Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-019 - Santa Ana Vision Zero PlanRESOLUTION NO. 2024-019 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN WHEREAS, the City of Santa Ana ("City") has prioritized Citywide traffic safety and initiated a number of projects designed to address the safety of the City's transportation system; and WHEREAS, the City has previously undertaken studies and research in order to best address safety of all users of the City's transportation system, including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists; and WHEREAS, the City seeks to integrate all modes of transportation, including bicycling, walking, and public transportation, into the design of streets and highways to increase capacity and efficiency, reduce congestion, limit emissions, and improve general quality of life; and WHEREAS, the City adopted a resolution in support of the Department of Transportation's Safer People, Safer Streets: Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Initiative (Resolution 2015-009) on February 17, 2015. The initiative challenged local agencies to take significant action to improve safety for bicycle riders and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2016, the City approved and adopted the Safe Mobility Santa Ana ("SMSA") Plan (Resolution 2016-082). The stated goals of the SMSA Plan are to substantially increase safe mobility, to achieve zero fatal bicycle and pedestrian collisions, reduce vehicle speed, and minimize demonstrated collision patterns; and WHEREAS, the City desires to update and build upon the success of the SMSA Plan with a new, comprehensive traffic safety plan called Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan ("SAVZ"); and WHEREAS, the City has completed the SAVZ Plan, which evaluates mobility priorities and identifies innovative solutions to provide for all-around safety within the City and eliminate traffic -related fatalities and serious injuries by 2040. The SAVZ Plan analyzes numerous factors, such as citywide trends in traffic safety, and recommends solutions, goals, and objectives to be implemented within the City; and WHEREAS, the approval and adoption of the SAVZ Plan will make the City eligible to apply for grant funding opportunities, such as HSIP (Highway Safety Improvement Program) and SS4A (Safer Streets and Roads for All). These grant programs require local roadway safety plans to be updated and revalidated every five years; and Resolution 2024-019 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), City Staff determined the adoption of the SAVZ Plan ("Project") is exempted pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR§ 15061(b)(3)), that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment, and City Staff found that there is no possible significant effect directly related to the Project. Furthermore, CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 applies, as the Project is a study for possible future actions, which would be subject to independent review. Finally, CEQA Guidelines Section 15276 applies as the Project is a transportation improvement plan, but individual projects developed as a result of the Project will be evaluated individually. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals of this Resolution are true and correct. Section 2. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan, a copy of which will be on file at the offices of the Public Works Agency of the City for public inspection. Section 3. The City Council has reviewed the Project and, based upon the whole record before it, in the exercise of its independent judgment and analysis, concurs that the adoption of the SAVZ Plan is exempt from consideration under the CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the adoption of this Plan, in and of itself, may have a significant effect on the environment; future projects described within the Plan may be subject to independent environmental review pursuant to CEQA; the Plan is a transportation improvement plan and any projects developed as result will be evaluated individually; and therefore no further action is required under CEQA at this time. Section 4. The Executive Director of Public Works shall, pursuant to this Resolution, be authorized to apply on the City's behalf for grant funding related to the Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan. If such application is accepted, the Executive Director will present the grant award to the City Council for approval. Section 5. The Executive Director of Public Works shall be responsible for monitoring, implementing and delivering periodic updates regarding the SAVZ to the Environmental and Transportation Advisory Committee. Section 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or word of this Resolution is for any reason held. to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed and adopted this Resolution, and each and all provisions hereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more provisions may be declared invalid. Resolution 2024-019 Page 2 of 3 Section 7. This City Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this 4th day of June, 2024. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Sonia R. Carvalho, City Attorney i Kyle Nellesen ;,� Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers ABSENT: Councilmembers Amezcua, Bacerra, Hernandez, Lopez, Phan, Vazquez (6) None _(0) None (0) Penaloza (1) CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, JENNIFER L. HALL, City Clerk, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2024- 019 to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on June 4, 2024. Date:''L- = - E Jennifer L. II City c ity of Santa Ana Resolution 2024-019 Page 3of3 • • l,'° ''lW - � �,� ::�u�•3.d r � ,� z c. ,. d�'z :' Nam.; t � rE t�X•` ''4 ,ez = . � * ,s "t ` '� ! � ... -p w `` �S`'a �•�r` � C z..' �ti ': �S ��/i�e� �x•E-�81 �C +-�iil.i. �. ,•� �'r�' s ' YC� ._ � sA[ -' .,�'.>�S f � K� +L •{'r1^,'�C iz � . dy � � � r,� 'i.. �� t !IF lk i�. ate. �_ , - -- . _ �. - �X��,, :q� • {,�; �,,l I� �`d' J �! � � . I �i •Pe ( lyJ�� �� L , e�r1a1 11 � Y ,A � 1 - I� � a �� ' III 1 � - ,, 'I - Yf'�f?' y �fna ' M,a,'a 1 .• ,a 1� R � � C a__ i III! r � I.�• t -.��� � .. r ��.ar'i� -� J T 41i... � -� i ' I !� �I j ! �\`�*�a?• r,'::_.- - µ � L i -- r,- , I III o -- 3»S' Acknowledgements �9 City of Santa Ana Zdenek "Zed" Kekula, Principal Civil Engineer Ruben Castaneda, Senior Engineer Mauricio Castaneda, Associate Engineer KTUA Joe Punsalan, Principal Tom Bertulis, Senior Associate, Project Manager Morgen Ruby, Senior Planner, Assistant Project Manager Darren Jacobsen, Associate LATiNQ j� Latino Health Access, Children HEALTH ACCESS �' A Youth Engagement (CYE) Rosario "Charis" Galeas, CYE Outreach and Education Program Coordinator Adriana Alvarez, Program Associate of CYE Nallely Enriquez, Youth Engagement Coordinator, CYE Lisette Martinez-Acebo, Program Director, CYE Mark Thomas MARK THOMAS Aaron Silva, PE. Senior Project Manager, Associate Paul Martin, Senior Project Manager A special thank you to our... Stakeholder Advisory Group • Alyssa Murakami, Caltrans • Alyssa Ventura, City of Santa Ana Planning • Beck Levin, Dayle McIntosh Center for the Disabled • Carl Benninger, Com-Link • Frank Bejarano, City of Santa Ana Planning • Gabriela Laufer, SAPID • Irene Cabanas, Willard Neighborhood Association President and SAAS volunteer • Kristopher Fortin, SAAS • Lauren Fuertes, KidsWork Intern and Graduate Student • Manny Escamilla, Environmental and Transportation Advisory Commission (ETAC) Commissioner, and bus rider • Margarita Macedonio, COSA • Maria Ruvalcaba, KidsWork • Megan Beard, OC Health Care Agency • Michelle Micallef, City of Santa Ana Public Works • Ruby Woo, Artesia Pilar Neighborhood Associatoin, President • Susie Lopez -Guerra, SAUSD TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents 01 1 Introduction04 Communi Engagement•• 1.1 What is Vision Zero? 4 4.1 Overview 68 1.2 Equity -minded Strategies 6 4.2 Outreach Materials 68 1.3 Relationship of this Document to Existing Documents 7 4.3 Outreach Events 72 1.4 Consistency Review 8 4.4 Public Outreach Summary 75 1.5 Vision Zero Strategies, Policies, and Goals to Adopt 15 02 Existing Conditions 05 TboLbox of Potential.• - 2.1 Land Use 22 5.1 Descriptions of Potential Street Improvements 80 2.2 Roadway Network 22 5.2 Strategies and Performance Measures 86 2.3 Existing Infrastructure for People Walking, Rolling, 30 and Using Mobility Aids 2.4 Existing Infrastructure for People Biking 35 2.5 Equity and Disadvantaged Communities 35 06Recommended Engineering Improvements:: 6.1 Overview 90 03 Collision6.2 Project Prioritization 90 6.3 Field Review of Top 20 Projects 95 3.1 Overview 40 6.4 Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects 96 3.2 Equity and Collision Analysis 42 6.5 Typical Design Details 140 3.3 Pedestrian Collisions 46 6.6 Program Recommendations 144 3.4 Bicycle Collisions 51 3.5 Automobile Collisions 56 3.6 Analysis of Systemic Safety Needs 61 3.7 Collision Summary 61 0� "Appendices SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN ti. 1 i � Introduction s ,, -41 'MR 1111IM116 _ - LOAD 41, r � r ' •. .s-: •usY -y = .•^�►I .r�..aa '*� ,'sr��P � it' Mf 1i '}'� fr ,+7 . y. f�• �.,y �� -•' .. .I�• �J '�. � iW i•l (i Y. ./ -fir'• J �.i •�• ,;F�� cy Ot Lv -' yy x. +�' "'�•....-` l,. y�. it fi pp :'L `'r 1, R i•. E �.��+ -r ,ir• e - .. . ki Bike Trail on Bear Street at Alton Avenue 1.1 What is Vision Zero? Traffic Safety in Santa Ana The City is undergoing an update for the 2016 Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) Plan, now being called Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan (SAVZ), to evaluate mobility priorities and identify innovative transportation solu- tions for an all-around safer Santa Ana. This Vision Zero plan starts from and builds upon the original SMSA plan to further progress Vision Zero projects in Santa Ana to align with the City's mission of zero traffic fatalities. Project locations from SMSA are showcased in Figure 1-1. Due to motor vehicle collisions, there have been 40 fatalities and 149 serious injuries amongst pedestrians and bicyclists during the years 2017 to 2021. When including drivers and passengers, there have been a total of 603 killed or seriously injured roadway users in Santa Ana during this same time period. Pedestrians and bicyclists make up about nearly one third of all collisions resulting in fatalities or serious injuries. This Plan addresses these traffic -related collisions and pro- poses countermeasures to enhance roadway safety for all users using the FHWA's "Safe Systems" approach, which has a significant focus on people walking and bicycling. This study will evaluate mobility priorities and take proactive steps to innovative transportation solutions for a safer Santa Ana. Vision Zero Overview This Santa Ana Vision Zero Action Plan is an initiative to eliminate traf- fic -related fatalities and serious injuries in Santa Ana by 2040. It is guided by "Vision Zero," a traffic safety concept that aims to achieve a roadway system with no fatalities or serious injuries involving road traffic. The main principle of Vision Zero is that life and health can- not be exchanged for other societal benefits, such as a conventional cost -benefit analysis. In the 1990s, Sweden developed "Vision Zero" and the Netherlands concurrently developed "Sustainable Safety" (aka "Vision Zero Plus"), and the concepts have been widely embraced around the world. In the United States, the concepts were first adopted in New York City (NYC) which, mainly due to the widespread implemen- tation of innovative, low-cost pedestrian safety measures, has seen the lowest number of pedestrian fatalities in the first year of enactment since 1910. After NYC, Vision Zero spread to dozens of cities across the country. Within the region, the Cities of Los Angeles, Long Beach, El Monte and Los Angeles County have all enacted Vision Zero plans, and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has made a commitment to zero deaths. Notably, the City of Hoboken, New Jersey became the first US city of its size to reach Vision Zero. Vision Zero vs. Traditional Safety Research Vision Zero is proactive rather than reactive. In practice, this means it is necessary to identify and remedy dangerous roadway conditions and characteristics before serious injury or fatality occurs. Recent research points to the benefits of identifying the types of roadway characteris- tics that lead to more pedestrian -involved collisions and recommends proactive measures to mitigate safety issues at those locations. Even when there are no known collisions at the location of, for example, the intersection of two four -lane roads, the research recommends proac- tively introducing safety measures at that type of location as a preemp- tive measure against collisions. The 94% Myth At the heart of the traditional approach to traffic safety is the myth that human error causes most car collisions. Individual road users, bad driv- ers, careless bicyclists, and distracted pedestrians have historically been presented as the problem and seen as the cause of collisions. Unlike in Europe, which accepts that society at large is responsible for safer streets, in the United States historically, the responsibility for road safety largely falls on the person walking, bicycling, or driving, which is slowly shifting. American transportation departments, licens- ing agencies, and media outlets frequently cite that most collisions — "94% of them," are solely due to human error. Blaming poor decisions of roadway users implies that nobody could have prevented these "accidents" Even using the term "accident" versus "crash" implies an incident that is not preventable. Many agencies in the United States focus on getting bicyclists to be "more visible" and pedestrians to be "less distracted." Data suggests the focus should be in other places, such as re -engineering roadways. 4 INTRODUCTION ...........i 1 EMEMO +.1 i h FAIRHAVEN AV -.'�� 1 w: au-w i O LL z m rcl W ANTACLARAAV ESANTA CLARAAV z v. Z WESTMINSTER AV �..-..- ..-..-.INS .-..-..-u ! C W 17TH ST .!L E 17TH ST .J. Ip �•i, i W WASHINGTON AV F, Q Q Q ; a ••� " ~44THST rc R N Z z 1 p z CIVIC CENTER DR W f7 z z E F j W W 5TH ST W STH ST W SANT ANA BLVD E 4TH ST z W 4T W 1ST ST E 15T ST N E CHESTNU V �•� J-+!_ J N IJ W C F ••-Y • IK� W Z J N O 1' N ZI y I MCFADDEN AV ,� E MCFADDEN AV 1 ANGER AV N u-n-u- H y N N N JW SEGERSTROM �-� Santa Ana Boundary I m J WALTONAV 2016 Safe Mobility * "-"-"- y '_ W Santa Ana Project Locations i LL .-..-..ra..-..-..-..-.....,9 I 025 0.5 1 Miles i0 0 I I Figure 1-1: Safe Mobility Santa Ana (2016) Project Locations E EDINGER AV Q C Q 2 F Z ,4 N E WARNER AV d 1"DYER RD E DYER RD .• RHUR BLVD � SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 5 A 2019 research study by the New York City Department of Trans- portation (NYCDOT) entitled "Distraction Shouldn't be Deadly" found that "cell phone use by pedestrians does not appear to be dispro- portionately contributing to fatal pedestrian crashes," and that "despite growing concerns, NYCDOT found little concrete evidence that de- vice -induced distracted walking contributes significantly to pedestrian fatalities and injuries" Consequently, traffic safety solutions have too often focused on per- fecting human behaviors through strategies like licensing, testing, road user education, and media campaigns. But in the Vision Zero frame- work, the road safety problem isn't the individual but rather the flaws in the transportation system. Those flaws mean, for example, that dis- tracted drivers in cars and road users have to share the road in unsafe conditions. Systemic Safety and the FHWA The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has taken a leading role in implementing Vision Zero or "Systemic Safety." They promote taking a "Safe System approach to road safety" — a holistic view that requires people to think about the road system in its entirety, from infrastruc- ture projects to government agencies. This refers to understanding how the whole system operates, including "upstream factors" such as design guidelines, public participation, policy, and vehicle regulations, and how all influence transportation -related fatalities and serious inju- ries. Safe Systems focus on the most vulnerable road users, which are people walking and biking, and utilizes effective, low cost measures that can be systematically implemented citywide. One of the ways cit- ies are implementing this is by creating steering committees and task forces with representation from all the different agencies involved. Proposal for a New Traffic Safety Framework In 2023, authors David Ederer, Rachael Thompson Panik, Nisha Botch- wey, and Kari Watkins wrote a paper called "The Safe Systems Pyra- mid: A new framework for traffic safety." The paper moves away from the "6 Es of traffic safety," citing what they call the "false equivalence of education and engineering." They postulate that although educa- tion measures are effective, they are not as effective as widespread engineering measures in reducing traffic fatalities and serious injuries. They also stress the importance of policies and programs that focus on public health, land use, and above all, equity. The paper could be called "Energy and Equity" due to its focus on what they call "energy," from energy amounts in size of vehicles to energy in types of vehicles, explaining that "there is less latent energy in a bicycle than a car." This Plan will do its best to make recommendations in line with the thesis of the paper. 1.2 Equity -minded Strategies This Plan intends to mobilize disadvantaged and underrepresented groups in order to implement policies and programs to create a better active transportation network to serve these populations. This is partic- ularly important in Santa Ana, where 55 percent of the population do not have access to a vehicle and 37% of census tracts are considered disadvantaged per Senate Bill 535. Throughout the community out- reach process, community members shared a variety of recommen- dations and concerns related to ensuring that the planning process was done in an equitable manner. These recommendations were or- ganized into the following five categories: 1. Focus on street improvements that make the streets safer for our most vulnerable residents, such as children and senior citizens. (i.e., accessibility, mobility, and permeability) 2. Have a formula to prioritize which streets or areas to improve first (e.g., based on need, high number of collisions, excessively large street widths) 3. Have standard guidelines to proactively prevent and mitigate dis- placement that may result from transportation projects (i.e., housing development and affordability and street widening) 4. Focus on more education and less enforcement strategies to en- courage improved behaviors (i.e., public safety) 5. Assess the impacts of Vision Zero infrastructure improvements on the surrounding community and prioritize projects that provide the most benefit. Priority was given to promote a wider range of mo- C INTRODUCTION bility choices for those Santa Ana residents who have few, if any, choices. These options would allow the community to recognize what would best establish a transportation system from one that is focused around the use of motor vehicles to one that meets the needs of all users. The goals for this plan are to facilitate social and economic opportunities by providing equitable levels of access to affordable and reliable transportation options based on the needs of the populations being served, particularly populations that are traditionally underserved and underrepresented. Chapter 4 documents the extensive, equitable community engage- ment process that the Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan underwent in more detail. 1.3 Relationship of this Document to Existing Documents The SAVZ Plan incorporates regional and local planning efforts that are directly related to walking, bicycling, and vehicle travel. These ef- forts range from long-range regional planning to specific plans. The following information summarizes the planning documents that were evaluated. Santa Ana General Plan The Santa Ana General Plan is the primary citywide comprehensive plan that guides future growth and was reviewed as part of the SAVZ Plan to ensure consistency between the report recommendations. The General Plan contains goals and objectives to guide decisions and preserve the quality of life within the City of Santa Ana. The Circula- tion, Growth Management, Open Space, Scenic Corridors, and Urban Design Elements contain goals and objectives that contribute to the success of this SAVZ Plan. Santa Ana Strategic Plan The Strategic Plan is a targeted plan, developed through a partnership between the community, elected officials and City staff. The Plan is in- tended as a means to implement the City's mission, "To deliver efficient public services in partnership with our community which ensures pub- lic safety, a prosperous economic environment, opportunities for our youth, and a high quality of life for residents" The SAVZ Plan aligns with the public safety and quality of life aspirations of the Strategic Plan. Safe Mobility Santa Ana Plan The Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) plan, the precursor to the SAVZ Plan, identified specific hotspot locations in Santa Ana, using a detailed collision analysis. This plan uses best practices and citywide trends in traffic safety to propose solutions that will make the Santa Ana road network safer for all users. The recommendations of this plan recog- nize the need to balance the many objectives of the local transport system, including travel time reliability, safety, and meeting the mobility needs of a variety of roadway users. The SAVZ Plan will build upon solutions, goals and objectives from the SMSA plan by providing de- tailed recommendations of countermeasures and which locations they should be implemented, including CAD drawings that can be submit- ted in grant applications. Downtown Santa Ana Complete Streets The Downtown Santa Ana Complete Streets Plan is intended to im- prove access and mobility for all modes of transportation, including walking, bicycling, transit, and motor vehicles within and around the downtown area. Through an extensive and inclusive public engage- ment process, stakeholder collaboration and community workshops, five priority corridors were identified, designed which the City has al- ready begun implementing. The SAVZ Plan report started with these priority corridors as potential corridors for inspiration for detailed site layouts and builds upon them. Central Santa Ana Complete Streets The Central Santa Ana Complete Streets Plan was developed to pro- vide the City of Santa Ana a guide to establish a network of Complete Streets to improve bicycling and walking throughout central Santa Ana. This plan analyzes the connections between the selected corridors and other existing or planned Complete Streets corridors to create a SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 7 connected network. The goal is to improve access and mobility for all modes including: walking, bicycling, transit and motor vehicles. Priority corridors were identified for improvement and this SAVZ Plan started with the identified corridors as selected locations for more detailed site layouts and project scope definition. The City has begun final en- gineering design and implementation of several corridors in this Plan such as separated bikeways and protected intersections on Standard Avenue and Willits/ Bishop Street Bicycle Boulevard. Safe Routes to School Plan The Santa Ana Safe Routes to School Plan involves an extensive and inclusive community engagement process, identification and prioriti- zation of school infrastructure improvements, and the development of programs and strategies to better educate and encourage students to walk and bike to school. The result is a comprehensive "6 E's" plan that will lead to improved safety and mobility for all Santa Ana residents, es- pecially the community's students and youth, through engineering, ed- ucation, encouragement, and enforcement recommendations. Priority corridors and routes identified in the Safe Routes study were included in the list of priority projects that would include detailed site layouts and project scope definition. Typically the SRTS plan focuses on resi- dential streets near schools while the Vision Zero plan focuses on the large roads where all the fatalities and serious injuries are occurring. Santa Ana Active Transportation Plan The Santa Ana Active Transportation Plan provided recommendations for safer, more walkable streets for pedestrians and bicyclists through implementation of non -motorized travel infrastructure. These recom- mendations are based on a thorough inventory of existing infrastructure and network deficiencies. Thirty-five priority projects were selected to create a network of complete streets that will improve non -motorized travel. The recommendations present a design concept, show cost estimates, and share various characteristics along each corridor that needs to be improved so the plans complement each other with mini- mum overlap which the SAVZ Plan builds upon. 1.4 Consistency Review A review of several regional planning documents was completed to make sure previous efforts were built upon and conditions better un- derstood. In support of the Santa Ana Vision Zero document and its proposed project solutions, Local, Regional, and State Planning documents were reviewed for policy consistency and guidance. Documents reviewed include plans and studies by local Orange County agencies, the Coun- ty of Orange, the Orange County Fire Authority, the Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), and Caltrans. The following Vision Zero concepts were considered in the develop- ment of the Santa Ana Vision Zero plan: • Implementation of "neighborways"/calm street network • Implementation of safety interventions citywide/systemically • Pedestrian -focused engineering countermeasures to reduce vehicle versus pedestrian collisions • Bicyclist -focused engineering countermeasures to reduce vehicle versus bicycle collisions • Truck aprons on large curb returns that lead to excessively high speed turns • Curb refuge islands (CRls) and rubber turning humps to slow turns • Speed humps and traffic calming to reduce speed • Roundabouts and traffic calming circles • Senior zones for increased safety • Pedestrian signals, lighting, high -visibility crosswalks • Lane re-allocation/road buffet/road diet The following section discusses the relevant documents and resourc- es identified for the reviewed agency as they relate to Vision Zero con- cepts and goals. The sourced materials are organized alphabetically starting with local jurisdictions, then regional/state agencies, and then climate action plans. 8 INTRODUCTION City of Costa Mesa General Plan 2015-2035 Circulation Element The General Plan Circulation Element emphasizes the importance of complete streets, development of safety programs, and implementa- tion of enhanced bicycle and pedestrian facilities as mechanisms for reducing collisions and fatalities, as well as increasing the bicycle and pedestrian mode share. The document identifies policies that encour- age and accommodate all roadway users, consistent with Vision Zero. Housina Element The General Plan Housing Element discusses sustainable develop- ment aligned with transportation opportunities as a means of reducing vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse gas emissions. Active Transportation Plan 2018 The 2018 Active Transportation Plan provides countermeasures to improve safety for bicycle and pedestrian modes that are consistent with Vision Zero goals. The document also identifies bicycle education programs and a Bicycle Safety Guide for improved comfort and confi- dence navigating the bicycle network appropriately. Complete Streets Safety Assessment 2021 The Costa Mesa Complete Streets Safety Assessment was conducted by the University of California Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center (SafeTREC) to study the complete streets con- ditions at various study locations within the City of Costa Mesa. This assessment identified safety countermeasures with an aim to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety, walkability, and accessibility, consistent with Vision Zero goals. Local Road Safety Plan 2022 The Costa Mesa Local Road Safety Plan identifies a framework to iden- tify, analyze, and develop transportation safety enhancements on the City's roadway network. The plan vision stated in the document is to enhance the transportation network to achieve zero traffic fatalities and serious injury related collisions, consistent with Vision Zero goals. Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Education Program The Bicycle & Pedestrian Safety Education Program has identified goals to provide bicycle safety education, encourage safe bicycling habits, and create safer, calmer streets and neighborhoods. The pro- gram includes the development of a safety curriculum for youth, bi- cycle rodeos, and other training materials that are all consistent with Vision Zero goals. Pedestrian Safety Tips Webpage The City of Costa Mesa provides a webpage on Pedestrian Safety Tips for safely navigating the roadway network that aligns with Vision Zero goals. This webpage focuses on safe habits and procedures for cross- ing streets, as well as improving self-awareness and visibility. City of Fountain Valley General Plan Circulation Element The draft updated General Plan includes a Mobility Element with Goal CM-2 seeking: "A comprehensive and multimodal network of streets, bikeways, and pedestrian areas that facilitates the safe and efficient movement of people and goods while minimizing vehicle miles trav- eled." Housing Element 2022 The Housing Element references bicycle, pedestrian, and transit im- provements to shift transportation from vehicular modes per the fol- lowing: • Single room occupancy residential projects must provide one secure bicycle stall for each 3 units, to help encourage active transportation options. • Various references to zero net energy homes to help address cli- mate change. • Site improvements section quote: "Though most of the City is cur- SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 9 rently served by adequate roadways and sidewalks, improvements for access or internal navigation may be necessary." • Auxiliary dwelling units are noted as a strategy to increase density in single family neighborhoods to increase transit feasibility to ideally reduce private vehicle use. • Access to transit: "Access to public transit is best in the low and mod- erate resource areas, both for local service and access to regional transit hubs" Fountain Valley Crossing Spec Plan (FVCSP) Webpage FAQ The FVCSP is a city effort to rezone an industrial area to also allow commercial, office, and limited residential by existing 200 business owners. It aims to revitalize an older industrial area with more retail ac- tivities, dining, shopping, farmers market, and diverse housing options. An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was part of the study with green- house gas (GHG) as one of the topics. Based on information in the EIR, the project might support Vision Zero concepts by encouraging mixed - use development and improved walkability. Fountain Valley Crossing Specific Plan Project (FVCSP) EIR GHG The FVCSP includes the following measures: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Measures and bicycle and pedestrian facilities and amenities to encourage non -motorized transportation. "The Project's diverse mix of uses would help promote a reduction in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHG emissions" and "would provide residential and commercial uses in walking distance to proposed recreational uses, entertainment, and commercial retail, which would result in re- duced VMT, as compared to a project of similar size and land uses at a more suburban location". City of Garden Grove The Garden Grove Active Streets Master Plan 2018 The Garden Grove Active Streets Master Plan is supportive of bicy- cle and pedestrian improvements that align with Vision Zero goals of reducing collisions and injuries. The proposed bicycle network plans numerous bicycle improvements and facilities which include shared - use paths, bicycle lanes, buffered bicycle lanes, separated bikeways, bicycle routes, neighborhood greenways, and bicycle parking. Pedes- trian improvements included in the Garden Grove Active Streets Mas- ter Plan include the following: • Crossings and intersections, ramps, enhanced crosswalks, curb ex- tensions, median refuge, Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB), Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB). • Traffic signals and warning beacons. • Sidewalks -separate from traffic by landscaped park strips and/or parking, accessible, continuity, shade trees, etc. • Intersections - pedestrian friendly, area to congregate, accessible, design for safety comfort, minimize pedestrian crossing distance, lighting, transit stops. Garden Grove General Plan 2030 Circulation Element 2030 The Circulation Element does not specifically reference Vision Zero but references accommodating OCTA corridors that include Vision Zero focused improvements and offers countermeasures that align with Vision Zero under Neighborhood Traffic Management. Funding constraints are cited as challenges to implementing proposed bike- way projects included in the plan, but the following Circulation Element goals are supportive of Vision Zero concepts. • Goal 3 to minimize vehicle intrusions into neighborhoods 1) expand- ing parkways to reduce the roadway width, 2) limiting the number of ingress/egress locations on -site, 3) traffic circles, 4) diverters, or speed humps, 5) curb extensions, 6) entrance treatments, or other effective traffic management techniques that reduce or eliminate the traffic intrusion.." • Goal 4 "...reduce vehicle miles traveled... by approving mixed use developments.." • Goal 5 "Increased awareness and use of alternate forms of transpor- tation generated in, and traveling through the City of Garden Grove" • Goal 6 "A safe, appealing, and comprehensive bicycle network..." - "encourage PWD to consider bikeways in their prioritization of re -paving..." - "...amend zoning ...traffic generators to include bikeway facilities" - "...incentives to developers who incorporate bikeways..." - "...Safe Routes to schools.." - "...pursue grants for bike facilities..." 10 INTRODUCTION The Housing Element does not specifically address Vision Zero but site improvements sections list bikeways, walkways, and equestrian trails as typical requirements for development. The energy conserva- tion opportunities section notes sidewalks and bike racks to encour- age walking and biking supporting the Air Quality element to reduce vehicle trips. Safety Element 2030 The Safety Element does not specifically mention Vision Zero but sup- ports mixed -use and transit -oriented development to increase walking, bicycling, and transit use. Garden Grove Accident Reduction Team (ART) The ART supports Vision Zero by educating commuters on existing law and how to safely share the road with bicyclists and pedestrians. The ART also provides education specific to bicyclists and pedestri- ans. Funding for the team is provided by the California Office of Traffic Safety. Garden Grove Open Streets The City has hosted multiple RE: Imagine Garden Grove Open Streets events, with the most recent occurring in April 2022. Per the City: "The Open Streets event is part of the City's continuing efforts to highlight Garden Grove's Downtown, while promoting the Re: Imagine Garden Grove mission of bringing more art to the community, creating more walkable areas of the city, and encouraging people to live a healthier, more connected life." City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach Bike Plan 2013 The Huntington Beach Bike Plan supplements an extensive existing bike lane network and supports new bicycle projects which align with Vision Zero concepts of improving safety through increased separa- tion between bicyclists and vehicles. City of Huntington Beach General Plan 2017 Circulation Element Huntington Beach has developed a majority of its streets according to the Complete Streets approach. City of Huntington Beach Capital Infrastructure Projects (CIP) Ta- bles 2019-2023 Huntington CIP projects include a safe pedestrian walkway with side- walks and curb ramps suggesting support for Vision Zero concepts of pedestrian -vehicle separation for improved safety. City of Huntington Beach Webpage 2023 The City of Huntington Beach Webpage provides guidance on what context pedestrian enhancements like flashing beacons, marked crosswalks, and pedestrian signal heads are provided. HB In Motion The City of Huntington Beach is currently preparing the HB In Motion study, focused on enhanced access and mobility. The study focuses on the portion of the Beach Path the City is responsible for, as well as the citywide bicycle and pedestrian networks. City of Irvine City of Irvine General Plan 2015 Circulation Element The Circulation Element language provides language supportive of Vi- sion Zero concepts of separating bicyclists and pedestrians from ve- hicle modes to reduce collisions and injuries. The following objectives reflect support for Vision Zero concepts: • "Plan, provide and maintain a comprehensive bicycle trail network that together with the regional trail system, encourages increased use of bicycle trails for commuters and recreational purposes" • "Bike trip destinations ... provide showers and bike racks. • "...traffic signal phasing for bike crossing.." SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 11 • "...grade separated crossing for class 1 bikeways at major ..." • "...increase public awareness of bike safety.." • "Plan, develop and maintain a riding and hiking trail network and sup- port facilities to satisfy the needs of riders and hikers" • "Work with Orange County Transportation Authority to implement a public transit system for trips within the City and adjacent areas. City of Irvine Active Transportation Plan 2015 The 2015 Irvine Active Transportation Plan provides countermeasures to improve safety for bicycle and pedestrian modes that are consistent with Vision Zero goals. City of Irvine Strategic Active Transportation Plan 2020 The 2020 Irvine Strategic Active Transportation Plan (ISATP) provides extensive bicycle and pedestrian improvements to make walking and biking safer and reduce collisions and injuries consistent with Vision Zero goals. City of Irvine Bikeways Map The Irvine Bikeways Map shows an extensive bicycle network with a large quantity of separated bikeways which suggests support for sepa- rating bicycle and pedestrian modes from vehicles to reduce collisions and injuries. Irvine Webpage - Biking The Irvine Webpage for biking suggests support for Vision Zero, with the site stating, "the pedestrian and bicycle networks form the founda- tion for multi -modal transportation" and that plans include grade sepa- rating bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles to reduce collisions and injuries. Irvine Climate Action and Adaptation Plan The City of Irvine kicked off the development of its first Climate Ac- tion and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) in June 2021. By setting ambitious but achievable emissions reduction targets and laying out thoughtfully planned greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and climate ad- aptation measures, the CAAP will lay a pathway to achieving the City's climate goals. The study is under preparation and draft actions include the following: • Expand bicycling and walking options through infrastructure im- provements. • Increase transit ridership through the enhancement and expansion of connected transit lines. City of Orange City of Orange 2010 General Plan General Plan Vision The General Plan Vision offers a vision statement that aligns with Vi- sion Zero goals; "Residential areas ... balanced, multimodal circulation network that accommodates vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, hikers, and equestrians. This network will create additional opportunities for walking and biking, enhancing circulation safety,..." rculation Element The Circulation Element has numerous references to safe multimodal connections, including bike and pedestrian modes, with cross sections showing bike lanes and separated paths which suggest support for the Vision Zero goal of reductions in roadway collisions and injuries. Infrastructure Element The Infrastructure Element does not directly reference Vision Zero top- ics but supports implementation of bike lanes and sidewalks. Urban Desian Element The Urban Design Element does not directly reference Vision Zero topics but encourages bike facilities and sidewalks. The General Plan states the City will provide safe multi -modal routes to walk, bike, and drive; "City will update the Zoning Code to encourage features that buffer street activity and pedestrians from automobile traffic by provid- ing both distance and substantial landscaping. Within mixed -use areas and other commercial districts, the City will employ pedestrian -friendly amenities such as enhanced crosswalk areas, lighting, benches, and trash receptacles to create a safer, more inviting, and more walkable environment" 12 INTRODUCTION Santiago Creek Vision Plan 2018 Prepared by a local community based organization named the Gre- enway Alliance, the Santiago Creek Vision Plan supports a separated bike and walking trail system which may support Vision Zero goals and concepts. City of Tustin City of Tustin General Plan 2018 Circulation Element The Circulation Element states support for providing bicycle and pe- destrian facilities and separating them when possible to reduce colli- sions and injuries. Goal 6 of the Circulation Element supports increas- ing transit facilities, curb ramps, bike lanes, and separated paths which are also supportive of Vision Zero. Housing Element 2021-2029 While not explicitly discussing Vision Zero concepts, the Housing El- ement's Environmental Sensitivity Goal 5 - Sustainable Development states to "prioritize sustainable housing... in proximity to services and employment centers thereby enabling the use of public transit, walking or bicycling and promoting an active lifestyle" Downtown Specific Plan 2018 The City of Tustin Downtown Specific Plan provides language support- ive of Vision Zero concepts per the following: • "Vision for downtown..... Promoting pedestrian -oriented commercial first floor development ...expand walkability; Transforming streets... pedestrian and bicycle -oriented improvements ...high -quality inte- grated residential mixed ...multi -family development." • "Bike improvements ... new bike lanes downtown ... sharrows on vari- ous other roads... bike racks throughout downtown and transit stops" • "Off -road bicycle lane (Class 1) integrated with the sidewalk.." • "Balance auto -centric nature with increased pedestrian and bicycle amenities on Main Street". • "Create "complete streets" ...pedestrians and bicyclists greater em- phasis and vehicles less dominance" • "Reduced vehicular lanes, pedestrian and bicycle improvements, on - street parallel and diagonal parking, pedestrian bulb -outs, enhanced pedestrian crossings, and landscaping to visually support the road- way transformation" • "...Pedestrian friendly corridor by reducing... traffic lanes... widths... on - street buffered bicycle lanes, diagonal parking... wider sidewalks" • "...Create public gathering areas adjacent to the sidewalk... seating areas..." • Various Pedestrian improvements: Widened Sidewalks- Decorative Sidewalk Paving- Decorative Crosswalks- Bulb -Outs- Crosswalk En- hanced Paving- Pedestrian Gathering Areas Increasing Sidewalk Widths- Accessible Pedestrian Signals- Flashing Light Crosswalks. County of Orange OC Council of Governments - Complete Streets Handbook 2016 The Complete Streets Handbook envisions transforming Orange County streets into a Complete Streets network and supports sepa- ration of bicyclists and pedestrians from vehicles to reduce collisions and injuries. County of Orange Active Transportation Plan The County is currently preparing an Active Transportation Plan en- compassing the unincorporated areas and flood channels throughout Orange County. Orange County Fire Authority (OCFA) Fire Master Plans for Commercial & Residential Development OCFA's Fire Master Plan suggests support of Vision Zero concepts by providing guidance on roadway design standards to ensure Orange County's roadways can support the access and mobility of emergen- cy service vehicles. These standards consider design elements such as curb -to -curb widths and the placement and accessibility of fire hy- drants to improve emergency response times and efficiency. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 13 Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA) Districts 1 & 2 Bikeways Strategy 2013 The Districts 1 & 2 Bikeways Strategy advances bicycle facility and pedestrian network planning within Orange County to reduce bicy- clist and pedestrian visions and support Vision Zero. The document encourages the development of off-street multi -use paths and barri- er -separated facilities to reduce conflicts between bikes and vehicular traffic to improve user comfort and reduce collisions. OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy 2016 The OC Foothills Bikeways Strategy advances bicycle facility and pe- destrian network planning within Orange County to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian visions and supports Vision Zero. The document en- courages the development of off-street multi -use paths and barri- er -separated facilities to reduce conflicts between bikes and vehicular traffic to improve user comfort and reduce collisions. OCTA's Master Plan of Arterial Highways (MPAH) 2017 The OCTA MPAH has some language supporting Vision Zero topics, specifically regarding coordination with local agencies on safety efforts to balance regional travel demand with addressing the needs of all users of the roadway. OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan 2022 The OCTA Long Range Transportation Plan has some language sup- porting Vision Zero topics including education and mentions reducing bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions. OC Active 2019 The OC Active Plan advances bicycle facility and pedestrian network planning within Orange County to reduce bicyclist and pedestrian vi- sions and supports Vision Zero. South OC Multimodal Transportation Study 2022 The South OCTA Multimodal Transportation Study has few specific ref- erences to Vision Zero related concepts but mentions the OC Loops project for bicycle modes. OCTA Mobility Hubs Study 2022 The OCTA Mobility Hub Study focuses on multi -modal vehicle lots connecting to transit services and references the OC Complete Street Handbook which supports bicycle and pedestrian separation from ve- hicles to reduce collisions and injuries. OC Loops Gap Feasibility Study 2023 The OC Loops project expands the original OC Loop to additional loops and a diagonal connector that serves all of Orange County. The bike- way feasibility study prioritizes the 8 to 80 audience through enhanced bikeways that separate cyclists from moving traffic where possible. Safe Transportation Education Program (STEP) OCTA has secured grant funding to administer STEP, which provides approximately twenty-five schools in Orange County with free re- sources, activities, and events to encourage families to walk and roll to school safely and more often. Additional funding has been secured for future expansion of the program. STEP is a partnership project be- tween OCTA and the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA), and is funded by a Caltrans Active Transportation Program grant. Safe Routes to School Action Plan OCTA and OCHCA are leading the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) Ac- tion Plan that serves every school and school district with a series of steps to advance more SRTS improvements and activities. The study is under preparation and aligns with Vision Zero goals of improving safety for youth traveling through active transportation means. Bus Stop Accessibility and Safety Plan Using funding provided by the Southern California Association of Gov- ernments, OCTA will lead a study that will evaluate the busiest 41 bus stops in Orange County for pedestrian access and safety. The majority of the study locations are within the City of Santa Ana along Harbor Boulevard, Main Street, and 17th Street. The study will support Vision Zero goals of improving safety for people walking to access transit. 14 INTRODUCTION Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Connect SoCal, 2020 SCAG's Regional Transportation Plan, titled, Connect SoCal, has a vi- sion to locate housing, jobs, and transit closer together; increase in- vestment in transit and complete streets; and increase mobility options to achieve a more sustainable growth pattern. Relevant policies, prac- tices, and programs include reducing vehicle miles traveled through transportation demand management, focusing growth near destina- tions and mobility options and promoting livable corridors, and setting metrics to track reductions in fatalities and serious injuries. To achieve regional safety targets, SCAG developed a High Injury Network (HIN) mapping tool, provides safety education campaigns, and advocates for funding strategies. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Toward an Active California 2017 Toward an Active California is the State Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan ad- opted by Caltrans to support bicycle and pedestrian mobility with clear objectives, strategies, and actions. Consistent with Vision Zero goals, safety is identified as a key component of the plan with strategies in- cluding the further development of safer streets and crossings, safety education, data, and enforcement. Caltrans District 12 Active Transportation (CAT) Plan 2022 The District 12 CAT Plan identifies pedestrian and bicycle needs across the state highway system in Orange County. Consistent with Vision Zero goals, the document identifies the types of facilities needed and a prioritization of those needs based on a number of factors, including collision history. Freeway Ramp Active Mobility Enhancement Study Caltrans District 12 is evaluating ten of the highest need interchanges within Orange County based on the District 12 CAT Plan to develop concept level plans for improved safety and mobility for people walk- ing and cycling. The study is underway and includes three interchang- es within the City of Santa Ana, and is planning to align with Vision Zero goals of enhanced separation between vulnerable road users and motorist traffic. 1.5 Vision Zero Strategies, Policies, and Goals to Adopt Policies to Adopt The City of Santa Ana has already established several policies relat- ed to achieving zero fatalities and improving the way residents travel within the City. From the 2022 General Plan's Mobility Element, the following policies provide guidance for this Vision Zero Plan and future complete street projects. • Policy M-1.1 Safety: Achieve zero fatalities from traffic collisions through education, enforcement, and infrastructure design. • Policy M-1.2 Balanced Multimodal Network: Provide a balanced and equitable multimodal circulation network that reflects current and changing needs. • Policy M-1.9 Regional Consistency: Ensure the street network is con- sistent with standards set in the OCTA Master Plan of Arterial High- ways and the Congestion Management Program. • Policy M-1.10 Intergovernmental Coordination: Collaborate with fed- eral, state, SCAG, OCTA, rail authorities, and other agencies to fund and improve the regional transportation system. • Policy M-3.1 Non -motorized Travelway Network: Expand and maintain a citywide network of non -motorized travelways within both the pub- lic and private realms that create linkages between neighborhoods, recreational amenities, schools, employment centers, neighborhood serving commercial, and activity centers. • Policy M-3.2 Non -motorized Travelway Amenities: Enhance non -mo- torized travelways with amenities such as landscaping, shade trees, lighting, benches, crosswalks, rest stops, bicycle parking, and sup- port facilities that promote a pleasant and safe experience. • Policy M-3.5 Education And Encouragement: Encourage active trans- portation choices through education, special events, and programs. • Policy M-3.7 Complete Streets Design: Enhance streets to facilitate SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 15 safe walking, bicycling, and other non -motorized forms of transporta- tion through community participatory design. • Policy M-3.9 Neighborhood Traffic: Develop innovative strategies to calm neighborhood traffic, increase safety, and eliminate collisions, while also maintaining access for emergency response. • Policy M-5.1 Enhanced Street Design: Improve the beauty, character, and function of travelways with amenities such as landscaped park- ways and medians, bike lanes, public art, and other amenities. • Policy M-5.5 Street Design: Design and retrofit streets based on their combined land use context and road function to achieve safety ob- jectives. • Policy M-5.8 Traffic Safety: Prioritize the safety of all travelway users when designing transportation improvement and rehabilitation proj- ects. Strategies to Adopt It is the recommendation of this plan, aside from the aforementioned policies, that the City of Santa Ana also focus on the following strate- gies and concepts: • Identification of roadways with motorist speeding behaviors. Add au- tomated enforcement of speeding at problematic locations • Identification of roadways with motorist red light running behaviors. Add automated enforcement of red light running at problematic in- tersections • Implementation of safety interventions citywide/systemically • Pedestrian -focused engineering countermeasures to reduce vehicle versus pedestrian collisions • Bicyclist -focused engineering countermeasures to reduce vehicle versus bicycle collisions • Left turn tight radius, bulb -outs, Leading Pedestrian Interval signal timing • Pedestrian refuge curb/bollards to slow left turns • Turn calming • Speed humps to reduce speed • Roundabouts and traffic circles • Senior zones for increased safety • Pedestrian signals, lighting, crosswalks • Lane re-allocation/road buffets/road diets Adding continuous sidewalks or speed humps at driveways to miti- gate conflicts from vehicles turning on and off of driveways Adding hardened centerlines, both including tubular markers along centerlines and small rubber humps in front of crosswalks to enforce, through design, slower left turn movements and reduce pedestrian exposure to turning traffic Hardened Centerlines, Source: Seattle Department of Transportation • Adding "Intersection Daylighting" systematically across the City of Santa Ana. Daylighting is the simple concept that safety is improved by removing parked cars within 20 feet of crosswalks. By keeping the area next to crosswalks clear of parked vehicle obstructions, people walking and people driving/biking on the street can see each other better, thereby significantly increasing safety in a cost-effective man- ner. Because only paint and tubular markers are involved in tactical urbanism forms of daylighting, it is considered highly cost effective and a "tried -and -tested" way to increase safety in cities. The newly published December 2023 edition of the MUTCD has, for the first time, a section sanctioning Daylight of intersection using just paint and tubular markers. It is the recommendation of this Plan that the City of Santa Ana utilize the MUTCD to use tactical urbanism to chan- nelize intersections city-wide where daylighting is feasible. As seen in the Consistency Review from Section 1.4, multiple agencies within Orange County adjacent or overlapping with the City of Santa Ana have also advanced Vision Zero goals and actions. This literature review illustrates the depth of actions and additional potential ideas for consideration in the City of Santa Ana 16 INTRODUCTION The consistency review earlier in this chapter reviewed strategies and policies from around the region, with many standing out as good prac- tice. Garden Grove's Circulation Element is prominent as another best practice. The Circulation Element itself does not specifically reference Vision Zero but includes Vision Zero -focused improvements and offers countermeasures that align with successful Vision Zero strategies and policies. This Plan recommends reviewing those strategies and poli- cies for future consideration. Namely, under Neighborhood Traffic Management, the following poli- cies are supportive of Vision Zero concepts: • Policy 3 to minimize vehicle intrusions into neighborhoods 1) ex- panding parkways to reduce the roadway width, 2) limiting the num- ber of ingress/egress locations on -site, 3) traffic circles, 4) diverters, or speed humps, 5) curb extensions, 6) entrance treatments, or other effective traffic management techniques that reduce or eliminate the traffic intrusion.." • Policy 4 "...reduce vehicle miles traveled... by approving mixed use developments.." • Policy 5 "Increased awareness and use of alternate forms of transpor- tation generated in, and traveling through the City of Garden Grove" • Policy 6 'A safe, appealing, and comprehensive bicycle network..." - "encourage PWD to consider bikeways in their prioritization of re -paving..." - "...amend zoning ...traffic generators to include bikeway facilities" - "...incentives to developers who incorporate bikeways..." - "...Safe Routes to schools." - "...pursue grants for bike facilities..." • In particular, the "Los Angeles Mobility Plan 2035 Policies and Pro- grams" are to be highlighted as an example of best practice for use in Santa Ana. Those policies and programs can be found in Appendix A. Goals to Adopt The goals of Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan are derived from the original Safe Mobility Santa Ana Plan to: • Substantially increase safe mobility in all areas of the City • Achieve zero fatal bicycle and pedestrian collisions • Reduce vehicle speeds • Minimize demonstrated collision patterns The Plan's objectives include: • Reduce collisions citywide, while focusing capital investments at high collision locations. • Recommend solutions to evolve the roadway network so people can make transportation decisions and unanticipated mistakes without risk of severe injury or death . • Reject severe and fatal injuries as a necessary by-product of multi - modal transportation. • Prioritize traffic safety over congestion management, accepting that improving safety for all roadway users will in some cases result in unavoidable delay. • Suggest infrastructure improvements that reduce speeds and sepa- rate vulnerable roadway users from moving traffic. Next Steps • Pursue implementation of Safe Routes to School (SRST) plan. • Develop and implement Safe Routes to Parks (SRTP) plan. • Pursue development and implementation of Citywide Street Light Master Plan. • Monitor laws to pursue opportunities to legally reduce the posted speed limits. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 17 Let's embrace our City of Santa Ana, where bikes and pedestrians flow, hand in hand, and side by side. From busy intersections to tranquil lanes, let's share the road with empathy and refrain. Zero deaths is our mission for pedestrians, bike riders, and all road users. Together, we can build a future where safety reigns, where every traveler' life is cherished and sustained. Associate Engineer City of Santa Ana 18 INTRODUCTION This page is intentionally left blank. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 19 �a k. r Alt �- - 7e 7 CondAh Ah - itions Exitosng i1C"tea' NN 4w a 9' SAN �-+=,:_ �. Y'� � � - r ��if',t a '.F I �4 ✓- � �a�� ,�1y��:'�,. a .t� �,`,`"xtlY- � .c y� .� � � f ,: r.^— -�. � •.: �• _ .,e's .iYi"-�-•�,'�§.. +' y. -� l .r�fiyP••��. :�5 tom.: � 'f >!,o/-,i-".._".rxg..� F � i s, 6x•fi-S{ ¢ - �'�;� - - "' `"' - r`,'�ns•':-''^� aS ,.z.y s.-�r A R��1 ¢ r. ffi ,R..� - ;v J r" - .y ' ��. �.y.,. ..lYii s✓"`�:j. r f d� �- ''�•t a/ L - : a% / r. JS f t F � . � , ,.(� - -. � - �� -'•¢• L+e�.i.�r�i � a S� �' - � ._...� � 'a �y � 4h'. :.. � - r`":r 7 .. d _ �: 1 Scih'� p, C - -x� � vY ./�g.`Y � � Z ! - A kr A a:.✓' 3 - N� f � .a ... w • � �•�rr � � ' � �.WsS � '�' � - 'fie^ � � �1f'1i` � �.f;: .� e� �, r . - �r� � 3 -�. r ����f� �T'� �."`f".E,Y�:.4 i'. r�. (: .- .-.-' .. .a--e^' _. ...�. .r.,.»- - :•: :v.� � rd.�a r� _ .r r r s l t -� ;'�.�� f - .r. ..:f •y. '�4' � •�` ;'�fi. v' r ~ ' S jar i. tl.7 Y r A � In order to make recommendations to change the built environment in Santa Ana, a clear picture of current conditions must be painted. This chapter attempts to describe the existing conditions in the City of Santa Ana, with subsequent chapters describing the analysis, counter- measures, and recommendations that the City of Santa Ana needs to reach Vision Zero. 2.1 Land Use Figure 2-1 showcases the existing land use pattern in Santa Ana is dominated with single-family residential development interspersed with pockets of low -medium and multi -family residential, institutional, commercial, and industrial. Commercial, professional, and administra- tion offices are primarily along major thoroughfares like Tustin Avenue and Grand Avenue. Activity areas are located in places such as Down- town and areas designated as District Centers in large land use blocks that are distributed along the perimeter of the city as well as the core area of central Santa Ana near the City Hall. Urban neighborhoods are usually near these activity centers east of downtown, along Har- bor Boulevard, Bristol Street, and Main Street. Open space is scattered throughout most of the City, but a large dedicated area is provided around Santa Ana River running north -south near the east edge of the city. Commercial and office activity centers are mostly concentrated along major and secondary arterials including Bristol Street, Main Street, Har- bor Boulevard, 1st Street, 17th Street, and Tustin Avenue. Public sites, such as schools and parks, are more evenly distributed throughout Santa Ana. 2.2 Roadway Network The City of Santa Ana maintains over 400 centerline miles of streets. The streets in Santa Ana are classified into six different categories, which is consistent with OCTA's Master Plan of Streets and Highways. The street network consists of principal arterials, major arterials, pri- mary and secondary arterials, collectors, divided collectors, and local streets. Most of these streets are not interrupted by the railroad cor- ridors and highways that traverse and surround the City. The minor streets primarily service the residential neighborhoods near railroad, highways, and utility right-of-way corridors. Nonetheless, Santa Ana has a substantial grid network and, for a suburban community, rela- tively few cul-de-sacs, but enough that main roads require bike facil- ities to allow cyclists to get through neighborhoods. The prevalence of major arterials within Santa Ana underscores the need for defined facilities along the wide roadways with higher lane counts as they typ- ically experience higher traffic volumes and collisions. It also identifies connector streets that may be good alternatives for bicycle facilities given that they have fewer lanes. The roadways were analyzed further to determine suitability as part of this study. Street Classification Primary arterial streets are limited to connections from the freeway to downtown and short segments through industrial zones at the east edge of the city. Major and secondary arterial streets follow a typical city grid pattern while supporting commercial, industrial and residential uses. A limited commuter classification runs along Broadway Boule- vard, Civic Center Boulevard, and Chestnut Avenue. As shown in Fig- ure 2-2, most streets are classified as local streets at more than 75% followed by major arterials at 12% of all roadways in Santa Ana. Speed Limits All speed limits in the City of Santa Ana comply with the California Ve- hicle Code and California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. While more than 75% of Santa Ana's roadway network has a speed limit of 25 mph, these low speeds are primarily located in residential neighborhoods, as shown in Figure 2-3. Though none of the streets have posted speeds over 45 mph, Santa Ana's busiest corridors along major arterials, such as Fairview Street and portions of Grand Ave- nue and 1st Street, have the highest posted speeds with nearly 80% marked at 45 mph. When factoring in primary and secondary arterials as well as major arterials, nearly 70% are marked 40 to 45 mph. The City's lowest speed streets have a posted speed limit of 25 mph, which makes them conducive to bicycle facilities, such as bicycle boulevards, also known as neighborways, while streets with more lanes and higher speeds should have physical separation if bicycle facilities exist with additional enhancements at the intersections. 22 EXISTING CONDITIONS Santa Ana Boundary General Plan Land Uses Low Density Residential Low -Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential - Corridor Residential Institutional - Open Space Professional and Administrative Office _ General Commercial . Industrial ■ FLEX Industrial Urban Neighborhood -One Broadway Plaza District Center _ District Center 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Figure 2-1: Land Use 7,YAnrm SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 23 Street Classification Principal Arterial Major Arterial Primary Arterial Secondary Arterial Divided Collector Collector Santa Ana Boundary Schools Parks 0 o 0.25 o.s i Figure 2-2: Street Classification 24 EXISTING CONDITIONS Table 2-1: Street Classifications, Interpreted per the General Plan, Mobility Element, page M-06 Classification Description Examples Principal Arterial A street with eight travel lanes and a center median. Typically includes bus tran- Dyer Road sit, pedestrian sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. Typical ROW 146' / 126' curb -to -curb / 14' median / 10' sidewalk Major Arterial A street with six travel lanes and a center median. Typically includes bus transit, Bristol Street, Harbor Boulevard, pedestrian sidewalks, and bicycle lanes. and Edinger Avenue Typical ROW. 120' / 100' curb -to -curb / 14' median / 10' sidewalk Primary Arterial A street with four travel lanes and a center median. Typically includes pedestrian 4th Street (between Grand Avenue sidewalks and may include bus transit services and bicycle lanes. and Interstate 5), and Sunflower Typical ROW. 104' / 84' curb -to -curb / 14' median / 10' sidewalk 4th Street (be- Avenue (west of Raitt Street) tween Grand Avenue and Interstate 5), and Sunflower Avenue Secondary Arterial A street with four travel lanes and no center median. Typically includes pedes- Main Street (through Downtown), trian sidewalks and may include bus transit and bicycle lanes. Serves more local and Newhope Street traffic than a Primary Arterial. Typical ROW. 80' / 64' curb -to -curb / 8' sidewalk Divided Collector A street with two travel lanes and a continuous center two-way left turn lane, but Raitt Street and Standard Avenue Arterial may be divided by raised median, with an expanded right-of-way to accommo- date bike lanes. Typical ROW 80' / 64' curb -to -curb / 8' sidewalk Collector Street A street with two travel lanes and no center median, typically includes pedestri- Broadway south of 1st Street (north an sidewalks, may include shared bicycle routes. of Civic Center) Typical ROW. 60' / 40' curb -to -curb / 10' sidewalk Local Street A street with two travel lanes serving residences and businesses. Typically in- Lacy Street, Orange Avenue, cludes pedestrian sidewalks and on -street parking. May include shared bicycle Raitt Street, Santa Clara Avenue, routes. Local streets are the most common street type. Wilshire Avenue * Not part of the City's MPSH. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 25 Road Lane Ouantities The number of lanes on a street have a significant effect on safety and stress for people walking, rolling, and bicycling. The more lanes, the more vehicles, the more merging, the higher the speeds, and the greater risk for collisions and injuries, as shown in Section 3.6, Analysis of Systemic Safety Needs. Figure 2-4 shows major arterials can have up to six lanes but transition down to five and four lanes as they reach the center of the city. Secondary arterials will typically have four lanes but can transition down to two lanes near the center of the city. Raised Medians The safety benefits that raised medians provide pedestrians are unpar- alleled. Medians at crossing locations improve safety by giving people walking a safe place to wait in the middle of the street so they can fo- cus on looking only one direction for each side of the road they cross. The FHWA research report entitled "Safety Benefits of Raised Medians and Pedestrian Refuge Areas" found the following: "Providing raised medians or pedestrian refuge areas at pedestrian crossings at marked crosswalks has demonstrated a 46 percent reduc- tion in pedestrian crashes. At unmarked crosswalk locations, pedestri- an crashes have been reduced by 39 percent. Installing raised pedes- trian refuge islands on the approaches to unsignalized intersections has had the most impact reducing pedestrian crashes" When raised medians include plantings or colored aggregate, they create an edge friction effect that can calm or reduce traffic speeds and reduce collisions. As shown in Figure 2-5, most major arterials have segments of raised medians with some gaps. Streets with higher percentages of raised medians include 1st Street, 17th Street, Edinger Avenue, Segerstrom Avenue, MacArthur Boulevard, Harbor Boulevard, and Bristol Street. The City of Santa Ana aims for all major and principal arterials to have raised medians. 26 EXISTING CONDITIONS L.._..; Santa Ana Boundary Road Speed Limit — 25mph 30-35mph 40-45mph 0 0 0.25 0.5 i I Figure 2-3: Speed Limit SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 27 tu��q Santa Ana Boundary Number of Lanes 2 3 4 5 6 Corridors 00 0.1 0.5 I Figure 2-4: Road Lane Quantities 28 EXISTING CONDITIONS N tu�.q U—a Santa Ana Boundary Raised Median Street with Median 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I I Figure 2-5: Raised Medians Wig L- W1�ST I E 17TH 1 [Y i,• E4THST EIST ST E1S 1 7� 1 E MCF�NA..�..�• E SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 29 2.3 Existing Infrastructure for People Walking, Rolling, and Using Mobility Aids Sidewalks A complete pedestrian network without gaps is helpful for encourag- ing people to walk to more destinations in a safe and comfortable en- vironment. Existing sidewalk network data provided by the City was analyzed, especially around key destinations that include schools, parks, and employment centers. As shown in Figure 2-6, the sidewalk network is fairly well connected with only a few small neighborhoods and short segments missing. Some of the sidewalk obstructions relate to utilities. Curb Ramps Curb ramps are another important component for an effective pedes- trian network for accessibility as well as comfort for walking to your destinations. City provided curb ramp data from 2017 is shown in Fig- ure 2-7 with numerous missing curb ramps and a near equal quantity that are `visually non compliant' in terms of geometric configuration and/or missing the standard truncated domes on the ramp surface. Street Lighting Street lighting is an important factor for public safety when walking at night. Community members have indicated that dark roadway seg- ments are a concern on some residential streets and crossings. Using City provided data, Figure 2-8 shows the existing coverage throughout the City. The City of Santa Ana recently started a Citywide Street Light Master Plan. This Plan will help identify street lighting needs. Transit Routes and Stops There are 27 bus routes and nearly 700 bus stops within Santa Ana, as shown in Figure 2-9. The transit services include Fixed Routes, Com- munity Shuttles, Intracounty Express Routes, and Metrolink Feeder Routes throughout the City primarily on Major and Secondary Arterials. The Santa Ana Regional Transportation Center (shown as OC Metrolink Station on figure) provides commuter rail services through Metrolink's Orange County Orange County and Inland Empire -Orange County Lines, connecting Santa Ana with Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Oceanside. Based on the Census 2021: ACS 5-Year Estimate, approxi- mately four percent of workers use public transit as their primary mode of transportation. The OC Streetcar serves downtown Santa Ana and extends west to the northwest city edge to connect more of the City to downtown and the Regional Transportation Center. This project will create a last -mile connection that will provide greater mobility and transportation choic- es to the residents of Santa Ana and the region. 30 EXISTING CONDITIONS Sidewalks Existing Sidewalk Sidewalk Obstruction Private Property Santa Ana 0 0 0.1 0.5 I Figure 2-6: Sidewalk Network SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 31 �•'Hr Vl' • J I :in P _• ., 4 •on • •'- 11 M • i ••c7si ' ¢• • uyc �-•� Santa Ana Curb Ramp Status • No Ramp Visually Non - Compliant • Visually Compliant 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I 1 I 1 Figure 2-7: Curb Ramps I� !!� ff 111111.*�! *� *f*�7A� ` ram+ + �TI!*l l��*!�� 1 .• • ••.• ••• E WARNERAV tt • J O- • tt �f -'•► �• 1 a ✓1 P a . . • ,: • V : y~ •= a- E DYERS a» s a • ~ .._ �.��. • ..� . • t•_ M •, • ••• I_... I Lu1 � •A • „ , • , • - w . 1 s a LUP tt i •I` �^I . 1 n ,= e • L-n-n-u-u.i-n�n-n-n-n-n,• •• .� T Note: Data shown is from 2017 City has installed and upgrade curb romps not reflected on this figure. 32 EXISTING CONDITIONS Santa Ana Boundary Streets Street Lights In Service 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Figure 2-8: Street Lighting SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 33 Figure 2-9: Transit Network 34 EXISTING CONDITIONS 2.4 Existing Infrastructure for People Biking Santa Ana's Master Plan of Bikeways 2022 aims to build upon the cur- rent bicycle network to implement many miles of new facilities. Class IV separated bikeways are proposed extensively citywide so residents will be able to get across town in a protected bikeway. A few Class I multi -use paths are being proposed, the longest segment along nearly the entire Fairview Road corridor. Though separated bikeways are pri- oritized, Class 11 bike lanes and III bike routes will be proposed as well. Calmer residential streets are designated as Class III neighborways, with sharrows and traffic calming. As shown in Figure 2-10, Santa Ana has citywide coverage which will be enhanced as each bikeway proj- ect from the Master Plan is implemented. 2.5 Equity and Disadvantaged Communities California census tracts in the highest 25 percentile are considered disadvantaged communities per Senate Bill 535. The higher the CalEn- viroScreen score, or darker the red color, the more disproportionate- ly burdened a community is by multiple sources of pollution and with population characteristics that make them more sensitive to pollution. In Santa Ana, 24 of the City's 64 census tracts are considered disad- vantaged, as shown in Figure 2-11. Understanding where disadvantaged communities are located helps guide the City to make informed decisions during the recommenda- tions and prioritization process. Senate Bill 535 states that at least a quarter of California Climate Investments go to disadvantaged com- munities. California Climate Investments are funds from the proceeds of California's Cap -and -Trade Program and specifically target reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In recent years in the State of California, there has been an increased emphasis on safety, active transportation for public health, and green- house gas reduction. All mitigation measures and recommended pro- jects for the SAVZ Plan will be passed through a community -driven lens for infrastructure and non -infrastructure programming. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 35 r.."- Santa Ana Boundary L..-..; Master Plan Proposed Bikeways — — — Class I: Multi -use Path — — — Class II: Bicycle Lane — — — Class III: Bicycle Route — — _ Class IV: Separated Bikeway Existing Bikeways Class I: Multi -use Path Class II: Bicycle Lane Class III: Bicycle Route Class IV: Separated Bikeway 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I I Figure 2-10: Bicycle Network 1 = N. WT - - rc WESTMINSTER AV CJ7C2_ 1 1 1 N 2 - - - 1�51R Si • - - - - I. - � 1 z; ; - 1 WIST ST I — o -� , 1 �fm=emo m lig z zI Ir —! I - - 4PS1rNTjrCLARA'7f- - �a•� ,- - , - 1 1 1 1 o I 1 1 Q 1 1 ' 1 0 1 1 1 wTuT — __ Z I 1 1 /- ° 1 L—-1—j NI 1 —-1— —�I —ter—. of H Q 1 z - AIlf RM1M�V� -T 1` 1 - - --_ _ _ E_1SLS� 1 } - - - - - 1 ?1W 1 I ' t/ min EMGERAV q� —1- r 1 i ♦ � I 1 rc II v 1 1 HF+-- 1 z l 1 1 I 1 1 10 IW SEGEREIrROMt V rc 1 1 NI I w i W ALTC14 AV A - -V/iAZAA 1 ' LLI 1 ............ W5. PAIRIHAVEN AV E 17TH ST _ - 1 1 ' E FFUIT ST Z - - -1-QT-S- 1 1 1 F E JHANUTIAV ���.• --r r--� I 01;, 1 I 1 1 _ E AIC DDEN AV 1 1 1 1 I IC EDiNu'Ef�SN — IL — — ; — 1 — 011IRGM AP — ' — — —1 — —1 — — � of — -I- 1 ♦I z ♦ V ARNERb —�-EUARNEIrA , - - 1 � k"D DI 1 Ih,♦ `I - - - EUVER RD F 21 —-- , ♦� "1 1 `• 36 EXISTING CONDITIONS R AV ❑j � o � � U' 1 W m i 44 ws pp µ✓f = O m m Of LU z = W 5TH ST z z w z W 1ST ST 0 J U) U w m 0- p. [if O U m w w ¢ = co z m CalEnviroScreen 4 Score Percent 0-10 >10-20 >20 - 30 >30 - 40 >40 - 50 >50 - 60 >60 - 70 >70 - 80 >80 - 90 >90 - 100 Santa Ana Boundary 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I i I I Figure 2-11: CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Percentiles O }¢ U)W 17TH ST o Y ¢ m z m Z � CIVIC CENTER DR W z ¢ 2 z U) W SANTAANA BLVD ry z ♦ f- w w W MCFADDEN AV JO LL U) U) U) ¢ W EDINGER AV O � u� J J H F- U) cn z o co cn W WARNER AV U) m Cn S �" rAIRHAVENAV: 1 c I E SANTA CLARA AV j I- C.■.1 E 17TH ST z 7 D ¢ O z Z i E 4TH ST p z E 1 ST ST A z j O} s. E MCFADDEN AV > ¢ 'a m o E EDINGERAV ¢z z O F¢- U U) , I Ir E WARNER AV �r W SEGERSTROM AV � W DYER RD E DYER RD o � � LU E ALTON AV m W ALTON AV Q O E COLUMBINE AV m LL .� m j W MACARTHUR BLVD U) SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 37 AA 0 naLysi1 L . ,=sue � / • 7 • r N. r nk l Photo Location: Santa Clara Avenue adjacent to Portola- Park 3.1 Overview Santa Ana is one of the most densely populated cities in Orange Coun- ty. According to the American Community Survey by the U.S. Census Bureau, 44% of residents are under the age of 30, 2.5% of workers 16 and up are without a car, and 1.5% use public transportation as means of transportation to work. This Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan aims to as- sist those with and without access to a motor vehicle. A quick comparison of transportation modes used by people living in Santa Ana and adjacent cities is shown in Table 3-1. As shown in the table, Santa Ana has the highest percentage of people who re- port commuting to work using transit (after Anaheim), but fewer people commuting by bike or on foot than Irvine or Anaheim. This may be due to Irvine's extensive bike network and the high student population in Irvine. Table 3-1: Mode of Transportation Comparison with Adjacent Cities Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Community Survey, Table S0801: Commuting Characteristics by Sex Another comparison tool is the "WalkScore" webpage, a free service available to the general public to compare the level of access to ame- nities and destinations via various transportation modes. WalkScore determines an areas accessibility per mode on a scale of 1 to 100, where higher scores deem a place to be more "walkable, bikeable, or transit -friendly." Table 3-2 includes a comparison of walk, bike, and transit access in adjacent cities as of February 2023. As shown in the comparison table, Santa Ana scores favorably in most categories com- pared to nearby cities. The WalkScore webpage describes Santa Ana as having "some public transportation, and is somewhat bikeable. The most walkable Santa Ana neighborhoods are Downtown, Willard, and Eastside" Santa Ana ScoreCity Walk 67 Bike Score 62 Transit Score 43 Irvine 43 69 26 Orange 51 53 32 Anaheim 56 52 34 Table 3-2: WalkScore Comparison with Adjacent Cities Figures 3-1 through 3-3 show the maps provided by the website Walk- Score.com. Figure 3-1 shows the Walk Score, which measures the den- sity of destinations that are accessible by foot. Downtown, shown in a darker green, has a higher density of destinations. Figure 3-2 shows AN - RESORT J Ianson Are � o a-,c.,:, s.e F- Garden Grove T as k A.r�• J Are Nax.lU n:�e V L RIVERVIEW WEST W1sl W T GROVE _ S WMr�.I LLEY m_ 3 Y Mile Square Regipral Park e ]un to In GREEN VALLEY Valley Y.c wnan.— Orange :L­p A 8`Echwrwiave HI Main OLD�7owNE _ C .n -Orange eLa very are r I art P_ Di S'COveY4 Science C" V - c . Fairnauen Are a ? F. Sarrca Clara Ave •. PARK BDWers MUseum4`. P DRTOEA PARK S ITM1 SY '�'%•: MADURY PARK - F :I - ARTESIA PILAR 'Sr_" 0 sr ❑o Wtl- Santa Ana Zoo W 11131 .S81 I1 9. - m HENIRGER'I!'A Rtf _ _-' LYON ST EET M,F I'lq'i Aee MADISON PARK Heritage Museum SANTA ANA Marconi Automo re of Orange CCunty MEMORIAL PARK M Drib RRI STOL/WARNER Ww , E THORNTON w tiege� SOUTH COAST I SOUTH CDAS- ,P' METRO f ri: -e r Orgill•.. Figure 3-1: Santa Ana WalkScore HUNT TUSTIN LEGACY -la P' IRVINE BUSINESS 40 COLLISION ANALYSIS f taaa Ave ANAHEIM RESORT y i� W0h .H Ave Orange ECI,ap.w,A. taar� {GnaPRpE z I � HOC Main 7 OLD T.-NE t9 Igmpq«,A� (�Lampl4!, All IIp Or311g1' © a _ I � Vetq 6yi Garden Grove SCIenCe Ctt lu _ s aYtll, All s . 'c�•ers Museum a Clar q P aP,. PORTO LA PART -' MABURY PARK ARTESI+ RIVERVIEW yy _I xl SI Santa Ana WEST A r �aY - NENINGER PARK u'i11n W T GROVE LLEY MAGISON PeRn _ HerilBye MUSEUM SANTA ANA 4of Q _ Mile Square - Orarp County MEMORIAL PAPt Regional Park RRISTOL; WARNER a � THnRN=oN P:,, . Untain(ill VALLEY c whn ^`nrt sac-H c'::. " Hl COAS' TUSTIN LEn AC /SOYTN Z METFr- - b Hill Aye 01Znf] �� a sceasro. .Museum or Ail �J M- ~�:: t CRVINE BUSINESS Figure 3-2: Santa Ana BikeScore the Bike Score, which measures whether an area is good for biking based on bike lanes and trails, hills, road connectivity, and destinations. The more green it has, the more bikeable it is. Figure 3-3 illustrates the Transit Score, which measures how well a location is served by public transit based on the distance and type of nearby transit lines. A total of 19,494 collisions occurred in Santa Ana from 2017 to 2021. Over this period, 17,915 collisions were auto -only, 906 were pedestri- an -involved collisions, and 673 were bicyclist -involved. In total, 1,579 collisions (8% of total) involved pedestrians or bicyclists. Collision data from the "Crossroads Traffic Collision Database" was used for the Collisions Analysis. This data was provided by the City. y El Modena ,al Grove M No LII +file squal igial Park kin y: Figure 3-3: Santa Ana 30-minute Travel Distance on Public Transit This summary focuses on fatal, severe, and visible injury collisions. To help identify locations that more frequently see serious injury or fatal collisions, this study analyzed the latest five years (2017 to 2021) of `Crossroads' collision data, supplemented in certain cases by data for the 10-year period from 2012 to 2021, as can be seen in this report. Each collision is shown on maps in the following sections, then tables summarize the collisions by severity of injury, who is getting injured, and when and where disproportionate quantities of collisions occur. Additional analysis later in this chapter identifies risk factors and road characteristics at select locations that may be contributing to serious injury or fatal collisions to help inform project recommendations out- lined in Chapter 6. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 41 3.2 Equity and Collision Analysis This Plan began with the identification of underserved communities throughout the City of Santa Ana, which makes up most of the City, as can be seen from the CalEnviroScreen data in Section 2.4. A majority of the City, particularly central, southeast, and Downtown Santa Ana score above the 75th percentile for high pollution and low income. The following safety analysis comprehensively looks at the entire City, but with an equity -lens in mind to focus improvements in the underserved communities. The following section provides an overview of all colli- sions in Santa Ana between 2017 to 2021 as documented in the Santa Ana Crossroads database. As summarized in Table 3-3, there were a total of 906 pedestrian collisions over five years, 673 bicycle collisions, and 17,915 motor vehicle collisions. As shown in the serious injury and fatality columns in the table, a significantly disproportionate quantity of pedestrians suffered serious injuries and fatalities when compared to total bicycle and vehicle collisions. Sixteen percent of all pedestrian collisions resulted in a serious injury or fatality compared to 5% of all bicycle collisions and 2% of all non -highway vehicle collisions. Table 3-3: Collision Severity per Travel Mode (between years 2017-2021) Source: Crossroads Softwore's Traffic Collision Database Collisions for each of the past five years are shown for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles in Charts 3-1 through 3-3. This includes serious injuries, fatalities, other visible injuries, complaints of pain, and property damage only. Figure 3-4 shows all of the collisions as points, then Figure 3-5 uses the collision points to make a `heatmap' that highlights locations with highest concentrations of collisions with darker shades of red. 250 200 150 100 50 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Chart 34- Pedestrian Collisions from 2017 to2021 200 150 100 50 01 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Chart 3-2: Bicycle Collisions from 2017 to 2021 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Chart 3-3: Vehicle Collisions from 2017 to 2021 Five -Year Heatmap Figure 3-5 demonstrates a greater concentration of collisions (dark- er red color) along most of 1st Street (west to east), and Main Street (north to south). The full length of McFadden Avenue, Edinger Avenue, Warner Avenue and 17th Street (all west to east) also see higher levels 42 COLLISION ANALYSIS I•w ~ z - • ! r A %i „�• �,,, - _SANTACLARA.ANG..t�SANTACLARA«Vy; f" F-1 i► ON ..fir u�a■*•a�■M■�, .1.� •♦_. y'' • _ ��.. + • E 7TH $T + ON 1i .:.:::.� tom:.... }::�._......f:�.__.::: (». '. •-•:. �. l::i.�"�_•.. + - •' t rti ..... �.-�. • • "••••!•••• • • E TN ST r' 14 •• • v4t-• Ma is ..'.« _:..........t.+..'�•i ! . `�:.. '-.!..1; .:.... ; i y �i� �wQ1l •,' i.•• �' :•, • ..�.•»,fr-•r.f• .E130E EE7LS'PL� '! •+� Z! •4 ._.ANyi. �•�'�•.+. -•-+-.ate: i� i E �..�.,1 • . y .. .��..�■ r �I ; • � v� , •►f r. M MC DDENLAV. ., NO 1 .yam• • •i.i••+.._ r.a{�i. �.•o!•.. •: i7:4: EDIN ERAV •00. j1 • M .. 6 '� j• a .. .} - "'.�:••$'•�1•...:•��. .....� I, Legend �i •. ` .. {: I. -••--•�:s ...:E4AR4,119LRAV,� » ;r♦ �Santa Ana Boundary • r i : ' o .�.a�. .. _ • , ��R • Bike Collisions ! • w «_� • . �� • Pedestrian Collisions '•"�'' «bj_,-''F-: r4„ ,•, '� EDYER►••Ra_g.. • �� Vehicle Collisions w ! ,,� w• i '•y.� Schools , r�.■�a. • _ •. ■ >� ' .1 .. ..' • . �.. •. . • �...•. . ,'.w.. ','� Parks `• ••• � •. ....«4 • ._.. • • ! :y _. �•' ���. 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Iu�u�nr.■+uwu�r�u�nin� �.� I i I I ��• Figure 3-4: All Collisions from 2017-2021 SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 43 �—� Santa Ana Boundary Schools Parks • Pedestrian Collisions • Bike Collisions • Vehicle Collisions All Collisions Density High Low 0 0.25 0.5 I i I h r- ��I rn . ......... j .♦ �, , , 4# SANTA CLARA.A%9. E•SANTA CLAR AAV•Un; 1 •"- - •aid i = •• zt' 1 �..�. .,�.-..�..�I.r.r:.-.r.+ �+ .}_. •.i -r-r• - g#i s -r . •��t`�.. `_yi-.�, E :j'. S r • ••� •••M�c-� • • E THST •. •z j,.•+ jTT -••• •-+�•. .• • i;"A:-- ealawrJ...�:»�M..,}:�»� .H�"�.{•�j �T' + ♦ _ ".4 +� �• •~' 'N: JI • •r'» ' 1 :�. ••• ��'. ..�. �• �:'p«.f'»:;�•.%.-. •,tit... �,aa:-+�� AU i� ♦'•'•♦ g :•..s .mj..•.•r�. i....:y -t •,• ��' .il;�Ij•..... 1 y �1 w Qs •! :: " F •: '•,i •»tl". ,!• •EB�VERLYPi- tsi �.7•. '•'r,. �.-.y»y-�!��►i �j*!.� 'E MCSADDEN A\= i..r. •• ,..-..�..—'y • (/)•• 1 •' - :. .. 7• ..�: = SQ. ! .T-A'F.w :..—F".—L".L.. ;i iir •� •:: i�� - r��-i -•••yr .a: •y:i:J..��l..__:DINGERAV• ..... ' CO �I .i..� » . _; »i. .« •;`., s 1 •-»•a.:l� 4 •. h .-i ••, • E DYES RJ,•.i--•i. I♦♦! �I ! w 3 J i • W N • = `•. ai t a I. 1 Miles 1..�..-..�..+..•..rrr..-u�..� Figure 3-5: Five Year Heat Map of Collisions from 2017-2021 44 COLLISION ANALYSIS [ . 1 Santa Ana Boundary L Schools - Parks • Pedestrian Collisions • Bike Collisions Car Collisions Vehicle Collisions Density High • Low 0 0 0.25 0.5 I z ..r.r i ,, • . �' • • • ' • E AN7A CLARA AV m.� y; 1 "• •» • • _•' •", AN TA CLARA.AV.. ,• • • 4- �.. • f i 1 rT •, t AD V. • r • T bT •' • • •� .• , .❑,t LU ca M... i• Y� ..:sue" .'• » w.=.• t=� � ' ' •�y,.�; LU04 Cf DIN 4.1 RNER AV• 41 Miles ..�•.r. ��r...�.•�..rj � Figure 3-6: Ten Year Heat Map of Collisions from 2012-2021 SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 45 of combined collisions. Similar levels of collisions occur on Fairview Street, Flower Street, North Broadway, and Bristol Street (all north to south). Some corridors are much shorter lengths within city boundaries but still demonstrate hotspots, such as along Euclid Street, Newhope Street, Harbor Boulevard, and Tustin Avenue (all north to south). Ten -Year Heatmap Figure 3-6 looks at ten years of collision points which appear to follow a similar pattern as the five years of collision points shown in Figure 3-5. Both heatmaps show the same hotspot areas, though have higher numbers of collisions, as is expected with a longer, but more or less remain to the same footprint. 3.3 Pedestrian Collisions Based on collisions from the past five years of available data, Chart 3-4 shows the degree of injury for pedestrian collisions. The highest de- gree of injury is a complaint of pain at 39% of all pedestrian collisions, followed by visible injury at 31%. Severe injuries are the next highest at 13% followed by property damage only at 12%. The lowest degree of injury and yet most severe is fatal at 4%, which is equal to 33 lives. 14% 12 ■ Complaint of Pain ■ Fatal 39% ■ Other Visible Injury ■ Property Damage Only Chart 3-4: Degree of Injury for Pedestrian Collisions Another 4% of collisions had null values and cannot be categorized. Year -over -year quantities range from 154 to 219 reported pedestrian collisions, averaging 30 fatalities and severe injuries each year. Degree of .. Not Stated 39 39 Complaint of Pain 79 71 62 67 64 343 Fatal 8 4 3 7 11 33 Other Visible 71 45 68 38 49 271 Injury Property Damage 21 11 23 17 29 101 Only Severe Injury 21 28 24 25 21 119 Grand Total 200 159 180 154 174 906 Table 3-4: Degree of Injury per Year Chart 3-5 shows the age of the pedestrians involved in the collision. The column noted as `blank' is missing the age data, so a large per- centage of the collisions are missing the age of the pedestrian making it difficult to find a correlation between age and collisions. If the colli- sions without age data are disregarded, then the age distribution may be what is expected with the greatest number of collisions occurring with ages 15 to 28 that tend to be most physically active and quantities slowly declining as people get older, become less physically active and drive more often. 250 200 150 100 50 38 ■ Severe Injury 0 125 111 105 r� 32 5 225 1-14 15-28 29-42 43-56 57-70 71-84 85+ blank Chart 3-5: Pedestrian Collisions by Age 46 COLLISION ANALYSIS 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 aaJ o�aaJ e�aaJ e�aaJ A taaA A Chart 3-6: Pedestrian Collisions by Day of Week Chart 3-7 shows nearly 38% of all pedestrian collisions occur when crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection and over 28% occur when crossing the roadway with no crosswalk. This stresses the importance of slowing down traffic, providing midblock crossings, and enhanced ■ 2021 safety infrastructure at intersections, such as curb extensions, pedes- ■ 2020 trian refuge islands, and Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI), which are a traffic signal timing measure that gives people walking a three to seven ■ 2019 second head start over motor vehicles moving in the same direction. ■ 2018 Other top pedestrian collisions types include: ■ 2017 • Vehicle proceeding straight while pedestrian is crossing in a cross- walk at an intersection • Vehicle making a right turn while pedestrian is crossing in a cross- walk at an intersection • Vehicle proceeding straight while the pedestrian is crossing not in a crosswalk Chart 3-6 shows the total pedestrian collisions by day of week, reveal- ing that Thursdays and Fridays tend to see slightly more pedestrian collisions. Table 3-5 shows lighting conditions at the time of the colli- sion. As may be expected, there are more collisions in daylight hours due to more activity during the day, and a large percentage of colli- sions occur under street lights at night. Dark - No Street 5 3 4 4 2 18 Lights Dark - Street 74 53 90 66 66 349 Lights Dark - Street Lights Not 1 1 Functioning Daylight 107 95 114 75 90 481 Dusk - Dawn 10 5 8 7 12 42 Not Stated 4 2 3 2 4 15 Grand Total 200 159 219 154 174 906 Table 3-5: Light Conditions During the Pedestrian Collision 2% z% 13% ■ Crossing In Crosswalk At Intersection 37% ■ Crossing In Crosswalk Not At Intersection ■ Crossing Not In Crosswalk ■ In Road ■ No Pedestrian Involved ■ Not In Road ■ Not Stated 27% Chart 3-7 Pedestrian Action at Time of Collision Chart 3-8 represents the movement of the automotive involved in the pedestrian collision. As shown, vehicles proceeding straight have the highest rate of pedestrian collisions followed by right and left turns, then vehicles backing up. Chart 3-9 lists the right-of-way controls (signals and signs) with most collisions occurring where there are no controls present. Chart 3-10 lists the primary collision factor showing SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 47 vehicles violating pedestrian right-of-way as the most frequent cause, followed by improper driving, then signals and signs violations, unsafe speed, and pedestrian violations. Research from 2019 from the NYC Department of Transportation showed that in general, despite what is reported in crash reports, it is not "Pedestrian Right of Way Violation" that typically leads to crashes but instead it is "dangerous driver behavior —speeding and failure to yield —that is killing pedestrians," as described in the study. Figure 3-7 shows five years of pedestrian collisions with a concentra- tion in the downtown area. There are high densities around the primary east -west corridors of 1st Street and 17th Street. Slightly lower densi- ty east -west corridors are on McFadden Avenue and Warner Avenue. Pedestrian collisions resulting in severe injuries and fatalities tend to follow primary and major arterials, such as 1st Street,17th Street, Warner Avenue, Bristol Street, Fairview Street, and Harbor Boulevard. Traveling Wrong Way Stopped In Road Slowing / Stopping Ran Off Road Proceeding Straight Passing Other Vehicle Parking Maneuver Other Unsafe Turning Other Not Stated Making U Turn Making Right Turn Making Left Turn Entering Traffic Backing — 0 50 100 150 Chart 3-8: Vehicle Movement During Pedestrian Collision Obscured Not Stated Not Functioning No Controls Present / Factor Functioning 0 100 200 Chart 3-9: Right -of -Way Controls During Pedestrian Collision Wrong Side of Road Unsafe Starting or... Unsafe Speed Unknown Traffic Signals and Signs Pedestrian Violation Ped R/W Violation — Other Than Driver Other Improper Driving — Other Haz Movement Not Stated Improper Turning Improper Passing Driving Under Influence Auto R/W Violation 0 50 100 150 Chart 3-10: Primary Collision Factor of Pedestrian Collision 48 COLLISION ANALYSIS r- z a �.._r ■ z E SANTA CLARA AV E SANTA CLARA AV u) i • • '��! N• Z. • 1 r.._. _ ._.._.._..*.._.w._.' ; .� 1 - . O l■ •+ • m .. + 7TH ST■ - i z Jr 'a i • ■ ' j� �■ ■ �■ ° i • }� ■ ■ ■.�.■; • ■ • j ...``-:.4 `ems • 1 �r w �L ■ y w• ¢ • ' E BEVERL'Ill' PL ■ �u_, N N a .1� ■ .. . ♦ N �• !■E MCFADDEN.A L.._.._.._L y1.._.._.._.ti 't.._.._.._.._... 1 y F N z w . .. Q IP o 1 1Lr ■•• •. ■ N ■ 03 � y. z� > yT • ¢j ■■ _ _ y Q� EDINGER AV T r••_• Santa Ana Boundary Schools �� Z' ■ �� a� �I Parks . ■ • N■ ■ •. •�• i Pedestrian Injury �� N• Fatal . * r■• 3 !� �■ *ARNE R AV ,O4 ■ Severe Injury T «,. • Pedestrian Collisions, 2017-2021 ■ N ■' Pedestrian Collision Density ■ y E DYER RD High 4 N wLu ' Low It._.._.._..t z' ■ �.� �•. �•. 1 w N �.I ................... 0 0.0.5 1 Miles I I I I Figure 3-7: Five Year Heat Map of Pedestrian Collisions from 2012-2021 SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 49 ■ ■ E SANTA CLARA AV E SANTA CLARA AV w F■ �.. .. .■ ■ ■�■ 77 ■ ■ - ■ ■ ■ , i � E4z � ' ■ ■ �� 41X� ■ E�J ■ ■`tin`' ■ ■ .. �■ ■ : ILf , 1 � � ■ � ■ ■ • .. j = ,�:-ter a ■ NO w Z N • _ N ■=4' 0 0 n �FADDEN.AV- •a u..........n1 ; 3 Q _ ■ TL ■ O ■ ■ .L ,y Santa Ana Boundary �„.J Schools Parks Injury Fatal ■ Severe Injury Pedestrian Collisions, 2012-2021 Pedestrian Collision Density High ' Low ■ F= ■ ■� ■ EDINGER A ; ■ I ■ �O� ■ ■ ■ .R .. + • � ,■ •�. R A� , IDS, E DYER RD �.4# J. _ ■. C .. ALL tv j 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Figure 3-8: Ten Year Heat Map of Pedestrian Collisions from 2012-2021 50 COLLISION ANALYSIS When comparing the most recent five years of available data (2017- 2021) used throughout this report to the past ten years, Figure 3-8 vali- dates the hotspots previously identified and then some, meaning there are fewer hotspots in the more recent years. The reduced hotspots in the five year dataset could be in part because there were fewer trips being taken during peak coronavirus pandemic years, infrastructure improvements enhancing the safety along select corridors, or due to the random nature of collisions, as shown by the Schneider -Sanders research from the Journal of TransDort and Land Use. For example, the same east -west corridors are featured, except Eding- er sees broader hot spots in the ten years. In recent years, Edinger has seen bicycle improvements and narrowing of the outer general purpose lane alongside protected bike lane implementation, which improves safety for all road users, including for people walking and driving. 3.4 Bicycle Collisions Based on collisions from the past five years of available data, Chart 3-11 shows the degree of injury for bicycle collisions. The highest degree of injury is a complaint of pain at 43% of all bicycle collisions, followed by visible injury at 31%. Property damage only is the next highest at 19% followed by severe injury at 4%. The lowest degree of injury and yet most severe is fatal at 1%, which is equal to seven lives. Another 2% of collisions had null values and cannot be categorized. Year -over -year quantities range from 105 to 171 reported bicycle collisions, averaging eight fatalities and severe injuries each year. As Santa Ana increases bicycle infrastructure, ridership will likely follow. It is important to build a bike -friendly network to ensure bicyclists are protected when sharing the roadway with vehicles so that no lives are at risk when riding a bike. 4% 2% 1< ■ Complaint o Pain ■ Fatal 43% ■ Other VisiblE Injury ■ Property Damage Onl ■ Severe Injur, ■ Null 1% Chart 3-11: Degree of Injury for Bicycle Collisions Not Stated 1 15 - - 16 Complaint of Pain 59 55 63 52 59 288 Fatal 3 1 2 - 1 7 Other Visible 59 39 46 31 32 207 Injury Property Damage 20 22 39 15 29 125 Only Severe Injury 3 7T 6 1 7 7 30 Grand Total 144 125 171 105 128 673 Table 3-6: Degree of Injury per Year SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 51 Chart 3-12 shows the age of the bicyclists involved in the collision. Sim- ilar to the pedestrian age data, a large percentage of the collisions are missing age data. If the collisions without age data are disregard- ed, then the age distribution shows the greatest number of collisions occurring with ages 15 to 28 which gradually declines in older age groups. Chart 3-13 shows the total bicycle collisions by day of week, revealing that Wednesdays tend to see slightly more bicycle collisions. 200 150 100 50 0 1-14 15-28 29-42 43-56 57-70 71-84 85+ blank Age Groups Chart 3-12: Bicycle Collisions by Age 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 aA aaJ aaA aaA aaJ bpA 6ZA � Chart 3-13: Bicycle Collisions by Day of Week ■ 2021 ■ 2020 ■ 2019 ■ 2018 ■ 2017 Table 3-7 shows lighting conditions at the time of the collision. Similar to the pedestrian lighting table, there are more collisions in daylight hours, likely due to more activity during the day. A large percentage of collisions occur under street lights at night. Total Dark - No Street 3 2 - 1 1 7 Lights Dark - Street 26 23 42 30 30 151 Lights Dark - Street Lights Not - 1 1 - - 2 Functioning Daylight 106 95 119 69 90 479 Dusk - Dawn 5 3 8 5 7 28 Not Stated 4 1 1 - - 6 Grand Total 144 125 171 105 128 673 Table 3-7: Light Conditions During the Bicycle Collision Chart 3-14 represents the movement of the automotive involved in bi- cycle collisions. As shown, vehicles making right turns are the cause of most bicycle collisions followed closely by vehicles proceeding straight. Chart 3-15 lists the right-of-way controls (signals and signs) with slightly more collisions occurring where there are no controls present Chart 3-16 lists the primary collision factor showing bicycles violating vehicles right-of-way as the most frequent cause, followed by signals and signs violations, then vehicle improper turning. As shown in Figure 3-9 there are high concentrations of bicyclist col- lisions in the downtown area as well as the full length of primary ve- hicle corridors like 1st Street, 17th Street, McFadden Avenue, Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue going east -west and Main Street, Flower Street, Bristol Street, and Fairview Street going north -south. Areas near the following intersections also show higher levels of bicycle collisions Warner Avenue and Main Street, Warner Avenue and Bristol Street, Edinger Avenue and Fairview Street. Bicyclist collisions resulting in 52 COLLISION ANALYSIS Vehicle - Pedestrian = 24 Sideswipe = 28 Rear -End 0 14 Overturned 12 Other Not Stated 8 Hit Object 1 4 Head -On 1 9 Broadside 1 5 199 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Chart 3-14: Vehicle Movement During Bicycle Collision Not Stated 14 Not Functioning 13 Vo Controls Present / Factor 348 Functioning 313 15 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Chart 3-15: Right -of -Way Controls During Bicycle Collision (blank) Traveling Wrong Way 37 Stopped In Road E 9 Slowing / Stopping ■ 5 Proceeding Straight 332 Passing Other Vehicle 1 4 Parking Maneuver I 1 Parked 1 4 Other Unsafe Turning � 18 Other 1 3 Not Stated 1 4 Making Right Turn 107 Making Left Turn � 39 Entering Traffic 93 Changing Lanes 1 2 Backing M 11 1 4 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Chart 3-16: Primary Collision Factor of Bicycle Collision severe injuries and fatalities tend to follow primary and major arteri- als, such as Main Street, 1st Street, 17th Street, Edinger Avenue, and Fairview Street. These roads, or roads parallel, have an opportunity to build and connect a bike -friendly network to encourage new riders, and improve safety for existing cyclists. When comparing the most recent five years of available data (2017- 2021) used throughout this report to the past ten years, Figure 3-10 val- idates the hotspot locations previously identified, but is broader, likely due to a higher quantity of collision points. Some corridors, such as Edinger Avenue have seen bicycle and oth- er roadway improvements in recent years. This may explain why this corridor amongst others has smaller hotspots in the map displaying five -years of data. For the road segments and intersections where the hotspots remain, they parallel in significance for priority locations to receive funding. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 53 r.y Santa Ana Boundary Parks Schools Bicyclist Injury Fatal ■ Severe Injury Bike Collisions, 2017-2021 Bike Collision Density High Low j > j..ter E SANTA CLARA z z AANTA CLARA AV w AV F p.l N z �O 1 , ._.....�....... 1 y� • ,.......... .......` , �. j ■ .'?r' ■ F- �'' m THST �h �•�o j j .. „ a■ z ' E 4TH ST z j# .. .. ■. ....:. ■ ..... E1STbTf.d ■ ■ • 1 F W o > to. F � U 2 ' ' ■ . :� U. iy w w, m Q, W >, ! • E BtVERLY PL y z w 2, a • ■ • '. Cn }• Q• • E MCFADDEN AV- `.. �..r..�. ti ixs..�..�..�L u�..�u�u�ni F- W ■ 1 y 3 O > < 1 1 f a N, UP LL• en a AV ICI z ��♦ Z .♦�� i EWARNER AV O♦ • u ' n RD • ■• rn a ■. �I N WLU ♦ � It �I S 1 z ! U.LU N �. •. ., W . . J. 1 � �.a..�..�u .................. ♦. 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles n..............._.........L Figure 3-9: Five Year Heat Map of Bicycle Collisions from 2017-2021 54 COLLISION ANALYSIS >. g zi- (L O . 0� W ' LU r (n z• En ¢ 2. 4 � Santa Ana Boundary Schools Parks Injury + Fatal ■ Severe Injury • Bike Collisions, 2012-2021 Bicycle Collision Density High ' Low 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I I p.l w ' Cn ■ z Ir ... > • ■ z 1 • ,E SANTA CLARA AV ESANTA CLARA AV (n i r F- z 1 'OJ o —J 0 .... ...... E'17TH ST0 ,a IN i= ■• •* .. �.�. •. .•. ..E4THST z• ...•• ..� . .. E1ST�T •■• ' '•' IVERLYPL IN • •- '■ ;■' E MCFADDEN AV� _ _ L.._.._..—i o ¢ • • • • • • ■ i.■ , EDINGER AV 1 w +.1_■,� ., �r�- E•WARNERAV • .tom. m N v, w■ w J 3 J ■ z i w w • LU. ... .. Figure 3-10: Ten Year Heat Map of Bicycle Collisions from 2012-2021 E DYER RD ..a li SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 55 3.5 Automobile Collisions As shown in Chart 3-17 shows the degree of injury for vehicle colli- sions. The highest degree of injury is property damage only at 60% of all vehicle collisions, followed by a complaint of pain at 25%. The next highest is other visible injury at 10% followed by severe injury at 2%. The lowest degree of injury and yet most severe is fatal at less than 1%, which is equal to 67 lives. Another 3% of collisions had null values and cannot be categorized. Year -over -year quantities range from 2,832 to 4,306 reported vehicle collisions, averaging a combined 414 fatalities and severe injuries each year. 2% 3% 60% ■ Not Stated Not Stated - 7 576 - - 583 Complaint of Pain 1,047 820 839 816 897 4,419 Fatal 17 8 8 16 18 67 Other Visible 397 287 431 278 316 1,709 Injury Property Damage Only 2,175 1,643 2,374 2,074 2,524 10,790 Severe Injury 68 67 78 62 72 347 Grand Total 3,704 2,832 4,306 3,246 3,827 17,915 M Complaint of Pain Table 3-8: Degree of Injury per Year ■ Fatal 12,000 ■ Other Visible Injury <1% 10,000 ■ Property Damage D% Only 8,000 ■ Severe Injury 6,000 Chart 3-17 Degree of Injury for Automobile Collisions Chart 3-18 shows the age of the vehicle occupants involved in the col- lision. Similar to the pedestrian and bicycle data, a large percentage of the collisions are missing age data. If the collisions without age data are disregarded, then the age distribution may be what is expected with the greatest number of collisions occurring with ages 15 to 28 and gradually declining as people get older and typically become less physically active. 4,000 2,000 0 • 1-14 15-28 29-42 43-56 57-70 71-84 85+ blank or 0 Chart 3-18: Automobile Collisions by Age Chart 3-19 shows the total automobile collisions by day of week, re- vealing that Wednesdays and Fridays tend to see more automobile collisions. 56 COLLISION ANALYSIS 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 eta �haaA J �aaJ ��aaJ 4, Chart 3-19: Automobile Collisions by Day of Week Table 3-9 shows lighting conditions at the time of the collision. Similar 2021 to previous lighting tables, there are more collisions in daylight hours, likely due to more activity during the day. A large percentage of colli- ■ 2020 sions occur under street lights at night. ■ 2019 Chart 3-20 represents the movement of the automobile in the colli- sion. As shown, vehicles proceeding straight have the highest rate of ■ 2018 automobile collisions followed by left and then right turns. Chart 3-21 ■ 2017 lists the primary collision factor showing unsafe speed as the most fre- quent cause, auto right-of-way being violated, then signals and signs violations, and then improper turning. Chart 3-22 lists the right-of-way controls (signals and signs) with most automobile collisions occurring where controls are present and functioning. Dark - No Street 3 2 - 1 1 7 Lights Dark - Street 26 23 42 30 30 151 Lights Dark - Street Lights Not - 1 1 - - 2 Functioning Daylight 106 95 119 69 90 479 Dusk - Dawn 5 3 8 5 7 28 Not Stated 4 1 1 - - 6 Grand Total 144 125 171 105 1 128 673 Table 3-9: Light Conditions During the Automobile Collision As shown in Figure 3-11 there are concentrations of vehicle collision in the downtown area as well as the full length of primary vehicle corri- dors like 1st Street,17th Street, McFadden Avenue, Edinger Avenue and Warner Avenue going east -west and Main Street, Flower Street, Bristol Street, and Fairview Street going north -south. Areas near the following intersections also show higher levels of automobile collisions: Warner Avenue and Main Street, Warner Avenue and Bristol Street, Edinger Avenue and Fairview Street. Collisions resulting in severe injuries and fatalities tend to follow primary and major arterials, such as 1st Street, 17th Street, McFadden Avenue, Edinger Avenue, Warner Avenue, Dyer Road, and going east -west. North -south corridors with higher levels of severe injury and fatalities include Harbor Boulevard, Fairview Street, Bristol Street, Main Street, Standard Avenue, and Grand Avenue. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 57 Wrong Side of Road 139 Unsafe Starting or... ioi Unsafe Speed - 1177 Unsafe Lane Change 82 Unknown E 286 Traffic Signals and Signs - 735 Pedestrian Violation 42 Ped R/W Violation 1o1 Traveling Wrong Way 23 Other Than Driver 43 Stopped In Road 52 Other Improper Driving 141 Slowing/Stopping 3 Other Haz Movement 21 Slowing / Stopping 165 Not Stated zz Ran Off Road 14 Lights 1 Proceeding Straight 2574 Improper Turning = 439 Passing Other Vehicle 20 Improper Passing 17 Parking Maneuver 12 Hazardous Parking 1 Parked 1 Following Too Closely � z6 Other Unsafe Turning � 108 Driving Under Influence E 205 Other 8 Auto R/W Violation - 967 Not Stated 12 Merging 8 0 1000 2000 Making U Turn 145 Chart 3-21: Primary Collision Factor of Automobile Collision Making Right Turn 297 Making Left Turn M 822 Obscured Entering Traffic 161 Not Stated Crossed Into Opposing... 18 Not Functioning Changing Lanes 129 No Controls Present /... Backing 104 Functioning 0 2000 4000 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 Chart 3-20: Movement During Automobile Collision Chart 3-22: Right -of -Way Controls During Automobile Collision 58 COLLISION ANALYSIS h � z �♦ �• ,• i ■■ �.._r i 1• ,E SANTA CLARA AV ESANTA CLARA AV (n r• z0 —.J .+y .*�..�,.��..�..�..�.` 1 *. ■ .... ......�. _ y E;7TH ST ,a ' '■ a ■ ■ F - _ .� .. .�•. •. ..E4THST z• F 11�. ■ • e• ��� �� fir �_ • _ ■ y.y w w, ¢ >= ... a � '-VERLYPL i.. rn �.y N. _N• ►..�.ti 1 a— ..• .... ... :■. �. j .'.$_ •. EMCFADDENAV� L�..�..�� .. 'i.._.._.._.._..i 1.. o a ■ 1 of Santa Ana Boundary I ■� ■ ■ i.■: EDINGERAv Schools j ■' Z .♦ z EL Parks N .♦, Injury r i Fatal ■ . �_ ■.� rL_ ■ _ ♦��♦ ■ Severe Injury Bike Collisions, 2012-2021 Bicycle Collision Density j ■♦•'♦ IF - High I y w■ ■.F Low t........... > ■ z ,. ,,• '♦. LU • ♦J♦ .,,.♦. .............�..�..�..�..�..�..� ! I d 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I i I I Figure 3-11: Five Year Heat Map of Automobile Collisions from 2017-2021 SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 59 r.y Santa Ana Boundary Parks Schools Bicyclist Injury Fatal ■ Severe Injury Bike Collisions, 2017-2021 Bike Collision Density High Low j > j..ter E SANTA CLARA z z AANTA CLARA AV w AV F p.l N z �O 1 , ._.....�....... 1 y� • ,.......... .......` , �. j ■ .'?r' ■ F- �'' m THST �h �•�o j j .. „ a■ z ' E 4TH ST z j# .. .. ■. ....:. ■ ..... E1STbTf.d ■ ■ • 1 F W o > to. F � U 2 ' ' ■ . :� U. iy w w, m Q, W >, ! • E BtVERLY PL y z w 2, a • ■ • '. Cn }• Q• • E MCFADDEN AV- `.. �..r..�. ti ixs..�..�..�L u�..�u�u�ni F- W ■ 1 y 3 O > < 1 1 f a N, UP LL• en a AV ICI z ��♦ Z .♦�� i EWARNER AV O♦ • u ' n RD • ■• rn a ■. �I N WLU ♦ � It �I S 1 z ! U.LU N �. •. ., W . . J. 1 � U . � .._u�..�..rl................... I� 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles n..............._.........L Figure 3-12: Five Year Heat Map of Automobile Collisions from 2017-2021 60 COLLISION ANALYSIS 3.6 Analysis of Systemic Safety Needs Figures 3-13 through Figure 3-15 show a tree diagram focused on the fatal and serious injury collisions along roadway characteristics throughout Santa Ana. The collision trees suggest that six -lane roads as well as intersections present the greatest risk of collisions. These systemic safety concerns demonstrate that as more lanes exist, so does the chance of a collision resulting in a fatality or serious injury. More lanes typically have more cars and higher speeds, increasing the quantity and severity of collision. 3.7 Collision Summary People biking and walking, especially people with visual impairments or other disabilities, are the most vulnerable roadway users. Though there are more automobile collisions, pedestrian and bicyclist involved collisions are more likely to be involved in serious injury or fatal colli- sions, and they are disproportionately represented in all collisions. Of pedestrian collisions over the past five years, 16% resulted in serious injuries or fatalities and 5.5% for all bicycle collisions, whereas only 2% of automobile collisions resulted in a serious injury or fatality. Figure 3-16 illustrates the Santa Ana corridors with moderately -high to high injuries involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. These corri- dors have the highest collision rates and injury severities collision rates and injury severities. Consequently, these have been categorized as safety corridors that merit consideration for measures that can help improve their safety for all. The methodology for this analysis involved joining each collision to the nearest street segment to quantify the number of collisions and severity of injuries that have occurred at different locations along a corridor. Each injury was given a `score' as noted in the list below. Each road segment's score was then summed together for a total score per corridor. A more detailed version of that map that looks at each road segment can be found in Appendix B. Description Pedestrian Fatalities or Severe Injuries 1.5 Bicycle Fatalities or Severe Injuries 1.5 All Other Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 1.25 Vehicle Collisions Resulting in Fatalities or Serious Injuries 1.25 All Other Vehicle Collisions 1.0 The goal is to slow travel speeds, redesign streets to accommodate multimodal travel, and reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries to zero through the recommendations outlined in this Plan. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 61 146 total pedestrian collisions 86 collisions Non -intersections 60 collisions 14 collisions 1 1 collision 122 collisions 5 collisions 44 collisions 14 collisions 1 collision 12 collisions 3 collisions 30 collisions Figure 3-13: Number of Lanes and Pedestrian Collisions 37 total bicycle collisions 25 collisions 5 collisions I 1 1 collision 1 1 2 collisions 1 1 2 collisions 1 1 15 collisions Figure 3-14: Number of Lanes and Bicycle Collisions 12 collisions 2lanes 31ane 4 F2-collisions lanes 6lanes 2 collisions 0 collision 2 collisions 6 collisions 62 COLLISION ANALYSIS Figure 3-15: All Collisions Resulting in Serious Injuries or Fatalities and Road Segments, Intersections, and Traffic Signals SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 63 Corridor Average Injury Ranking Moderately High Injury Rank High Injury Rank Santa Ana Boundary 0 0 0.25 0.5 i I Figure 3-16: Average Injury Ranking per Corridor 64 COLLISION ANALYSIS SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 65 I Community Engagement Summary 91 �.r: Main isooN • �.R ems'" ..6 �.. m • . ALL Ad A ImEhAlm 4 4 d hoto Location: Ma h Street 4.1 Overview Purpose Thorough community engagement routed in equity is essential to un- derstand the City's current state of infrastructure and to address the types of improvements needed for a safe and enjoyable multimodal network. The Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan conducted outreach from Fall 2022 through Spring of 2023. Outreach efforts were led by Lati- no Health Access (LHA), a non-profit who has been ingrained in the community for many years and has built an extensive network to solicit feedback and gain trust with Santa Ana residents. They have been an integral part of the community engagement components of the Down- town and Central Complete Streets Plan and the Active Transportation Plan. Latino Health Access Latino Health Access (LHA) applies a highly participatory methodol- ogy in community engagement and has built long-standing relation- ships with community members. LHA delivers culturally appropriate health -related services and equitable programming and is well versed in engaging individuals in low-income, low -opportunity areas in trans- forming their environments and creating positive, concrete changes. LHA has trained volunteers, students, community -peer networks and promotores, or community experts, who live in the community and have connections with individuals and families experiencing the most significant vulnerability. The relationships with the community enable trust, information -sharing, and lifts the voices of residents who may not have otherwise been included in a conventional engagement ap- proach. LHA brings the project to the public rather than expecting the public to show up to project meetings. This broader reach strengthens the value of the input collected in the project and has been an asset to informing project recommendations. The community engagement con- ducted in the SAVZ Plan helped inform project recommendations and also built a foundation for further funding to bring these projects to life. Outreach Efforts The team, led by LHA, collaborated to develop a Community Engage- ment Plan (CEP) for virtual and in -person outreach strategies in accor- dance with COVID-19 protocols. The tasks included in the CEP are list- ed below. • Monthly Project Development Team (PDT) meetings • Five (5) community events • Up to five (5) Stakeholder Advisory Group meetings • Community survey • Pop -ups • Social media posts • Educational video • Project website 4.2 Outreach Materials Draft outreach materials were developed including project branding, social media content, online maps, infographics, flyers, and information sheets to support the community survey distribution and stakeholder meetings. All materials were designed in English, Spanish, and Viet- namese with Spanish -speakers present at all events to accommodate the diversity of City residents. Some materials such as the survey and flyers were distributed both online and in printed format as well as by City Staff at various neighborhood association meetings. ,Ns,y a aqv o o 68 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Project Fact sheet Public outreach materials for the workshops included fact sheets, fly- ers, and postcards. These materials were printed and shared online in English, Spanish, and Vietnamese. These materials were distribut- ed prior to and during community events to encourage participation and invite people to share their thoughts. These fact sheets were also shared at laundromats, food banks, and local coffee shops to broaden reach to residents. Project Webpage A project webpage hosted on the City's website was updated period- ically throughout the project to include information about the project and share opportunities for residents to give feedback. The web page shares resources about the Vision Zero network, the US Department of Transportation's Traffic Safety Approach, and details about the City's traffic safety information including traffic counts and downloadable ver- sions of previous planning documents such as the Safe Mobility Santa Ana Plan and the Central Santa Ana Complete Streets Plan. The web - page also included all outreach materials such as the community sur- vey, flyer, and educational video prepared in both English and Spanish. Community Survey The survey questions were designed to develop a general under- standing of the community's current and future state of mind regard- ing active transportation. A total of five questions were asked, one of which included the option to provide additional comments related to the question. Most questions allowed respondents to select more than one category, resulting in totals that exceeded 100 percent. With nearly 550 responses, the following results provided helpful insight to impor- tant issues that can be used to guide the prioritization process. Question responses in English and Spanish were combined and shown as combined charts on the following pages. Question 1: When you think about transportation changes or improvements, what should be our top considerations in selecting the projects we design? For question #1, the most frequent request was to reduce vehicle speeds, followed by improving traffic flow, then a set of third most fre- quent requests including making it easier to cross streets, public edu- cation on safety, then reducing collisions. Education -enforcement for people who bike, walk, and drive... Improving traffic flow Addressing wrong -way bicycle riding - Making it easier for people walking to cross the street Slowing down how fast people drive on the street Enhancing transit service Cost effectiveness - Potential to reduce collisions Keeping existing car parking on city streets Increasing the number of dedicated bicycle paths and lanes 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Question 2: What street improvements woulu you IIKe to see more of in Santa Ana? The most frequent request was to increase or improve street lighting, followed by improving safety with more signals and signage. A set of third most frequent requests include ensuring all sidewalks include curb ramps at intersections, adding multi -purpose trails, and adding sidewalks. Transit stop improvements, such as shelters - Roadway lighting Improvements Traffic signals with more time to cross More corner ramps for people In wheelchairs and baby strollers Transit stop improvements, such as information about the next bus - Sidewalks with street trees set back from traffic More traffic signals and flashing crossing beacons Benches and rubbish bins Pedestrian refuge island mid -street to help with crossings Trails and pathways More Sidewalks 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 69 Question 3: What types of bicycle facilities would you Like to see more of in Santa Ana? The most frequently requested bicycle facility was protected bike lanes followed by improved traffic signals, then green colored bike lanes. Intersection treatments and enhancements — Painted bike lanes — improved signals — Bike boulevards on residential streets (and signage) — Road Buffet (transformation through lanes to two way turn lanes and ... - Colored bike lanes — Buffered bike lane — Shared lane markings or "sharrows' — Protected bike lanes — 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 Question 4a: Commuting to work or school -What are your main means of travel in Santa Ana? The most common commuting method is driving alone in a car or truck. Walking is a distant second common mode, then driving with someone else in a car or truck. Other Drive with someone else, car or truck — Drive alone, car or truck Transit Skateboard Bicycle Walk or wheelchair 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Question 4b: Personal errands or shopping - What are your main means of travel in Santa Ana? Errands and shopping trips have similar travel methods as work and school modes noted in question 4a with driving alone or with someone else, followed by walking. Other Drive with someone else, car or truck Drive alone, car or truck Transit — Skateboard Bicycle - Walk or wheelchair 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Question 4c: Fun, dining out, social destinations - What are your main means of travel in Santa Ana? Social trips have the same travel patterns as work, school, and errands with driving alone being most common, followed very closely by driv- ing with someone else, then walking and transit held a distant third. Other Drive with someone else, car or truck Drive alone, car or truck Transit — Skateboard Bicycle Walk or wheelchair I- 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 70 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Ouestion 4d: Exercise or recreation - What are your main means of travel in Santa Ana? Walking is the most popular mode for exercising or recreation then driving alone, with bicycling coming in third. Other - Drive with someone else, car or truck - Drive alone, car or truck Transit _ Skateboard Bicycle - walk or wheelchair 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 Ouestion 5: "Is there more you would like to tell us about your transportation experience in Santa Ana?" A few direct quotes in favor of and opposed to traffic calming and vi- sion zero and listed below in addition to a summary table of the most frequent comments from over 400 provided. Comment (Simplified) # Comments Add street lights 33 Fix road pavement 33 Add protected bike 29 lanes More law enforcement 29 Implement vision zero 16 Improve bus service 15 Reduce congestion from 15 construction Add speed humps 14 Remove bike lanes, add 11 car lanes Stop racing, reckless 11 driving 10 Reduce vehicle speed in residential SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 71 Several open ended answers from Question 5 by Survey Participants are listed below. • "The streets are very dark - as a driver it is hard to see pedes- trians at night. As a pedestrian, it is very hard to be seen, espe- cially when cars are turning into a driveway entrance. We need better lighting, especially in high foot traffic areas and around bus shelters." • '7 think it would be better to create a safer biking lane so that people actually use their bikes more and get exercise." • "Can be dangerous walking. Uneven sidewalks are a fall risk. Drivers turning right while people are in the crosswalk. Speeding drivers through intersections." • "Certain transit/ buses don't come very often on some streets & it would be nice for certain routes to have more frequent buses. " • "Santa Ana devotes an enormous amount of public space to cars. Traffic speed on almost all streets are dangerously high, especial- ly on arterials, and in many cases speed limits should be reduced by half. We need to reduce the number of lanes and space we provide for cars and provide more alternatives, not the other way around." 4.3 Outreach Events Booths were set up at scheduled and well -attended local events, bringing the project's outreach efforts directly to community members attending these events. This outreach method generates higher lev- els of input than would have been possible through project -specific presentations and workshops. The project scope originally asked to attend four community events, but the fourth event had a relatively low turn out, so LHA went above and beyond to attend a fifth event to ensure that public engagement was well rounded and equitably repre- sented the diverse population of Santa Ana. Santa Ana Winter Village,January 6th, 2023 Event Overview On Friday, January 6th, LHA attended the Santa Ana Winter Village, a month- long community -wide holiday event. This event draws people from all over the City and County for a family -friendly day of holiday fun with food, music, and activities for kids. LHA held a booth to inform the public about the project, distribute surveys, and solicit feedback. LHA Youth supported the survey collection process and facilitated engaging conversation around safety recommendations for Santa Ana. 72 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Santa Ana Winter Village, January 8, 2023 Event Overview Due to this event's popularity„ LHA attended the second day of the Winter Village on January 8th to capture feedback from community members attending on different days. LHA Youth again assisted with the outreach process and held dialogue around the Vision Zero pro- ject. Engaged residents provided valuable feedback about the existing conditions, problem areas, and suggestions for potential infrastructure improvements. Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) We Care Resource Fair, February 15, 2023 Event Overview We Care Resource Fairi , Join Us Wednesday February SSth, 2023 at Santa Ana High School 5:30ptn-7:30ptn Comc and discover I he amazing services in our communil p I hat arc here to help! There will also be: waffle Prizes We Care Art Contest Winner announced Srudens food vendors Swdenr performances ee face painting O. Photo Booth and free prints aAc Mlks far all ages RY and more! WE CARE LHA set up a booth at the Santa Ana Unified School District's We Care Re- source Fair. This event targets the youth by connect students to men- tal health and suicide prevention re- sources and education. This location was selected to specifically target student populations who are com- monly walking, bicycling, and taking transit and can provide valuable feed- back for the project. LHA educated students on the project and how safe streets and walkable neighborhoods connect with overall health. Santa Ana Fun Run, April 22nd, ZUZS Event Overview The Santa Ana Fun Run, held on Saturday, April 22nd had a resource fair area where LHA set up a booth. LHA reported that the resource fair section did not attract many com- munity members, contributing to the decision to conduct outreach at a fifth event. A youth running club was reportedly very interested in the project and gave great feedback about the existing conditions of the pedestrian network in Santa Ana. • Activate Your Healtff Saturday, April 29, 2023 10:00 AM - 1:00 PM Birch Park 400 W. 3rd St Santa Ana, CA 92701 Activa Tu Salud/Activate Your Health LHA Fair, April 2912023 Event Overview LHA hosted a community wellness event that connected attendees to resources for mental, emotion- al, physical, and spiritual health. Over 50 surveys were collected. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 73 Activate Your Health 2022 LHA Event Activate Your Health 2022 LHA Event Miscellaneous Food Bank(s) LHA hosts regular food banks where they were able to distribute SAVZ Plan flyers and surveys which provide a consistent avenue to gather community input. The food bank has numerous Spanish and Vietnam- ese speakers and older adults participating regularly. Platicando con Promotores, February 16, 2023 LHA hosts a weekly virtual education segment called Platicando con Promotores, or Conversing with our Community Health Workers, held in Spanish. Each week focuses on a different topic to inform and pro- mote overall wellness. On Thursday, February 16th, LHA highlighted the Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan with representatives from the City and consultant team. Participants were in favor of traffic calming in Santa Ana and pedestrian improvements, especially safe crossings. Round- abouts received mixed feedback and one parent mentioned that new- er curb extensions negatively impact school drop-off for their child. Overall, this meeting provided an intimate venue to hold meaningful conversations about traffic safety in Santa Ana. Watch it here! Educational Video An educational video was prepared in both English and Spanish to educate residents on the importance of Vision Zero in Santa Ana, pro- mote the project, and ask viewers to complete the survey. The video was promoted on the City's website, LHA's social media, and on You - Tube. Watch the video here! 74 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY Stakeholder Advisory Group This project required multi -jurisdictional cooperation and feedback from City staff and other agencies to meet the goals of the period- ic project milestones. As part of this effort, the Stakeholder Advisory Group (SAG) was created to meet up to five times during the project, or about every other month. To expand the level of feedback collected, the SAG also included community representatives to bring alternative perspectives to the group. Stakeholder represented persons with dis- abilities, youth, neighborhood associations to name a few. The full list of organizations is listed below with names are listed in the Acknowl- edgments section. • Artesia Pilar Neighborhood Association • Caltrans • Com-Link • Dayle McIntosh Center • Environmental and Transportation Advisory Commission (ETAC) • KidsWork • Orange County Health Care (OCHC) • Santa Ana Active Streets Coalition (SAAS) • Santa Ana Unified School District • Santa Ana Police Department • Santa Ana Public Works • Santa Ana Planning • Willard Neighborhood Association • Resident, bus rider • Resident, graduate student The SAG meetings allowed routine discussion of the project's prog- ress and each meeting offered a portion of education, information, and feedback and suggestions. The meetings ranged between one hour and one hour and a half depending on participation and discussion of the following topics. • Project locations • Project prioritization • Numerous polls and surveys • Reviewing/feedback on draft maps and graphics • Process of data collection/analysis • Draft countermeasures Monitoring the progress of the Santa Ana Vision Zero will be through the City of Santa Ana Pubic Works Director to the City of Santa Ana En- vironmental and Transportation Advisory Commission (ETAC). Report- ing to the ETAC will take place at least once every two years. 4.4 Public Outreach Summary Numerous public events in Santa Ana were attended to share with the public and get direct feedback on improving safety for all modes of transportation including walking, bicycling and driving. The community outreach focused on considerations of equity using inclusive and rep- resentative processes, ensuring representation from all demographics of the community. A hard copy and online survey was distributed which collected 548 responses. As shown in the quoted comments above, opinions can be diverse on improving bicycle and pedestrian safety, but the overwhelming trend appears to be in favor of improving bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure and safety to increase these modes of transport and increasing safety and ridership on public transit. Common threads for bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns, as shown in the previous set of bar charts and comments, tend to focus on re- ducing the danger that cars and trucks create for pedestrians and bi- cyclists. Slowing vehicle speeds down, improving street lighting, more traffic signals and signs, adding protected bike lanes, and improving traffic flow are the most frequent requests. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 75 0 Let us ALL work together on a safer commuter future for our City. Whether you are traveling by vehicle, bus, bicycle or walking; slow down, be aware of your surroundings, be respectful of others and let us all come home safely our families every day. Ruben Castaneda Senior Engineer City of Santa Ana 76 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SUMMARY This page is intentionally left blank. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 77 Toolbox of Potential Improvements -41 . 1 .1 -� J- _ _ _ � �'. "i FAT _+,. �+� � - .f•. _'. .'. {. •. ',cl ib y� llllll .000 nue mm� AN r— 5.1 Descriptions of Potential Street Improvements This chapter includes project recommendations meant to slow down traffic and reduce the potential of fatal and serious injury collisions. These vision zero treatments are intended to improve conditions for the more vulnerable road users, people walking, rolling, and bicycling. These treatments naturally make the roadway safe for automobiles as well. Slowing down traffic both increases the time for a driver to re- act and reduces the potential damage severity of a collision. These potential street improvements reduce collisions across all modes of transportation and the ones that occur are less severe. The recom- mendations are designed to help the City of Santa Ana allocate funds as they become available and compete for grant funds as opportuni- ties arise. The chapter begins with an overview of the different types of built infrastructure that have been designed throughout California. This "Vision Zero Toolkit" includes active transportation recommendations for all modes of travel to reduce fatalities and serious injuries to zero. Physical Measures Bulb Out / Curb Extensions Curb extensions extend the curb line outward into the travel way, re- ducing the pedestrian crossing distance. Typically occurring at inter- sections, they increase pedestrian visibility, reduce the distance a pe- destrian must cross, and reduce vehicular speeds. Curb extensions must be installed in locations where they will not interfere with bicycle lanes or separated bikeways. If both treatments are needed, bicycle lanes and separated bikeways can travel behind the curb extension, with a slot in the curb extension known as a bike bypass. Corner Radius Reduction or Truck Apron Truck aprons allow large vehicles, such as: trucks, buses, and recre- ational vehicles, to turn without striking people walking, rolling, or bicy- cling, or fixed objects by reducing the corner radius using a 3-inch high mountable area. They are located on the road surface, next to the side- Bulb Out / Curb Extensions Truck Apron, Source: Maricopa Association of Governments Chicanes / Roadway Curve 80 TOOLBOX OF POTENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS walk. The mountable area slows motor vehicles while allowing large trucks to traverse the mountable area with their rear wheels. A corner radius reduction is similar to a truck apron but instead of a 3-inch high mountable area, the addition is built at the height of the sidewalk. Chicanes / Roadway Curvature Chicanes are a series of narrowings or curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other forming an S-shaped path of travel on a roadway. Chicanes reduce drivers' speeds by causing them to shift their horizontal path of travel. Hardened Centerlines Hardened centerlines are flexible delineator posts or raised speed humps placed along the yellow centerline at an intersection to block the diagonal path through the intersection and encourage drivers to turn left at a slower speed. Pedestrian Refuge Island Refuge islands provide pedestrians and bicyclists a relatively safe place within an intersection and midblock crossing to pause and ob- serve before crossing the next lane of traffic. Raised Crosswalk or Speed Table Speed tables are flat-topped road humps, often constructed with tex- tured surfacing on the flat section. Speed tables and raised crosswalks help to reduce vehicle speeds and enhance pedestrian safety. Fire Departments tend to prefer speed tables since they can be made to accommodate emergency services vehicles. Reduced Conflict Intersection (RCI) This intersection design prohibits through movement and left turns from the side streets, only permitting a right turn in or a right turn out, known as "Right In Right Out" (RIRO). To continue straight or to make a left turn from the side street, cars must first turn right and then make the nearest U-turn. RCls eliminates the potential of broadside crashes. Hardened Centerlines with Flexposts Pedestrian Refuge Island Reduced Conflict Intersection (PQ SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 81 Traffic Calming Circle A traffic circle is a small-scale traffic calming measure commonly ap- plied at uncontrolled intersections on low volume, local residential streets. They lower traffic speeds on each approach and typically avoid or reduce right-of-way conflicts because the overall footprint is smaller compared to roundabouts. Traffic circles may be installed using simple markings or raised islands but are best accompanied with drought -tol- erant landscaping or other attractive vertical elements. Pavement Markings Bike Boxes A bike box is a designated area at the head of a traffic lane at a signal- ized intersection that provides bicyclists a safe and visible way to wait ahead of queuing traffic during the red signal phase. This positioning helps encourage bicyclists traveling straight through not to wait against the curb for the signal change. With a bike box, bicyclists make a "One Stage Left Turn" since they do not wait for an additional signal phase. Two Stage Turn Box As opposed to a bike box where the turn is made in one stage, a two stage turn box (TSTB) is a painted box ahead of the crosswalk (instead of behind it) that allows bicyclists to travel straight across the intersec- tion, and then wait in a designated area before turning left in a two - stage movement. It is considered a lower stress option and an easier option for beginner bicyclists turning left. TSTBs offer bicyclists a safe way make left turns at multi -lane signalized intersections from a right side cycle track or bike lane, or right turns from a left side cycle track or bike lane. Class I: Multi -Use Paths Class I multi -use paths (frequently referred to as "bicycle paths") are phys- ically separated from motor vehicle travel routes, with exclusive rights - of -way for non -motorized users like bicyclists and pedestrians. They re- quire physical buffers to ensure safety and comfort of the user. Class I facilities differ from Class IV facilities because they allow pedestrians to use the facilities and they are generally in a different right of way, such as Traffic Calming Circle Two Stage Turn Box (TSTB) Class l: Multi -Use Path 82 TOOLBOX OF POTENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS a utility company right of way or a Park's Department right of way. Class II: Bicycle lanes Bicycle lanes are one-way facilities that carry bicycle traffic in the same direction as the adjacent motor vehicle traffic. They are typically locat- ed along the right side of the street (although can be on the left side) and are between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge, or park- ing lane. They are not physically separated from motor vehicle traffic. Class III Bicycle Routes A bicycle route is a suggested bicycle corridor marked by signs des- ignating a preferred street between destinations, usually residential streets. They are recommended where traffic volumes and roadway speeds are 35 mph or less. Traffic calming is included as needed to discourage drivers from using the street as a through route. Class IV: Separated Bikeways Separated bikeways, sometimes called cycle tracks, are on -street bicy- cle facilities with a physical separation between the bikeway and vehi- cle travel lanes usually with flexible posts, planters, or poured concrete. Often times, Class IV bikeways are parking -protected, where parked cars offer a buffer from traveling cars. Class IV facilities differ from Class I facilities because they are only for bicyclists as pedestrians general- ly are given a parallel sidewalk. Consequently, Class IV bikeways are usually preferable to Class I facilities. Class IV bikeways usually use street right of way, which is different than Class I facilities. For Class IV facilities on the approach to intersections, the bike facility needs to be adjacent to the sidewalk, and in between the right turn lane and the sidewalk if a right turn lane exists. Ideally the intersection would be a Protected Intersection, giving added protection to the bicyclists. Edge Lane Roads or Advisory Bicycle Lanes An edge lane road is a preferred space for bicyclists and motorists to operate on narrow streets that would otherwise be a shared roadway. Roads with edge lane road markings accommodate low to moderate volumes of two-way motor vehicle traffic and provide a more comfort- able, safer space for bicyclists without widening of the paved roadway Class lll: Bicycle Route, Source: Mia Burk Edge Lane Road, Source: Wash Cycle SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 83 surface. Due to their reduced cross section requirements, edge lane roads have the potential to open up more roadways to accommodate comfortable bicycle travel. Protected Intersection Also known as a Dutch -style Intersection, it is an intersection where bicyclists are physically separated from cars at the corners using small islands known as "Curb Refuge Islands" to separate and protect the bicyclist traveling straight from the parallel motorists turning right, thereby mitigating the right hook conflict. In protected intersections, the bikeway is set back from the parallel motor vehicle traffic. Unlike at conventional bike intersections, people biking are not forced to merge into mixed traffic. Instead, they are given a dedicated path of travel through the intersection, increasing the safety and level of comfort for people biking in intersections, which typically are among the least safe areas for bicyclists. Green -Colored Transition Striping Intersection or mid -block crossing markings indicate the intended path of bicyclists. Colored striping can be used to highlight conflict areas between bicyclists and vehicles, such as where bicycle lanes merge across motor vehicle turn lanes. High Visibility Crosswalks High visibility crosswalk markings are designed to both guide pedes- trians and to alert drivers of a crossing location. The bold pattern is intended to enhance visual awareness. Cities in southern California often install "continental" style markings due to their higher contrast on a roadway. "Continental" style crosswalks only have a series of thick lines the are painted parallel to the flow of traffic. Motor vehicles travel directly over or next to the thick lines, thereby reducing maintenance costs. Continental crosswalks are also safer due to the higher visibility compared to standard crosswalks. Ladder style crosswalks, which in- clude parallel lines perpendicular to the flow of traffic, are not recom- mended due to the added maintenance costs. Lane Width Reductions Protected Intersection, Source: Nacto 101 Green -Colored Transition Striping, Source: VDOT High Visibility Crosswalk 84 TOOLBOX OF POTENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS Reducing vehicle lane widths may reduce travel speeds to slow down speeding cars. It also gives space to non -vehicle road uses such as bicycle facilities. Moreover, November 2023 research from John Hop- kins University found that 10 foot lanes increase motor vehicle safety over wider lanes, while also giving more space for multimodal travel. It's considered a win -win scenario. Road Buffets or Lane Reductions Road buffets reallocate the uses of a roadway, reducing the number of travel lanes to make space for a center turn lane, median or pedestrian refuge island, protected bicycle facilities, curb extensions, and other traffic calming and vision zero treatments. Signs, Signal Timing, Signal Infrastructure Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads Pedestrian countdown signals are an added display to a standard pe- destrian signal head. These display a countdown of the seconds re- maining until it is safe and permitted to cross. Reflective Border on Signal Heads Reflective borders on signal heads improves visibility of signal heads with a backplate and is made even more conspicuous by framing it with a yellow retroreflective border. These are more visible in both day- time and nighttime conditions. Pedestrian Signals and Beacons Traditional pedestrian signals with countdown timers remain the gold standard for high quality pedestrian crossings, although some cases warrant new signal technologies. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFBs) are special beacons used to warn and control traffic at unsignalized locations to assist pe- destrians in crossing a street via a marked crosswalk. PHBs include a "red phase" requiring vehicles to come to a full stop while RRFBs re- quire yielding to pedestrians and stopping when pedestrians are pres- ent. Either of these devices should be installed at locations that have pedestrian desire lines and that connect people to popular destina- Road Buffet or Lane Reduction Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 85 tions such as schools, parks, and retail. Research has shown that PHBs tend to have a 90 percent motorist compliance rate versus RRFBs, which tend to have an 80 percent motorist compliance rate. Traditional pedestrian signals with countdown timers at signalized intersections tend to have a near 100 percent compliance rate. Signals and warn- ing devices should be paired with additional pedestrian improvements where appropriate, such as raised tables, curb extensions, enhanced crosswalk markings, lighting, median refuge islands, corresponding signage, and advance yield markings to mitigate multiple threat crash- es on multi -lane roadways. Pedestrian Lighting Pedestrian -scale lighting provides many practical and safety benefits, such as illuminating the path and making crossing walkers and bicy- clists more visible to drivers. Lighting can also be designed to be fun, artistic, and interactive and increases the feeling of safety for people waiting for the bus at night. Signal Timing Adjustments Signal timing adjustments can be made to slow down traffic, prioritize pedestrians and bicycles crossing with lead pedestrian or bicycle in- tervals, and reduce congestion by coordinating signal times. Signal timing is designed best in protected phases, incorporating protected and unprotected left turn. For the safety of pedestrians, left turn phas- ing should typically be protected rather than protected -permissive or permissive only phasing. NYC DOT has been testing some alternatives to protected phasing such as "Partially Split Phasing" that may be used for situations aiming to reduce delay. 5.2 Strategies and Performance Measures The Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan outlines an initial set of projects and measures that the City of Santa Ana and its partners can implement to work toward the goal of achieving zero transportation -related deaths and serious injuries on our streets and trails by 2040. The City will im- plement this plan by applying for grant funding or integrating projects into the CIP program, and then providing dedicated staff to carry out the action items. All agencies and stakeholders will continue to work together within the community to build a culture of safety. The Vision Zero Action Plan is a living document that will evolve over time, as needed, as it builds on the Safe Mobility Santa Ana plan as well as other plans before that. After funding has been procured, the goal is to implement the projects within a 10 year time frame, using both data -driven and qualitative metrics to track progress. The best practice performance measures are listed below, each of which are meant to quantify the impact and effectiveness of Vision Zero projects and programs. Identifying and employing several strat- egies will help the City update the public on progress and advance ef- forts for the upcoming year. The City must decide on the metrics that it deems the most important to allocate limited resources towards. Each year, the overarching goal is for collision trends to decrease, while increasing the mode split for walking and bicycling, which increases safety due to the "Safety in Numbers" phenomenon. Note from the metrics that equity plays a critical role in performance measures. Annu- ally, tracking the following infrastructure and programmatic data points are key. • Percent of total citywide street mileage dedicated to active transpor- tation facilities (such as bicycle parking, street closures, Class I, II, and IV bicycle facilities, and complete sidewalk networks). • Number of CIP projects funded per year that address safety issues. • Percent of streets where posted speed limits have been reduced, focusing around schools and parks. • Total miles of on -street bikeways defined by streets with clearly marked or signed bicycle accommodations. • Total miles of streets with pedestrian improvements. • Percent of bicycle networks in the most disadvantaged neighbor- hoods. • Number of grants funded per year that address equity -related safety issues. • Number of intersections where signals have been optimized for peo- ple with disabilities and active transportation. • Number of bicycle and pedestrian safety programs. 86 TOOLBOX OF POTENTIAL STREET IMPROVEMENTS The City has a robust GIS program that collects crash data into the Crossroads database. The City can also use the Transportation Injury Mapping System to collect and analyze crash data. The following are metrics the City can review annually to track trends to achieve zero transportation -related deaths. • Number of Serious Crashes • Number of Fatal Crashes • Number of Intersection Crashes • Number of Pedestrian Crashes • Number of Bicycle Crashes • Number of Alcohol -related Crashes • Number of Speed -related Crashes • Number of Distraction -related Crashes • Number of Work Zone Crashes • Number of Crashes on the High -Injury Network • Number Crashes in Areas of Higher Poverty or Diversity Monitoring the progress of the Santa Ana Vision Zero will be through the City of Santa Ana Pubic Works Director to the City of Santa Ana En- vironmental and Transportation Advisory Commission (ETAC). Report- ing to the ETAC will take place at least once every two years using the appropriate metrics noted above. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 87 � T-1-11 7A Ob� ecommen 0 0 Engineering m rovemer 6A 1 �, OP O I MA OFF +;yA- /d .. • _.. eY�"yy;�f' s,.Y ± SwF ,4 # r, .1 • •�$ J,Jr• •.S OW�� a 4;4►r N1. VMOO :V. ii Photo Location: Lacy Street at Civic Center Drive 6.1 Overview This chapter focuses on the key outcomes of the Plan: the recommen- dations and initial project implementation to support Santa Ana Vision Zero. Section 6.2 presents an overview of the project prioritization process and shares a list of the ranked projects. Section 6.3 shares a field review summary from site visits at each location. Section 6.4 includes the specific corridor designs and corresponding cut sheets that show initial project recommendations and what measures should be implemented at each location. A key concept of Vision Zero is that countermeasures shouldn'tjust be implemented at key locations where collisions have already occurred. Rather, they should be proactively im- plemented at locations where collisions are likely going to occur, es- pecially high -severity collisions. The call outs on the aerial photos are intended to be used to pursue grant funding for implementation. Some cut sheets take projects further with preliminary engineering drawings. 6.2 Project Prioritization Developing the project prioritization criteria was a combined data -driv- en and interactive process consisting of cumulative scores derived from the various criteria, shown in Table 6-1. The project list with as- signed scores is shown in Tables 6-2 and 6-3. The prioritization pro- cess was developed in collaboration with focused partners, with equity for all users and transportation modes in mind. See Chapter 4 for the list of public, private, and local advocacy partners who helped develop this criteria with objective and equity -based data. The equity impact assessments of the proposed projects and strategies, as well as the population demographics, were a key concern during the analysis and project recommendation process. Ultimately, the projects recommend- ed are all in the underrepresented and underserved areas of Santa Ana and the policies and strategies recommended, focused on ad- dressing equity concerns. Figure 6-1 maps the top twenty priority proj- ects as per the prioritization process as well as the project corridors from the 2016 SMSA study. Table 6-1: Project Prioritization Criteria Crit Descripti KSI/mile The KSI/mile Score represents the number of people Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) per mile. Each fatality and serious injury received one point, no weight was applied. The higher the KSI, the more likely a corridor needs Vision Zero countermeasures implemented. Street Lane The street lane score represents the number Score of lanes on a corridor. Each lane received one point, 6 being the highest. The more lanes a street has, the more dangerous it is for people walking and bicycling. Median Island Median Islands are one of the most effective Score Vision Zero countermeasures. A Corridor that has a median receives a 0, a partial median receives a 4, and no median receives an 8. Equity, Public, This score is compiled of the number of sur- and Professional vey comments, stakeholder input; professional Score judgment from the project team and the City of Santa Ana on the need of a corridor to receive countermeasures, and it includes results from the Equity Analysis. Total Score The Total Score represents the sum of each pri- oritization criteria. The top 5 scores are to be the top five projects, which will go into more detailed conceptual design. 90 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS � � ❑ Fn N W J F Q m = 0 � w to C z � a I Z 2 z W 5TH ST o W a O O W Z w iu�. �n�u�■ ENGER A. V..�� En Diu Santa Ana Boundary Intersection Projects J Corridor Projects 1 to 5 Corridor Projects _ 6 to 10 2016 Safe Mobility Santa Ana study - Extended Corridor Project Locations 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles I 1 I 1 Figure 6-1: Top 20 Priority Project Locations W 1ST ST O W y O tt m Z Z WSANTACLARAAV a 0 X W 17TH ST m W WASHINGTON AV F y O CIVIC CENTER DR W m z W 5TH ST W SANTA ANA BLVD O W 4TH T H N N Z W Q O y l/1 W MCFADDEN AV k E Qq O22 O z �T E 1ST ST E CHESTNUT AV E MCFADDEN AV W EDINGER AV O � y J O A2 _N (pj h m N W WARNER AV W SEGERSTROM AV OWDYER RD o N W ALTON AV m O z m yQ2 w w w 3 � W va O m W MACARTHURm BLVD O I LL1� FAIRHAVEN AV E SANTA CLARA AV I E 17TH ST L - 'a z !A E FRUIT ST F z � E 4TH ST I N � 0 7� I i.u.u.u. 1 1 EEDINGERAV Q LL' Q E WARNER AV .i E DYER RD SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 91 Table 6-2: Top Ten Road Segments KSI/mile SCORE (1-10) School Zone SCORE (1-10) Street Lane SCORE (1-10) Median Island SCORE (1-10) Equity, Public, and Professional SCORE (1-10) TOTAL SCORE (Max. Score=50) Rank Project Name 1 Main Street 6.9 9 4 8 10 37.9 2 Euclid Avenue 10.0 6 6 8 6 36.0 3 1st Street 8.4 3 6 4 10 31.4 4 Tustin Avenue 5.2 3 6 8 9 31.2 5 Greenville Avenue 4.8 9 4 8 5 30.8 6 Grand Avenue 5.7 9 6 8 2 30.7 7 Fairview Street 3.6 9 6 4 8 30.6 8 Bristol Street 5.4 9 6 8 2 30.4 9 4th Street 4.4 3 2 8 9 26.4 10 17th Street 1.6 9 6 0 9 25.6 92 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS Table 6-3: Top Ten Intersections Equity, TOTAL KSI/mile School Zone Street Lane Median Island Public, and SCORE Rank Project SCORE SCORE SCORE SCORE Professional 110 ( ) 110 ( ) 110 ( ) 110 ( ) SCORE (Max. (1-10) Score=50) 11 Harbor Boulevard at 1st Street 10 3 6 0 10 29 12 17th Street at Grand Avenue 4 6 6 4 8 28 13 Harbor Boulevard at McFadden 5 6 6 0 10 27 Avenue 14 1st Street at Flower Street 3 9 6 0 8 26 15 Edinger Avenue at Maple Street 4 6 6 0 9 25 16 Segerstrom Avenue at Bear 0 6 6 4 8 24 Street 17 Flower Street at Macarthur 0 9 6 4 4 23 Boulevard 18 Macarthur Boulevard at Raitt 0 9 4 0 9 22 Street 19 Dyer Road at Flower Street 0 9 4 8 0 21 20 Flower Street at Alton Avenue 1 6 4 0 9 20 SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 93 I have seen a major change in traffic safety in the City of Santa Ana. From car is king to actively considering all roadway users. From `we cannot install bikeways'to `we cannot installed them fast enough'. In general, pedestrian and bicycle traffic safety is definitely undergoing a renaissance in th City of Santa Ana. Zdenek "Zed" Kekula Principal Civil Engineer City of Santa Ana 94 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS 6.3 Field Review of Top 20 Projects On May 24th-25th, 2023, the project team conducted a field review of Santa Ana streets, prioritizing the project list, to observe existing conditions and user behavior of people walking, bicycling, and driving. The team noted the immediate land uses, surrounding destinations, and existing infrastructure. While the existing conditions analysis from Chapter 2 helped proposed project locations based on collision den- sity and infrastructure gaps, this exercise helped to identify elements and patterns understood from observation. The field work helped to finalize the prioritization process and solidify project ranking. Some examples from the site visits include crosswalks shown in aerials that had since been faded in some locations, bicyclists were seen rid- ing on sidewalks even when bicycle facilities are present, and bicyclists were spotted riding contra -flow, or against traffic, on both residential streets and primary arterials. Additionally, several near -collisions were witnessed, motorists were driving over the speed limit on wide roads, motorists were running red lights, and there were numerous instances of jaywalking, informing the team that pedestrian crossings are too far apart. These are some behavioral occurrences that can not be identi- fied from data alone and emphasize the significance of field work. The general recommendation is to have protected pedestrian crossings in commercial and mixed use areas at least every 500 feet, usually pro- tected with a pedestrian signal or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB.) Some examples from this field work are pictured to help illustrate these observations. Bicyclist riding on the sidewalk Curb extensions on Main Street A group waiting to cross 17th Street Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Downtown Tustin Avenue is wide and undivided s IL G Existing traffic circle on 16th Street SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 95 6.4 Proposed Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects The following is a typical set of recommended improvements for all top 20 projects with minor variations noted on individual project pages. Typical improvements include adding separated bike lanes, protected intersections, high visibility continental crosswalks, pedestrian and bi- cycle friendly signal timing, and bike -friendly bus stop configurations. Separated Bike Lanes Wherever space is available, the project sheets recommend Class IV separated bikeways. Ideally, these bike lanes would include as much buffer space between the vehicle travel lane and the bicycle travel lane. This separation can be fit with flexible posts, poured concrete, or parked cars to name a few. As a separated bike lane approaches an intersection, the bike facility remains adjacent to the sidewalk and between a right turn lane or general purpose lane. Protected Intersections Protected intersections with raised curb refuge islands (CRIs) at the corners of intersections are recommended to provide a physical barri- er between bicycles and vehicles that are turning right at intersections. This provides the bicyclist some safety while waiting for the traffic sig- nal to change and allows them to cross the street in the "crossbike" This also gives the bicyclist a place to wait that is not on the sidewalk where pedestrians are waiting. Three inch truck aprons are included at the `front' of the curb refuge island to allow larger vehicles to make turns without driving over the six inch raised curb. Detailed curb/apron design configurations will be required at each corner prior to construc- tion to accommodate the design vehicle and available right-of-way. At the time of this plan, the City if finalizing the designs for a protected intersection at Standard Avenue and McFadden Avenue. High Visibility Continental Crosswalks High visibility continental crosswalks are recommended at all sig- nalized intersections and ideally at many unsignalized intersections throughout the City. The bar markings should be inline with the car's direction of travel without a solid transverse pavement marking. This reduces the amount of vehicle tire markings and wear on the pave- ment marking and reduces frequency of remarking the crosswalks. Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Signal Timing Pedestrian and bicycle friendly signal timing can provide people walk- ing and bicycling with a few seconds `head start' before vehicles are al- lowed to proceed, especially right -turning motorists. With a head -start, people walking and bicycling occupy the crosswalks first and have pri- ority over vehicles for safer crossings. This is known as a "Leading Pe- destrian Interval" A "Leading Bicycle Interval" is similar but for people biking and a "Leading Through Interval," common in Montreal, allows through moving vehicles while holding right turning vehicles. Bike -friendly Bus Stop Configurations Bike friendly bus stop configurations ideally separate bike lanes, pe- destrians, buses, and other vehicles in a manner that avoids conflicts. Due to space constraints, this is not always possible and optional con- figurations need to be implemented. A set of seven bus stop and bike lane configurations are detailed in section 6.5 and can be applied to bus stops in project locations and throughout the City. Project Recommendations Table 6-4 displays a matrix of the proposed countermeasures at each corridor and intersection location, followed by design concepts, cost estimates, and characteristics are included for each of the twenty proj- ect locations. These recommendations are in additions to the Citywide systematic countermeasures that have been recommended for across the City of Santa Ana. The top five one -mile study corridors were taken further with leverage of a separate, concurrent SCAG-funded project to develop engineer- ing concepts, cost estimates, and renderings to pursue future grant funding to advance each of the projects' implementation. The project teams from both that project and this Plan worked closely together to align efforts and recommendations. The output of the SCAG project can be found in Appendix D. 96 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS Table 6-4: Recommended Countermeasures per Location cae� aae ay N. r 5p`° V e Q� cV� ta o .0 ac��`teJ�Q o��.cceo�`caee y °,oc � Pa e� o� Pa P� oo P Gec o�� Pa �� �`a Pa opt e� Pp `a aQ�Pa? 1 Main St X X X X X X X X X 2 Euclid X X X X X X X X X 3 Tustin Ave X X X X X X X X X 4 Greenville X X X X X X X X X 5 1st St X X X X X X X X X 6 Grand X X X X X X X X X 7 Fairview X X X X X X X X X X 8 Bristol X X X X X X X X X 9 4th X X X X X X X X X X 10 17th X X X X X X X X X X Intersections Harbor Blvd 11 / 1st St X X X X X X X X X 17th St / 12 Grand Av X X X X X X X X X McFadden Av /Harbor 13 Blvd X X X X X X X X X X 1st St / 14 Flower St X X X X X X X X X X Edinger Av / 15 Maple St X X X X X X Flower St / Macarthur 16 Blvd X X X X X X X X Existing X Raitt St / Macarthur 17 Blvd X X X X X X X X X Flower St / 18 Dyer Rd X X X X X X X X Existing X Flower St / 19 Alton Av X X X X X X X X Existing X Segerstrom 20 Av / Bear St X X X X X X Existing X SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 97 Top Five Priority Projects The four exhibits on this page can be used as a guide for the first five projects. Because a SCAG project is taking them further along, they are kept to a conceptual level in this Plan. Exhibits A through D depict inter- section and corridor treatment options for Main Street, Euclid Avenue, 1st Street, Tustin Avenue, and Greenville Street. Engineering drawings, cost estimates, and renderings for these five projects can be found in Appendix D. Exhibit A. Intersection Enhancements Potential features as applicable: • Protected Intersection • Truck Apron • Hardened Centerline • Corner Refuge Islands • Traffic Signal - new or modification • Bike Signal and Queue Area • High -visibility crosswalks • Dual curb ramps Intersection Enhancements, sourced from Bicycle Dutch Exhibit B . Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon Potential features as applicable: • Warn and control traffic at an unsignalized location to assist pedestrians in crossing a street at a marked crosswalk • Pedestrian push button • Flashing lights with reflective border • High -visibility crosswalk Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, Downtown Santa Ana 98 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS Exhibit C. Reduced Conflict Intersection Potential features as applicable: • Restricts left turns at an intersection • Reduces car on car collisions • Conflict point management Reduced Conflict Intersection, 17th Street at Ross Street, Santa Ana Exhibit D . Median or Type C Curb Potential features as applicable: • Reduces head-on collisions • Allows for safer turning movements Type C Curb, sourced from Google Maps SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 99 1. Main Street 17th Street to 1st Street Existing Conditions and Recommendations Main Street from 17th Street to 1st Street is a one -mile stretch of road located in downtown Santa Ana running north to south through the northeast quarter of the City. Land uses along the route are limited to commercial retail and public services that draw a large volume of traffic that results in one of the highest densities of traffic collision rates for the City, including one fatality and numerous severe injuries during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-2 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. Project Location t d� r � 3 1 8 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 View of Main Street 100 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS I � 1 y (D 1 � I o U See a , Exhib w, 1 U, z 1= � 1� rfl • 1 N 1 w W x ■ 1 3 1 (1 • 1 1 ~ �4'ir z 17t,� y OF LL w J � .y �• � See W T� Seeo Exhibi�r,sT Exhibit 1 ■ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - A - - - - - - - - - - - A w o =. I w I I IJ I= U z c I Q I ' ; 1 0 _ J Gl a � See o See Exhibit Exhibit c)- A JII'IIIL - _.._ _.._ a 0 z 3 m N SYCAMORE ST Figure 6-2: Main Street from 17th Street to 1st Street Lj SF Exhibit Exhibit Exhee bit ; U A, w 0 JII1IIL Uj r N N N 1� a M z 3 3 3 3 !� '� N SYCAMORE ST 1 , C 0 220 440 feet ■ Proposed Bike Routes Existing Bike Routes O Transit Stops — — I - Multi Use Path I - Multi Use Path 'Existing Traffic — — 11 -Bike Lane II - Bike Lane Signal — III -Bike Route III - Bike Route IV - Separated IV - Separated Bikeway Bikeway SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 101 7 Euclid Street Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue Existing Conditions and Recommendations Euclid Street from Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue is a one -mile stretch of road located at the west edge of the City running north to south through mixed land uses including general commercial retail and residential homes, mobile home parks and multifamily units. Large traffic volumes are generated going to and from uses that results in a high density of traffic collision rates including one fatality and numerous severe injuries during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-3 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. Project Location �tA dM r � 2 1 7 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 View of Euclid Street and Hazard Avenue 102 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS L` ''•-,5- ° IU See w Exhibit o O EUCLID S 'A z--- JpiI;L — — — —— w ° -7l'F m 0 1 K 1 N $' = 1 1 ►. i%- I I � r H I _L E I D' I Lt. 0- , See D I Exhibit w I O A' UJ ——— I N EUCLID S JII�IIL — — w Z J I �nwr I F QI O � I I I See Exhibit 'D' I ! u I ' y, w r ~ 1 J Lu S- I 3 ee o _ See Exhibit _ ! Exhibit 0 -t� _ c 1• O .. — (� EUCLID ST I J —--'LU —-------k-1Ig�o—— J�I�IItLr _ �w —--————-------JIIIL :w_^I �.� o.. W c Ki'S� WI W 2 4(Q N Q O Transit Stops OExisting Traffic Signal Figure 6-3: Euclid Avenue from Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue C0 220 440 feet Proposed Bike Routes I - Multi Use Path — — II -Bike Lane III -Bike Route IV - Separated Bikeway Existing Bike Routes I - Multi Use Path II - Bike Lane III - Bike Route IV - Separated Bikeway I— U Lu 0 D_ 0 Z LU SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 103 3.1st Strep� Fairview Street to Bristol Street Existing Conditions and Recommendations 1st Street from Fairview Street to Bristol Street is a one -mile stretch located near the center of the City just west of downtown Santa Ana. The street runs west to east through multifamily and mobile home park residential units on the west end and high density commercial uses along the east part of the corridor. This stretch of road generates one of the highest levels of traffic and traffic collisions including three fatalities and fourteen severe injuries during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street to support pedestrian mobility. Minimal bicycle facilities are provided with single line markings at the edge of vehicle travel lanes. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-6 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. Project Location tt d� r � 15 2 19 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 View of 1st Street 104 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS W KNIGHT LN 1 LL LU I 1 I � I r W 2ND ST > 1 F l y a > al y F = 1 z ¢ y z a c� z m �I 3 See o See N See o See a See Exhibit Exhibit Exhibit Z Exhibit Exhibit a, Z ' D' = 'A� z a , B, a `A� z A U w , , J;I: -- _j L o I 113 �I�I�r�I�I�r w I Typ. t:' a + I I o 7,1 l > y F > w J♦ a 1 * z ,i a Jv U I W Y O LL o H I al a a N Q o m a ER 1 , - - = WWALNUT ST y y -r -- -- --------------------- --------------------------- I 1 W WALNUT ST Figure 6-4: 1st Street from Fairview Street to Bristol Street 0 220 440 feet Proposed Bike Routes Existing Bike Routes O Transit Stops — — I - Multi Use Path I - Multi Use Path Existing Traffic — — 11 -Bike Lane II - Bike Lane Signal — III -Bike Route III - Bike Route IV - Separated IV - Separated Bikeway Bikeway SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 105 A Tustin Avenup Fairhaven Street to 17th Street Existing Conditions and Recommendations Tustin Avenue from Fairhaven Street to 17th Street is a one -mile stretch located at the farthest northeast edge of the City running north to south through primarily commercial retail and multifamily units that draw a large volume of traffic and a high density of traffic collisions including three severe injuries during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-4 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. Project Location tt d� r � 0 0 4 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 View of Tustin Avenue 106 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS �I. I Ise• U See See Exhibit 'r i*011k Exhibit 0 A D U� m $. Yp w LL I +a� NPONCIEROSAST I 1 a I o J > H I 1 LL a am d I � 'a wl a _ L I 1 u 1 I E z I See See i Exhibit Exhibit A, = I .. D' U I _j �L--------- IIIII N TUSTIN AV I TYP C0 220 440 feet I Figure 6-5: Tustin Avenue from Fairhaven to 17th Street I� -- . rs alwlwr. i our— #� ion Proposed Bike Routes Existing Bike Routes O Transit Stops I - Multi Use Path I - Multi Use Path 'Existing Traffic 11 - Bike Lane 11 - Bike Lane Signal III - Bike Route III - Bike Route IV - Separated IV - Separated Bikeway Bikeway SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 107 5. Greenville Street Warner Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard Existing Conditions and Recommendations Greenville Street from Warner Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard is a one -mile stretch located in the southwest quarter of the City running north to south through single family, multifamily, and mobile home park residential units that generate daily traffic flows going to work or shopping. The corridor has a moderate density of traffic collisions, showing higher densities at intersections with Warner Avenue, Segerstrom Avenue and MacArthur Boulevard. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks and curb ramps run along the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-5 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. Project Location tt d� r � 0 0 1 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 View of Greenville Street 108 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS H U W O lY d _Z C7 w M 3 Figure 6-6: Greenville Street from Warner Avenue to MacArthur Boulevard O Transit Stops 'Existing Traffic Signal Midblock Crossing with Median Island or Curb Extensions C0 24feet I I Proposed Bike Routes I - Multi Use Path II - Bike Lane III - Bike Route IV - Separated Bikeway Existing Bike Routes I - Multi Use Path 11 - Bike Lane III - Bike Route IV - Separated Bikeway I— LL W J LU W O J W W W z J U Q H U W O a 0 z W SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 109 #6. Grand Avenue Century High School to Edinger Avenue Existing Conditions and Recommendations Grand Avenue from Century High School to Edinger Avenue is a one-third mile stretch running north to south at the southeast edge of the City with Century High School on the east side of the street and light industry on the west side of the street. Light commercial retail is located at the intersection with Edinger Avenue. A moderate level of traffic and collisions occur on this stretch with one severe injury at the intersection with Edinger Avenue during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street to support pedestrian mobility but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-7 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. O f Q� 0 0 2 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Grand Ave (Century HS - Edinger Ave) (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 4,568,769 $ 5,558,607 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 210,000 $ 255,497 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 4,779,000 $ 5,815,000 $ 600,000 $ 730,000 LD $ 840,000 $ 1,030,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 110 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS 111111i111 11 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl1u1111�11�11 $ksl �­ Add crossbikesAdd bike -friendly bus stop based,Add high visibility continental crosswalon roadway and bikeway with stop bar 5 fl behind crosswalkconfigurations. See section _ j.."",{6.1.9 for available typologies. Add track aprons at both comndirectional wheelchair ra acer M H U w O a z z w It'dl�i II I' I _ L I High Visibility Crosswalk High Visibility School Crosswalk Lane divider and/or c-curb divider Road Striping 1111 Bike Crossing millMarkings Bike Lane Marking Bike Sharrow Marking :? Landscaped Areas - Multi -use Path DISCLAIMER NOTE: All Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to improvements shown in concept receive driveway treatments in the form of'continuous sidewalks' plans are subject to further or rubber humps. See details page for more information. evaluation. Conceptual Site Plan Grand Ave from Century High School to Edinger Ave Scale: 1" = 50'-0" ®KTI+A 3916 Normal St January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San Diego, CA 92103 Figure 6-7: Grand Avenue from Edinger Avenue to Century High School Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 111 #7. Fairview Street Edinger Avenue to St. Andrew Place Existing Conditions and Recommendations Fairview Street from Edinger Avenue to St. Andrew Place is a one- third mile stretch running north to south near the middle of the west edge of the City. The Santa Ana College of Continuing Education and Centennial Park is on the west side of the corridor and single family housing and a grocery store on the east side. As a primary through - road, it sees a daily large volume of traffic and high collisions rate with two severe injuries at the intersection with Edinger Avenue during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street to support pedestrian mobility but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-8 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. O f Q� 1 0 2 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Fairview St (Edinger Ave - St Andrew PI) (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost(2028Y TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 3,552,994 $ 4,322,760 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 400,000 $ 486,661 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 3,953,000 $ 4,810,000 $ 500,000 $ 610,000 LD $ 700,000 $ 860,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 112 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS U U w 0 a z c� w m 1 #Addhighvs with acontinental t � s swalks wM1h stoppbar 5 ft y... r•�. - .. behind crosswalk ` r.. Add bike -friendly b s stop based n roadway and bikeway configurations SeeSo Li. j F _ f Section 6.1.9 for available typologies. Add crossbikes1i Add'Blended Transition" 4 jib ADA ramp path. High Visibility Lane divider and/or 1111 1111 Bike Crossing Crosswalk c-curb divider Markings Bike Lane Marking High Visibility School Road Striping Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Crosswalk I Marking DISCLAIMER: All improvements shown in concept plans are subject to further evaluation. KTU+go, A Conceptual Site Plan Fairview St from Edinger Ave to St Andrew PI Scale: 1" = 50'-0" 916 orma 3Nl St ® January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San DieC A 92103 Figure 6-8: Fairview Street from Edinger Avenue to Centennial Road Recommendations F W W J W w 0 J W W N W z S U F Q SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 113 #8. Bristol Street Segerstrom Avenue to Alton Avenue Existing Conditions and Recommendations Bristol Street from Segerstrom Avenue to Alton Avenue is a one-third mile stretch running north to south near the middle of the south edge of the City. Land uses include apartments and commercial retail at the intersections. As one of the main roads in Santa Ana, traffic volumes are very high along with high collision rates and two severe injuries at the intersections with Segerstrom Avenue and Alton Avenue during the study period. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops run along the street to support mobility for people walking and with visual and physical disabilities. Bike lanes are provided on both sides of the road with short segments providing buffers from traffic and other segments left as shared with vehicle traffic. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-9 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. O f Q� V V 1 1 2 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Bristol St from Segerstorm Ave to Alton Ave (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)** TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 5,047,009 $ 6,420,289 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 230,000 $ 279,830 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 5,278,000 $ 6,701,000 $ 660,000 $ 810,000 $ 930,000 $ 1,140,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) made. 114 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS l Add high visibility continental crosswalISgnal 1 1 �," - �r _ rw ft behind crosswalk ; r Adparated �" Include bicycle/pedestrian fri1• fo bikewa n - - y g, such as LPIs, if p i _.. J ..'I �,,,•, ��� i..�, `�-Add raised Type Ccurb on _-L - r. w f. a I 1 1 .' .., . yellow divider line ! - y r Ad bikewarated Y Add hardened centerline in front of median - I I I mm I I I Add crossbikes r t Add separated l•• OIL bikeway I I I I I I I I I I I Add bike -friendly bus stop based roadway Add yellow reflect active border n s goal and bikeway configurations See Section hi!,„ ` ' f '� ^. �� heads on all four approaches "a-d ' - u Add separated �}X^ R ATI b k way '• •1A 6t •' i>' � ' `Z. Add curb refuge Islands with truck aprons at comers or curb extens ons''.�"- L f. with directional wheelchair ramps;' • Add raised Type C , Add raised Type C YP YP curb on _ Existing two-way multi -use path T �� _ Add raised Type C curb on - yellow divider line I yellow curb on yellow divider line divider line p .. Add se aratad P 1 1 Add curb refuge islands with truck aprons JJ •- _ bikeway at comers or curb extensions with - a _ directional wheelchair ramps . I I I r. � I LA ai�'>r mum I Add crossbikes ��� Add crossbikes IIII nS "• "• Add hardened centerline in front i -- r � of median AM' [ruck aprons } ' A� y Add separated �• Add ,!4.1.�j'?y``u� 1 N - _ _ _ bikeway - separated bikeway Rebuild rased median to be 1'wide h / - Add high visibility continental crosswalks with •� stop bar 5 ft behind crosswalk to make room for a bike lane on the �t(f west side of Bristol St., Add high visibility continentalcrosswalks with ' I y µ I slop bar 111 beh nil crosswalk I k r' Add yellow reflective border on s gnat 1r ', heads on all four approaches I I y.�„ �; _ I Existing two way multi -use path 1 • High Visibility Lane divider and/or mill Clar inrossing DISCLAIMER NOTE: All Crosswalk Markings Bike Lane Marking Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to improvements shown in concept c-curb divider receive driveway treatments in the form of'continuous sidewalks' p p High Visibility School Road Striping Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow or rubber humps. See details page for more information. plans are subject to further • Crosswalk Marking evaluation. ®I<Tu.A 3916 Normal St Conceptual Site Plan Bristol St from Segerstrom Ave to Alton Ave Scale: 1" = W-0" San Diego, CA 92103 January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan Figure 6-9: Bristol Street from Segerstrom Avenue to Alton Avenue Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 115 #9.. 4th Street Minter Street to Garfield Street Existing Conditions and Recommendations 4th Street from Minter Street to Garfield Street is a one-third mile segment running west to east at the east edge of downtown Santa Ana. Land uses are primarily commercial retail and the Garfield Community Center on the north side. This segment has not had any recent fatalities or severe injuries, but due to roadway characteristics, the safe systems approach calls for improvements. A high quality pedestrian network of sidewalks and curb ramps are on both sides of the street but no bicycle facilities exist. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-10 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. Project Location t d� 07br � 0 0 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Santa Ana Vision Zero 4th St from Minter St to Garfield St (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 3,725,088 $ 4,824,136 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 240,000 $ 291,997 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 3,966,000 $ 5,117,000 Z PA/ED (12.5 X) Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 116 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS f U O a Z 0 m NFIR Add tru k p t lw rs w th~ directional wheelch amps Add curb extensions with - V Add high visibility Include be cle/ I `y plantings and d rectional a`f - y pedestrian friendly signal 1 I`� crosswalks rf needed timing, such as LPIs f possible. Add separated wheelchair ramps ll f _ bikeway Add curb extens ons with r Add high wsibildy °� / a ///////// lant n s and d rect onal ■ crosswalks rt needed r �/ Add separated P wheelchair rams Add yellow reflect ve border on signal ] x. .h bikeway - -_T_ 4— P heads on all four approaches ' x 111111111111111 . 111111111111111 - . - .r •• - - Y ��""'���' � - I I Add separated Add planting to Add separated r'� u I bikeway .f ., Yibikeway ,�, curb extensions Add hardened centerline _ Add or Flex posts os b k ^� •Add hghv visibility continental crosswalksbehndwith tcrosswalk 1II � � � ,`4? � 1 k � � �tr: �.•, . LU 111 a a w w rn z U U Q I N 1 r I C[p Add truck apron to one corner with Add separated d rectional wheelchair ramps N bikeway -JAdd I �£ 11111�1111111 '� I J' I Add crossbikes 4th St 1111111111111111 { Add separated 1'- '(►�' bikeway Add high visibility continental y qdd se W crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft - P crated behind crosswalk m bikeway t, ' — M'• r s +b ■ if 'd High Visibility Crosswalk High Visibility School Crosswalk Lane divider and/or c-curb divider Road Striping U ■ ■ ■ ■ 1111 Bike Crossing Markings a. Bike Lane Marking 0 w Bike Sharrow Marking Landscaped Areas - Multi -use Path DISCLAIMER NOTE: All improvements shown in concept plans are subject to further evaluation. Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in the form of'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Conceptual Site Plan 4th St from Minter St to Garfield St Scale: 1" = 50'-0" ®'l 3916 Normal St January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San Diego, CA 92103 Figure 6-10: 4th Street from Minter Street to Garfield Street Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 117 10.17th Street Ross Street to Broadway Existing Conditions and Recommendations 17th Street from Ross Street to Broadway is a one-third mile segment running along the north edge of downtown Santa Ana. Land uses are primarily commercial retail and one apartment complex. As a primary route through the City, it supports high traffic volumes and has high collision rates with one fatality at the Ross Street intersection. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street but no bicycle facilities. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-11 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. Project Location �tA d� 07br � 1 0 1 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Santa Ana Vision Zero 17th St from Ross St to Broadway (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 5,499,832 $ 6,959,050 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 220,000 $ 267,664 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 5,720,000 $ 7,227,000 $ 720,000 $ 880,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 1,230,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) made. 118 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bike lanes to receive driveway treatments in the form of'continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. High Visibility Crosswalk High Visibility School Crosswalk Lane divider and/or c-curb divider Road Striping mini Jill Bike Crossing Markings Bike Lane Marking Bike Sharrow Marking Landscaped Areas - Multi -use Path DISCLAIMER NOTE: All improvements shown in concept plants are subject to further evaluation. Ru+A 3916 Normal Sl San Diego, CA 92103 City of Santa Ana 20 Civic Center Plaza Santa Ana, CA 92701 Conceptual Site Plan 17th St from Ross St to Broadway Scale: 1" = 50'-0" Ql January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan DRAFT Figure 6-11:17th Street from Ross Street to Broadway Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 119 11 'harbor Boulevard and 1st Street Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street is a busy intersection in the upper west quarter of the City with commercial retail at all corners. Six vehicle lanes, not counting multiple turn lanes in each direction, are on each leg of the intersection. The significantly high traffic volume at this intersection results in a similarly high collision rate during the study period, with multiple severe injuries and one fatality two blocks east of this intersection where a raised median is not provided. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. Bicycle facilities are provided going westbound on 1st Street and southbound on Harbor Boulevard. High visibility crosswalks are missing. Figure 6-12 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. O f Q� 1 1 3 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Harbor Blvd/1st St (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,532,310 $ 1,864,289 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,573,000 $ 1,913,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 LD $ 280,000 $ 350,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 120 High Visibility Lane divider and/or mill Bike Crossing Crosswalk c-curb divider Markings Bike Lane Marking High Visibility School Road Striping Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Marking Crosswalk Site Plan 1st Stand Harbor Blvd Scale: 1" = 40._0 ., ®Conceptual 3916 Normal St 3916 N January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San Diego, CA 92103 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-12: Harbor Boulevard and 1st Street Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 121 12.17th Street and Grand Avenue Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations 17th Street and Grand Avenue is a busy intersection in the upper east quarter of the City with commercial retail at all corners. Five vehicle lanes, not counting multiple turn lanes in each direction, are on each leg of the intersection. Very high traffic volumes see similarly high collision rates during the study period, with multiple severe injuries near this intersection where raised medians are not provided. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided. Figure 6-13 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. Project Location t d� 07br � 1 0 1 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Santa Ana Vision Zero 17th St and Grand Ave Intersection (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)** TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,383,045 $ 1,731,352 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,424,000 $ 1,781,000 $ 180,000 $ 220,000 $ 250,000 $ 310,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) made. 122 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS High Visibility Lane divider and/or mill Bike Crossing Crosswalk c-curb divider Markings Bike Lane Marking I'I`L High Visibility School Road Striping Multi -use Path 1 Crosswalk p g Bike Sharrow Marking KTu+A Conceptual Site Plan 17th St and Grand Ave 3916 Normal St San Diego, CA 92103 January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan Scale: 1" = 40'-0" a Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-13: 17th Street and Grand Avenue Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 123 13. Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue is another busy intersection in the upper east quarter of the City with commercial retail at all corners. Not counting multiple turn lanes, there are six north -south vehicle lanes, and four west -east through lanes. Significantly high traffic volumes and collision rates have resulted in two fatalities and one severe injury during the study period. Raised medians are provided on three legs of the intersection. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. Bicycle facilities are provided on three legs of the intersection but the east leg of McFadden Avenue has no bike facilities. Figure 6-14 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. Project Location �tA d� 07br � 2 0 3 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Santa Ana Vision Zero Harbor Blvd/McFadden Ave (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,567,485 $ 1,907,085 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,608,000 $ 1,956,000 $ 210,000 $ 260,000 LD $ 290,000 $ 360,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) . Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 124 _It Add separated e O bikeway �a :_0 Add high vicontinentalcrosswalks top bar 5 ftbehinswalk Add separated bikeway - I Add hardened centerline in front of median Add crossbikes Add yellow reflective border on signal heads on all four approaches Add separated bikeway WL,7_lz Add bike -friendly bus stop based on roadway and bikeway configurations. See Section 6.1.9 for available typologies. Add curb refuge islands with truck aprons at corners or curb . extensions with directional wheelchair ramps 111 Rebuild raised median RIF to be 2 feet wide to _)r make room for bike lanes � 1 Include bicycle/pedestrian 1 friendly signal timing, such ` as LPIs, if possible.�Ag/ 7- Add separated , �, bikeway r DISCLAIMER NOTE: All y • improvements shown in concept plans are subject ^i'Mto further evaluation. High Visibility Lane divider and/or Bike Crossing Crosswalk c-curb divider Markings Bike Lane Marking High Visibility School Road Striping Multi -use Path Crosswalk p g Bike Sharrow Marking Conceptual Site Plan McFadden Ave and Harbor Blvd Scale: 1" = 40'_0" ®KTU+A 3916 Normal St January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San Diego, CA92103 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS a a] Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-14: Harbor Boulevard and McFadden Avenue Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 125 14.1st Street and Flower Street Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations 1st Street and Flower Street is a busy intersection near the center of the City at the southwest corner of downtown Santa Ana. Tennis courts that are part of the Santa Ana High School are at the southeast corner of the intersection. Multifamily and commercial retail occupy the other three corners. There are a total of six westbound and eastbound vehicle lanes, not counting multiple turn lanes. Northbound and southbound lanes total four plus dedicated turn lanes. High traffic volumes and collision rates have resulted in two severe injuries during the study period. Raised medians are provided on three legs of the intersection. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. Bicycle facilities are provided on all legs of the intersection class II bike lane markings without buffers. Figure 6-15 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. V V 0 0 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero 1st St and Flower St Intersection (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,239,165 $ 1,556,300 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,280,000 $ 1,605,000 $ 160,000 $ 200,000 19 $ 230,000 $ 280,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) 'Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 126 Y Add curb refuge islands with ' truck aprons or curb _ extensions with directional Add high visibility continental wheelchair ramps crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft -behind crosswalk Rebuild raised. median to be 2 feet Rebuild raised median to be 2 feet wide to make wide lane room 711 „" u' room for bike lanes b for bikeke lanes _ r i = � 1 Add crossbikes � Add hardened centerline in IIIIII �� front of median •. a II,,,IIIIIIIII,IIIIl111�111 I_ zW '� Add yellow reflective border on signal heads x on all four approaches ' f Add bike -friendly bus stop based on roadway and bikeway r configurations. See Section 6.1.9 Add raised Type C curb on da for available typologies• yellow divider line � Include bicycle/pedestrian E11111111111111111+S friendly signal timing, such as LPIs, if possible. 7r+�� !:. 84W Nor- t !�"`� J- DISCLAIMER NOTE: All improvements shown in i concept plans are subject to further evaluation. High Visibility Lane divider and/or 11 Bike Crossing Crosswalk c-curb divider Markings Bike Lane Marking High Visibility School Road Striping - Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Crosswalk I Marking Site Plan 1st Stand Flower St Scale: 1" = 40'_0 ., ®Conceptual 3916 Normal St 3916 January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San Diego, CA92103 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS a] Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-15: 1st Street and Flower Street Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 127 15. Edinger Avenue and Maple Street Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations Edinger Avenue and Maple Street is a unique offset intersection, near the middle of the southeast quarter of the City, with Maple Street northbound centerline shifted west 150 feet relative to the southbound side of Maple Street. Another unique feature of the intersection is a dedicated multi -use path that runs adjacent to the southbound leg of Maple Street then runs north along a power line easement between single family residential backyards. Land uses are limited to single family residential. There are a total of five westbound and eastbound vehicle lanes. North and southbound lanes on Maple are small residential streets with limited local traffic. High traffic volumes occur on the westbound and eastbound legs. Collision rates are not high, but during the study period one severe injury has occurred at the pedestrian crossing. A raised center median with multi -use path and traffic signal is provided for people walking and bicycling across Edinger Ave. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided on the westbound and eastbound legs on Edinger. Figure 6-16 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. O yzN Q r � 0 0 1 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Edinger Ave/Maple St (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,011,630 $ 1,230,803 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 50,000 $ 60,833 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,062,000 $ 1,292,000 $ 140,000 $ 180,000 LD $ 190,000 $ 240,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) . Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 128 d �i- -- Add high visibility Add curb extension continental crosswalks with directional with stop bars wheelchair ramps .may Add yellow reflective border on signal heads on both approaches n Add crossbikes Add truck aprons with directional wheelchair ramps l 7 1111111� CAdd bike -friendly bus stop based on roadway and ikeway configurations. See Section 6.1.9 for available y typologies. ' f DISCLAIMER NOTE: All improvements shown in concept plans are subject i to further evaluation. High Visibility Lane divider and/or Bike Crossing Crosswalk c-curb divider Markings Bike Lane Markinc High Visibility School Road Striping Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Crosswalk I Marking Conceptual Site Plan Edinger Ave and Maple St Scale: 1" = 40'_0 ,� St 3916 Normal St ® 3916 January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San San Diego, RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS 0 Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-16: Edinger Avenue and Maple Street Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 129 16. MacArthur Boulevard and Flower Street Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations Flower Street and Macarthur Boulevard is a busy intersection at the southeast corner of the City with single family residential at all corners. Not counting turn lanes, there are six west -east vehicle lanes, and five north -south through lanes. High traffic volumes has resulted in a moderate level of collision rates and no recent fatalities or severe injuries. Raised medians are provided on the busiest westbound and eastbound legs of the intersection on MacArthur Boulevard. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided on the vehicle travel lane. However, there is a multi -use path running north -south along Flower Street and the channelized storm drain that starts north of the intersection. Figure 6-17 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. O f Q� 0 0 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Flower St/MacArthur Blvd (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,372,355 $ 1,669,680 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,413,000 $ 1,719,000 $ 180,000 $ 220,000 LD $ 250,000 $ 310,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 130 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS High Visibility Lane divider and/or mill Bike Crossing Crosswalk c-curb divider Markings Bike Lane Marking High Visibility School Road Striping Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Marking Crosswalk 3916 Normal St 3916 N San Diego, CA 92103 ® Conceptual Site Plan MacArthur Blvd and Flower St Scale: 1.. " = 40._0 January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-17: MacArthur Boulevard and Flower Street Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 131 17. MacArthur Boulevard and Raitt Street Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations Macarthur Boulevard and Raitt Street is a busy intersection at the southern edge of the City. The northbound and southbound legs of the intersection have single through lanes and less traffic than east - west legs. Segerstrom High School and Greenville Fundamental School occupy the west corners of the intersection. Single family residential is on both east side corners. Not counting turn lanes, there are six west -east vehicle lanes. Collision rates are low with no fatalities or severe injuries during the study period. Raised medians are provided on the busiest westbound and eastbound legs of the intersection on MacArthur Boulevard and the southbound leg on Raitt Street. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on MacArthur Boulevard. No bicycle facilities are provided. Figure 6-18 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. M 9 a� 0 0 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero MacArthur Blvd/Raitt St (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,480,500 $ 1,801,255 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,521,000 $ 1,850,000 $ 200,000 $ 250,000 LD $ 270,000 $ 330,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) . Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 132 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS High Visibility Lane divider and/or Kill 1111 Bike Crossing Markings Bike Lane Marking Crosswalk c-curb divider High Visibility School Road Striping it Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Marking Crosswalk ®KTU+A 3916 Normal St San Diego, CA92103 Conceptual Site Plan MacArthur Blvd and Raitt St/Jaguar Way Scale: 1" = 40'-0" January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-18: MacArthur Boulevard and Raitt Street Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 133 18. Dyer Road and Flower Street Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations Dyer Road/Segerstrom Avenue and Flower Street is a busy intersection, in the southeast quarter of the City. Land uses include Saddleback High School at the southwest corner, industrial and a railroad line on both east corners. Single family residential occupies the northwest corner of the intersection. Four vehicle lanes, not counting turn lanes, are on all legs of the intersection. Collision rates are moderately high around the intersection, but there were no fatalities or severe injuries during the study period. However, due to roadway characteristics, the safe systems approach calls for improvements. Raised center median exists on the westbound and eastbound lanes on Segerstrom/Dyer. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided on the westbound and eastbound legs. However a multi -use path runs north -south on the east side of Flower Street for bicyclists. Figure 6-19 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. r 0 0 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Dyer Rd/Flower St (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,260,345 $ 1,533,402 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,301,000 $ 1,583,000 Z WED (12.5X) Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 134 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS High Visibility Lane divider and/or mill 11111 Bike Crossing Markings Bike Lane Marking Crosswalk c-curb divider High Visibility School Road Striping hhj Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Marking Crosswalk Conceptual Site Plan Flower St and Dyer Rd/Segerstrom Ave Scale: 1" = 40'_0" ®-U+A 391- Normal St January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San Diego, CA92103 Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-19: Dyer Road and Flower Street Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 135 19. lower Street and Alton Avenue Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations Flower Street and Alton Avenue is a moderately busy intersection at the southeast quarter of the City with single family residential at both west side corners. MacArthur Fundamental Intermediate School is on the southeast corner and a church is on the northeast corner. Not counting turn lanes, there are four north -south vehicle lanes, but only two west -east through lanes. Moderate traffic volumes has resulted in relatively low collision rates with no fatalities or severe injuries during the study period. Sidewalks, curb ramps, and bus stops are provided on both sides of the street. No bicycle facilities are provided on the vehicle travel lane. However, there is a multi -use path running north -south along Flower Street and the channelized storm drain that starts north of the intersection. Figure 6-20 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. O f Q� 0 0 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Flower St/Alton Ave (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)" TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,295,910 $ 1,576,673 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,336,000 $ 1,626,000 $ 170,000 $ 210,000 LD $ 240,000 $ 300,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) . Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 136 ¢� Existing two-way - I multi -use path Add high visibility continental Add raised Type C curb crosswalks with stop bar 5 ft �� on yellow divider line behind crosswalk Add curb refuge islands with truck aprons at corners or curb extensions with directional wheelchair ramps III Add crossbikes Add hardened centerline in front IIII — of median Add border - LG. Add separated bikeway yellow reflective on signal heads on all four approaches j Include bicycle/pedestrian friendly signal timing, such as LPIs, if possible. yt . R i` = t t A. DISCLAIMER NOTE: All improvements shown in concept plans are subject to further evaluation. High Visibility Lane divider and/or Bike Crossing Markings Bike Lane Marking Crosswalk c-curb divider High Visibility School Road Striping - Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Marking Crosswalk Conceptual Site Plan Flower St and Alton Ave Scale: 1,� " = 40'_0 N 3916 ormal St ® 391-KTU-A San Diego, CA92103 January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS a] Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-20: Flower Street and Alton Avenue Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 137 20. Segerstrom Avenue and Bear Street Intersection Project Existing Conditions and Recommendations Segerstrom Avenue and Bear Street is a three-way intersection in the southwest quarter of the City with Carl Thornton Park and McFadden Institute of Technology occupying the north side of the intersection and no through road. Both south side corners have single family residential uses. Bear Street extends south from the intersection with three through lanes; not counting turn lanes. Westbound and eastbound lanes total four without counting turn lanes. Raised medians are provided on all three legs of the intersection. Traffic levels are relatively low along with lower collision rates without fatalities or severe injuries during the study period. No bicycle facilities are provided on the vehicle travel lanes. However, there is a multi -use path running north -south along Bear Street and extending north of the intersection into Carl Thornton Park. Figure 6-21 shows recommended improvements that could be extended farther along the route. See Appendix D for a detailed breakdown of all cost estimates. O f Q� V V 0 0 0 Pedestrian Bicycle Vehicle Serious Injuries and Fatalities between 2017-2021 Project Location Santa Ana Vision Zero Segerstrom Ave/Bear St (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)"' TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,102,185 $ 1,340,977 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 40,000 $ 48,666 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 1,143,000 $ 1,390,000 $ 150,000 $ 190,000 $ 210,000 $ 260,000 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. 138 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS High Visibility Lane divider and/or mill 111 111 1 Bike Crossing Markings Bike Lane Marking Crosswalk c-curb divider High Visibility School Road Striping - Multi -use Path Bike Sharrow Marking Crosswalk Conceptual Site Plan Segerstrom Ave and Bear St Scale: 1" = 40,_0„ ®3916KTU-AN 3916 Normal St January 2024 Santa Ana Vision Zero Plan San Diego, CA92103 � off) Santa Ana VISION ZERO Note: All driveways with bike lanes or separated bikeways to receive driveway treatments in the form of `continuous sidewalks' or rubber humps. See details page for more information. Figure 6-21: Segerstrom Avenue and Bear Street Recommendations SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 139 6.5 Typical Design Details Bike -Friendly Bus Stop Configurations Typology #1: Shared Facility (Standard Bus Stop) This shows the most common type of bike facility at a bus stop, where buses and people biking share space at a bus stop. It is where a Class II bicycle facility exists between the curb and a general traffic lane, or in some cases there is just a shared lane marking ("Sharrow") on the roadway. The shared bus -bike area is illustrated with green dashed conflict striping instead of solid green markings. The bus will encroach into the shared zone to board and alight passengers. Some places, like in Montreal, Canada, there are two sets of sharrows, allowing bicyclists to either continue straight through the conflict zone or go left around a stopped bus. This is typically used when there is limited right of way available and if the preferred treatment is a bike lane or a shared lane. Typology #2: Constrained Facility Where either a Class II bicycle lane or a Class IV separated bikeway exists, and there is not sufficient space to include a floating bus island (FBI). It is a constrained bus stop adjacent to a bike lane or separated bike lane where the bike lane is elevated to sidewalk height at the FBI. The bike lane is crossed by people walking to access the bus, and it does not have parallel parking on the street. The raised area reduces conflict with vehicle traffic, and there is a bicycle ramp to elevate bicy- clists to sidewalk height. This typology provides a designated pedes- trian crossing zone and bicycle yield area across the bicycle facility to reduce conflict with passengers boarding and alighting. This is typically used when there is limited right of way available and the preferred treatment is a separated bike lane. Typology #3: FBI with Bike Lane and Parking This typology has some similarities with Typologies #1 and #2, with the key difference being that it has a FBI and there is parking on -street adjacent to the curb with a tapered bike lane between the parking and the general purpose lane. The bike lane jogs behind the floating CAR BUS 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Typology #1: Shared Facility (Standard Bus Stop) CAR!v 1111111111111 Typology #2: Constrained Facility Bus CAR 1:cAR:) F BUS ,, BUS STOP FACILITIES #���,, ®- D , CAR Typology #3: Floating Bus Island with Bike Lane and Parking 140 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS bus stop and then jogs again at the on -street parallel parking. This is typically used when there is a Class II bike lane instead of a Class IV separated bikeway. Typology#4: FBI with Buffered Bike Lane, without Parking With similar conditions to Typology #3, the key difference is that it has a buffered bike lane and there is no on -street parking in this typology. As in the previous typology, the bike lane jogs behind the FBI. This is typically used when there is plenty of right of way available and the preferred treatment is a buffered bike lane. Typology #5: FBI with One-way Cycle Track Similar to Typology #3, the key difference for this typology is that it's designed for a Class IV separated bikeway rather than a Class II bike lane. It also has on -street parking that provides a physical separation to the bicycle facility. The separated bike lane runs straight behind the FBI. This is considered the "best practice typology" for when conditions are ideal. The FBI can be permanent, typically made out of concrete, or it can be temporary, typically made out of plastic, which is popular in Oakland, California, and several other cities. Typology #6: FBI with Bike Lane and Parking With the same conditions as Typology #5, Typology #6 also has a Class IV elevated separated bikeway that exists between the curb and the FBI. It also runs straight and there is parallel on -street parking that provides a physical separation to the bike facility. The main difference is that Typology #6 is for a two-way separated bike lane while Typolo- gy #5 is for a one-way separated bike lane. Two-way separated bike lanes have some benefits over one-way separated bike lanes, such as increased comfort and lower space requirements, but one-way sep- arated bike lanes are more common. Two-way separated bike lanes include only about a third of the separated bike lanes in the United States. F--. Typology #4: Floating Bus Island with Buffered Bike Lane, without Parking BUS BUS STOP ® CAR Typology #5: Floating Bus Island with One-way Cycle Track CAR H-. 0 Typology #6: Floating Bus Island with Bike Lane and Parking SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 141 Typology #7: Bus Island Bike Bypass This typology has more similarities with Typologies #1 & #2 than with the other typologies. It is for constrained environments where there is still sufficient space on the sidewalk to have a sidewalk -level bikeway next to ADA-accessible sidewalk space. This typology does not have a floating bus island and there is no on -street parking next to the bike- way. Instead, the bus island is connected to the sidewalk and the bike- way ramps up from street level to sidewalk level and then around the bus island before ramping back down to street level. The bikeway is typically either Class II or Class IV or in rare cases it consists of shared lane markings. This removes the stress of the bicyclist interacting with a bus stopped at the bus stop. Moreover, it also minimizes the interac- tion between people walking and people biking because, in theory, people waiting for the bus will already be on the street -side of the bicycle facility. Engineering Treatment Details Engineering details and photos are shown of continuous sidewalks, New Zealand rubber humps at driveways, K71 bollards, fanned curb ramps, dual curb ramps, and type C curbs. Continuous Sidewalks, Source: Congress for New Urbanism = 1111111111 0 Typology #7: Bus Island Bike Bypass New Zealand -style Driveway Humps used on Highway 101 in Encinitas, CA UN !PW K71 Bollards I r+ 142 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS Type C-Curb used in the City of Bellevue, WA Source: Google Maps R-I ' 12F iRANSWERSE R0 -- Type C-Curb, Cross -Sectional View, Source: City of Bellevue, WA +8' W ur S+ - - - - - AS hEIDED (i1'P,) Type C-Curb, Plan View, Source: City of Bellevue, WA Dual Curb Ramp, Source: PROWAG SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 143 6.6 Program Recommendations Traditionally, Vision Zero is based on data -driven decision making, sup- plemented with the first three E's of safety: Engineering, Education, and Enforcement. These E's were developed around 1925 by the National Safety Council and came long before the concept of Vision Zero. The field of transportation planning is slowly expanding the E's and includ- ing a Safe Systems' approach. Rather than focusing on unachievable levels of perfection, this approach offers a human -centered approach that proactively reduces crash risk and severity of collisions. It reprior- itizes the E's with an equitable, forgiving lens. The following sections display descriptions for the three E's, paired with proactive steps to further the discourse with equity as a focal point. Engineering tD Vision zero uses engineering to reduce the likelihood of fatal or seri- ous collisions through proactive roadway designs. Proactive designs study the roadway characteristics of high collision corridors and inter- sections, recommend treatments, and apply those treatments to simi- lar corridors and intersections as a preventative measure before they result in an injury hot spot. For example, designing self -enforcing roads and offering safe, equita- ble options for travel by foot, bicycle, and transit and managing speeds for safety will help reduce risk of crashes and lessen the need for en- forcement. Engineering Examples: • Roundabouts • Road buffets/road diets • Curb space management and edge friction • Traffic calming • Daylighting intersections 1 Shahum, Leah. "It's Time to Evolve Beyond the Es Approach to Traffic Safety. Vision Zero Network," Vision Zero Network, January 20, 2022, https-.H vision zero n etwo rk.o rg/its-ti m e-to-evolve-beyo n d-th e-es-a p p ro a c h-to-traffi c- safety/ Education It is important for roadway users to be aware of and follow roadway rules for everyone's safety and comfort. Education -based programming can be held for ages and abilities, and held in schools, senior centers, or even community events. Human beings are vulnerable, and every- one plays a role in preventing serious injuries and deaths. Education can be empowered through various levels of government, non-profit and advocacy groups, academia, and the general public. The most ef- fective education is aimed at motorists. Education Examples: • Safety assemblies • DUI awareness campaigns • Demonstration projects • Bike safety and maintenance workshops • Share the Road campaign • Safety campaign from social media to newspapers • Driver training programming Enforcement (J It is important that roadway users must behave in a manner that is safe and respectful to everyone else to prevent serious collisions. Histori- cally, transportation planning has over -emphasized enforcement, lead- ing to discriminatory traffic stops. It is also important to factor in that the presence of police officers can make some communities uncom- fortable. Enforcement is most effective when paired with equity and education. For example, prioritizing warnings and education before issuing tickets and fines can help encourage residents to appreciate road rules. In Santa Ana, over a third of pedestrian collisions occur when the pe- destrian is crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection. An example of a proactive measure would be to implement lead pedestrian intervals or no -turn blank out signs. 144 RECOMMENDED ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENTS Enforcement Examples: • Issue warnings and education before tickets and fines • Enforcement of motorists in collision hot spots • Speed enforcement campaign • Red light traffic enforcements • Encourage people to report pedestrian and bicycle crashes SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN 145 5 I VJ L j II ppendic }yF f.dMV� ALI f• 4 .J •- •�}`S'.. •dry-. _ ';,��t. .,._ .,. 1 � ' h,IiE/l COMM - 1M'D.1,� ` ■ L �.. f�.Is:. r .{] • �•I l `e xt�t, , �" � ,:ice �V ia. �i.tr r. 3`r ="'!� 1 - .�...---•:x �" tt "fir• i.._ _ .. n.I ..�•• }. ••�, `��r fit t+.3A to - �_ }/. j !�� t \ Photo Location: Maitreet MUFri'ty—Plan 2035 o5q An Element of the General Plan 0 CIN �OGNDEO �� �— l' r At 1 r Jill R_ . y 761 Fu. , tax !t - Los Angeles Department of City Planning SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN r D Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic CA Bicycle Ambassador Program. Develop a Bicycle Ambassador program to attend public DOT, bicycle nonprofits 3.5, 2.6, Communication events including health fairs and communitiy bike rodeos to broaden awareness of bicycling 4.4, and provide safety information. Bike to Work Week. Expand the regional efforts of Bike -to -Work Week by providing City Mayor, Council Offices, LAUSD, DOT, 5.1, 2.6, 1.3 C.2 Communication sponsored events and pit stops in every council district and supporting bicycling to school SCAG, Metro for students. Provide information, support services and incentives for bicyclists to bicycle to work and school. Distribute materials and post information on Bicycle Program Websites. C.3 Bus Arrival Information. Work with Metro, municipal transit providers, and local businesses Metro, DOT, Mayor's Office, BSS, Council 4.2, 4.11 Communication and organizations to provide bus arrival information near station and stop areas. Offices C.4 Car Free Days. Coordinate a Car -Free Day on a regular basis each month. Provide information DOT, DPW, Council Offices, Mayor, SCAG, 5.2, 4.8 Communication and incentives for drivers to leave the car behind for a day. Work with Metro and City Council Metro offices to provide incentives and disseminate materials to event participants. C.5 Citywide Active Transportation Map. Provide and distribute physical and electronic copies DOT Systems, Planning, DOT Bikeways, 4.14 Communication of the City's existing bikeway facilities, neighborhood greenways and safe routes to school Metro, Council Offices along with information about public bicycle parking facilities and mobility hub facilities. Citywide Bicycle Transportation Website. Continue to maintain the BicycleLA.orgwebsite 4.14, 1.6 C.6 DOT Communication to provide bicyclists with current information about safety, future improvements, events, network maps, route information and suggestions, maintenance and other relevant information. C.7 Multi -Modal Access Campaign. Develop a Multi -Modal Access Campaign, in collaboration Metro, SCAG, DOT, BBB, Culver City Bus, 3.5, 4.11 Communication with Metro, SCAG and other transportation providers, to highlight the availability (all day, Metrolink, Foothill Transit, Orange Transit, every day) of multiple transportation options (transit, vanpool, car share, bikeshare, bicycling, Gardena Transit walking, etc.) across the region. C.8 Neighborhood Network and Business District Maps. Work with local Business Improvement DOT, Council Offices 4.14 Communication Districts, Neighborhood Councils, Homeowner Associations and Chambers of Commerce to develop, fund, and distribute physical and electronic maps of localized portions of the existing bikeways, neighborhood network streets, and bicycling supportive businesses. C.9 Poster Campaigns. Promote awareness of the various networks, streetscape, and green or DOT, Mayor's Office, Council Offices 4.14 Communication "great street" improvements through the installation of posters and/or banners. Installation could be either temporary or permanent and could be used to inform the community about the Networks as well as focus on a variety of topics including safe driving practices and/or bicycling encouragement. C.10 Roadway Safety Campaigns. Conduct outreach citywide to advance vision zero goal. DOT, LAPD, Caltrans, OHS, LAUSD, 1.2 Communication LASPD, Council Offices C.11 Timely Information. Provide timely information on current roadway work, including DOT, BOE, BSS, Council 4.2, 1.6, Communication scheduled maintenance, work in progress and completed projects. Use temporary signage, 4.14 social media, and web banners to warn users and provide detour strategies for vehicles, n pedestrians and bicyclists. Promote the State-wide 511 Real Time Travel Information System. N Cn O u, Appendix A N 3: Ul o Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic No Cl) v, C.12 Wayfinding. Develop and install a comprehensive way -finding program throughout the City to DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office, BSS, Council 4.14 Communication provide information about transportation routes, schedules, bikeways urban trails, and area Offices amenities including schools, parks, cultural and retail activities. C.13 CSTAN. In collaboration with Metro support efforts to promote goods movement traffic to DOT 4.14 Communication the CSTAN and identify funding to maintain corridors. DA Analysis of Existing Paths. Identify and map paved paths within City parks suitable for RAP, Council Offices 2.6 Data & Analysis bicycling. Emphasize opportunities for gap closures in the active transportation network. D.2 Annual Counts of Bicyclists and Pedestrians (Active Transportation). Initiate a long term DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office of Technology, 4.11, 3.1, Data & Analysis strategy to count the number and type (by sex, age, disability, income and geography) of LAPD, Council Offices 1.4, 2.3, bicyclists and pedestrians traveling for all trips on the Networks and other City streets each 2.6, 2.15 year. Identify a specific date and locations for the annual count. The number of locations that are included each year should increase as funding increases. Utilize the locations, date, and time of the count conducted by the Los Angeles County Bicycle Coaliton (LACBC) in 2009 as the baseline; implement a methodology that is consistent with SCAG and Metro/UCLA Luskin Center. D.3 Semi -Annual Survey. Conduct in -person and on-line interviews annually about active DOT, DCP, Council Offices 4.11, 4.10 Data & Analysis transportation implementation. In particular, identify on -going concerns and listen to suggested improvements. Collect data on problem areas (not just where collisions have occurred but where "near -misses" frequently occur) and identify solutions. DA Collision Monitoring and Analysis. Annually identify locations with high levels of auto, DCP, DOT, LAPD, LAFD, Council Offices 1.1, 4.11 Data & Analysis pedestrian, and bicycle collisions and develop and implement strategies to improve the safety of these areas and reduce overall collision rates. Analyze bicycle crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS) and other sources to evaluate the impacts of prior improvements. Use collision data to produce hot zone maps (GIS maps that reflect crash data citywide) and to conduct case studies of potential improvments to reduce collisions. Coordinate engineering and enforcement reporting systems to avoid duplication and/or overlooked emergency room data; with support and data from LAPD, LAFD and LAUSD. D.5 Data Collection Protocols. Establish before and afer data collection protocols for all projects. DOT, DCP 4.6, 4.7 Data & Analysis D.6 Goods Movement Information. Compile goods movement data from the Port of Los Angeles, Port, LAWA 4.12, 4.6 Data & Analysis Los Angeles World Airport and regional goods movement providers to monitor and assess economic fluctuations. D.7 Greenhouse Gas Emission Tracking Program. Quantify total reduction in GHG from vehicle Mayor's Office on Environment and 5.1, 5.4, Data & Analysis miles traveled reductions. Include data in the Citywide Climate Action Plan and the Climate Sustainability, DCP, Council, SCAQMD 4.11 Action Registry. Maintain a database of completed infrastructure projects; track and apply offset credits (resultingfrom GHG and VMT reductions) towards the city's compliance with SB 375, AB 32 and the region's Sustainable Community Strategy. Appendix A SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN r Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic D.8 Mountain Trail Spillover and Conflict Resolution Analysis. Conduct a spillover analysis to RAP, DPW, Council Offices 1.9 Data & Analysis determine the extent to which mountain biking use spills over onto trails where biking is prohibited. Examine other jurisdictions to understand how they accommodate mountain biking and how they have managed conflicts. D.9 Off -Road and Park Trail Bicycle Database. Develop a database and create maps of mountain RAP, DCP, DOT, LAPD, Council Offices 1.9 Data & Analysis and park bicycling trails within and adjacent to the City of Los Angeles. D.10 Revised Traffic Analysis Methodology. Establish a revised Traffic Analysis Methodology DOT, DCP 5.3 Data & Analysis (TAM) that takes into consideration a project's location, design and density, based on CEQA revisions, OPR guidelines, and other state/regional authorities D.11 Unimproved/Off-Road Database. Inventory all unimproved roads and determine their RAP, DCP, DOT, LAFD, Council Offices 1.9 Data &Analysis suitability for mountain biking and off -road facilities. D.12 Strategic Capital Planning Group. Establish an inter -departmental Group to determine, using CAO, DCP. BPE. BSS. BSL, BOE, Council 4.6, 4.11, Data & Analysis data and prioritization criteria,a list of priority projects and match to funding sources. Offices 4.7, 2.15 EDA Bicycle Parking Training. Develop a Bicycle Parking Requirement Training Presentation and DBS, DOT, DCP 2.6, 3.8 Education Handbook and post on the Bicycle website. Provide training sessions to the Departments of Building and Safety, Planning, Engineering, and all other public counter staff on the LAMC bicycle parking requirements. ED.2 Design Workshops. Host/participate in workshops on active transportation facility design. DOT, DCP, Council Offices 1.4, 2.2, Education 4.4, 4.10 ED.3 Goods Movement Awareness. Develop and implement strategies to increase coordination POLA 1.8, 2.8, Education of issues relating to goods movement and increase awareness of economic role of goods 4.12, 2.10 movement. ED.4 LAPD Officer Training. Train officers on the rights and responsibilities of all roadway users LAPD 1.2 Education and improve their ability to evaluate conflicts and collisions between different modal users. ED.5 Rail Crossing Safety. Work with local and regional passenger and freight services to educate DOT, Mayor's Office, Council Offices 1.5 Education all users about safe at -grade crossing practices. ED.6 Roadway Safety Education. Educate law enforcement, heavy duty bus and truck operators, DOT, POLA, LAUSD, GSD, LAPD, Council 1.1, 1.2,1.4 Education taxis, motorists, all City employees, and roadway users on the rights of, and need for safe Offices motoring skills, around non -motorized active transportation uses. Develop educational/ promotional materials to inform roadway users about the benefits of active transportation facilities. ED.7. Roadway Safety Public Service Announcements. Continue to produce a series of Roadway DOT, LAPD, ITA 1.1,1.2,1.5 Education Safety Public Service Announcements (PSA's) for distribution on television, radio, and outdoor signage. ENF.1 Commercial Loading Zones. Target enforcement efforts against parking by vehicles not in DOT 2.10 Enforcement n the act of loading/unloading in Commercial Loading Zones. v N N u, Appendix A 0 rt Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy N Topic 0 w ENF.2 Enforcement Stings. Target enforcement efforts against unsafe behavior by roadway users, LAPD, Council Offices 1.1 Enforcement especially in school and commercial loading zones. Publicize the stings to encourage healthy interaction among all roadway users. ENF.3 Local Truck Use. Target enforcement efforts against truck use on local streets where cut- DOT, LAPD, Council Offices 1.8 Enforcement through traffic has been expressly forbidden. ENF.4 Speed Limit Enforcement. Execute speed limit enforcement checks 48 hours prior to LAPD, DOT 1.4 Enforcement calculating prevailing speeds in Engineering and Traffic Surveys used for adjusting speed limits. ENF.5 Truck Inspection Areas. Develop a Truck Inspection Program in coordination with Highway DOT, POLA, LAPD 2.8, 4.12 Enforcement Patrol and Port of Los Angeles. ENF.6 Enforcement Program. Utilize LAPD and LADOT Traffic Officers to identify bicycle lane LAPD, DOT, DPW 1.1 Enforcement parking violations and issue citations. ENGA ATSAC. Continue to implement and update as needed the City's signal management program DOT 4.11, 4.2 Engineering (ATSAC) to monitor and manage the traffic flows. ENG.2 Bicycle -Sensitive Detectors. Continue to install bicycle sensitive detectors at all actuated DOT 2.6, 1.2 Engineering signal controlled intersections, including pavement markings for bicyclists. ENG.3 Transit Enhanced Network. Collaborate with transit providers to implement the TEN, an DOT, DCP, Metro, Mayor's Office, Council 2.5 Engineering approximately 300 mile network ofroadway improvements to provide a frequent and reliable Offices bus system that interfaces and supports the fixed -transit lines. ENGA Bridge Design Program. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities when designing new or DOT, BOE 2.12 Engineering retrofitting bridges. Particular attention to bridge underpasses that cross existing or future bicycle/walking paths to ensure design integration. ENG.5 Caltrans Design. Work with Caltrans to develop and implement design improvements to DOT, Caltrans 1.1, 1.4, 2.2 Engineering freeway entrances and exit ramps to transition motorists from freeways speeds to an urban environment that includes vulnerable roadway users. ENG.6 Bicycle Enhanced Network. Create and maintain an interconnected bicycle network of 150 DOT, DCP, Council Offices 1.4, 2.6, Engineering miles of bicycle paths and 300 miles of protected bicycle lanes to provide a regional low- 4.14 stress bicycle system. ENG.7 Flexible Installation Standards. Use engineering judgement and the approval of the City DOT, City Attorney, Caltrans, BOE, BSS, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2 Engineering transportation engineer or designee, in lieu of warrants, to install facilities that will improve BSL safety and comfort for bicyclists and pedestrians. ENG.8 Grade Crossing Elimination. Work with Southern California Regional Railroad Association BOE, Port of LA, DOT, FRA, FTA, FHWA, 1.5 Engineering (Metrolink) as well as with freight rail operators to eliminate rail/ street at -grade crossings on CPUC, Metro, Expo Authority, City regional passenger rail and freight lines. Attorney, Railroad Owners and Operators. Appendix A SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic ENG.9 Green Alleys Program. Continue the Green Alleys program to introduce low -impact BOS, DOT, LASAN, Council Offices 5.5, 2.3, Engineering development stormwater features and improve the overall quality and safety of 1.2, 1.7 neighborhood alleys. ENG.10 Industrial Street Infrastructure. Provide adequate street infrastructure in established DOT, DCP, BOE 1.7,1.8, 2.8 Engineering industrial areas; revise geometric design standards for intersections in/around industrial areas with high truck volumes. ENG.11 Manual of Policies and Procedures. Update LADOT Manual of Policies and Procedures to BOE, DOT, DCP, LASAN 2.2,1.4,1.2 Engineering incorporate innovative engineering standards and traffic control devices (for all modes of transportation) included in the City's Complete Street Design Guide. Regularly update both manuals as new standards and devices are adopted by the California Traffic Control Devices Committee in the MUTCD and/or the CA Highway Esign Manual and/or Federal Highway Administration. ENG.12 Complete Street Design Guide (CSDG). Utilize the CSDG to guide decisions about specific DCP, BOE, DOT, LASAN, LAPD, LAFD 2.2 Engineering complete street enhancements and potential cross-section designs of streets on the BEN, Bicycle Lane, TEN, PED, and VEN networks. ENG.13. Neighborhood Traffic Calming and Slow Zones. Establish a procactive neighborhood traffic DOT, DCP, CLA, LAPD, Council Offices 1.4, 2.4, Engineering management program and institute "slow zones" in targeted areas. Support and advocate for 3.1, 3.2 20 new zones. ENG.14 Neighborhood Enhanced Network. Implement the NEN, an approximately 800 mile system DOT, DCP, LASAN, Council Offices 2.4, 3.1, 3.2 Engineering of collector and local streets designed to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle activity. A subset of this network has been priortized to fill gaps in the protected bicycle lane system defined by the Bicycle Enhanced Network. ENG.15 Vehicle Enhanced Network (VEN). Implement the VEN, an 80 mile roadway system of existing DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS, Council Offices 2.7 Engineering city streets that have been prioritized for vehicular movement due to their ability to improve vehicular access to the regional freeway system. ENG.16 Los Angeles River. Implement Greenway 2020 (a locally led effort to complete the bicycle RiverWorks Team and local non-profit 2.3, 2.4, Engineering path along the entire 32 mile stretch of the Los Angeles River by 2020.) and Los Angeles River partners, Council Offices 2.6, 3.1 Greenway Trail to provide a multi -generational trail and provide active transportation options to disadvantaged communities. ENG.17 Bicycle Lane Network. Implement and maintain an interconnected 700 mile bicycle lane DOT, DCP, Council Offices 1.4, 2.6, Engineering system 300 of which are intended to be upgraded to protected bicycle lanes. See above BEN. 4.14 ENG.18 Pedestrian Enhanced Districts. Implement pedestrian improvements on targeted DOT, DCP, LASAN, Council Offices 2.3, 3.1, 3.2 Engineering intersections and arterial street segments based on a set of criteria. ZT v N N A cr, Appendix A 0 t�_hJ7 Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy N Topic C w ENG.19 First Mile/Last Mile Transit Connectivity Program. Install pedestrian and bicycle connectivity DOT, Council Offices 3.5 Engineering improvements at every major Metro transit station by providing enhanced sidewalk amenities such as landscaping, shading, lighting, directional signage, shelters, curb extensions and mid - block crosswalks where feasible, ADA rampos, lead pedestrian interval signal phases, secure bike parking, etc. F.1 Commercial Vehicle Related Revenue: Dedicate revenues generated by commercial vehicle DOT 1.7, 4.6 Funding fees to roadway -related purposes F.2 Congestion and Cordon Pricing. Evaluate potential revenues and performance improvements DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office, CLA, SCAG, 4.6, 4.8 Funding in congestion relief from the implementation of congestion or cordon pricing. Identify the Council Offices boundaries of, and access points in and out of cordon pricing districts on which to implement congestion pricing. F.3 Coordinated Grant Application. Establish a coordinated effort to applyfor and administer Mayor's Office, Council Offices, LADOT, 1.2, 4.6, Funding federal, state, and local transportation grants to provide additional funding to support DCP, Public Works 4.11 transportation and streetscape efforts. F.4 Funding Reports. Identify the total amount of funding needed to design, construct and CAO, DOT, BOE, BSS, BOS 1.7, 4.6 Funding maintain transportation related priority projects on an on -going basis. Identify existing sources of funds and evaluate funding gaps. F.5 Maintenance Options. Establish procedures and protocols to facilitate partnerships with DOT, BOE, BSS, LASAN Council Offices 4.10, 4.6 Funding community groups and the private sector to provide maintenance of street investments; encourage the utilization of assessment districts by local non -profits or businesses to fund and maintain specific infrastructure improvements F.6 Priority Grading System (PGS). Pursue funding for projects based upon the criteria DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS, BSL, LASAN 1.7, 4.6 Funding established by the PGS as defined by the Strategic Capital Planning Group. F.7 State Highway Control. Identify funding, and initiate process with Caltrans to transfer Mayor's Office, DOT, DCP Council Offices 2.13, 4.6, Funding oversight of, and improve State Highways within the City limits including Lincoln, Santa Monica, Venice and Topanga Canyon Boulevards. F.8 State Highway Funding. Coordinate with Caltrans, other local, regional, state and federal Mayor's Office, DOT, DCP Council Offices 2.13, 4.11, Funding agencies, and the private sector to identify and implement funding alternatives for the City's 4.6 transportation network including the State highway system. F.9 Active Transportation Funding. Update Mobility Plan every five years to stay competitive for DCP, DOT 1.2, 2.15, Funding state funding of active transportation grants. 4.6 LA Advocacy for Funding Multi -Modal Infrastructure Projects. Aggressively advocate for Mayor's Office, City Council, CLA 1.2, 3.5, 4.6 Legislation continued and expanded Federal, State, Regional, and Local funding for multi -modal transportation programs and infrastructure projects in transportation legislation. Ensure representation of issues with City's lobbyists in Sacramento and Washington DC. Appendix A SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic L.2 Legislation Monitoring. Continually monitor and develop state and federal legislation to DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office, CLA 4.11, 4.6 Legislation support or oppose legislation that could impact plan/project implementation. L.3 Posted Speed Limit Reductions. Develop and advocate for state legislation to support Mayor's Office, CLA 1.4,1.2, 3.2 Legislation reducing posted traffic speeds. Revised methodology should account for all roadway users (including pedestrians and bicyclists), adjacent land uses, and street user demand. L.4 Resetting Speed Limits. Evaluate the effectiveness of the State's speed limit requirements on DOT, City Attorney 1.4 Legislation street safety and performance. L.5 Tailpipe Emission Legislation. Support legislation to reduce tailpipe emissions from cars and Mayor's Office, CLA, SCAQMD 5.3, 5.4 Legislation trucks. L.6 Vehicular Travel Safety Training. Work with the Los Angeles County Superior Court to DOT, City Attorney, Council Offices 1.1 Legislation develop a program that offers training on driving behavior around other users of the roadway to motorists receiving citations and/or involved in collisions with non -auto modes. L.7 Local Street Speed Limit. Advocate for and support for a 20 mph speed limit on all local DOT, City Attorney 1.4 Legislation streets within California. MT.1 Bicycle Path Maintenance Program. Regulary inspect and maintain Class I bicycle paths. DOT, BOE, Council Offices 1.7 Maintenance MT.2 Crosswalk Maintenance. Implement a crosswalk upgrade and maintenance program to ensure DOT, Council Offices 3.2,1.7 Maintenance all crosswalks are kept to City standards. See Street Design Manual. MT.3 Mandeville Canyon Park. Maintain off -road bicycle trails in Mandeville Canyon. RAP 1.9 Maintenance MT.4 Notification System. Develop a coordinated interdepartmental maintenance and response Mayor's Office, BSS, BOE, Council Offices 4.1, 4.2 Maintenance program for the City's network of roads and bikeways; continue to utilize DPW service request forms and the 311 System for the public to directly inform the City. MT.5 Pavement Preservation Program. Annually fund a baseline pavement preservation program BSS, Council Offices 1.7, 4.6 Maintenance that provides for major rehabilitation (resurface and reconstruction) and preventive maintenance (crack and slurry seal). Make annual schedule public and easily accessible on the BSS website. Prioritize bikeways and other areas of high need. BSS to Coordinate non - emergency resurfacing with other departments one year in advance. MT.6 Sidewalk Cleaning. Work with local businesses and community organizations to maintain Mayor's Office, BSS, Council Offices 1.7, 4.10 Maintenance sidewalks, along arterials, free of debris MT.7 Sidewalk Repair. Implement a sidewalk improvement program to bring up all existing BSS, Council Offices 1.7 Maintenance degraded sidewalk sections to City standards and implement a program to ensure that future degraded sidewalk sections are promptly identified and repaired in a timely manner. MT.8 Street Services Budget Allocation Formula. Continue to utilize the Bureau of Street Services' BSS 1.7 Maintenance Budget Allocation Formula that allows for the equalization of pavement conditions citywide. n v N 011 Appendix A N N c V LT rt Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy N Topic o w MT.9 Street Trees. Implement a tree trimming cycle for all street trees within the public ROW. Use BSS 1.7, 2.3 Maintenance Priority Grading System to prioritize streets. MG.1 Five Year Mobility Plan Implementation Report. Develop and submit a report every five years DCP, DOT, BOE, BSS, BSL, BOS, Council 4.7 Management detailing accomplishments of prior five years and prepare a proposed work plan for the next Offices five year cycle. MG.2 Green Streets Committee. Continue the Green Streets Committee to identify and evaluate DOT, DCP, BOE, BSS, LASAN 5.5, 4.6, 4.7 Management the effectiveness of existing green street features and to continue to identify funding and location options in which to upgrade with green street features. MG.3 Off -Peak Deliveries. Identify and Implement incentives to encourage off-peak hour delivery DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office 2.10 Management operations. MG.4 Regional Cooperation. Work cooperatively with adjoining jurisdictions and agencies to DOT, DCP, Metro, Mayor's Office, SCAG 3.7, 4.11 Management coordinate transportation related planing and implementation activities to ensure regional connectivity. MG.5 State Highway Management. Collaborate with Caltrans on any modifications to the State DOT, DCP, Caltrans, Council Offices 2.13 Management highway system necessary to accommodate new development or on any modifications to City's transportation network. MG.6 State Highway Management continued. Cooperate with Caltrans to identify State highway DOT, DCP, Caltrans, Council Offices 2.13, 4.11 Management deficiencies and associated improvement plans, to be used in the City's long range planning and individual project review. MG.7 Transportation Management Organizations. Continue to work with businesses and future DCP, DOT, Council Offices 4.9 Management development projects to establish geographically and/or industry based Transportation Management Organizations throughout the Cityfor the purposes of implementing a coordinated transportation demand management program. MG.8 Non -Ownership Models for Vehicle Mobility. Support existing and future innovations that DOT, Metro, BIDS, Chambers of 4.1, 4.2, Management support access to vehicle mobility without the cost and responsibility of ownership. Commerce, Departments of Aging and 4.10, 5.2, Disability, User Groups, Council Offices 5.4 0.1 City Fleet. Convert the City's, including proprietary departments, fleets into alternative fuel, GSD, LAWA, POLA, DPW 5.3, 5.4 Operations very- low and zero -emission vehicles. 0.2 City Work -related Trips. Instruct departments to establish protocols to facilitate the use Mayor's Office, GSD, Council Offices 4.8, 4.9 Operations of transit for short trips (< 5 miles during work hours when the employee does not need to transport materials). Facilitate non -vehicular alternatives to City employees for work -related trips. 0.3 Construction Zone Standards. Implement and expand upon standard procedures as defined DOT, BSS, BOE, DWP, POLA, Utilities, 1.6 Operations in the MUTCD to ensure safe bicycle and pedestrian travel through construction zones and Council Offices detours. Appendix A SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Mobility Plan 2035 Programs n Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic 0.4 Feeder Network/Transit Circulator (DASH System and Commuter Express). Coordinate DOT 3.4 Operations local bus transit services so as to provide neighborhoods with local feeder buses where the roadway system permits. 0.5 Flyaway Shuttle. Continue the Flyaway Shuttle service from Westwood, Van Nuys, Expo, La LAWA 3.4, 3.6, 3.7 Operations Brea and Union Station locations, and evaluate other regional locations, such as San Pedro, for expanded service. 0.6 Operational Efficiencies. Establish and strengthen public/private partnerships (with the DOT, POLA, Mayor's Office, Council 2.8, 4.10 Operations goods movement industry) to coordinate and improve operational efficiencies for the Offices movement of goods. Work could include the implementation of incentives to encourage off-peak and extended hour Port operations, an appointment system, the consideration of short -haul intermodal rail operations, and the establishment of an Advanced Transportation Management and Information System (ATM IS) which would include changeable message signs and video surveillance. 0.7 Region -Wide Traffic Control Center. Link all of the traffic control centers in region on a 24 Mayor's Office, ITA, DOT, Metro, Caltrans. 4.1, 4.2 Operations hour basis. 0.8 Shuttle Bus. Work with special event providers, employers and community -based DOT, Mayor's Office, DOA, Council Offices 3.2, 3.4, 3.5 Operations organizations to identify and implement shuttle bus programs to serve as a first -mile, last -mile solution between transit stations and special events and/or specific populations. Continue programs like Cityride, to provide transportation assistance for senior citizens and individuals with disabilities. 0.9 Signal Timing. Identify opportunities to re -time street signals to provide safer speeds, DOT, Council Offices 1.4, 2.3, Operations improve safety for all, and create smoother traffic throughput. Identify opportunities to 2.5, 2.6 re -time street signals to allow longer crossing times for bicyclists and pedestrians in large intersections. 0.10 Transit Coordination. Actively collaborate with regional transit partners to achieve seamless DOT, IT, and other transit providers, 3.4, 4.11 Operations transfers between systems, including scheduling, ticketing, shared fare systems, and stops Mayor's Office and loading areas. 0.11 Transit/Event Coordination. Facilitate collaboration between regional transit partners and DOT, Council Offices 4.2, 3.4 Operations event providers to provide and promote awareness of additional and timely transit service before and after large events. 0.12 Improve the Flow of Freight Traffic. Identify and implement strateigies to facilitate the flow DOT, Council Offices 2.8 Operations of freight traffic. 0.13 Truck Inspections and Service Patrol. Identify locations for temporary and long-term truck DCP 2.8 Operations inspection stations and Implement a Truck Service Patrol Program to remove disabled commercial trucks from freeway lanes. 0.14 Improve the Flow of Passenger Traffic. Identify and implement strategies to provide reliable DCP, DOT, Council Offices 2.5, 3.4 Operations travel times during peak hours and during special events. n 3 v rt N1 CD 00 Appendix A No 1O 6 f-r Mobility Plan 2035 Programs N Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic 0 w cn 0.15 Zero Emission Truck Collaborative (ZETC). Promote consistency among public agencies in POLA, Metro, AQMD, POLB, Caltrans, 5.4, 5.1 Operations working to catalyze the development and deployment of zero emission trucks in the region. SCAG and Gateway Cities COG. PKA Creative Parking Solutions. Work with communities, businesses, and organizations to identify DCP, DOT, Council Offices 4.13, 4.10 Parking/ Loading and implement creative strategies to resolve parking conflicts in areas with high -parking Zones demand. PK.2 Curb Parking Conversion. Standardize processes to facilitate the conversion of curb parking DOT, BOE, DCP, LASAN, Council Offices 2.1, 3.8, Parking/ Loading spaces for other uses such as parklets, plazas, bike corrals and docking stations for bicycle 3.11 Zones sharing, especially in high volume areas of pedestrians and bicyclists. PK.3 Individualized Parking Requirements. Permit businesses to identify their respective parking DCP, DOT 4.8, , 4.9 Parking/ Loading demand and establish criteria whereby projects can reduce on -site parking through the Zones inclusion of a package of transportation demand management strategies. PK.4 LA Express Park. Continue LA Express Park system using reak-time technology to increase DOT, BIDS, Chambers of Commerce, 4.13 Parking/ Loading awareness of the availability of parking spaces. Council Offices Zones PK.5 Meter Pricing. Establish demand based meter pricing to maximize efficient use of on -street DOT 4.13 Parking/ Loading meters. Zones PK.6 Neighborhood Parking Districts. Explore modifying some Neighborhood Parking Districts DOT, DCP, City Attorney, Council Offices 4.13 Parking/ Loading to permit the utilization of residential streets for metered commercial parking and direct Zones revenue to specific neighborhood improvements. Off -Street Loading. In non -industrial areas, require off-street dock and/or loading facilities DCP PK.7 2.10 Parking/ Loading for all new non-residential buildings and for existing non-residential buildings and undergoing Zones extensive renovations and/or expansion, whenever practical. PK.8 On -Street Loading. Encourage the designation of on -street loading areas, through removal DOT, DCP, City Attorney, Council Offices 2.10 Parking/ Loading of curb parking, in established industrial areas where off-street loading facilities are lacking. Zones Update the Commercial Loading Zone Ordinance (see B-2, page 6, 2-14 of Mayor's Task Force -Mar 2004) PK.9 Pedestrian Design Features in Parking Areas. Update zoning code to require the inclusion of DCP 2.3, 3.1 Parking/ Loading pedestrian design features into all parking lots and provide safe, clear paths of travel from Zones parking lots and/or structures to the associated buildings and/or uses. Ensure that all features are ADA compliant. PK.10 Pedestrian Improvement Incentives. Establish an incentive program to encourage projects to DCP 2.3, 3.1, Parking/ Loading retrofit parking lots, structures and driveways to include pedestrian design features. 4.13, Zones PK.11 Reduced Size Parking. Develop parking, design, and replacement parking standards for DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading reduced size vehicles (e.g. sub -compact cars, scooters, motorcycles, bike corrals) in residential Zones and non-residential developments as well as public parking facilities and public rights -of -way. PK.12 Shared Off -Street Parking. Facilitate the shared utilization of privately owned off-street DOT, City Attorney, BIDS, DCP, Council 4.13 Parking/ Loading parking facilities. Offices Zones AppendixA SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic PK.13 Transit Area Parking Reductions. Reduce parking requirements for developments that locate DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading near transit (e.g. within a half -mile of a transit stop)or a major bus stop and provide facilities Zones to enable pedestrian, bicycle and disabled access. Parking requirement reductions are being reviewed as a potential component of the Central City and Central City North Community Plans. PK.14 Unbundled Parking Options. Evaluate potential for the unbundling of parking from rental or DCP 4.13 Parking/ Loading purchase options for all new multi -family development. Zones PK.15. Accessible Parking in Residential Areas. Update policies and guidelines for accessible parking DOT, DCP, City Attorney, Council Offices 3.2, 3.3, Parking/ Loading in residential areas. 4.13 Zones PK.16. Park and Ride. Expand the park and ride network. Dot, Caltrans, Metro 3.4, 3.5, Parking/ Loading 4.13 Zones PLA Driveway Access. Require driveway access to buildings from non -arterial streets or alleys DCP 3.9, 4.3 Planning & Land (where feasible) in order to minimize interference with pedestrian access and vehicular Use movement. PL.2 Local Access. Explore opportunities to incorporate community assets (food, retail) in DCP, Council Offices 3.3, 1.2, Planning & Land locations immediately adjacent to residential areas to promote local walking and biking trips 5.2 Use and reduce VMT. PL.3 Mixed -Use. Encourage mixed -use residential, employment and commercial serving uses DCP, Council Offices 3.3, 1.2, 5.1 Planning & Land where appropriate to facilitate increased utilization of walking, bicycling, and transit use. Use PL.4 Network Additions. Identify bicycle, neighborhood, and transit enhanced streets and DOT, DCP, Council Offices 3.3, 2.3, Planning & Land pedestrian enhanced areas in Community Plan updates to provide local complements to the 2.4, 2.5, Use Citywide Transit Neighborhood, and Bicycle Enhanced Networks, and Pedestrian Enhanced 2.6, 1.2 Destinations and increase access to area amenities including medical, schools, parks, major employment centers, and community facilities through continuous, predictable and safe sidewalks, intersections, bikeways, and transit support facilities. PL.5 Pedestrian Safety Action Plan. Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan for that enhances DOT, Mayor 3.1, 2.3 Planning & Land mobility and accessibility for pedestrians. Use PL.6 Regional Transportation Plan. Coordinate with Metro and SCAG on the development of DCP, DOT,LASAN, Metro, SCAG 4.11 Planning & Land the Regional Transportation Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the Long Range Use Transportation Plan. PL.7 Transit Coordination. Continue to work with Metro and various Construction Authorities on DCP, DOT, Metro, other bus providers 4.11, 3.7 Planning & Land station location, portal siting, station access, support features and parking strategies that Use maximize ridership and transit revenue. PL.8 Transit Neighborhood Plans. Adopt and implement Transit Neighborhood Plans that enhance DCP 3.3 Planning & Land access to transit stations and set new zoning regulations to effectuate appropriate mixes and Use scales of uses as well as site design. n v O� fD O �n Appendix A ON o N U_ Mobility Plan 2035 Programs v Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy N Topic W Un PL.9 Transportation Demand Management Ordinance Revision (TDM). Update the TDM ordinance DCP, DOT 4.8 Planning & Land (LA Municipal Code 12.26.J) to expand the number and type of projects required to Use incorporate TDM strategies and expand the number and variety of available TDM strategies. Include bicycle parking and other bicycle use incentives as a TDM measure to mitigate traffic/ vehicle trips for purposes of CEQA compliance for commercial, residential and mixed -use development projects. Continue to require eligibile projects to provide work -trip reduction plans and parking cash -out programs in compliances with ACMD's Regulation XV. PL.10 Truck Staging Facilities. Identify locations within the City where regional truck staging and DOT, DCP, Council Offices 1.8, 2.10 Planning & Land service facilities are permitted and address solutions to illegal freight staging practices. Use PL.11 Union Station Master Plan. Continue to work with Metro to complete the Union Station DCP, DOT, Mayor's Office, Council Offices 3.6 Planning & Land Master Plan and implement Connect US. Connect US is a strategy to improve active Use transportation options to and from Union Station. PL.12 Greenways to Rivers Arterial Stormwater System (GRASS). Establish a stormwater greewnay DCP, DOT, Mayor's Office, Council Offices 5.1, 5.5 Planning & Land planning network and an intergrative planning tool for Los Angeles' One Water Plan. Use PL.13 Special Street/Alley Treatments. Explore the use of special materials used within public right DCP, DOT, DPW 2.1, 2.2 Planning & Land of ways. Use PL.14 Community Engagement - Conduct extensive community engagement, develop detailed DCP, DOT, Community Stakeholders, 4.4 Planning & Land operational studies and design options and undertake additional environmental analysis Council Office Use for the following network segments within the Council District Four boundaries before implementing any street modifications: Melrose Avenue between Highland and Western Avenues; Lankershim between 134 Freeway and Cahuenga Boulevard, 4th Street between Highland and Western and segments of the BEN and/or TEN within the boundaries of the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council. The Council office and community stakeholders would play a critical role in finalizing any plans or projects for these corridors. Alternative parallel corridors, in lieu of the ones identified here, may be considered as potential network substitutes during this process. PSA Plazas/Paseos. Identify temporary and/or permanent opportunities to establish car free DCP, DOT, Council Offices 3.11 Public Space zones and/or plazas/paseos/play streets in select locations around the City. Play streets provide an opportunity to open public spaces to families and residents in park -poor communities without fear of conflicts with motor vehicles. PS.2 Great Streets. Continue to support the Mayor's Great Streets Initiative by creating a DOT, BOE, BSS, LASAN, RAP, DCP, DCA, 2.15, 3.11 Public Space comprehensive matrix of project elements and associated costs, outlining an implementation DPW, BSL, EDD, Council Offices timeline, tracking project impacts, evaluating funding strategy, and strategizing the coordination of city services to Great Streets. PS.3 Pedestrian Loops. Explore the development of a connected network of walking passageways DOT, BOE, BSS, RAP, DCP, DPW, Council 3.9, 3.10, Public Space utilizing both public and private spaces, local streets and alleyways to facilitate circulation. Offices 3.11 Appendix A SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic PSA People Street. Continue the People Street program for community partners to repurpose DOT, BOE, LASAN, BOS, RAP, Council 4.10, 3.11 Public Space underused portions of streets (below the curb) using cost effective materials into temporary Offices plazas, parklets, bike parking, and other public spaces. PS.5 Recreational Rides. Organize and lead local and citywide recreational rides ranging from 5-30 RAP, LAPD, Mayor's Office, Council 2.6 Public Space miles. Prioritize routes that include the Green, Bicycle Enhanced or Neighborhood Networks. Offices, DOT, BOE, Bicycle non -profits PS.6 Open Streets. Establish procedures and protocols to support and expand non-profit efforts to Mayor's Office, Council Offices, RAP, DOT, 3.11 Public Space coordinate and plan frequent and predictable events. DPW, LAPD, LAFD S.1 Active Transportation Education. Coordinate with LAUSD to incorporate mobility education DOT, LAUSD, Council Offices 1.3,1.2 Schools (for children ages 4-18) into regular physical education curriculum. S.2 Bike, Walk, and Roll Weeks. Support Metro's Bike, Walk, and Roll Week by providing City DOT, LAPD, Council, Mayor, LAUSD, 1.3,1.4, Schools sponsored events and pit stops in every council district and supporting bicycling to school Metro, SCAG 3.1, 4.10, for students. Provide information, support services and incentives for bicyclists to bicycle 5.1, 5.2 to work and school. Distribute materials, post information, and evaluate the progress of the program. S.3 Safe Routes to School. Continue to work/partner with LAUSD, (with support from PTAs DOT, DPW, LASAN, support from LAPD, 1.3 Schools and traffic officers) to develop an education program, develop and implement a safe routes and LAUSD, Council Offices to school program and maps and a Comprehensive SRTS Strategic Plan to calm traffic in communities surrounding all elementary, middle and high schools to maximize pedestrian and bicycle convenience and safety. Refer to the Citywide Safe Routes to School Strategic Plan SA School Locations. Work with LAUSD and other school providers to site new schools in DCP, LAUSD, Council Offices 1.3, 3.3 Schools appropriate locations that can be easily accessed and integrated into the surrounding community. SFA Artist Designed Bicycle Parking Standards. Support and develop creative bicycle parking DOT, BOE 3.8, 3.11 Support Features solutions in the public rights -of -way and adopt as city standard guidelines. SF.2 Bicycle Parking at Existing Major Destinations. Work with special event facilities' managers DOT, Council Offices 3.8 Support Features to provide convenient, secure, good quality and well -lit bicycle parking facilities at special event venues such as Dodger Stadium, the Staples Center/LA Convention Center, and the LA Memorial Coliseum/Sports Arena. SF.3 Bicycle Path Landscaping. Incorporate drought tolerant and low maintainence plant materials DOT, DPW, MRCA, Council Offices 2.6,5.5 Support Features along bicycle paths. 5FA Bicycle Path Lighting. Adopt and install standard lighting designs for bicycle paths and grade DOT, BSL, Council Offices 2.6 Support Features separated bikeways. SF.5 Bicycle Path Mile Markers. Continue to install and retrofit mile markers along bike paths; DOT, LAPD, LAFD, BOE 2.6 Support Features work with LAPD and LAFD to facilitate emergency response on paths. SF.6 Bicycle Racks on Taxis. Investigate the integration of bicycles with taxi service by adding DOT 3.5, 3.8 Support Features bicycle racks on to all of the taxi cabs that are permitted through DOT. 3 v Appendix A K 0 0- Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy N Topic 0 w 0, SF.7 Bicycle Sharing Network. Work with Metro and other area jurisdictions to launch a Bicycle Metro, DOT, DCP, Council Offices, Office 2.6, 4.11 Support Features Share Program. Identify a strategy to enable city staff to access the bicycle share system as a of the Mayor "fleet" option for work related tasks. SF.8 Bicycle Valet. Work with special event providers, employers and community -based DOT, bicycle non -profits, Council Offices 3.8 Support Features organizations to provide bicycle valet services at large public and private special events. SF.9 Bus Bike Racks (on/off-board). Work with transit providers to provide solutions for additional DOT Transit, Metro, regional transit 3.8, 3.5, Support Features bike storage, such as bike rack systems to accommodate at least three bicycles on -board the providers 4.11 bus, or permitting bicyclists to board with their bicycles at the rear of the bus. SF.10 Essential Transit Components. Include short-term and long-term bicycle parking and way- Metro, DOT 3.8 Support Features finding as essential components of all stations. SF.11 Increase Publicly Available Bicycle Parking. Review all City -owned, operated, and leased All 3.8, 1.3, Support Features facilities for compliance with the City's bicycle parking standards. Increase bicycle parking 2.6 to meet LAMC requirements where deficiencies are present.Continue to implement bicycle parking and corrals at major destinations, especially where demand is already high. Encourage the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), local four-year universities, and the Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD) to install quality bicycle parking at public schools within the City of Los Angeles. SF.12 LED Street Lighting. Continue to retrofit existing street lighting infrastructure with energy- BSL 1.7, 2.3, 3.2 Support Features efficient LEDs. SF.13 Mobility Hubs/Multi-Modal Transit Plaza. Facilitate the implementation of multi -modal DOT/Metro, Council Offices, DCP, Office 3.5, 4.1, 4.2 Support Features transportation support activities and services in proximity to transit stations and major bus of the Mayor, DPW stops, including but not limited to: adequate bus stop and layover space, transit shelters with real-time bus arrival information, bike share docking stations, car share facilities, taxi -waiting/ call areas, Wi-Fi service, public showers/toilets, bicycle storage and repair facilities, and food and beverage providers. Develop a coordinated permitting proceess for the installation of the support features identified above. SF.14 Off -Street Alternative Energy Charging. Continue to support off-street alternative energy DOT, DCP, Mayor's Office, DWP 5.3, 5.4 Support Features charging and fueling stations within privately and city -owned parking and/or fueling facilities. SF.15 On -Board Storage. Work with transit providers to provide an on -board location for the Metro, DOT 3.4, 4.11 Support Features storage of shopping bags and/or luggage. SF.16 On -Street Bicycle Corrals.Develop bicycle parking corrals in on -street parking spaces as DOT, BSS, BOE, Council Offices 3.8, 3.11 Support Features a public -private partnership. Continue implemention of a pilot program and evaluate the feasibility and criteria for widespread use. SF.17 Operator Judgement of Bicycles on Buses. Work with Metro and local transit operators in the DOT, City Council, Mayor's Office, BAC, 3.5, 3.8, Support Features City of Los Angeles to allow operators to make decisions regarding allowing bicycles on buses Metro 4.11 when space on bus allows, racks are full, service is last of the day or in inclement weather Appendix A SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Mobility Plan 2035 Programs Program No. PROGRAM Department. Policy Topic SF.18 Parking Meter Posts. Develop pilot project to install bicycle parking mechanism on parking DOT Parking 3.8 Support Features meter posts. SF.19 Sidewalk Bicycle Parking Program. Continue to install and maintain City -standard bicycle DOT, Council Offices 3.8 Support Features racks on sidewalks. Identify areas with demand for bicycle racks and implement an installation schedule. Prioritize the installation of racks on streets. SF.20 Street Furniture Definition. Include bicycle racks in the definition of street furniture to utilize City Attorney, BSS 1.7, 2.2, Support Features streetscape funding opportunities 3.8, 2.15 SF.21 Street Lighting. Support equitable distribution of funds for appropriate street and/or BSL, DCP, DOT, Council Offices 1.7, 2.3, 3.2 Support Features pedestrian lighting, especially in areas of high crime rate and high volume of pedestrian activities. SF.22 Transit District Curbside Management. Manage curb areas adjacent to transit stops to DCP, DPW, DOT, Metro & other transit 3.5, 3.8, Support Features facilitate the loading and unloading of buses, para transit, smart shuttles, van/car pools and providers 3.2 taxi queuing. Include curb areas for bicycle parking and car share facilities where space warrants. SF.23 Transit Furniture. Transit furniture shall be prioritized on corridors with the highest rates of DPW, Council Offices 1.7, 2.5, Support Features public transit ridership; design features shall incorporate aesthetic, comfort, and protection 4.3, 4.6 from the elements (sun and rain) considerations. Target the equitable provision of transit furniture throughout the City. Evaluate and pursue all possible alternatives to increase transit furniture in underserved corridors. Transit Pass. Collaborate with Metro to encourage schools, employers, and residential DOT, DCP, LAUSD, Metro 4.8, 4.9, SF.24 Support Features developers to provide monthly or annual transit passes for their respective students, 4.11 employees, and residents. SF.25 Trash Facilities. Increase the number of trashcans on sidewalks. Work with local business and DPW, BOS, Council Offices 1.7, 4.10 Support Features community organizations to develop an adopt -a -trash can program. SF.26 Tree Canopy. Continue to expand the City's tree canopy using tree species that are LASAN, BSS, BOE, DWP, Tree People, 1.7, 3.2, Support Features appropriate for the location, climate, water supply, planting conditions and existing street Council Offices 2.3, 2.4, infrastructure. 3.1 SF.27 Turnstile Design. Work with Metro and local transit agencies to ensure that all turnstiles can DOT, City Council, Mayor's Office, BAC 3.5, 4.11 Support Features accommodate a bicycle. SF.28 Bicycle Friendly Businesses. Continue to support Bicycle Friendly Business Program DOT, Council Offices 2.6 Support Features l� v rt fD Appendix A Appendix B. Collision Severity per Road Segment Quarter Mile Averaged Collision Ranking Low Collision Rate and Injury Severity Medium Low Medium High High Collision Rate and Injury Severity Very High Collision Rate and Injury Severity All Modes Injuries X Fatal Severe Injury Collision non -Fatal or Severe Injury L..-.' Santa Ana Boundary 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles Appendix B SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Purpose This map illustrates the Santa Ana road segments with moderately -high to high injuries involving pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. These corridors have the highest collision rates and injury severities collision rates and injury severities. This map can be used as a variety of pur- poses, such as determining high collision, high injury areas to prioritze improvements as well as where to reduce speed limits. Methodology The methodology for this analysis involved joining each collision to the nearest street segment to quantify the number of collisions and severi- ty of injuries that have occurred at different locations along a road seg- ment. Each injury was given a `score' as noted in the list below. Each road segment's score was then summed together for a total score per segment. The total score was divided by the length of the street seg- ment to get a decimal number that can be used to rank each segment relative to all other street segments and identify highest to lowest rela- tive ranking of collisions and injury severity. This final decimal number was multiplied by the feet in one quarter mile to get a larger whole number for facilitation. The final rank on road segments varied from a minimum `score' of less than one per quarter mile to a maximum of 660 per quarter mile where multiple collisions with pedestrian or bike injuries have occured, often times at busy intersections. The ranks for each segment was then symbolized in GIS as quartile groups for this map. The highest ranking road segments are shown in thick purple lines and the lowest ranking are shown in thin light blue lines. A second overlay of collision points, circles and crossed lines show where the actual collisions have occurred. Description Pedestrian Fatalities or Severe Injuries Score 1.5 Bicycle Fatalities or Severe Injuries 1.5 All Other Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions 1.25 Vehile Collisions Resulting in Fatalities or Serious Injuries 1.25 All Other Vehicle Collisions 1.0 Appendix B Appendix C. SS4A worksheet Applicants should follow the instructions in the NOFO to correctly apply for a grant. See the SS4A website for more information. Instructions: The purpose of this worksheet is to determine whether an applicant's existing plan(s) is substantially similar to an Action Plan for purposes of applying for an Implementation Grant or to conduct Supplemental Planning/Demonstration Activities only. Use of this worksheet is required. Applicants should not adjust the formatting or headings of the worksheet. For each question below, answer "yes" or "no." If "yes," cite the specific page in your existing Action Plan or other plan(s) that corroborate your response, or cite and provide other supporting documentation separately. An applicant is eligible to apply for an Action Plan Grant that funds supplemental action plan activities, or an Implementation Grant, only if the following two conditions are met: • Answer "yes" to Questions © 0 0 Answer "yes" to at least four of the six remaining Questions 0 0 0 0 0 0 If both conditions are not met, an applicant is still eligible to apply for an Action Plan Grant that funds creation of a new Action Plan. Lead Applicant: UEI: 0 Are both of the following true? • Did a high-ranking official and/or governing body in the jurisdiction publicly commit to an eventual goal of zero roadway fatalities and serious injuries? • Did the commitment include either setting a target date to reach zero, OR setting one or more targets to achieve significant declines in roadway fatalities and serious injuries by a specific date? VJ To develop the Action Plan, was a committee, task force, implementation group, or similar body established and charged with the plan(s development, implementation, and monitoring? () Does the Action Plan include all of the following? Analysis of existing conditions and historical trends to baseline the level of crashes involving fatalities and serious injuries across a jurisdiction, locality, Tribe, or region; Analysis of the location where there are crashes, the severity, as well as contributing factors and crash types; • Analysis of systemic and specific safety needs is also performed, as needed (e.g., high risk road features, specific safety needs of relevant road users; and, • A geospatial identification (geographic or locational data using maps) of higher risk locations. C43 U.S. Department of Transportation YES ONO If yes, provide documentation: YES ONO If yes, provide documentation: YES ❑ NO If yes, provide documentation: Still have questions? Visitthe SS4Awebsite SS4A Self -Certification Eliaibility Worksheet I Paae 1 of 2 0 Did the Action Plan development include all of the following activities? YES ❑ NO • Engagement with the public and relevant stakeholders, including the If yes, provide documentation: private sector and community groups; • Incorporation of information received from the engagement and collaboration into the plan; and • Coordination that included inter- and intra-governmental cooperation and collaboration, as appropriate. © Did the Action Plan development include all of the following? YES ❑ NO • Considerations of equity using inclusive and representative processes; If yes, provide documentation: • The identification of underserved communities through data; and • Equity analysis, in collaboration with appropriate partners, focused on initial equity impact assessments ofthe proposed projects and strategies, and population characteristics. 0 Are both of the following true? YES NO • The plan development included an assessment of current policies, plans, I, provide documentation guidelines, and/or standards to identify opportunities to improve how processes prioritize safety; and • The plan discusses implementation through the adoption of revised or new policies, guidelines, and/or standards. 0 Does the plan identify a comprehensive set of projects and strategies to YES NO address the safety problems in the Action Plan, time ranges when projects and strategies will be deployed, and explain project If yes, provide documentation: prioritization criteria? 0 Does the plan include all of the following? YES NO • A description of how progress will be measured over time that includes, at If yes, provide documentation a minimum, outcome data. • The plan is posted publicly online. Was the plan finalized and/or last updated between 2018 and June YES NO 2023? If yes, provide documentation: CaStill have questions? Visit the SS4A website U.S. Department of Transportation SS4A Self -Certification Eligibility Worksheet I Page 2 of 2 Appendix C SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Appendix D. Priority Projects Engineering Concept Development Summary To: Hina Chanchlani Project No.: 22-00136 Cc: Zed Kekula, Mauricio Castaneda From: Paul Martin Date: February 7t", 2024 RE: Santa Ana Vision Zero - Priority Projects Engineering Concept Development Summary Overview In support of the update to the Santa Ana Vision Zero (SAVZ), formerly the Safe Mobility Santa Ana (SMSA) plan, Mark Thomas has developed planning level conceptual plans at the following five (5) top ranked SAVZ priority corridors: • Main Street 15t Street to 17t" Street • Tustin Avenue 17t" Street to Fairhaven Avenue • Euclid Street Hazard Avenue to McFadden Avenue • Greenville Street MacArthur Boulevard to Warner Avenue • First Street Fairview Street to Bristol Street As scoped through guidance by SCAG and City staff, the concept plans evaluate one -mile of each corridor and incorporate active transportation design countermeasures recommended by the SAVZ plan and based on discussions with City staff. See Figure 1 for the Study Corridors Map. The City of Santa Ana can leverage the SCAG-funded project to develop engineering concepts, cost estimates, and renderings to pursue future grant funding to advance each of the projects' implementation. Appendix D Engineering Concepts Engineering concepts have been developed for each of the five (5) study corridors (Attachment A). The concepts were developed based on multiple discussions with City staff and refined for consistency with the SAVZ and industry best practices. Main Street The Main Street concept implements the following improvements between 1st Street and 17tn Street: • High -visibility crosswalk striping • Stop lines • Crossbike striping • Raised center medians • Directional pedestrian curb ramps Euclid Street The Euclid Street concept implements the following improvements between Hazard Avenue and McFadden Avenue: • High -visibility crosswalk striping • Stop lines • Buffered Class II bicycle lanes • Green conflict zone striping • Crossbike striping • Raised center medians • Directional pedestrian curb ramps • Protected intersection features • New Traffic Signal Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Tustin Avenue The Tustin Avenue concept implements the following improvements between 17t" Street and Fairhaven Avenue: • High -visibility crosswalk striping • Stop lines • Buffered Class II bicycle lanes • Green conflict zone striping • Crossbike striping • Raised center medians • Directional pedestrian curb ramps • New traffic signal • Floating bus island • Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Greenville Street The Greenville Street concept implements the following improvements between MacArthur Boulevard and Warner Avenue: • High -visibility crosswalk striping • Stop lines • Class II bike lane • Crossbike striping • Raised center medians • Directional pedestrian curb ramps • Protected intersection features 1 st Street The 1st Street concept implements the following improvements between Fairview Street and Bristol Street: • High -visibility crosswalk striping • Stop lines • Class II bicycle lanes • Crossbike striping • Raised center medians • Directional pedestrian curb ramps Appendix D Engineering Cost Estimates Grant -ready engineering cost estimates have been developed for each of the five (5) study corridors (Attachment B). The cost estimates incorporate the most recently available Active Transportation Program (ATP) cost estimate template to position the City for future ATP grant pursuits. Project Renderings A conceptual project rendering has been prepared for each of the five (5) study corridors and are included in Attachment C. Funding Opportunities The project concepts, cost estimates, and renderings can be used by the City to seek implementation funding through various local, state, and federal grant programs listed below. Table 1 provides additional program details, including anticipated submittal period, eligible phases and costs, match requirements, and key selection criteria. Local Funding Opportunities • Complete Streets Program (CSP) — Funds local agency projects in Orange County that contribute to the creation of a complete transportation network for all modes, improve transportation access, improve safety and health, and incorporate community input. State Funding Opportunities • Active Transportation Program (ATP) — Funds projects that increase use of active modes of transportation, such as walking and bicycling. • Clean California Local Grant Program (CCLGP) — Funds local communities to beautify and improve local streets and roads, tribal lands, parks, pathways, and transit centers. • Local Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) — Fund projects that achieve a significant reduction in fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. • Local Partnership Program (LPP) — Funds projects that align with the state's climate and equity goals. • Reconnecting Communities: Highways to Boulevards (RC:H2B) — Funds the conversion of key underutilized highways into multi -modal corridors to reconnect communities divided by transportation infrastructure. • Solutions for Congested Corridors Program (SCCP) — Funds projects that achieve a balanced set of transportation, environmental, and community access improvements to Appendix D reduce congestion throughout the state. SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN • Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants (STP) — Funds projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, develop climate adaptation plans, and address statewide, interregional, or regional transportation deficiencies on the highway system. Federal Funding Opportunities • Rebuildina American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Eauity (RAISE) — Funds projects that help communities build transportation projects that have significant local or regional impact and improve safety and equity. • Rural Surface Transportation Grant (RSTG) — Funds projects that increase connectivity, improve the safety and reliability of the movement of people and freight, and generate regional economic growth and improve quality of life. • Strengthening Mobility and Revolutionizing Transportation (SMRT) — Funds demonstration projects focused on advanced smart community technologies and systems to improve transportation efficiency and safety. • Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) — Funds initiatives to prevent roadway deaths and serious injuries. • Areas of Persistent Povertv (AOPP) — Funds increased transit access for environmental justice populations, equity -focused community outreach and public engagement of underserved communities and adoption of equity -focused policies, reducing GHG, and addressing the effects of climate change. Please contact me with any questions — Paul. Table 1- Local, State, and Federal Funding Programs Complete Streets Program • October 0 Planning 12% match Complete streets, DAC', deadline 0 Capital community input, air quality improvements ' Disadvantaged Communities Appendix D Active 0 Call for 0 PA&ED2 No match DAC, safety, public Transportation projects in 0 PS&E3 requirement participation in planning, Program even years 0 ROW4 transformative projects, • Summer 0 CONS evaluation, and sustainability deadline Clean California 0 April 0 PA&ED 0%-50% of project Partially or fully located in Local Grant Program deadline 0 PS&E cost based on underserved community AND • ROW severity of at least 75% of the population • CON disadvantaged surrounding the project site 0 PE Reimbursement must be underserved Local Highway 0 Call for Benefit -Cost Ratio, funding Safety Improvement projects in 0 ROW ratio depends on set -asides Program even years 0 CON the project's • September countermeasures deadline with maximums of 100%, 90%, or 50% Local Partnership 0 Call for 0 CON 1:1 match Accessibility, air quality and Program projects in GHG, community engagement, even years safety, transportation, land • November use, and housing goals, VMT6 deadline Reconnecting 0 Late 0 PA&ED No match DAC, mobility and community Communities: summer/ 0 PS&E requirement connectivity, community Highways to early fall 0 ROW partnerships Boulevards deadline 0 CON Solutions for • Call for 0 CON No match Safety, congestion, Congested Corridors projects in requirement accessibility Program even years Economic development, job • December creation, and retention, air deadline pollution and GHG reductions, efficient land use 2 Project Approval & Environmental Document 3 Plans, Specifications, And Estimates 4 Right -of -Way S Construction 6 Vehicle Miles Traveled Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN ProgramFunding Submittal .. Eligible Phases /Costs Match Selection Requirement Criteria Sustainable 0 Annual call Studies or Plans 11.47%-20% local GHG7 reduction, DAC, Transportation for projects match housing, land use and Planning Grants 0 March transportation planning deadline FundingFederal . Rebuilding American • Annual call Planning Federal cost share Safety, environmental Infrastructure with for projects Capital may not exceed sustainability, Sustainability and 0 February 80% quality of life, mobility and Equity deadline community connectivity, economic competitiveness, Federal cost share partnership, innovation Regional economic, mobility, Rural Surface 0 May PA&ED Transportation Grant deadline PS&E may not exceed or safety benefits • ROW 80% • CON Strengthening 0 November PA&ED No match Safety and reliability, Mobility and deadline PS&E requirement resiliency, equity and access, Revolutionizing ROW climate, partnerships, Transportation CON integration Safe Streets and 0September 0Planning 20% local match DAC, Safety Roads for All deadline • Implementation Areas of Persistent 0 March 0 Planning Minimum federal DAC Poverty deadline 0 Engineering share is 90% of • Development total project cost of technical or financial plans Greenhouse Gas Appendix D Attachment A - Engineering Concepts Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN " r all IF L ECTIONAL IA RAMPS AND / -'� .RADIUS TO J \ �I LEGEND: © BUS STOP LOCATION EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL 4, PROPOSED RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON CONSTRUCT FLOATING L BUS ISLAND r Ii- NOTES: ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. 0 LANDSCAPING 2. CLASS II BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS HARDENED CENTERLINE ® fi 44 OLD TUSTIN Ave �U BOOM Santa Ana VISION ZERO PAGE 1 OF 3 Appendix D NEW PEDESTRIAN CROSSIRG OLD TUSTIN Ave C� LEGEND: © BUS STOP LOCATION EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL PROPOSED RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACON ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT 0 LANDSCAPING HARDENED CENTERLINE a CONSTRUCT DIP, CTIONAL PEDE -RIAN Y s. RAMPS AND REDUCE CURB RADIUS TO 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- - - - - - - - -NEW-RAF�IC S*NAL. CONSTR'CT DIRECTIONAL PEDE„AT ANC AMPS ANC CURB.R IUS Yb 25' NOTES: 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. 2. CLASS II BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS y ®®OEl Santa Ana VISION ZERO PAGE 2 OF 3 Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN a Mpg W MR.Nara ]G/ TUSTIN Ave i PTDEST CROS NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL 1 — — — — — — — — J F� L_ — — — - z �1 70 I n n I 14 0 )Ima K e SLCONSTRUCT TRIAN D7RECTIONAI 1- a PEDESRAMPS - i s LEGEND: NOTES: © BUS STOP LOCATION ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. EXISTING TRAFFIC SIGNAL 0 LANDSCAPING 2. CLASS II BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS. ®®O� " SANTA ANA VISION ZERO - TUSTIN Ave PROPOSED TRAFFIC SIGNAL HARDENED CENTERLINE Santa Ana �" CONCEPT PLANS PROPOSED RECTANGULAR RAPID VISION ZERO ® U MARK FLASHING BEACON CITY OF SANTA ANA PAGE 3 OF 3 SCALE: 1" = 50' ■ ■ THOMAS RI N� i IIC _ - w o _ — I \V� COVSTRUCT DIRECT ONAL pp� J N PEDESTRIAN RAMPS Z 3 0 s Appendix D CONSTRUCT DIRECTIONAL - PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND REDUCE CURB RADIUS -0 25' CONSTRUCT DIIECTIONAL PEDESTRIAN RAMPS aND REDUCE CURB RPDLUS TO 25' �J PROPOSED SIGNAL, WIFH a SB f0 CB LEFT.j'URN' - w PHASINGuc7f2.9l,;t... CONSTRUCT ADA COMPLIANT PEDESIRIAN RAM.2 B -7 > - ¢ ¢ a> CONS TRI 'T CURB EXTPII,SIONS 1 ADA m _ Z COMPLIA:J 0T PL DL�IRIAN -„ CONSTRUCT CURB EXTLOSIONS p �n RAMPS \ ¢ WITH AD COMPLIANT \m '= PEDESTRCAR RAMPS 3 w w _ T �Ililllll���_ � EUCLID St-- o - �- — _ s : - - - - - - - - - - _ _4JI IIIIIIII -jam , [ f 4iow- > uupC�,NSTRUCT. ADA ¢ > IDMPLI7tNT DE ]AH .. R .5 a I z Q a - e, C 0 J �r w v�i CONSTRUCT D[RE C-ICN AL m a 0'm w CEDES RI K R. O AMEGNER Z U ISLANDS AND REDLC, CURB U r ¢ RADIUS TO 25' j y LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT QB BUS STOP LOCATION 0 LANDSCAPING PROPOSED SIGNAL HARDENED CENTERLINE NOTES: 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. n {�+ 2. CLASS II BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS. Santa 0900 ®9O/'1V na VISION ZERO PAGE 1 OF 2 3 Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN CON ERN T SURF EXTENSION' N_i0N5 WITH z �- fi ADA �OMF IANi PL DtSTRI A - N . -. V - 12, n / - - '+ CON"-TRUCT PIRECTIONP.L w PEDESTRIAN EAMES AND CONSTRUCT CL"RBNSlDN , ,�- REDUCE CURB RADIUS -0 CONSTRUCT CURB 3 WITH ADA COMPLI to 3 3 25 _ IONS, WITH{ A �m P DP STRIAN RAMPS P DES pP .k• �. ANT f tR,IAN IIIIIIII�� ___-------_„ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ------ ----- ____ 4S _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — - - - - --- -------- ----- % - ---- - --- - _ - - r _ I ri �Illillll L nN M v, ► V7 rHE In ,ON UCT RB EX ENS IONS WITH -� �h CONSTRUCT D]REiIONAL FLDLS IRIAN_ CCH UCT CUR EXI ENS N ,_IF " � IF B I DA MP T PE TRIA10, AMPS RAMPS AND REDUCE CUF2B RADIUS TO 25 AD! IAPLIANT PEDESTRIAN RAMPSin - W ~ T . W CONSTRUCT D_RCJAN y s l V! 'S7�u FED=STRIAN RAM- "-� - - ! �EDUCF cCRB RA� A � 9 ma`s -- 5 _ f _ - - - - - - - -+1 - - = - '� - - - - _ -- -- a s s Tro a = - =_ EUCLID St _ _ ■ ---------------- CN I I•UCT CJRB '�� o � tTTEJ 1JVS WITH �o a. A / .OMPLIAN - - DCSTRIAH RAVP'- \ m v f L— 'I + ' L \ X - - + � � I � ONSTR �.I .:ORB CxILNS10NS WIIII _ �^ AD -0V'LI WT PEDES RIAN RAMPS - LEGEND: NOTES' EXISTING SIGNAL ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. QB BUS STOP LOCATION 0 LANDSCAPING 2. CLASS II BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS. PROPOSED SIGNAL HARDENED CENTERLINE CONSTRUCT DI,RCTIOF PEDESTRIAN RA AI RED GE CURB 'FSwjUS DECO Santa Ana VISION ZERO PAGE 2 OF 2 N O 3 Appendix D � S 3IRUC P _ N S- P �Is � o� o MAID St _ 1 aT-CONSTRUCT CIA CONFL_MnT - ' P ED LSIIE TAN RAM"S `-!I ze • �1 i CONSTRUCT DIRECTIONAL PEDES 5 TNSTPICT DIRECTIONAL J.U_ ED PS PLLLSIRI4N RAMPS f� =: It �-4 IIIIIIII -IW7-41k, �& II- Ir rl MA E IIIIIII (`� CON` PU.I DIREC I TONAL CONSTRUCT DIRECiI ONAL �EL\ \ o DTSTRIAN RAMPS L � PEDESTRIAN RAMPS 0 N �; � O] w PEDESIC? DIRECTIONAL M 4 PEDLSI R'AN 3AMPS L Z F- 1 G W 06, t I imp I Z 11 U y� LEGEND: NOTE: EXISTING SIGNAL ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. OB BUS STOP LOCATION 0 LANDSCAPING ®®O0 Santa Ana VISION ZERO PAGE 1 OF 2 Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN L-L P I L - j - - 'I r RuMI'S O I ' i L ~ I t S III 'II II R L • ' I RAMD o � RADI TO 25MAIN St Awl � � r ,.r CT SAL �,� . I• .:iA ) CONb TRU PII.STRI L G7 DI EC7I,ONAL—i M ANG + -. N w REDO �5 R!s p L nl� :r �Itq � NOTE: L ®TEXTURED PAVEMENT 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. SANTA ANA VISION ZERO - MAIN St LOCATION Q LANDSCAPING ®®O©CONCEPT PLANS Santa Ana ® VISION ZERO MARK CITY OF SANTA ANA THOMAS PAGE 2 OF 2 SCALE: I''= 50' Appendix D OWL — E' I f R Ir DIRECTIONAL UCE CURB DIUS TO 25' "y •'-8>'` -'� -' „"' � i��IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII®I � I �, �**`"'4� N,x . '� n ,�-''-- - - - - - - - - - 1st st •',r,. f�_ _ L -- - --- -- - --=►�,�-- .._ - - - - - - - - - N :,ON �TkUCT y: CONSTRUCT DIREC�5 i'ULS IRI AN It MP ONU RLLU L URB PEDEST4I AN RAMPS AND REDU E CURB URB } RADIU T 25' __ � � k DIU IL 25' ` V7 Y z PLANNED BIT- BOULEVARD ON > Q =- ( SULLIVAN St J �� e w - -- -CO RU.GTgCURB EXTENSIONS WITH U ` 79• `h}A�� / !, ,� �'-_ y� AD 0 LIANT PEDESTRIAN RAMPS \ / .rr `off (^►! __' zL _ 1 St 54 - - - - - - _ - - - -- - - - - ir....... t t ......... s - - __- - - - - - .................. s - - - _ ___ _- _- _-t _- _ a _ I - - - - - - - - - - - - - -� - - - - - - - - - - - C — - - - - - - _ -- _ - - - - "� � o /tk CURB 0_ TRUCT K J 9( T NSION WITH AN I W tCTIONAL _ F TU E CO 0 �' F- PEDESTRIAN fPoPodkkk d nCONSTRUCT CURB EX ONS WITH- a _ - OF -S ET N W y AND REDUCE CUF( ADA COMPLIANT PED RAMPS _ �SANTA A OD . U RADIUS TO 25' I fX, 'C A NEL _ -y - ED BIKE BOULEVARD ON • - WALNUT St LEGEND: EXISTING SIGNAL ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT OB BUS STOP LOCATION 0 LANDSCAPING HARDENED CENTERLINE NOTES: 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. 2. CLASS II BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS. MOM . Santa Ana VISION ZERO PAGE 1 OF 3 Appendix D SANTA ANA VISION ZERO PLAN ��. �a, + w y� > v7 O C N CONSTRUCT ADA -- — CONSTRUCT DIRECTIONAL `- AD COMPLIANT RED TRIAD RAMP COMPLIANT z� �, PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND REDUCE CURB, w PEDESTRIAN R'AMPf / `CCNS IItUCI CURB.E EhL, 3 RADIUS TO 25' AND REDUCE CUR J / WITH FCA COA'MR' ANT .� RADIUS TO 25'' O PEDESTRIAN �S o n J d;l I o o` 0 -y._�_ _ IIIIII � _ �_____-_• � �� �IIIIIIIIIIIIII �1 - - - - _ - - — - - - - -w✓- - - - - - - - - - — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i- - - - - - t - : s — — s — — — — -—--- - - - --- — — —— T—=-- - - - - -- — L' CONSTRUCT cuRe J�f �.� lEJ � o m —11 Il P CONCTRUCT CURB ` j� EXTENSIONS WITH 'ONSTRUCT CURD XT NS IONS CONSTRUCT D RE TIO ji EXTENSIONS WITH �' �I�!�', ADA COMPLIANT - WITH ADA GOMo IANT PEDE>TPIAN P..fIPX A J, II Clu ADA COMPLIANT to PLJLSIKI AN kAMI'S _ N FEDESTRI AN RAMPS REDUCE TURD R1D_US AI WESTkOUN PEDESTRIAN m .T I,EIT- ACCESS �PRAMPS 4ZFUTURL Ali'OST CE .BIKEWAY IMPROVEMENTS ON �0ZRAITT StDO l' r z a z a T�_a ■ a Bl Ilk- _ vto — RLcoNAL'7) o n 1 L� ONSTRUC- CURB EXTEN<_IO.S W _ PEDESTPIAN RAMRS AND REDUCE CURB W /� C PEDESTRIAN RAMPS I / RADIUS TO 25" WITH ADA COMPLIANT , _ _ f..� Jam. PEDESTRIAN RAMPS - 11 J411111111 o� i s — — — — — - — — — — —= St s — — - — — — - - — — — — — — — — — — — i + P= — — — — — — — — — — — — — \IIIIIIIII - _ CONSTRUCT DIRECTIONAL �''t PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND REDUCE CURB �� EXI S--NG BIKE BOULEVARD Or' > I1 S TO 25" n PAcrc ACE a 7L�.. - v 7 o .. a. n _ LEGEND: NOTES' EXISTING SIGNAL ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. 3B BUS STOP LOCATION Q LANDSCAPING 2. CLASS II BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS. - HARDENED CENTERLINE ® In an Santa Ana VISION ZERO PAGE 2 OF 3 SCALE. 1" 50' Appendix D 3 m CON _ IREC N I N REDUCE CURB a 4. ,,, ^� _� ��'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111�� I �� 1 sf t IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � '-� _ I _ _ fp�IJICC �I �'I ttI�AN RA P7 AND NEUUCE CURB ' ' N T T IR EC D IU 0, . .� 1. m � �Yt LEGEND: NOTES: /� EXISTING SIGNAL ®TEXTURED PAVEMENT 1 . ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. SANTA ANA VISION ZERO 1st St CC®®} Op � /� OB BUS STOP LOCATION 0 LANDSCAPING 2. CLASS II BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS. Jan la /'1n�a /' ONCEPT PLANS HARDENED CENTERLINE VISION ZERO ® U MARK CITY OF SANTA ANA PAGE 3 OF 3 SCALE: 1" = SO' ■ ■ THOMAS Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN ' I CONSTRUCT CURB EXIENSIONS N > w - WIT DA COMPLIANT > C' 0] PE STRIAN RAMPS Q N n m AS > W Z Q Z d - Of \ �u - Z J CODS TRU CT CURB EXT-NSIUNS \ J. U F _ O WITH ADA COMPLIANT r COUC'T TTIRtCTICNAL - - ` PEOESTRIid P/,MPS AND RE E PEDESTRIAN RAMPS i t RADIUS To IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII GREENVILLE St - -� �mc — .„ III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � � _ CONSTRUCT DIRECTIONAL PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND R DU- No CURB RADIUS TO P I.' Mdb7F7 TRAFF SIGNAL OPERATIONS TO L, E PROTE E-I-TURN INJ BICYCLE uDi PHASING FOR A-L DIRECTIONS "' M' �_ N �} m PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND r u o y i CONSTRUCT DIRECTIONAL �'� '� I •• u j m,y z m m I REDUCE CURB RADIUS TO 25' D i n n n LLCC n f D a z > — CONSIR�CT DIRECTIONAL PEDESTRIAN �i. a 3 Q RAMPS Nf� REDUCE CURB RADIUS TO 25' � r � o f m s+ I—RE 210' FF FF SIDEWAIK - Q ( INCLUDING ROW ACQUISITION AND U'IILITILS RELOCATIONIi m o cA U �. c, cJi a IIIIIIIIIIII o o GREENVILLE St � RAIL ., D CROSSING IMPROVEMENTOP Rt IKL. JDIRC QUAD GROSSING CAT-- \ a A yy alb -- (COORDINATE WITH RAILROAD) Q m CONSTRUCT DIRECTIONAL PEDESTRIAN MPS AND REDUCE CURB 0 RAK V \ RABITS TO 5' uRe EXTENSIONS _ _eNEXTENSIONS WITH x 1 MODIFY TRAFFIC SIGNAL — CONSTRUCT-- AD COMP_I4NT PEDESTRIAN RAMPS K DIRECTIONAL OPERATIONS TO ADD BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN RAMPS DETECTION AND REDUCE RADIUS TO CURB25 ' LEGEND: NOTES: EXISTING SIGNAL — HARDENED CENTERLINE I. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. ® ®c ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT A BIKEWAY DELINEATORS 2. CLASS II & IV BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS. Santa Ana 0 LANDSCAPING VISION ZERO Lai== PAGE 1 OF 2 Appendix D /F— CONSTRUCT DIRECTIONAL PEDESTRIAN RAMPS Y 7, AND REDUCE CURB RADIUS i0 24' 'p!.a { CDCURB EXTENSIONS Q WITHITH ADA COMPLI - _ - g PEDESTRIAN RAMPS m 2 � f o � r r�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII V � -' os s - - ......... . III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII GREENVILLE St _ - CONSTRUCT CURB EXTENSION WITH ADA COMPLIAN Q ` PEDESTRIAN FAMP . JISTRUCT DIREGT]ONPI AN PEDESTRI/ O RPP F` AND REDUCE CURB RADIUS TO AN 0 s 1 l m MODIFY TRAFFIC SIGNAL TO J CONSTFC/6.j DIRECTIONAL z 5. z p INCLUDE BICYCLE DETECTION PEDESTRIAN RAMPS AND v W REDUCE 'CURB RADIUS TO 25' y K - r w � O CONSTRUCT CURB EXTENSIONS WITH ADA "t - _ - Q COMP O LIANT ?EDESTRIAN RAMPS p- J m o 3 m a�F ar in I '- CUR ' TENSIONS - _ a H A NPL_ADI � ai -X I Cr Jj =ED& IAN RAMPS ` r O / CONST-LCT CURB EX FE 11R AITH ADA Z T �' N COMPLIANT I'LDL IRIAD RAMPS - CONSTRJ DRECTIONAL PEDES1R.nNBIAMPSnND REDUCE CURB RADIUS TO 75 � GREENVILLE St 17 COVSTRL CT ADA OMI'LI ANI N CONSTRUCT CURD FXTF_NSIONSA- PEDESTRIAN RA 5 AVD RFDUCE V1 'IIRD RID US T Q 20 cn WITH ADA COMPLIANT Q / :2 WITH Q PEDESTRIAN PLIA _ xx = tCONSTRUCT DIRF ^TIONAL of Q PEDESTRIAN RAMPS, CORNER 11 ' fSLAND, AND REDUCE CURB RADIUS TO 25' iiui Lt� i LEGEND: NOTES: EXISTING SIGNAL — HARDENED CENTERLINE 1. ALL IMPROVEMENTS SUBJECT TO FURTHER EVALUATION. ® Mel Q ® TEXTURED PAVEMENT o BIKEWAY DELINEATORS 2. CLASS II & IV BIKEWAYS PROPOSED THROUGH PROJECT LIMITS. Santa Ana 0 LANDSCAPING VISION ZERO Lai== PAGE 2 OF 2 Appendix D SANTAANAVISION ZERO PLAN Attachment B — Cost Estimates Appendix D Santa Ana Vision Zero Tustin Ave (17th St to Fairhaven Ave) MARK THOMAS (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps, Sidewalk Extensions and Bus Stop improvements) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)* TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 7,210,000 $ 8,770,000 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 300,000 $ 370,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 7,510,000 $ 9,140,000 $ 940,000 $ 1,150,000 LD $ 1,320,000 $ 1,610,000 w 0 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) * Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero \I Tustin Ave (17th St to Fairhaven Ave) MARKTHOMAS (Feasibility Opinion of Probable Cost ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 34 $ 8,000 $272,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 222 $ 1,230 $273,060 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 109 $ 1,040 $113,360 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 156 $ 850 $132,600 5 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 12 $ 850 $10,200 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 109 $ 890 $97,010 7 Roadway Excavation CY 5045 $ 110 $554,950 8 Remove Concrete CY 429 $ 340 $145,860 9 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 557 $ 140 $77,980 10 Base Repair (HMA)**** TON 1910 $ 140 $267,400 11 Slurry TON 470 $ 600 $282,000 12 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 2068 $ 130 $268,840 13 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 113,600 $113,600 14 Centerline Hardening EA 8 $ 5,000 $40,000 15 Landscape SF 23243 $ 8 $185,944 ELECTRICAL 16 New Signal EA 2 $600,000 $1,200,000 17 Signal Modifications EA 2 $250,000 $500,000 18 1 RRFB System EA 1 $45,000 $45,000 SUBTOTAL $4,579,804 19 IMinor Items (10% of Items 1-18) * LS 1 $458,000 $458,000 SUBTOTAL $5,037,804 20 1 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $504,000 $504,000 SUBTOTAL $5,541,804 CONTINGENCY(30%) ** $1,662,600 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $7,204,404 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $7,204,404 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement***= $300,000 GRAND TOTAL= $7,504,404 Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. *** Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. An additional $150K of ROW acquisition and roadway easment is estimated for the sidewalk extension. **** Assumes 8 % of project area reicieving Slurry Seal treatment will require Base Repair. General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix D Santa Ana Vision Zero 1st St (Fairview St to Bristol SO MARK THOMAS (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps, Bike Lanes, and Bike Crossings) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS PA/ED (12.5%) z N W PS&E (17.5%) RIGHT OF WAY (2%) CONSTRUCTION (19%) U TOTAL DELIVERY COST TOTAL PROJECT COST Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)* $ 5,400,000 $ 6,570,000 $ 390,000 $ 480,000 $ 5,790,000 $ 7,050,000 $ 730,000 $ 890,000 $ 1,020,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 120,000 $ 150,000 $ 1,110,000 $ 1,360,000 $ 2,980,000 $ 3,650,000 $ 81800,000 $ 10,700,000 * Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero 1st St (Fairview St to Bristol SO (Feasibility O inion of Probable Cost) MARK THOMAS ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 63 $ 8,000 $504,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 227 $ 1,230 $279,210 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 142 $ 1,040 $147,680 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 277 $ 850 $235,450 5 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 129 $ 890 $114,810 6 Roadway Excavation CY 4355 $ 110 $479,050 7 Remove Concrete CY 846 $ 340 $287,640 8 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 608 $ 140 $85,120 9 Base Repair (HMA)**** TON 2059 $ 140 $288,260 10 Slurry TON 507 $ 600 $304,200 11 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1958 $ 130 $254,540 12 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 110,700 $110,700 13 Centerline Hardening EA 8 $ 5,000 $40,000 14 Landscape SF 17616 $ 8 $140,928 DRAINAGE 15 Minor Drainage EA 8 $20,000 $160,000 SUBTOTAL $3,431,588 16 IMinor Items (10% of Items 1-15) * LS 1 $344,000 $344,000 SUBTOTAL $3,775,588 17 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-16) LS 1 $378,000 $378,000 SUBTOTAL $4,153,588 CONTINGENCY(30%) ** $1,246,100 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $5,399,688 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $5,399,688 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement***= $390,000 GRAND TOTAL= $5,789,688 Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. *** Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. *** Assumes 8% of project area reicieving Slurry Seal treatment will require Base Repair. General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix D Santa Ana Vision Zero Euclid St (Hazard Ave to McFadden Ave) MARK THOMAS (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps and Protected Corners) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)* TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 8,230,000 $ 10,010,000 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 410,000 $ 498,828 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 8,640,000 $ 10,509,000 $ 1,080,000 $ 1,320,000 $ 1,520,000 $ 1,850,000 W 0 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) * Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero Euclid St (Hazard Ave to McFadden Ave) (Feasibility O inion of Probable Cost \I MARK THOMAS ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 57 $ 8,000 $456,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 281 $ 1,230 $345,630 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 153 $ 1,040 $159,120 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 293 $ 850 $249,050 5 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 69 $ 890 $61,410 6 Cold Plane SQYD 47822 $ 6 $286,929 7 Roadway Excavation CY 3773 $ 110 $415,030 8 Remove Concrete CY 612 $ 340 $208,080 9 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 11485 $ 140 $1,607,900 10 CI-2 Aggregate Base CY 2186 $ 130 $284,180 11 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 93,700 $93,700 12 Centerline Hardening EA 12 $ 5,000 $60,000 13 Landscape SF 20174 $ 8 $161,392 ELECTRICAL 14 New Signal EA 1 $600,000 $600,000 SUBTOTALI $4,988,421 DRAINAGE 15 IMinor Drainage EA 1 12 $20,000 $240,000 SUBTOTAL $5,228,421 16 IMinor Items (10% of Items 1-15) * LS 1 $523,000 $523,000 SUBTOTAL $5,751,421 17 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-16) LS 1 $576,000 $576,000 SUBTOTAL $6,327,421 CONTINGENCY (30%)" $1,898,300 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $8,225,721 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $8,225,721 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement— `= $410,000 GRAND TOTAL= $8,635,721 Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. "' Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix D Santa Ana Vision Zero Greenville St (MacArthur Blvd to Warner Ave) MARK THOMAS (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Class II/III/IV Bikeways, Bike Crossings, Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps, Railroad improvemnts and a Lane reduction) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)* TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 7,020,000 $ 8,530,000 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 390,000 $ 474,495 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 7,410,000 $ 9,005,000 $ 930,000 $ 1,140,000 LD $ 1,300,000 $ 1,590,000 w 0 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) * Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero Greenville St (MacArthur Blvd to Warner Ave) H. .-K T::O-IAS (Feasibility O inion of Probable Cost ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 52 $ 8,000 $416,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 131 $ 1,230 $161,130 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 135 $ 1,040 $140,400 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 250 $ 850 $212,500 5 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 6 $ 850 $5,100 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 76 $ 890 $67,640 7 Cold Plane SQYD 13347 $ 6 $80,082 8 Roadway Excavation CY 2354 $ 110 $258,940 9 Remove Concrete CY 496 $ 340 $168,640 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 3420 $ 140 $478,800 11 Base Repair (HMA)**** TON 741 $ 140 $103,740 12 Slurry TON 183 $ 600 $109,800 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1005 $ 130 $130,650 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 50,800 $50,800 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Bikeway Delineators EA 181 $ 225 $40,725 17 Landscape SF 10134 $ 8 $81,072 18 Railroad Improvement LS 1 $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000 ELECTRICAL 19 Signal Modification EA 3 $250,000 $750,000 SUBTOTALI $4,276,019 DRAINAGE 20 IMinor Drainage I EA 1 9 $20,000 $180,000 SUBTOTAL $4,456,019 21 1 Minor Items (10% of Items 1-20) * LS 1 $446,000 $446,000 SUBTOTAL $4,902,019 22 1 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-21) LS 1 $491,000 $491,000 SUBTOTAL $5,393,019 CONTINGENCY (30%) ** $1,618,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $7,011,019 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $7,011,019 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement-*= $390,000 GRAND TOTAL= $794019019 Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. *** Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. An additional $50K of ROW acquisition and roadway easment is estimated for the sidewalk extension. **** Assumes 8% of project area reicieving Slurry Seal treatment will require Base Repair. General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix D Santa Ana Vision Zero \I Main St (1st St to 17th SO MARK THOMAS (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Median Islands, Curb Extensions, and Directional Curb Ramps) SUMMARY OF PROJECT COST ESTIMATE Current Year Cost Escalated Cost (2028)' TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 4,890,000 $ 5,950,000 TOTAL RIGHT OF WAY COST $ 370,000 $ 460,000 TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS $ 5,260,000 $ 6,410,000 $ 660,000 $ 810,000 $ 930,000 $ 1,140,000 w 0 RIGHT OF WAY (2%) * Assumes escalation of 4% per year. No Adjustments in escalation for time between design and construction were made. Appendix D SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero Main St (1st St to 17th SO (Feasibility O inion of Probable Cost \I MARK THOMAS ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 72 $ 8,000.00 $576,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 119 $ 1,230.00 $146,370 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 98 $ 1,040.00 $101,920 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 152 $ 850.00 $129,200 5 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 102 $ 890.00 $90,780 6 Cold Plane SQYD 35145 $ 6 $210,867 7 Roadway Excavation CY 1771 $ 110.00 $194,810 8 Remove Concrete CY 449 $ 340.00 $152,660 9 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 8256 $ 140.00 $1,155,840 10 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1048 $ 130.00 $136,240 11 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 79,700.00 $79,700 12 Landscape SF 8948 $ 8.00 $71,584 DRAINAGE 13 Tinor Drainage EA 1 3 $20,000 $60,000 SUBTOTAL $3,105,971 14 Minor Items (10% of Items 1-13) * LS 1 1 $311,000 $311,000 SUBTOTAL $3,416,971 15 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-14) LS 1 1 $342,000 $342,000 SUBTOTALI $3,758,971 CONTINGENCY(30%) ** 1 $1,127,700 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTALI $4,886,671 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $4,886,671 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement***= $370,000 GRAND TOTAL= $5,256,671 Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. This feasibility level estimate includes a 30% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. *** Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix D Attachment C - Project Renderings Appendix D SANTAANAVISION ZERO PLAN F---- Green transitional striping Landscaped median �— 5' 1 11' 1 10' 1110' 11' 10' 11' 1 5'—� �Z Santa Ana VISION ZERO SCALE: 1"= 50' SAVZ Corridor -1 st Street between Forest Avenue and Pacific Avenue 33 Appendix D Buffered bike lane Landscaped median r---- Buffered bike lane 5' W--1 l' 1 10'10, 81 10, 10'11' /1 Santa Ana VISION ZERO SCALE: V= 50' SAW Corridor - Euclid Street between West 2nd Street and West 3rd Street Appendix D ---- Buffered bike lane �—T ---1 2" 11' N A Santa Ana VISION ZERO SCALE: 1"= SO' SAVZ Corridor - Greenville Street between Meadowwood and Hall Avenue KM Appendix D 1 l' 1 10' 11' 1 10'11'8' /1 BOOM Santa Ana_ VISION ZERO SCALE: 1 "= 50' SAVZ Corridor - Main Street between 10th Street and 11 th Street 36 Appendix D SANTAANAVISION ZERO PLAN Bike lane ---- Landscaped median ---- Bike lane �-5' 1 11' 1 10' 1 10' 1 12'10, 10'11'5'—� SAVZ Corridor -Tustin Avenue north of Catalina Avenue V N Santa Ana VISION ZERO SCALE: 1"= 50' 37 Appendix D Appendix E. Cost Estimates for Projects 6-20 Santa Ana Vision Zero �� Grand Ave from Century HS to Edinger Ave --= -- _-_ (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class IV Bike Lanes, Continuous Sidewalks, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 12 $ 8,000 $96,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 15 $ 1,500 $22,500 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 21 $ 1,500 $31,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 194 $ 1,080 $209,520 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 75 $ 1,040 $78,000 6 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 150 $ 1,040 $155,897 7 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 94 $ 1,130 $106,220 8 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 33 $ 1,860 $61,380 9 Roadway Excavation CY 1381 $ 260 $359,135 10 Remove Concrete CY 750 $ 400 $299,933 11 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 295 $ 345 $101,775 12 Slurry TON 135 $ 790 $106,780 13 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 550 $ 345 $189,750 14 Raised Bike Path (HMA) TON 314 $ 345 $108,330 15 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 722 $ 180 $130,049 16 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 27,300 $27,300 17 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 18 Rubber Hump EA 101 $ 200 $20,200 19 1 Bus Stop Improvements EA 4 $ 30,000 $120,000 ELECTRICAL 20 ISignal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 DRAINAGE 21 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $180,000 $180,000 SUBTOTAL $2,674,269 22 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-21) ** LS 1 $402,000 $402,000 SUBTOTAL $3,076,269 23 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-22) LS 1 $308,000 $308,000 SUBTOTAL $3,384,269 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $1,184,500 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $4,568,769 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $4,568,769 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $210,000 GRAND TOTAL= $4,778,769 * Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. An additional $130K of roadway easment is estimated for the Continuous Sidewalk. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero Fairview St from Edinger Ave to St Andrew PI MAR•T•MAS (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class I Bike Path, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 18 $ 8,000 $144,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 21 $ 1,500 $31,500 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 128 $ 1,080 $138,024 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 81 $ 1,040 $84,240 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 37 $ 1,130 $41,810 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 15 $ 1,860 $27,900 8 Roadway Excavation CY 557 $ 260 $144,820 9 Remove Concrete CY 881 $ 400 $352,400 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 213 $ 345 $73,485 11 Slurry TON 147 $ 790 $116,130 12 Base Repair (HMA) """" TON 598 $ 345 $206,310 13 1 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 511 $ 180 $91,980 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 25,400 $25,400 15 Multi -use Path (HMA) TON 711 $ 345 $245,295 16 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 17 Rubber Hump EA 35 $ 200 $7,000 18 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000 ELECTRICAL 19 ISignal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $2,079,794 20 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-19) "" LS 1 $312,000 $312,000 SUBTOTAL $2,391,794 21 1 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-20) LS 1 $240,000 $240,000 SUBTOTAL $2,631,794 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $921,200 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $3,552,994 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $3,552,994 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement'= $400,000 GRAND TOTAL= $3,952,994 Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. An additional $300K of roadway easment is estimated for the Multi -use Path. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E Santa Ana Vision Zero Bristol St from Segerstorm Ave to Alton Ave (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class IV Bike Lanes, Continuous Sidewalks, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 21 $ 8,000 $168,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 103 $ 1,500 $154,500 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 25 $ 1,500 $37,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 189 $ 1,080 $204,120 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 66 $ 1,040 $68,640 6 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 70 $ 1,040 $72,774 7 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 128 $ 1,130 $144,640 8 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 23 $ 1,860 $42,780 9 Roadway Excavation CY 1959 $ 260 $509,340 10 Remove Concrete CY 423 $ 400 $169,200 11 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 511 $ 345 $176,295 12 Slurry TON 167 $ 790 $131,930 13 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 677 $ 345 $233,565 14 Raised Bike Path (HMA) TON 357 $ 345 $123,165 15 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 802 $ 180 $144,360 16 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 44,500 $44,500 17 Rubber Hump EA 41 $ 200 $8,200 18 Centerline Hardening EA 8 $ 5,000 $40,000 19 Bus Stop Improvements EA 1 $ 30,000 $30,000 DRAINAGE 20 1 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $201,000 $201,000 ELECTRICAL 21 ISignal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $2,954,509 22 1 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-21) ** LS 1 $444,000 $444,000 SUBTOTAL $3,398,509 23 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-22) LS 1 $340,000 $340,000 SUBTOTAL $3,738,509 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $1,308,500 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $5,047,009 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $5,047,009 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement'= $230,000 GRAND TOTAL= $5,277,009 Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. An additional $130K of roadway easment is estimated for the Continuous Sidewalk. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero 4th St from Minter St to Garfield St MART •MAS (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Curb Extensions, Directional Curb Ramps, Class IV Bike Lanes, Continuous Sidewalks, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 20 $ 8,000 $160,000 2 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 12 $ 1,500 $18,000 3 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 176 $ 1,080 $190,080 4 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 65 $ 1,040 $67,600 5 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 21 $ 1,860 $39,060 6 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 141 $ 1,040 $146,640 7 Install Concrete - Textured Paving CY 64 $ 1,130 $72,320 8 Roadway Excavation CY 1528 $ 260 $397,280 9 Remove Concrete CY 501 $ 400 $200,400 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 234 $ 345 $80,730 11 Slurry TON 68 $ 790 $53,720 12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 277 $ 345 $95,565 13 Raised Bike Path (HMA) TON 257 $ 345 $88,665 14 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 692 $ 180 $124,560 15 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 24,500 $24,500 16 Rubber Hump EA 81 $ 200 $16,200 17 Landscape SF 1496 $ 8 $11,968 DRAINAGE 18 1 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $143,000 $143,000 ELECTRICAL 19 ISignal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $2,180,288 20 1 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-19) ** LS 1 $328,000 $328,000 SUBTOTAL $2,508,288 21 1 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-20) LS 1 $251,000 $251,000 SUBTOTAL $2,759,288 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $965,800 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $3,725,088 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $3,725,088 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement`= $240,000 GRAND TOTAL= $3,965,088 Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. An additional $110K of roadway easment is estimated for the Continuous Sidewalk. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8 % of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E Santa Ana Vision Zero 17th St from Ross St to Broadway (Corridor Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class IV Bike Lanes, Continuous Sidewalks Bike Crossin s and Conflict Stri in ) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 20 $ 8,000 $160,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 102 $ 1,500 $153,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 25 $ 1,500 $37,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 156 $ 1,080 $168,480 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 69 $ 1,040 $71,760 6 Install Concrete - Driveway CY 100 $ 1,040 $104,000 7 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 161 $ 1,130 $181,930 8 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 26 $ 1,860 $48,360 9 Roadway Excavation CY 2241 $ 260 $582,660 10 Remove Concrete CY 440 $ 400 $176,000 11 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 417 $ 345 $143,865 12 Slurry TON 98 $ 790 $77,420 13 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 398 $ 345 $137,310 14 Raised Bike Path (HMA) TON 247 $ 345 $85,215 15 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1052 $ 180 $189,360 16 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 40,600 $40,600 17 Rubber Hump EA 60 $ 200 $12,000 18 Landscape SF 4809 $ 8 1 $38,472 19 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 20 Bus Stop Improvements EA 3 $ 30,000 $90,000 DRAINAGE 21 1 Drainage Improvements LS 1 $202,000 $202,000 ELECTRICAL 22 ISignal Modification EA 2 $250,000 $500,000 SUBTOTAL $3,219,932 23 1 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-22) ** LS 1 $483,000 $483,000 SUBTOTAL $3,702,932 24 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-23) LS 1 $371,000 $371,000 SUBTOTAL $4,073,932 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $1,425,900 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $5,499,832 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $5,499,832 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $220,000 GRAND TOTAL= $5,719,832 * Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. An additional $100K of roadway easment is estimated for the Continuous Sidewalk. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero Harbor Blvd and 1st St Intersection MARK THOMAS (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/II/IV Bike Facilities, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 30 $ 1,500 $45,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 12 $ 1,500 $18,000 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 19 $ 1,080 $20,520 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 35 $ 1,040 $36,400 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 48 $ 1,130 $54,240 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 9 $ 1,860 $16,740 8 Roadway Excavation CY 254 $ 260 $66,040 9 Remove Concrete CY 89 $ 400 $35,600 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 93 $ 345 $32,085 11 Slurry TON 53 $ 790 $41,870 12 1 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 215 $ 345 $74,175 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 113 $ 180 $20,340 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 8,400 $8,400 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Rubber Hump EA 1 13 $ 200 $2,600 17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 3 1 $ 30,000 $90,000 ELECTRICAL 18 ISignal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $896,010 19 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $135,000 $135,000 SUBTOTAL $1,031,010 20 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $104,000 $104,000 SUBTOTAL $1,135,010 CONTINGENCY(35%)*"* $397,300 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,532,310 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,532,310 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $40,000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,572,310 Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E Santa Ana Vision Zero 17th St and Grand Ave Intersection MARK THOMAS (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class III Bike Routes, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 34 $ 1,500 $51,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 13 $ 1,080 $14,040 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 26 $ 1,040 $27,040 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 23 $ 1,130 $25,990 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 10 $ 1,860 $18,600 8 Roadway Excavation CY 225 $ 260 $58,500 9 Remove Concrete CY 64 $ 400 $25,600 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 94 $ 345 $32,430 11 Slurry TON 50 $ 790 $39,500 12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 201 $ 345 $69,345 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 90 $ 180 $16,200 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 15,900 $15,900 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Rubber Hump EA 4 $ 200 $800 17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000 ELECTRICAL 18 ISignal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $808,445 19 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $122,000 $122,000 SUBTOTAL $930,445 20 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $94,000 $94,000 SUBTOTALI $1,024,445 CONTINGENCY(35%) *** 1 $358,600 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTALI $1,383,045 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,383,045 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $40,000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,423,045 Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero U Harbor Blvd and McFadden Ave Intersection MARKTHOMAS (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/IV Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 32 $ 1,500 $48,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 20 $ 1,080 $21,600 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 43 $ 1,040 $44,720 6 1 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 68 $ 1,130 $76,840 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 13 $ 1,860 $24,180 8 Roadway Excavation CY 273 $ 260 $70,980 9 Remove Concrete CY 104 $ 400 $41,600 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 99 $ 345 $34,155 11 Slurry TON 47 $ 790 $37,130 12 1 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 192 $ 345 $66,240 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 138 $ 180 $24,840 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 7,100 $7,100 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Rubber Hump EA 31 $ 200 $6,200 17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000 ELECTRICAL 18 ISignal Modification EA 1 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $917,085 19 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $138,000 $138,000 SUBTOTAL $1,055,085 20 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $106,000 $106,000 SUBTOTAL $1,161,085 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $406,400 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,567,485 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,567,485 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $40,000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,607,485 * Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. * Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. *** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E Santa Ana Vision Zero 1st St and Flower St Intersection „AFKT„C„aS (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 19 $ 1,500 $28,500 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 13 $ 1,080 $14,040 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 21 $ 1,040 $21,840 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 29 $ 1,130 $32,770 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 12 $ 1,860 $22,320 8 Roadway Excavation CY 192 $ 260 $49,920 9 Remove Concrete CY 54 $ 400 $21,600 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 65 $ 345 $22,425 11 Slurry TON 45 $ 790 $35,550 12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 180 $ 345 $62,100 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 75 $ 180 $13,500 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 14,000 $14,000 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Rubber Hump EA 14 $ 200 $2,800 17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 1 $ 30,000 $30,000 ELECTRICAL 18 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $724,865 19 Minor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $109,000 $109,000 SUBTOTAL $833,865 20 Mobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $84,000 $84,000 SUBTOTAL $917,865 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $321,300 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,239,165 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,239,165 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement`= $40,000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,279,165 * Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. An additional $300K of roadway easment is estimated for the Multi -use Path. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero Edinger Ave and Maple St Intersection MARKTHOMAS (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Directional Curb Ramps, Class II Bike Lanes, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 6 $ 8,000 $48,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 20 $ 1,500 $30,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 19 $ 1,500 $28,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 19 $ 1,080 $20,520 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 31 $ 1,040 $32,240 6 1 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 4 $ 1,130 $4,520 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 58 $ 1,860 $107,880 8 Roadway Excavation CY 366 $ 260 $95,160 9 Remove Concrete CY 80 $ 400 $32,000 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 62 $ 345 $21,390 11 Slurry TON 32 $ 790 $25,280 12 Base Repair (HMA) "" TON 128 $ 345 $44,160 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 137 $ 180 $24,660 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 5,700 $5,700 15 Landscape SF 2440 $ 8 $19,520 16 Rubber Hump EA 9 $ 200 $1,800 17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 1 $ 30,000 $30,000 DRAINAGE 18 1Minor Drainage LS 1 $20,000 $20,000 SUBTOTAL $591,330 19 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-18) " LS 1 $89,000 $89,000 SUBTOTAL $680,330 20 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $69,000 $69,000 SUBTOTAL $749,330 CONTINGENCY (35%) "' $262,300 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,011,630 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,011,630 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement'= $50,000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,061,630 ' Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. " Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. "' This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E Santa Ana Vision Zero Segerstrom Ave and Bear St Intersection MARKTHOMAS (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/IV Bike Lanes, and Bike Crossings) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 6 $ 8,000 $48,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 28 $ 1,500 $42,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 7 $ 1,500 $10,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 11 $ 1,080 $11,880 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 20 $ 1,040 $20,800 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 29 $ 1,130 $32,770 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 5 $ 1,860 $9,300 8 Roadway Excavation CY 250 $ 260 $65,000 9 Remove Concrete CY 52 $ 400 $20,800 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 74 $ 345 $25,530 11 Slurry TON 30 $ 790 $23,700 12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 121 $ 345 $41,745 13 1 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 74 $ 180 $13,320 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 5,000 $5,000 15 Centerline Hardening EA 3 $ 5,000 $15,000 16 Landscape SF 1130 $ 8 $9,040 ELECTRICAL 17 ISignal Modification I EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $644,385 18 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-17) ** LS 1 $97,000 $97,000 SUBTOTAL $741,385 19 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-18) LS 1 $75,000 $75,000 SUBTOTAL $816,385 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $285,800 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,102,185 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,102,185 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $40,000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,142,185 * Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero Flower St and MacArthur Blvd Intersection MART OMAS (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class III Bike Routes, and Bike Crossings) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 33 $ 1,500 $49,500 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 14 $ 1,500 $21,000 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 21 $ 1,080 $22,680 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 25 $ 1,040 $26,000 6 1 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 27 $ 1,130 $30,510 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 15 $ 1,860 $27,900 8 Roadway Excavation CY 222 $ 260 $57,720 9 Remove Concrete CY 72 $ 400 $28,800 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 103 $ 345 $35,535 11 Slurry TON 39 $ 790 $30,810 12 1 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 160 $ 345 $55,200 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 100 $ 180 $18,000 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 4,900 $4,900 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000 ELECTRICAL 17 1 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $802,555 18 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-17) ** LS 1 $121,000 $121,000 SUBTOTAL $923,555 19 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-18) LS 1 $93,000 $93,000 SUBTOTAL $1,016,555 CONTINGENCY (35%)*** $355,800 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,372,355 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,372,355 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $40,000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,412,355 Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E Santa Ana Vision Zero MacArthur Blvd and Raitt St Intersection MARK K THOMAS (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class IV Bike Lanes, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 30 $ 1,500 $45,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 19 $ 1,500 $28,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 16 $ 1,080 $17,280 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 28 $ 1,040 $29,120 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 52 $ 1,130 $58,760 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 24 $ 1,860 $44,640 8 Roadway Excavation CY 256 $ 260 $66,560 9 Remove Concrete CY 71 $ 400 $28,400 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 98 $ 345 $33,810 11 Slurry TON 42 $ 790 $33,180 12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 170 $ 345 $58,650 13 1 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 1 120 $ 180 $21,600 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 7,100 $7,100 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000 ELECTRICAL 17 ISignal Modification I EA 1 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $866,600 18 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-17) ** LS 1 1 $130,000 $130,000 SUBTOTAL $996,600 19 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-18) LS 1 1 $100,000 $100,000 SUBTOTAL $1,096,600 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $383,900 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,480,500 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,480,500 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $40,000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,520,500 * Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. ** Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. **** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN Santa Ana Vision Zero �� Dyer Rd and Flower St Intersection (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/III Bike Facilities, Bike Crossings, and Conflict Striping) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE TOTAL ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 8 $ 8,000 $64,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 27 $ 1,500 $40,500 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 13 $ 1,080 $14,040 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 21 $ 1,040 $21,840 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 38 $ 1,130 $42,940 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 8 $ 1,860 $14,880 8 Roadway Excavation CY 191 $ 260 $49,660 9 Remove Concrete CY 38 $ 400 $15,200 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 76 $ 345 $26,220 11 Slurry TON 36 $ 790 $28,440 12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 145 $ 345 $50,025 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 85 $ 180 $15,300 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 5,000 $5,000 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000 ELECTRICAL 17 1 Signal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $737,545 18 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-17) ** LS 1 $111,000 $111,000 SUBTOTAL $848,545 19 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-18) LS 1 $85,000 $85,000 SUBTOTAL $933,545 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $326,800 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTALI $1,260,345 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,260,345 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $409000 GRAND TOTAL= $1,300,345 Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $1001-ocation. * Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. *** 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, gas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E Santa Ana Vision Zero �� Flower St and Alton Ave Intersection - - - (Intersection Safety Enhancements including: Protected Corners, Directional Curb Ramps, Centerline Hardening, Class II/IV Bike Lanes, and Bike Crossings) ITEM No. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT PRICE ROADWAY 1 Install Concrete - Curb Ramp EA 9 $ 8,000 $72,000 2 Install Concrete - Median Curb CY 8 $ 1,500 $12,000 3 Install Concrete - Truck Apron Curb CY 13 $ 1,500 $19,500 4 Install Concrete - Curb and Gutter CY 21 $ 1,080 $22,680 5 Install Concrete - Sidewalk CY 35 $ 1,04 $$36,400 6 Install Concrete - Textured Pavment CY 14 $ 1,130 $15,820 7 Install Concrete - Truck Apron CY 11 $ 1,860 $20,460 8 Roadway Excavation CY 288 $ 260 $74,880 9 Remove Concrete CY 71 $ 400 $28,400 10 Hot Mix Asphalt TON 110 $ 345 $37,950 11 Slurry TON 30 $ 790 $23,700 12 Base Repair (HMA) **** TON 124 $ 345 $42,780 13 CL2 Aggregate Base CY 68 $ 180 $12,240 14 Signing and Striping LS 1 $ 4,500 $4,500 15 Centerline Hardening EA 4 $ 5,000 $20,000 16 Rubber Hump EA 23 $ 200 $4,600 17 Bus Stop Improvements EA 2 $ 30,000 $60,000 ELECTRICAL 18 ISignal Modification EA 1 $250,000 $250,000 SUBTOTAL $757,910 19 IMinor Items (15% of Items 1-18) ** LS 1 $114,000 $114,000 SUBTOTAL $871,910 20 IMobilization (10% of Items 1-19) LS 1 $88,000 $88,000 SUBTOTAL $959,910 CONTINGENCY (35%) *** $336,000 CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $1,295,910 GRAND TOTAL CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL= $1,295,910 Right of Way/Temporary Construction Easement*= $40,000 GRANDTOTALzJ $1,335,910 Right of way/TCE's for driveway closures, curb ramps, new signal equipment, conforms, etc. have been estimated at $10K/Location. Minor items (for example, fencing, signage, sidewalk repair, utility adjustments, etc.) have been estimated by using a percentage. *** This feasibility level estimate includes a 35% contingency intended to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information. 8% of project area is assumed to require Base Repair General Note: Where applicable, only minor drainage improvements for transportation projects to address safety are included. Utility improvements such as water, communication, qas, etc. are not included in these estimates. Appendix E Appendix F. Priority Projects and Equity Map SANTAANA VISION ZERO PLAN of v J.CO w, a m �1 O 1... 1 m r H z < ¢ z W 5TH ST z 1 O 1 F- CalEnviroScreen 4 w Score Percent o O mc 0-10 W w j z >10 - 20 i.._. u' 1.._.._....y >20 - 30 1h.............. i _ >30 - 40 >40 - 50 >50 - 60 >60 - 70 >70 - 80 >80 - 90 >90 - 100 Corridor Projects 1 to 5 Intersection Projects Corridor Projects 6to10 Santa Ana Boundary 0 0 0.25 0.5 1 Miles '1 i�r>>� J i Z o W 17TH ST E 17TH ST O m z O O 1 z m Z > A Irk z Z� z 0 z CIVIC CENTER DR W y0 < D O O A U) W SANTAANA BLVD N, z E 4TH ST O z A WISTST O E1STST z co 0 1 W W J •_ W MCFADDEN AV pp LL E MCFADDEN AV U) F > ¢ W EDINGER AV ¢ � O ¢ E EDINGERAV 441 z c� i J w ¢ ' F �♦ � co U) z J ♦� O C W WARNER AV U) E WARNER AV e`♦C II m Cn W SEGERSTROM AV O E DYER RD > O O E ALTON AV in ALTON AV E COLUMBINE AV FyC�♦ m i W MACARTHUR BLVD Ir UJ �.♦ �..s.._.._...P_..........._... �I' CO SUNFLOWER AV Appendix F II m Cn W SEGERSTROM AV O E DYER RD > O O E ALTON AV in ALTON AV E COLUMBINE AV FyC�♦ m i W MACARTHUR BLVD Ir UJ �.♦ �..s.._.._...P_..........._... �I' CO SUNFLOWER AV Appendix F