Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/15/2009, B4 - 2008 ANNUAL TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT council w., °•~ 09/15/2009 ` aGEnoA nepmt Aq CITY 0 r SAN LUIS 0 R 1 5 P 0 FROM: Jay D. WalteIrP blic Works Director& Deborah Linden, Police Chief Prepared By: Tim Bochum, Deputy Public Works Director Jake Hudson, Senior Traffic Engineer Jeff Booth, Sergeant Traffic Division SUBJECT: 2008 ANNUAL TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT CAO RECOMMENDATION Review and discuss the 2008 Annual Traffic Safety Report and associated mitigation strategies. REPORT-IN-BRIEF The Public Works and Police Departments have completed the ° 9%reduction in reported overall collisions from 2007 2008 annual Traffic Safety Report (TSR). In 2008 total collisions . 8%reduction in reported were down 9%, injury collisions were down 8%, and there were injury collisions from 2007 no fatal collisions. These statistics represent a continued low rate • 10 year historical low for local collisions as compared to State and national statistics. Since the City initiated the TSR in 2002, traffic collisions have continued on a downward trend, with the exception of 2004 when the City experienced a spike in accidents largely due to an influx of construction within City right-of-way and the closure of the Foothill Bridge. The TSR reviews all intersections and street segments in the City for collision rates and patterns in addition to enforcement activities for the calendar year 2008. Based on this traffic information, recommendations are made for altering or monitoring the five most critical locations of each intersection and street segment classification. Of these locations the most notable are: 1. Monterey& Santa Rosa 5. Broad &Higuera 2. Chorro& Marsh 6. Calle Joaquin & LOVR 3. Pismo & Santa Rosa 7. Mill &Osos 4. Osos&Pismo 8. Higuera&Vachell. This report marks yet another significant milestone in the City's efforts to improve traffic safety. Since the traffic safety program began in 2002, over 150 minor and 14 major safety projects have been completed. Due to the City's investment in these projects, coupled with ongoing enforcement activities,traffic collisions are down by more than 37%since the safety program began in 2002. DISCUSSION TSR Overview The collision data and corresponding analysis for the current report was compiled and completed by the Public Works and Police Departments in July of 2009. The TSR identifies patterns at the highest collision rate locations of similar classification. Staff then narrowed each list and analyzed the top 6.41- 1 2008 Traffic Safety Report Page 2 five locations to identify possible mitigations to address safety issues. For example, all arterial segments are compared to each other to establish the highest rated locations that will potentially receive mitigation or safety improvements. The analysis technique utilizes an advanced collision records software program that aids staff in determining collision patterns and potential corrective measures. In order to determine if corrective measures could reduce the likelihood of a collision type identified in the pattern, a comprehensive review of each location is conducted, including a survey of the field conditions and travel behavior. The significance of a location's "collision rate" is that it is an indicator when comparing intersections or street segments. Under most conditions, the more vehicles entering the intersection, the more likely a collision is to occur. Collision rates are used by police departments to target traffic enforcement and by engineers to establish traffic safety mitigation measures. Collision statistics within this report are based on actual police reports. While the TSR reviewed 40 high collision rate locations, many high incident locations were in construction zones or other temporary situations that no longer exist. As such, many locations have received a recommendation for continued monitoring to confirm that the collision patterns are not continuing. The 2008 TSR makes 15 recommendations to improve traffic safety at the remaining high collision rate locations. Most of these 15 recommendations are relatively low cost measures that are already in the process of being implemented or are under design. However, two locations, Madonna/Periera and Higuera south of Madonna will be brought forward for additional funding later this year, most likely from outside grants. TSR Results & Safety Trends—Measured Improvements over Time Ten years of data showcase the result of the City's focused traffic safety program and highlight the benefit of expenditures at our high collision locations and increased enforcement. Nine Year Collision Trend Sq�1v AnyrenBagrtx 1300 -- - 1203 1100 1000 900 SYi 800 700 ESA Em II 600 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* 2]05 20J6 2007 2006 *Fmzhill a Cbmd*=Aour2X4 In 2008, the number of reported collisions was the lowest in the seven years of the traffic safety program. There were 787 total collisions reported in 2008, approximately 9% lower than the previous 12-month period. Figure 3.1.2 of the TSR shows the ten-year comparison of total traffic collisions that have been reported within the City of San Luis Obispo. Historically traffic collisions had been on an upward trend in San Luis Obispo. That was until 2002, when the TSR and traffic safety program was initiated. Since that time, the number of reported collisions has ff�—C2— I 2008 Traffic Safety Report Page 3 declined annually except in 2004, when traffic collisions spiked due to an increase in construction, including the Foothill Bridge closure and major construction activity such as the County Administration Building, Court Street Project, 919 Palm Street Parking Structure, and many seismic retrofit projects within the downtown. The reported collisions in 2008 were the lowest recorded during the seven years the program has been in place and were below the 1999 collision records, the date when the City Public Works Department first began comprehensive collision tracking. Injury collisions (a primary benchmark of traffic safety indices due to their higher likelihood of being reported) were also down in 2008 (by 8%) compared to 2007. Figure 3.2.2 shows a ten year trend of injury collisions within the City of San Luis Obispo. Injury collisions as a percentage of all collisions have historically been on the rise (25% in 2002 rising to 28% in 2003). This was again the case in 2007 with the injury collisions as a percentage of all collisions at 29.7%, approximately 1% higher than the previous year. Nine Year Injury Collision Trend 340 saey»oga Bei; r 320 - 300 20 300 280 - 260 240 220 ' i 1 200 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2]04" 2005 2006 2007 2008 *F=2hill Mud shr=xhow 2W4 2008 Fatalities Traffic collisions resulting in fatalities occur randomly and often do not occur at intersections with high collision rates; rather, they are usually the result of unique situations and conditions (including driver error) that often may not represent typical conditions correctible by mitigation. Whereas high collision rates may be indicative of deficient roadway conditions that may be correctable by mitigation, fatality locations are oftentimes sporadic in location. Fatality analysis, while very important, should not be the sole focus for safety mitigations because individual collisions may not reflect broader factors causing collisions. Traffic fatalities are often high profile incidents that receive the most attention from the public, media and Council. Over the past ten years, the City has averaged two fatalities per year; however in 2008 there were no reported traffic related fatalities. 2008 Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Review Table 4.1 of the TSR shows the annual comparison of total pedestrian collisions. Specific pedestrian collision information and locations of collisions that occurred are shown in Attachment 2 of this agenda report. Pursuant to previous Council direction, the TSAR now U! --3 2008 Traffic Safety Report Page 4 includes information of whether the motor vehicle or pedestrian/bicyclist was at fault for each collision. 1999.2008 Pedestrian Collisions Total Reported Year Pedestrian Collisions on Public Streets 45 3 Pedestrian %Change 40 1999 24 - 35 2000 37 54% 3D 2001 19 -49% 255 m m 2002 41 54% 20 2003 24 41% 5f8 m m l, SD 2004 41 41% 10 2005 26 36016 1999 2000 2001 2m2 ma 2304 mos 2006 2007 MM 2006 27 4% 2007 18 -33% 2008 25 39% Source: City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Collision Database In general, the number of annual pedestrian collisions tends to fluctuate up and down as seen over the past ten years. There were 25 pedestrian related collisions reported in 2008, 39% higher than the previous year. Although a 39% increase may seem high, 2007 was the lowest on record for pedestrian collisions and 2008 was still much lower than the overall running average. Of these collsions, 56% were caused by the motor vehicle involved in the collision. Table 3.7.1 -1999-2008 Bicycle WI sions Total Reported Year Bicycle Collisions on Public Streets Bicycle %Change 4 1999 52 - 55 -- 2000 46 -12% 2001 45 -2% 45 2002 52 13% ' ' © Q 0 Q ® © f 2003 54 3.7% 35m 2004 50 -7.4% 25 2005 55 10% 1999 2a 2001 2M2 moa 2004 2305 mos MN 2n 2006 61 11% 2007 59 -3% 2008 59 0% Source: City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Collision Database Bicycle collisions continue to be high and have been on a relatively slow upward trend over the past ten years. This is somewhat expected as bicycle volumes competing for right of way have also risen. Bicycle counts taken in 2008 indicated an approximate 43% increase in bicycles at the 24 highest bicycle volume locations from 2006 observations. In 2008 bicycle collisions remained constant from the previous year. Of these collisions, 73% were caused by the cyclist involved in the collision. L ! f � r 2008 Traffic Safety Report Page 5 total annual Bicycle volume ano =To"C.rxoR;SWooi —{ r TwnWinem....._.._� 250: ..........._� ................. ......__.._,.. _.._............. .___.___.. __..._. _._.. 2000 F m g F F ;OOC 0 . 19% 1999 2J 2= ?009 2M 2009 Annual Bicycle Volume Comparisons (from 2008 Bicycle Count Report) Pedestrian and bicycle collisions are often difficult to mitigate. This is because they are primarily incidents attributed to cyclist, driver, and/or pedestrian negligence or disregard for vehicle code issues. Where definitive engineering or enforcement conclusions could be drawn from collision reports, these recommendations are included in the TSR. The Public Works Department has developed a public education campaign involving public service announcements (PSA) on Channel 20 and at the downtown movie theaters. These PSAs address the predominant bicycle and pedestrian collision types occurring in the City and suggest how to avoid them. In addition, the Police Department hosts the "Bicycle Rodeo", an annual bicycle safety education event that teaches proper bicycle riding techniques to children in the community. A "Safe Routes to School" campaign is being developed county-wide to assist in promoting safer bicyclist and pedestrian habits. 2008 Completed Safety Improvements Each year the TSR includes reports on traffic safety mitigation implemented as a result of the prior year Traffic Safety Report recommendations. Pursuant to recommendations in the 2007 TSR, various safety improvements were implemented throughout the City during 2008. These included one traffic signal installation, one complete traffic signal reconstruction, seven traffic signal upgrades, two bicycle and pedestrian improvements, two roadway improvements, two sight distance improvements, and nine signing and striping improvements. In addition, Police Department staff increased enforcement activities and focused enforcement on areas identified in the 2007 TSR as having high collision rates. Mitigation Strategies for the 2008 TSR Mitigation strategies for the high collision rate locations for 2008 are identified in Section 6 of the 2008 Traffic Safety Report. All of the mitigation measures are either relatively low cost improvements that are anticipated to be funded using the annual traffic safety budget of$25,000 or are higher cost improvements that are funded as part of other capital improvement projects or have potential grant funding sources available. Projects funded from the traffic safety budget 8�4-5 . 2008 Traffic Safety Report Page 6 include installation of additional signing and striping, miscellaneous visibility improvements, traffic control changes, and increased enforcement. Some of the notable locations and recommended mitigations include: Table 4.1—Notable Traffic Safety Projects Funded by the Annual Traffic Safety Allocation Location Classification- i Mitigation/Notes; cost Ranking Monterey/Santa Rosa Ped.-94 Pedestrian apathy leading to Illegal pedestrian crossings and Pedestrian Low Bike-#5 ROW violations. Conduct focused enforcement for illegal pedestrian A/A-#2 crossing, investigate clearance timing improvements, and install pedestrian warning signs. Chorro/Marsh A/A-#2 Improve signal head visibility. Upgrade 8" vehicle indications to 12" $3,000 indications. Pismo/Santa Rosa A/C-#1 Lane assignment confusion.Upgrade lane assignment signs,upgrade to $2,000 larger stop signs, and install additional pavement markings. Continue to monitor in 2009. Osos/Pismo A/C-#2 Signal head visibility limited. Upgrade 8" vehicle indications to 12 $3,000 indications. Broad/Higuera A/L-#4 Vehicle clearance intervals adequate. Pedestrian presence/visibility $1,500 limited.Instal]pedestrian indications. Calle Joaquin/LOVR AIL-#5 Signal head visibility limited on EB approach. Install additional near $1,000 side head for EB traffic. Develop trimming program for willow trees on EB approach. Mill/Osos C/L-#1 Limited sight distance.Restrict parking on EB&WB approaches. $5,000 Higuera/Vachell Other Sig.-#1 NB Vachell approach alignment limits visibility. Reconfigure lane $2,000 marking such that traffic is positioned at a right angle to Hi era. Ranking Classification: (example: A/A is an Arterial/Arterial intersection)A-Arterial,C-Collector,L-Local Projects funded as part of other improvements or having potential grant funding sources include such work as intersection and roadway widening. Some of these notable locations and recommended mitigations include: Table 4.2—Notable Traffic Safety projects with alternative funding or implementation plans Location Classification- Nfid"ation/Notes cost Ranking Foothill/Tassajara A/L-#2 Foothill vehicles turning left onto Tassajara have to do so from the thru Funded lane with a higher than expected propensity for rear-end and broadside $100,000 collisions. The WB Foothill lane reduction/transition should be moved to General the East of Cuesta and left turn pockets should be installed at Tassajara. Fund These improvements have already been funded as part of the Foothill Tassajara intersection improvement project in conjunction with the private development at 399 Foothill. Improvements are currently under design and are expected to be complete in November/December of 2009. Calle Joaquin/LOVR A/A-#2 EB rear end collision pattern attributed to congestion. LOVR overpass Funded should be widened to accommodate additional capacity.This improvement LOVR sub- is partially funded as part of the LOVR Interchange project and is currently area under design. fee/STP/TIF California/Foothill Other-#1 Collision pattern primarily attributed to congestion and inattentive cyclist Funded maneuvers. Intersection should be widened and signal reconstructed with SHA/TIF bicycle phasing. These improvements have already been funded thru the RR Safety 4a Trail and SHA grant dollars. 8 I I 2008 Traffic Safety Resort Pa-ge 7 Higuera 10 Blk A-#3 Higuera vehicles turning left onto bridge street or into any of the other Estimated various commercial driveways along this segment have to do so from the $350,000 thru lane with a higher than expected propensity for rear-end and broadside HSIP,TIF, collisions. Roadway section should be widened approximately 10' to or General accommodate a two way left turn lane.Costs for such a project are beyond Fund the capacity of the traffic safety budget, staff will asses and pursue any potential grant funding sources such as the State Highway Safety Improvement Program(HSIP)as part of project development. Pismo 1100 Blk C-#2 Collision pattern involves WB vehicles sideswiping parked vehicles. Funded Pattern is primarily attributed to configuration of the two SB lanes adjacent NTM to parking. Roadway section should be reduced to two parking lanes, one bike lane and one travel lane. These improvements are already funded and are currently being reviewed as part of the Pismo/ Buchon neighborhood traffic management program. Ranking Classification: (example: A/A is an Arterial/Arterial intersection)A-Arterial,C-Collector,L-Local Neighborhood Traffic Management Status In June 1998 the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Program aimed at reducing traffic volumes and speeds on residential streets. The program offers different options to citizens wanting to implement traffic calming measures on their streets, and identifies the petition process and neighborhood surveys that are used to demonstrate majority support for implementation of specific options. The NTM guidelines are being updated as of the writing of this report. Approximately eighteen (18) neighborhoods are actively pursuing the preparation of Neighborhood Traffic Management Plans for their neighborhoods. Because so many neighborhoods are requesting these plans and because implementation funds are limited, staff developed a method for prioritizing the projects. The criteria include traffic speeds, volumes, presence or absence of continuous sidewalks, bicycle facilities, collisions, and presence of schools or other activity centers. In 2008, neighborhoods prioritized for NTM projects included Johnson (divided into 3 sections), Broad, Oceanaire, Chorro, Atascadero, Ferrini, Rockview, Royal, Flora, Augusta, Galleon, Balboa, Coral, Islay, Pismo and Buchon. The two most notable NTM projects worked on in 2008 were the Pismo/Buchon Neighborhood and the Oceanaire Neighborhood. In addition a mobile speed feedback display trailer is being rotated through the NTM request areas. Pismo/Buchon NTM In April of 2008 City staff held a meeting with Pismo/Buchon neighborhood residents to discuss speed and cut through traffic issues and concerns which should be addressed as part of the NTM program and to form an action team to represent the entire neighborhood. In May of 2008 the Police Department met with the group to discuss enforcement activities in the area and on May 28th the Public Works Department met with the action team to establish project boundaries, focus issues to be addressed, and formulate a study/survey program to evaluate the issues. Staff is now finalizing the draft NTM action plan for neighborhood polling which is anticipated to occur in October. Oceanaire NTM In September of 2008 city staff met with several active residents of the Oceanaire neighborhood to discuss starting a new NTM program and overall strategy for proceeding. In March of 2009 staff circulated a ballot to the Oceanaire neighborhood for support to initiate a NTM Program.. 43Zl— 2008 Traffic Safety Report Page 8 Oceaniare residents ultimately voted not to support a neighborhood traffic calming effort with the majority of respondents indicating they believed the problem was due to a lack of traffic enforcement, not a deficiency in the roadway. The Police Department has conducted focused traffic enforcement efforts in this neighborhood resulting in a reduction in complaints received by Public Works. Mobile Speed Feedback Trailer Program In 2007 the City purchased a solar powered radar activated speed-feedback trailer. The trailer can be temporarily set up in many locations and can easily be moved from one location to the next as demand arises. It has the advantage of potentially changing driver behavior through immediate feedback, while not posing problems for compliant drivers. It has proven to be a useful supplement to enforcement activities. In 2008 the trailer was deployed at 18 locations and has shown to reduce average speed by as much as 7 mph when deployed. NTM Guideline Revisions As part of the 2007 Annual Traffic Safety Report the City Council directed staff to update the NTM guidelines in order to correct several flaws inherent in the original program adopted in 1998. One example of these flaws is a low threshold for qualification to enter the program, a neighborhood would currently qualify for the program if the predominant speed was just a fraction over 25 mph or if the daily traffic volume were just 1 vehicle per day over the desired volume established in the City's circulation element. As a result of such low thresholds the City currently has 18 active neighborhood traffic management requests, and in the majority of these requests, minor variations in daily speeds and volumes were the threshold factors. Development of these new guidelines is wrapping up and should be brought before the Council in October or November of 2009. Other Locations of Importance The City has committed to monitor certain locations that have received public attention over the years. The following is a brief description of locations of particular interest that the Council has asked for individual monitoring. 1. Los Verdes Drives/LOVR. The Los Verdes Driveway did not experience any undue collision patterns in 2008. There was one traffic collision related to traffic control required due to an nearby unrelated vehicle collision. 2. South/King. The intersection of South/King did not experience any undue collision pattern in 2008. There was one reported collision at the intersection. 3. Madonna/Pereira/LVSC Driveway. This location was identified in the 2008 TSR and is being recommended for improvements. However, due to the complexity of the issue, the item has been agenized for Council discussion on this same agenda. FISCAL IMPACT All of the mitigation strategies identified in the 2008 Traffic Safety Report will be funded from the 2009-11 Financial Plan through its annual allocation of$25,000 for safety related purposes. i l 2008 Traffic Safety Resort Pane 9 Focused enforcement will be accomplished within the Police Department's existing staffing and budget. Although all major safety projects have been completed or are currently under construction, in order to continue to be successful, a prolonged commitment both financially and through staff resources is necessary to properly implement safety mitigation and reduce collisions. Continued annual expenditure commitments will be necessary if it is the goal of the City and community to improve traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety along our roadways. ATTACHMENT 2008 Annual Traffic Safety Report NOTE: The 2008 Annual Traffic Safety Report is available for review at the Public Works Department(919 Palm Street), and online at www.slocity.org. T:\2008 TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORTM08 Traffic Safety Report CAR doc 'I PVBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT sro [z SAN LUIS OBISPO POLICE DEPARTMENT 2008 annual ATTACHMENT traffic safety D9%.Ep01zt J 7 ,r ICY, L� 40, jf ''y • ,n) I"�i - i ♦ _ �!P __ il9y'-��� .��,`�.p �• I 1�`c� �.yam San Luis Obispo Traffic Engineering Division & Police Department September 2009 (July 30, 2009 DRAFT) 8�-�d tABle of contents -- ATTACHMENT 2008 PepoRt Acknowlet)cements..........................................................................................v A messAce Fuom the pudic wouks An6 police aepARtments......................................i executiveSUMMARY...................................................................................................................2 section1.........................................................................................................................................3 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................................................3 1.1 How to Use This Report..........................................................................................................................................3 section2........................................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND .....................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Study Objectives.....................................................................................................................................................4 2.2 Study Methodology.................................................................................................................................................4 section3........................................................................................................................................6 CITY-WIDE COLLISION STATISTICS......................................................................................................6 3.1 City-wide Collision Trends.....................................................................................................................................6 3.2 Injury and Fatal Collision Trends..........................................................................................................................7 3.3 Private Property Collision Trend...........................................................................................................................9 3.4 Comparison with National, State and County Rates.............................................................................................10 3.5 Benefit/Cost Analysis............................................................................................................................................11 3.6 Pedestrian Collisions............................................................................................................................................13 3.7 Bicycle Collisions.................................................................................................................................................15 section4.......................................................................................................................................is ENFORCEMENT STATISTICS................................................................................................................18 4.1 Annual Traffic Citation Data................................................................................................................................18 4.2 Traffic Safety Index...............................................................................................................................................19 4.3 Driving Under the Influence.................................................................................................................................20 4.4 Alcohol Involved Collisions..................................................................................................................................21 4.5 Top Primary Collision Factors.............................................................................................................................21 section5......................................................................................................................................23 SAFETYINVESTIGATIONS...................................................................................................................23 5.1 Neighborhood Traffic Management and Calming Program.................................................................................23 section6......................................................................................................................................26 2008 HIGH COLLISION RATE LOCATIONS..........................................................................................26 6.1 Intersections and Segments...................................................................................................................................26 section7......................................................................................................................................52 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES .................................................................................................52 7.1 Enforcement at High Collision Intersections and Segments.................................................................................52 7.2 DUI Special Enforcement.....................................................................................................................................52 7.3 Seatbelt Enforcement............................................................................................................................................52 7.4 Repeat Offenders-Suspended Licenses...............................................................................................................53 7.5 Grant Programs....................................................................................................................................................53 sections......................................................................................................................................54 ONGOING EDUCATION CAMPAIGNS....................................................................................................54 8.1 Child Safety Seats.................................................................................................................................................54 8.2 Bicycle Safety........................................................................................................................................................54 8.3 Impaired Driver Offender Classes.................................................................................................................`.......J.55 11 `C l ATTACHMENT appenalxi........................I..............I.............................................................................................56 ARTERIAL/ARTERIAL INTERSECTIONS..............................................................................................56" Arterial/Arterial Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate....................................................................................57 appenalX2...................................................................................................................................63 ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR INTERSECTIONS...........................................................................................63 Arterial/Collector Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate..................................................................................64 appenalx3...................................................................................................................................70 ARTERIAL/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS...................................................................................................70 Arterial/Local Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate........................................................................................71 appenalxa................................................................................................................................... 77 COLLECTOR/LOCAL INTERSECTIONS................................................................................................77 Collector/Local Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate.....................................................................................78 appenalx5....................................................................................................................................s1 OTHER SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTIONS.................................................................................................81 Other Significant Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate-Left Turn Collisions at Signalized Intersections.......82 Other Significant Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate-Collision at Intersections without All-way Control..86 appenalx6.................................................................................................................................. 90 ARTERIALSEGMENTS........................................................................................................................90 Arterial Segments Prioritized by Accident Rate.........................................................................................................91 appenalx7.................................................................................................................................102 COLLECTOR SEGMENTS...................................................................................................................1 02 Collector Segments Prioritized by Accident Rate.....................................................................................................103 iii 5 L(- l-�- ta$tes and fiGuizEs ATTACHMENT TABLE 3.1.1 -CITY-WIDE ANNUAL COLLISION DATA, 1999-2008 ..........................................................6 FIGURE 3.1.2-NINE YEAR COLLISION TREND.........................................................................................7 TABLE 3.2.1 -CITY-WIDE ANNUAL INJURY AND FATAL COLLISIONS, 1999-2008...................................7 FIGURE 3.2.2 -NINE YEAR INJURY COLLISION TREND............................................................................8 FIGURE 3.2.3 -INJURY COLLISIONS AS PERCENT OF TOTAL COLLISIONS.................................................8 TABLE 3.3.1 -PRIVATE PROPERTY COLLISION TRENDS, 1999-2008........................................................9 TABLE 3.4.1 -COMPARISON OF INJURY&DEATH RATES......................................................................1 I TABLE 3.5.1 -ECONOMIC COSTS,2008..................................................................................................12 TABLE 3.5.2-COMPREHENSIVE COSTS,2008........................................................................................12 TABLE 3.5.3 -CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ECONOMIC COSTS,2001-2008 TRAFFIC COLLISIONS............13 TABLE 3.6.1 - 1999-2008 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS..............................................................................13 FIGURE 3.6.2- 1999-2008 PEDESTRIAN COLLISION TREND...................................................................14 TABLE 3.6.3 -2008 PEDESTRIAN COLLISIONS BY TYPE,LOCATION,&FAULT......................................14 TABLE 3.7.1 - 1999-2008 BICYCLE COLLISIONS...................................................................................15 FIGURE 3.7.2- 1999-2008 BICYCLE COLLISIONS..................................................................................16 TABLE 3.7.3-2008 BICYCLE COLLISION BY TYPE&FAULT.................................................................16 TABLE 4.1 -TRAFFIC CITATIONS ISSUED...............................................................................................18 TABLE 4.2-TRAFFIC SAFETY INDEX................................................:....................................................19 FIGURE 4.3.1 -TOTAL DUI ARRESTS 1999-2007..................................................................................20 FIGURE 4.3.2-FELONY DUI ARRESTS 1999-2007................................................................................20 FIGURE 4.3.3-2007 DUI ARRESTS BY AGE..........................................................................................20 TABLE 4.5.1 -PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS BY COLLISION SEVERITY...............................................21 TABLE 4.5.2-CITATIONS BY COLLISION FACTOR.................................................................................22 TABLE 5.2-2008 COMPLETED SAFETY PROJECTS.................................................................................25 TABLE 6.1.1 -TOP FIVE PEDESTRIAN COLLISION LOCATIONS...............................................................28 TABLE 6.1.2-TOP FIVE BICYCLE COLLISION LOCATIONS....................................................................31 TABLE 6.1.3 -RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS INVOLVING TWO ARTERIAL STREETS............34 TABLE 6.1.4-RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS INVOLVING ARTERIAL/COLLECTOR STREETS 37 TABLE 6.1.5 -RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS INVOLVING ARTERIAL/LOCAL STREETS........40 TABLE 6.1.6-RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERSECTIONS INVOLVING COLLECTOR/LOCAL STREETS.....43 TABLE 6.1.7 - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTIONS: 5+ LEFT TURN COLLISIONS AT SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS.....................................:...................................................44 TABLE 6.1.8 - RECOMMENDATIONS FOR OTHER SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTIONS: 5+ COLLISIONS AT INTERSECTIONS WITHOUT ALL-WAY CONTROL .....................................................................................46 TABLE 6.1.9-RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ARTERIAL SEGMENTS.............................................................48 TABLE 6.1.10-RECOMMENDATIONS FOR COLLECTOR SEGMENTS........................................................51 lY S q"(3 ATTACHMENT 2008 aepont acknowleoclements City Council Dave Romero, Mayor Allen Settle; Vice Mayor Andrew Carter Jan Howell Marx John Ashbaugh City Administration Ken Hampian, City Manager Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Public Works Department Jay Walter,Public Works Director Timothy S. Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works Jake Hudson, Senior Traffic Engineer Peggy Mandeville, Principal Transportation Planner Chris Overby, Engineer II—Traffic Matt Crisp, Engineer II - Traffic Bryan Wheeler, Transportation Intern Mateo Echabame, Transportation Intern Jessie Holzer, Transportation Intern Police Department Deborah Linden, Chief of Police Daniel Blanke, Operations Captain Ian Parkinson, Operations Captain Steve Tolley, Operations Lieutenant Kerri Rosenblum, Communications and Records Manager Jeff Booth, Traffic Sergeant v ATTACHMENT a messace fuom the puBUc woaks Ana police aepaatments Welcome to the 8th edition of the City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Safety Report prepared by staff from the Public Works and Police Departments. The Annual Traffic Safety Report was first published in 2002 in an attempt to identify high collision locations within the City and actively pursue mitigation improvements that would reduce collision rates and improve safety for our citizens. Calendar year 2008 was another watershed year for the City's traffic safety program. Total reported collisions were the lowest in the eight year history of the traffic safety program. Collisions in 2008 were about 9% lower than recorded collisions in 2007 and approximately 37% lower than the total recorded in the first year (2002) of the traffic safety program. Injury collisions were also down by approximately 8% from 2007 and approximately 23% lower than the total recorded in the first year of the traffic safety program. These reductions are statistically significant and a very positive indication of the effectiveness of the traffic safety program. Traffic fatalities in any given year are usually random and there were no fatalities in the City in 2008. In 2009 the City received international recognition of its traffic engineering practices, including this annual safety program, from the Institute of Transportation Engineers with the Public Agency Council Achievement award. The 2008 Traffic Safety Report again looks at bicycle and pedestrian collisions and tracks occurrences to identify potential high profile locations. Similar to fatal collisions, bicycle and pedestrian collision rates tend to occur sporadically both in location and number of occurrences. This continued to be the case in 2008, when pedestrian collisions went up by 39% from 2007. Bicycle collisions were unchanged from 2007 to 2008. As in previous Traffic Safety Reports, staff reviewed all high collision rate intersections and segment locations, and has recommended mitigation measures to increase safety at the top five locations in each category. Our goal is that the combination of thorough analysis, appropriate mitigation, and consistent and focused education and enforcement will continue to reduce traffic collisions and injuries and improve the safety of our motoring, walking, and bicycling public. We would like to thank and acknowledge Public Works employees Jake Hudson, Peggy Mandeville, Chris Overby, Bryan Wheeler, and Mateo Echabame, and Police Department employees Jeff Booth, Kerri Rosenblum, and Steve Tolley for efforts work in compiling the necessary information that has gone into this report and disseminating the data to make recommendations for appropriate improvements. Staff from both departments will diligently implement the recommendations outlined in this report in order to continue to make our City streets safer. Jay Walter Deborah Linden Director of Public Works Chief of Police B�rs I ATTACHMENT Executive SUMMARY In January 2002, the City initiated its first comprehensive Traffic Safety Program aimed at reducing collisions at the highest collision locations in the City. The program concentrates on identifying all intersections and roadway segments which have experienced three or more collisions in a one-year period and then prioritizes these locations based upon collision rates, as compared to similar locations within the City. Collision patterns at the highest collision rate locations are then analyzed using collision diagrams that are produced using state of the art computer software. Each of the locations is then reviewed by staff to determine if mitigation measures can be implemented to reduce the likelihood of occurrence for the identified collision patterns. Mitigation measures for high collision rate locations for calendar year 2008 have been identified and are summarized in this report. The Annual Traffic Safety Report is prepared each year to review and report on City traffic safety benchmarks, improve traffic safety performance and maintain high levels of service for our City residents, business owners and visitors. Since the City initiated the Traffic Safety report in 2002, traffic collisions have been on a downward trend, with the exception of 2004 in which the City experienced a spike in accidents due in part to an influx of construction within the City right-of-way, namely the Foothill Bridge closure, substantial new construction in the downtown, and seismic retrofits in the downtown. In 2008, the number of reported collisions dropped and was the lowest in the eight years of the safety program. Injury collisions were down in 2008 (237), as compared to 2007 (257). The number of fatality collisions in any given year is usually very random; in 2008 there were no reported traffic fatalities. The 2008 Traffic Safety Report again looks at bicycle and pedestrian collisions and tracks their occurrences to identify potential high profile locations. Similar to fatal collisions, bicycle and pedestrian collision rates are sporadic from a location and occurrence perspective. This continued to be the case for the City with pedestrian collisions up 39% from 2007 totals (25 from 18), while bicycle collisions remained unchanged from 2007, with 59 incidents in the 2008 calendar year. 2 ATTACHMENT Section l int>zoauction 1.1 How to Use This Report Every year the City of San Luis Obispo prepares a Traffic Safety Report for the previous twelve month period in order to: 1) determine the locations within the City that have the highest collision rates in comparison to like locations, 2) identify the predominant pedestrian and bicycle collision types and high collision locations, 3) evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented in the previous twelve month period, 4) identify if new locations should be mitigated, and 5) determine if the types of collisions and previous collision trends have changed. This report identifies locations that may require special attention or mitigation in order to reduce the number of collisions or lessen the severity of future collisions. The report is normally prepared after City collision statistics become available in April or May of the following year. The locations mentioned in this report should not be interpreted as a list of dangerous or "least safe" intersections within the City of San Luis Obispo. The specific total number of collisions for any location in a given year is a function of various factors such as weather patterns, construction, roadway conditions, and driver habits. Many of these factors are often difficult to identify and are most often beyond the ability of the engineer to change or control. However, the City's mitigation program attempts to identify roadway elements that can be modified in order to make the transportation infrastructure more driver friendly, reduce driver confusion, promote bicycle and pedestrian safety, and limit impact severity. It is natural to expect that any location in the City will experience years above or below the expected value of collision rates that might be common to similar locations City-wide. Traffic volumes play an important role in determining the likelihood of collision totals (The more pedestrians and vehicles that use a location will increase the likelihood that a collision will occur). This report looks to identify locations that fall above the expected rate of similar City locations and then propose mitigation measures, if necessary, to reduce collision potential and limit collision-severity. 3 ATTACHMENT section 2 sackglzound 2.1 Study Objectives The objective of the Annual Traffic Safety Report is essentially to identify the high collision locations in the City and track collision reductions through the various City safety programs and projects that the City administers each year. The specific objectives of the 2008 Traffic Safety Report are: i Identify the intersections and segments within the City associated with the highest collision rates, and thoroughly analyze collision diagrams so as to suggest remedial mitigation measures for the five highest locations that will reduce the potential for collisions, and; Identify other significant signalized and non-signalized intersections which meet State warrants for traffic control upgrades, and; Identify the predominant pedestrian and bicycle collision types and high collision locations, and thoroughly analyze collision diagrams and police reports so as to determine remedial mitigation measures for the five highest pedestrian and bicycle collision locations that may reduce the potential for collisions and; i Report on engineering safety analysis conducted in the previous 12-month period that the City and general public have identified as areas of concern regarding appropriate traffic control. 2.2 Study Methodology Collision Data It is important to note that the data contained within the Public Works Traffic Collision Database will vary from other sources of collision data such as the California - Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) or the City's Emergency Dispatch Records System. While SWITRS data is similarly derived from official police collision reports, some reports are coded incorrectly due to jurisdictional boundary issues and/or agency reporting inaccuracies. An example of this might be a collision occurring on Highway 101 — because the facility is under Caltrans jurisdiction, this collision record and its potential remediation would not be included in this report. However, because the CHP report may state the collision occurred within the City of San Luis Obispo, the SWITRS database might contain this as a collision under our jurisdiction. Likewise, City emergency dispatch may receive a call regarding a traffic collision but when the dispatched officer arrives, the vehicles have been moved on or there is no evidence of occurrence. Therefore, statistics derived from this data may be inaccurate for engineering purposes because no official proof or record exists of the actual collision type. Reported traffic collisions obtained by the City Police Department are the basis used by the City Traffic Engineering Division to determine traffic safety. Report totals were obtained for each 4 fly—/F ATTACHMENT intersection and roadway segment within the City and entered into the City's traffic collision database. These locations were then grouped by street characteristic and collision type. Collision diagrams were then generated using this data and interpretations of collision patterns were formulated. Based on the collision patterns for the five highest ranked collision locations for each location and roadway segment sub-category, mitigation measures are formulated where a collision pattern can be identified. Mitigation measures for these sub-categories will be implemented as projects are designed and funding becomes available. Traffic Volumes Vehicle and pedestrian volumes play an important role in establishing collision rates for selected locations within the City. Vehicle volume counts were collected in 2007/2008 as a basis to establish actual conditions in the field environment. Where volume counts were not available, volumes were estimated based on previous experience and engineering judgment. Volume counts were then used for the majority of the locations to establish isolated and average collision rates for each intersection. Collision Rate Calculations Collision rates were calculated using the following formulas: Intersections: Segments: RI= N X 1,000,000 RS= N X 1,000,000 VX365 365XVXL Where: RI= Intersection Collision Rate=Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection. RS= Segment Collision Rate=Collision frequency per million vehicle miles traveled along the segment. N= Number of collisions(collision frequency)of the location. V= Average daily vehicular volume using the street segment or intersection. L= Length of street segment(in miles)being analyzed. Pedestrians: Bicycles: PREY= 5 X N X PHVV BREV= 5 X N X PHVV PHPV PHBV Where:. PREY= Pedestrian relative exposure value. BREV= Bicycle relative exposure value. N= Number of collisions(collision frequency)of the location. PHVV= Average peak hour vehicular volume. PHPV= Average peak hour pedestrian volume. PHBV= Average peak hour bicycle volume. These equations represent the recommended crash rate statistics used by federal, state and local jurisdictions for comparative purposes. They are based upon statistics recommended by the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA) and the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The pedestrian and bicycle relative exposure value formula is derived from the traditional automobile collision rate calculations, however it factors the volume of either the bicycle or pedestrian and cross references them with that of vehicles at a specific location. 5 � �/ 9 ATTACHMENT section 3 city-wlbe colhslon statistics 3.1 City-wide Collision Trends Reportable collision statistics for the City are included in this section. Any reported collision within the public right-of-way that involved a fatality, personal injury, or property damage was recorded as a collision. Collisions that occurred on private property, out of the public right of way, outside of City limits, on Highway 101, or that were not reported to the police department are not entered into the City's database. While reported collisions do not represent all collisions that occur within the City, they remain the basis with which the City determines both collision trends and effectiveness of City programs. The number of reported traffic collisions varies due to many social factors. Often minor traffic collisions, non-injury collisions, and private property collisions go unreported and as such are highly unreliable in determining "high profile" collision locations for investment in infrastructure changes. Monitoring these types of collisions or dispatches is important from a Police Enforcement standpoint and resource allocation perspective. Table 3.1 shows the reported traffic collision history of the City for intersections and total collisions on all roadways. Figure 3.1 shows the reported traffic collision on all roadways over the ten year tracking period of the safety program. Table 3.1.1 - City-wide Annual Collision Data, 1999-2008 Reported Collisions Intersections Total Year Collisions % Change Collisions % Change 1999 587 - 910 - 2000 1 646 10.05 1025 12.64 2001 768 18.89 1142 11.41 2002 751 -2.21 1255 9.89 2003 670_ -10.79 1097 -12.59 2004 731 9.1 1206 9.94 2005 1 693 -5.2 1089 -9.7 2006 558 1 -19.48 1 871 -20.02 2007 565 1.25 1 865 - -0.69 2008 457 -19.12 1 787 -9.02 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Collision Database Variations in yearly collisions are to be expected. While total collisions are a good indicator of the overall performance of the City's traffic safety programs, injury collisions are better indicators of changes in collision trends and are the most reliable collision indicators when monitoring the safety of a transportation system. ATTACHMENT Figure 3.1.2 -Nine Year Collision Trend Safety Program Begins 1300 1200 – 1100 — — 1000 - 900 -- 800 -- 000 900 800 — 'a — –� — — — — 700 -- 600 -- 00 600 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* 2005 2006 2007 2008 *Foothill Bridge Closed throughout 2004 The City saw a reduction in total collisions from 2007 to 2008 by approximately 9%. Collisions in San Luis Obispo have declined continuously over the last seven years, beginning in 2002 when the safety program was started. Total collisions have dropped approximately 5% per year since the program's inception. In 2008, total collisions were down 37% since the program began in 2002. 3.2 Injury and Fatal Collision Trends The Traffic Engineering Division tracks injury and fatal collisions as an important part of the current Traffic Safety Program. Injury collisions are seldom left unreported and are more helpful in indicating locations of higher significance than are minor collisions. Table 3.2 shows the injury collision history recorded by the City's traffic safety program. Table 3.2.1 - City-wide Annual Injury and Fatal Collisions, 1999-2008 7 "a/ ATTACHMENT Total Reported Collisions on Public Streets Year Total Inj. Collisions % Change Fatal Collisions % Change 1999 240 2 - 2000 269 12.08 2 0 2001 265 -1.49 1 -50 2002 309 16.6 1 0 2003 307 -0.65 0 -100 2004 315 2.61 4 400 2005 285 -9.52 3 -25 2006 250 -12.28 1 2 1 -33 2007 257 2.8 0 -100 2008 237 -7.78 0 1 0 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Collision Database Injury collisions in the City were also down in 2008 by about 8% (approx. 20 collisions) from 2007 reported numbers. Total injury collisions have been steadily declining since their highest number in 2004 (see Figure 3.2.1). This past year, injury collisions were the lowest on record for the Traffic Safety Report, surpassing the previous low mark in 1999. Injury collisions as a percentage of total collisions were higher than past years at 30%, but only by a few percentage points (see Figure 3.2.2). Figure 3.2.2 -Nine Year Injury Collision Trend 340 Safety Program Begins 320 300 ' — — 280 — _ 260 SaD — — -� — . — — --� 240 — — -U 220 -- 200 20 200 am - I 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 ' 2005 2006 2007 2008 •Foothill Bridge Closed throughout 2004 Figure 3.2.3 compare the Injury collisions as a percentage of all reported collisions that occur within the City. This factor can be used to identify the likelihood of injury when involved in a collision. The statistic will increase when total collisions drop but injury rates remain the same. Overall it merely gives an indication of the potential for injury that may occur and show the comparison to non-injury crashes. Figure 3.2.3 - Injury Collisions as Percent of Total Collisions 8 � �-a � ATTACHMENT Safety Program Begins 32% 30% 26% — o� 24% — — — 22% '. _ 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004* 2005 2006 2007 2008 'Foothdl Bridge Closed throughout 1004 Fatal Collisions Annual traffic fatalities have a tendency to fluctuate from year to year. This variation is due to many factors that are often beyond the control of engineering professionals or law enforcement officers. However, the City's Traffic Safety program attempts to reduce fatal collisions by removing conflicting vehicular and pedestrian movements at appropriate locations, limiting collision severity through improvements to roadway design features, and promoting traffic safety through a community outreach program. As mentioned above, fatality collisions in any given year is usually very random. This was the case in 2004, 2005, and 2006 when the City experienced a sharp increase in total fatalities: there were (4) in 2004, (3) in 2005, and (2) in 2006 over the 2003 total of zero (0) fatalities. In previous years there have been between one and two fatalities per year, except in 2003 when there were no fatalities. In 2007 and 2008, there were also no reported fatalities on city streets. 3.3 Private Property Collision Trend Private property collisions are not typically utilized to analyze traffic safety because these collisions occur outside the public right of way and are not subject to corrective measures by City staff. However, some collisions that occur on private property are subject to investigation and enforcement action by the Police Department, specifically collisions that result in an injury, involve a DUI driver, or in which a party flees the scene (hit and run collisions). These collisions utilize enforcement and investigative resources and tracking them is helpful in considering the overall collision activity throughout the City. The number of reported private property collisions involving an injury, DUI driver, or hit and run doubled from 2007 to 2008 (from 80 to 160). Twenty-seven percent of the reported collisions involved hit and run collisions. Private property collisions which resulted in injuries increased 11% (from 17 to 19). Analysis of these collisions will continue in order to attempt to identify patterns or locations of frequent private property collisions and to work with property owners in preventing and reducing collisions if possible. Table 3.3.1 -Private Property Collision Trends, 1999-2008 9 ATTACHMENT Year Total Collisions % Ch_ange Total Injury % Change 1999 58 - 16 - 2000 72 24.10% 14 -12.50% 2001 105 45.80% 12 -14.30% 2002 103 -1.90% 12 0.00% 2003 104 1.00% 12 0.00% 2004 103 -1.00% 12 0.00% 2005 100 -2.90% 12 0.00% 2006 77 -23.00% 9 -25.00% 2007 80 3.90% 17 88.90% 20081 160 1 100.00% 1 19 11.80% Source: City of San Luis Traffic Collision Dalabase 3.4 Comparison with National, State and County Rates Author's Note: All national and state statistics and cost estimates contained in this section are the most up to date figures available at the time of this publication. Table 3.4 demonstrates the significant difference between City death and injury rates and the National statistics. The numbers in this table represent the actual number of injuries or fatalities resulting from traffic collisions, not the number of collisions that involved injuries or fatalities. 10 ATTACHMENT Table 3.4.1 - Comparison of Injury & Death Rates 2008 Fatalities Fatalities Population Rate Per 100k Population Nationally* 41,059 301,290 13.63 State Wide* 3,967 37,559 10.58 City of San Luis Obispo 0 45 0 2008 Injuries Injuries Population Rate Per 100k Population Nationally* 2,491,000 301,290 826.75 State Wide* 266,687 37,559 711.17 City of San Luis Obispo 260 45 577.78 * National and State Statistics are from 2007 because 2008 information was not available at the time this report was being produced. 3.5 Benefit/Cost Analysis The National Safety Council has provided the following information and estimates. There are two methods currently used to measure the costs of motor-vehicle collisions: the economic cost framework and the comprehensive cost framework. Economic costs may be used by a community or state to estimate the economic impact of motor-vehicle collisions that occurred within its jurisdiction in a given time period. The calculation is a measure of the productivity lost and expenses incurred due to the collisions. Economic costs should not be used for cost-benefit analyses because they do not reflect what society is willing to pay to prevent a statistical fatality or injury. There are five economic cost components: (a) wage and productivity losses, which include wages, fringe benefits, household production, and travel delay; (b) medical expenses including emergency service costs; (c) administrative expenses, which include the administrative cost of private and public insurance plus police and legal costs; (d) motor-vehicle damage including the value of damage to property; and (e) employer costs for collisions to workers. The information in table 3.5.1 shows the average economic costs in 2008 per death (not per fatal collision), per injury (not per injury collision), and per property damage collision. These cost estimates are based upon 2007 actual collision cost calculations and are adjusted to 2008 costs based on consumer price indexes. 11 3�as - ATTACHMENT Table 3.5.1 - Economic Costs,2008 Collision Type Dollar Loss Death $1,304,000 Nonfatal disabling injury $59,100 Incapacitating injury $67,500 Non-incapacitating evident injury $21,800 Possible injury $12,500 Property damage collision (including minor injuries) $8,800 Source:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(Traffic Safety Facts 2006) &Adjusted to Year 2008$'s Comprehensive costs include not only the economic cost components, but also a measure of the value of lost quality of life associated with the deaths and injuries, that is, what society is willing to pay to prevent them. The values of lost quality of life were obtained through empirical studies of what people actually pay to reduce their safety and health risks, such as through the purchase of smoke detectors or vehicles with air bags. Comprehensive costs should be used for cost-benefit analysis. However, because the lost quality of life represents only a dollar equivalence of intangible qualities they do not represent real economic losses and therefore should not be used to determine the economic impact of past collisions. The information in Table 3.5.2 below shows the average comprehensive costs in 2008 on a per person basis. These cost estimates are based on 2007 actual collision cost calculations and were adjusted to 2008 dollars, the latest at the time of this publication. Currently, the City's collision reports only indicate injury collisions reported at the collision scene. No determinations are made regarding the injury type, as shown in the above tables. Therefore, comprehensive cost estimates for this analysis will assume that all injury types fall into the category of "Non-incapacitating evident injury." Table 3.5.3 shows the 2008 comprehensive economic costs in collisions for the City using annual cost estimates. Table 3.5.2 Comprehensive Costs,2008 Collision Type Dollar Loss Death $4,309,000.00 Incapacitating injury (a) $217,100.00 Non-incapacitating evident injury (a) $54,000.00 Possible injury (a) $26,000.00 No injury $2,400.00 Source:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(Trak Safety Facts 2002), adjusted to 2007$'s �3�-ax 12 _ ATTACHMENT Table 3.5.3 - City of San Luis Obispo Economic Costs,2001-2008 Traffic Collisions Collision Type Year Death Non-incapacitating Property Damage Only Total Dollar Loss Number Cost(a) Number Cost(a) Number Cost(a) 2001 1 $1,304,000 335 $7,303,000 87 $7,717,600 $16,324,600 2002 1 $1,304,000 396 $8,632,800 946 $8,324,800 $18,261,600 2003 0 $0 400 $8,720,000 794 $6,987,200 $15,707,200 2004 4 $5,216,000 376 $8,196,800 88 $7,805,600 $21,218,400 2005 3 $3,912,000 3621 $7,891,600 804 $7,075,200 $18,878,800 2006 2 $2,608,000 299 $6,518,200 621 $5,464,800 $14,591,000 200 0 $0 308 $6,714,400 608 $5,350,400 $12,064,800 2008 0 $0 260 $5,668,000 456 $4,012,800 $9,680,800 Note:Economic costs are based upon 2007 cost estimates, adjusted to 2008$'s While the dollar amounts depicted in Table 3.5.3 do not.equate to tangible monetary costs, it is evident that the annualized costs to city motorists, insurance companies and medical providers depend on the number (and type) of traffic collisions that occur within the City. The total cost amount depends on the collision type and is proportional to the severity of each type of collision. These values represent the cost of traffic collisions to society and can be used as a comparative measure for quality of life. 3.6 Pedestrian Collisions The number of annual pedestrian collisions has seen regular fluctuations over the past eight years and this pattern continued in 2008. There were 25 total pedestrian related collisions reported in 2008, which is 39% higher than in 2007. Table 3.6.1 indicates the history of reported pedestrian related collision in the city. Table 3.6.1 - 1999-2008 Pedestrian Collisions Total Reported Pedestrian Collisions Year on Public Streets % Change 1999 24 - 2000 37 54 2001 19 -49 2002 41 116 2003 24 -41 2004 41 71 2005 26 -37 2006 27 4 70071 18 -33 20081 25 39 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Collision Database 9V-J7_ 13 ATTACHMENT Figure 3.6.2 - 1999-2008 Pedestrian Collision Trend 45 - 40 35 - 30 5 30 — 25 20 — — 15 — — — — ffi m 10 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 The study's method of evaluation follows the recommendations of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) by which pedestrian collisions are classified according to their collision type. The primary factor contributing to pedestrian collisions in 2008 was pedestrians crossing at mid-block locations, not in a marked crosswalk. The following table lists the various types of pedestrian related collisions, the locations of pedestrians in those collisions, and the determination of fault as detailed in police reports. Table 3.6.3 -2008 Pedestrian Collisions by Type, Location, & Fault Severity Pedestrian Collision Type #Cases %of Total Injury Fatal PDO In Road–Crossing Midblock 6 24% 5 0 1 In X-Walk - Motorist Left Turn in Front of Pedestrian 4 16% 4 0 0 In X-Walk-Motorist Right Turn in Front of Pedestrian 4 16%0 3 0 1 In X-Walk- Pedestrian Yield Violation 4 16% 3 0 1 In X-Walk-Motorist Right of Way Violation 3 12% 3 0 0 Other 3 12% 1 0 2 In X-Walk–Midblock 1 4% 1 0 0 In X-Walk - Motorist Right Turn Facing Pedestrian 0 0% 0 0 0 In Road -Not Crossing 0 0% 0 0 0 Total: 1 25 100% 20 0 5 ,BT -0'�0 14 ATTACHMENT 2005 2006 2.00.7_ 2008 Pedestrian Collision Location % 91 % # % # % Signal 8 31% 9 33% 8 44% 10 40% Out of Crosswalk-Midblock 7 27% 3 11% 2 11% 6 24%- Stop-Unmarked Crosswalk 3 11% 22% 2 11% 4 16% Uncontrolled- Unmarked Crosswalk Local 1 4% 0 1 0% 0 0% 3 12% Uncontrolled-Unmarked Crosswalk Major/Collector 1 4% 1 4% 0 0% 1 4% Uncontrolled-Marked 1 4% 2 7% 3 17% 1 4% of in Road(Sidewalk) 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 0 0% In Road(not crossing) 3 11% 4 -16% 3 17% 0 0% Stop-Marked Crosswalk 2 1 8% 1 2 1 7% 0 0°/u 0 0% Total: 26 100% 1 27 100% 18 100% 25 100% Party at Fault 2005 2006 2007 2008 Driver 15 58% 21 78% 14 71% 14 56% Pedestrian 11 42% 6 22% 4 29% 11 44% Total: 26 100% 27 100% 18 100% 25 100% Source: City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Collision Database 3.7 Bicycle Collisions There were 59 collisions reported in 2008. This is the same number as in the 2007 report however there is an upward trend in bicycle related crashes on an annualized basis. The number of collisions in 2008 was slightly higher than the average number of collisions for the 10 years of the report, which is 53 collisions per year. Table 3.7.1 - 1999-2008 Bicycle Collisions Total Reported Bicycle Collisions Year on Public Streets % Change 1999 52 2000 46 -12 2001 45 -2 2002 52 16 2003 54 4 2004 50 -7 2005 55 10 20061 61 11 P007 59 -3 081 59 0 Source: City of San Luis Obispo Traffic Collision Database 15 ATTACHMENT Figure 3.7.2— 1999-2008 Bicycle Collisions 65 - 55 - 45 -- 35 -- 25 - 1999 555 45 35 251999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 This upward trend could be occurring for a number of reasons but it primarily coincides with the increased bicycle volumes recorded by the City. The TSR method of evaluating these types of collisions follows the recommendations of the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) which classifies bicycle collisions according to their collision type. The FHWA's classification system includes 38 different collision types, only 14 of which occurred on City streets in 2008. In general the majority of factors contributing to bicycle collisions in 2008 were cyclists losing control and cyclists operating their bicycles against the flow of traffic..The Party at Fault table has an area for "Other/None"parties at fault for bicycle mechanical failure or roadway surface causing a bicycle to overturn, and for cases when fault cannot be determined. Table 3.7.3—2008 Bicycle Collision by Type & Fault Number %of Cyclist's Position Severity Collision Type of Cases Tota] Sidewalk Road X-Walk Injury Fata PDO Cyclist Lost Control 15 25% 3 11 1 15 0 0 Wrong Way Cyclist 9 15% 2 6 1 9 0 0 Motorist Left Turn-Facing Cyclist 9 15% 0 9 0 7 0 2 Drive Out At Controlled Intersection 7 12% 0 6 1 5" 0 2 Motorist Right Turn-In Front of Cyclist 5 8% 0 5 0 4 0 I Motorist Overtaking-Misjudged Passing Space 3 5% 0 3 0 2 0 1 Motorist Open Door Into Path of Cyclist 2 3% 0 2 0 2 0 0 Bicyclist DUI 2 3% 0 2 0 2 0 0 Cyclist Left Turn In Front Of Motorist 2 3% 0 2 0 1 0 1 Motorist Left Turn-In Front of Cyclist 2 3% 0 2 0 0 0 2 Motorist Right Turn-Facing Cyclist 1 2% 0 1 0 1 0 0 Drive Out At Uncontrolled Intersection 1 2% 0 1 0 1 0 0 Ride Out From Lane or Driveway 1 2% 1 0 0 1 0 0 Other(Not classifiable) 0 0% 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 59 100% 6 50 3 50 0 9 16 q-3O ATTACHMENT Party at Fault 2005 2.006 2007 2.008 Cyclist 28 51% 30 49% 32 54% 43 73% Driver 27 49% 31 51% 27 46% 16 27% Total: 55 100% 61 100% 59 100% 59 100% Source: City of San Luis Traffic Collision Database Bq -31 17 - ATTACHMENT section 4 enfo>zcement statistics 4.1 Annual Traffic Citation Data Traffic citations are one of the methods used to promote compliance with the vehicle code and create a safer environment for motorists. The vehicle code includes many sections for enforcement. Some vehicle code violations are more serious than others and are designated as "Hazardous Violations". Vehicle Code Violations are tracked by the Department of Motor Vehicles, and hazardous violations are weighted by a point system. All hazardous vehicle code sections carry at least one point and some carry two points. The point system is used to assess the driving behavior of motorists and place restrictions on negligent drivers. The restriction or suspension of driving privileges helps make the roadways safer by removing drivers with hazardous driving habits. The Department of Motor Vehicles' Violation Point Assessment list is posted on their website at htt-p://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/viovtct.htm . Table 4.1.1 depicts the total number of citations issued by the Police Department each year since 1999 and the number of these citations classified as hazardous violations by the DMV. The table also lists the total number of violations, which is greater than the total number of citations because some citations include more then one violation. The citation trend indicates a fairly significant drop off in citations issued in 2003 and 2004, before increasing steadily through 2007. This trend coincides with the loss of one police traffic officer position in 2003 and one police patrol officer position in 2005. Theses losses were due to necessary budget reductions and the temporary redeployment of other traffic officers to cover shift shortages. These staffing shortages impacted the ability of officers to proactively issue citations, arrest DUI drivers, and conduct specialized traffic programs. The positions were restored in July 2007 and a renewed focus on traffic safety and enforcement throughout the Police Department has improved our enforcement efforts. This can be seen by the 65% increase in the amount of citations that were issued from 2007 to 2008. Table 4.1.1 - Traffic Citations Issued Year Total Total % Hazardous Vehicle %o Citations Violations Change Code Citations Change 1999 5734 6665 - 2394 - 2000 6741 7766 17.56 2001_ ----16.41 2001 7114 7820 5.53 1791 -10.49 2002 6508 7547 -8.51 2243 25.23 2003 4802 5732 -26.21 2550 13.68 2004 2663 3159 -44.54 896 -64.86 2005 3484 3983 30.82 789 -11.94 2006 3585 4014 2.89 1 934 18.37 2007 4488 4998 25.18 1 1769 89.4 2008 7437 8142 65.7 1 3120 76.37 18 U`r - _ ATTACHMENT 4.2 Traffic Safety Index The Traffic Safety Index, the ratio of hazardous citations issued to the number of injury and fatal collisions, is a gauge used by the California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) to measure cities' traffic safety and the effectiveness of their traffic enforcement programs. Hazardous citations include moving violations for traffic offenses, as opposed to non-moving and mechanical violations. Higher index numbers represent greater traffic safety and more effective traffic programs. The City of San Luis Obispo's index has been steadily increasing since 2004 after a significant drop, which coincided with staffing reductions in the traffic and patrol units in late 2003 and 2005, as described in the previous section. In 2008 the traffic safety index was 11.5. Statistics used to calculate the City's traffic safety index are reported to OTS as part of a grant awarded to the Police Department. In preparing this report, Police Department staff discovered two significant discrepancies in prior year reporting. First, staff has previously included seat belt violations in the total count of hazardous citations in the data reported to OTS. After further researching the categories of violations that constitute a hazardous citation, staff determined that seat belt violations should not be included. Second, the City municipal code contains enforcement sections that duplicate hazardous violations found in the California Vehicle Code. It was discovered that officers were routinely issuing citations for municipal code traffic violations rather than for vehicle code violations. However, OTS and DMV do not count municipal code citations toward the traffic safety index or as violation points. The Police Department is working to reduce the number of municipal code citations and is encouraging officers to utilize the vehicle code when most appropriate. Table 4.2.1 reflects the City's Traffic Safety Index for the past ten years. The index is calculated by dividing the number of hazardous citations issued by the number of injury collisions. The number of citations in prior years has been recalculated to remove any previously reported non- hazardous citations such as seatbelt violations. In addition, a separate column depicts the number of municipal code violations that were issued in lieu of a hazardous vehicle code violation. The Traffic Safety Index was calculated utilizing only vehicle code violations as tracked by OTS and as a total of the hazardous vehicle code and municipal code citations. The latter index number is most reflective of the City's actual level of traffic safety. Table 4.2.1 —Traffic Safety Index Year Total Hazardous Total Hazardous Total Injury Traffic Index Adj. Index with Vehicle Vehicle Code Citations Municipal Code Citations Collisions* Vehicle Code Only and Muni_.Code Citations 1999 2394 418 256 9.4 11 2000 2001 1420 283 7.1 12.1 2001 1791 2080 277 6.5 14 2002 2243 1585 321 7 11.9 2003 2550 969 219 8 11 2004 896 390 327 2.7 4 2005 789 493 297 2.7 3.9 2006 934 1123 259 3.6 7.9 2007, 1769 1 1131 274 6.5 1 10.6 20081 3120 1 230 1 271 1 11.5 1 12.36 'Includes injury collisions on both public and private property BY 33 19 ATTACHMENT 4.3 Driving Under the Influence Driving under the influence (DUI) violations have been a focal point of enforcement in an effort to reduce injury traffic collisions. Since 1999 the Police Department has averaged 465 DUI arrests each year. Of those arrests, about seven drivers each year were arrested for felony DUI after being involved in a collision causing injury to someone involved. In 2007 the Police Department arrested 331 people for DUI. Ten of those arrests were for felony DUI, which represents the highest annual total of felony DUI arrests since 1999. Over half(54%) of the DUI arrests involved drivers who were between 18 and 25 years old. In 2008 the department arrested 339 people for DUI with 2 felony DUI arrests. Figure 4.3.1 —Total DUI Arrests 1999-2008 600 i 500 400 300 200 100 0 fl 10 V I U] 12 1 U I V 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Figure 4.3.2—Felony DUI Arrests 1999-2008 8- 64 6.0,- 4- 2 0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Figure 433—2007 DUI Arrests by Age Bq-3Y 20 ATTACHMENT 2008 DUI Arrests by age: Under 18=5 18-25= 183 26-35=75 36-45=36 Over 45=40 0 Under 18 12% 1% 018-25 1326-36 - 0 36-45 0 Over 45 22% 4.4 Alcohol Involved Collisions In 2008, alcohol was determined to be a factor in 83 collisions. 23 of those collisions resulted in one or more of the parties being injured. Over the last nine years there have been 567 alcohol- related collisions. 28 percent of these collisions resulted in injury to a driver or passenger and four collisions resulted in a fatality. 4.5 Top Primary Collision Factors Collisions on public and private property were analyzed to determine the top six primary factors that caused the collisions. These factors are listed in order of frequency- Table 4.5.1 —Primary Collision Factors by Collision Severity Non-Injury Minor Injury Major Injury Speed Speed Failure to yield Failure to yield Failure to yield Disregard traffic signal or DUI Improper turns DUI Improper turns or Stop sign DUI Disregard traffic signal Disregard traffic signal Improper turns Stop sign violation Stop sign violations 8� -3S- 21 ATTACHMENT The following table depicts the number of vehicle code citations issued for the violations identified as the most common causes of collisions in 2008: Table 4.5.2—Citations by Collision Factor Violation I Speeding I Traffic SignalI Stop Sign I Failure to Yield I Improper Turn DUI lCitationj 1320 1 256 1 411 1 184 1 136 1 332 -3 22 ATTACHMENT section 5 safety InvestigAtlons 5.1 Neighborhood Traffic Management and Calming Program In June 1998, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Program aimed at reducing traffic volumes and speeds on residential streets. The program offers different options to citizens who want to implement traffic calming measures on their streets. It also identifies the petition process and the neighborhood surveys that are used to demonstrate a majority support for implementation of specific options. The NTM guidelines are being updated as of the time this report was written. Approximately Eighteen (18) neighborhoods are actively pursuing the preparation of Neighborhood Traffic Management (NTM) Plans for their neighborhoods. Because so many neighborhoods are requesting NTM projects and implementation funds are limited, staff developed a method for prioritizing the projects. The criteria include traffic speeds, volumes, presence or absence of continuous sidewalks, bicycle facilities, collisions, and presence of schools or other activity centers. In 2008, neighborhoods pursuing NTM projects included Johnson (divided into 3 sections), Broad, Oceanaire, Chorro, Atascadero, Ferrini, Rockview, Royal, Flora, Augusta, Galleon, Balboa, Coral, Islay, Pismo and Buchon. The three most notable NTM projects in 2008 were the PismoBuchon Neighborhood, the Oceanaire Neighborhood, and the Mobile Speed Feedback Trailer Program. PismoBuchon NTM In April of 2008 City staff held a meeting with neighborhood residents to discuss issues and concerns which should be addressed as part of the NTM program and to form an action team to represent the entire neighborhood. In May of 2008 the Police Department met with the group to discuss enforcement activities in the area, and on May 28th Public Works staff met with the action team to establish project boundaries, focus issues to be addressed, and to formulate a study/survey program to evaluate the issues. As of the time this report was written, staff is finalizing the draft NTM action plan for neighborhood polling which is expected to go out in October. Oceanaire NTM In September of 2008 City staff met with several active residents of the Oceanaire neighborhood to discuss starting a new NTM program and overall strategy for proceeding. In March of 2009 staff circulated a ballot to the Oceanaire neighborhood for support to initiate a Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. Oceanaire residents ultimately voted not to support a neighborhood traffic calming effort with the majority of respondents indicating that issues can be managed by more police enforcement not by roadway traffic calming measures. Mobile Saeed Feedback Trailer Program In 2007, the City purchased a solar powered, radar activated speed-feedback trailer. The trailer can be temporarily set up in many locations and can easily be moved from one location to the next as demands arise. It has the distinct advantage of possibly impacting drivers while not posing problems for compliant drivers, and has proven to be a useful supplement to enforcement Bq-3 :7- 23 ATTACHMENT activities. In 2008 the trailer was deployed at 18 locations and has shown to reduce average speed by as much as 7 mph when deployed. 24 ATTACHMENT a = CL > o caO U C o6 y y fes. Q) Lcm c0 'fir C C C w '� cz O O N m _ _ ` i c 0) .2) r- y Cn O to t: QN co C0� c° CO ErnrE- my aCM -0 O -0 r- a7 o In p� y co F. . 'p inm � U (D SQA •O N ami y L y Q O V Y C Q a) a) 7rL O U 7 7 0 Cn Z C7 d J CA cn cn > ¢, VU ca ca 0cc w+ OO bD C C C C CC c U .. N > O cn U ° u .� C. y U b E. -o a) r m a� o 0 = — 6 C p = m o = r > .. ° _ o a6 o a) a UO r i m cL.� '� U c ti E °' 2 o ,6 ca E cc 23 ca m c m c ° a3 aiR. 2 X 0' w s m -i R rn c z -1 M: L) v CU cc a < v) y' E N w e ° c6 U > y y cZ � rn o U O G. fq U W y y y43) C C C 12 C C C C C C fa 'Zi O O C C y U 0 0 0 0 0 0 cm C' _ r. C y ca c0 c9 cc co ca c0 CA - N G 'D U �' (Jj U U a.. y U U U U U U U m C O C C C U 2 U U 'O 'O 'G U � i.+ y •^ C C C C C C �' .59 a7 m N = O O. m m m m m m H m c0 ° rnrno� rnrno� ° ~ m m aa) Y v U U .. «? 3 cmv v as m p N p O ; vv ovv � � z --cx as vv on m y p rn ami d a, m m cava c��a m m co ca ac cc c m U7 bA rnrnrnrnrnrnU .�a 0) »° ;° in m 0 m O• O• C. O. O. O• w y a V1 y y a) N O N a) oq � .� 2n22 » o � 2 c c c � � c ti V N 0 d �_ O = 40. E ° � C O .r '.� O O C .� U 40 = y ♦y.. U E ; 4U+ d O N U O O d O > W R F" Cy, O 00 C, ca o O E C C. m y V O N m E rn E o `° c °' ca 9 o m N is y C c 2 a 2 v� c as w L > Z &L = w c m O LC m a6 d Z m 0 y W o6 Z ca M Cl O H 1(1 06 06 06 O ca 06 a C o6 O 'd a7 ca 0 OC V7 co o0 m U C7 CL 2 L E •O L L cw L O d y = ,`. y Q V L 3- m N y > 3 `o `o c o =c � m ° c L c L � c N .� y R L a7 L V. a3 m O O O N m 0 m L y a3 O 7 U � 0zm2m � � � a = � t%1 � m Fes. mSq-39 /q—3 9 ATTACHMENT section 6 Zoos hlch collision nate locations 6.1 Intersections and Segments Prioritization by Collision Rate The evaluation of intersections using collision rates (number of collisions per million entering vehicles for intersections and million vehicle miles for segments) is standard practice in traffic engineering. This method of evaluation is often chosen over pure numbers because the number of collisions generally increases proportionally to increases in traffic volumes. This relationship does not mean that there is an engineering deficiency where the number of collisions is highest. Traffic engineers use collision rates to determine locations where more collisions are occurring than would be expected. These locations are then further evaluated to determine what is causing this higher than normal occurrence. In contrast, the Police Department utilizes the number of collisions to evaluate what intersections need to be patrolled. This method of evaluation puts the Police Officers at the locations where they can have the greatest effect on the largest number of road users. There may not be an engineering deficiency at a very busy intersection, however Police presence and enforcement at such locations ensures that drivers continue to drive prudently. Because of the difference in evaluation methods, the ranking of intersections in this report differs from the ranking of intersections in the Police report. Both methodologies are appropriate for their intended purposes. However, they would be likely to produce inappropriate and ineffective results if an attempt were made to use the same methodology for both the Police and Public Works reports. To address safety concerns at all types of locations, intersections and segments were broken down into the following subgroups: TYPE OF INTERSECTION OR SEGMENT APPENDIX Arterial /Arterial Intersections Appendix 1 Arterial/Collector Intersections Appendix 2 Arterial /Local Intersections Appendix 3 No Collector/Collector intersections had more than 3 collisions in 2008 Collector/Local Intersections 7 Appendix 4 No Local/Local intersections had more than 3 collisions in 2008 Other Significant Intersections Appendix 5 Arterial Segments Appendix 6 Collector Segments Appendix 7 No Local Segments had more than 3 collisions in 2008 Collision rates per million vehicles entering an intersection and million vehicle miles traveled on a segment were calculated for all locations with three or more collisions within the City. These collision rates were then used to prioritize the top five intersections and segments in each category so that locations with the highest rates were ranked at the top of the list. Mitigation measures, including potential future CIF's, were then identified based upon the perceived collision patterns for each location. The appendices of this report include calculation tables and collision diagrams for each intersection and segment studied. 13 -7 26 - ATTACHMENT Safety Analysis Collision diagrams were developed for the top five locations for each of the pedestrian, bicycle, intersection and segment classifications for the City. Full size exhibits of the collision diagrams are contained in the appendices. As described previously, the collision rankings were based on REV factors and collision rates as shown in Tables 6.1.1 through 6.1.10. These locations were then analyzed using collision diagram interpretation techniques and engineering principles. Based on collision patterns identified in each diagram, mitigation measures and safety improvement recommendations were proposed for each location as outlined in each intersection category. A thumbnail sketch of each intersection's collision diagram has been provided in the tables. Complete collision diagrams that include additional collision information for each of these locations are included in Appendices 1 through 10. Variations in yearly pedestrian related collisions are to be expected. While this report is intended to evaluate and analyze collision trends in 2008, the number of annual pedestrian related collisions typically reported in the City is too few to identify collision patterns and establish mitigation measures. The method for evaluating pedestrian collision locations identifies all locations where at least one pedestrian collision has occurred in 2008 and ranks those locations based on a "relative exposure value" (REV) for the previous five year pedestrian collision history, with three or more pedestrian related collisions. The REV value is a cross product comparing the number of pedestrians, automobiles and number of accidents to better reflect the potential exposure rate of pedestrians based upon potential conflict. This REV attempts to normalize the ranking criteria for a fair comparison statistic that can be used to demonstrate higher and lower priority locations for review and mitigation. Similar to the method used for pedestrians, the method for evaluating bicycle collision locations identifies all locations where at least one bicycle collision has occurred in 2008 and ranks those locations based on its own "relative exposure value" (REV). The REV includes assessment for the previous five year bicycle collision history, with three or more bicycle related collisions having occurred at a particular location and then comparing that amount with automobile and bicycle volumes to create ranking criteria for this modal segment. This method of evaluation is preferred over the "pure" collision numbers because the number of collisions generally increases within proportion to bicycle volumes and individual bicycle collisions may not in and of themselves identify the need for review and mitigation. The REV is then used to identify locations where more collisions are occurring than would be expected. 27 ATTACHMENT c \ § \ 0 \ q % 2 % / w 2 c w 2 2 \ ] § ƒ 6 \ \ J 2 \ cz 7 / C ) \ R ) ] 0en 7 ( « u < § 72 U@ \ 2 ) & 5 = a § > w 3 \ / / / 3 \ / k/ � . $2 MA\a. bijill —7 cr, ATTACHMENT 'O O � U •� O R. •� ;,� U O C O. Uca y,•� O .:L vUi O cz y O y U o N O O ,x •� O O . •fl cC to u O ❑ 3 0 Q U �" O N on o o L U > ani ° y ❑ bA «. to❑ Oto °� •� � � Ocz yEn � 3 -0 'Y a� Z c Ca „ nn CL 0 b wto t n Zoa) � •N O Oto > ° o y Q: (U b U U Cao Q � � Q � •T � � •� N Z Z z � "IOU W p W . C) a E : 4° F� cz u� U Wu� U N aQ. c4 a. >cl Q . 0 to � i�j OD y C ccz cz N Q; � U T o o w' Y N W U � CCca � i•. U G y U G ate.. u n O W J , 0 W CLQ � d t d 'ems cp e��Qa �ig i �'•Alg � k8 ATTACHMENT 0.% 000000wooo000000 ° mmrnmmmmU) omm � mmmmm U N Z A C V N � ^ 0 V OMOOMMMOMNaNI- W OpOCM 1AW Or N On OO to O M N Nr N !V r 10 It M N r r CD E N A N N p O 00 0 m O O N N � r 0 OI ti0CD N N co O O M OO O) co O. 000) 0 d 0Nr04 rONMr � OrrrOO � 2 IL m o � o ° N OOIq 0O O O Lo ) OOOCO Ca00NMc'MOCDO Y .� N � t• � C9 NNO � mt} R � � V NNCV) a a c a o d c o E ^- ° q ¢ = to o M 1 7d Z Lo W O � c w .rou U O ° C14 I;U c c Ct1 c > x zuca s o � -o •oma a o > cu o cs `a °' o Z m f� CV a°) R °d m 3 N m a m m m ° > . _.± comm � oo y � _ = sm ,� rn oa w p co a02 -J Zfia v m c m ots a m V ad `) v CD C6 r- ad °� o r as o �} m m m 4, s3 .� d R °� EcZ 'CE .S � co ° m � m � � 3c m M x m `� o 2L o m L m d g U' U ii U' Z m U m 2 2 2 r —j ii a � NM � ICJ CO r, co O) Or N MIT Lo C -1co i�'l l:::f cdr r r r r r r r r � I ATTACHMENT ° c m z cc ca ow, o :� v to 0n o •to a 0 •� a U E > U E > nil ,b > ca t ..d c0 to I~ O � rn In t C O N O +" O >, cC O, O .. U U E -o U U E •a O c ao Q o 0c°n Q w o cn ° rs c u ° U F U O op + 0 0A ., zE zE po w ,g cm 0 0 0 3 0 0 Q 3 ° M W Gi Z •Y 0W �p 0 w ani oLIZu 0 o c F ru�� a DoE Q .° a r� aE ¢ .E 0 y cz ca Lt O C y O O c 'vn y «cddd �, .•..r �j o v� °y.' U 000 _ cz _ O as � y > ft! C z y > _ c kr) kf� 3 tr) 0.1 in tj '� S 1f5eP e F shah .� Mehl a p9:iP,l n `,r= DEEiJIG R F ATTACHMENT / 8 � ) / ' \ k � � [ Ln \ 2 •k ¢ to 5 m § / / e 2 � B \ / Z cn c c / © / Q / e E\ / k ca - \ � - / *\ \ \ z ) a o 2 U � \ A \ ) > \ \ ) \ » mw eLl, I ATTACHMENT a z 0 U_ 'O .i C U a� v a � 0 0 .Y W ^^y •Q O z z o � U 14 a a LLQ U � O N r�+ '" W Era fl:::;3 �I�e0 9s9 n 9ii;'.6 r� i ATTACHMENT L Q H Q ° ° v ai a •� � � � boa Q� 1•"r •� cl 00 os o L cn F-' C � � H U •O Q Q Q cue en7 > O e O O O co ° o G, a o ^� :r cv oo iw rjLTJ cz Cc x pan aU. LC "U" cu cd G ia X31 lk UlU Sti'lL "! StiAL a _1d�7e < I IYI� eT�tlB I I:::1 /� l374P ATTACHMENT w o 0 c w o 3 O cl Y z t, 0 U .r V � Lw VI N e R 1 3 o 3 o c c 0 0 ;� o y > z a ; c ci o to v' o o LIZ LIU O , O o zo E Z �- Q _O O Q U Q O M ao rn 45 C K X 5 N �✓ e�3 W 03 cn t M O cn O V U0 y O y O O Ya �i••� is IC � Iii Y [ . e9�a 13��� ATTACHMENT O N a ai o 0 Z Z- 00 o o ° Q z ° � U a � 0 � O W c v i O � g9lYllL pp 6 I 1 ATTACHMENT y "0 yf. N rn _Oc� a o 00 vi O .Y o � �•° c s 3 6� yy � yr � •� '.... T U r Q cu CCS L Q OD C3 0 M oc cf) tu w wccw Q E Q � ¢ QQ O a 0 X cz cl) C O Ln L E � � �• GL. Chi tx rte. N Q V] F-� Q `J ATTACHMENT a; o L cyC •� cyC �. cu r- 0 o cz z o z v z o o y °O z z •o z z o U Q O U Q O U iw E oo cd ca a z cn UI M O O rn � N rn 5M F5�- - `Q --; , • imp .e I tlI i e 55 a p ;W A L '� —• - qqr b...—'� --.Egs€644}rps _ ATTACHMENT CD � N a r- a� o ct Z o U Q p Z rn O W U W O Fr Y VV Y Y ca va W c E °= O to U kn s.. O O Gq bA cz ;9t:JlS S p 3�s ATTACHMENT o �. o � N O C O } z O p O ' � N O ca C C U O O >C C U v U a u .Cp. cd O O s. N O � v p > U co C tz L O � (� U U i. 0 �.icncu b x o L a, cz Ca Q W W C U ; z o Fes- U E� y W� F� a a Q oQ, rx U Q p N R C C cG C tz czca 0 C Q)ca ca W C L w M O C In y d fY7� � • P6 §� -�� �.__ � Pp ATTACHMENT U w O � C y rO O_ EW b > � CIS O O w ;d O 3 Y '0 E a� U 40 N L- O h > W Q> C O U O -0 ca u O c Cq U cz�- .c Zas En o W c Z o z ca p a F as C =° . a OQ Cr1 Q cn 71 c .. Z °z o 3 z ¢ N � U W z z340. to cli cz i y fiH W o SFSB AL 99 S aaggpp@@44aass ___ ,J^_7 _ _ gpygSpL y 6 3� -��9A3I6� 6 _ • � i�J1506] ATTACHMENT a = \ z u \ � 2 ca to � \ \ d \ e '- f - 2 E = � / & \ 2 E § ( ƒ �\ \ $ q o 3 5 / let R = © � u \ e \ / / § \ 0 a � / % a / .§ 0 \ u0 / \ \ �/ \�! �/®�/ ATTACHMENT k © § ) � k � 2 © ` ) \ \ \ - - g g ) g I \ 2 ± 2 3 ° > Q \ 9 \ k a 2 6 \ \ 2 ® < ) a a 9 c \ g e w 2 2 w 2 « \ 9 ? _ % / \ / z / $ \ g � I \ e g $ 2 J \ / Go ej \ / ] \ \ cu u ( 2 \ \ / ƒ / / § ■ _ , - . \i a § \ ? / nay « ! mb \\ — ��'�� ATTACHMENT rn a 'rA N •�-• N U c3 •y v' 'd , to C OL z. R • SZ a Q" T C C .N �jcucC (� b •� E .COA � •� O O � .-• O N C y U v /1 to U os a0 > w � � ° civ $ � F" coo •� 'a � o p b UC4 4o . w � •° � zL � � n. E z °' to 0 t.: 0 N 7 C -0 C L 'x N Q cl O > ci cd W Q ce Ocue ix L C m 0 W > C y �O «i+ O _ ° CSC \ y O ti a+ .U.• R 00 y � �.• al �. Cr!i a � 3!i V I�.e „ `-:`s-.,•_:'i3i Jli ei ;� ;�� 7d)a y5 Ilio 6 gl9d & a -` q5} tli Mall] `p c ,WAL y _•P•- .� @lily. F 1 ATTACHMENT ca 0 0 � r a.a U a0i r4 c -o N _ 0 00 p 0 .e (z 0 > U O .. �, s o • son c ca .r as o no cC o Z c > kn w . Hca caLZ� LZ °W� u > o .. M LCf On > a+ O ..' O _ N O C s_ 29 "I'- •Sl yi $ �111AL Li ATTACHMENT Qu ci O U N 'y .o •o c U O by O Z CL "Ot. O cj L ° 3 0 o p w w 6 o �= p. :: y o o y '� a > UO c R{ it O .--i ° CC L �+ N •VJ iii N OA �+ C L •Q O Ls. y m tj CU oj ms z ' o°o� a) EA cn > on o ¢ .o 0 o o o U > yam.° � L ctl U •� � .Uj V] V � 'Y /M'yV� .� �.° ca cz in ca c O C W � � o W ° � c�23oan>Q. � to Z ° vO O O m a s y Z oA . H O o W O Liao= c 0 t 3 .. E- U -o c C ¢ W cs U O ¢ O r„ j cC O 7 s0. a� U a. CG CL > ca ¢ a. c� o (z 0.a ¢ 3 mc 5 3 ^v a X23 cv ccz on ca c � ca > O tz ami > _ u En 0 y c"c ami C a i O y e` leyi �e a � n•9)a.. 9 - o � i.•iii � m i�5 gg �i—_, gggg qq x « m. ATTACHMENT \ 5 ) � U \ E- \ \ k / t e > / \ / • % _ 9 ) \ § E � � CIO) CM \ { j a� ] a / \R � 5 0 i aj E 7 r % \ ] « @ z � J � 27 / o . �@ - � !•. NIS ��'�/ ATTACHMENT o � o z o z o 0 0 o 0 ¢ ¢ 00 W U W U on rA _O cn SO O 4\ $ oo 0 o vn S G) Lc. ^p kn N i.. v� O X p N E y N Rc~C u ca YU a �a COJ re; _.taf}.$t 1�5g-LE zo �. ON H b�e3�Si y�u�3.�3� `p Eti1lG y 1:1 A" i- (� 2 ATTACHMENT N o o,n 03 o c ^ > o as ca u 00 cz E E " � E ° 3o >, E2 az �s > i � d h Q w .D O U rs �b0 '3 .y •v', w a� '� �, o eq C � '� o c c3 > E ami 'ora w z >= 0z 0 o .� � o s 0 � ca � a°qi '� o 0 o p •� v W c cY�e p ` C) CZw O W to to co U to n cs Q U c x 3 Q x CJ M cz o o g C) p; o cc cuto to LV ca o o u x w °s � ,a a � •.a Zi, Willi e4 ��.t8lt ,xo:.. �� .nwp• 3 �—G3 ATTACHMENT o ,� a •. v O o U G C U c o •- a to o � o • .� w V �'�:+ C� C 'a+ •b � o ° o o L > w 0 0 C cz: o 0. �+ o o •� op ,�, � •L -o � C) o c M o > a o = sCn. Cp p' vagi pq G T G S7. U L" O Q bA O t o O ""' � cC 7�7y C cn al Cp O cqs oa U > c o � c o c cz to °o c Gn w a q0 iR� 30 %c•_ J ATTACHMENT i 0v c °? CA ccd to 00 vC b o N N cd lt� rq to"a U 'd .� •rG cC cC N N -d O X C •,,., .. N U � �, O S•' N C N .2 V cz 0 Ln °O y Cl. _U U LY of ,°3 N E N 0 z o — o 71 3 o cd L U Ln 91. o o a o o En rA E o o -o O �'� ° •o � c ° w � Q -oo wl ca u o i on x U x o o o s. co U Cq ., o cz ry P' o `A 000 0 o as oL no, v I-V L— a rl e a k9:illl. 9itJl6 F B41-6 S ATTACHMENT Section 7 tRA f f is enf oRcement Activities 7.1 Enforcement at High Collision Intersections and Segments Traffic enforcement at intersections and street segments with high collision rates is a high priority for the Police Department. Officers conduct enforcement activities, high visibility patrols, and saturation deployment in areas identified as having the highest concentration of collisions, or which present special risks such as school zones. These enforcement efforts result in citations and have a lasting impact on drivers. Some become concerned about receiving a citation even after a saturation effort ends and change their driving behavior as a result. In fact, the presence of officers in a specific area often results in drivers obeying the law, diminishing the need to issue large numbers of citations. The Police Department attempts to correlate these focused enforcement efforts with locations that have been identified as having high collision rates. A traffic enforcement calendar is posted in three different locations at the police department highlighting problem areas. This focuses department wide efforts at these locations each week. In addition to enforcement in high collision areas, the Traffic Safety Unit frequently adjusts its enforcement activities based on citizen complaints and observations of violations. 7.2 DUI Special Enforcement The enforcement of Driving Under the Influence (DUI) laws continues to be a high priority for the Police Department, particularly for officers working night shifts. The Police Department implemented DUI Saturation patrols during which officers were deployed to specifically focus on DUI enforcement. These saturation patrols were achieved by schedule modifications by members of the Traffic Safety Unit to work from 5:00 PM to 3:00 AM from their normal daytime hours. These patrols were conducted throughout 2008. The Police Department participated in the county-wide "Avoid the 14" DUI education and enforcement campaign. Officers conducted coordinated efforts with other law enforcement agencies for DUI enforcement during peak periods, such as holiday weekends, and participated in DUI media campaigns. The Police Department conducted three DUI checkpoints in the City in 2008. 7.3 Seatbelt Enforcement According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), research has shown that the use of a lap/shoulder seatbelt can reduce the risk of a fatal injury by 45 percent and the risk of a moderate injury by 50 percent. In order to encourage seatbelt use to increase safety, the Police Department strictly enforces seatbelt violations and conducts special education and enforcement campaigns under the annual statewide "Click It or Ticket" program. During "Click It or Ticket" enforcement periods, seatbelt enforcement was highlighted on the Traffic Enforcement Calendar. 52 iJ q"6 b - ATTACHMENT In 2008, the Police Department issued 527 seatbelt citations. The last two seatbelt surveys have revealed 98 percent compliance. 7.4 Repeat Offenders - Suspended Licenses The Department of Motor Vehicles suspends the privilege to drive based upon driving behavior, utilizing the Violation Point Assessment tool as a gauge to identify negligent and dangerous drivers. Individuals who continue to drive once their license has been suspended or revoked pose an increased risk to the public over licensed drivers. The Police Department has taken a pro-active enforcement posture against these offenders by creating a monthly "hot-sheet" that identifies chronic offenders who repeatedly drive without a valid license. These offenders not only receive a citation, but their vehicle is subject to impound for up to 30 days. In 2008 the Police Department impounded 149 vehicles from individuals driving with a suspended license or had no license at all. The hot-sheet program, which began in December 2007, highlights offenders who have prior arrests for DUI and usually more than one license suspension. It is common for these offenders to have other criminal convictions and many have outstanding warrants. 7.5 Grant Programs The Police Department received funding from two separate traffic and alcohol-related grants during 2008 from the Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) in order to assist the City in reducing deaths, injuries and economic losses resulting from traffic related collisions. The following is a summary of the grant programs: Avoid the 14 DUI Campaign Grant Period: 10/1/06 - 1/3 1/10 The Avoid the 14 grant is a joint participation program involving all of the local law enforcement agencies in the County. The goal of the program is to reduce alcohol involved fatalities and injuries, and to raise public awareness about the risks associated with impaired driving. The grant funds DUI checkpoints, saturation patrols, and DUI warrant sweeps throughout the County. Selective Traffic Enforcement Program #2 Grant Period: 10/1/07 - 9/30/09 This enforcement grant (which is still underway) focused on reducing the number of people injured and killed in collisions by increasing DUI and selective traffic enforcement. The grant funded one traffic officer position for 18 months; a traffic motorcycle; radar/LIDAR speed detecting devices for traffic and patrol officers; eight DUI/Driver's License checkpoints; and several saturation patrols. Enforcement operations are focused on red light violations; violations at or near intersections with a disproportionate number of traffic collisions; and drivers exhibiting excessive speed. 53 ���� ATTACHMENT section 8 oncolnc, ebucatlon campalcns 8.1 Child Safety Seats l_ r In order to reduce the likelihood that an infant or child is injured in a traffic collision, the Police Department offers child safety seat inspection and installation at no cost to �, a - members of the public. The Department is part of a county- 1' wide Car Seat Safety Coalition which organizes six to eight Child Seat Check-up events each year to make sure child seats are properly installed in vehicles and to answer questions about the laws regulating the transportation of - children. When a child seat is identified as being unsafe or subject to recall, a new seat is provided to the parent or caregiver at no cost. Three Police employees are certified as child seat inspectors (two officers and one field services technician). They participate in check-up events throughout the County, and provide inspections and installations at the Police Department by appointment. 8.2 Bicycle Safety Every year, the Police and Parks and Recreation Departments co-host a "Bicycle Rodeo' for children in order to promote safe and a t responsible bicycle skills and operation. • t During the five days leading up to the Rodeo, a J, professional BMX stunt team travels to several XI elementary schools and puts on an exciting I 'sv bicycle safety demonstration that includes stunt riding, messaging promoting a healthy lifestyle free of drugs and alcohol, and a five point bicycle safety check. The week concludes with a free Bicycle Rodeo featuring a "Safety Town' that includes signaled intersections, stop signs, a railroad crossing, pedestrian traffic, and car doors opening into the roadway, as well as specialized cone courses to develop riding skills. Community members volunteer their time to staff the course, and local professional bicycle mechanics check and adjust / q 54 9 Y—b L - ATTACHMENT children's bicycles prior to entry on the course. Helmets are also checked and if they are determined to be unsafe a new one is provided free. Annual attendance ranges from 200 to 300 children. 8.3 Impaired Driver Offender Classes When a driver is convicted of DUI, he or she is normally required to attend a DUI offender class as part of the sentence. The goal of the class is to provide education and dialog about DUI offenses in order to increase the chances an individual will not re-offend. The classes are offered by the County Behavioral Health Department and Drug and Alcohol Services, and serve approximately 50 people per class. The Police Department participates in the program by providing a traffic officer to make a presentation at the DUI offender classes to discuss the impacts of DUI on traffic safety and collisions. The class offers a unique opportunity for officers to interact with DUI offenders in a positive and educational way, rather than during an enforcement action. Class attendees are provided an opportunity to ask questions of the officer and to discuss the impact of DUI driving on them and others. 55 Y'� ATTACHMENT appendix i ARteizul / ARteRiat inteRsections 56 M CD m c* N co co � � CO M ATTACHMENT M N O M CO m 0 M O " v Lo m n � 0) a v m 0 N CO �I t0 w C` v N n , M. M v_ n _ �7 N b N C9 O N M R O tO � O N C m O d t0 0) b , � O N co n ap � 0 N amp CO O 0) w 'o O) N O M co .- CO c n n m N co N n z N w O) O M [T LO m � N N _ N r d' M t0 m 7 V aD rO ( O � O O h O n n M O M m co m QQQo e0 aovcOOc� U.) con � m o �j ZZZm n n .- O M. MZ N co 0 0 N cp. AH mn � nn n Wina° a22 o2 °t- (DL, � � cco0 Z 0o cNno O V tp N CO M O M O N C O p (n d1 f/1 N y (4 (n to to to to fn to lA to fA to to U m m w M W O O O co N m O O m co m O O cc O m w w n n n 0 LO v v M M M N N N N r O �- Q) A co m n M M O M V W M O co co E t0 Of v O Q) M O 0m U) O n v O M O CO � �O 'V N N a0 m O O 0 n M r r r N M r N N M tO N M M M M C R O o .N .m co w c0 W {o W O V n LO 0. m M LO LO M � O O U V A d m N c ++ o •L C N f' O m O 06 O N co = 2 0 E m O w L d y O N C C O 'O" m C r y 7 0 0 3z Cc Cc m 0 'O «� C L N LL d fto A50cc 2 0 °a L2otSotS � U) o > mU oc N cis as °a m O '6 m ca ,� `a cn cn �— ca O 0 06 C p p = e � � o c ccaa O coo : `— m _ O L _ L O w 0 � � ci u 2 Um0) 2USlim -0jm2 R c m mami ate) ami m Y Y Y Y Y a df t0 a m m N m N v 0 c,.) cc n n O cc C jQ' `- 2 •- N Q' p 0 O O O IL Z z z z z Q Y � re� r) vu� conaomo � NMcatonao 7 ATTACHMENT Marsh & Santa Rosa 8 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 ot/osnooa 9:37 i 0 04/2012008 21:39 08/07/2008 18:17 04/0812008 1" m 04/05/2008 14:11 77 r 11:25 m Within 5'of Intersection, (0)accidents with insufficient data for display t- Straight Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: e--� Stopped a-, Erratic ,X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole — Unknown a-tir Out of control p Injury ® Signal m curb ® Tree Animal Q .►Backing v�_ Right turn O Fatality a-. Overtaking 0,,— Left turn i} Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn DUI x Extra data I 58 8� � �� ATTACHMENT Chorro & Marsh 6 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 04/21/2008 9:50 05/28/2008 21:05 ) a� 11/17/2008 22:48 2J 0 1/40 X008 10:1 a 87/18/2008 8:18—J' —.�. 12:1a Within 'of Intersection, accidents with insu dent data for display 4— Straight c=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: 4 Stopped Erratic x Bicycle ❑ General o Pole CIE Unknown a-,r Out of control (D Injury ® signal ® curb e–.. Backing e� Right turn p Fatality ® Tree Animal �.. Overtaking Left turn <p Nighttime 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn l4 DUI )K Extra data Qtv of San Luis.. 0. 010 59 ATTACHMENT Marsh & Osos 6 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 0 N Q O O ' O N 05/12J2008 10:23 08/08/2008 12:19 11/0312008 20:41 01/11/2008 14:30' Within 76of lntersecon. ii—ccidents with insufficient data for displav Straight ®Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: <---A Stopped -gt-- Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole a— Unknown a-v Out of control O Injury ® Signal ® curb .►Backing *v,-- Right turn O Fatality ® Tree Animal -q- . Overtaking Ae—Left turn p Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle .*-- Sideswipe U-turn Fa DUI )K Extra data ON of Sm Luis Obiwo,CA 0712312009 Interseetion Magic ver 6.704 Pd'Pro9mmming*88.2000 60 �T^�� ATrACHMENT Chorro & Higuera 5 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 06/18 9:39 7 01/22/2006 9:32 �05/14I2008 :14 v i7 N �O Within 75'of nterseC IOn 1 accidents with insufficient a a fordisplav Straight == Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a--. Stopped <-, Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pate C Unknown a,,r Out of control O Injury ® signal ® curb .<.Backing Right turn @ Fatality ® Tree 35 Animal <- Overtaking Ar-- Left turn p Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe 157— U-turn F4 DUI )K Extra data ,.. 61 ATTACHMENT Higuera & Osos 5 Accidents 01/01/08 12/31/08 0 N O �0 0110812008 13:59 09/05/2008 20:55 mA— 4-4 1211012008 17:00 '04/0612008 13:45 in 7 0.Intersection, accidents with insu icient data for is a I Straight == Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: 4 Stopped -e, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole Unknown -x� Out of control p Injury ® signal ® curb �–..Backing o,_ Right turn O Fatality ® Tree Animal -w . Overtaking Ae— Left turn p Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle Sideswipe IFD7— U-turn DUI K Extra data .. . ... . .... 62 ATTACHMENT appendix 2 aRteRial / cotlectoR inteusections 63 to <O ao Q n cc mic: ;*O: ATTACHMENT M CO O Q r Q f\ QQcD O00 O r v ZZ rnn0) 04rl rr� o mntoton to `0LO o N tb M W CON CO 04 -�Uo�l m Go N m n M O � Q W Q w NN co n N T T Z O wzz ° � iLn �' aN o O) r T O T n C oa a 0 (2 (7 (2C7 C7 Ll) RC9 C9 owwwwwwww55Fn v Q N 41to O) M O to M O O Q a O O t0 w to Q Q V CM m r r r C O O C, 6 6 6 0 N N w M O M CC) M Ul) O E Q M N O n nCO N CO CO 7 a O CO O Of M M O CO O 00 to O r Q O N CO Q N > r r r N r r N T N M 0 0 C � y o CA n {O Q tq M M v M Q Q 0 — (� O V .Q N O m d 0 W ccC 3 (J N C O O Ntm C w m O lz O S °� m d C S O E R or N c E m t o w L o� y m a t=o E o oo co �- > o ca C 0@a O 05 a c 0d o8 0 co i E 00 `0 E t m m o m w o o N v a O V a 2 m' m` m` � w d Vig Q. C C C Cc Ix r w Q CO co O T O o 0 0 0 L azz z z m � a ��-794p r N M Q H (p f-- (*1 10 O ` ATTACHMENT Pismo & Santa Rosa 7 Accidents 01/01/08 12/31/08 0 N m 0 0 10/24/2008 10:45 '12/2912008 12:50 '11/02/2008 16:12 08/05/2008 17:08 Within of Intersection, accidents with insufficient ata or display I Straight c�=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a Stopped *-, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole I Unknown ani Out of control 0 Injury m signal ® Curb e .. Backing e�Right turn O Fatality ® Tree § animal Overtaking 4e— Left turn p Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe �—U-turn �a DUI Extra data 65 ATTACHMENT Osos & Pismo 6 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 005/2912008 13:88!062008 2 L10/15/200817:14 L�1/16/2008 16:19 co M ro Within 'of Intersection. accidents with insufficient data for display Straight Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole .c—Unknown ¢,r Out of control O Injury ® signal a curb .. Backing e� Right turn O Fatality ® Tree animal Overtaking jr-- Left turn p Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle Sideswipe (F�7— U-turn Pa DUI )K Extra data 66 ATTACHMENT Chorro & Palm 4 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 T m m —1411— 7/30/2008 22:51 07/0312008 1s:sa L01/16/200810:06 Within of Intersection, accidents with insufficient a for display Straight c�=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: F—+ Stopped Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole Unknown a-v Out of control O Injury m seat ® curb e ..Backing N,-Right turn p Fatality ® Tree § Animal 4- Overtaking 0,,— Left turn ;p Nighttime v 3rd vehicle .*— Sideswipe IF— U-turn Fa DUI x Extra data .,. 67 ATTACHMENT Pismo & Santa Rosa 7 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 m c'> 0 [[IIII TT I E�I� N � c 10/24/2008 10:46 '12/29/2008 12:50 '711/02/2008 16:12 008/05/2008 17:08 Within of Intersection, 0 accidents with insufficient ata for display • Straight c�= Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: • Stopped a, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole — Unknown a-,r Out of control 0 Injury ® signal ® curb .. Backing a,Right turn p Fatality ® Tree animal e .+ Overtaking .4e— Left turn _p Nighttime < 3rd vehicle Sideswipe IF,7— U-turn DUI )K Extra data City of Sw Luis Obiwo.CA .0• . 2000 68 i - ATTACHMENT High & Higuera 3 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 05/1912008 2:04 R 0 i� (V Within 75'of ersec on accidents with msu Rae ata or display 1 Straight Ra Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: <—R Stopped .v, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole X Unknown .4� Out of control O Injury a Signal ee a CAnimurb �-.. Backing i,,_Right turn @ Fatality < + Overtaking Ae— Left turn :_p Nighttime d 3rd vehicle Sideswipe �n U-turn [-i DUI )K Extra data 69 ATTACHMENT appendix 3 ARteRial / local inteRsections 70 � oonao �, Mg �l � plgomggggg ATTACHMENT O CO O O O O O O O N `p �� M MI O M O ih CD M r N (A (D CAC�o Cp OD F O O m m a 0 0 O O M O OI rn OI O O p O O O O O N O r. O N n O (O O ^ co O ^ O O Z N A' N r N r CA CO LO O LO p� CO a O O O r F F F F F YAD r LO I LO m n o W A a o t00 O 0 MI N OO Q OI O th P h N F N �. M S M F F N Z O Re I Or O co r m Q Q Q tD Q N 0 O a00O O OI O O Q O O W z Z Z aD M Z F N r O Ln CO F M C c Z to O O O O O O O O O O H 1- H F- 1- H O O D I O M CD N V) N cn V5 fn fn Cn fA (n (n (n 3 <n fn fn co i V r r N �- N N N r r m tyO N h O M CA r-- (O N CO DD d 0 f` M N W) O O 0) n CD CO Ln LO LO V v M M M M N N N r 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 d O rA M t0 N O M O r O n O O Ln c0 0 0 0 0 E CA N a 0 COOf O m M v LO o o m o o m m rn o o o � N_ r CO l!') r 0 f� N CO U) M O N LO tO Q � 01 t7 t0 r LO r M V [f O O vi N O LO P. R to � C o 'O .(D t0 A of t0 0) CO Lo M O LO M co LO M IT R M M M O V U CD a 'a m N > to o _ >fA C O O (A R y y R L. O O co 0 U1 O R C C R N R 0 0 O: R J f0 00 .� E 0 R N O c m eta o s � E R = a8 m .N m w ++ � ZI 3 R °6tiva �c coo 0 v m U) c«o m = ca 05 c R ca R to m CL > R CO C L N U R d mw d « m (D CaoCn vp o � fa, 06 E i2a -o aUi °a = o = o R o o@ o o m °o o a m v x L v z cn m J Mz -j a 2 W It 2 m 2 0 v J tp Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ` a C C C C C C C M t` O r N N R M O M CO N (D N D N (II N L a z z °° 46 ° zzzz° z° d Q J��OJ Y O (D f` CO (A O N M '7 LO CD N- O W ATTACHMENT Broad & Higuera 8 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 o � �o �o 03102/2W8 16:50 10/28/2008 14:45 11/29/2008 14:30 ZW 12103/2008 15:05 a> N N J�12120/2008 2:50 Within 75'of Intersection, accidents with insufficient a a for display Straight Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: <--A Stopped Erratic ,X Bicycle o General o Pole it Unknown a-v, Out of control O Injury Animal ® signal ® curb a-.• Backing �Right turn Fatality ® Tree 95 Anal -o . Overtaking Ae— Left turn p> Nighttime < 3rd vehicle --c— Sideswipe IF7—U-turn w DUI x Extra data ... 72 ATTACHMENT California & Taft 7 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 N � 005/03/2008 14:%13/2008 15:07 o m i0 Within 75'of Intersecton. 0 accidents with insufficient data for display I Straight Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: <---i Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole I — Unknown Out of control 0 Injury ®Signal ee so Curb Animal .. Backing v,_Right turn Do Fatality Overtaking fie- Left turn _c> Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe —U-turn w DUI x Extra data 73 ATTACHMENT Higuera & Nipomo 4 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 12/24/2008 aZ 008 21:13 01/20/2008 12:18 IY ,x,05/03/2008 :15 Within of Intersection, accidents with insufficient a a for display C Straight mz=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: 4--1 Stopped .*, Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole CE — Unknown ar, Out of control 0 Injury ® signal ® Cub .4 .. Backing e�Right turn p Fatality ® Tree animal a-. Overtaking o— Left turn p Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle a a Sideswipe n� U-turn [A DUI )K Extra data .. .. ... 74 ATTACHMENT Foothill & Tassaj ara 5 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 �- 04I05/2008 13:00 �— OS/20/2008 9:23 ,11/21/2008 13:03 N I•!\I(7 I n O 12/16/2008 7:40 Within o ersec ion accidents with insufficient ata for display I Straight ra Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: <---, Stopped m, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole C Unknown a-v Out of control p Injury ® signal ® curb .a–. Backing X,- Right turn p Fatality ® Tree Animal 4-.t Overtaking Ae-- Left turn p Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe IF7—U-turn I4 DUI w Extra data 8V-$9 75 ATTACHMENT Calle Joaquin & Los Osos Valley 9 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 .� 01252008 12:00 03/032008 10:58 —sloes 0126/2008 12:18 m 0 09292008 7:57 ---W---MO. 0922/2008 15:16 03282008=0 —28 11:30 m 0 id 8 18:00 Ic Within of intersection, accidents with insufficient a a for display .4 Straight cm= Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: s--+ Stopped Qe, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole Unknown a-%r Out of control 0 Injury ® seal ® curb a-..Backing e�Right turn O Fatality ® Tree animal e-. Overtaking Left turn o- Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle .*— Sideswipe U-turn Fa DUI x Extra data City of San Luis.. .O2000 76 ATTACHMENT appendix a collectoR / local inteusections 77 ATTACHMENT cc vz M O O Zto °o° wn N �h W T Q �^ Q T a o W N O T CL CL 00 O N y V N N d a O wR N N 3 t r 10 W d = o p w r� a M O 0 O V 9+ N ,0 0 L ++ IL m U c m o r m IL N 0 0 r ad C � g V R v C C L oc R /4 O > 0: a: do 0 L O O d ILz 0 U �o T 04 ATTACHMENT Mill & Osos 3 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 10/30/2008 15:38' 02x2612008 7.39 02112!2008 15:19" Within 75'of Intersection, accidents with insufficient data for display Straight c�=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: Stopped a... Erratic ,X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole CIE Unknown a-,r Out of control O Injury ® signal ® Curb .r,-.. Backing Right turn @ Fatality ® Tree ?5 Animal < « Overtaking Left turn ;C>- Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle e— Sideswipe 'F>7— U-turn m DUI x Extra data Citv,of San Luis Obisno.CA 07/23r'009 tnterse6cn Magic�er 6.704:Pd'Progi-arnming 198S. 00 X5'143 79 ATTACHMENT Chorro & Peach 4 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 12/14/2008 17:460 09/30/2008 14:04_.' 04/19/2008 17:01 02/1612008 2:2877 Within 75'of intersection, 0 accidents with insufficient a a tor displaV I Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: If Stopped a-, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole .� Unknown -4-� Out of control O Injury ® signal ® Curb ® Tree Animal .. Backing Right turn @ Fatality -q-a Overtaking Ar— Left turn p Nighttime © 3rd vehicle .*— Sideswipe n� U-turn Fa DUI x Extra data BONN ,. 80 ATTACHMENT appcno]X 5 otheR sicni ficant mteasections BLI-K 81 N ^ m ATTACHMENT o � C.) co � r r N cn 40 cc C m c 1 m Z -e co r r m N n r C N � n r _ O M CO Q r .O W 2 V r = O p W U) CO) U d J d m o m m 0 0 0 d r R d Eno v 3 M r N = p w W clil O � N M Ln .N ' N to (� O N co C1 m � O 'O U V N r 'i O 'L a � O O d L0 N LL d c) L a� L U) is O as _ c od _ L' W R W = U m IOL ep V CD 0 R Y Y Y a. G C C V O: i. O O O d L a z z z E. aM 6qj� ATTACHMENT ATTACHMENT California & Foothill 8 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 09/22/2008 22:50 10/30/2008 9:15=4 R 102008 21:05 0 0 8 16:12 0 0 S9q o I� Within 75'of Intersection accidents with insufficient e a or is a .9 Straight Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: -a-- Stopped a...Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole I Unknown 4-u, Out of control O Injury ® Signal a cAnimal .. Basking k_ Right turn @ Fatality Overtaking or— Left turn p Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle a-- Sideswipe n� U-turn Fa DUI )K Extra data 83 - ATTACHMENT Broad & Orcutt 9 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 YN M N to 1pp�p N ry e05/07/2008 816: —' S c '97/13/2008 21:19 01107IM08 17.17 d�Sb4 07/2512008 22:53 1SI05/2008 17:45 0 Q� 0 Within 'of ntersection 0 aca encs wi msu icient data for displav ,a Straight Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a--i Stopped a... Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole a— Unknown ary Out of control O Injury ® Signal ee # cCu trial a—.. Backing R-Right turn O Fatality Overtaking y--Left turn (y Nighttime d 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn m DUI x Extra data .. ,5 84 ATTACHMENT Foothill & Santa Rosa 9 Accidents 01/01/08 12/31/08 Yom' �o711712008 8:58 — 9/20/2008 23:12 `� 03/01/2008 14:49 N 0 Q fV N O � y N O 3/22/2008 9:05 0 N m �O Within of Intersecton acct ens w insufficient ata for display I Straight c=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: <---i Stopped :x, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole .� Unknown <vv- Out of control O Injury ® signal a curt .a--. Backing Right turn @ Fatality ® Tree Animal �.� Overtaking ,v-- Left turn Fp Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle Sideswipe IFD,-- U-turn la DUI x Extra data 85 2 ° <� co ATTACHMENT � 0Nm 9 - - R 2 cl 0 � NmLo � aa. IL \ � 0 � § k � qqq CD o ■ c; § ■ 88 ■ 2 � CDw 2NNM � 2 � f 5 2 o � coinLo U 0 � u � � . § 0 L. 0 ; 5 J CD US $ � w 06 t ® m E 0 2 sm � 2 % _ > (L . . O J PLI -/o0 § - ■ ATTACHMENT Higuera & V achell 6 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 X N 0 01108!2008 8:37 08/06/2008 838 r0112008 1644 9/22/2008 15:07 Within 75'of ntersec ion 1 accidents with insu igen a a ToF display 4 Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a—, Stopped o, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole CE— Unknown air Out of control O Injury ® signal ® curb »Backing e,_ Right turn p Fatality ® Tree Animal a-... Overtaking Left turn -0 Nighttime d 3rd vehicle a a Sideswipe U-turn ka DUI x Extra data 8Ll-l0� 87 ® l^_ �pvpN TA ATTACHMEN Y Madonna & Pereira 5 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12%31%08 Madonna Laguna Village Shopping Pereira Center Driveway 06/24/2b08 13:20 M c O 04/07/2008 13:30 o 0 0 0 0 �0n1N N y0 O Within 75'of Intersection, 0 accidents with insufficient a a for display G Straight cz�i Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: Stopped -, Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole — Unknown am Out of control O Injury ® sisal ® aub a-» Backing Right turn O Fatality ® Tree Animal 4..- Overtaking Ae— Left turn =_(} Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle .*— Sideswipe li>-7— U-turn �i DUI x Extra data City of San Luis ObisDa.CA 07128r'009 �ntersec.ion Mauic�er 6.704 Pd'Proorarnmino 1988. M. V- 88 ATTACHMENT Montalban & Santa Rosa 5 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 �N N O N r � a0 _ O W G ^ O P$ $ CC'-02/2=008 23:41 06/15/2008 13:04 Within 75'of Intersedon, 0 accidents with insufficient a a for dis a 19 Straight c�= Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: • Stopped a... Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General c Pole • Unknown av Out of control O Injury ® Signal mi Cee urb e--..Backing '-o,_ Right turn 0 Fatality e-. Overtaking 4r-- Left turn ;p Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe 'V�7— U-turn DUI x Extra data .. .. 89 f.' ATTACHMENT NwT ,pVp1 N appendix 6 autemAl sEcments 90 r ATTACHMENT o cc G a 3 m H ) a m o a� 3 U y r Y = V O. C 0 0 N N V C 2 C LL J 0 m d w L N a = a O U IL y w LL W 7 fn N J 0 r ° 0 « '0 « 0 c°n S o 0 0 € 0 0 " o - o o — .. _ LL o Q O O O C L p O U L C U m02UU) 2LOL LW -jm � o O eo •C 19 m m is m r an d m a�' a) m m 3 C S 'C L r _ r r .` _` 2 Q Q o m o aaamaQ � Q � � QQU) C N C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD m t(f N O l9 f� r O, M r M r E 0 O O A O N tn, O W M I-- O 3 O r r V O W r W. M W LO (O O p C 0 V CI O V O N V W O r O N r r N r r N r r N M N cc M h 00 1p m M W Q M M M r� V N V O V Q U U Y V O _O V Y v 0 ° co m m 0 O .� Y m N_ moLpu or0NTO C) o qOmOO O mm , , G O m O 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 C) M 0 p O p p O N O W N 0 0 cli w E O A N N N M O C L d CNC I .t m L L N O � o o c c a (� CD c Y y 0 0 O w L L = O cu V1FmEn cc 0 liZli lL 2UOJ -5-5 m a a G� C Y Y a) 32 32 (n la C O Y C C C f0 L i O O 6 0 0 0 dZZ ZZZZ � INCI r w ATTACHMENT Tank Farm Broad to Poinsettia 3 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 04/05/2008 :46 07/26/2008 17:35 "8/2008 16:59 Outside accidents with insufficient data or is a <— Straight c;2=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: Stopped -�e, Erratic X Bicycle o General a Pole Unknown a-u- Out of control O Injury ® Signal ® curb ® Tree 4 Animal e ..Backing Right turn O Fatality 4.+ Overtaking IV— Left turn p Nighttime q 3rd vehicle .*— Sideswipe F�7— U-turn ka DUI Extra data City of San Ws Obisco.CA 0712812DO9 intemeaion Magic ver 6.704 Pd:Proummmina 1988.2000 92 ATTACHMENT 4 4 �a 7 �PNK �PRM 0 d 93 ATTACHMENT Foothill Chorro to Santa Rosa 7 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 07/22!2008 12:20 0113012008 13:56 08/18/2008 19:00 10130/2008 18:04 —a p� 10/2212008 7:58 :00 M m Outside accidents wdh insufficient data for dis la I Straight ®Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: �--� Stopped a... Erratic X Bicycle o General a Pole �— Unknown .4 vp Out of control O Injury ® signal ® curb ..Backing Right turn O Fatality ® Tree Animal e-� Overtaking g-- Left turn ;p Nighttime < 3rd vehicle -a— Sideswipe U-turn �a DUI )K Extra data 8V—Poor 94 ATTACHMENT � A Ras A Sp, 0 LL �O O�- v� 13 -`o� 95 ATTACHMENT Higuera Madonna to Elks 8 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 � 04/„/2008 16:57 N 0 0 N O a N Q � � N (7 N O p a N N O V � O O Q � Q R W N r O m r N O ao g Outsi a accidents with insufficient data fordis Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: F� Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole Unknown a-v, Out of control 0 Injury ® signal ® Curb �-..Backing Right turn O Fatality ® Tree Animal .. Overtaking Ae--- Left turn p Nighttime d 3rd vehicle Sideswipe (F�7— U-turn DUI )K Extra data 96 ATTACHMENT v� f f C + D 4 �v 97 - ATTACHMENT Foothill Ferrini to Chorro 5 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 01/24/2008 12:30 04/03/200088115:27 04/02/2008 20:01 05/01/2008 16:52 G-�-� 2:15 Outside accidents with.insufficient data for displav 4— Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a Stopped ae, Erratic X Bicycle o General n Pole C— Unknown 4nr Out of control p Injury ® signal ® curb ® Tree animal 4 .. Backing Right turn p Fatality 4� Overtaking Left turn p Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle 4a Sideswipe U-turn Fa DUI Extra data 98 1 r�O V �F2,0 ATTACHMENT N BROAD J 2 F- 1 � F-ERRINI 99 ATTACHMENT Foothill Santa Rosa to Casa 3 Accidents 01/01/08 12/31/08 "9/0a/2008 11:10 06/04/2008 14:15 05/12/2008 17:38 ::1 1 1 Outside accidents witinsufficient ata for displav �— Straight c�m Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a� Stopped -z-, Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole Unknown a-ur Out of control 0 Injury ® Signal aree CAnimurb ..Backing v,_Right turn @ Fatality �.F Overtaking Ar-- Left turn =p Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle Sideswipe F�7—U-turn Fa DUI )K Extra data f34G-Il� 100 ATTACHMENT FOOTHILL a �6 J H a x 2 H 101 �J ATTACHMENT appendix 7 collectoa secjmcnts 102 ATTACHMENT 0 0 O d 0 m '0 U � C O tc •y_ C O. O v v d m d O O U U 16 CD m w N 000 0 00 n T T C J A N T T 0 m M N M O N co M M d w+ R y Q le M �U) .O U V � Y N t+ � m o �L a+ C OT = N T wE d m o w a� m R Y Y O D' R id � d OO CL z 0 � T N ATTACHMENT Broad Mission to Center 4 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 N M O OTT Outside accidents with insutticie a a or is a C Straight c=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: -*—� Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General e Pole I— Unknown a-v Out of control 0 Injury ® Teal ci mat �-.. Backing e,_Right turn p Fatality -o . Overtaking Ae—Left turn ;p Nighttime Q 3rd vehicle Sideswipe �—U-turn �a DUI )K Extra data 104 i ATTACHMENT MISSION m 0 a ri �t CENT 105 ATTACFiINEN' Pismo Santa Rosa to Toro 3 Accidents 01/01/08 - 12/31/08 09/2112008 19:17 01/31/2008 7:47 W� 09/21/2008 19:16 Outside 0 accidents with ensu cient data for display W Straight Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: F� Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole �-- Unknown a-,r Out of control O Injury ® signal ® curb .. Backing R _ Right turnO Fatality ® Tree Animal Overtaking e--- Left turn p- Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle Sideswipe IF7— U-turn w DUI )� Extra data City of San:Luis Obisno.CA.0712812009 . 1 106 ATTACHMENT TQRQ f C4 a SANTA RASA By- l� 107