The URL can be used to link to this page

CC - Item 5D - Adopt Resolution No. 2022-50 Approval of the City of Rosemead Local Road Safety PlanROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL ,* STAFF REPORT TO: 1016luA DATE: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BEN KIM, CITY MANAGER 2? SEPTEMBER 13, 2022 SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2022-50, APPROVAL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN SUMMARY The Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a road safety planning document that provides a holistic analysis of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle crash data, and provides a roadmap for implementation of safety improvements. Beginning in 2022, Caltrans requires that all state, county, and local agencies complete an LRSP to be eligible to receive Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funds. Furthermore, Caltrans recommends cities have their LRSP approved by City Council through an adopted resolution. The HSIP grant funds are used for planning documents, preliminary engineering documents, and construction improvements to mitigate safety-related issues at intersections and roadways. In August 2022, staff completed the preparation of the LRSP in conformance with Federal and State standards. The preparation of the LRSP was funded with State Funds in the amount of $48,000, which also required a local match of $5,334, for a combined budget of $53,334. Staff is requesting the adoption of Resolution 2022-50, approving the LRSP for the City of Rosemead to improve eligibility for Federal and State grant opportunities. DISCUSSION As part of the City's FY 2021-22 mid -year amendments, the City Council authorized the execution of grant agreements and approval of funding for the development of the LRSP. The LRSP was completed in August of 2022 and provides a framework for identification, analysis, and prioritization of roadway safety improvements on local roads. The LRSP was developed using the process outlined by Caltrans to provide a systematic approach to providing safety improvements. The plan is data driven, using a comprehensive analysis of five years of collision data. The collision analysis provides various citywide collision statistics, such as collisions per year, collisions involving vehicles, pedestrians, bicycles, or property; types of injury collisions; and collision causes. The process results in a list of improvements and actions that address the areas of highest need, as supported by the data. The LRSP identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City's transportation network. The LRSP will guide the City to look at ways to set goals and measures that encourage a safe, well-connected transportation network for people using all modes of AGENDA ITEM 5.1) City Council Meeting September 13, 2022 Paee 2 of 2 transportation and prioritizes safe travel of people over expeditious travel of motor vehicles that will achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by the year 2050. To apply for the local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funds, an agency must have completed their Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) or an equivalent of the LRSP, such as Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) or Vision Zero Action Plan. Caltrans recommends that the LRSP (or its equivalent) and its update be approved by the agency's Board or Council. Staff is requesting the adoption of Resolution 2022-50, approving the LRSP for the City of Rosemead to improve eligibility for Federal and State grant opportunities. STAFF RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution 2022-50 to approve the City of Rosemead Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact in adopting the LRSP. The cost to implement recommendations in the LRSP depends upon the initiative, such as availability of grant funding, and whether the recommendation is an infrastructure or non -infrastructure treatment. The recommendations would be budgeted in future fiscal years for City Council consideration and approval. STRATEGIC PLAN IMPACT The Project is consistent with the City of Rosemead's Strategic Plan Goal C - Infrastructure and Facilities, which is to enhance streets, sidewalks, and public infrastructure; coordinate with relevant utility agencies regarding safety and enhancements; and modernize facilities by expanding the use of wireless network technology and renewable energy. PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process. Submitted by: %�icilc�ee [tut. y Michael Chung, P.E. Director of Public Works Attachment A: Resolution No. 22-50 Approval of Local Road Safety Plan Attachment B: Local Road Safety Plan Attachment A Resolution No. 2022-50 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, TO APPROVE THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) WHEREAS, a Local Road Safety Plan ("LRSP") is a road safety planning document that provides a holistic analysis of vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle crash data, and provides a roadmap for implementation of safety improvements; and; WHEREAS, it is required that all state, county, and local agencies complete an LRSP to be eligible to receive Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funds; and; WHEREAS, Caltrans encourages Cities to have their LRSP approved by City Council through an adopted resolution; and; WHEREAS, the LRSP was developed using the process outlined by Caltrans to provide a systematic approach to providing safety improvements and guide the City to look at ways to set goals and measures that encourage a safe, well-connected transportation network for people using all modes of transportation and prioritizes safe travel of people over expeditious travel of motor vehicles that will achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by the year 2050. THE ROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: The City Council hereby adopt and approve the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). SECTION 2: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 13' day of September, 2022. Sean Dang, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST: Rachel Richman, City Attorney Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS: CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) I, Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2022-50, was adopted by the Rosemead City Council at a duly noticed council meeting held on September 13, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Ericka Hernandez, City Clerk Attachment B Local Road Safety Plan Prepared by: Kimley>))Horn Expect More. Experience Better. Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) ExecutiveSummary ................................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction.......................................................................................................................................... 1 2. Vision and Goals................................................................................................................................. 2 3. Process...............................................................................................................................................3 3.1 Guiding Manuals............................................................................................................................3 3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual................................................................................................. 4 3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual........................................................................................................... 4 3.2 Analysis Techniques...................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.1 Collision Analysis..................................................................................................................... 5 3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis..................................................................................................... 6 3.3 Future Analysis.............................................................................................................................. 6 4. Safety Partners.................................................................................................................................... 7 4.1 Field Visit Meeting #1..................................................................................................................... 7 5. Existing Efforts..................................................................................................................................... 8 6. Data Summary ................................................................................................................................... 10 6.1 Roadway Network........................................................................................................................ 10 6.2 Count Data................................................................................................................................... 10 6.3 Collision Data............................................................................................................................... 10 7. Crash Safety Trends.......................................................................................................................... 14 7.1 All Collisions................................................................................................................................. 14 7.2 Fatalities......................................................................................................................................15 7.3 Injury Levels................................................................................................................................. 15 7.4 Cause of Collision........................................................................................................................ 16 7.5 Vulnerable Users.......................................................................................................................... 16 7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions.............................................................................................................16 7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions................................................................................................................... 17 7.6 Other Significant Trends......................................................................................................... 20 7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results........................................................................ 20 7.8 Statewide Comparison................................................................................................................. 28 8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas................................................................................. 29 8.1 Best Practices Evaluation............................................................................................................. 29 8.2 Emphasis Areas........................................................................................................................... 32 8.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) .................................... 33 Rosemead LRSP I Kimley*Horn Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 8.2.2 Emphasis Area #2: Aggressive Driving................................................................................... 34 8.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Aging Drivers(65+).................................................................................. 34 9. Countermeasure Toolbox................................................................................................................... 36 9.1 Infrastructure Improvements.........................................................................................................36 9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process.......................................................................................36 9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies................................................................................................... 37 9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox.............................................................................................. 58 10. Funding Sources & Next Steps........................................................................................................ 62 10.1 Funding......................................................................................................................................62 10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program................................................................................ 62 10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program............................................................................... 62 10.1.3 California SB 1..................................................................................................................... 63 10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants............................................................................... 63 10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program............................................................................ 64 10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program......................................................... 64 10.1.6 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act................................................................................. 64 10.2 Implementation Plan...................................................................................................................65 10.2.1 Monitoring............................................................................................................................65 10.2.2 Analysis Update................................................................................................................... 65 10.2.3 Implementation Strategies..............................................................................................65 10.3 Next Steps................................................................................................................................. 66 AppendixA — Analysis Rankings............................................................................................................ 67 Rosemead LRSP ii Kimley*Horn Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) I4l;�Ito] Ma[Cie]0*1 Figure 1 - Roadway Functional Classification................................................................... 11 Figure 2 -All Collisions (2017-2021).................................................................................. 12 Figure 3 - Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) ................................................. 13 Figure 4 - Collision Type by Year (2017-2021)................................................................... 14 Figure 5 - Collisions by Injury Levels (2017-2021)............................................................. 15 Figure 6 - Cause of Collisions (2017-2021)........................................................................ 16 Figure 7 - Pedestrian Collisions (2017-2021)..................................................................... 18 Figure 8 - Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021)........................................................................... 19 Figure 9 - Collision Network Screening Analysis Results: Intersection & Roadway Segments (2017-2021)........................................................................................................ 21 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 — Review of Existing City Plans............................................................................... 8 Table 2 - Fatal Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2017-2021) ............................ 15 Table 3 - Analysis Rankings: Intersections (Top 10 Per Type) .......................................... 24 Table 4 - Analysis Rankings: Segments (Top 10 Per Type) ............................................... 26 Table 5 - Comparison of Statewide and Rosemead Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes (2017- 2021)................................................................................................................................... 28 Table 6 - Summary of Opportunities for Best Practices .................................................... 29 Table 7 — General Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox ........................................... 59 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) The City of Rosemead Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies the most important traffic safety challenges in the City to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City's transportation network. The underlying analysis include type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high -crash locations, high-risk locations, as well as city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City's transportation network allows for opportunities to: Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 1. Improve safety at specific high -crash locations, and 2. Develop safety measures using the four E's of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes. With this LRSP, the City continues its safety efforts by identifying areas of emphasis and systemic recommendations to enhance safety. The City's vision is to enhance the transportation network and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes, and the goals for the City of Rosemead include the following: Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process. Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid - and long-term. Goal #4: Define safety projects for HSIP and other program funding consideration. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of crash data (January 1, 2017 — December 31, 2021) and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern. Further, the collision history was analyzed to identify locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their collision histories or their similarities to other locations with more active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations were identified within the City that will 5 -Year collisions Fatalities Serious Injuries Occurred at Signalized Intersections Occurred at Unsignalized Intersections Due to Agressive Driving mpairad Driving Involving Pedestrians & Bicyclists Source: Rosemead Collision Database (2017-2021) most likely benefit from safety City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final ES -1 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) enhancements. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were derived. The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non - infrastructure safety measures to address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis. Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) Emphasis Area #2: Aggressive Driving Emphasis Area #3: Aging Drivers (65+) The following 10 case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the City. 1. Signalized Intersection: San Gabriel Blvd and Garvey Ave 2. Signalized Intersection: Rosemead Blvd and Valley Blvd 3. Signalized Intersection: San Gabriel Blvd and Hellman Ave 4. Signalized Intersection: Rio Hondo Ave/Mission Dr and Valley Blvd 5. Unsignalized Intersection: Stingle Ave and Garvey Ave 6. Segment: Valley Blvd from Gold World Plaza Driveway to Hidden Pines PI 7. Segment: Valley Blvd from Rosemead Blvd to Hart Ave 8. Segment: Walnut Grove Ave from Garvey Ave to Dorothy St 9. Segment: Grand Ave from Ivar Ave to Rosemead Blvd 10. Signalized Intersection: Mission Dr and Walnut Grove Ave These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These opportunities were assembled into the "countermeasure toolbox" shown below. City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final ES -2 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox ID Potential apply? Crash Per Unit Unit Countermeasures Reduction Cost Factor NS03 Install signals Unsignalized intersections 30% $378,000 per with significant collision intersection activity where warrants are met NS06 Install/upgrade larger Areas identified in road sign 15% $8,400 per sign or additional stop safety audit signs/other intersections warning/regulatory sign NS07 Upgrade intersection Intersections where 25% $38,400 per pavement markings outdated or degraded intersection (NS.I.) striping and pavement markings exist NS15 Create directional Entrances/exits from 50% $324 per LF of a median openings to driveways with high 10' wide allow (and restrict) left numbers of turning median turns and U-turns movement collisions (NS.I.) NS21 PB Install/upgrade Midblock locations 1500+ 35% $45,600 per location pedestrian crossing at feet away from an existing uncontrolled locations signal with significant (with enhanced safety pedestrian demand where features) speed limit is less than 35 mph NS23PB Install Pedestrian Midblock locations 1500+ 55% $228,800 per Signal (including feet away from an existing intersection Pedestrian Hybrid signal with significant Beacon (HAWK)) pedestrian demand where speed limit is greater than 35 mph R08 Install raised median Higher speed, undivided 25% $324 per LF for a roadways with 4+ lanes 10' wide median City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final ES -3 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) ID Potential apply? Crash Per Unit Unit Countermeasures Reduction Cost Factor R11 Install acceleration/ Speed limit is greater than 25% varies varies deceleration lanes 45 mph and curb lane volume exceeds 500 vph during peak periods R14 Road Diet (Reduce Roadway segments with 30% $79,200 per mile travel lanes from 4 to high number of sideswipe 3 and add a two way collisions left -turn and bike lanes) R22 Install/Upgrade signs Locations with a history of 15% $2,400 per sign with new fluorescent head on and sideswipe sheeting (regulatory or collisions due to lack of warning) driver awareness R23 Install chevron signs To provide additional 40$ $2,400 per sign on horizontal curves emphasis and guidance for a chance in horizontal alignment R24 Install curve advance Used in advance of curves $2,400 $2,400 per sign warning signs that have an advisory speed of less than 30 mph R26 Install Roadway segments with a 30% $22,800 per sign dynamic/variable significant number of speed warning signs collisions due to unsafe speeds R28 Install edge -lines and Roadway segments with 25% $100,800 per mile centerlines collisions that resulted in run -off-road right/left, head- on, or opposite -direction - sideswipe with an ADT greater than 6,000 R32PB Install bike lanes Locations with a high 35% $76,800 per mile number of bicycle collisions City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final ES -4 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) ID Potential apply? Crash Per Unit Unit Countermeasures Reduction Cost Factor R35PB Install/upgrade Locations with no controlled 35% $30,000 per crossing pedestrian crossing crossing for significant (with enhanced safety distances features) R37PB Install Rectangular Midblock locations 1500+ 35% $54,000 per crossing Rapid Flashing feet away from an existing Beacon (RRFB) signal with significant pedestrian demand where speed limit is up to 35 mph S02 Improve signal Signalized intersections 15% $26,400 per hardware; lenses, where signals heads to do intersection back plate with not meet current standards retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number S03 Improve signal timing Signalized intersections 15% $14,400 per (coordination, phases, where there is insufficient intersection red, yellow, or clearance time with current operation) timing plans or where signals placed closely enough to impact free flowing operations of the street SO4 Provide Advanced Signalized intersections 40% $76,800 per Dilemma Zone with significant right-angle intersection Detection for high and rear -end collisions due speed approaches to unsafe stopping during yellow phases S12 Install raised median Higher speed, undivided 25% $324 per LF for a on approaches (S.I.) roadways with 4+ lanes 10' wide median S16 Convert intersection to Signalized intersections varies varies varies roundabout (from with a significant collisions signal) due to complex lane configurations City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final ES -5 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) ID Potential apply? Crash Per Unit Unit Countermeasures Reduction Cost Factor S17PB Install pedestrian Signals without countdown 25% $43,680 per countdown signal indicators with frequent intersection heads pedestrian collisions S21 PB Modify signal phasing Signalized Intersections — 60% $45,600 per to implement a especially those with high intersection Leading Pedestrian pedestrian activity Interval (LPI) Create BRT corridor Consistent with SGVCOG 5% varies varies transit plan Convert excess curb Where curb lane is greater 5% varies varies lane to other uses than 14 feet Reconfigure lanes Address citywide lane 5% varies varies widths to discourage excessive speed Restrict uncontrolled Unsignalized intersections 5% varies varies left turn with alternative access opportunities where turning volumes are low Remove parking Where sight distance is 5% varies varies obstructed at driveways or intersections or there is insufficient space for parking and bicycle lanes on designated bike routes Conduct pedestrian Locations with high 5% varies varies crossing warrant incidents of midblock analysis pedestrian crossings Implement targeted Locations citywide, 5% varies varies DUI enforcement specifically those with high combined with DUI collisions education programs at local high schools Install curb extensions Intersections with high 5% $30,000 per pedestrian activity extension City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final ES -6 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 'There were not approved countermeasures for these improvements in the Local Roadway Safety Manual, so a conservative Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) was assumed. Near-term action items were identified to accelerate the City's achievement of the goals and vision of this LRSP. The City will: • Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users, • Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network, and • Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in Rosemead. The City will regularly monitor and update the analysis performed in this plan. A full plan update will be required five years from the City Council's adoption of this plan which will maintain eligibility for HSIP funding. City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final ES -7 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Located in the San Gabriel Valley, the City of Rosemead is a business -friendly environment with a population of over 50,000. Rosemead is a small town in an urban environment with diverse citizens, attractive shopping centers, and open spaces. Based on University of California Berkeley's Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters, Rosemead's economic losses due to traffic injuries amounted to approximately $198M from 2017 to 2021. This report identifies factors associated with the most vehicle crashes particular to the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes. This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City's transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high - crash locations, high-risk locations, and city-wide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City's transportation network allows for the following opportunities: 1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2. Improve safety at specific high -crash locations, and 3. Develop safety measures using the four E's of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response) to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes. Rosemead has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the City and with this LRSP, Rosemead is continuing to prioritize safety in its planning processes. The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) most recently ranked Rosemead 8'h of 105 peer cities for total fatal and injured crashes after normalizing for population and VMT in 2019. With number one (1) in the OTS crash rankings considered the highest, or "worst," this positions the City at well below average for roadway safety performance. This LRSP analyzes the most recent range of Crossroads crash data from January 1, 2017 — December 31, 2021 and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern. The intent of the LRSP is to: • Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks • Reduce the number of fatal and severe -injury crashes • Develop lasting partnerships • Support for grant/funding applications, and • Prioritize investments in traffic safety. City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) The Rosemead LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non -infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclist, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. Through historical data and trends, proactive identification and safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur. As cities across the country have implemented LRSPs and systemically addressed the conditions leading to fatal and severe -injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found that LRSPs effectively improve safety. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. This project's vision, goals, and objectives have been established to reflect discussions with Rosemead staff, various stakeholders identified by City staff, and a review of existing plans/policies in the area. The City is planning to adopt a Vision Zero goal to eliminate traffic deaths by 2050. The implementation of this goal will be led by City departments. While the identified improvements in this report will be helpful in working toward achieving Vision Zero, improvements in driver education and a culture shift towards roadway safety will be necessary. Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes. Objectives: • Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. • Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists). Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process. Objectives: • Demonstrate the systemic process' ability to identify locations with higher risk for crashes based on present characteristics closely associated with severe crashes. • Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon. Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term. Objectives: • Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). • Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied city-wide. Goal #4: Define safety projects for future Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) and other program funding consideration. Objectives: • Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth -coming cycles to apply for funding. City of Rosemead 2 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) • Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. • Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP and other funding consideration. • Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan. The primary goal for the City of Rosemead and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community. Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for a LRSP. FHWA encourages the following: The establishment of a working group (stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP • A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern The identification of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps: Establish leadership Analyze the safety data Determine emphasis areas Identify strategies Prioritize and incorporate strategies Evaluate and update the LRSP This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analysis, and developed emphasis areas. The LRSP recommendations consider the four E's of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response. 3.1 Guiding Manuals This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Rosemead at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the City that will benefit from safety enhancements and derives crash risk factors based on historic crash data using a network screening process. The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and City of Rosemead 3 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) non -infrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics and related driving behaviors contributing to crashes. This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described. 3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual The Local Roadway Safety Manual: A Manual for California's Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) encourages local agencies to pursue a proactive approach when identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is the analyzation of safety in an entire roadway network through either a one-time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.' According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), "the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California's federal safety funding intended for local safety improvements." To provide the most beneficial and competitive funding approach, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes. The result should reflect a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the potential effective countermeasures. Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels. Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction expected from a given countermeasure. If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs. 3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations .2 This four-part manual is divided into the following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors. 1 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx City of Rosemead q Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, the "Network Screening Process" is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes. The HSM identifies five steps in this process :3 1. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied. 2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometries) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities. 3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available. 4. Select Screening Method: There are three principal screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected. 5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results. The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories. After identifying the total number of crashes, this study uses a method referred to as "Critical Crash Rate" to analyze the data. 3.2 Analysis Techniques 3.2.1 Collision Analysis The initial steps of a collision analysis involve establishing sub -populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP, intersections were grouped by their control type (signalized and unsignalized), and segments were grouped by their roadway category (primary arterial, secondary arterial, collector, local). Individual collision rates were then calculated for each sub -population. The population level collision rates were used to assess the number of collisions at a specific location. These sub -populations were also used to determine typical collision patterns to highlight locations where an unusual number of specific collision types occurred. 3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2. City of Rosemead 5 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis The network screening process lists intersections and roadway segments by the number of collisions over the analysis period and identifies areas with a higher number of a given collision type than would be expected for the location. The different collisions were organized by the following categories: Collision injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only), 2. Collision type (broadside, rear -end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other), 3. Environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and 4. Driver behavior (impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving). 3.3 Future Analysis The City plans to conduct regular collision monitoring as described in Section 10.2. The City will then refresh the analysis and update the LRSP every 5 years to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding, as described in Section 10.2. City of Rosemead g Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Local stakeholders were included in the development of this report to ensure the local perspective was maintained at the forefront of planning efforts. A stakeholder group of City staff and external partners consisted of representatives from the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department (LASD), Los Angeles County Fire Department, and California Highway Patrol. The local stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City's transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, the stakeholder group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas through virtual field visits. The summaries of the field visit meeting(s) are outlined below. 4.1 Field Visit Meeting #1 The first field visit was conducted virtually on July 21, 2022. At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study. In addition to the overview, stakeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge at ten "case study" locations that were identified afterthe initial network screening and crash analysis process. Potential countermeasures were recommended, and emphasis/challenge areas were discussed, specifically speeding as a major factor in collisions throughout the City. Stakeholder feedback was also solicited via an online survey which was reviewed and incorporated into the study process for the development of the LRSP. City of Rosemead ] Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or on-going were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation -related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP. Table 1 outlines the relevant existing City plans and their improvements and funding sources. Table 1 — Review of Existing City Plans Document Document Document Transportation Agency Name Status Description Policies/improvements • Outlines plan's relationship 2010 City of to existing City, County, Rosemead Regional, and State plans General Plan • Outlines roadway —2017 Adopted for City of Long -Term classifications and Circulation 2010-2025 Rosemead Planning current/desired LOS (level • City of Rosemead of service) Element • Identifies intersections and Update approaches desired for capacity enhancements and/or safety features • Enhances opportunities for 2021 City of housing, placemaking, and Rosemead mixed-use development on Freeway arterial streets near 1-10 • City of Rosemead Corridor Adopted City of Specific Area • Identifies sites for • State Grants (SB Mixed 2021 Rosemead Plan opportunity 2) -Use • Provides conceptual Overlay designs for enhanced cityscape at redeveloped locations • Encourages higher pedestrian activity along 2012 Garvey Garvey Ave Avenue City of Specific Area Enhanced placemaking Specific Adopted Rosemead Plan •Provide adequate parking City of Rosemead Master Plan to improve traffic flow and encourage visitor use • Creates system for prioritizing improvements • Creates opportunities for • City of Rosemead mixed use developments • Development 2018 Garvey along Garvey Ave Impact Fees Ave Specific Adopted City of Specific Area • Connects with existing • Metro Grant Plan 2018 Rosemead Plan goals and objectives in the • Federal Funding City's General Plan • Various Grants • Outlines current/proposed (ATP, HSIP etc.) zoning of the Garvey Ave • Golden State corridor Water Company City of Rosemead g Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Document Document Document Transportation Agency Name Status Description Policies/improvements • Improves storefronts, • Property Owners outdoor dining, and building design to ensure cohesive pedestrian experience • Defines budget allocated for FY 21-22 projects, including residential street resurfacing, 2021-2022 sidewalk replacement, Annual improvements to arterial • City of Rosemead Budget— Effective July City of Short -Term streets • State Funds Capital 1, 2021 Rosemead Planning Identifies specific • Federal grants Improvement projects to be completed • LA Metro grants Plan Identifies funding sources for improvements, including city budget, Measures R & M funding, gas tax, Prop C, various grants. • Outlines implementation of the City's goals for bicycling: o Increase bicycle use throughout the city o Improve multi- 2012 City of modal Rosemead transportation • City of Rosemead Bicycle Adopted City of Long -Term integration • Potential Caltrans Transportation 2012 Rosemead Planning o Encourage and Metro grant Plan bicycling as an opportunities alternative to cars • Describes existing conditions of bike infrastructure in the city and proposes potential bike routes and projects for improvements • Outlines City's goals for transportation infrastructure • City of Rosemead improvements: • San Gabriel Valley City of Encourages inclusion of Council of Rosemeadbicycle City of Long -Term infrastructure and Governments (SGVCOG)/various 2030 StrategicAdopted 2021 Rosemead Planning other multi -modal regional partners Plan transportation systems in . Other key projects supporting • Continuing to renovate partners will be and enhance streets, identified sidewalks, and public infrastructure City of Rosemead y Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) This section describes the data sources used for the analysis process of this LRSP. 6.1 Roadway Network The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Road System (CRS) GIS database was used to build the base roadway network used for this analysis. Intersections and roadway segments were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be compared with similar facilities or control type. Functional Classifications were imported from the city's General Plan and confirmed by city staff. Information on intersection traffic control was provided by the city and included in the analysis network. The collision analysis requires each intersection to be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized. Figure 1 illustrates City of Rosemead's roadway functional classification and intersection control type as used for this study. 6.2 Count Data Vehicular count data is used as part of the analysis process to evaluate the impact of traffic and understand the natural hierarchy of the roadway network. Count data utilized for this project was pulled from various studies and elements. For locations without volume or count data, other resources were utilized to identify a reasonable assumption for individual corridors and classification types. The traffic volume information allowed the team to assess locations for risk as well as reviewing locations with the highest number of collisions. 6.3 Collision Data Collision data was collected from Crossroads software for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021. Five years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw collision data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges faced throughout the city. Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the collision trends and patterns detailed in Section 7. The locations of fatal and severe injury collisions are displayed in Figure 3. City of Rosemead 10 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) a\S� EBroadway m OweSr San Gabriel Alhambra La Dr o er Px Alhambra Npa[u Culp SleGolt Or o do - Valley Blvd n E Shorb St E Va'ley Blv Q a m n m > a Q m CID Qr s nJ 3 pial' N xpress En Wi lar (13U`._� < '� O ,11 All� O � reL-'�, Pae N f11 r) H d a Z v Garvey Ave E Garvey Ave Monterey Park Z Z E GravesiAve Potrero E Graves Ave o a P` U Grande Dr Rush St o o „ E R.sh s a 5\ Z aa c 19 - a m vry poor � N, raw, P tt er St n _ R±credulirrn]Il Area 038 Jt Legend lh mr vr Narrows • Signalized Intersections Natural Area Functional Classification Local 19 — Major Collector — Minor Arterial lN� — Principal Arterial „ Q Rosemead City Boundary ,�\v Bee y Figure 1 - Roadway Functional Classification City of Rosemead 11 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) �C �� 'N Broadway r � EBroadway Ol.jVe St f Ma r San Gabriel A _ EMam st c kleY Sc Or Ora°ge St 6Monte St \ Ea Rosa o`Pd E Eas[ San Gabrle I �V A �owcr Azusa Alhamora --o Municipal Golf0sa Rd man Course E Central Ave o �r E Chestnut Ave -A ° os Hlgns St Q Q E Adams Ave g u 000. U o O ..ice -''r `ED E shorb St ;q - '^ Blvd - Valley ro ��01 • � E Valley 81vtl Violeta or w Valley m n _ -¢ 0 W Dewey Ave a� _ 0 G % ' m nCC�¢ni��Q E Glendon Way N N 0� 000. U Q ..ice -''r `ED _ E_Ross Ave y�y3 WII t0 671 G_r"r O z z _ � ♦— er o owneway - i � V7 E Emerson Ave z n dj • E Cortada 51 E aodgt Y m Q Garvey'Ave r EGarvey Ave E Garvey Aver > z E Newmark Ave z • z 3 ; E Fern sr r A n 'o n s E-GravesiAve = W Graves Ave t'� Co. Potrero rg,. on I n Grande Dr Rush St E Rnah St M� Whl[[ler E Rusin St n Z °n arrows Golf z H Garvey y0 Course Z �" Reser coir 1 0 q = a. South San• g A a m y a Gabriel a a m m nn rcyn0 0 Resurrection n naosc _ EQ aP� cemetery Technic cm stltut en 5t 5a eo whia:er �0 Narrows s° Reueatiun Area I Morteb o Taw, Ce er Montebello Whl[her 6381t Town Square Narrows water Legg Shopping Reclamation Luke Legend Center fi 430k Plant I V N Whitm,. urr Hlq • Rosemead Collisions . 'chool Natural A" ou,I O Rosemead City Boundary S J` !h e nc°fn L p o. Rim Rivera qvo u g 2 � Streamland p o- Municipal Grit pale Figure 2 -All Collisions (2017-2021) City of Rosemead 12 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) a t P S 1'I'aroadmay San Gabriel _ EMain �r 3 ora^gest n EI Monte St d E East Ga Alhamora Municipal Golf Course E Central Ave nerran E Chestnut Ave Lne Hlgas St E Adams Ave 3 o of Esnore St Valley Blvd \ as _ 9 '^ W Valley Eln'tl ➢ ,,, — E z don Violeta or Dewey Ave P GlenW'ay N 0 f E Broadway Gllye 5c f- a 5 D \ c BlacklaY st \ f' La Rosa Or Sa� �� v briem Aa" z o_ F ETersOn AVB Z G ey'A E Garvey Ave I r'. E Newmark Ave Z D E -Graves Ave Potrero E Graves Ave _ Grande Dr / lO 0 Gorvey cAp1 Reservoir a - _ South San n Gabriel e 0� Arroyo 07 < Resurrection D n Bos 'Jder Cemetery Technic � [hilt ga','0 st Figure 3 - Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) City of Rosemead 13 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 O Montebello _a / Whittier 638fr lawn Square _— Legend Shopping Center .562fr O Rosemead City ear• Reclamation szn Boundary [ C°rtada S: E Bo Collision Injury Levels Narrow=N E Garvey Ave • Fatal Pico River, Streamland z • Severe Injury �- o` y 2 C 2 3 it E herr r -z 3 ^' Montebello Figure 3 - Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) City of Rosemead 13 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 O Cr _a / Whittier Teh� Ava � F R=creatlon Area Q _ or Whittler Narrow, Water Legg Reclamation E Rio No^dB 430h Plant [ C°rtada S: E Bo � Narrow=N E Garvey Ave Pico River, Streamland z Park P y 2 z 3 it E herr r -z 3 he p m E Rush St E Rush St Whittler 2 ws Golf Cause z _ n o a< D J� Figure 3 - Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) City of Rosemead 13 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 GC _a / Whittier rru,v, i\ Narrows R=creatlon Area Q _ or Whittler Narrow, Water Legg Reclamation La e 430h Plant Whittier Narrow=N Natural Ar/e'z-�-,A\\\\\v\ Pico River, Streamland MunicipalGO - Park conr,e Figure 3 - Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) City of Rosemead 13 Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the City -maintained roadway system based on collision records spanning from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021. This section contains the results of the analysis, which included the evaluation of is fatal and serious injury (generally denoted as K+SI) collisions, statewide K+SI collisions, pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, collision severity levels, and collision causes. 7.1 All Collisions This report utilized collision data for a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on city streets. Data used for this report was extracted from Crossroads Software. Collision data from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 2,415 collisions recorded within Rosemead. During this time, the most common occurring collision types were Broadsides (27%) and Rear - ends (25%), as shown in Figure 4. 30.0% — 25.0% 20.0% 15.0% 10.0% 5.0% 0.0% 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Source: Rosemead Crossroads Database (2017-2021) Figure 4 - Collision Type by Year (2017-2021) ■ Broadside ■ Rear -End ■ Sideswipe ■ Head -On ■ Hit Object ■ Other ■ Vehicle - Pedestrian ■ Not Stated ■ Overturned City of Rosemead 14 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 7.2 Fatalities During the study period, 15 fatal collisions occurred, as seen in Figure 3. Of the 6 pedestrian fatalities, 2 of them took place at night. Additionally, of the 4 fatalities with another motor vehicle, none of them occurred at night in an area with streetlights. Table 2 outlines the fatal collisions categorized by modes involved. Table 2 - Fatal Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2017-2021) Involved With Bicycle # of Fatal Collisions 3 # of Fatal Collision Occurring a 1 Fixed Object 2 1 Non -Collision 0 0 Other Motor Vehicle 4 0 Parked Motor Vehicle 0 0 Pedestrian 6 2 7.3 Injury Levels As shown in Figure 5, 65.8% of the collisions reported during the time -period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 1 .7% of all collisions. • Property Damage Only • Complaint of Pain • Other Visible Injury • Severe Injury • Fatal Source: Rosemead Crossroads Database (2017-2021) Figure 5 - Collisions by Injury Levels (2017-2021) City of Rosemead 15 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 7.4 Cause of Collision The highest recorded cause of collisions in Rosemead during this time period is Improper Turning at 28%, followed by Auto Right -of -Way Violation at 18%. Issues with Unsafe Speed also had a substantial impact on the City, each comprising 11.7% of the collisions. • Improper Turning • Auto RNV Violation • Unsafe Speed • Traffic Signals and Signs • Following Too Closely • Unsafe Starting or Backing • Unknown • Unsafe Lane Change • Driving Under Influence • Pedestrian Violation • Improper Passing • Wrong Side of Road • Ped RNV Violation • Other Hazardous Movement • Other Improper Driving • Other Than Driver • Hazardous Parking • Other Equipment 0.04% • Other 0.04% • Impeding Traffic Source: Rosemead Crossroads Database (2017-2021) Figure 6 - Cause of Collisions (2017-2021) 7.5 Vulnerable Users 7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions Seventy-nine (79) pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, resulting in 6 fatal collisions, 7 severe injury, and 91 collisions with some form of reported injury or pain. 42.9% of the collisions occurred at night. Figure 7 shows the locations of pedestrian collisions during the study period. City of Rosemead 16 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions During the study period, 97 collisions involving bicycles were reported. Of these, 3 were fatal, and 6 resulted in severe injuries. The collision history shows 23.7% of the collisions occurred at night. 23.7% of these collisions were attributed to automobile right-of-way violations. Figure 8 shows the location of bicycle collisions during the study period. City of Rosemead 17 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) e D • m • • • a D D - n San Gabriel EMain St `^ D , Teahnlcal c S',ackl ey st « _ 3 D°°d9e Sunset Aven _ a po:a D y.J n EI Monte It rt o � r' Pearl Sl East Sari • ° 'y ' ! R Gabriel G L - Reuedaall Area � Dewey Ave era \\ • �• v. I Golf '- < to`v� • 11 SL • Eceniral Aveor • v d O(jSCOn EC1=_strut Ave � • • Le us or is AVE, 3 2 >a • E wells st Iv •is• Or , D e _ _—_Ramona _ - @Ib, D £ • -- e D • m • • • a D D - n • , Teahnlcal Feseoe4q • « _ 3 f v � � eValleY Blvd •• Signalized Intersections � E o 'A ViE iey eroa. o � FeI�Ve - ' ! z O Rosemead City L - Reuedaall Area � Dewey Ave D \\ • �• v. • < D D m • 11 SL • p \A v d O(jSCOn • Le us or ` ___. - M", of ` G Reclamation O ay 5t D e _ _—_Ramona _ - @Ib, E Rush St _-_ -' ----- -- Artsor St • 130fr WII ar Hellman AVa •• Caar,V NOPdo • TeL4drA✓= R0 z Dorothy 5t e, e D • m • • • a D D - n , Teahnlcal m � n. Bart• Ale t • • •• • • i Signalized Intersections v � • o � FeI�Ve - ' ! z Z O Rosemead City L - Reuedaall Area < Boundary ry T' r • �• v. • < D D m • • lawn Squarea�G v d O(jSCOn Shonolrg M", of ` G Reclamation R�� sr • E Rush St oO� ey61 c whinier Narrows Golf 130fr t7<� Caar,V `¢so " a° South Sen G., )r4 J Is � Arroyo Figure 7 - Pedestrian Collisions (2017-2021) 0 E Cnrrada st E GarVeY AVE z z 3 � q n E Ru City of Rosemead 18 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Legend Dan Bost , Teahnlcal ® Pedestrian Collisions • Signalized Intersections _ Whittier NdrIJ`NS O Rosemead City L - Reuedaall Area Boundary Montehe I mvn cera PArtebello bs Atitter d33f� lawn Squarea�G No mows Water Shonolrg M", of ` G Reclamation Center 562frPant oBi.,., 130fr Figure 7 - Pedestrian Collisions (2017-2021) 0 E Cnrrada st E GarVeY AVE z z 3 � q n E Ru City of Rosemead 18 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) San Gabriel —E Maln st D m o _ \� 81ack1 eY St Sunset Ave ya pt ereo r t.a ao ' 9e y. � CI Monte St D — = r vaso st it _ East San hra N Gabriel 'a E Central Ave • 'crew Croy, ° Cry C <hr,M.ut Ave n e Ave E wall, St 'Ga 0 a. m E Vail cy Blvn • _ YI Valley 2116 z ^ — Dewey Ave y Dorothy St a °' O q E o.rov, Z2 a y n. r D rt • D ] < v A M. a f �c �' z vo _ E Covada Sc D ae 1Dr • a EGa-veY Avr 7 z z z O eY S[ z o z z S Ave - __.- -_-- _ D —Ramona-8lr• or, • m Ar[san St • r m m . Wil ar . Hellman Ave �[ m < m m a � do to Telsr Ase ta Rio — E Rusn St Dorothy St a °' O q E o.rov, Z2 a y n. • D ] < v A a z vo _ E Covada Sc D ae a EGa-veY Avr 7 z z z z o z z S Fem Ave . p D ! ^ z � 3 a • m 3 rt r m m . • �[ m < m m a ogsdon t, ore _ — g ao SouthSar Cab 'Icl Legend ,rr s ;. Bicycle Collisions • Signalized Intersections d O Rosemead City Momehelk Boundary cvvn Sgjar _. Shopping Zater n 7 [ao / 19 Whittler n ' Recreatlon Area / \ Muniehe Town Cer. Van mer Na-rowv Water LPJG �d Alaza Dt Ga _ Reclamation Loma r62P br pla-t A0f dam. Figure 8 - Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021) City of Rosemead 19 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final E Rusn St E Ro ,n ,t • Whirr z Neuu— G Fu—Gulfn tours z z o z p D 5 3 rt 'o o 7 [ao / 19 Whittler n ' Recreatlon Area / \ Muniehe Town Cer. Van mer Na-rowv Water LPJG �d Alaza Dt Ga _ Reclamation Loma r62P br pla-t A0f dam. Figure 8 - Bicycle Collisions (2017-2021) City of Rosemead 19 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 7.6Other Significant Trends 33% of collisions occurred at night or during the dusk/dawn hours. 50% of collisions were caused by Improper Turning. Drivers aged 65+ were at fault in 10% of all collisions. 7.7Collision Network Screening Analysis Results Figure 9 below show the results of the collision network screening analysis, with the number of collisions at both intersections and mid -block roadway segments. City of Rosemead 20 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) San Gabriel_a Ewio Sl v _ 61ackVeY Sv sf EI rnonte S[ a Rasa Pearl 5e E East K Gabriel n 1 iow< bra l--- \ Golf. 0 ie E central A, LJ�o E Chestnut Ave" o skve -� EW615St 3 n O �[//�/\■ Blvd c 'n E VaIIeY z W Valley Blvdc i ,3 > Dewey. Ase > 'o 0 a) ® �� o.) CL > 1 = N/II, arm de _ Tele a) Q� �raw�ew , _ E Cortada Sr ® E Car, , A,00 z CO IAr C O = A o 2 O..�© I q n Legend > E Gln fes Xwe7-' Intersection Collisions '.� _ • Grant�Fr Ru • R Q- Iwhither 1 Narrow=Golf P`o i4 South San Gabriel • oc An oyo Or L, 64 Racrrerflnn Do' Do'-' � a Genetic` n Tnchnlcel I . Mid block Collisions ar^Sc D ^\ N 1-2 Rr.re 4et Pale Dr �` Morshe 2i on>G. mwnien �j�/y 46 Montebello y// �' v=sh To�mn ',,,are 4614 Na —&14 Shopping I)aza Or 6� Rc QRosanead CM1y Boundary A : 62 ft ,. '43C f1 eON Figure 9 - Collision Network Screening Analysis Results: Intersection & Roadway Segments (2017- 2021) City of Rosemead 21 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Table 3 — Analysis Rankings: Intersections and Table 4 — Analysis Rankings: Segments show the number of crashes occurring at the top ten locations in Rosemead by crash type for the locations that will be studied further in the Report, and highlights locations in which the probability of those crash types exceeding the threshold proportion is greater than 33%. See Appendix A for a full list of analysis rankings for all intersection and segment locations. The tables are ordered by the number of collisions that occurred at that segment or intersection. To be statistically significant, only locations where more than two collisions occurred are represented. At locations with two or less collisions, random chance can account for crash history as much or more than specific roadway characteristics. The tables are separated into sub -sections visible by the blue gradient. The first two columns, Collisions and CCR, represent the level of crash activity in absolute terms, and as relative to other similar locations, respectively. Per guidance from the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) each sub -population of locations was ranked according to the number of collisions. The second column shows the CCR, which highlights whether or not the collision activity was higher or lower than the average for the sub - population based on the individual segment or intersection volume. This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. All averages used in the CCR calculation were established based on City of Rosemead crash data to determine what locations might be best to prioritize at the local level. This process highlights locations of collisions that are unusual for the City to determine Rosemead's challenge areas, and not problems faced by peer cities that do not apply in Rosemead. The remaining columns total collisions by type, to evaluate each sub -population and understand what proportion of crashes in the City are of a particular type. The citywide proportion was compared with the local intersection or segment specific proportion to determine which locations have more of a given crash type than would be expected when considering the City average. A confidence level of 95% was used for the CCR Calculations. For this study, two categories of ranges were highlighted: • Light Gray: >50% probability that this crash type is over -represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Rosemead. Although these locations have a slightly higher probability of this crash type than their counterparts, they are not necessarily highly significant. • Dark Gray: >75% probability that this crash type is over -represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Rosemead. These locations are highly significant in regard to the number of collisions occurring here and should be further investigated. After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked against other similar locations within the City by their categories according to the expected proportion of that crash type within Rosemead. Locations with higher-than-expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for exceedances. City of Rosemead 22 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Collision Severity, Type, Involved With, and Behavior are additional characteristics of the collisions and should not be counted as a separate collision. The following provides an example of how to read Tables 3 and 4. Table Definitions: • Total Collisions: Number of collisions observed at the intersection or segment from January of 2017 through December of 2021. • Critical Crash Rate (CCR): The CCR specific to the intersection or segment. • Severity: The number of severe injury and fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period. • Fatality: The number of fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period. • Broadside, Sideswipe, Rear -End, Head -On, Hit Object, Overturned, Other, Pedestrian, Bicycle: The number of these types of collisions that occurred at this location in the study period. • Other: The number of miscellaneous collision types (mostly single vehicle) that occurred at this location in the study period. • Aggressive, Dark, Wet: The number of the collisions with this factor identified as the cause of collision. City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Table 3 -Analysis Rankings: Intersections (Top 10 Per Type) - = Local CCR Differential > 1.0 = = Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 - = Local CCR Differential < 0.33 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final 24 September 2022 , N San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave 64 517 0 3 19 40 11 8 5 3 0 3 2 22 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Glendon Way 64 293 0 1 11 18 12 1 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Marshall St 55 0. 121 0 0 0 13 4 10 3 2 0 4 1 1 25 0 2 0 Rosemead Blvd & Valley Blvd 45 0. 294 0 3 11 30 13 11 13 1 1 0 3 2 13 0 1 1 2 Rosemead Blvd & Lower Azusa Rd 42 87 0 0 1 7 2 7 1 3 0 3 0 1 17 0 3 N San Gabriel Blvd & Hellman Ave 40 0.2 289 0 3 11 25 12 7 13 2 2 0 1 1 1 15 0 2 0 2 Walnut Grove Ave & Valley Blvd 39 0. 110 0 0 0 14 25 12 8 13 1 2 0 2 0 2 14 0 1 1 2 Walnut Grove Ave &Garvey Ave 37 0 103 0 0 0 IM 24 6 5 1 2 0 1 2 7 0 1 0 0 Rio Hondo Ave & Valley Blvd 35 106 0 0 1 1299 22 1 8 4 12 0 2 0 2 11 0 PW1 1 Del Mar Ave &Hellman Ave 34 99 0 0 2 9 23 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 1 Parking Lot South of Valley Blvd & Valley Blvd 24 80 0 0 0 13 2 3 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave &Grand Ave 21 0.6 76 0 0 1 11 Pine St&Garvey Ave 18 0.4 53 0 0 1 5 12 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 Stingle Ave &Garvey Ave 17 7 206 0 0 5 11 5 5 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Ralph St 17 0.2 62 0 0 2 5 10 3 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & Newmark Ave 14 0.1 54 0 0 1 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 IvarAve & Garvey Ave 14 0.2 64 0 0 6 3 1 0 1 = 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd & Dorothy St 14 0.0 19 0 0 0 1 8 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Vachon Dr & Valley Blvd 13 0.1 197 0 0 4 8 I 5 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Bentel Ave 13 0.1 28 0 0 1 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1. Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 2. Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes - = Local CCR Differential > 1.0 = = Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 - = Local CCR Differential < 0.33 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final 24 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) - = 90-100% probability that crash type if over -represented ki = 80-90% probability that crash type is over -represented I ■ = 70-80% probability that crash type is over -represented 'Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 'Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final 25 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Table 4 - Analysis Rankings: Segments (Top 10 Per Type) Facility Limits Ln CL PrimaryArterial Valley Blvd Rosemead Blvd - Hart Ave 12 0.8 51 0 0 3 2 7 6 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 Valley Blvd Loma Ave - Mission Dr 11 21 0 0 0 2 9 1 5 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd Dorothy St - Hellman Ave 6 0.3 21 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Rosemead Blvd Mission Dr -LowerAzusa Rd 6 0 2 16 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd Garvey Ave -Park St 5 0.3 15 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 ;10 Valley Blvd Rio HondoAve - Easy St 4 0 0 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 WalnutGroveAve Garvey Ave -Dorothy St 14 232 0 3 5 5 2 4 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 WalnutGroveAve Klingerman St - Fern Ave 6 26 0 0 1 2 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Ga rvey Ave Jackson Ave - Evelyn Ave 6 16 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave Rush St - Klingerman St 4 0.1 9 0 0 0 1 M0 1 M 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Ave Newmark Ave -Garvey Ave 4 03 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temple City Blvd Marshall St - Guess St 4 0.2 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abilene St — Temple City Blvd Parking Lot West of Temple City Blvd 4 19 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 Driveway West of Walnut G rove Ave — Walnut Grove Ave Driveway West of Walnut Grove Ave 3 _0.1 13 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ga rvey Ave Stingle Ave -Rosemead PI/River Ave 3 S 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Wa lnut Grove Ave EMIM Garvey Ave -Dorothy St 14 232 0 3 5 5 24 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 ME 0 Jackson Ave Garvey Ave- Parking Lot East of Jackson Ave 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final 26 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) - = Local CCR Differential > 1.0 = Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 = Local CCR Differential < 0.33 - = 90-100% probability that crash type if over -represented - = 80-90% probability that crash type is over -represented & = 70-80% probability that crash type is over -represented 'Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 'Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final 27 September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 7.8 Statewide Comparison A comparison of fatal & severe injury collision data to the State averages were conducted for data from 2017-2021 (the most recent statewide data available). These numbers may vary slightly from those mentioned previously, due to the differences in the years of the study period. The following are areas where Rosemead's collision rates are higher or lower than those of the State. These numbers specifically compare the proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes that have the characteristics listed in Table 5. Table 5 - Comparison of Statewide and Rosemead Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes (2017-2021) PercentageChallenge Area Statewide % Rosemead % Difference Rosemead has a Higher Percentage of F&SI Crashes Bicyclists 8.29% 16.30% 8.01% Pedestrians 19.23% 27.17% 7.95% Aging Drivers 12.36% 17.39% 5.03% Driver Licensing 24.67% 25.56% 0.90% Aggressive Driving 33.09% 33.70% 0.61% Rosemead has a Lower Percentage of F&SI Crashes Young Drivers 13.09% 6.52% -6.57% Motorcyclists 20.98% 13.04% -7.94% Occupant Protection 14.22% 5.43% -8.78% Impaired Driving 25.27% 16.30% -8.97% Lane Departure 43.26% 26.09% -17.17% City of Rosemead 28 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 8.1 Best Practices Evaluation Table 6 identifies existing plans and policies that were recently completed, or are planned, or on-going within the City of Rosemead. The intent of this review is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City that may impact the safety analysis process. It will also identify opportunity areas where the City could adopt non -infrastructure countermeasures. This table also ties each topic and enhancement to the emphasis areas that are laid out in Section 8.2. Table 6 - Summary of Opportunities for Best Practices Topic Enhance Continue to update as required by California Vehicle Code; review new guidance from Last speed survey Assembly Bill 43. In cases where Speed Surveys /Speed conducted by the City speed continues to be a Aggressive Driving Limits occurred in 2013. challenge, preventing the enforcement of desirable speed limits, consider roadway design characteristics that might support lowerspeeds. Establish local neighborhood Traffic Calming No policies at this time. traffic policies and warrants for Aggressive Driving Policies traffic calming devices and treatments. Continue to assess traffic impact Traffic Impact Fees Yes (DIF per Fee fees and incorporate safety and All Schedule). VMT measures in future nexus studies. Develop programs in partnership Traffic Safety with local schools and law Education None at this time. enforcement for age-appropriate All pedestrian, bicycle, and young driver training. As part of LRSP implementation, Program for establish a monitoring program to Reviewing Crash No program at this time. track impacts of safety All Activity improvements and overall safety trends. Develop or acquire a crash Crossroads/RMS No database at this time. database compatible with LA All Database Updates County Sheriff to facilitate data sharing and analysis. City of Rosemead 29 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Topic Enhance No, this is handled by Los Angeles County Sheriffs Look for opportunities for City Department (LASD). City staff to be more engaged in the has input on speed selection of enforcement Sobriety /Seatbelt enforcement, Sheriff campaigns and align City All Checks handles check points.City messaging and safety priorities to has radar feedback signs provide consistent messaging to and corridors equipped with roadway users. signal systems capable of monitoring seed. Continue to discuss enforcement City Law Enforcement Coordination between law priorities with neighboring Coordinate with enforcement jurisdictions is jurisdictions to develop a more All Adjacent Jurisdictions done. coordinated and deliberate approach to inter -agency operations. Continue coordination; work to identify areas for improvements. Coordination of There is coordination with Prioritize stop area improvements Transit Providers and transit providers and City based on overall passenger All City Staff staff. volumes, impactto more vulnerable users (seniors, youth, persons with disabilities Conduct a road sign safety audit Inventory of City does not currently including sign positioning, Regulatory and Safety maintain database of condition, appropriateness. All Signage signage. Identify potential missing or inadequate signage. Continue engaging emergency response in transportation planning and safety-related Emergency Response Emergency response and coordination processes, and City city transportation planning Incorporate professional All Transportation are engaged. development opportunities to Planning avoid limitations on potentially effective safety countermeasures based on personal biases and anecdotal experience. Considerjoint activities between Local Health Agencies City departments and county and City No engagement at this health agencies for activities All Transportation time. such a SCAG's Go Human toolkit Planning to raise awareness and 0 ortunities for active lifestyles. Continue to seek out resident feedback and build in more active Resident Feedback Yes, within the City's outreach through City events and All website. other opportunities to directly solicit resident feedback in addition to the City's website. Continue regular maintenance of Maintenance of Roadway surfaces is roadway surfaces, make Roadway Surfaces maintained. incorporations of safety All countermeasures part of the routine maintenance program. City of Rosemead 30 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Topic Enhance TransportationTrack progress of TDM strategies Demand Management Yes, within the City's in reducing citywide VMT and All Policies/Programs general plan. continue to reinvest in successful initiatives. Use of overlays, Continue this process, identify specific plans, Yes, the City has items area where infill development will redevelopment areas such as the Garvey Avenue require safety improvements. to encourage infill Specific Plan and the Where possible, incorporate All development to Freeway Corridor Mixed- incentives into the City's impact reduce VMT Use Overlay fee programs to encourage higher density in -fill development. Develop City wayfinding guidelines and navigation routes for each mode to key City Program for Installing No program at this time. destinations. Signage should All Wayfinding Signage have a consistent design to help draw attention and minimize distraction as drivers seek their destinations. Establish and maintain a High Injury Network that will help the City prioritize roadway segments for in depth safety audits as part Traffic Safety Audit No program at this time. of a routine program. The City All Program can allocate a defined set of resources to maintain the plan at a comfortable pace and revisit the prioritized list as segments are completed. Continue to use California Warrants for Traffic No local warrants are MUTCD standards where All Control Devices utilized appropriate. Consider local warrant if MUTCD is not sufficient Develop consistent policies around access control that can Access Management be applied systemically as Policy for Major and No policy at this time. roadways are redesigned or All Secondary Roadways maintained. Preserving property access while limiting vehicle conflicts can be part of the City's design standards. The City can use corridor signal progression to both manage peak direction traffic speed and to reduce stop -and -go patterns that Signal Timing There is no active program contribute to rear -end crashes. All Coordination to coordinate signals. Where possible the City can update its signal systems with detection and modern capabilities to respond to traffic conditions and reduce rear -end collisions. City of Rosemead 31 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Topic Enhance Identify obsolete high-capacity Complete Streets Yes, within the City's intersection designations and Policy general plan. evaluate potential lane reduction Vulnerable Road Users strategies and allocation of space for other trans ortation modes. Implement recommendations Yes, the City has applied from the ongoing Safe Routes to Safe Routes to School and received funding for School plan and consider Vulnerable Road Users Funding Safe Routes to School opportunitiesfor more systemic implementation where appropriate. Enforcement is based on Establish rotating enforcement the California Vehicle Code targets for high visibility City Enforcement on and County Code campaigns when feasible to Bicycle Rules (California Vehicle Code address specific behavior Vulnerable Road Users Section 21212, County challenges with the goal of Code, Title 15, 21955 VC) improving the long-term culture of safety in the City. Continue to accommodate bicycles on transit to promote Transit Vehicles multi -modal trips and continue to Accommodation of Yes focus on first/last mile active Vulnerable Road Users Bicycles transportation connections with bus stops, particularly related to roadway crossings. Continue to update master plans to reflect changing trends and Yes, there is a Bicycle focus on plan implementation. Bicycle and Transportation Plan Ensure coordination between Pedestrian Master approved by the City in planning, engineering, and Vulnerable Road Users Plans 2012. maintenance teams to avoid missed opportunities to fund and implement changes as part of routine City operations General Plan Yes, the City's general plan Regularly assess progress and Addresses Multimodal addresses multimodal areas for improvement. Vulnerable Road Users Traffic Safety traffic safety. Collect and maintain an inventory Inventory of Bicycle, of facilities. Consider developing Pedestrian, Parking, No inventory at this time. a public facing map that can be Vulnerable Road Users and other facilities shared on the City website or at public facilities. Regular Collection of Consider City policy to require Traffic I Bicycle I No, the City does not bicycle and pedestrian counts as Vulnerable Road Users Pedestrian Volumes regularly collectvolumes part of any routine traffic counts conducted within the City. 8.2 Emphasis Areas Emphasis areas represent crash factors that are common in the City and provide the opportunity to reduce the largest number of traffic injuries with strategic investment. Emphasis areas were City of Rosemead 32 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) developed by revisiting the vision and goals of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis. 8.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians & Bicyclists) Description: Pedestrians and bicyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable users, meaning they possess the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. These groups need appropriate infrastructure to travel to key destinations such as schools, workplaces, and core commercial areas. The City's Circulation element lays out plans and standards for non -motorized transportation. Of the 176 crashes involving vulnerable road users, 9 resulted in a fatal injury and 13 resulted in a severe injury. The City should aim to implement countermeasures to further protect these users from injury. Goals for Emphasis Area #1: • Improve active transportation infrastructure by adding pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, and other amenities to make it safer for employees and community members to get to key destinations such as school, commercial centers, transit centers, and recreation areas • Encourage healthier lifestyles through active transportation infrastructure • Apply for HSIP and other funding to implement countermeasures to address vulnerable road user crashes Strategies for Emphasis Area #1: • Provide outreach, education, and enforcement to encourage more separation between vehicular and pedestrian traffic • Install high -visibility crosswalk markings at the intersection of key destinations • Ensure all signalized intersections have completed crosswalks • Provide dedicated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to and from bus stops • Install adequate street lighting • Widen street shoulders • Provide signage (e.g., pedestrian crossing ahead) to help drivers expect to slow down for pedestrians and bikes • Install bicycle lanes along key corridors • Install bicycle storage facilities in public areas, such as parks and schools, to encourage bicycle use Install curb extensions Install ADA ramps • Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with new controller City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) • Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations • Establish rotating enforcement targets for high visibility campaigns • Incorporate GIS bicycle facilities into interactive map on City website • Update City traffic analysis guidelines to require bicycle and pedestrian counts These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSI P, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs. " 9.2 Emphasis Area #2: Aggressive Drivinr Description: Aggressive driving, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes several behaviors including speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Aggressive driving behaviors (unsafe speed or following too closely) accounted for 632 crashes or 22 percent of collisions within the City of Rosemead. Goals for Emphasis Area #2: Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive driving in the City Identify hot spots and priority corridors for aggressive driving Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address aggressive driving Strategies for Emphasis Area #2: • Continue to update speed limits with additional flexibility given by Assembly Bill 43. In cases where speed continues to be a challenge, preventing the enforcement of desirable speed limits, consider roadway design characteristics that might support lower speeds. • Implement traffic calming improvements and establish a monitoring program to determine which measures are most effective • Install additional regulatory signage • Upgrade pavement markings to make intersections more visible • Enhance roadway and intersection striping • Reduce intersection size or number of lanes These strategies will be implemented by the City, Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, OTS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), or Safe Streets for All (SS4A) grant programs. 8.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Aging Drivers (66+) Description: Collisions involving aging drivers, as defined by the Caltrans SHSP, includes instances where the driver of the motor vehicles is 65 years or older. During the period of 2017 - City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 2021, 17% of the fatal and severe injury collisions in the City involved aging drivers, as compared to 12% statewide. Goals for Emphasis Area #3: • Reduce collisions involving aging drivers in the City • Devise and execute a communication and outreach plan • Evaluate progress of goal on an ongoing basis and make any necessary changes to the implementation strategy Strategies for Emphasis Area #3: • Implement driver refresher courses or education campaigns to target aging drivers with messages regarding road safety • Increase enforcement near hotspots of aging driver collisions • Increase coordinate with community organization These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments (SGVCOG), Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSI P, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs. City of Rosemead 35 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) This section provides information on general identified issues, crash reduction factors, improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of Rosemead, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on data analysis, stakeholder input, and site visits. 9.1 Infrastructure Improvements 9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process Part D of the HSM provides information on CMFs for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to estimate the safety effects of highway improvements, specifically to compare and select highway safety improvements. A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce crashes. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase crashes. A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is directly connected to the CMF and is "mathematically defined as (1 — CMF) (the higherthe CRF, the greaterthe expected reduction in crashes)'." CMFs can help decision makers weigh potential alternative projects, but are only one measure of a project's value and should be considered part of a larger decision making process. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all CMFs are as reliable as others. The FHWA maintains a federal depository of CMFs and includes a star rating system to help users determine which CMFs are bolstered by the best and most thorough research. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include: 1. Selection of an appropriate CMF; 2. Estimation of crashes without treatment; 3. Application of CMFs by type and severity; and, 4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments. Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a city-wide level and are discussed in Section 9.2 City -Wide Countermeasure Toolbox. 4 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 27. City of Rosemead 36 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies From the city-wide analysis, ten (10) project case study locations were selected for further evaluation and countermeasure development. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a balanced understanding of common safety patterns at a variety of location types that can be used to associate countermeasures with specific roadway configurations and conditions. These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. A Safety Project Case Study was developed for each of the following locations: 1. Signalized Intersection: San Gabriel Blvd and Garvey Ave 2. Signalized Intersection: Rosemead Blvd and Valley Blvd 3. Signalized Intersection: San Gabriel Blvd and Hellman Ave 4. Signalized Intersection: Rio Hondo Ave/Mission Dr and Valley Blvd 5. Unsignalized Intersection: Stingle Ave and Garvey Ave 6. Segment: Valley Blvd from Gold World Plaza Driveway to Hidden Pines PI 7. Segment: Valley Blvd from Rosemead Blvd to Hart Ave 8. Segment: Walnut Grove Ave from Garvey Ave to Dorothy St 9. Segment: Grand Ave from Ivar Ave to Rosemead Blvd V Signalized Intersection: Mission Dr and Walnut Grove Dr The following pages summarize conditions at each location, and potentially beneficial countermeasures. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. These case study sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities. City of Rosemead 37 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Project Name: Rosemead LRSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org Intersection: San Gabriel Blvd and Garvey Ave Example of Similar Intersections: Walnut Grove Ave and Garvey Ave; Temple City Blvd and Valley Blvd M 0. P eine 3 at a z a Ga ve 3 E G ve P.cbe Grary Rush t - — 1. San Gabriel Blvd & Garvey Ave I1� I - SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Note: fatal and severe injury ml I sions are shown in red an 41M (rT c � -: try- _.i, _ 4M,, L'. r .5 rgr i : f 64 Collisions 1' _ I Legend - 12 Sideswipe r '�I ; Broadside Sideswipe - 5 HeadOn - - 24Rear-End \\I I` �r Head -On r�Rear-End 30ther 7 - 3HRObject Other — Hit Object 1 Parked Car '\ - 5 VehidEPedestdan .� k } r yp Parked Car +1} VehiclePedestrian Kimley )Horn Collision Data Total Collisions 64 Fatal and Severe Injury 13,732 Collisions 2 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear -end (38%) Lighting Sideswipe (19%) Highest Posted Speed Limit Broadside (17%) Dark Collisions 18 Impaired Collisions 0 Collision Data Number of Approaches 4 Total Entering Vehicles 13,732 Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on all approaches Control Type Signalized Intersection Lighting Yes Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 56 5 0 Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Relocate "No U- 15% Turn"signs to mast $4,125,600 $25,200 163.71 (NS0 arm Install bike lanes 35% $3,917,480 $76,800 51.01 (R32PB) Install high visibility crosswalks and modernize 35% $3,917,480 $120,000 32.65 (R35P6) pedestrian push buttons Kimley>>Morn Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Improve signal hardware; back plate 15% $4,125,600 $26,400 156.27 with retroreflective w (502) borders Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone 40% $11,001,600 $76,800 143.25 Detection for high (504) speed approaches Modify signal phasing toimplement a 60% $6,715,680 $45,600 147.27 Leading Pedestrian (521PB) Interval LPI Install pedestrian countdown signal 25% $2,798,200 $43,680 64.06 (S17P6) heads Create BRT corridor $1,375,200 Varies (Custom) Convert excess curb 5% $1,375,200 Varies lane to other uses (Custom) KimleyoHorn Project Name: Rosemead LRSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org Intersection: Rosemead Blvd and Valley Blvd Example of Similar Intersections: San Gabriel Ave and Garvey Ave; Walnut Grove Ave and Valley Blvd 2. Rosemead Blvd & Valley Blvd w r I ,kyr •. li 45 Collisions - 13 Broadside - 13Sideswipe - 1 Head -On - 13Rear-End 3 Other - 1Hit Object 1 Vehide,Pedestrian SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION T�1- Note: fatal and severe inju ry ml l islons are shown l n red i F L3�� r _. I� cr ACM3 b, �yzt 1� 21t 1 Z u rr Legend 1� Broadside yr Head -On Hit Object rr Other —�—s Rear -End Sideswipe Vehicle Pedestrian Kimsey>»norn Collision Data Total Collisions 45 Fatal and Severe Injury 14,993 Collisions 1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear -end (29%) Lighting Sideswipe (29%) Highest Posted Speed Limit Broadside (29%) Dark Collisions 12 Impaired Collisions 1 • Time restricted left turn on Rosemead Blvd SB • Long left turn lane • Low hanging powerline • Pedestrian refuge buttons on Rosemead Blvd (SB & NB) • No U-turn on Valley Blvd (EB & WB) • Rosemead Explorer stop present Collision Data Number of Approaches 4 Total Entering Vehicles 14,993 Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on all approaches Control Type Signalized Intersection Lighting Yes Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 43 1 0 Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Install high visibility crosswalk and 35% $3,831,520 $120,000 31.93 modernize pedestrian (R35PB) push buttons Improve signal hardware; back plate with $2,278,980 $26,400 86.33 02 (5S02) retroreflective borders Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone 40% $6,077,280 $76,800 79.13 Detection for high (SO4) speed approaches Kimley>»Horn Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20-Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Modify signal phasing toimplement a 60% $6,568,320 $45,600 144.04 Leading Pedestrian (S21PB) Interval LPI Install pedestrian countdown signal g 25% $2,736,800 $43,680 62.66 (S17P6) heads Improve raised medians/ refuge $4,926,240 $55,080 89.44 (NS19P6) 19 islands (NS. I.) Install raised median 25% $3,798,300 $194,400 19.54 on approaches (S. 1.) (S12) Recalibrate yellow and all-red clearance $2,278,980 $14,400 158.26 (S03°) times Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) 51 $7,596,600 $583,200 13.03 (N5S15) left-turns and uturns NS.I. Enforcement 5% $759,660 Varies activities (Custom) Kimley>Morn Project Name: Rosemead _RSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org Intersection: San Gabriel Blvd and Hellman Ave Example of Similar Intersections: Walnut Grove Ave and Hellman Ave; Rosemead Blvd and Glendon Way 3. San Gab1BIvdellman Ave 1 I+ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Nate: fatal and severe l njery C011 IS 10 ns are shown in rp I I— o 3— j l,,_,� t 2'-�- �- 22111 -� P41 40 Collisions - 12 Broadside - ] Sideswipe 2 Head -On - 15 Rear -End 1 Other - 2Hit Object - i Vehid"edestrian 4 Legend 1 Broadside Sideswipe �r Headi Rear -End r Other — Hit Object Vehide-Pedestrian Kimley>»Horn Collision Data Total Collisions 40 Fatal and Severe Injury 14,993 Collisions 1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear -end (33%) Lighting Broadside (30%) Highest Posted Speed Limit Sideswipe (18%) Dark Collisions 8 Impaired Collisions 2 Collision Data Number of Approaches 4 Total Entering Vehicles 14,993 Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on all approaches Control Type Signalized Intersection Lighting Yes Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 37 1 0 U-turn permitted on SB San Gabriel Blvd; U-turn not permitted on NB San Gabriel Blvd Truck restriction Right slip onto 1-10 East Pedestal and mast arm feature old pedestrian push buttons Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota 120 -Year Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Relocate No U-turn 15% $2,303,580 $8,400 274.24 s signs to mast arm (NS06) Install high visibility crosswalk and 35% $398,440 $120,000 3.32 modernize pedestrian (R35PB) push buttons Improve signal hardware; back p ate with 15% $2,303,580 $26,400 87.26 (502) retroreflective borders Kimley>»Horn Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota 120 -Year Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone 40% $6,142,880 $76,800 79.99 Detection for high D (SO4) speed approaches Modify signal phasing toimplement a 60% $683,040 $45,600 14.98 Leading Pedestrian (S21PB) Interval LPI Install pedestrian countdown signal g 25% $284,600 $43,680 6.52 (S17P6) heads Add 1-10 Freeway Shield Pavement 25% $3,839,300 $38,400 99.98 Markingand (NS07) respective arrows Install raised median on approaches (S. 1.) 25% $3,839,300 $29,160 131.66 (from 1-10 EB Off- (S12) Ramp to Intersection Create split phase for 15% $2,303,580 $14,400 159.97 Hellman (503) Reconfigure lanes (change to right turn ° (Custom) $767,860 Varies - + freeway slip) Restrict uncontrolled 5% $767,860 Varies left turn (Custom) Kimley>Morn Project Name: Rosemead LRSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org Intersection: Rio Hondo Ave/Mission Dr and Valley Blvd Example of Similar Intersections: Rosemead Blvd and Mission Dr 4. Rio Hondo Ave/ Mission Dr & Valley Blvd 1 S titi 2L— r. SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Nate: fat al and severe lnjcry collisions are shown In red qW N" � C- .1 1�m 1 1 3 50 I r Collisions 1 Legend - 14 Broadside' J �' � J 4 t Broadside Sideswipe - 55ideswipe � ry - 5 Head -On Mri W ! Head -On r� Bear -End - 17 BearEnd - 3 Other CT C� Other Hit Obleet - SHit Object r� 1 Vehid"iryde _..I � �� Vehicle -Bi,& Kimley >)Horn Collision Data Total Collisions 50 Fatal and Severe Injury west approaches on Collisions 1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear -end (34%) Broadside (28%) Control Type Sideswipe/Head-on/Hit Lighting Ob'ect 10% Dark Collisions 16 Impaired Collisions 2 Number of Approaches 5 Total Entering Vehicles 14,993 Collision Data Crosswalk Condition Crosswalks at the north& Bicycle west approaches on 0 Mission Dr and north & east approaches on Rio Hondo Ave Control Type Signalized Intersection Lighting Yes Highest Posted Speed $3,292,520 35 MPH Limit pedestrian push Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 44 0 1 Mission Dr and Valley Blvd: include refuge Suggestion to include crosswalk on Valley Blvd EB at Rio Hondo Blvd U-turn permitted on Valley Blvd EB/WB at Rio Hondo Ave No crosswalk on Rio Hondo Ave NB Potential Countermeasures Crash Reduction Factor (LRSM/CMF ID) 20 Year Safety Benefit Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Ratio Install high -visibility crosswalk and 35% modernize $3,292,520 $150,000 21.95 pedestrian push (R35PB) button Improve signal hardware; back plate 15% $2,431,380 $52,800 46.05 with retroreflective (S02) borders Kimley>»Horn Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone 40% $6,483,680 $153,600 42.21 Detection for high (504) speed approaches Modify signal phasing toimplement a 60% $5,644,320 $91,200 61.89 Leading Pedestrian (521PB) Interval LPI Install pedestrian countdown signal g 25% $2,351,800 $87,360 26.92 (517P6) heads Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent 15% $2,431,380 $2,400 1013.08 sheeting (regulatory (1122) or warning) Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way $4,862,760 $39,600 122.80 (R14) left -turn and bike lanes Reconfigure lanes (change #2 W13 to allow thru/righton 5% $810,460 Varies Mission and #3 (Custom) dedicated RT onto Rio Hondo Create bulb-out/curb 5% $810,460 $180,000 4.50 extension at Mission (Custom) Remove parking in 5% $810,460 Varies intersection area (Custom) Kimley>»Horn Project Name: Rosemead LRSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org Intersection: Stingle Ave and Garvey Ave Example of Similar Intersections: Valley Blvd and Hart Ave; Valley Blvd and Gernert Ave UNSIGNALIZED T -INTERSECTION S.StingleAve&Garvey Ave Not.:f,talaohye°en,Iin co or, re`hewninrPI WE ri I r 17 Collisions - 5Brnadside #Legend� - S Sideswipe .'R I : Broadside :z:2, Sideswipe - 1 HeadOn - 4Renr-Entl - - Heatl-On �r Rear End - 1Hit Object —' - AL i Verde-Petlestrian . — Hit Object 1} Vehide-Pedestrian Kimley>»Horn Collision Data Total Collisions 17 Fatal and Severe Injury 13,024 Collisions 1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Sideswipe (29%) Lighting Broadside (29%) Highest Posted Speed Limit Rear -end (24%) Dark Collisions 2 Impaired Collisions 0 Collision Data Number of Approaches 3 Total Entering Vehicles 13,024 Crosswalk Condition None present Control Type T Stop Intersection Lighting Yes Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 MPH Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 15 1 0 • No transit stop, but Metro Route 70 runs along Garvey Ave • Driveways nearby with access to Garvey Ave • Stingle Ave is nota thru street • No U-turn on Garvey Ave WB • Truck activity • Speedings • No cross walks; look into curb extensions Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Turn two way left turn into dedicated 50% $5,481,600 $29,160 187.98 left turn for Garvey (NS15) WB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations 35% $3,066,000 $45,600 67.24 (NS21PB) (with enhanced safety features Install Pedestrian Signal (including 55% $4,818,000 $228,000 21.13 Pedestrian Hybrid (NS23PB) Beacon (HAWK)) Kimley>»Horn Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Install signals 30% $3,288,960 $ $378,000 8.70 (N503) Increase access controlri ht in, right � g g 50% $5,481,600 $48,600 112.79 (N515) out Curb Extension/Bulb- 5% $548,160 $60,000 9.14 Out (Custom) Kimley>»Horn Project Name: Rosemead LRSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org Segment: Valley Blvd from Gold World Plaza Driveway to Hidden Pines PI Example of Similar Segment: Valley Blvd from Lafayette St to San Gabriel Blvd 6. Valley Blvd from Gold World Plaza Driveway to Hidden Pines PI s' e r fir - ROADWAY SEGMENT Note: fatal and severe injury collisions are shown in red all 4 9 >>> Horn q, $S k, u uuVu 15 Collisions Legend - 4Broadsidepr a r. r t Broadside Sideswipe - 4 Sides ipe - 3 Head -On —c Head -On Other/Not Stated - 1Rear-End - 1 Other/ Nt Stated o r•. ` -�� '�� Rear -End Vehicle -Pedestrian IVehidnPedestdan,pp�,r.., � - 1 Parked Car a ^ im PC Parked Car 9 >>> Horn Collision Data Total Collisions 15 Fatal and Severe Injury 1 Collisions Yes Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (27%) FHiimgith�est Posted Speed Sideswipe (27%) (LRSM/CMF ID) Head-on 20% Dark Collisions 8 Impaired Collisions 0 Proposed crosswalk Tight driveway exiting North onto Valley Blvd Hidden Pines PIs is a private access way Collision Data Average Daily Traffic 29 986 (ADT) 13 Lighting Yes Median None present FHiimgith�est Posted Speed 35 MPH (LRSM/CMF ID) Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 13 2 0 Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Install Rectangular 35% Rapid Flashing $3,179,260 $54,000 58.88 Beacon(RRFB) (R37PB) Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing 35% $3,179,260 $30,000 105.98 (with enhanced (R35PB) safety features) Install raised median 5% $2,714,200 $162,000 16.75 ( 1108) Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way $3,257,040 $18,750 173.71 (0% left -turn and bike lanes Install bike lanes 35% $3,179,260 $18,182 174.86 (R32PB) Install d namic/variable Y 30% $2.725,080 $45,600 59.76 (1126) speed warning signs Install acceleration/ 25% $2,714,200 Varies deceleration lanes (1111) Add edge lines (mark 25% $2,714,200 $23,864 113.74 parkingareas) (R28) Conduct pedestrian crossingwarrant ° (Custom) $454,180 Varies - analysis KimleyoHorn Project Name: Rosemead LRSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org ROADWAY SEGMENT Segment: Valley Blvd from Rosemead Blvd to Hart Ave Example of Similar Segment: Valley Blvd from Ivar Ave to Rosemead Blvd; Garvey Ave from San Gabriel Blvd to Gladys Ave Kimley >>Horn 0. \ } ew £ C F Z Ga ve 3 GaM Rush t _ L � Kimley >>Horn Collision Data Total Collisions 12 Fatal and Severe Injury 0 Collisions Yes Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (50%) FHiimgith�est Posted Speed Sideswipe (33%) (LRSM/CMF ID) Rear -end 17% Dark Collisions 1 Impaired Collisions 0 Collision Data Average Daily Traffic 29 986 (ADT) 10 Lighting Yes Median None present FHiimgith�est Posted Speed 35 MPH (LRSM/CMF ID) Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 10 0 2 Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 30% to 3 and add a two $1,048,680 $15,750 66.58 way left -turn and (1114) bike lanes) Install raised median $681,800 $324,000 2.10 (25% Install edge -lines and 25% $681,800 $20,045 34.01 centerlines (R28) Install d namic/variable Y 30% $1,048,680 $45,600 23.00 (R26) speed warnin si ns Increase access control (right in, right 50% $1,390,200 $324,000 4.29 (N515) out Kimley»#Horn Project Name: Rosemead LRSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org Segment: Walnut Grove Ave from Garvey Ave to Dorothy St Example of Similar Segment: Walnut Grove Ave from Marshall St to Valley Blvd ROADWAY SEGMENT Kimley*Horn Collision Data Total Collisions 14 Fatal and Severe Injury 1 Collisions Yes Top 3 Collision Types (%) Rear -end (36%) FHiimgith�est Posted Speed Sideswipe (29%) (LRSM/CMF ID) Broadside 14% Dark Collisions 7 Impaired Collisions 0 No parking 8-10 Safe Routes to School School times Collision Data Average Daily Traffic 20,715 (ADT) 13 Lighting Yes Median None present FHiimgith�est Posted Speed 40 (LRSM/CMF ID) Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 13 1 0 Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Total 20 -Year Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Install Rectangular 35% Rapid Flashing $ $18,620 $54,000 0.34 Beacon(RRFB) (R37PB) Install edge -lines $3,087,900 $19,091 161.75 (RZ% Install d namic/variable Y 30% $3,705,480 $45,600 81.26 (R26) speed warning signs Install bike lanes 35% $18,620 $14,545 1.28 (R32P6) Upgrade intersection pavement markings 25% $3,087,900 $76,800 40.21 (repaint school zone (NS07) markings) Kimley>»Horn Potential Countermeasures Crash Reduction Factor (LRSM/CMF ID) 20 Year Safety Benefit Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Ratio Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way $3,705,480 $60,000 61.76 (R14) left -turn and bike lanes Enforcement 5% $617,580 Varies activities (Custom) Kimley>»Horn Project Name: Rosemead LRSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org Segment: Grand Ave from Ivar Ave to Rosemead Blvd Example of Similar Segment: Delta PI from Garvey Ave to Dorothy St 9. Grand Ave from Ivar Ave to Rosemead Blvd F1 10 Collisions` J. - 3 Broadside - 1 Sideswipe 2 Head -On o• r - I Rear -End I Other I HR Object 0 0 ROADWAY SEGMENT Legend t Broadside =_� Sideswipe —�F Head -On Other Rear -End Hit Object KimseyVHorn Collision Data Total Collisions 10 Fatal and Severe Injury 0 Collisions Yes Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (30%) [Hiimgith�est Posted Speed Hit Object (20%) (LRSM/CMF ID) Head-on 20% Dark Collisions 3 Impaired Collisions 0 Rail corridor in close proximity Collision Data Average Daily Traffic 1,000 (ADT) 6 Lighting Yes Median None present [Hiimgith�est Posted Speed 35 MPH (LRSM/CMF ID) Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 6 0 0 Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Total 20 -Year Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Install curve advance 25% $268,200 $4,800 55.88 warning signs (R24) Install chevron signs 40% $429,120 $9,600 44.70 on horizontal curves (R23) Increase access control ri ht in, right (g g 50% $536,400 $23,328 22.99 (N515) out Curb Extension/Bulb- 5% $53,640 $30,000 1.79 Out (Custom) Close Intersection at Rosemead Blvd and 5% $53,640 Varies - (Custom) Grand Ave Kimley>»Horn Project Name: Rosemead _RSP Agency Name: City of Rosemead Contact Name: Eddie Chan Email: echan@cityofrosemead.org SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION Intersection: Mission Dr and Walnut Grove Ave Example of Similar Intersections: Del Mar Ave and Garvey Ave; Walnut Grove Ave and Garvey 10. Mission Dr and Walnut Note ,�ons� fatal and severe injuryco Grove Ave -2J 12 t2 � I Legend +� Broadside �r Head -On 21 Collisions - 11 Broadside 1 _ / RearEnd - 25ideswipe 1 - 5 Head -On Sideswipe - 2 Rear -End # - Hit Object 1 Hit ObjeR -.Object KimieYVHorn Collision Data Total Collisions 21 Fatal and Severe Injury 8,914 Collisions 1 Top 3 Collision Types (%) Broadside (52%) Lighting Head-on (24%) Highest Posted Speed Limit Rear -end (10%) Dark Collisions 9 Impaired Collisions 0 Permissive left turns Crosswalks recently striped Truck Route Old pedestrian push buttons Mission Or is 40 mph Collision Data Number of Approaches 4 Total Entering Vehicles 8,914 Crosswalk Condition Crosswalk on all approaches Control Type Signalized Intersection Lighting Yes Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 MPH Collisions Involved With Vehicular Pedestrian Bicycle 21 0 0 Potential Crash Reduction 20 Year Safety Tota I 20 -Yea r Costs Safety Related B/C Countermeasures Factor Benefit Ratio (LRSM/CMF ID) Convert intersection to roundabout (from Varies Varies Varies - (516) signal) Installation of no right 15% $1,794,360 $33,600 53.40 on red signs (NS06) Add flashingyellow 15% $1,794,360 I $14,400 124.61 I arrow or protected LT (503) Kimley>»Horn Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 9.2 City-wide Countermeasure Toolbox This evaluation considered citywide trends to identify countermeasures that would likely provide the most benefit with widespread implementation. Table 7 outlines the citywide safety project opportunities, which is also referred to as the "Countermeasure Toolbox". Within the toolbox, the description of the countermeasure along with its Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) ID number is listed. The next column, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), are "multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected reduction in number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes)." For each of these countermeasures, a planning level benefit/cost analysis was completed. Applying the benefit/cost at the citywide level was estimated assuming some randomness in crash distribution. The location characteristics, such as whether there is a traffic signal, and the type of crashes, were used at the citywide level to calculate an average cost of crashes that the countermeasure might reduce. The benefit per location was then factored out to a 20 -year lifecycle savings, with an Opinion of Project Probable Cost (OPCC) for the initial installation costs and a per -year maintenance cost estimate. The cost shown in Table 7 should be considered initial planning costs using 2022 dollars and not assumed final. City of Rosemead 58 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Table 7 — General Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 PotentialID Cost NS03 Install signals Unsignalized intersections with 30% $378,000 per significant collision activity where intersection warrants are met NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop Areas identified in road sign safety 15% $8,400 per sign signs/other intersections warning/regulatory audit sign NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings Intersections where outdated or 25% $38,400 per (NS.I.) degraded striping and pavement intersection markings exist NS15 Create directional median openings to allow Entrances/exits from driveways with 50% $324 per LF for a (and restrict) left turns and U-turns (NS.I.) high numbers of turning movement 10' wide collisions median NS21 PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at Midblock locations 1500+ feet away 35% $45,600 per location uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety from an existing signal with significant features) pedestrian demand where speed limit is less than 35 mph NS23PB Install Pedestrian Signal (including Pedestrian Midblock locations 1500+ feet away 55% $228,800 per Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)) from an existing signal with significant intersection pedestrian demand where speed limit is greater than 35 mph R08 Install raised median Higher speed, undivided roadways with 25% $324 per LF for a 4+ lanes 10' wide median R11 Install acceleration/deceleration lanes Speed limit is greater than 45 mph and 25% varies varies curb lane volume exceeds 500 vph during peak periods R14 Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and Roadway segments with high number 30% $79,200 per mile add a two way left -turn and bike lanes) of sideswipe collisions R22 Install/Upgrade signs with newfluorescent Locations with a history of head on and 15% $2,400 per sign sheeting (regulatory or warning) sideswipe collisions due to lack of driver awareness City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply? CRIF Per Unit Unit Cost R23 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves To provide additional emphasis and 40$ $2,400 per sign guidance for a chance in horizontal alignment R24 Install curve advance warning signs Used in advance of curves that have $2,4 $2,400 per sign an advisory seed of less than 30 mph 00 R26 Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs Roadway segments with a significant 30% $22,800 per sign number of collisions due to unsafe speeds R28 Install edge -lines and centerlines Roadway segments with collisions that 25% $100,800 per mile resulted in run -off-road right/left, head- on, or opposite -direction -sideswipe with an ADT greater than 6 000 R32PB Install bike lanes Locations with a high number of 35% $76,800 per mile bicycle collisions R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with Locations with no controlled crossing 35% $30,000 per crossing enhanced safety features) for significant distances R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Midblock locations 1500+ feet away 35% $54,000 per crossing (RRFB) from an existing signal with significant pedestrian demand where speed limit is up to 35 mph S02 Improve signal hardware; lenses, back plate Signalized intersections where signals 15% $26,400 per with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and heads to do not meet current intersection number standards S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, Signalized intersections where there is 15% $14,400 per red, yellow, or operation) insufficient clearance time with current intersection timing plans or where signals placed closely enough to impact free flowing operations of the street SO4 Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for Signalized intersections with significant 40% $76,800 per high speed approaches right-angle and rear -end collisions due intersection to unsafe stopping during yellow phases City of Rosemead 60 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 PotentialID Cost S12 Install raised median on approaches (S.I.) Higher speed, undivided roadways with 25% $324 per LF for a 4+ lanes 10' wide median S16 Convert intersection to roundabout (from Signalized intersections with a varie varies varies signal) significant collisions due to complex s lane configurations S17PB Install pedestrian countdown signal heads Signals without countdown indicators 25% $43,680 per with frequent pedestrian collisions intersection S21 PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Signalized Intersections — especially 60% $45,600 per Pedestrian Interval (LPI) those with high pedestrian activity intersection Create BRT corridor Consistent with SGVCOG transit plan 5% varies varies Convert excess curb lane to other uses Where curb lane is greater than 14 feet 5% varies varies Reconfigure lanes Address citywide lane widths to 5% varies varies discourage excessive speed Restrict uncontrolled left turn Unsignalized intersections with 5% varies varies alternative access opportunities where turning volumes are low Remove parking Where sight distance is obstructed at 5% varies varies driveways or intersections or there is insufficient space for parking and bicycle lanes on designated bike routes Conduct pedestrian crossing warrant analysis Locations with high incidents of 5% varies varies midblock pedestrian crossings Implement targeted DUI enforcement combined Locations citywide, specifically those 5% varies varies with education programs at local high schools with high DUI collisions Install curb extensions Intersections with high pedestrian 5% $30,000 per activity extension "These locations did not have an approved Crash Reduction Factor. so a conservative 5% CRF was assumed to calculate benefit City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 10.1 Funding Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Rosemead. The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Rosemead. This section provides a high-level introduction to some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply. 10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program that apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal -aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non -motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include: • New or upgraded traffic signals Upgraded guard rails Pedestrian warning flashing beacons • Marked crosswalks • Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual California's local HSIPfocuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash reduction factors. Normally HSIP call -for -projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city, a county, or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California. Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information — including dates for upcoming call for projects - can be found at: Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Caltrans. HSIP Cycle 11 applications are due in September 2022. 10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non -motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include: • Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g., safe routes to school) Non -infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) City of Rosemead 62 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) This program funding is provided annually. The ATP call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at: Active Transportation Program (ATP) I Caltrans. 10.1.3 California SB 1 The California SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements. California's state -maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: $26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state's growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes. Each year, this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including: Local Street and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation: $1.5 billion o This funding is dedicated to improve local road maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through projects such as restriping and repaving. Bike and Pedestrian Projects: $100 million o This will go to cities, counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths, crosswalks, and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP. Local Planning Grants: $25 million 10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grants applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas: o Alcohol Impaired Driving o Distracted Driving o Drug -Impaired Emergency Medical Services o Motorcycle Safety o Occupant Protection o Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety o Police Traffic Services o Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program o Roadway Safety and Traffic Records City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 10.1.6 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy efforts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories: Integrated Land Use o Sustainable Land Use Planning o Transit Oriented Development (TOD) o Land Use & Transportation Integration Active Transportation o Bicycle Planning o Pedestrian Planning o Safe Routes to School Plans Green Region o Natural Resource Plans o Climate Action Plans (CAPs) o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs 10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program This program has allocated $113 annually for the next 4 years for local cities, counties, MPOs, and other roadway owners (excepting state DOTS) for safety improvement grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is not benefit / cost based. Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project's alignment with the Safe Systems approach. There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in-kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agency and Implementation grants are open to agencies with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway Safety Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100K to $1 M and Implementation grants are expected to range from $1M to $20M. Grant applications are due in September 2022. Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan and the City's adoption of a Vision Zero resolution makes the City eligible to apply for SS4A implementation grants. 10.1.6 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act In November 2021, the President signed into lawthe $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above, this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for improvements and investment in the transportation sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over 5 years for competitive RAISE grants for transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these grant programs continue to be developed, City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue. City of Rosemead 64 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) 10.2 Implementation Plan Once the Local Roadway Safety Plan has been completed, the City can plan to regularly review and monitor collision data for trends and changes, as well as update the LRSP every 5 years. The City can also plan to prioritize and implement certain improvements that were identified in this plan. 10.2.1 Monitoring The City can plan to regularly monitor the success of the LRSP and its related implementations by performing the following steps: • Pull yearly collision data from Crossroads database to determine year -over -year trend • Utilize Crossroads or GIS software to review the number of collisions occurring at specific locations. Locations where improvements have been made should receive priority for monitoring. • Based upon changes in collision activity, determine efficacy of improvements and adjust strategies going forward 10.2.2 Analysis Update To maintain eligibility for HSIP grant funding, the City will need to update the LRSP every 5 years. The City can plan to update the analysis by performing the following steps: 1. Obtain updated SWITRS collision data from the Crossroads database 2. Use Excel software to update the collision trend analysis completed in Section 7 of this report 3. Update the roadway shapefile with any new or upgraded roadways 4. Update the intersection shapefile with any new or upgraded intersections 5. Re -run the GIS collision tool to determine the number of collisions at intersections and roadways within the updated study period. The City can plan to run the collision tool for all collisions, as well as the collision types identified in Section 3.2.2 of this report. 6. Update collision analysis tables shown in Section 7.7 of this report 7. Review the Collision Toolbox to determine if any additional countermeasures should be considered for implementation in the City 10.2.3 Implementation Strategies The opportunities identified in this report provide systemic and location -specific countermeasures that can be implemented within the City. Implementation will be dictated by funding and available resources, this guidance is preliminary and subject to change. Over the near-term and mid-term, the City can concentrate its efforts on the following emphasis areas. • Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians and Bicyclists) • Aggressive Driving City of Rosemead 65 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) • Aging Drivers (65+) Analysis conducted at the citywide level indicated that these factors were some of the most frequent influences contributing to collisions within the City. The countermeasure opportunities previously discussed in this report for both systemic and project -specific improvements can be used as a basis for developing projects at locations where addressing these focus areas would be of the most benefit. Projects that address these focused areas citywide can be developed with a high benefit -to -cost ratio (by applying City-wide collision rates), allowing competitive projects to be developed even at sites with little to no direct collision history, but with conditions that might contribute to future collisions. For location -specific improvements, the City can utilize benefit -cost ratio calculations to help prioritize projects as funding and resources become available. This project prioritization process will help the City be ready for the funding opportunities identified in Section Error! Reference source not found.. Project prioritization will also help to guide the projects as they are taking into the design and construction project. Coordination with City departments will be key in the completion of these implementations. The City can also plan to implement the non -engineering improvements identified throughout this report, including actions related to Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Services. These actions will require coordination with internal and external stakeholders, such as City departments, law enforcement, local government organizations, and local community organizations. Early buy -in and engagement from these stakeholders will be key to the success of these actions. To aid in these actions, the City can assemble a 'Task Force' of representatives from different City departments, such as Public Works, Development Services, and Public Safety. This task force will be instrumental in the monitoring, analysis update, project development and project implementation outlined in this plan. 10.3 Next Steps The City has completed this LRSP to guide the process of future transportation safety improvements for years to come. In addition to the actions identified in the Implementation Plan, the City can perform the following to guide the success of this LRSP and the safety efforts overall. • Work with state and partner agencies on implementation of large-scale programs and policies • Incorporate safety analysis findings in future updates of safety programs • Monitor statewide safety priorities, guidance, and funding opportunities City of Rosemead 66 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Servicesfor the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) City of Rosemead 67 September 2022 Local Road Safety Plan I Final Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Table—Analysis Rankings: Intersections Signalized Intersections N San Gabriel Blvd &Garvey Ave Rosemead Blvd &Glendon Way 64 64 1. 1. 517 293 0 0 3 1 19 11 40 11 18 S 12 5 1 3 0 0 0 3 3 1 2 1 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd &Marshall St Rosemead Blvd &Valley Blvd 55 45 0.7 0.4 121 294 0 0 0 0 3 13 11 30 4 13 10 13 3 1 2 1 0 0 4 3 1 2 1 25 13 0 0 2 1 0 2 Rosemead Blvd &Lower Azusa Rd 42 42 S7 0 0 1 7 2 7 1 3 0 3 0 1 17 0 3 N San Gabriel Blvd &Hellman Ave 40 0.2 289 0 3 11 25 12 7 13 2 2 0 1 1 1 15 0 2 0 2 Walnut Grove Ave &Valley Blvd 39 0. 110 0 0 0 14 25 12 S 13 1 2 0 2 0 2 14 0 1 1 2 Walnut Grove Ave &Garvey Ave 37 0. 103 0 0 0 24 6 5 1 2 0 1 2 7 0 1 0 0 Rio Hondo Ave & Valley Blvd 35 0. 106 0 0 1 12 22 8 4 12 0 2 0 2 11 0 2 1 1 Del Mar Ave & Hellman Ave 34 0.3 99 0 0 2 9 23 12 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 1 Muscatel Ave & Valley Blvd 33 152 0 0 15 3 6 1 0 1 2 8 0 2 0 Temple City Blvd & Valley Blvd 30 0.1 120 0 0 10 16 7 6 12 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 Del Mar Ave &Garvey Ave 28 0.3 236 0 2 5 0 3 9 0 1 1 2 9 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Mission Dr 28 74 0 0 0 9 19 8 5 9 0 2 0 1 1 2 1 10 1 0 0 0 1 Iva r Ave & Valley Blvd 27 118 0 0 2 11 1 9 1 3 1 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 Temple City Blvd & Marshall St 24 252 0 7 13 4 5 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 Muscatel Ave & Garvey Ave 23 -0.3 713 1 5 13 8 2 7 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave &Hellman Ave 22 -0.2 37 0 0 0 3 4 2 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave & Mission Dr 21 -0.1 225 0 1 6 13 2 2 = 1 0 0 0 1 7 0 0 0 1 Walnut Grove Ave& San Gabriel Blvd 20 -0.4 56 0 0 0 7 13 6 4 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Jackson Ave & Garvey Ave 18 53 0 0 1 1 5 12 6 4 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 Del Mar Ave &Emerson PI 15 64 0 0 4 8 1 2 0 0 1 1 7 0 1 0 0 Mission Dr & Valley Blvd 15 -0.7 199 0 0 4 10 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 Muscatel Ave & Mission Dr 15 0. 55 0 0 1 6 8 2 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 1 0 0 River Ave&Garvey Ave 14 -0.7 213 0 1 5 7 2 4 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 Temple City Blvd &Loftus Dr 14 -0.7 29 0 0 0 3 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 7 0 0 0 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Walnut Grove Ave &Rush St 13 -0.7 38 0 0 0 5 S 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 N San Gabriel Blvd & Graves Ave 13 -0.8 519 0 0 3 7 4 2 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave & Marshall St 12 -0.8 32 0 0 0 4 8 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 1 Delta Ave & Valley Blvd 12 -0.9 32 0 0 1 2 9 4 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd & Emerson PI 10 -1.0 25 0 0 0 3 7 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Encinita Ave & Lower Azusa Rd 10 -0.1 50 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Montebello Blvd & Montebello Town Cent 9 14 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 Jackson Ave & Hellman Ave 9 19 0 0 0 2 7 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 1 Hart Ave & Valley Blvd 9 -0.3 183 0 0 2 6 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd & Potrero Grande Dr/Rush St 8 1.0 28 0 0 1 2 5 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave &Fern Ave 8 28 0 0 1 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Sullivan Ave &Garvey Ave 7 -1. 191 0 1 2 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Langford Pl&Garvey Ave 7 -1. 27 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Kelburn Ave & Garvey Ave 7 186 0 0 3 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd &Telstar Ave 7 32 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Whitmore St & Driggs Ave 6 36 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 New Ave & Garvey Ave 6 -1.1 190 0 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Encinita Ave & Mission Dr 5 -1.1 183 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd & Montebello Town Cent 4 -1.1 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd & State Route 60 4 -1.1 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave & Landis View Ln 4 -1.1 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Walnut G rove Ave & Parking Lot West of Walnut Grove Ave 4 -1.1 19 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Del Mar Ave & E Graves Ave 4 -1.1 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Ave & H ighcliff St 4 -1.1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & Klingerman St 3 -1.2 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jackson Ave & E Graves Ave 3 -1.2 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave & Edmond Dr 1 3 1 -1.2 1 172 1 0 = 0 1 11,1111"o 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Parking Lot South of Valley Blvd & Valley Blvd 24 SO 0 0 , 0 13 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Wa In ut Grove Ave&Grand Ave 21 76 0 0 1 11 3 3 0 0 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 Pine St&Garvey Ave 18 53 0 0 1 5 12 5 4 0 0 0 1 0 2 5 0 0 0 0 Stingle Ave &Garvey Ave 17 206 0 0 5 11 5 5 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Ralph St 17 0.2 62 0 0 2 5 10 3 4 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & Newmark Ave 14 0.1 54 0 0 1 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 IvarAve & Garvey Ave 14 0.2 64 0 0 6 6 3 1 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd & Dorothy St 14 0.0 19 0 0 0 1 S 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Vachon Dr & Valley Blvd Rosemead Blvd & Bentel Ave 13 13 0.1 0.1 197 28 = 0 0 0 0 4 1 1 S J2 I 5 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Gladys Ave&Garvey Ave 12 52 0 0 1 5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Earle Ave&Garvey Ave 12 0.0 32 0 0 1 2 9 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Strathmore Ave&Garvey Ave Evelyn Ave & Garvey Ave 11 11 10. 10. 31 41 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 7 6 4 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Willard Ave &Garvey Ave 11 -0.0 51 0 0 5 3 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 3 0 bL 0 0 Del Mar Ave &Whitmore St Rosemead Blvd & De Adalena St 11 11 0.1 10. 26 41 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 S 6 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 = 0 0 0 Temple City Blvd & Guess St 11 0.1 41 0 0 2 7 1 4 3 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 6.1 0 1 Loma Ave & Valley Blvd Rosemead Blvd & Newby Ave Brighton St & Garvey Ave Del Mar Ave & Dorothy St 11 11 10 10 -0.0 -0.0 0.0 46 199 184 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 3 1 0 2 6 7 7 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 1 2 1 2 3 0 4 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Strang Ave & Loftus Dr 10 20 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Gernert Ave & Valley Blvd 10 -0.1 20 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 1 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Brookline Ave & Valley Blvd 10 183 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 La Presa Ave & Garvey Ave 9 34 0 0 1 3 5 3 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 Lee St&Marshall St 9 -0.0 19 0 1 0 1 0 2 7 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Guess St 9 -0.1 29 0 1 0 1 0 5 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 Temple City Blvd & Lorica St 9 -0.0 29 0 1 0 1 0 M 5 1 2 = 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Loma Ave &Mission Dr Delta Ave &Mission Dr 9 9 0. 8. 34 24 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 5 7 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Del Mar Ave&Newmark Ave 8 -0.0 28 0 0 0 4 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Charlotte Ave&Ga rvey Ave 8 -0.1 23 0 0 1 1 6 3 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Bartlett Ave &Ga rvey Ave 8 32 0 0 1 5 3 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Del Mar Ave & Hershey St 8 -0.1 28 0 0 1 2 5 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 Temple City Blvd & Abilene St 8 -0.1 192 0 1 2 4 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 Delta Ave & Fern Ave 7 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Del Mar Ave &Wasola St 7 -0.1 12 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Jackson Ave & Fern Ave 7 22 0 0 1 1 5 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 Prospect Ave & Ga rvey Ave 7 -0.1 22 0 0 1 1 5 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Jackson Ave & Alley East of Jackson Ave 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lafayette St & Hellman Ave 7 17 0 0 0 2 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Isabel Ave & Hellman Ave 7 22 0 0 1 1 5 3 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Walnut Grove Ave & Marshall St 7 -0.1 22 0 0 0 3 4 3 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 IvarAve & Mission Dr 7 -0.1 27 0 0 1 2 4 2 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking Lot North of Garvey Ave & Garvey Ave 6 -0.2 11 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Ave &Fern Ave 6 -0.1 26 0 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 Denton Ave & Garvey Ave 6 -0.2 11 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Temple City Blvd &Olney St 6 -0.2 6 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Isabel Ave &Emerson PI 6 184 0 1 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Jackson Ave & Emerson PI 6 16 0 0 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Eckhart Ave & Hellman Ave 6 16 0 0 0 2 4 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Interstate 10 6 -0.2 16 0 0 0 2 4 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Earle Ave &Marshall St 6 180 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Muscatel Ave & Marshall St 6 26 0 0 1 2 3 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Ellis Ln & Guess St 6 16 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Bartlett Ave & Valley Blvd 6 -0.2 190 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Mead Ave &Damon St 6 1S0 0 0 2 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Muscatel Ave &Grand Ave 6 0.3 26 0 0 1 2 3 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd & California 60 5 -0.2 10 0 0 0 1 4 -6-7-6 1 -677 -o-T-0 0 0 TT -0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & Keim St 5 -0.2 20 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 SDequine Ave&Garvey Ave 5 10 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Walnut Grove Ave & Driveway East of Walnut Grove Ave 5 -0.2 15 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Stevens Ave & Hellman Ave 5 15 0 0 1 0 4 2 to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Kelburn Ave & Emerson PI 5 0.1 15 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave &Dorothy St 5 -0.2 10 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 Gladys Ave &Hellman Ave 5 20 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Rockhold Ave & Hellman Ave 5 0.1 10 0 0 0 1 4 1 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Glendon Way 5 -0.3 20 0 0 1 3 1 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 0 0 Brookline Ave & Loftus Dr 5 10 0 0 0 1 4 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Hart Ave &Marshall St 5 0.1 15 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Parking Lot South of Marshall St & Marshall St 5 0.1 20 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hidden Pines PI & E Valley Blvd 5 -0.2 15 1 0 1 0 0 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 =0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Temple City Blvd & Alley East of Temple City Blvd 5 179 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Temple City Blvd & Parking Lot West of Temple City Blvd 5 -0.2 15 0 0 0 2 3 7JI 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave &E Village Ln q 14 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 New Ave & E Graves Ave 4 -0.3 34 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 = 0 0 Delta St & Rush St q -0.0 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & Fern Ave 4 -0.3 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pa rki n g Lot South of Garvey Ave & Garvey Ave 4 -0.3 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Muscatel Ave & Driveway East and West of Muscatel Ave 4 -0.0 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Falling Leaf Ave&Garvey Ave q -0.3 14 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Jackson Ave & Egley Ave 4 -0.0 19 0 0 1 2 I 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Lindy Ave &Garvey Ave q 28 0 0 1 1 I 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Evelyn Ave &Emerson PI 4 19 0 0 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Angelus Ave &Hellman Ave 4 9 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave & Driveway East of Walnut Grove Ave 4 -0.3 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 00Interstate 10 & Hershey St 4 -0.3 178 0 1 Zo 0 1 0 00 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 Brighton St & Hellman Ave 4 14 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave&Artson St 4 -0.3 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 Singing Wood Ln & Mission Dr q -0.3 24 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 Hidden Pines PI & Whispering Pines PI 4 9 0 0 0 1 3 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Greendale Ave &Marshall St q -0.0 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brookline Ave & Marshall St 4 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0in— 0 Rio Hondo Ave & Ralph St q -0.3 14 0 0 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Rio Hondo Ave & Guess St 4 -0.3 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 IvarAve & Nevada St q 19 0 0 1 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave& Driveway West of Walnut Grove Ave 4 -0.2 19 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 Encinita Ave & Rose St q -0.0 19 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Encinita Ave & Pitkin St 4 -0.0 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave & Driveway East of Walnut Grove Ave 3 -0.3 13 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Angelus Ave &Rush St 3 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & la Merced Rd 3 -0.3 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & Constance St 3 -0.3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & Garvalia Ave 3 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del Mar Ave & Vandorf St 3 -0.3 13 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Pa meta St&Larva lia Ave 3 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Daroca Ave & Vandorf St 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jackson Ave & Garvalia Ave 3 -0.2 18 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Pine St &Newmark Ave 3 1. S 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Evelyn Ave &Newmark Ave 3 S 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Driveway North of Garvey Ave & Garvey Ave 3 -0.3 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Stevens Ave & E Emerson Ave 3 -0.2 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd &Park St 3 -0.3 23 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Charlotte Ave & Park St 3 S 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Falling Leaf Ave & Emerson PI 3 -0.2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hart Ave &Ramona Blvd 3 -0.2 18 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 Prospect Ave & Hellman Ave 3 S 0 0 0 1 2 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Gladys Ave & Dorothy St 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Charlotte Ave & Dorothy St 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Evelyn Ave & Hellman Ave 3 1S 0 0 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd & 1-10 Entrance and Exit 3 -0.3 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Charlotte Ave & Valley Blvd 3 -0.3 S 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Earle Ave &Norwood PI 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Bartlett Ave & Ramona Blvd 3 -0.2 13 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave &Olney St 3 -0.3 S 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ha riette Ave &Ma rs ha 11 St 3 1.6 13 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Driveway North of Glendon Way & Glendon Way 3 g 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ha rt Ave &Glend on Way 3 -0.2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rio Hondo Ave & Marshall St 3 -0.3 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 Driveway South of Marshall St & Marshall St 3 -0.2 13 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Edda Villa Dr 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rio Hondo Ave & De Adalena St 3 -0.3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Ellis Ln & Ralph St 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave &Shea PI 3 -0.3 $ 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 Rio Hondo Ave & Steele St 3 -0.3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd & Nevada St 3 -0.3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) - = Local CCR Differential > 1.0 - = Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 - = Local CCR Differential < 0.33 - = 90-100% probability that crash type if over -represented - = 80-90% probability that crash type is over -represented - = 70-80% probability that crash type is over -represented 'Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 'Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) Table —Analysis Rankings: Roadway Segments Facility Limits IU . CL Primary Arterial Valley Blvd Rosemead Blvd- Hart Ave 12 01 51 0 0 3 2 7 6 3 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 Valley Blvd Loma Ave - Mission Dr 11 21 0 0 0 2 9 1 5 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 N San Gabriel Blvd Dorothy St - Hellman Ave 6 21 0 0 0 3 3 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 Rosemead Blvd Mission Dr - Lower Azusa Rd 6 16 0 0 0 2 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 San Gabriel Blvd Ga rvey Ave - Park St 5 15 0 0 0 2 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Valley Blvd Minor Arteria I Rio Hondo Ave - Easy St 4 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave Garvey Ave -Dorothy St 14 08 232 0 3 5 5 2 4 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Wa In ut Grove Ave Klingerman St - Fern Ave 6 0.3 26 0 0 1 2 3 0 3 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 Garvey Ave Jackson Ave - Evelyn Ave 6 0.4 16 0 0 0 2 4 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave Rush St- Klingerman St q 0.1 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Del MarAve Newmark Ave -Garvey Ave 4 03 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Temple City Blvd Marshall St - Guess St 4 0.2 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Abilene St — Temple City Blvd Parking Lot West of Temple City Blvd 4 19 0 0 0 3 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Driveway West of Walnut Grove Ave— Walnut Grove Ave Driveway West of Walnut Grove Ave 3 -0.1 13 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ga rvey Ave Stingle Ave - Rosemead PI/River Ave 3 S 0 0 0 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Walnut Grove Ave Garvey Ave - Dorothy St 14 232 0 3 5 5 2 4 5 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Jackson Ave Ga rvey Ave - Parking Lot East of Jackson Ave 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final September 2022 Planning & Engineering Services for the Preparation of LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP) - = Local CCR Differential > 1.0 - = Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 - = Local CCR Differential < 0.33 - = 90-100% probability that crash type if over -represented - = 80-90% probability that crash type is over -represented - = 70-80% probability that crash type is over -represented 'Local Critical Crash Rate Differential City of Rosemead Local Road Safety Plan I Final 'Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes September 2022