Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/10/2002, BUS 1 - 2001 ANNUAL TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT counciL j aGEnaa uEpont ,;A�ber 10-200 sus l CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum,Deputy Director Public Works Jim Hanson,Principal Transportation Engineer SUBJECT: 2001 ANNUAL TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Receive the 2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report and associated staff recommendations. 2. Allocate $35,000 out of the carryover General Fund for recommended traffic safety mitigation, including$20,000 for design of signal improvements. 3. Consider funding for the construction of the signal improvements, and other future safety mitigation costs for 2002, 2003 and 2004 Traffic Safety Reports in the upcoming financial planning process for fiscal years 2003-2005. 4. Receive an oral report on the Orcutt Road Corridor regarding recent requests for safety improvements and pedestrian enhancements. REPORT IN BRIEF Traffic safety is one of many important issues in the City of San Luis Obispo. The Public Works Department has just completed the first comprehensive Traffic Safety Report and hopes to repeat this report annually from this date forward. This report reviews all intersections in the City for crash rates and makes recommendations for changes or additional monitoring specifically for the five most critical intersections of each category (arterial/arterial, arterial/collector, etc). Key data were reviewed with the Police Department who are instrumental in enforcement of traffic violations. _.._. Traffic safety includes not only vehicles (and the people in them) but bicyclists and pedestrians as well and the report reviews the incidents of conflicts and crashes between vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists. One intersection in particular, Orcutt Road at Laurel Lane, has drawn much attention lately. Although not one of the critical intersections in terms of crashes or safety, it none-the-less has drawn attention due to the needs of the disabled citizens that live and commute (as pedestrians) in the area. Staff met with the citizen group separately to hear their thoughts and will be making a separate presentation at today's meeting on possible changes. DISCUSSION Traffic safety for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians is among the City's most significant concerns. Therefore, in January 2001, the City Public Works Department initiated the first i- 1 Council Agenda Report-'1-061 Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 2 comprehensive Traffic Safety Program aimed at identifying the highest crash locations in the City. This ongoing program concentrates on identifying all intersections that have experienced three or more crashes in a one-year period and prioritizing these locations based upon crash rates as compared to similar locations within the City. At the same time the City Police Department continued its efforts at increased enforcement along city streets to deter problematic drivers, bicyclists and pedestrians performing unsafe actions. The Police Department recently completed a two-year traffic grant through the Office of Traffic Safety,which identified a number of goals and objectives. The Police Department, on a continual basis, evaluates and updates its goal of providing the best possible traffic safety program. This is accomplished through the yearly traffic report and quarterly evaluation of the Department-wide goals, which include traffic safety as a top priority. The Police Department's 2001 Annual Report has been provided previously to Council and is included as an attachment to the Public Works report, a copy of which is in the Council Reading File. The Police Department has focused on traffic safety enforcement and education for a number of years, while traffic safety engineering mitigation has been on a location-by-location basis with the majority of improvement projects occurring as a result of high profile occurrences. This Traffic Safety Report looks to change that process and create a proactive program based upon a comprehensive approach to mitigation and focus limited financial and staff resources on high incident rate locations. Traffic data and their analysis have been compiled in the 2001 Traffic Safety Report that was released by the Public Works Department in June 2002 and provided to Council at that time. Attachment 1 includes the key sections of the report, with the full report available in the Council Reading File. The report identifies the crash patterns at the highest crash rate locations for similar type intersection locations. Thus, arterial/arterial locations are compared to each other (along with the 5 other intersection classes) to determine the most likely candidates to receive mitigation and safety improvement. The process included using collision diagrams that are produced using state of the art computer software to determine crash patterns and potential corrective measures. For the five highest rate locations in each subgroup, a review was conducted by staff to determine if mitigation measures could be implemented to reduce the likelihood of occurrence for the identified crash patterns. The report contains 17 recommendations for improved traffic safety at these high crash rate locations, which are summarized in Attachment 2. Six of these recommendations (low cost remedies) have already been implemented using existing operating budgets and City forces. Some of the higher cost mitigation recommendations will need further budgeting as detailed in the fiscal analysis section of this report. It is important to note that this engineering safety program is in its first year of operation and in order for it to be successful a prolonged commitment, both financially and through staff resources, will be necessary to properly implement safety mitigation and reduce our high accident rates. Quite simply, our goal is to take San Luis Obispo from a high accident rate city to one of the safest cities in the state and country for motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians. While many may think this unachievable, it is doable, if we have the means, the money and the will to make it happen. Council Agenda Report-2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 3 Citywide Traffic Safety Trends For discussion purposes it is important to distinguish between crash rates and crash volumes. Crash volumes are simply the total number of crashes that occur at a given location. Crash rates are rates that are derived when comparing the total number of crashes versus another indicator such as total number of vehicles entering an intersection or driving along a segment of roadway. Crash volumes are often used by police departments to determine high profile locations for targeting traffic enforcement. High crash rate locations are generally used by traffic engineers to establish a balanced indicator for mitigation that reflects crash numbers and total vehicles that might be affected. The 2001 Traffic Safety Report reviews high crash rate locations within the city to determine locations that could benefit most from mitigation measures and the application of limited financial resources. It is also important to note that crash statistics in the report are based upon actual police reports collected(the industry standard) and not dispatch numbers or public opinion of crashes that have occurred. It has been repeatedly demonstrated that actual police accident reports are the most factual documents in reviewing and determining crash rates because they often are the only formal documentation of crash occurrence and contributing factors. Finally, many traffic statistics and reports that may have been produced in the past have relied on the Statewide Integrated Traffic Reporting.System (SWITRS) to disseminate crash information. While this system is efficient at tabulating statewide reports, it often miscodes information (such as a crash occurring in the county but coded as the city) and should not be used as the database for city controlled locations that we can effectively mitigate. Since January of 1999 all city accident reports have been entered into the Public Works Traffic Collision Database. So where does that leave us in actual statistics for 2001? Unfortunately, traffic collisions have been on an upward trend in San Luis Obispo for the last three years. There were 1,139 total collisions in 2001. This represented an 11% increase above the previous 12-month period and 25% above collisions reported in 1999. Table 1—Total Collisions Total Reported Year Crashes on Public Streets Intersections %Change Total %Change_ 1999 587 - 910 2000 646 +10.05 1,025 +12.57 2001 1 766 +18.58 1,139 +11.12 Source: City of San Luis Traffic Collision Database Injury collisions, the primary area of traffic safety focus, were down slightly in 2001 as compared to 2000. However, the total number of injury collisions in 2001 (264) was still 10% /-3 Council Agenda Report-3001 Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 4 above the numbers recorded in 1999. Does this mean that our streets are less safe than three years ago? To a certain extent...yes. However, the increased presence of police officers working specific areas for specific violations has enhanced enforcement citywide: Detailed reporting practices by the Police Department have also increased our ability to better track and record collisions. Therefore an unknown percentage of the increases in total collisions could be a result of increased reporting. 1100 - -2- — 910 900 _ --- - - 700 600 1999 2000 2001 Figure 1 —Total Collisions Trend Traffic fatalities are not generally good indicators of where high accident locations are occurring because these types of collisions typically involve unique situations that do not occur on a regular basis. A better measure of high accident locations is collision rate because a high collision rate is often indicative of roadway deficiencies that may be correctable by engineering measures. However, because of their very nature, traffic fatalities often represent the highest profile crash locations and often receive the greatest degree of public focus and media attention. The City has averaged two traffic fatalities per year for the three years that were included in the Annual Traffic Safety Report. While this rate is not acceptable to staff or the public, from a mitigation standpoint, it is often difficult to address fatalities in anything other than a reactionary manner. Why is this? Quite simply, fatalities canoften occur at unforeseen locations, such as recently at Orcutt/McMillan, (discussed later in this report) and forecasting of fatalities with any degree of certainty and where they may occur is difficult if not impossible. Table 2—Injury and Fatal Collisions Year Total Injury % Change % of Total Fatal % Change Crashes Crashes Crashes 1999 240 26.37 2 - 2000 .269 +12.08 26.24 2 0 2001 1 265 -1.5 1 23.26 1 1 1 - 50 - y Council Agenda Report-2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 5_ Figue 2 -Annual Traffic Collision Injury Trend 400 ; 11 300 269 265`^ 200 100 1999 2000 2001 Corrective Measures=What Can We Do? Mitigation measures for high crash rate locations for calendar year 2001 have been identified and are summarized in the Annual Traffic Safety Report and are included as Attachment 2. Many of the mitigation measures are. relatively low cost traffic solutions, such as stop sign installations, the implementation of additional parking restrictions, increased enforcement or recommendations for continued monitoring. To date, 6 of the low cost mitigation measures have been completed or are in the process of being completed through existing city budgets and staff resources. However some mitigation measures, such as traffic signal design and installation require significantly more capital expenditure. As part of this report, staff is requesting funding in order to complete unfinished low cost solutions and develop design proposals of the larger improvements. Once the designs of the larger solutions have been completed, staff will establish a budget to be submitted for funding requests during the upcoming financial planning process for fiscal year 2003-2005. Additional funding for future Annual Traffic Safety Reports and their mitigations will also be part of the goal setting process. Where to From Here As stated before, this engineering safety program is in its first year of operation and in order for it to be successful, a prolonged commitment both financially and through staff resources, will be necessary to properly implement safety mitigation and reduce our high accident rates. The Annual Traffic Safety Report will be prepared each year to review and report on City traffic safety benchmarks, improve traffic safety performance and to maintain high levels of service for our City residents, business owners and visitors. Once annual budgets for traffic safety are established it is the intent of staff to implement these measures as quickly as possible so as to immediately, and proactively, respond to collision trends within the city. It is anticipated that annual Council review of the document will not be necessary so as to allow staff the highest degree of response to address what will be done to correct identified collision trends. A review of the traffic safety program will be given to the Council as part of the annual. General Plan Council Agenda Report-2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report Pie 6 Implementation Report (not currently reported) and as an indicator of the financial plan to determine effectiveness of budgetary expenditures of the program. Finally, future year safety reports will include additional analysis of other safety indicators, such as roadway segment high crash locations and detailed pedestrian and bicycle crash location mitigation. Orcutt Road Corridor On June 0, 2002 Mary Wilson, a disabled person, was killed attempting to cross Duncan Lane at Orcutt Road She was struck by a motorist who was turning right exiting Duncan Lane attempting to tum onto Orcutt Road Subsequent to that event Willow Kelly, a disabled person advocate, has approached the City and spoken at numerous Council meetings regarding the need for safety improvements along the Orcutt Road corridor. A meeting was held on July IOd' with City representatives, interested areas residents and disabled individuals to discuss existing conditions, areas of concern and planned improvement projects. Improvements have been installed recently along the Orcutt Road corridor, which include the construction of a pedestrian refuge island at Laurel Lane to assist pedestrians crossing Orcutt Road and improving the pedestrian crossing of Orcutt Road at the railroad tracks. However, the area representatives had a number of suggestions for improvements in addition to the recently completed items that are now being reviewed by staff. The Annual Traffic Safety Report give us the opportunity to compare the intersections along Orcutt Road to other similar type city intersections based upon the crash rates recorded for 2001. Table 3 indicates the comparison ranking of four of these intersections. As indicated in the table, the crash rates at the intersections of Duncan, McMillan and Bullock fall significantly below threshold that would indicate them as high accident locations. The intersection of Laurel Lane, a key location of interest to the community group, is ranked 12th in comparison to other arterial/arterial intersections. Table 3—Orcutt Road Intersections Crash Rate Comparisons to other Similar Intersections 2001 Collision Rates at Intersections Along Orcutt Road Citywide Rate Number of Rank Per ME Collisions Type of Intersection Orcutt/Laurel 12th 0.744 4 Arterial/Arterial Orcutt/Duncan . Approx. 38th 0.343 2 Arterial/Local Orcutt/Bullock 43+ E 0.172 1 Arterial/Local Orcutt/McMillan 43+ 0.163 1 Arterial/Local E—Estimated Rate,IEV—Million Entering Vehicles Does this mean that traffic improvements should not be made at these locations? No, it merely l—Ce Council Agenda Report-2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 7 reflects that in comparison to other city intersections, their crash rates would not indicate that they are experiencing greater than average collisions, thus decisions about the allocation of limited resources must take this into account. At the time of the writing of this report, staff is continuing to complete its review of this roadway and will make a verbal report on the findings and recommendations to the Council at the September 10t'meeting. CONCURRENCES San Luis Police Department has reviewed the 2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report and concurs with its findings. Police Department staff will also be attending the study session and will provide a brief overview of enforcement related strategies and issues. FISCAL IMPACT As shown in Attachment 2, the report contains 17 recommendations for improved traffic safety at these high crash rate locations. Six of these recommendations (low cost remedies) have already been implemented using existing operating budgets and City forces. Some of the higher cost mitigation recommendations will need further budgeting. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures will result in an initial need for encumbrance of carryover General Fund in the amount of$35,000. The $35,000 will be used to implement a majority of the mitigation strategies recommended by staff in the safety report. Additionally,this encumbrance will cover the costs associated with the design of the recommended new traffic signal at Broad and Pacific and various signal hardware improvements. Because the design of these improvements will take at least 4-6 months, construction costs for these items should be included for consideration and programming in the upcoming Fiscal Years 2003-05 Capital Budget Financial Plan process. During the financial planning process for fiscal years 2003-2005, staff will submit for review a budget for the construction of the recommended traffic signal improvements as well as a continued annual funding request for traffic safety improvements that are anticipated to result from subsequent annual traffic safety reports. Grant sources will be solicited where possible to reduce the need for General Fund expenditures to maintain these programs. Again, it is important to note that this engineering safety program is in its first year of operation and in order for it to be successful a prolonged commitment, both financially and through staff resources, will be necessary to properly implement safety mitigation and reduce our high accident rates. Similar to the Pavement Management program, annual expenditure commitments will be necessary if it is the goal of our City and community to improve traffic, pedestrian and bicycle safety along our roadways. /- 7 _1 Council Agenda Report-2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report Page 8 ALTERNATIVES 1. Do not fund traffic mitigation measures identified in the 2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report at this time. It is likely that observed collision patterns would continue to exist at these locations. Staff does not recommend this alternative because it is likely to result in increased collisions as the volume of traffic on City streets continues to grow. 2. Fund traffic safety improvements, but not the signal design work now. Staff does not recommend this alternative because it prolongs the implementation of the recommended traffic signal mitigation measures and it makes it difficult to accurately estimate the construction costs for the signal improvements for the financial planning process. 3. Fund the traffic mitigation measures, the signal design work, and the signal construction. Staff does not recommend this alternative because it is difficult to accurately estimate the cost of the signal improvements without completed designs. 4. Continue item with direction to staff. A copy of the 2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report has been transmitted to Council members under a separate memorandum. Attachments Attachment 1 —Key Sections—2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report Attachment 2-Mitigation Strategies at High Collision Rate Intersections Council Reading file 1 - Public Works 2001 Annual Traffic Safety Report (including the 2001 Operations Report - SLO PD Traffic Safety Unit) 1ACouncH Agenda ReportsUM agenda reports12001 Traffic Safety Report CAR doc Attachment I P U B L I C WORKS DE' PA'RTM E N T .955 MORRO ST. 93401-3708 wa , / R Traffic Engineering Division - `�£, '���� �'^•"`f'�mss=::-=+.,Si-Jrr� . r• r�4. , f •�y. ., "�t ,. - r �> "^atm"' fl��>.� rrP'� _�. -.-^..� �� � mp �..-,.•_ r" r r Department June 2002 section 1 Attachment 1 Mo6ucaon How to Use This Report Every year the City of San Luis Obispo will conduct a Traffic Safety Report for the previous twelve month period in order to: 1) determine the locations within the City that appear to have the highest crash rates in comparison to like locations, 2) to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented in the previous twelve month period, 3) identify if new locations should be mitigated, and 4) 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 crashes or severity of expected collisions. The. report will normally be prepared after City crash statistics are available in April or March 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 of collisions for any location for any 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 so as 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 crash 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...the more likely a crash will occur). This report looks to identify locations that fall above the expected rate of similar City locations and propose mitigation measures, if necessary to reduce crash potential and limit crash severity. sEction 2'--- ' ATTACHMENT 1 2.1 Study Objectives The objective of the Annual Traffic Safety Report is essentially to identify the high crash locations in the City and track crash reductions through the various City safety programs and projects that the City administers each year. The specific objectives of the 2001 Traffic Safety Report are: • Identify the intersections within the City associated with the highest crash 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; • Track alternative mode transportation collisions that include bicycle and pedestrian crashes and improve warning devices at high collision locations, and; • 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. The Annual Traffic Safety Report will evolve as City programs and emphasis on problem solving change. 2.2 Study Methodology Crash Data It is important to note that the data contained within the Public Works Traffic Collision Database will vary from other sources of crash data such as the California - Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) of the City's Emergency Dispatch Records. While SWITRS data is similarly derived from official police collision reports, many times the 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 crash 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 reporting officer arrives, the vehicles have been moved on or there is no evidence of occurrence. Therefore, statistics derived from this data is inaccurate because no official proof or record exists of the actual collision. r - 1 ATTACHMENT 1 Reported traffic crashes obtained by the City Police Department are the basis used by the City Traffic Engineering Section to determine traffic safety. Report totals were obtained for each intersection 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 interpretation of crash pattems were formulated. The number of collisions reported by the Police Department annually is approximately 100 to 150 higher than the number reported in this Public Works report. The reason for this discrepancy is that the Police Department report includes collisions that may have occurred on private property, such as a parking lot, while the Public Works department does not track collisions on private property because it is outside of the department's jurisdiction. Based on the perceived crash pattems, mitigation measures are formulated for the five highest ranked crash locations for each intersection sub-category. Mitigation measures for these sub-categories will be implemented in 2002 as funding becomes available. Traffic Volumes Vehicle and pedestrian volumes play an important role in establishing dash rates for selected locations within the City. Vehicle volume counts were collected in 2001 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 crash rates for each intersection. Crash Rate Calculations Crash rates were calculated using the following formulas: Intersections: RI = N X 1,000,000 V X 365 Where: RI= Intersection Crash Rate=Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection. N = Number of crashes(collision frequency) of the location. V= Average daily vehicular volume using the street segment or intersection. 9 section 3- - ATTACHMENT 1 city wbe c RAsh st bsUcs 3.1 City-wide Collision Trends Reportable crash statistics for the City are contained in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Any reported collision within the public right-of-way that involved a fatality, personal injury or property damage was recorded as a crash. Crashes that occurred on private property, out of the public right of way, on other jurisdictions facilities, or were not reported to the police department are not entered into the City's database. While reported crashes are not a total indicator of transportation crashes 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 crashes and private property crashes go unreported and as such are highly unreliable in determining "high profile" crash locations or areas of concern. Table 3.1 indicates the reported traffic collision history of the City. Table&I -City-wide Annual Collision Data Total Reported Year r Crashes on publIc Streets Intersections % Chane Total % Change 1999 587 - 910 - 2000 646 +10.05 1,025 +12.57 2001 766 +18.58 1,139 +11.12 Source: City of SanLuis Traffic Collision Database Variations in yearly crashes are to be expected. While total crashes are a good indicator of the overall crash performance of the City, injury and fatality crashes are better indicators of changes in collision trends and are the most reliable crash indicators when monitoring the safety of a transportation system. Figure&I -Three Year Collision Trend 1100 _ 910 - 900 700 500 1999 2000 2001 �-13 ATTACHMENT 1 In general collisions in San Luis Obispo have been increasing over the last few years. Total collisions have increased approximately 11.8 % per year for the three year period from 1999 to 2001. 3.2 Injury And Fatal Collision Trends Iniury Crashes The Traffic Engineering Division tracks injury and fatal crashes as part the current Traffic Safety Program. Table 3.2 depicts the injury crash information as recorded by the City. Table 3.2-Cit MNlIde Annual Injury and Fatal Crashes Year Total Injury % Change % of Total Fatal % Change Clashes Crashes Crashes 1999 240 - 26.37 2 - 2000 269 +12.08 26.24 2 0 2001 265 -1.5 23.26 1 -50 Figure 3.2-Three Year Injury Collision Trend 400 269 265' 300240 200 -- . __ ; _ 100 - 0 1999 2000 2001 Fatal Crashes 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. However, the City's Traffic Safety program attempts to reduce fatal crashes by removing conflicting vehicular and pedestrian movements at appropriate locations, limit crash severity through improvements to roadway design features, and promoting traffic safety through an aggressive community outreach program. There was one (1) traffic fatality recorded in 2001 upon City streets. Table 3.3 compares the fatal traffic crashes within the City with national averages. 11 I-1 q ATTACHMENT 1 3.3 Comparison with National, State and County Rates Author's Note: All national, state and San Luis Obispo County statistics and cost estimates contained in this section are the most up to date figures available at the time of this publication. The table below 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. Table 3.3-Comparison of Injury&Death Rates 2001 Fatalities* Fatalities P_opulation Rate Per 100,000 (Thousands) Population National 41,821 274,634 15.23 State Wide 3,753 32,521 11.54 Coun of San Luis Obispo 31 239 12.97 CitVof San Luis-Obispo . . _ .. 1 45.. -. ., --2.24- 2001 -2:24-2001 Injuries* Injuries Population Rate Per 100,000 (Thousands) Population Nationally* 3,189,000 274,634 1,161 State Wide 303,023 32,521 932 County of San Luis Obispo 1,877 239 785 I-City of San Luis Obis -- 330- 45 Z39 National,State,and County Statistics are from 2000 because 2001 infonnation was not available at the time this report was being . produced. 3.313ene6t/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 crashes. One is the economic cost framework and the other is the comprehensive cost framework. Economic costs may be used by a community or state to estimate the economic impact of motor-vehicle crashes that occurred within its jurisdiction in a given time period. It is a measure of the productivity lost and expenses incurred because of the crashes. Economic costs, however, should not be used for cost-benefit analysis 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 crashes to workers. 12 /,6. ATTACHMENT 1 The information below shows the average economic costs in 2001 per death (not per fatal crash), per injury (not per injury crash), and per property damage crash. These cost estimates are based upon 200 actual crash cost calculations. Table 3A-Economic Costs,2007 Colkion_t` lw Dollar Loss Death $1,000,000 Nonfatal disabling injury $35,300 Incapacitating injury $47,900 Non-incapacitating evident injury $16,000 Possible injury $9,700 Property damage crash (including minor injuries) $6,500 Source:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(rraffic Safety Fads 2000) 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 air bags or smoke detectors. Comprehensive costs should be used for cost-benefit analysis, but because the lost quality of life represents only a dollar equivalence of intangible qualities, they do not. represent real economic losses and should not be used to determine the economic impact of past crashes. The information below shows the average comprehensive costs in 2001 on a per person basis. These cost estimates are based upon 2000 actual crash cost calculations. Currently, City collision reports injury crashes only if reported at the crash scene and 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" as shown above. Table 3.6 shows the 2001 economic costs in crashes to the City using annual cost estimates. 13 /�/ CP ATTACHMENT 1 Table 35-Comprehensive Costs,2001 CoMdon Type Dopar Loss Death $3,214,290 Incapacitating injury(a) $159,449 Non-incapacitating evident injury(a) $41,027 Possible injury(a) $19,528 No injury $1,861 Source:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(rreffic Safety Facts 2000) Table 3.6-City of San Luis Obispo Economic Costs,2001 Tf ailic Crashes Crash Type Year Death Non4ncapaciltating Property Damage Total Dollar Injury Only LOSS Cost(a) Cosh Cosw 2001 1 $1,000,000 330 $5,280,000 873 $5,674,500 $11,954,500 (a) Economic ousts are based upon 2000 cost estimates. While the dollar amounts depicted in Table 3.6 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 crashes that occur within the City. The total cost amount depends highly on the crash type and is proportional to the severity of each type of crash type. 14 ATTACHMENT 9 section 4- alt zmative mobetwnspo=tion safety 4A Pedestrian Crashes In January 2000 a City-wide pedestrian crossing policy was adopted by the City Council. This policy is designed to ultimately bring all of the pedestrian crossings in the City to a consistent standard. As the policy continues to be implemented over the next several years it is anticipated that pedestrian crashes will decline City-wide. The following table lists the various types of pedestrian related crashes as detailed in the Police Reports. Table 4.1 -Pedestrian And Buycle Annexal Collision Data Total Reported Year Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Public Streets Pedestrian % Change Bicycle % Change 1999 24 - 52 - 2000 37 +54% 46 -12% 2001 19 -49% 45 -2% Source: City of San Luis Traffic Collision Database Variations in yearly crashes are to be expected. While total crashes are a good indicator of the overall crash performance of the City, injury and fatality crashes are better indicators of changes in collision trends and are the most reliable crash indicators when monitoring the safety of a transportation system. Table 4.2 below lists the number and type of pedestrian collisions that occurred in 2001. The location and general description of the 2001 Bicycle collisions can be found in Appendbc 7. Figure 4.1 —Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Trends 100 80 60 52Ae 37 O Pedestrians 40 20 a Bicycle 0 , 1999 2000 2001 ATTACHMENT 1 Table&2—2001 Pedestrian Collisions by TAw Pedestrian Cowmion Type 2001 % Signal 8 42% Out of Crosswalk-Midblock 3 16% Uncontrolled-Unmarked N/A 0% Crosswalk Major/Collector Uncontrolled-Unmarked N/A 0% Crosswalk Local Uncontrolled-Marked 1 5% Not in Road Sidewalk N/A 0% In Road not crossing) 2 11 Sto -Marked Crosswalk 1 5% Stop-Unmarked Crosswalk 4 21% Total: 19 100% 16 1-6 ATTACHMENT 1 section 5 safety mvmcattions 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 wanting to implement traffic measures on their streets. The policy identifies the petition process and neighborhood surveys that are used to demonstrate majority support for implementation of specific options. Table 5.1 outlines the NTM actions implemented in 2001. Table 5.1 -2001 NITM Requests and Status Street Action High Street Painted edge lines and speed markings alonroadway Margarita Avenue Installed All-Way Stop controls at three four-way intersections 5.2 Completed Traffic Safety Improvements Each year the Traffic Engineering Section implements traffic safety improvement projects through a variety of programs and projects. These improvements are usually stand-alone projects but are often times included in other City CIP projects or as part of individual land development projects. The following traffic safety improvements were completed in 2001` a. Modified Johnson Avenue between Laurel and Orcutt from a four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway (one tFiru lane in each direction with a two-way-left-tum-lane). b. Modified San Luis Drive between California and Johnson from a four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway (one thru lane in each direction with turn pockets). ' C. Added a left turn pocket to the eastbound approach of Mill Street at the intersection with Santa Rosa. d. Installed painted crosswalks at City controlled signalized intersections along Santa Rosa Street. e. Installed pedestrian signal heads at the Osos/Higuera intersection. 1-20 ATTACHMENT f f. Added protective-permissive left tum phase for northbound Higuera at Los Osos Valley Road and installed new NB left tum lane. Installed right-tum overlap phase and prohibited right turns on red for southbound vehicles on Higuera. g. Installed a southbound left tum lane on Higuera Street at the intersection with Vachell Lane h. Upgraded the school crosswalk to Hi-Visibilitiy and improved signage on Balboa at Lakeview. i. Increased intersection sight distances at the Buchon/Nipomo Intersection. j. Video detection was installed at the following signalized intersections to improve motor vehicle and bicycle detection,safety and timing: ■ Johnson Avenue @ San Luis Drive ■ Johnson Avenue @ Lizzie Street ■ Johnson Avenue @ Bishop Street ■ Johnson Avenue @ Laurel Lane ■ South Higuera Street @ Los Osos Valley Road ■ South Higuera Street @ Industrial Way ■ South Higuera Street @ Tank Farm Road ■ South Higuera Street @ Prado Road ■ South Higuera Street @ Margarita Avenue ■ Santa Rosa Street @ Monterey Street • Santa Rosa Street @ Mill Street ■ Monterey Street @ Johnson Avenue ■ Monterey Street @ California.Boulevard 18 L ATTACHMENT 1 � (D � i6 (D m ` � ow12 16 0towm or � 3Eoai c E -Z5 -x a) r 8 . w m 0 amm3rnEaci ` � a) mai w off o Esm. c m mmrn_ " � 0o a m= E m 0v m o � am Via? o m m m y 3 ° o o = 0 m E � w a) a)Mm � mO)o � 'V Lm8 Cp F �: c yw N C = ° O c3 5 C O C V o` cm N t N « N -a ° E .r = o > j NO V .�+ y ° a C E m C W a) O) CCM 0 r- p JX Op OIjEw y ; a) mLm Ej SOcm LO c a)) a [2T5 a) 3 a) C = Nc C0 m � a) C 3 o �3 .. « 3a $ — w c cc .8 m 0 M M rnL a) " 0 N o E to33m w � t3 wow a) = a) mwe.. oa) c CL.8 � � Rm ° pdt �i0m m E Y € C13> N .0 C-�0 N C N d € _ C yy (CC C C P X CV Cn V to CO 7 m 0 - m a) .+ Q X X X X X X ao a) m >. >, o m ( a) Z v ov av 'v O N C N O = 3 c a) o W C C C C C C o ° c m o (DCL IL � •�' m o a aao o as c °o ayi m `m a) .0 m ar _O am Q QQQQQQ 0 am a>ir- � > 2 c� c a �' 0 � _Lor � � o W CO U-0 C U) o O N � � � a) acio � ac`aa mC � E m •C L 7 ' SC a) ° = O O) j w O C m N cwo � '.C-. EYE. U O C CO. O C O � rte. F� > > E5)« t°� a) t) Ln �' m mLm vi O C a) a) a) r- . co 0 0 0 °) o °) G a) � � = `S 3 y Z c .0 ts c comma ami o `� N m aciv � 3 > a� � 0 .0�i �� ° _o E2 Hraa)) oCmCL c .� m V ani _ i w HDa mm flt = w O W N E ° y m � y ai o m � ani o m o � c o o ` y n Z m � � o c o cs oa 5 c w — Q T c a) a) ? � — c� UJ Oc Co 0) o Or c w o U) r- LL c o ° � � ° o y .. r > m c CL mH .. QUA � cE • .- cm o .. p oo -) O N > ° camiy° Ectsaa)) -o° co ° W ccr- a) CT O a) 5)r 'N r 7 a) O 12 C L W = 0 d a) () o N N C •C C O O c t c -- - c > t c� P? a? m cma a) QQQUU0 = a H a) 3 a) c� a) � � .E .S E U g� V� N ® ATTACHMENT I 555 $ $ 2 @ C § a Ca(D #\ k � 0 C60(D = '0023 9@m � � U0 . . .i 3 0 2 CL q �t � 7 ® 2 © c2 c 0 (D @ � � .0 2$ m. § � �/ ( . CL 2 g tm r "D 0 o £ @c (D = u o : ® a ciE 0 _ _. .2 / 7St rE £ g22Eof2 . tk §$ } LE. � � e $ § � C (D E '— � - ' mR . °k /on � � £ § ak ƒa9 $ min fa A,0mm 'a $ \ 2kcc 2 (D _ '0 k (D k « f . CO- fn C 0= . cctk7 § w0 ® m8 Ce - o � Eaa (t$ D § a & 12 m 2a § a2 q Q £� : u /�� © ATTACHMENT I � k kk cm 0 k at \ 2 ƒ Z' \ 0 � ca k CL c2 � a �f 7 � g £ - � ° km e � 8 § . k [ � • k § 2. / \ j \ k8 �� r c 2 2 f L@ 7 cm = n � § - $ ® �2f � � . % Cc § I . £ 2 8 £ m C £ § m J t R k k \ 7 za 27E z2 0 ■ 02 fLU» a 2 0 § LU CL E k CL 2 § 2 &kk z 2J # B � % � � 2 v 2 uj &f L k § L . §f o - o e e o © g 0 _ 5-t u $ " 0 � . U ■ : . w � U 8 2 . « w a s u CL fm « o@ a ■ � « b § a. Y. Ix � k c a » - 0 ° ° rt q k � N � (D 2t § § 2 ■ U) it . 2 -32 at ■ ❑ n ) f r . a ■ / i J » d ( /-�/ ATTACHMENT 1 CD I�D � k § m cu k � m 7 2 0 . om m � w : � G� � $ 2 � � @ § � 2 ca % k 2 � W@ § � � % Ea � = a © aG § � (D @ ( � -0n CD co f � � _ o � R ~ � B § § 7 � « m k § 2 & _ ( e � E � 2 f -0 22 co / § @f § / w c� °a o m �&ec �kmk �g m ` _ $ $ ■ 2ct 9 { @ @f E/ 7 �Wo 42/ k / E m (D � � I tee _ m m a z � E � B ) � 2 2 77 ) $ off § J § foƒ LU cl.b ��% ■ z $ 0) CL R w � 02 \ � 0m ■ : 22 LIJsmM za@ LU ■ 0 z ¢ a 077 1.- S § $ 020 a � 20 akk E w 020 UJ l k § o $ > 7 a > Lul co k k § § ■ § § � m k � 0 co k z2 It f ./❑ ^ al q❑H p § §\~ - / I ƒ �� ❑ \m G� ❑ am . ATTACHMENT I c to 'j � t O to C O O 3 E o C O N ao C U y C L O o CL CE L m o > CL c 0 ca 0 W m N N CO m O L .� Z w O i3 z f0 tlJ 0 O) O. CL.O C W Z fI) Z 111 c W a Z m O a V d Ix Q c C � Y mC W to m Q i o a: as a) m o a? t L O w l0f SON g D all - fill]as E 41wh al � B :1:2;A m ,7 \ \ \ \ ATTACHMENT I : k 2 2 $ R \/ r . Eo ■ m § k % 0 2 & 7 � 2 EEt C E$ 3 � tm § a k\ c \ kk ma) § f '0m2a . § § 7 § I ■ 28 cm � CL Im EE £ 0 9 � Ec % I � k £ §k 666 � 04 'o e B � 7f a) � k kk � m t: E ' � ƒ� � CL r— c c mot ■ \_ & $ $ 2 m 7 / 0 - cm k 0oi (D L7D f8 0 £ § § 3 ° 2 7 2 0 $ % 0 § ■ E � oe £ 2 � a K § 2 6a : e $ § LU So o g ° z 2 . � o � Ir § k RD / B k ' / 0 a w 2 2 E a /¢ S § cm E 6 r- ■ EL c cc § »Im k a » © § c � _. a o g§ & 1 §§ m g d o cc k co 2 e ■ § Z m ■ ■ BROAD $ |§I %❑ �}}; ■ / ® . �� / _�� ( , / Is e ; f!! § �\\ z-,;2/ ATTACHMENT I Rg & / r- Q) � \ cam co m 0 t ) $ (D = � � o g C�g m @ CL P a) E ® 2 e { f c � � k § b2C � E k 7 ( � 9 W\ . 7 § § 0 �k ca 0 C 2 ata ■ £ = o 2 7 m/ / S O m / a 2 / / f w . � k ) v o e oo « W k § S 2CIS 0 ( 2 B032k 0 0 K & 2 K0 2 z FkA § � z w . a I z w ` § z19 cc2 enm z LU SB 2 � � k SB R o � a w k � S § a Lu k U # � _ rz f b w > > CC LU LU of 0 2. . sI o ® � ■ m � 2 § ci k w12 �. � � m co U ii / w 0 � \� , \�H , __ Ej : ! ®� \ ®® % 4 = j.. /-}/ ATTACHMENT I m / § E . k 2 k � m o LL 2 § ( m % 2 « e 5 0 CL tm � ui 2 / � D 2 > k & 00 c PE t k § ■ z § 0 zLU LU k § 0 -0 g § ILW \ k k e � E a � / cc w k � CD .92O w § . , \ � k� ❑ «m /�? ^- ATTACHMENT I \ � S .E \ / f 7 \ § § § E ■ ig § % f § . LU 0 2$ . 22 § ts a) 0 c 7= .£ .. 12 o £ 2 $o f ■ - �. v a § co g§ _ m § 8 « § @ a m ca 0 k£ i7 % ■_ k CD 2 @ k 22To 2 §_ m a � � c12 $ @ 2 m b o a m ° It 3. . 2 S e C k k ® z \ a § � z (D - 0 22LU g k m2 E z � @ » 0 e © z E E § z f � E � - wz � / k � o k 0 � 2 � ° U � / � a _ « w « 0 a E / w f e 0 Lo CL ■ » « a « � : « @ k 04 iCL w _ � � � ■ CIS m ■ § �I § £ � f 2 N $ 2 _ N § § § 0 co ( o 22 ■ 2 m in ■ BROAD k 1:1 MORRO Cl \ $ >Z % » JEll i , & e r , i § j ! G w qm qƒ . /-/0 ATTACHMENT I 0 Q2 7 $ k § 7 $ / § \ k { cn t m / ¥ 0 k 7 o cw � ) u u f 0 (D } cn o � @ §= ¢ F � gam I c 2a � ® m } a) 2 :3 o 2 ' § k � E $ 2 2 � a - - _ _ bk � qk $a e £ c � � E £ F7Jc tm 0 k ¥ 22v E % / I / 0 ca / E k z / § kk z ;� a e e o = g 2 s f o $ 2 �5 § a) 0A � ° g Ot ` 8 z � H- zf3 ok z LLI \ z § ƒ 222 " LU o © oeo w ■ a KE o . n e. E w � t © $ E S / ° Uk IL ■ _ «ZE a ■ off « 0) IL k a — 2 m a 2 kk > a a > � ■ cc t .Sf # § � 2§ cn / U) Lu k k k . win fill, ) � \ t k� � � \&> \ - $ s _ lid j1h . §| \ ❑ \y q ( a 7 . / -31 ATTACHMENT I r o w- a a �}c m •� rn o c U p C N f6 N ca 0} CL c-liC O p CL a N ., C to a} .. -Z E C E tm ate`} a co -a S rnm y rn c co 2 m = m � r W NZ U5 N N Q tmLY a m a E >E W ttj N Z E V U} spm O ui a IL a . Q W) c o > fY +� .., W 0c 4a O CO U) N ts N m d x C7 cm M cc Ix , 7 Qaral#, Li �y1 •3:t Jl'. �• +u i x:61 /-2z ATTACHMENT 1 Z 0 E o 3 � vi o c C 0 U � 3 Q o as is E ~ c m 0 Z 0 aa) U t 0 o H � m 3 c W Ix 2 z LU v O 4r ui Q c ewa a) cw £ � 0 V N ul I�I MORRO ,52 f3=i1� F /-33 ATTACHMENT I $ A $ $ 22 ` c � oc � 22 2e » � — a7 EA$ § 2 © o a \ e2 § § � 5 kk � 4) -2 \ $ w 2 / 0 0 27cc 0 \ k o —._ m � 2 eo -20 e2 � 0 � W G � � 3 f m �4)=t= k � 2f kB e — o e � �� 2 t 2fek c a � x ± 20 § _ CO _ o e @ E® �� E � 7 ® mfi 4 22 m — I 0 iE A? 2 � § RoE22k Mkk � \ � k / t3 (D LM $ a— CL m mak § P ( R � E� � CL a . � E Ic k ' S2 hoc — g % g � ad • =ao@o � ems '» ' o o _ M f � G � ƒ2k @f > . ~ P ® 0 M0 0t5 C� ■ z § � § 70) 2 � G � z 2 � = o ° — oma © g 0 (D ® � 2k $ � tCL / off eLL ■ oco 0' 2 § 50E' er o £ § zt3 % a � o X777 z z z LU (L � ��-2 zLU B � ■ : § § f ) E 00220 L § B % UJo 0 � ¥ g -2 # _ « wooaoa u "a 0 E S U / a ■ _ �9� : $ « m2cE a it « � a N co o . 2 a o \ 2 > 0 / > LU w L � o iV k a2 w2 k mz wC4 PIP ❑ } §m : 2 _ ± At i % / a ' ! \ cw m2 Eli, IL � / 2\ » � ATTACHMENT I CO 0 d o 00 %0 (D k/ � 7 > � % 0 t � \ 2 — . � 2v § 0 02 e 0. cm @ : 62 & EE E d \ k -- 0 m. � � . � — o (D a) J/ f B x $ 222 0 7 ° 2 0 F- 0 \ 0k t m . o W o 0 CL 7 $ (D £ tS e / aCD k �C) « 0 f § Lcn Z / o I DA2Sc 22 A (D m 2 � t� f -0 0 5 + a u � @aW _ � � \ 7 � e ■ _� o_GG 0 � _ � � k ® � its k k ° { .■ z � ° oma $ £ z fa Bcomm k R 52 3 2k R k f « � aE � o z z " � 7± �/ V5k z 0. CL wm z _ & o — � LLI 2 2 f o � & LU > ) o e c w § B § $ oo00m0 00 E wk20 n Ua E w ; U/� a ■ mCLam0 4c a w u _ � $ « / 7 o t. _ - 0 U) E t> g c ■ g 22 k 00 2 0 cq £ m■ 2 a co w / \❑\ " /� ��} ARO\� M \ �} i\r . . s ƒ / a . ± / /�. �\m . /� �❑\\e . /-/S ATTACHMENT I E CL O w co 0 O o « Z E O o o O c Z W U W 2 Z O O CLLU a us om c Y « lC O fn W C E R c V � Wo a lop.RO �s fa1 (t]k s6 4�• •ila:�JI S ATTACHMENT a2 k / § 0 ■ § p � @ k �c § f � 2 � � § $ CL/ * m « U) $ rea o :au c sfCL� § § $ f ƒ k § Z - k \ cm 8% « 2 % � § f k o \ e o k k2 0 k 2 7 k d 2 \ & $ o w 2 ° z z S k m 2 w S R Lu E a e § k a k 2 ¢ § U �© w w 2 a � /cc w kk co � � � k 0a w4 k L) co wC4 ❑ ° 0 \❑ � ( § $ ` §ma \ bm t 2 e� ❑w m. /� ❑w m /-/� ATTACHMENT I 6 § § § 0 z \ 2 2 \ z / z \ � L Ir § z 0: § z LU� § R lu� v R aLU LU a a ¢ - o V & § it a ■ a ■ 0 2 21 � & LU _ ■ t es § � 2 E 2 t � E � 0. § we 2 mk wvi m T , °' ! §m a !m y / ! �§ � G� �/m G� ❑<m, ` �// _ J ATTACHMENT I C > ( _ 00 210 _ CL C 8 � Co c � � m CCL cc c m A X o L m c •. m 0 0 f0 .2 x N M Q 2 Z m C W U It z Z U w C) O 02 F a ww a C a to R w 20 •° w U) cc 2 C ; E - w0 LO o fA W .= MORAO aaf t fi]}a zE T:iA ATTACHMENT 2 Attachment 2 Mitigation Strategies at High Collision Rate Intersections Arterial / Arterial Intersections Rank Intersection Pattem Recommendation EB-thru vs. SB-thru Right Signal timing/Signal visibility 1 Marsh/Osos Angle improvements(Estimated Cost: $_35,000) 2 Johnson /Monterey No Distinct Pattern Monitor in 2002 Report EB-Left/Thru vs. SB-thru Signal timing/Signal visibility 3 Marsh /Santa Rosa Right Angle improvements (Estimated Cost: $45,000) Recent signal improvements/ 4 Higuera! Osos Rear-End Monitor in 2002 Report 5 Johnson/Orcutt None Striping was modified at this intersection in 2001 Arterial / Collector Intersections Rank Intersection Pattem Recommendation 1 Higuera/ High/ Pismo No Distinct Pattern Signal Timing/Intersection Realignment 2 Broad/Pismo No Distinct Pattern -Signal Timing 3 Broad/Buchon No Distinct Pattem Signal Timing 4 Madonna/EI Mercado WB-Left vs. EB-Thru Right Signal Timing Angle& Rear End 5 Madonna/oceanaire No Distinct Pattern Signal Timing Arterial / Local Intersections Rank Intersection Pattem Recommendation 1 Monterey/Morro Various with Parked Cars Remove Parking NB-Thru vs.WB-Thru Right 2 Broad/Pacific Angle, SB-Thru vs. WB.-Thru New Traffic Signal Right Angle& NB-Thru vs. (Estimated Cost: $150,000) EB-Thru Right Angle 3 South/BeeBee WB-Left vs.WB-Thru Rear- Caltrans Left Tum End Improvements 4 South/Parker WB-Thru vs. SB-Right& SB- Improve Visibility Left Right-Angle 5 Higuera/Garden WB Rear-End Update Pedestrian Crossing ATTACHMENT 2 Collector/ Collector Intersections Rank Intersection Pattern Recommendation 1 Chorro/Mill Bg-Thru vs. NB-Thru Right Monitor in 2002 report lAn Collector/ Local Intersections Rank Intersection Pattern Recommendation 1 Pismo/Morro WB-Thru vs. NB-Thru & SB- Improve Sight Distance Thru Right Angle 2 Buchon/Nipomo No Distinct Pattern Improve Sight Distance 3 Buchon/ Morro NB-Thru vs. EB-Thru Right Modify Intersection Controls/ Angle Improve Sight Distance 4 Pismo/Archer NB-Thru vs.WB-Thru Right Improve Sight Distance Angle 5 Chorro/Walnut None. Monitor in 2002 report Local / Local Intersections Rank Intersection Pattern Recommendation 1 Carmel/Pacific Various Right Angle Install All-Way Stop 2 Casa/MurrayNo Distinct Pattern Monitor in 2002 report 3 Peach/Toro No Distinct Pattern Monitor in 2002 report 4 Beach/Pacific No Distinct Pattern Monitor in 2002 report 5 Morro/Pacific lNobistinctPattern Monitor in 2002 report i yr MEMO SEP 10 Zoog Peach Street and Nipomo Street Alert ®Wy CLERK Hello My Name is Don Miller. I am here as an advocate for the disabled community here in SLO. Many of the people whom I represent are not able to be here today because they are in day programs and for financial and/or logistical reasons, were unable to arrange for the staffing that they need to help them integrate into the community for this very important event. Over the past few weeks we have had informal meetings. They have expressed to their concerns about the safety of a particular intersection in San Luis Obispo at Peach and Npomo streets and I am here to present these to you today. There is an unusually high concentration of wheelchair-bound disabled people in a nearby housing complex at 611 and 633 Brizaolara St. This is a tricky and potentially very dangerous intersection,because the crosswalk that they MUST use at Peach and Nipomo in order to have access to the downtown area, is located on a blind curve. The City has provided lane markers on Peach St,which,if they were being respected by motorists,would minimize the danger to the disabled. Unfortunately,the motorists routinely cross over the lane markers and hug the curb, where they can't see who is in the crosswalk until it is too late to stop. We are asking today that the City evaluate the situation and take appropriate measures to ensure the safety of the people who live in this area,before someone is injured or killed. At a minimum, we ask that 1.75 inch acrylic lane markers be affixed to the EXISTING lane markings on Peach St, to discourage motorists from crossing over them and hugging the curb, where they can't see into the blind part of the crosswalk. We would also like to ask that signs indicating that disabled people live in the neighborhood be placed near this intersection and that the speed limit be lowered from 25 mph to 15 mph. We are open to any suggestions from the City regarding ways to make this intersection safer. Thank you for your consideration, 9� ovtl Don Miller 3145D Camellia Ct. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.786.0545 P U 6 L I C �iJ O R K S DEP ?. R T M E tJ T 955 h1CRR0 ST. 9.3407-32GS • • VAMC WAYRq)ORt Traffic -Yy.:. tea, •. .,y '' .its 'Wi a ®y 65...•:. Y ..zt.� .�ZIA.L'.)�i�idYi.Lb Engineering Department o June 2002 1 � tABIC Of cOn is TABLEOF CONTENT'S......_..»-----_....»..»........_......... ....».».. .». .....».»..»». ..»....»»..»..... »...»».... 2 2001 TRAFFIC SAFETY REPORT JUNE 2002...»... ....». .»»»»»._.»» »»»» .»__»»»»»--4 ' A MESSAGE FROM THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR.. .»»»»..... ».»......»».»»...».. ....»....»_....»...».»..»5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY._. _ ». ».. _ ». » ........ ..... »..»». .». .»....».»»».» 6 ' INTRODUCTION»... » ._ ....»_...»». ................... ........»..»..». ..»»»»...».»...»»»»....» _». ».7 BACKGROUND--..--.---.---.-.—..-.-................... 8 tCITY-WIDE CRASH STATISTICS ». ...» »»..»........ ....».»» ......». ...» ............. .»».10 Table 3.1-City-wide Annual Collision Data......................................................................................................10 ' Figure 3.1-Three Year Collision Trend.............................................................................................................10 Table 3.2-Ciry-wide Annuallnjwy and Fatal Crashes....................................................................................11 Figure 3.2-Twee Year Injury Collision Trend..................................................................................................11 ' Table 3.3-Comparison oflnjwy&Death Rates...............................................................................................11 Table3.4-Economic Costs.2001.........................................................:.............................................................13 Table 3.5-Comprehensive Costs,2001..............................................................................................................14 Table 3.6-City of San Luis Obispo Economic Costs,1001 Traffic Crashes....................................................14 ' ALTERNATIVE MODE TRANSPORTATION SAFETY»»»..»»»»».«»» . » .»»»... .»».»»._»_»».15 Table 4.1-Pedestrian And Bicycle Annual Collision Data...............................................................................15 ' Figure 4.1—Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Trends.......................................................................................15 Table 4.2—2001 Pedestrian Collisions by Type................................................................................. ..............16 SAFETY INVESTIGATIONS--..-..-....-.....-.-........................ » ...».......». .».». ...».....». »»..» 17 t Table 5.1-2001 NTM Requests and Status........................................................................................................17 2001 HIGH CRASH RATE LOCATIONS.....................»....»...»......................»....»...........»...».»...»...».»......19 Table 6.1 -Recommendations For Intersections Involving Two Arterial Streets............................................21 ' Table 6.1-Recommendations For Intersections Involving Arterial/Collector Streets.....................................14 Table 6.3-Recommendations For Intersections Involving Arterial/Local Streets...........................................27 Table 6.4-Recommendations For Intersections Involving Collector/Collector Streets..................................30 ' Table 6.5-Recommendations For Intersections Involving Collector/Local Streets........................................31 Table 6.6-Recommendations For Intersections Involving LocallLocal Streets...............................................34 APPENDIX1_............ .............................».......»................».............................................»..».».. »..».»..»......»37 APPENDIX2». _ .... _ ».....»............................»».. »»..........»....»..»..............................».44 ' APPENDIX 3» »..» » ».»...»». ».. »....»..»» » »».. »..........».»..»»..»..51 APPENDIX 4 ....»» .. ......»..»»»..»».»_». .»........»................»... _ ' APPENDIX 5»».»».... ...»»»».._ ... .. .......».. ...»..»....»..».»..»..»......................».»..... .... »»»..... 61 APPENDIX 6»». » »».» » »» »..._ » __ »». ....»»»»»»» »»»»—68 1 APPENDIX7........._..._..........._...................:................................_............_..:............................................_. APPENDIX8..............................................................................................._.».....................................................77 2001 Police Department Traffic Safety Unit Operations Report.......................................................................77 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 3 ' 1 1 2001=ffIC SdfCty Rq)OPt ,J1. 6 2002 City Council Allen K. Settle, Mayor Jan Howell Manx, Vice Mayor John Ewan Christine Mulholland Ken Schwartz City Administration Ken Hampian, City Administrative Officer Wendy George,Assistant City Administrative Officer Public Works Department ' Michael McCluskey, Public Works Director Timothy S. Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works Jim Hanson, Principal Transportation Engineer Hallie Holden, Transportation Assistant Jake Hudson, Senior Transportation Intem Contributing Staff Chief Jim Gardiner, Police Department ' Captain Dan Blanke, Police Department Sergeant Steve Tolley, Police Department 1 1 1 1 1 1 � 1 A messace Puom the deputy Nize=iz 1 Welcome to the inaugural edition of the City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works Department's first annual Traffic Safety Report. Believe me when I tell you that it's , been a long time coming and I am very proud that a new age in traffic safety programs for the City has begun. I joined the City of San Luis Obispo in August 1999 after working for the City of , Ventura for fire years. During those years in Ventura, I actively pursued traffic safety and operational improvements through a variety of programs and projects. 1 One of the significant tools that was used to combat collisions was preparation of an annual traffic safety report, and corresponding mitigation program to identify, prioritize and track safety improvements that could improve the community and reduce collisions throughout the city. How effective was it? 1 Well, during the first ten years of that City's traffic safety program, the annual number of collisions were reduced by 30%.Ventura went from 2150 collisions per 1 year down to 1500 per year...a net decrease of over 600 crashes per year! An impressive amount when you consider that collision rates in many other areas of the country and state were actually increasing for most of this same time period. 1 The intent of this annual Traffic Safety Report is to achieve similar results here in San Luis Obispo. Unfortunately, as detailed in this report, traffic collisions have been on an upward climb for the last three years within our city. We experienced over 1,100 collisions on our city streets in 2001, an increase of over 25% from recorded collisions in 1999. We have experienced 5 fatal crashes in this same three year period—a number unacceptable to us even though it is well below the 1 national and state averages. It's through programs such as this report as well as programs like the Police Department's traffic safety enforcement program that we hope to curb these unacceptable trends and improve the safety of our motoring, 1 walking and bicycling public.. I would like to thank Jim Hanson, Hallie Holden, Jake Hudson and members of 1 the City Police Department for their tireless work in compiling the necessary information that has gone in to this report,the many hours disseminating that data to make recommendations for appropriate improvements and for all the future 1 work that will be necessary to complete our tasks, meet our objectives and make our streets as safe as we can. i rely 1 Timothy Scott Bochum, P.E. 1 Deputy Director of Public Works 1 1 5 1 1 ExEcume,Summary Annual Traffic Safety Report - 2001 ' In January 2001, the City initiated a comprehensive Traffic Safety Program aimed at reducing crashes at the highest crash locations in the City. This program concentrates on identifying all intersections that have experienced three or more crashes in a one-year period and then prioritizes these locations based upon crash rates as compared to similar locations within the City. Crash patterns at the highest ' crash rate locations are then analyzed using collision diagrams that are produced using state of the art computer software. Each of the locations are then reviewed by staff to determine if mitigation projects can be implemented to reduce the likelihood of ' occurrence for the identified crash pattems. Mitigation measures for high crash rate locations for calendar year 2001 have been ' identified and are summarized in this report. The Annual Traffic Safety Report will be prepared each year to review and report on City traffic safety benchmarks, improve traffic safety performance and to maintain high levels of service for our City residents, business owners and visitors. In general, traffic collisions have been on an upward trend in San Luis Obispo for the last three years. There were 1,139 total collisions in 2001, 11% above the previous ' 12 month period and 25%above collisions reported in 1999. Injury collisions were down slightly in 2001 as compared to 2000. However, the total ' number of injury collisions in 2001 (264)was still 10%above the numbers recorded in 1999. 1 1 1 section i m�ao6uction How to Use This Report Every year the City of San Luis Obispo will conduct a Traffic Safety Report for the previous twelve month period in order to: 1) determine the locations within the City that appear to have the highest crash rates in comparison to like locations, 2) to determine the effectiveness of mitigation measures implemented in the previous twelve month period, 3) identify if new locations should be mitigated, and 4) 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 crashes or severity of expected collisions. The report will normally be prepared after City crash statistics are available in April or March 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 specifictotal of collisions for any location for any 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 so as 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 crash 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...the more likely a crash will occur). This report looks to identify locations that fall above the expected rate of similar City locations and propose mitigation measures, if necessary to reduce crash potential and limit crash severity. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 section 2 ! uackGroub ! 21 Study Objectives The objective of the Annual Traffic Safety Report is essentially to identify the high crash locations in the City and track crash reductions through the various City safety programs and projects that the City administers each year. The specific objectives of the 2001 Traffic Safety Report are: ! • Identify the intersections within the City associated with the highest crash 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; • Track afternative mode transportation collisions that include bicycle and ! pedestrian crashes and improve warning devices at high collision locations, and; • 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. ' The Annual Traffic Safety Report will evolve as City programs and emphasis on problem solving change. 2.2 Study Methodology ' Crash Data It is important to note that the data contained within the Public Works Traffic Collision ' Database will vary from other sources of crash data such as the California - statewide Integrated Traffic Records system (swlTRs) of the Citys Emergency Dispatch Records. ! While SWITRS data is similarly derived from official police collision reports, many times the 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 crash 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 reporting officer arrives, the vehicles have been moved on or there is no ! evidence of occurrence. Therefore, statistics derived from this data is inaccurate because no official proof or record exists of the actual collision. Reported traffic crashes obtained by the City Police Department are the basis used by the City Traffic Engineering Section to determine traffic safety. Report totals were obtained for each intersection 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 interpretation of crash patterns were formulated. The number of collisions reported by the Police Department annually is approximately 100 to 150 higher than the number reported in this Public Works report. The reason for this discrepancy is that the Police Department report includes collisions that may have occurred on private property, such as a parking lot, while the Public Works department does not track collisions on private property because it is outside of the department's jurisdiction. Based on the perceived crash patterns, mitigation measures are formulated for the ' five highest ranked crash locations for each intersection sub-category. Mitigation measures for these sub-categories will be implemented in 2002 as funding becomes available. 1 Traffic Volumes Vehicle and pedestrian volumes play an important role in establishing crash rates for selected locations within the City. Vehicle volume counts were collected in 2001 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 crash rates for each intersection. ' Crash Rate Calculations Crash rates were calculated using the following formulas: Intersections: RI = N X 1.000,000 ' V X 365 Where: ' RI = Intersection Crash Rate= Collision frequency per million vehicles entering the intersection. N = Number of crashes (collision frequency) of the location. 1 V= Average daily vehicular volume using the street segment or intersection. 1 9 ' 1 section 3 ' ctty wOc dash MtIZCs ' 3.1 City wide Collision Trends Reportable crash statistics for the City are contained in Tables 3.1 and 3.2. Any reported collision within the public right-of-way that involved a fatality, personal injury or property damage was recorded as a crash. Crashes that occurred on private property, out of the public right of way, on other jurisdictions facilities, or were not reported to the police department are not entered into the City's database. ' While reported crashes are not a total indicator of transportation crashes 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 crashes and private property crashes go unreported and as such are highly unreliable in ' determining "high profile" crash locations or areas of concern. Table 3.1 indicates the reported traffic collision history of the City. Table 3.1 -City-wide Annual Collision Data ' Total Reported Year Crashes on Public Streets ' Intersections % Chane Total % Change 1999 587 910 2000 646 +10.05 1,025 +12.57 ' 2001 766 +18.58 1,139 +11.12 Source: City of San Luis Traffic Collision Database Variations in yearly crashes are to be expected. While total crashes are a good ' indicator of the overall crash performance of the City, injury and fatality crashes are better indicators of changes in collision trends and are the most reliable crash indicators when monitoring the safety of a transportation system. ' Figure 3.1 -Three Year Collision Trend 1100 1025 910 i ' 900 700 ' 500 1999 2000 2001 1 1 In general collisions in San Luis Obispo have been increasing over the last few years. Total collisions have increased approximately 11.8 % per year for the three year period from 1999 to 2001. ' 3.2 Injury And Fatal Collision Trends , Injury Crashes The Traffic Engineering Division tracks injury and fatal crashes as part the current Traffic Safety Program. Table 3.2 depicts the injury crash information as recorded by the City. 1 Table 3.2-Citywide Annual Injury and Fatal Crashes Year Total Injury % Change % of Total Fatal % Change ' Crashes Crashes Crashes 1999 240 - 26.37 2 - , 2000 269 +12.08 26.24 2 0 2001 265 -1.5 23.26 1 -50 Figure 3.2-Three Year Injury Collision Trend 400240 269 265 , 300 200 100 I 0 - 1999 2000 2001 ' Fatal Crashes ' 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. However, the City's Traffic Safety program attempts to reduce fatal crashes by ' removing conflicting vehicular and pedestrian movements at appropriate locations, limit crash severity through improvements to roadway design features, and promoting traffic safety through an aggressive community outreach program. ' There was one (1) traffic fatality recorded in 2001 upon City streets. Table 3.3 compares the fatal traffic crashes within the City with national averages. ' t 11 , I 3.3 Comparison with National, State and County Rates ' Author's Note: All national, state and San Luis Obispo County statistics and cost estimates contained in this section are the most up to date figures available at the . time of this publication. The table below 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. Table 3.3-Comparison of Injury& Death Rates 1 2001 Fatalities' Fatalities Population Rate Per 100,000 Thousands Population ' Nationally 41,821 274,634 15.23 State Wide 3,753 32,521 11.54 County of San Luis Obispo 31 239 12.97 C' "=of San Luis Obispo 1 45 2.24 2001 Injuries* Injuries Population Rate Per 100,000 housands Population ' National 3',189,000 274,634 1,161 State Wide 303,023 32,521 932 County of San Luis Obispo 1,877 239 785 C' ' of San`Luis-Obis .330 45 739 National,State,and County Statistics are from 2000 because 2001 information was not available at the time this report was being produced. ' 3.3 BenefitlCost 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 crashes. One is the economic cost framework and the other is the comprehensive cost framework. ' Economic costs may be used by a community or state to estimate the economic impact of motor-vehicle crashes that occurred within its jurisdiction in a given time period. It is a.measure of the productivity lost and expenses incurred because of the 1 crashes. Economic costs, however, should not be used for cost-benefit analysis 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 crashes to workers. 12 / \ 1 1 The information below shows the average economic costs in 2001 per death (not per fatal crash), per injury (not per injury crash), and per property damage crash. These ' cost estimates are based upon 200 actual crash cost calculations. Table 3A-Econorrde Costs,2001 ' Collision Type Dollar Loss Death $1,000,000 Nonfatal disabling injury $35,300 Incapacitating injury $47,900 Non-incapacitating evident injury $16,000 Possible injury $9,700 ' Property damage crash (including minor injuries) $6,500 Source:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(Traffic Safety Facts 2000) ' 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 air bags or smoke detectors. ' Comprehensive costs should be used for cost-benefit analysis, but because the lost quality of life represents only a dollar equivalence of intangible qualities, they do not ' represent real economic losses and should not be used to determine the economic impact of past crashes. The information below shows the average comprehensive costs in 2001 on a per person basis. These cost estimates are based upon 2000 actual crash cost calculations. Currently, City collision reports injury crashes only if reported at the crash scene and ' 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" as shown above. Table 3.6 shows the 2001 economic costs in crashes to the City using annual cost t estimates. 1 13 ' ' Table 3.5-Comprehensive Costs,2001 1 Collision Type Dollar Loss Death $3,214,290 Incapacitating injury (a). $159,449 Non incapacitating evident injury(a) $41,027 Possible injury (a) $19,528 No injury $1,861 Source:National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(Traffic Safety Facts 2000) ' Table 3.6-City of San Luis Obispo Economic Costs,2001 Traffic Crashes ' Crash Type ' Year Death Nonancapacitating Property Damage Total Dollar. Injury Only . Loss Costes Cost(a) Cost(a) ' 2001 1 $1,000,000 330 $5,280,000 873 $5,674,500 $11,954,500 (a) Economic costs are based upon 2000 cost estimates. While the dollar amounts depicted in Table 3.6 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 crashes that occur ' within the City. The total cost amount depends highly on the crash type and is proportional to the severity of each type of crash type. 1 1 ' 14 1 - \ section 4 1 ' &znmtive mom tmnspo=-Uon suety 4.1 Pedestrian Crashes In January 2000 a City-wide pedestrian crossing policy was adopted by the City Council. This policy is designed to ultimately bring all of the pedestrian crossings in the City to a consistent standard. As the policy continues to be implemented over the next several years it is anticipated that pedestrian crashes will decline City-wide. The following table lists the various types of pedestrian related crashes as detailed in the Police Reports. ' Table 4.1 -Pedestrian And Bicycle Annual Collision Data Total Reported Year Pedestrian and Bicycle Crashes on Public Streets Pedestrian % Change Bicycle % Change E2000 24 52 37 +54% 46 -12% 2001 19 -49% 45 Source: City of San Luis Traffic Collision Database ' Variations in yearly crashes are to be expected. While total crashes are a good indicator of the overall crash performance of the City, injury and fatality crashes are better indicators of changes in collision trends and are the most reliable crash indicators when monitoring the safety of a transportation system. Table 4.2 below lists the number and type of pedestrian collisions that occurred in 2001. The location and general description of the 2001 Bicycle collisions can be found in Appendix 7. Figure 4.1 —Bicycle and Pedestrian Collision Trends ' 100 80 60 ' $� J 0 Pedestrians 40 2 ■Bicycle 20 -- ' 0 1999 2000 2001 Table 4.2-2001 Pedestrian Collisions by Type ' Pedestrian Collision Type 2001 % ' Signal g 42% Out of Crosswalk-Midblock 3 16% ' Uncontrolled-Unmarked N/A 0% Crosswalk Major/Collector Uncontrolled-Unmarked N/A 0% Crosswalk Local Uncontrolled-Marked 1 5% Not in Road Sidewalk N/A 0% In Road(not crossing) 2 11% ' Stop-Marked Crosswalk 1 5% Stop-Unmarked Crosswalk 4 21% Total: 19 100% ' 1 1 16 , SeGtIon 5 1 1 saety mvmc at ions 1 5.1 Neighborhood Traffic Management and Calming Program In June 1998, the City Council adopted a Comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic 1 Management (NTM) Program aimed at reducing traffic volumes and speeds on residential streets. The program offers different options to citizens wanting to implement traffic measures on their streets. The policy identifies the petition process 1 and neighborhood surveys that are used to demonstrate majority support for implementation of speck options. Table 5.1 outlines the NTM actions implemented in 2001. 1 Table 5.1 -2001 NTM Requests and Status. 1 gbeet I Action Hi h Street Painted ed a lines ands markin salon roadway Margarita Avenue Installed All-Way Stop controls at three four-way intersections 1 5.2 Completed Traffic Safety Improvements Each year the Traffic Engineering Section implements traffic safety improvement projects through a variety of programs and projects. These improvements are usually stand-alone projects but are often times included in other City CIP projects or as part of individual land development projects. The following traffic safety improvements were completed in 2001: 1 a. Modified Johnson Avenue between Laurel and Orcutt from a four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway (one thru lane in each direction with a two-way-left-tum-lane). b. Modified San Luis Drive between California and Johnson from a four-lane roadway to a three-lane roadway (one thru lane in each direction with tum pockets). ' C. Added a left turn pocket to the eastbound approach of Mill Street at the intersection with Santa Rosa. ' d. Installed painted crosswalks at City controlled signalizedintersections along Santa Rosa Street. e. Installed pedestrian signal heads at the Osos/Higuera intersection. I � f. Added protective-permissive left tum phase for northbound Higuera at Los , Osos Valley Road and installed new NB left tum lane. Installed right-tum overlap phase and prohibited right turns on red for southbound vehicles on ' Higuera. g. Installed a southbound left tum lane on Higuera Street at the intersection with ' Vachell Lane h. Upgraded the school crosswalk to Hi-Visibili iy and improved signage on Balboa at Lakeview. ' i. Increased intersection sight distances at the Buchon/Nipomo Intersection. J. Video detection was installed at the following signalized intersections to improve ' motor vehicle and bicycle detection, safety and timing: ■ Johnson Avenue @ San Luis Drive ' • Johnson Avenue @ Lizzie Street ■ Johnson Avenue @ Bishop Street • Johnson Avenue @ Laurel Lane ■ South Higuera Street @ Los Osos Valley Road ■ South Higuera Street @ Industrial Way • South Higuera Street @ Tank Farm Road ■ South Higuera Street @ Prado Road ■ South Higuera Street @ Margarita Avenue ■ Santa Rosa Street @ Monterey Street ■ Santa Rosa Street @ Mill Street ' ■ Monterey Street @ Johnson Avenue ■ Monterey Street @ California Boulevard 1 1 18 /i O � UomE Ob CL O rn w 0 ECD C U E o m m m m C L O m-� C C E o C f�0 Y m m m N ," m a) *r- N 4) y O) Z :° waa) M � 0Ewo3. '. 3c E € cDEcomr $ � 0 oC U C O` C m w 0 m j m ' .m.. 2 C3 CD � OsC m m U m C aNCE N .0 o` m mmm 0) t cm - fmc - oY Lc �mc Loa -o m = � rno m Y m > Y m L1.1 •C Em -p to CCO dm m3 C moL @ C m O) C C C U C E C O C O C 0) O C - _ L_ l9 p m � O p m m na � m.r a) O m CO N 'C C CY6 m � o y C m y - 3 v CL 1 O .8 m CLtu L �L m m > m N U E °� o m 3L cY m c a) w E..� O € 3 " N m m C co C CD N _ C0 C:7 c m m > L 3 L �p ��pp y ql Z m �.� m C C U .0 U C CO X N co V Lo Co 7- E m O � C '- m C m M X X X x X ' $ act O C aTi N C m N o W C c c ° > y o m N 0 3 0 o a a n a Y cv m � - m Z aci ani ar o ny Q QQQQQQ Em Y > � rmacccCL u foo. o am m o a > 2 c m m � w CD to C .2 m m C - m o) S N m Q) C 0 rA � Q 0 m > c 7 -E C O M f`6 is p w 7 ." U-D �[ o pp C (p�lj1 L O U c C o r- p ` o.U M -O E m y fA y w, m 0 m ,g 9 C U C V COL 7 m N r m a w >. 7 'C. O O i. O) ~ CO m Y 'O C E 5 � N. N U r O �p d C p > C cm E Y m „ C T N N 7 •C Y C � � � U) m� i C w U C .. c m m c 046v 3 w r o m c m 0 0 > � o E Im > -0 o - t y m O � C � c m U m � C C od > m m o t"i �_ y Q.� mv � 3L c mo U ani ' � c o cY 8i5Y ca a? m m m m0 ~ H � d mY � � w, p m o to m pY �p E o .: - mH it c a; c m -) m c� to w `� 0) E `O c ) .. U O L pO L. 7 O Y Y d .... y 0 � m f`A I� m �j - m (6 C 31 i• 0 C C Cf C y O m O >+ C C " T �) L L U. V_ O p U C�1 o O 3 C o Y Y G (6 m %_O Q +� ~ Q Q V o o J OC6 (6 m O. C m Y O E C �j O '��oOOO m U 0 W C C C U U ` IL o N0L (D *c cD c �'oy � a r � m000 c� m m m Q ¢ rdUU C a H N 3 00 m 00 mH o c c E U 0LY r tC Sttt e _ m _ £ � 0 CL . § e E2 = UA �\ f ( o � CD = wog / 7m@ e � f8 £ E cc fCO C13 CL..2 C 25 = > /k 8882 \ CCR/ \ § k@a@ I » ■ o k § @ :\ "0 ea % a = � 2 § u %2c � o — @ . � 2E � t § @ § § § . � ƒ § 0 $ e £ � ■ � Z & 2k . mb2 � E � CL OoE / � _£ — = m . �k ƒ$ f 0 § CC k2tk 02 E . 7 � § � 2 eMM < / 0 _ \ � k2E M @E c 7 k7k k $ Lo % oa § D a G :5 . . � � � . . . k k �� k \. � / � � k k k c0 a ■ 2 � 2 $ . @f 2 � 7t D � k S § � � (D -0 � � r Em � ) �. E / \ ctl CD k ~ U) ( �� cc -0m ■ ■ o Im£ $$ § \ � cc CL c 2 \ - �a � t ' k ke 2 \ k ± C t @CIOm e $ R f 7 § £ % \ OF \ c_ B (D / " @9 R ' © 0 (D LP JS z \ k . . & ■ § 2 2 Ix z LU k \ / � / � k $ k a cc s \ % a LU 0)Z cxl c 2 , - 0 .> 7 2 > . INS > 0 0 @s$ ■ eq C o e kkii � 0 S 2■ OSOS Z � ■ ■ # � k ` f❑ r r�\/§ « \❑ �i-) . \ ` � � ^ ■ � � �� � /�; • � \2' Z § \.� e nn ta s ! $ $\ � � . � i0 .§ % ƒ & ■ ! \ \ ki am CD W _Ile ƒ c LLI U) 0 $o C*lj@ § \§ � f o2 E § ± § £ \) £ E gf . f � § 2 � \ m � � /m > 0 m E cc� � c= CL 0 � Bm ® Kk \ k @2k : _ £ _ � coC 2 � � £ e � § $ c k00 �ƒ ] E � \ 2 _ Q m ` m � � � � � ° Qt f � • rte � 2 CL7 6 m . � � "a a) . &� / # F § . a. CO E a © 2Eb � T § o 9 0 � D i § B % R \ \ � CL LU k � � E Z � Im 5 (D @ 3 / &$ z � � CO LU z ■ ° 2 % LU ■ B k 0 k Co LU § ( g 0 0 7 0 � � (j (D U \ i P: 72 a � i � ate $ n a # § c cc 2 � > � � > cis ul$ cr 8 2 . § § k R co - � kk Z ■ Ixm� 12 � x ■OM � ■ � jEl ` SOS 1:1 D -1 \ §lll m/ §%y 7)M 2n ® �� ❑ aT w� ❑/a : . � 1 1 N y 1 C � O 3 � 0 1 Q = O 1 oU L 0 . _ C 1 O a r m R ° o CL CL 1 C 0 w o 0 m N C V C w O w •+ Z O C Z O a m {+1 y 0 N 0 G O l9 2 W (n m 4 _ +. ' w W D O s. V H — ' a � Q c m R C Y W � m > .a 1 t5 o � °' C 1 O irnRfSON s. all 1 1 Rk $ § 0 kk � a) ` E k � § a E Ek 0I \ 22 hoG C) N @kg tk � m2 § E 0 CL IB EE: of � nE § 27 � � � k � § � M (D ° ~ ~ i ir- R $ 2 / k CL M E CL 0M : 9 m� /_ 2 &£ m � 2 2 / j - - _ _ ocoa _ k k / 0 0).4 E u a 16N L t (1) r- r- ■ 2 z22 ° ° 0 z . / E § � p _ 2 § E I � 0 E � o c � � z a p)a & co 792 £ CC0) LLI m/ I \ "a LLI$ k S 3 Rb kB � � � a E22 ¢ \ a f a \ a © cmE _CD 0 2 E u V 0 Ir eE ■ a ■ 6 w Q f � � CD oil e -0 _ g Im 2 x § � ■ 2 In 0: _ � nROAD § M � !. = ❑ § ❑ ❑ / e [m : \ i> ■ / ` : � . . � . . . ID $ a 2 02 t w \ Ki \ c � � $ g CD j E k E� k/ / a CD me ( iv � C) 2 Z ) o ga o _ © 2 ~ 2 $ 2A § kE 0 :32 E cc C=E ' Co c \ n2 § (Dm # C! 2 wog 4) � # m 32 k � E / / U) t = 2 ` 7 E m E ƒ ƒ R k 0 / 2ok : kt 2 © 0 42 mL9 U) CD tmS 242E k § K f E § a 2 f to 032 2 & \ $ 0 E oet § © f 22 w 3 a £ a z ■ . LLI k $ 0 15� 0 Ir LU kg k « W E 0 to « Lu E U a � � « o _ a ■ # « � # _ 6 � w > 2 a » � � cc00 0 W. U) to 0 • o / t 2 § d t E c d �.Lo ? m cc _ � �❑ O �\�§ , \�H __ ��) % @m/ ) •\®® \ © ƒ { 10 Cl . � c / § � E V @ k LL. 2 m E £ I / 2 CCL tm 7 � o f 2E 2 § 0 C w o R k 0 co C 0)E . % K k § ■ � k CO 0 LUB 8 LU Z 0 -9 0 . E w - 5k a x « � 2 a � 00 L ® c $ a § § § � k 2'k LUC) � )❑ �\�) � �� /� . . ❑ I � � » ' \ 0 . 9 £ ■ e a . o o E � � s o 2§ m §0 f 2 § . « . e4 � . . 2 kco . 7 Z t c 2 + m § © D CO) cts� % . k m § . 0 t C £ f CD ^ g B & • a6 = 2 % 4) 7 f 7 $ ' § E .5 E2 it 2 . ■_ $ @ 2 7 hf ° W 4 � » . R S . 0 k k ? / fn za) . a . ■ v 0 m aw Q I kE k 7 3@ Ja e 3 / LU � c z Cc LU I § § zk 22. & k - z8 § � � §LU o 2 � � ° \ 2 � « LU Qa « . LU U � a � > « of W. / � « _ 0 _ c e ca - � m % w § cm 106 cm k 12 k . 12 2 m Z 0: @ \\ \ _O p BROAD \ K § ± <\ L ; /m 2 , ( � 35 ! ƒ f � � �d �0 . � �/� �� . �\z - m c � rn c c :3 t co m r rn M _ro U c p c C O U N N ID p t > N p > w y w V t0 O` p L O coCL CO .r E Q N N c c N t0 U IQ L w f6 E c m I U) U c � Ec m mm `s r W m rn CD J = •- c ca mO .0 m C 'O to N SZ N f6 a c t m gE _ L Ornrn ~ L W N _ W oN In m o U R sem-_. > CD ,� °� � H s w 0 o Hca c - � > c c > J N w y L O H 712 y N I� H O OD f6 'O - 3 CO �' � 0 m p m d o o c s U o W p ~ y m W y o 0 Z t Z •- N W Oo ppp W � Oo m a•'-' r 0 P c F � a LU co ¢ so.. E a Lu o �' 4C0 c C R Y z a m o' OCA uj 5 y aw O N N N CO) Lo �r Gi M s en c mm Lu c yy W �- OEEREE — PA ER ' Gy!l��n s � 4 + , -0.L U 02 2 1 aE .- cm rn rn y 1 o t U � .= m N C O O O. CL N a L ffm E CO E E- Co (D v C .� L m U C Z � c E N rn �e o.. c mG y E 3 Z o « W o N Z @ E W O *Z > UCDca O a a Cl I— ui �w Q m cis C � .. W m oa g o N C4 v L c Cc DC TEN ❑ �; z i �. :t�} 7 W ; , st � 1 1 1 1 0 1 N 1 t o 3 U c t cc m � 3 1 cc m Z N � CQ r... 1 3 E E s is o {- c Z o m o o D 1 3 c12 w 1 W 0 Z p O � a w a ix o a � m E 1 _ 0 co Lu clm o z¢i n3 35 rS f' fslL i& �pj 3 :v , _3ifa4c9 �•� J 3 e �a� ❑j �iA 1 1 1 Y � L N C d N .'L-.:0 C 1 eupy•y 7 O N O O M CD O ES E .8yw p lA T 7 -2 O O 0 V-LC O N O O f0 M c 7 O N4)75 t! y 7 C O O e (� N C N0 13 m y OL U - Gj � yU Y O '�- C y f0 `�- O O v m .tLc c y 0 0 'O-as d O O N C E E rm ~ oa a"(PM = � a eco a ~ ccefc e`o roc Z � t 1 .c ccoa 0o - a m c � _o via E ° r m E � a € co > .0 y o Y CL eo a 1 ~ L' � cw � � cco m0«° o UE M a) C C Z: r .. y t cd N UI C y 0 0 —y0 l-06 G C p �p w my a 3 lD C cn C C 0 ` N C 1 o o - 2 C Mn N O O .p E N y C y N > - V 2 a. �. 41 O y 2 O_ C Z � 3 w fn �.- a O `� 3 - y F � N. 1 OQ m Q m C O O O r y O D V 3 Z O °— on.` 0mLc Z Z Lu a.r oa y � Q a.r _ LU CMD •- e� Z LU r c"o � � E O o coo $ w Z c 1 ts O QWog 0 O- C� --po � op Q W a oma c5c..� ¢ covc. E a ix ¢ � CD `O cc y /6 ed o_ -0 > o mN a > E gm EA (D o CL O Ed CmZ W lV aw w � — MORRO MPOMOEU - - I *1 Sol '&I Ila ill:ltAilE: � '�!�a ❑jt}haat ' '� ❑it7�a�3 1 $ 22_ 2 / \0 x & 08 o � . % E -vi £ _ m f � 2 mG2 r @C � 2 £ (WD G SC ° � E @ R22 � E ° 03 -50 20 . � � - aa m0 $ � (D (D $ 27 k � c � 2 / 2 E0 m � � m w o / 0. k $ 0 § 0M � Q S 6q 2 . �� 0 �� .2o � � k% o2 MM � � cc � � / k -ro j £ ■ a 8 k @a % � ° $ � » ® f E. - 2c m ® ` ® ® = ih - £ q £ 0 (D gm Ez/ Rkfz i � RC0/ k _ 0o220 55 2 § Z 0\ k L 20 z ■ '2mo # z ■ e w a > w8 = zc w � 8 ° omoSM.o 00 0 ocr- E wo2C!m b % E w b / k a wcaam2 « _ a 1 .*o t.) r W - e � $ - ■ � 13 > k 00) N t5 � $ LU 0 / � 0 k � i w _ ..,_ k rrr B}xA R)) 3 $ �� . ❑ \/ �� ❑ .\ . � . � � . . � . � � . . � CL§ � k k z . k % . .. R V k J z § \ it ■ w k k � a w a � 0 co k CD � w ■ a co . i 0i 2 � c u3 wMORROd � ;§�! � � . C y a � 1 C L o m n O co 3 � o 3 Ira_c (D Ea) E > E fl.t .yr ;A E_ C W ca r m omni Q� N >N '+ i CL d ` w m w N O -9 L C +i Z O - a M Z a) O {+� m rA j N 0 , _Na) E � a c � O •rn._ m Z G c Z W O ccl.o C Z W () ' W 0 > � ZO W 0 ZO O �` v a LU (Do a a a - N W 1 7 U) LU rW ) tf! N m E �-- N m w, G € A ate ► U) OR = 0 C W W VfA WN CARMEL CASA e,, �j �'pp"a � F�IIta �' EIi•i�. f• E!p f• r 7.I fJij _ � . $ . � . � - ® k 0 k \ z E. E 0 @ z ■ 2z 0 z z / z ■ z 2 LU� k / LU.� k a ■ «LU LU a ■ « $ o E 2 m a k ■ Ir m k uj & @ g.a E 8 2a § a2 LU C mi wq . _ _, . / !,.! & ! . »❑ � [ # . �u / 9@ f $ :� ❑ '17 �� ❑�m � @ 1 t C N r y fL > CD 0 o 0 a 2r 8 C U C_ C N w y � f0 L � O cl ts cC dN C ' G y y X ' CL Hd G w aE z IT p c3 O M N 2 y c Z upZi v� o ' L U W gZ pca� O a a w w R cc m � 1 0 W o � 80 t? o b 0) t 2 N W r MORRO IREJ ❑f +8 ' {e 8)1 jS i o. y�PiilJ II I ++s 1 1 APPMM i 1 Arterial /Arterial Intersections 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i Arterial/Arterial Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate Rank Intersection Total Accidents Entering Accident Rate Traffic in 2001 Volume per MEV Control 1 Marsh/Osos 16 18,979 2.310 SIG 2 Johnson/Monterey 8 16,184 1.354 SIG 3 Marsh/Santa Rosa 8 17,033 1.287 SIG 4 Higuera/Osos 5 13,178 1.040 SIG 5 Johnson/Orcutt 3 8,686 0.946 SIG 6 Higuera/Nipomo 5 14,622 0.937 SIG 7 Foothill/Santa Rosa 18 52,783 0.934 SIG 8 Higuera/Marsh 9 28,690 0.859 SIG 9 Monterey/Santa Rosa 9 29,209 0.844 SIG 10 Broad/ Higuera 4 13,196 0.830 SIG ' 11 Los Osos Valley/Madonna 9 31,658 0.779 SIG 12 Laurel/Orcutt 4 14,734 0.744 2WAY 13 Broad/Marsh 6 22,907 0.718 SIG 14 California/Foothill 7 28,518 0.672 SIG 15 Higuera/Prado 5 20,546 0.667 SIG 16 Higuera/Madonna 7 29,375 0.653 SIG 17 Chorro/Higuera 4 17,277 0.634 SIG ' 18 Marsh/Nipomo 4 17,916 0.612 SIG 19 Los Osos Valley/Hwy 101 NB On-Off 4 20,976 Est. 0.522 SIG 20 Higuera/Johnson 3 16,173 0.508 2 WAY 21 Higuera/South 5 27,567 0.497 SIG 22 Higuera/Los Osos Valley 5 29,680 0.462 SIG 23 Higuera/Tank Farm 4 25,238 0.434 SIG 24 Johnson/Laurel 3 19,017 0.432 SIG ' 25 Broad/South 5 32,879 Est 0.417 SIG 26 Higuera/Santa Rosa 4 27,190 0.403 SIG 27 Monterey/Grand 4 27,328 Est 0.401 SIG ' 28 Johnson/San Luis 3 22,782 0.361 SIG 29 California/Monterey 3 33,666 0.244 SIG 30 Broad/Tank Farm 3 35,101 0.234 SIG 38 r " 7+•r�4V'� ..f err �Yy i'q-'W1f+ ; v,1 i J 4 �t� i � ♦ '' a s �r� t� 'W' fr �.I�l4�I.�r is�t a^-��rYrY - i r 'Vi .1�n. 07/04rt00 conO ' O 0925200' 02/78200} 06N9200�� ' 0488200 ON14200- 091=00 ' 121177r2o O 27rmo. 01 . 02115r"ii aa �e12127= i 1/30)200 ' MARSH ' _ Wdhfn IF of IntersecUon, a=jaents wtth Insufficients ' �— Straight m Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: �-+ Stopped *.—, Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole .�—- Unlrnown a-v Out of control p Injury ® � ks mal ' e-.. Backing Right turn p Fatality Overtaking Ar--Left tum .,> Nighttime I 3rd vehicle Sideswipe 157—U-turn �a DUI it Extra data ' 1 \ 1 %�s+t'- p7 ti< hr. ♦ ,ffr �^ +'M nvyv`w +'� {f z 'fir♦ 1i}.3i (��/ + 9.7+t3,.('i�"�} 'i.tLn.Cl i° •` 9 1"'9.r'Jr i "r�..f�`i ar ;3.�.L'1►1�i• y "4�' h ��r •'�jy+ w '+� V ,,�i.'I� ' 4i!tiAt .- .. .r•-r•vz-�.. ... F, v.u.- .x.. ...i. r^ >.,!'r v. a.-4s �.b...,n5. _cit.-..'!...,fav .��..... rte.? -f+ 1 E i ,BOO 1 0 O 0 1 z 1 1 ' i MONTEREY 1 -Wdh n7b-dn'r it e-e ron=(o )ao a nim d&fa�torr-da-1 �r - a— Straight ®Parked ;. Pedestrian Fixed objects: �—, Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole ' Unknown air Out of control 0 Injury ® Signal a Curb .. Backing v,,_Right turn p Fatality ® Tree Animal Overtaking ,v-- Left turn , Nighttime •1 3rd vehicle ' Sideswipe U-turn i-4 DUI Extra data 1 40 1 fts vl";t � DJ!✓�4'1 .a _`fir--Cv+:Ci�'a�hh'i`f �3alrl"Y� .+.,A jT'k1': St .Jbi v.1.Z ti YJ F�.. cf4 zrlY {ka �i K�✓�f,(/S^u��i �.,yy{�j�7 ,+�.'}/��{✓ �x .fin On iM .rt iy 1 r G �YJ4tF � 1t �D �iFi� r � ' ."uC " �.ii':iL�iKC 4-•l_..f.�.:.cy 1_-..59'^ " 1.� 1 1 1 Vs Z 1 0 O , 0&29/10tL—� 12/022 07/11200' 04/15200 1 03117=4 03/022001 l , SH 1 VPfthT75'-oTGdersesEion:( acc+aier�s wifh tns-uffid'iii[d- a or dis—O --,. 1 <— Straight =2m Parked >:' Pedestrian Fixed objects: a--� Stopped Q,..Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole d—Unknown a-tr Out of control p Injury ® Signal m Cwb ' <-.. Backing v,_Right tum p Fatality ® tree 0 Animal �-.. Overtaking je— Left turn „> Nighttime 1 3rd vehicle e-a Sideswipe U-turn Fa DUI Extra data 1 41 1 ' 'µ±� NNar4,:\t h.,Y y rf✓ � T r1�'� 'S�M1�rri/A i 1'c'Y.t�7!~l�i ttr��� x+. ,e ilh�•IWxJ.� �''^.. lyp2ANr P^<s''•gym, 7Sv �.d"x yv V '.'i.� w''Mui''�''n>,�3'�y��1f 4 rw• n (8� jcvl4r.r'i'!'fn Y.fiQ'r�.��vaf�in'+A>v� � x4°'+'{'�S`:.`�4 a�]r] .,i'ka^r, ♦+,5d�ya.�s I � pi : h1„A: a ++r �* L a � w •r^ �} 7 i Ury I i .�� 7 ' r r .. r•.c -..:C.a�6..s,r+r�,ryaJ I h v. . t <. U• - `i i ..J+'.' ------------------------- `Q �Iti0 ' 011 o ' HIGUERA _ ,nofT rsr eseed& (-ac—Tc a ns c enfdaTe. r int ---- �-- Straight Parked Pedestrian Fixed objects: a--7 Stopped Erratic X Bicycle o General a pole Unknown artr Out of control p Injury a Signal 0 Curb 15 Anirnal �-.. Backing v,_Right tum p Fatality ® T ree Overtaking Ae— Left tum :- Nighttime .. 3rd vehicle ' Sideswipe U-turn w DUI x Extra data 42 1 ��,r,{,L i S`✓i/n.vl�iW.�4'�'r x`+�. ��i�•�:�'' r• �?i �� n,,.-fes C�i 4��J� fC1ir'�.Cy�� 1 \6'sx:R A x 1�'�y'+w�^ri'C't i�v w i5tc tm• zy3 +.�Y 9' dSi`�x r rl i� �� 1 •x•r +. FFY\% �P.{"�.\ r2 wk rd31f ryu♦ �+'r�Vr:t �I xYA itx !'`aftNtr a9 x`i. +' Pl"•'i fx, aah^K/Nt 5szr 'ii#x• 'jt7:NtYa✓I+��i� / 1f ;I' �` T'" ' t �:.x .c �Mc•.�i�wv,ti ��..>;T�� a..w.tti.�,»Y�t:+'mTF�.x��'f..?�n:..ra(— e•�x 0 � 1 fi i 1 0 1 0 z i con 1 ORCUTT-WfthI1 n M of Inters n,_OC)acc de- s-WinsuHicierd'dafa'Ior dish Straight ®Parked ;' Pedestrian Fixed objects: �--, Stopped *-, Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole a—Unknown w-,- Out of control p Injury ® Signal ® Curb 1 a-» Backing v,_ Right tum p Fatality ® Tree 0 Animal Overtaking je— Left tum Viz. Nighttime d 3rd vehicle Sideswipe 57— U-turn F4 DUI Extra data 1 1 as 1 i APPMOIX 2 Arterial / Collector Intersections 1 t Arterial./Collector Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate Total Entering Accident Traffic Rank Intersection Accidents in Volume Rate per Control _ 2001 MEV 1 High/Higuera/Pismo 8 22,039 Est 0.995 SIG 2 Broad/Pismo 5 13,791 0.993 SIG 3 Broad Buchon 5 14,202 0.965 SIG ' 4 Madonna/EI Mercado 9 34,884 0.707 SIG 5 Madonna/Oceanaire 6 23,487 0.700 SIG 6 Santa Barbara/High 4 16,000 Est. 0.685 2 WAY ' 7 Santa Rosa/Mill 5 23,396 0.586 SIG 8 California/Mill 4 19,043 0.575 SIG 9 Osos/ Buchon 6 30,438 0.540 SIG 10 Johnson/Buchon 4 25,394 0.432 2 WAY 1 . 11 Santa Rosa/ Palm 4 26,917 0.407 SIG 12 Broad/ Industrial 4 27,345 0.401 SIG 13 Johnson/ Pismo 3 22,926 0.359 2 WAY 14 Los Osos Valley/Oceanaire 3 24,901 0.330 2 WAY 15 California/Hathway 3 26,500 Est. 0.310 2 WAY 45 � ni �A��IY.✓ 2✓�.r..�`"_..e f� lF��y.�(jL t d' �� i iv..',u�1��/ a' a k P � � i %��.�} �+''-aJ �S�a�sr' ^"v Y t-.. �;�'4"T'r��✓!/x�' 'Y'��,� s.' i ��t��� -I't 4[ �' �f t +'a"�t ',��J'j '!� I lk� oarzsrzoo ' 8 1 1 m of IrdeTsection. 8=deMs Wfth InuMicientr Wsplay1 e — Straight c:-.=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: �—, Stopped *, Erratic X Bicycle o General a Pole e— Unknown a-,r Out of control O Injury ® Signal a Cwt ® Tree § Animal 1 a-.. Backing v,_ Right tum p Fatality Overtaking o— Left tum :L> Nighttime .1 3rd vehicle a� Sideswipe U-turn F4 DUI x Extra data 1 0 8200 9/18/200 1 O ' PISMO ' a=ftnts wan insufficlam am Mr .— Straight ®Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: t--1 Stopped Erratic X Bicycle o Genaw a Pole Unknown w-,r Out of control p Injury ® s4pw ® Curb <-.. Backing *,—Right turn p Fatality ® Tree s Amend Overtaking A�—Left tum ;> Nighttime I 3rd vehicle ' Sideswipe U-turn K DUI Extra data �� r a r i�Y� znRr�.r t{ .iai+�r.p•l �J 1 �i'f i f J� r' �i v..' e� � 'ii^ ,i � F,� t 4 i�r��� �K� �'J[3�Nya ''{u£�il�'4`'�✓' ��C�'����' 4'�'t J i� �w.iry'y,��'�fj ,'r y�1I.z�'r��9 1 J 11/11/200 i � o 1 1 BUCHON ! n rse on, a= s-- -F-In-s-ulffc-reffif-dWfor—disalav1 Straight ®Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: Stopped -a-, Erratic X Bicycle o General c pole �—Unknown w%r Out of control p Injury ® Signal ® curb �.. Backing %,_Right turn p Fatality ® Tree animal 1 Overtaking Ae—Left turn ;,,> Nighttime I 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn Ea DUI x Extra data 1 1 48 i _ J 1 1 � l 01/26200 03/10/200 06/14200 0�p0 102MMM 0780200 1� r 1 0 1 07/30200.] MADONNA ' within 75 or IntemeaTo-5, aca e s wM insufficlent <-- Straight =En Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: Stopper 4, Erratic X Bicycle o General o pole Unknown a-v Out of control p Injury ® S'gw ® Curb �-.. Aimul Backing Right tum p Fatality ® T ree Overtaking #e—Left tum ,> Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle ' Sideswipe U-turn M DUI Extra data 1 49 1 1 ;Ar I 4-f r K rK /� '�a�K,7�- T' 7 "i44i t � ra r i4 J a r ✓ r.y, r r, ,ti+ y,�+. W� �"" ;i31 �is�r..rK . 1i:��' 'Iii4`�r rr°xvu " �C�r.v 'Jt Ff�.Altr .'may , �.�,�(►7\7r�'(lx�y'�,> S�3L�h3���,' " c Mf S .� ..i�� " .r,y.)t,+('.,._w.`w, s, r1 t��x$.{.9. +'r,5•�..� $ .. 'r 1 1 1 1 "Ienoal 1 1 WMI 1 � 1 1 n me on, aeot enWiln msultlejent dM for_isp ate_ 1 e-- Straight =am Parked ;<:; Pedestrian Fixed objects: . 4 Stopped Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole e—Unknown Out of control p Injury ® Signal m Curb <-•• Backing Right tum p Fatality a Tree 0 Animal 1 Overtaking Left tum <<> Nighttime 1 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn �-4 DUI M Extra data 1 1 1 so 1 ' AppenOIX 3 Arterial / Local Intersections 1 1 1 1 1 Arterial/Local Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate Total Entering Accident Traffic Rank Intersection Accidents Rate per in 2001 Volume. MEV Control ' 1 Monterey!Morro 6 7,204 2.270 SIG 2 Broad/Pacific 11 13,489 2.234 2 WAY 3 South/BeeBee 10 14,800 Est. 1.850 2 WAY 1 4 South/Parker 8 14,300 Est. 1.533 2 WAY 5 Higuera/Garden 6 10,850 1.515 2 WAY 6 Marsh/ Morro 9 16,435 1.500 SIG 7 South/Lawton 5 14,146 0.968 2 WAY 8 Marsh/Carmel 5 14,305 Est. 0.958 2 WAY 9 Broad/Branch 3 8,700 Est. 0.945 2 WAY 1 10 Higuera/Morro 4 12,352 0.887 SIG 11 Higuera/Granada 5 16,701 Est. 0.820 2 WAY 12 Santa Rosa/Walnut 9 30,389 0.811 SIG 13 Santa Rosa/Oak 10 34,200 Est. 0.801 2 WAY ' 14 Foothill/Ferrini 5 17,959 Est. 0.763 2 WAY 15 Santa Rosa/Murray 10 37,844 0.724 SIG 16 Santa Rosa! Boysen 8 31,000 Est. 0.707 2 WAY ' 17 Osos/ Pacific 4 15,714 Est. 0.697 2 WAY 18 Santa Rosa/Montalban 9 35,593 Est. 0.693 2 WAY 19 Foothill/Casa 5 20,783 Est. 0.659 2 WAY 20 Johnson/Iris 5 21,000 Est. 0.652 2 WAY 21 Johnson/Lizzie 5 21,768 0.629 SIG 22 Santa Rosa/Meinecke 8 35,077 Est. 0.625 2 WAY ' 23 Madonna/Pereira 4 17,905 0.612 2 WAY 24 Marsh/Garden 3 14,133 Est. 0.582 2 WAY 25 Higuera/Vachell 4 19,043 0.575 2 WAY 26 Los Osos Valley!Garcia 4 20,154 0.544 2 WAY 1 27 Santa Rosa/Peach 4 21,098 Est. 0.519 2 WAY 28 Higuera/Bridge 3 16,104 Est. 0.51 2 WAY 29 Los Osos Valley/Royal 5 27,314 0.502 SIG ' 30 Higuera/Suburban 4 22,482 0.487 SIG 31 Los Osos Valley/Descanso 4 22,897 0.479 SIG 32 Santa Barbara/Upham 3 17,430 Est. 0.472 2 WAY 33 Foothill/Cuesta 3 17,459 Est. 0.471 2 WAY 34 Santa Rosa/Olive 6 36,786 Est. 0.447 2 WAY 35 California/Higuera 3 20,154 Est 0.408 2 WAY 36 Los Osos Valley!Calle Joaquin 3 20,916 Est. 0.393 SIG/2 WAY 1 37 Johnson/Ella 3 20,983 Est. 0.392 2 WAY 38 Higuera/Pacific 3 24,422 Est 0.337 2 WAY 39 Osos/Leff 3 24,803 Est. 0.331 2 WAY ' 40 Grand/ Loomis 3 25,913 Est 0.317 2 WAY 41 Grand/Abbott 3 .27,513 Est. 0.299 2 WAY 42 Broad/Francis 3 30500 Est. 0.269 2 WAY 52 1 1 �,d�`Fi'�.v '4�!'y: .:'�� "�'..1'rl,�,'�':'v.r A•YJ'✓"�,Sir AWvti!{ Nr'4bl'�yq " ��"pr�y r �• 1���z @i ?:rr �IS ♦ ;'''2� l r't�.. ^'ti x`! Swt' ,a l* 'r`}�,•'''n� '7•LJTr� "�,�� � ?�R ,�,a �-. :+-'� x SY��.�'a 5'".n1 ��'ix�4 �k:�'a'''�'.:dx '�°,f �`��. a 3 f\kYy'•ft {,-'.!Y� r.M\G•F 'xS v 2 x�' �.c :.f..+'��•c.-'tT-.L9x.. .�.,.r t. LS'9'R- "F' `h� .,•,\.• J•\t 1 *'S�•'�s:�r•-sw r�:."YY O ,r e �a ' 1 L-12J19 o +=4= y ' 1 MONTEREY ' an, aecider0's w�insuffiuent daft fofdbpiT �-- Straight =am Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a—� Stopped Erratic X Bicycle c General o Pole Unknown air Out of control p Injury ® Sim ® Curti e—•• Backing Right turn p Fatality a Tree Animal t �.� Overtaking X'Left turnp Nighttime ? 3rd vehicle a a Sideswipe U-turn w DUI Extra data ' xt 1 ` \ ' $Si���•.p,�drrr'Lv�•:vrx+r.L..eM�A 4 i� ti ' �• I•+n�'t4i ".e .�ur�nti�Ffi '�`i L4`�ik11:!l�i-�1 ��'•�!•idM S"' 3�d �4v� '�fi}Kr i�'v.Yv 4�,. �1'T4q M1j jrYy t of v {.'CF`�"�I AH`+.i.,�"i'r��+.�5`c t {i� f n M'f r c ✓ r r 'YR 1�",Xj„h .M V•G 1 0.�L,r r�i m s �`R, d �C nF.. .1 / f r Sr, ii 'CY � CCJ/ T ��- y ✓r{ y y•- .-r r-Yr.n�-.-ax- w.'<+�. F' �,• "+•'•: .21vf+�'SE3±+u��r•" n. n_.c+,i.rnly .�: c..i:•T 1 05/151200 ' 17711100200 i.__._11n5120o ' L:,OMz00 O oarzwoo ' 05107J20o , ® 11/1$7 I PACIFIC ' m on, cad aaoTcen�s wrth Irisoffie e—rildaa for 04O .— Straight ®Parked r_ Pedestrian Fixed objects: .--I Stopped Qom, Erratic X Bicycle o General o pole ' a-- Unknown w%p Out of control p Injury ® Signal m Club a—» Backing �_Right tum p Fatality ® Tree § Animal a« Overtaking Left turn _? Nighttime I 3rd vehicle ' Sideswipe U-turn Fa DUI x Extra data 1 S 1 ry ' 01124/2001 10131!2001 09/3011001 ' 122=001 �i/mrzaol L7 avllrzool� � lgwelZoo'I- ' SOUTH t I n ars on acauents Won Insufriment MA for drsNw— Straight =am Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: t--+ Stopped Erratic X Bicycle o General o pole .--- Unknown a-tir Out of control p injury ® S'e ® Curb ' .. ® Tree animal Backing x_Right turn rJ Fatality �« Overtaking or—Left turn _C> Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle Sideswipe r-- U-turn v-4 DUI x Extra data ' 1 1 1 HYh�Gx�, ✓ e 34 'r r r' 4 ,I. �� ^�I�.�{YJ i31 `'f' '�"" +:'�" }'}'Y ✓ 4.fi,5,I�YJ� 1 ��4� z ✓ c�'l, F�{. �� itS' sh � ".2n � F ix'r�+i4�,��J iI�Q'+y�y�����Iy��.F JJI�7p.",, ,,�+._+a,f, �w�p,u�y f i yyi il. I�►.li1u � �.,, �� - a 3,M'1 t� � .1�1"' i'"7 J f IRF'irfw+.4y+riFFf E f II+'1'i 1 r�S� YFJ s� � pµ�� � ✓ t yc. �'�'-{ 1 MUM nro1=1 1v I2001 1 Nom, 1 1 1 0724=,-� 1 1 1 SOUTH ' Within 76 of Intersectio—n7-ff-aadentswtM Msuffidentdisplay e— Straight c�m Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a—� Stopped a-,Erratic X Bicycle o General c Pole Unknown w%r Out of control p Injury ® signal ® curb E.. Backing Right turn p Fatality ® Tree a Ammai �« Overtaking V—Left turn z> Nighttime I 3rd vehicle 1 Sideswipe U-turn F4 DUI x Extra data 1 1 56 1 i 1 �ps5;}�r/ A c x.!9+uf-1��..°v Ylr f W.Jir,�`k�r�'rl✓�'r.4W.c f7�v'r xrt?kr�7'w� h'w., �rfty .+� w.u4'r�s..y` 1 X�".i.�-n fir d7dp.�+.{ i.,}�F�"w''K �'SSI.°✓ L"Gh,s �} u J "^s�.< .:r '• n° Ya �.uY rt '1$�<t q m�'4K• O�:A�y."rge°�'3'4r.S��t'S.(� �}1� �'+ `'1j°,� °�rx 4`V Fe A75 '4°X°i�91 i � +'�-.� S� �' ,. i4i ��� p:�+;i;. rz°�u-:.:,r.-r-�..�n...+Y,°?,vae. ,.°v. .u:.-• r+n�.x°<i 'v�'•:riv l��t:'a G_a .:.r1ui{i'ta'uY•:.^`'°�1°.vlrcCu't1�'a:.•'d��s•.• Tu..:rt 1 1 <02/07200 11/224/2004QOO 0&12=00 1 0328200 12/18200 1 04200 a 1 z 1 1 1 MG RA ' nerse 0 a'ccider+ts wi iosui ien�dafa Toy disP -J �— Straight ®Parked Y; Pedestrian Fixed objects: Stopped a, Erratic X Bicycle o General a Pole 4 Unknown <-,r Out of control p Injury ® Signal ® Curb , e–»Backing e,_ Right turn p Fatality ® Tree § Animal e .t Overtaking Ar– Left turn =,ti Nighttime 1 3rd vehicle e Sideswipe 157— U-turn Fa DUI Extra data 1 1 1 57 1 1 3PPM6LX4 1 Collector/ Collector Intersections 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Collector/Collector Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate Total Entering Accident Traffic Rank Intersection Accidents Rate per in 2001 Volume MEV Control ' 1 Chorro/Mill. 4 9,963 Est. 1.100 2 WAY � 4c[, r Yr c�9�u r ,,((�,�` y°i'I /l 4Cw �'SyvJry✓'TEWe cwt � �A"1 � Yy�� y r.x' r�erY ei rlf?� J4v+%— ri'n�4 fN;J�irJrry�„�. ` Y'�.e'ti�'�iY� r M i r ■T��v , � 'r"Ai 1 _�__ v {�^ \ ' "rU1�11/20U ' _P "rW ' O , O , 01/1Wdru3/200 NIILL ' n Ivol Intemecuon. accidenM Wan InSuffiderdr displav ' Straight =.m Parked x, Pedestrian Fixed objects: �--� Stopped -e-,Erratic X Bicycle o General o pole Unknown a-up Out of control p Injury ® Sigw ® Curbv,_ t e—» Backing Right turn p Fatality ® Tree # Animal .-.. Overtaking Left turn Nighttime I 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn r4 DUI r Extra data ' s0 1 APPM61X 5 Collector / Local Intersections 1 1 ' Collector/Local Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate Total Accident Rank Intersection Accidents Entering Rate per Traffic in 2001 Volume MEV Control 1 Pismo/Morro 6 3,597 Est. 4.570 2 WAY 2 Buchon/Nipomo 3 3,000 Est. 2.740 2 WAY 3 Buchon/Morro 3 3,033 2.710 2 WAY ' 4 Pismo/Archer 3 4,491 Est. 1.830 2 WAY 5 Chorro/Walnut 3 .9,000 Est. 0.913 2 WAY 6 Buchon/Santa Rosa 4 12,848 0.853 4 WAY 1 62 1 JL i� .n+. Yr � .+ m� ,rvf �ih ♦/� s �'ar yy�.�rTMA �U .�n+� f1 Fxrr rr- Fi;}.w tiI �f �2. Fi' YY Y;'r,4ffjJ�xa 11v�yS_-/✓ � x i,1.� aµ� .•.. b� �r.hs.L��w r...jrr y�`i, ?�'S�i�+w .r�f.�;����� - rrfr� �5, �I� 1 1 11/182000425200 07/06200 1 1 '05125200 L111200 1 0 � 1 1 i PI SMO ' o n e on, accidents n e r cffsplW1 Straight Parked ',< Pedestrian Fixed objects: .—� Stopped Q.,.Erratic X Bicycle c General a Pole �--Unknown a-v Out of control p Injury ® Signal a curb 1 e-.. Backing Right tum p Fatality ® Tree 0 Animal Overtaking Oe—Left tum J Nighttime .1 3rd vehicle Sideswipe 57— U-turn i--i DUI x Extra data 1 1 1 1 _ 1 1 r }r x f h J � x Mrr•� `'�f ��'i"7"i� l. !� ffi aY )I Ir t4���'f �� 4 � ��'` �1 11 �,r�i2�M7a � 'Y._.�_• s4 ��P ����K�u�u�.�w r�'�jda1+, w -4 r�.� 1 1 J $ 1 10111/200 i 1 z 1 ° 0 i i 1 ' BUCHON 1Wittim 7V of 1rdem9cH5n7MFa—=d9ntswdhinsuf1jC-1e–nFdi5f6rcfiw1aY .—Straight ®Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: a--i Stopped g, Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole 1 e--Unknown Out of control p Injury ® Signal o curb a—» Backing v,,_Right tum p Fatality a Tree 3i Ammal �-« Overtaking le—Left tum ;c> Nighttime i 3rd vehicle ' Sideswipe U-turn M DUI x Extra data 1 1 ea 1 r � . ^I l It I ' J ' O O1l09200� O 0311412 0 ' 06r271200-1 BUCHON , InterSe cn aca srM Insuffirlentr Mplay ' .— Straight Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: e- Stopped a...Erratic X Bicycle o cenerW o Pole e—Unknown air Out of control p Injury ® signal ® curb �-..Backing RRight tum p Fatality ® Ttee § Animal Overtaking o(-- heft tum J Nighttime I 3rd vehicle Sideswipe (F,:— U-turn M DUI )K Extra data ' ' r Yr ir:v'4ti f�.we +3 K"{I1 r _rr,1y`M'yrsf":k t�rin t'tiU^kyiitri'1 i r.r:s.vv.,Yrs rir'{t1r..VN�he�F`laamnn"r{.X�i.f-f T riss+ra. kir...' 4W+Id�tF ^� d t . � n ' 12/12200 01/182 00 1228200 1 PISMO ' o n e se on. (u)5REMWwIth insufficient data for cusplay 4 Straight ®Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: d Stopped *-,Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General a Pole ' a-- Unknown w\. Out of control p Injury ® Signet m curb sl e-.. Backing 4,,_Right tum p Fatality ® Tme An" nW 4-.. Overtaking Left turn -J Nighttime I 3rd vehicle ' Sideswipe U-tum K DUI x Extra data 1 66 1 1 n I 15' *<.0 (r Ji r F I Ism FI .r/ Ir / 1 I / r 1r u�lll it r til1 74tV. aerrzrzoo� t 1 o ' o ' i WALN(Yr Wdrtm 11V of intersection. acciderds wRh_InSuff1cfent dM Tor dISMY ' e— Straight ®Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: ¢–, Stopped a-,Erratic X Bicycle a General o Pole 4—Unknown w r Out of control p Injury ® sipw ® Curb ' <-•• Backing x,—Right turn O Fatality ® Tree 0 Animal Overtaking Left turn C> Nighttime I 3rd vehicle a Sideswipe cj; – U-turn �-4 DUI M Extra data ' 1 67 t appen6mo tLocal / Local Intersections 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Local/Local Intersections Prioritized by Accident Rate Total Entering Accident Traffic Rank Intersection Accidents Volume Rate per Control in 2001 _ _ MEV 1 Carmel/Pacific 6 2,749 Esta 5.980 2 WAY 2 Casa/Murray 4 3,900 Est 2.810 2 WAY 3 Peach/Toro 3 3,000 Est. 2.740 2 WAY 1 4 Beach/Pacific 3 2,498 Est. 3.290 2 WAY 5 Morro/Pacific 4 6,446 Est. 1.700 2 WAY 1 1 1 69 1 NZ: r t i,�..,`c f��f}✓ r J '' .� y� }� a aBE Y 1 F'/ryy, �i�yr�i r�J'41H 144 '43 [� i r bI`F47 t ar�iS.J �i''43 1 V4V,ILW 1 1 1 1 04110200 r 1 i PACIFIC 1 WMIn 75'W n era on accidern with Insufficent1 e— Straight ® Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: 4 Stopped Erratic X Bicycle o Gen-at o Pole — Unknown Out of control p Injury ® signet ® Curb 1 a-•.Backing Right turn p Fatality ® Tree 0 Animal .-.. Overtaking #r— Left tum 1;> Nighttime I 3rd vehicle Sideswipe F�7—U-turn Fa DUI Extra data 1 1 70 I 9.?:A1' 1i YR6 ,�t'J 1y4Y1 J'i.Jr �y,�i�h�lkf J Ya ,IL�u ✓ +' r Cil I, Yr/�r 3 '?„u YT� x.c rr)' G6JJs:5�4{� ��' /II Iu♦�4�LJ � `4 r� � ��'J C r ■�f•��� i rFl� 5 R� Jam'4 37f i � ���� 1 Srrr car .i j4 �X � \i ! 1�'iR+.isf���� !'.�•z'Y 1. I j ~\L ' �c � r ,'r�+ 1 Q ' Owll= 1 ' MURRAY ' vvitnm to,cT imersection, acquems Wan Insuggentfor display s— Straight c=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: IE Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole Unknown air Out of control p Injury ® Signal ® Curb �-••Backing Right tum p Fatality ® Tree 0 ?natal Overtaking Ae-- Left turn s.> Nighttime I 3rd vehicle ' Sideswipe S;7—U-turn ra DUI x Extra data 1 74 i 1 ` ✓ '.r ` 'N'.F� .h .f.' s. lJ` C� . Jllifu ` r' 't �i jv5�. + J �'i ��� �.r� ��rM�r�sij r YwJr S c f-..l a''��ly�.(ii{t✓F �y 1 �>�+.f� rr r 'ti �i J .h� t pti � �j�S �.+` W J.j l•F� }2' 4^ u�a".,�w.�7S`r d�fi'�n�.��+s' � J c�jv '� rr jn,•�',rr�J7 • ---:r..,_.. . •, .,_ ... . ,. rte,_ �.:. �.,p,. . -. r _.... '„ _ 1 t 1 y 1 0 1 ,01,E 1 1 1 PEACH 1 WdM ib at intersection, accidents wIM Insufficientr display 1 a— Straight =a=Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: B--I Stopped .4-, Erratic X Bicycle o Genend o pole - Unknown a-., Out of control p Injury ® Signal ® curb 1 <-•. Backing v,_ Right turn p Fatality ® Tree 3F Animal a« Overtaking Ae—Left tum �> Nighttime 1 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-turn ra DUI « Extra data 1 1 1 rz 1 1 : 1 t 1 1 =4= 1 1 � x i i ,zo3=—J 1 ' PACIFIC 1 of IMSMCUDn. accidents e a — Straight c�m Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: .—� Stopped Erratic X Bicycle ❑ General o Pole Unknown *,%r Out of control p Injury ® signet ® Gab .<-..Backing v,,_ Right turn O Fatality ® Tree 0 AninW a .. Overtaking pe— Left tum €C> Nighttime 4 3rd vehicle 1 Sideswipe S7—U-turn K DUI « Extra data 1 1 73 1 i 1 1 ' y' I J ao - Y r - • 1 L V y SV' r�• it J- :S ' v w, 1 vn� f`lO rr `L+ j(y''1Y r``',r,�'f4�i4�r `lefii iz474'7'`L 'J: I.f 4 Jn P d"ri'f �:�r,, r „1Y.4��a7as` ` '��r'a�.•h..� .mav'�.'�.�ry � r .SAY '".�CY��r r, ._ �rf,3 1 i --- 1mnoo OVUM= 1 � 1 0 0 1 1 �o 1 PACIFIC 1 w1frim 7V or Intsisequon, UO accIdWs Wftn insufficienta for display 1 Straight c;-.m Parked X Pedestrian Fixed objects: .--� Stopped Erratic X Bicycle o General o Pole �- Unknown Out of control O Injury ® signal o curb i <-..Backing Right turn p Fatality ® Tree Animal Overtaking sr— Left turn > Nighttime I 3rd vehicle Sideswipe U-tum w DUI x Extra data 1 1 1 74 t ' CDC 7 Bicycle Crashes 1 1 1 Bicycle Collisions m ' uesay Injury MON e FOOTHILL0 TnJury RearenF 4=0 7 2.1336 aturday = i esmnpe 7/01 :2 107.28 6 Wednesday WEST Ift r-tume SANTA ROSA FOOTHILL 311 0 23:00 Thursday None Braads� e ' ORCUTT M—Rllg� 0 : 59 1 .98 on S n u m Over-tue HIGHLAND CUE TA 4/23/01 17:4 Mondg njury Other Coll 7/01 15:30 Friday In u Broadsi We SANTA ROSA MONTALBAN 4 0/01 164 on ay n1u roa si e ' MNL a1 150------4-572—Mon a T S O roa i e MURMY R 5/1 0 o 3.52 atu ay WESTNone Me smnpe ZHORRO TER 5 14/0113: 45.72 Monday In'u of state SANTA ROSA WALNUT 5/15/01 17:1 ues y injury roadsi e ' NIPOMO Pismo5/23/0 t' S 23/017:3 2 e es ay Injuryi ee ss wmi p e CRANDALL F Tu ainjury e.smnpe SAN LUIS LIF R /0 36 ­717.64Z4 urs ay 'WEST n!u Broadside EL ME MADONNA 14 Thursday . n u roa si e SANTA A L 62 1 5 nay R n u Broadside –TV-5 Mondaynlu a swrpeNTA R 7/9/01 R 600 1 nay T nuryBroadside 1 7121.5408 Injury GU HI 7/20/01 1237nluOther Coll ORR MA 1 B: 14 n E HIND 3/01 : MondayNORTHHitd /261 14Thursday U Injury Side smnpe 27 30 InuOther o FIIGUERA HIGH 1/01 1150 30 nu do ld ROUNDHOUSESANTA BARBARA . 83 :0 1856:388 Monday nuBroadside M NTEREPP T nu Other o 5 n–esdav ANTA R Y 8 one roa seM RO 90 27.432 Fr nupe ORCUTT CMILLA 56: 4Injury ter o ISISMO BU H N 9/5/01 163 nu Side smnpe BROADAE 9161 10:2 19 .9 un a Injury i e.svnpe GRAND WILSON 9/ 21: 19 216 nay nluit o ld RA : Saturday Broadside Saturday ideH sw 010 HIGHLAND FEL MAR 93010 :42 48.768 SundaySOUTH Other o 44 WednesdayE verume C O 10 104e SOUTH ME09——Mn 67U 7TO-0 46 14.0208 Tues a Injury roa si e BROAD I 10/17/01 13:00 1-37 41.7576 Wednesdaynlury i Headon S11757011 15:09 on a n ury roa si e DRUOTrFE 1/14 01 16:2 We nes ay Injury Broa si e tBROAD 1111810119:10 40 un ay Injury I Hit otiject HlrjUt:KAa ur ay injury _1_ a swipe 76 1 a►PPM61X 8 2001 Police Department Traffic Safety Unit Operations Report 1 1 1 1 1 500 City of San Luis Obispo 0D NOPolice Department 1 2001 Operations Report — 1042 Walnut SLO, CA 93401 ' Traffic Safe Unit (805) 781-7317 "Service.Pride, Integrity" TO: Chief James Gardiner 1 VIA: Captain Dan Blanke FROM: Sergeant Rocky Miller DATE: January 8,2002 2001 SUMMARY ' The Traffic Safety Unit had an exciting and difficult year. The Traffic Safety Unit remains committed to reducing fatal and injury traffic collisions. Activities designed to meet the goals and objectives of the traffic safety grant received in 2000 were implemented as listed in this report. The City of San Luis Obispo continued to annex property at a rapid pace. Annexation of additional property along the southern extension of Broad St.to the airport and in the Froom Ranch area along Los Osos Valley Rd. was completed. The Los Osos Valley Rd.widening project is still in progress along with repairs to the Foothill Blvd Bridge across Stenner Creek. Special Events, Educational and Safety Programs were a large portion of the unit's activities in 2001. The most significant events continued to be Mardi gas, the Christmas Parade, First Night, Wheels of SLO Car-Show, the Bicycle Safety Rodeo, and School Bicycle Safety Presentations. Selective enforcement activities were a daily focus as collision rates remained at high levels. Traffic officers and the Patrol Division have identified and committed to achieving specific traffic goals. TRAFFIC UNIT PERSONNEL Traffic Unit personnel consist of Officers Craig Dye;John Mullin, Tom Owen,1 Keith Storton,and Mark Williams. Sergeant Rocky Miller continued to supervise the unit. Officer Williams joined the team in April as Officer Jim Leong rotated back to the Patrol Division. ' Officer Williams was seriously injured in an on-duty motorcycle collision on July 11, 2001. As a result of his injuries he is rehabilitating at home and will not return to motorcycle duty. In ' August, Officer's Mullin and Dye went on injured-on-duty status as a result of job related ' 1 1 injuries. Mullin was injured in a training accident in September 2000. Officer Dye was injured ' in August while making an enforcement stop. 1 The OTS traffic safety grant paid one hundred percent of two motor officers salaries during the first year of the grant. Second year funding from OTS that began in October will pay fifty ' percent of officer salaries for the 2001-2002-grant year. Officer John Bledsoe and Sgt. Steve Tolley replaced Officer Storton and Sgt. Miller at the end of , December as part of the normal duty rotation cycle. Officer Gary Nemeth will replace Officer Williams upon completion of motorcycle update training. Both Officer Nemeth and Sgt. Tolley have previous experience in the Traffic Safety Unit. ' PROGRAMS OTS Grant The Traffic Safety Unit is operating in the second year of its Traffic Safety Grant that was originally approved in June 1999. The grant,totaling$383,000, funded two motorcycle officers, two motorcycles, new speed detection equipment, collision investigation equipment, a DUI 1 trailer, a new radar trailer,computers,video and audio equipment,educational materials, and promotional items. The grant will expire on September 30, 2002. The overall grant goals are to reduce fatal and injury collisions and improve department enforcement efforts and education programs. In December, the police department, Sgt. Rocky Miller, and Management.Assistant Kathe Bishop were recognized by the California Office of Traffic Safety for their work in preparing, administering, and reporting the progress of the traffic safety grant. San Luis Obispo Traffic Committee An alliance of public works and public safety personnel to more effectively deal with the traffic ' safety issues facing the city. The Traffic Committee meets on a monthly basis. Specific issues addressed this year include: construction along Los Osos Valley Rd.,right-of-way and left turn problems along Santa Rosa,the Stenner Creek culvert and heavy vehicle problem, speed surveys 1 and speed enforcement issues, high collision locations, and re-paving projects. Safe Communities Coalition A countywide coalition of public safety, health professionals, an insurance representative, and a member from the Latino community was organized during 2000. The coalition disbanded in June 2001 when further grant funding was not awarded. The mission of the coalition was to identify safety issues that the coalition could improve upon for the betterment of the entire county. The coalition was sponsored through a grant from the California Office of Traffic Safety. 1 1 2 1 1 - 1 In early 2001,the coalition submitted a grant application to OTS requesting funding for a DUI t Checkpoint Taskforce that would be staffed by representatives of all local law enforcement organizations. The coalition also requested funding to expand the countywide Child Safety Seat Inspection program. Requested funding would have covered training costs for additional inspection technicians. Unfortunately, the grant was not accepted for funding. DUI Enforcement and Education A major objective of the Traffic Safety grant is the increase in DUI enforcement. Officers arrested 392 drunk drivers during the year. This total was a decrease of 20% from last year's total of 487 drunk drivers arrested. Members of the Traffic Safety Unit continue to speak to groups including drunk drivers attending the court ordered"First Offender"program. SLOCOPS — Avoid the 13 The Traffic Safety Unit participated in the annual holiday season drunk driver reduction program 1 known as"SLOCOPS. This program is designed to place extra,uniformed officers working DUI on the road during peak hours on weekend evenings when the casual drinker may have attended 1 holiday parties and subsequently consumed too much alcohol to safely drive home. Normal funding from an OTS grant was not received this year.The department participated by paying overtime for one officer to work DUI enforcement on the busy weekend nights. Local officers ' arrested 33 drunk drivers between November 29 and December 31. This arrest total was a decrease of 51%over the 2000 total of 68 DUI drivers when we placed 4 officers on DUI patrol over the same time period. ' DUI Task Force The Traffic Safety Unit is a member of the countywide DUI Task Force. The task force sponsors programs throughout the county to educate people about DUI. Membership includes all law enforcement agencies, County Drug and Alcohol Services, and Mothers Against Drunk Drivers. t DUI Checkpoints The Traffic Safety Unit conducted 5 DUI Checkpoints during the past year resulting in 35 DUI t arrests. These checkpoints were funded by the OTS Traffic Safety grant. The grant included money for overtime,equipment, and promotional materials. Officer Dye prepared a DUI Checkpoint pamphlet detailing current DUI and seatbelt laws. While the purpose of the random ' checkpoints is deterrence through education there has been an unexpected level of enforcement success. To date,more than 4,700 motorists have passed through the checkpoints. ' Vehicle Impound Program As a requirement of the OTS Traffic Safety grant the department initiated a program targeting drivers that have never been licensed or drivers with suspended licenses. Drivers operating their ' vehicles illegally will have their vehicles impounded for 30 days per authority of the vehicle code. The release of the vehicle occurs after the owner pays a"vehicle release fee"that is deposited into the"Traffic Offender Fund", a revenue account required by the OTS grant. This 1 3 f 1 fund is for the express use of the Traffic Safety Unit and its efforts at reducing fatal and injury collisions. ' The program provides funds for such traffic enforcement items as radar and laser speed detection equipment, DUI/DL checkpoints, and overtime. None of the revenue has been spent to date. The total revenue generated through this program since the beginning of the grant exceeds$26,000. Officers impounded 117 vehicles during 2001. Bicycle Safety Rodeo ' The Bicycle Safety Rodeo was presented for the fourth year as a collaborative effort between city staff including police,parks and recreation personnel, and the SLO Bike Club. Officer Keith Storton continued to organize the event that included safety inspections, a rider awareness course, promotional materials, and a skills demonstration at Madonna Plaza. More than 160 juvenile bicyclists attended the event. ' Bicycle Safety — Elementary School Program Bicycle safety is an important focus of Traffic Team educational efforts as the unit redesigned and presented a safety presentation to the elementary schools in the city. This year's presentation consisted of a stunt team presentation by the"Wheels of Freestyle" demonstration team from San Diego along with a helmet and safety discussion by members of the traffic unit. More than 2,800 elementary school children viewed the training. School administrators and teachers were very excited over the presentations and the student's response. This program took innovative steps to attract and keep the attention of the young audience. This year we were very fortunate to be able to present the bicycle demonstration to several large crowds at Farmer's Market on October 4 as well. Bicycle Safety — Junior High School Program Older students attending the junior high school are an important focus of traffic safety efforts. These students will soon be obtaining drivers permits. They are ready to learn the rules of the road and the Traffic Safety Unit presented a special bicycle safety program with the "Wheels of Freestyle"demonstration team. Eight hundred and forty students listened as the bicyclists demonstrated their skills while mixing in the important message of safe riding and following the rules. 1 Bicycle Helmet Protection and Distribution ' The police department purchased 200 bicycle helmets with OTS grant funds in September. Many of these helmets were distributed during December through collaborative efforts involving community-based organizations such as KSBY Television, San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's ' Department Christmas Bicycle Giveaway,the Salvation Army,the Housing Authority of the City of San Luis Obispo(countywide distribution), Grass Roots of SLO, Head Start of Paso Robles and Sunnyside, Boys and Girls Clubs of Oceano and Paso Robles, and service organizations including Atascadero Moose, Bay-Osos Kiwanis, and the Santa Margarita Lions club. 4 1 The police department issued 48 bicycle helmet citations to children under the age of 18 years. This was a 109%increase over last year's 23 helmet citations. The court generally dismisses these citations after the youth appears in court with a helmet and agrees to wear it. The enforcement effort seems to be very effective as few children are found operating their bicycles without helmets and almost all bicycle collisions involve people over the age of 18. Occupant Protection — Seat Belt Enforcement The Traffic Safety unit encourages vigorous enforcement of seat belt violations. The department participated in the nationwide seatbelt campaign"Operation ABC—America Buckles Up ' Children"during the Memorial Day and Thanksgiving holidays.News articles were presented on local television stations and in the newspaper. In addition, the department promoted the"Click It—Or Ticket" enforcement campaign to get people to buckle up throughout ' the month of November by handing out promotional pens with the department logo and campaign slogan as a reminder. Total seatbelt citations issued this year were 1,134 (21%)of 5,404 total hazardous citations. Occupant Protection — Child Safety Seat Inspections Officers Gary Nemeth, Tom Owen, and Field Service Technician John Caudill attended the 32- hour Child Passenger Safety Seat Inspection technician training in October. They join Officer Jim Leong as certified child safety seat inspection technicians.This training will allow the police ' department to become an inspection site. The new officers completed two inspection days in San Luis Obispo and Atascadero to inspect a total of 100 child safety seats in October and November. These inspections are collaborative inspection efforts sponsored by the San Luis ' Obispo County Public Health Department, Stanley Motors,the California Highway Patrol, and French Hospital among others. Media Relations The Traffic Safety Unit provides news releases and interviews to the media concerning ' upcoming traffic related events and campaigns. Safety messages are also contained within the Neighborhood Services Media campaign. KSBY television broadcasts the early morning PSA "KSBY On Patrol"that keeps citizens aware of the selective enforcement locations officers will ' concentrate their efforts during the day and what specific driving violations officers will be watching for. KSBY television combined with the Traffic Safety Unit to produce a public service announcement about bicycle helmet use. The PSA featured Jana Black, a junior high student who was cited for not wearing a bicycle helmet. Within two months she was riding her bike when she ' ran into a car. Fortunately she was wearing her helmet. This PSA has been replayed on KSBY for months since its original broadcast in April. American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) — "55 Alive" Officer Storton continued to speak before the senior citizen segment of the community during the 1 "55 Alive"-driver education/improvement program. ' 5 SPECIAL EVENTS Mardi Gras ' Mardi Gras was the biggest event of the year. The Traffic Unit spent many hours assisting the patrol division in planning and training for the event. The event included a festival in Mission Plaza,the Mardi Gras Ball at the Vet's Hall, and the Mardi gras parade along Marsh Street that. was attended by an estimated 18,000 people. The parade was held on Fat Tuesday in an attempt to safely control the event with less out-of-county visitors in attendance. Event attendance was more than ever with rowdy crowds overflowing into the streets. There was one pedestrian related 1 collision that occurred after the event as a result of intoxication and overcrowding. Wheels of SLO Car Show This event occurs each August. Sponsored by the Downtown Association,the downtown merchants invited car show enthusiasts to present the"Wheels Of SLO"car show. This event ' attracted 10,000 people. It showcased some 250 cars, trucks, and motorcycles. The event is planned again for summer, 2002. City to Sea Half Marathon t The ultimate running event presented by a private organization; the"City To Sea"Half Marathon benefits Cuesta College athletics. The event begins at the intersection of Higuera and Morro ' Streets and finishes at Avila Beach. Due to the popularity of this event lane closures are required as runners proceed along Higuera St. past the Los Osos Valley Rd. intersection. Annual Christmas Parade The Downtown Association presented the Annual Christmas Parade on December 7th. Christine 1 Bragg coordinated the event with help from a handful of well-known associates including Mardi gras parade organizer, Pete Dorn. It had the best attendance of any event besides Mardi gras. The Traffic Safety Unit coordinates street closures and traffic control for the event. ' "First Night" New Year's Eve Celebration The First Night Celebration successfully returned for its fourth year. The event is presented as t an alcohol free event with a variety of fine arts venues for families. Attendance was very good as event coordinators estimated the crowd exceeded 10,000. 1 Other Events The Traffic Unit continued to assist in other events such as the city sponsored triathlon, Cal Poly ' Week of Welcome, summertime "Concerts in the Plaza",the Cal Poly Homecoming parade,the San Luis Obispo High School Homecoming parade, Dare's Red Ribbon Week ceremonies,and the Hospice Fun Run. ' 6 ' 1 2001 STATISTICS 1 COLLISIONS 1 Collision Type 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 0/oChange Fatal . 0 0 2 3 1 2 2 1 -50% 1 Injury 275 265 273 285 . 192 195 280 278 =1% Non-Injury 1,038 1,055 1,094 1,163 981 990 925 981 +6% 1 Total 1,313 1,320 1,369 1,451 .1,174 1,187 1,207 1,260 +4% Bicycle collisions 68 48 41 59 43 36 36 42 +17% 1 Pedestrian Involved 34 30 24 26 18 28 29 25 -14% 1 TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT 1 Citation Type 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 %Change Non-Hazardous 2,021 2,718 2,590 4,002 2;335 2,635 2,335 2,049 -12% Hazardous 3,175 2,917 3,116 3,081 3,153 3,480 4,526 5,191 +15% 1 Total 5,196 5,730 5,706 -7,083 5,478 6,115 6,861 7,240 +6% 1 DUI ENFORCEMENT 1 DUI 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 %Change Enforcement DUI Arrests 450 431 406 367 . 393 450 487 392 -20% SLOCops 61 46 50 43 . 56 43 68 33 -51% DUI Collisions 34 51 36 37 38 31 47 49 +4% COST RECOVERY 1 DUI Cost Recovery Billed Received %Recovered 1 2001 $18,761. $5,667.* 2000 $17;374. $5,640. 32% 1999 $7,448. $3,226. 43% ' 1998 $12,295. $4,751 39% ' 7 * Six month total ' TOP 10 COLLISION LOCATIONS 2001 RANK LOCATION Number of Collisions 1 Santa Rosa at Foothill 32 2 Los Osos Valley at Madonna 22 ' 3 Foothill at California 17 4 Santa Rosa at Oak 15 5 Santa Rosa at Montalban 14 1 6 Santa Rosa at Monterey 13 7 Marsh at Osos 13 8 Marsh at Higuera 13 9 South at Beebee 13 10 El Mercado at Madonna 13 2000 RANK LOCATION Number of Collisions t I Santa Rosa at Foothill 34 2 Foothill at California 21 1 3 Santa Rosa at Murray 17 4 Higuera at Nipomo 17 5 Santa Rosa at Marsh 16 6 Broad at Tank Farm 16 7 Santa Rosa at Olive St 15 8 Santa Rosa at Monterey 12 9 Broad at Orcutt 12 10 Los Osos Valley at Madonna 11 injury Collisions 2001 Number of Collisions Cause % of total 73 Failure to Yield 26 70 Unsafe Speed 25 26 Other Improper Driving* 9 23 Improper Turns 8 17 Following too close 5 15 Stop Signs/Lights 5 12 DUI 4 ' * Includes unsafe backing,starting, lane changes, entering traffic. 8 ' In' Collisions 2000 ' Number of Collisions Cause % of total 72 Failure to Yield 26 59 Unsafe Speed 21 ' 22 Stop Signs/Lights 8 21 Improper Turns 7 16 DUI 6 ' 14 Following too close 5 COLLISIONS IN COMMUTER CORRIDORS 2001 RANK LOCATION Number of Collisions 1 Santa Rosa(Foothill - Olive) 132 2 S. Higuera (City limits—Marsh) 87 3 Madonna(LOVR- Higuera) 57 4 California(Foothill -Hwy 10 1) 35 T/C's 51 ' (Hwy 101 - San Luis Dr.) 16 T/C's 5 Foothill (Santa Rosa- City Limits) 45 6 LOVR(City Limits- Higuera) 43 7 Johnson (Orcutt-Marsh) 38 8 Broad (City Limits - South St.) 31 9 Monterey(California- Hwy 10 1) 21 ' 10 Foothill (Santa Rosa- California) 9* * Does not include intersection of Foothill @ Santa Rosa TRAFFIC INDEX - 19.6 The traffic index,the ratio of hazardous citations issued divided by the number of injury& fatal collisions,is a gauge of how effective a traffic safety program is. OTS considers an enforcement index of 25 to be the minimum effective rate. In cities where there is high tourism the rate is expected to be between 25-35 as tourists are not aware of traffic issues and problem areas and are therefore more likely to commit violations. The current traffic index for the city of San Luis ' Obispo is 19.6 - Computed by dividing the 5,404 hazardous citations issued by 276 injury& fatal collisions that occurred in 2001. t An increase in education and enforcement efforts are necessary to reduce collisions. These efforts are hampered by the manpower shortage caused by injuries and job openings or new personnel in training. Last year enforcement efforts were very strong through the first nine ' months.Injuries after July I'led to a significant reduction in enforcement efforts. Fewer available officers were required to handle a larger share of the workload. The result: less time for random enforcement activities. ' 9 1 REVIEW OF GOALS FOR 2001 Goals and objectives were a focal point for much of the year. Injuries to Patrol and Traffic Unit ' personnel mounted as the year progressed causing significant manpower shortages. These shortages resulted in an overall drop in productivity. The manpower shortage in the Traffic Unit resulted in a 22% drop in manpower hours. 1. Goal -Reduce collisions at the top 10 collision locations and commuter corridors by 10 %. Results were mixed. Refer to the chart. 1 2. Goal -Reduce fatal and injury collisions from 282 to the 1999 total of 197 or less. Fatal and injury collisions totaled.279 in 2001, a 1% decrease. The 1999 base year total of 197 was an ' unusual year. The average number of fatal and injury collisions from 1994 through 1997 was 275 per year. Our total in 2001 is holding steady with our collision history. 3. Increase DUI enforcement by 10% from 487 to 535 DUI arrests. DUI arrests totaled 392,a decrease of 20%. Decreased available manpower led to less time available to patrol for 1 DUI's. There was no SLOCOPS funding this year for saturation patrols from the Thanksgiving weekend through New Year's Day. There was only a single officer assigned to ' DUI patrol on an department overtime basis during the holiday season. 4. Increase hazardous violation enforcement efforts by 10%to 4,978 citations. Hazardous citations totaled 5,191, an increase of 15%. The increase was a result of early year activity ' before losing many of the officers to injury. 5. Increase the Traffic Index from 16.to 25.The Traffic Index was 18.6. 6. Increase bicycle safety presentations to 15 per year. The Traffic Team conducted 21 bicycle ' safety presentations. 7. Increase bicycle helmet enforcement by 100% from 23 citations to 46 citations minimum. Bicycle helmet citations totaled 48. ' 8. Coordinate the implementation and meet the goals set forth in the Traffic Safety Grant. Performance objectives including the number of DUI Checkpoints,radar trailer deployments, child passenger safety seat checkpoints, bicycle safety rodeos and presentations were met. Significant reduction of fatal and injury collisions, DUI collisions, and speed related fatal and injury collisions were not met. 9. Continue the DUI Checkpoint program with 6 checkpoints per year minimum. Five DUI Checkpoints were conducted during the 2001 calendar year. 10. Initiate the program"Teaching Your Teen to Drive" at the high school to improve the quality of parental instruction to teenagers learning to drive.Not yet initiated. ' 11. Apply for a CHP grant to produce the DUI program "Every 15 Minutes"to the high school. Goal to be addressed in 2002. 12. Maintain and build upon the alliance with the Traffic Engineering Department to maximize the efforts to make traffic safety and collision reduction a top priority in San Luis Obispo. Exchange of information and input was improved in comparison to pre-alliance conditions. Meetings were not held on a monthly basis. ' 13. Increase news media releases to announce traffic enforcement activities&programs. News media coverage of programs and events has been very good. ' 10 GOALS FOR 2002 1. Reduce collisions at the top 10 collision locations and commuter corridors by 10 2. Reduce fatal and injury collisions from 279 to the 1999 total of 197 or less. 3. Increase DUI enforcement by 10%from 487 to 535 DUI arrests. 4. Increase hazardous violation enforcement efforts by 10%to 5,700 citations. 1 5. Increase the Traffic Index from 18. to 25. 6. Increase bicycle safety presentations to 25 per year. 7. Increase bicycle helmet enforcement by 50%from 48 citations to 72 citations minimum. 8. Coordinate the implementation and meet the goals set forth in the Traffic Safety Grant. 9. Continue the DUI Checkpoint program with 6 checkpoints per year minimum. 10. Initiate the program "Teaching Your Teen to Drive"at the highschool to improve the quality of parental instruction to teenagers learning to drive. 11. Apply for a CHP grant to produce the DUI program"Every 15 Minutes"to the high school. 12. Maintain and build upon the alliance with the Traffic Engineering Department to maximize the efforts to make traffic safety and collision reduction a top priority in San Luis Obispo. , 13. Increase news media releases to announce traffic enforcement activities&programs. i 11 � HODIN Russell Hodin ',.���:,- �l"� '� ,�/�!��"�;��� T,k�,�;�; •- fes:,► � `� I / TIZENS FO•, 4AFE ACCESS -� � � IAL SERVICES S SAFE MILIEUS S,�Q.LCiJ 9:3`l�0 Orcatt Road #69 SLO CA 93401 sys- y'fq tkllZl J - A, a:ceao L flAl u rlUz� L.°4xa,a-naL � ,viv CAjh�� aO V r-nd4t, cS 4N -5-3 � ouv � have "G�u�irera� dco,�Qc,oC�t�„�� god- vju day ,�. vt:a'a� •44-4-na-ox-1 J amOL-) • : DUCAT10�/ : • N Fo 9 G,EMF....•UT : •�-NG !Afl E 11 JVCQ OUR_Q�M�tip5 eDG5TR1 A/ � NLl 1VEM -'lVT'- ►. �0�2.a.�.�- aCa�E O�ru..tt aua� X6000 canes, -pn: kV / �yh �ensi-fyl ,Ot�u"ay pp�, kd�,�r S; at OiLCuffOYasu/;¢.Q. C4,! %�ofo� YS.��tr!lio�u Cosfs *Oct) Ca . p.30M. M. C SeeecZ,, Zh f»rccMCnrnodu'nq S Y ' CiL� eodiooe-� .3 -6-�?,o 37 3atiirw ,EDucA-roA) — F�N-62'Comeni —Au.MM(sti CVGl*, FE1el'V6 5 L k : -P_hofo s 0- .=ham so ,+y Vio I ctr'xul,, fo+c:sTa» �a,�•P� '� '�'afos � �.�,'��oc� 4.�Q4�U2tx.E�. m,s. T�F.c� SJOW I I DANGEROUS BY DESIGN PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IN CALIFORNIA SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT SEPTEMBER 2000 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Pedestrian accidents are a significant public health problem in California and are one of the leading causes of fatal and hospitalized injuries for children statewide.Pedestrian fatalities alone accounted for nearly 20 percent of all traffic-related deaths in the state, even though only eight percent of all trips are made on foot. The number of pedestrians killed as a percentage of total traffic fatalities ranged as high as 26 percent in Sacramento County, 30 percent in Los Angeles County, and 54 percent in San Francisco County (Table 2). According to an analysis of 1999 data,pedestrian accidents cost California nearly$4 billion in lost economic productivity,medical expenses and pain and suffering (Table 6).Yet Califomia spends less tha�ne.percenLof ;Y; ?� its federal transportation funds on;pedestn�afe less than any other state in the a&,. Ironically, the most visible effort statewide related to pedestrians has been the highly controversial removal of crosswalks under the guise of improved safety. THE PROBLEM An analysis of statewide data collected by the,Department of Califomia Highway Patrol shows that in 1999, at leas688 pedestrians ted and another 14 346 we_uredlon Catifomia's streets: Los Angeles County experienced by far the greatest number of pedestrian fatalities and injuries—203 pedestrian deaths and 5,377 injuries represent more than a third of all pedestrian fatalities and injuries in the state.But Los Angeles is also California's most populous county,and if the rankings are adjusted to reflect population,San Francisco ranks as L6`9J r person the highest incidence of pedestrian fatarities and deaths.However,mole people wal c m Francisco than in any other California city because them is a miz o residential,retail and other land uses within ' walking distance,population and development patterns are dense,andnt.Therefore, 4/� any real measure of the relative danger facing pedestrians must factor in the amount of walking,or°exposure,° that occurs in each location. These factors are a!incorporated in a' edestrian danger index, arrived at by dividing the number of fatalities and injuries in each county by population,and then nrn mg that number by the county's'exposure index,'or overall levels of pedestrian activity.This number is then adjusted to a relative scale from 1 to 100,with 100 being the most dangerous. Using the pedestrian danger index,Sacramento County ranks as the most dangerous county for pedestrians in Cafifomia in 1999,followed by Contra Costa, Los Angeles,Santa Clara and San Mateo(Table 1).This is the first time Sacramento County has ranked most dangerous since our survey began in 1996.Ventura County ranks in the top 10 for the first.time since 1996,.and San Francisco,San Joaquin and Tulare counties all climbed in the rankings.While Los Angeles County dropped from first to third,the number of fatalities actually increased from 200 to 203, and the drop in the rankings had more to do with the fact that the number of fatalities increased more sharply in other counties.The ranking shows that counties in Southern California,the Silicon Valley and the Central Valley are among the most dangerous in the state. As alarming as these figures are they may not fully measure the danger to pedestrians because it's been estimated that injuries are underreported by as much-as 56 percent Police often do not report collisions that result in emergency room treatment but not hospitalization,and don't report collisions that occur on private property, or in alleys or driveways.These are the locations when:many accidents involving the youngest children occur. It is important to note that pedestrian injuries account for two-thirds of all severe traffic-related injuries among children, and that the probability of a child d in eco�g-seYeLe_I-disabled all other causes of childhood illness.The elderly are also two to four times more likely to die when struck. Nal As with automobile fatalities, the total number of pedestrian deaths has dropped slightly in the last few years. However, while the amount of driving is increasing,statistics show that the amount of walking is declining. This may mean that while driving is getting safer;walking is getting more dangerous. he-sharp decline in walking ply has coincided with significant increases in obesity and inactivity among the general population.These trends — have so alarmed( ealth officials',that they ave joined with pedestrian advoraLe�in calling for policies and investments that make communities safer and more walkable. THE VICTIMS An analysis of the most recent statewide hospitalization data(a smaller but more detailed database that records race and ethnicity information)shows that Latinos and African Americans were more likely to be injured relative to their share of Californias overall population.While 30 percent of the population of California is Latino, 37 percent of all hospitalized pedestrian fatalities and injuries in 1998 were Latino.African Americans represented 7 percent of the state's population but accounted for 10 percent of all hoSDitafi7d+ fatalities and injuries(Table 3).Race and ethnicity data at the local.level in California p with Latinos and African Americans disproportionately represented as victims of pedes nearly every one of the state's most populous counties (Table 4). Prior research,supported here with a new analysis by the Latino Issues Forum, also st eopulations are more likely to be victims in pedestrian accidents.While 35 percent of at under the age of 65 were covered by Medi Cal,fust 11 percent of the general population covered by Medi-Cal.While the higher risk for low income populations has been docume...-v uuzens of studies conducted by health professionals here and abroad,this information has largely been absent from the public debate over pedestrian safety in Cal'rfomia. Further analysis reveals hospital charges alone topped$200 million for pedestrian victims in 1998,$23 mlfion of which was paid out of pocket But when factoring in lost economic productivity and pain and suffering,pedestrian fatalities and injuries are estimated to cost California nearly$4 bilion a year. Other studies show that pedestrian injuries and deaths,particularly among children,are correlated to income and several other socioeconomic factors including access to a car.Factors include unemployment,single-parent and especially female-headed households,young mothers, low levels of education,the number of times a family has moved, and the number of children in a household.More than one study found that lack of access to a car was associated with a doubling of the risk of injury,as a pedestrian. Limiting exposure b sirr I sta ' .inside,however,has grave implications for both health and wel eina.The vast majority of children already fall short of the recommended daily dose of activity,which can have a negative effect on both a child's physical and mental development Concerns have also been raised about the extent to which transportation policy and investments focused on improving travel by automobile have circumscribed the independence and mobility of both children and the elderly. t 1' THE RESPONSE For decades state and local governments have focused transportation policy and investments on accommodating more traffic by widening streets,increasing speed limits, removing crosswalks and enacting laws that ive vehicles the advantage-such as allowing right turns on a red light. Meantime rapid su urbanization has dramatically increased traffic and spread development patterns ever further apart so that stores, homes,schools and other destinations are no longer easily accessible on foot.The result has been deadly for pedestrians. Studies show that ttaff_ is speed and traffic volume are two of the environmental factors u'' Zj with the highesicorrelation to pedestrian injury and death.One of the more disturbing trends in California is the removal of crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections(intersections without a stop sign or traffic signal), a policy c that has left pedestrians to largely fend for themselves. Moreover, in order to provide a safe.environment for pedestrians, the basic infrastructure of sidewalks, paths and crosswalks must be provided.Yet an analysis of federal transportation funding shows that while California has the second highest share of pedestrian deaths compared to all traffic-related fatalitiesit ranks last among the 50 states in soendina on pedestrians While an average of$40 per person in federal transportation funds was spent on highway projects statewide, an average of just 4 cents per person was spent on improving conditions for pedestrians.Even though statewide roughly 20 percent of all traffic fatalities are pedestrians,less than one percent of all federal traffic safety money was spent on making the streets safer for pedestrians. Pedestrians,even if they are young children, are often found to be at fault in crashes,obscuring the fact that the real problem may be that laws favor motorists, that speed limits are set too high, or that there are a lack of crosswalks and safe places for children to play,The tendency to blame pedestrians creates the impression among policy makers and the public that nothing that can be done.As a result efforts to improve pedestrian safety are often limited to pedestrian education,even though numerous health studies conclude that education alone has rimited effectiveness,especially with children, and that modifications in street design and the lowering and enforcement of speed limits are also needed. SOLUTIONS The report also discusses how local and state policies across Cafifomia that have focused on accommodating more traffic have been deadly for pedestrians,and why a tendency to blame pedestrians for collisions has served to further hamper programs and policies that could potentially prevent thousands of additional injuries. In conclusion,new policies and investments are suggested that can make California's cities, towns and suburbs safe and walkable.The report's recommendations include: 1. Dedicate a fair share of traffic safety funding to pedestrians. Pedestrian accidents cost California nearly $4 bicron in 1999 alone,while spending on pedestrian safety measures is a mere fraction of that figure. If 20 percent of all traffic fatalities are pedestrians,it stands to reason that a similar amount of safety funding should be directed toward solving the problem. 2. Suspend California's crosswalk removal policy.The trend toward removing crosswalks due to the belief that they give pedestrians false sense of security is like removing traffic signals so that motorists will proceed with greater caution.State agencies need to do more for pedestrians,not less. California should develop a new minum design standard for crosswalks that includes"zebra"striping and overhead lighting or flashing signals. 3. Consider pedestrians during the design phase of every project.Communities must be designed so that people have a place to walk to,which means that shops,offices,schools, libraries and transit stops are located within reasonable walking distance.All facilities should be designed fore isabled and meet basic standards established in the Americans with Disabilities Act. .4. Collect more information on pedestrians.Existing databases provide little information about the amount of pedestrian activity in different locations, the risks associated with walking, the effectiveness of pedestrian safety measures,or even how much is spent on pedestrian safety.This lack of information makes pinpointing underlying problems and solutions difficult. 5. Develop a statewide blueprint for bicycling and walking. California needs a statewide vision and strategy for maximizing the benefits of bicycling and walking that includes goals and an action plan for all levels of government. This includes targeted strategies like Safe Routes to School programs,as well as an economic analysis of the potential benefits of bicycle tourism, regional trail systems and more pedestrian-oriented developments. .come Planning &' -timing Page 1 of 4 w fTATI 'An" Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.o s• 'Ii_ALrAF I : • r PLANNING & LEARNING i INSURANCE insurance & r preventi Y 1 life events I retirement I college small I calculators ' financial learning L 8r safet J &stages planning I planning businesses Search statefarm.com(D MMany crashes could be avoided with low-cost improvements State Farm Insurance,the nation's largest auto insurer, says about one-third of all crashes Powered by GoogleTM happen at intersections.And a significant number of them are deadly. The National Highway Find an agent by Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)counted 8,814 fatal crashes at or nearintersections in zip/postal code 1999—about.23 percent of all fatal crashes in the nation. r� What Types of Crashes Occur? 16adndvancedSearch Could the Intersection be at'Fault'? Vehicle&road safety What Can Be Done To Reduce Crashes? Do"Fixes"Work? Child passenger What Can Drivers Do? safety Dangerous What types of crashes occur? intersections What types of crashes occur at intersections? Home safety o "The rear-end collision seems to be the most common, probably because vehicles often Good Neighbor are required to stop at intersections. House o Side-impact or angle collisions, potentially serious. Natural disasters o Frontal collisions are probably the least common. Why do these crashes happen?A traditional way to answer this question is to ask,"What did the 940L— Free educational driver drivers)do to cause this crash?"From that viewpoint,there are many possible answers: Programs o R-ed-li rennin The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety(IIHS)says running red Business safety ig is and other gnal violations—such as disobeying yield and stop signs—is the most n'` x frequent cause of urban crashes.Violating traffic controls accounts for percent of all urban crashes and 27 percent of the injuries that result from them, according to the IIHS. Motorists are more likely to be hurt in crashes caused by red-light rum than in any other type o Overall, according to the IIHS, red-light running accounts for more than 200,000 injuries and more than 800 deaths per year: o Failure to yield.It may take the form of a driver attempting a left turn in the face of oncoming traffic, or perhaps trying to make a right turn on a red light when the way isn't clear. o Following too closely, or tailgating—a key factor in rear-end collisions. e Speeding, including trying to"beat"a red light by speeding up and hitting another car whose driver anticipated a green light. o Inattentiveness such,as talking on a cellular phone,tuning a radio or eating while driving, r simply being preoccupied and not paying enough attention to traffic. Occasionally,the car("My brakes failed")or external factors("I slid on the wet pavement"or"I was blinded by the sun's may be blamed for the crash. All of these are legitimate responses to the question of what caused the crash. But in many cases,they may not tell the whole story. Could the intersection be at'fault'? For example, let's take the left-turning driver who is broadsided by an oncoming car.The police report will say this crash was caused by the left-turning driver's"failure to yield he'll be judged at fault and may receive a ticket. But why did this crash happen? Suppose there is no left-tum signal at this intersection and the driver got tired of waiting for traffic to clear and decided to take a chance. T..1.. 17 1nr» Planning ming oJc Pe 2 of 4 � 7•aTE 1�i4nrn bay Or maybe there is a left-turn signal, but it doesn't stay green long enough for all the waiting drivers to make their turns. So one driver follows another into the intersection after the light has turned red. Or perhaps the line of.sight-a driver's field of vision-at the intersection is so fuzzy that the driver of the left-turning car couldn't see the oncoming vehicle in time to avoid the crash. In other words, something about the intersection itself may have contributed to the crash--and in most cases, something probably can be done about it. t Traffic engineering experts have estimated that be 30 percent and 60 ercent of all crashes !O coin dee prevented or made less sev hr road improvemen s-a key component in making i ersections mor ;friendly. at, Once a community has identified a hazardous intersection, a professional study often is needed () to determine exactly what's causing the crashes,what can be done to prevent them, and how U much the fixes would cost. The study begins with visits to the site to find out such things as why"near misses"occur; how much congestion exists and to what extent it delays getting through the intersection; and whether any signal timing or line-of-sight problems exist. Later, police reports for several years will be analyzed to see what times of the day, week and year crashes occur at the intersection; exactly where in the junction they happen; and how such factors as weather, pavement conditions and fighting maybe contributing to crashes. After analyzing this information,traffic engineers can determine what the problems are and propose solutions for each. Some problems—such as faulty signal timing—are relatively easy and inexpensive to solve. Others—the need to widen the intersection to add left-turn.lanes,for example—are more time-consuming and costly to fix.To help local officials decide which options to pursue,engineers can also forecast what kinds of crash and injury reductions can result from .improvements and how long it would take for funds spent on them to be offset by lower costs from fewer crashes. What can be done to reduce crashes? Solutions, of course,will vary with each intersection.The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)and State Farm recommend these measures that can be taken to reduce intersection crashes: • Better traffic-signal timing aimed at reducing unnecessary stops and preventing rear-end collisions.Also, brief red-in-all-directions signals would prevent some cross-traffic crashes. • Adding left-tum-only lanes and allowing left turns only when traffic from the opposite direction is stopped. • Improving the visibility of signals,such as by making them brighter, or larger,or installing an additional signal head. Giving pedestrians time to start across an intersection before turning vehicles are allowed r`Jil there, and more time to cross wide, busy roads. Ensuring that pedestrian facilities such as sidewalks,cross walks, edestrian signals, push-button activation of signals and letdown Ca ramps are available and opera mg �� U' • Removing signal lights at ons with a low traffic volume and replacing them with four-way stop signs roundabouts yield-at-entry traffic circles.This actually improves h(}� safety in many situations, si na-removal program in Philadelphia reduced crashes by an estimated 24 percent. • Where appropriate,converting two- a sto si ns to four-wa sto s. This has been shown to reduce eras es y percent to 60 percent and injury crashes 6y 50 percent to 80 percent. • Making more widespread use oroundabouts which slow down drivers and make some types of crashes less likely.A stu y y e INS and researchers at two universities a com® Planning &reaming Page 3 of 4 showed that roundabouts reduced overall intersection crashes 39 percent and injury- producing crashes 76 percent. • Use of"traffic calming."This term refers to a variety of measures designed to slow down vehicles, such ped bumps, rumble strips and the narrowing of streets(through on- street parking, plantings and wide si ewa s)to encourage drivers to go to other streets better able to handle a high traffic volume. • Ensuring that speed limits are appropriate for the street and neighborhood. • Installing skid-resistant pavement cuts down on'rear-end crashes, especially in rainy or snowy weather. • Improving lighting at intersections makes it easier for drivers to see all the traffic and rt I ,h 1reduces nighttime crashes. /1 o If running red lights is a significant factor, Red Light Cameras may be the answer. ��11UUJii)) Usually, a camera is mounted on a pole and wired to a traffic signal,with sensors buried in the intersection. If a vehicle crosses the sensors while the light is red,that triggers the camera,which produces a photo showing the car, its license plate,and the date and time of the violation. Police mail a ticket with the photo to the vehicle's owner. Several studies have shown that,these cameras, in use in at least several dozen cities, do reduce red-light violations.The INS says such violations dropped 42 percent in Oxnard, Calif.,and 44 percent in Fairfax,Va.,after red-light cameras were introduced. Injury crashed as Oxnard intersections with traffic signals declined 29 percent. In both cities,there was a spillover effect; violations and crashes dropped not only at intersections where the cameras were installed, but also at other junctions.A NHTSA pilot program reduced red-light running in 28 of 31 target communities. Based on preliminary results of programs in three areas,the Federal Highway Administration said photo radar should reduce red-light violations by 20 percent to 60 percent. A poll conducted for the Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety in 1998 showed that 65 percent of the public supports use of red-light cameras;this increased to 74 percent in a 1999 poll. However,only 12 states and the District of Columbia allow such cameras. The Advocates and other groups are promoting legislation that would permit red-light cameras in other states. State Farm supports this type of legislation. Solving the problem of driveways contributing to crashes because they are too dose to intersections.This can be done by consolidating driveways;closing them; moving them as far back from the intersection as possible; and planning future driveways to minimize interference with traffic flow at the intersection. Do "fixes"work? What happens when specific intersections are targeted for improvement?Do crashes actually drop?Two pioneering projects of this type indicate they do: • Three Detroit intersections were selected for upgrading in a project sponsored by AAA Michigan and Wayne State University. Fifteen months after the improvements were completed, crashes were down 39 percent to 48 percent—and injury crashes were reduced 34 percent to 70 percent. • An improvement program at six intersections in Vancouver—funded by the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia—reduced rear-end collisions up to 40 percent. State Farm wants to encourage a widespread expansion of this type of activity.That's why the company has a project aimed at making intersections safer and reducing the number of crashes, deaths and injuries that occur at them. It began in June 1999 with the announcement of the 10 most dangerous intersections in the United States,based on State Farm's 1998 claim data and the percentage of vehicles insured by the company in areas in which these intersections are located. State Farm offered up to 1100,000 for improvements at each of these r ' s. In addition,the c0mpanysaid it wou prowde up 0 0,000 for professional engineering studies of each intersection that made a"most dangerous"list in an individual state or province. httn://ww%v.statefarm.com/di/lowcost.htm Wednesday. July 17, 2002 TRANSPORTATION --tECH SHEET FOR THE NEw TRAFFIC CALMING URBANISM • Traffic calming is quickly becoming the common term for addressing a wide range of citizen concerns that traffic engineers have grappled with for years. It includes a large number of tools used to achieve several specific objectives, including slowing traffic speeds, reducing cut-through traffic and traffic- related noise, improving the aesthetics of the street, and increasing safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. In simple terms, traffic calming addresses a common con- cern expressed by residents: "Too many cars, going too fast past my house." Traffic calming techniques respond to issues like the blatant disregard for posted speed limits on residential streets; increased traffic due to ver: diverting o congested arterial streets through neighbor hoods; safety concerns associated with both the speed an. cut-through traffic issues; environmental impacts an noise associated with increased traffic speed and volume and the desire to improve the neighborhood quality of lif Curb extensions and crosswalks constructed of alter- Integrative Approach native materials improve the pedestrian environment The most successful approach to traffic calming integrates Traffic engineers and planners engineering, enforcement, education, and enhancement of the who have worked with neigh- borhood traffic issues over the streetscape years have learned the im or- x 3 tance of an.,tegrated a roach referred to as the "three Qg.s'-'-: gengin�eerni;ng, �orcement�and education More recently, it has ecome increasingly clear that effective tra imusaso mcg or enhancement of the streetscape. This includes design and landscaping features that not only improve the aesthetics an vability of aneighborhood but increase the effec- many of the devices.This is accomplished by creating visual breaks in the streetscape and reducing the ( � "raceway" ppearance of wide, residential streets. ` Most of the focus to date in traffic calming has been on the selection and design of various traffic calming tools. The implemgnta ' f these devices canj2eexpensive, often following a campaign of education and enforcement intended toi chane the behavior of motorists. Physical changes to the roadway, however, are generally more self= enfor__�inthan education and XaaaQflg enforcement efforts,and they may not require continued intervention. Because many of the concerns addressed through traffic calming rest with residents' perceptions, it is essenti that the devices enhance the neighborhood in addition tg dealin with the tra iicc issues. ch palming vice has appropnate app cations; addressing one or more of the objectives outlined above. Each, however, also has disadvantages or negative impacts. Very few devices are so effective and have so few negative aspects that residents are willing to accept those that do not enhance the neighborhood streetscape. Landscaped medians can effectively reduce the actual and perceived width of a street, thus reducing vehicle speed TRANSPORTATION TASK FORCE _q_ TRAFFIC CALMING (Cont'd) _ For example, speed humps are well suited for speed control but may negatively impact traffic noise. Therefore, if the residents are concerned with both speed and noise in the neighborhood, the installation of speed humps may not be the t" a _ ;.._ best choice. It is important to understand all of the issues associated with each r -1 tool to identify the most appropriate one for the circumstances. s_. f` Each agency or neighborhood TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICES organization should consider all of —` the aspects of each of these tools to Geometric changes '1� develop a toolbox appropriate for the area. In addition to simply Roadway narrowing understanding what tools are avail- able,however,agencies or organiza- Neckdowns/Chokers CD tions need to analyze traffic prob- U leets and residents'concerns, decide Medians what tools are appropriate, and One-lane sections determine how the various traffic calming techniques will be imple- Diverters mented. They should take into con- sideration funding availability, traf- Semi-diverters fic calming project priorities,poten- Closures tial impacts to emergency response, and design and installation guide- Semi-closures =- lines. Traffic circles Traffic calming should be addressed Roundabouts in a comprehensive program to ;m r ensure consistency among applica- Forced turns tions within a jurisdiction. m Extensive public involvement Speed humps should guide the design of projects Raised crossings 3 at the neighborhood level so that o traffic calming projects not only Curved alignment Z change the behavior of motorists but address local issues and enhance neighborhood livability. Sources: Trak Calming Primer, 1998,available from Pay Noyes and Associates(303)440-8171 Traffic Calming by Citizens Advocating Responsible Transportation, 1993 Civilized Streets:A Guide to Traffic Calming by Carmen Hass-Klau,et.al, 1992 Both publications above are available from Citizens for Sensible Transportation, Portland,OR(503)225-0003 -email/website: info@c sst.org/www.cfst.org m Y O L U Y U O m Pat Noyes CONGRESS FOR THE NEW URBANISM Production: Pat Noyes& Associates 5 Thud Street Suite 500A,San Francisco•California 94103 Fehr&Peers Associates 303 440-8171 Tel:414/495-2255 Fax:415/495-1731 cnuinfo®cnu.org www.=u.org Michael Kiesling i 1U date Liva Paces August 2001e5�r�ae• ts'in Community- pe sign i ®\ a er�ty ° ed !n ape 5 _asure can be:both inexpen- Re1at��g �mpa°t. craahe�,u effective, The key is to remember r to str�ar that walking and biking are also forms of �r;U y impede transportation. ' 1e it of Minnesota•122 GivE,5p0 PitlsbuN V ghlc �njVers v Surprising as it might sound, increasing h e mans of Galt Engin Nr55455. OIse )(speed of traffic on a road to rhore.than 30 1�epart Minneapotis.M `ton miles er_hour decreases the volume the r ad privesE. ..at Can and e.�According to the Transportation An ordered,discrete outcome model that relates the severity of injury suf- Research Board's 1985 Highw LCap Qty fered by a struck pedestrian to the speed of the striking vehicle is derived T, the capacity df 1` ne of vehicle and then fit to previously published data. Particular care is taken to traffic is at its rnaxii3iiim at about 30 MUh. As account for covariate measurement error and for the fact that the data ' speeds increase above 30 mnh,drivers in- were collected using an outcome-based,or retrospective,sampling plan. � crease the.Space between ars to allow for The results shoo'similar patterns for children(ages 0-14)and adults (ages 15-59).but for elderly pedestrians(ages 60+)trig injuries produced greater stopping distance., , in crashes that involved lower impact speeds tended to be more severe than kpeed-Flow Relationship for the other two groups.Use of the model is illustrated by applying it to two reconstructed vehicle-pedestrian crashes to determine the likely sever- ity of the injury had the driver adhered to a speed limit.Some implications' for speed limits on residential streets am also pointed out. 40 Maximum Volume 30-1' Maximum Vol., 25-30 Miles Per This paper,describes the development of a statistically sound model ' LOW 101.1 that relates the severity of injury suffered by a stuck pedestrian to the ' speed of the striking vehicle.To place this work in context,consider ' 0 200 400 600 800 IDG022002400 1600leGO2000 Tor exampe t atm linnesot the legislated s eed limit in urban Hourly Vehicles Per Lane vA areas is currently 50 km/h(30 mph),including most local residential streets lay law,Minnesota's commissioner of transportation has the Despite•the fact that newer versions Of the Tes�onsibility for approving d artures from the legislated limit;local . Highway Capacity Manual have increased authorities can request changes,with a decided preference beingiven g the most efficient speed to 40 MPH,ttoted to the 10 km/h(5 mph)increment closest to the current 85 percentile I speed,as determined by an h a propnately conducted spot speed stud transportation epgineer Walter Kulash says But a speed limit of 10 km/h(5 mph) the 85 percentile speedthe experience of local streets supports the may be considered if(a)there is a documented"high accident record 1985 version. involving accidents of a type that would be reduced by enforcement of a lower speed limit"and(G)the availability of reasonable enforce- : In addition, when traffic t9'slower, Reople are1 ment is assured(1).Several years ago there was informal consider- ation much of a 40 km/h(25 mph)limit in urban residential areas but this safer to be on or near a road wheie traffic is idea was dropped, in part because of difficulties in guaranteeing enforcement of the lower limit,and in part because of uncertainty con- not speeding.. t cering the potential safety benefits.A vigorous international debate is now,under way concerning the causal relationships between speed One way to reduce traf ' limits,vehicle speeds,and the risk of traffic crashes(2).On one hand y secede and increase there is evidence for widespread violation of posted speed limits(j) ' other forms Of travel maybe t0 reduce traffic coupled with an understandable reluctance b authorities to impose, lanes and add bike lanes. Success stories limits that cannot be enforced.On the other hand there is clea evidence supporting',this new way of thinking.are that once a crash occurs the severity of injuries suffered b e victim popping up all over the country.The City of is strongly influenced by the magnitu e o the resulting chan es i San Francisco has striped eight streets for Sneed.Less we un els oo are the connections etween speed lim- bike lanes. On one Of-these,Valencia Street, i is and actual vehicle speeds,and between actual speed and the risk four lanes were reduced to three, with�a bike """`, INCYV L�Li J • =,•b•LI•. .Y, u..... lane added in each direction and a left-turn London's Tower and Hammersmith bridges. ' lane. The result— the number of cyclists When these routes disappeared, so did 20 to increased by 88 peri nt,or 18�per hour,and' 60% of the cars. counts revealed the 2-lane streetwas han- In light of these facts, what's a poor transpor— tation planner to do? A new fact sheet writ- Other communities that have replaced traffic ten by the LGC for the Califomia Depart- lanes with bike lanes are the California cities ment of Health Services, New Thinking for a of Santa Barbara,Palo Alto, Sacramento, New Transportation Age, suggests an answer Mountain View, andn Sunyvale;Cambridge, —reduce road widths and slow traffic. Massachusetts; the Vancouver region of While this is admittedly counter British Co}umbia;West Palm Beach and -intuitive, Orlando, Florida;Seattle,Washiflgtyin;Port 10 Slow Your 2. More and Wider Roads Arterial to 30 Create More Traffic mph and Carry �/g Cars body or research to Ii e further from \ibQr�<., s��:'- More Cars Als dei nonsu'atlna tnat Anel exurban development buildirc, new and wider high- oressure and even more tragic. surprising as it might vs - -II; sound,increasing the ' act ' / creates more �,n FH�i�i;-`;-sponsored stud speed of traffic on a road vehicle tra is - above and / b \ �--Y iC)Uncl new road capacity that C10nG +/hat Ctrl be ��� ItiUteCl to more than 30 miles per to population growth. provided a 104% improvement hour (mph) decreases in travel time caused a 5% the volume the road can Researchers t,om the Fec!eral increase in driving.A recent handle. Highway Administration UC Berkeley study concluded The capacity of a lane of (FHV\/A) and UC Berkeley have that 90% of all new highway vehicle traffic is at its maxi- found that new road capacity capacity added to California's mum at about 30 mph, draws motorists from more metropolitan areas is filled according tot 30 mph, congested routes who are within four years,and 60% to tation Research Board's hoping to shave a fewminutes %04% of all neve county-level 1985 Highway Capacity off their commute. highway capacity is filled Manual. As speeds increase The new capacity also sparks within two years. above 30 mph,drivers in- new and longer trips.With The theory of induced demand crease the space between travel time reduced,motorists has existed for years, but many cars to allow for greater are now willing to drive further transportation agencies fail rn . stopping distance. to take advantage of a store consider it when they projE Despite the fact that newer with lower prices,or to try a the benefits of a road capa versions of the manual new restaurant.Some who expansion.Many studies h� have increased the most usually take transit or stay confirmed regions can't bu efficient speed to 40 mph, home rather than fight traffic, their way out of congestio noted transportation engi- take to the road. Promise of (See www.lgc.org for a list of neer Walter Kulash,says the road access allows commuters citations.) experience of local streets supports the 1985 version. Speed-flow chart from the 1985 Remove It and They Will Disappear Highway Capacity Manual. ®espite warnings of the traffic snarls that would erupt, several cities have seen between 20% and 60% of the traffic disappear when they removed a freeway or bridge: Examples include San Francisco's Embarcadero and Central freeways,Harbor Drive on Portland's waterfront, New York's West Side Highway,and London's Tower and HERE - ' Hammersmith bridges, and its beltway,the"ring road." �� O�'_��R London's diverse travel options.allowed 21% of the drivers who used Hammersmith Bridge to switch to other modes. .50 7 VEHICLE ACCIDENTS. i STATE unsafe stree�� ui town S ✓J t No. 6 amOng 101 cities w SirSan Luis Obispo rankedNo.6 for bad accidents among 101 California dties/moi -of a similar size in a 941 study,the most recent available. I - •o w Qrt. Dn�� e Santa Rosa Rd.at Marttafban St Fit y f E o G Johnson Ave.at®a St i f'� In June 1998.'a man was killed In a c� r three-ear'coffiAlOn ache attempted f In September a San Luis.Oblspo ` ��°r 9- ��;,., to erg[ Ie motorcycle officer irras '�' c by a. q' ear and thrown from hli rb i hlltk.. South St. �`` o �aQtr moo, L� Madonna Rd at E!Mer> t ' i.. • •� •- -..... . �-- top commuter corridors &o ■Top 10 collision locations I Santa Rosa St at Foothill Blvd. i`Y r7�r 1�Y1 rt Z Fists St t Oros S � Los Oros Valley lley Rd at Madonna Rd. f �"N+ Santa Rosa Rd at Murray St + Marsh St at Mono SL + Marsh Stat Charm St. Santa Rosa St at Palm St Santa Rosa SL at Montalban St The drive'of a ear was ttrit ?..'_• r `� R Santa Rosa SL at Monterey SL L Injured in a January 1999; ► �Q,(�f III Los Osm Valley Rd at Royal Way C accident:that flipped the elar. + `� .� .. r ... �. TRIBUNE ORAMC BY BETq ANDERSON .. souNCESTATE OFFXE OF TRAtTtCSArETv 1 Fatal,m two incidents over the has only added one 111since. •� POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL ATTEMPT last year. t San Isis Obi Rocky Mrp�the sergeant in TO GET TWO MORE TRAFFIC OFFICERS Obispo ranked No.6 charge of the San Kris Obispo for bad accidents among 101 Police Department's traffic divi- California cities of a similar size Sion,fust worked traffic detail in in a SAN Luis U u I S P o'. through its congestion—and availab le.e.T�iat eans that most ttthe nt fence now facet 978. He described his ng cur- through the city's other main streets in 95 other corn g �utgtng cur- through uNr Rrcrr thoroughfares—regardless of parable rent of traffic on the city's streets a 1 their mode of trap cities are safer to drive than San every day. •rNR'ritinNNn sport:drivers Luis Obispo's. It's overwhelming,"darting fram lane to lane,pedes In the crowing months,lire Po-. It's soh g,"he said. On any given day,Santa Rosa mans scuttling across sheets,br heavy that it's very diffi- Slreetcan seem like an artery in cyclists breezing ire department will attempt to cult to enforce traffic laws. It's need of bypass surgery. cY g past stop si91's get two more traffic officers. difficult to maneuver through without blinking. The traffic division started with Many try to hasten their ride The result? three officers back in 1977,and I'Icase see 1TtAFT'IC,A4 FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 2008 .� .� • C ;Top 10 worst cities(of Al 'similar size) for traffic collisions traffic.And when you do stop a car,you feet ayttleuns@febecause L Hollister there's so much traffic around. i The neat thing you know,some- 2.Coronado i one is rear-ended." 3 East Palo Alto j Miller described how Carifornia 4.Eureka j Sheet tm-ned into a bumper c 5.West Hollywood i rideTnesdayalterhestopped at a „ San WIs OW” }+z- 1 tumor two-car accident `It was just a simple,little coli T.Murietta :r(1 Sion.Iwas trying tointerview:and ELMadera a sorsa r plk• happened right n rw front of me,"he'said-'I had to 9.Azusa '0k ; claw off the 200 block of Cardor- 10.Beverly Hills ?On ma and thea there's another colli- Source rrom the Office of sion up on Hattrway and Califon Traffic Safety*s 1997 survey"? ma in reaction to the closure Mer tmal's of c{ties with populations won the City Ca4 approval Tuesday night to apply, between 25.000 and for a grant for the new officers- 50.000 people. , Thenimey if approved.will come a, from the.California Office before two traffic-related deaths Transportation List occurred in the city last year. 00 for three years.The city will MAJanis } earotd Tomm v in$115,800 to match the e in Ra was hit ,�ov i� $319,800 oter the granes ., a s��mz Iane ✓d0 O pear life The money wlQ 15'for salaries.po5ce motorcycles.bp. an 8 •old woman (J mP�s and other, n was struck vwlMd t and lolled by a city bus as she 3y the year 2002,the�y will, crossed the downtown intersec- take on all salary costs.at about• hon of Palm and Santa Rosa sheets. $1annuaft ��: Gardiner said the grant also If the grant is 21�t Napes to place the would allow other traffic safety P�efl programs,including four drunk new haft C9 the every byJ*Bp the end of theyear,the C�checkpoints nly conduct police intend to increase haz- one is coopers.. with the Ca ar dous traffic citations by 25 Per forma wghway ft oL cent the department also would 1 011ie a is that we reduce giva out 200 bicycle helmets accidents whell enforcement uk-- every year atsafety creasM.saidrmGarchief during the rife of the grant- of the San Ims Obiso Pam De, D a partment -reaching Your � ive Gardmer said the grant prePa- rations were already under way Program for parents. � 5.:.,�(us� �.•er✓r..Yr E'«;� 1%'1`x: .. �'y� r �c�Ar I 1 \ � L Arj lei •n �4: .� cr. ,` s� ..• ��__ -fit' �'�=�.