HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution No. 22-8103 - Approving the City's Local Road Safety PlanRESOLUTION NO. 22-8103
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY
APPROVING THE CITY'S LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
WHEREAS, a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) provides a framework for organizing
stakeholders to identify, analyze and prioritize roadway safety improvements on local and rural
roads; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP is a means for providing local and rural road owners with an
opportunity to address unique highway safety needs in their jurisdictions while contributing to the
success of the Statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP); and
WHEREAS, the process of preparing the LRSP creates a framework to systematically
identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements and facilitates the
development of Local Public Agency (LPA) partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a
prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate a defined need and contribute
to the statewide plan; and
WHEREAS, the LRSP offers a proactive approach to addressing safety needs and
demonstrates agency responsiveness to safety challenges; and
WHEREAS, in order to apply for funding under the Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP), a public agency must have completed an LRSP or equivalent document; and
WHEREAS, the City of Downey has completed an LRSP in order to assess the City's
traffic safety needs and has developed a prioritized list of projects intended to enhance traffic
safety within the City; and
WHEREAS, when an agency submits an HSIP funding application, the agency must self -
certify that an LRSP or its equivalent has been completed.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOWNEY DOES
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Downey hereby approves the City's LRSP,
a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A".
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of September, 222.
:. "13 NCA PAC E�CO, Mayor
ATTEST:
41AZMLWIE`IADU�A�T,"CMC
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO. 22-8103
PAGE 2
HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the City Council of the
City of Downey at a Regular meeting held on the 27th day of September, 2022, by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
Council Members:
Frometa, La Plante, Mayor Pacheco
NOES:
Council Members:
None.
ABSENT:
Council Members:
Trujillo, Alvarez
ABSTAIN:
Council Members:
None.
441 A ALIC�ADART�CM
City Clerk
0 1`
Locali
I RPI'
April1
Page LWWILLDAN
li•w°�
The City of Downey's Local
Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) has
been developed with a vision and
goal that mirrors the vision and
goal of the California Strategic
Highway Safety Plan as follows:
A qualitative and quantitative analysis of the collision data between 2015 and 2020 led to
the development of the following projects which will reduce identified collision trends
throughout the roadways and non -State Highways of the City.
1 This project is meant to be funded in phases over 3 HSIP cycles with $250,000 of funding requested in
each cycle.
Page ii *'WILLDAN
By signing and stamping this Local Roadway Safety Plan, the engineer is attesting to this
report's technical information and engineering data upon which local agency's
recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are made.
SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION — Notwithstanding any other provision of law reports,
surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this
section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State
any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules,
lists, or other data.
WILLDAN
13191 Crossroads Pkwy North, Suite 405
Industry, CA 91746
562-908-6200
Page III W"WILLIDAN
Downey Heat Map ..................... ***** .... am ...... 0 ... M, ... *us .... i
Forward ...................................................................................................... !I
Table of Contents ............................................................................... #**".. iv
I- Introduction ...... 0*0090, .... #.*** .... 4 .... ... ....... a .................. #.6
Overview of the Process .............................................................................................. 7
Task Force Acknowledgments ..................................................................................... 8
DataAnalysis Methodology .........................................................................................
9
11- Citywide Collision Trends & Potential Solutions ...............................
11
Citywide Transportation Plans ...................................................................................
21
State Funding Sources ..............................................................................................
22
III- Project Scopes ...................................................................................
24
100- Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements ....
Overview....................................................................................................................
26
ExistingConditions ....................................................................................................
29
Project Area Collision Trends ....................................................................................
31
200- Pedestrian Crosswalk Set Aside ....................................................
33
Overview....................................................................................................................
33
ExistingConditions ....................................................................................................
37
300- Systemic Bike Lane Corridor ....» ............................a......-
....... a ..... *40
Overview....................................................................................................................
40
ExistingConditions ....................................................................................................
42
Project Area Collision Trends ....................................................................................
46
400- Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement Project ..............
.........47
Overview....................................................................................................................
47
ExistingConditions ....................................................................................................
49
Project Area Collision Trends ....................................................................................
52
500- Florence Median Project .................................................................
54
Page iv W"WILLDAN
54 Overview. . ...... ..... ....a.....,....,.,_t...,...,, ...,.p.... .....,,....................
Existingi i ................. .......:...a.,....,....., F...,..r...,..a..:...,,a.......
Project 56
r Collision Trends......,_---.. ...... ......... .........,,,,................... .
® Next Steps ......................................................................................
Appendices
The Downey LRSp2 provides a conceptual framework to identify, analyze, and prioritize
roadway safety improvements on local roads. Particularly, it provides the opportunity to
proactively correct high collision or problem locations and prevent local road fatalities and
injuries. It establishes goals, objectives, and emphasis areas. Furthermore, it helps
identify appropriate funding sources to reach the City's safety -related visions and goals.
Beginning in 2021, CaltranS3 requires agencies to have adopted an LRSP. The LRSP is
necessary to apply for HSI p4 funding which is a common source of safety project support
to implement this very LRSP. It has been prepared in accordance with all Caltrans and
FHWA5 requirements. Additionally, the City has outlined some of its own goals and visions
for the LRSP:
eLoca|RoadweySafetyP|an(LRGP)isadebs-ihventrafficeoh*typ|anepeoifioeUybaikoredbne]uhodiction`
» The California Department ofTransportation (Caltrano)
^ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HG|P)
5 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Page 6 LLDAN
Overview of the Process
The City of Downey has implemented this LRSP as part of the City's commitment and
priority to improving traffic safety for all users throughout the City. The LRSP is a
framework for identifying collision trends and recognizing projects and funding sources
that can be used to reduce collisions on the local road network. LRSP's aim is to reduce
fatalities on local roads in states and counties that implement them. The City's LRSP
includes the following elements depicted below:
Page 7 40/WILLDAN
Task Force Acknowledgments
The City of Downey's LEb-FT—ask F orceo team members include representatives Trorn Me
4 E'S7 as a collaborative team to leverage expertise and input into developing the LRSP.
All information shared through virtual collaborative meetings, phone calls, and email was
immensely valuable and helped create a deeper understanding of the story behind the
data. Detailed meeting agenda and meeting minutes can be found in Appendix VI.
Engineering
Enforcement
Education
Emergency
Apply effective
Enforce actions
Educate all road
Services
and/or innovative
that reduce high-
users on safe
Improve emergency
countermeasures
risk behaviors
behaviors
response times and
actions
City of Downey
Downey Police
Downey Unified
Downey Fire
Public Works
Department
School District
Department
Community
Parks & Recreation
Downey Police
Development
Department
Department
Department
City's roadways. They also have a vision in mind for how the community will develop in the future. They
consider both the short term and long-term future.
7 Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Services (4 E's)
Page 8 *P'W I LLDAN
MFr2Rr6TS7r=* I
In addition to in person field checks and observations, the qualitative analysis considers
;t�xisting conditions on the roadways as well as insight and input from the Task Force for
identifying other factors that might not be understood from the data. Projects are then
refined to emphasize safety and accessibility for all.
Both the quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis are used to develop data -driver
safety projects that the Task Force support.
Page 10 M/WILLDAN
31073��� PC 1 1Z !� !,I I i I�EJJJM=
maintained and operated by the City. The data was studied to identify locations that had
a significant number of collisions, injury collisions, and instances of specific types of
collisions. Data was collected using SWITIRS and TIMS. Locations with many collons,
locations with high severity collisions, or both can be difficult to spot when simply studying
data. To better locate them, a heat map was developed and can be found on the inside
cover of this report. Also, collisions involving bicyclists and pedestrians were isolated to
determine if any prevailing patterns could be identified.
When considering all the data, it is important to identify overall trends. Figure 11-1
illustrates the proportion of collisions based on the different severity categories. Severity
is considered significantly when applying for project funding, in particular collisions
involving injuries. There were nearly 5,557 collisions reported in Downey between 2015
and 2020. The combined fatal and severe injury collisions made up less than 2% of the
total collisions reported, while the collisions without injury made up for 39% of the
collisions reported.
Fatal 0---
Collisions were also studied based on the different collision types. Figure 11-2
demonstrates that broadside, rear end, sideswipe, and hit object collisions were the most
common and accounted for 88% of the reported collisions. The collision type breakdown
allows for a further understanding of emerging trends in the overall data. Table 11-1
,tescribes appropriate mitigations for the top 3 most common types of collisions as well
as pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
Vehicle/Pedestrian
4%
Sideswipe
17%
v rned
Figure 11-2: Citywide Collisions by Type
Not Listed / Other
3%
Page 12 *"WILLDAN
The data was also organized to consider the primary collision factor, Figure 11-3. The
manner of the collision and primary collision factor describes what led to the collision.
Table 11-2 describes appropriate mitigations for the top three primary collision factors
which account for over half of the collisions.
Unsafe Lane Change
M, 2%
Improper Passing
I <1%
Following Too Closely
M 1%
Wrong Side of Road
01%
Unknown
KIRIMMMUM 9%
Traffic Signals and Signs
&xM M M, 6 %
Automobile Right of Way
25%
Driving Under the Influence
MINIMMME403100,01M 13%
Pedestrian Violation/ Pedestrian Right of Way
LMM 2%
Improper Turning
19%
Unsafe Starting or Backing
*9 WIM 4 %
Other/ Not Stated*
ME 2%
Unsafe Speed
MINIMMIMMMIUMMEWIM 16%
'"A ZR#TMM' MEM M'
Page 14 NA/W I LLDAN
r1row-VUSIMI RI IWOM•
Table 11-2: Mitigations Based on Primary Collision •
I
Page 15 ILLDAN
The overall collision data was organized based on what the motor vehicle was involved
with in the colon, shown in Figure 11-4. The top categories are other motor vehicles,
parked motor vehicle, and fixed object. The non -collision category is often ambiguous but
can refer to an overturned vehicle, a motorist cited for driving under the influence, or a
vehicle that went off the road but did not specifically collide with another object. The other
object category can refer to an object that is obstructing the roadway due to inclement
weather such as a tree, or an object that fell from another motor vehicle such as furniture
being moved.
Animal
<1%
Other Object
1 %
Fixed Object
11% a
Parked Motor
Vehicle
14%
11, WASINTATEXI n =4 I
Unknown
elol
-
Non-Collision
<1%
Other Motor
- Vehicle
66%
Figure 11-4: Citywide Collisions by Motor Vehicle Involved With
Page 16 *'WILLDAN
Is'
Members of the Task Force were interested in collision trends involving crashes that
occurred at night. Figure 11-5 shows the map of night-time collisions where no streel,
lighting was present. There were 26 collisions that occurred •' in the study period
where no streetlights were at the crash site. Based on the data in this analysis, collisions
that occurred at night where no street lights were present is not a widespread issue in the
City at this time.
M
Figure 11®p Citywide night-time collisions ►t no street lights present or street lights not
functioning
Building on the overall collision analysis for 2015-2020, specific locations were studied.
Table 11-3 lists the intersections with the highest number of collisions. Intersection
collisions that were considered include those occurring either at or within 250 feet of the
intersection. Then, the intersections were sorted by the sum of the weighted collision
Page 17 Vk/WILLDAN
severity'O. A high weighted collision severity coupled with the low number of collisions
indicates that the injury is more likely to be severe or fatal.
Table 11-3: Intersections with the Highest Weighted Collision Severity
f. Stewart and Gray
Road
Telegraph Road &
izifre- IMIA-MaIlIff,
so , 2- 1
I III I ilk:17141610 me] LTILS �
112 707
57%® Broadside,
31 %® Rear End
IN A, O'EM•
Right • Way,
24% Unsafe
Speed
0434"W-g"'jAsl I `I;`
39 594 62% Broadside
45%® Automobile
Right of Way
55 575 62% Broadside
29%® Automobile
Right of Way,
24% Traffic
Signals/ Signs
73 533 41 % Broadside,
33% Automobile
33%® Rear -End
Right of Way,
22% Unsafe
Speed
Bellflower Boulevard 49
424 33%® Broadside,
22% Improper
& Imperial Highway
31 %Rear -End
Turning,
Unknown, 20%®
Unsafe Speed
Brookshire Avenue & 38
363 58%® Broadside
41 % Automobile
Imperial Highway
Right of Way
Firestone Boulevard & 25
350 44% Broadside,
33% Automobile
Dolan Avenue
28% Rear -End
Right of Way,
29% Unsafe
Speed
10 Weighted crash severity is a value assigned based on the crash severity. Values assigned for each type
of crash severity. These crash severity weighted values were used in the HSIP analyzer to identify the
project benefit.
1 6
I FRIMORM Me
Page 18 W1LDAN
Table 11-3: Intersections with the Highest Weighted Collision Severity
Bellflower Boulevard
38
333
50% Broadside
37% Automobile
& Stewart and Gray
Right of Way
Road
Paramount Boulevard
46
331
43% Broadside,
28% Automobile
& Stewart and Gray
28% Rear End
Right of Way,
Road
% Unsafe
Speed
Florence Avenue &
26
271
42% Broadside
28% Automobile
Old River School
Right of Way,
Road
28% Improper
Turning
Imperial Highway &
56
256
43% Rear End
31 % Unsafe
Lakewood Boulevard
Speed
Imperial Highway & 39 234 54% Broadside,
Columbia Way 28% Rear End
Imperial Highway & 47 217 45% Rear End
Paramount Boulevard
49% Automobile
Right of Way,
21% Unsafe
Speed
23% Unsafe
Speed
Florence Avenue & 31 166 42% Broadside, 35% Unknown
Little Lake Road 23% Sideswipe
Common collision types that occur at these intersections are rear end and broadside.
CitxL? r%ections have recently had improvements
that could mitigate these collisions. The intersections that do not have improvement
projects scheduled or recently completed are focused within the projects identified later
in this report.
Table 11-4 lists the collisions with the highest weighted severity occurring along corridors
within the City. Corridors are defined as single stretches of roadways between major
intersections. The collisions considered occurred outside of any intersection. These
corridors were 'sorted by the surn of the weighted collision severity. The high weighted
ciffis4-n-st-4 rtra
likely to be severe or fatal.
Page 19 *'WILLDAN
0
0
0
LO
(D
CL
<
=3
<
(D
<
N2
0
N-.p
a-
0
o
LO
C14
M
r-
co
04
t--
N
D
LO
C14
I-
c'J
OL
Eai
IT
CN
z
o
(D
04
a)
(D
(1)
(1)
a)
Q)
:3
CN
a)
(L)
a)
(L)
to
CD
a)
-
OL
Q-
CL
CL
a
04
a-
Cj)
U)
U)
(1)
U)
ct)
U)
>,
"
-0
"
a)
CL
ca
a)
m
a)
CL (1)
0 OL
12
2
m
M
CL
2
a)
OL
c-L
0
0
U)
W
cn
L U)
U)
Cn
anCL
<
=)
0
a
E
—
4-
o
C:
CD
a
C(n
o
V)
c
c
4-
0
E
s
—
0
CL
0
QL
m
co
CCO4
r-
CD
:3
00
'L
04
Z)
N
CON
C14
F-
co
W
ce)
D
0
(D
a)
co
m
cu
o(D
0
0
NV)
V)
NU)
Nco
NCIA
N-0
04
0
N
c
cc
—
c co
c
cIt
c
c
2
w
w
w
W
04
W 04
w
w
04
3m
M
(D
-0
m
CU
-0
Co
-0
0)
M 0-
m
M
a)
a
M
(D
(a
a)
a)
.55
-0
a)
a)
-F,
-0
0)
-F,
-0
a)
(D
.§
(D
W
(D
W
-6
'2
U)
c)
N70
o
cu
1
1.11
0
1.,
M
Co
10 a)
-0
(D
-0
(n
a)
mo
a)
-,o,
-0
Iq
0
"
C%j
(0
0
-
0
-
OR
"t �2
co
-6
(D
CN
.
H
04
C')
CD
LO
cv)
cn
"I.
M
co (D
C-)
0
C,4
v
co
0
c)
w
00
co
W)
C)
W)
(D
co
C)
CV)
LO
OR
C�
C9
rl-7
q
(9
U�
cq
(q
04
co
t--
0
't
LO
LO
LO
LO
t--
co
Nr
co
0)
0
co
m
It
It
CN
04
LO
LO
It
Cf)
LO
as
'gr
w
�
(q
17
pl'
(N
N
00
Cl?
cn
co
cn
'IT
CV)
C*4
N
CD
CN
t--
N
m
co
(Y)
N
co
I -
Nqq
C)
CD
LO
C)
co
04
(0CA
co
LO
CY)
CN
cli
0
(D
CY)
01)
CD
LO
r—
't
00
CD
co
04
co
NT
C)
N
CV)
NCN
N
tl-
co
LO
(D
O
0
A-1
:i-_
E
0
EU
. L--
0
E
:t-_
a)
®
(a
(D
aE
>
a)
(D
Eto
E
>
<
�n
0
E
a)
0
E
E
:Ll
2
E m
0 >
5
4--
>1
:t-_
E
0
(D I
c
2
0
4= -2
Z
LL
0
>
< I
a)
-2
-0
E
2
72
m
:3
-0 0
ca
E
®
0
E
E
-45
m
o
0) 1
E
0-
m
m
>
0 ry®y
4—
0
2
0
(16
a)LL
0
0
>
>
a)
(D
=3
T
=3
w a)
c
>, 0
m
0
(D
:3
>
U)
>
0
0
o
co
a)
0
LL
m
>
.21)
m
>
U)
0
a)
(D
E
0
o E
u
E
0
LL
V 0
X
CL
-:t
0
a-)
>
Co
cu
CL
0
?: iD
:zi
E
75
a)
0
co
a)
co
CL
-j
E
:t
U
m
a
—0
(0 :3
g
0
Co
(D
0
0
0
U)
M
(D
0
:f
Common collision types that occur along these corridors are rear end, broadside, and
sideswipe. Common primary collision factors that occurred at these corridors ar;
automobile right • way, improper turning, and unsafe speed.
Citywide Transportation P12ns
This •, aims to • safe transportation projects and programs. It can be used
alongside these Citywide guidelines and plans, which were considered and referenced
while developing this LRSP.
• 11-5: Citywide Transportation • & Plans
Page 21 M/WILLDAN
F III III I 1i1111
_91111
State Funding Sources
....... . ...........
The State provides several transportation funding opportunities. Often, the Federal
government provides funding opportunities which are then managed by the State. The
funding is intended for roadway maintenance, safety improvements, environmental
improvements, and enhancements which make the roadway accessible to all. These
elements can be the emphasis of some of the funding sources. All the sources identified
in Table 11-6 favor safety projects with a systemic approach, where similar enhancements
are made at multiple locations.
i i�illillilli 11111111 1111111111
11,13 1
I I I, IN.
Page 22 )&/WILLDAN
11- Citywide Collision Trends & Potential Solutions
The California Office of Traffic Safety offers state funding opportunities
geared towards programs which emphasize safety, active
OTS transportation, safety monitoring by the police department, and safety
education. It provides funding for agencies and municipalities through
an annual application process. OTS funding does not fund infrastructure
projects but can provide funding for safety education programs.
The Califon
SB1 agencies z
improvernei
measures. �
The State
OPR provides fut
safety, like j
60�
to Senate Bill 1 is a state funding program that allows
inicipalities to allocate tax revenue for roadway
ects which> is approved by voters through ballot
HIM PrQlect Scope;
A list of potential project locations was developed considering the intersections and
These locations were then compared and grouped based on a systemic approach.
'�WOIZ
these projects were developed for HSIP funding.
A variety of methods to determine viable project scopes were used. Consideration was
the countermeasures identified to address the City's safety issues. The LRSIVI was used
to identify countermeasures to address qualitative and quantitative safety measures and
select viable projects for the LRSP.
The project's BCR must be calculated using the HSIP Analyzer15 by inputting the crashes
and their severity, and the project's cost estimate. Projects are weighed and selectively
chosen by their BCR to compete for limited grant funding.
The BCR threshold of projects that were funded through previous HSIP funding cycles
has been increasing recently. Projects in last cycle's HSIP cycle 10 required a BCR of
on the likely funding source. BCR is an important figure for determining the effectiveness of a proposed
project. The benefit is based on many factors including collision history, collision severity, systemic
approach, the crash reduction factor associated with the applied countermeasures, and whether the types
of collisions can be mitigated with countermeasures being applied for the project. A higher BCR is
considered a more favorable project.
14 Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) is a document published by Caltrans identifying HSIP eligible
gation measures, their collision reduction factors, and what type of collisions are most impacted by the
mitigation measures. The mitigation measures are referred as countermeasures. The latest LRSM version
and version 1.5 used in the LRSP is from April 2020.
the total crashes within the project area and their crash severity. The HSIP Analyzer is a tool used to
calculate the project BCR.
Page 24 W"WILLIDAN
III- Project Scopes
12.0 and above to be awarded funding. Due to the increasing BCR threshold, projects
with a BCR of 17.0 and above were considered competitive in this analysis.
A total of 5 project scopes were proposed with a BCR over 17.0 and met the minimum
requested project cost. Each proposed project has a BCR that is historically competitive
in HSIP funding. Table III-1 provides the Project Index. The chapters that follow will
explore the project backgrounds, scope, cost summary, and potential funding sources.
Table III-1: LRSP Project Index
16 This project is meant to be funded in phases over 3 HSIP cycles with $250,000 of funding requested in
each cycle,
Page 25 I LLDAN
100- Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements
Overview
The Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements project was developed based on
guidelines and funding eligibility of HSIP Cycle 10. The Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal
Improvements project scope consists of the following LRSM Countermeasures:
The upgrade signal hardware countermeasure will provide better visibility of intersection
signals and will aid drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. This
countermeasure involves upgrading signal back plates, larger signal heads, relocating
signal heads or adding additional signal heads to an intersection.
An advanced dilemma zone detection system has several benefits relative to traditional
multiple detector systems, which have upstream detection for vehicles in the dilemma
zone but do not take the speed or size of individual vehicles into account. These benefits
include reducing the frequency of red-light violations, reducing the frequency of crashes
associated with the traffic signal phase change, and reducing delay and stop frequency
on the major •.• and a reduction in • intersection •`
A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of
seconds left to finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians
who are in the crosswalk when the flashing"DON'T WALK" interval appears that they still
have time to finish crossing. These signals have been shown to encourage more
pedestrians to use the pushbutton.
17 Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds
before vehicles are given a green indication.
Page 26 W'WILLDAN
An LPI gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter the intersection 3-7 seconds before
vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better
establish their presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left or right
through the crosswalk. LPIs provide increased visibility of crossing pedestrians, reduce
conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles, increase the likelihood of motorists yielding
to pedestrians, and enhance safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into the
intersection.
Based on the LRSP analysis, the Firestone Boulevard corridor is the highest weighted
Boulevard and Firestone Boulevard/ Dolan Avenue) are in the top 15 highest weighted
Page 27 NVWILLDAN
collision intersections in the City. These trends highlighted Firestone Boulevard as a
corridor to investigate for LRSP project selection. In meetings with the Task Force, staff
was interested in prioritizing signal upgrades to all the signalized intersections on
Firestone Boulevard. Figure 100-1 identifies the 15 signalized intersections on Firestone
Boulevard within Downey City Limits.
*A/'WILLDAN
Page 28
'Vrq� III jipl II:1111 I III Ir MUM
1111111111110W.TT—WilelMost Estimate
This countermeasure is eligible for 100% funding through HSIP. An expanded cost
estimate is included in Appendix 1.
Exisfing Coindtfions
Currently, the condition of signal hardware on Firestone Boulevard is outdated with small
signal heads and weathered backplates, outdated pedestrian push buttons, and
pedestrian indicators without pedestrian countdowns.
Page 29 *F'WILLDAN
Page 30 )VWILLDAN
�Project Area Collision Trends
The Firestone Boulevard corridor is the highest ranked roadway segment in the City ani
includes two of the top collision intersections from this LRSP analysis.
The LRSM identifies that signalized intersections with a high frequency of broadside and
rear -end crashes that occur because drivers are unable to see traffic signal sufficiently in
advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached can be mitigated with
improving the signal hardware. There is a 15% collision reduction factor when upgrading
traffic signal hardware.
The LRSM identifies areas that have high frequency of broadside and rear end crashes
can be mitigated with providing advanced dilemma zone detection. This may reduce rear
�nnd crashes associated with unsafe stopping and angle crashes due to illegally continuing
into the intersection during the red phase. There is a 40% collision reduction when
advanced dilemma zone detection is provided.
The LRSM identifies that pedestrian countdown signal heads should be installed at
signalized intersections where pedestrian vs. vehicle collisions have been reported. There
is a 25% collision reduction factor in pedestrian and bicycle crashes with the installation
MZE- W
Page 31 NA/W 1 L L DA N
1111�1 � � 1 �• iq� 1111
The LRSM identifies that LPIs should be installed in intersections with signalized
pedestrian crossings that have high turning vehicular volumes and have had pedestrian
vs. vehicle crashes. There is a 60% collision reduction factor in pedestrian and bicycle
crashes with the installation of LPls.
At the 15 intersections identified in the scope of work, SWITIRS data indicated that there
were 541 collisions between 2015 and 2019. The HSIP Analyzer was used to calculate
the project benefit including these 541 total collisions broken �down by collision severity,
shown in Table 100-2.
Most collision types (shown in Figure 100-5) were the result of broadside and rear -end
collisions, which can be mitigated with the countermeasures proposed.
Vehicle/Pedestrian
3%
Sideswipe
13%
07-MIXro
1111111111M. 11111111
-_R4q11LJ1WW_ Head -On
Hit Object 5%
11%
Figure 100-5: Collision Types at the Firestone Boulevard Signalized Intersections
Page 32 WrWILLDAN
Overview
The Pedestrian Crosswalk Set Aside project was developed based on guidelines and
historic funding eligibility of HSIP Cycle 10. The set -aside funding category is only
available for certain types of safety projects, including pedestrian crossing
enhancements. The maximum funding available for pedestrian crossing enhancements
is $250,000. This funding can be awarded to a City one time per HSIP cycle and is
typically awarded to any agency that requests it. This type of funding does not require a
is calculation or detailed collision data. The Pedestrian Crosswalk Set Aside project
scope consists of upgrading existing uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalks with RRFB18'
high visibility signage, and high visibility striping. The project scope consists of the
following countermeasure:
Upgrading pedestrian crossings will improve safety for pedestrians and biyclists. The
enhanced pedestrian crossings make motorists more aware of pedestrians in the
roadway at uncontrolled crosswalk locations. The proposed scope of work is to:
Page 33 W"WILLDAN
Bulb -outs and curb extensions narrow the roadway to create a shorter distance for
pedestrians to cross. Also, the narrowed roadway leads motorists to driving slower. The
RRFBs, over -head flashing beacons, and high visibility striping make it easier for drivers
to see crossings and pedestrians in the roadway. An example of signing and striping
enhancements can be found at the crosswalk on Brookshire Avenue at Everest Street in
the City of Downey. The improvements include RRFBs, advance overhead flashing
beacons, signs and pavement markings include a yield bar and "Slow School Crossing"
and "Wait Here" pavement markings and signs, shown in Figure 200-1.
Figure 200-1: Example of pedestrian crosswalk enhancements on Brookshire Avenue at Everest
Street
crosswalk locations which could benefit most from these enhancements and ensure that
all recommendations are consistent with the City's Road and Street Standards. These
discussions helped determine the crosswalks prioritized for this project. The following list
of uncontrolled crosswalks were identified for pedestrian crossing enhancements from
the Task Force meeting:
Table 200-1: Priority List for Crosswalk Enhancements
Page 34 W"WILLIDAN
11 111
�='IIIIIIIIWNR IMINFIRTRI VTIE'11?511� �i�* 0112111! Ii ! I M��
The construction costs are broken •• by location for ease of use when the City chooses
intersections to apply for future HSIP Calls for Projects, shown in Table 200-2. The unii
•'f and construction •, line items are detailed in the Appendix 11.
Page 35 W"WILLDAN
Table 200-2: Construction Cost Estimate
Table 200-3 shows the total cost breakdown for future HSIP Calls for Projects.
Preliminary engineering and construction engineering are limited to 25% and 15% of the
construction costs, respectively. These are the maximum cost percentages for preliminary
engineering and construction engineering costs based on HSIP guidelines and were used
for this project's total cost estimate. This project is eligible to be 100% federally funded,
up to $250,000 per HSIP cycle based on guidelines from HSIP Cycle 10.
19 Construction cost of each location includes a 15% contingency,
Page 36
■
It should be noted that historically, HSIP has $250,000 of set aside funding available that
each City can apply for in each funding cycle. This set aside funding is typically awarded
to any jurisdiction that applies for it. The City may be awarded the maximum set aside
funding each HSIP Cycle for consecutive HSIP Cycles, if the City wishes to apply for
pedestrian crossing enhancement funding in phases.
Existing Conditions
Page 37 *"WILLDAN
Figure 200-4: This
crossing on
Gardendale Street at
St. Mathias Academy is
on a wide roadway.
Figure 200-6: This
crossing on Rives
Avenue at Adwen
Street is faded.
Page 38 *t'WILLDAN
Figure 200-7: This
crossing on Conrad
Street at Montgomery
Street does not have a
curb ramp at the St.
Raymond School side
of the crosswalk.
Page 39 40/WILLDAN
300- Systemic Bilke Lane Corridor
Overview
The Systemic Bike Lane Corridor project was developed based on the City of Downey
Bicycle Master Plan and collision history. The Systemic Bike Lane Corridor project scope
consists of the following LRSM Countermeasure:
This countermeasure is used on roadway segments with crashes between bicycles and
vehicles or crashes that may be preventable with a buffer/ shoulder. Most studies suggest
that bike lanes may provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Striped
bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when it is desirable to delineate which
available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists. The scope of work
for this project is listed below:
These three proposed segments are good candidates for Class 11 bike lanes based on
their collision history and are identified as planned bicycle projects in the Downey Bicycle
Master Plan. Based on input from the Task Force, it is imperative to keep on -street
parking in place on these segments. The proposed bike lanes will be installed by
implementing a lane reduction on these segments by reducing the through lanes to one
lane in each direction and installing a two-way left turn lane in the middle of the roadway
to make available space for the bike lanes and on -street parking. The intersection lane
configuration should remain in place to avoid congestion on these three segments.
Page 40 *"W I LLDAN
39=
Figure 300-1 Highlights the locations of the 3 proposed bike lane segments in the City of
Downey overlaid on the City of Downey's Bicycle Master Plan map. The Bicycle Master
Plan Map identifies where existing bicycle facilities are and shows how these proposed
bike lanes will close gaps in the bicycle system.
Ahk
si
Conridor
Location
is
!cts
Page 41 *"WILLDAN
1;iliillr�qil: lilill1r;:
r!!Ill II!!!Il;W, wo mz���
I •i •I',, -Tzy •M
i nis coufff6TrITTff9TFTTTMTU Ming I e7 e 1-11FIVITIt
have to provide a • match • $ 34,180 to receive funding • this project. An expanded
cost estimate is included in Appendix Ill.
Existing Conditions
. . ........ . .......
The existing roadway conditions on the three segments are shown in the figures below:
Page 42 W'W I LLDAN
Figure 300-3: The existing roadway configuration on Brookshire Avenue between
Imperial Highway and Iowa Street. There are currently two through lanes in each
direction with parking on both sides of the street and cyclists share the road with motor
vehicles. The proposed project will reduce the roadway to one through lane in each
direction with parking and bike lanes on both sides of the street, and a two-way left
turn lane. This proposed bike lane segment is consistent with the planned bike lane
with road diet identified in the Downey Bicycle Master Plan. This proposed bike lane
will be a gap closure, connecting with the existing bike lane on Brookshire Avenue,
south of Imperial Highway.
Page 43 WWILLDAN
3MM
South of the proposed Brookshire Avenue segment on Brookshire Avenue between
Gardendale Street and Imperial Highway, there are existing bike lanes with a road diet,
• in Figure 300-5. The proposed • lanes with a road diet • the 3 proposed
-• will look very similar to this existing stretch.
Page 44 *f'WILLDAN
Page 45 W"WILLDAN
Project Area Collision Trends
The countermeasures for the Systemic Bike Lane Corridor project provide improvements
• r-•- and • However, this means • • involving •'r
• • can • considered. The LRSM identifies that installing bike lanes would
Bike lanes will -• the width • travel lanes and likely have a traffic calming effect. Thd
HSIP Analyzer was used to calculate the project benefit including the 5 total bicycle and
pedestrian -involved collisions broken down by severity below.
Table 300-2: Collision Severity
Page 46 NA/W I LLDAN
WIT*Tn#T--SITM-V9=
signals and will aid drivers' advance perception of the upcoming intersection. This
countermeasure involves upgrading signal back plates, larger signal heads, relocating
signal heads or providing additional signal heads to an intersection, Figure 400-1
identifies the location of the 11 intersections that will receive traffic signal improvements.
Page 48 M/W I LLDAN
400- Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement Project
This Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement Project can be submitted for future HSIP
funding. The BCR is based • the 2020 HSIP Analyzer. When applying for funding, this
value may be different based on the factors of future HSI P Analyzer forms. The costs and
competitive BCR for this project are shown in Table 400-1.
I I • IM, 1111MMUOTMI =RU=-
An expanded cost estimate is included in Appendix IV.
Existing Conditions
Currently, many of the traffic signals at the 11 locations for this project have faded or
missing backplates and traffic signal heads that are smaller than the standard size. The
following figures show the conditions of the existing traffic signal hardware at these project
ree M
Page 49 *'O'WILLDAN
Figure 400-3: The
signals on Columbia/
Foster have missing or
faded backplates and
have small 8-inch
signal heads. This
intersection is shared
with the City of
Bellflower. The HSIP
application should be
prepared in
coordination with the
City of Bellflower. It is
important to verify that
all the enhancements
can be accommodated
by their City's existing
traffic system.
Page 50 W"W I LLDAN
Figure 400-5: The
signals on Downey
Avenue at Alameda
Street have 8-inch
signal heads that
all 12-inch signal
heads.
Figure 400-7: The
Avenue at Alameda
Street have 8-inch
signal heads that
should be upgraded.
RITIMIT0472IMM. I am
Project Area Collision Trends
Table 400-2: Collision Severity
Downey Avenue at
0
0
0
1
1
2
5th Street
Downey Avenue at
0
1
2
5
3
11
Alameda Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0
0
1
9
0
10
5th Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0
0
0
0
0
0
3rd Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0
0
0
1
0
1
Iowa Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0
2
3
2
1
8
Alameda Street
Brookshire Avenue at
0
0
1
4
0
5
Gardendale Street
Page 52 NA/WILLDAN
I I 11!11 1 lig I I N11111!1111
E'�M'Mffn' MI&M 11 .11.8
Gardendale Street at 0 0 4 4 0 8
Barlin Avenue
Columbia Way at 0 0 0 0 0 0
Adoree Street
Columbia Way at 1 0 2 3 1 7
Foster Road
Over half of the collision types (shown in Figure 400-8) were broadside collisions. The
second • common type was a rear -end collision. Upgrading the signal hardware
countermeasure is best used on signalized intersections with a high frequency of
broadside and rear -end crashes because drivers are unable to see traffic signal
g.ufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being approached.
Vehicle/Pedestrian, 7%
Sideswipe, 13%
Rear End, 16%
Hit Object, 4%
Head -On, 3%
Figure 400-8: Collision Types at the 11 Project ►ntersections
Page 53 V/WILLDAN
•
500- Florence Median Project
Overview
Florence Avenue corridor has the V highest collision weighted value in the City. The
F-lorence Median project was developed based on recommendations from the Task
7orce. The project scope consists of the following LRSM Countermeasures:
Installing raised medians is an effective strategy in reducing head on, sideswipe and
broadside collisions outside of intersections as it reallocates the existing cross section to
incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the
travel lane. Raised medians may also be used to limit unsafe turing movements along a
Based on comments from the Task Force, the emergency services departments should
be invited to comment throughout the design process of this project to ensure emergency
vehicles will have space to move through this segment. The concept map of the proposed
raised median is below in Figure 500-1.
Legend
Existing Raised Median
Proposed Raised Median
Page 54 *�'W I LLDAN
500- Florence Median Project
MOS r-mrTMATUITHWAZIM6,111-1-TITIM
i S PI Millis FKq*Tq
This countermeasure is eligible for 90% funding through HSIP. Therefore, the City would
have to provide a local match of $ 41,630 to receive funding for this project. An expanded
cost estimate is included in Appendix V.
Existing Conditions
Florence Avenue currently has three through lanes in each direction with a painted
median separating directions of travel. The third travel lane acts as a parking lane during
off-peak hours. Florence Avenue fronts some apartment complexes and a church within
the project segment. The painted median does not allow left -turning movements mid -
block.
Figure 500-2: There is
currently a painted
median on Florence
Avenue from Vultee
Avenue to Woodruff
Avenue.
Page 55 *"WILLDAN
Imil
I Ig-L •m 3 U�1;12
be a proposed median
opening at Florence
Avenue at Haledon
Avenue. The proposed
raised median will deter
driver stunts in the future
such as the tire marks
shown hinting that a
driver was doing donuts
ISAIMM HAWts W-laofm ItZiftel., too
Project Area Collision Trends
The countermeasure for the Florence Median Project reduces the possibility of midblock
collisions. The countermeasure to install raised medians is best used in areas
experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that
cross the centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. The LRSM identifies that the
installing raised medians would likely provide a 25% collision reduction factor for
block collisions. The HSIP Analyzer was used to calculate the project benefit including
_J=
The two severe injury collisions were a head-on collision and a broadside collision. These
two severe collisions could be mitigated with installing a raised median.
Page 56 'O/WILLDAN
The objective of this chapter is to account for safety ideas that were not able to b�,!
developed into projects. Some of these ideas came from the goals and visions outlinel�
by the City, discussions with the Task Force, and data analysis. These ideas can evolve
when reviewing future data and how the emphasis of state funding progresses. Also,
This report should be re-evaluated and updated every few years. New collision trends
can develop with time and should be evaluated, and projects and programs relating tA
new trends should be proactively developed to reach the City's safety visions and goals.
Page 57 M/WILLDAN
. O. •
Appendices
Appendix c Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal Improvements
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) FISIP Analyzer
r1SJY ANALYZER
Cost Estimate,Data and Benefit i i i•Calculation
Important: Review and oHow tfFe —step-by-step instructions in `Manw�i ��� "IP Ana ; �r% Completing the for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application Analyzerwitfiout
disqualifiedreferencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be
All yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only. This is a dynamic form (i.e. later steps vary
depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.
Save this file using y+ iID as on ■
page of the Y Application Form.
1. Application ID, Project Locationand Project Description (cor r • Application i s
Application ID: I Firesto E il
n-e-Corriclor
15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard in the City of Downey:
Project Description: Upgrade signal hardware, provide advanced dilemma zone detection, and implement a leading pedestrian
(limited to 250 characters) interval to the corridor timing at the following 15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard within
the Downey City Limits,
• •r • `.• • .- :- is
requiredA safety benefit cost analysis is for this application. This tool will guide through cost estimate, safety
Ratiobenefit evaluation and Benefit Cost r
) calculation.
•` is i i i '.;■
i i ■
IN
Number of countermeasures for the project: I I 1
CM No,1: 17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
Page I of 9
Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Functional Classification (FQ: For California Road System (CS)
maps to check the FC, click here.
Urban / Rural Area:
What is the approximate total cost percentage that is HR3 eligible?
Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):
AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road)
Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph)*
Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the project address primarily?
(For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.)
E
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified?
California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP?
Is the project focused primarily on "spot location(s)" or "systemic" improvements?
If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:
What is the primary mode of travel intended to be benefited by this project (enter if not in the list)?
Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel
Page 2 of 1) Applic4tionfl7: Fire.�tone('1iiitidor'-FraE.ftcSignRil(lcif 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
UUMM2=1
The local agency is expected to deliver the project perlbe HS P Procaram,l tliygr "re jJrernents. Assuming the HSIP Cycle 10 projects
selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your best estimated dates for the following
implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.
Will this project use H51P funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase?
Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? L=
PE Authorization Date: =:==
Environmental Clearance Date:
Right of Way Clearance Date:
Final PS&E Date: F777=�
CON Authorization Date: 17==
Construction Contract Award Date:
Construction Completion Date:
Project Close -Out Date: E==
Page 3 of 9 Application IL?: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (1 of2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
Section 1. Construction t Estimate and Cost Breakdown
The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) Nvill be included
in Section II.
o Determine the projects maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR).
I.1 Countermeasures (C s) applied to all location(s) (from Page No.1)
ber ofcounterme^S17P
1.1tall pedestrian countdown signal heads; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 000°l0
F
I.2 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
CA)stl l�cl tt a ` ti, For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the CMs and "Other Safety -Related" (OS) components, c g, enter 10 for
M944 The cost % for "Non Safety -Related" (NS) components is calculated. Do nod e11ter data for grab Gelds (Calculated Or MA UIsecl).
Unit % %for % for
No. Item Description Quantity Unit Cost Total for CM# 1 (Not Used) (Not Used) I OS* NS**
(SI7PB)
+ 1 Upgrade Cabinets and Controllers EA 15 $12000.00 180,000 0 % 0 % 0 % 100 % 0
%
+ 2 Replace vehicle heads EA 232 $1230.00 285,360 0 % % % 100 % 0
%
+ Provide LPI Phasing to signal _ a o o o
3 EA 15 $5000.00 75,000 /a !0 0 /0 100 l0 0
0
Io
timing
+ Update video detection system for EA 60 $5000.00 300,000 % 0 % % 100 % 0
%
,advance dilemma zone detection
+ 5 Install pedestrian countdown heads EA 118, $1000.00 118,000 100 % 0 % 0 % 0 % 0
%
+ Install APS pedestrian push o a o 0
6 EA 118 $750.00 /o to l° 88,500 100 0 l0 0
0
!o
buttons
Weighted Average M) 20°l0 80°!°
Total ($) $1,046,860 ,
* % for OS: Cost % for Other Safety -Related components;
** % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.
Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items 15 % $17,029
(c. g. c ntca- 10 fos- lil°ln)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies):
(Roundcd Uf1 en t 11C nearest hundi-eels)
I.3 Funding Reimbursement Ratio
1�1"td:tat � a�+i'��:11"k111kkM, �t111C.�id3+�"31C��7t�t`ti¢*i11t't1t l,„IC1i7 3 lf}O.n�'o
The project's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus thepercentage of the lion -safety related costs
in excess of I0°/a This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in 'HSIPlTotal(°lo) ° column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate),
Page 4 of Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I oft)
Section 11. Project Cost Estimato-o
i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars.
ii. "HSIP/Total-(To )`: The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click
the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum.
iii, "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.
Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be
justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form,
I*roject's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR)
0
(from Section 1, rounded up to integer)
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table Set
to the above maximum FRR, click 'Set":
0 Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $0)
Interactive Warning/Error Messages:
If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative question No 3 in the HSIP
annlication form.
Page 5 of 9 Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
Section III. Crash Data
The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures
(CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.
Different Cklswitt reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements, Depending on the selected CMs for the
applicatiort, you will be rcquired to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): "All" , "Night"
Ped & llike", "Emergency Vehicle', and "Animal" (Fach of the later four datasets is a sub-clatascu of the "All' davaset.)
Note: If Roundabout CM (S.16 orNS04 orNS05) is selected, additional information (such as roundabout configuration and AD7) is required,
For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual.
1. please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC
Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.
SWITIZS
- - - --------
2, Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of
these CMs are being proposed.
Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten
curves)) and RIS (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".
Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower ii-apact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high.What
safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?
Page 6 M 9 Apphcadn TT) Fircs¢ one Corridor rraffic Signal (I of 2)
r.: � ..:. • • r r
111.1 List of Project Locati
List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in.
1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click "+"!"-" to add a new line/delete an existing line;
2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in III.2.
If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g.10 stop controlled intersections
horizontal curves, etc. Please limit the number of rows to no more than 25.
Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into 1:1
groups.
Location Location Description
No (Intersection Name or Road limit or General Description)
Location type for this project: S (Signalized Intersections)
GROUP No. i
+ 1 15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard
Page 7 of 9 Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
III®a Countermeasures and Crash Data
Countermeasures and CrashData-Location Group No. I of I Ii le 1 r�iii a lit>c its
Step 1: Check countermeasure(s) to be applied for the locations in this group (countermeasures available are from Page 1).
Countermeasure (C) CM Crash Reduction Expected Life Federal Funding
No. Name Type* Factor (CRF) (Years) Crash Type Eligibility
S17PB:Install pedestrian
FX1 countdown signal heads S 0.25 20 Ped & Bike 100%
*CM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-Roadway,
2: Provide crash data.
2.1 Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (/DD ): Ol/� To (/DD ) 12/3112019 � Crash Data Period (years) = 5
2.2 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure (s) in Step 1.
Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 1, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) Ped & Bike
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: lie till°cldst lrFal[ t d�11 a.l„
Location Fatal
No
Severe Injury
Other Visible
Complaint of Pain PDO
Total
(From Table IIL1) (i' Ia)
(1 C Z)
Injury (P lI)
(I? k-, B) (p &P)
1 15 signalized intersections 0
1
6
9 2
18
on Firestone Boulevard
Total 0
1
6
9 2
18
Page 8 of 9 Application lD Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (1 of 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
Click the "Calculate" button to calculate. The script Lvill first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections
Rnd crash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again. If no
,rrors are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section. Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding
nossible errors.
Location type: S (Signalized Intersections)
Number of location(s): I
Number of selected countermeasure(s): I ( S17PB)
Crash Data Information:
Crash data period (years): 5
Number of crashes(F/SI/OVI/I-CP/PDO)*:
Ped & Bike: 0,1,6,9,2
r - ---------- 1
1 Calculate I
Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit
#1 1 #2 1 #3 1
$3,198,500 1 $0
$0 1 $3,198,500
Sum 1 $3,198,500 $0 1 $0 1 $3,198,500
*Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury - Complaint
of Pain (I-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively.
er the 'Total Project Cost", "HSIP Funds Requested" and the BCR to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form.
Number of countermeasures: I
S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
= $1,685,500 = $1,685,500 166%
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
$3,198,500
1 1.90
Page 9 of 9 Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
I
HSIP ANALYZER I
Cost Estimate, Crash Data and Benefit Cost at (BCR) Calculation
for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application
�mportant: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in 1Ja11L qAl_Cg J�s 1 __Completing the HSIP Analyzer without
.L -L
-eferencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.
kU yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only. This is a dynarnic form (i.e, later steps vary
lepending on the data entered in earlier steps). if any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.
Save this file using "HA" +Application ID as the file name (e,g. "HA03-Sacramento-Ol.prif'). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last
-)age of the HSIP Application Form,
---- -------------- --
Application ID, Project Location and Project Description (copy from the HSIP Application Form):
� 1 i 1 - i jiftir 11#1% ON w i
•Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (1 of 2)
Project Location:
(limited to 250 characters)
Project Description:
ted to 250 characters)
- -- - -----------------------
15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulev-ard in the City of Downey:
Upgrade signal hardware, provide advanced dilemma zone detection, and implement a leading pedestrian
intenA to the corridor timing at the following 15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard within
the Downey City Limits.
2. Application Category (BCR or Set -asides): Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
A safety benefit cost analysis is required for this application. This tool will guide through cost estimate, safety
benefit evaluation and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation.
Number of countermeasures for the project:
ve CM No. 1: Esignal hard-%vare: lenscs, back -plates with retrore[lective borders, mounting, size, and number
spredapproaches
Pedestrian Interval (M)
Page I of 9 ApplicabonIII: Dire .stone (-IorridorliafficSigTi�k](Iol?)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Functional Classification (FQ: For California Road System K]RS
maps tocheck the RC,click here.
Urban / Rural Area:
What isthe approximate total cost percentage that bHR9eligible?
Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instrucdons):
AADT (Major Road) E== AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT =��J
Posted Speed Limit (mph):
Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan(SHSP) Challenge Areas does the project address primarily?
(For more information onthe SHSPand its Challenge Areas, click here.)
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified?
California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP? 1-1
|sthe project focused primarily on"spot |ocaton(s)^or^syotemic^improvements?
If itissystemic, the primary type of the "systemic^improvements is:
What isthe primary mode oftravel intended tubebenefited bythis project (enter ifnot inthe |im)7
Approximate percentage ofproject cost going toimprovements related tomotorized travel E:71
Page 2 of ApelicabonoxFirestone Corridor Traffic Signal ¢ofq
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
4. Project schedule
'M ITT# Ud Mve, I
selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your best estimated dates for the following
implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.
Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase?
Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work?
After both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project (if selected for funding) will be displayed here.
PE Authorization Date:
Environmental Clearance Date:
Right of Way Clearance Date:
Final PS &E Date: �_ p
CON Authorization Date:
Construction Contract Award Date:
Construction Completion Date:
Project Close -Out Date:
Page -1 of 9 ApplicaGonID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of2)
r i, •,r i i •r rri
HSIP Analyzer
The purpose of this section is to:
a Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) will be included'
in Section II.
o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (F).
1.1 Countermeasures applied i all location(s)(fromPage
Number of
1. S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 100%
1 SO4: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed approaches; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 100%
3, S21 PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI); HSIP Funding Eligibility: 100%
I.2 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
Cost breakdown tltrs sr by
CMs. For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the CMs and "Other Safety -Related' (OS) components. ( e.g. e«tc l 10 for
101K)), The cost Oo for "Non -Safety -Related" (NS) components is calculated,. Do noL enter data for gray fields (calculated or not rased),.
** % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.
Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items: lS °fo $I57 Q24
(C,g. enter 10 for 10°h)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items &r Contingencies): $1,203 900
(Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
r rr
Prca•eis Maximum um Func&ig Reirnbur n100.0LO
Theprojcct's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus theperccntage of the non -safety related costs
in excess of I00/b, This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in 'HSIP/Totai(%)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate):
Page 4 of 9 Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (1 of 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
Section . Project Cost Estimate
All project costs for all ph and, � -aI fun ing,�t�urcuss must be accounted for on this form.
i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars.
ii., "HSIP/Total (%l": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement
Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click
the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum.
iii., "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.
Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages,
if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be
justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form.
Project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR)
°lo
(from Section I, rounded up to integer)=0!
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table 'Set
to the above maximum FRR, click ' Set":
Description
Total Cost
HIS( }otal
HSIP Funds
Local/Other Funds
Preliminary Engineering (P) Phase
Environmental $0 100 %
$
0
PS&E $301,000 100 % "
$301,000
$0 "
Subtotal - PE $301,000 100 °/a"
3 1 0
$
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100 %
Appraisals, Acquisitions 6C $0 100 0/0
$0 ,
$0•
Utilities
"
Subtotal - Right of Way (ROW) $0 %a
10
$0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE)
$180,600 100 0/0$180,600
`
$0
Construction Items
$1,203,900
" " 100 o/a
$1,203,900
$0
(Read only - from Section I),
Subtotal - Construction
$1,384,500 100 %
$1,384,500
$0
PROJECT TOTAL
$1,685,500 100 %
$1,685,500
$®
Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is SO.
InteractiveWarning/Error Messages:
If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions
in narrative
question No 3 in the HSIP
,a 'lication form.
Page 5 of 9 Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
Section III. Crash Data
The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures 1
(CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.
Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMs for the
application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets):'AU" , "Night"
Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the "All" dataset.)
Note: If a Roundabout CM (S16 or NS04 orNS05) is selected, additional information (such as roundabout configuration andADT) is required.
For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety -Manual.
1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC
Berkeley SafeTRFC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.
1 Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or RIS is proposed. Please skip this question if none of
these CMs are being proposed.
Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten
curves)) and R18 (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".
Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. What
safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites "within the last ten years?
Page 6 of 9 Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Sigma] (I of2)
List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in.
1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click "+ "/"-' to add a new line/delete an existing line;
2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in 111.2.
If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g. 10 stop controlled intersections, 5
horizontal curves, etc. Please limit the number of rows to no more than 25.
Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into ED groups.
Location Location Description
No. (Intersection Name or Road limit or General Description)
FLocation type for this project:—[S (Signalized Intersections)
nT TP N� I
GROUP No. I
15 signalized intersections on Firestone Boulevard
Page 7 of 9 Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (I of 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
I11.2: Countermeasures and Crash
Countermeasures and Crash Data -Location Group No.1 of Ifide lrroLi Detls
Step 1: Check countermeasure(s) to be applied for the locations in this group (countermeasures available are from Page 1).
Countermeasure (C) C Crash Reduction Expected Life Federal Funding
N°. Name Type* Factor (CRF) (Years) Crash Type' Eligibility
S02: Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back -plates with
1 retroreflective borders, mounting, S 0.15 10 All 100 /o
size, and number
SO4: Provide Advanced Dilemma
2 Zone Detection for high speed S 0.4 10 All 1000/0
approaches
SAM Modify signal phasing to
3 implement a Leading Pedestrian S 0.6 10 Ped & Bike 100%®
Interval (LPI)
.CM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-Roadway.
Step 2: Provide crash data.
2.1 Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (M/DD Y): Ol/Ol/2015 To (M/DD/YYYY): 12/31l2019 Crash Data Period (years) = 5
2.2 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure (s) in Step 1.
Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 1, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) All (2) Ped & Bike
Crash Data Table for Crash TvDe: ALL
Location
No.
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible
Complaint of Pain''
PDO
Total
(from Table III.1)
(ALL.)
(AIJ)
Injury (ALL)
(ALL)
1 15 signalized intersections
2
7
75
252
205
541
on Firestone Boulevard
Total
2
7
75
252
205
541
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: ede-mans and Bicyclists lnvo1%ed (I"&
Location
No.
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible
Complaint of Pain
PDO
Total
(from Table III.I)
(1'C� R)
(P 13)
Injury (Pc� B)
(P&R)
(P&P,)
1 15 signalized,intersections
0
1
6
9
2
18
on Firestone Boulevard
Total
0
1
6
9
2
18
Page 8 of 9 Application ID: Firestone Corridor Traffic Signal (1 of 2)
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Section IV. Calculation and Results
he "Calculate" button to calculate, The script will first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections
ash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again. If no
are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section. Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding
le errors,
--------- --
Information/Data*
Location type: S (Signalized Intersections)
Number of location(s): I
Number of selected countermeasure(s): 3 ( S02 SO4
S21PB)
Crash Data Information:
Crash data period (years): 5
Number of crashes(F/SI/0VI/1-CP/PD0)*:
All: 2,7,75,252,205
Ped & Bike: 0,1,6,9,2__
Sum
Benefit from CM Benefit from 0\4 Benefit from CM Total Benefit
#1 #2 #3
_L__ __,", ......... . .. ...
$12,854,696 $34,279,189 $1,957,482 $49,091,367
$12,854,696 $34,279,189 $1,957,482 $49,091,367
*Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury - Complaint
of Pain (I-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively.
Transfer the "Total Project Cost', "HSIP Funds Requested" and the 13CR to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form.
Safety Countermeasure Information
Number of countermeasures: 3
S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
SO4: Provide Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection for high speed approaches
S21PB: Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Cost, FRR, Benefit and BCR:
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
IE:
$1,685,500 == � � - - M=_-_
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BC R)
67 ............ �=,091,3n [L 29.13
Page 9 of 9 ApplicaGon ID: Firestone Corridor"I*naffic Signal (I ol 2)
Appendix It: Pedestrian Crosswalk Set Aside
-M
H's
El
Appendix III: Systemic Bike Lane Corridor
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Cost Estimate, Crash Data and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Calculation
for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Application
Important: Revie-xT and follow the step-by-step instructions in"Ma Li Ltil (L)k IJS i [v&lijly". Completing the HSIP Analyzer without
referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.
All yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only. This is a dynamic form (i.e, later steps vary
depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.
Save this file using "HA" -.Application ID as the file name (e.g. "HA03-Sacramento-Ol.pdf'). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last
page of the HSIP Application Form.
Project Description -
(limited to 250 characters)
_Wffl%�Mi -
Sys ternic Bike Lane Corridor Project
* Old River School Road between Firestone Place and Florence Avenue
* Brookshire Avenue between Imperial Highway and Iowa Street
* Foster Road between Lakewood Boulevard to the East End
Install class 11 bike lanes with a lane reduction, keeping parking at 3 roadway seginents
Application Category (13CR or Set -asides): Benefit �Cost R
A safety benefit cost analysis is required for this application. This tool will guide through cost estimate, safety
benefit evaluation and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation.
WJM�. =
M
E
Chi NoJ 111132M histall bike -1 1 1 me I s
Applicadon in: Systcrnc Bike Line Corridor Prqeci
Version Date: AprU2O2O 9/02020)
Functional Classification (F[: For California Road System K]R5
maps tocheck the FC,click here.
Urban / Rural Area:
What isthe approximate total costpenentagethat isHR9eligible? �
Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):
AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph): E=
Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the projectaddress primarily?
(For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.)
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified?
California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (S5NRP)in2Ol6and Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP?
|sthe project focused primarily on"spot |ocation(s)^or^gotemic^improvements?
If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:
What is the primary mode of travel intended to be benefited by this project (enter if not in the fist)?
Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel
Page zofn Application ID: sptemicmke Lane Corridor Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
HSIP Analyzer
4. Project schedule
selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your best estimated dates for the following
implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.
Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase?
Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work?
Afteir both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project ff selected for funding) will be displayed here.
PE Authorization Date:
Environmental Clearance Date:
Right of Way Clearance Date: F_
Final PS&E Date:
CON Authorization Date:
Construction Contract Award Date: F
Construction Completion Date:
Project Close -Out Date:
F
Page 3 of 9 Application ID: System ic Bike Lane Corridor Project
Section 1. ConstructionEstimate and Cost Breakdown
The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) vvill be included
in Section II.
o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FR).
I.1 Countermeasures C s applied to all location(s) (from Page No.1)
Number of countermeasures: 1
1. R32PB:Install bike lanes; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90%
1.2 DetailedEngineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
Cta t .r"akdtivvtr l Cptri _For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the CMs and "Other Safety -Related" (OS) components. ( e,a, enter 10 for
10 o), The cost % for "Non= Safety- Related" (NS) components is calculated. Do not enter data for gray fields (calculated or not used).
* % for OS: Cost%o for other Safety -Related components;
** % for NS: Cost %® for Non Safety -Related components.
Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items31,83 i
(c-g- exit or 10 for 1001b)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies): 10CJ
(ROUMIed up to the nearest hundreds)
I.3 Funding Reimbursement Ratio
The project's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus theperceniage of the non -safety related costs
in excess of I®°Ia. This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in "HSIPITotal(%)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate),
Page 4 of 9 Application ID: Systemic Bike Lane Corridor Project
All project costs fear Ili l?I iIl�ll i�pertg'��Ft ; must be accounted for on this form,
i, "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars,
ii. "HSIP/Total (%)`: The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click
the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum.
iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.
Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be
justified in narrative question No, 3 in the HSIP Application Form.
s maxmumursement• *, • r.
(frome r up to integer) ON
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table Set
to the above maximum FRR, click "Set":
Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE -HSIP funds is $0),
InteractiveWarning/Error Messages:
If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative question No 3 in the HSIP
ar)nlicadon form.
Page 5 of 9 Application ID Systemic Bike Lane Corridor Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
R-MMUHIM
The benefit of an HSIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures
(CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.
Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMS for the
application, you twill be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): 'All" , "Night"
Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the All" dataset.)
Note: If a Roundabout CM (S16 orNS04 orNS05) is selected, additional information (such as roundabout configuration andADT) is required.
Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC
Berkeley SafeTREC TINTS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.
1 Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of
these CMs are being proposed.
Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten
curves)) and R18 (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".
Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. WhL
safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?
Page 6 of 9 Application ID: Systemise Bike Lane Corridor Project
MEMO=
List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in.
1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click "+ "/"-' to add a new line/delete an existing line;
2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in 111.2.
If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g. 10 stop controlled intersections, 5
horizontal curves, etc. Please it the number of rows to no more than 25.
Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into IT] groups.
Location Location Description
Lo
cation„
0
. (Intersection Name or Road limit or General Description)
_ �NNNNNwW
Location type for this project: R (Roadways)
GROUP No. I
1 Old River School Road between Firestone Place and Florence Avenue
177 2 Brookshire Avenue between Imperial Highway and Iowa Street
3 Foster Road between Lakewood Boulevard to the East End
Page 7 of 4 Application ID: Systemic Bike Lane Corridor Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
Countermeasuresand Crasht
Countermeasures and Crash Data -Location o o. I of l Hide Grorrt�Det�ails
Stela 1: Check countermeasure(s) to be applied for the locations in this group (countermeasures available are from Page 1).
Countermeasure (C) C Crash Reduction Expected Life Federal Funding
No. Name Type* Factor (CRF) (Years) Crash Type Eligibility
1 R32PB: Install bike lanes R 0.35 20 Ped & Bike 90%
*CM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-Roadway.
Step 2: Provide crash data.
2.1 Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (/DD ): Ol/04/2015 To (/DD ): 08l26/2019 Crash Data Period (years) = 4.64
2.2 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure(s) in Step 1.
Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 1, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) Ped & Bike
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: Pedestrians an 13icyrlists Involved (i� 11
No Location Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Complaint of Pain PDO
(from Table 1I1.1) (P&B) (P&B) Injury (P&B) (P&B) (P&B)
Dl l l'rvtx 6061 Road
I b wrt i Freston P Acc rand": 0 0 1 0 0
2 1roptrial Hfgh ay,ap 1o:% i 0 I 0 1
Sti ce i,
E+ t,6'rRaad bctweeta
3 1. l<6V& d l flev�id to the 0 1 1 o
%ast tad
Total 0 2 2 1
I
Total
1
2
0 2
0 5
Page 8 of 9 Application ID: Systemic Bike Lane Corridor Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) I-ISIP Analyzer
Section alculati Results
'lick the "Calculate" button to calculate. The script will first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections
nd crash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again. If no
r ror's are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section. Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding
oo si[Ae errors.
LCalculate
Info ation/Bata* Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit �f 3 m CM 1' Total Benefit
Location type: R (Roadways)
Number of locatidn(s): 3
Number of selected counte easure(s): I ( R32PB)
Crash Data Information $7,153,247 $0
Crash data period (years): 4.65
Number of crashes(F/SI/OVI/I-CP/PDO)*:
P A Dn2210
$0 $7,153,247
e re.
an,s `er the "Total Project Cost", "HSIP Funds Requested" and the BCR to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form,
Safety Countermeasure Information
R32PB: Install bike lanes
Cost, FRR, Benefit and BCR:
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FR
$341,800 $307,620 � mm�90%
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
$7,153,247 20.93
Page 9 of 9 . pplicaUon ID: Syste fc RSize Lane Corridor Project
0=6
Appendix IV: Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement Project
7.61F2r.Ar1r.u=-
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
. ... . ................. ......
HSIP ANALYZER
Important: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in "Manual for HSIP AtiLlyzl, r ". Completing the HSIP Analyzer without
referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.
All yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only. This is a dynamic form (i, a. later steps very
depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.
Save this file using "HA" + Application ID as the file name (e-g."HA03-Sacramento--Ol.pdf'). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last
page of the HSIP Application Form,
. . .. ................................. . . ...... ............... I
-nic Traffic Signal Improvement
lisignallized intersections in the City of Downey
signal hardware at 11 signalized intersections.
2. Application Category (BCR or Set -asides): �enefit Cost Ratio (13CR) ...
F
A safety benefit cost analysis is required for this application. This tool will guide through cost estimate, safety
benefit evaluation and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation.
(Signalized Intersections)
CM No1: t302: Improve signal hard -,ware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflcctive borders, mounting, size, and number
p1ge I 010 ApplicabonlR
Version Date: Aoril2O2O 9/8/2020)
Functional Classification (FQ:I maps to check the FC, click here.
For California Road System kCRS
Urban / Rural Area:
�
What bthe approximate total cost percentage that bHR3eligible? '
Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instmcbons):
AADT (Major Road) AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT
Posted Speed Limit (mph)-,
Which of the California's Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas does the projectaddress primarily?
(For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.)
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified?
CaUfomiaestablished Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (S5NRP)in2O16and Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP)Program inJ019. Was this project identified through the SSARPmrLRSP?
Is the project focused primarily on "spot location(s)" or "systemic" improvements?
Kit is systemic, the primary type ofthe "systemnk"improvements is:
What isthe primary mode oftravel intended tobebenefited by this project (enter ifnot inthe |ist)7
Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel
Page zofm ArplicatiouID: Systen�cTraffic Signal Improvement
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
4. Project schedule
selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your beestimated dates for the following
implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.
Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase?
Will an external consultant be hired to do the PE work? F-I
After both of the above two questions are answered, the delivery requirements of this project (if selected for funding) will be displayed here.
PE Authorization Date:
E
A I VFMITI M a, M I M
M
I
CON Authorization Date:
a
Page 3 of 10 AppficabonlD: Syqtenic-l'rifficSigriallmprt)verrLnt
Sectionr t t Estimate and Cost Breakdown
The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) will be included'
in Section II.
o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (F).
Numberof i
1. S02: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number; HSIP Fu6&
I.2 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
Cdqstbrttt11�c1tlwn ':\ . For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the CMs and "Other Safety -Related" (OS) components (e g. enter 10 for
101u)-The cost % for "Non -Safety -Related" (NS) components is calculated. Do not enter data for gran fields (calculated or rmtused).
* % for OS: Cost % for Other Safety -Related components;
** % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.
Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items
(e.g. enter M for Yt fib)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies): $190 ��
(Rounded up to the nearest hundreds)
roiect`s Maximum Funding riatxl-)uiJ. K ncnt Ratio - 100.01
Theproject's Maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus thepercentage of the non -safety related costs
in excess of IO%, This is the maximum value allowed to be entered in 'HSIP/Totaholo)" column in Section 1I (Project Cost Estimate).
Page 4 of 10 Application ID: Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
All project costs, IurF ply a? 111 al 1i jig saattLA-4 must be accounted for on this form.
i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars.
ii. "HSIP/Total (%)": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click
the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum.
iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/Other Funds" are calculated.
Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table. The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be
justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form.
rounded(from Section 1, •
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table wSet
to the above maximum FRR, click ' Set":
❑ Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $0) ,
InteractiveWarning/Error Messages:
If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative question No 3 in the HSIP
aril lication form.
Page 5 of 10 Application ID: System c Traffic Signal Improvement
Version bate: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
Section III. Crash Data
The benefit of an I-ISIP safety project is achieved by reducing potential future crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures
(CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.
Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements. Depending on the selected CMs for the
application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): ' " "Night ,
Ped & Bike", "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the All" dataset.)
Note: If a Roundabout CM (S16 or NSO4 or NS05) is selected, additional information (such as roundabout configuration and AD-1) is required.
For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual.
1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic records System (SWITRS), UC
Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.
5 ITRS
2. Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, r17 or R18 is proposed. Please skip this question if none of
these CMs are being proposed.
Countermeasure r15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), r17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten
curves)) and RIS (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".
Applicants need to document they have already installed lower cost and lower impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. What
safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?
Page 6 of 10 Application Ill: Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement
Mfflg��
List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in.
1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click `+"P-'to add a new line/delete an existing line;
2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in 111.2.
If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g. 10 stop controlled intersections, 5
horizontal curves, etc. Please limit the number of rows to no more than 25.
Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into groups.
Location
Location
Location Description
(Intersection Name or Road limit or General Description)
Location type for this project: S (Signalized Intersections)
GROUP No. I
I
Suva Street at Bluff Road
T
2
Downey Avenue at 5th Street
3
Downey Avenue at Alameda Street
4
Brookshire Avenue at 5th Street
5
Brookshire Avenue at 3rd Street
6
Brookshire Avenue at Iowa Street
7
Brookshire Avenue at Alamdea Street
8
Brookshire Avenue at Gardendale Street
9
Gardendale Street at Barlin Avenue
10
Columbia Way at Adoree Street
4,
11
Columbia Way at Foster Road
Page 7 of 10 Application ID: Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement
1 111.2: Countermeasures and Crash Data
Countermeasure (CM) C Crash Reduction Expected Life Federal Funding
No. Name Type" ' Factor (CF) (Years) Crash Type Eligibility
S02: Improve signal -hardware:
lenses, back -plates with
1 retroreflective borders, mounting, S 0.15 10 All 100%
size, and number
ACM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; -Roadway:
i i- it r •- ` .
from (/DD ) 11/21/2016 To (/DD/ ): 12/10/2019 ` Crash Data Period (years) = 3.05
Based on the countermeasures selected in Step 1, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) All
Page 8 of 10 Application ID: Systenuc Traffic Signal Improvement
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Axialyzer
Pag?e S Of 10 Application C0 Syster do Traffic Signal improvement
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
k the "Calculate" button to calculate. The script will first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections
crash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again. If no
ns are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section, Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding
Bible errors,
Information/Data*
Location type: S (Signalized Intersections)
Number of location(s): 11
Number of selected countermeasure(s): I ( S02)
Crash Data Information:
Crash data period (years): 3.06
Number of crashes(F/SI/OVI/I-CP/PDO)*:
AD: 1,3,13,29,8
Calculate
from CM Benefit from CM I Benefit from CM
2 ��#3� 1 Total Benefit
$5,240,273 1 $0
$5,240,273 1 $0
$0 $5,240,273
'�.=KXNUW
*Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVI), Injury - Complaint
of Pain (I-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively.
Number of countermeasures: I
502: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back -plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number
Total Project Cost
HSIP Funds Requested Max. ERR
$266,000�
$266,000
100%
Total Expected Benefit
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
19.70
$5,240,273
Page 10 of 10 Application ID: Systemic Traffic Signal Improvement
1 4 =
MedianAppendix V-. Florence Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
*6 - i lb I I I
Important: Review and follow the step-by-step instructions in '14jinutgI for IJSII'Anal!ggf. Completing the HSIP Analyzer without
referencing to the manual may result in an application with fatal flaws that will be disqualified from the ranking and selection process.
All yellow highlighted fields must be filled in. The gray fields are calculated and read-only, This is a dynamic for (i.e. later steps vary
depending on the data entered in earlier steps). If any error messages in red appear, fix the errors prior to proceeding to the next steps.
Save this file using"HA" +Application ID as the file name (e.g. "HA03-Sacramento-Ol.pdf'). Attach the completed HSIP Analyzer to the last
page of the HSIP Application Form.
Project Location:
.. ........
i 1f.13111 - 1 4 IZMGMIEWIZ���
Florence Median Project_
Florence Avenue between Vultee Avenue and Woodruff Avenue
Install a raised median on Florence Avenue
?nefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
I � is reNjilre rrf=T1MMMPLT"?1M C C Sal LY
benefit evaluation and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) calculation.
Number of Intersections/Miles:
Number of countermeasures for the project:
I
Page 1 of 9 Application ID: Florence Median Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
Functional Classification (FQ: For California Road System (CS)
maps to check the FC, click here.
Urban / Rural Area:
What is the approximate total cost percentage that is HR3 eligible?
Annual Average Daily Traffic (see instructions):
AADT (Major Road) F-AADT (Minor Road) Year of AADT - = E-- 1-,�]
Posted Speed Limit (mph):
(For more information on the SHSP and its Challenge Areas, click here.)
How were the safety needs and potential countermeasures for this project first identified?
California established Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) in 2016 and Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) Program in 2019. Was this project identified through the SSARP or LRSP?
Is the project focused primarily on "spot location(s)" or "systemic" improvements?
If it is systemic, the primary type of the "systemic" improvements is:
Approximate percentage of project cost going to improvements related to motorized travel =
Page 2 of Q AppicadonlD: Florence Median 11raject
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020)
HSIP Analyzer
UUMUMMEM
The local agency is expected to deliver the project peQhe H . Assuming the HSIP Cycle 10 projects
selected for funding will be programmed by January 1, 2021, please enter your best estimated dates for the following
implementation milestones. Leave blank if not applicable.
Will this project use HSIP funds for Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase?
PE Authorization Date:
Right of Way Clearance Date:
I MI,
CON Authorization Date:
I
20MMUZ33ZM=
Page 3 of 9 Application ID: Florence Median Project
The purpose of this section is to:
o Provide detailed engineer's estimate (for construction items only). The costs for other phases (PE, ROW, and CE) will be included
in Section II.
o Determine the project's maximum Funding Reimbursement Ratio (F).
I.1 Countermeasures ( s) applied to alllocation(s) (from Page No.)
tuber of countermeasuresi 1
1. R08: Install raised median; HSIP Funding Eligibility: 90°!0
.2 Detailed Engineer's Estimate for Construction Items:
C r 1)r aflt g 11y t t y For each item, enter a cost percentage for each of the C s and "Other Safety -Related' (OS) components ( t g, cntc: 10 for
The cost % for "Non -Safety -Related" (NS) components is calculated. 11) not enter d araa. for r t°.ay ;?ela; (calculated or rwt a tcd):
* % for OS: Cost % for Other Safety-Kelated components;
** % for NS: Cost % for Non Safety -Related components.
Contingencies, as % of the above "Total" of the construction items IQ °! $2 ----
(e,g, enter 10 for 1011,o)
Total Construction Cost (Con Items & Contingencies): 3(i
(Rourzc�l d U11 LO Lhc ncaarest ht� ndreds)
• *.
Et°Wgg s Maxin-twu Fundilt, R itt�s��til,il� xiyint I tlig—, 90.000
Theproject's Metxinnun Funding Reimbursement Ratio is calculated as the least of the FEs of the above countermeasures, minus thepercentage of the non -safety related costs
in excess of iQ%. This is the 'naxiinum value allowed to be entered in °HSIPfhotal(o(o)" column in Section II (Project Cost Estimate).
Page 4 of 9 Application Ili: Florence Median Project
All project costs, fig all phase , std b � all fundin stet rces, must be accounted for on this form.
i. "Total Cost": Round all costs up to the nearest hundred dollars.
ii. "HSIP/Total (o ": The maximum allowed is the project's Funding Reimbursement Ratio (FRR) as determined in Section I. Click
the button to assign the maximum to all, OR enter if not the maximum.
iii. "HSIP Funds" and "Local/other Funds" are calculated.
Pay attention to the interactive warning/error messages below the table_ The messages, if any, must be fixed, or exceptions should be
justified in narrative question No. 3 in the HSIP Application Form.
ReimbursementProject's maximum Funding
zn
(from Section I, rounded 1
To set all "HSIP/Total (%)" in the below table Set
to the above maximum FRR, click ''Set":
Agency does NOT request HSIP funds for PE Phase (automatically checked if PE - HSIP funds is $ 0),
InteractiveWarning/Error Messages:
If there are any messages in the below box, please fix OR explain justification for exceptions in narrative question No 3 in the HSIP
al)glication form.
Page 5 of 9 Application ID: Florence Median Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated WS12020) HSIP Analyzer
Section III. Crash Data
The benefit of an HSIP ,safety project is achieved by reducing potential fixture crashes due to the application of the safety countermeasures
(CMs). In this section, you will need to provide information regarding the historical crash data at the project sites.
Different CMs will reduce crashes of different types during the life of the safety improvements.. Depending on the selected CMs for the
application, you will be required to fill in one or more crash data tables, for any combination of the five crash types (datasets): ° " , "Might ,.
Ped & Bike" "Emergency Vehicle", and "Animal" (Each of the later four datasets is a sub-dataset of the "All' dataset.)
Note: If a Roundabout CM (S16 or NSO4 or NS05) is selected, additional information (stack as roundabout configuration andADT) is required.
For more information regarding crash data, please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer and the Local Roadway Safety Manual,
1. Please indicate the sources of the crash data. Typical sources include Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), UC
Berkeley SafeTREC TIMS, your locally preferred mapping software (such as Crossroads) or any other data sources.
S ITRS
2. Please explain how "incremental approach" has been pursued if CM R15, R16, R17 or RIS is proposed. Please skip this question if none of
these CMs are being proposed.
Countermeasure R15 (Widen shoulder), R16 ( Curve shoulder widening (outside only)), R17 (Improve horizontal alignment (flatten
curves)) and RIS (Flatten crest vertical curve) are not eligible unless they are done as the last step of an "incremental approach".
Applicants need to document they have already installed louver cost and losver impact CMs but the crash rate is unacceptably high. Whad
safety improvements have been pursued and installed at the project sites within the last ten years?
Page 6 of 9 Application li) Florence Proj c;
List all locations/sites included in this project. Highlighted fields must be filled in.
1) Initially there is only one location line in each group. Click "+"/"-" to add a new line/delete an existing line;
2) Enter location description for each line. The same descriptions will be auto -populated in III.2.
If your project has a large number of locations, please aggregate some locations into one description, e.g.10 stop controlled intersections, 5
horizontal curves, etc. Please limit the number of rows to no more than 25.
Based on the criteria described on the last page, the locations/sites need to be divided into 1 groups.
Location Location Description
No. (Intersection Name or Road Limit or General Description)
Location type for this project: R (Roadways)
GROUP No.1
I Florence Avenue
Page 7 of 9 Application ID: Florence Median Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
1112 Countertricawres and Crash Data
Countermeasures and Crash Data -Location Group No. I of I Eji1:e:GE_r_0_U12_D =—etai I
Step 1: Check countermeasure(s) to be applied for the locations in this group (countermeasures available are from Page 1).
No. Countermeasure (CM) M Crash R(ction Expected Life Crash Type Federal Funding
C�V'�] 9Name Type FactorF(Years) Eligibility
F1I R08: Install raised median R 0.25 20 All 90010
*CM Type: S-Signalized Intersection; NS-Non-Signalized Intersection; R-RoadNvay,
Step 2: Provide crash data.
2.1 Crash Data Period: must be between 3 and 5 years.
from (MM/DD/YYYY): L7TT(?=�/2016 To (MM/DD/YYYY): 10- Crash Data Period (years) = 3,68
2.2 Fill out the crash data table(s) for the crash type(s) as required by the selected countermeasure(s) in Step L
Based on the countermeasures selected in Step I, the crash data types to be provided are:
(1) All
Crash Data Table for Crash Type: ALL
Location Fatal i Severe Injury Other Visible Complaint of Pain PDO
No, i Total
(from Table 111.1) (ALL) (ALL) Injury (,UL) (ALL) (ALL)
I florek'e Mcnlle,' 0 2 4 4 6 16
Total 0 2 4 4 6 16
Page 8 of 9 Application ID: Florence Median Project
Version Date: April 2020 (updated 9/8/2020) HSIP Analyzer
Click the "Calculate" button to calculate. The script will first check if there are any errors or inconsistencies in the countermeasure selections
and crash data. If errors are detected and displayed below, the errors must be fixed first before you click the "Calculate" button again, If no
errors are displayed, the calculation results are provided in this section. Please refer to the Manual for HSIP Analyzer for details regarding
possible errors.
Information/Data*
Location type: R (Roadways)
Number of location(s): I
Number of selected countermeasure(s): I ( ROS)
Crash Data Information:
Crash data period (years): 3.68
Number of crashes (F/SI/OVI/I-CP/PDO)*:
All: 0,2,4,4,6
Calculate
Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Benefit from CM Total Benefit
#1 #2 #3
$7,273,638 $0 $0 $7,273,638
Sum $7,273,638 $0 $0 $7,273,638
*Number of crashes: five crash numbers are for Fatal (F), Severe Injury (SI), Other Visible Injury (OVD, Injury - Complaint
)f Pain (I-CP), and Property Damage Only (PDO), respectively.
'fabskr the "Total Project Cost", "HSIP Funds Requested" and the • to Page 2 of the HSIP Application Form.
1.1 1 1 JW4JAJ
Number of countermeasures: I
ROS: Install raised median
Total Project Cost HSIP Funds Requested Max. FRR
$416 $374,670 90 1/0
Total Expected Benefit Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
$7,273,638 L 17.47
Page 9 of 9 Application ID: Florence Median Project
FOAM - 1=6
Appendix VI: Task Force Meeting Minutes and Agenda
... .... ... 111--l"I'll ........ ...
EM33EM
333M=
Top Intersections Review
Countermeasure Selection Review
Next Steps
o Core Team meetings. Incorporate stakeholders from the following,
• Police Department
• Fire Department
• School Districts
• Parks and Recreation Department
• Bike Coalition
• Community Development Department
• PI H Hospital or Keiser Permanente
o Draft Report
ry
m 00 C)M;
to CL
bo
a A
-C < o
2
w 0
e
w 0
E e,
cn E
E h M
F-
cc N
E
Zo c
co� O� m
W
w w
0 m
9
9
I
�f.
EmMR
I
lgl
I
00
%-a
E
WN
a
I
I
0
0 <
G
P•
I
O
P.,
0
0
.9 - ,
0
U) L)
ca
ca
0 (D
E
E .2: acu
0 0
E
= W E
o -W 8
E
CO -0 Mo
- a)
— a)
(a t=
-
0 0 .5; r
3:
IZ co CN (D 0 0) 0
co 0 -
(D
cn
0
cu
= o
0 a) 0 g-- 0 - J_
cn
cm
(D 0 (D
(D " CO .0
A?
DC
8 (D (D (D a)
> cu
Q) E
(D
CL (a
0 cn
0 0 CL 0
0
-0
w
t5 -6
0
m
w E S cD
>
n
ZZ 0
-1 (D F- m < —
0 (D
a)
IL (D C) LU
U) ff .5 CN -
0 2 c
as < 0
r- il-, L)
CD M 0) ni
(a <
LL - 4--
c c,4 (D
(D
0)
< C .-
00 0)
a) a) - 0
0 >, Q) -
-
-J 'D — CN
>, c 2E -
m
a) — (D
Q) L)
a) --r-
I
C) LO 'in-
co N a) r- 0
CD tm
-6
cm
0 0.
CD , L)
Up in
:r- E
0 ID
>
(D
3: " -
0 CL 0
.5
t! Z 7E CO
Q) Cj 0
a)
0 CL
a) U)
-2:1
cm - LU
(D S 8 -J
'a Q) CD
-- r- CD W
E U) as
a)
0
'r- ca
r- CL
c M 2
L
CL a) " cm'-
(D
m a) W (D
E E Z
a)
0 CL
0
t5 (D -
cn co cc ip
0)
0
0
0
0
w
.
0 cm 'a cm a a)
Z E :9
ca
U) ca
8
co
r-
a) .0
Com
C-L
0"".0Q)=
-�5
Q
F- o CL 0
(D
E o o 0 cn
E
0
CL E
0 0
=3
0
F- L)
0
I
a)
t5 0
(D —
0
ff.c
CD
CD
2
C: (D
ZZ
F m
0. (D
0-
co
I'd
0
L)
r- a)
E 75
2
cn
0 M c
0
U) 0
cu CL cc 0
>
w
c
E
0
0
0
a)
Xz-
0 a)
m
2
0 0
o
U)
U (D o
c
cn
0
(D
co
0
o t5 0 :2 m
I cu
w
0
(D a) 0
ca
cu CL a) t5 E
a) (D
0
M
r- W 75
CL
m
cn
CN
_r
0
a
c
(D CL aj
zz
UJ o
CL
0 0 c c 0
c -C
(D
m
0—
,e
o
0 E CD 0
m E 2:2
ca Z
c
w w
(cDo E
0-
L)
m a_
LL LL
U)
a)
z
E
(D
E
(D
E
(D CL
E -W
CL U)
CD
(D 4) v
>
E
a) 0
"
tm
-E
CL't
car) co:}
M
CLO
a)
C M C: 0
0 0 =3
0
0 E
�c
o i= 0
(D E
m 45 o
cL u- 05
cL m o o
a 0 *
a o 0 a