2021-10-19_9a LRSPMEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: BRIAN PEDROTTI, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
BY: ROBIN DICKERSON, PE, CITY ENGINEER
SUBJECT: PROJECT UPDATE OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)
D ATE: OCTOBER 19, 2021
SUMMARY OF ACTION:
Consideration of a project update to the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) to the City
Council will allow the City to continue to be eligible for Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) Funding, which requires an approved LRSP starting with Cycle 11 in
2022. The LRSP also identifies the top intersections and segments based on relative
severity and provides a list of improvement projects and strategies to meet the goals of
the Plan.
IMPACT ON FINANCIAL AND PERSONNEL RESOURCES:
Consideration of the project update will not impact financial or personnel resources.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended the Planning Commission receive the project update and provide input
on the LRSP to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
In 2019 Caltrans announced that starting in April 2022, applications for Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 11 funds will require a Local Road Safety Plan
(LRSP). In October 2019 the City Council authorized the City’s consultant, GHD to
prepare an LRSP.
In November 2019, a Stakeholders Working Group was established as part of the LRSP
process. From December 2019 to April 2021 four meetings were held with the
Stakeholders Working Group to formulate and finalize the LRSP.
In May 2021 the City of Arroyo Grande completed the Systemic Safety Analysis Report
(SSAR) with the assistance of a specialized consultant (GHD) (Attachment 1). The SSAR
is a proactive safety approach that focuses on evaluating an entire roadway network using
a defined set of criteria. The SSAR analyzes crash history on an aggregate basis to
identify high-risk roadway characteristics, rather than looking at high-collision
concentration locations through site analysis. The goal of the SSAR is to assist local
Item 9.a - Page 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT UPDATE AND APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
OCTOBER 19, 2021
PAGE 2
agencies to identify safety projects to submit for Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) funding consideration.
In September 2021 the LRSP was completed and is being presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration and suggested input to the Council.
ANALYSIS OF ISSUES:
The HSIP is a Federal-aid program that incorporates a data-driven, strategic approach to
improving highway safety that focuses on performance. The California’s Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) provides a strategic direction for the State's safety
investment decisions, and the HSIP supports and finances projects specifically targeting
roadway and intersection locations by identifying and implementing countermeasures to
improve the safety of the roadways. In 2019 Caltrans notified local agencies that the
starting in 2022 (Cycle 11), an approved LRSP will be required with all future HSIP
applications.
The LRSP utilizes a Vision Zero approach which is significantly different from the
traditional approach. Vision Zero is a strategy which strives to eliminate all traffic fatalities
and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all.
Traditionally, traffic fatalities and severe injuries have been considered inevitable side
effects of modern life. The reality is that these tragedies can be addressed over time by
taking a proactive, preventative approach that prioritizes traffic safety as a public health
issue. Figure 1 below provides a comparison of the traditional approach versus the Vision
Zero approach.
Figure 1 Traditional Approach vs. Vision Zero Approach
TRADITIONAL APPROACH VISION ZERO APPROACH
Traffic deaths are INEVITABLE Traffic deaths are PREVENTABLE
PERFECT human behavior Integrated HUMAN FAILING
Prevent COLLISIONS Prevent FATAL AND SEVERE
COLLISIONS
INDIVIDUAL responsibility SYSTEMS approach
Saving lives is EXPENSIVE Saving lives is NOT EXPENSIVE
The LRSP development process is broken down into six steps. The 6 steps are: 1)
establishment of a Stakeholders Working Group, 2) analysis of safety data, 3) determine
challenge/emphasis areas, 4) identify strategies, 5) prioritize and incorporate strategies,
and 6) evaluate and update the plan. These strategies are further discussed below.
Item 9.a - Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT UPDATE AND APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
OCTOBER 19, 2021
PAGE 3
Stakeholders Working Group
The LRSP is a data-driven process similar to the SSAR, except the LRSP includes a local
Stakeholders Working Group that represents the 5E’s (Engineering, Enforcement,
Education, Emergency Response and Emerging Technologies) to guide and develop the
LRSP. The Stakeholders Working Group included staff representatives from Arroyo
Grande Community Development, Police, and Public Works Departments; Five Cities Fire
Authority, San Luis Obispo County, City of Grover Beach, City of Pismo Beach, Caltrans
District 5, Lucia Mar Unified School District, San Luis Obispo Bike Club, and Bike SLO
County. Preparing the LRSP facilitates local agency partnerships and collaboration,
resulting in a prioritized list of improvements that contribute to the California’s SHSP
overall vision and goals. This SHSP focuses on reducing fatal and severe injury collisions
with focused challenger/emphasis areas. The LRSP is a collaborative process that builds
on the collision analysis from the SSAR with a local Stakeholders Working Group and
guides the formation of the plan.
The holistic approach of engaging stakeholders and the community in the development
of the LRSP allows certain areas of concern without a crash pattern to be analyzed. It
also fosters, local, state, and agency partnerships to advance local road safety.
The LRSP, through collaboration with the stakeholders working group, includes 12 goals
and an established process for measuring the success of each goal. The 12 goals are
as follows:
1. Reduce the potential for fatal and severe injury collisions Citywide.
2. Reduce the potential for rear-end collisions Citywide.
3. Reduce the potential for bicycle and pedestrian collisions Citywide.
4. Improve the health and vitality of our community with a safety plan that
encourages safety for pedestrians and bicyclists that is targeted to Arroyo
Grande’s local roadway needs.
5. Improve safety around schools with a connected multimodal system and
improved crossings.
6. Increase walking, biking, and rolling (wheelchairs, skateboards, scooters,
etc.) to the downtown district, to work, and to school.
7. Improve safety at uncontrolled intersection.
8. Increase driver and pedestrian education.
9. Reduce distractive driving.
10. Improve bicycle safety with additional bikeways and green bike lanes for
vehicle to bicycle conflict areas.
11. Increase traffic enforcement.
12. Receive grant funding for LRSP identified projects.
Analysis of Safety Data
Focusing on the roadway safety needs, the Stakeholders Working Group evaluated
collision data available in the SSAR from 2014 to 2018, and then included an additional
two years of data from 2019 to 2020. From 2014 to 2020 there were a total of 276
Item 9.a - Page 3
PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT UPDATE AND APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
OCTOBER 19, 2021
PAGE 4
collisions including 5 fatalities and 18 severe injuries. Broadside collisions were the most
common type of collision (accounting for 84 collisions) followed by rear end collisions at
76 collisions. The top violation category was unsafe speed accounting for 59 collisions,
followed by automobile right of way at 51 collisions. Based on the collision data the top
locations and segments have been identified.
Challenges/Emphasis Areas
The next step in the LRSP process was to determine the challenge or emphasis areas.
The California SHSP identifies 16 challenge/emphasis areas for development of the
LRSP. Based on the LRSP Stakeholders Working Group recommendations, the LRSP
will focus on multiple SHSP challenge areas, including but not limited to bicyclists,
intersections, pedestrians, distracted driving, aggressive driving/speeding, emerging
technologies, and emergency response.
Due to the challenges of COVID over the past two years, public outreach was provided
using a Social Pinpoint website in lieu of traditional outreach. Comments pertaining to
speeding, pedestrian improvements, and bicycle improvements were received from the
interactive map, and detailed results can be found in Appendix A of Exhibit A of
Attachment 1 of the LRSP.
Strategies, Prioritization and Incorporation
Based on the collision data, input from the Stakeholders Working Group, and public input
from the Social Pinpoint website, a list of improvement projects was developed, prioritized
and incorporated into the plan. The Engineering Strategies for the plan include
pedestrian improvements at signalized intersection, non-pedestrian improvements at
signalized intersections, pedestrian improvements at uncontrolled locations, bike lane
improvements along segments, road diet, signage improvements, curve related
improvements, striping and pavement marking improvements and speed management.
A full list of improvements and locations can be found in the LRSP. (See Exhibit A of
Attachment 1.)
To complete the remaining 4 E’s, the following strategies are incorporated into the plan.
Education Strategies include various education campaigns targeting pedestrians, drivers,
bicyclists and students. Emerging technologies include bicycle and video detection, use
of changeable message signs, the use of a data collector for speed and traffic volumes
and updating older technologies. Enforcement includes the addition of the full time
motorcycle officer and part time motorcycle officer, targeted speed enforcement, and DUI
saturation patrols. The final strategy, Emergency Response, includes smart phone apps
designed to empower everyday citizens to save a life.
Letters of support from both Caltrans – District 5 and Lucia Mar Unified School District
have been received and are incorporated into Appendix A of Exhibit A of Attachment 1.
Item 9.a - Page 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT UPDATE AND APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
OCTOBER 19, 2021
PAGE 5
Implementation, Evaluation and Update
In evaluating how to implement safety projects, a prioritized list of projects has been
developed and can be found in Appendix C of Exhibit A of Attachment 1. Staff will look
for opportunities to incorporate safety enhancements with the Capital Improvement
Program. Obtaining funding for these projects will be the key to implementation.
Additional funding opportunities can come through grant funding including but not limited
to HSIP, Active Transportation Program (ATP), Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
(CMAQ), Safe Routes to Schools, and Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants (also
known as Sustainable Communities).
To evaluate the success of the plan, yearly collision analysis and requested feedback will
need to be compared to the established goals. The goals shall be updated and modified
based on future data and feedback. The LRSP is a living document and will guide the
City’s roadway safety needs for the next five years.
Council approval of the LRSP will allow staff to seek funding and implement improvement
projects and strategies identified in the plan, and assist in achieving the goals as stated
above.
ADVANTAGES:
The LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze local safety
problems and recommended safety Improvements for future HSIP funding and other
available funding sources. The LRSP also provides the City with a prioritized list of
improvements, strategies, and actions that contribute to the California’s SHSP overall
visions and goals. Implementing the improvement projects and strategies identified in the
LRSP will allow the City to achieve the goals set forth in the plan.
DISADVANTAGES:
Funding sources will be needed for the implementation of the improvements and actions.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
The SSAR and LRSP do not require environmental review. In compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is categorically exempt per
section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines, which states that where it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility of a significant effect on the environment, an activity
is not subject to CEQA. Each project completed will evaluate environmental impacts on
a project-by-project basis. The individual projects developed from the SSAR and LRSP
will include the necessary environmental reviews and studies.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND COMMENTS:
The Agenda was posted at City Hall and on the City’s website in accordance with
Government Code Section 54954.2. At the time of report publication, no comments have
been received.
Item 9.a - Page 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT UPDATE AND APPROVAL OF THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
(LRSP)
OCTOBER 19, 2021
PAGE 6
Attachments:
1. Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR
2. Local Road Safety Plan with appendices
Item 9.a - Page 6
Arroyo Grande | 11144936 | 2205 | R19890001| March 2021
Systemic Safety Analysis
Report (SSAR)
City of Arroyo Grande
Final Report
ATTACHMENT 1
Item 9.a - Page 7
REPORT SIGNATURE SHEET
This Systemic Safety Analysis Report has been prepared under the direction of the following
Professional Engineer. The Registered Civil Engineer attests to the technical information
contained herein and the engineering data upon which recommendations, conclusions, and
decisions are based.
Jay D. Walter, PE
Registered Civil Engineer
March 24, 2021
Date
Prepared by Kathryn Savoy Kleinschmidt, Professional Traffic Operations Engineer (PTOE),
Certificate # 3871.
03/31/23
C41227
Jay D. Walter
Item 9.a - Page 8
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page i
Executive Summary
Arroyo Grande was awarded funding from Caltrans for the Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program
(SSARP) in 2016 for analysis of the entire roadway system for high-risk roadway characteristics.
Furthermore, the City of Arroyo Grande’s goal was to identify infrastructure improvement
countermeasures that mitigate the City’s primary crash type trend which includes rear-ends,
sideswipes, pedestrian/bicycle, and broadsides.
Based on the City’s SSARP application, this SSAR addresses three (3) Strategic Highway Safety
Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas including:
1. Intersections, Interchanges, and Other Roadway Access
2. Pedestrians
3. Bicycling
Based on our analysis, the following projects (Exhibit 1) are recommended for the focused study
locations. All have a benefit to cost ratio of 4 or higher and would be competitive for the next Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Cycle 10 call for projects that is tentatively set for the end of
April 2020. In addition, all countermeasures are low cost and could be applied systemically.
Item 9.a - Page 9
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page ii
Exhibit 1 Recommended HSIP Projects
Item 9.a - Page 10
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page iii
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Study Locations ................................................................................................................. 2
2. Safety Assessment ....................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Collision Analysis ............................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Roadway Segments ......................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Intersections ..................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions with Vehicles ................................................................ 8
3. Prioritization ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.1 EPDO Crash Methodology............................................................................................... 12
3.2 EPDO Ranking Results .................................................................................................... 12
3.1 Crash Rate Methodology ................................................................................................. 13
3.2 Crash Rate Ranking ......................................................................................................... 13
3.3 Focused Analysis – Identify Locations ............................................................................. 16
4. Safety Data Analysis .................................................................................................................. 16
4.1 Collision Diagnosis ........................................................................................................... 16
4.2 Quantitative Analysis ....................................................................................................... 17
4.3 Qualitative Analysis .......................................................................................................... 20
5. Safety Countermeasures ........................................................................................................... 22
5.1 Roadway Segments – Safety Countermeasures ............................................................. 24
5.1.1 Recommended Roadway Countermeasures ................................................. 24
5.1 Intersections – Safety Countermeasures ......................................................................... 26
6. HSIP Application ........................................................................................................................ 28
7. Next Steps – Local Road Safety Plan ........................................................................................ 29
8. Conclusions ................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure Index
Figure 2.1 Citywide Collisions Density Map (2014-2018) ................................................................... 3
Figure 2.2 Fatal and Injury Collision Density Map (2014-2018) ......................................................... 4
Figure 2.3 Roadway Segments – Overall Collision Severity .............................................................. 5
Item 9.a - Page 11
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page iv
Figure 2.4 Roadway Segments – Overall Collision Type ................................................................... 6
Figure 2.5 Intersections – Overall Collision Severity .......................................................................... 7
Figure 2.6 Intersections – Overall Collision Type ............................................................................... 8
Figure 2.7 Pedestrian Collisions ....................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.8 Bicycle Collisions ............................................................................................................. 11
Figure 3.1 Top 10 Ranking Locations – EPDO and Crash Rate ...................................................... 15
Figure 5.1 FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures ......................................................................... 24
Figure 7.1 Traffic Safety E’s ............................................................................................................. 30
Table Index
Table 3.1 Comprehensive Costs and EPDO Weights (2018 dollars) .............................................. 12
Table 4.1 Selected Roadway Locations for Further Analysis .......................................................... 18
Table 4.2 Selected Intersection Locations for Further Analysis ...................................................... 19
Table 5.1 Roadway Segments Safety Countermeasures ............................................................... 25
Table 5.2 Intersection Safety Countermeasures ............................................................................. 27
Table 6.1 Recommended HSIP Projects ......................................................................................... 31
Table 6.2 Recommended Systematic HSIP Projects ...................................................................... 32
Appendix Index
Appendix A Collision Maps
Appendix B Traffic Analysis and Collision Analysis
Appendix C Field Reconnaissance
Appendix D HSIP Analyzer Worksheets
Appendix E HSIP Cycle 10 Plans
Item 9.a - Page 12
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 1
1. Introduction
The Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program’s (SSARP) objective is to perform a collision analysis
based on a focused approach in identifying safety issues and develop a possible list of low-cost
countermeasures that can be competitive for future Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
funding. Since the focus was citywide, specific study locations were not identified.
The four objectives in performing the systemic safety analysis were as follows:
1. Identify Focus Crash Types and Risk Factors;
2. Screen and Prioritize Candidate Locations;
3. Select Potential Low-Cost Countermeasures; and
4. Prioritize Projects per Benefit-Cost Ratios
This analysis included the evaluation of the past 5 years (2014-2018) of collisions for the study
locations in identifying fatal and severe injury collisions (F+SI), high-risk roadway characteristics, and
high crash rate locations. In addition, the SSARP application included the expected scope of work
and focused challenge areas desired to accomplish this task.
Per the SSARP application, the scope of work was as follows:
Perform an analysis of the entire roadway system to identify high-risk roadway characteristics
as opposed to analyzing high collision area. It was further stated that the City of Arroyo Grande
was not experiencing high collision concentrations at specific locations due to having lower
volumes on the roadway network.
Use crash data obtained by Arroyo Grande Police Department and map to identify high risk
locations and characteristics.
Identify infrastructure improvement countermeasures that mitigate the City’s primary crash type
trends which include rear-ends, sideswipes, pedestrian/bicycle, and broadsides.
In addition, the identified three focus challenge areas were as follows:
1. Intersections, Interchanges, and Other Roadway Access
2. Pedestrians
3. Bicycling
The focused challenge areas were used to further analyze the collisions in evaluating possible
systemic low-cost countermeasures.
Item 9.a - Page 13
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 2
1.1 Study Locations
The SSAR evaluated the roadway network citywide in identifying roadway segments and intersections
for a focused analysis. The roadway segments and intersections are further defined below. Due to it
being a citywide analysis, there were too many segments and intersections to list.
The roadway segments between intersections with collisions were evaluated and then ranked.
Intersection were defined as 150’ on each leg. Even though at some locations the influence area
might be more or less, the 150’ appeared to be the average length for the majority of intersections.
Collision density maps were first created in identifying the high frequency locations within the city
and then further collision maps were made to include the collision severity and type.
2. Safety Assessment
The past five complete years of collision data (2014-2018) was downloaded from the Statewide
Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) database for the study locations. This data was then
cross checked with the injury collisions in the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) and the
City of Arroyo Grande’s collision database. The collisions were then all cross-check and reconciled
in completing the most complete set of collision data. In addition, supplemental reports were
examined to see if any collisions were upgraded to a fatality after the initial collision record (per
California’s Collision Investigation Manual a fatal injury is “death as a result of injuries sustained in a
collision, or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of a collision”). After completing this process;
the collisions were assessed based on high risk, crash frequency, and focused challenge areas.
2.1 Collision Analysis
Collision analysis was performed for all roadways in the City of Arroyo Grande without including the
US 101 mainline collisions. In addition, the collisions for the US 101 interchanges were evaluated
separately. As presented in Figure 2.1, the collision density for the citywide collisions for the past 5
years (2014-2018) without the US 101 interchange collisions were mapped in identifying the high
risk segments and intersections. Per the collision density map you start to identify roadway
segments and intersections with higher collision frequency along: E. Grand Avenue, E. Branch
Street, W. Branch Street, Fair Oaks Avenue, Halcyon Road, and El Camino Real.
In delving into the fatal and injury collisions, another crash density map was created with only the
fatal and injury collision. As presented in Figure 2.2 is the density map for the fatal and injury
collisions. There were three (3) fatal collisions. Two fatalities involved pedestrians crossing at a mid-
block location (across E. Branch Street at Short Street in 2017 and across Grand Avenue at Bell
Street in 2018) and one fatality was a single vehicle collision on El Camino Real (the collision notes
cited DUI) in 2018.
Item 9.a - Page 14
£¤101US
£¤101US
FIGURE 2.1
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Project No.Revision No.-11144936
Date 04/17/2020
City of Arroyo Grande
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B o
O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\ALL_Density.mxdPrint date: 16 Apr 2020 - 12:13
Collision Density
·|}þ1
E Grand Ave
Data Disclaimer:Location of crashes are for visual representation only.Kernel density representation shows density of points within150 square feet (radius) of 10 unit raster cell.Collisions on US 101 are not visualized Data source: transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2014-2018, Statewide Intergrated traffic Records System (SWIRTS), The California Highway Patrol, 2014-2018Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanN Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
W Bra
n
c
h
S
t Corbett Canyon RdJames
W
a
y
Valley RdE Branch StCollisionDensity
Low
High
City of ArroyoGrande Limit
Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR)
Item 9.a - Page 15
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!#
#
#
£¤101US
£¤101US
FIGURE 2.2
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Project No.Revision No.-11144936
Date 04/17/2020
City of Arroyo Grande
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B o
O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\ALL_FSI.mxdPrint date: 16 Apr 2020 - 11:58
Fatal and Injury Collisions
·|}þ1
E Grand Ave
Data Disclaimer:Location of crashes are for visual representation only.Kernel density representation shows density of points within250 square feet (radius) of 10 unit raster cell.Collisions on US 101 are not visulaized.
Data source: transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2014-2018, Statewide Intergrated traffic Records System (SWIRTS), The California Highway Patrol, 2014-2018Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanN Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
W Bra
n
c
h
S
t Corbett Canyon RdJames
W
a
y
Valley RdE Branch St#Fatal
!Injury
City of ArroyoGrande Limit
Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR)
Item 9.a - Page 16
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 5
In the further diagnosis of the overall citywide collisions, refined analysis was performed on the
roadway segments, intersections, pedestrian collisions, and bicycle collisions. The quantification of
these collisions is shown by section below. In addition, further visual representation of the collisions
via ArcGIS maps are located in Appendix A: Collision Maps.
2.1.1 Roadway Segments
In evaluating the citywide roadway segments, the past 5 years of collision data was evaluated on
roadways with the intersection related collisions removed. As presented in Figure 2.3, the majority
of collisions are property damage only (PDO) at 87.4%. With injury related collisions, comprising of
the remaining 12.7%. There was one single vehicle fatal collision and four severe injury (SI)
collisions.
Figure 2.3 Roadway Segments – Overall Collision Severity
As presented in Figure 2.4, the overall collision types for all roadway segments is shown as a
percentage of the total. Rear end and other/unknown collisions were the most common collisions at
24% each, followed by sideswipe collisions at 17%. Rear end collisions are typical when there is
speed differential, congestion, and vehicles turning in the through lanes. The other/unknown
collisions can be collisions where the type was not recorded or the type of collision didn’t fit the
categories per the California Highway Patrol reporting manual. Sideswipe collisions can be due to
improper lane change, lane departure, or insufficient lane delineation.
0.2%0.7%
5.3%
6.4%
87.4%
Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visibile
InjuryComplaint of
Pain
PDO
Item 9.a - Page 17
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 6
Figure 2.4 Roadway Segments – Overall Collision Type
In evaluating the top five (5) roadway segment violation categories they were as follows:
1. Unknown (58%)
2. Unsafe Speed (10%)
3. Improper Turning (8%)
4. Auto Right of Way (7%)
5. Driving Under the Influence (DUI)/ Biking Under the Influence (BUI) (5%)
The majority of “unknown” violation category is due to the City collisions that didn’t have overlap
with SWITRS. These additional collisions received from the City’s Collision Database had limited
fields and information and were mostly PDO collisions. The next top roadway violation categories
were close in percentage with unsafe speed (10%), improper turning (8%), and auto right of way
violations (7%). DUI/BUI violations comprised on 5% of the overall roadway collisions.
4%
17%
24%
13%
16%
1%
1%
24%
Head On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/ Unknown
Item 9.a - Page 18
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 7
2.1.2 Intersections
Figure 2.5 presents the overall collision severity for the intersections, citywide. There were 2
fatalities (pedestrian and vehicle collisions) and 7 severe injury collisions. In evaluating the
collisions for the past 5 years, the majority of collisions comprised of PDOs at 84.8% with 15.2%
injury collisions.
Figure 2.5 Intersections – Overall Collision Severity
Figure 2.6 displays the citywide collision types for the intersections as a percentage of the total.
The top five collision types and overall percentage are as follows:
1. Rear End (26%)
2. Sideswipe (20%)
3. Broadside (21%)
4. Hit Object (13%)
5. Other (13%)
Read end collisions are typically caused with the speed differential and traffic control changes.
Sideswipe collisions at an intersection can be due to intersection lane changes or offset lanes
through an intersection. Broadside are typically caused by turning vehicles not yielding the right of
way and hit object collision can be due to objects within the clear zone.
0.2%0.7%
5.5%
8.8%
84.8%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visibile
Injury
Complaint of
Pain
PDO
Item 9.a - Page 19
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 8
Figure 2.6 Intersections – Overall Collision Type
In evaluating the top five violation categories for intersection collisions, the following percentages
were derived as follows:
1. Unknown (31%)
2. Improper Turning (14%)
3. Auto R/W (14%)
4. Unsafe Speed (13%)
5. DUI/ BUI (6%)
In comparing the roadway segments and intersection violation categories, they both have the same
top five categories with similar percentages. For the citywide intersections, unknown was the
majority with 31%, followed by improper turning and auto R/W collisions at 14% each, unsafe speed
13%, and DUI/ BUI at 6 %.
2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions with Vehicles
Per the SSARP grant, pedestrian and bicycle collisions with vehicles were a focus challenge area.
In evaluating these collisions types, the severity of collisions was quantified by roadway segment
collisions and intersection relation collisions. As presented in Tables 2.1 and 2.2, the pedestrian
and bicycle collisions are quantified by severity for roadway segments and intersections,
respectively. There were significantly more pedestrian and bicycle collisions at the intersections
5%
20%
26%21%
13%
1%
2%13%
Head On
Sideswipe
Rear End
Broadside
Hit Object
Overturned
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Other/ Unknown
Item 9.a - Page 20
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 9
than the segments. This most likely due to the increase in pedestrian and bicycle conflict points with
vehicles at intersections.
Table 2.1 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collision at Roadway Segments
Pedestrian Involved Bicycle Involved
Fatal 0 0
Severe Injury 0 0
Other Visible Injury 2 4
Complaint of Pain 2 2
PDO 1 1
Total Collisions 5 7
Table 2.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions at Intersections
Pedestrian Involved Bicycle Involved
Fatal 2 0
Severe Injury 1 1
Other Visible Injury 10 11
Complaint of Pain 7 5
PDO 5 4
Total Collisions 25 21
To provide a visual representation of the location of pedestrian and bicycle collision in the City,
figures are presented below. Figure 2.7 and 2.8 show the pedestrian and bicycles collisions,
respectively, with the severity and time of day (day or night).
Item 9.a - Page 21
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ùù
¬ù ¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
¬ù
¬
¬
ù
ù
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬¬
¬
¬
¬
ù
ù
ù
ù
ù
ùù
ù
ù
ù
¬¬ù ù
¬ù¬ù
¬ù
£¤101US
£¤101US
FIGURE 2.7
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Project No.Revision No.-11144936
Date 04/17/2020
City of Arroyo Grande
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B o
O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\ALL_ped1 - Copy.mxdPrint date: 17 Apr 2020 - 10:23
Pedestrian Collision
ù Day
ù Night Severity
¾Fatal
¾Injury (Severe)
¾Injury (Other Visible)
¾Injury (Complaint of Pain)
¾Property Damage Only
City of Arroyo Grande Limit
Pedestrian Collisions
·|}þ1 E Branch StAsh St
Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR)
Data source: transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2014-2018, Statewide Intergrated traffic Records System (SWIRTS), The California Highway Patrol, 2014-2018Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahman
Data Disclaimer:Location of crashes are for visual representation only.Collisions on US 101 are not visualized
Item 9.a - Page 22
¬
¬
¬
¬
l
l
l
l
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
l l
l
l
l
l
l
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
¬
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
¬l
£¤101US
£¤101US
FIGURE 2.8
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
Miles
Project No.Revision No.-11144936
Date 04/17/2020
City of Arroyo Grande
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B o
O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\ALL_bike.mxdPrint date: 17 Apr 2020 - 10:32
Bike Collision
¬l Day
l Night
Severity
¾Fatal
¾Injury (Severe)
¾Injury (Other Visible)
¾Injury (Complaint of Pain)
¾Property Damage Only
City of Arroyo Grande Limit
Bicycle Collisions
·|}þ1
E Grand Ave
N Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
W Bra
n
c
h
S
t Corbett Canyon RdJames
W
a
y
Valley RdS Elm StAsh St E Branch StSystamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR)
Data Disclaimer:Location of crashes are for visual representation only.Collisions on US 101 are not visualized.Data source: transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) 2014-2018, Statewide Intergrated traffic Records System (SWIRTS), The California Highway Patrol, 2014-2018Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanItem 9.a - Page 23
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 12
3. Prioritization
Per the past five years of collision analysis, the overall ranking and prioritization of collision
locations was quantified by recommended methodologies in AASHTO’s, Highway Safety Manual
2010 with 2014 Supplement (HSM). These methodologies included Equivalent Property Damage
Only (EPDO) method and crash rates. Per the ranking methodologies, the top roadway segments
and intersections were identified by EPDO and crash rate ranking.
3.1 EPDO Crash Methodology
The Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) average crash ranking methodology was used for
this study. The EPDO method assigns weighting factors to collisions by severity to develop a
combined frequency and severity score per site. The weighting factors are calculated relative to
Property Damage Only (PDO) collision cost. Collision costs include both direct and indirect costs.
Direct crash costs include ambulance service, police and fire s ervices, property damage, insurance,
and other costs directly related to the crashes. Indirect collision costs account for the value society
would place on pain and suffering or loss of life associated with the crash. Table 3.1 provides a
summary of the comprehensive costs and weighting assigned to collisions by severity.
Table 3.1 Comprehensive Costs and EPDO Weights (2018 dollars)
Severity Comprehensive
Costs EPDO Weight
Fatal (K) $6,418,400 544
Severe Injury (A) $345,800 30
Minor Injury (B) $126,500 11
Non-Visible Injury (C) $71,900 6
PDO (O) $11,800 1
Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual, 2010, Adjusted to 2018 dollars.
In evaluating the citywide locations with collisions, EPDO Ranking was performed for roadway
segments and intersections. Section 3.2 presents the top five locations for roadway segments and
intersections and corresponding collisions. El Camino Real from Oak Park Boulevard to Brisco
Road was the top ranked segment and E. Branch Street at Short Street was the top ranked
intersection.
3.2 EPDO Ranking Results
Top 5 Roadway Segment Locations:
1. El Camino Real – Oak Park Boulevard to Brisco Road (EPDO 594)
• 12 total, 1 fatal single vehicle collision and 1-severe injury (SI) collision
2. E. Grand Avenue – Courtland to Elm (EPDO 110)
Item 9.a - Page 24
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 13
• 50 total, 6 injury and 44 PDOs (2 pedestrian collisions and 1 bicycle collision)
3. Halcyon – Fair Oaks to Grand Avenue (EPDO 65)
• 30 total, 6 injury and 24 PDOs
4. Fair Oaks – Halcyon to Valley Road (EPDO 60)
• 15 total, 7 injury collisions and 8 PDOs, 1 bicycle collision
5. W. Branch – Brisco to Camino Mercado / US 101 ramps (EPDO 57)
• 27 total, 5 injury collisions and 22 PDOs
Top 5 Intersection Locations:
1. E. Branch Street at Short Street (EPDO 581)
• 8 total, 2 pedestrians collisions (one fatal) and 3 visible injury collisions
2. E. Grand Avenue and Bell Street (EPDO 557)
• 14 total, one fatal pedestrian collision and 13 PDO
3. E. Grand Avenue and Courtland Street (EPDO 133)
• 34 total,10 injury collisions (1-SI), 2 pedestrian and 2 bicycle collisions
4. El Camino Real and N. Oak Park Boulevard (EPDO 91)
• 32 total, 5 injury (1-SI), 1 bicycle collision
5. The Pike and S. Halcyon Road (EPDO 82)
• 18 total, 6 injury collisions (1-SI), 12 PDO
3.1 Crash Rate Methodology
In further ranking of the citywide locations, crash rates were calculated for the roadway segments
and the intersections. In calculating the crash rates, Average Daily Traffic (ADT) data was collected
in the field by a subcontractor on the week of November 11, 2019 on a typical weekday, when schools
were in session. Further information on traffic counts and crash rate calculations are located in
Appendix B: Traffic Analysis and Collision Analysis.
Segment crash rates are calculated as the number of crashes that occur at on a given segment during
a specified time period, divided by a measure of exposure for that same period. This accounts for
the segment length and the Average Daily Traffic (AADT) on the segment normalized to one million
miles of travel, commonly referred to as Million Vehicle Miles (MVM) of travel.
Intersection crash rates are calculated by the total crashes at the intersection during a specific time
period, divided by a measure of exposure for that same period. Intersections make use of a similar
scaling factor, Million Entering Vehicles (MEV), which accounts for the total number of vehicles
entering the intersection and is also normalized to one million vehicles.
Per the crash rate ranking, Section 3.2 show the top five locations for roadway segments and
intersections. Bridge Street from Traffic Way to E. Branch Street was the ranked top segment and
Traffic Way at Allen Street was the top ranked intersection.
3.2 Crash Rate Ranking
Per the crash rate methodology, the top five segments and intersections were ranked.
Item 9.a - Page 25
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 14
Top 5 Segment Locations:
1. Bridge Street – Traffic Way to E. Branch Street
2. Camino Mercado – W. Branch Street to Rancho Parkway
3. Allen Street – Traffic Way to Pacific Coast Railway Place
4. W. Branch Street – Brisco to E. Branch Street
5. Rancho Parkway – W. Branch to Via Vaquero
Top 5 Intersection Locations:
1. Traffic Way and Allen Street
2. Valley Road and AGHS Parking/ Castillo Del Mar
3. W. Branch Street and Brisco Road
4. E. Branch Street and Bridge Street
5. E. Grand Avenue and S. Elm Street
For ease, Figure 3.1, is a visual representation of the top ten ranking EPDO and crash rate locations.
Item 9.a - Page 26
£¤101US
EPDO RANK 2 EPDO RAN
K
8
EPDO RANK 3EPDO RANK 4 CRASH RATE RANK 6EPDO RANK 6 CRASH RATE RANK 10EPDO RANK 7
E
P
D
O
R
A
N
K
1
0
C
R
A
S
H
R
A
T
E
R
A
N
K
1 CRASH RATE RANK 3CRASH RATE RANK 2
CRA
S
H
R
A
T
E
R
A
N
K
8
CRASH RA
T
E
R
A
N
K
9 CRASH RATE RANK 5 CRASH RATE RANK 7
CRASH
R
A
T
E
R
A
N
K
4
EPD
O
R
A
N
K
1
EPD
O
R
A
N
K
5 EPDO RANK 92
1
8
4
9
5
6
3 7
10
2
1
8
3
10
FIGURE 3.1
0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36
Miles
Project No.Revision No.-Date 04/17/2020
City of Arroyo Grande
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B o
O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\Top 10.mxdPrint date: 16 Apr 2020 - 12:23
Top 10 Ranked Segment & Intersections
·|}þ1
E Grand Ave
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanN Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
W Bra
n
c
h
S
t Corbett Canyon RdJames
W
a
y
Valley RdE Branch StTop 10 Intersectionby EPDO
Top 10 Intersectionby Crash Rate
Top 10 Segmentby EPDO
Top 10 Segmentby Crash Rate
S Elm StAsh St
Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR)
11144936
7
4
6
#
#
59
Item 9.a - Page 27
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 16
3.3 Focused Analysis – Identify Locations
After assessing the collision data and through coordination with the City of Arroyo Grande and the
Local Road Safety Plan Working Group, the roadways segments and intersections were identified
for further analysis due to recent improvements or future improvements. These locations are as
follows:
Traffic Way and Allen Street (Ranked 1 Crash Rate) was quantified before the traffic signal
at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks was installed in 2019. Further analysis will be conducted in
the Local Road Safety Plan.
Valley Road and Castillo Del Mar (Ranked 2 Crash Rate) will have new perpendicular
alignment with Valley Road. This improvement will remove the current skewed intersection
and requires additional land which is already purchased. Construction tentatively starts in in
late spring 2021.
The Pike and Halcyon Road (Ranked 5 EPDO, Ranked 6 Crash Rate) is now an all way
stop control (AWSC). It was converted to an AWSC in 2019 and therefore this change is not
reflected in the collision analysis. A before and after study will need to be conducted to see
if the safety issues were remediated with AWSC.
Bridge Street from Traffic Way to E. Branch Street – (Ranked 10 EPDO) does have an
improvement project from the bridge but due to the two access points on Traffic Way (one for two-
way traffic and one access for the mailboxes) this segment was left in for analysis since the
improvement project will not reconfigure the roadways near Traffic Way that are experiencing a
trend in sideswipe collisions.
In addition, there is an interchange project planned at US 101 and Brisco Road. Since this project is
a few years off from being designed and constructed, the closely spaced City intersections in
proximity to the interchange were left in for evaluation of low-cost systemic safety countermeasures.
4. Safety Data Analysis
Safety data analysis was performed to further diagnosis the cause of collisions and any collision
trends in selecting safety countermeasure to mitigate those trends. This methodology followed the
HSM and Caltrans’ Local Road Safety Manual, Version 1.4, April 2018 and involved roadway
assessment and a quantitative analysis.
4.1 Collision Diagnosis
GHD conducted a field reconnaissance of top ranked City intersection and roadway segments in
November, December 2019 and January and February 2020. Google Maps was also initially used in
quantifying some of the intersection and segment characteristics.
Prior to the field assessment, GHD worked to understand the collision history by reviewing the
corridor collision summaries, intersection collision summaries, and all locations where fatalities and
severe injuries occurred within the study period. Identifying collision patterns within the data helped
our team gain perspective and look for potential deficiencies at each location. Various heat maps
Item 9.a - Page 28
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 17
were created and used to locate areas with a high density of specific collision types to further
narrow down areas of concern. Furthermore, our team also looked at existing traffic control devices
present (signals, signs, flashing beacons, etc.) and potential countermeasures already
implemented. Additional information and notes from the field reconnaissance are located in
Appendix B: Traffic Analysis and Collision Analysis.
4.2 Quantitative Analysis
After the citywide roadway segments and intersections were identified, three locations were screened
out due to new traffic control or future improvements. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 show the selected locations
for roadway and intersection locations with a summary of the quantitative analysis performed to
include collision severity, collision frequency, EPDO ranking, and crash rate ranking.
Item 9.a - Page 29
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 18 Table 4.1 Selected Roadway Locations for Further Analysis FatalSevere InjuryOther Visible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Dam age Only (PDO)Total Collisions15AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO 1 1 0 2 8 12594 1.431BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM 0 0 6 0 44 50110 1.436BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND 0 0 1 5 24 3065 1.144BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY 0 0 2 5 8 1560 0.935BBRANCH EAST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO 0 0 1 4 22 2757 1.154CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA 0 0 2 4 10 1656 0.773CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 0 1 0 1 9 1145 0.551CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON 0 0 1 2 16 1939 0.6610ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO N. OF VIA VAQUERO 0 0 0 2 23 2535 1.6326ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH 0 0 2 0 10 1232 2.929ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY 0 0 0 1 7 813 2.5331AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE00 0 0 3332.165CBRANCH EAST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH 0 0 0 0 12 1212 2.0732ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT 0 0 1 1 3 520 1.6215CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO NORTH OF GRAND 0 0 0 1 5 611 1.4223ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 0 0 1 0 7 818 1.295ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO00 0 0 272727 1.0914ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL00 1 0 141525 1.15Segments Chosen due to High Crash RatesSegments Chosen due to High Total Crashes2014 ‐2018 CollisionsCrash RateEPDOSegmentSegment IDSegments Chosen due to High EPDOItem 9.a - Page 30
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 19 Table 4.2 Selected Intersection Locations for Further Analysis FatalSevere InjuryOther Visible InjuryComplaint of PainProperty Damage Only (PDO)Total Collisions9E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST 1 0 3 0 4 8581 0.3546E GRAND AVE & BELL ST 1 0 0 0 13 14557 0.391E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST 0 1 5 4 24 34133 0.7613EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD 0 1 2 2 27 3291 0.566E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST 0 0 3 2 25 3070 0.792E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST 0 0 0 2 42 4454 0.9112JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD 0 1 1 1 5 852 0.228W BRANCH ST & BRIDGE ST 0 0 1 3 22 2651 0.9319FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD 0 0 3 1 9 1348 0.5415W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD 0 0 0 1 24 2530 0.9443THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL 0 0 0 0 7 770.7867CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD 0 0 0 0 5 550.764E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD 0 0 1 1 28 3045 0.5427E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP 0 0 1 1 21 2338 0.563E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD 0 0 0 1 22 2328 0.5316EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD00 1 3 182247 0.67EPDOCrash RateIntersections Chosen due to High EPDOIntersections Chosen due to High Total CrashesIntersections Chosen due to High Crash RatesIntersection IDSegment2014 ‐2018 CollisionsItem 9.a - Page 31
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 20
4.3 Qualitative Analysis
During the field assessments, our team made observations along the top five ranking roadway
segments and intersections to compile data on the current characteristics. Data was collected
regarding the roadway/intersection characteristics, roadside environment, traffic control, and signing
and pavement marking. These summarized field notes may be found in Tables 4.3 and 4.4 for
roadway segments and intersections, respectively.
Table 4.3 Field Observations for Roadway Segments
15A EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO
Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object, Sideswipe.
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Turning, Improper Speed
Two way frontage road to US 101 with
interchanges at Oak Park and Brisco. Direct
driveway access points and horizontal curves
that limit sight distance.
1B GRAND AVE COURTLAND TO ELM
Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Sideswipe,
Broadside
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Auto Right
of Way Violation, Improper Speed
Bot dot pavement markings on Grand
Avenue with limited to no striping. Lanes
don’t always align across intersection and
along segment.
6B HALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND
Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Sideswipe,
Hit Object
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Speed
Hospital along this segment and signal at
Halcyon has split phasing due to the offset
lanes across the intersection. Halycon
widens out in this section.
4B FAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY
Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Sideswipe.
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Speed
Horizontal curves, bike lanes, and a lane
drop for WB traffic. Hospital access, large
church, and high school at Valley Road and
elementary school at Halcyon.
5B BRANCH EAST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO
Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Broadside
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Speed
Vertical curves and limited stopping sight
distance to the signal at Brisco. Major
shopping centers and access points.
9A CAMINO MERCADO N. OF BRANCH TO S OF RANCHO PKWY
Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object
Frequent PCF Violation Category: None
Apparent
This is a local collector that serves
commerical and residential land uses. The
Walmart and Food for Less truck deliveries
are per this roadway. Horizontal curves and
wide roadway with limited to no striping.
31A ALLEN ST E OF TRAFFIC WAY TO W OF PACIFIC COAST
RAILWAY PL
Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object, Sideswipe
Frequent PCF Violation Category: None
Apparent
Roadway in very narrow (approx. 34 feet)
with parking allowed on both sides of
roadway and no striping.
5C BRANCH EAST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH
Frequent Crash Type: Sideswipe, Rear End, Hit
object
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Turning
Two lane roadway and bike route (bike lane
and sharrows). Horizontal and vertical curves
limit sight distance and AWSC at Vernon
Street.
32A BRANCH MILL RD S. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT
Frequent Crash Type: Overturned, Hit object
Frequent PCF Violation Category: None
Apparent
Curvy two lane rural roadway along
agriculture land uses. Limited shoulder and
recovery areas along the roadway.
15C EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO N OF GRAND AVE
Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object, Rear End
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Speed
Two lane roadway and bike route with
diagonal parking along road, east of Halcyon.
23A TALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227
Frequent Crash Type: Hit Object, Rear End
Frequent PCF Violation Category: None
Apparent
Currently has some speed feedback signs
but they aren't showing speeds. AWSC at
James Way. Horizontal and vertical curves
and bike route.
5A BRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCAD
Frequent Crash Type: Rear End, Sideswipe
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Unsafe
Speed, Improper Turning
A lot of commercical developmnet with
driveways and vertical and horizontal curves
that limit sight distance.
14A BRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL
Frequent Crash Type: Sideswipe, Rear End
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Unsafe
Speed, Improper Turning
Two lane roadway with parking along
roadway. School crosswalks at Linda Drive
and El Camino Real.
Qualititve Review
Segments Chosen due to High EPDOSegments Chosen due to High Overall Crash RatesSegments Chosen due to High Overall Total CrashSegment ID Segment Frequesnt Collision Type
Item 9.a - Page 32
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 21
Table 4.4 Field Observations for Intersections
9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST
Frequent Crash Type: Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Pedestrian
Right of Way Violation
Offset north and south legs of
intersection with Nevada on north leg.
Crosswalks on east and south/north
legs. Right turn only for NB approach.
Crosswalk on the east leg could benefit
from being moved, west of the
intersection due to less vehicle conflict
points.
46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST
Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Hit Object,
Vehicle/ Pedestrian
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Turning
Residential land uses on north side and
commerical land uses on south side.
Nearest controlled crossing at Halcyon.
1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST
Frequent Crash Type: Rear Ends, Broadside,
Sideswipe
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Traffic Signal
& Sign Violation, Unsafe Speed, Auto Right of
Way Violation
Permissive left turn for N/S approaches
would benefit from a protected only
phase. Residential and commercial land
uses.
13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK
BLVD
Frequent Crash Type: Broadside, Rear Ends,
Sideswipe.
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Speed, Traffic Signal & Sign
Significant downhill grade on the
northbound approach. Also, traffic
wanting to access the shopping on
Branch Street needs to favor the outside
left or have to make a quick lane change
on the bridge over US 101. Busy
interection with queuing typically on the
NB and EB approaches.
6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST
Frequent Crash Type: Broadside, Sideswipe
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Auto Right of
Way Violation
Closely spaced interection with Traffic
Way and E. Branch St and US 101
ramps. "Keep Clear" marking on Grand.
Due to the majority of traffic headed to
Branch or the US 101 on-ramp lane
utilization is not balanced (queuing
typical in the outside lane during peak
hours).
4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD
Frequent Crash Type: Rear End, Sideswipe,
Broadside
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Improper
Speed, Improper Turning
Signalized interesection has split phase
for north and south traffic due to the
offset alignment of lane through the
intersection. Also, alignment through
intersection east-west has a bit of a kind.
Lane guide marks would be beneficial.
27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB
RAMP
Frequent Crash Type: Rear End, Sideswipe,
Broadside
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Traffic Signal
& Sign, Improper Turning
Short ramp length that doesn't allow
much deceleration distance. Signalized
interection closely spaced to NB on ramp
signal. The signals appear to be running
on separate controllers or not
coordinated.
3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD
Frequent Crash Type: Broadside, Rear End,
Sideswipe
Frequent PCF Violation Category: DUI/BUI,
Unsafe Speed, Improper Turning, Auto Right of
Way Violation
Raised median island that channels the
lefts on Grand Avenue. Close proximity
to Elm Street creates speed differential
for the right turn and left turn movements
on Grand. Also, sometimes there is
spillback for the EB left turn.
16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD
Frequent Crash Type: Broadside, Rear End,
Sideswipe
Frequent PCF Violation Category: Unsafe
Speed, Auto Right of Way Violation, Improper
Turning
School crosswalks on the south and
east legs. Delay and queuing present
due to the signal timing and phasing with
the closely spaced interections along this
corridor.Intersections Chosen due to High Overall Total CrashQualititve ReviewIntersection ID Intersection Frequesnt Collision Type Intersections Chosen due to High EPDOItem 9.a - Page 33
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 22
5. Safety Countermeasures
Per Caltrans, Division of Local Assistance, Systemic Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP)
Guidelines, February 2016, the following low-cost systemic safety countermeasures were identified
for roadway segments and intersections in the City. These countermeasures and their overall crash
reduction percentages are as follows:
Roadway Segment Countermeasures:
Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning (R26)
o 15% crash reduction to all crash types
Install chevron signs on horizontal curves (R27)
o 40% crash reduction to all crash types
Install curve advance warning signs (R28)
o 25% crash reduction to all crash types
Install dynamic speed feedback signs (R30)
o 30% crash reduction to all crash types
Install delineators, reflectors and other object markers (R31)
o 15% crash reduction to all crash types
Install edge lines and centerlines (R32)
o 25% crash reduction to all crash types
Install bike lanes (R36)
o 35% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types
Non-Signalized Intersections:
Install Raised medians/refuge islands (NS16)
o 45% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types
Install Pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and markings only) (NS17)
o 25% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types
Install Pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations with enhanced safety features (RFFB,
curb extensions, etc.) (NS18)
o 35% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types
Install Pedestrian signal or HAWK (NS19)
o 55% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types
Item 9.a - Page 34
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 23
Signalized Intersections:
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates, mounting, size, and number (S2)
o 15% crash reduction to all crash types
Improve signal timing (coordination, phase, red, yellow, or operation) (S3)
o 15% crash reduction to all crash types
Provide protected left turn phase (left turn lane already exists) (S6)
o 30% crash reduction to all crash types
Install raised pavement markers and striping (through intersections ) (S8)
o 10% crash reduction to all crash types
Install pedestrian countdown signal heads (S19)
o 25% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types
Install leading pedestrian interval (S22)
o 60% crash reduction to bicycle and pedestrian crash types
In addition, Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) has proven safety countermeasures for
mitigating collision trends. These countermeasures are presented in Figure 5.1.
Item 9.a - Page 35
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 24
Figure 5.1 FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
5.1 Roadway Segments – Safety Countermeasures
In selecting the appropriate safety countermeasure for the roadway segments, countermeasures that
were successful in mitigating the majority of collisions and reduce overall collision severity were
recommended for each roadway segment and intersection that identified in Section 4.
5.1.1 Recommended Roadway Countermeasures
As presented in Table 5.1, the identified top ranking roadway segments and the recommended safety
countermeasure were quantified. This could be a combination of countermeasures.
Item 9.a - Page 36
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 25
Table 5.1 Roadway Segments Safety Countermeasures
It is recommended that some of these countermeasures, such as striping, be incorporated with
pavement rehabilitation projects. Also, even more countermeasures could be added, but with the
HSIP analyzer tool, we are limited to only being able to quantify three countermeasures.
15A EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO
R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27. Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
Not Listed. Install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones.
1B GRAND AVE COURTLAND TO ELM
R32. Install edge lines and centerlines
R3. Install Delineators, reflectors and other object markers.
R36. Install Bike Lanes and install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones.
6B HALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND
R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R36. Install Bike Lanes and install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones.
4B FAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY
R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27. Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
5B BRANCH EAST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
4C FAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
3C W BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R27. Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
1C GRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON
R32. Install edge lines and centerlines
R3. Install Delineators, reflectors and other object markers.
R36. Install Bike Lanes and install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones.
10A RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO Sight distance at driveways and driveway configuration should be evaluated.
Install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones.
26A BRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH Bridge Street will have improved design with Bridge Street widening project
currently under development. Re-evaluate when complete.
9A CAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY R28. Install curve advanced warning signs
R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
31A ALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PACIFIC COAST
RAILWAY PLACE
Parking should be limited to one side only. Roadway striping would help
delineate vehicle travel way.
5C BRANCH EAST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
Not Listed. Install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones.
32A BRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT Adding shoulder where possible. Install edge and centerline rumble stripes at
selective locations.
15C EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO N OF GRAND
R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
R27. Install chevron signs on horizontal curves
Not Listed. Install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones.
23A TALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)
5A BRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO R36. Install Bike Lanes and install green paint for bicycle lane conflict zones.
14A BRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR R30. Dynamic speed feedback signs
R26. Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning)Segments Chosen due to High Overall Crash RatesSegments Chosen due to High Overall Total CrashSegment ID Segment Countermeasures
Segments Chosen due to High EPDOItem 9.a - Page 37
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 26
5.1 Intersections – Safety Countermeasures
In evaluating the focused intersection locations, low-cost systemic safety countermeasures were
recommended in Table 5.2. These recommended low-cost countermeasures include traffic signal
improvements, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and striping, pavement markings, and
signage improvements. The majority of the identified intersections were signalized and needed
additional crossing improvements for pedestrians and bicycles.
Item 9.a - Page 38
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 27
Table 5.2 Intersection Safety Countermeasures
9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST
NS16. Install raised medians/refuge islands
NS18. Pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations with
enchanced safety features (RRFB, curb extensions, etc.)
46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST NS19. Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK)
1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST
S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads
S20. Provide pedestrian Crossing
S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,
size and number of heads
S3. Improve Signal Timing
13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD Intersection is in joined jurisdiction; mitigation can not be
proposed by city only.
6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST
Install luminaire for the crosswalk on the north leg (Branch St
leg). Evaluated signage and pavement markings for trap right
turn lane (Right Lane Must Turn Right is installed).Consider
roundabout with consolidation of closely spaced intersections
2 E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST
S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads
S20. Provide Pedestrian Crossing
S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,
size and number of heads
S3. Improve Signal Timing
S6. Provide protected left turn phasing.
12 JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD Joint jurisdiction with Pismo Beach; mitigation can not be
proposed by city only.
8 W BRANCH ST & BRIDGE ST
NS16. Install raised medians/refuge isnlands
NS18. Pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations with
enchanced safety features (RRFB, curb extensions, etc.)
19 FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD NS19. Install pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK)
15 W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD
S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads
S20. Provide Pedestrian Crossing
S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,
size and number of heads
S3. Improve Signal Timing
This intersection will be reconfigured in the future as part of
the Brisco Road Interchange Improvement Project
43 THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL NS17. Install crossing at uncontrolled locations
67 CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD Sight distance triangle at this intersection should be cleared.
4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD
S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads
S20. Provide Pedestrian Crossing
S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,
size and number of heads
S3. Improve Signal Timing
27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP Caltrans jurisdiction; mitigation can not be proposed by city
only.
3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD Crosswalk should be upgraded to high visibility crosswalks.
intersection lighting should be improved on crosswalks.
16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD
S19. Install pedestrian countdown heads
S20. Provide Pedestrian Crossing
S22. Leading pedestrian interval (LPI)
S2. Improve signal Hardware: Lenses, back plates mounting,
size and number of heads
S3. Improve Signal Timing
This intersection will be reconfigured in the future as part of
the Brisco Road Interchange Improvement ProjectIntersections Chosen due to High Overall Crash RatesIntersections Chosen due to High Overall Total CrashIntersection
ID Intersection Countermeasures
Intersections Chosen due to High EPDOItem 9.a - Page 39
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 28
6. HSIP Application
The City of Arroyo Grande submitted a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant
application for Cycle 10. The application was for set-aside funding for pedestrian crossing
enhancements at the following three locations:
1. Uncontrolled pedestrian crosswalk on the west leg of E. Grand Avenue and Alder Street
2. School crosswalk across Farroll Avenue at S. Halcyon Road
3. School crosswalk on the south leg of S. Halcyon Road at Sandalwood Avenue
Overall, the project descriptions are to generally improve the three existing crosswalks with ADA
curb ramps, a Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon for the uncontrolled crossing on E. Grand
Avenue, curb extensions for the existing crossing on S. Halcyon Road, yield lines, high-visibility
crosswalks, and striping and pavement markings.
The preliminary design plans for the HSIP application are in Appendix E: HSIP Cycle 10 Plans.
These locations were identified based on SSAR and Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) that is
currently in the public outreach process. Based on the LRSP stakeholder group comprised of City
staff, Arroyo Grande Police Department, Five Cities Fire Authority, San Luis Obispo Bike Club,
Lucia Mar Unified School District, SLO County, Caltrans, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach,
uncontrolled pedestrian crossings are one of the main safety issues in the City (where fatal and
severe injury pedestrian to vehicle collisions were occurring). Therefore, the LRSP working group
made it a priority to have a greater focus on uncontrolled crosswalks within the City. The locations
in the application were identified based on their deficiencies and use, priority corridors, and collision
analysis. The City has also received several messages or testimonies from concerned citizens who
use the crossings on a regular basis.
In addition, the two crosswalks on Halcyon Road have been identified for these improvements per
the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan, April 2018. This complete street plan had significant outreach
but has no current funding so getting some identified improvements implemented in the field will
help to bring momentum to the ultimate project.
The award for HSIP Cycle 10 funding should be announced March 31st but was not known when
the SSAR was finalized.
Item 9.a - Page 40
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 29
7. Next Steps – Local Road Safety Plan
The City of Arroyo Grande is currently conducting a Local Road Safety Plan in building on the
SSAR collision analysis and systemic safety countermeasures. A Stakeholder Working group was
formed and consists of the following agencies and organizations:
1. City of Arroyo Grande
Engineering
Public Works
Planning
Community Development
Maintenance
2. Police Department
3. Five Cities Fire Authority
4. Lucia Mar Unified School District
5. Bike SLO County
6. San Luis Obispo Bike Club
7. Safe Routes to School Coordinator
8. City of Pismo Beach
9. City of Grover Beach
10. San Luis Obispo County
11. Caltrans
Three stakeholder meetings have been held in guiding the development of the LRSP and we are
currently in the public outreach process. A website has been developed in soliciting public feedback
and this website has an interactive map where the public can pinpoint their concerns and a survey
in gathering City specific safety information.
After the public outreach process, another Stakeholder meeting with be held in April 2021. A
discussion of the public comments and recommended countermeasures/safety projects will be the
focus of this meeting. After this meeting, the Draft LRSP will be prepared for Stakeholder
comments.
A LRSP builds on the data driven process with an agency specific stakeholder group that guides the
development of the plan and recommends other ways to improve safety beyond engineering
countermeasures to include enforcement, emergency response, education, and emerging
technologies. In complimenting the SHSP, the LRSP is focused on identifying countermeasures for
the 5 Traffic Safety E’s (see Figure 7.1).
This collaborative and holistic process also engages the public through outreach, which is key to
capturing the near misses or safety concerns before they have documented collision issues. This
overall framework provides a proactive systemic approach in improving safety citywide and
positions the City for future grant funding with the prioritized safety projects and goals adopted by
City Council.
Item 9.a - Page 41
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 30
Figure 7.1 Traffic Safety E’s
Item 9.a - Page 42
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 31
8. Conclusions
GHD has prepared this Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) for the City of Arroyo Grande. The
report consists of detailed historical collision analysis and field observations. These safety issues
were then matched to a set of low-cost systemic safety countermeasures and quantified per the HSIP
calculator. This calculator quantifies the overall benefit in quantifying the reduction of crashes through
Crash Modification Factors (CMF) for the safety countermeasures. In addition, based on recent
project costs and Caltrans District 5 unit costs, each project had a preliminary planning cost estimate
completed. For HSIP applications, further engineering is needed to include preliminary design and
30% cost estimating will need to be performed. More details into the cost estimate and overall benefit
and cost are included in the HSIP analyzer worksheets located in Appendix D: HSIP Analyzer
Worksheet.
With a systemic approach that makes use of high impact, low-cost countermeasures, GHD submits
the following focused list as presented in Table 6.1. These projects are intended to be competitive
for the next cycle (Cycle 10) in the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP).
Table 8.1 Recommended HSIP Projects
Item 9.a - Page 43
GHD | Arroyo Grande SSAR Final Report | R1989RPT001 | Page 32
In addition, to the focused projects above you can apply the recommended countermeasures
systemically to the roadways and intersections with similar risk characteristics and collisions. Table
6.2 presents the suggested lists of low-cost engineering countermeasures that could be applied
systemically throughout the City of Arroyo Grande.
Table 8.2 Recommended Systematic HSIP Projects
8.1 Next Steps
The City of Arroyo Grande is currently conducting a Local Road Safety Plan. This plan is being guided
by a Stakeholder Working Group consisting of City staff, Arroyo Grande Police Department, Five
Cities Fire Authority, San Luis Obispo Bike Club, Lucia Mar Unified School District, SLO County,
Caltrans, Pismo Beach, and Grover Beach. The LRSP is currently in the public outreach process and
a Draft LRSP is anticipated to be completed in June 2021.
Item 9.a - Page 44
Arroyo Grande SSAR | R1989RPT001 | Page 1
Jay Walter
Jay.Walter@ghd.com
805.858.3141
Kathryn Kleinschmidt
Kathryn.Kleinschmidt@ghd.com
805.858.3147
Item 9.a - Page 45
Item 9.a - Page 46
Item 9.a - Page 47
Item 9.a - Page 48
Item 9.a - Page 49
Item 9.a - Page 50
Item 9.a - Page 51
Item 9.a - Page 52
Item 9.a - Page 53
Item 9.a - Page 54
Item 9.a - Page 55
Item 9.a - Page 56
Item 9.a - Page 57
Item 9.a - Page 58
Item 9.a - Page 59
Item 9.a - Page 60
Item 9.a - Page 61
Item 9.a - Page 62
Item 9.a - Page 63
Item 9.a - Page 64
Item 9.a - Page 65
Item 9.a - Page 66
Item 9.a - Page 67
Item 9.a - Page 68
Item 9.a - Page 69
Item 9.a - Page 70
Item 9.a - Page 71
Item 9.a - Page 72
Item 9.a - Page 73
Item 9.a - Page 74
Item 9.a - Page 75
Item 9.a - Page 76
Item 9.a - Page 77
Item 9.a - Page 78
Item 9.a - Page 79
Item 9.a - Page 80
Item 9.a - Page 81
Item 9.a - Page 82
Item 9.a - Page 83
Item 9.a - Page 84
Item 9.a - Page 85
Item 9.a - Page 86
Item 9.a - Page 87
Item 9.a - Page 88
1.
Local Road Safety
Plan (LRSP)
City of Arroyo Grande
Final Report
ATTACHMENT 2
Item 9.a - Page 89
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page i
This page was intentionally left blank.
Item 9.a - Page 90
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page ii
Acknowledgements
A special thanks to all the Safety Partners that contributed to this plan.
City of Arroyo Grande
Mayor and Council Members
Community Development Department
Police Department
Public Works Department
Five Cities Fire Authority
San Luis Obispo County
City of Grover Beach
City of Pismo Beach
Caltrans, District 5
Lucia Mar Unified School District
Safe Routes to School Coordinator
San Luis Obispo Bike Club
Bike SLO County
Item 9.a - Page 91
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page iii
Executive Summary
The project involves the development of a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), which provides local
agencies an opportunity to address unique roadway safety needs in their jurisdictions. The process
of preparing an LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze local safety
problems and recommend safety improvements for future Highway Safety Improvement Program
(HSIP) funding and other available funding sources. Preparing an LRSP facilitates local agency
partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that
contribute to California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) overall vision and goals. This SHSP
focuses on reducing fatal and severe injury collisions with focused challenge/emphasis areas. The
LRSP is a collaborative process that will build on the collision analysis from the Systemic Safety
Analysis Report (SSAR) with a local leadership stakeholder group that represents the 5 E’s (shown
below) and guides the formation of the plan.
The LRSP helps to address the 5Es of traffic safety: Engineering, Enforcement, Education,
Emergency Services, and Emerging Technologies.
In 2016, Arroyo Grande was awarded funding from Caltrans for the Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Program (SSARP) for analysis of the City’s entire roadway system. Per the upcoming HSIP Cycle
11 requirements, the City of Arroyo Grande added a Local Road Safety Plan to the process to be
eligible for future funding.
This holistic approach of engaging stakeholders and the community in the development, allows
certain areas of concern not showing a crash pattern to be analyzed. Also, it fosters local, state, and
agency partnerships to advance local road safety.
In following the overall LRSP process, a Stakeholder Working Group (Working Group) was formed
with the City as the lead with participation from local organizations from the 5 E’s and anyone with
an interest in improving the City’s roadway safety. This group gathered for meetings to discuss the
overall collision analysis, goals, priorities, safety recommendations, and overall development of the
safety plan. In addition, after completion of the plan, support letters were provided by Caltrans and
Lucia Del Mar Unified School District (see Appendix A).
Based on the Working Group Meetings, this LRSP will address multiple SHSP Challenge Areas
including but not limited to:
1. Bicyclists
Item 9.a - Page 92
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page iv
2. Intersections
3. Pedestrians
4. Distracted Driving
5. Aggressive Driving/Speeding
In addition, the vision, mission statement, and goals were established in guiding the development of
the LRSP. It was also decided that the LRSP for the City of Arroyo Grande would be a living
document with official updates every five (5) years.
Based on the input from the Working Group, this LRSP recommends the following strategies for the
focused study locations and Citywide systemic applications for the 5 E’s of Traffic Safety.
1. Engineering: Apply low-cost safety countermeasures at current locations experiencing
collisions and systemically at locations with similar risks (comprehensive approach).
2. Enforcement: Enforce actions that reduce high-risk behaviors to include speeding, distracted
roadway usage, and Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
3. Education: Educate all road users on safe behaviors.
4. Emergency Response: Improve emergency response times and actions.
5. Emerging Technologies: Utilize emerging technologies in conveying and collecting
information from the roadway users in an effort to improve safety and operations.
In addition, it is important to understand the upcoming funding opportunities in the successful
implementation of these safety projects.
Funding opportunities include but not limited to:
1. Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) – Call typically every 2 years. Last call (cycle
10) started in April 2020 and ended November 2, 2020 (extended due to COVID-19)
a. Next call HSIP Cycle 11 is schedule to start in April 2022
2. Active Transportation Program (ATP)
a. Next call for funding projects is scheduled to start in March 2022
3. Safe Routes to School grants
4. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program
5. Sustainable Transportation Planning Grant (Sustainable Communities)
6. Other funding sources are Senate Bill 1 (SB 1) and Federal Highway Administration
Item 9.a - Page 93
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page v
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. Background .................................................................................................................................. 2
2.1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................. 2
2.2 Guiding Principles – Vision, Mission, Goals ...................................................................... 3
2.2.1 Vision Zero ........................................................................................................ 3
2.2.2 Vision ................................................................................................................ 4
2.2.3 Mission Statement ............................................................................................ 4
2.2.4 Goals ................................................................................................................ 4
3. Safety Partners and Stakeholders ............................................................................................... 5
3.1 SHSP Challenge Areas...................................................................................................... 6
3.2 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings .................................................................... 6
4. LRSP Methodology ...................................................................................................................... 7
4.1 Standards and Guidelines.................................................................................................. 8
4.2 Recent/Planned Safety Projects ........................................................................................ 8
5. Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 10
5.1 Top Locations .................................................................................................................. 12
5.1.1 Top Locations – Based on Collision Severity ................................................. 12
5.1.2 Top Locations – Based on Crash Rates ......................................................... 14
5.2 Bicycle Collisions ............................................................................................................. 16
5.3 Pedestrian Collisions ....................................................................................................... 16
5.4 2019-2020 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions ................................................................. 17
6. Emphasis Areas ......................................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Performance Measures .................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Strategies ......................................................................................................................... 19
7. Identify Strategies ....................................................................................................................... 19
7.1 Public Outreach ............................................................................................................... 19
7.1.1 Social Pinpoint Website .................................................................................. 19
7.1.2 Interactive Map ............................................................................................... 20
8. Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies .......................................................................................... 22
8.1 Engineering Strategies ..................................................................................................... 22
Item 9.a - Page 94
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page vi
8.1.1 Other Recommended City Projects ................................................................ 24
8.2 Implemented/Planned Projects ........................................................................................ 24
8.3 Non-Engineering Strategies ............................................................................................. 25
8.3.1 Education ........................................................................................................ 25
8.3.2 Emerging Technologies .................................................................................. 25
8.3.3 Enforcement ................................................................................................... 25
8.3.4 Emergency Response .................................................................................... 25
9. Implementation Process ............................................................................................................. 26
10. Evaluation Process ..................................................................................................................... 26
11. Next Steps .................................................................................................................................. 27
12. References ................................................................................................................................. 27
Figure Index
Figure 1.1 The LRSP Development Process ..................................................................................... 1
Figure 4.1 FHWA’s LRSP Development Map ..................................................................................... 8
Figure 5.1 Collision Density Heat Map (2014-2018) ......................................................................... 10
Figure 5.2 Bicycle Collisions (2014-2020) ........................................................................................ 16
Figure 5.3 Pedestrian Collisions (2014-2020) .................................................................................. 17
Figure 5.4 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2014-2020) .............................................................. 18
Table Index
Table 2.1 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions on City Roads (2014 – 2020) .......................................... 2
Table 4.1 Recent Safety Projects ........................................................................................................... 9
Table 5.1 Collision Severity for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year ................................................... 11
Table 5.2 Collision Type for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year ........................................................ 11
Table 5.3 PCF Violation Category for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year ......................................... 12
Table 8.1 Engineering Countermeasures ............................................................................................ 23
Item 9.a - Page 95
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page vii
Appendix
Appendix A Stakeholder and Public Input
Appendix B SSAR Crash Analysis
Appendix C SSAR Priority Projects
Item 9.a - Page 96
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page viii
List of Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
APS Accessible Pedestrian Signal
ATP Active Transportation Program or Plan
AWSC All Way Stop Control
BCR Benefit to Cost Ratio
BUI Biking Under the Influence
CA MUTCD California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices
CIP Capital Improvement Program
CMAQ Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
DUI Driving Under the Influence
EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FSI Fatal or Severe Injury
HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program
HSM Highway Safety Manual
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SHSP Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SSAR Systemic Safety Analysis Report
SWITRS Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
TWLTL Two-Way Left Turn Lane
TWSC Two Way Stop Control
Item 9.a - Page 97
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 1
1. Introduction
In 2016, the City of Arroyo Grande was successful in receiving a Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Program (SSARP) grant from Caltrans’ Local Assistance. Per the City’s leadership direction and
upcoming requirements for HSIP grant funding, a Local Road Safety Plan was appended to this
effort. The LRSP builds off the safety analysis and engineering performed in the Systemic Safety
Analysis Report (SSAR) to create a comprehensive and holistic Citywide safety plan.
The LRSP is a data-driven process similar to the process for the SSAR except a LRSP has a local
leadership group that represents the 5 E’s (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency
Response, and Emerging Technologies) to guide the development of the plan.
The LRSP included a Citywide analysis of the roadway system in Arroyo Grande comprising the
current collisions patterns and high-risk roadway characteristics (systemic analysis), and
recommended safety improvements for the other E’s. Furthermore, the City of Arroyo Grande’s goal
is to identify safety countermeasures to help mitigate the City’s primary crash trends, reduce the
overall collision severity, and identify locations with higher safety risks that do not currently
experience a collision issue but could benefit from safety improvements.
The Federal Highway Administration’s LRSP development process is shown in Figure 1.1. At the
kick-off meeting the leadership team was established to guide the development of the Local Road
Safety Plan.
Figure 1.1 The LRSP Development Process
Robin Dickerson, City Engineer, was identified as the Safety Champion/Lead for this project,
working with a stakeholder working group that represented the other E’s (enforcement, education,
emergency response, and emerging technologies) and other important safety partners. This
stakeholder working group was paramount in creating a comprehensive safety plan that is tailored
to address local needs and issues.
Item 9.a - Page 98
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 2
2. Background
2.1 Purpose and Need
The City of Arroyo Grande has a current population of approximately 18,000 and is part of the 5
Cities region in San Luis Obispo County. The 5 Cities region is made up of Arroyo Grande, Pismo
Beach, Grover Beach, Oceano, and Shell Beach with a total population of approximately 48,000.
Arroyo Grande has a mix of local, commuter, and recreational traffic with a variety of different road
users including passenger cars, heavy vehicles (buses, large trucks, and farming equipment related
to the agricultural industry), bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit.
Focusing on the roadway safety needs, the stakeholder group evaluated five (5) years of collision
data from the SSAR (2014-2018) and an additional two (2) years (2019-2020) of data. From 2014
to 2020, there were 5 fatal and 18 severe injury collisions on City streets.
Collision severity for fatal and severe injury (FSI) collisions in years 2014-2020 is shown in Table
2.1. During the study period, year 2019 had the most FSI collision (2 fatal and 6 severe injuries, 8
total FSI). Followed by, 2017 with the second highest FSI collisions (1 fatal and 5 severe injuries, 6
total FSI). All other years during the study period had three (3) or less FSI collisions.
Table 2.1 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions on City Roads (2014 – 2020)
Year Severity Location Type Violation Category Other Information
2015 Sev. Inj N Oak Park Blvd and El Camino Real Broadside Traffic Signals and Signs
-
2015 Sev. Inj E Branch St, 11 ft east of Garden St Broadside Other Hazardous Violation
Bike collision
2016 Sev. Inj James Way and N Oak Park Blvd Broadside Traffic Signals and Signs
-
2017 Sev. Inj E Grand Ave and Courtland St Broadside Traffic Signals and Signs
-
2017 Sev. Inj 100 E Branch St Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation
Pedestrian was crossing
not in a crosswalk
2017 Sev. Inj E Branch St and Le Point Terrace Head On Wrong Side of Road -
2017 Sev. Inj S Halcyon Rd and The Pike Broadside Automobile Right of Way
-
2017 Fatal E Branch St and Short St Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian Right of Way
Pedestrian was crossing
in a crosswalk at the
intersection
2017 Sev. Inj 1105 El Camino Real Head On Improper Turning -
2018 Sev. Inj E Branch St, 298 ft east of Garden St Head On Unsafe Lane Change -
2018 Fatal El Camino Real, 770 ft east of Oak Park Blvd Hit Object Improper Turning
Single Vehicle - Driver
was intoxicated
2018 Fatal E Grand Ave and Bell St Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian Violation
Pedestrian was crossing
not in a crosswalk
2019 Sev. Inj E Grand Ave and N Courtland Rd Vehicle-Pedestrian Unknown
Pedesrian was in the road,
including the shoulder
2019 Fatal El Camino Real, 319 ft south of Bennett Ave Hit Object DUI Motorcycle collision
2019 Sev. Inj 300 E Grand Ave Broadside Automobile Right of Way
-
2019 Sev. Inj E Grand Ave and Elm St Vehicle-Pedestrian Pedestrian Right of Way
Pedestrian was crossing in
a crosswalk at the
intersection
2019 Sev. Inj Valley Rd, 530 ft south of Fair Oaks Ave Sideswipe Unknown Motorcycle collision
2019 Sev. Inj S Traffic Way, 21 ft south of Poole St Other Unknown Bike collision
2019 Fatal 495 Valley Rd Hit Object DUI Single Vehicle
2019 Sev. Inj Corbett Canyon Rd, 52 ft south of Corral Pl Rear End Unsafe Speed Motorcycle collision
2020 Sev. Inj Ash St and Courtland St Hit Object DUI -
2020 Sev. Inj E Grand Ave and El Camino Real Vehicle-Pedestrian Unknown
Pedestrian was crossing
not in a crosswalk
2020 Sev. Inj Huasna Rd and Stagecoach Rd Sideswipe Improper Passing Motorcycle collision
Item 9.a - Page 99
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 3
The collision type and violation category are presented in Table 2.1 above. The primary collision
types for FSI collisions are broadside and vehicle-pedestrian collisions. The primary violation
categories for FSI collisions are DUI/BUI, Traffic Signal/Signs violations, and Unknown.
2.2 Guiding Principles – Vision, Mission, Goals
The members of the stakeholder working group established the vision, mission statement, and
goals that guided the development of the document. Ideally, this document will help the City move
toward Vision Zero. Vison Zero is a strategy which strives to eliminate all traffic fatalities and severe
injuries, while increasing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all. Traditionally traffic fatalities
and severe injuries have been considered inevitable side effects of modern life. The reality is that
these tragedies can be addressed over time by taking a proactive, preventative approach that
prioritizes traffic safety as a public health issue. To do so, bicycle and pedestrian safety will be
prioritized by focusing on uncontrolled crossing improvements and public education.
2.2.1 Vision Zero
Vision Zero is a significant departure from the status quo in two major ways:
Vision Zero recognizes that people will sometimes make mistakes, so the road system and
related policies should be designed to minimize those inevitable mistakes and reduce their
likeliness to result in severe injuries or fatalities. This means that system designers and
policymakers are expected to improve the roadway environment, policies (such as speed
management), and other related systems to lessen the severity of crashes. Roadway users
are however still responsible for their mistakes and should follow all applicable laws and
use reasonable judgement when conducting themselves within the public right of way.
Vision Zero is a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together diverse and necessary
stakeholders to address this complex problem. In the past, meaningful, cross-disciplinary
collaboration among local traffic planners and engineers, policymakers, and public health
professionals has not occurred consistently. Vision Zero acknowledges that many factors
contribute to safe mobility -- roadway design, speeds, behaviors, technology, and policies --
and sets clear goals to achieve the shared goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries.
Figure 2.1 provides a comparison of the traditional approach versus the Vision Zero approach.
Item 9.a - Page 100
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 4
Figure 2.1 Traditional Approach vs. Vision Zero
2.2.2 Vision
The vision statement describes what the Local Road Safety Plan is trying to achieve.
2.2.3 Mission Statement
The mission statement defines the purpose of the plan, what it does, and what it is about. The
mission statement was developed in collaboration with the stakeholder working group.
2.2.4 Goals
Safety goals were development for the Local Road Safety Plan. It is important to capture realistic
goals that can be measurable or evolve over time. The LRSP’s goals were created based on the
City’s needs.
Plan Goals
Reduce the potential for fatal and severe injury collisions Citywide
Reduce the potential for rear end collisions Citywide
Arroyo Grande will provide a safe, efficient, and sustainable multimodal
transportation system for all users of the public roadways in the City of
Arroyo Grande.
Arroyo Grande will develop a comprehensive safety plan with engagement
of stakeholders and citizens that encourages improved safety for all users,
regardless of age or ability, whether it is walking, biking, rolling, and
driving – because every person in our community matters.
TRADITIONAL APPROACH
Traffic deaths are INEVITABLE
PERFECT human behavior
Prevent COLLISIONS
INDIVIDUAL Responsibility
Saving lives is EXPENSIVE
VISION ZERO
Traffic deaths are PREVENTABLE
Integrate HUMAN FAILING in approach
Prevent FATAL AND SEVERE COLLISIONS
SYSTEMS approach
Saving lives is NOT EXPENSIVE
VS
Item 9.a - Page 101
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 5
Reduce the potential for bicycle and pedestrian collisions Citywide
Improve the health and vitality of our community with a safety plan that encourages safety
for pedestrians and bicyclists targeted to Arroyo Grande’s local roadway needs
Improve safety around schools with a connected multimodal system and improved
crossings
Increase walking, biking, rolling (stroller, walker, wheelchair, skateboard, scooter, etc.) to
the downtown district, to work, and to school
Improve safety at uncontrolled crossings
Increase driver and pedestrian education
Reduce distracted driving
Improve bike safety with additional bikeways and green bike lanes for vehicle to bicycle
conflict areas
Increase traffic enforcement
Receive grant funding for LRSP identified projects
3. Safety Partners and Stakeholders
At the project kick off meeting, the different safety partners to engage in the LRSP Stakeholder
Working Group were discussed. These stakeholders included City representatives from various
departments (Community Development, Public Works, and Police), fire, school district, bicycle and
pedestrian groups, and roadway jurisdictional partners. Based on the City’s connections and current
working relationship with the identified stakeholders, the working group formation was led by the
City.
The LRSP Stakeholder Working Group included the following representatives:
City of Arroyo Grande
Caltrans, District 5
County of San Luis Obispo
City of Pismo Beach
City of Grover Beach
Arroyo Grande Police Department
Five Cities Fire Authority
Lucia Mar Unified School District
San Luis Obispo Bike Club
Bike SLO County
Item 9.a - Page 102
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 6
GHD worked with the City staff and the LRSP working group to come up with a vision, mission
statement, and goals that support California’s State Highway Strategic Plan (SHSP). The goals
developed through this process aim for results consistent with the City’s vision for safety and are
realistic, achievable, and measurable. Identified future projects will aim to meet these goals. In
addition, Caltrans and Lucia Mar Unified School District provided support letters for the LRSP.
These letters are in Appendix A: Stakeholder and Public Input.
3.1 SHSP Challenge Areas
The LRSP will complement California’s SHSP 2020-2024. The California SHSP identifies 16
challenge areas as shown in Figure 3.1 below. These challenge areas are recommended emphasis
areas in the development of the plan.
Figure 3.1 SHSP Challenge Areas
Based on the LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings, this LRSP will address multiple Strategic
Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) Challenge Areas including:
1. Bicyclists
2. Intersections
3. Pedestrians
4. Distracted Driving
5. Aggressive Driving/Speeding
6. Emerging Technologies
7. Emergency Response
3.2 LRSP Stakeholder Working Group Meetings
Four meetings were held with the stakeholder working group. Two meetings were held in person
pre-COVID and two meetings were held virtually, post-COVID. The meeting dates and summaries
were as follows:
1. December 13, 2019 – In person meeting
Item 9.a - Page 103
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 7
a. Discussed the overall LRSP process, working group member’s safety priorities,
past 5 years of collisions (City and Caltrans roadways), vision, goals, and priorities.
2. January 30, 2020 – In person meeting
a. Reviewed summary of first meeting, discussed further collision analysis with priority
locations, recent developments, safety countermeasures and projects, refined
LRSP’s guiding principles, and coordinated next steps.
3. February 9, 2021 – Virtual Meeting
a. Summarized first two meetings and process status, safety countermeasures and
priority locations, finalized Mission Statement, Vision, and Goals, and discussed
public outreach.
4. April 9, 2021 – Virtual Meeting
a. Discussed next steps with the Draft LRSP plan, public outreach comments, and
2019-2020 fatal and severe injury collisions, current and planned safety projects,
and overall recommendations for safety countermeasures.
4. LRSP Methodology
The LRSP methodology followed the FHWA’s LRSP development process as shown in Figure 4.1.
Below is a roadmap created by the Federal Highway Administration to show the primary steps used
to create the Local Road Safety Plan:
1. Identify Stakeholders
a. Working Group was formed, incorporating members representing the 5 E’s and
other interested representatives.
2. Use Safety Data
a. Past 7 years (2014-2020) of collisions were analyzed with discussion of other high-
risk locations.
3. Choose Proven Solutions
a. FHWA Proven Countermeasures and Caltrans safety countermeasures were used
in mitigation collision trends and risk characteristics.
4. Implement Solutions
a. Projects were identified for specific locations and systemically.
Item 9.a - Page 104
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 8
Figure 4.1 FHWA’s LRSP Development Map
Source: Federal Highway Administration
4.1 Standards and Guidelines
In developing the City of Arroyo Grande LRSP, the following standards and guidelines were
followed:
“Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners”, Caltrans, Version 1.5,
April 2020.
2020-2024 California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), “California Safe Roads: 2020-
2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan”, Caltrans.
“Developing Safety Plans, A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners”, Federal Highway
Administration, March 2012.
“Highway Safety Manual”, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), 1st
Edition, 2014 supplement.
“California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)”, Revision 5, 2014.
4.2 Recent/Planned Safety Projects
During the development of the plan, various safety projects were already implemented or planned in
the City of Arroyo Grande. Table 4.1 displays the safety projects and status. A letter of support from
Caltrans for the Halcyon Road Complete Streets Plan is also included in Appendix A: Stakeholder
and Public Input. In addition, the City is looking at opportunities to move this project forward.
Item 9.a - Page 105
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 9
In addition, the City is currently evaluating improvements on Tally Ho Road from James Way to SR
227. This roadway segment of Tally Ho Road was identified as the top 10 segment for crash rates
(traffic volumes in comparison to crashes) per the SSAR analysis.
Table 4.1 Recent Safety Projects
Project Location Project Status Improvement Comment
E Branch St at Short St Complete
Pedestrian crossing improvements to include pedestrian activated LED
lights around the Pedestrian Warning signs in 2019. Additional red
brick crosswalks was also previously added
Rank 1 Intersection
Relative Severity
The Pike at S Halcyon Road Complete
Converted to all way stop controlled in 2019. There were no collisions
recorded at the intersection in 2020
Rank 5 Intersection
Relative Severity
E Grand Ave at Courtland St Planned Striping and pavement marking improvements with CIP Rank 3 Intersection
Relative Severity
El Camino Real ‐ Oak Park Blvd to
Brisco Rd Planned Operational Improvements with Brisco Road Improvements Rank 1 Segment
Relative Severity
E. Grand Avenue – Courtland to Elm Planned
Improve striping along Grand Ave by replacing bott dots with
thermoplastic road markings
Rank 1 Segment
Relative Severity
Halcyon Rd ‐ Fair Oaks to Grand Ave Planned Halcyon Street Complete Street Plan Rank 3 Segment
Relative Severity
Fair Oaks – Halcyon to Valley Road Planned
Halcyon Street Complete Street Plan has intersection improvements
to include a roundabout at Halcyon and Fair Oaks
Rank 4 Segment
Relative Severity
W. Branch – Brisco to Camino
Mercado / US 101 ramps Planned Brisco Road Interchange Project Rank 5 Segment
Relative Severity
Camino Mercado – W. Branch Street
to Rancho Parkway Complete Centerline striping added Rank 2 Segment
Crash Rate
Traffic Way at Allen Street Complete
I mprovements made at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Ave in July 2019 –
Traffic Signal installed and improved signage / pavement markings
near Allen Street. The signal has helps to create gaps in traffic for Traffic
Way and Allen Street
Rank 1 Intersection
Crash Rate
Allen Street – Traffic Way to Pacific
Coast Railway Place Planned
Installation of Red Curb (limiting parking) along Allen Street.
Improvements to sidewalk with recent private developments. City
staff to begin working with residents to identify possible solutions
Rank 3 Segment
Crash Rate
Valley Road at Arroyo Grande High
School / Castillo Del Mar
Under
Construction Realignment of Castillo Del Mar and intersection at Valley Road Rank 2 Intersection
Crash Rate
W Branch Street at Brisco Road Planned
Operation Improvements. Eventually will be improved through the
Brisco Road Interchange Project
Rank 3 Intersection
Crash Rate
E Branch Street at Bridge Street Complete
Updated pedestrian crossing in 2019 with flashing LED lights on signs.
Bridge Street was im proved through Bridge Street Bridge Project
completed in March 2021 (Funded through the Federal Highway
Bridge Program (HBP))
Rank 4 Intersection
Crash Rate
E Grand Ave at Alder St Funded through
HSIP Cycle 10
Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the west leg for
crossing Grand Ave, install curb extensions, ADA curb ramps, yield
lines, and striping and pavement markings
Pedestrian Crossing
Farroll Ave at S. Halcyon Rd Funded through
HSIP Cycle 10
Refresh high visibility school crosswalk on west leg to cross Farroll Ave,
Install curb extensions and ADA curb ramps School Crossing
S Halcyon Rd at Sandalwood Ave Funded through
HSIP Cycle 10
Install/ replace Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) at the west
and south leg, install curb extensions, ADA curb ramps, yield lines, and
striping and pavement markings
School Crossing
Oak Park Blvd ‐ W Grand Ave to
Mentone
(City of Grover Beach project)
Under
Construction
Reduce number of travel lane to single lane in each direction with
buffered/wide bike lanes
City of Grover
Beach Project
Oak Park Blvd ‐Mentone Ave to The
Pike ‐ Pavement Rehab project
(City of Grover Beach project)
Planned Reduce number of travel lane to single lane in each direction with
buffered/wide bike lanes. Construction est. 2025/2026
City of Grover
Beach Project
Item 9.a - Page 106
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 10
5. Data Analysis
GHD collected and reviewed five years of complete collision data (2014-2018) from the California
Highway Patrol’s Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), Transportation Injury
Mapping System (TIMS), and the City of Arroyo Grande collision data. After rectifying the data, a
comprehensive data set was used for the safety analysis. Due to the City also having to deliver a
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR), the collision analysis will reference that report. In
addition, the LRSP will capture other safety concerns from the LRSP working group and citizens
including places where there are near-miss collisions as well as fatal and severe injury collisions
that occurred in 2019 and 2020.
Collision analysis was performed for all roadways in the City of Arroyo Grande excluding the US
101 mainline collisions. The collisions for the US 101 interchanges in Arroyo Grande were
evaluated separately. As presented in Figure 5.1, Citywide collisions for the past 5 years (2014-
2018) excluding the US 101 interchange collisions were mapped, identifying the high-risk segments
and intersections. Per the collision density map, the roadway segments and intersections with
higher collision frequency fall along E. Grand Avenue, E Branch Street, W Branch Street, Fair Oaks
Avenue, Halcyon Road, and El Camino Real. Additional collision analysis and maps are located in
Appendix B: SSAR Crash Analysis.
Figure 5.1 Collision Density Heat Map (2014-2018)
Item 9.a - Page 107
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 11
In evaluating the past five (5) years in the SSAR with the recent 2019 and 2020 collision data, the
severity for fatal and injury collisions was assessed. It is noted that in 2020 there were COVID
shelter-in-place orders, and the traffic patterns were not representative of a typical year. However, it
is important to still assess 2020 for context in understanding the collision patterns and safety issues.
As shown in Table 5.1, there were fatal collisions in 2017, 2018, and 2019, with 2014, 2017, and
2019 having the highest total fatal and injury collisions per year.
Table 5.1 Collision Severity for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year
As presented in Table 5.2, collision type is shown for the fatal and injury collisions each year.
Broadside collisions were the most common and they typically occur at intersections due to
vehicles not yielding the right of way or violating the traffic signal/stop sign. The second most
common collision type was rear-ends. Rear-end collisions typically occur due to speed differential,
congestion, and vehicles following too closing or inattention. There were also 32 vehicle/pedestrian
collisions in the past 7 years.
Table 5.2 Collision Type for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year
Fatal
Injury
(Severe)
Injury
(Other Visible)
Injury
(Complaint of
Pain)
2014 0 0 20 37 57
2015 0 2 15 19 36
2016 0 1 13 17 31
2017 1 5 18 23 47
2018 2 1 11 17 31
2019 2 6 7 26 41
2020 0 3 10 20 33
Total51894159276
Year
Severity (Fatal and Injury Collisions)
Total
(Fatal and
Injury)Head OnSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle/ PedestrianOther/ Unknown2014 3 5 13 20 5 5
51 57
2015 1 2 15 11 2 0
41 36
2016 1 0 11 12 1 0
51 31
2017 3591490
70 47
2018 409770
22 31
2019 2 2 13 12 4 0
71 41
2020 426852
24 33
Total 18 16 76 84 33 7
32 10 276
Year
Type (Fatal and Injury Collisions)Total(Fatal and Injury)Item 9.a - Page 108
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 12
Table 5.3 shows the primary collision factor (PCF) violation category for the fatal and injury
collisions. The top violation category was unsafe speed followed by automobile right of way (Auto
R/W).
Table 5.3 PCF Violation Category for Fatal and Injury Collisions per Year
5.1 Top Collision Locations
A figure summarizing the locations that ranked in the highest ten for relative severity (Equivalent
Property Damage Only (EPDO) methodology) and crash rates for the five-year collision analysis is
included in the SSAR. For further information, please reference Appendix C: SSAR Priority
Projects priority locations.
Since the completion of the SSAR, multiple safety projects have been implemented at many of the
top collision locations, and additional improvements are being evaluated. These improvements are
listed below as sub-bullets.
5.1.1 Top Collision Locations – Based on Collision Severity
As determined in the SSAR, the top intersection collision locations were identified based on relative
severity (highest collision severity ranks highest). Per the SSAR recommendations, many locations
have been improved and therefore, comments are provided below. The italicized green comments
are completed or planned improvements and the comments in black are identified improvements.
The top intersections based on relative severity are as follows:
1. E Branch Street and Short Street
a. Crossing improvements made in 2019 to include pedestrian-activated flashing LED
lights on the pedestrian warning signs and refreshed crosswalk markings. DUI/BUIImpending TrafficUnsafe SpeedFollowing Too CloselyWrong WayImproper PassingUnsafe Lane ChangeImproper TurningAuto R/WPedestrian R/WPedestrian ViolationSignals/SignsBrake FailureOther HazardOther than DriverUnsafe Starting/BackingOther Improper DrivingUnknown201440130201711404142 1 0357
20155012020015313021 0 0136
2016109010047312000 0 2131
2017605040169612030 2 0247
2018205010276211001 0 0331
2019619100029412010 1 0441
2020406001184101012 0 1333
Total281591101 53551235151116 4 317276
Year Total(Fatal and Injury)Type (Fatal and Injury Collisions)
Item 9.a - Page 109
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 13
2. E Grand Avenue and Bell Street
a. Evaluated for mid-block crossing with a pedestrian hybrid beacon (HAWK) in last
HSIP cycle 10. An additional engineering study needs to be performed to see if this
location will meet CA MUTCD warrants for installation of a pedestrian hybrid
beacon.
b. In the interim, a two-stage pedestrian crossing (median island in the center two-way
left turn lane) is recommended on the east leg with a high visibility crosswalk, yield
lines, and a pedestrian-activated Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB).
3. E Grand Avenue and Courtland Street
a. Striping and pavement marking improvements are identified in the Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
b. Additional safety improvements can include adding an additional signal head per
lane, retroreflective back plates, and ADA improvements with accessible pedestrian
signal (APS) push buttons and countdown timers. With the completion of the
commercial center on the southwest corner expected in 2022, City staff
recommends that the traffic movements and signal phasing (might need to add a
left turn phase for the northbound approach) and timing be reviewed for this
intersection.
4. El Camino Real and N Oak Park Boulevard
a. Evaluate future traffic signal improvements to include a signal head per lane,
flashing yellow left turn arrow for permissive/protected phasing, and update
pedestrian push buttons to APS and provide countdown timers.
5. The Pike and S Halcyon Road (City/County controlled intersection)
a. This location was converted to an all-way stop control (AWSC) in 2019.
b. Post-collision analysis after installation of the AWSC shows the collision issue has
been mitigated.
i. Evaluate future crossing improvements to include ADA ramps and
crosswalks on the north and south legs.
The top segments based on relative severity are as follows:
1. El Camino Real – Oak Park Boulevard to Brisco Road
a. Operational improvements are included with the Brisco Road/ US 101 interchange
project.
b. Evaluate as needed for additional safety improvements.
2. E. Grand Avenue – Courtland Street to Elm Street
a. Striping and pavement marking improvements with CIP project.
Item 9.a - Page 110
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 14
i. It is recommended to remove botts dots and install thermoplastic striping
and pavement markings.
ii. Provide continuous bike lanes as feasible.
3. Halcyon Road – Fair Oaks Avenue to Grand Avenue
a. This roadway segment was evaluated with the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan
i. A road diet is recommended in providing a center two-way left turn lane for
left turns and buffered bike lanes adjacent to parking.
1. Currently left turns have to stop in the through lanes and cause
sudden stopping movements and speed differential.
a. The main collision type was rear-ends in this section.
2. The northbound left turn on Halcyon Road at Grand Avenue would
benefit from additional storage length from a two-way left turn lane.
ii. A roundabout is recommended at Halcyon Road and Fair Oaks Avenue per
the Halcyon Complete Streets Plan.
b. Pursue grant funding and evaluate project phasing to prioritize this area.
4. Fair Oaks Avenue – Halcyon Road to Valley Road
a. Provide continuous bike lanes (bike lanes end around the hospital) and green
conflict marking in vehicle and bicycle conflict zones.
b. Provide horizontal curve warning signs and/or chevrons.
5. W. Branch Street – Brisco Road to Camino Mercado/US 101 Ramps
a. Provide green bike conflict marking for vehicle/bicycle mixing zones.
b. Improve visibility of signalized intersections with retroreflective back plates and an
additional signal head per lane.
c. Provide high friction surface treatment for the downhill grade on the southbound
approach to the Brisco Road intersection.
d. Provide a signal warning sign with flashing beacon at the top of the grade to the
southbound approach to Brisco Road intersection.
e. In the interim evaluate adding a blank out sign “NO RIGHT TURN ON RED” for the
southbound right turn conflicts with the NB left protected left turn phase.
5.1.2 Top Additional Collision Locations – Based on Crash Rates
In addition to the top five intersections and top five segments based on relative severity, five
additional intersections and segments were identified in the SSAR based on their crash rates.
The top five additional intersection locations are as follows:
1. Traffic Way and Allen Street
Item 9.a - Page 111
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 15
a. Recent improvements along Allen Street with the new Chevrolet Dealership.
b. Recent installation of traffic signal at Traffic Way and Fair Oaks Boulevards.
i. Helps to provide gaps for vehicles on Allen Street.
2. Valley Road and Castillo Del Mar/AGHS parking lot
a. Construction is underway for the realignment of Castillo Del Mar at Valley Road into
a traditional perpendicular intersection.
3. W. Branch Street and Brisco Road
a. Brisco Road and US 101 interchange improvements will redesign this intersection.
4. E. Branch Street and Bridge Street
a. Evaluate pedestrian improvements (possibly move crosswalk on E. Branch Street
to the west leg) so there are less conflicts with the turning vehicles (removes right
turns from Nevada Street and Bridge Street and left turns from westbound E
Branch).
5. E. Grand Avenue and S. Elm Street
a. Evaluate future traffic signal improvements to include a signal head per lane and
update pedestrian push buttons to APS and provide countdown timers.
The top five additional segment locations are as follows:
1. Bridge Street – Traffic Way to E. Branch Street
a. Evaluate removal of the post office mailboxes and conversion of the segment from
Bridge Street to Nelson Street to one-way.
i. This matches the recommendation in the Circulation Element
2. Camino Mercado – W. Branch Street to Rancho Parkway
a. Recent striping improvements added a center yellow line.
b. Evaluate adding bike lanes.
3. Allen Street – Traffic Way to Pacific Coast Railway Place
a. Add a white edgeline to define parallel parking.
b. Add high visibility crosswalks and ADA ramps to the all-way stop control
intersection of Allen Street at Mason Street.
c. City Staff to begin working with residents to identify additional solutions.
4. W. Branch Street – Brisco Road to E. Branch Street
a. Brisco Road at Branch and Rodeo Drive will be redesigned with the Brisco Road
and US 101 Interchange Project.
5. Rancho Parkway – W. Branch Street to Via Vaquero
Item 9.a - Page 112
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 16
a. Provide pedestrian mid-block crossing improvements south the Via Vaquero.
5.2 Bicycle Collisions
In evaluating the bicycle to vehicle collisions in the City, seven years of data (2014-2020) was
mapped by severity. There were no fatal bicycle collisions and all collisions occurred in the day
except for two complaint of pain bicycle injury collisions. As shown in Figure 5.2, the bicycle
collisions were focused on the E Grand Avenue, E Branch Street, and Fair Oaks Avenue corridors.
Figure 5.2 Bicycle Collisions (2014-2020)
5.3 Pedestrian Collisions
As shown in Figure 5.3, the pedestrian to vehicle collisions in the City were mapped for the past
seven years (2014-2020) by collisions severity. There were two (2) fatal pedestrian collisions with
one occurring at night (pedestrian was crossing Grand Avenue at Bell Street) and one occurred
during the day (pedestrian was crossing E Branch Street at Short Street). There were also five (5)
severe injury pedestrian collisions with three (3) at night and two (2) during the day.
Item 9.a - Page 113
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 17
Figure 5.3 Pedestrian Collisions (2014-2020)
5.4 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions
From 2014 to 2020, there were 5 fatal and 18 severe injury collisions recorded. As shown in Figure
5.4, the five fatal collisions are as follows:
2017 – Pedestrian to vehicle collision at E. Branch Street and Short Street
2018 – Pedestrian to vehicle collision at Grand Avenue at Bell Street (crossing mid-block)
2018 – A single vehicle collision, hit object collision due to improper turning on El Camino
Real, 770 ft east of Oak Park Blvd.
2019 – A single vehicle, hit object collision due to DUI on El Camino Real 319 ft South of
Bennett Ave
2019 – A single vehicle, hit object collision due to DUI on Valley Road at Castillo Del Mar
(Arroyo Grande High School Back Driveway)
Item 9.a - Page 114
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 18
Figure 5.4 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2014-2020)
6. Emphasis Areas
The emphasis areas determined by the working group are as follows:
Bicycles
Intersections
Pedestrians
Distracted Driving
Aggressive Driving/Speeding
Emerging Technologies
Emergency Response
These emphasis areas were used in prioritizing safety projects.
6.1 Performance Measures
Performance measures should be SMART:
Specific – clear action item description
Measurable – identified performance measures
Item 9.a - Page 115
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 19
Achievable – committed resources by responsible organization
Relevant – statewide significance and data-driven issue and countermeasure
Time Constrained – achievable within the LRSP time frame
The performance measures will coincide with the goals defined by the LRSP working group.
6.2 Strategies
Strategies to improve safety will coincide with the current safety issues, goals of the LRSP, public
outreach, and goals of the previous safety plans.
In summary the following strategies will be implemented based on the findings.
7. Identify Strategies
7.1 Public Outreach
7.1.1 Social Pinpoint Website
A project website was created on the Social Pinpoint platform to inform the public about the LRSP
and provide a platform for input. Figure 7.1 displays the homepage for the website found at
lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/arroyogrande. Visitors to the page were invited to provide comments on
an interactive project map and share their thoughts through a project survey. Comments from the
interactive map and detailed results from the survey are included in Appendix A: Stakeholder and
Public Input. The interactive map had comments for both the Circulation Element and Local Road
Safety Plan as they were active for public comments at the same time.
Item 9.a - Page 116
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 20
Figure 7.1 Social Pinpoint Website Homepage
7.1.2 Interactive Map
The interactive map feature on the website allowed the public to drag icons to a location within the
City and leave a comment regarding driving, pedestrian, or bicycle suggestions at that location.
Figure 7.2 shows the interactive map feature from the website. Some of the public concerns
collected from the interactive map are as follows:
Item 9.a - Page 117
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 21
Figure 7.2 Public Website Interactive Map
Speeding
• Tally Ho – Want traffic calming measures similar to Rodeo Drive (especially for WB)
• Grace Lane – Recent speeds in excess of 60 mph
• Sunset Drive – Cut through route
• E Branch St between Nevada St and Short St – Public comment about vehicles speeding through
segment and need for traffic calming
• E Grand Avenue, west of Courtland St – Public comment about reducing speed to increase
pedestrian and bicyclist safety
• S Mason St and Allen St – Public comments about reducing speed (implementing traffic calming)
to increase pedestrian and bicycle safety
Pedestrian
• Wayfinding for pedestrian bridge between Best Western Hotel and Oak Park Plaza
• Preferences for increased accessibility on S Mason Street
• Improve pavement markings for crosswalk at West Branch Street and Traffic Way
Item 9.a - Page 118
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 22
Biking
• Valley Road – Complete the bike lanes by Arroyo Grande High School to Fair Oaks
• Grand Avenue – Discontinuous bike lanes (East of Brisco, El Camino Real, around Halcyon)
• Fair Oaks Avenue – No bike lanes at intersection with Halcyon (westbound), consider bike box for
left turn at Traffic Way
• Halcyon Road – Discontinuous bike lanes and changing typical section with travel lanes
• El Camino Real between Brisco Road and N Halcyon Road – Suggestion for a separated
pedestrian/bicycle path
• Brisco Road Interchange – Public concern about US 101 crossing
• E Branch Street – Concern about safety east of Garden Street and lack of infrastructure at Crown
Hill Street
• E Branch St between Crown Hill St and Huasna Rd - Public comments about providing protected
bicycle infrastructure and removing parking to provide safer bicycle routes for students in both
directions
8. Prioritize and Incorporate Strategies
Through coordination and feedback from the City of Arroyo Grande, LRSP working group, and
public outreach, the Local Road Safety Plan identifies safety projects and strategies.
The LRSP will discuss engineering strategies and projects as well as the other E’s to include
Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies.
8.1 Engineering Strategies
Engineering strategies and projects are presented in Table 8.1 based on feedback from the City,
Stakeholder Working Group, public outreach, and engineering analysis. Some countermeasures
identified in the SSAR were already implemented or are part of upcoming planned projects. The
countermeasures listed below represents projects that were not yet implemented, and other
projects identified since the SSAR process.
Item 9.a - Page 119
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 23
Table 8.1 Engineering Countermeasures
Countermeasure Location LRSM ID
S17PB
S18PB
S21PB
S02
S03
S07
NS19PB
NS20PB
NS21PB
R32PB
-
Road diet Halcyon Rd from Fair Oaks Ave to E Grand Ave
Oak Park Boulevard from E Grand Ave to Atlantic City Ave R14
Signage improvements Locations determined through a citywide sign audit R22
R23
R24
R28
-
R24
-Additional Enforcement
-
Non-pedestrian
improvements at signalized
intersections
Intersections of:
E Grand Ave at Courtland St
E Grand Ave at S Elm St
E Grand Ave at S Halcyon Rd
El Camino Real at Brisco Rd
and/or
Systemically at other City signalized intersections Provide left turn phase (left turn lane already exists)
Pedestrian improvements at
uncontrolled locations
Evaluate Traffic calming measures to include speed cushions, travel
width narrowing, parking delination and/or separate bikeway, etc.
(traffic calming needs to adhere to City policy)
Traffic Way at US 101 NB Off-Ramp
Grace Lane North or Rodeo Drive
Tally Ho from SR 227 to James Way
Sunset Drive from Elm St to Alder St
Speed management
Bike lane improvements
along segments
Install Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Striping and pavement
marking improvements
N Oak Park Blvd from Atlantic City Ave to Chilton St
Fair Oaks Ave from Halcyon Rd to Valley RdCurve related
Improvements
Description
Pedestrian improvements at
signalized intersections
Install pedestrian countdown signal heads
Install pedestrian crossing
Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI)
Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective
border, mounting, size and number
Install green marking for bicycle lane conflict zones / install bike
boxes where appropriate
Install bike lanes
Intersections of:
E Grand Ave at Courtland St
E Grand Ave at S Elm St
E Grand Ave at S Halcyon Rd
El Camino Real at Brisco Rd
and/or
Systemically at other City signalized intersections
Evaluate Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add two way
left-turn and buffered bike lanes)
Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled locations (signs and
markings only)
Install pedestrian crossing at uncontrolled location with enhanced
safety feature (RRFB, Curb Extensions) (where applicable)
Install raised medians/refuge islands
Install chevron signs on horizontal curves (where applicable)
Install curve advance warning signs
Install/Upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory and
waring signs)
Improve signal timing (coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation)
E Grand Avenue from El Camino Real to Courtland St
Install thermoplastic edgelines and centerlines and pavement
markings
Remove botts dots and provide guide marks for offset lanes through
intersection (e.g. Halcyon Road, Elm St)
El Camino Real from N Oak Park Blvd to Grand Ave
W Branch St from N Oak Park Blvd to Camino Mercado
Valley Road -Approx. 600 ft S of Fair Oaks Ave
Fair Oaks Ave - 650 ft E of Halcyon Rd
Grand Avenue -Provide continuous bike lanes
Intersections of:
E Grand Ave at Bell St - East leg crossing E Grand Ave
Nelson St at Traffic Way
Rancho Pkwy at Via Vaquero
The Pike at Garfield Pl
and/or
Systemically at other City uncontrolled locations
Item 9.a - Page 120
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 24
8.1.1 Other Recommended City Projects
Pedestrian crossing improvements are recommended at the existing mid-block crossing at Nelson
Street and Traffic Way, at the proposed mid-block crossing at Grand Avenue at Bell Street (closest
crossing is at Halcyon Road and Traffic Way on Grand Avenue), and at a proposed midblock
crossing at Rancho Parkway at Via Vaquero. With these improvements, it is recommended to
provide or evaluate the lighting for the pedestrians crossing at night.
8.2 Implemented/Planned Projects
Since the completion of the SSAR, multiple safety projects have been implemented throughout the
City. Some improvements are as follows:
At the intersection of E. Branch Street and Short Street crossing improvements were made
to provide pedestrian activated flashing warning signs on E. Branch Street.
The intersection of The Pike and S. Halcyon Road was converted from a two-way stop to
an all-way stop in 2019 and is no longer a high priority intersection.
Due to the improvements made at the intersection of Fair Oaks Avenue and Traffic Way,
the intersection of Traffic Way and Allen Street has seen operational improvements. A
signal was installed in July 2019 that improved signage and pavement markings near Allen
Street and has helped create gaps in traffic for those turning from Allen Street.
Coordination is underway for the relocation of the bus loading zone on Valley Road
adjacent to Arroyo Grande High School. The bus loading zone is planned to be relocated to
the back parking lot which will allow continuous bike lanes on Valley Road adjacent to the
high school through a roadway restriping project.
Item 9.a - Page 121
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 25
8.3 Non-Engineering Strategies
8.3.1 Education
Education strategies are listed below.
Pedestrian education campaigns – street crossing “dos and don’ts”, wear bright
clothing and have a light at night
Driver and bicyclist education and resources
Safe route to school maps and outreach at schools
Social media blasts with quick education tool for all users
Pop up campaigns
o April is distracted driving month, City should aim to have an outreach
campaign (can be funded by Office of Traffic Safety grants)
School safety campaigns
8.3.2 Emerging Technologies
Possible emerging technologies strategies are listed below.
Bicycle and video detection
Changeable message signs
o Police Department currently has two portable changeable message
signs. The second sign was recently purchased through a grant
City recently purchased a data collector for speed and volumes
Update older technology (traffic signals, speed feedback signs, etc.)
8.3.3 Enforcement
Enforcement strategies are listed below.
During the development of the LRSP the City added a full-time motor office,
supplemented by a part time motor office.
Targeted speed enforcement
DUI saturation patrols
8.3.4 Emergency Response
Emergency response strategies are suggested below.
Provide Administrative Staff
Continue Save a Life – PulsePoint Responder (smartphone app designed to
empower everyday citizens to save a life)
Item 9.a - Page 122
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 26
Continue Emergency Preparedness Information
9. Implementation Process
In evaluating how to implement safety projects, a prioritized list of projects with additional systemic
projects is included in Appendix C: SSAR Priority Projects. The City of Arroyo Grande will look
for opportunities to incorporate safety enhancements with the Capital Improvement Program.
However, funding is very limited and typically used for roadway paving and maintenance. Additional
funding opportunities can come through grant funding to include HSIP, ATP, and CMAQ.
10. Evaluation Process
To evaluate the success of this plan, yearly collision analysis, along with requests for public
feedback, can take place and be compared to the established goals.
Goal: Reduce the potential for fatal and severe injury collisions Citywide
o Measure of Success: A reduction in the number of fatal and
severe injury collision Citywide over time will determine whether
this goal is being met. This reduction can be achieved gradually
by smaller reductions until no fatal or severe injury collision
occurs on City roadways.
Goal: Reduce the potential for rear-end collisions Citywide
o Measure of Success: A decrease in “rear-end” type collisions after implementing
safety countermeasures to include engineering, enforcement, education, and
emerging technologies will determine if this goal is met.
Goal: Reduce the potential for bicycle and pedestrian collisions Citywide.
o Measure of Success: A decrease in pedestrian and bicycle involved collisions. This
could be attributed to an increase in multimodal facilities and connected systems.
Goal: Improve the health and vitality of our community with a safety plan that encourages
safety for pedestrians and bicyclists that is targeted to Arroyo Grande’s local roadway needs
o Measure of Success: If this goal is successful, residents will express an increased
feeling of safety while using Arroyo Grande’s transportation systems. Additionally, the
number and severity of collisions each year will decrease.
Goal: Improve safety around schools with a connected multimodal system and improved
crossings
o Measure of Success: An evaluation of improvements to the multimodal
transportation infrastructure around schools will capture the effectiveness of this goal.
Goal: Increase walking, biking, rolling (wheelchair, skateboard, scooter, etc.) to the
downtown district, to work, and to school.
o Measure of Success: Increase in multimodal infrastructure and improvements and
subsequent pedestrian and bicycle counts.
Item 9.a - Page 123
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 27
Goal: Improve safety at uncontrolled crossings
o Measure of Success: Increase safety improvements at uncontrolled crossing
locations with a reduction of collisions occurring at these locations will determine if
this goal is met.
Goal: Increase driver and pedestrian education
o Measure of Success: An increase to the number of public education and information
campaigns initiated by the City will determine if this goal has been met.
Goal: Reduce distracted driving
o Measure of Success: A decrease in “Distracted Driving” violations after
implementing engineering, enforcement, education, and emerging technologies
will determine if this goal is met.
Goal: Improve bike safety with additional bikeways and green bike lanes for vehicle to bicycle
conflict areas
o Measure of Success: An increase to the amount of bikeways and green bike
lanes at conflict areas installed by the City will determine if this goal is met.
Goal: Increase traffic enforcement
o Measure of Success: A decrease in “Unsafe Speed” and “DUI” violations.
Goal: Receive grant funding for LRSP identified projects
o Measure of Success: Successful grant applications for federal and state
funding for the Local Road Safety Plan identified projects.
11. Next Steps
The City of Arroyo Grande’s Local Road Safety Plan is scheduled to go to City Council in October
2021. This safety plan will be a living document and will guide the City’s roadway safety needs for
the next five years. It will be updated as needed and the goals will be monitored.
12. References
Traffic Data
Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System, 2014-2018.
Transportation Injury Mapping System, 2014-2018.
Collision Data, City of Arroyo Grande, 2014-2020.
Item 9.a - Page 124
GHD | Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 LRSP | Page 28
Manuals
“Developing Safety Plans, A Manual for Local Rural Road Owners”, Federal Highway
Administration, March 2012, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/local_rural/training/fhwasa12017/.
2020-2024 California’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP), “California Safe Roads: 2020-
2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan”, Caltrans.
“Local Roadway Safety, A Manual for California’s Local Road Owners”, Caltrans, Version 1.5,
April 2020
“Highway Safety Manual”, American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO), 1st
Edition, 2014 supplement.
“California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD)”, Revision 5, 2014.
Websites
California Department of Transportation, “Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP)”,
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/shsp.
California Department of Transportation, “Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) and Systemic
Safety Analysis Report Program (SSARP)”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-
and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans.
California Department of Transportation, “HSIP Cycle 10”, https://dot.ca.gov/programs/local-
assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-improvement-program/apply-now.
City of Arroyo Grande Local Road Safety Plan,
https://lrsp.mysocialpinpoint.com/arroyogrande.
Item 9.a - Page 125
Arroyo Grande LRSP | R1989RPT002 |
Jay Walter
Jay.Walter@ghd.com
805.858.3141
Kathryn Kleinschmidt
Kathryn.Kleinschmidt@ghd.com
805.858.3147
Item 9.a - Page 126
Appendix A – Stakeholder and Public Input
Item 9.a - Page 127
Public Comments collected via Interactive Map – December 15, 2020 to February 25, 2021
Driving Comments
Biking Comments
ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude
D-1
Often drivers will wait to the last minute and then go
straight. Many already turned right back at the USPS drop.
Just make this a bike / bus only segment that allows right
turns if needed, instead of a Right Turn only lane that people
misuse. Make the right turn at the USPS boxes "Right Turn
Only" instead.Traffic Way and Nelson St 35.121364 -120.578048
D-2
Cars turning left here must navigate traffic coming from 2
different lights, 2 different driveways, and pedestrians in the
crosswalk. It's dangerous for everyone involved.E Grand Ave and W Branch St 35.122131 -120.581979
ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude
B-1
Possibly an isolated pedestrian path on the north side of el
camino that would funnel cyclist and pedestrian onto a
shared path under the 101 towards Branch street. It would
allow cyclist to cross Brisco, west bound, easier as well.
I constantly ride on this short stretch of el camino west
bound past Brisco and have to fight for space in traffic as cars
race to turn right on Brisco towards 101 north bound. The
light is a no turn on red, so cars urgently try to make the turn.
El Camino Real btwn Brisco Rd and N
Halcyon Rd 35.123708 -120.592804
B-2
This area is a major concern for cyclist to pass to branch
street. choosing between the sidewalk and the busy road.
Updating the sidewalk to allow cyclist easily flow into a safe
space to cross the 101.Brisco Rd north of El Camino Real 35.123906 -120.593387
Item 9.a - Page 128
ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude
B-3
adding the class 2 bike lane would be a big plus, but reducing
speed limit would make bikers feel more comfortable.
S Halcyon Rd btwn Park Way and
Dodson Way 35.116255 -120.591598
B-4
At around 44' across, this could also fit an uphill bike lane.
2x7.5' parking, 2x 11' travel lanes, and a 7' bike lane uphill
with sharrows downhill.Stagecoach Rd south of Platino Ln 35.129907 -120.564587
B-5
This is a designated "bike boulevard" in the city's bike
master plan. Cars don't know that, so merging into 1 lane
here for the sake of on-street parking becomes pretty
dangerous. There are 10 on street parking spaces on each
side of this block. Usually at least half unused. Not sure that
justifies the use of road space.W Branch St east of Traffic Way 35.122661 -120.58067
B-6
Might be Pismo, but a bike lane to the right of a right turn
only lane only works if you slow down traffic and make the
right of way more obvious.Intx of Oak Park Blvd and James Way 35.133879 -120.605292
B-7
Just get rid of the overly long merging lane and use the
space for better bike lanes on both sides. The buses will be
able to handle it.Huasna Rd east of SR 227 35.12715 -120.56918
B-8
Bike lane ends as road expands to three lanes. "Good luck
cyclists!"Valley Rd south of Fair Oaks Way 35.114617 -120.581296
B-9
Some sections here are wide enough for a full-fat bike lane,
instead of a bike boulevard, as long as you simply count how
much parking is needed for the church days. Would also
reduce speeding in addition to the speed bumps.
Newport Ave btwn Courtland St and
Montego St 35.124265 -120.604391
B-10
People can (and should) use bike lanes to turn right, so just
make a wide bike lane eastbound instead of a disappearing
bike lane into a right turn only lane.E Grand Ave and Halcyon Rd 35.11854 -120.591953
B-11
Northbound bike lane starts far from the intersection.
Conflict point at the McDonald's entrance.El Camino Real and Cornwall Ave 35.121393 -120.586282
B-12
You could fit bike lanes and discouraging speeding by adding
them, for just the cost of paint.
Further up Orchard there is no parking and you should
definitely reduce the width there also.
Orchard Ave btwn Pilgram Way and
W Cherry Ave 35.116124 -120.576563
B-13
As with a number of bike lanes in the city, the bike lane here
is half gutter. The gutter is not part of the road and can lead
to some dangerous conditions for cyclists.
James Way btwn Mesquite Ln and
Village Glen Dr 35.132638 -120.578771
B-14
Ash St should absolutely have a safe bike lane. No reason
every trip to the sports complex needs to be by car.Ash St west of S Elm St 35.114538 -120.601172
B-15 No bike lane westbound, just sharrows for a long time.
El Camino Real btwn Brisco Rd and N
Halcyon Rd 35.123506 -120.592486
B-16
Protect this bike lane with XLP channelizers to reduce
offramp speeding.
Traffic Way btwn E Cherry Ave and S
Traffic Way 35.11792 -120.57491
B-17
A Bike Boulevard may be insufficient to get elementary
school kids to bike. You'll need to make it very high quality,
and the Ocean View drop off areas would need to be
monitored.Montego St and Linda Dr 35.124466 -120.599843
B-18
Farroll is the same width here as it is to the west, so there's
no reason for the bike lane to just disappear.
Farroll Ave btwn Walnut St and Pecan
St 35.110795 -120.59646
Item 9.a - Page 129
ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude
B-19
There's also a magically appearing bike lane on this side of
the intersection (Westbound). The parking should be
removed directly next to the intersection and the bike lane
made continuous.S Halcyon Rd and Fair Oaks Ave 35.112757 -120.591785
B-20
The bike lanes are so faded that Chevy customers think they
can park here instead of just around the corner.Traffic Way and Poole St 35.120375 -120.576871
B-21
You could probably fit an uphill bike lane and a downhill
sharrow on Brisco without removing parking.
Brisco Rd btwn Linda Dr and El
Camino Real 35.122543 -120.595191
B-22
The outer travel lanes are 15+ ft while the bike lane is
substandard. Do not let CalTrans get in the way of fixing that.
Oak Park Blvd bridge south of W
Branch St 35.130087 -120.606707
B-23 No bike lane uphill is brutal. I use the sidewalk.Oak Park Blvd south of James Way 35.132762 -120.605618
B-24
Bike lane frequently gets sandy here. Provide regular
sweeping.W Branch St west of Rodeo Dr 35.124238 -120.591494
B-25
The parking demand here is low on the north side. Consider
removing north side parking for a bike buffer, especially for
fast moving cyclists downhill where a dooring could be fatal.
James Way btwn Colina St and Village
Glen Dr 35.131717 -120.577268
B-26
There is parking allowed here, and therefore this isn't even a
bike lane on the south side. One parked car and you have to
merge with fast traffic uphill.Branch St and Sterling Dr 35.125078 -120.5739
B-27
Turning left onto Fair Oaks is tricky. Consider a bike box or
two stage turn configuration to facilitate.Fair Oaks Ave and Traffic Way 35.119686 -120.576221
B-28
Make this an actual bike lane and maintain it like one.
Calling it a shoulder implies you don't have to maintain it
like a bike lane, when we know kids are using the shoulder
to bike to school.
Valley Rd btwn Fair Oaks Ave and Los
Berros Rd 35.109234 -120.58072
B-29
These bike lanes are better than the previous 35mph no-
bike-lane condition, but the addition of parked cars on one
side detracts from it. The bike lane is a door zone near the
parked cars and should be wider. The city standard details
should have all-ages-and-abilities bikeways as standard
following NACTO.
E Cherry Ave btwn Pacific Coast
Railway Pl and Leedham Pl 35.120452 -120.571616
B-30
While this has improved since my time at Paulding, it's still
nowhere near acceptable. The door zone bike lanes going
uphill are dangerous, and the substandard width bike lane
going downhill combined with high pedestrians at release
time are also dangerous.E Branch St east of Garden St 35.125351 -120.571196
B-31
Lack of protected infrastructure here makes this an unsafe
route to school, should kids want to bike to school. Students
should have a safe route to school.E Branch St and Crown Hill St 35.125038 -120.574737
B-32
The bike lane approaching and at the intersection here is
faded, basically gone, at this point. It's also hard to navigate
a left turn from the bike lane here when cars in the
rightmost lane can turn left or go straight. These conditions
make this intersection unsafe and unusable for most on
bike.Traffic Way south of W Branch St 35.122278 -120.581002
B-33 The bike lane here is not marked.W Branch St east of Camino Mercado 35.128968 -120.601333
B-34
Ending the bike lane here and dropping cyclists into fast
moving traffic makes this route unsafe and unusable.S Oak Park Blvd and Manhattan Ave 35.117855 -120.609283
B-35
Traffic on Fair Oaks moves at 40mph. The unprotected lane
here is not safe. A protected lane should be provided in
order to make this a feasible and safe route to school.
Fair Oaks Ave btwn California St and
Orchard Ave 35.118192 -120.578985
Item 9.a - Page 130
Pedestrian Comments
ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude
B-36
There is no dedicated space for bikes approaching this
intersection when going west on Fair Oaks. The bike lane has
been removed for a right turn lane. This makes drivers
impatient and creates unsafe conditions for cyclists. As this
is a route to school, safety for cyclists here should be a
priority.Fair Oaks ave and S Halycon Rd 35.11268 -120.591023
B-37
The bike lane heading west from Halcyon on Grand isn't
marked, which makes this route unsafe and unusable.E Grand Ave and Halcyon Rd 35.118561 -120.591602
B-38
Lack of a bike lane here makes this route unsafe and
unusable. The proposed improvements mark this as a
proposed sharrow. That is not safe given that cars are
moving at 35mph here. A bike lane (preferably protected) is
needed here.E Grand Ave east of El Camino Real 35.120597 -120.585573
B-39
The break in the bike lane here makes this route unsafe and
unusable.E Grand Ave east of Brisco Rd 35.119978 -120.598469
ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude
P-1
Pedestrians cross here, and will continue to cross here
whether or not there is a marked crosswalk. There should
be a marked crosswalk to make it safer.
W Branch St btwn Traffic Way
and Bridge St 35.122769 -120.579967
P-2
No reason for a beg button here. Are we surprised by
pedestrian traffic at this intersection? Leading interval is
also necessary. Lots of eager drivers aggressively trying to
make the turn in front of pedestrians.E Branch St and S Mason St 35.124281 -120.576582
P-3
No reason for a beg button here. There is plenty of
pedestrian traffic at this intersection. Making pedestrians
wait a full light cycle because they pushed the button 2
seconds late is really disrespectful.Fair Oaks Ave and Traffic Way 35.119708 -120.5764
P-4
There is no marked crosswalk on the north side of this
intersection and the curb cutout is misaligned with where
the marked crosswalk should be, creating unsafe
conditions for pedestrians and cyclists traveling to and
from the park.S Elm St and Fair Oaks Ave 35.112662 -120.600357
P-5
This bus stop serving the library has no bench, no shade,
and no sidewalk.
W Branch St and Library
driveway 35.12377 -120.590272
P-6
Extremely dangerous, and we make it worse by not having
a north side crosswalk at Fair Oaks. Add an RRFB, remove
adjacent parking, push the bike lane towards the curb and
provide refuge islands between the bike lanes and travel
lanes.Traffic Way and Nelson St 35.121296 -120.578148
P-7
This bridge is nice and should be better marked so people
use it.
Ped Bridge btwn Best Western
and Oak Park Plaza 35.131213 -120.604949
P-8
The cars get yield teeth merging onto traffic way. The
crosswalk should also get Yield Teeth.W Branch St and Traffic Way 35.122293 -120.581404
P-9
Hope you're not ADA because this sidewalk has been taken
over by Ford. And there's no sidewalk on the other side of
the street either.
Station Way north of Fair Oaks
Ave 35.119398 -120.577543
P-10
Could use a "Yield HERE to Peds" sign to make the stop bar
more useful. Also RRFB, bulbouts, etc.E Grand Ave and Alder St 35.118602 -120.593195
Item 9.a - Page 131
ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude
P-11
The dual lane capture point for the onramp just serves to
widen the pedestrian crossing, and serves little purpose.
Plus, longer light cycles due to long pedestrian crossing
times.
E Grand Ave and US 101 SB On
Ramp 35.120837 -120.584244
P-12
Where even IS the pedestrian crosswalk supposed to be?
20 feet behind the stop lines? It's silly.Traffic Way and Station Way 35.121827 -120.579449
P-13
There's no reason to have a 50 foot corner radius if semis
can just use the outer lane during a turn.
E Grand Ave and US 101 SB Off
Ramp 35.120884 -120.585004
P-14
No marked crosswalk to actually get to this sidewalk up to
the houses and shopping center.N Oak Park Blvd and Branch St 35.131316 -120.606024
P-15
This crosswalk was improved, but it should be made even
better with concrete to reduce the street width.Crown Hill St at E Branch St 35.12514 -120.574973
P-16
Create bulb outs (and set the stop bars back so trucks can
still turn)E Branch St and S Mason St 35.124499 -120.576464
P-17
Stop bar at intersection is literally in the direct walking
path between curb ramps.Nelson St and S Mason St 35.122867 -120.575316
P-18
Narrow sidewalk is often blocked by cars, posing an
accessibility blocker for wheelchair users who then have to
use the street.S Mason St and Poole St 35.121887 -120.574615
P-19 Leading pedestrian interval for safer crossing.Fair Oaks Ave and Traffic Way 35.119646 -120.576314
P-20
Consider enabling all pedestrian crossings without the
need for the beg button. Wide curb cutouts to facilitate
and encourage fast moving traffic, like at this intersection,
make it unsafe to cross if I approach this crossing during a
green light, with time to cross, but after having the
opportunity to use the beg button. This creates a delay for
pedestrians since they then need to wait another full light
cycle.
E Grand Ave and US 101 NB On
Ramp 35.121734 -120.582848
P-21
Mason and Allen are commonly used as routes for traffic to
cut through from E Branch to Branch Mill. Most traffic
through here is speeding above 25mph, which creates
unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists (many
children) in the neighborhood. Consider traffic calming
measures here.S Mason St and Allen St 35.120633 -120.573492
Item 9.a - Page 132
Transit Suggestion
City of Arroyo Grande LRSP Public Survey Results
Q1. What are the main roadway safety issues in Arroyo Grande? Check all that apply.
Q2. If other, Please list
- No response –
ID Comment Marker Location Latitude Longitude
T-1
the speed limit needs to be reduced here. It would cause
pedestrians to feel safer when crossing. And slowing
transit would cause more recognition of store fronts and
businesses.
E Branch St btwn Nevada St and
Short St 35.123688 -120.578125
T-2
Reduce speed limit on Grand to provide more recognition
of store fronts and allow pedestrians and cyclist to feel
safer and more inclined to take this route.
E Grand Ave west of Courtland
St 35.120646 -120.605893
T-3
It's a little unfortunate that the library can only be reached
by a bus that runs one direction. A traffic light at Branch
and Grand would probably allow the buses to continue
down Branch instead of getting onto the freeway.W Branch St at Library driveway 35.123567 -120.589606
T-4
Specifically we could do level boarding for both east and
westbound stops. Would be more equitable for ADA
school kids as well.Fair Oaks Ave east of Valley Rd 35.117185 -120.581508
T-5 We can engineer a westbound bus stop that makes sense.Fair Oaks Ave east of Valley Rd 35.11692 -120.581805
T-6
Instead of exposed bike racks, use bike lockers that can be
locked with a personal lock like a U-lock on the door.
El Camino Real btwn N Halcyon
Rd and Feah Ave 35.122767 -120.590205
Item 9.a - Page 133
Q3. Are you familiar with how Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB) work?
Q4. Would you be interested in an educational component for PHBs (e.g. a
video or infographic)?
Item 9.a - Page 134
Q5. Do you have any concerns about speeding on local roads?
Q6. *Please list specific locations and any recommendations you may have.
1. The village!!!! Make the speed limit 15 mph, put a bike lane, and have cars park on one
side of the street or behind businesses so that people and families have space to
comfortably ride their bikes and walk around without cars speeding by.
2. The village. Speed is 25 mph but people rush through anyways. It is difficult to leisurely
ride a bike through that area due to this , and biking on the side walk is not a good option
due to the busy store fronts. Also in the Halcyon/grande area the speed limit is 40 mph in
some places with no area for bikes. These suggestions have also been added to the
interactive map. *
Q7. What roadway improvements would you like to see in and around school zones?
- No Responses -
Q8. What other improvements would you like to see?
1. Isolated pedestrian/bike paths. The proposed plans for the lanes and path are wonderful
and I hope all of them can be completed soon! These paths are a great opportunities that
prompt people to be outside. I hope the Grand 101 overpass can be improved for bike
crossing. Biking and even walking that section feels very exposed to the cars getting on
the 101. I am a professional cyclist and avoid this area of grand because of this and the
lack of a bike lane.
2. More bike lanes!!!!!!!
Item 9.a - Page 135
Q9. Additional Comments
- No Responses -
Item 9.a - Page 136
Item 9.a - Page 137
Item 9.a - Page 138
Item 9.a - Page 139
Item 9.a - Page 140
.
.
~
LUCIA MAR UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Engage. Challenge.Inspire
August 16, 2021
Arroyo Grande City Council
300 E Branch Street
Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Subject: Local Road Safety Plan
Dear Arroyo Grande City Council:
BUSINESS SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Jim Empey
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
602 Orchard Street, Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Tel 805.474.3000 xl070 I Fax 805.473.1593
RECEIVED
,\
AUG 19 2021
CITY OF ARROYO GRANDE
Over the last year and a half Lucia Mar Unified School District has collaborated with City of Arroyo
Grande officials and other organizations to finalize the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). During this
time, Lucia Mar has had a district representative working closely with the committee to identify
safety issues that we feel affect our students and families. Lucia Mar USD is serious about ensuring
the safety of its students. Safety starts with students walking, biking, or driving to-and-from school,
and we believe that all forms of transportation are of equal importance. As every family has its own
unique situation, a variety of forms of transportation are required.
We attended in-person and virtual meetings, and we met with Robin Dickerson onsite to review
potential changes to Valley Road. This positive collaboration is reflected in the final version of the
LRSP. During our meetings, several safety issues were identified and studied: (1) Fair Oaks Road
encompasses two of our biggest campuses: Arroyo Grande High School (AGHS) and Harloe
Elementary School. The LRSP addresses the needs of both schools through the Halcyon Complete
Streets Project and the redesign of Valley Road. (2) Identifying a potential problem on Nelson
Street and Traffic Way was also important because we have many students traveling to-and-from
-AGHS using that intersection.
Lucia Mar Unified School District strongly supports the final version of LRSP. We hope that it will be
adopted and implemented. It is very important that the City of Arroyo Grande continues to
collaborate with the "School District" to ensure that our streets are safe for all of our road users.
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to help make the City of Arroyo Grande a better place to
live and work.
Assistant Superintendent, Business Services
Item 9.a - Page 141
Appendix B – SSAR Crash Analysis
Item 9.a - Page 142
Intersection IDRanked Intersection by EPDO EPDOIntersection IDRanked Intersection by Overall Crash Rates Overall Crash RatesIntersection IDRanked intersection by Total Crashes Toal Crashes9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST 581 1 51 TRAFFIC WAY & ALLEN ST 1.48 1 2 E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST 44
46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST 557 2 64 VALLEY RD & AGHS STAFF PARKING / BACK ROAD 1.22 2 1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST 34
1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST 133 3 15 W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD 0.94 3 13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD 32
13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD 91 4 8 W BRNACH ST & BRIDGE ST 0.93 4 6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST 30
20 THE PIKE & S HALCYON RD 82 5 2 E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST 0.91 5 4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD 30
6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST 70 6 20 THE PIKE & S HALCYON RD 0.83 6 8 W BRNACH ST & BRIDGE ST 26
2 E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST 54 7 6 E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST 0.79 7 15 W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD 25
12 JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD 52 8 43 THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL 0.78 8 27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP 23
8 W BRNACH ST & BRIDGE ST 51 9 1 E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST 0.76 9 3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD 23
19 FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD 48 10 67 CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD 0.76 10 16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD 22
16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD 47 11 16 EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD 0.67 11 7 W BRANCH ST & TRAFFIC WAY 21
4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD 45 12 28 W BRANCH ST & CAMINO MERCADO / US 101 NB RAMPS 0.66 12 29 W BRANCH ST / US 101 NB RAMP & N OAK PARK BLVD 21
14 W BRANCH ST & RANCHO PKWY 43 13 14 W BRANCH ST & RANCHO PKWY 0.65 13 28 W BRANCH ST & CAMINO MERCADO / US 101 NB RAMPS 19
5 E GRAND AVE & EL CAMINO REAL 39 14 17 EL CAMINO REAL & N HALCYON RD 0.65 14 17 EL CAMINO REAL & N HALCYON RD 19
17 EL CAMINO REAL & N HALCYON RD 39 15 65 FAIR OAKS AVE & TODD LN 0.63 15 5 E GRAND AVE & EL CAMINO REAL 19
27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP 38 16 13 EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD 0.56 16 20 THE PIKE & S HALCYON RD 18
29 W BRANCH ST / US 101 NB RAMP & N OAK PARK BLVD 36 17 27 E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP 0.56 17 14 W BRANCH ST & RANCHO PKWY 18
58 FAIR OAKS AVE & STATION WAY 36 18 23 FAIR OAKS AVE & US 101 SB OFF RAMP & ORCHARD ST 0.56 18 64 VALLEY RD & AGHS STAFF PARKING / BACK ROAD 17
40 E GRAND AVE & JUNIPER ST 32 19 52 NELSON ST & S MASON ST 0.55 19 23 FAIR OAKS AVE & US 101 SB OFF RAMP & ORCHARD ST 16
15 W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD 30 20 11 E BRANCH ST & HUSANA RD 0.54 20 10 E BRANCH ST & S MASON ST 14
63 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS EAST ENTRANCE 30 21 7 W BRANCH ST & TRAFFIC WAY 0.54 21 46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST 14
28 W BRANCH ST & CAMINO MERCADO / US 101 NB RAMPS 29 22 19 FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD 0.54 22 19 FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD 13
31 N OAK PARK BLVD & E GRAND AVE 29 23 4 E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD 0.54 23 18 FAIR OAKS AVE & S HALCYON RD 13
3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD 28 24 35 ASH ST & COURTLAND ST 0.53 24 11 E BRANCH ST & HUSANA RD 12
11 E BRANCH ST & HUSANA RD 27 25 3 E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD 0.53 25 22 FAIR OAKS AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 12
64 VALLEY RD & AGHS STAFF PARKING / BACK ROAD 27 26 5 E GRAND AVE & EL CAMINO REAL 0.52 26 40 E GRAND AVE & JUNIPER ST 12
7 W BRANCH ST & TRAFFIC WAY 26 27 59 CHERRY AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 0.51 27 44 E GRAND AVE & RENA ST 12
42 THE PIKE & S ELM ST 26 28 47 EL CAMINO REAL & BELL ST 0.47 28 42 THE PIKE & S ELM ST 11
69 E GRAND AVE & ALDER ST 26 29 74 W BRANCH ST & TOWN CENTER DR 0.44 29 24 FAIR OAKS AVE & VALLEY RD 11
37 FARROLL AVE & S ELM ST 25 30 10 E BRANCH ST & S MASON ST 0.43 30 65 FAIR OAKS AVE & TODD LN 10
65 FAIR OAKS AVE & TODD LN 25 31 49 TRAFFIC WAY & NELSON ST 0.41 31 59 CHERRY AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 10
74 W BRANCH ST & TOWN CENTER DR 24 32 42 THE PIKE & S ELM ST 0.39 32 36 FAIR OAKSAVE & S ELM ST 10
18 FAIR OAKS AVE & S HALCYON RD 23 33 62 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS MIDDLE ENTRANCE 0.39 33 74 W BRANCH ST & TOWN CENTER DR 9
22 FAIR OAKS AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 22 34 22 FAIR OAKS AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 0.39 34 49 TRAFFIC WAY & NELSON ST 8
45 E GRAND AVE N ALPINE ST 22 35 46 E GRAND AVE & BELL ST 0.39 35 62 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS MIDDLE ENTRANCE 8
10 E BRANCH ST & S MASON ST 19 36 24 FAIR OAKS AVE & VALLEY RD 0.39 36 9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST 8
49 TRAFFIC WAY & NELSON ST 18 37 18 FAIR OAKS AVE & S HALCYON RD 0.37 37 12 JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD 8
62 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS MIDDLE ENTRANCE 18 38 66 S ELM ST & MAPLE ST 0.37 38 43 THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL 7
44 E GRAND AVE & RENA ST 17 39 53 CORBETT CANYON RD & SR 227 / PRINTZ RD 0.37 39 66 S ELM ST & MAPLE ST 7
66 S ELM ST & MAPLE ST 17 40 36 FAIR OAKSAVE & S ELM ST 0.36 40 45 E GRAND AVE N ALPINE ST 7
23 FAIR OAKS AVE & US 101 SB OFF RAMP & ORCHARD ST 16 41 29 W BRANCH ST / US 101 NB RAMP & N OAK PARK BLVD 0.36 41 35 ASH ST & COURTLAND ST 6
35 ASH ST & COURTLAND ST 16 42 70 JAMES WAY & MEADOW WAY 0.36 42 58 FAIR OAKS AVE & STATION WAY 6
36 FAIR OAKSAVE & S ELM ST 15 43 9 E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST 0.35 43 69 E GRAND AVE & ALDER ST 6
59 CHERRY AVE & TRAFFIC WAY 15 44 40 E GRAND AVE & JUNIPER ST 0.34 44 41 E GRAND AVE & FAIR VIEW DR 6
54 HUSANA RD & CLARENCE AVE 14 45 44 E GRAND AVE & RENA ST 0.33 45 67 CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD 5
55 HUSANA RD & ORO DR 13 46 21 LEANNA DR & VALLEY RD 0.29 46 52 NELSON ST & S MASON ST 5
56 HUSANA RD & STAGECOACH RD 12 47 58 FAIR OAKS AVE & STATION WAY 0.29 47 53 CORBETT CANYON RD & SR 227 / PRINTZ RD 5
24 FAIR OAKS AVE & VALLEY RD 11 48 54 HUSANA RD & CLARENCE AVE 0.27 48 63 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS EAST ENTRANCE 5
41 E GRAND AVE & FAIR VIEW DR 11 49 71 OAK PARK BLVD & MEADOWLARK DR 0.26 49 37 FARROLL AVE & S ELM ST 5
52 NELSON ST & S MASON ST 10 50 68 MASON & LE POINT ST 0.26 50 51 TRAFFIC WAY & ALLEN ST 4
21 LEANNA DR & VALLEY RD 9 51 57 PRINTZ RD & TALLY HO RD 0.25 51 70 JAMES WAY & MEADOW WAY 4
61 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS WEST ENTRANCE 8 52 63 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS EAST ENTRANCE 0.23 52 21 LEANNA DR & VALLEY RD 4
43 THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL 7 53 12 JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD 0.22 53 54 HUSANA RD & CLARENCE AVE 4
50 TRAFFIC WAY & POOLE ST 7 54 72 BRISCO & LINDA DR 0.21 54 38 DODSON WAY & HALCYON RD 4
53 CORBETT CANYON RD & SR 227 / PRINTZ RD 5 55 69 E GRAND AVE & ALDER ST 0.21 55 31 N OAK PARK BLVD & E GRAND AVE 4
67 CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD 5 56 37 FARROLL AVE & S ELM ST 0.20 56 71 OAK PARK BLVD & MEADOWLARK DR 3
38 DODSON WAY & HALCYON RD 4 57 55 HUSANA RD & ORO DR 0.20 57 68 MASON & LE POINT ST 3
51 TRAFFIC WAY & ALLEN ST 4 58 45 E GRAND AVE N ALPINE ST 0.19 58 57 PRINTZ RD & TALLY HO RD 3
70 JAMES WAY & MEADOW WAY 4 59 25 TRAFFIC WAY & US 101 NB RAMP 0.19 59 72 BRISCO & LINDA DR 3
25 TRAFFIC WAY & US 101 NB RAMP 3 60 39 ASH ST & WALNUT ST 0.18 60 55 HUSANA RD & ORO DR 3
26 E GRAND AVE & US 101 NB RAMP 3 61 32 W BRANCH ST & RODEO DR 0.18 61 25 TRAFFIC WAY & US 101 NB RAMP 3
57 PRINTZ RD & TALLY HO RD 3 62 48 W BRANCH ST & VERNON ST 0.17 62 61 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS WEST ENTRANCE 3
68 MASON & LE POINT ST 3 63 41 E GRAND AVE & FAIR VIEW DR 0.17 63 26 E GRAND AVE & US 101 NB RAMP 3
71 OAK PARK BLVD & MEADOWLARK DR 3 64 61 FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS WEST ENTRANCE 0.14 64 60 CHERRY AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 2
72 BRISCO & LINDA DR 3 65 38 DODSON WAY & HALCYON RD 0.14 65 47 EL CAMINO REAL & BELL ST 2
30 BRISCO RD & US 101 NB RAMPS 2 66 56 HUSANA RD & STAGECOACH RD 0.13 66 39 ASH ST & WALNUT ST 2
32 W BRANCH ST & RODEO DR 2 67 33 JAMES WAY & RODEO DR 0.12 67 32 W BRANCH ST & RODEO DR 2
39 ASH ST & WALNUT ST 2 68 34 JAMES WAY & TALLY HO RD 0.11 68 56 HUSANA RD & STAGECOACH RD 2
47 EL CAMINO REAL & BELL ST 2 69 50 TRAFFIC WAY & POOLE ST 0.10 69 50 TRAFFIC WAY & POOLE ST 2
60 CHERRY AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 2 70 30 BRISCO RD & US 101 NB RAMPS 0.07 70 30 BRISCO RD & US 101 NB RAMPS 2
33 JAMES WAY & RODEO DR 1 71 26 E GRAND AVE & US 101 NB RAMP 0.07 71 48 W BRANCH ST & VERNON ST 1
34 JAMES WAY & TALLY HO RD 1 72 31 N OAK PARK BLVD & E GRAND AVE 0.07 72 33 JAMES WAY & RODEO DR 1
48 W BRANCH ST & VERNON ST 1 73 73 FAIR OAKS AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 0.04 73 34 JAMES WAY & TALLY HO RD 1
73 FAIR OAKS AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 1 74 60 CHERRY AVE & CALIFORNIA ST ‐74 73 FAIR OAKS AVE & CALIFORNIA ST 1
Item 9.a - Page 143
Collisions at Selected IntersectionFatalInjury (Severe)Injury (Other Visible)Injury (Complaint of Pain)Property Damage OnlyHead-onSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle/ PedestrianOther/Not Listed20142015201620172018EPDO24-HOUR ENTERING VOLUMEFatal + InjuryOverall Crash RateFatal Crash RateFatal + Injury Crash rate1E GRAND AVE & COURTLAND ST1 5 4 24 610122 222211595413324,387 10 0.764 ‐ 0.225 342E GRAND AVE & S ELM ST2 4249206327128895426,394 2 0.913 ‐ 0.042 443E GRAND AVE & BRISCO RD12213573 131834532823,960 1 0.526 ‐ 0.023 234E GRAND AVE & S HALCYON RD1 1281784281975634530,603 2 0.537 ‐ 0.036 305E GRAND AVE & EL CAMINO REAL1 216 25822736213919,883 3 0.524 ‐ 0.083 196E GRAND AVE & W BRANCH ST3 2 25242202121073647020,709 5 0.794 ‐ 0.132 307W BRANCH ST & TRAFFIC WAY1202285133 5672621,343 1 0.539 ‐ 0.026 218W BRNACH ST & BRIDGE ST1 3 22 96 2 273 185485115,249 4 0.934 ‐ 0.144 269E BRANCH ST & SHORT ST1 3 41112321131258112,602 4 0.348 0.043 0.174 810E BRANCH ST & S MASON ST11321611 121323241917,799 1 0.431 ‐ 0.031 1411E BRANCH ST & HUSANA RD1 1 10 13 71221162712,172 2 0.540 ‐ 0.090 1212JAMES WAY & OAK PARK BLVD1 1 1 533112 425220,040 3 0.219 ‐ 0.082 813EL CAMINO REAL & N OAK PARK BLVD1 2 227277812 51839669131,197 5 0.562 ‐ 0.088 3214W BRANCH ST & RANCHO PKWY2 115115236534244315,096 3 0.653 ‐ 0.109 1815W BRANCH ST & BRISCO RD1 24161314763633014,590 1 0.939 ‐ 0.038 2516EL CAMINO REAL & BRISCO RD1 3184673111323774717,901 4 0.673 ‐ 0.122 2217EL CAMINO REAL & N HALCYON RD1 2 161113130244183916,038 3 0.649 ‐ 0.102 1918FAIR OAKS AVE & S HALCYON RD211 1622 1111541122319,018 2 0.375 ‐ 0.058 1319FARROLL AVE & S HALCYON RD3 1 9 12811235124813,213 4 0.539 ‐ 0.166 1320THE PIKE & S HALCYON RD1 2 31211592422648211,952 6 0.825 ‐ 0.275 1821LEANNA DR & VALLEY RD131 21 12197,619 1 0.288 ‐ ‐ 422FAIR OAKS AVE & TRAFFIC WAY210223415 2232216,827 2 0.391 ‐ 0.065 1223FAIR OAKS AVE & US 101 SB OFF RAMP & ORCHARD ST16221632354221615,787 0 0.555 ‐ ‐ 1624FAIR OAKS AVE & VALLEY RD11 4321132151115,563 0 0.387 ‐ ‐ 1125TRAFFIC WAY & US 101 NB RAMP311111138,675 0 0.189 ‐ ‐ 326E GRAND AVE & US 101 NB RAMP3111 0 12324,252 0 0.068 ‐ ‐ 327E GRAND AVE & US 101 SB RAMP1 121 5752 1311293363822,479 2 0.561 ‐ 0.049 2328W BRANCH ST & CAMINO MERCADO / US 101 NB RAMPS217136180623442915,761 2 0.661 ‐ 0.070 1929W BRANCH ST / US 101 NB RAMP & N OAK PARK BLVD1 119133914753153631,872 2 0.361 ‐ 0.034 2130BRISCO RD & US 101 NB RAMPS2110 11215,055 0 0.073 ‐ ‐ 231N OAK PARK BLVD & E GRAND AVE2 1 1 112021 12932,613 3 0.067 ‐ ‐ 432W BRANCH ST & RODEO DR221126,173 0 0.178 ‐ ‐ 233JAMES WAY & RODEO DR110114,667 0 0.117 ‐ ‐ 134JAMES WAY & TALLY HO RD110 114,821 0 0.114 ‐ ‐ 135ASH ST & COURTLAND ST2411 402 22166,202 2 0.530 ‐ 0.177 636FAIR OAKSAVE & S ELM ST1 9 2322 10112521515,120 1 0.362 ‐ 0.036 1037FARROLL AVE & S ELM ST2 3 1 2 11111122513,534 2 0.202 ‐ 0.081 538DODSON WAY & HALCYON RD41 111121415,352 0 0.143 ‐ ‐ 439ASH ST & WALNUT ST220 1126,017 0 0.182 ‐ ‐ 240E GRAND AVE & JUNIPER ST2 10 3314 101222513219,216 2 0.342 ‐ 0.057 1241E GRAND AVE & FAIR VIEW DR15 1 411 321119,216 1 0.171 ‐ 0.029 642THE PIKE & S ELM ST1 1 9 21152324112615,348 2 0.393 ‐ 0.071 1143THE PIKE & GARFIELD PL7 113223274,901 0 0.783 ‐ ‐ 744E GRAND AVE & RENA ST111 44112212521719,714 1 0.334 ‐ 0.028 1245E GRAND AVE N ALPINE ST1 1 5 32110213 12219,714 2 0.195 ‐ 0.056 746E GRAND AVE & BELL ST11311523 1111334355719,714 1 0.389 0.028 0.028 1447EL CAMINO REAL & BELL ST2110 1122,312 0 0.474 ‐ 0.000 248W BRANCH ST & VERNON ST110113,175 0 0.173 ‐ 0.000 149TRAFFIC WAY & NELSON ST2 611111 121 213 21810,681 2 0.410 ‐ 0.103 850TRAFFIC WAY & POOLE ST1120111710,681 1 0.103 ‐ 0.051 251TRAFFIC WAY & ALLEN ST4 111111 1141,483 0 1.478 ‐ ‐ 452NELSON ST & S MASON ST1 4 1220212104,970 1 0.551 ‐ 0.110 553CORBETT CANYON RD & SR 227 / PRINTZ RD5311 3 257,462 0 0.367 ‐ ‐ 554HUSANA RD & CLARENCE AVE1 3 12 10 1112148,187 1 0.268 ‐ 0.067 455HUSANA RD & ORO DR21 1 110111138,187 2 0.201 ‐ 0.134 356HUSANA RD & STAGECOACH RD11 11 0 11128,187 1 0.134 ‐ 0.067 257PRINTZ RD & TALLY HO RD3212136,703 0 0.245 ‐ ‐ 358FAIR OAKS AVE & STATION WAY3 3 11 31021 2223611,447 3 0.287 ‐ 0.144 659CHERRY AVE & TRAFFIC WAY1 9 1 2322511211510,780 1 0.508 ‐ 0.051 1060CHERRY AVE & CALIFORNIA ST220112No Volume Data0‐ ‐ ‐ 261FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS WEST ENTRANCE12 1 2021811,354 1 0.145 ‐ 0.048 362FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS MIDDLE ENTRANCE1 7 411221411811,187 1 0.392 ‐ ‐ 863FAIR OAKS AVE & AGHS EAST ENTRANCE1 3 1 140 1 1223011,822 4 0.232 ‐ 0.185 564VALLEY RD & AGHS STAFF PARKING / BACK ROAD1 16 36 31 415542277,619 1 1.223 ‐ 0.072 1765FAIR OAKS AVE & TODD LN1 1 8 352032212258,724 2 0.628 ‐ 0.126 1066S ELM ST & MAPLE ST2 5 241011231710,252 2 0.374 ‐ 0.107 767CORBETT CANYON RD & GULARTE RD5411 12153,605 0 0.760 ‐ ‐ 568MASON & LE POINT ST311111136,363 0 0.258 ‐ ‐ 369E GRAND AVE & ALDER ST1 2 311121112222615,707 3 0.209 ‐ 0.105 670JAMES WAY & MEADOW WAY413012146,114 0 0.358 ‐ ‐ 471OAK PARK BLVD & MEADOWLARK DR312011136,277 0 0.262 ‐ ‐ 372BRISCO & LINDA DR31 1102137,674 0 0.214 ‐ ‐ 373FAIR OAKS AVE & CALIFORNIA ST111112,644 0 0.043 ‐ ‐ 174W BRANCH ST & TOWN CENTER DR3 611511211232411,264 3 0.438 ‐ ‐ 92 4 47 68 667 40 148 207 181 92 4 19 97 21 13 177 144 161 153 153 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ 788* Data provide by the City of Arroyo Grande do not identify bicycle related collisionsYearTotalTotalIntersection #NameSeverityTypePedestrianBicycle*Item 9.a - Page 144
Segment IDRanked Segment by EPDOFromToEPDOSegment IDRanked Segment by Overall Crash RateFromToOverall Crash RateSegment IDRanked Segment by Total CrashesFromToOverall Crashes15AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF BRISCO59426ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH NORTH OF TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF W BRANCH2.921BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM EAST OF COURTLAND EAST OF S ELM501BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM EAST OF COURTLAND EAST OF S ELM1109ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCHSOUTH OF RANCHO PKWY2.536BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF GRAND306BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF GRAND6531AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PCR PL EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE2.165BBRANCH WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO WEST OF BRISCO274BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF HALCYON WEST OF VALLEY605CBRANCH WEST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH WEST OF BRISCO NORTH OF W BRANCH2.075ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF CAMINO MERCADO275BBRANCH WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO WEST OF BRISCO5710ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO NORTH OF BRANCHNORHT OF VIA VAQUERO1.6310ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO NORTH OF BRANCHNORHT OF VIA VAQUERO254CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF CALIFORNIA5632ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF HUEBNER LN CITY LIMIT1.621CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON193CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF HUSANA/227451BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM EAST OF COURTLAND EAST OF S ELM1.434CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF CALIFORNIA161CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON3915AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF BRISCO1.4314ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF GRAND SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL1510ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO NORTH OF BRANCHNORHT OF VIA VAQUERO3515CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO SOUTH OF GRAND EAST OF HALCYONSOUTH OF GRAND1.424BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF HALCYON WEST OF VALLEY1526ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH NORTH OF TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF W BRANCH3223ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 EAST OF MASON WEST OF 2271.2926ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH NORTH OF TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF W BRANCH125ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF CAMINO MERCADO275BBRANCH WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO WEST OF BRISCO1.155CBRANCH WEST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH WEST OF BRISCO NORTH OF W BRANCH1214ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF GRAND SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL2514ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF GRAND SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL1.1515AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF BRISCO122AGRAND WEST OF HALCYON TO EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL226BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF GRAND1.143CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF HUSANA/227113DHUSANA EAST OF 227 TO CITY LIMIT EAST OF 227 CITY LIMITS225ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF CAMINO MERCADO1.0911BELM SOUTH OF FARROLL TO NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF FARROLL NORTH OF ASH1032ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF HUEBNER LN CITY LIMIT204BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF HALCYON WEST OF VALLEY0.937BOAK PARK SOUTH OF BRANCH TO CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BRANCH CITY LIMIT102BGRAND/BRANCH EAST OF ECR TO EAST OF W BRANCH EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF W BRANCH188AJAMES WAY EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO0.818AJAMES WAY EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO923ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 EAST OF MASON WEST OF 2271817AFARROLL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF ELM0.7912ASPRUCE ASH TO POPLAR ASH SOUTH OF POPLAR87BOAK PARK SOUTH OF BRANCH TO CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BRANCH CITY LIMIT1518BASH EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER0.789ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCHSOUTH OF RANCHO PKWY89ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCHSOUTH OF RANCHO PKWY134CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF CALIFORNIA0.7723ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 EAST OF MASON WEST OF 227812ASPRUCE ASH TO POPLAR ASH SOUTH OF POPLAR131CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0.663BW BRANCH WEST OF BRIDGE TO EAST OF MASON WEST OF BRIDGE ST EAST OF MASON ST824ALE POINTE RD FROM CROWN TER TO 227 CROWN TER SOUTH OF 2271318AASH WEST OF COURTLAND TO WEST OF ELM WEST OF COURTLAND WEST OF ELM0.652BGRAND/BRANCH EAST OF ECR TO EAST OF W BRANCH EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF W BRANCH83AW BRANCH EAST OF W BRANCH TO WEST OF BRIDGE EAST OF W BRANCH ST WEST OF BRIDGE ST123CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF HUSANA/2270.5517AFARROLL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF ELM75CBRANCH WEST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH WEST OF BRISCO NORTH OF W BRANCH1211BELM SOUTH OF FARROLL TO NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF FARROLL NORTH OF ASH0.532AGRAND WEST OF HALCYON TO EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL715CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO SOUTH OF GRAND EAST OF HALCYONSOUTH OF GRAND1113ACOURTLAND NORTH OF GRAND TO NORHT OF BRIGHTON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF BRIGHTON0.4915CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO SOUTH OF GRAND EAST OF HALCYONSOUTH OF GRAND611BELM SOUTH OF FARROLL TO NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF FARROLL NORTH OF ASH104AFAIR OAKS EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM EAST OF HALCYON0.4118BASH EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER615BEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF BRISCO TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF BRISCO WEST OF HALCYON1030ANELSON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST0.3432ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF HUEBNER LN CITY LIMIT518AASH WEST OF COURTLAND TO WEST OF ELM WEST OF COURTLAND WEST OF ELM1016BTHE PIKE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0.3418AASH WEST OF COURTLAND TO WEST OF ELM WEST OF COURTLAND WEST OF ELM56CHALCYON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR97BOAK PARK SOUTH OF BRANCH TO CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BRANCH CITY LIMIT0.3313ACOURTLAND NORTH OF GRAND TO NORHT OF BRIGHTON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF BRIGHTON58AJAMES WAY EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO93BW BRANCH WEST OF BRIDGE TO EAST OF MASON WEST OF BRIDGE ST EAST OF MASON ST0.3211CELM NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND53BW BRANCH WEST OF BRIDGE TO EAST OF MASON WEST OF BRIDGE ST EAST OF MASON ST811CELM NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND0.2715BEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF BRISCO TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF BRISCO WEST OF HALCYON517AFARROLL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF ELM733AORCHARD SO. OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO SO. OF CHERRY SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOUTH OF CHERRY AVER0.261AGRAND OAK PARK TO EAST OF COURTLAND OAK PARK EAST OF COURTLAND518BASH EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER611DELM NORTH OF GRAND TO LIMIT NORTH OF GRAND TERMINUS0.2621AALDER ST NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND41AGRAND OAK PARK TO EAST OF COURTLAND OAK PARK EAST OF COURTLAND515BEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF BRISCO TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF BRISCO WEST OF HALCYON0.2328ASTATION NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOTUH OF TRAFFIC NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF TRAFFIC411CELM NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND52BGRAND/BRANCH EAST OF ECR TO EAST OF W BRANCH EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF W BRANCH0.2229AOLOHAN ALLY EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST413ACOURTLAND NORTH OF GRAND TO NORHT OF BRIGHTON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF BRIGHTON52AGRAND WEST OF HALCYON TO EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL0.226CHALCYON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR421AALDER ST NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND420AVALLEY RD SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR0.2227CTRAFFCI WAY NORTH OF POOLE TO SOUTH OF BRANCH NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF BRANCH427CTRAFFCI WAY NORTH OF POOLE TO SOUTH OF BRANCH NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF BRANCH46CHALCYON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR0.2124ALE POINTE RD FROM CROWN TER TO 227 CROWN TER SOUTH OF 227328ASTATION NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOTUH OF TRAFFIC NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF TRAFFIC427CTRAFFCI WAY NORTH OF POOLE TO SOUTH OF BRANCH NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF BRANCH0.2025ACROWN HILL FROM NORTH OF BRANCH TO 227 NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF 227329AOLOHAN ALLY EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST417BFARROLL EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0.1931AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PCR PL EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE34AFAIR OAKS EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM EAST OF HALCYON320BVALLEY RD CASTRILLO SOUTH OF DEL MAR TO FAIR OAKS NORTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOTH OF FAIR OAKS AVE0.144AFAIR OAKS EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM EAST OF HALCYON316BTHE PIKE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON31AGRAND OAK PARK TO EAST OF COURTLAND OAK PARK EAST OF COURTLAND0.1416BTHE PIKE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON320AVALLEY RD SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR33DHUSANA EAST OF 227 TO CITY LIMIT EAST OF 227 CITY LIMITS0.1320AVALLEY RD SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR325ACROWN HILL FROM NORTH OF BRANCH TO 227 NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF 227327ATRAFFIC WAY NORTH OF RAMP TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORHT OF 101 RAMPSOUTH OF FAIR OAKS0.1322ARENA ST NORTH OF DODSON TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF DODSON SOUTH OF GRAND231AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PCR PL EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE311AELM SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FARROLL SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FARROLL0.1134AWHITELEY ST EXTENT EXTENT211AELM SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FARROLL SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FARROLL227BTRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS TO NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKSNORTH OF POOLE0.0930ANELSON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST220BVALLEY RD CASTRILLO SOUTH OF DEL MAR TO FAIR OAKS NORTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOTH OF FAIR OAKS AVE23AW BRANCH EAST OF W BRANCH TO WEST OF BRIDGE EAST OF W BRANCH ST WEST OF BRIDGE ST0.0833AORCHARD SO. OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO SO. OF CHERRY SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOUTH OF CHERRY AVER222ARENA ST NORTH OF DODSON TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF DODSON SOUTH OF GRAND24DFAIR OAKS EAST OF CALIFORNIA TO WEST OF TRAFFIC EAST OF CALIFORNIAWEST OF TRAFFIC WAY0.0020BVALLEY RD CASTRILLO SOUTH OF DEL MAR TO FAIR OAKS NORTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOTH OF FAIR OAKS AVE227ATRAFFIC WAY NORTH OF RAMP TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORHT OF 101 RAMPSOUTH OF FAIR OAKS26AHALCYON SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS0.003DHUSANA EAST OF 227 TO CITY LIMIT EAST OF 227 CITY LIMITS227BTRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS TO NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKSNORTH OF POOLE27AOAK PARK SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH0.0027ATRAFFIC WAY NORTH OF RAMP TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORHT OF 101 RAMPSOUTH OF FAIR OAKS230ANELSON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST214BBRISCO SOUTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF NB RAMPS SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF NB RAMPS0.0011AELM SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FARROLL SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FARROLL233AORCHARD SO. OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO SO. OF CHERRY SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOUTH OF CHERRY AVER216APIKE CITH LIMIT TO WEST OF ELM CITY LIMIT (DEL SOL ST) WEST OF ELM0.0027BTRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS TO NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKSNORTH OF POOLE234AWHITELEY ST EXTENT EXTENT212ASPRUCE ASH TO POPLAR ASH SOUTH OF POPLAR‐3AW BRANCH EAST OF W BRANCH TO WEST OF BRIDGE EAST OF W BRANCH ST WEST OF BRIDGE ST211DELM NORTH OF GRAND TO LIMIT NORTH OF GRAND TERMINUS124ALE POINTE RD FROM CROWN TER TO 227 CROWN TER SOUTH OF 227‐19AMAPLE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER117BFARROLL EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON121AALDER ST NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND‐11DELM NORTH OF GRAND TO LIMIT NORTH OF GRAND TERMINUS119AMAPLE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER128ASTATION NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOTUH OF TRAFFIC NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF TRAFFIC‐17BFARROLL EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON14DFAIR OAKS EAST OF CALIFORNIA TO WEST OF TRAFFIC EAST OF CALIFORNIAWEST OF TRAFFIC WAY029AOLOHAN ALLY EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST‐4DFAIR OAKS EAST OF CALIFORNIA TO WEST OF TRAFFIC EAST OF CALIFORNIAWEST OF TRAFFIC WAY06AHALCYON SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS025ACROWN HILL FROM NORTH OF BRANCH TO 227 NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF 227‐6AHALCYON SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS07AOAK PARK SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH022ARENA ST NORTH OF DODSON TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF DODSON SOUTH OF GRAND‐7AOAK PARK SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH014BBRISCO SOUTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF NB RAMPS SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF NB RAMPS034AWHITELEY ST EXTENT EXTENT‐14BBRISCO SOUTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF NB RAMPS SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF NB RAMPS016APIKE CITH LIMIT TO WEST OF ELM CITY LIMIT (DEL SOL ST) WEST OF ELM019AMAPLE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER‐16APIKE CITH LIMIT TO WEST OF ELM CITY LIMIT (DEL SOL ST) WEST OF ELM0Item 9.a - Page 145
Collisions at Segments (no Intersections)FatalInjury (Severe)Injury (Other Visible)Injury (Complaint of Pain)Property Damage OnlyHead-onSideswipeRear EndBroadsideHit ObjectOverturnedVehicle/ PedestrianOther/Not Listed20142015201620172018EPDO24-HOUR ENTERING VOLUMEFatal + InjuryOverall Crash RateFatal Crash RateFatal + Injury Crash rate1AGRAND OAK PARK TO EAST OF COURTLAND OAK PARK EAST OF COURTLAND0 0 0 0 51021100200021025 19,216 0 0.143 ‐ ‐ 51BGRAND COURTLAND TO ELM EAST OF COURTLAND EAST OF S ELM0 0 6 0442915840216217129 418110 19,216 6 1.426 ‐ 0.171 501CGRAND EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0 0 1 216106220012027334239 15,707 3 0.663 ‐ 0.105 192AGRAND WEST OF HALCYON TO EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL0 0 1 1 5110210018001111322 17,402 2 0.220 ‐ 0.063 72BGRAND/BRANCH EAST OF ECR TO EAST OF W BRANCH EAST OF EL CAMINO REAL EAST OF W BRANCH0 0 1 0 701220009000332018 19,646 1 0.223 ‐ 0.028 83AW BRANCH EAST OF W BRANCH TO WEST OF BRIDGE EAST OF W BRANCH ST WEST OF BRIDGE ST0 0 1 0 100020003001010012 13,699 1 0.080 ‐ 0.040 23BW BRANCH WEST OF BRIDGE TO EAST OF MASON WEST OF BRIDGE ST EAST OF MASON ST0 0 0 0 801302001600040048 13,699 0 0.320 ‐ ‐ 83CW BRANCH EAST OF MASON TO EAST OF HUSANA/227 EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF HUSANA/2270 1 0 1 913401003002322245 10,980 2 0.549 ‐ 0.100 113DHUSANA EAST OF 227 TO CITY LIMIT EAST OF 227 CITY LIMITS0 0 2 0 000002000000001122 8,187 2 0.134‐ 0.13424AFAIR OAKS EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM EAST OF HALCYON0 0 0 0 30210000200201003 4,046 0 0.406 ‐ 0.000 34BFAIR OAKS EAST OF HALCYON TO WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF HALCYON WEST OF VALLEY0 0 2 5 814710101014333260 8,805 7 0.933 ‐ 0.436 154CFAIR OAKS WEST OF VALLEY TO EAST OF CALIFORNIA WEST OF VALLEY EAST OF CALIFORNIA0 0 2 41015170003012473056 11,348 6 0.773 ‐ 0.290 164DFAIR OAKS EAST OF CALIFORNIA TO WEST OF TRAFFIC EAST OF CALIFORNIAWEST OF TRAFFIC WAY0 0 0 0 00000000200000000 13,091 0 0.000 ‐ ‐ 05ABRANCH EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF CAMINO MERCADO0 0 0 02726911008009445527 13,536 0 1.093 ‐ ‐ 275BBRANCH WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO TO WEST OF BRISCO WEST OF CAMINO MERCADO WEST OF BRISCO0 0 1 4222112420012003538857 12,810 5 1.155 ‐ 0.214275CBRANCH WEST OF BRISCO TO NORTH OF W BRANCH WEST OF BRISCO NORTH OF W BRANCH0 0 0 01204201009003422112 3,175 0 2.071 ‐ ‐ 126AHALCYON SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS0 0 0 0 00000000300000000 13,643 0 0.000 ‐ ‐ 06BHALCYON NORTH OF FAIR OAKS TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF GRAND0 0 1 524058350010009655565 14,363 6 1.144‐ 0.229 306CHALCYON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ECR0 0 0 1 30120000100211009 10,625 1 0.206 ‐ 0.052 47AOAK PARK SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF CHITTON NORTH OF BRANCH0 0 0 0 000000001000000000 16,065 0 0.000 ‐ ‐ 07BOAK PARK SOUTH OF BRANCH TO CITY LIMIT NORTH OF BRANCH CITY LIMIT0 0 0 1 901120105004321015 16,645 1 0.329 ‐ 0.033 108AJAMES WAY EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF TALLY HO0 0 0 0 92121101100023139 6,114 0 0.807 ‐ ‐ 99ACAMINO MERCADO NO. OF BRANCH TO SO. OF RANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCHSOUTH OF RANCHO PKWY0 0 0 1 701013003003212013 1,736 1 2.525 ‐ 0.316 810ARANCHO PKWY NORTH OF BRANCH TO NO. OF VIA VAQUERO NORTH OF BRANCHNORHT OF VIA VAQUERO0 0 0 223141530012003764535 8,391 2 1.633 ‐ 0.131 2511AELM SOUTH OF PIKE TO SOUTH OF FARROLL SOUTH OF PIKE SOUTH OF FARROLL0 0 0 0 20011000200020002 10,252 0 0.107 ‐ ‐ 211BELM SOUTH OF FARROLL TO NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF FARROLL NORTH OF ASH0 0 0 01003150002000314210 10,252 0 0.534‐‐1011CELM NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND0 0 0 0 50310000100012205 10,252 0 0.267 ‐ ‐ 511DELM NORTH OF GRAND TO LIMIT NORTH OF GRAND TERMINUS0 0 0 0 10001000100010001 2,145 0 0.255 ‐ ‐ 112ASPRUCE ASH TO POPLAR ASH SOUTH OF POPLAR0 0 0 1 703011013101212213 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 813ACOURTLAND NORTH OF GRAND TO NORHT OF BRIGHTON NORTH OF GRAND NORTH OF BRIGHTON0 0 0 0 50002100201003025 5,596 0 0.490 ‐ ‐ 514ABRISCO NORTH OF GRAND TO SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF GRAND SOUTH OF EL CAMINO REAL0 0 1 01405414001002311825 7,135 1 1.152 ‐ 0.077 1514BBRISCO SOUTH OF ECR TO NORTH OF NB RAMPS SOUTH OF ECR NORTH OF NB RAMPS0 0 0 0 00000000100000000 13,990 0 0.000 ‐ ‐ 015AEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF BRISCO EAST OF OAK PARKWEST OF BRISCO1 1 0 2 8213150000013125594 4,613 4 1.425 0.119 0.475 1215BEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF BRISCO TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF BRISCO WEST OF HALCYON0 0 0 1 402101001003011010 11,962 1 0.229 ‐ 0.046 515CEL CAMINO REAL EAST OF HALCYON TO SOUTH OF GRAND EAST OF HALCYONSOUTH OF GRAND0 0 0 1 510202002003111011 2,312 1 1.422 ‐ 0.237 616APIKE CITH LIMIT TO WEST OF ELM CITY LIMIT (DEL SOL ST) WEST OF ELM0 0 0 0 00000000000000000 4,901 0 0.000 ‐ 0.000 016BTHE PIKE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0 0 0 0 30111000200100023 4,901 0 0.335 ‐ ‐ 317AFARROLL EAST OF OAK PARK TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF OAK PARK WEST OF ELM0 0 0 0 70131000300123107 4,849 0 0.791 ‐ ‐ 717BFARROLL EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF HALCYON EAST OF ELM WEST OF HALCYON0 0 0 0 10100000100001001 2,915 0 0.188 ‐ ‐ 118AASH WEST OF COURTLAND TO WEST OF ELM WEST OF COURTLAND WEST OF ELM0 0 0 1 401110011102101110 4,210 1 0.651 ‐ 0.130 518BASH EAST OF ELM TO EAST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER0 0 0 0 60210000300111126 4,210 0 0.781 ‐ ‐ 619AMAPLE EAST OF ELM TO WEST OF ALDER EAST OF ELM WEST OF ALDER0 0 0 0 10000000200010001‐0‐‐‐120AVALLEY RD SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR0 0 0 0 30000200200100023 7,619 0 0.216 ‐ ‐ 320BVALLEY RD CASTRILLO SOUTH OF DEL MAR TO FAIR OAKS NORTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOTH OF FAIR OAKS AVE0 0 0 0 20001100400011002 7,619 0 0.144‐‐221AALDER ST NORTH OF ASH TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF ASH SOUTH OF GRAND0 0 0 0 40000200300011024‐0‐‐‐422ARENA ST NORTH OF DODSON TO SOUTH OF GRAND NORTH OF DODSON SOUTH OF GRAND0 0 0 0 20010000100020002‐0‐‐‐223ATALLY HO RD EAST OF MASON TO WEST OF 227 EAST OF MASON WEST OF 2270 0 1 0 711104002003012218 3,407 1 1.287 ‐ 0.161 824ALE POINTE RD FROM CROWN TER TO 227 CROWN TER SOUTH OF 2270 0 1 0 200111000001011013 ‐ 1 ‐ ‐ ‐ 325ACROWN HILL FROM NORTH OF BRANCH TO 227 NORTH OF BRANCH SOUTH OF 2270 0 0 0 30111000000020013‐0‐‐‐326ABRIDGE ST NORTH OF TRAFFIC TO SOUTH OF W BRANCH NORTH OF TRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF W BRANCH0 0 2 01005220005013211532 2,250 2 2.922 ‐ 0.487 1227ATRAFFIC WAY NORTH OF RAMP TO SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS NORHT OF 101 RAMPSOUTH OF FAIR OAKS0 0 0 0 20001100400011002 8,487 0 0.129 ‐ ‐ 227BTRAFFIC WAY SOUTH OF FAIR OAKS TO NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF FAIR OAKSNORTH OF POOLE0 0 0 0 21010000100100102 12,640 0 0.087 ‐ ‐ 227CTRAFFCI WAY NORTH OF POOLE TO SOUTH OF BRANCH NORTH OF POOLE SOUTH OF BRANCH0 0 0 0 40001200200001034 10,768 0 0.204‐‐428ASTATION NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOTUH OF TRAFFIC NORTH OF FAIR OAKS SOUTH OF TRAFFIC0 0 0 0 40110000200111014‐0‐‐‐429AOLOHAN ALLY EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST0 0 0 0 40021000100111014‐0‐‐‐430ANELSON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF MASON ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY EAST OF MASON ST0 0 0 0 20010000100002002 3,238 0 0.338 ‐ ‐ 231AALLEN ST EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY TO WEST OF PCR PL EAST OF TRAFFIC WAY WEST OF PACIFIC COAST RAILWAY PLACE0 0 0 0 30100100200000123 761 0 2.161 ‐ ‐ 332ABRANCH MILL RD SO. OF HUEBNER LN TO CITY LIMIT SOUTH OF HUEBNER LN CITY LIMIT0 0 1 1 301001201003001120 1,691 2 1.620 ‐ 0.648 533AORCHARD SO. OF CASTILLO DEL MAR TO SO. OF CHERRY SOUTH OF CASTILLO DEL MAR SOUTH OF CHERRY AVER0 0 0 0 20100100100001012 4,173 0 0.263 ‐ ‐ 234AWHITELEY ST EXTENT EXTENT0 0 0 0 20100100000001012‐0‐‐‐21 2 24 34 396 20 85 108 65 60 4 5 221 4 7 91 101 87 71 107 ‐‐‐‐‐‐457YearTotalTotalIntersection #NameFromToSeverityTypePedestrianBicycle*Item 9.a - Page 146
Appendix C – SSAR Priority Projects
Item 9.a - Page 147
£¤101US
EPDO RANK 2 EPDO RAN
K
8
EPDO RANK 3EPDO RANK 4 CRASH RATE RANK 6EPDO RANK 6 CRASH RATE RANK 10EPDO RANK 7
E
P
D
O
R
A
N
K
1
0
C
R
A
S
H
R
A
T
E
R
A
N
K
1 CRASH RATE RANK 3CRASH RATE RANK 2
CRA
S
H
R
A
T
E
R
A
N
K
8
CRASH RA
T
E
R
A
N
K
9 CRASH RATE RANK 5 CRASH RATE RANK 7
CRASH
R
A
T
E
R
A
N
K
4
EPD
O
R
A
N
K
1
EPD
O
R
A
N
K
5 EPDO RANK 92
1
8
4
9
5
6
3 7
10
2
1
8
3
10
FIGURE C1
0 0.09 0.18 0.27 0.36
Miles
Project No.Revision No.-Date 04/17/2020
City of Arroyo Grande
Map Projection: Mercator Auxiliary SphereHorizontal Datum: WGS 1984Grid: WGS 1984 Web Mercator Auxiliary Sphere
Paper Size ANSI B o
O:\PRJ\1989\G1989\MXD\Top 10.mxdPrint date: 16 Apr 2020 - 12:23
Top 10 Ranked Segment & Intersections
·|}þ1
E Grand Ave
Source: Esri, HERE, Garmin, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community.Source: US Census Bureau, Geography Division. Created by: frahmanN Oak Park BlvdS Halcyon RdFair Oaks Ave
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
W
a
y
W Bra
n
c
h
S
t Corbett Canyon RdJames
W
a
y
Valley RdE Branch StTop 10 Intersectionby EPDO
Top 10 Intersectionby Crash Rate
Top 10 Segmentby EPDO
Top 10 Segmentby Crash Rate
S Elm StAsh St
Systamatic Safety Analysis Report(SSAR)
11144936
7
4
6
#
#
59
Item 9.a - Page 148