Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
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
