Document alpinecountyca_gov_doc_a5bc8ec5da

Amador and Alpine Counties Systemic Safety Analysis Report September 4, 2018 Presented to: Provided by: ---PAGE BREAK--- Signing and stamping this Systemic Safety Analysis Report, the engineer is attesting to this report’s technical information and engineering data upon which local agency’s recommendations, conclusions, and decisions are made. Prepared by: Daniel Blomquist, PE Date Professional Civil Engineer, C65875 Project Manager, Mark Thomas Signed for Approval: John Gedney Date Executive Director Amador County Transportation Commission Brian Peters Date Director Alpine County Community Development Department Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code [23 U.S.C. §148(h) 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. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 i Table of Contents 1. BACKGROUND 1 1.1 Project Location 1 1.2 Project Background 2 1.3 Key Tasks 3 1.4 Report Limitations 4 2. SAFETY DATA UTILIZED (CRASH, VOLUME, ROADWAY) 4 2.1 Crash and Volume Data 4 2.2 Roadway Data 4 3. DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS 5 3.1 Countywide Crash Data 5 3.2 Analysis of Crash Rates 8 3.3 Analysis of Crash Costs 9 4. HIGHEST OCCURRING CRASH TYPES AND PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS 13 4.1 Crash Types 13 4.2 Primary Collision 14 5. HIGH‐RISK CORRIDORS AND INTERSECTIONS (CRASH HISTORY AND ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS) 16 5.1 Amador County Focus Locations 17 5.2 Alpine County Focus Locations 26 6. COUNTERMEASURES IDENTFIED TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY ISSUES 28 6.1 Engineering Countermeasures 28 6.2 Non‐Engineering Countermeasures 42 7. VIABLE PROJECT SCOPES AND PRIORITIZED LIST OF SAFETY PROJECTS 47 7.1 Prioritized List of Safety Projects 47 7.2 Viable Project Scopes 48 ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 ii APPENDICES Appendix A1: Amador Countywide Maps Animal Collisions Bike/Pedestrian Collisions DUI Collisions Fatal/Severe Injuries Inclement Weather Collisions Collisions Nighttime Collisions Total Collisions Truck Collisions Unsafe Speed Collisions Appendix A2: Alpine Countywide Maps Animal Collisions Bike/Pedestrian Collisions DUI Collisions Fatal/Severe Injuries Inclement Weather Collisions Collisions Nighttime Collisions Total Collisions Truck Collisions Unsafe Speed Collisions Appendix B: Crash Rates/Costs for Preliminary Segments and Intersections Appendix C1: Amador County Focus Location Write Ups Appendix C2: Alpine County Focus Location Write Ups Appendix D1: Amador County Focus Location Collision Maps Stony Creek Rd (North) Rams Horn Grade Stony Creek Rd (South) Coal Mine Rd Latrobe Rd Jackson Valley Rd Shenandoah Rd State Route 49/State Route 88 (Jackson) A State Route 49/State Route 88 (Jackson) B ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 iii State Route 49/State Route 88 (Jackson) C State Route 104/State Route 124 (Ione) Ridge Rd (Sutter Creek) Route 26 and Deer Ln Intersection Ridge Rd and Running Gold Rd Intersection Appendix D2: Alpine County Focus Location Collision Maps State Route 88 (West) State Route 88 (East) State Route 89 State Route 88 and State Route 89 (Towards Markleeville) Intersection Appendix E1: Martell Segment Lighting Appendix E2: Drytown Segment Lighting Appendix E3: Ridge Rd and Bowers Rd Traffic Signal Appendix E4: Alpine County High Friction Surface Treatment Appendix F: Ridge and Running Gold Widening Project Appendix G: Jackson Segment Lighting Project Appendix H1: Amador and Alpine State Routes RSSA and Sign Upgrades Project Appendix H2: Amador County RSSA and Sign Upgrades Project Appendix I: Advance Intersection Flashing Beacons Project Appendix J: Amador State Route Segment Lighting Project Appendix K: High Friction Surface Treatment Project Appendix L: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Projects Appendix M: Guardrail Upgrades Project ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 iv ACRONYMS ACTC Amador County Transportation Commission ADT Average Daily Traffic AADT Annual Average Daily Traffic B/C Benefit Cost Ratio Caltrans California Department of Transportation CHP California Highway Patrol CMF Crash Modification Factor CRF Crash Reduction Factor GIS Geographic Information System HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual MPH Miles per Hour PCF Primary Collision Factor RSSA Roadway Safety and Signing Signing Audit SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan SR State Route SSAR Systemic Safety Analysis Report SSARP Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 v EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of the Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP) is to help local agencies identify safety projects that could receive future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding. This report covers both Amador and Alpine County roadways. The Counties’ main focus with the SSAR is analyzing collision history to identify those most critical locations and crash trends on the roadway network, ultimately taking a step in preemptively addressing these top safety concerns. Data was gathered from two online resources, TIMS and SWITRS, and refined to include only collisions caused by existing facility conditions. The mapping and addition of property damage only collisions were crucial for the analysis since only 45% of the total crashes for Amador County and 44% of the total crashes for Alpine County resulted in an injury. The most frequently occurring collision type in both counties was ‘hit object’, meaning a vehicle departed the travel lane and struck an object on the side of the road such as an embankment, fence, guardrail, tree or other structure. ‘Wrong Side of the Road’ and ‘Unsafe Speeds’ were determined to be the most frequent factors in Amador County collisions. ‘Improper turning’ and ‘Unsafe Speeds’ were determined to be the most frequent factors in Alpine County collisions. Further investigation into the data led to identifying 15 roadway segments and 3 intersections where there were concentrations of collisions. These focus locations were selected based on rankings of 3 different criteria: total collisions, crash rate, and crash cost, and based on input from the local agencies and public from comments provided on the project website at safertricountyroads.com. Each of the focus locations were analyzed to determine appropriate countermeasures to address each area’s safety concerns based on the historical data and trends. Some of the top countermeasures identified for potential safety improvement projects were upgrading existing roadside signs to improve curve warnings, edge delineation and nighttime visibility, adding high friction surface treatments to improve traction and skid resistance in high incident curves, improving roadway segment lighting, upgrading existing guardrails, and pedestrian crossing upgrades. While it is a main concern of local jurisdictions, maintenance activities for existing facilities, such as roadway pavement rehabilitation and restriping, is not eligible for federal safety funding. Viable safety projects identified in this SSAR for potential HSIP Cycle 9 grant applications include widening the intersection of Ridge Road and Running Gold Road to install a left turn lane, installing street lighting in the City of Jackson, conducting a Roadway Safety and Signing Audit (RSSA) to upgrade signs on County roads, and improving the visibility of pedestrian crosswalks with hi‐visibility pavement markings and signs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 1 1. BACKGROUND 1.1 Project Location Amador and Alpine Counties are primarily rural neighboring counties located in the foothill and mountainous region of the Sierra Nevada Mountains between Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, and Yosemite Valley. The counties' elevations range from 100 feet to 11,500 feet with popular scenic highways that connect residents and visitors to historic downtowns and recreational opportunities in Eldorado, Stanislaus, and Humboldt‐Toiyabe National Forests. There is a total of 867 lane miles and 287 lane miles of roadways in Amador and Alpine Counties, respectively. Amador County is located on the west side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, approximately 45 miles southeast of Sacramento as shown in Figure 1.1. According to the United States Census Bureau, the county has a population of 38,626 people as of July of 2017 across approximately 595 square miles of land. There are also 12 square miles of water including Lake Amador, Lake Camanche, Pardee Reservoir, Silver Lake, Sutter Creek, Cosumnes River, Mokelumne River, and Jackson Creek. Major State Routes through Amador County include 49, 16, 88, and 26. Figure 1.1‐ Amador County Map Alpine County is located on the east side of the Sierra Nevada Mountains in California, to the east of Amador and Calaveras Counties as seen in Figure 1.2. According to the United States Census Bureau, the county has a population of 1,120 people as of July of 2017, across approximately 738 square miles of land. There are also 4.8 square miles of water including Lake Alpine, Caples Lake, ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 2 Red Lake, Winnemucca Lake, Round Top Lake, and several other small lakes and reservoirs. Major State Routes through Alpine County include 88, 89, and 4. Figure 1.2‐ Alpine County Map 1.2 Project Background The Regional Transportation Planning Agencies for the counties of Amador (ACTC) and Calaveras (CCOG), and Alpine County have teamed together to study roadway safety throughout the region. The goal of this Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) is to identify systemic safety measures that could prevent life threatening crashes by applying the 4 E's: Education, Enforcement, Engineering, and Emergency Response. Conceptual projects will be developed based upon the findings and selection of cost effective engineering countermeasures. The SSAR Program was initiated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to help local agencies take a more proactive approach to identifying safety improvement projects by completing a system‐wide, data‐driven, analysis of vehicular collisions to identify potential safety issues on the roadway network throughout each jurisdiction. The SSAR evaluation includes analyzing available collision records, reviewing high crash concentration areas to identify potential safety issues, and compiling a list of appropriate countermeasures that can be applied systemically to reduce collisions throughout the jurisdiction rather than at a single location. The intent of this SSAR is to help participating local agencies focus on key safety activities with the objective of reducing the number and severity of crashes within their jurisdiction and to help position them to secure federal safety funding. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 3 Federal funds are available to reduce fatal and severe injuries on roadways through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), which is administered in Caltrans. On April 30, 2018, Caltrans announced the HSIP Cycle 9 Call for Projects. The total federal funds available for HSIP Cycle 9 is estimated at approximately $140 million to $160 million (actual funding amount will depend on the delivery of the active HSIP projects). The deadline to submit an application under HSIP Cycle 9 is August 31, 2018. 1.3 Key Tasks The systemic analysis of the roadway networks in Amador and Alpine Counties involved the following steps: Step 1 – Data Gathering – Collision data was compiled for each county and summary statistics were determined for the most frequent collision type and factors. Collision data was collected from SafeTREC Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), an internet‐based tool developed by UC Berkeley to access California Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database and local law enforcement crash reports and citations. The collected collision data was analyzed for crash frequency and crash rates to identify locations with a high frequency of similar crash types. Physical characteristics of the roadway network, roadway infrastructure and current design standards were also considered. Step 2 – Priority Location Selection – The selection process was data driven; priority locations were identified from the collision data, stakeholder agency input and field assessments. Public notifications of safety concerns were evaluated to refine the prioritization. Step 3 – Identify Countermeasures – An initial list of countermeasures was selected from the approved list of safety countermeasures included in ‘Local Road Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners’ (LRSM), published by Caltrans in April 2018. The selected countermeasures were evaluated utilizing a systemic approach across the roadway network) and spot location approach at high crash concentration locations). Prevention of the highest occurring crash type and cost‐effectiveness were also considered. Step 4 – Develop Priority Projects – Priority locations were evaluated using a Benefit and Cost (B/C ratio) methodology. Specific formulas have been developed by Caltrans for use in evaluating HSIP projects. The B/C ratio formulas are based on Crash Reduction Factors (CRF) and Crash Mitigation Factors (CMF) determined by the FHWA. CRF and CMF included in this report were obtained from the LRSM. B/C ratios for potential projects were refined by analyzing the countermeasure cost and/or changing the mix of countermeasures. Identifying locations with similar characteristics for implementation of countermeasures was considered as part of the SSAR approach. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 4 Step 5 – Prepare Final SSAR – Findings from the above tasks have been incorporated into this report, which is submitted to ACTC, Alpine County and partner agencies for review. Once comments from ACTC, Alpine County and the partner agencies are incorporated into the SSAR, the Final Report will be submitted for approval by the implementing agencies. 1.4 Report Limitations This report is intended to be used for systemic safety planning purposes only. All work presented in this report is in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and has been prepared under the guidance of a professional engineer. Recommendations, results and conclusions in this report are professional opinions, and are contingent upon assumptions stated in this report. 2. SAFETY DATA UTILIZED (CRASH, VOLUME, ROADWAY) 2.1 Crash and Volume Data Crash record information used to prepare the SSAR was collected from online statewide databases and from local law enforcement agencies for the 5‐year period from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017. The primary source of data was from the online TIMS and SWITRS databases, which compiles collision records from the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and local law enforcement agencies. While there is an overlap in information between the two sources, TIMS does not include property damage collisions, while SWITRS does. The combination of both databases was important for Amador and Alpine counties due to the relatively low percentage of fatal and severe injury crashes compared to property damage only crashes. Additional crash records were provided by local law enforcement agencies and were incorporated to the analysis where TIMS and SWITRS data was not available. Additional collision records were obtained from the following agencies:  CHP offices in South Lake Tahoe and Jackson  Amador County Sheriff’s Department  Police Departments in the Cities of Jackson, Ione, and Sutter Creek. 2.2 Roadway Data Roadway alignments and jurisdictional boundaries were obtained from Amador County’s GIS files. This data was supplemented by field assessments and the use of Google Earth to gain insight on the existing roadway configuration and existing safety infrastructure. These visual evaluations included information such as roadway geometry and cross section, pavement condition, lane configurations, and existing traffic control devices. Maps showing the locations of crashes throughout Amador and Alpine Counties are shown in Section 3. Additional countywide maps are provided in Appendix A. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 5 3. DATA ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES AND RESULTS Analysis of crash records is the most critical step in the evaluations of roadway safety. It pinpoints specific areas that have the most severe safety issues and exposes patterns in the data allowing for more informed decisions when it comes to countermeasure selection. Both a systemic and spot location approach are needed so that there is not only a focus on identifying the most critical locations, but also a widespread look at the entire network to prevent future incidents at locations with similar attributes. 3.1 Countywide Crash Data The preliminary analysis included a countywide assessment of crash trends and statistics. Figures 3.1 and 3.2 show all the segments analyzed in Amador and Alpine Counties, respectively and the total number of collisions on each segment. Table 3.1 presents the total number of collisions and fatalities reported through SWITRS for each year included in the study. Figure 3.1‐ Amador County Segment and Collision Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 6 Figure 3.2‐ Alpine County Segment and Collision Overview ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 7 Table 3.1‐ Total Crashes and Fatalities Broken Out by Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Amador County Crashes/Fatalities 330/4 352/7 360/6 410/11 449/9 Alpine County Crashes/Fatalities 64/1 54/1 70/2 95/4 89/4 Following discussion with the partner agencies, several key factors contributing to collisions were determined. The collision analysis included factors such as the frequency of nighttime collisions, collisions involving inclement weather, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs (DUI), etc. Identification of primary collision factors can aid in countermeasure selection and provide additional insight as to what trends are occurring at the time of collision for each roadway segment and intersection. The frequency for each of the primary collision factors identified for Amador and Alpine County can be found in Table 3.2 below. Maps showing the locations of the specific collision types identified are provided in Appendix A. Table 3.2‐Additional Collision Statistics Amador County % of Alpine County % of Statewide Comparison* Speed Related Collisions 24.6% of all injury collisions 31.9% of all injury collisions 18% Nighttime Collisions 27.1% of all injury collisions 15.4% of all injury collisions ‐ Inclement Weather Collisions 6.5% of all injury collisions 11.1% of all injury collisions ‐ DUI Related Collisions 22.1% of all fatal and severe injury collisions 10.8% of all fatal and severe injury collisions 32% Construction Related Collisions 2.8% of all fatal and severe injury collisions 0% of all fatal and severe injury collisions 1.7% Collision Involving an Animal 0.9% of all injury collisions 3.7% of all injury collisions ‐ Collisions Involving a Truck 0.1% of all fatal and severe injury collisions 3.1% of all fatal and severe injury collisions 7% Pedestrian/Bicycle Collisions 2.1% of all fatal and severe injury collisions 7.7% of all fatal and severe injury collisions 25% * Data retrieved from the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 8 3.2 Analysis of Crash Rates To compare locations and determine high crash concentration locations on which to focus the analysis, a crash rate was calculated for each location using available traffic volumes provided by Caltrans, dated 2016, and Amador County for the period of 2002 through 2006. As defined in the LRSM, the equation used to calculate the crash rates is: ۱ܚ܉ܛܐ ۱ ∗ۺ Where: C = Total number of crashes per million vehicle miles (MVM) V = Traffic Volumes using Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) volumes N = Number of years of data L = Length of roadway segment in miles In order to determine what constitutes a high crash rate, roadway segment and intersection crash rates were compared to the statewide average crash rates provided in the 2014 Caltrans report for ‘Collision Data on California State Highways’. Tables 3.3 and 3.4 below provide the statewide averages that were used. Table 3.3‐ Average Statewide Segment Accident Rates Area Lanes 2014 Total Per MVM 2012,2013, 2014 Total Per MVM 2014 Fatalities/Severe Injuries Per MVM 2012,2013,2014 Fatalities/Severe Injuries Per MVM Rural (Outside City) 2 and 3 Lane2 0.94 0.87 0.44 0.42 Urban (Inside City) 2 and 3 Lane2 1.37 1.19 0.60 0.53 ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 9 Table 3.4‐ Average Statewide Intersection Accident Rates Area Intersection Type Control Type 2014Total Per MVM % Fatal Rural Tee Stop or Yield Sign 0.16 1.7 Rural Four Way Stop or Yield Sign 0.6 0.8 Suburban Tee Stop or Yield Sign 0.14 0.7 Urban Four Way Signal 0.27 0.4 Rural Tee Uncontrolled 0.12 1.6 Refer to Appendix B for a summary of the calculated crash rates for all roadway segments and intersections included in the study. The top segments for each county, based solely on crash rates, are provided in Table 3.5. Table 3.5‐ Top Segments Based on Crash Rates Segment Name Description Crash Rate Amador County Stony Creek Rd From Ellis Ranch Rd to Argonaut Ln 3.70 Rams Horn Grade From National St to Shake Ridge Rd 3.52 Route 104/Main St (Ione) From Foothill Blvd to SR 124 2.95 SR 88 From the Amador/Alpine County Line to 2.5 miles west of the county line 2.49 SR 49 Through Martell and Sutter Hill 2.37 SR 104 (Ridge Rd) From SR 88 to SR 49 in Sutter Hill 2.24 Stony Creek Rd From Buena Vista Rd to Ellis Ranch Rd 2.24 SR 26 From SR 88 to the Amador Calaveras County Line 2.19 SR 88 From Mormon Emigrant Trail to Tragedy Springs 2.07 SR 88 From SR 104 (Ridge Rd) to SR 49 2.06 Alpine County SR 88 From Alpine/Amador County Line to east side of Caples Lake 2.49 SR 88 From East side of Caples Lake to east side of Red Lake 1.72 SR 89 From Luther Pass Rd to SR 89 towards Markleeville 1.32 SR 89 (Luther Pass Rd) From Alpine/Amador County Line to SR 88 0.86 SR 89 From Laramie St to SR 4 0.72 3.3 Analysis of Crash Costs The second factor used to determine high crash concentration locations included the determination of crash cost, which is based on the severity of injury resulting from the collision. Injury collisions are recorded under the category of fatal at least one party involved was ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 10 killed from injuries resulting from the collision), severe injury, other visible injury, or complaint of pain. If there is no apparent injury reported, collisions are recorded as property damage only. Each collision was assigned a crash cost based on values provided in the LRSM and are shown in Table 3.6. Table 3.6‐ HSIP Crash Costs for Intersections and Roadway Segments Crash Cost Collision Severity Intersection Segment Fatal $ 1,460,000 signalized $ 2,000,000 $ 2,310,000 non‐ signalized Injury (Severe) $ 1,460,000 signalized $ 2,000,000 $ 2,310,000 non‐ signalized Injury (Other Visible) $ 126,500 $ 126,500 Injury (Complaint of Pain) $ 71,900 $ 71,900 Property Damage Only $ 11,800 $ 11,800 A summary of the collision severity data for each county is presented below in Figures 3.3 and 3.4. It is evident that most of the collisions in both counties resulted in property damage only. Approximately 2% and 3% of the collisions resulted in fatalities for Amador and Alpine Counties, respectively. This solidified the importance of attaining the additional records from SWITRS and the local agencies as there were insufficient numbers of only fatal and severe injury crashes to fully assess the roadway network and identify potential safety issues. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 11 Figure 3.3‐ Amador County Collision Severities Figure 3.4‐ Alpine County Collision Severities Property Damage Only 55% Killed, 2% Injury (Severe), 6% Injury (Other Visible) 19% Injury (Complaint of Pain), 18% Property Damage Only 56% Killed 3% Injury (Severe) 7% Injury (Other Visible) 19% Injury (Complaint of Pain) 15% ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 12 An initial list of priority roadway segments and intersections on which to focus the analysis was identified based on the calculated crash rates and costs. These lists can be seen in Tables 3.7 and 3.8. A high crash rate does not always correlate to a high crash cost due to the cost differences between fatal and property damage only crashes. Also, a high crash rate does not always correlate to a large number of crashes on a segment if the traffic volume is low. Preference was given to the segments and intersections with high crash rates and costs while balancing the focus locations between State Routes and local roadways. Table 3.7‐ Amador County Initial Focus Segments and Intersections Amador County Location Description Crash Rate Cost Stony Creek Rd 5.43‐mile segment south of Martell/Jackson 3.70 $2,395,700 Rams Horn Grade 2.82‐mile segment north of Volcano 3.52 $6,323,800 Route 104/Main St 0.75‐mile segment through Ione 2.95 $1,166,500 SR 88 5.8‐mile segment 0.66 $19,584,400 SR 49 3.35‐mile segment through Jackson 0.86 $16,073,200 SR 88 4.63‐mile segment from Pine Grove to Pioneer 0.98 $13,990,300 SR 88 and Buena Vista Rd Unsignalized intersection south of Ione 1.39 $6,150,400 SR 26 and Deer Ln Unsignalized intersection between Pioneer and Pine Grove 2.08 $2,567,400 Ridge Rd and Running Gold Rd Unsignalized intersection east of Sutter Hill 0.32 $2,615,700 SR 124 and SR 16 Unsignalized intersection north of Drytown 0.08 $2,381,900 Table 3.8‐ Alpine County Initial Focus Segments and Intersections Alpine County Location Description Crash Rate Cost SR 88 2.9‐mile segment from the county line to east of Caples Lake 2.49 $4,312,000 SR 88 4.96‐mile segment from east of Caples Lake to East of Red Lake 1.72 $4,950,300 SR 89 5.54‐mile segment from Luther Pass Rd to Woodford 1.32 $6,581,200 SR 88 6.52‐mile segment from east of Red Lake to Luther Pass Rd 0.57 $5,075,700 SR 89 2.59‐mile segment also called Luther Pass Rd 0.86 $4,707,700 ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 13 SR 88 and SR 89 Unsignalized intersection in Woodfords 0.48 $2,603,900 SR 89 and Luther Pass Rd Unsignalized intersection west of Sorensens 0.18 $2,321,800 SR 88 and Diamond Valley Rd Unsignalized intersection in Paynesville 0.15 $126,500 4. HIGHEST OCCURRING CRASH TYPES AND PRIMARY COLLISION FACTORS 4.1 Crash Types About 44% of the crashes in Amador County resulted in hitting an object. In these cases, hitting an object indicates that the vehicle departed from the roadway. Other types of common collision types were rear ends (15%) and broadsides which are generally intersection related, and overturns The highest occurring crash types for Amador County can be seen in Figure 4.1. Figure 4.1‐ Amador County Collision Types For Alpine County, 47% of the crashes resulted in hitting an object. The majority of the other crashes resulted in overturning The highest occurring crash types for Alpine County can be seen in Figure 4.2. There are fewer intersection related crashes (rear end, sideswipe, broadside) compared to Amador County, which shows a difference in the type of roadways analyzed for Alpine County. Head‐On 5% Sideswipe 8% Rear End 15% Broadside 12% Hit Object 44% Overturned 11% Vehicle/Pedestrian 1% Other 4% ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 14 Figure 4.2‐ Alpine County Collision Types 4.2 Primary Collision Factors Another key component to understanding the collisions on each roadway network is the primary collision factor (PCF). The PCF is typically the vehicle code violation that is attributed to a specific crash. Figures 4.3 and 4.4 present the primary collision factors for Amador and Alpine Counties, respectively. The most common PCF for Amador County is ‘wrong side of the road’ while it is ‘unsafe speed’ for Alpine County. Theses PCF’s were taken into consideration while selecting appropriate countermeasures. For example, ‘wrong side of the road’ collisions lend themselves to countermeasures like centerline rumble strips and raised pavement markers. ‘Unsafe speed’ can be addressed through engineering countermeasures, such as improved warning signs or by increased enforcement and education measures. Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol (DUI), is another common PCF in Amador and Alpine counties. For DUI’s, education and enforcement are going to be more effective than engineering countermeasures. Head‐On 5% Sideswipe 10% Rear End 6% Broadside 5% Hit Object 47% Overturned 21% Vehicle/Pedestrian 0% Other 6% ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 15 Figure 4.3‐ Amador County Primary Collision Factors Figure 4.4‐ Alpine County Primary Collision Factors DUI/BUI, 12% Unsafe Speed, 27% Wrong Side of the Road, 29% Improper Turning, 15% Automobile ROW, 10% Other than Driver or Ped, 6% DUI/BUI, 11% Unsafe Speed, 43% Wrong Side of the Road, 4% Improper Turning, 28% Automobile ROW, 4% Other than Driver or Ped, 10% ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 16 5. HIGH‐RISK CORRIDORS AND INTERSECTIONS (CRASH HISTORY AND ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS) Based on the rates and types of crashes that occur throughout the counties, a spot location approach was used to locate high crash concentration focus) corridors and intersections at which to conduct a detailed review of collisions to identify potential safety issues to guide the selection of countermeasures and develop potential projects. The list of focus locations was determined using the top ten crash rate and crash cost locations identified in Section 3. The final list was amended following discussion with the partner agencies to confirm the locations identified were adequate and to incorporate other locations with potential safety concerns and based on input provided by the public on the project website at safetricountyroads.com. Table 5.1 lists the focus segments and intersections identified for the detailed analysis. Table 5.1‐ Focus Locations with Crash Rates and Crash Costs Amador County Rural Road Segments Crash Rate Crash Cost Stony Creek Rd (North) 3.70 $2,395,700 Rams Horn Grade 3.52 $6,323,800 Stony Creek Rd (South) 2.24 $504,100 Coal Mine Rd 2.04 $451,400 Latrobe Rd 1.74 $8,075,100 Jackson Valley Rd 1.64 $3,069,100 Shenandoah Rd 1.61 $167,400 Amador County Urban Street Segments Route 49/Route 88 (Jackson) A 0.86 $865,500 Route 49/Route 88 (Jackson) B 0.20 $9,906,700 Route 49/Route 88 (Jackson) C 1.52 $7,351,500 Route 104/Route 124 (Ione) 0.77 $1,166,500 Ridge Road (Sutter Creek) 1.21 $5,040,600 Amador County Intersections Route 26 and Deer Ln 2.08 $2,567,400 Ridge Rd and Running Gold Rd 0.32 $2,615,700 Alpine County Rural Road Segments Route 88 (West) 2.49 $4,312,000 Route 88 (East) 1.72 $4,950,300 Route 89 1.32 $6,581,200 Alpine County Intersections Route 89 (Towards Markleeville) and Route 88 0.48 $2,603,900 ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 17 Due to the rural nature of both counties, more roadway segments were identified than intersections. GIS tools were used to map the specific collisions at each segment and intersection. Additional qualitative analysis was then conducted at each location with a site visit and review of Google Earth to confirm existing conditions and identify potential safety issues that could be remedied with systemic safety countermeasures. Below are summaries of the roadway characteristics and crash histories for the top crash focus locations identified for each county. Appendix C and Appendix D include a more detailed explanation of each location and GIS collision maps. 5.1 Amador County Focus Locations Stony Creek Road is a narrow, winding, two lane road with primarily gravel shoulders. Travel lanes widths are nine feet to ten feet wide and paved shoulders range from zero to two feet wide. There is no posted speed limit on either end of the roadway segment. Two curves have posted curve warning signs with advisory speeds of 30 and 35 MPH and chevron markers. Adjacent land use is primarily agricultural. The northern end of the roadway segment approaches playing fields for Argonaut High School and has a 25 MPH school zone speed limit posted on both sides of the roadway. Center and edge line striping is worn and faded through much of the segment. The bridge for Jackson Creek at the south end of the segment has a metal railing but lacks guardrails on both approaches. Two drainage culverts along the roadway have object markers posted but lack railings and guardrails. Roadside ditches, steep embankments, and fences next to the roadway were observed along portions of the segment. Stony Creek Road (North) from Argonaut Lane to 0.7 Miles South of Ellis Ranch Rd CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 1 Severe Injury 2 Injury ‐ Visible 1 Injury – Pain 6 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 10 TOP COLLISION TYPE Hit Object TOP VIOLATION Unsafe Speed ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 18 Rams Horn Grade is a winding, two lane road with 11‐foot lanes. Paved and gravel shoulders range between 0 and 2‐feet wide. An “End 40 MPH Zone” sign is posted at the north end of the segment and a 25 MPH speed limit is posted on the south end, entering the Town of Volcano. The north end of the roadway connects with Shake Ridge Road at the Daffodil Hill area. Steep mountainside embankments were observed close to the travel lanes along with limited curve warnings. The pavement is in fair condition, but the striping is worn and faded at locations where vehicles may be crossing over the center line of the roadway. Bicyclists are known to frequent this segment of roadway but there are no reported bicycle‐involved collisions in the past five years. Stony Creek Road is a narrow, winding, two lane road with limited shoulders. Travel lanes range between 9 and 10‐feet wide with 0 to 2‐foot wide paved and gravel shoulders throughout. This segment joins the north segment of Stony Creek Road at Jackson Creek and provides access to the Pardee Lake Recreation Area. Rams Horn Grade from Shake Ridge Road to National Street CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 3 Severe Injury 2 Injury ‐ Visible 0 Injury – Pain 6 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 11 TOP COLLISION TYPE Hit Object TOP VIOLATION Wrong Side of the Road Stony Creek Road (South) from 0.7 Miles South of Ellis Ranch Rd to Buena Vista Rd CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 0 Severe Injury 2 Injury ‐ Visible 3 Injury – Pain 3 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 8 TOP COLLISION TYPE Hit Object TOP VIOLATION Wrong Side of the Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 19 No posted speed limit was observed on either end of the segment. Several of the curves do not have curve warning signs or curve advisory speeds. The guardrails protecting approaches to the north side of the Pardee Reservoir Dam crossing show signs of being hit. The approaches to the dam on the south side lack guardrail. Portions of the roadway pavement is in poor condition. Striping is worn and faded in several locations along the segment. Coal Mine Road is a narrow two‐lane road with a half‐mile long reversing curve section midway through the segment. The roadway has 9‐foot wide travel lanes with gravel or no shoulders through most of the segment. No speed limit is posted on either end of the segment. Chevrons and a curve warning sign have been provided on the southbound approach to the reverse curve section but not on the northbound approach. Portions of the roadway pavement are in poor condition and striping is worn and faded along most of the segment. Coal Mine Rd from Buena Vista Rd to Camanche Pkwy North CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 0 Severe Injury 3 Injury ‐ Visible 1 Injury – Pain 0 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 4 TOP COLLISION TYPE Overturn TOP VIOLATION Unsafe Speed Wrong Side of the Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 20 Latrobe Road is a winding, two‐lane road that connects the El Dorado County Line at the Cosumnes River Bridge to Highway 16. Within El Dorado County, Latrobe Road has 12‐foot wide lanes with 8‐foot paved shoulders and a 55 MPH posted speed limit. Within Amador County, Latrobe Road narrows to 10 to 11‐foot wide travel lanes with 1 to 2‐foot wide paved shoulders. There is no posted speed limit on the Amador County segment of Latrobe Road. Curve warning signs and chevrons are posted at multiple locations along the segment. However, several curves lack warning signs or markers. There is a four‐way stop‐controlled intersection at Old Sacramento Road as well as stop control for Latrobe Road approaching Highway 16. Jackson Valley Road is a two‐lane road with 11‐foot lanes and shoulder widths ranging from 0 to 2‐feet wide. The intersection of Jackson Valley Road and Buena Vista Road is four‐way stop controlled. There is no posted speed limit on this segment of Jackson Valley Road. The striping is worn and faded in some areas. Latrobe Rd from SR 16 to the El Dorado County Line CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 3 Severe Injury 10 Injury ‐ Visible 7 Injury – Pain 26 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 47 TOP COLLISION TYPE (30) Hit Object TOP VIOLATION (23) Wrong Side of the Road Jackson Valley Rd from SR 88 to Ione Buena Vista Rd CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 1 Severe Injury 6 Injury ‐ Visible 3 Injury – Pain 7 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 18 TOP COLLISION TYPE Hit Object Overturn TOP VIOLATION Wrong Side of the Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 21 There is a reversing curve approximately 0.5 miles south of State Route 88 that is experiencing high numbers of hit object and overturn collisions despite having posted curve warning signs. Shenandoah Road is a winding, two‐lane road that runs through the community of River Pines. There are several cross streets and driveways along this segment. The segment ends at the El Dorado County line on the Cosumnes River Bridge. Roadway travel lanes are 12‐feet wide with 4‐foot shoulders. There is a 25‐MPH speed limit posted on both ends of the segment. The curve on the north end of the segment has curve warnings and a 20‐MPH advisory speed. A pedestrian warning sign indicates pedestrians crossing the roadway or walking on the shoulders in this area. Approaches to the Cosumnes River bridge have guardrail that shows signs of being hit. Shenandoah Rd from the County Line to 0.15 Miles South of Spring Lane CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 0 Severe Injury 1 Injury ‐ Visible 2 Injury – Pain 2 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 5 TOP COLLISION TYPE Hit Object TOP VIOLATION Unsafe Speed Wrong Side of the Road ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 22 Most of this northern portion of SR 49/88 through Jackson consists of 3 lanes (one lane traveling south and two lanes traveling north) and a two way left turn lane. An additional southbound lane begins half way between Vogan Toll Road and Sutter Street. There are discontinuous pedestrian facilities along this portion of SR 49/88. There is a posted speed limit of 50 MPH near Argonaut Lane, which is reduced to 40 MPH near Vogan Toll Road. This middle portion of SR 49/88 runs through the downtown “core” of Jackson and consists of four lanes with a continuous two way left turn lane and intermittent sidewalk on either side. There are six pedestrian crossings on this 0.58‐mile‐long segment. Four of the six crossings are uncontrolled. The posted speed limit is 30 MPH through with numerous side street intersections and commercial driveways. Despite there being ample opportunities for pedestrians to cross the street, the lack of continuous sidewalk forces pedestrians to walk in the shoulders. State Route 49/88 through Jackson from Argonaut Ln. to Sutter St. CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 0 Severe Injury 4 Injury ‐ Visible 5 Injury – Pain 0 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 9 TOP COLLISION TYPE Rear End TOP VIOLATION Unsafe Speed State Route 49/88 through Jackson from Sutter St. to SR 88 E CRASH HISTORY 1 Fatality 3 Severe Injury 2 Injury ‐ Visible 23 Injury – Pain 0 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 29 TOP COLLISION TYPE (14) Rear End TOP VIOLATION (14) Unsafe Speed ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 23 This southern portion of SR 49 through Jackson consists of 4 lanes and a two way left turn lane from SR 88 East to French Bar Road and then is reduced to a two‐lane road with a two way left turn lane heading south. The speed limit begins at 40 MPH but increases to 45 MPH and 50 MPH in the southbound direction heading out of town. There is a continuous right turn lane in the southbound direction for the shopping centers and approaching the intersection of French Bar Road. There are multiple closely spaced warning signs leading up to French Bar. Within 500 feet of the intersection, there is a pedestrian warning, a no parking sign, Thru Traffic Merge Left, signal warning, Right Lane Turns Right Ahead, Right Lane Must Turn Right, and another no parking sign. State Route 49 and Ridge Road (SR 104) meet in the center of Sutter Hill, a small community in Sutter Creek. Approximately 19,000 vehicles pass through this intersection each with adjacent businesses including gas stations and a Walgreens. The intersection is signalized with pedestrian crossings. Ridge Rd (SR 104) through Sutter Creek from Bowers Rd. to SR 49 CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 2 Severe Injury 0 Injury ‐ Visible 16 Injury – Pain 44 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 61 TOP COLLISION TYPE Not Specified TOP VIOLATION (28) Automobile Right of Way State Route 49 through Jackson from SR 88 E to Middle Bar Rd. CRASH HISTORY 2 Fatalities 1 Severe Injury 5 Injury ‐ Visible 10 Injury – Pain 0 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 18 TOP COLLISION TYPE Broadside TOP VIOLATION (10) Automobile Right of Way ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 24 Approaching Bowers Road, Ridge Road has one through lane, one left turn lane, and one right turn lane. Traffic on Ridge Road does not stop while Bowers Road (Prospect Drive across the street) has a stop sign. There is a crest on Ridge Road between Bowers Road and SR 49 which limits sight distance for vehicles turning onto Ridge Road from Bowers Road or Prospect Drive. State Route 104, E Main Street, and Preston Avenue run through the City of Ione. Ione elementary is located at SR 104 and Ione Street and there are several small shops along E Main Street in downtown Ione. SR 104 has one lane in each direction and sidewalk on one side from Ione Street to E Main Street. E Main Street also has one lane in each direction with parking on each side of the road. Preston Ave. from E Main Street to SR 124 has one lane in each direction and sidewalk on both sides. Most of the pedestrian crossings lack high visibility signage and markings and ADA compliant curb ramps. State Route 104/ State Route 124 in Ione CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 0 Severe Injury Injury ‐ Visible Injury – Pain 17 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 26 TOP COLLISION TYPE Hit Object TOP VIOLATION Unsafe Speed ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 25 The State Route 26 (SR 26) and Deer Lane intersection is located on the outskirts of the community of Pioneer. SR 26 has 12‐ foot lanes with 1‐foot shoulders and the speed limit is assumed to be 55 MPH. Most of the collisions are along SR 26 between Deer Lane and Marilyn Lane. Both Deer Lane and Marilyn Lane are local roads serving residences and have very low traffic volumes. Visibility at the intersection is limited by vertical and horizontal curves on SR 26. The intersection of Ridge Road and Running Gold Road is located near the outskirts of the City of Sutter Creek. Ridge Road is a two‐lane road with 10‐foot lanes and 6‐foot shoulders that connects Sutter Creek to the community of Pine Grove. The posted speed limit on Ridge Road is 55 MPH. Running Gold Road is a two‐lane road that leads into a neighborhood. Sight distance at the intersection is limited by a crest vertical curve on Ridge Road, east of the intersection. The maximum sight distance to the east is 575’. Advance intersection warning signs are posted at this location and there is a street light at the intersection. There is no turn lane on Ridge Road on to Running Gold Road, therefore, though traffic on Ridge Road must stop behind the turning vehicle. State Route 26 and Deer Ln Intersection CRASH HISTORY 0 Fatalities 1 Severe Injury 1 Injury ‐ Visible 1 Injury – Pain 5 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 8 TOP COLLISION TYPE Hit Object TOP VIOLATION Wrong Side of the Road Ridge Rd and Running Gold Rd Intersection CRASH HISTORY 1 Fatalities 0 Severe Injury 1 Injury ‐ Visible 2 Injury – Pain 3 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 6 TOP COLLISION TYPE Rear End TOP VIOLATION Unsafe Speed ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 26 5.2 Alpine County Focus Locations This section of State Route 88 begins at the Alpine/Amador County Line at Kirkwood and continues past Caples Lake. This segment includes the portion of roadway known as the ‘Ice Box’ which experiences frequent icy conditions during winter months. Caltrans is investigating potential Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS) and a potential ice detection and warning system to deploy at the Ice Box area. The roadway consists of two 12‐foot lanes and a shoulder ranging from 0 to 30‐feet for pullouts. Several improvements have been made to this segment to aid drivers during the snowy winters. The pavement, signage, and striping have all been recently updated. Caltrans is developing plans to improve roadway safety along SR 88 in Alpine County with a project to install centerline rumble strips, repair of existing asphalt surfaces, restriping the roadway and improving warning signs and markings. This portion of State Route 88 shares the same features as the adjacent segment, described above. The roadway is windy and narrows in several areas, leaving vehicles driving next to steep embankments. These embankments, or the guardrails protecting them, result in State Route 88 from the County Line to the East Side of Caples Lake CRASH HISTORY 2 Fatalities 2 Severe Injury 3 Injury ‐ Visible 4 Injury – Pain 24 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 33 TOP COLLISION TYPE (22) Hit Object TOP VIOLATION (20) Unsafe Speed State Route 88 from the East Side of Caples Lake to the East Side of Red Lake CRASH HISTORY 1 Fatalities 2 Severe Injury 4 Injury ‐ Visible 4 Injury – Pain 29 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 39 TOP COLLISION TYPE (17) Hit Object TOP VIOLATION (19) Unsafe Speed ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 27 the hit object type collisions caused by unsafe speed. Caltrans is developing plans to improve roadway safety along SR 88 in Alpine County with a project to install centerline rumble strips, repair of existing asphalt surfaces, restriping the roadway and improving warning signs and markings. This portion of State Route 88/89 connects the small community of Sorensens to Woodfords and Alpine Village. Most of this segment has 12‐foot lanes with 2‐foot paved shoulders. The pavement, signage, and striping have all been recently upgraded. Large trees parallel the roadway on both sides. Caltrans is developing plans to improve roadway safety along SR 88/89 in Alpine County with a project to install centerline rumble strips, repair of existing asphalt surfaces, restriping the roadway and improving warning signs and markings. This segment becomes difficult to traverse during winter driving conditions. Vehicles travelling at an unsafe speed during inclement weather do not have a lot of room for error when making turns, which results in a high number of hit object type collisions. Public comments have been provided regarding vehicles stopped in the shoulder and encroaching on the roadway when installing tire chains. State Route 88/89 from Luther Pass to State Route 89 at Woodfords CRASH HISTORY 3 Fatalities 1 Severe Injury 7 Injury ‐ Visible 10 Injury – Pain 23 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 40 TOP COLLISION TYPE (24) Hit Object TOP VIOLATION (14) Unsafe Speed ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 28 To differentiate between two intersections with the same name, this intersection is with State Route 89 heading south towards Markleeville. SR 89 is stop controlled while SR 88 has the right of way. Flashing beacons overhead help warn motorists of the intersection. SR 88 has a designated right turn lane but not a left turn lane onto SR 89. SR 89 has one lane for left turns and one lane for right turns and through movements. Sight distance is limited by the large trees, and a horizontal curve on SR 88, making it difficult for motorists on SR 89 to determine when it is safe for them to proceed through the intersection. 6. COUNTERMEASURES IDENTIFIED TO ADDRESS THE SAFETY ISSUES The primary focus of this SSAR is the identification of engineering countermeasures that could be applied systemically to roadways throughout the counties to improve roadway safety. Section 6.1 provides descriptions of the engineering countermeasures recommended for implementation in Amador and Alpine Counties. Strategies to improve roadway safety through education, enforcement and emergency response measures are discussed in Section 6.2. 6.1 Engineering Countermeasures Engineering countermeasures are individual elements that can help improve the overall safety of a specific location based on the types of collisions experienced and existing road characteristics. The challenging aspect of selecting engineering countermeasures is identifying those that will have the greatest benefit for the specific area of interest. The selection of improper engineering countermeasures can sometimes result in more harm than benefit, so proposed safety improvements must be reviewed to ensure that they will help reduce the likelihood of future crashes. State Route 88 and State Route 89 Intersection CRASH HISTORY 1 Fatalities 0 Severe Injury 1 Injury ‐ Visible 2 Injury – Pain 2 Property Damage TOTAL # COLLISIONS 6 TOP COLLISION TYPE Rear End TOP VIOLATION Unsafe Speed ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 29 The two factors that are indicators of the effectiveness of a countermeasure are Crash Modification Factors (CMFs) and Crash Reduction Factors (CRFs). CMFs help estimate the expected number of crashes after implementing a specific treatment while CRFs measure the percentage of crashes that the treatment is expected to reduce. These two values can be used interchangeably as CRF = 1‐CMF. Higher CRF percentages represent a greater reduction is crashes. The engineering countermeasures considered for implementation in Amador and Alpine Counties are sorted into three categories: rural roads, urban streets, and intersections. Table 6.1 summarizes systemic countermeasures identified for implementation. A list of all HSIP‐approved countermeasures is included in the LRSM. Additional countermeasures may be considered using the FHWA CMF Clearinghouse website at Table 6.1‐ Countermeasures Considered for Amador and Alpine Counties COUNTERMEASURE CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE (YEARS) FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY SYSTEMATIC APPROACH OPPORTUNITY Rural Roads R4 Install guardrail 25% 20 100% High R24 Improve pavement friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) 40% 10 100% High R26 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) 15% 10 100% Very High R27 Install chevron signs on horizontal curves 40% 10 100% Very High R28 Install curve advance warning signs 25% 10 100% Very High R31 Add delineators, reflectors, and/or object markers 15% 10 100% Very High R32 Install edge‐lines and centerlines 25% 10 100% Very High R34 Install centerline rumble strips/stripes 20% 10 100% High R35 Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes 15% 10 100% High Urban Streets ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 30 COUNTERMEASURE CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE (YEARS) FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY SYSTEMATIC APPROACH OPPORTUNITY R1 Add segment lighting 40% 10 100 Medium R15 Road Diet (To reduce number of lanes or add bike lanes) 30% 20 90% Medium R26 Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) 15% 10 100% Very High R38 Install pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) 30% 10 90% Medium N/A Install Radar Speed Feedback Signs (Not an approved HSIP Countermeasure) ‐ ‐ ‐ High Intersections S1 Signalized‐Add intersection lighting 40% 20 100% Medium S9 Signalized‐ Install flashing beacons as advanced warning 30% 10 100% Medium S11 Signalized‐Improve pavement friction (High friction surface treatments) 40% 10 100% Medium NS1 Non‐Signalized‐ Add intersection lighting 40% 20 100% Medium NS3 Non‐Signalized‐Install signals 25% 20 100% Low NS5 Install/Upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning/regulatory signs 15% 10 100% Very High NS7 Non‐Signalized‐ Install flashing beacons at stop‐controlled intersections 15% 10 100% High NS8 Non‐Signalized‐ Install flashing beacons as advance warning 30% 10 100% High NS9 Non‐Signalized‐ Install transverse rumble strips on approaches 20% 10 90% High NS10 Improve Sight Distance at Intersection (Clear Sight Triangles) 20% 10 90% High NS14 Non‐Signalized‐ Install right turn lane 20% 20 90% Low ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 31 COUNTERMEASURE CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE (YEARS) FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY SYSTEMATIC APPROACH OPPORTUNITY NS15 Non‐Signalized‐ Install left turn lane (where no left turn lane exists) 35% 20 90% Low NS18 Non‐Signalized‐ Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (with enhanced safety features) 35% 20 100% Medium Rural Road Countermeasures Guardrails reduce the severity of hit object crashes by redirecting vehicles away from steep embankments or fixed objects and dissipating the energy of the vehicle prior to the collision. Existing guardrails show signs of damage from vehicle collisions with bent rails and posts. For Cycle 9 HSIP funding, upgrading replacing) existing guardrail is considered a set‐aside countermeasure and does not need a B/C ratio for the application. Further, guardrail upgrades do not count towards the agency maximum HSIP limit of $10 million. An HSIP application to upgrade existing guardrails need only be limited to locations with existing guardrail that needs replacement. Installation of new guardrails, however, does require B/C ratio calculations. The costs associated with guardrail vary based on type of guardrail, what is being protected, extent of shoulder improvements or widening needed, and whether the guardrail is being installed or upgraded. Additional costs to install a new guardrail on a bridge approach may require substantial additional cost to upgrade the bridge railing to meet current standards. Installing new guardrail along a creek crossing is approximately $95 per linear foot. Application of a high friction surface treatment is intended for locations along curves where appropriate warning signs and delineators, or other lower cost countermeasures have been installed and a high number of incidents are still occurring. This treatment improves skid High Friction Surface Treatment at High Incident Curves [R24] Add or Upgrade Guardrail [R4] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 32 resistance during wet and dry weather and reduces crashes resulting from crossing the centerline or running off the road. High friction surface treatments are a suggested countermeasure included in the SHSP as a substantially lower cost and lower impact improvement compared to realigning a roadway. As such, this treatment is considered a set‐aside countermeasure in HSIP Cycle 9. B/C ratios are required and it does count towards the agency maximum HSIP limit of $10 million. High friction surface treatments should only be applied to roadways with good pavement conditions. Therefore, pavement rehabilitation and crack sealing may be needed prior to treatment. Accounting for needed pavement repairs or rehabilitation, applying a high friction surface treatment costs approximately $40 per square yard. For snowy and icy areas, the recommended thickness of the high friction surface treatment is increased which increased the cost to $70 per square yard. Roadway signs are installed throughout County to increase driver awareness to upcoming potential hazards including intersections, curves in the roadway, narrowing pavement or shoulders, animal crossings, and to mark obstructions near the edge of the roadway. Improving roadway warning and regulatory signage is one of the least expensive methods to improve roadway safety. Typical improvements include replacing damaged, worn‐out, and non‐standard sign panels, relocating signs to improve visibility, adding advisory speeds in advance of curves, and adding new signs. New technology allows for a comprehensive review of roadside signage that could be used to improve roadway signage throughout the County. By conducting a Roadway Safety and Signing Audit (RSSA), the County and local jurisdictions can create a plan for carrying out detailed recommendations related to roadway signing. The RSSA consists of the following: Improve Roadway Signage (Curve Warnings, Edge Delineation, and Nighttime Visibility) [R26] [R27] [R28] [R31] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 33 Mobile LiDAR Scanning and 360‐Degree Field of View Photos of roadway corridor  LiDAR= Light Detection and Ranging and provides:  Sign type and classification  GPS coordinates for location of every sign  Location in relation to adjacent roadway  Post type  Sign height and condition  Sign visibility Curve Advisory Reporting System (CARS)  GPS enabled to correlate data with mobile LiDAR  Establishes curve advisory warning speeds  Chevron spacing Advanced Mobile Asset Collection (AMAC)  Collection and evaluation of sign retroreflectivity  Sign luminance  Contrast ratio for regulatory signs  Predicts retroreflectivity and sign replacement needs The data collected from these three tools is analyzed by engineers and consolidated into a final report with collision data, current conditions, and a plan of action to upgrade signs along the full extents of the roadways analyzed. A prior HSIP application prepared by Nevada County to conduct an RSSA on 48 miles of county roads utilized an overall CRF of 0.33. Costs to conduct RSSA’s vary depending on the amount of data extracted from the Lidar survey, such as for embankment slopes adjacent to the roadway, and for level of effort to complete environmental clearance and prepare construction documents. The estimated cost of conducting an RSSA is $1,400 per mile. The cost for implementing the improvements and sign upgrades is an additional $2,000 per mile. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 34 Upgrading traffic striping and adding reflective pavement markers is one of the other cost‐effective methods to improve roadway safety to address run‐off‐the‐road, head‐ on, nighttime and inclement weather‐related crashes. Painted traffic stripes are typical throughout the rural areas of the counties and are worn and faded in many locations. Painted stripes need regular maintenance to ensure adequate visibility. However, restriping roadways is not eligible for federal HSIP funds unless the new striping provided is a substantial upgrade to the existing roadway striping or markers. As a systematic improvement, striping improvements would typically be included with a roadway improvement or rehabilitation project. Caltrans’ ‘Guideline for Selecting Materials and Standard Special Provisions for Traffic Striping and Pavement Marking’, dated December 2011, includes multiple options for improving striping on roadways where roadways are frequently snowplowed or where enhanced wet night and fog visibility is needed. Recommendations include:  Thermoplastic traffic stripes  Two‐component paint traffic stripe and pavement markings for snowplowed roads  Recessed thermoplastic traffic stripes for frequently snowplowed roads  Thermoplastic traffic stripes with glass beads for enhanced wet night visibility when reflective pavement makers cannot be used  Lane delineation using a combination of traffic stripes and raised, non‐reflective, pavement markers is recommended on roadways in fog areas to provide a tactile and audible warning to errant drivers. A Roadway Striping Safety Audit is a potential project to improve striping on multiple roadways and on long segments. A Roadway Striping Safety Audit can be conducted alongside an RSSA (see above) to correct the limits of ‘no passing zones’ or add striping in areas where needed. Restripe and Add Reflective Pavement Markers [R32] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 35 Separate from any project to improve the roadway, the anticipated cost to improve roadway striping is $8/LF to include grinding the existing striping. This cost does not include any needed pavement rehabilitation or repairs. Local jurisdictions need to consider the added cost associated with replacing enhanced stripes and pavement markers with future roadway rehabilitation projects. Edgeline and center line rumble strips aim to reduce the number of vehicles running off the road or crossing into oncoming traffic. They provide an auditory and vibratory warning when driven on, which alerts drivers when they are leaving the roadway or crossing the center line. Adequate roadway width is needed to provide centerline and edgeline rumble strips. A minimum of 14’ from the centerline to edge of pavement is recommended for consideration of centerline rumble strips as a safety countermeasure. In areas with bicycle use, edgeline rumble strips should not be installed unless the paved shoulder width exceeds 4’and where guardrail/dike is more than 4’ from the edge of travel way. Edgeline rumble strips should also not be considered as a countermeasure where travel lane width is less than 11.5’ and on winding roads or through transition areas at intersections. This precludes installation of edgeline rumble strips on most of the county roadways within Amador County and on most of the State Routes within Alpine County. When pavement is in good condition, milling rumble strips is quick and is relatively inexpensive. If pavement is in poor condition, pavement rehabilitation, such as a grind and overlay, would be needed prior to installing the rumble strips. Installing 6” rumble strips costs approximately $64 per 100’. Frequent roadway sweeping is also needed to keep the rumble strips free of debris, especially in areas were roadways are sanded for increased traction during the winter. Install Rumble Strips [R34] [R35] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 36 Many of the rural county roadways have vertical roadway edges within two feet of the edge of travel way. Providing a tapered edge treatment would help prevent run‐off‐the‐road crashes by helping drivers stay on the roadway when a tire leaves the paved surface. As a systematic improvement, tapered edge treatments would typically be included as a low‐cost improvement with a roadway improvement or rehabilitation project. Pavement rehabilitation is not eligible for federal HSIP funds. Urban Streets Installing new street lighting aims to reduce crashes occurring at nighttime, as drivers may be unaware of the roadway characteristics in a low light situation. Lighting also helps improve sight distance for motorists and increases awareness to pedestrians walking on the shoulder. Adding segment lighting can be considered a high cost countermeasure due to costs associated with lighting, power, poles, and routine maintenance. Installing new street lights with 220‐foot spacing would cost approximately $240,000 per mile. Road Diet (Narrow Travel Lanes) [R15] The reduction of travel lane widths is a frequently proposed countermeasure on roadway segments within urban areas. Typically, these measures are undertaken to install new turn lanes or bike lanes on an existing roadway. Without changes to the existing number of travel lanes, there would be limited benefit for reduced vehicle speeds and safety may worsen with increased sideswipe or turning collisions. Reducing the number of travel lanes requires a traffic Provide Tapered Pavement Edge Treatment [Non‐HSIP Countermeasure] Add Street Lighting Between Intersections [R1] Road Diet (Narrow Travel Lanes) [R15] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 37 analysis to verify there is sufficient roadway capacity to handle the reduced travel lanes and potential vehicle diversions to other streets. Locations considered for implementation in Amador County include a portion of SR 49/88 through Jackson. Radar speed feedback signs help to alert drivers of their speed compared to the posted speed limit. They are most effective when installed at locations where a set of warrants are met including2:  85th Percentile Speeds exceed the posted speed limit by more than 5 MPH  ADT exceeds 500 vehicles per day  Site exhibits a correctable speed‐related accident history  Sites exhibits a pedestrian‐related accident history  Sites where posted speed limit is 25 MPH or greater Locations particularly suited for installation of Radar Speed Feedback Signs include school zones and parks, transition zones entering a developed area (with a lower speed limit) from a less developed area (with a higher speed limit), as a supplemental curve warning device or where vehicle speeds approaching a signalized intersection exceed 45 MPH. There is currently no approved CRF for radar speed feedback signs, so funding would need to be obtained from a source other than HSIP. The cost to install a Radar Speed Feedback sign varies between $6,000 to $10,000 depending on the availability of electrical power or if solar powered systems are implemented. Install Radar Speed Feedback Signs [Non‐HSIP Countermeasure] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 38 Intersections Installing new advance warning signs for upcoming intersections would improve driver awareness and reduce the amount of intersection related crashes. This countermeasure includes replacing existing signs and installing new signs. Adding advance intersection warning signs can be done quickly, with minimal impacts, and at low cost. Installing one new sign costs approximately $250. Due to the low cost per installation, installation or replacement of advance warning signs as a systemic countermeasure would be difficult using HSIP funds with the required minimum project cost of $100,000, which would necessitate identifying many locations. However, advance warning signs could be included as a category with the RSSA and Sign Upgrade project. Installing flashing beacons above stops signs or on advance warning signs would increase driver awareness to the intersection where signs have already been installed but there are still frequent rear end and broadside crashes. Flashing beacons can improve driver awareness of the stop‐controlled and signalized intersections and reduce auto right of way related violations. Additionally, they would improve nighttime visibility for drivers approaching the intersection. Flashing beacons can be installed with minimal environmental and right of way impacts and with relatively low costs. The availability of LED beacons allows for increased use of solar power systems that reduce installation cost and ongoing costs for electrical power. The estimated cost to install a flashing beacon on one approach per intersection is $1,000 to $3,000. Install Advance Warning Signs or Upgrade Signs to Include Flashing Beacons [S9] [NS5] [NS7] [NS8] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 39 Installing transverse rumble strips on approaches for stop‐ controlled intersections would help reduce intersection related crashes such as broadsides and sideswipes. They provide an auditory and tactile sensation for motorists approaching the intersection, alerting them of the stop sign. This countermeasure would be particularly effective on rural roads, where stop signs are few and far between, and advance warning signs and flashing beacons have proven ineffective. Transverse rumble strips can be installed quickly and with minimal impacts. Due to the noise generated as the vehicles pass over the rumble strips, care should be taken when deciding on the placement and location of this countermeasure so avoid disruption to residents and businesses. The estimated cost to install transverse rumble strips is $148 per 100 feet. Trimming vegetation is intended to improve sight distance at the intersection by removing obstructions from the field of vision. Common obstructions include tree branches below 7’ high, and fences, shrubs and grasses over 3’ high. This countermeasure applies to both stop and yield controlled intersections and aims to alleviate sideswipes and broadsides. Removing obstructions Install Transverse Rumble Strips [NS9] Trim Vegetation [NS10] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 40 would allow drivers to see other approaching vehicles and make better decisions about entering the intersection safely. Clearing roadside vegetation is a low‐cost countermeasure but the costs would vary depending on the type of obstruction. As a systematic countermeasure, trimming vegetation is typically conducted as part of regular road maintenance activities if located within the public right‐of‐way. If the obstruction is located on private property, the removal is typically undertaken by the property owner upon notification by the local jurisdiction. Trimming vegetation may be eligible for HSIP funds if included as part of a larger project meant to clear roadside obstructions including trees, fences, signs, etc., (without major reconstruction of the roadway) to improve sight distance. For roadways with higher vehicle speeds, ADT’s, and limited sight distance, installing left or right turn lanes would reduce the amount of rear end, broadside and sideswipe crashes at uncontrolled intersections. Adding a left or right turn lane will remove the vehicles stopped or decelerating in the travel lane from the traffic stream. Providing a separate location for the drivers waiting for a gap in the opposing through traffic will allow them to make safer decisions when turning left as they are not holding up the through traffic behind them. For roadways with adequate shoulder width, left right turn lanes can be added by restriping, which can be done quickly and with minimal impacts. For other locations, the shoulder may need to be paved or widened, which can be a high cost countermeasure involving greater environmental impacts, acquisition of right of way, and relocation of utilities. Care must be taken to study the potential impacts to pedestrians when adding a left or right turn lane. Restripe/Widen Street to Add Turn Pockets (Potential High Cost Countermeasure) [NS14] [NS15] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 41 Enhancements for existing pedestrian crosswalks aim to prevent pedestrian related collisions. For HSIP, these enhancements include high visibility ‘continental, ladder or zebra‐style’ crosswalk markings, advance yield lines, advance warning signs and potentially pedestrian‐activated lighted warning systems. Upgrades to existing crossings are considered set‐asides for Cycle 9 HSIP funding and do not require a B/C ratio. Upgrade projects are limited to a maximum of $250,000 per jurisdiction. The cost to install an improved high‐visibility crosswalk with flashing beacons can be considered a high cost countermeasure as the costs vary depending on site specific issues such as where new curb ramps, bulb‐outs, and sidewalk improvements are required. Additional Items Considered but Not Recommended as Systemic Countermeasures In addition to the systemic countermeasures discussed above, other countermeasures, both short term and long term, were reviewed to improve safety throughout each county’s roadway network. Below are brief descriptions of what each countermeasure would entail. These descriptions include countermeasures that could be utilized in future HSIP applications once other, lower cost, measures are implemented. Additional information for each countermeasure and additional countermeasures can be found in the LRSM. Installation of traffic signals and roundabouts at unsignalized intersections may be considered a potential safety countermeasure to prevent broadside collisions that can lead to severe and fatal injuries. Other lower cost countermeasures, such as improving intersection advance warning signs or adding turn lanes, must be implemented in an attempt to reduce collisions prior to installing a traffic signal or roundabout as installation of traffic control device will frequently lead Install Traffic Signal or Roundabout [NS3] [NS4] Restripe Pedestrian Crosswalks and Add High‐Visibility Treatments [NS18] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 42 to an increase in other collision types, such as rear end collisions, and increased roadway congestion. Installation of a traffic signal must comply with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) Warrants for Traffic Signals. In addition, any new signal or roundabout installed on a State Route would require an Intersection Control Evaluation, approved by Caltrans, that analyzes potential traffic impacts and makes consideration for other potential intersection control measures. Intersection control devices typically cost from $350,000 to much higher depending on the work necessary for roadway and ADA improvements and right of way needed to accommodate the new features. Realigning roadways to improve horizontal and vertical alignments typically has a very high cost and results in impacts to the natural environment and/or acquisition of property to create new right of way for the roadway. As such, roadway realignment can only be considered as a HSIP‐ eligible countermeasure if an agency has pursued other lower cost countermeasures and is still documenting a higher than average collision rate. Lower cost countermeasures discussed in this SSAR as alternative to roadway realignment include clearing vegetation and other obstructions, signage upgrades, striping upgrades, high friction surface treatments, rumble strips and guardrails. Roadway realignment may be considered on roadway segments or at unsignalized intersections where sight distance is limited. Cost vary widely depending on the scope of the improvements desired. 6.2 Non‐Engineering Countermeasures comprehensive approach to improving roadway safety must address all “4 E’s of Safety”. These include Engineering, Enforcement, Education and Emergency Medical Services. The engineering countermeasures discussed in this SSAR will not resolve all safety issues identified on roadways throughout the County. Many of these issues are discussed as challenge areas in the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), which provides an implementation plan to improve roadway safety throughout the state. Issues that have been identified as areas of concern for the County during the preparation of this SSAR include:  Speeding and aggressive driving,  Driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol (DUI), Roadway Realignment [R19] [R20] [R21] ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 43  Distracted driving,  Chain installation and removal areas,  Commercial vehicle enforcement,  Emergency Medical Service Response, and  Sharing the road with bicyclists and pedestrians. Speeding and Aggressive Driving: The SHSP reports that 18 percent of traffic‐related fatalities and injuries in California between 2012 and 2015 involved speeding or aggressive driving. Within Amador and Alpine Counties between 2013 and 2017, 24.6 and 31.9 percent of traffic‐related fatalities and injuries involved unsafe speed as the primary collision factor reported, respectively. Unsafe speed can either mean driving too fast for conditions or exceeding the posted speed limit. Vehicle speed is one of the critical factors when it comes to reducing fatal and sever injury crashes. As speed increases, the likelihood of crashes and severe or fatal injury also increases.1 1 This is of particular concern in rural areas where vehicle speeds and speed limits are higher than in urban areas. One of the key issues identified on the rural county roads is the lack posted speed limits. A posted speed limit is not required for enforcement of a 55 MPH maximum speed on rural roads. In order to post a speed limit lower than 55 MPH and enforce reduced speeds, an Engineering and Traffic Study must be prepared by a registered traffic engineer to determine the maximum safe speed for the roadway. Refer to the Caltrans Manual for Setting Speed Limits for additional information. Once a speed limit has been determined, and approved by the jurisdiction with authority, speed limit signs should be posted frequently along each roadway segment for any speed less than 55 MPH. This will alert drivers as to the maximum safe speed to approach the upcoming segment. There is no CRF associated with conducting an Engineering and Traffic Study or posting speed limits, so these projects would need to be paid for with local funds. Once speed limits are set, reductions in vehicle speeds rely on a combination of engineering, enforcement and driver education. Strategies discussed in the SHSP include providing high‐ profile speed enforcement at high‐visibility locations, increasing the use of radar speed units to aid speed measurement, and conducting an outreach campaign to educate drivers on the risks associated with speeding. The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) provides grants to assist with increased speed enforcement measures. 1 SWOV Fact Sheet ‘The relation between speed and crashes’, April 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 44 Driving Under the Influence of Drugs or Alcohol: The SHSP reports that 32 percent of traffic‐related fatalities and severe injuries in California between 2012 and 2015 involved an impaired person. Within Amador and Alpine Counties between 2013 and 2017, 22.1 and 10.8 percent of traffic‐related fatalities and severe injuries involved DUI as the primary collision factor reported, respectively. Collisions involving DUI are not readily addressed using engineering countermeasures. Under HSIP, collisions involving DUI are not allowed to be considered in the calculation of the B/C ratio. The SHSP includes strategies to reduce DUI‐related collisions through a combination of enforcement and education measures with increased treatment programs for repeat or high‐ blood alcohol content offenders. As discussed in Table 6.2 below, the OTS provides grants to local law enforcement agencies for increased enforcement activities like high‐profile DUI checkpoints and officer training for roadside detection of impaired drivers. The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control offers grants to expand efforts for treatment of alcohol‐related problems. Commercial Vehicle Enforcement: The SHSP reports that 7 percent of traffic‐related fatalities and severe injuries in California between 2012 and 2015 involved commercial vehicles, which can include trucks and buses. Within Amador and Alpine Counties between 2013 and 2017, 0.1 and 3.1 percent of traffic‐ related fatalities and severe injuries involved commercial vehicles, respectively. Collisions involving commercial vehicles are exacerbated by the narrow and winding roadways typical throughout the counties. Achieving reduction in commercial vehicle collisions involves outreach to commercial vehicle industry stakeholders especially regarding any changes to commercial vehicle routes and regulations. Engineering measures like rumble strips and improved signage can further help reduce collisions. Emergency Medical Services Response: Emergency medical response in rural areas is a primary concern. Transporting a patient to an emergency/trauma center within the “golden hour” is a key measure of the ability of emergency responders to reduce fatalities. The SHSP reports that 37 percent of fatal collisions in rural areas are 30 or more miles from an emergency/trauma center; whereas, 8 percent of fatal collisions in urban areas are 30 or more miles from an emergency/trauma center. Additional outreach is needed with emergency responders in Amador and Alpine counties to study response times and document specific measures to improve response to crashes within the “golden hour”. One area that could be benefitted with measures included in this report is the ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 45 identification of ‘choke points’ or narrow roadway segments or bridges that can prevent large fire trucks and ambulances from responding to a fire or crash. The RSSA may be used to identify potential choke points throughout the counties. Table 6.2‐ Potential Funding Sources for Non‐Engineering Safety Measures Name Description Website California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control Grants Funds the expansion of efforts in addressing alcohol‐related problems. Abc.ca.gov Community Policing Development Program Funds the development of capacity of law enforcement to implement community policing strategies. Cops.usdoj.gov California Office of Traffic Safety Grants Funds efforts to reduce alcohol/drug impaired driving, safety, police traffic services and more. Ots.ca.gov Grant Assistance Program A resource for grant research, alerts, and application help. Policegrantshelp.com Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety: The percentage of collisions involving bicycles and pedestrians is relatively low throughout the counties. However, as the number of facilities available for walking and biking are increased, it is expected the number of collisions is expected to increase. Engineering countermeasures discussed in this SSAR, including road diets to add bike lanes and crosswalk upgrades, are good systematic improvements to reduce bike and pedestrian involved collisions. However, other measures that have been identified to add new facilities for walking and biking through Jackson, including sidewalk gap closures and other new facilities for walking and biking, will require funding sources other than HSIP. Table 6.3 provides potential funding sources for increased walking and biking facilities and well as education and encouragement measures that can help improve safety for all roadway users. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 46 Table 6.3‐ Funding Sources for Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety Improvements Name Description Website Federal Funding Transportation Alternatives (Under MAP‐21) Funds education and encouragement programming for pedestrians and bicyclists. Also includes streetscape projects such as sidewalks, paths, and trails. Fhwa.dot.gov Surface Transportation Program (Under MAP‐21) Funds road, bridge, transit, bicycle facilities, sidewalks, trails, crosswalks, and other facilities. Fhwa.dot.gov Pilot Transit‐Oriented Development Planning (Under MAP‐21) Funds projects that seek to facilitate multimodal connectivity and access to transit hubs for pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Transit.dot.gov Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) Funds the building of bicycle and pedestrian facilities that reduce automobile travel. Not to be used for purely recreational facilities. Fhwa.dot.gov Partnership for Sustainable Communities Funds bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure to decrease household transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign oil. Improve air quality and promote public health. Epa.gov Federal Transit Act Funds shelters and parking facilities for bicycles around mass transit facilities and installation of bike racks or other equipment for transporting bicycles on mass transportation vehicles. Transit.dot.gov Community Transformation Grants Funds active transportation infrastructure and programs that promotes a healthy lifestyle. Cdc.gov State Funding Active Transportation Program Funds infrastructure, education, encouragement, enforcement, and planning activities for increasing the safety and mobility of nonmotorized users. Dot.ca.gov State Highway Account Caltrans is required to set aside money for the construction of nonmotorized facilities that will be used in conjunction with the state highway system. Project approvals and funding depend on how much money is needed/requested. Dot.ca.gov Office of Traffic Safety Grants Grants can be used to establish new traffic safety programs or expand ongoing programs. Grants are not to be used for construction. Ots.ca.gov ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 47 7. VIABLE PROJECT SCOPES AND PRIORITIZED LIST OF SAFETY PROJECTS 7.1 Prioritized List of Safety Projects Based on the systemic and site‐specific safety analysis conducted and selection of safety countermeasures included in this SSAR, potential safety projects were evaluated for potential HSIP applications. Locations were identified for the implementation of each systemic countermeasure suggested which were then analyzed for cost effectiveness using the HSIP application process. This evaluation narrowed each countermeasure list down to only those that would produce the highest benefit. Project cost estimates were prepared and include both the construction costs and the project development and administration costs. Allowances were added to each potential project’s cost estimate including mobilization, contingency, construction management, engineering/design, environmental studies and documentation, and right of way acquisition, if needed. B/C ratios were calculated for each countermeasure using the HSIP Analyzer tool. Providing individual ratios and a group ratio for each countermeasure helps determine how projects should be combined for the greatest B/C ratio and HSIP potential. A summary of the top projects and their B/C ratios is provided in Table 7.1. The detailed cost estimate and B/C ratio calculations for each project that were not selected can be seen in Appendix E. Table 7.1‐ Viable HSIP Safety Projects Priority No. Project Name Location(s) B/C Ratio Estimated Project Cost Federal Funding Eligibility 1 Ridge Rd and Running Gold Rd Widening Ridge Rd and Running Gold Rd Intersection 3.61 $976,200 90% 2 Jackson Segment Lighting SR 49 through Jackson (Subject to Caltrans approval) 14.05 $199,300 100% 3A Amador County RSSA and Sign Upgrades Various locations throughout Amador County 76.56 $1,170200 100% 3B Amador Alpine State Route RSSA and Sign Upgrades State Routes throughout Amador and Alpine Counties (Subject to Caltrans approval) 218.4 $1,362,100 100% ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 48 4 Amador County Advance Intersection Flashing Beacons Unsignalized intersections in Amador County 25.9 $114,900 100% 5 Amador County Segment Lighting Martel and Drytown 5.9 $1,162,500 100% 6 High Friction Surface Treatment Latrobe Rd and Jackson Valley Rd 5.8 $481,100 100% 7 Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements Jackson, Ione, Plymouth and County Crossings N/A (Set Aside) $250K Max 100% 8 Guardrail Upgrades Stony Creek Rd and Shenandoah Rd N/A (Set Aside) $260,000 ($1M Max) 100% 7.2 Viable Project Scopes 1. Ridge Road and Running Gold Road Widening Ridge Road will be widened on both sides of Running Gold Road to add a left turn lane and an acceleration/merge lane. The construction estimate includes all the necessary items for roadway widening along with relocating utilities, signing, mailboxes, and tree removal. This project was high on the County’s priority list due to several comments and complaints from the community about the deficiencies at the intersection. Additional project information can be found in Appendix F. 2. RSSA and Sign Upgrades The RSSA projects have been separated out for Amador County roads and State Routes through Amador and Alpine Counties. A complete list of the roadways included in the RSSA can be seen in Figures 7.1 and 7.2 and in Appendix H. Any work on State Routes must be completed under a Caltrans Encroachment Permit. These projects have a particularly high B/C ratio because all the collisions on each segment are considered and the audit and sign upgrades are relatively inexpensive to complete. This project is the first step in upgrading roadway safety. If high collision rates persist after the upgrades, these roadways would then be eligible for more extensive upgrades through HSIP. The construction estimate, which can also be seen in Appendix F, assumes $1400 per miles for the RSSA and $2000 per mile for the construction (relocating, upgrading, removing signs). Mobilization and traffic control are also included. Engineering, construction management, and environmental fees are added in the HSIP application for the B/C calculation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 49 Depending on approval from Caltrans, there is potential option to conduct an RSSA on all State Routes throughout Amador and Alpine counties. Caltrans would then either use the recommendation provided through the RSSA to further analyze and program sign upgrades or allow the local agencies to complete the sign upgrades under a Caltrans Encroachment Permit. Figure 7.1‐ Amador County Roads and State Routes Included in the RSSA ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 50 Figure 7.2‐ Alpine County State Routes Included in the RSSA 3. Advance Intersection Flashing Beacons Solar Powered flashing beacons and intersection warning signs will be installed as advanced warning for the following non‐signalized intersections:  Latrobe Road and Old Sacramento Road  Jackson Valley Road and Buena Vista Road  Ridge Road and Running Gold Road The construction estimates include mobilization, traffic control, water control, and the installation of beacons and signs. Additional environmental, engineering, and construction management fees are included in the HSIP forms. Additional project information can be found in Appendix I. 4. Amador State Route Segment Lighting The benefit calculation for this countermeasure only considers collisions that occur at night, therefore, only specific sections of the focus segments could be considered for segment lighting. There were several nighttime collisions along SR 49 through Drytown. The length of the lighting ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 51 segment is approximately 1,075 feet from north of Spanish Street to south of China/Church Street. Lighting will also be installed along SR 88 through Martell. The lighting segment will be approximately 5,800 feet long from Wicklow Way to Kennedy Mine Road. Segment lighting maps can be seen in Appendix G. The construction estimate, which can be seen in Appendix J, assumes a 220’ spacing between lights. Mobilization and traffic control are also included. Engineering, construction management, and environmental fees are added in the HSIP application for the B/C calculation. 5. High Friction Surface Treatment High friction surface treatment will be applied to two high incident curves in Amador County. The first location is south of the city of Ione, along Jackson Valley Road approximately 0.4 miles south of SR 88. The high friction segment is approximately 1,325 feet long. The second location is approximately 2 miles south of the Amador County line, on Latrobe Road. The high friction segment is approximately 980’ long and extends along the Lorentz Road curve. Maps for the high friction surface treatment locations can be seen in Appendix K. While this countermeasure was also suggested for Alpine County, the B/C ratio was much lower due to the need to apply a double layer to be effective in snowy regions. This increased the construction cost estimate, which decreased the B/C ratio. The construction estimate assumes that the roadway will need to first be resurfaced before applying the high friction surface treatment. A grind and overlay is included along with new striping, mobilization, and traffic control. Engineering, construction management, and environmental fees are added in the HSIP application for the B/C calculation. 6. Pedestrian Crossing Enhancements The enhancement of existing pedestrian crossings includes the addition of high visibility striping, signage, flashing beacons, and modifying curb ramps to ADA standards, where applicable. Appendix L includes information on locations and estimates for this project. This countermeasure is considered a set‐aside and does not require a B/C ratio, however, there is a funding limit. HSIP will award a maximum $250K per agency. HSIP applications will need to be submitted separately for Plymouth, Jackson, Ione and Amador County to maximize the benefits of this countermeasure. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 52 To help determine the priority locations, it is suggested that the pedestrian crossings nearest schools be considered for upgrades first. Table 7.2 provides the crossings near schools for the Amador County, Jackson, Ione, and Plymouth projects. Appendix L provides a summary of all pedestrian crossings considered for these projects. Table 7.2‐ Suggested Pedestrian Crossing Priorities School Crossing Locations Project Cost City of Ione SR 104 and E Market St $97,500 City of Plymouth Main St and Locust St $73,000 City of Plymouth Sherwood St 200’ S of Main St $32,200 Amador County (Pioneer) SR 88 E of Pioneer Creek Rd $72,200 7. Guardrail Upgrades Field reviews provided three locations where existing guardrails were damaged, most likely from vehicle collisions. The first location is on Stoney Creek Road, crossing Jackson Creek. The project will consist of installing Midwest guardrail, flared ends, and relocating signs. The second location is on Stony Creek Road at the Pardee Reservoir Dam. Midwest guardrail, transition railing, and flared ends (or end caps) will be installed along with relocating signs. The third location is on Shenandoah Road, crossing the Cosumnes River in River Pines. Midwest guardrail, transition railing, flared ends (or end caps), and signs will be installed at this location. Additional project details can be found in Appendix M. Upgrading guardrails is considered a set aside project and does not require a B/C ratio. ---PAGE BREAK--- Systemic Safety Analysis Report Amador and Alpine Counties – September 2018 53 BIBLIOGRAPHY California, S. o. (2008). Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS). Retrieved January 2018, from the California Highway Patrol: http://iswitrs.chp.ca.gov/Reports/jsp/userLogin.jsp Caltrans, F. S. (2018). Local Roadway Safety Manual. California. SafeTREC, S.T. (2017). Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Retrieved January 2018, from University of California, Berkeley: Caltrans, (2014). 2014 Collision Data on California State Highways (Road Miles, Travel, Collisions, Collision Rates) Caltrans, (2017). Caltrans Supplemental Project Initiation Report‐ Project Report; EA:10‐1F740 Caltrans, (2011). Caltrans Guidelines for Selecting Materials and Standard Provisions for Traffic Striping and Pavement Marking Western Transportation Institute, (2010). Effective Deployment of Radar Speed Signs Amador County, (2018). About the County. Retrieved March 2018 from http://www.amadorgov.org/about/about‐the‐county Alpine County, (2018). Discover Alpine County. Retrieved March 2018 from United States Census Bureau, (2018). Quick Facts Amador County, California. Retrieved March 2018 from United States Census Bureau, (2018). Quick Facts Alpine County, California. Retrieved March 2018 from