The URL can be used to link to this page

RES-11452 LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN AND PROGRAM - AUG 2022RESOLUTION NO. 11452 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORANGE APPROVING THE CITY OF ORANGE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN WHEREAS, a Local Roadway Safety Plan ("LRSP") defines goals, objectives, and strategies to accomplish safety enhancements and offers a proactive approach in reducing fatalities and serious injuries on local roads; and WHEREAS, preparing a LRSP provides an opportunity to address roadway safety needs in the City of Orange ("City")based on historical collision data analysis; and WHEREAS,a LRSP is required for the City to be eligible to apply for the Highway Safety Improvement Program and other grant funds such as Safe Streets and Roads for All; and WHEREAS, the City received a grant from the State of California in the amount of 99,900.00 to develop a LRSP; and WHEREAS, the City contracted with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. to prepare the City's LRSP,which is attached as Exhibit"A"; and WHEREAS, the City's LRSP includes an implementation plan for roadway safety improvements and strategies. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Orange hereby approves the City of Orange Local Roadway Safety Plan as set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference: ADOPTED this 23rd day of May 2023. Darnel R. Slater, Mayor, City of Orange ATTEST: 1 r g,.. .. Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange Attachment: Exhibit A STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss. CITY OF ORANGE I, PAMELA COLEMAN, City Clerk of the City of Orange, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City of Orange at a regular meeting thereof held on the 23rd day of May 2023, by the following vote: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: Barrios, Dumitru, Tavoularis, Gyllenhammer, Bilodeau, and Slater NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Gutierrez ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: None Q(.09-1.t Pamela Coleman, City Clerk, City of Orange Resolution No. 11452 2 AB NO IR it- a lam'.,.,."!`4- #mow idAlgdggl City of Orange LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN AND PROGRAM August 2022 City of range a r 4 T IT- fin_ .t. —.:,, L ! T w IC t C r 1.'" 1 4% 44, -----.4------___z_- -tr.„_..144 IL I L, t' .t . t'n wri per + N ti fi VIII s Y e. ti t, Kimley>>> Horn si -'' ' ;# I Expect More.Experience Better. City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program Orange August 2022 I Report I / Contents Executive Summary ES-1 1. Introduction 1 2. Vision and Goals 2 3. Process 4 3.1 Guiding Manuals 4 3.1.1 Local Roadway Safety Manual 5 3.1.2 Highway Safety Manual 5 3.2 Analysis Techniques 6 3.2.1 Collision Analysis 6 3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis 6 3.3 Statistical Performance Measures 7 3.3.1 Critical Crash Rate (CCR) 7 3.3.2 CCR Methodology 8 3.3.3 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) 9 3.3.4 Probability 9 3.4 Future Analysis 10 4. Safety Partners 11 4.1 Field Visit Meeting 11 4.2 Stakeholder Meeting 11 5. Existing Efforts 13 6. Data Summary 17 6.1 Roadway Network 17 6.2 Count Data 17 6.3 Collision Data 17 7. Crash Safety Trends 21 7.1 All Collisions 21 7.2 Fatalities 22 7.3 Injury Levels 22 7.4 Cause of Collision 23 7.5 Vulnerable Users 24 7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions 24 IIIIIIMIllitill11111111111MME Mir City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report M 7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions 24 7.6 Other Significant Trends 27 7.7 Statewide Comparison 28 7.8 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results 28 8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas 34 8.1 Best Practices Evaluation 34 8.2 Emphasis Areas 37 8.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving 37 8.2.2 Emphasis Area #2: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, & Motorcyclists) 38 8.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Impaired Drivers 39 9. Countermeasure Toolbox 40 9.1 Infrastructure Improvements 40 9.1.1 Countermeasure Selection Process 40 9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies 41 9.2 Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox 42 10. Funding Sources & Next Steps 45 10.1 Funding 45 10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program 45 10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program 45 10.1.3 California SB 1 46 10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants 46 10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program 47 10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program 47 10.1.7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act 47 10.2 Next Steps 48 10.2.1 Monitoring 48 10.2.2 Analysis Update 48 Appendix A -Project Sheets A Appendix B-Analysis Rankings: Intersections and Segments B Appendix C-Stakeholder Meeting Minutes C ii GCity of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 -CALTRANS Roadway Functional Classification 18 Figure 2 -All Collisions (2017-2021) 19 Figure 3- Fatal&Severe Collisions (2017-2021) 20 Figure 4-Collision Type by Year(2017-2021) 21 Figure 5-Collisions by Injury Levels (2017-2021) 22 Figure 6 -Cause of Collisions (2017-2021) 23 Figure 7-Pedestrian Collisions (2017-2021) 25 Figure 8 -Bicycle Collisions(2017-2021)26 Figure 9 -Night or Dusk/Dawn Collisions by Year(2017-2021) 27 Figure 10-Collision Network Screening Analysis 29 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 -Review of Existing City Plans 13 Table 2-Review of Existing City Projects 14 Table 3-Summary of 2021-2022 CIP Projects 15 Table 4-Fatal Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2017-2021) 22 Table 5: Comparison of Statewide and Orange Fatal & Severe Injury Crashes (2009-2018)28 Table 6 -Analysis Rankings: Intersections (Top 10 Per Intersection Type) 32 Table 7-Analysis Rankings: Segments (Top 10 Per Segment Type) 33 Table 8-Summary of Opportunities for Best Practices 34 Table 9-Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox 43 iii City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 [ Report Per section 148 of Title 23, United States Code [23 U.S.C. §148(h) (4)]: REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS,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 court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.) 7..-----,e.._,e-).-?/k2e.442.,.6....t Signature Line By signing and stamping this Local Road 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. QRpFESSiONq, i:r Fyn w M m r No. 65218 7' r T CIVIL Q OF CA`\F` I iv City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 Report Executive Summary The City of Orange Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City's transportation network. The emphasis areas include type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, as well as citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City's transportation network allows for opportunities to: Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, reduce serious injury and fatal collisions, and Develop safety measures using the four E's of safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response to encourage safer driver behavior and better severity outcomes. With this LRSP, the City continues its safety efforts by yea identifying areas of emphasis and systemic 5-collisior ns recommendations to enhance safety. The City's vision is to enhance the transportation network Fatalities and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injury related crashes. The goals for the City of Orange include the following: 104 Serious Injuries Goal#1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes. Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety O Signaldizedt 427 program and the systemic process. Intersections Goal#3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid-and Occurred within a long-term. Roadway Segment Goal #4: Define safety projects for Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) and other program funding Due to Agressive consideration. Driving This LRSP analyzes collision data (January 1, 2017 - December 31, 2021) and roadway improvementsrovements to assess AutoViolationR/w historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern. Further, the collision history was analyzed to identify Impaired locations with elevated risk of collisions either through their Driving collision histories or their similarities to other locations with more active collision patterns. Using a network screening process, locations were identified within the City that will Source:Orange Collision Database(2017-2021) ES-1 111.11111.1W:411111111.111111111 Ear City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report most likely benefit from safety enhancements. Using historic collision data, collision risk factors for the entire network were derived.The outcomes informed the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures to address certain roadway characteristics and related behaviors that contribute to motor vehicle collisions with active transportation users. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals developed at the onset of the planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis. Emphasis Area#1: Aggressive Driving Emphasis Area #2: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, & Motorcyclists) Emphasis Area #3: Impaired Driving The following 15 case study locations were chosen to be representative of the corridor and intersection configurations throughout the City. 1. Signalized Intersection:Tustin Street and Chapman Avenue 2. Signalized Intersection:The City Drive and Chapman Avenue 3. Signalized Intersection:State College Boulevard and Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps 4. Signalized Intersection: Glassell Street and Katella Avenue 5. Signalized Intersection: Main Street and La Veta Avenue 6. Signalized Intersection: Jamboree Rd & Chapman Ave/Santiago Canyon Rd 7. Unsignalized Intersection: Glassell Street and Plaza Square 8. Unsignalized Intersection:State College Boulevard and 1-5 NB On-Ramp 9. Unsignalized Intersection:Tower Road and Chapman Avenue 10. Unsignalized Intersection: Main Street and Maple Avenue 11. Segment: Chapman Avenue from Prospect Street to Swidler Place 12. Segment:Tustin Steet from SR-55 On-Ramp to Meats Avenue 13. Segment:Town and Country Road from Main Street to Lawson Way 14. Segment: Batavia Street from Industrial Driveway to Grove Street 15. Segment: California Street from Wilson Avenue to Adams Avenue These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. Countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment.These case studies can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase ES-2 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report improvements over the longer-term.The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. Additionally, this information can be used to help the City apply for grants and other funding opportunities to implement these safety improvements. These opportunities were assembled into the "countermeasure toolbox" shown on the following pages. Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox Potential Crash Per Unit ID Where to apply?Reduction Unit Countermeasures Cost Factor NS01 Add intersection Unsignalized 35%45,000 Per lighting intersections with intersection limited visibility NS03 Install signal Unsignalized 30% $400,000 per intersections with intersection significant collision activity where warrants are met NS06 Install/upgrade larger Areas identified in road 15% 6,000 per sign or additional stop signs sign safety audit or other intersections warning/regulatory sign NS07 Upgrade intersection Intersections where 25%40,000 per pavement markings (to outdated or degraded intersection make more visible) striping and pavement markings exist NS15 Create direction Entrances/exits from 50%15,000 per median openings to driveways with high location restrict left-turns (right- numbers of turning in/right-out) movement collisions SO2 Update signal heads to Signalized intersections 15%27,000 per meet current standards where signals heads do intersection not meet current standards S03 Improve signal timing Signalized intersections 15% 8,000 per coordination, phasing, where there is intersection red, yellow, operation) insufficient clearance time with current timing plans or where signals placed closely enough to impact free flowing operations of the street ES-3 milim iiimmusini sr 73City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report Potential Crash Per Unit ID Where to apply?Reduction Unit Countermeasures Cost Factor S07 Provide protected left Signalized intersections 30%50,000 per turn phase (left turn with a high number of intersection lane already exists) broadside collisions as a result of left turns S10 Install flashing beacons Signalized intersections 30% per as advance warning 10,200 beacon S.I.) S21 PB Modify signal phasing Signalized Intersections 60% 8,000 per to implement a especially those with intersection Leading Pedestrian high pedestrian activity Interval (LPI) with new controller R35PB Install/upgrade 35% per pedestrian crossing Roadway segment with 30,000 crossing with enhanced safety no controlled crossing features) for a significant distance in high-use midblock crossing areas R37PB Install Rectangular Mid-block pedestrian 35%54,000 per Rapid Flashing Beacon crossings or crossing RRFB) unsignalized intersections, especially those with high pedestrian activity Evaluate Intersection and 5% 30,000 per intersection/roadway roadway segments location striping and markings with high collision for possible activity enhancements Implement targeted Locations citywide, 5% varies varies DUI enforcement specifically those with combined with high DUI collisions education programs at local high schools Install ADA ramps Intersections with high 5% 10,000 per pedestrian activity location Install curb extensions Intersections with high 5% 30,000 per pedestrian activity extension ES-4 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I / Potential Crash Per Unit ID Where to apply?Reduction Unit Countermeasures Cost Factor Improve pavement Roadway segments 5%100,000 per condition that have degraded intersection pavement conditions Improve striping along Roadway segments 5% 30,000 per mile roadway segment that have degraded roadway striping There were no approved countermeasures for these improvements in the Local Roadway Safety Manual, so a conservative Crash Reduction Factor(CRF) was assumed. Near-term action items were identified to accelerate the City's achievement of the goals and vision of this LRSP.The City will: Actively seek other funding opportunities to improve safety for all modal users, Collaborate with established safety partners & neighboring municipalities as improvements are made to create a cohesive transportation network, and Iteratively evaluate existing and proposed transportation safety programs and capital improvements to design a safer transportation network in Orange. The City will regularly monitor and update the analysis performed in this plan. A full plan update will be due five years from the City's acceptance of this plan which will maintain eligibility for HSIP funding. ES-5 tCityfof of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 ( Report 1 . Introduction Located in Santa Ana Valley, the City of Orange provides a variety of residential, business, and recreational friendly environments with a population of nearly 140,000. Orange is a growing community with clean air, attainable housing, and open spaces. Based on University of California Berkeley's Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Vehicle Operation Cost Parameters, Orange's economic losses due to traffic injuries amounted to approximately $600 million from 2016 to 2020. This report identifies factors associated with vehicle crashes most particular to the City and proposes matching countermeasures to reduce or eliminate those crashes. This Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) identifies emphasis areas to inform and guide further safety evaluation of the City's transportation network. The emphasis areas include the type of crash, certain locations, and notable relationships between current efforts and crash history. The LRSP analyzes crash data on an aggregate basis as well as at specific locations to identify high-crash locations, high-risk locations, and citywide trends and patterns. The analysis of crash history throughout the City's transportation network allows for the following opportunities: 1. Identify factors in the transportation network that inhibit safety for all roadway users, 2. Improve safety at specific high-crash locations, and 3. Develop safety measures using the four E's of safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response) to encourage safer driver behavior and reduced severity outcomes. Orange has taken steps to enhance all modal safety throughout the City and with this LRSP, Orange is continuing to prioritize safety in its planning processes.The Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) most recently ranked Orange 24th of 59 peer cities for traffic injuries after normalizing for population and VMT in 2019.With number one (1) in the OTS crash rankings considered the highest,or"worst," this positions the City above average for roadway safety performance. This LRSP analyzes Crossroads collision data from January 1, 2017-December 31, 2021 and roadway improvements to assess historic trends, patterns, and areas of increasing concern. The intent of the LRSP is to: Create a greater awareness of road safety and risks Reduce the number of fatal and severe-injury crashes Develop lasting partnerships Support for grant/funding applications, and Prioritize investments in traffic safety. 1 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I 2. Vision and Goals The Orange LRSP evaluates the transportation network as well as non-infrastructure programs and policies within the City. Mitigation measures are evaluated using criteria to analyze the safety of road users (drivers, bicyclist, and pedestrians), the interaction of modes, the influences on the roadway network from adjacent municipalities, and the potential benefits of safety countermeasures. Through historical data and trends, proactive identification and safety opportunities can be identified and implemented without relying solely on a reaction and response to crashes as they occur. As cities across the country have implemented LRSPs and systemically addressed the conditions leading to fatal and severe-injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has found that LRSPs effectively improve safety. LRSPs provide a locally developed and customized roadmap to directly address the most common safety challenges in the given jurisdiction. This project's vision, goals, and objectives have been established to reflect discussions with Orange staff, various stakeholders identified by City staff, and a review of existing plans/policies in the area. VISION: To enhance the transportation network for all users and to reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries. The City is planning to adopt a vision goal to reduce traffic deaths and serious injuries. The implementation of this goal will be led by key City departments. While the identified improvements in this report will be helpful in working toward achieving this vision goal, improvements in driver education and a culture shift towards roadway safety will be necessary. Goal #1: Identify areas with a high risk for crashes. Objectives: Identify intersections and segments that would most benefit from mitigation. Identify areas of interest with respect to safety concerns for vulnerable users (pedestrians and bicyclists). Goal #2: Illustrate the value of a comprehensive safety program and the systemic process. Objectives: Demonstrate the systemic process' ability to identify locations with higher risk for crashes based on present characteristics closely associated with severe crashes. Demonstrate, through the systemic process, the gaps and data collection activities that can be improved upon. 2 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program Orange August 2022 I Report Goal #3: Plan future safety improvements for near-, mid- and long-term. Objectives: Identify safety countermeasures for specific locations (case studies). Identify safety countermeasures that can be applied citywide. Goal #4: Define safety projects for future Highway Safety Improvement Plan (HSIP) and other program funding consideration. Objectives: Create the outline for a prioritization process that can be used in this and forth-coming cycles to apply for funding. Use the systemic process to create Project Case Studies. Use Case Studies to apply for HSIP and other funding consideration. Demonstrate the correlation between the proposed safety countermeasures with the Vision Zero Initiative and the California State Highway Safety Plan. 3 il_-_'_ - GCityof City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program ran a August 2022 I Report 3. Process The primary goal for the City of Orange and their safety partners is to provide safe, sustainable, and efficient mobility choices for their residents and visitors. Through the development and implementation of this LRSP, the City will continue its collaboration with safety partners to identify and discuss safety issues within the community. Guidance on the LRSP process is provided at both the national (FHWA) and state (Caltrans) level, and both agencies have developed a general framework of data and recommendations for a LRSP. FHWA encourages the following: The establishment of a working group (stakeholders) to participate in developing an LRSP A review of crash, traffic, and roadway data to identify areas of concern The identification of goals, priorities, and countermeasures to recommend improvements at spot locations, systemically, and comprehensively Caltrans guidance follows a similar outline with the following steps: Establish leadership Analyze the safety data Determine emphasis areas Identify strategies Prioritize and incorporate strategies Evaluate and update the LRSP This LRSP documents the results of data and information obtained, including the preliminary vision and goals for the LRSP, existing safety efforts, initial crash analyses, and developed emphasis areas. The LRSP recommendations consider the four E's of traffic safety defined by the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP): Engineering, Enforcement, Education, and Emergency Response. 3.1 Guiding Manuals This section describes the analysis process undertaken to evaluate safety within Orange at a systemic level. This report identifies specific locations within the City that will benefit from safety enhancements and derives crash risk factors based on historic crash data using a network screening process.The outcome will inform the identification and prioritization of engineering and non-infrastructure safety measures by addressing certain roadway characteristics and related driving behaviors contributing to crashes. This process uses the latest national and state best practices for statistical roadway analysis described. 4 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report t 3.1 .1 Local Roadway Safety Manual The Local Roadway Safety Manual:A Manual for California's Local Road Owners (Version 1.5, April 2020) encourages local agencies to pursue a proactive approach when identifying and analyzing safety issues and preparing to compete for project funding opportunities. A proactive approach is based on a comprehensive safety analysis of an entire roadway network through either a one- time network wide analysis or a routine analysis of the roadway network.1 According to the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM), "the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) - Division of Local Assistance is responsible for administering California's HSIP safety funding intended for local safety improvements." To provide the most beneficial and competitive funding approach, the analysis leading to countermeasure selection should focus on both intersections and roadway segments and maintain consideration of roadway characteristics and traffic volumes.The result should reflect a list of locations that are most likely to benefit from cost-effective countermeasures, preferably prioritized by benefit/cost ratio. The manual suggests using a mixture of quantitative and qualitative measures to identify and rank locations using both crash frequency and crash rates. These findings should then be screened for crash type and severity patterns to determine the cause of crashes and the potential effective countermeasures.Qualitative analysis should include field visits and a review of existing roadway characteristics and devices. The specific roadway context can then be used to assess conditions that may decrease safety at the site and at systematic levels. Countermeasure selection should be supported using Crash Modification Factors (CMFs). These factors are a peer reviewed product of research quantifying the expected rate of crash reduction expected from a given countermeasure.If more than one countermeasure is under consideration, the LRSM provides guidance on appropriate application of CMFs. 3.1 .2 Highway Safety Manual The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Highway Safety Manual (HSM), published in 2010, presents a variety of methods for quantitatively estimating crash frequency or severity at a variety of locations.?This four-part manual is divided into the following parts: A) Introduction, Human Factors, and Fundamentals, B) Roadway Safety Management Process, C) Predictive Method, D) Crash Modification Factors. In Chapter 4 of Part B in the HSM, the "Network Screening Process" is a tool for an agency to analyze the entire network and identify/rank locations that are most likely or least likely to realize a reduction in the frequency of crashes. 1 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 5. 2 AASHTO, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Washington D.C., http://www.highwaysafetymanual.org/Pages/About.aspx 5 1111411111111111111 Cityof City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 74d111111111.11111111111.1111111111111.11111 The HSM identifies five steps in this process:3 l. Establish Focus: Identify the purpose or intended outcome of the network screening analysis. This decision will influence data needs, the selection of performance measures and the screening method that can be applied. 2. Identify Network and Establish Reference Populations: Specify the types of sites or facilities being screened (i.e., segments, intersections, geometrics) and identify groupings of similar sites or facilities. 3. Select Performance Measures: There are a variety of performance measures available to evaluate the potential to reduce crash frequency at a site. In this step, the performance measure is selected as a function of the screening focus and the data and analytical tools available. 4. Select Screening Method: There are three principal screening methods described in this chapter (i.e., ranking, sliding window, peak searching). Each method has advantages and disadvantages; the most appropriate method for a given situation should be selected. 5. Screen and Evaluate Results: The final step in the process is to conduct the screening and analysis and evaluate the results. The HSM provides several statistical methods for screening roadway networks and identifying high risk locations based on overall crash histories. After identifying the total number of crashes, this study uses a method referred to as "Critical Crash Rate" to analyze the data. 3.2 Analysis Techniques 3.2.1 Collision Analysis The initial steps of a collision analysis involve establishing sub-populations of roadway segments and intersections that have similar characteristics. For this LRSP,intersections were grouped by their control type (signalized and unsignalized), and segments were grouped by their roadway category (primary arterial, secondary arterial, collector, local). Individual collision rates were then calculated for each sub-population. The population level collision rates were used to assess the number of collisions at a specific location. These sub-populations were also used to determine typical collision patterns to highlight locations where an unusual number of specific collision types occurred. 3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis The network screening process lists intersections and roadway segments by the number of collisions over the analysis period and identifies areas with a higher number of a given collision type than would be expected for the location. 3 AASHTO. Highway Safety Manual. 2010. Washington, DC. Page 4-2. 6 Mar City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program wrangeAugust2022IReport M The different collisions were organized by the following categories: 1. Collision injury (fatal, serious injury, other visible injury, complaint of pain, property damage only), 2. Collision type (broadside, rear-end, sideswipe, head-on, hit object, overturned, bicycle, pedestrian, other), 3. Environmental factors (lighting, wet roads), and 4. Driver behavior (impaired, aggressive, and distracted driving). 3.3 Statistical Performance Measures 3.3.1 Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Reviewing the number of collisions at a location is a method used to understand the cost to society incurred at the local level; however, it does not give a complete indication of the level of risk for those who use that intersection or roadway segment daily.The Highway Safety Manual describes the Critical Crash Rate method which provides a statistical review of locations to determine where risk is higher than that experienced by other similar locations. It is also the first step in analyzing for patterns that may suggest systemic issues that can be addressed at that location,and proactively at others to prevent new safety challenges from emerging. The Critical Crash Rate compares the observed crash rate to the expected crash rate at a location based on facility type and volume using a locally calculated average crash rate for the specific type of intersection or roadway segment being analyzed. Based on traffic volumes and a weighted citywide crash rate for each facility type, a critical crash rate threshold is established at the 95%confidence level to determine locations with higher crash rates that are unlikely to be random.The threshold is calculated for each location individually based on its traffic volume and the crash profile of similar facilities.The critical crash rate formula used in the analysis is calculated based on the following equation: Rc,t = Ra+ P x MEV, + (2 x (MEVL)) Where, Critical crash rate for intersection i Ra = Weighted average crash rate for reference population P = P-value for corresponding confidence level MEV, = Million entering vehicles for intersection i Source:Highway Safety Manual 7 coCity of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report DATA NEEDS CCR can be calculated using: Daily entering volume for intersections, or VMT for roadway segments Intersection control types to separate them into like populations Roadway functional classification to separate them into like populations Collision records in Geographic Information System (GIS) or tabular form including coordinates or linear measures Strengths Reduces low volume exaggeration Considers variance Establishes comparison threshold 3.3.2 CCR Methodology The Process of analyzing the CCR and comparing locations (separately by intersections and segments) is a multi-step process. The following is a high-level description of the process undertaken to develop the initial ranking of locations. The first step in the process was to establish a city-wide crash rate for each facility population. These populations are broken into two categories with sub-categories: Intersection: Signalized Unsignalized Roadway Classification: Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Local The individual crash rate for each location was then calculated based on the associated traffic volume. This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. The next step was to establish a Significance Threshold. This Threshold was used to determine what level of exceedance(how much the crash rate exceeded the critical crash rate) a location must have based on traffic volume to provide a high level of confidence that the collision occurring at the location is not random. For this study, a confidence level of 95% was used.The local crash rates were then compared to the Significance Threshold to see if each location exceeded the expected CCR and if so, by how much. 8 11111M1111111111.11111111.1111, City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I / 3.3.3 Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) The equivalent property damage only (EPDO) method is described in the Highway Safety Manual. This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs) and then normalized by dividing by the value of a property damage only collision. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at$2.19 million, Other Visible Injury collisions at$142,300, Complaint of Pain collision at 80,900, and Property Damage Only collisions at $13,300. This figure is then divided by the injury cost for a property damage only crash.The resulting number is the equivalent number of property damage only crashes at each site.This figure allows all locations to be compared based on injury crash costs. (Highway Safety Manual, Chapter 4). 3.3.4 Probability The Highway Safety Manual describes the methodology for determining the probability that crash type is greater than an identified threshold proportion. This helps to identify locations where a crash type is more likely to occur. Data Needs The probability of a specific crash type can be determined using collisions records with location data, and classifications of the locations (intersections or segments) studied. Strengths Can be used as a diagnostic tool Considers variance in data Not affected by selection bias The HSM methodology first determines the frequency of a specific collision type at an individual location, then determines the observed proportion of that collision type relative to all collision types at that location. A threshold proportion is then determined for the specific collision type; HSM suggests utilizing the proportion of the collision type observed in the entire reference population (e.g. throughout the entire City of Orange). These proportions are then utilized to determine the probability that the proportion of a specific crash type is greater than the long-term expected proportion of that crash type. The probability of specific crash types exceeding threshold proportion is calculated based on the following equation: P(pi > p i I Nobserved,i Nobserved,i(TOTAL))= Z-betadist(pi,Q+Nobserved,i,l' +Nobserved,i(TOTAL)—Nobserved,i) Where, Threshold proportion pi = Observed proportion Nobserved,i = Observed target crashes for a site i Nobserved,i(TOTAL) = Total number of crashes for a site i Source:Highway Safety Manual 9 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 111 3.4 Future Analysis The City plans to conduct regular collision monitoring. The City will then refresh the analysis and update the LRSP as needed to maintain eligibility for HSIP funding, as described in Section 10.2 Next Steps. 10 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I 4. Safety Partners Local stakeholders were included in the development of this report to ensure the local perspective was maintained at the forefront of planning efforts. The stakeholder group consisted of the City Orange Public Works Department staff, Orange Police Department, Orange Fire Department, Orange Unified School District / Chapman University, Orange County Bicycle Coalition, City of Orange Community Services Department, and City of Orange Community Development Department. The local stakeholders were called together to offer insight on the safety issues present in the City's transportation network. After the initial network screening and safety analysis, Kimley-Horn and City of Orange Public Works staff conducted field visits at the 14 identified site visit locations. The group met to discuss potential countermeasures and challenge areas. The summaries of the meeting(s) are outlined below. 4.1 Field Visit Meeting The field visit was conducted on Tuesday, June 14,2022 by Kimley-Horn and City of Orange Public Works staff to identify potential issues that are contributing to the collision patterns. The group made observations, collected notes of existing conditions, and identified and discussed potential countermeasures at each "case study" location. 4.2 Stakeholder Meeting On July 6, 2022, the City hosted a stakeholder group meeting at City Hall. At the meeting, stakeholders were introduced to the project and provided an overview of the data used, the required outputs, and the potential outcomes of the study. In addition to the overview, stakeholders were asked to provide local insight and knowledge at the "case study" locations that were identified after the initial network screening and crash analysis process.The potential countermeasures identified in the field visits were presented to the group. Recommendations and emphasis/challenge areas were discussed, specifically identifying speeding or aggressive driving as a major factor in collisions throughout the City. The stakeholder group discussed focusing on vulnerable users and continuing to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety as well as enforcement to address collisions related to speeding throughout the City.This information was processed and incorporated into the LRSP. On the following page is the list of stakeholders that were invited to participate in the stakeholder meeting and whether they accepted the invite and attended. The stakeholder meeting minutes are included in Appendix C of this report. 11 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 111 Contact Accepted Attended Agency/ Department Contact Name and Title Information Invite Meeting Y/N) YIN) Enforcement (Orange Trevor Cullen - Police (714) 744-7323 Y Y Police Department) Sergeant Safety (Orange Fire Rosie Flores -Plan (714) 288-2546 Y Y Department) Examiner& 714) 288-2536 Lucy Echevarria-Fire Safety Specialist Education (Orange Scott Harvey-Senior (714) 628-4585 Y Y Unified School District Executive Director, (714) 997-6560 Y Y Chapman University) Administrative Services Sheryl Boyd- Assistant Director, Parking and Transportation Services Bicycle/Pedestrian Bill Sellin- Director of (714) 943-3678 Y Y Advocate (Orange Membership County Bicycle Coalition) Community Services Leslie Hardy- 714) 744-7287 Y Y Department Community Services Director Community Anna Pehoushek- (714) 744-7228 Y Y Development Assistant Community Department Development Director 12 MEV City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 5. Existing Efforts Existing plans, policies, and projects that were recently completed, planned, or on-going were compiled at the start of the LRSP process to gain perspective on the existing efforts for transportation-related improvements within the City. High-level key points regarding transportation improvements and safety-related topics were identified to inform decision making in this LRSP. Table 1 outlines the relevant existing City plans and their improvements and funding sources.Table 2 outlines the relevant existing City projects and their timelines. Table 3 summarizes the projects in the City's 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Table 1 -Review of Existing City Plans Document Document Agency Document Transportation Funding SourcesNameStatusDescriptionPolicies/Improvements An assessment of the City's current roadway system and recommendation to Revised achieve a better Circulation City of General balance between County MPAH, Element December Orange Plan vehicular,pedestrian,OCTA 2015 and bicycle travel, and to prove a wide range of available transportation options to Orange residents. Development of comprehensive bikeway system in Orange compromised of Class I, • City of OrangeClassII,and Class Ill bike . Local,state, routes Bikeways January City of Bikeway regional,and Master Plan 2001 Orange Master Plan • Teach bicycle federal (TDA,TEA- education to children 21, AB34,Clean Establish a Bicycle Air Funds) Coordinator position Improve existing bike routes to make them safer 13 NNW City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report Table 2-Review of Existing City Projects Project Timeline Transportation Policies/Improvements Funding Sources Tustin& La Veta Upgrading the video detection system, Traffic Signal 2021-2023 and the traffic signal controller and TSIP Citywide Upgrade cabinet at the intersection of Tustin St& La Veta Ave. Upgrading and extending the signal Katella Avenue communication network by installing new Signal Network 2022-2023 fiber-optic communication and City Extension equipment along Katella Ave from Tustin St to Santiago Blvd,replacing existing Encom wireless equipment. Installing a new traffic signal as a Glassell& countermeasure to broadside type Palmyra Signal 2021-2026 crashes and adding exclusive left turn HSIP Install pockets in both northbound and southbound direction. Tustin St Signal Traffic signal synchronization along TustinSynchronization2021-2023 St OCTA Project 14 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and ProgramOrangeAugust2022IReport Table 3-Summary of 2021-2022 CIP Projects CIP Project Complements 17061 Old Towne Street Lighting General Plan Element Circulation&Mobility11328ADAImprovements Public Safety 12406 Signal Pre-Emption Installation Public Safety 12540 Thermal Image Cameras Public Safety Circulation&Mobility 16302 Minor Traffic Control Devices Growth Management Infrastructure Circulation&Mobility 16304 Biennial City Traffic Signal Coordination Growth Management Infrastructure Circulation&Mobility 16305 Traffic Signal Controller Change-Out Growth Management Infrastructure Infrastructure 16469 Traffic Signal Equipment Painting Urban Design Economic Development 20326 Chapman Ave & Feldner Rd Circulation&Mobility Left Turn Signal Modifications Growth Management 20327 Chapman Ave& Flower St. Circulation&Mobility Left Turn Signal Modification Growth Management Circulation&Mobility 20328 Radar Feedback Signs: Growth Management La Veta, Collins, &Chapman Noise Infrastructure 20329 Chapman Ave& Batavia St Circulation&Mobility Left Turn Signal Modifications Growth Management Circulation&Mobility 20353 Chapman &Grand Left Turn Signal Modification Growth Management Cultural Recourses Circulation&Mobility 20354 Chapman &Cambridge Left Turn Signal Modification Growth Management Cultural Recourses Circulation&Mobility20374StreetLightPoleReplacementProgram Infrastructure 15 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I CIP Project Complements Circulation&Mobility20376GardenGroveBlvd.Traffic Synchronization Corridor Infrastructure 20378 Batavia St and Katella Ave Signal Network Circulation&Mobility Growth Management 20380 Glassell Street Signal Network Extension Circulation & Mobility 20381 Katella Avenue Regional Traffic Signal Synchronization Circulation&Mobility Project Growth Management Glassell Street&Walnut Avenue Circulation&Mobility 30029 Left Turn Signal Modification Growth Management Public Safety Chapman Avenue and James Street Circulation&Mobility 30030 Growth Management Left Turn Signal Modification Public Safety 30132 Lemon & Palm Signal Installation Circulation & Mobility 16 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I 6. Data Summary This section describes the data sources used for the analysis process of this LRSP. 6.1 Roadway Network Caltrans California Road System (CRS) GIS database was used to build the base roadway network used for this analysis. Intersections and roadway segments were divided into control and classification categories so that each set could have its own crash rates and be compared with similar facilities or control type. Functional Classifications were imported from CALTRANS. Information on intersection traffic control was provided by the city and included in the analysis network. The collision analysis requires each intersection to be classified by type: Signalized or Unsignalized. Figure 1 illustrates City of Orange's roadway functional classification per the CRS database and signalized intersections as used for this study. 6.2 Count Data Vehicular count data is used as part of the analysis process to evaluate the impact of traffic and understand the natural hierarchy of the roadway network. Count data utilized for this project was pulled from the roadway volumes utilized in the Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR, January 2020), along with several Average Daily Traffic (A DT) volumes taken in 2021. For locations without volume or count data, reasonable assumptions were made for individual corridors and classification types using averages of similar segment types.The traffic volume information allowed the team to assess locations for risk as well as reviewing locations with the highest number of collisions. 6.3 Collision Data Collision data was collected from Crossroads software for the period from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021. Five years of data are utilized instead of the standard three years to provide more history to evaluate trends or patterns. Analysis of the raw collision data is the first step in understanding the specific and systemic challenges faced throughout the city.Analyzing the five years of data provided insight on the collision trends and patterns detailed in Section 7 Crash Safety Trends. Figure 2 displays the locations of all collisions and Figure 3 displays fatal and severe injury collisions. 17 t)City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report c. e,g IY Iiece/p EUnwIR Ave't^,• . ,-1 Ave t N' ' dr.. n 7 x F W TaR j 1 d A v EETaft Ave z--" 7 mu. Villa Park I Park Rd b i W Kateila Ave 4Katella Ave r 2 i I at J t l r a--_:. _R.v.. l,_ I _ ram-^;., a, v. e N T ee J N'$p /••` •IY l..a< '} f--'--•-y yK' 1 I ar`r`•, , \ 4.>>a W Chapman Ave z E Chapman AveeI o$• 3 Cv' a v L4e31 n vela i ---is I i i a t' f- Ave .k_...•. m _ ! i y '-• ___. I i o M LaT N. North Legend Thstin r — City of Orange I Boundary signalized to Ana Roadway Functional Tustin Classifications Principal Arterial N Minor Arterial Collector Local Figure 1 —CALTRANS Roadway Functional Classification (from State Classification Maps) 18 OM Orange of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report es r EMIn Avemoi >* awl, naheim C. _ U nb gs ni' 7 Fes,. war • r r s I 1 , it r ..:'t Villa Park w _WI.Av $& 'Katen.Ave' ` s y 1ts 1 j — y wr e .. r ` IS* en. - I : .--. W. - 7 F ti w e '•ilk W U.vii i' • © Chapman AIN E g(-.;;, V ?N _ F-u G 1 f 1Veta c wt r ,I 1-1 "f •,,. t `'• %r q fa 1 Ave I X Al N. . Is' C fir,& 3 N. IIIp v za L. North Tustin Santa Ana Legend Tustin All Collisions 2017-2021) N r — City Orange Boundary Figure 2-All Collisions (2017-2021) 19 lam.',. 13City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range. August 2022 I Report rjla 11 lifter'i' E fill y o iZi7' moth Aft .r. 1 A v.r. Tom„ `— .T._ _ naheim Jhj/Meal44ff W g- - 7 F i`I-WTaR n4a,Ave ....... ' t a Taft Ave ,z.: {• s i+.r• t + Ir, Vlua Villa Park i J fJ id W Katalla Ava _ +Katina"Are ,•,y— Park' b}r atree1 .. p d1 u o L • wla • rii1U• .L riu 16 Cit.t o-o0 1 es =-rau e lirdilav 1 s l - - S)T-•G.i1 —, i. 1 Aw zz" IR „u- QAT:5—aa m. ..., liviiatamytk fi r t , . A i i J ` I 14 flaw h. i t , 1 . < l F um ir ;= Z. L. a North Tustin Legend ita Ana Fatal &Severe Injury Tustin Collisions Fatal o Severe Injury N r — Gty of Orange Boundary Figure 3-Fatal&Severe Collisions(2017-2021) 20 witsrmimmimmimmiim bCity of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 7. Crash Safety Trends The analysis was conducted using a network screening process for the City-maintained roadway system based on collision records spanning from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021.This section contains the results of the analysis, which included the evaluation of Orange's fatal and serious injury (generally denoted as K+SI) collisions, statewide K+SI collisions, pedestrian collisions, bicycle collisions, collision severity levels, and collision causes. 7.1 All Collisions This report utilized collision data for a five-year period to provide a better understanding of trends and to reflect the patterns in crashes that have occurred on city streets. Data used for this report was extracted from Crossroads Software on May 12, 2022 and was current as of that date.Collision data from January 1, 2017 through December 31, 2021 as reported to Crossroads from the local enforcement indicated that during this time there were 3,583 collisions recorded within Orange. Figure 4 shows the most common occurring collision types: Broadsides (33%) and Rear-ends 24%). 1000 900 800 Vehicle-Pedestrian 700 Sideswipe 600 Rear-End 500 OverturnedU 400 Other ci Z 300 Not Hit Object 200 Head-OStatedn 100 Broadside 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Study Years Source:Orange Crossroads Database(2017-2021) Figure 4-Collision Type by Year(2017-2021) 21 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMNIIINIII City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 7.2 Fatalities As shown in Figure 4, the total number of collisions varied during the study period.Table 4 outlines the fatal and severe injury collisions categorized by modes involved. There were 7 pedestrian fatalities, and 6 motor vehicle fatalities. 53 severe injury collisions occurred with motor vehicles, while there were 3 fatal and 15 severe injury collisions involved with fixed objects. Table 4-Fatal Collisions Categorized by Modes Involved (2017-2021) Involved With of Fatal Collisions # of Severe Injury Collisions Bicycle 0 12 Fixed Object 3 15 Motor Vehicle 6 53 Parked Motor Vehicle 0 1 Pedestrian 7 21 Other Object 1 2 7.3 Injury Levels Figure 5 shows the percentage breakdown of collisions by injury levels. 44.5% of the collisions reported during the time-period resulted in property damage only. Fatalities and severe injuries totaled 3.5%of all collisions. 3.0%0.5% Property Damage Only 23,096 Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal Source:Orange Crossroads Database(2017-2021) Figure 5—Collisions by Injury Levels(2017-2021) 22 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 7.4 Cause of Collision The highest recorded cause of collisions in Orange during this time period is Unsafe Speed at 22.3%, followed by Auto Right of Way Violation at 17.7%. Issues with Driving Under the Influence and Improper Turning also had a substantial impact on the City, each comprising 16.0% and 14.7%, respectively, of the total collisions. Figure 6 shows the percentage breakdown of the cause of collisions. 111111 Unsafe Speed Auto R/W Violation Driving Under Influence Improper Turning Traffic Signals and Signs Unknown Unsafe Starting or Backing Ped R/W ViolationatUnsafeLaneChange Pedestrian Violation 1.6% •Wrong Side of Road us •Other TMn Driver 0.7% •Other Hazardous Movement 0.5% •Other Improper Driving 0.4% Fdbsing Too Closely 0.3% •Improper Passing111J0.04% .Impeding Traffic 0.03% Other Equipment 0.03% •Brakes Source:Orange Crossroads Database(2017-2021) Figure 6-Cause of Collisions(2017-2021) I 23 toCity of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I 7.5 Vulnerable Users 7.5.1 Pedestrian Collisions One hundred and sixty (160) pedestrian involved collisions occurred during the study period, resulting in 7 fatal collisions, 21 severe injury collisions, and 123 collisions with some form of reported injury or pain. Figure 7 shows the locations of pedestrian collisions during the study period. The main collision factor for pedestrian collisions were related to pedestrian violations (70%). In comparison with the statewide fatal and sever injury collisions, pedestrian collisions in the City of Orange were higher by 0.5% than the statewide average. See section 7.7 for the Statewide Comparison. 7.5.2 Bicycle Collisions During the study period, 136 collisions involving bicycles were reported. Of these, none were fatal, and eleven (11) resulted in severe injuries,and 117 collisions resulted in some other form of reported pain or injury. Figure 8 shows the location of bicycle collisions during the study period. The top 4 primary collisions factors for bicycle collisions were auto R/W violation (37%), improper turning 13%), traffic signals/ signs (13%) and driver/ bicyclist on the wrong side of the road (13%). In comparison with the statewide fatal and sever injury collisions, bicycle collisions in the City of Orange were lower by 0.9% than the statewide average. See section 7.7 for the Statewide Comparison. 24 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report IN 11W 1'NV/a E.Cineeln Ave 1 naheim u i, Ave •, f !'E.TaR Ave CL O r-. v„ Villa Park i yl tatella Ave ° E Karel9A,e 0 Park Rd 0 V V z a o o I r r o h: r ,ri3Mok uNWClapma-Ave. r © < ZVnaPma v g O O4 KM A..,.i. sa / 1' a o ,,„ c, 1.411Fit " " v--, J Nit'--.• •'‘ 4 zi L North Tustin Santa Ana Tustin Legend 0 Pedestrian Collisions N r — City of Orange ABoundary Figure 7-Pedestrian Collisions(2017-2021) 25 C(. 3City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report naheim 1Vri A. AhIJUu , 41..~ , cV" '" 1 vRJ Ave Pii J E Taft Ave .1t/^ ;., Villa Villa Park 5=1 f`I Yy Ztells Ave O 0 E ate lla'Av+ ' ',Rd Ilk R. ; A.. ' , a I s. ill 00 O I n N 11 y I rides . _,r._yIt vas /' I' T O r 11 I. _ II _ ItJ L 1'f( j y m` - 0 0 0 fIr 0 0 t rib i r tr= `r _ t a W Cha V ) t i en. d, 4 4A, 'NL`4,(a..n 0 Pman Ave Z E Chapman Ave_ i , aae4 4, 'i i yeti '3, i ( O , Aw l C1,!` O °G 41411 I'nm„n: n 1 „ ili. za j North Tustin Santa Ana Tustin Legend r Bicycle Collisions N City of Orange Boundary I Figure 8 -Bicycle Collisions(2017-2021) 26 OM City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 111:1111111111M 7.6 Other Significant Trends In addition, the following trends were observed: Approximately 37%of collisions occurred either at night or during dusk/dawn. Figure 9 shows the distribution of night or dusk/dawn collisions by year. Drivers aged 65 or older were found to be at fault in 7.0%of collisions. Drivers aged between 16 and 20 years old were found to be at fault in 6.0%of collisions. 350 300 250 c 0 Tri 200 0 U 0 150 100 50 0 2018 2019 2020 2021 Year Source:Orange Crossroads Database(2017-2021) Figure 9-Night or Dusk/Dawn Collisions by Year(2017-2021) 27 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report ifillillillIMI 7.7 Statewide Comparison A comparison of fatal & severe injury collision data to the State averages were conducted for data from 2009-2018 (the most recent statewide data available).These numbers may vary slightly from those mentioned previously, due to the differences in the years of the study period. The following are areas where Orange's collision rates are higher or lower than those of the State. These numbers specifically compare the proportion of fatal and serious injury crashes that have the characteristics listed in Table 5. Table 5:Comparison of Statewide and Orange Fatal&Severe Injury Crashes (2009-2018) Statewide Orange of F+SI of F+SI Challenge Areas F+SI Collisions Collisions 2009 2018) Collisions Difference 2009-2018) 2009-2018) Orange has a Higher Percentage of Collisions Aggressive Driving 33.1% 166 38.5% 5.4% Distracted Driving 5.0% 39 9.0%4.0% Impaired Driving 25.3% 115 26.7%1.4% Motorcyclists 21.0% 120 27.8% 6.9% Pedestrians 19.2% 85 19.7% 0.5% Orange has a Lower Percentage of Collisions Aging Drivers (65+) 12.4% 51 11.8% 0.5% Bicyclists 8.3% 32 7.4%0.9% Commercial Vehicles 6.4% 21 4.9%1.5% Driver Licensing 24.7% 16 19.3% 5.4% Intersections 23.6% 90 20.9% 2.7% Lane Departure 43.3% 137 31.8% 11.5% Improper Use of Occupant Protection 14.2% 34 7.9%6.3% Work Zones 1.4% 2 0.5%1.0% Young Drivers 13.1% 45 10.4% 2.6% 7.8 Collision Network Screening Analysis Results Figure 10 shows the results of the collision network screening analysis, with the number of collisions at both intersections and mid-block roadway segments. 28 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Programj' Orange August 2022 I Report Legend No. Collisions at No. Collisions at Intersections Roadway Segments 1-2 0 3-9 1-2 O 10-20 3-6 i° 0 21-34 7-11 35-49 12-18 O City of Orange1-,4 0 ..0 CA) .. f• 't Boundary e•- e} .. _,/ f t.• u „ rho :-' - u ` 41 t. it, o iP MU 1 O i( _ _!s.1,I N m .%•"111. len: In...." ,ierM ".1- - 4 a 1,.. rr‘t- - ) 4 a.aCo •• ` . ice ar .d• 8 • '1 v aen• fa e f Do.<N j^i -..13 fie.• ) • y 4 •t'Q: .- , 0 riaAPI oki41_ if t$ Figure 10-Collision Network Screening Analysis 29 IMIIIIMIMIIIIIIIMMILIMMI IIIIIMMIIIINIMMINEMNIIMIIII City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and ProgramrangeAugust2022IReport Table 6 and Table 7 show the number of crashes in Orange occurring at the top ten intersections by type and segments by type, respectively. Both tables show the locations that will be studied further in the report.. Appendix B provides a full list of analysis rankings for all intersection and segment locations and highlights locations in which the probability of those crash types exceeding the threshold proportion is greater than 33%. The tables are ordered by the number of collisions that occurred at that segment or intersection. To be statistically significant, only locations where more than two collisions occurred are represented. At locations with two or less collisions, random chance can account for crash history as much or more than specific roadway characteristics. The tables are separated into sub-sections visible by the blue gradient. The first two columns, Collisions and Critical Crash Rate (CCR), represent the level of crash activity in absolute terms, and as relative to other similar locations, respectively. Per guidance from the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) each sub-population of locations was ultimately ranked according to the number of collisions.The second column shows the CCR, which highlights whether or not the collision activity was higher or lower than the average for the sub-population based on the individual segment or intersection volume. This volume was either collected through data count resources or calculated based on the roadway classification. All averages used in the CCR calculation were established based on City of Orange crash data to determine what locations might be best to prioritize at the local level.The remaining columns total collisions by type (broadside, sideswipe, pedestrian, etc.), to evaluate each location type and understand what proportion of crashes in the City are of a particular type.The citywide proportion was compared with the local intersection or segment specific proportion to determine which locations have more of a given crash type than would be expected when considering the City average. A confidence level of 95% was used for the CCR Calculations. For this study, three categories of ranges were highlighted: Light Orange: 70%-80% probability that this crash type is over-represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Orange. Although these locations have a slightly higher probability of this crash type than their counterparts, they are not necessarily highly significant. Orange:80%-90%probability that this crash type is over-represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Orange.These locations have a slightly higher probability of this crash type than their counterparts, they are considered to have slightly high significance. Dark Orange:90%-100% probability that this crash type is over-represented on this segment/intersection as compared to other characteristically similar locations within the City of Orange.These locations are highly significant in regard to the number of collisions occurring here and should be further investigated. After this analysis was completed, the locations were ranked against other similar locations within the City by their categories according to the expected proportion of that crash type within Orange. Locations with higher-than-expected crashes of that type were identified by the probability that random chance would not account for exceedances. 30 Mir City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and ProgramrangeAugust2022IReport Additionally, it should be noted that the columns for Collision Severity, Type, Involved With, and Behavior are additional characteristics of the collisions and should not be counted as a separate collision. The following provides an example of how to read Tables 6 and 7 and Appendix B. Table Definitions: Total Collisions: Number of collisions observed at the intersection or segment from January of 2017 through December of 2021. Local Critical Crash Rate (CCR) Differential:The CCR specific to the intersection or segment.This is the difference between local (actual) crash rate and the critical crash rate, which is how many collisions per million vehicle miles are expected for a location of this type and volume. This tells us how many more collisions are occurring more than is expected. Locations with positive values have more collisions than expected, while locations with negative values have less collisions than expected. Tables 6 and 7 on the following page show the Local CCR Differential and EPDO, while the tables in Appendix B also show the crash parameters such as highest degree of injury level, collision types, vulnerable user crashes and weather conditions for each location. Equivalent Property Damage Only(EPDO): This method assigns weighting factors to crashes based on injury level (severe, injury, property damage only) to develop a property damage only score. In this analysis, the injury crash costs were calculated for each location (based on the latest Caltrans injury costs) and then normalized by dividing by the value of a property damage only collision. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at$2.19 million, Other Visible Injury (OVI) collisions at$142,300, Complaint of Pain (COP) collisions at$80,900, and Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions at$13,300. An example calculation is shown below for Tustin St & Chapman Ave, which had 0 fatal collisions, 4 severe injury collision, 10 OVI collisions, 19 COP collisions, and 16 PDO collisions. EPDO = f(4+$2,190,000)+(10.$142,300)+(19•$80,900)+(16W$13,300)) - 897 13,300 Severity:The number of severe injury and fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period. Fatality: The number of fatal collisions that occurred at this location in the study period. Broadside, Sideswipe, Rear-End, Head-On, Hit Object, Overturned, Pedestrian, Bicycle: The number of these types of collisions that occurred at this location in the study period. Other: The number of miscellaneous collision types (mostly single vehicle) that occurred at this location in the study period. Aggressive, Dark, Wet:The number of the collisions with this factor identified as the cause of collision. The locations in Tables 6 and 7 are sorted by location type and number of collisions, but CCR, EPDO and the types of collisions occurring at each location were all used to choose locations for further study and case study development in Section 9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies. 31 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report Table 6—Analysis Rankings:Intersections(Top 10 Per Intersection Type) co c c v cu cu a; co v w c O Signalized Intersections S Tustin St&E Chapman Ave 49 0.09 897 The City Dr&W Chapman Ave 45 15.48! 240 State College Blvd&Anaheim Way/1-5 NB Ramps 43 14.75 448 N Tustin St&E Collins Ave 39 0.08 178 N Tustin St&E Katella Ave S8 -0.05 202 N Glassell St&E Katella Ave 34 0.06 803 N Tustin St&E Briardale Ave 31 0.06 183 N Tustin St&E Walnut Ave 30 0.03 202 S Main St&W la Veta Ave 28 -0.06 464 E Oragewood Ave&SR-57 Ramp 27 8.9e„`' 132 Unsignalized Intersections N Glassell St&Plaza Sq 43 92 State College Blvd&I-5 NB Ramps 33 403 Tower Rd&Chapman Ave 20 253 S Batavia St&W Almond Ave 18 0.61 83 SR-57 NB&On-Ramps&Katella Ave 18 73 The City Dr&Outlets at Orange Driveway 16 61 Main St&Maple Ave 16 413 SR-55 SB On Ramp&E Chapman Ave 14 0.24 98 S Seranado St&E Chapman Ave 14 0.04 59 N Lemon St&W Collins Ave 13 0.70 43 1.Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 2.Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes Local CCR Differential> 1.0 Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 Local CCR Differential 0-0.33 32 MIIIIIIIIWISiliIIIIIIIIIINIK IMF City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program rangeAugust 2022 I Reportg Table 7—Analysis Rankings:Segments(Top 10 Per Segment Type) I CCU icu 0FacilityLimits ea V V CI w U ro u0 J Principal Arterial E Chapman Ave Prospect St-Swidler PI III 0.79 270 N Tustin St Heim Ave-Village Way Es 0.60 1244 N Tustin St Village Way-Meats Ave Eli0.70 I 241 N Tustin St SR-55 SB On-Ramp-Heim Ave ® 0.71 El N Tustin St Grove Ave-Taft Ave m 0.52 El E Lincoln Ave Glassell St-Cottonwood St El 0.62 60 E Katella Ave Dell Taco Dwy-Tustin St 10 0.86 El E Katella Ave Sacramento St-Handy St Es 0.20 El E Katella Ave Shaffer St-Apartment Dwy fl 0.43 Ill W Chapman Ave Rampart St-Renaissance Dwy 1.76 m Minor Arterial W Town and Country R Main St-Lawson Way 111.44 El N Batavia St Angus Ave-Walnut Ave 1.67 m E Meats Ave Canal St-Tustin St E 14.39 El N Batavia St Industrial Dwy-N Grove St En2.52 10 N Prospect St Maple Ave-Chapman Ave 0.74 1 29 E Taft Ave Tustin St-Highland St Ei 0.68 m N Batavia St Collins Ave-Struck Ave Ill 0.22 El W Metropolitan Dr Lewis St-City Pkwy EINIEZEI N Batavia St Fletcher Ave-Cully Dr Ei 0.59 NE E Spring St Swidler St-Seranado St EI Local N California St Wilson Ave-Adams Ave to NE City Blvd W The City Dr-The City Way112 m W Culver Ave Devon Rd-Lilac Ln El Orange Olive Rd Vista Del Gaviota Ave-Meats Ave © 0.13 El E Trenton Ave Baxter St-Orange Vlg El El S La Veta Park Cir La Veta Ave-Parker St El En N Pacific St Southern Ave-Industrial DwyII En Orange Olive Rd Saint James Ave-Heims Ave © 4346' 1.Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 2.Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes Local CCR Differential> 1.0 Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 Local CCR Differential 0-0.33 33 3 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and ProgramrangeAugust2022IReport 8. Best Practices Evaluation and Emphasis Areas 8.1 Best Practices Evaluation Table 8 identifies existing plans and policies that were recently completed, or are planned, or on- going within the City of Orange. The intent of this review is to provide an idea of the types of strategies in place or encouraged by the City that may impact the safety analysis process. It will also identify opportunity areas where the City could adopt non-infrastructure countermeasures. This table also ties each topic and enhancement to the emphasis areas that are laid out in Section 8.2 Emphasis Areas. Table 8-Summary of Opportunities for Best Practices Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance Active Transportation Consider adding role,especially if Coordinator Not implemented active transportation master plan is adopted. Safety/Active Advisory Consider Implementing Safety/Active Committee Not implemented Advisory Committee. Active Education Transportation Safety Not implemented Consider offering active education Program transportation safety programs. Identify obsolete high-capacity intersection designations and evaluate Complete Streets Policy Not implemented potential lane reduction strategies and allocation of space for other transportation modes. City currently collects traffic Continue to assess traffic impact fees Traffic Impact Fees impact fees from new and incorporate safety and VMT development projects measures in future nexus studies. Implement recommendations from the Safe Routes to School ongoing Safe Routes to School plan Funding Not implemented and consider opportunities for more systemic implementation where appropriate. Continue to enact traffic calming implementations throughout the City City is currently working on and establish a monitoring program to Traffic Calming Policies updating its Citywide Traffic determine which traffic calming Calming Policy measures are most effective with the least inconvenience to local roadway users. Speed Surveys/Speed Conducts regular speed surveys. Continue to update as required by Limits Speed limits are current. California Vehicle Code;review new guidance from Assembly Bill 43 34 Illilllindlill1111111111111aMM IMF City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report Pr" Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance City uses warrants provided in Continue to use and update local Warrants for Stops and CA MUTCD to identify locations warrants as appropriate to supplement Signals where traffic control devices are CA MUTCD warrants for traffic control deemed appropriate devices and beacons. Planning for Density General Plan (Circulation and Continue through Mitigation Fee Walkable Areas Mobility Element/Land Use) Program Policies and programs are Update Transportation Demand Transportation Demand currently provided in the Management ordinance to reflect Management Orange Municipal Code recent trends and incorporate into the TDM)/Vehicle Miles City's SB 743 CEQA and development Travelled Reduction(VMT) City has a VMT fee program approval process. and VMT mitigation exchange implemented Continue to implement this process Yes-The City uses Crossroads toProgramforReviewingmonitorcrasheswithintheCity Continue to monitor crash data and Crash Activity right-of-way keep the GIS data up to date. Active Transportation City has an active Continue to review active Master Plan transportation master plan transportation master plan and update implemented. as needed The City can use corridor signal progression to both manage peak direction traffic speed and to reduce City currently operates a stop-and-go patterns that contribute to Pedestrian Signal Timing coordinated network of nearly rear-end crashes. Where possible the 160 traffic signals City can update its signal systems with detection and modem capabilities to respond to traffic conditions and reduce rear-end collisions. At high pedestrian locations,the Continue implementing crosswalk/ Crosswalks/Pedestrian City has implemented high- pedestrian improvements (i.e. Infrastructure visibility crosswalks and enhancing mid-block crossings with pedestrian only phases (all-way) Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons at traffic signals RRFBs)) Orange PD has monthly DUI checkpoints at various high collisions/DUI arrest locations, Enforcement dedicated DUI enforcement Continue coordination officer, and traffic monitoring around schools Continue to update master plans to reflect changing trends and focus on plan implementation. Ensure Bicycle and Pedestrian City adopted Bikeways Master coordination between planning, Master Plans Plan (2001) engineering, and maintenance teams to avoid missed opportunities to fund and implement changes as part of routine City operations 35 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and ProgramrangeAugust2022IReport 411111111111MI Topic Current Status Implement or Enhance Transit OC Bus,Metrolink Continue to implement policies to improve transit infrastructure. Continue to identify funding for wayfinding signage;implement in high pedestrian/bicycle locations.Use and Program for Installing City has an existing program for update City branding guidance to Wayfinding Signage installing wayfinding signage highlight local identity and increase civic awareness of local recreational and cultural amenities and key active transportation infrastructure. City has an inventory of traffic Conduct a road sign safety audit Inventory of Regulatory signals,however,does not have including sign positioning,condition, and Warning Signage an inventory of pedestrian, appropriateness. Identify potential signs/crossings,etc.missing or inadequate signage. Inventory/Mapping of Bikeway Master Plan, Complete inventory of existing Active Transportation Recreational Trails,Master Plan infrastructure,digitize in GIS and Routes Figure CM-3 of General Plan) possibly include on wayfinding infrastructure. The City compiles all accident Crossroads Database data in Crossroads when it Continue to keep all accident data becomes available to the Traffic from crossroads up to date. Division Continue traffic &active transportation volume collection;utilize this data in Active Transportation Bicycle counts are included collision analysis. Update City traffic Volume Counts within City Traffic Counts analysis guidelines to require bicycle and pedestrian counts as part of all future traffic count activities. _ Continue to seek out resident City maintains 'Connect with feedback and build in more active Resident Feedback Orange' portal to receive outreach through City events and resident feedback other opportunities to directly solicit resident feedback in addition to the existing portal. The City of Orange has the Staff Review Committee (SRC) for Maintain formal coordination between Institutional Coordination inter-departmental review of city departments;involve in collision development applications and analysis and planning process. various projects. Consider coordinating with schools and School Engagement Not implemented districts,involve in collision analysis and planning process. The City of Orange has Citizen Continue to coordinate with CityLawAcademy,National Night Out, police Enforcement/Emergency social media,etc.to connect and County Fire;involve in collision Service Engagement local law enforcement and their analysis and planning process. Engage residents health agencies as stakeholder. 36 r kr- City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 8.2 Emphasis Areas Emphasis areas represent crash factors that are common in the City and provide the opportunity to reduce the largest number of traffic injuries with strategic investment. Emphasis areas were developed by revisiting the vision and goals of this planning process and comparing them with the trends and patterns identified in the crash analysis. 8.2.1 Emphasis Area #1: Aggressive Driving Description: Aggressive driving, as defined by Caltrans' SHSP, includes several behaviors including speeding, tailgating, and ignoring traffic signals and signs. Aggressive driving behaviors (unsafe speed or following too closely) accounted for 3,464 crashes or 25 percent of collisions within the City of Orange. Goals for Emphasis Area #1: Reduce the number of crashes due to aggressive driving in the City Identify hot spots and priority corridors for aggressive driving Apply for funding and implement countermeasures to address aggressive driving Strategies for Emphasis Area #1: Continue to update speed limits with additional flexibility given by Assembly Bill 43. In cases where speed continues to be a challenge, preventing the enforcement of desirable speed limits, consider roadway design characteristics that might support lower speeds. Implement traffic calming improvements and establish a monitoring program to determine which measures are most effective; this is applicable in local and residential streets Install additional regulatory signage Upgrade pavement markings to make intersections more visible Enhance roadway and intersection striping Reduce intersection size or number of lanes Target speed enforcement and increased enforcement at high aggressive driving collision locations These strategies will be implemented by the City,law enforcement,and community organizations. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, OTS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), or Safe Streets for All (SS4A) grant programs. 37 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and ProgramrangeAugust2022IReport 8.2.2 Emphasis Area #2: Vulnerable Road Users (Pedestrians, Bicyclists, & Motorcyclists) Description: Pedestrians, bicyclists,and motorcyclists are classified by Caltrans as vulnerable users, meaning they possess the highest potential for severe harm during a crash. These groups need appropriate infrastructure to travel to key destinations such as schools, workplaces, and core commercial areas.The City's Circulation Element lays out plans and standards for non-motorized transportation. Of the 121 crashes involving vulnerable road users, 10 resulted in a fatal injury to the pedestrian or bicyclist and 55 resulted in a severe injury to the pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorcyclists. The City should aim to implement countermeasures to further protect these users from injury. Goals for Emphasis Area #2: Improve active transportation infrastructure by adding pedestrian facilities, bike lanes, and other amenities to make it safer for employees and community members to get to key destinations such as school, commercial centers, transit centers, and recreation areas Encourage healthier lifestyles through active transportation infrastructure Apply for HSIP and other funding to implement countermeasures to address vulnerable road user crashes Strategies for Emphasis Area #2: Install ADA ramps with high-visibility crosswalk markings at the intersection of key destinations, ensure all signalized intersections have crosswalks on all legs where feasible and install/upgrade pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations Provide dedicated pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure to and from bus stops and along key corridors Install adequate street lighting Implement recommendations from Safe Routes to School plan and consider opportunities for more systemic implementation where appropriate. Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) with new controller Update the City's traffic analysis guidelines to require bicycle and pedestrian counts These strategies will be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs. 38 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 ) Report 8.2.3 Emphasis Area #3: Impaired Drivers Description: Impaired driving crashes are a high priority challenge area within the Caltrans SHSP. Caltrans defines these as crashes where any evidence of drug or alcohol use by the driver is present, even if the driver was not over the legal limit. Impaired driving accounted for 26.7% of the City's crashes resulting in severe injuries or fatalities, versus 25.3%statewide. Goals for Emphasis Area #3: Reduce the number of crashes attributed to impaired driving Identify hot spots and priority corridors for countermeasures to reduce impaired driving Apply for funding to implement countermeasures to reduce impaired driving crashes Strategies for Emphasis Area #3: Authorize, publicize, and conduct sobriety checkpoints programs Implement an impaired driving education campaign Develop educational programs targeting specific audiences based on age group Additional enforcement presence Create effective media campaigns in both visual and print media These strategies can be implemented by the City, while partnering with Caltrans, Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), California Highway Patrol (CHP), and other community partners. Funding sources for these strategies may include HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), OTS, SB 1, and SS4A grant programs. 39 imi domminwo mirmitiminimminimi City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I 9. Countermeasure Toolbox This section provides information on general identified issues, crash reduction factors, improvements, and countermeasures identified for the City of Orange, as well as for specific project locations identified as part of this analysis.Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on data analysis, stakeholder input, and site visits. 9.1 Infrastructure Improvements 9.1 .1 Countermeasure Selection Process Part D of the HSM provides information on crash modification factors (CMF) for roadway segments, intersections, interchanges, special facilities, and road networks. CMFs are used to estimate the safety effects of highway improvements, specifically to compare and select highway safety improvements.A CMF less than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to reduce crashes. A CMF greater than 1.0 indicates that a treatment has the potential to increase crashes. A Crash Reduction Factor (CRF) is directly connected to the CMF and is "mathematically defined as (1 - CMF) (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes) a." CMFs can help decision makers weigh potential alternative projects but are only one measure of a project's value and should be considered part of a larger decision-making process. Furthermore, it is important to note that not all CMFs are as reliable as others. The FHWA maintains a federal depository of CMFs and includes a star rating system to help users determine which CMFs are bolstered by the best and most thorough research. Key factors to consider when applying CMFs include: 1. Selection of an appropriate CMF; 2. Estimation of crashes without treatment; 3. Application of CMFs by type and severity; and, 4. Estimation of the combined effect for multiple treatments. Examples of Safety Countermeasures can be found through several sources. This Report utilizes the countermeasures found in the California LRSM and the CMF Clearinghouse (CMF CH) website. Countermeasures for each of the Safety Project Case Studies are based on the data analysis and site visits. Additional countermeasures were identified for the high-level issues on a citywide level and are discussed in Section 9.2 Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox. I 4 Local Roadway Safety Manual (Version 1.5) 2020. Page 27. 40 iiimismiiiimmumal itionrassim Cityof City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 9.1.2 Safety Project Case Studies From the citywide analysis, fifteen (15) project case study locations were selected for further evaluation and countermeasure development. For each of these locations, Safety Project Case Studies were developed to provide a balanced understanding of common safety patterns at a variety of location types that can be used to associate countermeasures with specific roadway configurations and conditions.These locations were identified through the analysis process based on their crash histories, stakeholder engagement, the observed crash patterns, and their different characteristics to provide the most insight into potential systemic safety countermeasures that the City can employ to achieve the most cost-effective safety benefits. The following intersections and segments were used as case study locations for fieldwork data observation and countermeasure development. These locations were further analyzed to develop specific Project Sheets at five locations as noted below. Appendix A provides the Project Sheets. 1. Signalized Intersection:Tustin Street and Chapman Avenue; Project Sheet #1 2. Signalized Intersection:The City Drive and Chapman Avenue; Project Sheet #2 3. Signalized Intersection: State College Boulevard and Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps 4. Signalized Intersection: Glassell Street and Katella Avenue; Project Sheet #3 5. Signalized Intersection: Main Street and La Veta Avenue 6. Signalized Intersection: Jamboree Rd & Chapman Ave/Santiago Canyon Rd; Project Sheet 5 7. Unsignalized Intersection: Glassell Street and Plaza Square 8. Unsignalized Intersection:State College Boulevard and 1-5 NB On-Ramp 9. Unsignalized Intersection:Tower Road and Chapman Avenue 10. Unsignalized Intersection: Main Street and Maple Avenue; Project Sheet #4 11. Segment: Chapman Avenue from Prospect Street to Swidler Place 12. Segment: Tustin Steet from SR-55 On-Ramp to Meats Avenue 13. Segment:Town and Country Road from Main Street to Lawson Way 14. Segment: Batavia Street from Industrial Driveway to Grove Street 15. Segment: California Street from Wilson Avenue to Adams Avenue The following pages summarize the potential beneficial countermeasures that may be implemented based on the existing conditions at these case study locations. As shown in the Project Sheets in Appendix A, countermeasures were subjected to a benefit/cost assessment and scored according to their potential return on investment. These Project Sheets can be used to select the most appropriate countermeasure, and to potentially phase improvements over the longer-term. The potential benefit of these countermeasures at locations with similar design characteristics can then be extrapolated regardless of crash history, allowing for proactive safety 41 11111111l_ - City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report I enhancements that can prevent future safety challenges from developing. These Project Sheets can also be used to position the City for future grant funding opportunities. The volumes shown in the ADT &TEV sections of the Project Sheets were taken from the 2021 Traffic Flow Map published by OCTA. The monetary benefits are calculated from the latest Caltrans injury level cost data. Fatal and severe injury collisions are estimated at $2.19 million, Other Visible Injury collisions at 142,300, Complaint of Pain collision at$80,900, and Property Damage Only collisions at$13,300. 9.2 Citywide Countermeasure Toolbox This evaluation considered citywide trends to identify countermeasures that would likely provide the most benefit with widespread implementation. Table 9 outlines the citywide safety project opportunities, which is also referred to as the "Countermeasure Toolbox". Within the toolbox, the description of the countermeasure along with its Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) ID number is listed. The next column, Crash Reduction Factor (CRF), are "multiplicative factors used to estimate the expected reduction in number of crashes after implementing a given countermeasure at a specific site (the higher the CRF, the greater the expected reduction in crashes)." Applying the benefit/cost at the citywide level was estimated assuming some randomness in crash distribution. The location characteristics, such as whether there is a traffic signal, and the type of crashes, were used at the citywide level to calculate an average cost of crashes that the countermeasure might reduce. The benefit per location was then factored out to a 20-year lifecycle savings, with an Opinion of Project Probable Cost (OPCC) for the initial installation costs and a per-year maintenance cost estimate.The cost shown in Table 9 should be considered initial construction costs using 2022 dollars and not assumed final. 42 gCity of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report M Table 9-Citywide Safety Countermeasure Toolbox ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply? CRF Per Unit Cost Unit NS01 Add intersection lighting Unsignalized intersections with limited 35%45,000 Per visibility intersection NS03 Install signal Unsignalized intersections with significant 30% $400,000 per collision activity where warrants are met intersection NS06 Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other Areas identified in road sign safety audit 15%6,000 per sign intersections warning/regulatory sign NS07 Upgrade intersection pavement markings (to make Intersections where outdated or degraded 25%40,000 per more visible) striping and pavement markings exist intersection NS15 Create direction median openings to restrict left-turns Entrances/exits from driveways with high 50%15,000 per location right-in/right-out) numbers of turning movement collisions SO2 Update signal heads to meet current standards Signalized intersections where signals heads 15%27,000 per do not meet current standards intersection S03 Improve signal timing (coordination, phasing, red, Signalized intersections where there is 15%8,000 per yellow,operation) insufficient clearance time with current intersection timing plans or where signals placed closely enough to impact free flowing operations of the street S07 Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already Signalized intersections with a high number 30%50,000 per exists) of broadside collisions as a result of left turns intersection S10 Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) Signalized intersections 30%10,200 per beacon S21 PB Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Signalized Intersections-especially those 60%8,000 per Pedestrian Interval (LPI)with new controller with high pedestrian activity intersection R35PB Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced Roadway segment with no controlled 35%30,000 per crossing safety features) crossing for a significant distance in high- use midblock crossing areas R37PB Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Mid-block pedestrian crossings or 35%54,000 per crossing unsignalized intersections,especially those with high pedestrian activity Evaluate intersection/roadway striping and markings Intersection and roadway segments with 5%30,000 per location for possible enhancements high collision activity Implement targeted DUI enforcement combined with - Locations citywide,specifically those with 5% varies varies education programs at local high schools high DUI collisions Install ADA ramps Intersections with high pedestrian activity 5%10,000 per location Install curb extensions Intersections with high pedestrian activity 5%30,000 per extension 43 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report ID Potential Countermeasures Where to apply? CRF Per Unit Cost Unit Improve pavement condition Roadway segments that have degraded 5%100,000 per pavement conditions intersection _ Improve striping along roadway segment Roadway segments that have degraded 5%30,000 per mile roadway striping These locations did not have an approved Crash Reduction Factor,so a conservative 5%CRF was assumed to calculate benefit 44 1111110 i iiimw..:AmmommE City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 10. Funding Sources & Next Steps 10.1 Funding Competitive funding resources are available to assist in the development and implementation of safety projects in Orange.The City should continue to seek available funding and grant opportunities from local, state, and federal resources to accelerate their ability to implement safety improvements throughout Orange. This section provides a high-level introduction to some of the main funding programs and grants for which the City can apply. 10.1.1 Highway Safety Improvement Program The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is a Federal program that apportions funding as a lump sum for each state, which is then divided among apportioned programs. These flexible funds can be used for projects to preserve or improve safety conditions and performance on any Federal-aid highway, bridge projects on any public road, facilities for non-motorized transportation, and other project types. Safety improvement projects eligible for this funding include: New or upgraded traffic signals Upgraded guard rails Pedestrian warning flashing beacons Marked crosswalks Other projects listed in the Caltrans Local Road Safety Manual California's local HSIP focuses on infrastructure projects with national recognized crash rgduction factors. Normally HSIP call-for-projects is made at an interval of one to two years. The applicant must be a city,a county,or a tribal government federally recognized within the State of California. Additional information regarding this program at the Federal level can be found online at: https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsip/. California specific HSIP information - including dates for upcoming call for projects can be found at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ha/LocalPrograms/hsip.html. HSIP Cycle 11 applications are due in September 2022. 10.1.2 Caltrans Active Transportation Program Caltrans Active Transportation Program (ATP) is a statewide funding program, created in 2013, consolidating several federal and state programs. The ATP funds projects that encourage increased mode share for walking and bicycling, improve mobility and safety for non-motorized users, enhance public health, and decrease greenhouse gas emissions. Projects eligible for this funding include: Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects Bicycle and pedestrian planning projects (e.g., Safe Routes to School) Non-infrastructure programs (education and enforcement) 45 mrammitimmiNsimim City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program3rangeeAugust2022IReport This program funding is provided annually and call for projects typically comes out in the spring. Information on this program and cycles can be found online at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/ha/LocalPrograms/atp/. 10.1.3 California SB 1 The California SB 1 is a landmark transportation investment to rebuild California by fixing neighborhood streets, freeways, and bridges in communities across California and targeting funds toward transit and congested trade and commute corridor improvements. California's state-maintained transportation infrastructure will receive roughly half of SB 1 revenue: 26 billion. The other half will go to local roads, transit agencies and an expansion of the state's growing network of pedestrian and cycle routes.Each year,this new funding will be used to tackle deferred maintenance needs both on the state highway system and the local road system, including: Local Street and Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation:$1.5 billion This funding is dedicated to improve local road maintenance, rehabilitation, and/or safety through projects such as restriping and repaving. Bike and Pedestrian Projects:$100 million This will go to cities,counties, and regional transportation agencies to build or convert more bike paths,crosswalks,and sidewalks. It is a significant increase in funding for these projects through the ATP. Local Planning Grants: $25 million 10.1.4 California Office of Traffic Safety Grants This program has funding for projects related to traffic safety, including transportation safety education and encouragement activities. Grant applications must be supported by local crash data (such as the data analyzed in this report) and must relate to the following priority program areas: Alcohol Impaired Driving Distracted Driving Drug-Impaired Emergency Medical Services Motorcycle Safety Occupant Protection Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Police Traffic Services Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Program Roadway Safety and Traffic Records 46 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 Report I 10.1.5 SCAG Sustainable Communities Program This program is an innovative vehicle for promoting local jurisdictional efforts to test local planning tools. The Sustainable Communities Program (SCP) provides direct technical assistance to SCAG member jurisdictions to complete planning and policy efforts to implement the regional Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS). Grants are available in the following three categories: Integrated Land Use Sustainable Land Use Planning Transit Oriented Development (TOD) Land Use &Transportation Integration Active Transportation Bicycle Planning o Pedestrian Planning Safe Routes to School Plans Green Region a Natural Resource Plans o Climate Action Plans (CAPs) o Green House Gas (GHG) Reduction programs 10.1.6 Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) Grant Program This program has allocated$1 billion annually for the next four years for local cities,counties,MPOs, and other roadway owners (except state DOTs) for safety improvement grants for safety planning, education, enforcement, and roadway improvements. This program is not benefit / cost based. Evaluation criteria are oriented to the project's alignment with the Safe Systems approach.There is a 20% local match requirement (can be in-kind contribution via staff billable hours). Planning grants are open to any eligible agency and Implementation grants are open to agencies with a completed safety plan such as a Local Roadway Safety Plan. Planning grants are expected to range from $100,000 to $1 million and Implementation grants are expected to range from $1 million to $20 million. Grant applications are due in September 2022. Implementing a Local Road Safety Plan and the City's adoption of a Vision Zero resolution makes the City eligible to apply for SS4A implementation grants. 10.1.7 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act In November 2021, the President signed into law the$1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to the SS4A grant program described above, this law provides billions of dollars in additional funding for improvements and investment in the transportation sector nationwide. The law provides $30 billion in funding over five years for competitive RAISE grants for transportation projects, as well as additional funding for repair and environmental mitigation projects. As these grant programs continue to be developed, the City can position itself by identifying potential projects and programs to pursue. 47 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report 10.2 Next Steps Once the Local Roadway Safety Plan has been completed, the City can plan to regularly review and monitor collision data for trends and changes, as well as update the LRSP every five years. 10.2.1 MonitoringI)The City can plan to regularly monitor the success of the LRSP and its related implementations by performing the following steps. This before and after analysis can be performed at a yearly interval. Pull yearly collision data from Crossroads database to determine year-over-year trend Utilize Crossroads or GIS software to review the number of collisions occurring at specific locations. Locations where improvements have been made should receive priority for monitoring. Based upon changes in collision activity, determine efficacy of improvements and adjust strategies going forward 10.2.2 Analysis Update To maintain eligibility for HSIP grant funding, the City will need to update the LRSP every five years. The City can plan to update the analysis by performing the following steps: 1. Obtain updated Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) collision data from the Crossroads database 2. Use Excel software to update the collision trend analysis completed in Section 7 Crash Safety Trends 3. Update the roadway shapefile with any new or upgraded roadways 4. Update the intersection shapefile with any new or upgraded intersections 5. Re-run the GIS collision tool to determine the number of collisions at intersections and roadways within the updated study period.The City can plan to run the collision tool for all collisions, as well as the collision types identified in Section 3.2.2 Network Screening Analysis. 6. Update collision analysis tables shown in Section 7.7 Collision Network Screening Analysis Report In addition to the process and analysis completed in this Local Roadway Safety Plan, the City must complete at least one of the following in order to be considered an 'action plan' and be eligible for Safe Streets for All and other federal grant funding programs. 1. The LRSP/action plan must have a high-ranking official or governing body in the City commit to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries 2. The LRSP/action plan must include considerations of equity within the analysis, including using an inclusive and representative process 3. The LRSP/action plan must be posted publicly online to allow for public review and comment 48 3City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report Appendix A - Project Sheets A Hof ORS`'4 `a,,o5L-!,7.e, FO I^ I V 1 1, i a I 9N1.6.00 Project Name:OrangeLRSP Prepared by:Kimley-Horn I Agency Name:City of Orange Checked by:Jason Melchor IContactName:Gabrielle Hayes Date:August 2022 SIGNALIZEDEmail:ghayes@cityoforange.org Intersection:Tustin St&Chapman Ave Examples of Similar Intersections:Tustin St&CollinsAve a 1-Tustin St&Chapman Ave 11 ro '+ .., 5,1 ! a4 p hap-rnan Avr. ._. . '} 4 ar.. 7.ii 1. N$. v - 1---•% Wm .. ,-... . . _. ''' fr... t-4" ' ' ' 7 end i e', e 51tew.aide(xo) —4-- K..w-c d(1,) P A f .. y r. e.—Head-On(4) —4. Sideswpe M 11. I Q f e1 km Hit Object(2) —•* Veh.cIe.Pedesrrian(3) r p4 - t ' A t t ronn(tl r. Collision Data Traffic Data Total Collisions 49 Number of Approaches 4 Fatal and Severe 4 Total Entering Vehicles 61450 Injury Collisions Crosswalk Condition All Approaches Top 3 Collision Types Broadside:20 Rear-End:14 Control Type Signalized Sideswipes:5 Lighting Yes Total Nighttime Collisions 1 Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 mph Wet Surface Collisions 1 Median None Drug and Alcohol Related Collisions 5 Collision Breakdown Veh vs.Veh Veh vs.Ped Veh vs.Bike 39 3 5 High number of broadside and rear-end collisions Good location for intersection assessment Kimley>>>Horn pFOR4 cpst'Urt<r c 0 Cttt Ii c0Unrrt GPI Crash 20 Year Primary Potential Modification Total 20-Year Issues Countermeasures Factor(LRSM/Safety Costs Safety Related B/C CMF ID) Benefit All Improve signal hardware 15% 6,969,300 27,000 258.12 All Install/upgrade pedestrian 35% 16,261,700 30,000 135.51 crossing Modify signal phasing to All implement Leading 60% 27,877,200 8,000 3484.65 Pedestrian Interval Kimley>>>Horn O V °Rq po 0,4At 4^1 fix IV` ` o_O Y' t{) - Io3c: a 9 4 IF ` GP?` Project Name:OrangeLRSP Prepared by:Kimley-Horn Agency Name:City of Orange Checked by:Jason Melchor IContactName:Gabrielle Hayes Date:August 2022 SIGNALIZED Email:ghayes@cityoforange.org Intersection:The City Dr&Chapman Ave Examples of Similar Intersections:Main St&Chapman Ave 2-The City Dr&Chapman Ave a' t 4lif i 45 Collisions e 1 b i . 9 -1 swages. 1 llllll( ::• -• . 4 ri:. 7.. 1yrarww;.w.•,... 41: •. 4111U1`ITjjlll(C7I11['+ "r' :11 . ' x:::- V,e n u ,;Milli N 1 8roatlaide 111) - Rear-End(19) m Orsisations Nead-0n(3) r Wear/wees4pe(31 A Nit Ned i4) —.* 'N,o-o--Pede.ci,n lsl II Collision Data Traffic Data Total Collisions 45 Number of Approaches 4 Fatal and Severe 4 Total Entering Vehicles 45000 Injury Collisions Crosswalk Condition All Approaches Top 3 Collision Types Rear-End:19 Broadside:11 Control Type Signalized Hit-Object:4 Lighting Yes Total Nighttime Collisions 0 Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 mph Wet Surface Collisions 3 North and East Drug and Alcohol Related Median Approaches Collisions pp Collision Breakdown Veh vs.Veh Veh vs.Ped Veh vs.Bike 36 5 0 High number of broadside and rear-end collisions High volume of pedestrian crossings near hospital Kimley>>>Horn 4 O F Ogg C1 CCpc0 Urkr4n-v/, v- 344, c,,k416 Q¢ 2a y Crash 20 Year Primary Potential Modification Total 20-Year Safety Safety Related B/CIssuesCountermeasuresFactor(LRSM/ Benefit Costs CMF ID) All Improve signal hardware 15% 1,821,540 27,000 67.46 All Install/upgrade pedestrian 35% crossing 4,250,260 30,000 35.42 Modify signal phasing to All implement Leading 60% 7,286,160 8,000 910.77 Pedestrian Interval Kimley>»Horn pFO Y\ a Fn ts I NI: I0NrYGPI,Project Name:Orange LRSP Prepared by:Kimley-Horn Agency Name:City of Orange Checked by:Jason Melchor IContactName:Gabrielle Hayes Date:August 2022 Email:ghayes@cityoforange.org SIGNALIZED Intersection:Glassell St&Katel la Ave Examples of Similar Intersections:Tustin St&Katella Ave ads 1 ,r x.- '...._L,•_. 3—Glassell St& Katella Ave ' _jj a ---t r 34 Collisions 1; e v jl r i'. I f 7 p 1..«w Legend t BiwddM(1y -+r• Head end(11)4 I ••• I 4o...mn N Head-on ON Other 11 M^.• a + w'- 1r, w+ A i 1 MI ea N lilt ObI.L1(4) —•* VehiCe-PaCashldn(21 a ... . ,,.y. Collision Data Traffic Data Total Collisions 34 Number of Approaches 4 Fatal and Severe 4 Total Entering Vehicles 44200 Injury Collisions Crosswalk Condition All Approaches Top 3 Collision Types Broadside:14 Rear-End:11 Control Type Signalized Hit Object:4 Lighting Yes Total Nighttime Collisions 0 Highest Posted Speed Limit 40 mph Wet Surface Collisions 2 Median None Drug and Alcohol Related 4Collisions Collision Breakdown Veh vs.Veh Veh vs.Ped Veh vs.Bike 26 2 1 Vehicles turning right on red lights having difficulty determining appropriate gaps to make the turn Fatal injury was vehicle-pedestrian Kimley>>>Horn v Az- CoUrvrf GP IICrash 20 Year Primary Potential Modification Total 20-Year Issues Countermeasures Factor(LRSM/Safety Costs Safety Related B/C CMF ID) Benefit All Improve signal hardware 15% 6,409,680 27,000 237.40 All Install/upgrade pedestrian 35% crossing 14,955,920 30,000 124.63 Modify signal phasing to All implement Leading 60% 25,638,720 8,000 3204.84 Pedestrian Interval Install additional signs All no right turn on red signs) 5% 2,136,560 3,000 712.19 I Kimley>>>Horn d I STOP t., 14*L 6'\GPI?,, Project Name:Orange LRSP Prepared by:Kimley-Horn Icam Agency Name:City of Orange Checked by:Jason Melchor IContactName:Gabrielle Hayes Date:August 2022 TWO-WAY STOP Email:ghayes@cityoforange.org Intersection:Main St&Maple Ave Examples of Similar Intersections:Main St&Palm Ave,Grand St&Walnut Ave tl 1.iillkik LV- 4 I Main St&Maple Ave if *-si•-\ ice` 16 Comsfonss i b nt.wd F kkrp...•$ i 3 Maple w.. 1.4 4/1.\. me r 4 r j r &wdside VI -.I-. IMa End(il Ip.M L i 7 -• ° V " Heeeon II.) 3. sae,MDe It) May Ilnmend ae: rn'1 Oahe.. is a ei: 4 Hit ObOcl(e) R Whkk-Pedestrian(1) W. A ti C A t Other(I) 1 Collision Data Traffic Data Total Collisions 16 Number of Approaches 4 Fatal and Severe 0 Total Entering Vehicles 1500 Injury Collisions North and West Top 3 Collision Types Broadside:7 Crosswalk Condition Approach Rear-End:1 Sideswipes:1 Control Type Unsignalized Total Nighttime Collisions 0 Lighting Yes Wet Surface Collisions 1 Highest Posted Speed Limit 35 mph Drug and Alcohol Related 0 Median None Collisions Collision Breakdown Veh vs.Veh Veh vs.Ped Veh vs.Bike 11 1 0 II Possible sight distance constraintswith turning vehicles coming off Maple Ave Kimley>>)Horn 1 c1 pY OR44 r 1, sCOUNTY GPI. Crash 20 Year Primary Potential Modification Total 20 Year Issues Countermeasures Factor(LRSM/Safety Costs Safety Related B/C CMF ID) Benefit Install/Upgrade Warning/All Regularory Signs 15% 2,632,740 6,000 438.79 All Install Signal 30% 5,265,480 400,000 13.16 I Kimley>»Horn l OOt 0.7 41 IvM 3 I 1°4' '''''t 6•'4 Project Name:OrangeLRSP Prepared by:Kimley-Horn IcOUIY(`( Agency Name:City of Orange Checked by:Jason Melchor Contact Name:Gabrielle Hayes Date:August 2022 Email:ghayes@cityoforange.org SIGNALIZED Intersection:Jamboree Rd&Chapman Ave/Santiago Canyon Rd Examples of Similar Intersections:Newport Blvd at Chapman Ave i5-Jamboree Rd&Chapman w 4 ,' i , ' H v t i y Ave/Santiago Canyon Rd '* t, A 16 Collisions 1e f i o. r ' J r ' - - w, .,`a, 3 t blaMt r+- V` Beacide l9) I• Rear End 111 o o rwuIlmedroy. ilead-0n(1) , Sideswipe 12)C.-- , A Nil Object(1) 1 Other(2) s Collision Data Traffic Data Total Collisions 16 Number of Approaches 4 Fatal and Severe 0 Total Entering Vehicles 22500 Injury Collisions Crosswalk Condition All Approaches Top 3 Collision Types Broadside:9 Sideswipes:2 Control Type Signalized Rear-End:1 Lighting Yes Total Nighttime Collisions 1 Highest Posted Speed Limit 55 mph Wet Surface Collisions 0 Median All Approaches Drug and Alcohol Related Collisions 0 Collision Breakdown Veh vs.Veh Veh vs.Ped Veh vs.Bike 15 0 0 High volume of bike traffic along Jamboree Rd Potential plan improvements from nearby cumulative projects Kimley>>>Horn OV OR a , _ :,. c,, te, cr1 2 COUNTY GP Crash 20 Year Primary Potential Modification Total 20-Year Issues Countermeasures Factor(LRSM/Safety Costs Safety Related B/C CMF ID) Benefit All Improve signal hardware 15% 2,632,740 27,000 97.51 All Install/upgrade pedestrian 35% 6,143,060 30,000 51.19 crossing Modify signal phasing to All implement Leading 60% 924,000 8,000 115.50 Pedestrian Interval I Kimley>>>Horn City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report Appendix B - Analysis Rankings: Intersections and Segments B i MIND c a v d c tea_ a d c d u s Oa0 a 12 2 O v)- cs .3 w 0 a 1. u vv v vi v c a_ o O o vt ro 13 15 •O 0 c' o " m Ll f6 Al a N of cg a c u v d E m IX S = m v, O a Q 0 - v 6 L. OJ Signalized Intersections S Tustin St&E Chapman Ave 49 0.09 897 0 10 19 16 20 5 14 4 2 0 1 3 15 0 6 1 3 The City Dr&W Chapman Ave 45 240 0 0 7 13 11 3 11113 4 0 0 - 0 1711118 0 4 State College Blvd&Anaheim Way/I-5 NB Ramps 43 448 0 17 9 j11. 3 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 N Tustin St&E Collins Ave 39 0.08 178 0 0 7 1444014 3 0 4 0 I 1 2 . 0 7 0 1 N Tustin St&E Katella Ave 38 -0.05 202 0 0 8 -' 13 12 2 . 3 1 0 0 111112 14 1 7 0 1 N Glassell St&E Katella Ave 34 0.06 803 5 13 12 14 0 11 2 4 0 1 2 1 11 0 4 0 2 N Tustin St&E Briardale Ave 31 0.06 183 0 0 7 12 7 4 8 4 0 1 2 1 13 0 6 0 . N Tustin St&E Walnut Ave 30 0.03 202 0 0 11 7 4 3 3 0 0 011112 9 0 2 0 S Main St&W la Veta Ave 28 -0.06 464 0 6 10 10 10 3 - 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 0 1 E Oragewood Ave&SR-57 Ramp 27 8.90 132 0 0 3 . 9 8 3 7 3 3 s. 0 1 0 4 0 11111 N Tustin St&E Meats Ave 26 -0.05 616 0 ® 5 10 8 10 1 9 0 2 0 0 7 0 0 1 N Tustin Ave&E Fairhaven Ave 23 -0.06 305 0 7 10 5 6 3 8 3 2 0 0 1 0 10 0 0 0 N Prospect St&E Chapman Ave 23 435 0 4 9 8 6 1 - 1 2 0 1 1 1 11 0 3 0 1 N Tustin St&E Heim Ave 22 -0.06 419 4 6 10 9 4 3 2 2 0 ONO 9 0 2 0 0 Lewis St&W Metropolitan Dr 20 0.10 124 0 0 6 9 5 10 0 1 3 0 0 2 0 6 0 1 0 1 S Main St&W Chapman Ave 20 -0.11 75 0 0 2 7 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 4 '`1 j 0 N Glassell St&E Taft Ave 20 258 0 4 7 8 4 4 7 1 0 0 0 1 9 0 3 0 0 N Tustin St&E Lincoln Ave 20 0.28 249 0 2 9 8 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 10 0 2 0 . N Tustin Ave&Seba Ave 19 -0.09 295 0 5 4 I 8 1 2 1 1 2 0 4 0 3 0 1 S Lewis St&W Chapman Ave 19 ® 402 0 1 - 9 7 4 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 8 1 0 1 S Yorba St&E Chapman Ave 19 -0.19 242 0 3 6 9 3 3 0 11111 0 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 City Pkwy N&W Chapman Ave 19 -0.13 444 0 4 5 5 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 1111 0 2 0 0 N Glassell St&W Collins Ave 19 266 0 6 5 7 8 3 4 1 2 0 1 0 0 5 0 31111 0 N Cambridge St&E Katella Ave 19 -0.09 237 0 3 5 4 3 7 1 2 0 0 1 2 10 0 2 0 0 Jamboree Rd&E Santiago Canyon Rd 18 236 0 3 5 3 2 6 II 2 0 1 0 1111111 8 0 4 0 0 N Batavia St&W Collins Ave 17 -0.03 81 0 0 5 3 2 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 8 0 1 0 0 N Glassell St&W Meats Ave 17 0.03 115 0 0 11111 6 ' 4 0 1 11111 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 c o ac°- y Si c c d L y' U s 4- 0 a a w 0 m .§ u, a v cu c v 4, L. E m an °C = = O a u t0 O 0 J S Tustin St&E La Veta Ave 16 -0.14 66 0 0 2 6 8 4 1 3 0 6 0 0 2 0 8 0 1 2 S Glassell St&E La Veta Ave 16 -0.05 80 0 0 4 5 7 6 2 6 0 2 0 0 0 1 9 0 0 0 S Tustin St&E Palmyra Ave 16 -0.11 235 0 2 7 6 it 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 Canyon View Ave&E Chapman Ave 16 0.00 75 0 0 4 4 8 4 0 4 2 -- 0 0 0 9 0 2 0 1 S Grand St&E Chapman Ave 16 -0.04 95 0 0 5 6 5 3 21110 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 Jamboree Rd&E Chapman Ave/E Santiago Canyon Rd 16 86 0 0 3 8 5 . 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N Main St&W Katella Ave 16 -0.12 556 0 ® 3 4 6 4 3 3 2 2 0 0 0 5 0 1 0 2 N Wanda Rd&E Katella Ave/Villa Park Rd 16 56 0 0 2 4 5 2 5 2 1 0 1 OH 8;';- 6 0 0 0 Glassell St&SR-22 Ramp 15 59 0 0 3 3 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 011110 3 0 1 S Hewes St&E Chapman Ave 15 -0.18 84 0 0 4 6 5 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 0 N Shaffer St&E Collins Ave 15 -0.05 108 0 0 3 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N California St&E Katella Ave 15 -0.13 257 0 4 4 7 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 8 ' 1 1 0 0 N Cambrdige St&Taft Ave 15 0.00 80 0 0 3 j 7' 5 0 1 I 'i 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 N Cannon St&E Chapman Ave 14 -0.15 227 0 © 4 2 7 2 1 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 N Batavia St&W Chapman Ave 14 -0.10 83 0 0 4 6 4 6 1 3 0 0 1 0 1 7 0 3 2 N Main St&W Struck Ave 14 -0.05 83 0 0 4 6 4 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 2 0 1 N Tustin St&E Wilson Ave 14 -0.15 257 © 0 5 6 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Anita Dr&W Chapman Ave 13 0.00 62 0 0 3 4 6 6 1 2 2 2 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 5 James St&E Chapman Ave 13 -0.20 404 0 Ell 5 3 3 5 2 2 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 S Lemon St&W Chapman Ave 13 -0.10 62 0 0 4 2 7 J 6 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 N Tustin St&E Palm Ave 13 -0.19 72 0 0 4 4 5 4 0 4 1 0 0 7 0 1 0 1 N Newport Blvd&E Chapman Ave 13 77 0 0 4 5 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 5 0 3 0 0 N Eckhoff St&W Orangewood Ave 13 -0.13 63 0 0 2 6 5 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 N tustin St&E Mayfair Ave i3 0.07 68 0 0 2 ,f11, 4 2 4 2 1 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 SR-55 Ramp&E Katella Ave 13 -0.21 73 0 0 3 6 4 3 . 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 N Shaffer St&E Katella Ave 13 -0.18 82 0 0 4 4 5 1 5 1 1 0 0 0 1 ,,` ;_x 0 1 0 0 N Canal St&E Lincoln Ave 13 -0.11 38 0 0 1 3 1 11111 4 r, 0 MI 0 0 0 5 0 ,rr0 0 Santiago Blvd&E Nohl Ranch Rd i3 -0.14 53 0 0 2 4 3 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 ra 3" MD IIIED C a O0 cQaCG4E0a O l N ta373ova v W o s a c a aa) 0 d aconCxx c u v c Uu OJ N Glassell St&W Lincoln Ave 13 86 0 0 1 5 1 2 6 0 1 0 1 2 2 3 0 2 0 1 The City Dr S&Garden Grove Blvd 12 -0.14 47 0 0 1 5 6 3 1 3 0 3 0 0 2 0 4 0 3 0 1 S Pepper St&W la Veta Ave 12 -0.12 215 0 0 2 4 5 6 2 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 4 0 2 0 0 N Main St&W Collins Ave 12 -0.13 52 0 0 2 4 6 6 2 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 2 0 0 Yorba St&Fairhaven Ave 11 393 0 ® 3 5 1 - 0 0 N Tustin St&SR-55 Ramp 12 -0.17 201 0 0 5 6 5 2411110 2 0 0 0 0 1 6 0 0 0 1 SMainSt& 11 0.00 200 0 0 5 5 2 1 . 0 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 0 S Glassell St&W Palmyra Ave 11 0.07 46 0 0 1 5 5 . 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 IIII 0 - N Rancho Santiago BI&E Chapman Ave 11 -0.19 70 0 0 ' 5 .. 2 4 3 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 r N Main St&W Orangewood Ave 11 -0.16 56 0 0 2 5 4 1 2 1 0 0 '0 1 6 0 111 0 0 N Glassell St&E Walnut Ave 11 0.02 60 0 0 3 4 4 4 0 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 6 0 1 0 0 S Lewis St&Garden Grove Blvd 10 228 0 3 2 4 1 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 - N Shaffer St&E Chapman Ave 10 -0.17 45 0 0 2 3 5 5 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 N Batavia St&W Walnut Ave 10 -0.13 70 0 0 3 1 5 0 0 1 0 0 NI 1 3 0 0 0 1 E Santiago Canyon Rd&N Newport Blvd 10 40 0 0 2 2 ww 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 5 0 2 0 1 N Batavia St&W Katella Ave 10 -0.23 35 0 0 0 5 5 3 2 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 N Handy St&E Katella Ave 10 54 0 0 3 3 4 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cannon St&E Santiago Canyon Rd 10 -0.22 30 0 0 1 2 - 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 1 N Main St&W Taft Ave 9 0.13 203 0 1. 1 4 3 4 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 W Struck Ave &W Katella Ave 9 -0.19 24 0 0 0 3 . 0 - 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 3 0 - 0 0 N Batavia St&W Taft Ave 9 39 0 0 1 4 4 2 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 Santiago Blvd&E Taft Ave 9 -0.21 58 0 0 4 2 3 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 61 0 1 0 0 Cannon St&Serrano Ave 9 -0.23 187 0 © 1 1 3 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 - STustin St& SR-55 Ramp 8 -0.26 206 0 3 1 3 . 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 S Yorba St&E la Veta Ave 8 -0.10 211 0 2 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 The City Dr S&Justice Center Way 8 -0.26 38 0 0 2 2 4 4 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jamboree Rd&Canyon View Ave 8 187 0 11 0 3 4 3 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 The City Dr&The City Way 8 47 0 0 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 iti c c ae. y a c d c CD a'al y . VGN vs 0a a 3 c R y o 13 r v u a . a, z w W. 0 j a 0 -0 as ar ... a`, 0 -0 m oo N c u u y i Z a`p y CZ I x O a_ Q O o, O 0 J S Newport Blvd& Canyon View Ave 8 0.65 38 0 0 2 2 4 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 S Flower St&W Chapman Ave 8 -0.25 52 0 0 1 3 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 - 0 4 0 0 0 0 N Rampart St&W Chapman Ave 8 43 0 0 2 3 3 3 0 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 N Cambridge St&E Collins Ave 8 -0.19 201 0 2 2 3 4 0 1 0 1 . 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 N Tustin St&E Quincy Ave 8 -0.25 67 0 0 4 0 3 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 N Sacramento St&E Katella Ave 8 23 0 0 0 3 5 I 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 N Tustin St&E Vanowen Ave 8 -0.26 57 0 0 4 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 N Tustin St&E Taft Ave 8 -0.26 33 0 0 1 3 4 1 2 tt 0 1 0 0 00 4 0 0 0 0 N Glassell St&E Grove Ave 8 -0.22 360 0 ® 2 1 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St&W Fletcher Ave 8 0.09 221 0 4 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 N Batavia St&W Lincoln Ave 8 -0.25 32 0 0 2 1 5 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 1 Santiago Blvd& E Vista Park Ave 8 0.26 43 0 0 2 3 3 I 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St&E Santa Ana Canyon R 8 -0.17 47 0 0 3 2 3 1 0 1 2 j2 1 . 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 N Glassell St&E Richland Ave 8 -0.25 48 0 0 2 4 2 3 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 1 0 0 E Memory In&W Town and Country R 7 -0.21 31 0 0 2 1 4 u` 4 ;; 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 S Batavia St&W la Veta Ave 7 -0.23 46 0 0 . 0 3 3 1 1 0 1 . 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 S Glassell St&E River Ave 7 -0.24 46 0 0 3 2 21. Q 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 5 Main St&W Palmyra Ave 7 -0.25 27 0 0 1 2 4 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 0 0 . SR-55 Ramp &E Chapman Ave 7 -0.26 41 0 0 3 1 3 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Feldner Rd&W Chapman Ave 7 -0.26 196 0 1 3 2 I 1 1 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 N Glassell St&E Palm Ave 7 -0.02 31 0 0 2 1 4 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 N Batavia St&W Palm Ave 7 -0.19 51 0 0 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N Prospect St&E Bond Ave/N Pageant Dr 7 x f 32 0 0 1 3 3 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 1 N Wanda Rd&E Collins Ave 7 -0.24 17 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 20 0 0 Meads&E Santiago Canyon Rd 7 -0.26 195 ® 0 2 1 3 2 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 0 Orange Olive Rd&E Meats Ave 7 -0.22 22 0 0 1 1 30 20 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 S Bedford Rd &W la Veta Ave 6 -0.17 21 0 0 0 3 3 2 1'.,,,:ki.4 0 0 0 0 0 - 2 0 1 0 . S Parker St&W La Veta Ave 6 30 0 0 2 1 3 I 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 2 0 0 ro c a a 61E. m c Nv acu as O m CO 0 o - - 0 3 c a ` raO aa e O V3 r a uVIaae) o m O " a ce w lL o 0 -O CD a :L. a, 0 a mUU v m '^ cc I _ O a) c v O C3 The City Dr S&Medical Circle Dr 6 -0.29 31 0 0 1 3 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Skylar PI/E White Oak Rdg &Canyon View Ave 6 -0.09 45 0 0 i 2 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N Cambridge St&E Chapman Ave 6 -0.27 179 0 a 1 0 4 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 Jacaranda Ave&E Collins Ave 6 -0.28 21 0 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St&W Grove Ave 6 -0.26 199 0 2 2 1 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Santiago Blvd&E Meats Ave 6 -0.28 190 0 a 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 The City Dr S&City Pkwy E 5 -0.30 183 111110 1 1 2 13 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 N Bitterbush St&W Chapman Ave 5 -0.30 20 0 0 0 3 2 2 1 0 01110 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Wayfield St&E Chapman Ave 5 -0.30 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 2 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 1 The City Dr S& 1-5 Ramp 5 -0.28 49 0 0 - 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N California St&E Collins Ave 5 -0.12 194 0 MI 1 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N Batavia St&W Struck Ave 5 -0.25 35 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 01111 N Glassell St& E Wilson Ave 5 -0.12 44 0 0 3 i 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 N Robinhood PI&Santiago Blvd 5 -0.27 189 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N Glassell St& E Fletcher Ave 5 -0.20 193 0 2 1 1 2 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St&SR-55 Ramp 5 -0.26 15 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 N Glassell St&W Riverdale Ave 5 0.87 15 0 0 0 2 3 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 Orange Olive Rd&E Riverdale Ave 5 -0.15 24 0 0 2 0 3 0 1 0 011111 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 S Glassell St&W Culver Ave 4 -0.28 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 S Main St&W Almond Ave 4 -0.16 19 0 0 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Malena Dr&E Chapman Ave 4 -0.24 24 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 SR-55 Ramp&E Chapman Ave 4 -0.32 19 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 '- 0 3 0 0 0 0 SR-57&W Chapman Ave 4 -0.32 177 © 0 1 0 2 0 . 0 0 0 . 0 , 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 Jamboree Rd&E Fort Rd 4 -0.21 24 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 4 >_, 1 0 0 0 1 N Prospect St&E Spring St 4 -0.23 182 0 ® 1 1 1 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N Glassell St&W Sycamore Ave 4 -0.18 23 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 Trails End Ln&E Chapman Ave 4 0.50 187 0 2 0 1 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 E Broadway Trl&E Chapman Ave 4 -0.23 23 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 To C 0 L i+ 4.) lu WuCOC3,2 2 0 N '- L .2 . 3, 'a'O O p a... 0 3 ly v L ct ca per, C j 0 A h L R al u I- %;73 v L. CC W U. o a C C -0 cu a d = a o -o c u u L. a, C m of ix _ = o a m OJ N Glassell St& W Wilson Ave 4 -0.21 346 0 _ 1 1 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Cambridge St&E Katella Ave 4 -0.32 9 0 0 0 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Cambridge St&E Meats Ave 4 -0.30 29 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 N Canal St&N Canal St 4 -0.30 9 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 Lawson Way&W Town and Country Rd 3 0.13 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Chapman Ave&E Cliffway Dr 3 -0.34 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Center St&E Walnut Ave 3 -0.26 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 0 SR-57 Ramp&W Orangewood Ave 3 -0.31 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 N Glassell St&E Quincy Ave 3 -0.33 330 0 ® 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ., 0 0 0 0 - 0 Santiago Blvd&E Brookside Ave 3 -0.34 18 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 Cannon St&E Crest de Ville Ave 3 -0.34 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 01111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cannon St&Carver Ln 3 -0.34 18 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unsignalized Intersections N Glassell St&Plaza Sq 43 3.23 : 92 0 0 3 4 1 1 4 5 0 1 2 1 10 0 1 2 State College Blvd&I-5 NB Ramps 33 11.5a 403 0 10 6 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tower Rd&Chapman Ave 20 6.75253 0 3 8 8 8 4 6 0 2 0 0 0 2 7 3 MI 0 S Batavia St&W Almond Ave 18 0.61 83 0 0 3 7 8 1 5 0 0 0 1 1 1 6 0 2 1 1 SR-57 NB&On-Ramps&Katella Ave 18 6.02 1 73 0 0 3 5 10 8 5 3 0 0 0 0 201111 0 0 0 0 The City Dr&Outlets at Orange Driveway 16 5.29 1 61 0 0 2 5 9 4 3 4 0 2 0 0 . 0 a,°_ 0 2 0 0 Main St&Maple Ave 16 5.29 1 413 0 ® 4 6 4 7 1 1 1 4 0 1 1 1 2 0 3 0 1 SR-55 SB On Ramp&E Chapman Ave 14 0.24 98 0 0 r 5 . 2 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 j 2 1 0 0 0 0 S Seranado St&E Chapman Ave i4 0.04 59 0 0 2 5 7 3 3 *a 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 N Lemon St&W Collins Ave 13 0.70 43 0 0 1 4 8 1 6 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 N Lincoln St&E Collins Ave 13 0.27 102 0 0 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 , 4 0 1 N Orange Mall&N Orange Mall 13 0.01 77 0 0 3 5 4 0 4 2 0 0 0 01111 0 0 0 2 S Prospect St&E la Veta Ave 12 0.38 216 0 1 4 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 N Orange Mall&N Tustin St 12 0.00 399 0 ® 3 1 4 0 3111 0 0 0 1' 4,11, 0 3 0 0 0 1 5 Lemon St&W la Veta Ave 0.17 41 0 0 2 2 ct,2 2 2 1 3 0 0 1 0 2 0 3 0 011i ,. 11111.11 MM. co v c a, 3 a a d O 4 0 65 y m f0 O0 Z a, v d i v 6 5 u, .- o j .a a O -O a a, ._ a, 0 -o m oa V da. co ,n ' = i o a Q p OJ S Main St&W Providence Ave 11 0.06 210 0 1 1 5 4 3 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 N Cambridge St&E Walnut Ave 11 0.41 26 0 0 0 3 3 0 1 2 . 0 0 0 0 4 0 2 0 1 S Marks Way&W Chapman Ave 10 0.04 218 0 a 2 - 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 Plaza Sq&W Chapman Ave 10 0.07 20 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 . 0 0 1 0 4 011110 0 N Wayfield St&E Chapman Ave 10 0.00 212 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 OM 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 N Tustin St&E Lomita Ave 10 0.00 59 0 0 3 4 3 4 1 0 Oar 0 0 NO 0 0 0 S Flower Cir&W la Veta Ave 9 0.26 39 0 0 2 2 5 2 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Prospect St&E Maple Ave 9 53 0 0 3 3 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 - 0 1 0 0 The City Dr&SR-22 Ramps 8 23 0 0 0 3 S 2 2 2 w 4l 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 0 1 S Grand St&E la Veta Ave 8 0.15 38 0 0 1 ' 4 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Lewis St&City Pkwy W 8 0.16 67 0 0 . 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Prospect St&E Palmyra Ave 8 0.29 27 0 0 2 OM 3 0 0 1 .1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 S Hamlin St&E Chapman Ave 8 -0.01 355 1 2 3 12 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Orange St&E Chapman Ave g 0.06 48 0 0 1 . 1 111110 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 S Solana Dr&E Chapman Ave 8 -0.01 206 0 a 2 3 2 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 Saddleback Plaza&E Chapman Ave 8 -0.06 57 0 0 3 4 1 1 4 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 S Pixley St&W Chapman Ave g 0.08 62 0 0 - 1 2 2 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 N Citrus St&W Walnut Ave 8 0.29 37 0 0 3 0 5 2 . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 `' ' 'J J 0 N Tustin St&E Rose Ave 8 -0.02 38 0 0 1 4 3 14 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 N Tustin St&E Village Way 8 43 0 0 2 3 3 14 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Glassell St&W Carleton Ave 8 0.05 52 0 0 3 3 2 I 3 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St&E Grove Ave 8 -0.02 207 11111111 0 1 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 11111 2 0 0 0 0 E Villa Vista Way&N Santiago Blvd 8 0.27 13 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . N Santa Fe PI&E Lincoln Ave 8 0.03 196 0 2 1 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Tustin St&SR-55 NB Ramps 7 -0.04 31 0 0 2 1 4 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Silktree Cir&W la Veta Ave 7 0.01 42 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Main St&W Columbia PI 7 -0.02 51 0 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 S Cambridge St&E Palmyra Ave 7 0.22 17 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 C a N v 0/ a a c ate, rroo y -0 G/ t 0 O Q " Q W 3 Gl N ++ N N 5 0 VI C Q N i •O M t N T y r6 r0 a 3 W " o > o o, o v_ w W C d 0 -p V goo Evuo`, v a CO rn CC _ = O a m 0 E u a. U O O S Orange St&E Almond Ave 7 0.56 42 0 0 2 3 2 4 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Eckhoff St&W Chapman Ave 7 IIII 200 0 2 2 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Kathleen Ln&E Chapman Ave 7 -0.07 210 0 3 2 1 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Los Timbres St&E Chapman Ave 7 -0.03 56 0 0 I 3 0 2 0 1 1 1 0 = 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 N Parker St&W Chapman Ave 7 0.05 27 0 0 0 3 —4- '1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Wheeler St&E Chapman Ave 7 -0.07 46 0 0 ' "` 2 2 0 2 I. 0 1 0 0 0 1 . 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St&E Orange Grove Ave 7 -0.04 56 0 0 "' 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 N Park Ln&E Meats Ave 7 0.01 196 0 1111 0 1 4 •• 0 0 2H 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 S Tustin St&E Fairway Dr 6 -0.06 30 0 0 2 1 3 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Fashion Park St&W la Veta Ave 6 0.06 175 0 0 1 4 3 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 S Lemon St&W Almond Ave 6 0.03 170 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 01110 1 0 1 0 0 0 S Batavia St&W Palmyra Ave 6 0.15 21 0 0 1 1 4 1 2 - 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Hewes St&E Washington Ave 6 0.07 36 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 1st St&E Chapman Ave 6 -0.08 41 0 0 2 1 1 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 SOliveSt&WChapmanAve 6 0.01 16 0 0 0 2 4 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 S Swidler PI&E Chapman Ave 6 -0.07 36 0 0 1 - 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Glassell St&E Maple Ave 6 0.31 16 0 0 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 N Main St&W Sycamore Ave 6 0.01 194 © 0 2 1 2 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 N Maplewood St&E Walnut Ave 6 0.28 11 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 N Cypress St&W Walnut Ave 6 0.13 21 0 0 0 l :3 S 3 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 N Handy St&E Collins Ave 6 -0.02 26 0 0 1 2 3 2 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 N Parker St&W Collins Ave 6 0.01 40 0 0 1 2 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 N Morgan St&E Collins Ave 6 184 0 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 N Manzanita St&W Katella Ave 6 -0.04 21 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 N Highland St&E Taft Ave 6 0.11 179 0 111 1 0 3 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 ; „,, 0 N Highland St&E Grove Ave 6 *, 11 0 0 0 1 0 11111111110 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 N Cottonwood St&Lincoln Ave 6 11 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Park City Apartments&Garden Grove Blvd 5 0.11 29 0 0 2 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 c c 0 . 0. 47. o v a 5 v co a c . ,- m E U tz W O j O t0 a ' O 41 G1 _ > 0 m E " c v i o an in z = = 0 a Qa u h " U O 0 J S Tustin St&E Fairway Dr 5 -0.07 15 0 0 0 2 3 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Esplanade St&E Palmyra Ave 5 0.23 5 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Taco Bell Parking Lot&W Chapman Ave 5 0.00 35 0 0 2 2 1 0 „, " 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 N Moneterey Rd&E Chapman Ave 5 ® 35 0 0 2 2 1 2 1" & 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Waverly St&E Chapman Ave 5 -0.05 25 0 0 1 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N Cypress St&W Chapman Ave 5 -0.02 193 OM 2 1 1 2 111110 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Park St&E Chapman Ave 5 -0.07 35 0 0 2 2 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 ;1, 7 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Feldner Rd&W Maple Ave 5 20 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 -0--0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Orange St&E Maple Ave 5 0.90 20 0 0 1 1 3 3 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 N Cambridge St&E Palm Ave 5 0.11 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 11. 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 Alpine St&W Orangewood Ave 5 -0.01 178 0 II 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 N Main St&W Braden Ct 5 0.01 20 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Lemon St&W Mayfair Ave 5 0.04 15 0 0 0 2 3 2 111. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 N Kathleen Ln&Collins Ave 5 -0.01 20 0 0 1 1 3 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Roberto St&E Collins Ave 5 183 1111 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Harte St&E Collins Ave 5 0.19 29 0 0 2 1 2 2 0 1 11110 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Glassell St&E Hoover Ave 5 0.01 342 0 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Harding St&E Katella Ave 5 -0.07 44 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Nordic St&E Meats Ave 5 0.00 193 NO 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 111111111111_± 0 0 0 0 0 N Lincoln St&E Meats Ave 5 0.00 25 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 N Canal St&E Heim Ave 5 -0.04 20 0 0 1 1 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 1 N Glassell St&E Dunton Ave 5 0.07 15 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 E Nohl Ranch Rd&E Nohl Ranch Rd 5 0.12 20 0 0 1 1 3 1 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 , 0 1 0 1E 1 1 The City Dr&W Park Central Ave 4 0.91 24 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 Lewis St&El Prado Ave 4 -0.01 346 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 01110 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Parker St&La Veta Park Cir 4 0.01 28 0 0 2 ' 1 1 0 1 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - S La Veta Park Cir&W La Veta Ave 4 0.09 28 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Tustin St&The Gables Apartments 4 -0.09 178 OM 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W c a o a 0 c cu tsi u N = o a S. S. . fl 0 a 3 w a c vi V1 Q V1 L "0 L 0 > d f0 .ri a C 3 `^ 4 ea a ro co a 0 a v L cc u., 0 j O 0 -0 v v «+ s 0 "0 co oA H C v U CL.U v E m cn m = = O a Q i 0 S Flower St&W Orchard Ave 4 -0.05 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 S Devon Rd&W Culver Ave 4 0.63 19 0 0 1 1 2 11111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 E Santiago Canyon Rd&SR-241 Ramps 4 -0.05 28 0 0 I 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 01111 0 1 0 0 0 1 S Feiner Rd&W Palmyra Ave 4 3. 14 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 S Loretta Dr&E Palmyra Ave 4 3.25; 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 City Blvd E&The City Way E 4 0.63 38 0 0 . 1 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ 2 0 0 SR-57 Ramp&W Chapman Ave 4 0.91 24 0 0 1 2 1 10 1 [ 2";. :' 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 S Main St&W Palmyra PI 4 -0.08 24 0 0 1 2 1 I 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Feldner Rd&W Paul Rd 4 0.91 23 0 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2.. 0 0 S Oak St&E Palmyra Ave 4 0.91 23 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Earlham St&E Washington Ave 4 0.63 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Cambridge St&E Almond Ave 4 0.02 19 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 N Atchison St&W Chapman Ave 4 -0.05 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 N Shattuck PI&E Chapman Ave 4 -0.07 182 0 Ill 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N McPherson Rd&E Chapman Ave 4 -0.10 4 0 0 0 0 2 0 `", "; 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Plaza Sq&E Champan Ave 4 0.91 24 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 SR-55 SB Ramp&E Chapman Ave 4 -0.09 9 0 0 0 1 ; w . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 N Cambridge St&E Maple Ave 4 0.11 28 0 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St&W Sycamore Ave 4 -0.02 19 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 N Eckhoff St&W Sequoia Ave 4 -0.01 14 0 0 0 2 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 O [ i. N Wayfield St&E Walnut Ave 4 -0.02 38 0 0 - 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 , 0 0 0 0 0 N Crescent Dr&W Walnut Ave 4 0.04 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 11. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 N Main St&W Primrose Dr 4 -0.03 33 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 ,', 0 0 N Newport Blvd&N Broadmoor Trl 4 0.91 188 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Glassell St&E Lomita Ave 4 0.32 28 0 0 1 1 1 0 111110 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Orange St&E Collins Ave 4 -0.04 19 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 Jacaranda Ave&Jacaranda Ave 4 -0.09 23 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Maplewood St&E Collins Ave 4 -0.05 177 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ' 1, 1 0 1 0 0 MID MED c z 0 c 0)C 47, O v) QJ O D. O i N O a a 3 a e O m 3 w O •'' a i v a a) v` et W 'i o j O a O v y a 5,.). O v m o°An E c u y y E m in z I = O a a 0 u p O O J N Batavia St&W Katella Ave q -0.08 33 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Glassell St&E Trenton Ave q -0.07 341 1 1 0 2 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Tustin St&E Chestnut Ave q -0.09 24 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 N Jamestown Way&E Santiago Canyon Rd q 0.07 177 ® 0 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 N Leslie Way&W Taft Ave q -0.07 168 0 0 0 OW 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Shaffer St&E Meats Ave q -0.02 19 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 ,2 0 0 0 0 0 E Summitridge Ln&E Meats Ave q 0.03 4 0 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Santiago Blvd&E Vista Canyon Rd q 0.91 28 0 0 - 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 N Oceanview Ave&E Lincoln Ave q -0.07 19 0 0 0 1 - 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Magnolia Ave&E Lincoln Ave q -0.09 34 0 0 2 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 The City Dr S&W Park Central Ave 3 -0.06 13 0 0 0 ' 1 2: ! 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Jamboree Rd&Handy Creek Rd 3 0.54 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Grand St&E River Ave 3 0.54 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Esplande St&E La Veta Ave 3 0.63 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Estate Dr&E la Veta Ave 3 0.04 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Woodland St&E la Veta Ave 3 0.04 18 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 S Crest Rd&W la Veta Ave 3 -0.10 172 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 Bedford Rd&W Culver Ave 3 0.35 8 0 0 0 1 2 f' J 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Wayfield St&E Palmyra Ave 3 0.54 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NI S Batavia St&W Palmyra Ave 3 -0.04 13 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 City Blvd W&The City Way E 3 0.54 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0Ill S Hewes St&E Circulo Way 3 -0.03 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Lemon St&W Palmyra Ave 3 -0.07 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 II S Orange St&E Palmyra Ave 3 0.30 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 Crawford Canyon Rd&Orange County Mining Co 3 0.10 18 0 0 1 ' 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Glassell St&E Almond Ave 3 -0.09 13 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 S Olive St&WAlmondAve 3 0.00 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 S Esplanade St&E Washington Ave 3 0.02 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 0 . 0 0 1 1 . 0 0 0 I O CEl 0 j Cl w L C CJ d' L C 0 ' 7 G u C N c d • S N >_ +, ` cu a 0 a a 3 a c 0 3 0 p C v u d i 'ro c u u w o > 4 a o -° m = = 0 0 a m oa Q Eu To t a, E m v, o 0 S Manchester Ave&City Blvd W 3 -0.03 27 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11111 0 Ravel Ln/Norte Dame St&Canyon View Ave 3 0.54 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 N Stevens St&W Chapman Ave 3 -0.10 27 0 0 2 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S Lime St&W Chapman Ave 3 -0.09 23 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Loretta Dr&E Chapman Ave 3 -0.11 3 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 t0 S Lincoln St&E Chapman Ave 3 -0.10 176 0 111. 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Olive St&W Maple Ave 3 0.35 18 0 0 1 1 1 t , "w 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 F,w1,Mgf N Poplar St&W Maple Ave 3 0.54 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St&W Maple Ave 3 -0.07 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St&W Acacia Ave 3 -0.07 18 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Shaffer St&E Palm Ave 3 -0.07 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 N Virage St&E Spring St 3 -0.08 27 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lewis St&W Tiller Ave 3 -0.09 22 0 0 0 1 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 NPineSt&EPalmAve 3 0.09 13 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Main St&W Birch Ave 3 -0.09 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 01110 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Shaffer St&E Sycamore Ave 3 -0.07 13 0 0 1 0 2 '.'. , 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 [ el 0 0 0 0 0 N Clinton St&E Walnut Ave 3 -0.07 176 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 N Parker St&W Walnut Ave 3 -0.03 13 0 0 0 12 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 E Walnut Ave&E Walnut Ave 3 0.00 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Lemon St&W Walnut Ave 3 -0.09 3 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Rancho Santiago BI&3 0.93 23 0 0 1 F,' 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1. N Olive St&W Walnut Ave 3 -0.06 18 0 0 1 1 1 I 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 E Emerald Dr&W Walnut Ave 3 0.11 8 0 0 0 1 2 01. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Santiago Canyon Rd&3 -0.10 22 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 - 0 0 '2 0 0 0 0 N Shaffer St&E Mayfair Ave 3 -0.06 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 N Shaffer St&E Oakmont Ave 3 -0.06 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 N Handy St&E Mayfair Ave 3 -0.06 167 0 ® 0 0 2 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Olive St&W Collins Ave 3 -0.09 13 0 0 0 1 / _ 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 MIMI MIND O.CD c a O a 0 3 W O d u CD C a p 3 N = O IV y to RS O s- v L) v c, I- cc w ` i 0 j O Q. C -0 a w « v O m oa v o_ O.02 in = 2 x O a a E u U O 0 J N Batavia St&W Barkley Ave 3 -0.07 22 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 N Cypress St&W Collins Ave 3 -0.09 3 0 0 0 01110 0 0 11111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Waverly St&E Collins Ave 3 -0.09 22 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 N Eckhoff St&W Collins Ave 3 -0.09 22 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 i 0 1 0 0 0 0 Jacaranda Ave&Jacaranda Ave 3 -0.11 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St&E Adams Ave 3 -0.10 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St&E Adams Ave 3 -0.10 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St&W Hoover Ave 3 -0.07 176 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St&Villa Park Rd 3 -0.09 22 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Sacramento St&E Katella Ave 3 -0.11 23 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Santiago Blvd&E Blueridge Ave 3 -0.09 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 01110 Sutter's Mill Apartments&E Grove Ave 3 0.54 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Cannon St&Carpenter Cir 3 -0.11 18 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 N Highland St&E Coral Ave 3 0.54 8 0 0 0 1 2 '?. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Glassell St&Baywood Ave 3 -0.09 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 E Meats Ave&E Marywood Dr 3 -0.04 18 0 0 0 01111 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N American Way&W Fletcher Ave 3 0.09 13 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Cannon St&E Gabrielle Ln 3 -0.08 181 01111 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 . : 1 0 0 0 0 Somerset St&Via Escola 3 0.08 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 NCanalSt&ESailAve 3 0.04 13 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Dell St&W Dunton Ave 3 0.54 8 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 1 , 1 0 0 0 0 SR-55 Ramp&E Lincoln Ave 3 0.54 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 I 0 0 0 0 N Olive Ave&E Lincoln Ave 3 -0.10 18 0 0 1 1 1 la 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1. 0 0 0 0 1 Palm Ave&E Lincoln Ave 3 -0.10 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St&e Sunview Dr 3 -0.08 22 0 0 11111 0 1 111111 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 N Tustin St&E Bixby Ave 3 -0.08 18 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 To In y 3 C7 C1 C a.) O o E. % o 0 ? a c p ar c a d Facility Limits m p 0 0 3 •° o 3 W p 'L N V CC w o S o a O - ai v « a, 0 v co U v E al an 0' ad E. , u UO OJ Principal Arterial E Chapman Ave Prospect St-Swidler PI 18 0.79 270 1 0 6 6 5 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 2 1pp0 0 2 N Tustin St Heim Ave-Village Way 16 0.60 244 0 1 3 7 5 3 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 N Tustin St Village Way-Meats Ave 13 0.70 241 0 1 4 5 3 5 3 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 N Tustin St SR-55 SB On-Ramp-Heim Ave 13 0.71 72 0 0 4 4 5 . 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 0 0 N Tustin St Grove Ave-Taft Ave 11 0.52 229 0 . 4 3 3 5 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Lincoln Ave Glassell St-Cottonwood St 11 0.62 60 0 0 4 2 5 1 . 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 84 0 0 E Katella Ave Dell Taco Dwy-Tustin St 10 0.86 55 0 0 1 2 . 0 1 0 0 0 r 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 E Katella Ave Sacramento St-Handy St 9 0.20 78 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 E Katella Ave Shaffer St-Apartment Dwy 9 0.43 54 0 0 2 t 2 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 1 W Chapman Ave Rampart St-Renaissance Dwy 8 37 0 0 3 0 . 2 2 2 M 0 1 0 0 1 0 111 0 0 0 . N Main St W Struck Ave-Collins Channel 8 0.88 43 0 0 2 3 3 2 3' 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 E Katella Ave Glassell St-Katella Plaza 8 0.62 52 0 0 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 N Tustin St E Grove Ave-Meats Ave 7 0.56 61 0 0 4 3 0 4 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 [`iTA 0 0 2 0 1 E Lincoln Ave N Canal St-N Tustin St 7 0.77 37 0 0 1 4 2 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 N Tustin St E Chapman Ave-E Palm Ave 7 0.49 215 0 . 3 3 0 3 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 E Katella Ave N Tustin St-N California St 6 0.94 11 0 0 0 1 . 1 0 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 , 3 0 1 0 0 W Chapman Ave S Feldner Rd-N Main St 6 0.58 26 0 0 1 2 3 3 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 S Tustin St E Chapman Ave-E Washington Ave 5 0.55 20 0 0 0 111111 2 2 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 E Chapman Ave S Hewes St-S Hamlin St 5 0.59 183 0 . 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 W Katella Ave N Glassell St-Burlington Northern 5 0.59 20 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 Santa Fe N Tustin St E Palm Ave-E Walnut Ave 5 0.49 35 0 0 2 2 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Tustin Ave E Fairhaven Ave-Seba Ave 5 0.62 39 0 0 ' 1 1 . 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Chapman Ave S Seranado St-S Esplander St 4 0.60 19 0 0 1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Santiago Canyon Rd Orange Park Blvd-N Nicky Way 4 0.90 28 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 W Katella Ave Struck Ave-Main St 4 2.02 14 0 0 0 2 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 P , N Tustin St E Collins Ave-E Quincy Ave 4 0.51 28 0 0 2 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 . 0 #Ar S Tustin St E Palmyra Ave-Val Verde Estates 4 0.57 14 0 0 1 0 . 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 !'" ENNIO MID 4. z C CU O.v N GJ O O. 73 c C j Gl 0 a _O N W 0 N . r V. Facility Limits p o n 3 E p o N ci O Y L a, v v m a' U U w `L O a Q. O -0 1.) r j O y m E U y Cu E Co- an 2 O a Q O 1 0 u 0 v OJ W Lincoln Ave N Berkeley St-N Glassell St 4 1.21 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 E Taft Ave N Glassell St-N Widdows Way 3 0.89 23 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Chapman Ave Renaissance-N Rampart St 3 1.33 8 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 W Taft Ave N Batavia St-N Case St 3 0.83 8 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 S Glassell St W Culver Ave-E la Veta Ave 3 1.05 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 E Katella Ave N Glassell St-N Shaffer St 3 0.76 13 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Santiago Canyon Rd Jamboree Rd 3 0.76 176 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 E Chapman Ave S Yorba St-SR-55 Ramp 3 0.68 27 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Chapman Ave N 1st St-N Prospect St 3 0.50 13 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01111 0 0 0 Cannon St Goldenrod Ln-E Crest De Ville Ave 3 1.13 27 0 0 11111 1 0 0 0 0 11M110 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 W Katella Ave N Main St-N Batavia St 3 0.55 8 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 E Katella Ave N Tustin St-SR-55 Ramp 3 0.71 8 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Lincoln Ave Berkeley St-N Glassell St 3 1.35 176 0 n 1 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Jamboree Rd E Forte Rd-Canyon View Ave 3 0.77 13 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 -0 0 000000 E Katella Ave N Handy St-N Harding St 3 0.94 13 0 0 0 n 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Minor Arterial W Town and Country Main St-Lawson Way 13 111.44 57 0 0 4 1 8 2 2 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0Rd N Batavia St Angus Ave-Walnut Ave 9 1.67 24 0 0 1 1 3 2 0 0 IM 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 E Meats Ave Canal St-Tustin St 8 14.39 52 0 0 4001 3 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St Industrial Dwy-N Grove St 5 2.52 10 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Prospect St Maple Ave-Chapman Ave 5 0.74 29 0 0 2 1 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E Taft Ave Tustin St-Highland St 4 0.68 24 0 0 0 - 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St Collins Ave-Struck Ave 4 0.22 182 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Metropolitan Dr Lewis St-City Pkwy 4 1: 1.49 '1 28 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St Fletcher Ave-Cully Dr 4 0.59 9 0 0 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 E Spring St Swidler St-Seranado St 3 1.16 8 0 0 0 1 2 ' 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 W Grove Ave N Glassell St-N Batavia St 3 0.43 13 0 0 0 . 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 N Batavia St W Sycamore Ave-W Walnut Ave 3 0.96 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 To 47, i C C 3 'O T. 3 [ d a/ al 0 L y v = O 0 0 : a n W C y C v . o v .y 'IZ la Facility Limits p C O c 0 0 m p .', s y m A. a.V S W oo S ° G O v y al .. G1 0 13 m 1 N E v m` n I _ 0 a C oTs0v U0 Local N California St Wilson Ave-Adams Ave 6 53.99 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 City Blvd W The City Dr-The City Way 4 8.11 14 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W Culver Ave Devon Rd-Lilac Ln 3 6.50 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Orange Olive Rd Vista Del Gaviota Ave-Meats Ave 3 0.13 186 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 E Trenton Ave Baxter St-Orange Vlg 3 3.69 22 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 S La Veta Park Cir La Veta Ave-Parker St 3 4.97 3 0 0 0 011110 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 01110 1 0 0 N Pacific St Southern Ave-Industrial Dwy 3 7.26 8 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Orange Olive Rd Saint James Ave-Heims Ave 3 0.46 18 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1.Local Critical Crash Rate Differential 2.Equivalent Property Damage Only Crashes Local CCR Differential>1.0 Local CCR Differential 0.33-1.0 Local CCR Differential 0-0.33 111 =90-100%probability that crash type is 80-90%probability that crash type is 70-80%probability that crash over-represented over-represented type is over-represented Fatal or Severe Collisions>_1 City of City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan and Program range August 2022 I Report Appendix C - Stakeholder Meeting Minutes C k U` N a„ F c Kimley>>>Horn STAKEHOLDER MEETING MINUTES PROJECT: City of Orange Local Road Safety Plan DATE: July 6, 2022 TIME: 1:30-3:30 PM LOCATION: Orange City Hall The stakeholder meeting for the Orange LRSP was held in person on Tuesday July 6, 2022 from 1:30- 3:30 PM. The following summarizes the discussion held during this meeting, based on the outlined agenda. ATTENDEES Karl Schmidt—City Gabrielle Hayes—City Doug Keys—City Dave Allenbach—City Darryl dePencier—Kimley-Horn Jason Melchor—Kimley-Horn Alex Co—Kimley-Horn Trevor Cullen—Orange Police Department Rosie Flores—Orange Fire Department Scott Harvey—Orange Unified School District Sheryl Boyd—Orange Unified School District Bill Sellin—Orange County Bicycle Coalition Leslie Hardy—Community Services Department Anna Pehoushek—Community Development Department MINUTES LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN PRESENTATION Is the city utilizing new forms that distinguish between Pedestrian and Bicyclist? o Departments are now utilizing new forms, but older data may be outdated forms Aerial sensitivity that tracks progress through intersections vs pavement loop detectors Relaxed speed limits, speed notification signs would be helpful What is taken into consideration for mid-block crosswalk? o Speed limit, lane width, amount of traffic along roadway o Less than 1,000 feet between intersections Internal conversation about Tustin specific plan, vehicle speed, driveway activity, turning movements, and usability of the corridor o 2 major specific plan projects Chapman and Tustin streets when are they going to be completed Tustin specific plan draft by September-ish timeline, end of summer What is the timeline for getting grant money? o Need to be done with LRSP by end of August o Can refer to specific plans in deferential way o Specific plan becomes a countermeasure of the LRSP kimley-horn.com 1100 W.Town and Country Road#700,Orange,CA 92868 714-939-1030 OFO Kimley>>)Horn Bollards and buffers are not universally welcome if it limits the width of the bike lanes Orange Olive connecting to 57, difficult to bike on Lot of pedestrians who cross Chapman, not in a crosswalk, and will wait in the median o Maybe break the segment and add a crosswalk if there is a prevalent amount of crossers o Near the nursing home, on East Chapman. Santiago and Cannon o How much pedestrian demand for that, reasonable to assume people would be crossing? o Can prevent crossings with brute force methods o See it along Katella, near Tustin. Hotel, CVS, Food Dash 3 lanes and wait Posted 40 mph speed Master plan of arterial highways o Lots of consequences if City doesn't follow what OCTA has planned Emphasis areas o Examples include aggressive and distracted driving o Fly traps that will take drivers out, so they don't hurt people further down the road o Factor for pedestrians is electric bicycles are riding on the sidewalks 4-way stops in the downtown area vs 2-way stops o Need signage showing some don't have stop o Mini-roundabouts and traffic controls w/yield vs stops is helpful Aggressive driving could use more enforcement Mini roundabouts struggle with right of way and having enough space Pedestrian bulb-outs Specific events that may cause skews is something we can look at with that are increasing drunk driving Motorcyclists where are their accidents occurring? o Freeways vs roadways Infrastructure o Speed signs People selling electric bicycles but go faster than bicycles and are actually mopeds or motorcycles o Not registered as mopeds Vehicle code can be better enforced with bicycles o Can require different licensing and registrations o Putting responsibility on the police to monitor that There are tools and funding to help, but not perfect In Orange there are a growing amount of electric bikes From 2018—present we updated numbers on how much impaired driving there is o Doubled the number of bars that have come up o Can we look into the trend of drunk driving collisions? Traffic calming devices like speed humps and bumps are not typically allowed o Unless approved by the fire official Next steps is preparing Draft LRSP and having stakeholders look over it and provide comments o Will be able to directly apply for funding o Once plan is finished it'll be good for 5 years kimley-horn.corn 1100 W.Town and Country Road#700,Orange, CA 92868 714-939-1030