines 86 R29, Install no -passing line 87 R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes 87 R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes 88 R32PB, Install bike lanes 88 R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes 89 R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) 89 R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) 90 R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossing 91 R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) 91 R38, Install Animal Fencing 92 Appendix C: Summary of "Recommended Actions" 93 Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations 97 Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS 98 Appendix F: List of Abbreviations 99 Appendix G: References 100 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 iv Foreword Why was this manual developed? The California Department of Transportation - Division of Local Assistance's goal in developing this manual is to maximize the safety benefits for local roadways by encouraging all local agencies to proactively identify and analyze their safety issues and to position themselves to compete effectively in Caltrans' statewide, data -driven call -for -projects. This goal is complicated by California's wide variety of local agencies, roadway types, and project types, including: rural vs. urban, low-volume vs. high-volume, and intersection vs. roadway segment vs. network -wide. This variety makes it difficult to administer a single program and provide one set of guidelines that meets the needs of all California's local roadway owners and users. Many of California's local agencies are also challenged by the lack of a basic safety analysis framework and analysis tools specifically designed for local roadway managers with widely varying responsibilities and safety training. Currently, there is a vast range of safety documents, program guidance, and analysis tools with a wide variety of complexity and applications. Without clear and simple safety guidance for locals, many agencies take a 'reactive' approach to safety, even when research has shown 'proactive' safety analysis of roadways is more effective in making system -wide safety improvements. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of Safety provides national leadership in identifying, developing, and delivering safety programs and products to local governments to improve highway safety on local and rural roads.' In 2010, FHWA published a set of three manuals designed specifically for rural road owners; Roadway Departure Safety, Intersection Safety, and Road Safety Information Analysis.2 These manuals present a simple, data driven safety analysis framework for rural agencies across the nation. These manuals, in conjunction with Caltrans' ongoing short-term research and development contract with the Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, provided a unique opportunity for Caltrans to pursue development of this document as a mirror of FHWA's new Manuals for Local Rural Road Owners. Much of the wording, formatting and references from these FHWA manuals have been directly incorporated into this manual for California's local road owners. Individual references to the FHWA manuals have not been included; instead these documents are intended to be referenced on a wholesale basis. With FHWA's and SafeTREC's support and expertise, Caltrans was able to expedite the completion of this manual and can now offer California's local agencies a new tool intended to provide focused roadway safety information in one manual. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 11 1. Introduction and Purpose The information in this document is geared towards local road managers and other practitioners with responsibility for operating and maintaining local roads, regardless of safety -specific highway training. The primary goal of this document is to provide an easy-to-use and comprehensive framework of the steps and analysis tools needed to identify locations with roadway safety issues and the appropriate countermeasures. For novice practitioners, the concepts and framework will be new, while experienced safety practitioners may find this manual to be mostly review. In both cases, the manual will provide the practitioners with a good understanding of how to complete a proactive safety analysis and ensure they have the best opportunity to secure HSIP safety funding during Caltrans calls -for -projects. It's expected that novice and experienced practitioners will utilize this manual to help position their local agency to better compete in future Caltrans' calls -for -projects for safety programs. Inexperienced local roadway practitioners are also a target audience for this manual to gain exposure to the basic concepts that make up a proactive safety analysis of a local agency's roadway network. The intent of this manual is to focus on key safety activities that every local agency should conduct on an annual basis (or as established by the agency) with the objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes within their jurisdiction. This manual defines this overall process as a "proactive safety analysis" approach to roadway safety. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM), documents a very similar process and refers to it as the "Roadway Safety Management Process." While the process in this document is similar and suggests the same primary elements, the HSM goes into significantly more detail, focuses more on scientific and mathematical equations behind the process, and intends to provide a comprehensive understanding of the overall processes to be applied by individual agencies across the nation. In contrast, this manual attempts to streamline the discussion; and make accommodations for the more novice safety practitioners, provide an adequate understanding of the process to complete an initial safety analysis of their roadway network, and instruct them on how to prepare applications that will compete well in Caltrans' statewide calls -for -projects. In general, this manual is intended to follow the research and methodologies presented in the HSM; however, to support Caltrans' statewide calls -for - projects process, it is important to note this manual deviates from the HSM in areas related to countermeasure selection and benefit / cost calculations. The logic behind these deviations is explained at the specific topic sections. This manual is not intended to cover many of the day-to-day basics of traffic engineering including: maintain standard signage per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices; maintain sight distance (cut vegetation, remove parking); maintain a recovery zone; work with local traffic law enforcement; monitor collisions; address complaints; and manage litigation. These activities are understood to be critical elements of a local agency's traffic engineering responsibilities, but are not within the intended scope of this document. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 12 1.1 California Local Roadway Safety Challenges and Opportunities California's local roads are managed by more than 600 local agencies, including: cities, counties, and tribal governments. These local roads vary from flat multi -lane urban arterials to rural gravel roads in mountainous areas. California local agencies invest extensive resources on roadway safety every year, yet many roadways operate with outdated or insufficient safety features. A portion of these roadways even lack basic signing, pavement markings, alignment, and traffic control devices. Limited funding often prevents agencies from constructing safety projects, which can be expected. At the same time, the lack of safety data, design challenges, and lack of adequate training also hinder local agencies' accurate evaluation of their roadway network safety issues, which is more preventable. Many small California local agencies are challenged by a lack of crash data. Without data, they have no way to identify High Crash Concentration Locations (HCCLs) or high risk roadway features, which can leave them "flying blind" with respect to the safety of their overall roadway network. Without data and analysis results, local officials may overreact when a tragic crash occurs, resulting in resources being spent in areas that will not maximize the overall application of safety funds. In conjunction with the collision mapping and analysis tools developed by UC Berkeley's SafeTREC, this document helps ensure all California local agencies have direct access to data on fatal and injury crashes within their jurisdictions and the analysis tools to effectively assess and prioritize future safety projects. 1.2 Safe System Approach The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), aka Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), was signed into law on November 15, 2021. Under IIJA, the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), codified as Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code (23 U.S.0 §148), is a core federal -aid program to States for the purpose of achieving a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads. The IIJA emphasizes the "safe system approach": Safe system approach means a roadway design that emphasizes minimizing the risk of injury or fatality to road users; and that (1) takes into consideration the possibility and likelihood of human error; (ii) accommodates human injury tolerance by taking into consideration likely accident types, resulting impact forces, and the ability of the human body to withstand impact forces; and (iii) takes into consideration vulnerable road users. (23 U.S.C. 148(a)(9)). FHWA recognizes that the funding available through HSIP alone will not achieve the goal of zero fatalities on the Nation's roads. The Safe System approach addresses the safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes. It involves a paradigm shift to improve safety culture, increase collaboration across all safety stakeholders, and refocus transportation system design and operation on anticipating human mistakes and lessening impact forces 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 13 to reduce crash severity and save lives. FHWA encourages States to prioritize safety in all Federal -aid investments and in all appropriate projects, using not only HSIP funding but also other Federal -aid funding. The IIJA emphasizes the importance of vulnerable road user ( non -motorized road user) safety in the HSIP by adding a definition for vulnerable road users, creating a vulnerable road user special rule, and requiring States to develop and update a vulnerable road user safety assessment. All of these provisions address the increasing number of fatalities involving vulnerable road users on U.S. roads. It is imperative that States consider the needs of all road users as part of the HSIP. Investment in highway safety improvement projects that promote and improve safety for all road users, particularly vulnerable road users, aligns with the IIJA and will help Build a Better America. States and other funding recipients should prioritize projects that maximize the existing right-of-way for accommodation of non -motorized modes and transit options that increase safety, equity, accessibility, and connectivity. Projects that separate users in time and space, match vehicle speeds to the built environment, and increase visibility (e.g., lighting) advance implementation of a Safe System approach and improve safety for vulnerable road users. 1.3 The State's Role in Local Roadway Safety The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)—Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California's HSIP safety funding intended for local roadway safety improvements. This funding primarily comes to the state through two federal programs: Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)—a federal -aid program focused on reducing fatalities and serious injuries on all public roads; and the Active Transportation Program (ATP)—a federal aid and state funded program focused on improving safety and the overall use of non -motorized, active transportation modes of travel. Under SAFETEA-LU, High Risk Rural Roads Program (HR3) was established to focus on addressing rural road safety needs but in MAP -21 and FAST, it is now a 'special rule' under HSIP that if triggered, directs that a certain amount of HSIP funds will need to be allocated for those rural roads that meet the definition. Caltrans' administration of these programs encompasses many responsibilities, including: establishing program guidance; reviewing applications for improvements on local roadways; ranking applications/projects on a statewide basis; selecting projects for funding based on the greatest potential for reducing fatalities and injuries; programming the selected projects in the Federal Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP); and assisting with programming and delivery issues throughout the delivery of the local agency projects. One goal for developing this document is to improve Caltrans' overall data -driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and to maximize the long-term safety improvements across California. To show the relationship between Caltrans' project selection process and this manual, a diagram showing the HSIP Call -for -Projects Process is provided in Appendix A. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 14 Many State Departments are also actively engaged in California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Caltrans developed the SHSP in a cooperative process with local, State, federal, and private sector safety stakeholders. The SHSP is a data -driven, comprehensive plan that established statewide goals, objectives, integrated the five E's of traffic safety— engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies. This manual directly supports many of the emphasis areas of the California SHSP. Local agencies are encouraged to participate in ongoing SHSP update efforts and can find more information on the SHSP at the following website: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety- programs/shsp. Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) The state -funded Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) was established in 2016. The intent of the SSARP was to assist local agencies in performing a collision analysis, identifying safety issues on their roadway networks, and developing a list of systemic low-cost countermeasures that can be used to prepare future HSIP and other safety program applications. Late 2019, the program was evolved to Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) so that the focus is not just engineering solutions but also include safety improvements in other areas such as enforcement, Education and emergency response. The state funding for the LRSP/SSARP program is made available by exchanging the local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) federal funds for State Highway Account (SHA) funds. For more information, please visit the LRSP/SSARP webpage at https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local- assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans. 1.4 The Local Roadway Crash Problem Approximately 3,000 people die in California traffic crashes every year, representing nearly 10% of all traffic fatalities in the United States. Fifty-seven percent of these fatalities occur on local roadways, while only forty-three percent occur on the California State Highway System. A comparison of rural and urban roadways shows that local rural roadways have fatality rates 2 to 3 times higher than urban roadways per vehicle miles traveled. Based on these statistics, the total annual cost of local roadway fatal crashes to California is over $6 billion, while only $100 million is available annually in HSIP safety funds. These statistics demonstrate the large and complex safety issues facing California. Through the development of this document, Caltrans is striving to help local agencies proactively identify high risk roadway features, roadway network locations/corridors with the highest safety needs, and encourage them to select effective low-cost improvements, whenever appropriate. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 15 1.5 Reactive vs. Proactive Safety Issue Identification Safety issues are identified on local roadways through a wide range of approaches. Although no single approach works best for all local agencies, some are far more effective at improving long-term roadway safety. Many agencies, often larger ones, have staff whose full-time job is dedicated to roadway safety; allowing them to focus on safety initiatives, be trained in the latest safety research, and have access to safety analysis data, tools and procedures. These agencies often utilize a 'proactive' approach to analyze their roadway network and identify safety issues. At the same time many agencies, often the smaller ones, lack the financial ability to dedicate large portions of their staff resources to analyze safety issues and their staff has limited access to roadway safety training, safety expertise, and the latest safety analysis tools and procedures. Unfortunately, this can often result in identifying their safety issues in 'reaction' to tragic events. The following is a basic outline of the differences in proactive vs. reactive identification approaches used by local agencies: Reactive Approach For this document, an agency is considered to be utilizing a reactive approach to roadway safety if they primarily identify safety improvements in reaction to: • Recent crashes triggering safety investigations • Specific crash concentrations triggering safety investigations Stakeholder identification of locations with safety issues and requests for improvements New funding becoming available Crash concentrations and crash trends may be missed if local agencies rely exclusively on these identifiers for their roadway safety effort. They may also miss many opportunities to effectively utilize low-cost, systemic type improvements. This document encourages local agencies to adopt a more proactive approach to their roadway safety. Proactive Approach An agency is considered to be using a proactive approach to roadway safety if they go beyond the elements of a reactive approach and identify safety improvements by analyzing the safety of their entire roadway network, in one of the following ways: One-time, network -wide safety analysis of their roadways driven by new source of funding. Routine safety analyses of the roadway network (Preferred Approach!) Agencies with a proactive approach utilize both systemic and spot location improvements (as defined in section 1.5 below). Applying improvements systemically across an entire corridor or network allows an agency to proactively address locations that have not had crash concentrations in the past, but have 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 16 similar features as those currently experiencing high levels of crashes. In addition, even though a spot location improvement may be based on 'past' crashes, agencies making improvements based on countermeasures with proven crash reduction factors at their highest crash locations often have the best chance of proactively reducing future crashes. This document encourages safety practitioners to pursue a proactive approach and routinely analyze the safety of their roadway networks to yield the best overall safety results. 1.6 Implementation Approaches When an agency proactively identifies their safety issues throughout their roadway network, it is likely they will find high crash concentrations at intersections, roadway segments, and corridors. The safety practitioner should consider which implementation approach to utilize. Typical approaches include: Systemic Approach Spot Location Approach Comprehensive Approach incorporating human behavior issues Each of these approaches has benefits and drawbacks. As Local agency practitioners identify their safety issues and analyze the data for crash patterns, they should be open to implementing a combination of these approaches, as documented in Sections 2 and 3 of this manual. Systemic Approach The Systemic Approach is primarily based on application of proven safety countermeasures at multiple crash locations, corridors, or geographic areas. Implementation of the Systemic Approach is generally based on 'system -wide' crash data with the estimates of the impacts being made in terms of benefits measured in traffic crash reduction and deployment cost. Identified locations experiencing high levels of crashes and locations with similar geometric features can be treated systemically with low-cost, proven safety countermeasures. Note: The term "Systemic" used throughout in this manual is often exchanged with the term "Systematic" in many national safety documents and research studies. In general, safety practitioners will find these terms interchangeable. This manual uses "Systemic" to match the new HSM and the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse. Benefits of the Systemic Approach may include: Widespread effect. The Systemic Approach addresses safety issues at a large number of locations or on an entire local roadway network. It can also generate projects that combine HCCLs and locations with the potential for crashes and still have high Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratios. An example of this type of project could be upgrading pavement delineation and warning signs along a rural corridor: crashes may not have occurred on every curve or segment along the corridor, but all of the corridor's pavement delineation and warning signs can be upgraded at one time. For urban applications, an example could be protecting the left -turn phase of signalized intersections with 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 17 existing left -turn pockets: severe crashes may not have occurred at each of the left -turn movements, but with minor changes to the signal hardware and signing, all or many of a city's unprotected left -turn phases can be protected with one safety project. Crash type prevention. By focusing on a predominant crash type, an agency can address locations that have not experienced significant numbers of these types of crashes, but have similar characteristics or conditions as existing HCCLs. The resulting B/C ratios for these types of projects will be less than if only HCCLs are included; but by using low-cost countermeasures and including as many high crash locations as possible, the resulting B/C ratios should still be high enough to allow agencies to proactively address locations that have not experienced high numbers of these types of crashes. For urban areas, projects improving pedestrian crossings can be good examples of the Systemic Approach. By applying the countermeasures systemically, the agency can often justify these projects based on relatively high B/C ratios, even though some of the improvement locations have not experienced enough crashes to yield moderate -to -high B/C ratios on their own. Cost-effectiveness. Implementing low-cost solutions across an entire system or corridor can be a more cost-effective approach to addressing system -wide safety issues. Even though this approach does not address all (or total) safety issues for a given location, the deployment of low-cost countermeasures often result in the highest overall safety benefit for an agency with limited safety funding. An example of this would be an agency choosing to install rumble stripes along an entire corridor for equal or less money than realigning a small portion the roadway to fix a single curve. Reduced data needs. The Systemic Approach can be used without a detailed crash history for specific locations, thereby reducing data needs. For example, consider a long rural corridor, which includes a section that passes through an Indian Reservation: Even if there is no documented crash data for the portion of the corridor that passes through the reservation, the entire limits can be treated with the same low-cost improvements. As long as there are sufficient past crashes documented for the entire corridor, the project will still have a reasonably high B/C ratio. Drawbacks of the Systemic Approach may include: Justifying improvements can be difficult. Because this approach does not always address locations with a history of crashes and active stakeholders, it can be difficult to justify the improvements. The Systemic Approach will rarely include a recommendation for a large-scale safety improvement at a single location. Since large-scale projects usually garner attention from decision makers, the media, elected officials, and the general public, safety practitioners often need to make additional efforts to explain the Systemic Approach and its benefits to those groups. Safety practitioners can utilize the high B/C ratios of these systemic projects to convey their benefits compared to high-profile, single location projects with lower B/C ratios. Spot Location Approach The Spot Location Approach is typically based on an analysis of crash history to identify locations that have significantly higher crashes and treat them accordingly. It is important to practitioners to 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 18 understand that for many locations, safety issues can be complicated and sometimes the most appropriate fixes are not quick, easy or cheap. Benefits of the Spot Location Approach may include: Focus on demonstrated needs. The Spot Location Approach focuses directly on locations with a history of crashes and specifically addresses those crashes. Intersection improvements are some of the most common spot location projects. Intersections tend to have higher concentrations of crashes resulting from opposing traffic movements. These high crash concentrations often require stand-alone improvements to adequately resolve the safety issues. Justifying improvements can be easy. Because this approach addresses locations with a history of crashes, it is usually easy to justify improvements. For urban areas, reconfiguring/ reconstructing an entire intersection can be a good example of an effective Spot Location Approach. Large urban intersections can have extremely high crash concentrations, making major changes to the intersection the only way to significantly reduce future crashes. With these types of scenarios, even the highest cost countermeasures can be cost effective. If low-cost countermeasures are used, this approach can prove very cost effective. The Spot Location Approach does not always have to include moderate or high cost improvements. It is often appropriate for local agencies to make low-cost improvements at one location at a time. Ongoing maintenance and development projects offer great opportunities for these low-cost improvements to be constructed with no additional expense to local agencies. Drawbacks of the Spot Location Approach may include: Assumption that the past equals the future. This approach assumes locations with a history of crashes will continue to experience the same number and type of crashes in the future. When agencies do not account for the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean), moderate to high cost projects can be erroneously justified. Practitioners can mitigate this by using 5 years of crash data when analyzing their roadways. In addition, significant changes to land use or roadway characteristics in or around proposed projects can either increase or decrease the expected number of future crashes. Minimal overall benefit to the roadway network. Some local agencies use this approach with medium and high cost improvements at locations which do not represent their worst high crash concentration locations. The result can be projects with low B/C ratios and overall safety benefits that are not as high as if they utilized a Systemic Approach. This drawback can be minimized by safety practitioners who analyze their entire roadway network, propose spot location fixes only at their highest crash locations, and utilize lower cost countermeasures wherever appropriate. The Spot Location Approach to traffic safety is ideally implemented along with the Systemic Approach to provide the best combination of safety treatments. For instance, the Spot Location Approach can be applied at locations where low-cost countermeasures are not expected to be effective in significantly 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 19 reducing future crashes or at those locations that have had low-cost countermeasures previously installed systemically but, after an assessment, continue to show a higher -than -average crash rate. Comprehensive Approach The Comprehensive Approach introduces the concept of the "5 E's of Safety": Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies. This approach recognizes that not all locations can be addressed solely by infrastructure improvements. Incorporating the "5 E's of Safety" is often required to achieve marked improvement in roadway safety. For instance, some roadway segments will be identified for which targeted enforcement is an appropriate countermeasure. Some of the most common violations are speeding, failure -to -yield, red light running, aggressive driving, failure to wear safety belts, distracted driving, and driving while impaired. When locations are identified as having these types of violations, coordination with the appropriate law enforcement agencies is needed to deploy visible targeted enforcement to reduce the potential for future driving violations and related crashes. To improve safety, education and outreach efforts can also be used to supplement enforcement efforts. Enforcement and/or education can also be effectively utilized as short-term ways to address high crash locations, until the recommended infrastructure project can be implemented. 1.7 Our "Safety Challenge" for Local Agencies Caltrans, FHWA and Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) "challenge" local agencies to initially commit one or more days to understanding and applying the concepts and tools outlined in this manual. Experienced safety practitioners working in agencies currently using a proactive approach can quickly review the topics in the manual and consider/test some of the new tools (e.g., TIMS) identified within it. In contrast, novice safety practitioners may need several days to better understand the underlying concepts in this manual to be able to complete the basic elements of a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network. In these situations, the room for knowledge growth, internal process improvements, and expected safety benefits will be even greater, which should more than offset the additional time invested. By utilizing this simple framework for identifying, analyzing and implementing a proactive approach for improving safety on their roadways, practitioners will have a better understanding of their agencies' unique safety issues, the proven low-cost countermeasures that can reduce crashes, and the existing and future funding to implement the projects. This small investment of time will help local agencies achieve significant reductions in future fatalities, injuries and overall crashes. We believe these local agencies may also gain the added unexpected benefit of improved job satisfaction of those involved, as there are few more rewarding tasks than knowing that your efforts will result in future roadway users arriving safely at their destination instead of becoming statistics. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 110 1.8 Summary of information in this Document This document provides information on effectively identifying California's local roadway safety issues and the countermeasures that address them, ultimately leading to the effective implementation of safety projects that improve safety on local roadways. The document is not intended to be a comprehensive guide for roadway design and improvement or the only guide local agencies utilize for their safety analysis of their roadways. Caltrans also expects this document will directly support its efforts in selecting local agency safety projects. The expectation is that as local agencies throughout the state utilize the proactive safety analysis approach outlined in this document, their applications for HSIP, and ATP projects will include lower cost improvements at locations with the highest safety needs. This will improve Caltrans' data - driven approach to statewide project selection of safety projects and maximize the safety benefits across California. The proactive safety analysis framework incorporated in this document is summarized in Figure 1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 111 l/ Figure 1 Local Roadway Safety: Proactive Safety Analysis Approach Collect system -wide crash data - SWITRS Data (using TIMS or Private Vendor) - Spreadsheet / Pin -Map of additional crash information 7/ Identifying Safety Issues (Section 2) Analyze crash data and identify crash concentrations - TIMS / Private Vendor GIS Mapping & Summaries - Highway Safety Manual (HSM) methodology - Locally preferred tools Combine crash data analysis with traffic volume data n and roadway data analysis, including RSAs - TIMS (Google Street View) - Locally preferred methods/data Select Locations based on Analysis Results Corridors, Roadways Segments, and/or Intersections Select Countermeasure Lower cost Countermeasures = higher B/C ratios Safety Data Analysis (Section 3) Countermeasure Selection (Section 4) Estimate the Total Project Cost Cost to design and construct improvements Calculate the Project's B/C Ratio -HSIP Analyzer -Locally preferred methods -HSM methodology Evaluate Project's Cost Effectiveness consider changing limits and/or countermeasures Calculating the B/C and Comparing Projects (Section 5) Evaluating the effectiveness of past projects The goal is to continually improve future safety decisions Evaluation of Improvements (Section 7) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 12 Identify Funding and Construct Improvements (Section 6) Fund and Construct Improvements - Assess existing funding sources for low-cost projects - Seek new funding sources for larger projects Evaluating the effectiveness of past projects The goal is to continually improve future safety decisions Evaluation of Improvements (Section 7) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 12 The above flowchart illustrates how each of the individual sections of this document work together to make up a proactive safety analysis approach. These sections are briefly outlined below: Section 2 of this manual provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used. Section 3 summarizes the types of analyses that can be conducted to determine what roadway countermeasures should be implemented. This section is the link between the data (Section 2) and the selection of appropriate countermeasures (Section 4). It provides definitions and examples of the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be considered when evaluating roadway safety issues. Section 4 provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown to improve safety on local roads. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). The interrelationship between CMFs and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are defined and used interchangeably throughout this document. Section 5 defines a methodology for calculating a B/C ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects' overall cost effectiveness at this point in the safety analysis, including: refining the project's costs and/or changing the mix of countermeasures and locations. Section 6 identifies existing and new funding opportunities for safety projects that local agencies should be considering. This section also briefly discusses some unique project development issues and strategies for safety projects as they proceed through design and construction. Section 7 presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well as those that should be limited or discontinued. Appendix A presents a flowchart of the HSIP call -for -projects process. This flowchart demonstrates how this document interacts with these Caltrans calls -for -projects. Appendix B contains Detailed Tables of countermeasures discussed in Section 4. This table includes detailed information about each countermeasure, including: where to use, why it works, general qualities (time, cost and effectiveness), crash type(s) addressed, crash reduction factor, and specific values for use in Caltrans HSIP calls -for -projects. Appendix C includes a summary of "recommended actions" involved in a proactive safety analysis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 113 Appendix D contains the formulas used to calculate the B/C ratio of safety projects. Appendix E presents TIMS tutorials that are available to assist local agencies in completing Caltrans call - for -projects application requirements and attachments. The tutorials include examples for Spot Location projects and systemic projects. Appendix F presents a list of the abbreviations used in this document. Appendix G presents a list of references. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 114 2. Identifying Safety Issues This document encourages local agency safety practitioners to proactively analyze their roadway networks with the intention of yielding the best overall safety benefits. When utilizing a proactive safety analysis approach, practitioners need to consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs. There are a number of information sources that can be accessed to get a clearer picture of the roadway safety issues on the roadway network. These can be formal or informal sources, including: Formal sources: State and local crash databases SafeTREC's TIMS website (or locally preferred mapping software) Law enforcement crash reports and citations Field assessments Informal sources: Observational information from road maintenance crews, law enforcement, and first responders Citizen notification of safety concerns Examining crash history will help practitioners identify locations with an existing roadway safety problem, and also identify locations that are susceptible to future roadway crashes. In addition to location identification, this data can provide information regarding crash causation that ultimately provides insight into identifying potentially effective countermeasures. Emphasis on data -driven decisions is indicative of reliability and efficiency. The more reliable the data, the more likely the decisions regarding safety improvements will be effective. However, detailed, reliable crash data are not available in all areas. Under this circumstance, the practitioner should use the best available information and engineering judgment to make the best decisions. In an effort to mitigate these situations, UC Berkeley SafeTREC has developed the TIMS website, which includes GIS mapping tools to access fatal and injury crashes statewide. This site is now available to all California local agencies. See Section 2.2 for more details on TIMS. It is generally accepted that at least 3 years, or preferably 5 years, of crash data be used for an analysis; additional years of crash data can provide better information. For low volume roadways and/or when only severe crashes are analyzed, more years of crash data may be necessary for an effective evaluation. Due to the randomness of crashes in a given year, a multi-year average of safety data will smooth outlier years of relatively high or low roadway crash rates. This concept is commonly referred to as "regression to the mean" and is critical in helping safety practitioners avoid making wrong inferences as they analyze their roadway network data. An example of this is an agency making a high-cost improvement at 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 115 a location in response to one or two tragic crashes. The Highway Safety Manual (HSM) includes more details on regression to the mean and methods to reduce the random nature of crashes. There are some circumstances where additional years of crash data may not always be advantageous. First, it's important for practitioners to recognize that as more years of crash data are used, they need to consider changes in traffic patterns, physical infrastructure, land use, and demographics that may affect their projection of future crashes. Second, if practitioners only focus on many years of past crash data, they could miss emerging safety issues and crash trends. For these reasons, if practitioners sense one or more factors affecting crashes have changed or may be changing, they should consider looking at the crash data for the specific area on a yearly or 3 -year moving average to expose any changes and crash trends that are occurring. 2.1 State and Local Crash Databases California has a central repository for storing crash data called SWITRS, which stands for Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System. SWITRS is a comprehensive data source for doing roadway safety analysis that includes almost all public roads in the database except tribal roads which are currently not included. SWITRS information is available to California's local agencies, although many agencies have had difficulty identifying, extracting and utilizing their crash records from SWITRS. All California local agencies, especially those that currently have difficulty accessing and mapping crash data, are encouraged to utilize the SafeTREC TIMS website to access and map SWITRS data. This document focuses on the SafeTREC TIMS website as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. At the same time, this document also acknowledges that TIMS currently does not offer some of the features currently available in some of the commercially available crash analysis software packages. For this reason, local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor supplied crash analysis software. See section 2.2 for more details on TIMS. Many agencies utilize one of several crash analysis software packages (e.g., Crossroads) to manage and access their crash records. Their use can be costly, but allows local road practitioners to identify locations with multiple roadway crashes, conduct an analysis that can produce predominant crash types, and identify associated roadway features that may have contributed. One drawback to agencies managing and updating their own individual databases is that the statewide database may become outdated and may not include the updated crash details like geo-coded locations. Agencies that manage and update their own individual databases are encouraged to share all updates, including any geo- coding information, with the SWITRS data managers at the California Highway Patrol. This will allow updated geo-coding and other crash features to be available on a statewide basis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 116 Recommended Action: Obtain at least 5 years of network -wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This data will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics. As practitioners gather formal and informal information relating to the safety of their roadway network, they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin -maps to help track and manage this data. (These spreadsheets/pin-maps should capture much of the data gathered in each of Sections 2.1 through 2.8). A spreadsheet and/or pin -map can serve as a database to help an agency identify locations and crash characteristics representing their greatest safety issues and guide them in identifying appropriate countermeasures. The following spreadsheet is offered as an example, but each agency's spreadsheet should be reformatted to include data to meet their needs. Agencies should consider printing their spreadsheets on 'legal' or '11 x 17' paper for easy review of their data. An example of a pin -map, which could be modified to capture much of the data gathered in Section 2, is shown in the following section as part of the TIMS output. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 117 General Information Crash Information Evaluation / Action Location & Date Source/Type of information Safety Issue/Problem Nature of Crashes Time of Day Weather/Traffic Conditions Staff Evaluation Recommend Action Resolution 1) Intersection "X" 1) Feb 7, 2010 Input from law enforcement Clearance Intervals need adjustment V1 -WB V2 -SB Side -swipe 21:30 Dry, Night, Free-flowing R. Jones 2/26/10 Increase all- red interval Completed 2/26/10 1) Mar 9, 2010 Citizen Complaint Ped Crossing unsafe due to RT turns N/A N/A N/A R. Jones 3/12/10 No RT on Red (Need study) 2) Intersection "Y" 2) 3) Roadway Segment (PM 5.3 to PM 7.8) PM 6.4 to 6.8 Sep 29, 2011 Maintenance data Extensive skid marks. Speed of Travel? General WB: ROR N/A Dry Free-flowing J. Smith 10/1/11 High Friction Overlay Preparing HSIP App. PM 7.1 Jan 5, 2011 Input from law enforcement Stop Sign missing N/A N/A N/A J. Smith 1/5/11 Informed Maintenance New sign 1/5/11 An example of a pin -map, which could be modified to capture much of the data gathered in Section 2, is shown in the following section as part of the TIMS output. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 117 2.2 Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) The Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley, has developed a powerful website with tools for California's local agencies to gather data for their safety analyses. Their Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) website provides safety practitioners with California crash data (SWITRS, i.e. Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System) and collision mapping and analysis tools. California local agencies are encouraged to utilize TIMS at: https://tims.berkeley.edu/ Site Features: • Applications to query map and download geo-referenced SWITRS data. • Summary tables based on data included in SWITRS individual crash reports. These summary tables can be generated based on specified data fields or spatial limits. • Virtual field review by connecting the crash location to Google maps and Google Street View, allowing the examination of the existing roadway infrastructure and dimensions. • A'Help Tab' that provides step-by-step instructions. Please note that SafeTREC is not able to incorporate all SWITRS crashes into TIMS due to poor crash location descriptions in the crash reports. Currently, TIMS includes the majority of California fatal and injury crashes but does not include Property Damage Only collisions. Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency's data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or purchased software applications) can help the safety practitioner complete or assist with each of the actions in Sections 2.1 through 2.8. This website includes several tutorials specifically designed to support the individual sections of this document. Local practitioners may find the TIMS output files as a great starting point to build their tracking spreadsheet discussed in the recommendation of Section 2.1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 118 2.3 Law Enforcement Crash Reports Both State and local law enforcement officials can be an important source of roadway crash data. The actual law enforcement crash reports can be valuable in identifying the location and contributing circumstances to roadway crashes (e.g., did the highway hardware and features operate as intended: end treatment worked, no barrier in the passenger compartment, pavement not slippery when wet, signs visible, signal timing, etc.). The following variables can and should be extracted and compiled from the crash reports: Location • Lighting conditions Date and time • Sequence of events and most harmful • Crash type events • Crash severity • Contributing circumstances Weather conditions • Driver Variables: age of driver, DUIs, use of seat belt, etc. Similar to the crash database, the information in the crash reports can be used to assist in the identification of potential infrastructure and non -infrastructure safety treatments and the deployment approach. Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data. 2.4 Observational Information Law enforcement officers, local agency maintenance crews, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can serve as valuable resources to identify problem areas. Since they travel extensively on local roads, they can continuously monitor roads for actual or potential problems (e.g., poor delineation, fixed objects near the roadway, missing signs, signs of vehicles leaving the road). Law enforcement observations of driver behavior and roadway elements can provide valuable information to the local road agency. Additionally, law enforcement officers are sometimes aware of problem areas based on citations written, even if crashes related to the violations have not yet occurred. Road maintenance crews may keep logs of their work, including sign and guardrail replacements, debris removal, and edge drop-off repairs. These logs can provide supplemental information about crashes and HCCLs that may not have been reported to law enforcement. Finally, Emergency Medical Service Crash Reports can provide an entirely different perspectives and set of observations relating to crash occurrences. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 119 Information obtained from road maintenance crews, law enforcement officers, and Emergency Medical Services personnel can help support all three methods of implementation approaches: Spot Location treatments, systemic deployments, and the Comprehensive Approach. Often, traffic violations such as speeding and impaired driving lend themselves to education and enforcement solutions to address these behaviors and supplement the intended infrastructure countermeasures. Recommended Action: Add information received from law enforcement, road maintenance crew, and Emergency Medical Service observations to the agency's tracking spreadsheet and/or pin -maps. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them. 2.5 Public Notifications Occasionally, when unsafe situations are observed, local citizens may notify the local government by email, letter, telephone, or at a public meeting. Information identifying safety issues on local roads may also come from community or regional newspapers, newsletters, correspondence, and from local homeowner and neighborhood associations. These sources can serve as indicators that a safety issue may exist and may warrant further review and analysis to determine the extent of the issues. Citizen reports can be tracked along with official crash data; however, safety practitioners should not regard these reports as factual, unless proven by other methods. Local safety databases should only contain objective and verifiable data. Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited. Add information received from public notifications to tracking spreadsheets and/or pin -maps once confirmed. 2.6 Roadway Data and Devices It is also valuable to obtain information about the existing roadway infrastructure. Currently, many local agencies have few of their roadway characteristics in a database. For these agencies, the establishment of a roadway database could be a long-term goal. The following roadway characteristics are often used to assist practitioners in safety analyses of roadway segments: Roadway surface (dirt, aggregate, asphalt, concrete) Roadway geometry (horizontal, vertical, flat) • Lane information (number, width) • Shoulder information (width, type) • Median (type, width) Traffic control devices present (signs, pavement marking, signals, rumble stripes etc.) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 120 • Roadside safety hardware (e.g., guardrail, crash cushions, drainage structures) The TIMS site, described in Section 2.2, can provide safety practitioners with much of this roadway data virtually by using Google Maps and Google Street View. By utilizing TIMS (and/or private for-profit vendors), safety practitioners can save hours and even days of driving during the initial steps in the safety analysis of their network. Once agencies start to define individual safety projects for funding and future construction, actual field reviews are needed to ensure a complete understanding of the project location and context. As local practitioners gather information about their existing roadway infrastructure, they need to determine whether it complies with the minimum standards for signs, breakaway supports, signals, pavement markings, protective barriers, etc. Practitioners should use the most current California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD), which provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel.' In addition to ensuring compliance with the MUTCD, geometric standards for sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super -elevation should also be evaluated. Roadway information can be combined with crash data to help local practitioners identify appropriate locations and treatments to improve safety. For example, if a local rural segment is experiencing a high number of horizontal curve -related crashes, analysis of the inventory of roadway elements could reveal that the roadway does not have sufficient signage installed in advance of many of those curves to give motorists warning of the pending change in roadway geometry. Recommended Action: Identify and track roadway characteristics for the intersections, roadway segments, and corridors, including compliance with the minimum standards. At a minimum, this should be done for locations being considered for safety improvements, but ideally agencies would establish an extensive database of roadway data to help them proactively identify high risk roadway features. 2.7 Exposure Data The number of crashes can sometimes provide misleading information about the most appropriate locations for treatment. Introducing exposure data helps to create a more effective comparison of locations. Exposure data provides a common metric to the crash data so roadway segments and intersections can be compared more appropriately, helping local agencies prioritize their potential safety improvements. The most common type of exposure data used on roadway segments is traffic volume. Ideally, volume would be broken down by pedestrians, bicycles, cars, motorcycles, and large trucks. A count of the number of vehicles and non -motorized users can provide information for comparison. For example, if 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 21 two roadway segments have the same number of crashes but different traffic volumes, the segment with fewer vehicles (i.e., less exposure) will have a higher crash rate, meaning that vehicles were more likely to experience a crash along that roadway segment. In situations where traffic volume is not available, segment length or population can serve as an effective exposure element for comparison. Recommended Action: Consider the availability of exposure data and track it along with the other crash data to help prioritize potential locations for safety improvements. 2.8 Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits Local road practitioners should always consider conducting field assessments in conjunction with their collection of crash data to help identify problem locations. An assessment can be as informal as driving, walking or virtually viewing the road network looking for evidence of roadway crashes. Ideally, informal field assessments are to be performed by multidisciplinary teams that include a traffic safety expert, law enforcement personnel, and others. The team can visit several sites and document evidence of crashes or deficiencies on the roadway or roadside, including: damaged trees or fences, skid marks, ruts on the shoulder, car parts on the shoulder, and/or pavement drop-offs. This information, along with observations of actual driver -behavior, can be used to develop recommendations for improvement. Field reviews can also be more formalized such as in conducting a Road Safety Audit (RSA). A RSA is a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future road by an independent, multidisciplinary team. The team examines and reports on existing or potential road safety issues and identifies opportunities for safety improvements for all road users. Agencies considering RSAs for the first time are encouraged to consider requesting support from FHWA. For more information on FHWA's free RSA support, go to their website at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/. Informal field assessments and more formal RSAs provide an opportunity for local safety practitioners to gather and summarize all of the information sources discussed in Section 2. They can also be used to identify potential project delivery obstacles. The field assessments/RSAs should identify major environmental, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational issues that need to be considered when applying countermeasures. Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identify the most appropriate countermeasures. It's recommended that local agencies develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken. The information gathered during the assessments should be added to the agency's tracking spreadsheet, as discussed in section 2. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 122 3. Safety Data Analysis Proactive safety analysis will assist in making informed decisions on the type, deployment levels, and locations for safety countermeasures. This builds on the previous discussions on information sources that identify safety issues. 'Safety Data Analysis' is one of the most critical steps in an agency's overall proactive safety analysis approach. Ideally, agencies regularly analyze the safety data for their entire roadway networks to identify and prioritize the locations with the most severe safety issues. This step is often skipped by agencies reacting to a recent tragic crash and the corresponding public outcry, which may leave their most critical safety locations undetected. As agencies analyze their safety data, they will need to select the implementation approach that most effectively address the safety issues identified; Systemic Approach, Spot Location Approach, Comprehensive Approach, or a combination of these approaches. For example, if a high number of crashes are occurring at a particular curve or along a short segment of roadway, a spot treatment may be appropriate. However, systemic treatment of multiple locations experiencing similar crash types may be necessary and most beneficial for reducing overall fatalities and injuries. These implementation approaches were described in Section 1.5. With all of the approaches, safety practitioners should be looking for patterns in the crash data and not just the total number of crashes. These patterns include: types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, time of day, etc. Identifying and analyzing the patterns in the crash data will help ensure the most appropriate countermeasure is selected and the safety problems are effectively addressed. 3.1 Quantitative Analysis Crash data analysis is used to determine the extent of the roadway safety issues, the priority for application of scarce resources, and the selection of appropriate countermeasures. The two main quantitative analysis methods for roadway crashes are crash frequency and crash rate. Crash Frequency Crash frequency is defined as the number of crashes occurring within a determined study area. A practitioner can determine crash volumes using methods discussed in Section 2, including: State crash database (SWITRS), TIMS, local agency crash databases, law enforcement crash reports, pin -maps, etc. The practitioner should analyze the data to identify locations and crash characteristics with the highest frequency. There are numerous methods to assist practitioners in this process. Each agency will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples of the methods used to determine Crash Frequency: • Summarize the crashes by attributes such as type, severity and location to identify patterns in the crash data and the most significant problem locations. o Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments. It is common to weight more severe crashes higher in this process. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 123 • Spatially display the sites on a pin -map or a GIS software package. o For small or rural agencies with lower volume roadways, network -wide pin -maps may be all that is needed to identify the highest priority locations. • Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles, types of crashes, and pedestrians involved in the crashes. As stated earlier, this manual acknowledges many local agency safety practitioners may have their preferred methods for completing these analyses. For those agencies that do not and for those willing to try something new, Caltrans recommends using the TIMS website along with the processes outlined in this document to complete these analyses. Once the crash frequency information is collected and displayed, the practitioner can complete a methodical analysis by geographic area, route, or a cluster analysis to determine which locations have experienced a high or moderate level of crashes. The resulting crash information can be further analyzed for recurring patterns or events. As agencies consider their locations with high levels of crashes, they should understand the overall random nature of crashes and the concept of "regression to the mean", as discussed in Section 2. Otherwise, if the natural variations in crash occurrence are not accounted for, a site might be selected for study when the number of crashes is randomly high, or overlooked when the number of crashes is randomly low. Crash Rate Crash rate analysis can be a useful tool to determine how a specific roadway or segment compares with similar roadway types on the network. A simple count of the number of crashes can be inadequate when comparing multiple roadways of varying lengths and/or traffic volume. Local agencies are also encouraged to compare their crashes with those occurring in similar areas around the state; doing so will help in determining just how severe the number and types of crashes are in the local area. When working with limited budgets, Crash Rates are often used to prioritize locations for safety improvements that will achieve the greatest safety benefits with limited resources. Where traffic volume data is unavailable, other information can be used to provide exposure information. One often -used factor is the length of the roadway segment on each route studied. Comparing the number of roadway crashes per mile or per intersection can help an agency identify potential opportunities to improve safety. The FHWA Roadway Departure Safety and Intersection Safety manuals include the following formulas for calculating crash rates on roadway segments and intersections: 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 124 The crash rate for crashes on a roadway is calculated as: R = (C x 100,000,000) / (V x 365 x N x L) Where: R = Crash rate for the road segment expressed as crashes per 100 million vehicle -miles of travel, C = Total number of crashes in the study period V = Traffic volumes using Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes N = Number of years of data L = Length of the roadway segment in miles The crash rate for crashes at an intersection is calculated as: R = (1,000,000 x C) / (365 x N x V) Where: R = Crash rate for the intersection expressed as crashes per million entering vehicles (MEV) C= Total number of intersection -related crashes in the study period N = Number of years of data V = Traffic volumes entering the intersection daily Similar to Crash Frequency, there are numerous methods for local safety practitioners to utilize Crash Rate in their safety data analysis and each will have their own preferred methods for initially selecting their top priority locations. The following are a few examples: • Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments with the highest crashes in relationship to roadway length, traffic volumes, and/or population density. • Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate. • Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate. Even though crash frequency and crash rate are helpful for local agency safety practitioners to effectively rank their most critical locations for improvements, the lack of reliable statewide traffic volumes for all roadway types precludes Caltrans from using the crash rate methodology in their statewide project scoring and ranking processes for the HSIP (discussed in more detail in Section 5). Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of the roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies. Safety practitioners should look for patterns in the crash data, including: types of crashes, severity of crashes, mode of travel, pavement conditions, roadway characteristics, time of day, intersection control, etc. 3.2 Qualitative Analysis Qualitative analysis considers the physical characteristics of the roadway network, through the examination of maps, photographs, and field assessments. Certain roadway infrastructure characteristics relate to design standard and compliance issues and should continually be identified and upgraded on a network -wide basis (e.g., signing and pavement delineation characteristics relating to CA- MUTCD compliance as discussed in more detail below). Other roadway characteristics are more important as they relate to locations with high crash frequencies and rates (e.g., well defined pedestrian 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 25 paths crossing the roadway or a high number of utility poles/fixed objects adjacent to the edge of travel way). All of these characteristics should to be accounted for in an agency's proactive safety analysis. Ensuring Compliance with CA-MUTCD and Design Standards It is important for local agencies to continually evaluate their roadways for compliance with the minimum safety standards. The CA-MUTCD provides the minimum standard requirements for traffic control devices on all public streets, highways, bikeways, and private roads open to public travel. In addition to ensuring compliance with the CA-MUTCD, geometric standards should be evaluated as they relate to sight distance, curve radius, and intersection skew angle and roadway standards for lane width, shoulder width, clear recovery zone, and super -elevation. Many local agencies have their own specific roadway design standards, while others rely on Caltrans' Highway Design Manual', FHWA's "Green Book" policy manual8 and PEDSAFE guide9, and AASHTO's Roadside Design Guide10. If the traffic control devices or roadway geometry are not in compliance, appropriate devices/countermeasures should be installed. Non-compliance is an important consideration that can affect road safety and may have liability implications for a jurisdiction. Using CA-MUTCD compliant devices results in uniformity among California roadways and serves to meet road user expectations. Field Assessments While the qualitative analysis of compliance issues should continually occur on a network -wide basis, a qualitative analysis should also occur for each of the locations and corridors identified as a result of a 'Quantitative Analysis'. The consideration of roadway infrastructure characteristics in conjunction with crash frequency or crash rate gives a more complete picture of overall safety and should be used in an agency's identification and prioritization process for locations needing safety improvements. The qualitative assessment of HCCLs can be completed through the examination of maps and photographs, but the importance of in -field assessments by multi -disciplinary teams should not be underestimated. In some cases, field reviews of all potential project locations may not be practical, so safety practitioners are encouraged to utilize internet-mapping tools to view maps and photographs and virtually visit these sites from their offices. Actual field visits or RSAs can be done at the highest priority locations before or during the countermeasure selection process. In many cases, field assessments are often the only way for practitioners to identify potential countermeasure implementation and project delivery obstacles. Without in -field assessments, right-of-way, infrastructure, and operational constraints can be overlooked, including: sensitive environmental resources (widening may not be feasible next to wetlands), roadway users (rumble strips may not be feasible on roadways with high bicycle volumes and narrow shoulders), or nearby roadway stakeholders (flashing beacons may be problematic for adjacent residents.) Assessments can provide critical information for local practitioners as they prioritize their crash locations and select countermeasures with the greatest potential for cost effective deployment. Recommended Action: Incorporate qualitative analysis elements into agency's proactive analysis approach. Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify locations with roadway 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 26 infrastructure characteristics that relate to both compliance issues and high crash frequencies/rates. As part of field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures. Rather than reviewing all crash sites individually, agencies may find the use of Internet mapping tools offers significant time savings. For agencies without a preferred virtual field review method, the SafeTREC TIMS website automatically links the SWITRS crash locations to Google Maps and Google Street View. Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin -maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) PPag 1 27 4. Countermeasure Selection Once locations and crash problems are identified as illustrated in Sections 2 and 3, the safety practitioners will need to select the set of proposed safety improvements to reduce the likelihood of future crashes. Individual elements of standard safety improvements are referred to as countermeasures and most countermeasures have corresponding Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). When applied correctly, CMFs can help agencies identify the expected safety impacts of installing various countermeasures to reduce crashes. CMFs are multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the lower the CMF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes the countermeasure is expected to reduce. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as (1 — CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes). NOTE: Given that CRF values can be more intuitive when analyzing roadways for potential "reductions" in crashes; this document shows CRF values in the countermeasure tables. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout the text of this section and in other sections of this document. In an effort to stretch the limited highway safety funding, local transportation agencies are encouraged to identify and implement the optimal combination of countermeasures to achieve the greatest benefits. Combined with crash cost data and project cost information, CRFs can help safety practitioners compare the B/C ratio of multiple countermeasures and then choose the most appropriate application for their proposed safety improvement projects. As agencies consider the overall scope/cost of their projects, they also need to consider the number of locations to which each countermeasure may be applied in order to maximize the B/C ratio and the overall effectiveness of their limited safety funding. For HCCLs with varying causes, the Spot Location Approach may be the most appropriate. In contrast, the Systemic Approach should be considered where a high proportion of similar crash types tend to occur at locations that share common geometric or operational elements. In these situations, installing the same low-cost safety countermeasure at multiple locations can increase the cost effectiveness of the safety improvement, allowing an increased number of treatments to be applied. It is important to note that there are many safety issues and corresponding countermeasures that are more "maintenance" in nature (e.g., visibility issues relating to the need for brush clearing and roadway departure issues relating to the need to replace shoulder backing). As these issues are identified when investigating crash locations, it's expected that the local safety practitioners would take the necessary steps to remedy the situation in the short-term. For this reason, most of the common maintenance -type safety countermeasures are not included in this document. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 28 4.1 Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors Selecting an appropriate countermeasure and corresponding CMF is similar to choosing the right tool for a job. In some cases, a countermeasure and CMF may not be perfect, but will still work well enough to get the job done by providing a reasonable estimation of the countermeasure's effect. In other cases, using an improper countermeasure or CMF may do more harm than good. Applying a CMF that does not fit a specific situation may give a false sense of the countermeasure's safety effectiveness and may result in an increased safety problem. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is leading a concerted effort to develop information on CMFs and makes it available to State and local agencies to assist with highway safety planning. The CMF Clearinghouse, a free online database introduced in 2009 and accessible at http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/, details the varying quality and reliability of CMFs available to transportation professionals. FHWA has identified three main considerations to assure appropriate selection of CMFs for a given countermeasure: the availability of relevant CMFs, the applicability of available CMFs, and the quality of applicable CMFs. The following sections detail these considerations and describe how Caltrans recommended CRF and service life values meet these criteria. Availability: The availability of a CMF that applies to a specific situation depends on whether research has been conducted to determine the safety effects of a particular countermeasure or combination of countermeasures, and whether researchers have documented it. The CMF Clearinghouse contains more than 2,900 CMFs and receives quarterly updates to include the latest research. At this point, Caltrans has established a small subset of 82 countermeasures and a single CRF for each of these countermeasures that must be used when submitting applications for Caltrans statewide calls -for - projects. This methodology allows for a statewide data -driven process that facilitates a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. (The reason for limiting the number of countermeasures is further explained below under "applicability"). Applicability: In general, once a local safety practitioner determines that one or more CMFs exist for a specific countermeasure, the next step is to determine which CMF is the most applicable. Applicability depends on how closely the CMF represents the situation to which it will be applied. Safety practitioners should evaluate the potentially applicable CMFs, eliminating any that are not appropriate for the situation. Practitioners should only choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project based on factors including but not limited to: urban areas vs. rural areas; low vs. high traffic volumes; 2 -lane vs. 6 - lane roadways; individual vs. combination treatments; signalized vs. non -signalized intersections; and minor crashes vs. fatal crashes. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect will likely be over or underestimated. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 29 The mix of countermeasures and CRFs included in this document is intended to meet Caltrans' goal for a data -driven award process for local agencies to follow that allows for a fair and accurate comparison of project applications. Where possible and appropriate, the CRF value intended for use in statewide calls - for -projects is based on research studies that specifically established the CRF to be used for 'all' project areas, roadway types, and traffic volumes. Where not all applicability factors have already been established by prior research, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to approximate CRFs for countermeasures often utilized by local agencies. Quality: Often a search of the CMF Clearing House results in multiple CMFs for the same countermeasure. A practitioner needs to examine the quality of each CMF. The quality of a CMF can vary greatly depending on several factors associated with the process of developing the CMF. The primary factors that determine the quality of a CMF are the study design, sample size, standard error, potential bias, and data source. The CMF Clearinghouse provides a star rating for each based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 indicates the highest quality. The most reliable CMFs in the HSM are indicated with a bold font. Wherever possible, the CRFs included in this document are based on research that has a CMF Clearinghouse star rating of 3 or more. For countermeasures that do not have corresponding research of a star rating of 3 or more but were deemed important to provide flexibility to local practitioners, Caltrans worked closely with FHWA to establish CRFs based on the best available research. 4.2 List of Countermeasures The list of countermeasures discussed in this section is not an all-inclusive list, and only includes those available in the Caltrans' HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects. Only thoroughly researched countermeasures with a readiness to be applied by local agencies on a statewide basis are utilized. In addition, the California Local HSIP program places further restrictions on the eligibility of some countermeasures to meet the most critical needs on California local roadways. Practitioners are encouraged to utilize the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse for a more comprehensive list as they establish their local agency specific set of proposed improvements and prioritize their projects. The countermeasures listed in the following three tables have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non -Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories, as the consideration of non -motorized travel is important for all roadway classifications and locations. The countermeasures included in these tables are also used in the HSIP Analyzer. When selecting countermeasures and CMFs to apply to their specific safety needs, local agency safety practitioners should consider the availability, applicability, and quality of CMFs, as discussed in section 4.1. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 1 30 Only Crash Types, CRFs, Expected Lives, and HSIP Funding Eligibility of the countermeasures for use in Caltrans local HSIP program are provided in this section. Fields in the countermeasure tables are: • Crash Types - "All", "P & B" (Pedestrian and Bicycle), "Night", "Emergency Vehicle", or "Animal". • CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls -for -projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years. • Funding Eligibility — the maximum HSIP reimbursement ratio for HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects. o Eighty-one (81) countermeasures: 90% o One (1) countermeasure: 50% (CM No. S03: Improve signal timing, as this CM will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety.) • Systemic Approach Opportunity - Opportunity to Implement Using a Systemic Approach: "Very High", "High", "Medium" or "Low". The list of countermeasures presented in this section is intended to be a quick -reference summary. Appendix B of this manual provides more details on each of these countermeasures including Where to use, Why it works, General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness), and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse (Crash Types Addressed and range of Crash Reduction Factor). Recommended Action: At this point, agencies should use all information and results obtained by completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic 'engineering judgment' is required and that this manual should not be used as a simple cheat -sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) PPag 131 Table 2. Countermeasures for Non -Signalized Intersections No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF Expecte d Life (Years) HSIP Funding Eligibility Systemic Approach Opportunity? NS01 Lighting Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium NS02 Control Convert to all -way STOP control (from 2 -way or Yield control) All 50% 10 90% High NS03 Control Install signals All 30% 20 90% Low NSO4 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05 Control Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) All Varies 20 90% Low NS05mr* Control Convert intersection to mini -roundabout All 30% 20 90% Medium NS06 Operation/ Warning Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs All 15% 10 90%Ver y High NS07 Operation/ Warning Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 10 90% Very High NS08 Operation/ Warning Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections All 15% 10 90% High NS09 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 10 90% High NS10 Operation/ Warning Install transverse rumble strips on approaches All 20% 10 90% High NS11 Operation/ Warning Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) All 20% 10 90% High NS12 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium NS13 Geometric Mod. Install splitter -islands on the minor road approaches All 40% 20 90% Medium NS14 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium N515 NS15 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and u- turns (NS.I.) 50% 20 90% Medium NS16 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium NS17 Geometric Mod. Install right -turn lane (NS.I.) All 20% 20 90% Low NS18 Geometric Mod. Install left -turn lane (where no left -turn lane exists) All 35% 20 90% Low NS19PB Ped and Bike Install raised medians / refuge islands (NS.I.) P & B 45% 20 90% Medium NS2OPB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (new signs and markings only) P & B 25% 10 90% High NS21PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium NS22PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium NS23PB Ped and Bike Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) P & B 55% 20 90% Low *CM NS05mr is a new countermeasure added for HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 133 Table 1. Countermeasures for Signalized Intersections No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF Expected Life (Years) HSIP Funding Eligibility Systemic Approach Opportunity? SO1 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 20 90% Medium SO2 Signal Mod. Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number All 15% 10 90% Very High S03 Signal Mod. Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) All 15% 10 50% Very High SO4* Signal Mod. Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high All 110°,, 4-0 90°,, High speed approaches S05 Signal Mod. Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems Emergency Vehicle 70% 10 90% High 506 Signal Mod. Install left -turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left -turn lane or phase before) All 55% 20 90% Low S07 Signal Mod. Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) All 30% 20 90% High S08 Signal Mod. Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal -mounted) All 30% 20 90% Medium S09 Operation/ Warning Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection) All 10% 10 90% Very High S10 Operation/ Warning Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 10 90% Medium 511 Operation/ Warning Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% Medium S12 Geometric Mod. Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) All 25% 20 90% Medium S13PB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low S14 Geometric Mod. Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and u -turns (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium S15 Geometric Mod. Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections (S.I.) All 50% 20 90% Medium S16 Geometric Mod. Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) All Varies 20 90% Low S17PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian countdown signal heads P & B 25% 20 90% Very High S18PB Ped and Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) P & B 25% 20 90% High S19PB Ped and Bike Pedestrian Scramble P & B 40% 20 90% High S2OPB Ped and Bike Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) P & B 15% 10 90% Very High S21PB Ped and Bike Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) P & B 60% 10 90% Very High *CM SO4 has been deleted in HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 132 Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF Expected Life (Years) HSIP Funding Eligibility Systemic Approach Opportunity? R01 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 20 90% Medium R02 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone All 35% 20 90% High R03 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Median Barrier All 25% 20 90% Medium R04 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install Guardrail All 25% 20 90% High R05 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Install impact attenuators All 25% 10 90% High R06 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes All 30% 20 90% Medium R07 Remove/ Shield Obstacles Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail All 40% 20 90% Medium R08 Geometric Mod. Install raised median All 25% 20 90% Medium R09 Geometric Mod. Install median (flush) All 15% 20 90% Medium R1OPB Geometric Mod. Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches P & B 35% 20 90% Low R11 Geometric Mod. Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes All 25% 20 90% Low R12 Geometric Mod. Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft) All 25% 20 90% Medium R13 Geometric Mod. Add two-way left -turn lane All 30% 20 90% Medium R14 Geometric Mod. Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes -and add a two way left -turn and bike lanes) All 35% 20 90% Medium R15 Geometric Mod. Widen shoulder All 30% 20 90% Medium R16 Geometric Mod. Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Only) All 45% 20 90% Medium R17 Geometric Mod. Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) All 50% 20 90% Low R18 Geometric Mod. Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 20 90% Low R19 Geometric Mod. Improve curve superelevation All 45% 20 90% Medium R20 Geometric Mod. Convert from two-way to one-way traffic All 35% 20 90% Medium R21 Geometric Mod. Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) All 55% 10 90% High 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 134 Table 3. Countermeasures for Roadways (Continued) No. Type Countermeasure Name Crash Type CRF Expected Life (Years) HSIP Funding Eligibility Systemic Approach Opportunity? R22 Operation/ Warning Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) All o 15% 10 90% Very High R23 Operation/ Warning Install chevron signs on horizontal curves All 40% 10 90% Very High R24 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs All 25% 10 90% Very High R25 Operation/ Warning Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 10 90% High R26 Operation/ Warning Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs All 30% 10 90% High R27 Operation/ Warning Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers All 15% 10 90% Very High R28 Operation/ Warning Install edge -lines and centerlines All 25% 10 90% Very High R29 Operation/ Warning Install no -passing line All 45% 10 90% Very High R30 Operation/ Warning Install centerline rumble strips/stripes All 20% 10 90% High R31 Operation/ Warning Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes All 15% 10 90% High R32PB Ped and Bike Install bike lanes P & B 35% 20 90% High R33PB Ped and Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes P & B 45% 20 90% High R34PB Ped and Bike Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadway) P & B 80% 20 90% Medium R35PB Ped and Bike Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R36PB Ped and Bike Install raised pedestrian crossing P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R37PB Ped and Bike Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) P & B 35% 20 90% Medium R38 Animal Install animal fencing Animal 80% 20 90% Medium 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.6) Page 135 5. Calculating the B/C Ratio and Comparing Projects Practitioners need to consider the expected B/C ratio of their proposed projects. This is an important step in a proactive safety analysis process because it provides two key pieces of information: First, it defines the cost effectiveness of the proposed projects; and second, it gives the safety practitioner a means to help prioritize their safety projects both inside the agency's traffic safety section and against other proposed operational and maintenance projects competing for funding. 5.1 Estimate the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Sections 2 through 4 provide the practitioner all the information needed to calculate the expected 'Benefit' of the proposed safety projects. The resulting expected benefit value is derived by applying the proposed countermeasures and corresponding CMFs to the expected crashes. It is of critical importance for the practitioner to understand that misapplication of a CMF will lead to misinformed decisions. Four main factors need to be considered when applying countermeasures and CMFs to calculate the expected benefit value: (1) how to estimate the number of expected crashes without treatment, (2) how to apply CMFs by type and severity, (3) how to apply multiple CMFs if multiple treatments are to be included in the same project, and (4) how to apply a benefit value by crash severity. The following text explains how these factors affect the expected benefit value in more detail. Estimating expected crashes without treatment: Before applying CMFs, local safety practitioners first need to select countermeasures and CMFs. The CMF is applied to the expected safety performance (expected crashes) without any treatment in order to estimate the expected crashes with the treatment. The reduction in expected crashes multiplied by the expected costs per each crash gives the practitioner the expected benefit. As mentioned earlier in this manual, the random nature of roadway crashes suggests that over time the number of crashes at any particular locations will change. This concept is known as "regression to the mean" and it gives rise to the concern that a site might be selected for study when the crashes are at a randomly high fluctuation, or overlooked from study when the site is at a randomly low fluctuation. The HSM presents several methods for estimating the expected safety performance of a roadway or intersection including the Empirical Bayes method, which combines observed information from the site of interest with information from similar sites to estimate the expected crashes without treatment. Another common way to minimize the impact of regression to the mean is to increase the number of years of crash data being analyzed. For statewide calls -for -projects, Caltrans strives to ensure that all projects are fairly ranked based on a consistent statewide approach. Given this, Caltrans has avoided using methodology requiring agencies to mathematically adjust their crash data (e.g., Empirical Bayes) and instead has opted to use 5 years of "observed crashes" in estimating "expected crashes." Applying CMFs by type and severity: Section 4.1 of this manual discusses the application of CMFs and the need for them to represent the situation to which they will be applied. It also stresses the need for 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 1 36 practitioners to choose the most appropriate CMFs for their specific project. In many circumstances, estimating the change in crashes by type and severity is useful; however, local safety practitioners only can use this approach when CMFs exist for the specific crash types and severities in question. If practitioners choose to use a CMF outside the range of applicability, the safety effect may be over- or underestimated. (For example: past research relating to installing a channelized left turn lane, has estimated CMFs as high as 68% for Right -Angle crashes of all severities and as low as 11% for Rear -End crashes with severities of only fatal and injury). Applying multiple CMFs: In real-world scenarios, transportation agencies commonly install more than one countermeasure per project as part of their safety improvement program. This leads to the question, "What is the safety effect of the combined countermeasures?" The calculation methods that Transportation agencies use include: applying the CMF for the single countermeasure expected to achieve the greatest reduction, applying CMFs separately by crash type and summing them to get a project -level effect, and applying CMFs based on a review of crash patterns, etc. Regardless of the specific method employed, "engineering judgment" is required when combining multiple CMFs and it is important for local agencies to apply their method consistently throughout their analysis to ensure a fair comparison of projects. One common practice is to assume that CMFs are multiplicative when they are applied to the same set of crash data. In other words, each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit when implemented in combination with other countermeasures. The multiplicative method is a common, generally accepted method and is presented in the HSM and in the CMF Clearinghouse. This method is also used in the HSIP calls -for -projects. To allow agencies maximum flexibility in combining countermeasures and locations into a single project while ensuring all projects can be consistently ranked on a statewide basis, Caltrans only allows up to three (3) individual countermeasures can be utilized in the B/C ratio for a project location site. The CMFs are multiplicative if there are multiple countermeasures, i.e. each successive countermeasure will achieve an additional benefit based on the remainder of the crashes after the effect of the prior countermeasures, not the original number of the crashes. More information on these requirements and procedures are provided in the documents (Application Form Instructions, etc.) for each call -for -projects. Applying benefit value by crash severity: The last step in estimating the overall benefit of a proposed improvement project is to multiply the expected reduction in crashes by a generally accepted value for the "cost" of crashes. In other words, the expected "benefit" value for a project is actually the expected "reduction in costs" value from reducing future crashes. There are many sources for the costs of crashes (e.g., HSM, FHWA & National Safety Council) and some of the sources vary widely depending on how they account for the economic value of a life and when the numbers were last updated. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 37 When calculating the "benefit" to be used in calculating an improvement's B/C ratio, it is important for the practitioner to consider whether a total benefit value for the "life" of the improvement is needed or if the benefit value should be annualized (i.e., benefit per year). Whichever method is used to calculate the overall cost of the improvements must also be used for calculating the benefit. Caltrans has currently chosen to use published Cost -of -Crash values from the first edition of the HSM and increase the values by 4% annually. These values may be updated in the future, when updated cost - of -crash values are published by FHWA or another national source. The specific values for each of the crash severities and the formulas uses to calculate the total benefit are shown in Appendix D. Recommended Action: Prepare Total Benefit estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. 5.2 Estimate the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements After calculating the expected benefit of the proposed safety projects, the next step for the practitioner is to develop an estimate of the Total Project Costs. These costs need to include both the construction costs and the project development and administration costs. The most common approach to estimating construction costs is through an "Engineer's Cost Estimate." A Template for Detailed Engineer's Estimate and Cost Breakdown by Countermeasures is included in the HSIP funding application website. When calculating the administration costs for a project, the complexity of the improvements must be accounted for: Low-cost countermeasures, typically used in the Systemic Approach, often have minimal environmental and right-of-way impacts and require minimal design effort. In contrast, many medium to high cost improvements tend to have greater impacts to the environment and right-of-way and require significant design efforts. It's crucial to account for these differences to accurately determine the true B/C ratio of the projects and prioritize them correctly. When an agency is initially evaluating several potential locations and countermeasures as part of their proactive safety analysis or in preparing for Caltrans call -for -projects, they should consider first using rough 'ballpark' cost estimates using previous projects that had similar scope, if possible. Ballpark cost estimates can allow the practitioner to quickly establish B/C ratios for all of their potential projects and identify the projects with high cost effectiveness and with a reasonable chance of receiving HSIP funding in a Caltrans call -for -projects. Recommended Action: Prepare 'Total Project Cost' estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. 5.3 Calculate the B/C Ratio In general, the B/C ratio is calculated by taking a project's overall benefit (as calculated in Section 5.1) and dividing it by the project's overall cost (as calculated in Section 5.2). There are, however, several 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 138 methods and input -factors available for calculating a project's B/C ratio and practitioners may want to consider other methods as defined in the HSM. Based on Caltrans' need for a fair, data -driven, statewide project selection process for HSIP call -for - projects, Caltrans requires the B/C ratio for all applications to be completed using the same process. Applicants must utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the B/C ratio of the project. Additional details and formulas included in the calculation are included in this document as Appendix D. Recommended Action: Calculate the B/C ratio for each of the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. 5.4 Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements By implementing a comprehensive proactive safety analysis approach, agencies will likely identify more potential safety projects than they can fund and deliver. It will be important for an agency to prioritize their projects internally before funding is sought. It is not uncommon for projects to have a B/C ratio as low as 0.1 or as high as 100. Once the relative cost effectiveness of an agency's potential projects has been established, the projects with low to mid -ranged B/C ratios should be reassessed. Projects with very low initial B/C ratios may be dropped while projects with low to mid ranged B/C ratios may be redefined by changing the limits of the proposed improvements to focus on higher crash locations or incorporating lower-cost countermeasures. This reiterative process is illustrated in Figure 1 in Section 1 of this document. At the conclusion of this step, the local agency should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. Ideally, there will be a variety of low cost safety projects and potentially a few higher cost roadway reconstruction projects. How each local agency prioritizes their list of safety improvements will vary, but projects with the highest B/C ratios should generally have a high overall priority. It should be understood that available funding will play a key role in local agency prioritization (e.g., higher -cost projects may have to wait for funding to become available while low-cost improvements with lower B/C ratios can be constructed with in-house maintenance crews), but in the goal of maximizing overall safety benefits, the role of politics and public influence should be minimized. Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits to maximize the number of fatal and injury crashes addressed within the limits. Consider lower cost countermeasures in areas where high and medium cost countermeasures resulted in low B/C ratios. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 139 6. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements Funding strategies for implementing safety projects need to vary as widely as local agency's roadway types, project costs, and proposed improvements. At this point in the proactive safety analysis process, local agencies should have several potential safety projects ready to move into the project development and construction phases. There are likely a wide range of 'approaches' to fund each of these projects. This section of the document discusses some of the most common approaches. 6.1 Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures For projects utilizing low-cost countermeasures, the total project cost may be low enough that the agency can construct the project using its existing roadway funding by utilizing the ongoing activities of their roadway maintenance staff and equipment. Other low-cost projects (e.g., overlays, sealcoats, drainage, signing, and striping projects) may be more important to incorporate into larger maintenance projects. It is common for agencies to have 1-, 5-, and 10 -year plans for making these standard maintenance improvements. With upfront planning and coordination between agency staff, the low- cost safety projects identified through the proactive safety analysis can be incorporated with minimal costs to an agency's maintenance program. Maximizing the cost effectiveness of the program may even allow the transportation managers to justify increasing the funding for their overall roadway maintenance program. In addition to their maintenance program, transportation managers should also strategically seek out planned capital improvement and development projects that can incorporate low and medium cost countermeasures identified in their safety analysis. Local agencies may also find opportunities to partner with private enterprises and insurance companies to fund special safety projects that further both organizations' strategic goals. Recommended Action: Survey planned maintenance, developer and capital projects to determine whether they overlap any of the proposed safety projects. Where projects overlap, leverage the existing funding sources to include safety countermeasures. 6.2 HSIP and Other Funding Sources In addition to the HSIP Program, the Division of Local Assistance's web site includes several other Caltrans administered funding programs: https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 140 6.3 Project Development and Construction Considerations In general, roadway safety projects don't garner the same level of attention from decision makers, media, elected officials, and the general public, that large operational and development -driven projects do. As a result, local safety practitioners and project sponsors often find their projects have difficulty in competing for the agencies' limited project delivery resources. Establishing and implementing a comprehensive safety analysis process can assist safety practitioners in delivering their safety programs in many ways, including: • Credibility and awareness to individual projects and delivery schedules. • Increased stakeholders tracking and delivery of a project when low-cost improvements are incorporated into ongoing maintenance and capital projects. An increased focus on low-cost countermeasures typically corresponds to projects with less environmental, right-of-way and other impacts; resulting in projects that have streamlined project delivery processes and short construction schedules. Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to "toot their own safety -horn." 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 41 7. Evaluation of Improvements Evaluation of the effectiveness of roadway treatments following installation should be used to guide future decisions regarding roadway countermeasures. Field reviews should also be conducted shortly after the project is completed to insure the project is operating as intended. A record of crash history and countermeasure installation forms the foundation for assessing how well the implemented strategies have performed. An important database to maintain is a current list of installed countermeasures with documented "when/where/why" information. Periodic assessments will provide the necessary information to make informed decisions on whether each countermeasure contributed to an increase in safety, whether the countermeasure could or should be installed at other locations, and which factors may have contributed to each countermeasure's success. In order to perform the assessment, it is necessary to collect the required information for a certain period after strategies have been deployed at the locations. The time period varies, but whenever possible, 3 to 5 years is recommended to reduce the effects of the random nature of roadway crashes (i.e., Regression to the Mean). The information required may consist of public input and complaints, police reports, observations from maintenance crews, and local and State crash data. It is important to keep the list of safety installations up-to-date since it will serve as a record of countermeasure deployment history (see table below for an example). By using this type of system, assessment dates can be scheduled to review the crashes and other pertinent information on segments where roadway countermeasures have been installed. Making "after" assessments will inform the practitioner on the effectiveness of past improvements and can provide data to help justify the value of continuing and expanding the local agency's safety program in the future. Location Type of Countermeasure Installed Date Installed Crashes Before (Duration and Severity) Crashes After (Duration and Severity) Comments Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet or database to track future safety project installations and record 3 or more years of "before" and "after" crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 142 Appendix A: HSIP Call -for -Projects Process HSIP Call -for -Projects Flowchart of Application Process Caltrans Announces the "Call for Projects" Application Inputs Many Local Agencies will have locations and improvements selected prior to the CaII for Projects Crash Data: - Use locally -preferred source or Safe-Trec's TIMSwebsite Preliminary Design - Plan/Map showing improvements / JDPtermin+=Tota I PrrjPCtCO4 - Detailed Engineer's Estimate PE, ROW, CE costs. Application Process Review Program Guidelines v Review Application Instructions Begin preparing Application using the PDF Application Form J _IN] -Y Location Identification: -System wide, Roadway Segment, or Intersection Crash Problem/Pattern Identification: - rrach R PnnrFS Countermeasure Selection: -Address the crash problem/pattern with cost effectiveness Crash Problem/Patter Calculate the Project's B/C Ratio -HSIP Analyzer Safe-Trre c T IM S website Finish preparing application and submit to Caltrans electronically, with applicable attachments. - Attachments - Electronic and Hard Copies it Ways to Increase Chances for Funding The California Local Roadway Safety Manual provides guidance for a comprehensive proactive safety analysis approach, which includes location identification. If the resulting B/C is low the Local Agency may use guidance from the Local Roadway Safety Manual and TIMS website to identify new locations and/or countermeasures Agency submits application to Caltrans 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 143 Appendix B: Detailed Tables of Countermeasures The intent of the information contained in this appendix is to provide local agency safety practitioners with a list of effective countermeasures that are appropriate remedies to many common safety issues. The tables in Section 4.2 present a quick summary of the specific values that the Caltrans Division of Local Assistance uses to assess and select projects for its calls- for -projects. In addition to the same information as in Section 4.2, this appendix also includes notes for Caltrans HSIP calls -for -projects and "General information" regarding where the countermeasure should be used, why it works, the general qualities that can be used to suggest the potential complexity of installation, and information from FHWA CMF Clearinghouse on the type of crashes where the countermeasure is best used and a range of their expected overall effectiveness. The countermeasures have been sorted into 3 categories: Signalized Intersection, Non -Signalized Intersection, and Roadway Segment. Pedestrian and bicycle related countermeasures have been included in each of these categories. Caltrans gives careful consideration to the fair application of its calls -for -projects process. Starting in 2012, the award of safety funding has been solely based on a determined benefit -to -cost ratio for each project. The fixed set of countermeasures and CRFs included in these tables are intended to allow for all projects to be evaluated consistently and fairly throughout the project selection process. However, at this time, there are no CRFs/CMFs available for several safety improvements, such as: "dynamic/variable speed regulatory signs", "non -motorized signs and markings (regulatory and warning)", "Square -up (reduce curve radius) turn lanes" and non -infrastructure elements. These safety improvement items can be included in project applications, but they will not be included into the B/C ratio calculations, unless the safety improvements meet the intent of other separate countermeasures included in the attached lists. Caltrans is interested in adding these countermeasures (and many others) to these tables once CRFs/CMFs have been established. Caltrans will continue to periodically update this list of allowable countermeasures and CRFs as new safety research data becomes available. With this in mind, Caltrans is interested in feedback and suggestions from local agency safety practitioners on the overall countermeasure list as well as specific details of individual countermeasures, including locally developed safety effectiveness information. Caltrans used the following references to assist its team in developing the information shown in the following tables. Safety Practitioners are encouraged to utilize these references for a more expansive list of countermeasures and CRFs / CMFs. The Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse https://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/ NCHRP Report 500 Series: Volumes 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12, 13, and others https://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/152868.aspx 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 144 Highway Safety Manual (HSM) http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org Pedestrian and Bicycle - Tools to Diagnose and Solve the Problem https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped bike/tools solve/ FHWA Local and Rural Road / Training, Tools, Guidance and Countermeasures for Locals https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local rural/training/ For each countermeasure (CM): (Title) CM No., CM Name • CM No. is o SO1 through S21PB for Intersection Countermeasures — Signalized, o NS01 through NS23PB for Intersection Countermeasures — Unsignalized, or o R01 through R38 for Roadway Countermeasures. For HSIP Calls -for -projects: • Funding Eligibility - 90% or 50%. • Crash Types Addressed - "All", "Pedestrian and Bicycle", "Night", "Emergency Vehicle", or "Animal". • CRF - Crash Reduction Factor used for HSIP calls -for -projects. • Expected Life - 10 years or 20 years. • Notes - Specific requirements are provided for utilizing the countermeasure on applications for Caltrans statewide calls -for -projects. • General Information: • Where to use — Roadway segments and intersections with specific common characteristics can be addressed with similar countermeasures that are most effective. • Why it works — A discussion of the benefit of a countermeasure is important to determine its appropriateness in addressing certain roadway crash types at areas with specific issues as determined by the data and roadway features. • General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness) — This category is more subjective and can vary substantially. 'Time' refers to the approximate relative time it can take to implement the countermeasure. Costs can vary considerably due to local conditions, so 'cost' represents the relative cost of applying a countermeasure. A relative overall 'effectiveness' is also provided for some countermeasures. All of this subjective information may not be applicable to the unique circumstances for the agency and should not be utilized without verification by the safety practitioner. • FHWA CMF Clearinghouse 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 145 o Crash Types Addressed — In order to effectively reduce the number and severity of roadway crashes, it is necessary to match countermeasures to the crash types they are intended to address. Depending on the type of problem, one or more of a range of countermeasures could be the most effective way to reduce the number and severity of future crashes. o Crash Reduction Factor — The crash reduction factor (CRF) is an indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment, measured by the percentage of crashes it is expected to reduce. Note: As mentioned earlier in this section, the effectiveness of a countermeasure can also be expressed as a Crash Modification Factor (CMF), which is defined mathematically as 1— CRF. However, this document uses CRFs as they can be more insightful when analyzing roadways for potential "reductions" in crashes. There is a range of CRF values that exist for each of the countermeasures (or similar countermeasures). The range of CRFs is provided to give local safety practitioners a clear understanding that they may need to go to the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse to find the most appropriate countermeasure and CRF for their specific projects and local prioritization. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 146 B.1 Intersection Countermeasures — Signalized S01, Add intersection lighting (Signalized Intersection => S.I. For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% "night" crashes 40% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area. General information Where to use: Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night). Why it works: Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception -reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non -motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non -motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost which results in a moderate to high cost. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 120-74% S02, Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the upgraded signals. This CM does not apply to improvements like "battery backup systems", which do not provide better intersection/signal visibility or help drivers negotiate the intersection (unless applying past crashes that occurred when the signal lost power). If new signal mast arms are part of the proposed project, CM "S2" should not be used and the signal improvements would be included under CM "S7". General information Where to use: Signalized intersections with a high frequency of right-angle and rear -end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached. Signal intersection improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro -reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads, relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads. Why it works: Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion for drivers. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Installation costs and time should be minimal as these type strategies are classified as low cost and implementation does not typically require the approval process normally associated with more complex projects. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Rear -End, Angle CRF: I 0-46% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page X47 S03, Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 50% All 15% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new signal timing. For projects coordination signals along a corridor, the crashes related to side -street movements should not be applied. This CM does not apply to projects that only 'study' the signal network and do not make physical timing changes, including corridor operational studies and improvements to Traffic Operation Centers (TOCs). In Caltrans calls for projects, this CM has a HSIP reimbursement ratio of 50%, considering that it will improve the signal operation rather than merely the safety. General information Where to use: Locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections. Signalization improvements may include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher -risk movements, and coordinating signals at multiple locations. Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety. Why it works: Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce multiple safety benefits. Sometimes capacity improvements come along with the safety improvements and other times adverse effects on delay or capacity occur. Corridor improvements often have the highest benefit but may take longer to implement. Projects focused on capacity improvements (without a separate focus on signal timing safety needs) may not result in a reduction in future crashes. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): In general, these low-cost improvements to multiple signalized intersections can be implemented in a short time. Typically these low cost improvements are funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, some projects requiring new interconnect infrastructure can have moderate to high costs making them more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual project. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41% SO4, Provide Advanced Dilemma Zonc Detection for high speed approaches R,,,,, ing Eligibility 90% Notes: • CRF Expected -Life ife This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new detection and signal timing. -- • 40% 10 years Whcrcto u.,, Detection system enhances safety at signalized intersections by modifying traffic control signal timing to reduce the number of drivers that may have difficulty deciding whether to stop or proceed during a yellow phase. This may reduce r ar end crashes Why -it -works; Dilemma Zonc Detection system has several benefits relative to traditional multiple detector systems, which have upstr am detection for vehicles in the dilemma zone but do not take the speed or size of individual vehicles into account. These benefits include: Reducing the frequency of red light violations; Reducing thc frequency of crashes associated with thc traffic signal in overall intersection delay. installation costs should be low and the time to implement short. Additional modifications to thc traffic signal controller may also necessary. In general, This CM can bc very effective and can bc considered on a systematic approach. Video detection e ipmnent is now available for this purpose, making installation and maintenance more efficient, •FHWA CMF Clearinghouse. Crash Types Addressed: Alk CRF: 39% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 148 S05, Install emergency vehicle pre-emption systems For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Emergency Vehicle - only 70% I 10 years Notes: I This CM only applies to "E.V." crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pre-emption system. General information Where to use: Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles Why it works: Providing emergency vehicle preemption capability at a signal or along a corridor can be a highly effective strategy in two ways; any type of crash could occur as emergency vehicles try to navigate through intersections and as other vehicles try to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicles. In addition, a signal preemption system can decrease emergency vehicle response times therefore decreasing the time in receiving emergency medical attention, which is critical in the outcome of any crash. When data is not available for past crashes with emergency vehicles, an agency may consider combining the E.V. pre-emption improvements into a comprehensive project that also makes significant signal hardware and/or signal timing improvements. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs for installation of a signal preemption system will vary from medium to high, based upon the number of signalized intersections at which preemption will be installed and the number of emergency vehicles to be outfitted with the technology. The number of detectors, a requirement for new signal controllers, and the intricacy of the preemption system could increase costs. This CM is considered systemic as it is usually implemented on a corridor -basis. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Emergency Vehicle - only CRF: 70% S06, Install left -turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left -turn lane or phase before For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single -left into double -left turn. General information Where to use: Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left -turn phase that are experiencing a large number of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in accommodating left -turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left -turning vehicles (angle, rear -end, sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left -turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major -road approaches. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left -turn phases. Why it works: Left -turn lanes allow separation of left -turn and through -traffic streams, thus reducing the potential for rear -end collisions. Left - turn phasing also provides a safer opportunity for drivers to make a left -turn. The combination of left -turn storage and a left turn signal has the potential to reduce many collisions between left -turning vehicles and through vehicles and/or non -motorized road users. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Implementation time may vary from months to years. At some locations, left -turn lanes can be quickly installed simply by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. Installing a protected left turn lane and phase where none exists results in a high Crash Reduction Factor and is often highly effective. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 117 - 58 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 149 S08, Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal -mounted) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the converted signal heads that are relocated from median and/or outside shoulder pedestals to signal heads on master arms over the travel -lanes. Projects using CM "S7" should not also apply "S2" in the B/C calc. General information Where to use: Intersections currently controlled by pedestal mounted traffic signals (in medians and/or on outside shoulder) that have a high frequency of right-angle and rear -end crashes occurring because drivers are unable to see traffic signals in advance to safely negotiate the intersection. Intersections that have pedestal -mounted signals may have poor visibility and can result in vehicles not being able to stop in time for a signal change. Care should be taken to place the new signal heads (with back plates) as close to directly over the center of the travel lanes as possible. Why it works: Providing better visibility of intersection signs and signals aids the drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion or distraction for drivers. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Dependent on the scope of the project. Costs are generally moderate for this type of project. There is usually no right-of-way costs, minimal roadway reconstruction costs, and a shorter project development timeline. At the same time, new mast arms can be expensive. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to moderate costs, some locations may result in medium to low B/C ratios. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Rear -End, Angle CRF: I 12 - 74% S07, Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left turn phases. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single -left into double -left turn unless the sin:le left is unprotected and the proposed double left will be . rotected . General information Where to use: Signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left -turn or no left -turn protection that have a high frequency of angle crashes involving left turning, opposing through vehicles, and non -motorized road users. A properly timed protected left -turn phase can also help reduce rear -end and sideswipe crashes between left -turning vehicles and the through vehicles as well as vehicles behind them. Protected left -turn phases are warranted based on such factors as turning volumes, delay, visibility, opposing vehicle speed, distance to travel through the intersection, presence of non -motorized road users, and safety experience of the intersections. Agencies need to document their consideration of the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left -turn phases. Why it works: Left turns are widely recognized as the highest -risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing Protected left -turn phases (i.e., the provision for a specific phase for a turning movement) for signalized intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left -turn maneuvers by removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles. Where left turn pockets are not protected, the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase often conflicts with these left turn maneuvers. Drivers focused on navigating the gaps of oncoming cars may not anticipate and/or perceive the non -motorized road users. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): If the existing traffic signal only requires a minor modification to allow for a protected left -turn phase, then the cost would also be low. The time to implement this countermeasure is short because there is no actual construction that has to take place. In- house signal maintainers can perform this operation once the proper signal phasing is determined so the cost is low. In addition, the countermeasure is tried and proven to be effective. Has the potential of being applied on a systemic/systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Rear -End, Sideswipe, Broadside I CRF: 116 - 99% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 150 S10, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years Notes: i This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new flashing beacons. General information Where to use: At signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply. Why it works: Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs. This combined with a relatively high CRF, can result in high B/Cs for locations with a history of crashes and lead to a high effectiveness. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Rear End, Angle CRF: 36 - 62% S09, Install raised pavement markers and striping (Through Intersection For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 10% 10 years Notes: I This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and influence areas of the new pavement markers and/or markings. General information Where to use: Intersections where the lane designations are not clearly visible to approaching motorists and/or intersections noted as being complex and experiencing crashes that could be attributed to a driver's unsuccessful attempt to navigate the intersection. Driver confusion can exist in regard to choosing the proper turn path or where through -lanes do not line up. This is especially relevant at intersections where the overall pavement area of the intersection is large, and multiple turning lanes are involved or other unfamiliar elements are presented to the driver. Why it works: Adding clear pavement markings can guide motorists through complex intersections. When drivers approach and traverse through complex intersections, drivers may be required to perform unusual or unexpected maneuvers. Providing more effective guidance through an intersection will minimize the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its appropriate lane and encroaching upon an adjacent lane. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs of implementing this strategy will vary based on the scope and number of applications. Applying raised pavement markers is relatively low cost but can be variable and determined largely by the material used for pavement markings (paint, thermoplastic, epoxy, RPMs etc.). When using this type delineators, an issue of concern is the cost -to -service -life of the material. (Note: When HSIP safety funding is used for these installations in high -wear -locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years.) When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Wet, Night, All I CRF: 110 - 33% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 151 S11, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the 1'mits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip -seal or open -graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement. General information Where to use: Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance. Why it works: Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet -road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet -road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 10 - 62 % S12, Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety -effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non -participating. General information Where to use: Intersections noted as having turning movement crashes near the intersection as a result of insufficient access control. Application of this CM should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need to restrict or accommodate the movement. Why it works: Raised medians next to left -turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive CMs would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. The result is This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. Raised medians can often be installed directly over the existing pavement. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non -safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Angle CRF: 121-55 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 152 S13PB, Install pedestrian median fencing on approaches For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing. _ General information Where to use: Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian -generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volumes of pedestrians J -walking across the travel lanes at mid -block locations instead of walking to the intersection and waiting to cross during the walk -phase. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with signal timing and shoulder/sidewalk treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution. Why it works: Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside the intersection crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely depending on the type and placement of the median fencing. Impacts to transit and other land uses may need to be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, this CM can be effective as a spot -location approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 125- 40% S14, Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left -turns and U-turns (S.I. For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All • 50% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional o . enin • s. General information Where to use: Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear -end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection. Why it works: Restricting turning movement into and out of an intersection can help reduce conflicts between through and turning traffic. The number of access points, coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway, contributes to crashes. Affecting turning movements by either allowing them or restricting them, based on the application, can ensure safe movement of traffic. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can be implemented quickly. The cost of this strategy will depend on the treatment. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: 1 All I CRF: 1 51% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 153 S15, Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections S.I. For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years Notes:I This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left -Turn Conflict. General information Where to use and Why it works: Reduced left -turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left -turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left -turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT). Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT): The RCUT intersection modifies the direct left -turn and through movements from cross -street approaches. Minor road traffic makes a right turn followed by a U-turn at a designated location (either signalized or unsignalized) direction. to continue in the desired The RCUT is suitable for a variety of circumstances, including along rural, high-speed, four -lane, divided highways or signalized routes. It also can be used as an alternative to signalization or constructing an interchange. RCUTs work well when consistently used along a corridor, but also can be used effectively at individual intersections. Median U-turn (MUT) The MUT intersection modifies direct left turns from the major approaches. Vehicles proceed through the main intersection, make a U-turn a short distance downstream, followed by a right turn at the main intersection. The U-turns can also be used for modifying the cross -street left turns. The MUT is an excellent choice for heavily traveled intersections with moderate left -turn volumes. When implemented at multiple intersections along a corridor, the efficient two-phase signal operation of the MUT can reduce delay, improve travel times, and create more crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists. MUT and RCUT Can Reduce Conflict Points by50% Lanvenllan•1 MR RCLJT IT ^il . r I I Conflict Points 0 rossing •Merging °Diverging General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Implementing this strategy may take from months to years, depending on whether additional R/W is required. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/Rear-CRF: End/All 34.8-100% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 154 S16, Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in influence area of the new roundabout. This CM is not intended for mini -roundabouts. The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes. General information Where to use: Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex geometry and intersections with frequent left -turn movements. Why it works: The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left -turn movements are not present in a roundabout. The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection. This helps keep the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing their potential for conflicts. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Provision of a roundabout requires substantial project development. The need to acquire right-of-way is likely and will vary from site to site and depends upon the geometric design. These activities may require up to 4 years or longer to implement. Costs are variable, but construction of a roundabout to replace an existing signalized intersection are relatively high. The result is this CM may have reduced relative -effectiveness compared to other CMs. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 135 - 67% S17PB, Install pedestrian countdown signal heads For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new countdown heads. General information Where to use: Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes. Why it works: A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the flashing "DON'T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON'T WALK" interval appears and stop at the beginning of the steady "DON'T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than jaywalk. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs and time of installation will vary based on the number of intersections included in this strategy and if it requires new signal controllers capable of accommodating the enhancement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 125% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 155 S18PB, Install pedestrian crossing S.I. For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stam • ed as . halt . General information Where to use: Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left -turn arrows and split phases, (2) school crossings, and (3) double -right or double -left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase. Why it works: Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. Another 22 percent of pedestrian crashes involve a pedestrian either running across the intersection or darting out in front of a vehicle whose view was blocked just prior to the impact. Finally, 16 percent of these intersection -related crashes occur because of a driver violation (e.g., failure to yield right-of-way). When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local -funding share for the project costs. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements may be funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Pedestrian, Bicycle I CRF: 1 25% S19PB, Pedestrian Scramble For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 40% 20 years Notes: I This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection with the new pedestrian crossing. General information Where to use: Pedestrian Scramble is a form of pedestrian "WALK" phase at a signalized intersection in which all vehicular traffic is required to stop, allowing pedestrians/bicyclists to safely cross through the intersection in any direction, including diagonally. Pedestrian Scramble may be considered at signalized intersections with very high pedestrian/bicycle volumes, e.g. in an urban business district. Why it works: Pedestrian Scramble has been shown to reduce injury risk and increase bicycle ridership due to its perceived safety and comfort. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Not involving any additional R/W, Pedestrian Scramble should not require a long development process and should be implemented reasonably soon. A systemic approach may be used in implementing this CM, resulting in cost efficiency with low to moderate cost. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: I -10% to 51% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 156 S2OPB, Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 15% 10 years Notes: " This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection -crossing with the new advanced stop bars. General information Where to use: Signalized Intersections with a marked crossing, where significant bicycle and/or pedestrians volumes are known to occur. Why it works: Adding advance stop bar before the striped crosswalk has the opportunity to enhance both pedestrian and bicycle safety. Stopping cars well before the crosswalk provides a buffer between the vehicles and the crossing pedestrians. It also allows for a dedicated space for cyclists, making them more visible to drivers (This dedicated space is often referred to as a bike -box.) General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs and time of installation will vary based on the number of intersections included in this strategy and if it requires new signal controllers capable of accommodating the enhancement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 135% S21PB, Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 60% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing with the newly implemented Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI). General information Where to use: Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes. Why it works: A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of crossing pedestrians; (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; (3) Increased likelihood of motorists yielding to pedestrians; and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the intersection. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs for implementing LPIs are very low, since only minor signal timing alteration is required. This makes it an easy and inexpensive countermeasure that can be incorporated into pedestrian safety action plans or policies and can become routine agency practice. When considered at a single location, the LPI is usually local -funded. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 59% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 157 B.2 Intersection Countermeasures — Non -signalized NS01, Add intersection lighting (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 40% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area. General information Where to use: Non -signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported by a significant number of crashes that occur at night). Why it works: Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception -reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non -motorists. Intersection lighting is of particular benefit to non -motorized users as lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also helps drivers see them better. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): A lighting project can usually be completed relatively quickly, but generally requires at least 1 year to implement because the lighting system must be designed and the provision of electrical power must be arranged. The provision of lighting involves both a fixed cost for lighting installation and an ongoing maintenance and power cost. For rural intersections, studies have shown the installation of streetlights reduced nighttime crashes at unlit intersections and can be more effective in reducing nighttime crashes than either rumble strips or overhead flashing beacons. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 25- 50% NS02, Convert to all -way STOP control (from 2 -way or Yield control For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. CA-MUTCD warrant must be met. General information Where to use: Unsignalized intersection locations that have a crash history and have no controls on the major roadway approaches. However, all -way stop control is suitable only at intersections with moderate and relatively balanced volume levels on the intersection approaches. Under other conditions, the use of all -way stop control may create unnecessary delays and aggressive driver behavior. MUTCD warrants should always be followed. Why it works: All -way stop control can reduce right-angle and turning collisions at unsignalized intersections by providing more orderly movement at an intersection, reducing through and turning speeds, and minimizing the safety effect of any sight distance restrictions that may be present. Advance public notification of the change is critical in assuring compliance and reducing crashes. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): The costs involved in converting to all -way stop control are relatively low. All -way stop control can normally be implemented at multiple intersections with just a change in signing on intersection approaches, and typically are very quick to implement. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Left -turn, Angle CRF: 16 - 80% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page X58 NS03, Install signals For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new signals. All new signals must meet MUTCD "safety" warrants: 4, 5 or 7. Given the over -arching operational changes that occur when an intersection is signalized, no other intersection CMs can be applied to the intersection crashes in conjunction with this CM. General information Where to use: Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, left -turn). Consideration to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic control have been utilized as the installation of a traffic signal often leads to an increased frequency of crashes (rear -end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met. Refer to the CA MUTCD, Section 4C.01, Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals. Why it works: Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase in rear -end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal installation. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Typical traffic signal costs fall in the medium to high category and are affected by application, type of signal and right -of -away considerations. Projects of this magnitude should only be considered after alternate and lesser means of correction have been evaluated. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: I 0 - 74% NSO4, Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way sto For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes. General information Where to use: Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left -turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate -volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited. Why it works: Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all -way stop -controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left -turn and right-angle movements. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Construction of roundabouts are usually relatively costly and major projects, requiring the environmental process, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation under an agency's long-term capital improvement program. (For this reason, roundabouts may not be appropriate for California's Federal Safety Programs that have relatively short delivery requirements.) Even with roundabouts higher costs, they still can have a relatively high effectiveness. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Left -turn, Angle I CRF: 112 - 78 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 159 NS05, Convert intersection to roundabout (from 2 -way stop or Yield control For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All Varies 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. The benefit of this CM is calculated using Caltrans procedure. The CRF is dependent on the ADT, project location (Rural/Urban) and the roundabout type (1 lane or 2 lanes). The benefit comes from both the reduction in the number and the severity of the crashes. General information Where to use: Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left -turn type crashes. Whether such intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization. The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate -volume unsignalized intersections. Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is limited. Why it works: Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all -way stop -controlled intersections. Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all -way stop -controlled intersections and provide fewer conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and elimination of left -turn and right-angle movements. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Construction of roundabouts are usually relatively costly and major projects, requiring the environmental process, right-of-way acquisition, and implementation under an agency's long-term capital improvement program. (For this reason, roundabouts may not be appropriate for California's Federal Safety Programs that have relatively short delivery requirements.) Even with roundabouts higher costs, they still can have a relatively high effectiveness. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Left -turn, Angle CRF: 12 - 78 NSO5mr, Convert intersection to mini -roundabout For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years Notes: I This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection and/or influence area of the new control. General information Where to use: Mini -roundabouts are characterized by a small diameter (45-90 ft) and traversable islands (central island and splitter islands). Mini -roundabouts offer most of the benefits of regular roundabouts with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. They are best suited to environments where speeds are already low and environmental constraints would preclude the use of a larger roundabout. Mini -roundabouts are most effective in lower speed environments in which all approaching roadways have posted speed of 30 mph or less and an 85th -percentile speed of less than 35 mph near the proposed yield and/or entrance line. For any location with an 85th -percentile speed above 35 mph, the mini -roundabout can be included as part of a broader system of traffic calming measures to achieve an appropriate speed environment. Why it works: Mini -roundabouts may be an optimal solution for a safety or operational issue at an existing intersection where there is insufficient right-of-way for a standard roundabout installation. The benefits of mini -roundabouts are the Compact size, operational efficiency, traffic safety improvement and traffic Calming. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Construction costs for mini -roundabouts vary widely depending upon the extent of sidewalk modifications or other geometric improvements and the types of materials used. In most cases, mini -roundabouts have been installed with little or no pavement widening and with only minor changes to curbs and sidewalks. Construction costs can be minimum for an installation consisting entirely of pavement markings and signage or moderate for mini -roundabouts that include raised islands and pedestrian improvements. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: NA I CRF: I NA 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 160 signs For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years Notes: I This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the influence area of the new signs. The influence area must be determined on a location by location basis. General information Where to use: The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear -end, right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. Why it works: The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 111- 55% NS06, Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory NS07, Upgrade intersection pavement markings (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new pavement markings. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing pavement markings in-kind) and must include u 9 : raded safe features over the existing pavement markin : s and stri . in:. General information Where to use: Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of rear -end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars. Why it works: The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be enhanced by installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections will provide approaching motorists with additional information at these locations. Providing visible stop bars on minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of the intersection. Drivers should be more aware that the intersection is coming up, and therefore make safer decisions as they approach the intersection. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Pavement marking improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of markings. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high -wear -locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: 1 All I CRF: 113 - 60% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 61 NS08, Install Flashing Beacons at Stop -Controlled Intersections For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years Notes: I This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the stop -controlled approaches / influence area of the new beacons. General information Where to use: Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non -Signalized intersection control and can help mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post -mounted advanced flashing beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop -controlled intersections to supplement and call driver attention to stop signs. Why it works: Flashing beacons provide a visible signal to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where night-time visibility of intersections is an issue. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Flashing beacons can be constructed with minimal design, environmental and right-of-way issues and have relatively low costs. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear -End CRF: 5-34% NS09, Install flashing beacons as advance warning (NS.I. For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new beacons placed in advance of the intersection. General information Where to use: Non -Signalized Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's awareness of approaching intersection or controls at a downstream intersection. Why it works: Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control signs. Flashing beacons are intended to reinforce driver awareness of the stop or yield signs and to help mitigate patterns of crashes related to intersection regulatory sign violations. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Use of flashing beacons requires minimal development process, allowing flashing beacons to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear -End CRF: 136 - 62% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 162 NS10, Install transverse rumble strips on approaches For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRFExpected Life 90% All 20% f 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new rumble strips. General information Where to use: Transverse rumble strips are installed in the travel lane for the purposes of providing an auditory and tactile sensation for each motorist approaching the intersection. They can be used at any stop or yield approach intersection, often in combination with advance signing to warn of the intersection ahead. Due to the noise generated by vehicles driving over the rumble strips, care must be taken to minimize disruption to nearby residences and businesses. Why it works: When motorists are traveling along the roadway, they are sometimes unaware they are approaching an intersection. This is especially true on rural roads, as there may be fewer clues indicating an intersection ahead. Transverse rumble strips warn motorists that something unexpected is ahead that they need to pay attention to. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Use of transverse rumble strips requires minimal development process, allowing transverse rumble strips to be installed within a short time period. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach, although care should be taken to not over -use this CM. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high -wear - locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 35% NS11, Improve sight distance to intersection (Clear Sight Triangles For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% I 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the significantly improved new sight distance. Minor/incidental improvements to sight distance would not likely result in the CRF shown below. General information Where to use: Unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance and patterns of crashes related to lack of sight distance where sight distance can be improved by clearing roadside obstructions without major reconstruction of the roadway. Why it works: Adequate sight distance for drivers at stop or yield -controlled approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall safety at unsignalized intersections. By removing sight distance restrictions (e.g., vegetation, parked vehicles, signs, buildings) from the sight triangles at stop or yield -controlled intersection approaches, drivers will be able see approaching vehicles on the main line, without obstruction and therefore make better decisions about entering the intersection safely. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Projects involving clearing sight obstructions on the highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing sight obstructions on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way. In general, this CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. Usually only high-cost removals would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding. Note: When federal safety funding is used to remove vegetation that has the potential to grow back, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 111- 56% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 163 NS12, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction overlay. This CM is not intended to apply to standard chip -seal or open -graded maintenance projects for long segments of corridors or structure repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement. General information Where to use: Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Non -signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance. Why it works: Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet -road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet -road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Night, ALL CRF: 110 - 62 % NS13, Install splitter -islands on the minor road approaches For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF I Expected Life 90% All 40% 1 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / on the minor road approaches. influence area of the new splitter island General information Where to use: Minor road approaches to unsignalized intersections where the presence of the intersection or the stop sign is not readily visible to approaching motorists. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections where the speeds on the minor road are high. In creation of a splitter island allows for an additional stop sign to be placed in the median for the minor approach. Why it works: The installation of splitter islands allows for the addition of a stop sign in the median to make the intersection more conspicuous. Additionally, the splitter island on the minor -road provides for a positive separation between turning vehicles on the through road and vehicles stopped on the minor road approach. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Splitter islands at non -signalized intersections can usually be installed with minimal roadway reconstruction and relatively quickly. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Angle, Rear -End CRF: 135 - 100 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 164 NS14, Install raised median on approaches (NS.I. For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Ii All 25% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety -effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non- participating. General information Where to use: Where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and operation of an intersection. Effective access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an intersection are generally undesirable. Why it works: Raised medians with left -turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians also prohibit left turns into and out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Raised medians at intersections may be most effective in retrofit situations where high volumes of turning vehicles have degraded operations and safety, and where more extensive approaches would be too expensive because of limited right-of-way and the constraints of the built environment. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, the need for providing alternative access ways should be considered. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non -safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 20 - 39 % NS15, Create directional median openings to allow and restrict left -turns and u -turns (NS.I. For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life Notes: 90% All 50% 20 years This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new directional openings. General information Where to use: Crashes related to turning maneuvers include angle, rear -end, pedestrian, and sideswipe (involving opposing left turns) type crashes. If any of these crash types are an issue at an intersection, restriction or elimination of the turning maneuver may be the best way to improve the safety of the intersection. Because raised medians limit property access to right turns only, they should be used in conjunction with efforts to provide alternative access ways and promote driveway spacing objectives. Why it works: Agencies are increasingly using access management techniques on urban and suburban arterials to manage the number of conflicts experienced at an intersection. A key element of access management is to restrict certain movements, create directional median openings, or close median openings that are deemed too close to an intersection. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Turn prohibitions that are implemented by closing a median opening can usually be implemented quickly. Costs are highly variable but in many cases could be considered low. In some cases this strategy may involve acquiring access or constructing replacement access; those actions will significantly increase the cost of the project. Impacts to businesses and other land uses must be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All I CRF: 151% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 165 NS16, Reduced Left -Turn Conflict Intersections (NS.I. For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years Notes: I This CM only applies to crashes occurring in the intersection / influence area of the new Reduced Left -Turn Conflict. General information Where to use and Why it works: Reduced left -turn conflict intersections are geometric designs that alter how left -turn movements occur in order to simplify decisions and minimize the potential for related crashes. Two highly effective designs that rely on U-turns to complete certain left -turn movements are known as the restricted crossing U-turn (RCUT) and the median U-turn (MUT). Restricted Crossing U-turn (RCUT): The RCUT intersection modifies the direct left -turn and through movements from cross -street approaches. Minor road traffic makes a right turn followed by a U-turn at a designated location (either signalized or unsignalized) direction. to continue in the desired The RCUT is suitable for a variety of circumstances, including along rural, high-speed, four -lane, divided highways or signalized routes. It also can be used as an alternative to signalization or constructing an interchange. RCUTs work well when consistently used along a corridor, but also can be used effectively at individual intersections. Median U-turn (MUT) The MUT intersection modifies direct left turns from the major approaches. Vehicles proceed through the main intersection, make a U-turn a short distance downstream, followed by a right turn at the main intersection. The U-turns can also be used for modifying the cross -street left turns. The MUT is an excellent choice for heavily traveled intersections with moderate left -turn volumes. When implemented at multiple intersections along a corridor, the efficient two-phase signal operation of the MUT can reduce delay, improve travel times, and create more crossing opportunities for pedestrians and bicyclists. MUT and RCUT Can Reduce Conflict Points by50% Conyenu+xa6 MIT MIT 4 .; .. —.r 11 ., 1111 • - r • 4.1144__ Y11 • 4 Conflict Points i Crossing • Merging 0Diverging General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Implementing this strategy may take from months to years, depending on whether additional R/W is required. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Angle/Left-turn/Rear-CRF: 34.8-100% End/All 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 166 NS17, Install right -turn lane (NS.I.) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new right -turn lanes. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all -way stop intersections. General information Where to use: Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right -turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right -turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major -road approaches. When considering new right -turn lanes, potential impacts to non -motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. When considering new right -turn lanes, potential impacts to non -motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. Why it works: The strategy is targeted to reduce the frequency of rear -end collisions resulting from conflicts between vehicles turning right and following vehicles and vehicles turning right and through vehicles coming from the left on the cross street. Right -turn lanes also remove slow vehicles that are decelerating to turn right from the through -traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear -end collisions. Right -turn lanes can increase the length of the intersection crossing and create an additional potential conflict point for non -motorized users. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, right -turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 14 - 26 % NS18, Install left -turn lane (where no left -turn lane exists For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring on the approaches / influence area of the new left -turn lanes. This CM does NOT apply to converting a single -left into double -left turn. This CM is not eligible for use at existing all -way stop intersections. General information Where to use: Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left -turn maneuvers. A key strategy for minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left -turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-speed major -road approaches. When considering new left -turn lanes, potential impacts to non -motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. Why it works: Adding left -turn lanes remove vehicles waiting to turn left from the through -traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear - end collisions. Because they provide a sheltered location for drivers to wait for a gap in opposing traffic, left -turn lanes may encourage drivers to be more selective in choosing a gap to complete the left -turn maneuver. This strategy may reduce the potential for collisions between left -turn and opposing through vehicles. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Implementing this strategy may take from months to years. At some locations, left -turn lanes can be quickly and simply installed by restriping the roadway. At other locations, widening of the roadway, acquisition of additional right-of-way, and extensive environmental processes may be needed. Such projects require a substantial time for development and construction. Costs are highly variable and range from very low to high. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 9 -55 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 167 NS19PB, Install raised medians (refuge islands For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle l 45% I 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the crossing with the new islands. All new General information raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing Why it works: Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. These markings will often be different for controlled verses uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder", "zebra" or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or "yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple -threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including: continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local -funding share for the project costs. roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 125 % is being implemented to maximize the safety -effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non -participating. General information Where to use: Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time. Why it works: Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised (i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. They can stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before completing their crossing. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Median and pedestrian refuge areas are a low-cost countermeasure to implement. This cost can be applied to retrofit improvements or if it is a new construction project, implementing this countermeasure is even more cost-effective. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non -safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: 1 Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 1 30 - 56 % NS2OPB, Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings onl For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 25% • 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new crossing. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt). General information Where to use: Non -signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a marked crosswalk. Why it works: Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Pavement markings delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. These markings will often be different for controlled verses uncontrolled locations. The use of "ladder", "zebra" or other enhanced markings at uncontrolled crossings can increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or "yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple -threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. There are several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including: continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local -funding share for the project costs. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon if curb ramps and sidewalk modifications are required with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 125 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 168 NS21PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the new crossing (influence area) with enhanced safety features. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements to intersection crosswalks (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt). General information Where to use: Non -signalized intersections where pedestrians They are especially important at school of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at sufficient to adequately protect non -motorized "yield" markings, and other safety features are known to be crossing intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. crossings and intersections with turn pockets. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. Why it works: Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Incorporating advanced "yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple -threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local -funding share for the project costs. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the types of enhanced features that will be combined with the standard crossing improvements. The need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications will also be a factor. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have relatively high B/C ratios based on past non -motorized crash history. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 37% NS22PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB. General information Where to use: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian -activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBS are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings. Why it works: RRFBS can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): RRFBS are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 7 — 47.4% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 169 NS23PB, Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% li Pedestrian and Bicycle 55% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the intersection/crossing with the new signal. For HAWK or other pedestrian signals, the justification may be Warrant 4, 5 and/or 7, or passing the test in Figure 4F -1/4F-2 in Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD. Please refer to Chapter 4F of CA MUTCD for more details General information Where to use: Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate safe opportunities for non -motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) (also called High -Intensity Activated crossWalK beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. Why it works: Adding a pedestrian signal has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian -related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non - motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): The cost of improvements are generally high, but can vary dependent on the type of signal and overall scope of the project. In most cases the project duration can be short. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian and Bicycle CRF: 15 - 69% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 170 B.3 Roadway Countermeasures R01, Add Segment Lightin For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Night 35% 20 years Notes: I This CM only applies to "night" crashes (all types) occurring within limits of the proposed roadway lighting 'engineered' area. General information Where to use: Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rear -end, right-angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can be unaware of the roadway characteristics. Why it works: Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception -reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers' available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving non -motorist's visibility and navigation. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): It expected that projects of this type may be constructed in a year or two and are relatively costly. There are several types of costs associated with providing lighting, including the cost of providing a permanent source of power to the location, the cost for the luminaire supports (i.e., poles), and the cost for routinely replacing the bulbs and maintenance of the luminaire supports. Some locations can result in high B/C ratios, but due to higher costs, these projects often result in medium to low B/C ratios. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Night, All CRF: 118 - 69 % R02, Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new clear recovery zone (per Caltrans' HDM). General information Where to use: Known locations or roadway segments prone to collisions with fixed objects such as utility poles, drainage structures, trees, and other fixed objects, such as the outside of a curve, end of lane drops, and in traffic islands. A clear recovery zone should be developed on every roadway, as space is available. In situations where public right-of-way is limited, steps should be taken to request assistance from property owners, as appropriate. Why it works: While this strategy does not prevent the vehicle leaving the roadway, it does provide a mechanism to reduce the severity of a resulting crash. A clear zone is an unobstructed, traversable roadside area that allows a driver to stop safely or regain control of a vehicle that has left the roadway. Removing or moving fixed objects, flattening slopes, or providing recovery areas reduces the likelihood of a crash. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Projects involving removing fixed objects from highway right-of-way can typically be accomplished quickly, assuming the objects are readily moveable. Clearing objects on private property requires more time for discussions with the property owner. Costs will generally be low, assuming that in most cases the objects to be removed are within the right-of-way. This CMs can be very effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. High-cost removals or removals implemented using a systematic approach would be good candidates for Caltrans Federal Safety Funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object I CRF: 117 - 100 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 171 RO3, Install Median Barrier For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls -for -Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new barrier. General information Where to use: Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross -overs are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO and non -severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. It is recommended to review the warrants as outlined in Chapter 7 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual when considering whether to install median barriers. Why it works: This strategy is designed to prevent head-on collisions by providing a barrier between opposing lanes of traffic. The variety of median barriers available makes it easier to choose a site-specific solution. The main advantage is the reduction of the severity of the crashes. The key to success would be in selecting an appropriate barrier based on the site, previous crash history, maintenance needs, and median width. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): This strategy would in many cases be possible to implement within a short period after site selection. Costs will vary depending on the type of median barrier selected and whether the strategy is implemented as a stand-alone project or incorporated as part of a reconstruction or resurfacing effort. Maintenance costs and worker exposure will also vary depending on the type of barrier selected. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Head-on I CRF: I 0 - 94 % RO4, Install Guardrail For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility I Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% 1 All 1 25% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new guardrail. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged rail). For projects proposing to upgrade existing guardrail to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing rail conditions suggests the upgraded guardrail may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM). General information Where to use: Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run -off -the -road crashes at a given location that have resulted in severe crashes. New and upgraded guardrail and end -treatments must meet current safety standards; see Method for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for more information. Caltrans (or other national accepted guidance) slope/height criteria need to be considered and documented. Why it works: Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of an errant vehicle. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Strategies range from relatively inexpensive too costly. Costly projects may include those that upgrade existing guardrail applications to more semi-rigid and rigid barrier systems over extended distances. In general, this CMs can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 1 11- 78 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 172 RO5, Install impact attenuators For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF I Expected Life 90% I All 25% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new attenuators. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing damaged attenuators). For projects proposing to upgrade existing attenuators to current standards, this CM and corresponding CRF should only be applied to locations where past crash data or engineering judgment applied to the existing attenuator conditions suggests the upgraded attenuators may result in fewer or less severe crashes (justifying the use of the 25% CRF for this CM). General information Where to use: Impact attenuators are typically used to shield rigid roadside objects such as concrete barrier ends, steel guardrail ends and bridge pillars from oncoming automobiles. Attenuators should only be installed where it is impractical for the objects to be removed. New and upgraded barrier end -treatments must meet current safety standards; see MASH for more information. Why it works: Attenuators bring an errant vehicle to a more -controlled stop or redirect the vehicle away from a rigid object. Attenuators are effective at absorbing impact energy and increasing occupant safety. They also tend to draw attention to the fixed object, which helps drivers steer clear of the fixed objects. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs depending on the scope of the project, type(s) used, and associated ongoing maintenance costs. Time to install is fairly quick once site is identified. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Fixed Object, Run-off Road I CRF: 15 - 50 % RO6, Flatten side slopes For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% ' All 30% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new side slopes. Minor/incidental flattening of side slopes would not likely result in the CRF shown below and may not be appropriate for use in Caltrans B/C calculations. General information Where to use: Roadways experiencing frequent lane departure crashes that result in roll-over type crashes as a result of the roadway slope being so severe as to not accommodate a reasonable degree of driver correction. When there is a need to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes without installing a barrier system that could result in increased numbers of crashes. Why it works: Flattened slopes provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. Steep slopes, ditches or unprotected hazardous drops -offs adjacent to a travel lane offer little opportunities to correct an inappropriate action by a driver and can result in sever crashes. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Roadside modifications range from relatively inexpensive to very costly. Strategies that include creating safer side slopes where none exists can be moderately expensive based on the scope of the project and the associated clearing, grading, etc. The potential for high environmental and right-of-way impacts is high which can take several years to clear. In other cases This CM can be effective and can be implemented by agencies' maintenance staff and/or implemented on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Fixed Object, Run-off Road CRF: 5 - 62 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 173 R07, Flatten side slopes and remove guardrail For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of both the removed guardrail and the new side slopes. General information Where to use: Locations where high number of crashes originate as a lane departure and result in collision with guardrail or a fixed object located on the side slope shielded by guardrail. The guardrail may or may not meet current standards. Even though guardrails are generally installed to reduce the severity of departure crashes, they still can result in severe crashes in some locations. Why it works: Flattened side slopes and an unobstructed clear zone provide a greater area for a driver to regain control of a vehicle. The existing guardrail may help protect the steep slopes, fixed objects, or unprotected hazardous drops -offs adjacent to a travel lane, but removing all of these obstacles generally improves safety. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Roadside modifications range from relatively inexpensive to very costly. Strategies that include creating safer side slopes where none exists can be moderately expensive based on the scope of the project and the associated clearing, grading, etc. The potential for high environmental and right-of-way impacts is high which can take several years to clear. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Roll Over, Fixed Object CRF: 42% R08, Install raised median For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility I Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% li All 25% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new raised median. All new raised medians funded with federal HSIP funding should not include the removal of the existing roadway structural section and should be doweled into the existing roadway surface. This requirement is being implemented to maximize the safety -effectiveness of the limited HSIP funding and to minimize project impacts. Landscaping, if included in the project, is considered non -participating. General information Where to use: Areas experiencing head-on collisions speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing between opposing traffic. Application barrier should be considered. Including and should only be done in ways that distance needs throughout the life of additional turning movements at nearby that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the a raised median is a more restrictive approach in that it represents a more rigid barrier of raised medians on roadways with higher speeds is not advised - instead a median landscaping in new raised medians can be counterproductive to the HSIP safety goals do not increase drivers' exposure to fixed objects and that will maintain driver's sight the proposed landscaping. Agencies need to consider and document impacts of intersections. Why it works: Adding raised medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the travel lane. Raised median may also be used to limit unsafe turning movements along a roadway. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): In some cases this strategy may be a retrofit into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder. These raised medians can be installed directly over the existing pavement. Cost and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median. The surface treatment of the raised median also significantly affects their cost-effectiveness: standard concrete or other hardscape surfaces are usually more cost effective than landscaped medians. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase due to excavation, backfill/top-soil, water -connection, irrigation, planting, maintenance needed for the landscaping. When agencies opt to install landscaping in conjunction with new raised medians, the portion of the cost for landscaping and other non -safety related items that exceeds 10% of the project total cost is not federally participated and must be funded by the applicant. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on CRF: 20 - 75 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 174 R09, Install median (flush For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new flush median. The new median must be a minimum of 4 feet wide (or "wider" if a narrow median exists before the proposed project). General information Where to use: Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Roadways with oversized lanes offer an opportunity to restripe the roadway to reduce the lanes to standard widths and use the extra width for the median. Why it works: Adding medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross section to incorporate a narrow buffer median between opposing flows, thereby providing a greater opportunity to correct an errant maneuver and further reinforce the limits of the travel lane. Application widths can vary based on the available cross section and intended application. Additional safety can be provided by combining this CM with rumble strips. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): In some cases this strategy may be retrofitted into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder and can ultimately be as simple as restriping the roadway. Costs and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 115 - 78 % R1OPB, Install pedestrian median fencin For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring on the approaches/influence area of the new pedestrian median fencing. General information Where to use: Roadway segments with high pedestrian -generators and pedestrian -destinations nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians J -walking across the travel lanes at mid -block locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid -block crossing. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution. Why it works: Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside designated pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely depending on the type and placement of the median fencing. Impacts to transit and other land uses may need to be considered and controversy can delay the implementation. In general, this CM can be effective as a spot -location approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 25 - 40% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 175 R11, Install acceleration/ deceleration lanes For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years Notes: r This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new accel/decel lanes on high speed roadways. Significant improvements to the merge length for lane -drop locations is also an acceptable use of this CM. General information Where to use: Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed is reached and areas that do not provide the opportunity to safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement. This CM can also be used to improve the safety of merging vehicles at a lane -drop location. Why it works: A lane that does not provide enough deceleration length and storage space for turning traffic may cause the turn queue to back up into the adjacent through lane. This can contribute to rear -end and sideswipe crashes. An acceleration lane is an auxiliary or speed -change lane that allows vehicles to accelerate to highway speeds (high speed roadways) before entering the through - traffic lanes of a highway. Additionally, if acceleration by entering traffic takes place directly on the traveled way, it may disrupt the flow of through -traffic and cause rear -end and sideswipe collisions. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs are highly variable. Where sufficient median or shoulder space exists it may be possible to provide acceleration/deceleration lanes at a moderate cost. Where the roadway must be widened and additional right-of-way must be acquired, higher costs and a lengthy time -to -construct are likely. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: 1 Sideswipe, Rear -End I CRF: 110 - 75 % R12, Widen lane (initially less than 10 ft For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 1 25% 20 years Notes: Note: For Caltrans' statewide Calls -for -Projects, this CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the widened lanes. Widening must a minimum of 1 foot. General information Where to use: Horizontal curves or tangents and low speed or high speed roadways identified as having lane departure crashes, sideswipe or head-on crashes that can be attributed to an existing pavement width less than 10 feet. Why it works: Increasing pavement width can affect almost all crash types. A common practice is to widen the traveled way on horizontal curves to make operating conditions on curves comparable to those on tangents. Speed is a primary consideration when evaluating potential adverse impacts of lane width on safety. On high-speed, rural two-lane highways, an increased risk of cross -centerline head-on or cross -centerline sideswipe crashes is a concern because drivers may have more difficulty staying within the travel lane. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs will depend on the amount of reconstruction necessary and on whether additional right-of-way is required. In general, this is one of the higher -cost strategies recommended, but it can also be very beneficial. Since this is a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher -hazard roadways. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All I CRF: 15 - 70 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 176 R13, Add two-way left -turn lane For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane, where an existing median did not already exist. General information Where to use: Roadways having a high frequency of drivers being rear-ended while attempting to make a left turn across oncoming traffic. Also can be effective for drivers crossing the centerline of an undivided multilane roadway inadvertently. Why it works: Two-way left -turn lanes provide a buffer between opposing directions of travel and separate left turning traffic from through traffic. They can also help to allow vehicles to begin to accelerate before entering the through -traffic lanes. They reduce the disruption of flow of through -traffic and reducing rear -end and sideswipe collisions. For some roadways the option of converting a four -lane undivided arterials to two -vehicle -lane roadways with a center left -turn lane and bike lanes should be considered (see "Road Diet" CM.) General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): In some cases this strategy may be retrofitted into the existing roadway by utilizing a portion of the existing paved shoulder and can ultimately be as simple as restriping the roadway. Costs and time to implement could significantly increase if the paved area is not sufficient to include a median, requiring new right-of-way, and having significant environmental impacts. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location as the B/C ratios will vary from low to high. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 8 - 50 % R14, Road Diet Reduce travel lanes and add a two way left -turn and bike lanes For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new lane striping. "Intersection" crashes can only be applied when they resulted from turning movements that had no designated turn lanes/phases in the existing condition and the Road Diet will provide turn lanes/phases for these movements. This CM does not apply to roadway sections that already included left turn lanes or two way left turn lanes before the lane reductions. New bike lanes are also expected to be part of these projects. if any pavement is planned to be removed for the purpose of adding landscaping, planter - boxes, or other non -roadway user features, the cost should be non -participating. General information Where to use: Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left -turn, and rear -end crashes with traffic volumes that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four -lane design. It may also result in congestion levels that contribute to other crashes. Why it works: The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes. In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. In addition to increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on -street parking. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Implementation would require more time than in other low-cost treatments to complete environmental analyses, traffic studies and public input. Projects that only require new lane markings and minor signalization modifications will have relatively low cost and can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. These striping and signal modification costs should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM. (If additional signal hardware improvements are being made, over what is needed for the road diet, then the Improve Signal Hardware CM may also be used.) Often road diet projects need a seal -coat placed on the roadway to fully remove the old striping. These seal coats are considered part of the proper installation of this CM. In contrast, structural -overlays should not be considered part of this CM and are not considered eligible for funding in the California Local HSIP. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 126 - 43 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page X77 R15, Widen shoulder For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Ij All 30% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new paved shoulder. A minimum of 2 General information feet width must be added and the new/resulting shoulders must be a minimum of 4 feet wide. This Why it works: Adding shoulders (outside only) creates a recovery area in which a driver can regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects. CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", for which the agency FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: NA documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application. General information Where to use: Roadways that have a frequent incidence of vehicles leaving the travel lane resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. The probability of a safe recovery is increased if an errant vehicle is provided with an increased paved area in which to initiate such a recovery. Why it works: Based on the best available research, adding shoulder or widening an existing shoulder provides a greater area to regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects such as guardrail, signs and poles. They may also provide space for disabled vehicles to stop or drive slowly, provide increased sight distance for through vehicles and for vehicles entering the roadway, and in some cases reduce passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. The likely safety benefits for adding or widening an existing shoulder generally increase as the widening width increases - practitioners should refer to NCHRP Report 500 Series, the CMF Clearinghouse or other references for more details. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Shoulder widening costs would depend on whether new right-of-way is required and whether extensive roadside modification is needed. Since shoulder widening can be a relatively expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher -hazard roadways. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Fixed Object, Run-off Road, Sideswipe I CRF: 15 - 75 % R16, Curve Shoulder widening (Outside Onl For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the new shoulder widening at curves. A minimum of 2-4 feet width must be added to the outside of horizontal curves and the new traversable shoulder must be a minimum of 4 feet wide. General information Where to use: Roadway curves noted as having frequent lane departure crashes due to inadequate or no shoulders, resulting in an unsuccessful attempt to reenter the roadway. Why it works: Adding shoulders (outside only) creates a recovery area in which a driver can regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): To minimize the R/W needs and the cost, only outside shoulder at curves is to be widened. This CM can be implemented in a relatively short timeframe. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: NA 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 178 R17, Improve horizontal alignment (flatten curves) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 50% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence alignment. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last area) of the improved step of an "incremental approach", and installed lower cost and lower rumble strips, etc.), improvements were installed, and 3) approach' (or a special exception from Questions in the application and a be attached to the application. including: the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative summary of the agency's 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must General information Where to use: Roadways with horizontal curves that have experienced lane departure crashes as a result of a roadway segment having compound curves or a severe radius. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns. Why it works: Increasing the radius of a horizontal curve can be very effective in improving the safety performance of the curve. Curve modification reduces the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its lane, crossing the roadway centerline, or leaving the roadway at a horizontal curve; and minimizes the adverse consequences of leaving the roadway. Horizontal alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): This strategy is a long-term, higher -cost alternative for improving the safety of a horizontal curve because it usually involves total reconstruction of the roadway. It may also require acquisition of additional right-of-way and an environmental review. This strategy, albeit costly, has shown that increasing the radius of curvature can significantly reduce total curve -related crashes by up to 80 percent. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 24 - 90% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 179 R18, Flatten crest vertical curve For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved alignment. This CM is not eligible unless it is done as the last step of an "incremental approach", including: the agency documents that: 1) they have already pursued and installed lower cost and lower impact CMs (i.e. signing/striping upgrades to MUTCD standards/recommendations, rumble strips, etc.), 2) they have already monitored the crash occurrences after these improvements were installed, and 3) the 'after' crash rate is still unacceptably high. This 'incremental approach' (or a special exception from the HSIP program manager) must be documented in the Narrative Questions in the application and a summary of the agency's 'before' and 'after' crash analysis must be attached to the application. General information Where to use: The target for this strategy is usually unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance due to vertical geometry and with patterns of crashes related to that lack of sight distance that cannot be ameliorated by less expensive methods. This strategy should generally be considered only when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns. Why it works: Adequate sight distance for drivers at stopped approaches to intersections has long been recognized as among the most important factors contributing to overall intersection safety. Vertical alignment improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Projects involving changing the horizontal and/or vertical alignment to provide more sight distance are quite extensive and usually take several years to accomplish. If additional right-of-way is required or environmental impacts are expected, these projects will require a substantial period of time. Since this is usually an expensive treatment, one of the keys to creating a cost effective project with at least a medium B/C ratio is targeting higher -hazard locations. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: 1 All I CRF: 120 - 51 % R19, Improve curve superelevation For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 45% I 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits (or influence area) of the improved superelevation. This CM does not apply to sections of roadways where the horizontal or vertical alignments are changing via another CM. General information Where to use: Roadways noted as having frequent lane departure crashes and inadequate or no superelevation. Safety can be enhanced when the superelevation is improved or restored along curves where the actual superelevation is less than the optimal. Why it works: Superelevation works with friction between the tires and pavement to counteract the forces on the vehicle associated with cornering. Many curves may have inadequate superelevation because of vehicles traveling at higher speeds than were originally designed for, because of loss of effective superelevation after resurfacing, or because of changes in design policy after the curve was originally constructed. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): This strategy can be a higher -cost alternative for improving the safety of a curve because it involves reconstruction to some degree. Other projects may be able to be constructed by simple overlays and minimal reconstruction of roadways features. When simple overlay fixes are pursued, a systematic installation approach may be appropriate. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 40 - 50 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 180 R20, Convert from two-way to one-way traffic For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 35% 20 years Notes: 1 This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new one-way sections. General information Where to use: One-way streets can offer improved signal timing and accommodate odd -spaced signals. One-way streets can simplify crossings for pedestrians, who must look for traffic in only one direction. While studies have shown that conversion of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes and the number of conflict points, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. Care must be taken not to create conditions that cause driver confusion and erratic maneuvers. Why it works: Studies have shown a 10 to 50 -percent reduction in total crashes after conversion of a two-way street to one-way operation. While studies have shown that con -version of two-way streets to one-way generally reduces pedestrian crashes, one-way streets tend to have higher speeds which creates new problems. At the same time, this strategy (1) increases capacity significantly and (2) can have safety-related drawbacks including pedestrian confusion and minor sideswipe crashes. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): The costs will vary depending on length of treatment and if the conversion requires modification to signals. Conversion costs can be high to build "crossovers" where the one-way streets convert back to two-way streets and to rebuild traffic signals. It's also likely that these types of modifications will require public involvement and could significantly add to the time it takes to complete the project. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: _I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 1 26 - 43 % R21, Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 55% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to not intended to apply corridors or structure crashes occurring within the limits of the improved friction to standard chip -seal or open -graded maintenance projects overlay. This CM is for long segments of repaving projects intended to fix failed pavement. General information Where to use: Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Areas as noted having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is significantly less than actual roadway speeds; including but not limited to curves, loop ramps, intersections, and areas with short stopping or weaving distances. This treatment is intended to target locations where skidding is determined to be a problem, in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is one that runs (skids) off the road or is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance. Why it works: Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet -road crashes and/or failure to stop crashes can result in a reduction of 50 percent for wet -road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes. Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): This strategy can be relatively inexpensive and implemented in a short timeframe. The installation would be done by either agency personnel or contractors and can be done by hand or machine. In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Wet, Rear -End, All CRF: 117 - 68 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 181 R22, Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warnin For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% li All 15% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring CM is not intended for maintenance upgrades without a primary focus on roadway safety. sign audit project, including the study MUTCD standards, 2) missing signs per audit scope (or a special exception from Narrative Questions in the application. to combine other CMs in the B/C calculation. within the influence area of the new/upgraded of street -name, parking, guide, This CM is not eligible unless it signs. This or any other signs is done as part of a larger and information per The overall sign documented in the it may be appropriate of: 1) the existing signs' locations, sizes MUTCD standards, and 3) sign retroreflectivity. the HSIP program manager) must be Based on the scope of the project/audit, General information Where to use: The target for this strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns of head on, nighttime, non -intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works: This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by lack of driver awareness (or compliance) roadway signing. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning by using fluorescent yellow sheeting (or other retroreflective material). General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head on, Run-off road, Sideswipe, Night I CRF: 118 - 35% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 182 R23, Install chevron signs on horizontal curves For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 40% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve). General information Where to use: Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works: Post -mounted chevrons are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve and provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. While they are intended to act as a warning, it should also be remembered that the posts, placed along the roadside, represent a possible object with which an errant vehicle can crash into. Design of posts to minimize damage and injury is an important part of the considerations to be made when selecting these treatments. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All I CRF: 6 - 64 % R24, Install curve advance warning signs For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve) General information Where to use: Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves during periods of light and darkness. This countermeasure may also include horizontal alignment and/or advisory speed warning signs. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, delineators, markers, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works: This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve. It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Signing improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of signs. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road, All CRF: 20 - 30 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 183 R25, Install curve advance warning signs (flashing beacon For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 30% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. only through the curve) General information Where to use: Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves. Flashing beacons in conjunction with warning signs should only be used on horizontal curves that have an established severe crash history to help maintain their effectiveness. Why it works: This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an enhanced advance warning of an unexpected or sharp curve. It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their added attention is needed. Flashing beacons are an added indication that a curve may be particularly challenging. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Use of flashing beacons requires minimal development process, allowing flashing beacons to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 30 % R26, Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility I Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% li All 30% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the influence area of the new signs. (i.e. through the curve) {This CM does not apply to dynamic regulatory speed warning signs. There are currently no nationally accepted CRFs for dynamic regulatory signs (also known as Radar Speed Feedback Signs). CRFs are being developed and Caltrans hopes to include these CMs and CRFs in future calls for projects.} General information Where to use: Curvilinear roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes due to excessive speeds on relatively sharp curves. Why it works: This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning that they may be traveling over the recommended speed for the approaching curve. Care should be taken to limit the placement of these signs to help maintain their effectiveness. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Use of dynamic speed warning signs requires minimal development process, allowing them to be installed within a short time period. Before choosing this CM, the agency needs to confirm the ability to provide power to the site (solar may be an option). In general, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All CRF: 0 - 41 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 184 R27, Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF I Expected Life 90% li All 15% I 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits / influence not a striping -related CM} area of the new features. {This is General information Where to use: Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on curves (relatively flat to sharp) during periods of light and darkness. Any road with a history of fixed object crashes is a candidate for this treatment, as are roadways with similar fixed objects along the roadside that have yet to experience crashes. If a fixed object cannot be relocated or made break -away, placing an object marker can provide additional information to motorists. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install warning signs, chevrons, beacons, and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.) Why it works: Delineators, reflectors and/or object markers are intended to warn drivers of an approaching curve or fixed object that cannot easily be removed. They are intended to provide tracking information and guidance to the drivers. They are generally less costly than Chevron Signs as they don't require posts to place along the roadside, avoiding an additional object with which an errant vehicle can crash into. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number of locations. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded sign upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Signing Audit (RSSA) and Upgrade Projects". Including RSSAs in the development phase of sign projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) sign features and missing signs that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on RSSA is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: All I CRF: I 0 - 30 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 185 R28, Install edge -lines and centerlines For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 25% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new centerlines and/or edge -lines. This CM is not intended to be used for general maintenance activities (i.e. the replacement of existing striping and RPMs in-kind) and must include upgraded safety features over the existing striping. For two lane roadways allowing passing, a striping audit must be done to ensure the passing limits meeting the MUTCD standards. Both the centerline and edge -lines are expected to be upgraded, unless prior approval is granted by Caltrans staff in writing and attached to application. General information Where to use: Any road with a history of run -off-road right, head-on, opposite -direction -sideswipe, or run -off -road -left crashes is a candidate for this treatment - install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most appropriate. Incorporating raised/reflective pavement markers (RPMs) into centerlines (and edge -lines) should be considered as it has been shown to improve safety. Why it works: Installing edge -lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines (paint to thermoplastic, adding audible disks/bumps in the thermoplastic stripes, or adding RPMs) are intended/designed to help drivers who might leave the roadway because of their inability to see the edge of the roadway along the horizontal edge of the pavement or cross- over the centerline of the roadway into oncoming traffic. New pavement marking products tend to be more durable, are all- weather, more visible, and have a higher retroreflectivity than traditional pavement markings. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. When considering any type of federally funded striping upgrade project, California local agencies are encouraged to consider "Roadway Safety Striping Audit and Upgrade Projects". Including wide -scale striping audits in the development phase of striping projects are expected to identify non-standard (per MUTCD) striping/marking features, no -passing zone limits needing adjustment, and missing striping/markings that may otherwise go unnoticed. More information on this concepts is available on the Local Assistance HSIP webpage under an RSSA example document. Note: When federal safety funding is used for these installations in high -wear -locations, the local agency is expected to maintain the improvement for a minimum of 10 years. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Run-off Road, All CRF: 0 - 44 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 186 R29, Install no -passing line For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility I Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% li All 45% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new or extended no -passing zones. General information Where to use: Roadways that have a high percentage of head-on crashes suggesting that many head-on crashes may relate to failed passing maneuvers. No -passing lines should be installed where drivers "passing sight distance" is not available due to horizontal or vertical obstructions. General restriping projects can be good opportunities to reevaluate and incorporate new no -passing zones limits. The incorporation 'No Passing Zone' pennants should also be considered when reevaluating the limits of no - passing zones. Installing no -passing limits in areas that are not warranted may reduce the overall safety of the corridor as drivers may become frustrated and attempt passing maneuvers at other locations without the necessary sight distance. Why it works: When the centerline markings do not differentiate between passing and no -passing areas, drivers may have difficulty determining where passing maneuvers can be completed safely. Providing clear and engineered passing and no -passing areas can encourage drivers to wait patiently for safe passing areas and avoid aggressively looking for passing opportunities. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. When considered at a single location, these low cost improvements are usually funded through local funding by local maintenance crews. However, This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in low to moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Side -swipe CRF: 40 - 53% R30, Install centerline rumble strips/stripes For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 20% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new rumble strips/stripes. General information Where to use: Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be used on virtually any roadway — especially those with a history of head-on crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes. Why it works: Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Head-on, Side -swipe, All CRF: 15 - 68% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 187 R31, Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% All 15% 10 years Notes: This CM only applies to crashes occurring within the limits of the new rumble strips/stripes. General information Where to use: Shoulder and edge line milled rumble strips/stripes should be used on roads with a history of roadway departure crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Special requirements may apply and care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes. Why it works: Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced marking, especially in wet dark conditions. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): These improvements do not require a long development process and can typically be implemented quickly. Costs for implementing this strategy are nominal and depend on the number and length of locations. This CM can be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous and long locations, resulting in moderate cost projects that are more appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: _I Crash Types Addressed: Run-off Road CRF: 110 - 41% R32PB, Install bike lanes For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the Class II (not Class III) bike lanes. When an off-street bike -path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply. General information Where to use: Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/shoulder. Most studies suggest that bicycle lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when is desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists. Why it works: Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Bicycle lanes provide marked areas for bicyclist to travel along the roadway and provide for more predictable movements for both bicyclist and motorist. Evidence also shows that riding with the flow of vehicular traffic reduces bicyclists' chances of collision with a motor vehicle. Locations with bicycle lanes have lower rates of wrong -way riding. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non -motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Adding striped bicycle lanes can range from the simply restriping the roadway and minor signing to projects that require roadway widening, right-of-way, and environmental impacts. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. For simple installation scenarios, This CM can be very effective and can be considered on a systematic approach. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: I 0 - 53 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 188 R33PB, Install Separated Bike Lanes For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 45% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the separated bike lanes. When an off-street bike -path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply. General information Where to use: Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike -vehicle collisions, presumably in an urban or suburban area. Separation types range from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation measures including raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes. These options range in feasibility due to roadway characteristics, available space, and cost. In some cases, it may be possible to provide additional space in areas where pedestrian and bicyclists may interact, such as the parking buffer, or loading zones, or extra bike lane width for cyclists to pass one another. Why it works: Separated bike lanes provide increased safety and comfort for bicyclists beyond conventional bicycle lanes. By separating bicyclists from motor traffic, "protected" or physically separated bike lanes can offer a higher level of comfort and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. Intersections and approaches must be carefully designed to promote safety and facilitate left - turns for bicyclists from the primary corridor to cross street. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non -motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): The cost of Installing separated bike lanes can be low to medium or high, depending on whether roadway widening, right-of- way and environmental impacts are involved. It is most cost efficient to create bike lanes during street reconstruction, street resurfacing, or at the time of original construction. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 3.7 - 100 % R34PB, Install sidewalk/pathway (to avoid walking along roadwa For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 80% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring within the limits of the new walkway. This CM is not intended to be used where an existing sidewalk is being replaced with a wider one, unless prior Caltrans approval is included in the application. When an off-street multi -use path is proposed that is not adjacent to the roadway, the applicant must document the engineering judgment used to determine which "Ped & Bike" crashes to apply. General information Where to use: Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate. Why it works: Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found to be related to significant reductions in the "walking along roadway" pedestrian crash risk compared to locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. Reductions of 50 to 90 percent of these types of pedestrian crashes. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non - motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non -motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 189 Costs for sidewalks will vary, depending upon factors such as width, materials, and existing of curb, gutter and drainage. Asphalt curbs and walkways are less expensive, but require more maintenance. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. These projects can be very effective in areas of high -pedestrian volumes with a past history of crashes involving pedestrians. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 65 - 89 % R35PB, Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the new crossing which includes new enhanced safety features. Note: This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install raised pedestrian crossing" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio. This CM is not intended to be used for high-cost aesthetic enhancements (i.e. stamped concrete or stamped asphalt). General information Where to use: Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high -use midblock crossing areas and/or multilane roads locations. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non -motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements. For multi -lane roadways, advance "yield" markings can be effective in reducing the 'multiple -threat' danger to pedestrians. Why it works: Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being problematic. The enhanced safety elements, which may include curb extensions, medians and pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting, combined with pavement markings delineating a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Care must be taken to warn drivers of the potential for pedestrians crossing the roadway and enhanced improvements added to the crossing increase the likelihood of pedestrians crossing in a safe manner. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to crossing like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local -funding share for the project costs. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending on the extent of the curb extensions, raised medians, flashing beacons, and other pedestrian safety elements that are needed with the crossing. When considered at a single location, these improvements can sometimes be low cost and funded through local funding by local crews. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations, resulting in moderate to high cost projects that are appropriate to seek state or federal funding. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Pedestrian, Bicycle CRF: 18 - 56% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 190 R36PB, Install raised pedestrian crossin For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the area with the new raised crossing. Note: This CM is not intended to be combined with the "Install pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features)" when calculating the improvement's B/C ratio. General information Where to use: On lower -speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant vehicular traffic. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone, may not be sufficient to adequately protect non -motorized users. In these cases, raised crossings can be added to complement the standard crossing elements. Special requirements may apply and extra care should be taken when considering installing raised crossings to ensure unintended safety issues are not created, such as: emergency vehicle access or truck route issues. Why it works: Adding a raised pedestrian crossing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The raised crossing encourages motorists to reduce their speed and provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non -motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Costs associated with this strategy will vary widely, depending upon the elements of the raised crossing and the need for new curb ramps and sidewalk modifications. This CM may be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with more than one location and can have medium to high B/C ratios based on past non -motorized crash history. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Pedestrian, Bicycle I CRF: 130 - 46% R37PB, Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF Expected Life 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle 35% 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "Ped & Bike" crashes occurring in the influence area (expected to be a maximum of within 250') of the crossing which includes the RRFB. General information Where to use: Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian -activated flashing lights and additional signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings. Why it works: RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid -block pedestrian crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as crossing warning signs and markings. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): RRFBs are a lower cost alternative to traffic signals and hybrid signals. This CM can often be effectively and efficiently implemented using a systematic approach with numerous locations. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: I Crash Types Addressed: I Pedestrian, Bicycle I CRF: 17 — 47.4% 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 191 R38, Install Animal Fencin For HSIP Cycle 11 Call -for -projects Funding Eligibility Crash Types Addressed CRF I Expected Life 90% Animal 80% 1 20 years Notes: This CM only applies to "animal" crashes occurring within the limits of the new fencing. General information Where to use: At locations with high percent of vehicular/animal crashes (reactive) or where there is a known high percent of animals crossing due to migratory patterns (proactive). Why it works: Animal fencing helps to channelize the identified animals to a natural or man-made crossing, eliminating the conflict between vehicles and animals on the same place. Animal fencing is typically installed at a bridge location with its "run of need" dependent on the surrounding terrain. General Qualities (Time, Cost and Effectiveness): Time to install fencing can be moderate to lengthy depending on the environmental commitments and agreed upon solution to mitigating project impacts. Costs will be fairly low and depend on the "run of need" length. There will be minimal reoccurring maintenance costs on keeping the fence intact. The expected effectiveness of this CM must be assessed for each individual location. FHWA CMF Clearinghouse: Crash Types Addressed: Animal CRF: 70 - 90 % 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 192 Appendix C: Summary of "Recommended Actions" The information contained here represent a brief summary of each section of this manual as well as the Summary of "Recommended Actions" from Sections 2 through 7. This is intended to be a quick -reference for local agency practitioners working on a "proactive safety analysis" of their roadway network. Introduction and Purpose As safety practitioners consider implementing a 'proactive safety analysis approach' they should consider the overall context of the safety issues facing California local agencies and Caltrans primary goals for preparing this Safety manual for California's local roadway owners. Figure 1 provides a flowchart of the process and Appendices E and F provide examples and lessons learned from recent statewide calls -for -projects. Identifying Safety Issues This section provides an overview of the types of data to collect for the identification of roadway safety issues. It discusses sources of crash data and how they can be used. As practitioners gather information they are encouraged to develop one or more separate spreadsheets and/or pin -maps to help track and manage this data. The following spreadsheet is offered as an example, but each agency's spreadsheet should include data and be formatted as necessary to meet their needs. State and Local Crash Databases Recommended Action: Obtain at least 3 years of network -wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics. Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency's data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or tools from private for-profit vendors) can help the safety practitioner access and manage their crash data. Law Enforcement Crash Reports Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 193 General Information Crash Information Evaluation / Action Location & Date Source/Type of information Safety Issue/Problem Nature of Crashes Time of Day Weather/Traffic Conditions Staff Evaluation Recommend Action Resolution 1) Intersection "X" 2) Roadway Segment (PM 5.3 to PM 7.8) State and Local Crash Databases Recommended Action: Obtain at least 3 years of network -wide crash data to identify local roads that have a history of roadway crashes. This will be used to identify predominant roadway crash locations, crash types and other common characteristics. Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) Recommended Action: Consider augmenting your local agency's data collection approach with information available using the suite of TIMS tools. The TIMS tools (and/or tools from private for-profit vendors) can help the safety practitioner access and manage their crash data. Law Enforcement Crash Reports Recommended Action: Develop a working relationship with law enforcement officials responsible for enforcement and crash investigations. This could foster a partnership where sharing crash reports and 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 193 safety information on problem roadway segments becomes an everyday occurrence. Practitioners with limited access to crash data are encouraged to use TIMS to assess the local crash report data. Observational Information Recommended Action: Gather information received from law enforcement and road maintenance crew observations. Develop a system for maintenance crews to report and record observed roadway safety issues and a mechanism to address them. Public Notifications Recommended Action: Review and summarize information received from these sources, identifying segments or corridors with multiple notifications and record the locations, dates, and nature of the problem that are cited. Roadway Data and Devices Recommended Action: Identify and track roadway characteristics for the intersections, roadway segments, and corridors, including compliance with the minimum standards. At a minimum, this should be done for locations being considered for safety improvements, but ideally agencies would establish an extensive database of roadway data to help them proactively identify high risk roadway features. Exposure Data Recommended Action: Consider the availability of exposure data and track it along with the other crash data to help prioritize potential locations for safety improvements. Field Assessments and Road Safety Audits Recommended Action: Consider completing formal or informal field assessments and RSAs at certain locations to help ensure all relevant information is collected and available for the safety practitioners to complete their safety analysis and identification of the most appropriate countermeasures. Develop simple straightforward criteria on when one of these will be undertaken. Safety Data Analysis This section summarizes the types of analyses that can be conducted to determine what roadway countermeasures should be implemented. This section is the link between the data (Section 2) and the selection of appropriate countermeasures (Section 4). It provides definitions and examples of the qualitative and quantitative factors that should be considered when evaluating roadway safety issues. Quantitative Analysis Recommended Action: Complete a quantitative analysis of their roadway data using both Crash Frequency and Crash Rate methodologies, including: Crash Frequency Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections and roadway segments. For lower volume roadways, network wide pin -maps may be more effective. Develop collision diagrams showing the direction of movement of vehicles and pedestrians. Crash Rate Top 10 (or 20) lists of roadway segments in relationship to length, volumes, and/or density. Top 10 (or 20) lists of intersections, sorted by crash rate. Top 10 (or 20) lists of the highest volume intersections, sorted by crash frequency or rate. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 194 Qualitative Analysis Recommended Action: Consider completing field assessments and RSAs to identify roadway infrastructure characteristics relating to both locations with compliance issues and locations with high crash frequencies/rates. As part the field assessments, common roadway and crash characteristics should be identified for the potential systemic deployment of countermeasures. Caltrans recommends all agencies complete both quantitative and qualitative analyses before starting their applications for HSIP program funding. The findings from these analyses should be documented in spreadsheets and/or pin -maps similar to the ones discussed in Section 2. Countermeasures This Section provides a description of selected countermeasures that have been shown in this manual. It includes a basic set of strategies to implement at locations experiencing a history of crashes and their corresponding crash modification factors (CMF). NOTE: Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs) are directly connected to the CMFs and are another indication of the effectiveness of a particular treatment. The CRF for a countermeasure is defined mathematically as 1— CMF. The terms CMFs and CRFs are used interchangeably throughout this document. Selecting Countermeasures and Crash Modification Factors / Crash Reduction Factors Countermeasure Details and Characteristics Recommended Action: Agencies should use all information and results obtained through completing the actions in Sections 2, 3 and 4 to select the appropriate countermeasures for their HCCLs and systemic improvements. As novice safety practitioners select countermeasures, they must realize that a reasonable level of traffic 'engineering judgment' is required and that this manual and should not be used as a simple cheat -sheet for preparing and submitting applications for funding. Calculating the B/C ratio and Comparing Projects This section defines a methodology for calculating a benefit to cost (B/C) ratio for a potential safety project. It includes sources for estimating projected costs and benefits and the specific values/formulas Caltrans uses for its statewide evaluations of HSIP projects. This section also discusses the potential value in reevaluating projects' overall cost effectiveness. Estimating the Benefit of Implementing Proposed Improvements Recommended Action: Prepare 'Total Benefit' estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. Estimating the Cost of Implementing Proposed Improvements Recommended Action: Prepare 'Total Project Cost' estimates for the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 195 Calculating the B/C Ratio Recommended Action: Calculate the B/C ratio for each of the proposed projects being evaluated in the proactive safety analysis. Compare B/C Ratios and Consider the Need to Reevaluate Project Elements Recommended Action: Compare, reevaluate, and prioritize the potential safety projects. Consider changing the project limits or utilizing lower cost countermeasures for projects with low initial B/C ratios. Identifying Funding and Construct Improvements This section identifies existing and new funding opportunities for safety projects that local agencies should be considering. This section also briefly discusses some unique project development issues and strategies for safety projects as they proceed through design and construction. Existing Funding for Low-cost Countermeasures Recommended Action: Survey planned maintenance, developer and capital projects to determine whether they overlap any of the proposed safety projects. Where projects overlap, leverage the existing funding sources to include safety countermeasures. Other Funding Sources Recommended Action: Consider all potential funding opportunities to incorporate the identified safety countermeasures including the HSIP and ATP Programs. Project Development and Construction Considerations Recommended Action: Safety practitioners should follow their safety projects all the way through the project delivery and construction process. In addition, they should establish a safety program delivery plan that brings awareness and support to the expedited delivery of safety projects. Where possible, safety practitioners should involve the media and even consider having their own program intended to "toot their own safety -horn." Evaluation Improvements This section presents the process to complete an evaluation of installed treatments. After the countermeasures are installed, assessing their effectiveness will provide valuable information and can help determine which countermeasures should continue to be installed on other roadways to make them safer as well. Recommended Action: Develop a spreadsheet to track future safety project installations and record 3+ years of "before" and "after" crash information at those locations. Once safety countermeasures are constructed, schedule and track assessment dates to ensure they happen. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 196 Appendix D: Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculations This appendix includes the Benefit Cost methodology used in the Caltrans calls -for -projects in the HSIP programs. The HSM, Part B - Chapter 7, includes more details on conducting Economic Appraisal for roadway safety projects. Local agencies will be required to utilize the HSIP Analyzer to calculate the Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) as part of their application for HSIP funding. Starting in Cycle 7 call for projects, the fatality and severe injury costs have been combined for calculating the benefit. Because fatality figures are small and are a matter of randomness, this change is being made to reduce the possibility of selecting an improvement project on the basis of randomness. 3 1) Benefit (Annual) =1 CRF x N x CC,„ Y - CRF : Crash reduction factor in each countermeasure. - S : Severity (0: PDO, 1: Minor Injury, 2: Injury, 3: Severe Injury/Fatal). See the below table. - N : Number of Crashes, in severity levels, related to selected countermeasure. - Y : Crash data time period (Year). - CCave : Crash costs in severity levels. Severity (S) Crash Severity * Location Type Crash Cost *** 3 **Fatality and Severe Injury Combined (KA) Signalized Intersection $1,787,000 3 Non Signalized Intersection $2,843,000 3 Roadway $2,461,000 2 Evident Injury — Other Visible (B) $159,900 1 Possible Injury—Complaint of Pain (C) $90,900 0 Property Damage Only (0) $14,900 ** *** The letters in parenthesis (K, A, B, C and 0) refer to the KABCO scale; it is commonly used by law enforcement agencies in their crash reporting efforts and is further documented in the HSM. Figures were calculated based on an average Fatality (K) / Severe Injury (A) ratio for each area type, a crash cost for a Fatality (K) of $8,112,200, and a crash cost of a Severe/Disabling Injury (A) of $437,100. These costs are used in the HSIP Analyzer. Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), First Edition, 2010. Adjusted to 2022 Dollars. 2) Benefit (Life) = Benefit (annual) x Years of service life Benefit (Life)(CM) 3) BCR (each countermeasure): Benefit Cost Ratio(cM) _ Total Project Cost (cm) 4) BCR (project): BCR (Project) = Ecm=iBenefit (Life)(cM) Total Project Cost 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 197 Appendix E: Examples of Crash Data Collection and Analysis Techniques using TIMS As demonstrated throughout the manual, SafeTREC's TIMS website http://tims.berkeley.edu/ can be used to assist local agencies in completing a proactive safety analysis of their roadway network. (Note: This manual focuses on TIMS as a tool to access and map SWITRS data because TIMS is free to local agencies and the general public. Local agencies are encouraged to try TIMS, but they should not feel obligated to make a switch if they prefer using their vendor -supplied crash analysis software to complete their data collection and analysis process). UC Berkeley SafeTREC Transportation Injury Mapping System Home About Crashes During COVID-1 9 SWITRS Summary m Tools - News Help SWITRS Query & Map: The SWITRS Query & Map application is a tool for accessing and mapping fatal and injury collision data from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). SWITRS GIS Map: The SWITRS GIS Map offers an interactive map -centric approach to viewing and querying SWITRS collision data, with the capability of multiple tasks including Rank by Intersection, Collision Diagram, etc. Collision Diagram Tool: The Collision Diagram tool allows users to generate an interactive collision diagram. The Collision Diagram is accessible through SWITRS GIS Map after a set of collisions is selected. ATP Maps & Summary Data: The ATP Maps & Summary Data tool utilizes interactive collision maps to find pedestrian and bicycle collisions hot spot and generate data summaries within specified project and/or community limits. Though it is designed to support the California Active Transportation Program (ATP), this tool may be useful in developing an HSIP project targeting pedestrian and bicycle safety issues. 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 98 Appendix F: List of Abbreviations AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ATP Active Transportation Program B/C; BCR Benefit Cost Ratio Caltrans California Department of Transportation (Division of Local Assistance) CA-MUTCD California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices CM Countermeasure CMF Crash Modification Factor CRF Crash Reduction Factor "5 E's of Safety" Education, Enforcement, Engineering, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies EMS Emergency Medical Services FHWA Federal Highway Administration HCCL High Crash Concentration Location HR3 High Risk Rural Roads Program HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program HSM Highway Safety Manual RSA Roadway Safety Audit SafeTREC Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) at the University of California, Berkeley SHSP SWITRS TIMS Strategic Highway Safety Plan Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System Transportation Injury Mapping System (a product of SafeTREC) 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 199 Appendix G: References 1. FHWA, Office of Safety website: Local and Rural Road Safety Program • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local rural/ 2. Highway Safety Manual (HSM). Product of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. • http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/default.aspx 3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA): National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) Motor Vehicle Traffic Crash Data Resource • https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/ 4. California - Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) • https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd 5. Caltrans' website on the Highway Design Manual • https://dot.ca.gov/programs/design/manual-highway-design-manual-hdm 6. FHWA, Research and Development website for Bikesafe and Pedsafe • https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped bike/tools solve/ 7. AASHTO - A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets ("Green Book") AASHTO - the Roadside Design Guide • https://store.transportation.org/ 8. FHWA — Public Roads Magazine: • https://highways.dot.gov/public-roads/home 4/8/2022 Local Roadway Safety Page 1 100 APPENDIX E. B/C RATIO CALCULATION Local Roadway Safety Plan 1 282 Years of Collision Data 5 Cost, Benefit and B/C Ratio Calculation Table 10% 5% FID Location CM 1 CM 2 CM 3 CM1 CRF - CM2 CRF - CM3 CRF - CM1 Life - (Year) CM2 Life - (Year) CM3 Life - (Year) Unused & Desired CM Cost Contingency Cost Environmental Cost Project 1 - Safety at Si • nalized Intersections 1 Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at Ackerman Dr 502 S20PB S21PB 0.15 0.15 0.6 10 10 10 R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes $ 36,510.00 $ 3,651.00 $ 1,825.50 2 Camino Tassajara at Tassajara Ranch Dr/Blackhawk Plaza Cir 502 S20PB S21PB 0.15 0.15 0.6 10 10 10 $ 95,020.00 $ 9,502.00 $ 4,751.00 3 Crow Canyon Rd at Center Wy/Center Ct 502 S20PB S21PB 0.15 0.15 0.6 10 10 10 $ 89,090.00 $ 8,909.00 $ 4,454.50 4 Crow Canyon Rd at Tassajara Ranch Dr 502 S20PB S21PB 0.15 0.15 0.6 10 10 10 $ 94,590.00 $ 9,459.00 $ 4,729.50 6 Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr 502 S20PB S21PB 0.15 0.15 0.6 10 10 10 $ 84,040.00 $ 8,404.00 $ 4,202.00 Project 2 - Safety at Unsignalized Intersections 1 Stone Valley Rd at Monte Sereno Rd NS06 R27 20 0.15 0.15 $ 3,227.75 10 10 R32PB - Install bike lanes R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes $ 7,675.00 $ 767.50 $ 383.75 2 Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave NS06 NS07 $90,900 0.15 0.25 10 10 $ 14,150.00 $ 1,415.00 $ 707.50 4 Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr NS06 NS07 NS21PB 0.15 0.25 0.35 10 10 20 $ 14,050.00 $ 1,405.00 $ 702.50 5 Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd NS06 NS07 R35PB 0.15 0.25 0.35 10 10 20 $ 5,295.00 $ 529.50 $ 264.75 Project 3 - Safet on Roadway Se • ments 1 Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Town Limit R22 R27 20 0.15 0.15 $ 3,227.75 10 10 R32PB - Install bike lanes R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes $ 70,550.00 $ 7,055.00 $ 3,527.50 3 San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr R22 R27 $90,900 0.15 0.15 10 10 $ 46,650.00 $ 4,665.00 $ 2,332.50 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit R22 R27 0.15 0.15 10 10 $ 13,025.00 $ 1,302.50 $ 651.25 1 Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Camino Tassajara R33PB 0.35 20 0.45 $ 6,455.50 $ 3,227.75 20 R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R32PB - Install bike lanes R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes $ 91,060.00 $ 9,106.00 $ 4,553.00 2 Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Railroad Ave R33PB Complaint of Pain $90,900 0.45 $14,900 20 $ 142,045.00 $ 14,204.50 $ 7,102.25 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit R33PB 0.45 20 $ 22,848.00 $ 2,284.80 $ 1,142.40 6 Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave R32PB R35PB 0.35 0.35 20 20 $ 72,625.00 $ 7,262.50 $ 3,631.25 8 Stone Valley Rd: 575' W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley Rd R33PB 0.45 20 $ 30,754.00 $ 3,075.40 $ 1,537.70 Project 5 - Pedestrian Saf 1 Hartz Ave R36PB 0.35 20 $ 64,555.00 $ 6,455.50 $ 3,227.75 Countermeasure Nam S03 - Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LP N506 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection wa NS07 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings NS21PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with i R01 - Add segment lighting R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warr R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R32PB - Install bike lanes R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes R36PB - Install raised pedestrian crossing I) rning/regulatory signs nhanced safety features) ing) 2022 Crash Cos Signalized Fatal $1,787,000 Unsignalized $2,843,000 Roadway Segment $2,461,000 Severe Injury Signalized $1,787,000 Unsignalized $2,843,000 Roadway Segment $2,461,000 Other Visible Injury $159,900 Complaint of Pain $90,900 PDO $14,900 FID Cost, Benefit and B/C Ratio Calculation TabIE CM R22 use 25% 10% 0% 0% 15% Collisions (2016-2020) Location PS&E Cost Right of Way Engineering Cost Appraisals, Acqusitions & Utilities Cost Construction Engineering (CE) Cost Cost Per Location All Locations (Cost 2021) 20% More Total #Collisions Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Project 1 - Safety at Si • nalized Intersections 1 Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at Ackerman Dr $ 3,651.00 $ 9,683.25 $ $ 5,476.50 $ 51,114.00 $ 57,638.00 $ 69,165.60 8 0 2 2 2 Camino Tassajara at Tassajara Ranch Dr/Blackhawk Plaza Cir $ 9,502.00 $ 14,253.00 $ 133,028.00 10 0 2 0 1 0 3 Crow Canyon Rd at Center Wy/Center Ct $ 8,909.00 $ 2,107.50 $ 19,670.00 $ 13,363.50 $ 124,726.00 $ 558,950.00 $ 670,740.00 13 0 1 3 4 Crow Canyon Rd at Tassajara Ranch Dr $ 9,459.00 7 0 $ 14,188.50 $ 132,426.00 10 0 1 1 6 Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr $ 8,404.00 $ 12,606.00 $ 117,656.00 7 0 1 1 Project 2 - Safety at Unsignalized Intersections 1 Stone Valley Rd at Monte Sereno Rd $ 767.50 $ 9,683.25 $ $ 1,151.25 $ 10,745.00 $ 57,638.00 $ 69,165.60 4 1 1 0 2 Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave $ 1,415.00 $ 2,122.50 $ 19,810.00 10 0 2 3 4 Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr $ 1,405.00 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit $ 2,284.80 $ 2,107.50 $ 19,670.00 8 0 2 1 5 Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd $ 529.50 4 6 $ 794.25 $ 7,413.00 7 0 1 0 Project 3 - Safet on Roadway Se • ments 1 Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Town Limit $ 17,637.50 $ 9,683.25 $ $ 10,582.50 $ 109,352.50 $ 201,848.75 $ 242,218.50 119 2 7 15 3 San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr $ 11,662.50 $ 6,997.50 $ 72,307.50 42 1 2 3 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit $ 3,256.25 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit $ 2,284.80 $ 1,953.75 $ 20,188.75 26 $ 31,987.20 2 4 Project 4 - Safety on Roadway Segments - Pedestrian and B 1 Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Camino Tassajara $ 9,106.00 $ 9,683.25 $ $ 13,659.00 $ 127,484.00 $ 108,452.40 17 119 2 7 15 2 Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Railroad Ave $ 14,204.50 $ 21,306.75 $ 198,863.00 46 0 4 7 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit $ 2,284.80 $ 3,427.20 $ 31,987.20 $ 503,064.80 $ 603,677.76 26 0 2 4 6 Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave $ 7,262.50 $ 10,893.75 $ 101,675.00 4 0 1 1 8 Stone Valley Rd: 575' W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley Rd $ 3,075.40 $ 4,613.10 $ 43,055.60 5 1 1 0 Project 5 - Pedestrian Saf 1 Hartz Ave $ 6,455.50 $ 9,683.25 $ 90,377.00 $ 90,377.00 $ 108,452.40 17 1 5 Countermeasure Nam = ii S03 - Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LP N506 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection wa NS07 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings NS21PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with i R01 - Add segment lighting R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warr R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R32PB - Install bike lanes R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes R36PB - Install raised pedestrian crossing FID Cost, Benefit and B/C Ratio Calculation TabIE Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at Ackerman Dr 0 Crash Costs Location Complaint of Pain Property Damage Only Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Compliant of Pain PDO Crash Costs Total Crash Cost Project 1 - Safety at Si • nalized Intersections 1 Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at Ackerman Dr 0 4 $ - $ 5,686,000.00 $ 319,800 $ - $ 59,600.00 $ 6,065,400.00 $ 21,416,800 2 Camino Tassajara at Tassajara Ranch Dr/Blackhawk Plaza Cir 0 1 $ - $ 2,843,000.00 $ - $ - $ 14,900.00 $ 2,857,900.00 4 3 Crow Canyon Rd at Center Wy/Center Ct 5 4 $ - $ 2,843,000.00 $ 479,700 $ 454,500.00 $ 59,600.00 $ 3,836,800.00 $ 19,339,600 4 Crow Canyon Rd at Tassajara Ranch Dr 3 5 $ - $ 2,843,000.00 $ 159,900 $ 272,700.00 $ 74,500.00 $ 3,350,100.00 6 Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr 2 3 $ - $ 2,843,000.00 $ 159,900 $ 181,800.00 $ 44,700.00 $ 3,229,400.00 Project 2 - Safety at Unsignalized Intersections 1 Stone Valley Rd at Monte Sereno Rd 1 1 $ 2,843,000.00 $ 2,843,000 $ - $ 90,900.00 $ 14,900.00 $ 5,791,800.00 $ 21,416,800 2 Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave 1 4 $ - $ 5,686,000 $ 479,700 $ 90,900.00 $ 59,600.00 $ 6,316,200.00 4 Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr 2 3 $ - $ 5,686,000 $ 159,900 $ 181,800.00 $ 44,700.00 $ 6,072,400.00 5 Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd 4 2 $ - $ 2,843,000 $ - $ 363,600.00 $ 29,800.00 $ 3,236,400.00 Pro-ect 3 - Safet on Roadwa Se • ments 1 Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Town Limit 29 66 $ 5,686,000.00 $ 19,901,000 $ 2,398,500 $ 2,636,100.00 $ 983,400.00 $ 31,605,000.00 $ 48,837,700 3 San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr 5 31 $ 2,843,000.00 $ 5,686,000 $ 479,700 $ 454,500.00 $ 461,900.00 $ 9,925,100.00 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit 9 11 $ - $ 5,686,000 $ 639,600 $ 818,100.00 $ 163,900.00 $ 7,307,600.00 Project 4 - Safety on Roadway Segments - Pedestrian and B 1 Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Camino Tassajara 29 66 $ 4,922,000.00 $ 17,227,000.00 $ 2,398,500 $ 2,636,100.00 $ 983,400.00 $ 28,167,000.00 134,100.00 2 Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Railroad Ave 14 21 $ - $ 9,844,000.00 $ 1,119,300 $ 1,272,600.00 $ 312,900.00 $ 12,548,800.00 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit 9 11 $ - $ 4,922,000.00 $ 639,600 $ 818,100.00 $ 163,900.00 $ 6,543,600.00 $ 54,952,800 6 Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave 0 2 $ - $ 2,461,000.00 $ 159,900 $ - $ 29,800.00 $ 2,650,700.00 8 Stone Valley Rd: 575' W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley Rd 1 2 $ 2,461,000.00 $ 2,461,000.00 $ - $ 90,900.00 $ 29,800.00 $ 5,042,700.00 Project 5 - Pedestrian Saf 1 Hartz Ave 2 9 $ - $ 2,461,000.00 $ 799,500 $ 181,800.00 $ 134,100.00 $ 3,576,400.00 $ 3,576,400 Countermeasure Nam = ii S03 - Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LP N506 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection wa NS07 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings NS21PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with 1 R01 - Add segment lighting R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warr R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R32PB - Install bike lanes R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes R36PB - Install raised pedestrian crossing FID Cost, Benefit and B/C Ratio Calculation Tabl( CM Annual Benefit CM Life Benefit Benefit Location CM1_Benefit (Annual) CM2_ Benefit (Annual) CM3_ Benefit (Annual) CM1_Benefit (Life) CM2_ Benefit (Life) CM3_ Benefit (Life) Benefit per Location (Life) Project 2 - Safety at Unsignalized Intersections Stone Valley Rd at Monte Sereno Rd 173,754.00 $ 1,737,540.00 $ 1,737,540.00 2 Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave 189,486.00 315,810.00 $ 1,894,860.00 $ 3,158,100.00 $ 5,052,960.00 4 Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr 182,172.00 303,620.00 425,068.00 $ 1,821,720.00 $ 3,036,200.00 $ 8,501,360.00 $ 13,359,280.00 5 Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd 97,092.00 161,820.00 970,920.00 $ 1,618,200.00 $ 2,589,120.00 1 Project 3 - Safety on Roadway Segments Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Town Limit 948,150.00 $ 948,150.00 $ $ 9,481,500.00 $ 9,481,500.00 $ $ 18,963,000.00 3 San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr 297,753.00 297,753.00 $ 2,977,530.00 $ 2,977,530.00 $ 5,955,060.00 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit 219,228.00 219,228.00 $ 2,192,280.00 $ 2,192,280.00 $ 4,384,560.00 Project 1 - Safety at Signalized Intersections S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LP N506 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection wa N507 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings NS21PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with l R01 - Add segment lighting R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warr 1 Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Camino Tassajara $ 2,535,030.00 1 Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at Ackerman Dr $ 181,962.00 $ 181,962.00 $ 727,848.00 $ 1,819,620.00 $ 1,819,620.00 $ 7,278,480.00 $ 10,917,720.00 2 Camino Tassajara at Tassajara Ranch Dr/Blackhawk Plaza Cir $ 85,737.00 $ 85,737.00 $ 342,948.00 $ 857,370.00 $ 857,370.00 $ 3,429,480.00 $ 5,144,220.00 3 Crow Canyon Rd at Center Wy/Center Ct $ 115,104.00 $ 115,104.00 $ 460,416.00 $ 1,151,040.00 $ 1,151,040.00 $ 4,604,160.00 $ 6,906,240.00 4 Crow Canyon Rd at Tassajara Ranch Dr $ 100,503.00 $ 100,503.00 $ 402,012.00 $ 1,005,030.00 $ 1,005,030.00 $ 4,020,120.00 $ 6,030,180.00 6 Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr $ 96,882.00 $ 96,882.00 $ 387,528.00 $ 968,820.00 $ 968,820.00 $ 3,875,280.00 $ 5,812,920.00 Project 2 - Safety at Unsignalized Intersections Stone Valley Rd at Monte Sereno Rd 173,754.00 $ 1,737,540.00 $ 1,737,540.00 2 Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave 189,486.00 315,810.00 $ 1,894,860.00 $ 3,158,100.00 $ 5,052,960.00 4 Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr 182,172.00 303,620.00 425,068.00 $ 1,821,720.00 $ 3,036,200.00 $ 8,501,360.00 $ 13,359,280.00 5 Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd 97,092.00 161,820.00 970,920.00 $ 1,618,200.00 $ 2,589,120.00 1 Project 3 - Safety on Roadway Segments Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Town Limit 948,150.00 $ 948,150.00 $ $ 9,481,500.00 $ 9,481,500.00 $ $ 18,963,000.00 3 San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr 297,753.00 297,753.00 $ 2,977,530.00 $ 2,977,530.00 $ 5,955,060.00 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit 219,228.00 219,228.00 $ 2,192,280.00 $ 2,192,280.00 $ 4,384,560.00 1 Project 5 - Pedestrian Safety on Roadway Segment - Downt Hartz Ave 250,348.00 J $ $ 5,006,960.00 I $ $ 5,006,960.001 Countermeasure Name Project 4 - Safety on Roadway Segments - Pedestrian and B S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LP N506 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection wa N507 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings NS21PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with l R01 - Add segment lighting R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warr 1 Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Camino Tassajara $ 2,535,030.00 $ - $ - $ 50,700,600.00 $ - $ - $ 50,700,600.00 2 Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Railroad Ave $ 1,129,392.00 $ - $ - $ 22,587,840.00 $ - $ - $ 22,587,840.00 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit $ 588,924.00 $ - $ - $ 11,778,480.00 $ - $ - $ 11,778,480.00 6 Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave $ - $ 185,549.00 $ 185,549.00 $ - $ 3,710,980.00 $ 3,710,980.00 $ 7,421,960.00 8 Stone Valley Rd: 575' W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley Rd $ 453,843.00 $ - $ - $ 9,076,860.00 $ - $ - $ 9,076,860.00 1 Project 5 - Pedestrian Safety on Roadway Segment - Downt Hartz Ave 250,348.00 J $ $ 5,006,960.00 I $ $ 5,006,960.001 Countermeasure Name S03 - Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LP N506 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection wa N507 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings NS21PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with l R01 - Add segment lighting R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warr R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R32PB - Install bike lanes R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes R36PB - Install raised pedestrian crossing FID Cost, Benefit and B/C Ratio Calculation Table Total Benefit B/C Location Total_Benefit (Life) BIC 1 Project 1 - Safety at Signalized Intersections Diablo Rd/EI Cerro Blvd at Ackerman Dr 2 Camino Tassajara at Tassajara Ranch Dr/Blackhawk Plaza Cir 3 Crow Canyon Rd at Center Wy/Center Ct 4 Crow Canyon Rd at Tassajara Ranch Dr 6 Camino Tassajara at Lawrence Rd/Oakgate Dr $ 34,811,280.00 62.28 1 Project 2 - Safety at Unsignalized Intersections Stone Valley Rd at Monte Sereno Rd 2 Hartz Ave at Linda Mesa Ave 4 Diablo Rd at Clydesdale Dr 5 Danville Blvd at Hartford Rd $ 22,738,900.00 394.51 1 Project 3 - Safety on Roadway Segments Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Town Limit 3 San Ramon Valley Blvd: Hartz Wy to 350' N of Ridgeland Dr 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit $ 18,963,000.00 93.95 1 Project 4 - Safety on Roadway Segments - Pedestrian and B Sycamore Valley Blvd/Camino Tassajara: SRVB to Camino Tassajara 2 Danville Blvd/Hartz Ave: Del Amigo Rd to Railroad Ave 5 Crow Canyon Rd: Camino Tassajara to Town Limit 6 Love Ln: Verona Ave to Railroad Ave 8 Stone Valley Rd: 575' W of Monte Sereno Dr to Green Valley Rd $ 101,565,740.00 168.24 1 I II - Hartz Ave 5,006,960.00 I 46.17 Countermeasure Nam = III S03 - Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation) S20PB - Install advance stop bar before crosswalk (Bicycle Box) S21PB - Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LP N506 - Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection wa N507 - Upgrade intersection pavement markings NS21PB - Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with l R01 - Add segment lighting R22 - Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warr R27 - Install delineators, reflectors and/or object markers R32PB - Install bike lanes R33PB - Install Separated Bike Lanes R36PB - Install raised pedestrian crossing