HomeMy WebLinkAbout02242022 PTS Commission AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,
please contact the office of the City Clerk (951) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City
to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting [28 CFR 35 .102.35.104 ADA Title II].
AGENDA
TEMECULA PUBLIC / TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
FEBRUARY 24, 2022 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Richardson
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Sullivan
ROLL CALL: Ackerman, Carter, Matics, Richardson, Sullivan
PUBLIC COMMENT
A total of 30 minutes is provided for members of the public to address the Commission on matters not
listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at
the meeting by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary or by submitting an email to be
read aloud into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to
PublicTrafficSafetyCommission@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in-person comments will be called
in the order received by the Commission Secretary and then, if time remains, email comments will be
read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public
comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at
Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine and all will be enacted by one
roll call vote. There will be no discussion of these items unless members of the Commission request
specific items be removed from the Consent Calendar for separate action. A total of 30 minutes is
provided for members of the public to address the Commission on items that appear on the Consent
Calendar. Each speaker is limited to 3 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting
by submitting a speaker card to the Commission Secretary or by submitting an email to be read aloud
into the record at the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to
PublicTrafficSafetyCommission@temeculaca.gov. Speaker cards for in-person comments will be called
in the order received by the Commission Secretary and then, if time remains, email comments will be
read. Email comments on all matters must be received prior to the time the item is called for public
comments. All public participation is governed by the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at
Meetings adopted by Resolution No. 2021-54.
Page 1
Public / Traffic Safety Commission Agenda February 24, 2022
1.Approve Action Minutes of January 27, 2022
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission approve the Action Minutes of
January 27, 2022.
Recommendation:
Action MinutesAttachments:
BUSINESS
Members of the public may address the Commission on Business items that appear on the agenda. Each
speaker is limited to 5 minutes. Public comments may be made in person at the meeting by submitting a
speaker card to the Commission Secretary or by submitting an email to be read aloud into the record at
the meeting. Email comments must be submitted to PublicTrafficSafetyCommission@temeculaca .gov.
Speaker cards for in-person comments will be called in the order received by the Commission Secretary
and then, if time remains, email comments will be read. Email comments on all matters must be
received prior to the time the item is called for public comments. All public participation is governed by
the Council Policy regarding Public Participation at Meetings adopted by Resolution No . 2021-54.
2.Budget Engagement Session
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the report.Recommendation:
Agenda ReportAttachments:
3.Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission elect a Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson to preside through the 2022 Calendar Year.
Recommendation:
Agenda ReportAttachments:
4.Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Report
That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend approval of the
Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Report .
Recommendation:
Agenda Report
City of Temecula Local Road Safety Plan
Attachments:
DIVISION REPORT (Receive and File)
5.California Highway Patrol Report
California Highway Patrol Report: January 2022Attachments:
6.Fire Chief's Report
Fire Chief's Report: January 2022Attachments:
Page 2
Public / Traffic Safety Commission Agenda February 24, 2022
7.Police Chief's Report
Police Chief's Report: January 2022Attachments:
8.Traffic Engineer's Report
Traffic Engineer's Report: December 2021
Traffic Engineer's Report: January 2022
Attachments:
DIRECTOR REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
The next regular meeting of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission will be held on Thursday, March 24,
2022, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers located at 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC
The full agenda packet (including staff reports and any supplemental material available after the original posting
of the agenda), distributed to a majority of the Public/Traffic Safety Commission regarding any item on the
agenda, will be available for public viewing in the main reception area of the Temecula Civic Center during
normal business hours at least 72 hours prior to the meeting. The material will also be available on the City's
website at TemeculaCa.gov. and available for review at the respective meeting. If you have questions regarding
any item on the agenda, please contact the Public Works Department at (951) 694-6444.
Page 3
1
ACTION MINUTES
TEMECULA PUBLIC / TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
41000 MAIN STREET
TEMECULA, CALIFORNIA
JANUARY 27, 2022 - 6:00 PM
CALL TO ORDER at 6:00 PM: Chairperson Richardson
FLAG SALUTE: Commissioner Carter
SWEARING IN: Eric Ackerman
ROLL CALL: Ackerman, Carter, Matics, Richardson, Sullivan
PRESENTATIONS: None
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Action Minutes of December 7, 2021
Recommendation: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission approve the Action Minutes
of December 7, 2021.
Approved Staff Recommendation (3-0; Sullivan and Ackerman abstained): Motion by Carter,
Second by Matics. The vote reflected unanimous approval with Sullivan and Ackerman
abstaining.
BUSINESS
2. Traffic Calming on Wolf Creek Drive South – Stop Controls Analysis
Recommendation: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission:
1. Recommend the City Council adopt a Resolution establishing Multi-Way Stop
Controls at the intersection of Wolf Creek Drive South and Teton Trail/Fireside
Drive.
2. Recommend staff implement striped pedestrian crosswalks at intersection of Wolf
Creek Drive South and Teton Trail/Fireside Drive pending City Council adoption
of Multi-Way Stop Controls.
Approved Staff Recommendation (5-0): Motion by Sullivan, Second by Carter. The vote
reflected unanimous approval.
2
DIVISION REPORTS (Receive and File)
5. California Highway Patrol’s Report
6. Fire Chief's Report
7. Police Chief's Report
8. Traffic Engineer’s Report
DIRECTOR REPORT
COMMISSIONER REPORTS
ADJOURNMENT
At 6:39 PM, the Public/Traffic Safety Commission meeting was formally adjourned to Thursday,
February 24, 2021, at 6:00 PM, in the Council Chambers, 41000 Main Street, Temecula, California.
James J. Richardson, Chairperson
Patrick A. Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
PUBLIC TRAFFIC/SAFETY COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance
DATE: February 24, 2022
SUBJECT: Budget Engagement Session
PREPARED BY: Jennifer Hennessy, Director of Finance
RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission receive and file the
report.
BACKGROUND: Each year in February, City staff begins the development of the
Annual Operating Budget and the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP), which include
Budget Engagement Sessions with each of the City’s Boards and Commissions. These sessions
are designed to engage the Board and Commission members and community early in the
development of the Annual Operating and Capital Improvement Program Budget process.
Feedback obtained through the Budget Engagement Sessions is utilized to support programs,
projects and events that are recommended in the Proposed Budget and CIP. The aggregated
feedback from these sessions will be reported back to the City Council in their Budget Workshop
held in May.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
1
PUBLIC TRAFFIC/SAFETY COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: February 24, 2022
SUBJECT Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson
PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II
RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission elect a Chairperson and
Vice-Chairperson to preside through the 2022 Calendar Year.
BACKGROUND: Annually, the Commission elects a member to serve as Chairperson
and Vice-Chairperson. The appointment to the position becomes effective at the meeting of March
24, 2022. The newly elected Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson will preside through the 2022
calendar year.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
1
PUBLIC TRAFFIC/SAFETY COMMISSION
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Public/Traffic Safety Commission
FROM: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
DATE: February 24, 2022
SUBJECT Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Report
PREPARED BY: Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II
Nick Minicilli, Senior Traffic Engineer
RECOMMENDATION: That the Public/Traffic Safety Commission recommend approval of
the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) Report.
BACKGROUND: The Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) is a comprehensive plan to
reduce fatal and severe collisions, it is required for eligibility of state and federal grant programs.
The LRSP creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze roadway safety problems
and recommend prioritized safety improvements through collision analysis and collaborative
input. The initial data for the Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) was presented to the Public Traffic
Safety Commission at the meeting of October 28th, 2021 by STC Traffic. Additionally, staff
received feedback from Commissioners via a stakeholder feedback packet following the October
28th meeting. That information has been documented in the LRSP. Staff recommends the
Commission approve the full report for presentation to Council.
FISCAL IMPACT: None.
ATTACHMENTS: 1 - City of Temecula Local Road Safety Plan
LOCAL ROAD
SAFETY PLAN
February 2022 Report
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
City of Temecula Team
Nick Minicilli, Senior Civil Engineer
Erick Escobedo, Assistant Engineer II
Safety Partners
Temecula Public / Traffic Safety Commission (PTSC)
Robert Carter, Commissioner
James J. Richardson, Commissioner
Bradley Sullivan, Commissioner
David Matics, Commissioner
Temecula Police Department / Riverside County Sheriff's Department
Consultant Team
STC Traffic
Jason Stack, Principal Manager
Stephen Manganiello, Project Manager
Ashley Adamos, Project Engineer
Myles Baidy, Project Engineer
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Temecula at a Glance .................................................................................................................... 2
1.2 City Initiatives ................................................................................................................................ 4
1.3 Local Road Safety Plan Process ..................................................................................................... 5
1.4 Local Road Safety Plan Vision, Mission, and Goals ....................................................................... 5
1.5 Safety Partners .............................................................................................................................. 6
2 Collision Analysis .............................................................................................................. 9
2.1 Crash Data and Methodology ....................................................................................................... 9
2.2 Annual Trends ............................................................................................................................... 9
2.3 Equivalent Property Damage Only Scoring (EPDO) ..................................................................... 35
2.4 Key Findings ................................................................................................................................ 50
3 Countermeasure Toolbox ............................................................................................... 51
3.1 Engineering ................................................................................................................................. 52
3.2 Education .................................................................................................................................... 57
3.3 Enforcement ............................................................................................................................... 61
3.4 Emergency Response .................................................................................................................. 64
3.5 Emerging Technology .................................................................................................................. 65
3.6 2020-2024 California SHSP Implementation Plan ....................................................................... 66
4 Priority Projects .............................................................................................................. 68
4.1 Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Upgrades ............................................................ 68
4.2 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades ................................................................................ 68
4.3 Installation of Dynamic Variable Speed Warning Systems ......................................................... 68
4.4 Signal Timing and Communication Upgrades ............................................................................. 68
5 Implementation and Evaluation ..................................................................................... 70
5.1 Implementation .......................................................................................................................... 70
5.2 Evaluation ................................................................................................................................... 71
5.3 Future LRSP Updates ................................................................................................................... 71
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | iii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A ................................................................................................... Stakeholder Packet Responses
Appendix B ........................................................................ California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Rankings
Appendix C ....................................................................................... Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
Appendix D ......................................................................................................... Priority Project Summaries
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1 Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 1-2 Study Area .................................................................................................................................... 3
Figure 2-1 Annual Crash Trend (2016-2020) ............................................................................................... 10
Figure 2-2 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2016-2020) .................................................................... 13
Figure 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2016-2020) .................................................................... 14
Figure 2-4. Citywide Fatal and Severe Collisions (2016-2020) .................................................................... 15
Figure 2-5. Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2016-2020) ........................................................................ 17
Figure 2-6. Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation Category (2016-2020) ..................... 20
Figure 2-7. Unsafe Speed Related Collisions by Roadway User Involvement and Severity (2016-2020) ... 25
Figure 2-8. Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020) ............................................. 26
Figure 2-9 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020) ............................................................... 28
Figure 2-10 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020) ...................... 29
Figure 2-11. Motorcycle Collisions by Severity (2016-2020) ...................................................................... 32
Figure 2-12 Crash Severity by Time Period (2016-2020) ............................................................................. 33
Figure 2-13. Citywide Nighttime Crashes (2016-2020) ............................................................................... 34
Figure 2-14 Citywide EPDO Scoring ............................................................................................................ 36
Figure 2-15 Signalized Intersections EPDO Scoring .................................................................................... 40
Figure 2-16 Priority Signalized Intersections .............................................................................................. 41
Figure 2-17 Unsignalized Intersections EPDO Scoring ................................................................................ 43
Figure 2-18 Priority Unsignalized Intersections .......................................................................................... 44
Figure 2-19 Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring ........................................................................................... 48
Figure 2-20 Priority Roadway Segments ..................................................................................................... 49
Figure 3-1 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2016-2020) .................................................... 63
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 City of Temecula OTS Crash Rankings (2016-2018) .................................................................... 11
Table 2-2 OTS Crash Rankings (2018) ......................................................................................................... 11
Table 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2016-2020) ..................................................................... 12
Table 2-4. Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2016-2020) .................................................................... 13
Table 2-5. Citywide Crash Severity by Location (2016-2020) ..................................................................... 16
Table 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2016-2020) .......................................................................... 16
Table 2-7 Citywide Crash Type by Severity (2016-2020) ............................................................................ 17
Table 2-8 Citywide Crash Type by Location (2016-2020) ............................................................................ 18
Table 2-9 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation Category (2016-2020) ....................... 19
Table 2-10 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2016-2020) ...................................... 21
Table 2-11 Citywide Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Location (2016-2020) ...................... 22
Table 2-12 Unsafe Speed Crash Type by Location (2016-2020) ................................................................. 23
Table 2-13 Unsafe Speed Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020) ........................................ 24
Table 2-14 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020) .............................................. 26
Table 2-15 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020) ............................................................... 27
Table 2-16 Motorcycle Crash Severity (2016-2020) ................................................................................... 30
Table 2-17 Motorcycle Crash Location (2016-2020) ................................................................................... 30
Table 2-18 Motorcycle Crash Type (2016-2020) ......................................................................................... 30
Table 2-19 Motorcycle Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2016-2020) ................... 31
Table 2-20 Citywide Nighttime Collision Severity by Location (2016-2020) ............................................... 33
Table 2-21 Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type .......................................................................... 37
Table 2-22 Top Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score ............................................................... 38
Table 2-23 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score........................................................... 42
Table 2-24 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score........................................................... 45
Table 3-1 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures .................................................................................. 53
Table 3-2 Non-signalized Intersection Countermeasures ........................................................................... 54
Table 3-3 Roadway Countermeasures ........................................................................................................ 55
Table 4-1 Priority Projects ........................................................................................................................... 69
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | v
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADA .............................................................................................................. Americans with Disabilities Act
ARIDE ............................................................................ Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement
BCR ................................................................................................................................... Benefit Cost Ratio
CA ................................................................................................................................................... California
CalSTA ............................................................................................. California State Transportation Agency
Caltrans ......................................................................................... California Department of Transportation
CHP ....................................................................................................................... California Highway Patrol
CMF ..................................................................................................................... Crash Modification Factor
CRF ........................................................................................................................... Crash Reduction Factor
DRE .................................................................................................................. Drug Recognition Evaluation
DUI ..................................................................................................................... Driving Under the Influence
DUITT ................................................................................... Driving Under the Influence Terminator Team
DVMT .............................................................................................................. Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled
EPDO ....................................................................................................... Equivalent Property Damage Only
EVPE .......................................................................................................... Emergency Vehicle Pre-emption
FHWA ........................................................................................................ Federal Highway Administration
GIS ............................................................................................................... Geographic Information System
GPS ...................................................................................................................... Global Positioning System
HAWK ....................................................................................... High-Intensity Activated Crosswalk Beacon
HOA ..................................................................................................................... Home Owners Association
HSIP ................................................................................................ Highway Safety Improvement Program
IISNS ............................................................................................... Internally Illuminated Street Name Sign
IR ...................................................................................................................................................... Infrared
LED ............................................................................................................................... Light Emitting Diode
LPI ...................................................................................................................... Leading Pedestrian Interval
LRSM ............................................................................................................. Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSP ........................................................................................................................... Local Road Safety Plan
NACE ............................................................................................ National Association of County Engineers
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | vi
NHTSA ............................................................................... National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NCSR ........................................................................................................ National Coalition for Safer Roads
OTS .............................................................................................................. Office of Transportation Safety
PCF ......................................................................................................................... Primary Collission Factor
PDO ........................................................................................................................... Property Damage Only
PSC ............................................................................................................... Proven Safety Countermeasure
PTSC ........................................................................................................ Public / Traffic Safety Commission
RCSD ................................................................................................ Riverside County Sheriff’s Department
RRFB ...................................................................................................... Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
RSO ......................................................................................................................... Riverside Sheriff’s Office
SCAG ................................................................................ Southern California Association of Governments
SHSP .............................................................................................................. Strategic Highway Safety Plan
SIC ......................................................................................................................... Signal Interconnect Cable
SWITRS .................................................................................. Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System
TIMS ................................................................................................ Transportation Injury Mapping System
TNC ......................................................................................................... Transportation Network Company
TPD .................................................................................................................. Temecula Police Department
TRIP .............................................................................................................. Traffic Restrictions In Progress
TSM ........................................................................................................................ Traffic Safety Marketing
USDOT ................................................................................... United States Department of Transportation
V2I ......................................................................................................................... Vehicle-to-Infrastructure
V2P ............................................................................................................................. Vehicle-to-Pedestrian
V2V ................................................................................................................................... Vehicle-to-Vehicle
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | vii
The Temecula Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) was prepared within the governance of United States Code
Title 23, Section 148 – Highway Safety Improvement Program (h) (4): “DISCOVERY AND
ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION.- Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose
relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State
court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence
at a location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.” [23 U.S.C.
§148(h) (4)]
United States Code Title 23, Section 409 – Discovery and Admission of Evidence of Certain
Reports and Surveys: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or
data compiled or collected for the purpose of identifying, evaluating, or planning the safety enhancement
of potential accident sites, hazardous roadway conditions, or railway-highway crossings, pursuant to
sections 130, 144, and 148 of this title or for the purpose of developing any highway safety construction
improvement project which may be implemented utilizing Federal-aid highway funds shall not be subject
to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other
purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at a location mentioned or addressed in
such reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data.” [23 U.S.C. §409]
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 1
1 INTRODUCTION
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) established the
Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) program in 2019 to provide funding to
local agencies for developing a framework for identifying, analyzing, and
prioritizing roadway safety improvements. The LRSP program was
developed to contribute to the success of the 2020-2024 California
Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) which provides a statewide,
comprehensive, data-driven effort to reduce fatalities and serious
injuries across all travel modes and on all public roads, while addressing
the unique safety needs in their jurisdictions. The California SHSP
includes strategies based on the “5E’s” of traffic safety (Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging
Technologies) and addresses 16 challenge areas:
• Aggressive Driving
• Aging Drivers (>65)
• Bicyclists
• Commercial Vehicles
• Distracted Driving
• Driver Licensing
• Emergency Response
• Emerging Technologies
• Impaired Driving
• Intersections
• Lane Departures
• Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Pedestrians
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers (15-20)
The City of Temecula was selected as one of 273 local agencies statewide to receive LRSP funding, as of
October 2021. Development of the Temecula LRSP will qualify the City to meet Caltrans eligibility
requirements for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding, which will be required for
Cycle 11 and is anticipated in April 2022. The City has been pursuing HSIP grant funding for roadway safety
infrastructure improvements since 2015 during Cycle 7 and has been successful in obtaining over $2.6
million in HSIP grant awards.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 2
Figure 1‐1 Vicinity Map
1.1 Temecula at a Glance
Temecula is a City located in the southwestern portion of Riverside County and is bounded by the City of
Murrieta, unincorporated San Diego County, and unincorporated Riverside County lands, as illustrated in
Figure 1‐1. The City encompasses 37.3 square miles and is traversed north‐south by Interstate 15 (I‐15) in
the western part of the City and California State Route 79 (SR‐79) / Temecula Parkway in the southern
part of the City. Temecula operates and maintains 127 signalized intersections and 395 paved lane miles
of public streets. Figure 1‐2 illustrates the project study area. Temecula has a population of approximately
of 110,000 according to 2020 Census estimates and is the fifth largest City in the Riverside County.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 3
Figure 1-2 Study Area
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 4
1.2 City Initiatives
The City has been proactive in establishing plans, programs, and policies that support prioritizing roadway
decongestion and safety. The City’s commitment has been documented in the City’s General Plan, Quality
of Life Master Plan 2030, and Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan. The development of the
Temecula LRSP supports the existing documentation and the overarching vision to create a safer and more
efficient community. The following are descriptions of current plans and policies that demonstrate the
City’s commitment to improving their roadway system and safety for all users that co-align with the vision
and goals of this LRSP.
General Plan
The City’s General Plan was initially created in 1993 and most recently updated in 2005. The General Plan
identifies reducing traffic congestion and striving for efficient traffic circulation and transportation as one
of the City’s primary goals. Additionally, the plan recognizes the need to promote safe and efficient
alternatives to motorized travel throughout the City which is shown through policies such as:
• Installing traffic calming measures on residential streets.
• Establishing public education and enforcement programs to promote safe driving on the
community.
• Requiring vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic be separated to the maximum extent
feasible.
Quality of Life Master Plan
The Quality of Life Master Plan reflects the vision, long-term goals, and strategic priorities of Temecula’s
residents, leaders, and partners of the City of Temecula. The plan is a crucial part of not only maintaining
the City’s quality of life, but also in taking a proactive approach to identify specific community needs,
goals, and possible improvements. The Plan identifies transportation as a focus area for improvement in
order to provide equitable, safe mode choices for all, including vulnerable roadway users.
Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan
The City adopted the Multi-Use Trails and Bikeways Master Plan in 2016 to promote a safe, convenient,
and efficient environment for bicycle and pedestrian travel that encourages the use of public streets and
off-street facilities. The Plan provides a comprehensive implementation strategy for the City of Temecula
that identifies connecting urban trails / sidewalks between high-priority neighborhoods and key
community destinations such as parks and recreation, hospitals, and local retail in Temecula.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 5
1.3 Local Road Safety Plan Process
Development of the Temecula LRSP follows Caltrans guidelines, which are based on the United States
Department of Transportation (USDOT) Federal Highway administration (FHWA)’s cyclical six-step
process:
1. ESTABLISH LEADERSHIP:
• Establish local partnerships with representatives from the 5E’s of traffic safety:
engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging technologies
• Define Temecula LRSP vision, mission, and goals
2. ANALYZE SAFETY DATA:
• Crash and Roadway Data Collection
• Crash Data Analysis
• Roadway Network Screening
3. DETERMINE EMPHASIS AREAS:
• Identify priority areas based on crash data analysis and roadway network screening
4. IDENTIFY STRATEGIES:
• Identify safety countermeasures and strategies
• Develop countermeasure toolbox
5. PRIORITIZE AND INCORPORATE STRATEGIES:
• Apply countermeasures and strategies to develop safety projects
• Evaluate and prioritize safety projects by benefit cost ratio
• Implement roadway safety improvement projects and programs
6. EVALUATE AND UPDATE:
• Monitor progress of roadway safety improvement projects and programs
• Evaluate success of countermeasure toolbox, projects, and programs
• Review LRSP and update to reflect local changing needs and priorities
1.4 Local Road Safety Plan Vision, Mission, and Goals
The Temecula Local Road Safety Plan was developed based on alignment with the California SHSP, Caltrans
LRSP and HSIP programs, feedback from safety partners from the 5E’s of traffic safety (Engineering,
Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies), and the City’s existing safety
plans, policies, and efforts. The Plan is guided by the core principles that strive to alleviate traffic
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 6
congestion, reduce traffic fatalities and severe injuries, and provide a safe roadway system for all roadway
users including vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The following sub-section identifies the key Vision,
Mission, and Goals set forth in the Temecula LRSP.
VISION Provide a safe roadway system for all Temecula roadway users including vehicles,
pedestrians, and bicyclists
MISSION Systemically implement proven safety countermeasures based on the 5E’s of traffic
safety (engineering, enforcement, education, emergency response, and emerging
technologies) to improve safety and reduce crashes on Temecula roadways
GOALS • Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes towards zero
• Reduce collision severity by reducing crashes that involve pedestrians, bicyclists,
and/or alcohol or drug impairment
• Reduce collisions that involve rear end, broadside, and hit object
• Reduce collisions that are primarily caused by unsafe speed, improper turning, and
automobile right-of-way violations
• Engage with Safety Partners from the 5E’s of traffic safety to create a culture
within the City of Temecula that plans, designs, and implements roadway safety
strategies identified in the Temecula LRSP
1.5 Safety Partners
Local safety partners representing the 5E’s of traffic safety (engineering, enforcement, education,
emergency response, and emerging technologies) were engaged to collaboratively address roadway
safety in Temecula. Participants included representatives from:
• Temecula Public / Traffic Safety Commission (PTSC)
• Temecula Public Works Department
• Temecula Traffic Engineering Division
• Temecula Police Department
Three safety partner meetings were conducted and the crash data analysis, further discussed in Section 2
of the LRSP, was reviewed for annual citywide trends for cash location, severity, type, primary collision
factor, and roadway user involvement. Priority locations for signalized intersections, unsignalized
intersections, and roadway segments were presented. Outreach packets were distributed to the safety
partners which included LRSP program background information, citywide crash analysis and network
screening results, identified priority locations, and requests for feedback.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 7
Feedback was obtained on the priority areas identified through collision data analysis and areas with
safety issues that did not have a history of reported collisions but are known by the safety partners to
have frequent observance of “near-misses” or observance of high-risk behaviors such as vehicular
speeding or pedestrian jaywalking, particularly around Temecula schools. Appendix A provides a summary
of the stakeholder packet feedback responses from the safety partners which generally included:
• Desire for pedestrian safety improvements including pedestrian countdown heads; ADA
enhancements citywide; pedestrian crossing enhancements especially near schools; intersection
lighting; safe routes to schools and parks; and new sidewalks, multi-use paths, and trails.
• Desire for bicycle safety improvements including conducting bicycle rodeos and community
bicycle safety training; completing bikeway and trail gaps, colored pavement for bike lanes to
highlight bikeways, bollards to change buffered bikes lanes into protected bike lanes, ensuring
sensor-loops detect bicycles at signalized lights, implementation of bicycle signal heads along
major bicycling corridors.
• Desire for enforcement of speeding; DUI enforcement programs; improving sight distance at
intersections; emergency vehicle pre-emption systems; road diets on residential roadways;
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 8
addressing U‐turn conflicts and near misses; and improving areas where speeding/distracted
vehicles interact with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Consensus with priority signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway
segments with additional feedback provided for the roadway safety issues attributed with specific
intersection locations and / or roadway corridors.
As seen above, engagement with stakeholders provided a copious amount of useful feedback. Through
this process, it was identified that several of the priority locations and safety improvements from the
safety partners feedback align with the priority projects presented in the LRSP. Additionally, many of the
locations identified by the safety partners aligned with the priority locations presented in the LRSP based
on crash analysis and severity. Locations that were identified as experiencing high levels of complaints but
had a history of low crash incidence and / or severity will be analyzed in future LRSP updates for inclusion
in systemic projects. The Temecula LRSP is considered a living document and will be updated to meet
compliance with Caltrans HSIP eligibility requirements. Future updates to the LRSP will utilize the feedback
received from the safety partners to refine future LRSP processes, the countermeasure toolbox, and
priority project development.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 9
2 COLLISION ANALYSIS
2.1 Crash Data and Methodology
Crash data was obtained from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS)
database, the University of California, Berkeley, Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) database,
and the City of Temecula’s local Crossroads crash database. The most recent five (5) years of crash data
were obtained from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2020. Crashes were cross-referenced and
geolocated to the local street network in a Geographic Information System (GIS) to create a
comprehensive data set.
There were 3,813 total collisions during the study period, which includes 1,917 fatal and injury collisions
and 1,896 Property Damage Only (PDO) collisions. The crash data were analyzed to identify citywide crash
patterns and trends based on the following crash characteristics:
• Annual Trends
• California Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) Citywide Traffic Rankings
• Location Type
• Severity
• Crash Type
• Primary Collision Factor
• Roadway User Involvement
• Nighttime Crashes
2.2 Annual Trends
Figure 2-1 shows the total number of crashes per year in the City of Temecula from 2016 to 2020 for fatal
and severe injury collisions, non-severe injury collisions, and property damage only (PDO) collisions. The
trendline shows the total number of crashes in Riverside County by year. The City’s annual crash trends
follow a similar pattern to the County’s crash trends, which show a slight decline in overall crashes
between the years 2016 and 2019. In the year 2020, total crashes decreased significantly in the County
(41%) as compared to a less significant decrease in the City (18%) as compared to the previous year. The
City of Temecula has shown a steady decline in severe injury collisions, non-severe injury collision, and
PDO collisions year-over year.
In 2020, the Covid-19 pandemic significantly affected travel patterns throughout the region and country
due to emergency stay-at-home orders, resulting in a significant decrease of average daily traffic. While
less drivers were reported on the roadway, the US reported a significant increase in fatalities during this
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 10
time 1. According to the US Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, an analysis showed that the main reasons that drove this increase included more risky
behaviors such as: impaired driving, speeding and failure to wear a seat belt. Similar trends could be seen
taking place in the City of Temecula which also experienced an increase in fatalities in 2020. Further
analysis of crash trends and primary collision factors are examined in the following sections.
Figure 2-1 Annual Crash Trend (2016-2020)
2.2.1 California Office of Traffic Safety Citywide Traffic Rankings
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) maintains a ranking system to compare traffic safety statistics
among similarly sized California cities. Citywide rankings are based on population, daily vehicle miles
traveled (DVMT), crash records, and crash trends from data collected by SWITRS, Caltrans, the California
Department of Justice, and the Department of Finance. A ranking of one (1) in a category indicates the
lowest possible traffic safety performance in relation to other similarly-sized cities. A comparison of
California OTS rankings allows cities to identify local trends relative to their peers.
The City of Temecula is in “Group B” which consists of cities with populations between 100,001 and
250,000 people. Table 2-1 summarizes how Temecula compares to other Group B peer cities from 2016
to 2018. Due to fluctuations in populations, Temecula was one of 58 Group B cities in 2016 and 2017, and
one of 59 Group B cities in 2018.
1 N. H. T. S. A. (2021, June 3). 2020 fatality data show increased traffic fatalities during pandemic. NHTSA,
https://www.nhtsa.gov/press-releases/2020-fatality-data-show-increased-traffic-fatalities-during-pandemic
451 407 368 349 321
378 399 367 384
286
21 21
13 19
9
4 5
3 3
5
10,748 10,794 10,556 10,359
6,160
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Riverside County Crash CountTemecula Crash CountYear
PDO Non-Severe Injury Severe Injury Fatal Riverside County
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 11
Table 2-1 City of Temecula OTS Crash Rankings (2016-2018)
OTS CATEGORY 2016 OTS RANKING
(1 = LOWEST)
2017 OTS RANKING
(1 = LOWEST)
2018 OTS RANKING
(1 = LOWEST)
Total Fatal and Injury 26/58 33/58 31/59
Alcohol Involved 49/58 48/58 32/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 54/58 41/58 39/59
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 53/58 39/58 35/59
Motorcycles 5/58 6/58 1/59
Pedestrians 40/58 42/58 41/59
Pedestrians < 15 42/58 32/58 28/59
Pedestrians 65+ 53/58 41/58 7/59
Bicyclists 52/58 34/58 41/59
Bicyclists < 15 30/58 23/58 8/59
Composite 48/58 39/58 38/59
Speed Related 7/58 7/58 5/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 50/58 48/58 52/59
Hit and Run 48/58 48/58 49/59
DUI Arrests 20/58 30/58 N/A*
Bold = Temecula’s Top 3 Lowest Crash Ranking OTS Categories
*2018 DUI Arrest Ranking Data not available on CA Office of Traffic Safety website
Based on the most recent available OTS rankings from 2018, Table 2-2 summarizes how Temecula
compares to Moreno Valley and Murrieta, other local Group B peer cities in Riverside County. Data tables
for the OTS rankings are provided in Appendix B.
Table 2-2 OTS Crash Rankings (2018)
2018 OTS CATEGORY TEMECULA
OTS RANKING
(1 = LOWEST)
MORENO VALLEY
OTS RANKING
(1 = LOWEST)
MURRIETA
OTS RANKING
(1 = LOWEST)
Total Fatal and Injury 31/59 54/59 55/59
Alcohol Involved 32/59 55/59 50/59
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 39/59 43/59 28/59
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 – 34 35/59 52/59 42/59
Motorcycles 1/59 56/59 35/59
Pedestrians 41/59 56/59 58/59
Pedestrians < 15 28/59 41/59 59/59
Pedestrians 65+ 7/59 58/59 47/59
Bicyclists 41/59 54/59 53/59
Bicyclists < 15 8/59 46/59 28/59
Composite 38/59 56/59 52/59
Speed Related 5/59 44/59 47/59
Nighttime (9:00pm – 2:59am) 52/59 55/59 58/59
Hit and Run 49/59 51/59 55/59
DUI Arrests* N/A N/A N/A
Bold = Temecula’s Top 3 Lowest Crash Ranking OTS Categories
*2018 DUI Arrest Ranking Data not available on CA Office of Traffic Safety website
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 12
Key OTS Crash Ranking findings include:
• Top 3 lowest 2016 OTS rankings for Temecula were: collisions where motorcycles were
involved, collisions where speed was the primary factor, and driving under the influence
(DUI) arrests.
• Top 3 lowest 2017 OTS rankings for Temecula were: collisions where motorcycles were
involved, collisions where speed was the primary factor, and collisions where a bicyclist
under the age of 15 was involved.
• Top 3 lowest 2018 OTS rankings for Temecula were: collisions where motorcycles were
involved, collisions where speed was the primary factor, and collisions where a
pedestrian over the age of 65 was involved.
• OTS categories for collisions where a motorcycle was involved and collisions where
speed was the primary factor were in the top 3 lowest rankings for Temecula for the
years 2016, 2017, and 2018.
• Temecula performed worse than Murrieta in 2018 OTS rankings except for collisions
where the driver had been drinking and under the age of 21.
• Temecula performed worse than Moreno Valley in all 2018 OTS ranking categories.
2.2.2 Location Type
Table 2-3 and Figure 2-2 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by location type, which includes
signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. Unsignalized intersections
included any at-grade junction of two or more public roads that are not controlled by a traffic signal,
including uncontrolled, yield-control, and stop-controlled intersections. For signalized and unsignalized
intersections, a sphere of influence of 250 feet was used when considering if an accident would be
attributed to an intersection. If a crash occurred outside of the 250-foot sphere of influence of an
intersection, then the crash would be considered part of a segment. Most crashes occurred at
intersections (77%) which includes signalized intersections (52%) and unsignalized intersections (25%).
Table 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2016-2020)
LOCATION TYPE TOTAL (%)
Signalized Intersection 1980 (52%)
Unsignalized Intersection 970 (25%)
Roadway Segment 863 (23%)
Total Crashes 3813
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 13
Figure 2-2 Citywide Collisions by Location Type (2016-2020)
2.2.3 Severity
Table 2-4 and Figure 2-3 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by severity for fatal, severe injury,
and non-severe injury collisions including other visible injury and complaint of pain. Most collisions
resulted in property damage only (50%) followed by non-severe injuries (48%), severe injuries (2%), and
fatalities (<1%).
Table 2-4. Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2016-2020)
SEVERITY TOTAL (%)
Fatal 20 (<1%)
Severe Injury 83 (2%)
Other Visible Injury 1398 (37%)
Complaint of Pain 416 (11%)
Property Damage Only 1896 (50%)
Total Crashes 3813
52%
25%
23%
Signalized Intersection
Unsignalized Intersection
Roadway Segment
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 14
Figure 2-3 Citywide Collisions by Crash Severity (2016-2020)
Table 2-5 summarizes the proportion of crash severity by location for signalized intersections, unsignalized
intersections, and roadway segments. Intersection collisions resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries
including signalized intersections (<1% fatal and 2% severe injury of total collisions) and unsignalized
intersections (<1% fatal and 2% severe injury of total collisions). Roadway segment collisions included
1% fatal and 3% severe injury of total collisions. Figure 2-4 illustrates where these fatal and severe
collisions have occurred.
<1%
2%11%
37%
50%
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Property Damage Only
#
#
#
#
##
###
#
#
#
###
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
##
#
#
#
*
*
*
*
**
***
*
*
*
***
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
**
*
*
*
#
#
#
#
#
##
#
#
###
#
#
#
##
##*
*
*
*
*
**
*
*
***
*
*
*
**
**##
#
#
#
#
#
**
*
*
*
*
*
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$$$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+++++
+
+
+
++
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
$
$
$
$$
+
+
+
++
$
$
+
+
X
X
X XXX
X
X X
X
X
X
X
XX X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
XX
X
W
W
W WWW
W
W W
W
W
W
W
WW W
W
W
W
W
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
WW
W
X
X
X
X
XXX
X
XX
X
X X
X
W
W
W
W
WWW
W
WW
W
W W
W
X
X
X
X
W
W
W
W
"
""
"
"
"
"""""
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
""
"
""
"""
"
"""
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"""
"
"""
"
"
"
""""
"
"""""""
""""""""
""""""
""
"""
"
"
"""
""""
""""
"
"""""""
"
""""
"
"""
"""
"""
"""""
""
"
""
"""""
"
""""
""
"
""
"""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"""
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
""
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"""
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
""
"
"
"""
"""
"
"
""""""""
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
)
))
)
)
)
)))))
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
))
)
))
)))
)
)))
)
)
)
)))
)
)
)))
)
)))
)
)
)
))))
)
)))))))
))))))))
))))))
))
)))
)
)
)))
))))
))))
)
)))))))
)
))))
)
)))
)))
)))
)))))
))
)
))
)))))
)
))))
))
)
))
)))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)))
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)))
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)))
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
))
)
)
)))
)))
)
)
)))
)))))
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)))
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-4
Citywide Fatal and Injury Related Crashes (2016-2020)
COLLISION SEVERITY
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
LEGEND
"Vehicle Collisions
Minor Roads
X Bike Collisions
Major Roads
$Pedestrian Collisions
Freeways
ñ City Hall
City Boundary
ñ
Motorcycle CollisionsYn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRanch o C a lifo r n i a R d
Marg
arita
R
d
W inchesterR dVa
ll
e
j
o
A
ve Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town
Front
St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 16
While the number of fatal and severe injury collisions that occurred at each location type is a smaller
percentage in comparison with the number of overall collisions, intersections were also over-represented
in the number of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Signalized intersections represented 35% fatal and
52% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Unsignalized intersections represented
15% fatal and 18% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions. Roadway segments represented
50% fatal and 30% severe injury of total fatal and severe injury collisions.
Table 2-5. Citywide Crash Severity by Location (2016-2020)
SEVERITY SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNLIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
TOTAL (%)
Fatal 7 (<1%/35%*) 3 (<1%/15%*) 10 (1%/50%*) 20 (<1%)
Severe Injury 43 (2%/52%*) 15 (2%/18%*) 25 (3%/30%*) 83 (2%)
Other Visible Injury 210 (11%) 105 (11%) 101 (12%) 416 (11%)
Complaint of Pain 766 (38%) 315 (33%) 317 (37%) 1398 (37%)
Property Damage Only 971 (49%) 515 (54%) 410 (48%) 1896 (50%)
Total Crashes 1997 (52%/49%*) 953 (25%/17%*) 863 (23%/34%*) 3813
Note: *Percentage of total Fatal and Severe Injury collisions Only by Location
2.2.4 Crash Type
Table 2-6 and Figure 2-5 summarize the proportion of all crashes by crash type, which include head-on,
sideswipe, rear end, broadside, hit object, overturned, vehicle / pedestrian, other, and not stated
collisions. The three most common crash types that occurred are rear end (35%), broadside (28%), and hit
object (14%). These account for 77% of total crashes reported.
Table 2-6 Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2016-2020)
CRASH TYPE TOTAL (%)
Head-On 120 (3%)
Sideswipe 469 (12%)
Rear End 1334 (35%)
Broadside 1087 (28%)
Hit Object 539 (14%)
Overturned 34 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 121 (3%)
Other / Not Stated 109 (3%)
Total Crashes 3813
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 17
Figure 2-5. Citywide Collisions by Crash Type (2016-2020)
Table 2-7 summarizes the proportion of all crash types by severity. The crash types that resulted in the
most fatal and severe injuries are listed below:
•Broadside (35% fatal and 31% severe injury).
•Hit object (30% fatal and 14% severe injury).
•Vehicle/pedestrian collisions (15% fatal and 17% severe injury).
•Rear-end (0% fatal and 22% severe injury).
Table 2-7 Citywide Crash Type by Severity (2016-2020)
CRASH TYPE FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL (%)
Head-On 3 (15%) 5 (6%) 19 (5%) 51 (4%) 42 (3%) 120 (3%)
Sideswipe 1 (5%) 2 (2%) 26 (6%) 75 (5%) 366 (26%) 469 (12%)
Rear End - 18 (22%) 84 (20%) 613 (44%) 619 (44%) 1334 (35%)
Broadside 7 (35%) 26 (31%) 160 (38%) 504 (36%) 390 (28%) 1087 (28%)
Hit Object 6 (30%) 12 (14%) 48 (12%) 63 (5%) 410 (29%) 539 (14%)
Overturned - 2 (2%) 17 (4%) 7 (1%) 8 (1%) 34 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 3 (15%) 14 (17%) 30 (7%) 59 (4%) 15 (1%) 121 (3%)
Other / Not Stated - 4 (5%) 32 (8%) 27 (2%) 46 (3%) 109 (3%)
Total Crashes 20 (<1%) 83 (2%) 416 (11%) 1398 (37%) 1896 (50%) 3813
Table 2-8 summarizes the proportion of all crash types by location for signalized intersections,
unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. A summary of the results is provided below:
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Overturned
Other / Not Stated
Head-On
Vehicle / Pedestrian
Sideswipe
Hit Object
Broadside
Rear End
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 18
• Most crashes occurred at intersections, accounting for 77% of total crashes including
52% at signalized intersections and 25% at unsignalized intersections.
• The most common crash types at signalized intersections were rear end (39%),
broadside (31%), and sideswipe (12%).
• The most common crash types at unsignalized intersections were broadside (31%), hit
object (24%), and rear end (21%).
• The most common crash types at roadway segments were rear end (42%), broadside
(21%), and hit object (15%).
• The most common crash types observed across all three location types were typically
consistent with the most common crash types overall: rear end (35%), broadside (29%),
and hit object (14%).
Table 2-8 Citywide Crash Type by Location (2016-2020)
CRASH TYPE SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
TOTAL (%)
Head-On 55 (3%) 46 (5%) 19 (2%) 120 (3%)
Sideswipe 233(12%) 114 (12%) 122 (14%) 469 (12%)
Rear End 770 (39%) 204 (21%) 360 (42%) 1334 (35%)
Broadside 620 (31%) 285 (30%) 182 (21%) 1087 (29%)
Hit Object 188 (9%) 227 (24%) 124 (15%) 539 (14%)
Overturned 11 (1%) 8 (1%) 15 (2%) 34 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 72 (4%) 27 (3%) 22 (3%) 121 (3%)
Other / Not Stated 48 (2%) 42 (4%) 19 (2%) 109 (3%)
Total Crashes 1997 (52%) 953 (25%) 863 (23%) 3813
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 19
2.2.5 Primary Collision Factor
Table 2-9 and Figure 2-6 summarize the Primary Collision Factor (PCF) of crashes by the California vehicle
code violation categories. PCF violation categories that represented less than 3% of citywide collisions
were graphically combined into a single category on Figure 2-5. A summary of the results is provided
below:
• The top primary collision factors were:
o Unsafe speed (32%)
o Improper turning (12%)
o Automobile right-of-way (11%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (10%).
• The top primary collision factors listed above account for 65% of total crashes reported.
Table 2-9 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation Category (2016-
2020)
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY TOTAL (%)
Unsafe Speed 1231 (32%)
Improper Turning 460 (12%)
Automobile Right of Way 410 (11%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drug 363 (10%)
Traffic Signals and Signs 306 (8%)
Pedestrian Violation 219 (6%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing 104 (3%)
Unsafe Lane Change* 63 (2%)
Wrong Side of Road* 60 (2%)
Pedestrian Right of Way* 46 (1%)
Following Too Closely* 24 (1%)
Improper Passing* 16 (<1%)
Hazardous Parking* 5 (<1%)
Lights* 2 (<1%)
Impeding Traffic* 1 (<1%)
Unknown / Not Stated 277 (7%)
Other 226 (6%)
Total 3813
Note: * PCF category representing less than 3% of total crashes
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 20
Figure 2-6. Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor Violation Category
(2016-2020)
Table 2-10 summarizes the proportion of primary collision factor by severity. The primary collision factors
that resulted in the most fatal and severe injuries are listed below:
•Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (45% fatal and 31% severe
injury).
•Unsafe speed (20% fatal and 13% severe injury).
•Automobile right-of-way (5%fatal and 8% Severe injury).
•Improper turning (14% severe injury).
•Combined, these primary collision factors account for 65% of total crashes reported.
32%
12%
11%
9%
8%
7%
6%
6%3%6%Unsafe Speed
Improper Turning
Automobile ROW
DUI
Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown / Not Stated
Other
Pedestrian Violation
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Less than 3%
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 21
Table 2-10 Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity (2016-2020)
PRIMARY COLLISION
FACTOR VIOLATION
CATEGORY
FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL (%)
Driving or Bicycling Under
the Influence of Alcohol or
Drugs
9 (45%) 26 (31%) 39 (39%) 74 (5%) 215 (11%) 363 (10%)
Unsafe Speed 4 (20%) 11 (13%) 100 (24%) 554 (40%) 562 (30%) 1231 (32%)
Following Too Closely - - 14 (<1%) 8 (1%) 15 (1%) 24 (1%)
Wrong Side of Road 1 (5%) - 20 (5%) 29 (2%) 11 (1%) 60 (2%)
Improper Passing - 3 (4%) 2 (<1%) 5 (<1%) 6 (0%) 16 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change - - 14 (3%) 25 (2%) 24 (1%) 63 (2%)
Improper Turning - 12 (14%) 38 (9%) 95 (7%) 317 (17%) 460 (12%)
Automobile ROW 1 (5%) 7 (8%) 69 (17%) 202 (14%) 131 (7%) 410 (11%)
Pedestrian ROW - 3 (4%) 15 (4%) 27 (2%) 1 (<1%) 46 (1%)
Pedestrian Violation 1 (5%) 8 (10%) 19 (5%) 51 (4%) 140 (7%) 219 (6%)
Traffic Signals and Signs - 6 (7%) 58 (14%) 202 (14%) 40 (2%) 306 (8%)
Lights - - 1 (<1%) - 1 (<1%) 2 (<1%)
Hazardous Parking - - 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%) 3 (<1%) 5 (<1%)
Impeding Traffic - - 1 (<1%) - - 1 (<1%)
Other 2 (10%) 4 (5%) 19 (5%) 45 (3%) 156 (8%) 226 (6%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing - - 2 (<1%) 37 (3%) 65 (3%) 104 (3%)
Unknown / Not Stated 2 (10%) 4 (5%) 17 (4%) 45 (3%) 209 (11%) 277 (7%)
Total Crashes 20 (<1%) 83 (2%) 416 (11%) 1398 (37%) 1896 (50%) 3813
Table 2-11 summarizes the proportion of primary collision factor violation categories by location for
signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. A summary of the results is
provided below:
• Top three primary collision factor violation categories at signalized intersections were:
o Unsafe speed (32%)
o Traffic signals and signs (13%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (10%).
• Top three at unsignalized intersections were:
o Automobile right-of-way (20%)
o Unsafe speed (15%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (11%).
• Top three at roadway segments were:
o Unsafe speed (41%)
o Automobile right-of-way (9%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (7%).
• Most common primary collision factor violation categories observed across all three
location types were consistent with the most common crash types overall:
o Unsafe speed (35%)
o Automobile right-of-way (15%)
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 22
o Traffic signal and signs (14%)
o Driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (8%).
o Combined, these primary collision factors account for 72% of total reported
crashes.
Table 2-11 Citywide Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Location (2016-
2020)
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
VIOLATION CATEGORY
SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNLIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
TOTAL (%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drugs
192 (10%) 107 (11%) 64 (7%) 363 (10%)
Unsafe Speed 632 (32%) 244 (15%) 355 (41%) 1231 (32%)
Following Too Closely 16 (1%) 5 (1%) 3 (<1%) 24 (1%)
Wrong Side of Road 19 (1%) 25 (3%) 16 (2%) 60 (2%)
Improper Passing 8 (<1%) 5 (1%) 3 (<1%) 16 (<1%)
Unsafe Lane Change 35 (2%) 4 (<1%) 24 (3%) 63 (2%)
Improper Turning 182 (9%) 144 (15%) 134 (16%) 460 (12%)
Automobile ROW 141 (7%) 190 (20%) 79 (9%) 410 (11%)
Pedestrian ROW 27 (1%) 13 (1%) 6 (1%) 46 (1%)
Pedestrian Violation 155 (8%) 13 (1%) 51 (6%) 219 (6%)
Traffic Signals and Signs 260 (13%) 24 (3%) 14 (2%) 306 (8%)
Hazardous Parking - 5 (1%) - 5 (<1%)
Impeding Traffic 1 (<1%) - - 1 (<1%)
Lights - 2 (<1%) - 2 (<1%)
Other 122 (6%) 46 (5%) 58 (7%) 226 (6%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing 57 (3%) 31 (3%) 16 (2%) 104 (3%)
Unknown / Not Stated 141 (7%) 95 (10%) 40 (5%) 277 (7%)
Total Crashes 1997 (52%) 953 (25%) 863 (23%) 3813
2.2.6 Collisions Involving Unsafe Speed
The City of Temecula’s top three lowest OTS categories from 2016 to 2018 consistently included speed-
related crashes. In 2018, Temecula the fifth lowest of all 59 cities included in Group B. This section
presents additional analysis related specifically to crashes involving unsafe speed.
Table 2-12 summarizes the proportion of crashes involving unsafe speeds by crash type and location for
signalized intersections, unsignalized intersections, and roadway segments. A summary of the results is
provided below:
• Most crashes occurred at intersections, accounting for 71% of total crashes, including
51% at signalized intersections and 20% at unsignalized intersections.
• Most common crash types at signalized intersections were rear end (85%) and
hit object (7%).
• Most common crash types at unsignalized intersections were rear end (59%) and hit
object (29%).
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 23
• Most common crash types at roadway segments were rear end (81%) and hit object
(11%).
• Most common crash types observed across all three location types were typically
consistent with the most common crash types overall: rear end (79%) and hit object
(13%).
Table 2-12 Unsafe Speed Crash Type by Location (2016-2020)
CRASH TYPE SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
TOTAL (%)
Head-On 4 (1%) 5 (2%) 2 (1%) 11 (1%)
Sideswipe 14 (2%) 12 (5%) 7 (2%) 33 (3%)
Rear End 540 (85%) 142 (59%) 287 (81%) 969 (79%)
Broadside 14 (2%) 5 (2%) 11 (3%) 30 (2%)
Hit Object 46 (7%) 71 (29%) 40 (11%) 157 (13%)
Overturned 3 (<1%) 2 (1%) 4 (1%) 9 (1%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian 3 (<1%) 2 (1%) 1 (<1%) 6 (<1%)
Other / Not Stated 8 (1%) 5 (2%) 3 (1%) 16 (1%)
Total Crashes 632 (51%) 244 (20%) 355 (29%) 1231
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 24
Table 2-13 summarizes the proportion of crashes involving unsafe speeds by severity and roadway user
type involved which includes automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Figure 2-7 illustrates
where the speed related collisions occurred by severity and roadway user type. A summary of the results
is provided below:
• Of the total collisions where unsafe speed was the primary collision factor, 96%
involved automobiles only, the majority of which resulted in complaint of pain or
property damage only.
• Automobile collisions represented 50% of total fatal and 45% of total severe injury
collisions.
• Approximately 1% of the automobile collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
• The majority of collisions involving motorcycles resulted in other visible injuries and
complaint of pain injuries.
• Motorcycle collisions represented 50% of total fatal and 55% of total severe injury
collisions.
• Approximately 23% of all motorcycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
• Most collisions involving bicycles or pedestrians resulted in other visible injuries and
complaint of pain injuries.
• Bicycle and pedestrian collisions represented 0% of total fatal and severe injury crashes.
Table 2-13 Unsafe Speed Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020)
ROADWAY USER FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL (%)
Automobiles 2 (50%) 5 (45%) 81 (67%) 531 (96%) 561 (99%) 1180 (96%)
Motorcycles 2 (50%) 6 (55%) 13 (12%) 14 (3%) 0 (0%) 35 (3%)
Bicycles 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 5 (7%) 1 (<1%) 1 (<1%) 7(<1%)
Pedestrians 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (14%) 8 (1%) 0 (0%) 9 (<1%)
Total Crashes 4 (<1%) 11 (1%) 100 (8%) 554 (45%) 562 (46%) 1231
")
")
")
")")
")")")
")
")
")
")")
")")")")
")")
")
")
")")")")")
")
")")")")")
")")")")
")")")")
")")")
")")
")
")
")")")")
")")")")")")")")")")
")")
")
")")
")
")")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")")")")")")")
")
")")
")")
")")")
")
")")")")
")")")
")")
")")")")")")")")")")
")")")")")
")")")")")")
")")")")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")
")
")")")")
")
")
")")")
")")")")")")")
")")")")")")")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")")")")")")")")
")")")")")
")
")")")")")
")
")")")")")")")
")")")")
")")")")")")")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")
")")")")
")
")
")
")")")")
")")")")
")")
")")
")")
")")
")
")")")")")")")")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")")")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")")")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")")")")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")
")")")")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")")")")
")
")
")")
")")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")")")")
")
")")")
")")")
")")
")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")")")")")
")
")
")
")
")")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")")
")")")")
")")")")
")")
")")")
")
")")")
")
")
")")")")")
")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")")")")")
")")")")")
")")")")
")
")
")")")")")
")
")")")")
")
")
")")
")")")")")")")")")")")
")")
")")")")")")")")")
")")")")")")")
")")")")")")
")")")")
")")
")")")")")")")
")")")")")")
")")")")
")")")")")")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")")")
")
")")")")")
")")")")")")")")
")")")")")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")
")")")")
")")")")")")")")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")
")")
")")
")")
")")")
")")
")")")")")")")
")")")
")")")
")")
")
")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")
")")
")")
")
")")")
")")")")
")
")")")")
")
")
")")")")
")
")")
")
")
")")")")")")")")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")")")")
")
")
")")")")")")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")")")
")")")")
")")")
")
")")
")
")")")
")
")
")")")
")")")
")
")")")")")")")
")")")
")")")")")")
")")")")
")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")
")")")")")")")
")
")
")
")
")
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
$+
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
XW
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")")
")
")")")
")")
")
")
")")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")
")
")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")
")")")")")")
")
")
")
")
")
$+
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*XW
XW
XW
XW
XW
")
")
")
")
")
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
")
")
#*
#*
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-7
Unsafe Speed Related Crashes (2016-2020)
COLLISION SEVERITY
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
LEGEND
"Vehicle Collisions
Minor Roads
X Bike Collisions
Major Roads
$Pedestrian Collisions
Freeways
ñ City Hall
City Boundary
ñ
Motorcycle Collisions
Property Damage Only
Yn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRanch o C a lif o r n i a R d
Margarita
R
d
W inchesterR dVall
ej
o
Av
e Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
AveOld
Town
Front
St
P a ublaR d
R anc h o V is ta R dMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 26
2.2.7 Roadway User Involvement
Table 2-14 and Figure 2-8 summarize the proportion of citywide crashes by roadway user type involved
which includes automobiles, motorcycles, bicycles, and pedestrians. Most collisions involved motorized
roadway users including automobiles (90%) and motorcycles (4%). Non-motorized roadway users were
involved in 6% of collisions including bicycles (3%) and pedestrians (3%)
Table 2-14 Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020)
ROADWAY USER TOTAL (%)
Automobiles 3442 (90%)
Motorcycles 129 (4%)
Bicycles 114 (3%)
Pedestrians 128 (3%)
Total Crashes 3813
Figure 2-8. Citywide Collisions by Roadway User Involvement (2016-2020)
90%
4%3%3%
Automobiles
Motorcycles
Bicycles
Pedestrians
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 27
Table 2-15 and Figure 2-9 summarize the proportion of roadway user type by severity. A summary of the
results is provided below:
• Of the total collisions, 90% involved automobiles only, the majority of which resulted in
property damage only (50%).
• Automobile collisions represented 35% of total fatal and 54% of total severe injury
collisions.
• Approximately 2% of all automobile collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
• The majority of collisions involving motorcycles resulted in other visible injuries and
complaint of pain injuries.
• Motorcycle collisions represented 35% of total fatal and 24% of total severe injury
collisions.
• Approximately 21% of all motorcycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
• The majority of collisions involving bicycles resulted in other visible injuries and
complaint of pain injuries.
• Bicycle collisions represented 10% of total fatal and 6% of total severe injury crashes.
• Approximately 6% of all bicycle collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
• The majority of pedestrian collisions resulted in other visible injuries and complaint of
pain injuries.
• Pedestrian collisions represented 20% of total fatal and 17% of total severe injury
collisions.
• Approximately 15% of all pedestrian collisions resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
Table 2-15 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020)
ROADWAY USER FATAL SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE
ONLY
TOTAL (%)
Automobiles 7 (35%) 45 (54%) 277 (67%) 1237 (88%) 1876 (99%) 3442 (90%)
Motorcycles 7 (35%) 19 (24%) 51 (12%) 52 (4%) 0 (0%) 129 (4%)
Bicycles 2 (10%) 5 (6%) 57 (14%) 43 (3%) 7 (1%) 114 (3%)
Pedestrians 4 (20%) 14 17%) 31 (7%) 66 (5%) 13 (<1%) 128 (3%)
Total Crashes 20 (<1%) 83 (2%) 416 (11%) 1398 (37%) 1896 (50%) 3813
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 28
Figure 2-9 Roadway User Involvement by Severity (2016-2020)
Figure 2-10 summarizes the proportion of roadway user types for fatal and severe injury collisions. A
summary of the results is provided below:
•Although motorcycles and pedestrians make up a small percentage of total crashes (7%
and 6%, respectively), they are over-represented in the number of fatal and severe
injury collisions (26% and 17%, respectively), which indicates that they are vulnerable
roadway users.
•Bicycles were involved in 7% of total fatal and severe injury collisions, which was
representative of the 6% of total collisions that bicycles were involved in.
Pedestrians, cyclists and motorcycle users are more prone to high-risk injury due to the lack of external
protective devices that could absorb the impact of a roadway crash. Additionally, the smaller profiles of
pedestrians, motorcycles and cyclists make it more difficult for these groups to be seen by vehicular
operators.
35%
54%
67%
88%99%20%
17%
7%
5%
35%
24%12%
4%10%6%14%
3%1%
Fatal Severe Injury Other Visible Injury Complaint of Pain Property Damage OnlyPercentage of CollisionsCrash SeverityAutomobilesPedestriansMotorcycles Bicycles
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 29
Figure 2-10 Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions by Roadway User Involvement
(2016-2020)
2.2.8 Motorcycle Crashes
The City of Temecula’s top three lowest OTS categories from 2016 to 2018 consistently included crashes
involving motorcycles. In 2018, Temecula scored the lowest of all 59 cities included in Group B. This section
presents additional analysis related specifically to motorcycle-involved crashes.
Table 2-16 through Table 2-19 summarize the proportion of crashes involving motorcycles by severity,
location, crash type, and primary collision factor, respectively. Figure 2-11 illustrates where the
motorcycle crashes occurred and the severity of each collision. A summary of the results is provided
below:
•Fatal and severe crashes accounted for 5% and 15% of all collisions involving a
motorcycle, while the remaining 80% of crashes resulted in other visible injuries or
complaint of pain.
•65% of collisions involving a motorcycle occurred at an intersection (39% at signalized
intersections and 26% at unsignalized intersections).
•The most common crash types observed in motorcycle collisions were:
o Broadside (39%), rear-end (20%), and hit object (13%).
o Combined, these crash types account for 72% of total crashes reported.
•The primary collision factors that occurred the most in motorcycle collisions were:
17%
7%
26%
50%
Pedestrians
Bicycles
Motorcycles
Automobiles
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 30
o Unsafe speeds (27%), automobile right of way (26%), and improper turning
(13%).
o Combined, these primary collision factors account for 66% of total crashes
reported.
Table 2-16 Motorcycle Crash Severity (2016-2020)
CRASH TYPE TOTAL (%)
Fatal 7 (5%)
Severe 19 (15%)
Other Visible Injury 51 (40%)
Complain of Pain 52 (40%)
PDO 0 (0%)
Total 129
Table 2-17 Motorcycle Crash Location (2016-2020)
LOCATION TOTAL (%)
Signalized Intersection 51 (39%)
Unsignalized Intersection 34 (26%)
Roadway Segment 44 (35%)
Total Crashes 129
Table 2-18 Motorcycle Crash Type (2016-2020)
CRASH TYPE TOTAL (%)
Head-On 5 (4%)
Sideswipe 13 (10%)
Rear End 26 (20%)
Broadside 51 (39%)
Hit Object 16 (13%)
Overturned 10 (8%)
Vehicle / Pedestrian -
Other / Not Stated 8 (6%)
Total Crashes 129
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 31
Table 2-19 Motorcycle Primary Collision Factor Violation Category by Severity
(2016-2020)
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR VIOLATION CATEGORY TOTAL (%)
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence of Alcohol or Drugs 11 (8%)
Unsafe Speed 35 (27%)
Following Too Closely -
Wrong Side of Road -
Improper Passing 3 (2%)
Unsafe Lane Change 12 (9%)
Improper Turning 16 (13%)
Automobile ROW 34 (26%)
Pedestrian ROW -
Pedestrian Violation -
Traffic Signals and Signs 5 (4%)
Lights -
Other 8 (6%)
Unsafe Starting or Backing 2 (2%)
Unknown / Not Stated 3 (2%)
Total Crashes 129
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-11
Motorcycle Crashes (2016-2020)
COLLISION SEVERITY
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
LEGEND
Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways ñ City HallCity Boundary
ñ
Motorcycle Collisions
Property Damage Only
Yn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRanch o C a lifo r n i a R d
Marg
arita
R
d
W inchesterR dVa
ll
e
j
o
A
ve Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town
Front
St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 33
2.2.9 Nighttime Crashes
Crashes were evaluated from 6:00 PM to 6:00 AM to identify nighttime crash patterns. There were 884
collisions that occurred during the study period and Figure 2-12 shows a summary of total crashes and
severity by time of day. Nighttime crash frequency for all severity types was generally higher from 6:00
PM to 10:00 PM. The most severe crashes (fatal and severe injury) generally occurred from 9:00 PM to
1:00 AM. The highest number of nighttime crashes occurred from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The highest
number of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred from 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM. Figure 2-13 illustrates
where the nighttime crashes occurred by severity and roadway user type. Table 2-20 summarizes
nighttime crashes by severity and location.
Figure 2-12 Crash Severity by Time Period (2016-2020)
Table 2-20 Citywide Nighttime Collision Severity by Location (2016-2020)
SEVERITY SIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
UNSIGNALIZED
INTERSECTION
ROADWAY
SEGMENT
TOTAL (%)
Fatal 5 (1%) 1 (<1%) 7 (2%) 13 (1%)
Severe Injury 21 (2%) 5 (1%) 13 (4%) 39 (2%)
Other Visible Injury 107 (11%) 47 (11%) 44 (11%) 198 (11%)
Complaint of Pain 340 (36%) 144 (34%) 149 (37%) 633 (36%)
Property Damage Only 471 (50%) 238 (54%) 185 (46%) 894 (50%)
Total Crashes 944 (53%) 435 (25%) 398 (22%) 1777
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Number of CrashesTime Period
Property Damage Only Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Injury Fatal
""
"""""
""""
""""""
"""
"
""""
""""""
"
""
"""
"""
"""""
"""""""""""""""""""
""""""
"""
""
"""""
"
"""""""""""
"""""
""""""
"""""""""
"""""""""
""""""""
""""""""""
""
""
""""
"""""
""
""""""
""
"""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""
""
""""
""""
""""
"""
""""""""
""""
""
"
""""""""
"""""
"
"""
"""""""""""""
"""""
""
"""""
""""
"
""""""""""""""
""
"
""""
"""""""
""""""""
""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""
""""""
"""
"""""""
""""""""
""""""
"""""
"""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""
"""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""""
""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
"""""""""
"""
"
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""
""""""""""""""""""
""""""""
"""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
""""""
""""""""
"""
""""
"
"""""""""""""""""""""""
"""""""""""""""""""""
"""""
"""""""
""""
"""""""""""
"""
"""""""""""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
""""
"
"
""
"""
"
""""
"
""
"
"
"
""""
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"""
"
""
"
"""
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"""
"
""
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"""
"
"""
"
""
"
""
"
"
""
""""
""
"
""""
"
""
"
""
""
""
"
""""""""
""""""
"
"""
""""""""
""
""
"
""
"""
""
"
"
"
""
""
""
""
"
"
""""""
"
""
"
"
""""
"
""
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
""
"
"
"""""""""""""
""
"
"
"""""
"
"
""
""
"
""""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"""""""""
""
"
"
"
"""""
"
"
"""""
"
"
"""
"""""""
""
""""
"
""
"
""
"""""
"
""
"
"
"
"
""
"
""""""
""
""
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"""""
"
"
""""
"""
"
"""""""
"""
"""
"
"
"
""
"""
"""""""""
"
"
""
""""
""
""
"""
"""""""""""""""""
"""
"
"
""
"
"""""""""
""""""
"
""""
""
""
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"""""
"
"
"
"
""""
"""
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
"""
"
"""""
""""""
"""""""
""
"
"""
"
""
""
"
"""
"
"
"""""""""""""""
"""""
"""""""""""""
"""
"
"""""""""""
""
""""
"
"
"
""
""
"
""
""
"
"
"""
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"""""""""""
"""""""
"
""""""""""""""""
""""""
"""
"
"
"""
"
""
"
""
""""""
"
"""
"
"
"""
""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"
"
"""""""
"
"
"
""""""
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"""
""
"
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
""
"
"""
"""
"""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
""""
"
"
"
"
"""""
""
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"""
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
))
)))))
))))
))))))
)))
)
))))
))))))
)
))
)))
)))
)))))
)))))))))))))))))))
))))))
)))
))
)))))
)
)))))))))))
)))))
))))))
)))))))))
)))))))))
))))))))
))))))))))
))
))
))))
)))))
))
))))))
))
)))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
))))))))
))
))))
))))
))))
)))
))))))))
))))
))
)
))))))))
)))))
)
)))
)))))))))))))
)))))
))
)))))
))))
)
))))))))))))))
))
)
))))
)))))))
))))))))
))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))
))))))
)))
)))))))
))))))))
))))))
)))))
)))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))
)))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))
))))))))))))))))))))
))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)
)))))))))
)))
)
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))
))))))))))))))))))
))))))))
)))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)
))))))
))))))))
)))
))))
)
)))))))))))))))))))))))
)))))))))))))))))))))
)))))
)))))))
))))
)))))))))))
)))
)))))))))))))))))
)
)
)
)
)
)))
)
)))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)))
)
))))
)
)
))
)))
)
))))
)
))
)
)
)
))))
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)))
)
))
)
)))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)))
)
))
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)))
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)))
)
)))
)
))
)
))
)
)
))
))))
))
)
))))
)
))
)
))
))
))
)
))))))))
))))))
)
)))
))))))))
))
))
)
))
)))
))
)
)
)
))
))
))
))
)
)
))))))
)
))
)
)
))))
)
))
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
))
)
)
)))))))))))))
))
)
)
)))))
)
)
))
))
)
))))))))
)
)
)
)
)
)))))))))
))
)
)
)
)))))
)
)
)))))
)
)
)))
)))))))
))
))))
)
))
)
))
)))))
)
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
))))))
))
))
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)))))
)
)
))))
)))
)
)))))))
)))
)))
)
)
)
))
)))
)))))))))
)
)
))
))))
))
))
)))
)))))))))))))))))
)))
)
)
))
)
)))))))))
))))))
)
))))
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)))
)
)
)))))
)
)
)
)
))))
)))
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)))
)
)))))
))))))
)))))))
))
)
)))
)
))
))
)
)))
)
)
)))))))))))))))
)))))
)))))))))))))
)))
)
)))))))))))
))
))))
)
)
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
)
)))
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)))))))))))
)))))))
)
))))))))))))))))
))))))
)))
)
)
)))
)
))
)
))
))))))
)
)))
)
)
)))
))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
)
)
)))))))
)
)
)
))))))
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)))
))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
))
)
)))
)))
)))
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
))))
)
)
)
)
)))))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)))
)))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
""
"
"
"
""
"
""
""
"
"
""""
"
""
"""
"
"
""""
""
"""""
""
""
"""
"
"""
"
"
""""""""
"""""""
""""
"
"
"
""
""
""""
""""""
""""
"""
"
""
"
"""""""
"
"""""""
"
""
""""""""
""
"""""""""
""""""""
"""""""""""""
""""""""
"""
"""""
""
""""
""""
""
""""""
"""""""""
"""
"""""""""""""""
""""""""
"""""
"
"
""""
"""""""""""""
"""""""
""""""""""""
""""
"""""
"""""""""
""
""
""
""
""""
"""""""
""""
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"""
""
""
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""
"
"""
"
""
"
"
"
""
"
""
""
"
"""""
""
""""""""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"""
"
"
"
""
"""""""
"""
"
""
""""
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
"
""
""""
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
""
"
""
""
""
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
""
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"""""""""""""""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""""""""
"
""
"""""
""""""""""""""""""
""
"
""
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)
))))
)
))
)))
)
)
))))
))
)))))
))
))
)))
)
)))
)
)
))))))))
)))))))
))))
)
)
)
))
))
))))
))))))
))))
)))
)
))
)
)))))))
)
)))))))
)
))
))))))))
))
)))))))))
))))))))
)))))))))))))
))))))))
)))
)))))
))
))))
))))
))
))))))
)))))))))
)))
)))))))))))))))
))))))))
)))))
)
)
))))
)))))))))))))
)))))))
))))))))))))
))))
)))))
)))))))))
))
))
))
))
))))
)))))))
))))
)
)
)
)))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)))
))
))
)
)
)
)
)))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))))
)
)))
)
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
)
)))))
))
))))))))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)))
)
)
)
))
)))))))
)))
)
))
))))
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
))
))))
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
))
)
))
))
))
)))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
))
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)))))))))))))))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))))))))))
)
))
)))))
))))))))))))))))))
))
)
))
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
"
"
"
""""
"
""
""
"""
"
"
"
"
"
""
""""
"
"
"""
"
"""""""
""""
"""
"
""
"
""""
""""
"
""""
""
"
"
""""
""
""
"""""
"
""
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
""""
""
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
")
)
)
))))
)
))
))
)))
)
)
)
)
)
))
))))
)
)
)))
)
)))))))
))))
)))
)
))
)
))))
))))
)
))))
))
)
)
))))
))
))
)))))
)
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
))))
))
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
"
""
"
""
"
""""""
"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
)
))
)
))
)
))))))
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)"
"
"
"
"
""
"
"
"
)
)
)
)
)
))
)
)
)
$
$
$$
$
$
$
+
+
++
+
+
+
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
$
$
$$$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
+
+
++++
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
++
+
+
+
+
+
+
$$$+++XX
X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WW
W
W W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
XX
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
XX
X
XX
XX
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
WW
W
W
W
W W
W
W
W
WW
W
WW
WW
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
X
X XX
X
XX
X X
X
XX
X
X
X
W
W WW
W
WW
W W
W
WW
W
W
W
X
X
X
XX
X
X
W
W
W
WW
W
W
X
X
X
W
W
W
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-13
Citywide Nighƫme Crashes (2016-2020)
COLLISION SEVERITY
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
LEGEND
"Nighttime Vehicle Collisions
Minor Roads
X Nighttime Bike Collisions
Major Roads
$Nighttime Pedestrian Collisions
Freeways
ñ City Hall
City Boundary
ñ
Property Damage Only
Yn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRanch o C a lifo r n i a R d
Marg
arita
R
d
W inchesterR dVa
ll
e
j
o
A
ve Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town
Front
St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 35
2.3 Equivalent Property Damage Only Scoring (EPDO)
Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) scoring per the Highway Safety Manual (HSM) was utilized to
analyze crash data and evaluate roadway network performance. Crashes were assigned weighting factors
relative to property damage only collisions based on crash costs from the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners v1.5. The weighting
factor generally reflects an order of magnitude difference between the societal costs of fatal and severe
injury collisions versus non-severe injury collisions. EPDO score is calculated by multiplying each crash
severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:
EPDO Score = (Fatal Weight x Number of Fatal Crashes) + (Severe Injury Weight x
Number of Severe Injury Crashes) + (Other Visible Injury Weight x Number of Other
Visible Injury Crashes) + (Complaint of Pain Injury Weight x Number of Complaint of Pain
Injury Crashes) + Property Damage Only Crashes
EPDO scoring was conducted for signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and roadway
segments. EPDO scores were organized by quintile and displayed graphically by heat maps. The top
quintiles identified priority locations with the highest EPDO scores and corresponds with the highest crash
frequency and severity. Table 2-21 summarizes the crash cost and EPDO score associated with an
individual collision by location type and severity. Figure 2-14 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile
for signalized intersections, non-signalized intersections, and roadway segments.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-14
Citywide EPDO Scoring
EPDO
80- 100th Percentile
60- 80th Percentile
40- 60th Percentile
20- 40th Percentile
0- 20th Percentile
!Signalized Intersections
Minor Roads
#Unsignalized Intersections
Major Roads
Roadway Segments
Freeways
City Boundary
LEGENDYn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
e
y
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRanch o C a lifo r n i a R d
Marg
arita
R
d
W inchesterR dVall
e
j
o
A
v
e Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town Fron
t St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 37
Table 2-21 Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type
LOCATION TYPE
CRASH WEIGHTS BY SEVERITY
FATAL AND SEVERE
INJURY
OTHER
VISIBLE INJURY
COMPLAINT OF
PAIN INJURY
PROPERTY DAMAGE
ONLY
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
EPDO
SCORE
CRASH
COST
Signalized
Intersection
123.7 $1.46m
10.7 $126,500 6.1 $71,900 1 $11,800 Unsignalized
Intersection
195.8 $2.31m
Roadway 169.5 $1.46m
2.3.1 Signalized Intersections
Figure 2-15 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for signalized intersections. The quintiles and
corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 195.7 to 558.3
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 87.9 to 195.6
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 46.4 to 87.8
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 26.5 to 46.3
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 26.4
The top quintile signalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores included 23 signalized locations
which are shown on Table 2-22 and graphically on Figure 2-16. Based on roadway classifications in City of
Temecula General Plan Circulation Element, most of the top quintile signalized intersection locations are
along arterial and major highway corridors with fewer intersections on lower-order roadways.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 38
Table 2-22 Top Quintile Signalized Intersections by EPDO Score
RANK LOCATION TOTAL COLLISIONS EPDO SCORE
1 RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD & YNEZ ROAD 63 558.3
2
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
MARGARITA
ROAD/REDHAWK
PARKWAY
65 497.9
3 TEMECULA PARKWAY & LA
PAZ ROAD 51 463.5
4 TEMECULA PARKWAY &
JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD 26 452.4
5
RANCHO CALIFORNIA
ROAD & JEFFERSON
AVENUE/OLD TOWN
FRONT STREET
46 421.3
6 TEMECULA PARKWAY &
PECHANGA PARKWAY 46 407
7
MARGARITA ROAD &
RUSTIC GLEN
DRIVE/HARVESTON
SCHOOL ROAD
11 381.8
8 TEMECULA PARKWAY &
BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 38 374.5
9 WINCHESTER ROAD &
YNEZ ROAD 99 329.6
10 *BUTTERFIELD STAGE
ROAD & CALLE CHAPOS 17 324.9
11 MEADOWS PARKWAY & DE
PORTOLA ROAD 17 314.7
12 MARGARITA ROAD &
SOLANA WAY 17 313.7
13
MARGARITA ROAD &
DARTOLO ROAD/LUCKY
CENTER
16 298.9
14
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
MEADOWS PARKWAY/APIS
ROAD
49 283.3
15 WINCHESTER ROAD &
JEFFERSON AVENUE 81 281.5
16 JEFFERSON AVENUE & VIA
MONTEZUMA 10 272
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 39
17 RANCHO VISTA RD &
MEADOWS PARKWAY 10 272
18 MARGARITA ROAD & DATE
STREET 5 252.2
19 WINCHESTER ROAD &
RORIPAUGH ROAD 33 252
20
PECHANGA PARKWAY &
WOLF VALLEY ROAD/VIA
EDUARDO
31 249.5
21
YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA
NORTH/PROMENADE
MALL NORTH
29 223.5
22 YNEZ ROAD & OVERLAND
DRIVE 35 213.7
23
TEMECULA PARKWAY &
AVENIDA DE
MISSIONES/RANCHO
PUEBLO ROAD
18 206.9
*Butterfield Stage Rd & Calle Chapos recently became a signal in 2020. All crash data is representative of an
unsignalized intersection.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-15
Signalized IntersecƟons EPDO Scoring
EPDO
80- 100th Percentile
60- 80th Percentile
40- 60th Percentile
20- 40th Percentile
0- 20th Percentile
LEGEND
!Signalized Intersections Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways City BoundaryYn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRanch o C a lifo r n i a R d
Margarita
R
d
W inchesterR dVall
e
j
o
A
v
e Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town
Front
S
t
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H o t SpringsRd
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
(
!(
!(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
(
!(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
(
(
(
(
!(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
!(
(
(
!((
!(
(
!(
!((
!(
(
(
(
(
!(
(
(
(
!(
!(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
!(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
!(
9
6
2
3
4
8
1
5
7 10
21
22
19
15
14
23
20
17
11
12
18
13
16
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-16
Priority Signalized IntersecƟons
Priority Ranking
ñ City Hall
!(Top20thPercentile
Minor Roads
Major Roads
Freeways
City Boundary
##
LEGEND
ñ
Top Quintile Signalized Intersections
1. Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd 13.Margarita Rd & Dartolo Rd / Lucky Center
2.Temecula Pkwy & Margarita Rd / Redhawk Pkwy 14. Temecula Pkwy & Meadows Pkwy / Apis Rd
3.Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Rd 15.Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
4. Temecula Pkwy & Jedediah Smith Rd 16.Jefferson Ave & Via Montezuma
5. Rancho California Rd & Jefferson Ave / Old Town Front St 17. Rancho Vista Rd & Meadows Pkwy
6. Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Rd 18.Margarita Rd & Date St
7. Margarita Rd & Rustic Glen Dr / Harveston School Rd 19. Winchester Rd & Roripaugh Rd
8. Temecula Pkwy & Butterfield Stage Rd 20.Pechanga Pkwy & Wolf Valley Rd
9. Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd 21.Ynez Rd & Palm Plaza North / Promenade Mall North
10. Butterfield Stage Rd & Calle Chapos 22.Ynez Rd & Overland Dr
11. Meadows Pkwy & De Portola Rd 23.Temecula Parkway & Avenida De Missiones / Rancho Pueblo Rd
12. Margarita Rd & Solana Way Yn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf Valle y RdP
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdR a ncho California Rd
Marg
arita
R
d
W inchesterR dVall
e
j
o
A
v
e Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town
Front
St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 42
2.3.2 Unsignalized Intersections
Figure 2-17 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for unsignalized intersections. The quintiles and
corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 21.4 to 415.5
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 11.1 to 21.3
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 6.1 to 11.0
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 1.0 to 6.0
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 0.9
The top quintile unsignalized intersection locations based on EPDO scores included 55 unsignalized
locations. For the purposes of this Local Roadway Safety Plan the top 20 unsignalized locations are shown
on Table 2-23 and graphically on Figure 2-18 in order to focus on the most severe locations. Based on
roadway classifications in the Temecula’s General Plan Circulation Element, the majority priority
unsignalized intersections are primarily located on arterial and major corridors with fewer top quintile
intersections located on lower-order secondary, collector, and local roadways.
Table 2-23 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score
RANK LOCATION TOTAL
COLLISIONS EPDO SCORE
1 MARGARITA RD & PASEO BRILLANTE 7 415.5
2 JEFFERSON AVE & LAS HACIENDAS ST 4 382.4
3 CALLE PINA COLADA & LA SERENA WAY 12 250.7
4 NICOLAS RD & RORIPAUGH RD 9 227.8
5 JEDEDIAH SMITH RD & MARGARITA RD 9 208.4
6 TEMECULA PKWY & TEMECULA CREEK RD 5 204.4
7 CAMINO BROZAS & REDHAWK PKWY 3 197.3
8 MORENO RD & OLD TOWN FRONT ST S 3 192.2
9 LEENA WAY & MONTELEGRO WAY 2 191.2
10 ANGELO DR & DODARO DR 1 190.2
11 ASHBURY PL & VIA RIO TEMECULA 1 190.2
12 BUECKING DR & JEFFERSON AVE 1 190.2
13 JEREZ LN & SUNNY MEADOWS DR 1 190.2
14 LIEFER RD & PALA VISTA DR 1 190.2
15 MARIAN RD & TISCHA DR 1 190.2
16 RAMSEY CT & SELBY CIR 1 190.2
17 MARGARITA RD & VIA LA VIDA 24 143.9
18 JEFFERSON AVE & WINCHESTER CENTER DRWY 15 65.5
19 WEST CAMPANULA WAY & DE PORTOLA RD 10 55.4
20 MORENO RD & OLD TOWN FRONT ST N 15 54.8
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*
#*#*
#*#*
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-17
Unsignalized IntersecƟons EPDO Scoring
EPDO
80- 100th Percentile
60- 80th Percentile
40- 60th Percentile
20- 40th Percentile
0- 20th Percentile
LEGEND
#Unsignalized Intersections Minor Roads Major Roads Freeways City BoundaryYn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRanchoC a lifo r n ia R d
Marg
arita
R
d
W inchesterR dVall
e
j
o
A
v
e Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town Front St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
#*#*
#*
#*
#*
#*
6
4
8
1
9
2
5
7
318
16
20
15
17
14
13
19
12
11
10
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-18
Priority Unsignalized IntersecƟons
LEGEND
Priority Ranking
ñ City Hall
#*Top20thPercentile
Minor Roads
Major Roads
Freeways
City Boundary
##
ñ
Top 20 Unsignalized Intersections
1. Margarita Rd & Paseo Brillante
2. Jefferson Ave & Las Haciendas St
3. Calle Pina Colada & La Serena Way
4. Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
5. Jedediah Smith Rd & Margarita Rd
6.Temecula Pkwy & Temecula Creek Rd
7. Camino Brozas & Redhawk Pkwy
8. Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St
9. Leena Way & Montelegro Way
10.Angelo Dr & Dodarado Dr
11. Ashbury Pl & Via Rio Temecula
12. Buecking Dr & Jefferson Ave
13. Jerez Ln & Sunny Meadows Dr
14. Liefer Rd & Pala Vista Dr
15. Marian Rd & Tischa Dr
16. Ramsey Ct & Selby Cir
17. Margarita Rd & Via La Vida
18. Jefferson Ave & Winchester Center Drwy
19. West Campanula Way & De Portola Rd
20. Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St NorthYn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
yRainbowValleyRdRanchoCaliforniaRdMarg
arita
R
d
W inchesterR dVall
e
j
o
A
v
e Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town Fron
t St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 45
2.3.3 Roadway Segments
Figure 2-19 shows the citywide EPDO scoring by quintile for roadway segments. The quintiles and
corresponding EPDO score ranges are as follows:
• 80 – 100th Percentile: 83.3 to 720.0
• 60 – 80th Percentile: 14.2 to 83.2
• 40 – 60th Percentile: 7.1 to 14.1
• 20 – 40th Percentile: 1.0 to 7.0
• 0 – 20th Percentile: 0.0 to 0.9
The top quintile roadway segment locations based on EPDO scores included 32 roadway segments. For
the purposes of this Local Roadway Safety Plan the top 20 roadway segments are shown on Table 2-24
and graphically on Figure 2-20 in order to focus on the most severe locations. Based on roadway
classifications in the City of Temecula General Plan Circulation Element, the majority of the priority
roadway segments are arterial, major, and secondary corridors with fewer located on lower-order
roadways.
Table 2-24 Top Quintile Unsignalized Intersections by EPDO Score
RANK CORRIDOR SEGMENT TOTAL
COLLISIONS
EPDO
SCORE
1
TEMECULA
PKWY/HWY
79
OLD TOWN
FRONT ST TO
LA PAZ RD/LA
PAZ ST
111 720
2
RANCHO
CALIFORNIA
RD
JEFFERSON
AVE/OLD
TOWN FRONT
ST TO YNEZ RD
61 539.4
3 WINCHESTER
RD
JEFFERSON
AVE TO YNEZ
RD
108 445.2
4 JEFFERSON
AVE
VIA
MONTEZUMA
TO DEL RIO RD
13 399.6
5 OLD TOWN
FRONT ST
1ST
ST/SANTIAGO
RD TO
TEMECULA
PKWY/HWY 79
14 390.9
6 RAINBOW
CANYON RD
PECHANGA
PKWY TO
SOUTH CITY
LIMIT
15 377.1
7 MEADOWS
PKWY
LA SERENA
WAY TO 3 340.1
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 46
RANCHO
CALIFORNIA
RD
8 YNEZ RD
TIERRA VISTA
RD TO
RANCHO VISTA
RD
15 248.6
9 JEFFERSON
AVE
SANBORN AVE
TO
WINCHESTER
AVE/HWY 79
16 239.4
10
RANCHO
CALIFORNIA
RD
MEADOWS
PKWY TO
BUTTERFIELD
STAGE RD
11 215
11 MARGARITA
RD
RANCHO VISTA
RD TO PAUBA
RD
8 211.5
12 WINCHESTER
RD
RORIPAUGH
RD TO
NICOLAS RD
13 211.4
13
TEMECULA
PKWY/HWY
79
LA PAZ RD/LA
PAZ ST TO
PECHANGA
PKWY
11 209.9
14 MARGARITA
RD
SOLANA WAY
TO
STONEWOOD
RD
6 194.7
15 PAUBA RD
MARGARITA
RD TO VIA
RAMI/LINFIELD
WAY
6 179.4
16 YNEZ RD
MOTOR CAR
PKWY TO
SOLANA WAY
5 178.9
17 MARGARITA
RD
AVENIDA
BARCA TO LA
SERENA WAY
4 177.9
18 RANCHO
VISTA RD
MARGARITA
RD TO
MEADOWS
PKWY
3 176.4
19 NICOLE LN
OVERLAND DR
TO
MARGARITA
RD
4 172.8
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 47
20 RIO NEDO
RD
VIA INDUSTRIA
TO DIAZ RD 3 171.8
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-19
Roadway Segments EPDO Scoring
EPDO
80- 100th Percentile
60- 80th Percentile
40- 60th Percentile
20- 40th Percentile
0- 20th Percentile
LEGEND
LEGEND!Signalized Intersections
Freeways
Roadway Segments
City Boundary
Minor Roads Major RoadsYn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRanch o C a lifo r n i a R d
Marg
arita
R
d
W inchesterR dVa
ll
e
j
o
A
ve Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld Town
Front
St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
6
7
18
5
4
20
1
10
2
3
158
9
12
17
13
11
14
19
16
§¨¦15
§¨¦15
Figure 2-20
Priority Roadway Segments
Top 20 Roadway Segments
1.Temecula Pkwy (Old Town Front St to La Paz Rd / La Paz St)
2. Rancho California Rd (Jefferson Ave / Old Town Front St to Ynez Rd)
3. Winchester Rd (Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd)
4. Jefferson Ave (Via Montezuma to Del Rio Rd)
5. Old Town Front St (1st St / Santiago Rd to Temecula Pkwy)
6. Rainbow Valley Rd (Pechanga Pkwy to South City Limit)
7. Meadows Pkwy (La Serena Way to Rancho California Rd)
8. Ynez Rd (Tierra Vista Rd to Rancho Vista Rd)
9. Jefferson Ave (Sanborn Ave to Winchester Ave)
10. Rancho California Rd (Meadows Pkw to Butterfield Stage Rd)
11. Margarita Rd (Rancho Vista Rd to Pauba Rd)
12. Winchester Rd (Roripaugh Rd to Nicolas Rd)
13. Temecula Pkwy (La Paz Rd to Pechanga Pkwy)
14. Margarita Rd (Solana Way to Stonewood Rd)
15. Pauba Rd (Margarita Rd to Via Rami / Linfield Way)
16. Ynez Rd (Motor Car Pkwy to Solana Way)
17. Margarita Rd (Avenida Barca to La Serena Way)
18. Rancho Vista Rd (Margarita Rd to Meadows Pkwy)
19. Nicole Ln (Overland Dr to Margarita Rd)
20. Rio Nedo Rd (Via Industria to Diaz Rd)Yn
e
z
R
d
Temecul
a
P
k
w
y
Wolf V
all
ey
R
d
P
e
c
h
a
n
g
a
P
k
w
y
RainbowValleyRdRa n c h o C a lifo rn iaR dM
ar
g
a
rit
aRdW inchesterR dVall
e
j
o
A
v
e Butterf
i
el
dSt
a
g
e
R
d
J
e
ff
e
r
s
o
n
A
veOld
Town
Front
St
P a u b la R dRanchoVistaRdMead
o
w
s
P
k
wyM urrieta H ot SpringsRd
Priority Ranking
ñ City Hall
!Signalized Intersections
Top 20th Percentile
Minor Roads
Major Roads
Freeways
City Boundary
##
LEGEND
!!
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 50
2.4 Key Findings
Trends based on the crash data analysis include:
• Majority of crashes occurred at intersections including signalized (52%) and unsignalized (25%).
• Majority of injury related crashes resulted in non-severe injury (95%).
• Top three crash types include rear end (35%), broadside (28%), and hit object (14%).
• Top three primary collision factors include unsafe speed (32%), improper turning (12%), automobile
right-of-way (11%), and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs (10%).
• Majority of crashes stemming from unsafe travel speeds resulted in rear-end collisions (79%).
• Approximately 1% of collisions, in which unsafe speeds was the primary factor, resulted in fatal and
severe injuries.
• Majority of crashes involved automobiles only (90%).
• Fatal and severe injury collisions showed an over-representation for crashes involving
motorcycles (17%), pedestrians (26%), and bicycles (7%).
• The most common crash types for collisions involving motorcycles were broadside (39%), rear end
(20%) and hit object (17%).
• The highest number of nighttime crashes occurred from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The highest number
of fatal and severe injury crashes occurred from 11:00 PM to 1:00 AM.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 51
3 COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
This section establishes the foundation for determining countermeasures that can be applied to address
crashes that occur on the Temecula roadway network. A countermeasure toolbox was developed based
on the results of the citywide collision analysis, roadway network screening, and guidance provided by
the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) for countermeasure effectiveness including:
• USDOT FHWA Safe System Approach
• USDOT FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures
• USDOT FHWA Crash Modification Factors (CMF Clearinghouse)
• USDOT NHTSA Countermeasures that Work
• California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) and Implementation Plan
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners
Countermeasures are organized based on the 5E’s of traffic safety from the CA SHSP which include the
following key overarching strategies to improve traffic safety in California:
1. ENGINEERING Apply effective and/or innovative infrastructure-oriented
safety treatments
2. ENFORCEMENT Enforce actions that reduce high-risk behavior
3. EDUCATION Educate all road users on safe behaviors
4. EMERGENCY RESPONSE Improve emergency response times and actions
5. EMERGING TECHNOLOGY Apply emerging technologies to roadways, vehicles
and/or roadway users
With Caltrans requiring local LRSP adoption for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant
funding eligibility in the upcoming Cycle 11 call-for-projects, this toolbox was developed with a focus on
engineering countermeasures and improvements that are eligible HSIP funding. The Temecula LRSP is a
living document that will be updated based on Caltrans standards, which is currently required at least
every five (5) years. Future LRSP updates to the countermeasure toolbox will include additional
development of non-engineering countermeasures and strategies that can be locally funded or are eligible
for other roadway safety grant programs.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 52
3.1 Engineering
Engineering countermeasures for infrastructure-oriented safety
treatments were selected from the 2020 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety
Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners (v1.5) based on the
results of the crash analysis, roadway network screening, and City
roadway infrastructure priorities. The countermeasures can be applied
to signalized intersections (S), non-signalized intersections (NS), and
roadways (R) to prepare grant funding applications through the Caltrans
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). Countermeasures are
summarized based on the countermeasure numbers identified in the
LRSM, countermeasure type, crash types that the countermeasure
addresses, the crash reduction factor (CRF) or multiplicative factor that
indicates the proportion of crashes expected after implementing the
countermeasure, the percentage of HSIP funding eligibility, and the
opportunity for systemic approach based on the ability to apply the countermeasure to multiple crash
locations, corridors, or geographic areas. Table 3-1 provides a summary of the countermeasures for
signalized intersections, Table 3-2 provides a summary of the countermeasures for non-signalized
intersections, and Table 3-3 provides a summary of countermeasures for roadways. Appendix C contains
detailed information for each engineering countermeasure including:
• Caltrans LRSM countermeasure reference
• HSIP funding eligibility
• Crash types addressed
• Crash reduction factor (CRF)
• Expected design life
• Planning-level approximate cost
• Example countermeasure image
• Description of the countermeasure
• Caltrans LRSM description of where to use the countermeasure
• Caltrans LRSM description of why the countermeasure works
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 53
Table 3-1 Signalized Intersection Countermeasures
LRSM
CM # TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH TYPE
CRASH
REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
S1 Lighting Add intersection lighting (S.I.) Night 40% 100% Medium
S2 Signal
Mod
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back-plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number
All 15% 100% Very High
S3 Signal
Mod
Improve signal timing
(coordination, phases, red,
yellow, or operation)
All 15% 50% Very High
S5 Signal
Mod
Install emergency vehicle pre-
emption systems
Emergency
Vehicle 70% 100% High
S6 Signal
Mod
Install left-turn lane and add
turn phase (signal has no left-
turn lane or phase before)
All 55% 90% Low
S7 Signal
Mod
Provide protected left turn
phase (left turn lane already
exists)
All 30% 100% High
S10 Operation/
Warning
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (S.I.) All 30% 100% Medium
S11 Operation/
Warning
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
All 55% 100% Medium
S12 Operation/
Warning
Install raised median on
approaches (S.I.) All 25% 90% Medium
S13PB Geometric
Mod
Install pedestrian median
fencing on approaches Ped & Bike 35% 90% Low
S16 Geometric
Mod
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal) All Varies 100% Low
S17PB Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads Ped & Bike 25% 100% Very High
S18PB Ped and
Bike Install pedestrian crossing (S.I.) Ped & Bike 25% 100% High
S21PB Ped and
Bike
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
Ped & Bike 60% 100% Very High
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 54
Table 3-2 Non-signalized Intersection Countermeasures
LRSM
CM # TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH
REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
NS1 Lighting Add intersection lighting
(NS.I.) Night 40% 100% Medium
NS3 Control Install signals All 30% 100% Low
NS4 Control
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all way
stop)
All Varies 100% Low
NS5 Control
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor
road)
All Varies 100% Low
NS6 Operation/
Warning
Install/upgrade larger or
additional stop signs or
other intersection
warning/regulatory signs
All 15% 100% Very High
NS7 Operation/
Warning
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings (NS.I.) All 25% 100% Very High
NS8 Operation/
Warning
Install Flashing Beacons at
Stop-Controlled
Intersections
All 15% 100% High
NS9 Operation/
Warning
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (NS.I.) All 30% 100% High
NS12 Operation/
Warning
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
All 55% 100% Medium
NS14 Geometric
Mod
Install raised median on
approaches (NS.I.) All 25% 90% Medium
NS17 Geometric
Mod
Install right-turn lane
(NS.I.) All 20% 90% Low
NS18 Geometric
Mod
Install left-turn lane (where
no left-turn lane exists) All 35% 90% Low
NS19PB Ped and
Bike
Install raised medians /
refuge islands (NS.I.) Ped & Bike 45% 90% Medium
NS20PB Ped and
Bike
Install pedestrian crossing
at uncontrolled locations
(new signs and markings
only)
Ped & Bike 25% 100% High
NS21PB Ped and
Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing at uncontrolled
locations (with enhanced
safety features)
Ped & Bike 35% 100% Medium
NS22PB Ped and
Bike
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB) Ped & Bike 35% 100% Medium
NS23PB Ped and
Bike
Install Pedestrian Signal
(including Pedestrian
Hybrid Beacon (HAWK))
Ped & Bike 55% 100% Low
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 55
Table 3-3 Roadway Countermeasures
LRSM
CM # TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH
REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
R1 Lighting Add segment lighting Night 35% 100% Medium
R3
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install Median Barrier All 25% 100% Medium
R4
Remove/
Shield
Obstacles
Install Guardrail All 25% 100% High
R8 Geometric
Mod Install raised median All 25% 90% Medium
R10PB Geometric
Mod
Install pedestrian median
fencing on approaches
Ped &
Bike 35% 90% Low
R11 Geometric
Mod
Install acceleration/
deceleration lanes All 25% 90% Low
R14 Geometric
Mod
Road Diet (Reduce travel lanes
from 4 to 3 and add a two way
left-turn and bike lanes)
All 30% 90% Medium
R15 Geometric
Mod Widen shoulder All 30% 90% Medium
R17 Geometric
Mod
Improve horizontal alignment
(flatten curves) All 50% 90% Low
R18 Geometric
Mod Flatten crest vertical curve All 25% 90% Low
R21 Geometric
Mod
Improve pavement friction
(High Friction Surface
Treatments)
All 55% 100% High
R22 Operation/
Warning
Install/Upgrade signs with new
fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)
All 15% 100% Very High
R25 Operation/
Warning
Install curve advance warning
signs (flashing beacon) All 30% 100% High
R26 Operation/
Warning
Install dynamic/variable speed
warning signs All 30% 100% High
R28 Operation/
Warning
Install edge-lines and
centerlines All 25% 100% Very High
R30 Operation/
Warning
Install centerline rumble
strips/stripes All 20% 100% High
R31 Operation/
Warning
Install edgeline rumble strips/
stripes All 15% 100% High
R32PB Ped and
Bike Install bike lanes Ped &
Bike 35% 90% High
R33PB Ped and
Bike Install Separated Bike Lanes Ped &
Bike 45% 90% High
R34PB Ped and
Bike
Install sidewalk/pathway (to
avoid walking along roadway)
Ped &
Bike 80% 90% Medium
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 56
LRSM
CM # TYPE COUNTERMEASURE NAME CRASH
TYPE
CRASH
REDUCTION
FACTOR
HSIP
FUNDING
ELIGIBILITY
SYSTEMIC
APPROACH
OPPORTUNITY
R35PB Ped and
Bike
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced safety
features)
Ped &
Bike 35% 90% Medium
R36PB Ped and
Bike
Install raised pedestrian
crossing
Ped &
Bike 35% 90% Medium
R37PB Ped and
Bike
Install Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
Ped &
Bike 35% 100% Medium
3.1.1 Temecula Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
The City has adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program which seeks to mitigate speed control
issues on neighborhood throughfares through establishing procedures and techniques that promote safe
conditions for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The City’s Traffic Calming Toolbox includes
engineering strategies for the following roadway features:
• Pavement Markings / Striping: Narrow the travel way by striping a centerline and an edge line
or bike lane along a roadway segment to promote a reduction in speed and increase pedestrian
and bicycle safety
• Residential Multi-Way Stop Controls: Install multi-way stop control signs to establish right-of-
way and reduce vehicle conflicts at residential street intersections. Note that this is strategy is not
used to implement control of vehicular speeds or volumes
• Mid-Block Median: Install raised on painted medians along the centerline of the roadway at
mid-block locations to narrow the travel lanes at strategic locations. This provides a barrier
between travel lanes and may be landscaped to provide visual amenity and neighborhood identity
• Chicane: Roadway feature that alternates the path of travel by using curves and twists. Chicanes
can be created by striping the roadway or reconstructing the curb and gutter with a series of
extensions. Chicanes provide a greater visual obstruction, reduce vehicular speeds, are easily
negotiable by emergency response vehicles, and provide minimal impacts to local traffic
• Bulb-Out: Roadway feature that narrows the roadway at intersections by extending the curb and
providing a shorter path of travel for pedestrian crossings. Bulb-outs can be created by striping
the roadway or reconstructing the curb and gutter with an extension of the curb radius. Bulb-outs
provide a greater visual obstruction, reduce vehicle speeds, are easily negotiable by emergency
response vehicles, provide minimal impacts to local traffic, and provide a shorter path of travel
for pedestrians crossing the street
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 57
3.2 Education
The City is committed to providing roadway safety education and has
conducted several public outreach campaigns through the Drive Safe
Temecula program. With funding from state and regional grants,
campaigns for raising awareness for safe driving choices have included:
• Driving Under the Influence Terminator Team (DUITT)
• Riverside County Sherrif’s Takeover Racing Enforcement
Team (S.T.R.E.E.T)
• Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Go
Human
• California Highway Patrol (CHP)-Temecula Distracted Driver Awareness
3.2.1 Temecula Police Department
The Temecula Police Department (TPD) has partnered with state and regional law enforcement in the
previously stated public outreach campaigns to provide traffic education presentations to the public,
businesses, and local schools. The Temecula Police Department recently participated in City outreach
efforts centered on specific topics including:
• Distracted Driving: The City conducted a month-long educational
campaign centered on the prevention of distracted driving,
particularly texting and driving. Messages such as “don’t be
distracted” and “don’t text and drive” were displayed throughout
the City and TPD participated in providing education around
California handheld cell phone laws and how local police enforce
the laws against distracted driving through the national “U Drive. U
Text. U Pay.” high-visibility enforcement campaign. A crashed
vehicle that demonstrated the consequences of texting and driving
was on display at the Promenade Temecula near the theater.
• Drunk and Drug-Impaired Driving: The City conducted a month-
long educational campaign to raise awareness for preventing drunk
and / or drug-
impaired driving. TPD participated in providing
education around impairment related to alcohol,
marijuana, opioids, methamphetamines, or any
potentially impairing drug-prescribed or over-the-
counter, regardless of whether the substance is
legal or illegal. TPD also provided traffic education
and awareness of driving under the influence (DUI)
safety checkpoints. Messages such as “Don’t drive
drunk or drugged”, “No Alcohol”, “No Marijuana or
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 58
other drugs” were displayed throughout the City
and a separate crashed vehicle was displayed in
front of City Hall to demonstrate the consequences
of driving under the influence.
• Red Light Running: The City conducted a month-
long educational “STOP at a Red Light!” campaign
to raise awareness that red light running happens
frequently and is often deadly. TPD participated in
providing information on the dangers of red light
running based on the National Coalition for Safer
Roads (NCSR)’s “Stop on Red” program.
• Speeding: The City conducted a month-long
campaign to raise awareness for the dangers of
speeding. TPD participated by providing education
about what factors contribute to speeding, tips for
dealing with speeding and aggressive drivers,
providing education about the 25 MPH residential
speed limits, and promoting awareness for public
requests for TPD to place City variable display
radar trailers that inform motorists of speeding on residential streets.
• Bicycling: The City conducted a month-long campaign to encourage safe cycling. TPD participated
by providing education on choosing bike routes based on rider experience and comfort, selecting
the right bike size, wearing a helmet, and obeying the rules of the road based on the California
Vehicle Code.
• Pedestrian Crosswalk Safety: The City conducted a month-long campaign to promote
pedestrian and crosswalk safety. TPD participated by providing education using sidewalks,
crossing at intersections, marked vs. unmarked crosswalks, using the pedestrian push buttons at
traffic signals, and the meanings of the walk / man symbol, flashing don’t walk / hand symbol, and
steady don’t walk / hand symbol.
• Reckless Driving: As part of the Drive Safe Temecula program, the City has encouraged residents
to report reckless driving activity. Through the program, awareness is being raised that reckless
driving is considered an emergency and immediate reporting could save a life. TPD has
participated in providing education about what information needs to be reported and how to
report safely and legally from a vehicle – either parked or utilizing an installed hands-free system.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 59
3.2.2 Temecula Traffic Engineering Division
The Temecula Traffic Engineering Division is responsible for day-to-day
traffic operations, addressing safety issues within the City, and planning for
future transportation needs. The Division has created an extensive library
of educational traffic information brochures including:
• Crosswalks: Brochure that details State policies and California
vehicle code guidelines, marked vs. unmarked crosswalks, how
crosswalks are used, typical causes of pedestrian crashes at
crosswalks, crosswalk markings, and school crosswalks
• Curb Parking Uses: Brochure that details City municipal code and
California vehicle code guidelines, curb color meanings, signs for no
parking / no stopping, time limited parking and disabled parking,
and on-street parking for parallel parking and cul-de-sacs
• Pedestrian Signals: Brochure that details City policy on where
pedestrian signals are installed, the replacement of “walk” and
“don’t walk” indications with symbols, flashing upraised hand meaning, pedestrian push button
use, and safety suggestions for crossing
• Speed Zones: Brochure that details speed zone misconceptions, speed laws, engineering and
traffic surveys for prevailing speeds, accident records, and inventories of highway, traffic, and
roadside conditions
• Stop Signs and Traffic Signals: Brochure that details City policies on intersection traffic
controls, installation policies, and the correct use of stop signs and traffic signals
• Traffic Restrictions in Progress (TRIP) Report: Report published by the City to advise citizens
of conditions that affect traffic flow within Temecula. Generally, it includes major construction
zones, construction fact sheets by project, and an interactive map
• Traffic Safety: Brochure that details how neighborhood streets can
reduce vehicular speeding and be made safer as a driver, as a parent, as a
bicyclist, as a pedestrian, as a resident, and as a volunteer on a school or
neighborhood traffic safety committee
• Traffic Signal Systems: Brochure that details why traffic signals are
needed, the advantages and disadvantages, and costs. The brochure also
includes descriptions of special functions for traffic signal preemption,
flashing red, flashing yellow, dark signals, signal timing, traffic signal
coordination, and the City’s future traffic signal coordination goals
• Home Owner Association (HOA) Traffic Calming: Brochure that
details the neighborhood speed watch program, which encourages citizens
to take in active role in changing driver behavior on neighborhood streets.
Information is provided on a variety of topics including: electing
community volunteers to participate in a neighborhood traffic safety
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 60
committee, recommendations for gaining community support, recommendations for children at
play cones, street parking during hours of speeding concern, how to report information to the
Temecula Police Department and request targeted enforcement during hours of speeding
concern, how to request a radar speed display unit from the Temecula Police Department, how
the City supports traffic calming, and how speed limit postings alone don’t change driver behavior
3.2.3 Temecula Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
The City has adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program which seeks to mitigate speed control
issues on neighborhood throughfares through establishing procedures and techniques that promote safe
conditions for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The City’s Traffic Calming Toolbox includes
educational strategies for:
• Neighborhood Traffic Safety Awareness Program: Activities that inform and seek to modify
driver behavior such as printed information, meetings, workshops between City staff and
residents, signing campaigns, school programs, and parent outreach
• Radar Speed Trailer Deployment: Use portable radar speed monitoring devices that are
capable of measuring and displaying vehicular speeds as an educational and public relations tool
• LED Speed Limit Advisory Sign: Signs that are similar to the radar trailer but are mounted on
poles and can be deployed for an extended period of time, or as required. These may also be used
as an educational and public outreach tool
Future Temecula LRSP updates shall include consideration of additional educational strategies including:
3.2.4 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are
administered through the California State Transportation
Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The program seeks to prevent
serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors that
impact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to education include:
• Motorcycle Safety: Hands-on skill-building trainings, promotion of wearing protective gear, and
educating the public on how to interact with motorcycles
• Occupant Protection: Education of parents and guardians on child safety seat laws, proper use
and installation of car seats, child safety seat check-ups, promoting teens and adult seat belt use,
and providing child safety seats to families in need
• Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety: Education on traffic rules, rights, responsibilities of drivers,
pedestrians and bikes, education for high-risk populations (youth and elderly), bicycle and walking
youth trainings, and promotion of safer driving, bicycling, and walking behaviors
• Public Relations, Advertising, and Marketing Programs: Monthly and year-round education
campaigns that focus on youth, teens, and young adults for impaired driving, distracted driving,
and pedestrian safety through the “Go Safely, California” campaign
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 61
3.2.5 Traffic Safety Marketing
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be
utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and
marketing tools through both traditional and online media. As part of the Drive
Safe Temecula Program, the City has utilized several of the NHTSA campaigns to provide education for
distracted driving, texting and driving, drunk driving, drug-impaired driving, speeding, bicycle safety, and
pedestrian safety. Future Temecula LRSP updates should include consideration of additional NHTSA TSM
education-related campaigns for child safety, motorcycle safety, older drivers, seat belts, school bus
safety, teen safety, and vehicle safety.
3.3 Enforcement
The City utilizes a variety of enforcement strategies to reduce high-risk
behaviors associated with increased risk for crash occurrence and severity. This
section summarizes feedback received from the Temecula Police Department
(TPD) and recommendations for additional enforcement strategies that can be
considered in future LRSP updates. The TPD has a
specialized Traffic Unit police team comprised of
ten (10) motorcycle enforcement officers and seven (7) traffic accident
investigators. The TPD Traffic Unit’s goal is to reduce traffic collisions within
the City and improve traffic safety for Temecula citizens. This is
accomplished through daily traffic enforcement efforts by officers,
communication with community partners, partnerships with state and
regional law enforcement, and working closely with City departments to
provide traffic education and awareness programs.
As part of the previously discussed Drive Safe Temecula program, the City
has deployed additional TPD traffic deputies to perform enforcement at key
locations known for speeding such as the Redhawk Parkway / Vail Ranch Parkway “loop”, conduct drinking
under the influence (DUI) and safety check points, and enforce seat belt and cell phone operations. TPD
also conducts targeted speeding enforcement in response to resident reports as part of the City’s
Neighborhood Speed Watch Program.
3.3.1 Temecula Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program
The City has adopted a Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program which seeks to mitigate speed control
issues on neighborhood throughfares through establishing procedures and techniques that promote safe
conditions for residents, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists. The City’s Traffic Calming Toolbox includes
enforcement strategies for:
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 62
• Traditional Enforcement: Periodic monitoring of speeding and other violations by the Temecula
Police Department. This modifies driver behavior by informing the public that speeding is
unacceptable behavior with consequences and also serves as a temporary public relations tool
• Speed Limit Signs: Provide posted speed limit signs on residential streets as an educational tool
to reinforce prima facie speed limits
Future Temecula LRSP updates shall include consideration of additional enforcement strategies including:
3.3.2 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are
administered through the California State Transportation
Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The OTS grant program seeks to
prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors
that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to enforcement include:
• Alcohol Impaired Driving Enforcement: Enforcement program for operations dedicated to
stopping and arresting suspected impaired drivers; purchasing equipment such as breath testing
devices; monitoring and treatment of high-risk DUI offenders
• Distracted Driving: Dedicated enforcement of California’s hands-free cell phone law
• Drug-Impaired Driving: Officer training for identifying and detecting drug impairment in drivers
through the Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) and Drug Recognition
Evaluation (DRE) programs
• Police Traffic Services: Officer resources for targeting specific traffic safety issues including
distracted driving, seat belt use, impaired driving, speeding, bicycle and pedestrian safety, and
other traffic violations that increase crash risk; officer training on holding DUI / Driver’s license
checkpoints and identifying suspected impaired drivers
• Roadway Safety and Traffic Records: Purchase hardware and software tools to build and
improve data collection systems, modernize manual databases, and digitize physical reports and
/ or print collections
3.3.3 Traffic Safety Marketing
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be
utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and
marketing tools through both traditional and online media. As part of the Drive
Safe Temecula Program, the City has utilized several of the NHTSA campaigns to provide enforcement for
distracted driving, texting and driving, drunk driving, drug-impaired driving, speeding, bicycle safety, and
pedestrian safety. Future Temecula LRSP updates should include consideration of additional NHTSA TSM
enforcement-related campaigns for law enforcement appreciation and seat belts.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 63
3.3.4 Targeted Enforcement Strategies
The primary collision factors (PCF) for citywide crashes that occurred during the study period is displayed
in Figure 3-1. The most common PCFs were unsafe speed (32%), improper turning (12%), automobile right-
of-way violations (11%), driving under the influence (10%), and traffic signals and signs (8%). Target hot
spot enforcement of these PCFs by the Temecula Police Department is recommended.
Figure 3-1 Citywide Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (2016-2020)
Unsafe speed is the top PCF in Temecula and, as previously discussed,
was one of the City’s top 3 lowest California OTS traffic ranking for the
last 3 years. Speeding is a critical PCF to provide enforcement for as
studies by the USDOT, FHWA, and NHTSA indicate that the
consequences extend beyond breaking the law. Speeding has been
linked to an increased degree of crash severity leading to more fatal
and severe injuries, a greater potential for loss of vehicle control,
reduced effectiveness of occupant protection equipment, and a
reduction in driver field of vision. The graphic to the right is from the
USDOT study titled “The Effects of Higher Speed Limits on Traffic
Fatalities on In the United States” which demonstrated that speed can
quickly reduce a driver’s field of vision, which impacts their ability to
see pedestrians and reduces their ability to react / avoid crashes. Speeding also intensifies the severity of
crashes and studies have found an exponential link between vehicle speeds and the chances of pedestrian
fatality or survival.
217
104
219
226
277
306
363
410
460
1231
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Less than 3%
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Pedestrian Violation
Other
Unknown / Not Stated
Traffic Signals and Signs
DUI
Automobile ROW
Improper Turning
Unsafe Speed
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 64
The figure below is from the USDOT “Vehicle Travel Speeds and Pedestrian Injuries” study which
demonstrated the chances of a pedestrian surviving a crash with a motor vehicle in relation to speed. A
pedestrian struck by an automobile traveling at 20 MPH has a 90% chance of surviving whereas a
pedestrian struck by an automobile traveling at 40 MPH only has a 20% chance of surviving. Enforcement
of speeding for road safety must be balanced with the use of speed as a key mobility performance metric.
3.4 Emergency Response
Emergency response strategies that support the Temecula LRSP include actions that improve emergency
response times to reduce fatalities, prevent secondary crashes from occurring, and reflect feedback
received by the Temecula Fire Department. The department works in cooperation with other community
organizations to conduct public safety education campaigns and hands-on safety skills trainings. Future
Temecula LRSP updates shall include consideration of additional emergency response strategies including:
3.4.1 Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) for California Local Road Owners (v1.2)
Countermeasure S5: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
The Caltrans Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) includes a countermeasure that is eligible for
100% funding for installing and / or upgrading existing emergency vehicle preemption (EVPE) systems at
signalized intersections to address crashes that have involved emergency vehicles. This countermeasure
includes utilization for both traditional infrared (IR) transmitter systems that rely on line-of-sight between
the emergency response vehicle and traffic signals, as well as tor the latest global position system (GPS)
preemption systems. The GPS-based EVPE systems transmit the emergency vehicle’s speed, direction, and
turn signal status which provides more efficient clearance of intersections along the route and improves
emergency response times. Additionally, GPS-based EVPE systems eliminate disruptions to traffic signal
operations, including traffic signal coordination, by eliminating the use of illegal emitters.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 65
3.4.2 California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants are
administered through the California State Transportation
Agency (CalSTA) and funded by the Federal Highway Safety Program. The OTS grant program seeks to
prevent serious injury and death resulting from motor vehicle crashes by addressing the behavioral factors
that impact roadway safety. OTS grants for priority program areas related to enforcement include:
• Emergency Medical Services: Upgrading extrication equipment and replacing outdated
equipment that is critical for reaching victims quickly and increasing their survivability
• Occupant Protection: Education of parents and guardians on child safety seat laws, proper use
and installation of car seats, child safety seat check-ups, promoting teens and adult seat belt use,
and providing child safety seats to families in need
3.4.3 Traffic Safety Marking (TSM)
Traffic Safety Marketing (TSM) is provided by the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) through the United States Department of
Transportation (USDOT). TSM provides communication resources that can be
utilized by local roadway safety advocates for traffic safety campaigns and
marketing tools through both traditional and online media. Future Temecula
LRSP updates should include consideration of NHTSA TSM emergency response-related campaigns for first
responder safety, vehicle safety, child safety, and seat belts.
3.5 Emerging Technology
Strategies for integrating emerging technology are from the 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway
Safety Plan (SHSP) challenge area which focuses on the use of technology to prevent, identify, and respond
to crashes as well as reduce the frequency or severity of crashes. Emerging technologies includes roadway,
vehicle, and driver applications. Examples include autonomous of connected vehicles, vehicle-to-vehicle
(V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) communications which aim to eliminate human error, the use of
Transportation Network Companies (TNCs) for cars, bikes, or scooters, advancements in safety devices in
vehicles, mobile applications, and improvements to emergency response from drones or roadway videos.
The CA SHSP identifies six (6) general categories for emerging technology within transportation safety:
1. Alerting Drivers at Risk: Technology that alerts drivers to the risk of being involved in a collision,
reduces crash risk by monitoring speed and blind spots, and alerts drivers to the situation with
visual and / or audible alerts so the driver can act accordingly
2. Assisting Drivers at Risk: Technology that can assist a driver when a collision is imminent. For
example, lane keeping assist technology helps drivers stay in their designated lane and alerts the
driver through visual, audible, and / or tactile warnings when lane departure begins
3. Protecting Vehicle Occupants: Vehicle manufacturer technology that protects vehicle
occupants through safety features for seat belts, air bags, and vehicle structure features.
4. Communication with Drivers and the Environment: Technology that communicates
between the drivers and their environment to support alerting drivers to risk and then providing
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 66
assistance. Example categories and applications include, but are not limited to, vehicle-to-vehicle
(V2V) for blind spot detection, vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2) for roadway condition warning alerts,
and vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) for forward collision warning alerts that a pedestrian is in the
crosswalk ahead
5. Vehicle Performing as Designated: Once vehicles enter the roadway, it is essential that they
perform as designated for their full lifespan. This can be accomplished through vehicle upkeep,
maintenance, and record keeping. An example of a supporting technology is the vehicle oil change
indicator light, which alerts drivers to a potential need for an oil change
6. Mobile Technology and Applications: There are a variety of mobile phone technology and
applications that enhance roadway safety. Examples include applications which restrict texting
and / or mobile application use while driving, which can reduce distracted driving, and
Transportation Network Companies (TNC) mobile applications for ride share such as Uber and
Lyft, which can reduce DUI crash risk
3.6 2020-2024 California SHSP Implementation Plan
The California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP) is the State’s comprehensive, data-driven plan to
reduce fatalities and serious injuries across all travel modes and on all public roads in California. Following
the adoption of the 2020-2024 CA SHSP, state transportation leaders recognized that a bolder and more
focused approach to combatting roadway safety and a March 2021 revision, referred to as “The Pivot”,
was adopted. The revision includes new guiding principles for:
• Integrating Equity: Everyone has the right to travel safely on California public roads regardless
of race, socioeconomic status, gender, age, and ability. Implementation should integrate equity,
which considers historical, present-day, and systemic biases that impact roadway safety for all
groups, particularly the most vulnerable and traditionally underserved populations. Equity must
be integrated in all aspects of the 5E’s of traffic safety
• Doubling Down on What Works: Identify and utilize the strategies and actions that are the
most effective in reducing fatalities and serious injuries, implementing proven countermeasures,
and encouraging innovative solutions
• Accelerating Advanced Technology: Encouraging advanced technology in and on our
roadways by forming new partnerships with technology providers, health and safety groups,
manufacturers, and government partners to prioritize roadway safety
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 67
• Implementing a Safe System Approach: The
FHWA’s recently adopted Safe System Approach aims to
eliminate fatal and serious injuries of all roadway users
by embracing a more holistic view of the roadway
system that places additional responsibility on agencies
to account for human error with the design and
operation of roadways. The principles include:
o Death and serious injury is unacceptable
o Humans make mistakes
o Humans are vulnerable
o Responsibility is shared
o Redundancy is crucial
o Safety is proactive, not reactive
The revision also included the first-ever SHSP Implementation Plan, which
identifies and summarizes detailed actions for each challenge area. The
countermeasures included in the Temecula LRSP Countermeasure Toolbox
have been developed to comply with the revised CA SHSP and
corresponding Implementation Plan but it is noted that actions for several
challenge areas / focus areas that are relevant to the LRSP, such as
motorcycles, emergency response, emerging technologies, are still be
developed. The 2020-2024 SHSP Implementation Plan is a living document
and will be updated bi-annually or annually as new actions are developed
and approved. Future updates to the Temecula LRSP shall include any new
countermeasures and strategies for the 5E’s of traffic from future SHSP
Implementation Plan and FHWA Safe System Approach updates.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 68
4 PRIORITY PROJECTS
Potential safety projects were evaluated based on the City of Temecula’s roadway needs, the crash data
analysis, roadway network screening, and countermeasure toolbox. Four (4) priority projects were
identified for development of a preliminary project scope, cost estimate, and benefit cost ratio (BCR)
analysis utilizing the most recent Cycle 11 HSIP Analyzer. In order to supplement local funds while
proactively implementing roadway safety, the priority projects were developed based on eligibility for
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant funding.
4.1 Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Upgrades
Existing signalized pedestrian crossings with walk / don’t walk indicators will be upgraded to pedestrian
countdown signal indicators. The pedestrian countdown signal contains a countdown timer display which
informs the crossing pedestrian of seconds left to finish crossing the street. This allows pedestrians to
decide if they have enough time to safely cross the road.
4.2 Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades
Existing safety lighting at traffic signals throughout the City of Temecula will be upgraded to light-emitting
diode (LED) and street name signs will be upgraded to LED internally illuminated street name signs (IISNS).
Intersection lighting improves visibility of the intersection and helps reduce potential conflicts between
all roadway users, including pedestrians and bicyclists who have a smaller intersection footprint. Internally
illuminated street name signs improve the visibility of the signs, which makes them more visible in
nighttime conditions.
4.3 Installation of Dynamic Variable Speed Warning Systems
Existing roadways with relatively sharp curves will be furnished with dynamic speed warning signs. The
dynamic speed warning signs are intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning that
they may be traveling over the recommended speed for the approaching curve. The dynamic speed
warning signs will be installed in both travel directions at various locations throughout the city.
4.4 Signal Timing and Communication Upgrades
Existing traffic signal operations and communications will be improved by implementing new network
switches and providing either fiber optic cable or wireless radio communications at traffic signals
throughout the city. Fiber optic cable will be installed in existing conduit where copper signal interconnect
cable (SIC) currently exists. In locations where existing conduit does not exist, wireless radio
communications will be installed. Signal timings and signal programs will also be updated to allow the City
to deploy operations that enhance roadway safety such as traffic signal coordination.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 69
Table 4-1 provides a summary of the priority projects by HSIP LRSM (v1.5) countermeasures and BCR
ranking. Appendix D provides more detailed priority project summaries which include:
• LRSM Countermeasure Description
• Project Description
• Map and Table of Project Locations
• Crash Analysis Summary by Severity, Collision Type, and Primary Collision Factor
• Cost Estimate for Construction Items
• Cost Estimate for Preliminary Engineering (PE), Right-of-Way (ROW), and Construction
(CON) project phases
• Total Expected Benefit
• Total Project Cost
• Benefit Cost Ratio
Table 4-1 Priority Projects
# PROJECT DESCRIPTION LRSM CM BCR
1
Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Upgrades
A total of 55 signalized intersections will be upgraded
to equip countdown signal heads in place of the
existing walk / don’t walk indicators. Additional
upgrades include new pedestrian APS Push buttons and
new controllers.
S17PB: Install
pedestrian countdown
signal heads.
8.88
2
Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades
A total of 116 signalized intersections will be upgraded
to equip new LED safety lighting and LED internally
illuminated street name signs.
S2: Improve signal
hardware: lenses, back-
plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number
30.06
3
Installation of Dynamic Variable Speed Warning Systems
A total of 8 segments will have dynamic speed warning
signs installed at various locations along relatively sharp
curves.
R26: Install
dynamic/variable
speed warning signs
20.56
4
Signal Timing and Communication Upgrades
A total of 89 intersections will receive traffic operation
and communication upgrades such as network switches
and fiber optic cable or wireless radio communications.
S3: Improve signal
timing: coordination,
phases, red, yellow, or
operation
15.29
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 70
5 IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION
The process for implementing the Temecula LRSP, evaluating the application of the countermeasure
toolbox and priority projects, and recommendations for future LRSP report updates based on the USDOT
FHWA’s Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan (July 2020) and the Caltrans LRSM v1.5 (April 2020) are
described in the following section.
5.1 Implementation
Implementation of the LRSP demonstrates the City of Temecula’s commitment to proactively addressing
roadway network safety needs for all users. The USDOT FHWA’s Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan
outlines six steps for successful LRSP implementation which includes:
• Maintain Buy-In and Support: LRSP implementation is strengthened by the support of key City
officials and safety partners from the 5E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education,
Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies).
• Identify Funding Mechanisms: Funding for LRSP projects will be identified through local capital
improvement projects and public/private development projects, regional MPO grant
opportunities, State grant opportunities, and Federal grant opportunities.
• Identify and Prioritize Projects: Projects will be prioritized based on a combination of benefit-
cost ratio analyses, crash histories, and roadway risk factors. Priority projects will be implemented
based on City needs, local resources, and available grant funding opportunities through the HSIP
and other roadway safety infrastructure/non-infrastructure programs. Where appropriate,
private development will be leveraged to strategically implement safety countermeasures and/or
components of priority projects.
• Determine Project Delivery Methods: Project delivery will be determined following security
of project funding and prior to design. Where appropriate, projects will be bundled to decrease
the City’s financial and management burdens.
• Evaluate Effectiveness: LRSP countermeasure and project implementation effectiveness will be
evaluated based on reductions in severity, for fatalities and severe injuries, and in overall crash
frequency. See LRSP Section 5.2 for further details.
• Continue Communication and Coordination: Active communications and coordination
between key City officials, safety partners from the 5E’s of traffic safety, and the public will ensure
that there is synergy in overall LRSP implementation.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 71
5.2 Evaluation
Following the implementation of priority projects and application of countermeasures, the City will
evaluate the success of LRSP strategies based on Section 7 of the Caltrans LRSM Version 1.5 for Evaluation
of Improvements. A database will be developed to track countermeasure installations, crash history, and
field assessments on an annual basis. Feedback from the public, safety partners and City maintenance
crews should be included to provide a comprehensive evaluation.
Effective monitoring of the success of a project should take place after a project has been implemented
for 3 to 5 years to ensure sufficient crash data for before / after studies and to reduce the effect of the
random nature of roadway crashes. The before / after studies should compare crash data and community
feedback on the safety countermeasure being evaluated. The Caltrans LRSM provides an example
countermeasure deployment history database that the City should refer to when conducting this
assessment. The database will provide the City of Temecula with the necessary information to make
informed decisions on whether countermeasures from the toolbox contribute to an increase in safety,
whether they should be installed at other locations through the City, and which factors may have
contributed to the countermeasure’s success.
The evaluation should also track whether the City’s LRSP goals are being met and if they continue to align
with the 5E’s of traffic safety (Engineering, Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging
Technologies). As the City grows and further develops, the LRSP goals should conform to any new or
modified safety plans, policies, and efforts set forth by the City.
5.3 Future LRSP Updates
The Temecula LRSP is considered a living document and must be updated at a minimum every five (5)
years for the City to maintain compliance with Caltrans HSIP eligibility requirements. It is recommended
that the City update the LRSP every two (2) years to maintain alignment with the standard Caltrans HSIP
call-for-projects and LRSM updates. This will ensure the most competitive benefit cost ratios (BCRs) for
any HSIP grant applications that the City may pursue. This will also allow the City to ensure the LRSP
continually reflects the most recent crash data, crash trends, countermeasures, and BCR calculations.
Between LRSP updates, City staff should annually monitor crashes, identify locations with high crash
frequency and severity, match locations with the strategies identified in the countermeasure toolbox, and
implement projects in coordination with the City’s current CIP and development opportunities.
Future updates should revisit the LRSP’s Vision, Mission, and Goals based on evaluation of safety projects
and programs that were implemented and evaluated during the current LRSP. Additionally, future updates
to the LRSP will include expansion of the City of Temecula’s Countermeasure Toolbox in relation to the
other traffic safety E’s for Enforcement, Education, Emergency Response, and Emerging Technologies. To
maximize City resources, the toolbox in this LRSP was primarily developed for HSIP-eligible engineering
infrastructure improvements that could be applied to priority locations identified through the collision
analysis EPDO scoring and roadway characteristics screening.
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN | 72
Guidelines for developing and implementing Local Road Safety Plans are continually being updated by the
FHWA and Caltrans. For example, FHWA recently conducted a webinar on November 22, 2021, that
featured an update on FHWA’s proven safety countermeasure initiative. The webinar featured nine new
proven safety countermeasures (PSC) which included speed safety cameras, variable speed limits,
appropriate speed limits for all road users, wider edge lines, crosswalk visibility enhancements, bicycle
lanes, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, pavement friction management, and lighting. While these
countermeasures were not included in this version of the LRSP, they should be evaluated and
incorporated into future countermeasure toolbox and LRSP updates. It is anticipated that future Caltrans
updates to the LRSM and HSIP programs will reflect the FHWA’s updated PSCs. Additionally, future
updates to the LRSP should include reviewing the following resources to ensure the latest best-practices
are followed:
• FHWA Local Road Safety Plan Do-It-Yourself Website
• FHWA Proven Safety Countermeasures List
• FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Program
• FHWA Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets
• FHWA Developing Safety Plans: A Manual for Local and Rural Roads
• FHWA Implementing A Local Road Safety Plan
• National Association of County Engineers (NACE) – A Template for Local Road Safety
Plans
• California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
• Caltrans LRSP and HSIP Programs
• Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM)
APPENDIX A
STAKEHOLDER PACKET RESPONSES
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ‐ A‐1
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
STAKEHOLDER PACKET RESPONSE SUMMARY
# Respondent Response
Top 5 Priority Signalized Intersections
1 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Rd
Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Pkwy
Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd
Margarita Rd & Solana Wy
2 Anthony Hamilton,
Temecula Police Department
Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
Temecula Pkwy & Margarita Rd/Redhawk Pkwy
Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Pkwy
Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
Ynez Rd & Overland Dr
3 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd
Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
Jefferson Ave & Gia Montezuma
Ynez Rd & Overland Dr
4 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Winchester Rd & Ynez Rd
Margarita Rd & Solana Wy
Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
Margarita Rd & Date St
Pechanga Pkwy & Wolf Valley Rd / Via Eduardo
5 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd: Frequently used as a rally / protest
gathering site; the Duck Pond corner and sidewalk is not fully
conducive to this use
Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Pkwy: Speed difference between vehicles
and ped/bike. Drivers focused on lane changes have limited attention
for ped/bike
Temecula Pkwy & Butterfield Stage Rd: Collisions of all types
(ped/bike/car) are concentrated at this intersection
Margarita Rd & Solana Wy: Collisions of all types (ped/bike/car) are
concentrated at this intersection
Rancho Vista Rd & Meadows Pkwy: Ped route school (VHES and TMS)
6 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
Temecula Pkwy & La Paz Rd
Margarita Rd & Solana Wy
Winchester Rd & Jefferson Ave
Ynez Rd & Overland Dr
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ‐ A‐2
# Respondent Response
Other Signalized Intersections Not on the Priority List
7 Erick Escobedo,
Temecula Traffic Engineering
Meadows Pkwy & Rancho Vista Rd: Intersection lighting and line of
sight issues
8 Anthony Hamilton,
Temecula Police Department
Winchester Rd & Margarita Rd
Margarita Rd & Rancho California Rd
9 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Rancho California Rd & Town Center
10 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Winchester Rd & Margarita Rd
11 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Meadows Pkwy & Pauba Rd: School route to TMS, VHES, PES; 50mph
speed limit with vehicles approaching downhill in three directions
Redhawk Pkwy & Vail Ranch Pkwy: Yield lane vehicles have near
misses due to speed
12 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Ynez Rd & Solana Wy
Top 5 Priority Unsignalized Intersections
13 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South
Margarit Rd & Via La Vida
West Campanula Wy & De Portola Rd
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St North
14 Anthony Hamilton,
Temecula Police Department
Jefferson Ave & Las Haciendas St
Jedidah Smith Rd & Margarita Rd
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St North
15 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Jefferson Ave & Las Haciendas St
Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South
Margarita Rd & Via La Vida
Jefferson Ave & Winchester Center Drwy
16 Anonymous 3,
Temecula Police Department
Margaira Rd & Via La Vida: Numerous collisions. Southbound should
not be able to turn left
17 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Jefferson Ave & Las Hacienda St
Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South
Buecking Dr & Jefferson Ave
Margarita Rd & Via La Vida
18 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Margarita Rd & Paseo Brillante: Ped xing and near misses as vehicles
exit the Mike Naggar Park parking lot
Calle Pina Colada & La Serena Wy: Near misses with left‐turning
vehicles and bikes; used as a route to Rancho Elementary School
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ‐ A‐3
# Respondent Response
Jedidah Smith Rd & Margarita Rd: Drivers exceed speed limit
southbound on Margarita Rd, down the hill
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St South: Highly trafficked intersection;
many low‐severity collisions
Moreno Rd & Old Town Front St North: Highly trafficked intersection;
many low‐severity collisions
19 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Jefferson Ave & Las Haciendas St
Calle Pina Colada & La Serena Wy
Nicolas Rd & Roripaugh Rd
Jedidiah Smith Rd & Margarita Rd
Margarita Rd & Via La Vida
Other Unsignalized Intersections Not on the Priority List
20 Erick Escobedo,
Temecula Traffic Engineering
Butterfield Stage Rd & Rancho Vista Rd: Possible traffic signal
21 Anthony Hamilton,
Temecula Police Department
Rancho California Rd & Tee Dr
22 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Rancho California Rd & Tee Dr
Margarita Rd & Avenida Sonoma
23 Anonymous 3,
Temecula Police Department
Red Hawk Pkwy & Via Cordoba and Red Hawk Pkwy & Via Salito:
Should be right turn only as you enter eastbound
24 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Nicolas Rd & Calle Girasol: Right‐of‐way control needed for eastbound
traffic on Nicolas Rd, continuing across Calle Girasol onto Nicolas;
especially dangerous for bicycles
Redhawk Pkwy & Via Saltio / Camino Carmargo: Near misses, vehicles
and bicycles turning left; vertical curvature limits visibility
Ynez Rd / De Portola Rd & Jedidiah Smith Rd: High traffic volume at
this intersection; no bike lane. Candidate for roundabout.
25 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Rancho California Rd & Tee Dr
Rancho California Rd & US Post Office
Top 5 Priority Roadway Segments
26 Erick Escobedo,
Temecula Traffic Engineering
Rainbow Canyon Rd: Curved roadway signing and improvements. Line
of sight issues
De Portola Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd. Intersection
lighting and line of sight issues
27 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Temecula Pkwy/Hwy 79: Old Town Front St to La Paz Rd/La Paz St
Winchester Rd: Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd
Rainbow Canyon Rd: Pechanga Pkwy to South City Limit
Rancho California Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd
Winchester Rd: Roripaugh Rd to Nicolas Rd
28 Anthony Hamilton, Jefferson Ave: Via Montezuma to Del Rio Rd
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ‐ A‐4
# Respondent Response
Temecula Police Department Margarita Rd: Rancho Vista Rd to Pauba Rd
Margarita Rd: Solana Wy to Stonewood Rd
29 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Winchester Rd: Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd
Jefferson Ave: Via Montezuma to Del Rio Rd
Rancho California Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd
Margarita Rd: Rancho Vista Rd to Pauba Rd
Margarita Rd: Avenida Barca to La Serena Wy
30 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Winchester Rd: Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd
Jefferson Ave: Via Montezuma to Del Rio Rd
Jefferson Ave: Sanborn Ae to Winchester Ave / Hwy 79
Rancho California Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd
Winchester Rd: Roripaugh Rd to Nicolas Rd
31 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Ynez Rd: Rancho Vista Rd extending past the Duck Pond and to the
Auto Mall: missing sidewalk, missing bike lane
Rancho California Rd: Meadows Pkwy to Butterfield Stage Rd:
Near misses as vehicles turn from Vintage Hills Dr, left on to
Rancho California Rd
Margarita Rd: Solana Wy to Stonewood Rd: High number of severe
bicycle injuries
Pauba Rd: Margarita Rd to Via Rami / Linfield Wy: Student crossing on
segment adjoining Temecula Valley High School. Missing sidewalk
along portions of the north side
Rancho Vista Rd: Margarita Rd to Meadows Pkwy: Student crossing
on segment adjoining Temecula Valley High School. Missing sidewalk
along portions of the south side
32 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Temecula Pkwy / Hwy 79: Old Town Front St to La Paz Rd / La Paz St
Rancho California Rd: Jefferson Ave / Old Town Front St to Ynez Rd
Winchester Rd: Jefferson Ave to Ynez Rd
Margarita Rd: Solana Wy to Stonewood Rd
Rancho Vista Rd: Margarita Rd to Meadows Pkwy
Other Roadway Segments Not on the Priority List
33 Anthony Hamilton,
Temecula Police Department
Winchester Rd: Yenz Rd to Margarita Rd
Rancho California Rd: Margarita Rd to Meadows Pkwy
Margarita Rd: Overland Dr to Winchester Rd
34 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Margarita Rd: Rancho California Rd to Rancho Vista Rd
35 Anonymous 3,
Temecula Police Department
Temecula Pkwy Northbound I‐15 On‐Ramp: Should have two
dedicated lanes. Remove center island. Many collisions here.
36 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Old Town Front St: 1st St to Temecula Pkwy and
Temecula Pkwy: Old Town Front St to Pechanga Pkwy: Temecula
Pkwy speed difference is dangerous for ped/bike traffic. There is a
safer crossing on Santiago, but segments of Ynez have no sidewalk
and missing portions of bike lane
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ‐ A‐5
# Respondent Response
Locations Near Schools with Jaywalking, High Vehicle Speeds, or Other Safety Concerns
37 Anonymous 4,
Temecula Police Department
Temecula Valley High School: Afternoon has a large amount of
students entering the crosswalk on the south side of Margarita Rd &
Pauba Rd after the crosswalk signals are solid red. Pedestrians disrupt
traffic flow for those that have a green signal.
38 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Abbey Reinke Elementary School: School stopped traffic on Sunny
Meadows Drive northbound for vehicles making left turn into the
school parking lot
Temecula Valley High School: Jaywalking on Margarita Rd
39 Anthony Hamilton,
Temecula Police Department
Margarita Middle School: Speeding
Temecula Elementary School: Speeding
40 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Margarita Middle School: Speeding eastbound and westbound in front
of the school over the hill
Vail Ranch Middle School: Speeding on Camino Piedra Rojo
41 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Temecula Valley High School
Great Oak High School
Margarita Middle School
Chaparral High School
42 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Temecula Valley High School: lack of adequate student parking space;
ped xing across Rancho California Rd; public safety incidents at RRSP;
parents using Plaza Del Sol commercial center for student pickup at
Margarita Rd / Pauba Rd
James Day Middle School: ped xing to/from Long Canyon Creek Park
Temecula Middle School: ped xing to/from Meadows Park
43 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Temecula Valley High School: Rancho Vista Rd east of TVHS
Springs Charter School: Margarita Rd & Pauba Rd
Temecula Valley Middle School: Meadows Pkwy
Locations Near Parks with Jaywalking, High Vehicle Speeds, or Other Safety Concerns
44 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Ronald Reagan Sports Park: High 50 MPH speed limit
45 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Mike Naggar Park: ped xing across Margarita Rd; underdeveloped trail
connecting to Temecula Town Center
Meadows Park: ped xing to/from Temecula Middle School
Long Canyon Creek Park: ped xing to/from James Day Middle School
SkyView Park: unmarked speed limit on Murrieta Hot Springs Road;
vehicles traveling 55mph adjacent to park
Harveston Community Park: ped xing to/from the inner residential
circle, across Harveston Dr
46 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Meadows Park: Entry / exit vs. speeding
Ronald Reagan Sports Park: Left turn entry conflicts since lane
reduction on Rancho Vista Rd
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ‐ A‐6
# Respondent Response
Additional Areas with Safety Concerns or Challenges for Pedestrians
47 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Temecula Pkwy from Pechanga Pkwy to Jedidiah Smith Rd: Limited
access to commercial centers for residents south of Temecula Creek.
Ped traffic is concentrated onto Pechanga Pkwy and Temecula Pkwy,
where there is a narrow bridge (lane is right up against the sidewalk
with no bike lane), and driver attention is focused on lane changes /
merging. The high speed difference produces greater risk of more
severe collisions. Separated pedestrian / bicycle crossing across the
creek from Jedediah Smith Rd to Friendship Park is one possible
solution
48 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Costco parking overflow pedestrians crossing the mall at Ring Rd. A
crosswalk and/or signal is needed
Vicinity of Chaparral High School along Winchester Rd
Top 3 Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures
49 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Pedestrian countdown signal heads
Pedestrian crosswalk enhancements
Intersection safety lighting
50 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Pedestrian countdown signal heads
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
Volunteer safety patrol programs
51 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Pedestrian countdown signal heads: Include ADA enhancements
citywide and prioritize major corridors first
New sidewalks, multi‐use paths, and trails: More trails separating
ped/bike traffic from vehicular traffic, to reduce collisions with high
speed difference
Other: RRFB and PHB crossing along school routes where multi‐way
stop control isn’t viable
52 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Pedestrian crossing enhancements
Pedestrian countdown signal heads
New sidewalks, multi‐use paths, and trails
Additional Areas with Safety Concerns or Challenges for Bicyclists
53 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Margarita Rd & Temecula Pkwy: Northbound Margaria Rd from
Temecula Parkway has no room for bicyclists
54 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Rancho California Rd between I‐15 Ramps: Difficult crossing; bicyclists
must merge across freeway on‐ramps. Driver attention is on lane‐
changing; not looking for bike traffic
Rancho California Rd / Trail between Diaz Rd and Jefferson Rd:
Bicyclists must currently ride on sidewalk / wrong side of road to
make this trail connection
Temecula Pkwy & Old Town Front St: Bicyclists must contend with
freeway on‐ramps and vehicle merging into left‐turn lane for Front St.
Doesn't fully connect to Murrieta Creek Trail
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ‐ A‐7
# Respondent Response
Temecula Pkwy & Pechanga Pkwy: Difficult intersection. No
connection between Great Oak Trail and Jedediah Smith Rd
55 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Bicycle ingress / egress to Wine Country on Rancho California Rd is
scary on all 3 approach legs. Eastbound Rancho California Rd loss into
Wine Country distracts drivers who must merge from the presence of
bicyclists
Top 3 Bicycle Safety Countermeasures
56 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Bike lanes
Bicycle rodeos / safety training
Volunteer safety patrol programs
57 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Bike lanes
Bicycle rodeos / safety training
Volunteer safety patrol programs
58 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Bike lanes: Bike lanes with buffer, paired with road diet where
appropriate. Bollards would be a plus
Other: Colored pavement for bike lanes and/or "Street Art" program
to highlight bikeways, sharrows, intersections; bollards to change
buffered bikes lanes into protected bike lanes; ensure sensor‐loops
detect bicycles at signalized lights; implement bicycle signal heads
along major bicycling corridors
59 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Other: Green sharrow markings where bike lanes won’t fit
Additional Areas with Safety Concerns or Challenges for Roadway Users
60 Anonymous 4,
Temecula Police Department
Traffic collisions are common at Margarita Rd & Pauba Rd.
Recommend installing traffic camera.
61 Anonymous 3,
Temecula Police Department
Northbound Butterfield Stage Rd from Temecula Pkwy: Goes from
2‐lanes to 1‐lane for only 100 years then back to 2‐lanes. This
roadway is very busy and traffic always bottlenecks here. It should
be 2‐lanes continuous.
62 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Freeway crossing remains a challenge for pedestrians and bicyclists,
including Old Town residents looking for safe access to schools,
libraries, parks and services east I‐15, as well as west‐side residents
crossing to work in the industrial zone and patronize businesses in
Old Town
Multi‐use trail and bikeway users have difficulty crossing major
corridors (e.g. Rancho California and Temecula Pkwy)
In some neighborhoods, it is challenging to provide adequate
ingress/egress for residents without encouraging cut‐through traffic
(e.g. Meadowview, Los Ranchitos)
63 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
U‐turn conflicts and “near misses” continue to be a top concern of
mine. Most notable examples in Temecula is Overland Dr westbound
u‐turn at Ynez Rd to return eastbound (between Costco and BJ’s). I
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN ‐ A‐8
# Respondent Response
have previously proposed signage for this. PTSC has requested a
u‐turn conflict study in the past, but never addressed
Important Safety Countermeasures
64 Erick Escobedo,
Temecula Traffic Engineering
Intersection / street Lighting
Improve sight distance at intersections
Safe Routes to School Programs
65 Anonymous 4,
Temecula Police Department
Road diet at Redhawk Pkwy east of Vail Ranch Pkwy
66 Enrique Nunez,
Temecula Police Department
Intersection / street Lighting
67 Anthony Hamilton,
Temecula Police Department
Other: Motorcycle detection at intersections
68 Anonymous 1,
Temecula Police Department
Improve sight distance at intersections
Safe Routes to School Programs
DUI Enforcement Programs
69 Anonymous 2,
Temecula Police Department
Emergency vehicle pre‐emption systems
Intersection / street lighting
Improve sight distance at intersections
Guardrails
Safe Routes to School Programs
70 David Matics,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Emergency Vehicle Pre‐Emption Systems: Work with commercial
center owners to eliminate vertical displacement elements on private
roads (e.g. Wolf Store Rd)
Road Diet: The preferred countermeasure on residential roads,
wherever possible
Alcohol‐Drug Awareness Programs: Every 15 Minutes program
Safe Routes to School Programs: Multi‐way stop control and / or
RRFP / PHB
Other: Visual friction techniques
71 J.R. Richardson,
Public Traffic Safety
Commission
Emergency vehicle pre‐emption systems
Intersection / street lighting
Roundabout
Improve sight distance at intersections
Edgelines and centerlines
APPENDIX B
CALIFORNIA OFFICE OF TRAFFIC SAFETY
(OTS) RANKINGS
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-1
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-2
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-3
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-4
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - B-5
APPENDIX C
ENGINEERING COUNTERMEASURE TOOLBOX
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Signalized Intersection Countermeasures ............................................................................................ 3
S01: Add Intersection Lighting (S.I.) ......................................................................................................... 3
S02: Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Back-Plates with Retroreflective Borders, Mounting, Size, and
Number .................................................................................................................................................... 4
S03: Improve Signal Timing (Coordination, Phases, Red, Yellow, or Operation)..................................... 5
S05: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems ............................................................................. 6
S06: Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left-turn lane or phase before) ................ 7
S07: Provide Protected Left Turn Phase (Left Turn Lane Already Exists) ................................................ 8
S10: Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning (S.I.) ......................................................................... 9
S11: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ................................................... 10
S12: Install Raised Median on Approaches (S.I.) ................................................................................... 11
S13PB: Install Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches ................................................................... 12
S16: Covert Intersection to Roundabout (From Signal) ......................................................................... 13
S17PB: Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads .............................................................................. 14
S18PB: Install Pedestrian Crossing (S.I.)................................................................................................. 15
S21PB: Modifying Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) ............................ 16
Unsignalized Intersection Countermeasures .................................................................................... 17
NS01: Add Intersection Lighting (NS.I.).................................................................................................. 17
NS03: Install Signals ............................................................................................................................... 18
NS04: Convert Intersection to Roundabout (From All Way Stop) and NS05: Convert Intersection to
Roundabout (From Stop or Yield Control on Minor Road) .................................................................... 19
NS06: Install / Upgrade Larger or Additional Stop Signs or Other Intersection Warning / Regulatory
Signs ....................................................................................................................................................... 20
NS07: Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings (NS.I) ........................................................................ 21
NS08: Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections .......................................................... 22
NS09: Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning (NS.I) ................................................................... 23
NS12: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ................................................ 24
NS14: Install Raised Median on Approaches (NS.I.) .............................................................................. 25
NS17: Install Right-Turn Lane (NS.I.) ...................................................................................................... 26
NS18: Install Left-Turn Lane (Where No Left-Turn Lane Exists) ............................................................ 27
NS19PB: Install Raised Medians / Refuge Islands (NS.I.) ....................................................................... 28
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-2
NS20B: Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (New Signs and Markings Only) .......... 29
NS21PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (With Enhanced Safety
Features) ................................................................................................................................................ 30
NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) .................................................................. 31
NS23PB: Install Pedestrian Signal (Including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK) ................................. 32
Roadway Countermeasures .................................................................................................................. 33
R01: Add Segment Lighting .................................................................................................................... 33
R03: Install Median Barrier .................................................................................................................... 34
R04: Install Guardrail ............................................................................................................................. 35
R08: Install Raised Median .................................................................................................................... 36
R10PB: Install Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches ................................................................... 37
R11: Install Acceleration / Deceleration Lanes ...................................................................................... 38
R14: Road Diet (Reduce Travel Lanes From 4 to 3 and Add a Two Way Left-Turn and Bike Lanes) ..... 39
R15: Widen Shoulder ............................................................................................................................. 40
R17: Improve Horizontal Alignment (Flatten Curves) ............................................................................ 41
R18: Flatten crest vertical curve ............................................................................................................ 42
R21: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments) ................................................... 43
R22: Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting (Regulatory or Warning) ......................... 44
R25: Install Curve Advance Warning Signs (Flashing Beacon) ............................................................... 45
R26: Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs ............................................................................. 46
R28: Install Edge-Lines and Centerlines ................................................................................................. 47
R30: Install Centerline Rumble Strips / Stripes ...................................................................................... 48
R31: Install Edgeline Rumble Strips / Stripes ......................................................................................... 49
R32PB: Install Bike Lanes ....................................................................................................................... 50
R33PB: Install Separated Bike Lanes ...................................................................................................... 51
R34PB: Install Sidewalk/Pathway (To Avoid Walking Along Roadway) ................................................. 52
R35PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (With Enhanced Safety Features) ................................... 53
R36PB: Install Raised Pedestrian Crossing ............................................................................................. 54
R37PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon ................................................................................ 55
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-3
SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
S01: Add Intersection Lighting (S.I.)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S1 100% Night
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
40% 20 years $1,000 per light
Countermeasure Description:
Adding intersection lighting to signalized intersections helps improve visibility of the intersection and
helps reduce potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of
crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not currently
provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure that safety
at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting. This strategy would be supported by a
significant number of crashes that occur at night. This countermeasure can only be applied to night
crashes that occur within the limits of the proposed lighting area.
Why It Works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves
the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the
surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers’ perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers’
available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of
particular benefit to non-motorized users. Lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but also
helps drivers see them better.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-4
S02: Improve Signal Hardware: Lenses, Back-Plates with Retroreflective
Borders, Mounting, Size, and Number
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S2 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
15% 10 years $1,500 per signal head
Countermeasure Description:
Improving signal hardware enhances the visibility of the signalized intersection to allow drivers proper
reaction time to maneuver accordingly and/or avoid conflicts. This countermeasure does not apply to
improvements like battery backup systems.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections with a high frequency of right-angle and rear-end crashes occurring because
drivers are unable to see traffic signals sufficiently in advance to safely negotiate the intersection being
approached. Signal intersection improvements include new LED lighting, signal back plates, retro-
reflective tape outlining the back plates, or visors to increase signal visibility, larger signal heads,
relocation of the signal heads, or additional signal heads.
Why It Works:
Providing better visibility of intersection signals aids the drivers’ advance perception of the upcoming
intersection. Visibility and clarity of the signal should be improved without creating additional confusion
for drivers.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-5
S03: Improve Signal Timing (Coordination, Phases, Red, Yellow, or
Operation)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S3 50% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
15% 10 years $4,000 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
Optimizing traffic signal timing helps improve mobility at an intersection for vehicles and pedestrians.
Through proper coordination, corridors can reduce overall delay time at an intersection and provide
better progression of traffic flow.
Where to Use:
Locations that have a crash history at multiple signalized intersections. Signalization improvements may
include adding phases, lengthening clearance intervals, eliminating or restricting higher-risk movements,
and coordinating signals at multiple locations. Understanding the corridor or roadway's crash history can
provide insight into the most appropriate strategy for improving safety.
Why It Works:
Certain timing, phasing, and control strategies can produce multiple safety benefits. Sometimes capacity
improvements come along with the safety improvements and other times adverse effects on delay or
capacity occur. Corridor improvements often have the highest benefit but may take longer to implement.
Projects focused on capacity improvements (without a separate focus on signal timing safety needs) may
not result in a reduction in future crashes.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-6
S05: Install Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption Systems
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S5 100% Emergency Vehicle - only
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
70% 10 years $10,000-$20,000 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of emergency vehicle pre-emption systems allows emergency vehicles to disrupt a normal
signal cycle to proceed through the intersection in a more quick and safer manner. Signal pre-emption
systems can help reduce driver confusion through the sudden appearance of an emergency vehicle and
help lower overall emergency response times.
Where to Use:
Corridors that have a history of crashes involving emergency response vehicles. The target of this strategy
is signalized intersections where normal traffic operations impede emergency vehicles and where traffic
conditions create a potential for conflicts between emergency and nonemergency vehicles. These
conflicts could lead to almost any type of crash, due to the potential for erratic maneuvers of vehicles
moving out of the paths of emergency vehicles.
Why It Works:
Providing emergency vehicle preemption capability at a signal or along a corridor can be a highly effective
strategy in two ways; any type of crash could occur as emergency vehicles try to navigate through
intersections and as other vehicles try to maneuver out of the path of the emergency vehicles. In addition,
a signal preemption system can decrease emergency vehicle response times therefore decreasing the
time in receiving emergency medical attention, which is critical in the outcome of any crash. When data
is not available for past crashes with emergency vehicles, an agency may consider combining the E.V. pre-
emption improvements into a comprehensive project that also makes significant signal hardware and/or
signal timing improvements.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-7
S06: Install left-turn lane and add turn phase (signal has no left -turn
lane or phase before)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S6 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
55% 20 years $200,000 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of protected left-turn phasing eliminates conflicts between left-turning vehicles and
opposing through vehicles and pedestrians that are present under permissive phasing. Providing a
dedicated left-turn turn lane physically separates vehicles from the through and right turn movements
and prevents signal queuing and delay.
Where to Use:
Intersections that do not currently have a left turn lane or a related left-turn phase that are experiencing
a large number of crashes. Many intersection safety problems can be traced to difficulties in
accommodating left-turning vehicles, in particular where there is currently no accommodation for left
turning traffic. A key strategy for minimizing collisions related to left-turning vehicles (angle, rear-end,
sideswipe) is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes and the appropriate signal phasing, particularly on high-
volume and high-speed major-road approaches. Agencies need to document their consideration of the
MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.
Why It Works:
Left-turn lanes allow separation of left-turn and through-traffic streams, thus reducing the potential for
rear-end collisions. Left-turn phasing also provides a safer opportunity for drivers to make a left-turn. The
combination of left-turn storage and a left turn signal has the potential to reduce many collisions between
left-turning vehicles and through vehicles and/or non-motorized road users.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-8
S07: Provide Protected Left Turn Phase (Left Turn Lane Already Exists)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S7 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 20 years $100,000 per intersection
Description:
The installation of protected left-turn phasing eliminates conflicts between left-turning vehicles and
opposing through vehicles and pedestrians that are present under permissive phasing.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections (with existing left turns pockets) that currently have a permissive left-turn or no
left-turn protection that have a high frequency of angle crashes involving left turning, opposing through
vehicles, and non-motorized road users. A properly timed protected left-turn phase can also help reduce
rear-end and sideswipe crashes between left-turning vehicles and the through vehicles as well as vehicles
behind them. Protected left-turn phases are warranted based on such factors as turning volumes, delay,
visibility, opposing vehicle speed, distance to travel through the intersection, presence of non-motorized
road users, and safety experience of the intersections. Agencies need to document their consideration of
the MUTCD, Section 4D.19 guidelines; the section on implementing protected left-turn phases.
Why It Works:
Left turns are widely recognized as the highest-risk movements at signalized intersections. Providing
Protected left-turn phases (i.e., the provision for a specific phase for a turning movement) for signalized
intersections with existing left turn pockets significantly improve the safety for left-turn maneuvers by
removing the need for the drivers to navigate through gaps in oncoming/opposing through vehicles.
Where left turn pockets are not protected, the pedestrian and bicyclist crossing phase often conflicts with
these left turn maneuvers. Drivers focused on navigating the gaps of oncoming cars may not anticipate
and/or perceive the non-motorized road users.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-9
S10: Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning (S.I.)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S10 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 10 years $12,000 per assembly
Countermeasures Description:
Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call a driver’s attention to intersection control
signs. This treatment involves installing flashing beacons, mounted on a post, or mounted on a mast arm,
in advance of the intersection. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus
reducing the issues relating to a power source.
Where to Use:
At signalized intersections with crashes that are a result of drivers being unaware of the intersection or
are unable to see the traffic control device in time to comply.
Why It Works:
Increased driver awareness of an approaching signalized intersection and an increase in the driver's time
to react. Driver awareness of both downstream intersections and traffic control devices is critical to
intersection safety. Crashes often occur when the driver is unable to perceive an intersection, signal head
or the back of a stopped queue in time to react. Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and
call driver attention to intersection control signs. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered
by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-10
S11: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S11 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
55% 10 years $50 per square yd
Countermeasure Description:
High friction surface treatment (HFST) involves the application of high-quality aggregate to the pavement
using a polymer binder to restore pavement friction at intersections that have less friction than is needed
for the roadway approach speeds and/or geometry. HFST aids motorists in maintaining better control in
dry and wet driving conditions.
Where to Use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Signalized
Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement
friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This treatment
is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem in wet or
dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why It Works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop
crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes.
Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus
area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested
in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-11
S12: Install Raised Median on Approaches (S.I.)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S12 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $30 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Raised medians help prevent accidents caused by crossover traffic, reduce headlight glare distraction and
separate left-turning traffic from through lanes when combined with left-turn lanes. This treatment
involves installing raised median at intersection approaches directly over existing pavement. This method
does not require excavation of the existing pavement.
Where to Use:
Intersections noted as having turning movement crashes near the intersection as a result of insufficient
access control. Application of this CM should be based on current crash data and a clearly defined need
to restrict or accommodate the movement.
Why It Works:
Raised medians next to left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes
and improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians prohibit left turns into and
out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-12
S13PB: Install Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S13 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $50-$75 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of pedestrian median fencing along approaches helps direct pedestrians to a preferred
formal crossing point and discourages pedestrians from making dangerous crossing movements where
visibility may be limited.
Where to Use:
Signalized Intersections with high pedestrian-generators nearby (e.g. transit stops) may experience a high
volumes of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block locations instead of walking to the
intersection and waiting to cross during the walk-phase. When this safety issue cannot be mitigated with
signal timing and shoulder/sidewalk treatments, then installing a continuous pedestrian barrier in the
median may be a viable solution.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as
being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside the intersection
crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a positive
barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-13
S16: Covert Intersection to Roundabout (From Signal)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S16 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
Varies 20 years
$400,000 - $800,000 (for traffic
signal removal and construction of
roundabout). Cost for roadway
widening may be higher/vary
Countermeasure Description:
A roundabout reduces the number and severity of conflict points making it a significantly safer type of
intersection. This treatment involves converting a signalized intersection to a roundabout and does not
include application of mini-roundabouts.
Where to Use:
Signalized intersections that have a significant crash problem and the only alternative is to change the
nature of the intersection itself. Roundabouts can also be very effective at intersections with complex
geometry and intersections with frequent left-turn movements.
Why It Works:
The types of conflicts that occur at roundabouts are different from those occurring at conventional
intersections; namely, conflicts from crossing and left-turn movements are not present in a roundabout.
The geometry of a roundabout forces drivers to reduce speeds as they proceed through the intersection.
This helps keep the range of vehicle speed narrow, which helps reduce the severity of crashes when they
do occur. Pedestrians only have to cross one direction of traffic at a time at roundabouts, thus reducing
their potential for conflicts.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-14
S17PB: Install Pedestrian Countdown Signal Heads
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S17PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $300 - $1,000 per ped head
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing new or upgrading the pedestrian signal head to a countdown signal
head. The countdown signal head has a timer that shows the amount of time left in the pedestrian phase.
Where to Use:
Signals that have signalized pedestrian crossing with walk/don't walk indicators and where there have
been pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Why It Works:
A pedestrian countdown signal contains a timer display and counts down the number of seconds left to
finish crossing the street. Countdown signals can reassure pedestrians who are in the crosswalk when the
flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears that they still have time to finish crossing. Countdown signals
begin counting down either when the "WALK" or when the flashing "DON’T WALK" interval appears and
stop at the beginning of the steady "DON’T WALK" interval. These signals also have been shown to
encourage more pedestrians to use the pushbutton rather than jaywalk.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-15
S18PB: Install Pedestrian Crossing (S.I.)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S18PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $5,000 per approach
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves reducing the risk for pedestrians attempting to cross the road by providing a
clearly defined point where pedestrians are ‘expected’ to cross.
Where to Use:
Signalized Intersections with no marked crossing and pedestrian signal heads, where pedestrians are
known to be crossing intersections that involve significant turning movements. They are especially
important at intersections with (1) multiphase traffic signals, such as left-turn arrows and split phases, (2)
school crossings, and (3) double-right or double-left turns. At signalized intersections, pedestrian crossings
are often safer when the left turns have protected phases that do not overlap the pedestrian walk phase.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as being
problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an
intersection. Of these, 30 percent may involve a turning vehicle. Another 22 percent of pedestrian crashes
involve a pedestrian either running across the intersection or darting out in front of a vehicle whose view
was blocked just prior to the impact. Finally, 16 percent of these intersection-related crashes occur
because of a driver violation (e.g., failure to yield right-of-way). When agencies opt to install aesthetic
enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project design and
construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in
the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and
are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-16
S21PB: Modifying Signal Phasing to Implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S21PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
60% 10 years $2,500 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment provides pedestrians a 3-7 second “head start” to start crossing a signalized intersection
before the vehicles are given a green phase to proceed through the intersection. This head start increases
the visibility of pedestrians and helps to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and turning vehicles.
Where to Use:
Intersections with signalized pedestrian crossing that have high turning vehicles volumes and have had
pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes.
Why It Works:
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives pedestrians the opportunity to enter an intersection 3-7 seconds
before vehicles are given a green indication. With this head start, pedestrians can better establish their
presence in the crosswalk before vehicles have priority to turn left. LPIs provide (1) increased visibility of
crossing pedestrians; (2) reduced conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles; (3) Increased likelihood of
motorists yielding to pedestrians; and (4) enhanced safety for pedestrians who may be slower to start into
the intersection.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-17
UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION COUNTERMEASURES
NS01: Add Intersection Lighting (NS.I.)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS1 100% Night
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
40% 20 years $10,000 per light
Countermeasure Description:
Adding intersection lighting to unsignalized intersections helps improve visibility of the intersection and
helps reduce potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of
crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Non-signalized intersections that have a disproportionate number of night-time crashes and do not
currently provide lighting at the intersection or at its approaches. Crash data should be studied to ensure
that safety at the intersection could be improved by providing lighting (this strategy would be supported
by a significant number of crashes that occur at night).
Why It Works:
Providing lighting at the intersection itself, or both at the intersection and on its approaches, improves
the safety of an intersection during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more aware of the
surroundings at an intersection, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers'
available sight distances, and (3) improving the visibility of non-motorists. Intersection lighting is of
particular benefit to non-motorized users as lighting not only helps them navigate the intersection, but
also helps drivers see them better.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-18
NS03: Install Signals
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS3 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 20 years $400,000
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves removing existing control at an unsignalized intersection (stop, yield or
uncontrolled) and installing a traffic signal. Installation may require modification to lane geometry to
facilitate more efficient and safer intersection operations. Application of this countermeasure for HSIP
funding requires that all new traffic signals meet MUTCD "safety" warrants 4, 5 and/or 7.
Where to Use:
Traffic signals can be used to prevent the most severe type crashes (right-angle, left-turn). Consideration
to signalize an unsignalized intersection should only be given after (1) less restrictive forms of traffic
control have been utilized as the installation of a traffic signal often leads to an increased frequency of
crashes (rear-end) on major roadways and introduces congestion and (2) signal warrants have been met.
Refer to the CA MUTCD, Section 4C.01, Studies and Factors for Justifying Traffic Control Signals.
Why It Works:
Traffic signals have the potential to reduce the most severe type crashes but will likely cause an increase
in rear-end collisions. A reduction in overall injury severity is likely the largest benefit of traffic signal
installation.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-19
NS04: Convert Intersection to Roundabout (From All Way Stop) and NS05: Convert
Intersection to Roundabout (From Stop or Yield Control on Minor Road)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS4 & NS5 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
Varies 20 years
$400,000 - $800,000
Cost for roadway widening
may be higher/vary
Countermeasure Description:
Roundabouts provide an alternative to signalization. This treatment involves removing stop and yield
control on major and/or minor roads and constructing a roundabout with yield control on all approaches.
Where to Use:
Intersections that have a high frequency of right-angle and left-turn type crashes. Whether such
intersections have existing crash patterns or not, a roundabout provides an alternative to signalization.
The primary target locations for roundabouts should be moderate-volume unsignalized intersections.
Roundabouts may not be a viable alternative in many suburban and urban settings where right-of-way is
limited.
Why It Works:
Roundabouts provide an important alternative to signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections.
Modern roundabouts differ from traditional traffic circles in that they operate in such a manner that traffic
entering the roundabout must yield the right-of-way to traffic already in it. Roundabouts can serve
moderate traffic volumes with less delay than all-way stop-controlled intersections and provide fewer
conflict points. Crashes at roundabouts tend to be less severe because of the speed constraints and
elimination of left-turn and right-angle movements.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-20
NS06: Install / Upgrade Larger or Additional Stop Signs or Other
Intersection Warning / Regulatory Signs
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS6 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
15% 10 years $500 per sign
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves replacing the existing stop sign with larger sign and/or installing additional stop
sign at other location and/or installing warning/regulatory signs at the intersection or in advance of the
intersection approach.
Where to Use:
The target for this strategy should be approaches to unsignalized intersections with patterns of rear-end,
right-angle, or turning collisions related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the intersection.
Why It Works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be
enhanced by installing larger regulatory and warning signs at or prior to intersections. A key to success in
applying this strategy is to select a combination of regulatory and warning sign techniques appropriate
for the conditions on a particular unsignalized intersection approach.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-21
NS07: Upgrade Intersection Pavement Markings (NS.I)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS7 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 10 years $3,000 per intersection
Countermeasure Description:
Pavement markings can communicate information to road user related to roadway alignment, vehicle
positioning, and other important driving-related tasks. This treatment involves installing advance warning
pavement markings such as "Stop Ahead". The upgrade of pavement markings also involves installing
centerlines and stop bars.
Where to Use:
Unsignalized intersections that are not clearly visible to approaching motorists, particularly approaching
motorists on the major road. The strategy is particularly appropriate for intersections with patterns of
rear-end, right-angle, or turning crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of the
intersection. Also at minor road approaches where conditions allow the stop bar to be seen by an
approaching driver at a significant distance from the intersection. Typical improvements include "Stop
Ahead" markings and the addition of Centerlines and Stop Bars.
Why It Works:
The visibility of intersections and, thus, the ability of approaching drivers to perceive them can be
enhanced by installing appropriate pavement delineation in advance of and at intersections will provide
approaching motorists with additional information at these locations. Providing visible stop bars on minor
road approaches to unsignalized intersections can help direct the attention of drivers to the presence of
the intersection. Drivers should be more aware that the intersection is coming up, and therefore make
safer decisions as they approach the intersection.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-22
NS08: Install Flashing Beacons at Stop-Controlled Intersections
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS8 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
15% 10 years $2,000 per assembly
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing flashing beacon at the intersection which can be either mounted on a
post or mounted on a mast arm. The flashing beacon supplements the stop signs at the intersection to
call the attention of the driver.
Where to Use:
Flashing beacons can reinforce driver awareness of the Non-Signalized intersection control and can help
mitigate patterns of right-angle crashes related to stop sign violations. Post-mounted advanced flashing
beacons or overhead flashing beacons can be used at stop-controlled intersections to supplement and
call driver attention to stop signs.
Why It Works:
Flashing beacons provide a visible signal to the presence of an intersection and can be very effective in
rural areas where there may be long stretches between intersections as well as locations where night-
time visibility of intersections is an issue.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-23
NS09: Install Flashing Beacons as Advance Warning (NS.I)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS9 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 10 years $12,000 per assembly
Countermeasure Description:
Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call a driver’s attention to intersection control
signs. This treatment involves installing flashing beacons, mounted on a post, or mounted on a mast arm,
in advance of the intersection. Most advance warning flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus
reducing the issues relating to a power source.
Where to Use:
Non-Signalized Intersections with patterns of crashes that could be related to lack of a driver's awareness
of approaching intersection or controls at a downstream intersection.
Why It Works:
Advance flashing beacons can be used to supplement and call driver attention to intersection control
signs. Flashing beacons are intended to reinforce driver awareness of the stop or yield signs and to help
mitigate patterns of crashes related to intersection regulatory sign violations. Most advance warning
flashing beacons can be powered by solar, thus reducing the issues relating to power source.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-24
NS12: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS12 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
55% 10 years $50 per square yard
Countermeasure Description:
High friction surface treatment (HFST) involves the application of high-quality aggregate to the pavement
using a polymer binder to restore pavement friction at intersections that have less friction than is needed
for the roadway approach speeds and/or geometry. HFST aids motorists in maintaining better control in
dry and wet driving conditions.
Where to Use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Non-
signalized Intersections noted as having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the
pavement friction available is significantly less than needed for the actual roadway approach speeds. This
treatment is intended to target locations where skidding and failure to stop is determined to be a problem
in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why It Works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop
crashes can result in reductions of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes.
Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus
area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested
in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-25
NS14: Install Raised Median on Approaches (NS.I.)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS14 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $30 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Raised medians help prevent accidents caused by crossover traffic, reduce headlight glare distraction and
separate left-turning traffic from through lanes when combined with left-turn lanes. This treatment
involves installing raised median at intersection approaches directly over existing pavement. This method
does not require excavation of the existing pavement.
Where to Use:
Where related or nearby turning movements affect the safety and operation of an intersection. Effective
access management is key to improving safety at, and adjacent to, intersections. The number of
intersection access points coupled with the speed differential between vehicles traveling along the
roadway often contributes to crashes. Any access points within 250 feet upstream and downstream of an
intersection are generally undesirable.
Why It Works:
Raised medians with left-turn lanes at intersections offer a cost-effective means for reducing crashes and
improving operations at higher volume intersections. The raised medians also prohibit left turns into and
out of driveways that may be located too close to the functional area of the intersection.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-26
NS17: Install Right-Turn Lane (NS.I.)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS17 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
20% 20 years $30,000 - $70,000
Countermeasure Description:
At intersections with substantial right-turn movements, a dedicated right-turn lane segregates these cars
from through traffic and increases the capacity of the road. This treatment provides a right-turn lane that
allows for vehicles to decelerate and a make a right-turn movement.
Where to Use:
Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to right-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for
minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive right-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-
speed major-road approaches. When considering new right-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-
motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate. When considering new right-turn
lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.
Why It Works:
The strategy is targeted to reduce the frequency of rear-end collisions resulting from conflicts between
vehicles turning right and following vehicles and vehicles turning right and through vehicles coming from
the left on the cross street. Right-turn lanes also remove slow vehicles that are decelerating to turn right
from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing the potential for rear-end collisions. Right-turn lanes can
increase the length of the intersection crossing and create an additional potential conflict point for non-
motorized users.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-27
NS18: Install Left-Turn Lane (Where No Left-Turn Lane Exists)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS18 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $30,000 - $70,000
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment provides greater safety for drivers making a left-turn movement by eliminating conflicts
between through vehicles and vehicles slowing to make a left-turn through the addition of a left-turn lane.
Where to Use:
Many collisions at unsignalized intersections are related to left-turn maneuvers. A key strategy for
minimizing such collisions is to provide exclusive left-turn lanes, particularly on high-volume and high-
speed major-road approaches. When considering new left-turn lanes, potential impacts to non-motorized
users should be considered and mitigated as appropriate.
Why It Works:
Adding left-turn lanes remove vehicles waiting to turn left from the through-traffic stream, thus reducing
the potential for rear-end collisions. Because they provide a sheltered location for drivers to wait for a
gap in opposing traffic, left-turn lanes may encourage drivers to be more selective in choosing a gap to
complete the left-turn maneuver. This strategy may reduce the potential for collisions between left-turn
and opposing through vehicles.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-28
NS19PB: Install Raised Medians / Refuge Islands (NS.I.)
HSIP COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS19PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
45% 20 years $40,000 per location
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment can be applied to intersections that have long pedestrian crossing distances. The raised
medians/refuge islands reduce the conflict between the non-motorized user and motorized users. This
treatment also allows pedestrians to focus on one direction of traffic at a time because the refuge island
provides a protected space between the two directions of travel.
Where to Use:
Intersections that have a long pedestrian crossing distance, a higher number of pedestrians, or a crash
history. Raised medians decrease the level of exposure for pedestrians and allow pedestrians to
concentrate on (or cross) only one direction of traffic at a time.
Why It Works:
Raised pedestrian refuge islands, or medians at crossing locations along roadways, are another strategy
to reduce exposure between pedestrians and motor vehicles. Refuge islands and medians that are raised
(i.e., not just painted) provide pedestrians more secure places of refuge during the street crossing. They
can stop partway across the street and wait for an adequate gap in traffic before completing their crossing.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-29
NS20B: Install Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations (New
Signs and Markings Only)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS20PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 10 years $7,000
Description:
This treatment involves the installation of a pedestrian crossing with new pavement markings and signs
at unsignalized intersections to address pedestrian and bicycle collisions.
Where to Use:
Non-signalized intersections without a marked crossing, where pedestrians are known to be crossing
intersections that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings
and intersections with right and/or left turns pockets. See Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs.
Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations) for additional guidance regarding when to install a
marked crosswalk.
Why It Works:
Pedestrian crossings enhance pedestrian safety through pavement markings and signs that delineate a
designated portion of the roadway for pedestrians to cross. The use of enhanced markings at uncontrolled
crossings can also increase both pedestrian and driver awareness to the increased exposure at the
crossing. Incorporating advanced "stop" or “yield" markings provides an extra safety buffer and can
reduce the 'multiple-threat' danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes
occur at or within 50 feet of an intersection. Of these, 30 percent involve a turning vehicle. There are
several types of pedestrian crosswalks, including: continental, ladder, zebra, and standard. When agencies
opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project
design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be
accounted for in the B/C calculation, but costs over standard crosswalk markings must be tracked
separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the agency's local-funding share for the
project costs.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-30
NS21PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations
(With Enhanced Safety Features)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS21PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $50,000 - $100,000 per location
Description:
This treatment involves installing pedestrian crossings with enhanced features such curb extensions,
advanced "stop" or "yield" markings, flashing beacons, and other safety features that complement the
standard pedestrian crossing elements.
Where to Use:
Non-signalized intersections with or without a marked crossing, where pedestrians cross intersections
that involve significant vehicular traffic. They are especially important at school crossings and
intersections with turn pockets. Flashing beacons, curb extensions, advanced "stop" or "yield" markings,
and other safety features should be added to complement the standard crossing elements.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings that include enhances safety features has the opportunity to enhance
pedestrian safety at locations noted as being especially problematic. The enhanced safety elements help
delineate a portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing. Incorporating advanced
"yield" markings provide an extra safety buffer and can be effective in reducing the 'multiple-threat'
danger to pedestrians. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an
intersection. When agencies opt to install aesthetic enhancement to intersection crosswalks like stamped
concrete/asphalt, the project design and construction costs can significantly increase. For HSIP
applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but these costs (over standard
crosswalk markings) must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable and will increase the
agency's local-funding share for the project costs.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-31
NS22PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS22PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $12,000 per assembly
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) including pedestrian-
activated flashing lights and additional signage at a pedestrian crossing.
Where to Use:
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional
signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It
uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed
at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Why It Works:
RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing
crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian
crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as
crossing warning signs and markings.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-32
NS23PB: Install Pedestrian Signal (Including Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (HAWK)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
NS23PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
55% 20 years $250,000
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing a pedestrian signal or a pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) which is also
known as a high-intensity activated crosswalk beacon (HAWK) with associated signs and markings at a
pedestrian crossing.
Where to Use:
Intersections noted as having a history of pedestrian vs. vehicle crashes and in areas where the likelihood
of the pedestrian presence is high. Corridors should also be assessed to determine if there are adequate
safe opportunities for non-motorists to cross and if a pedestrian signal, or a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(PHB) (also called High-Intensity Activated crosswalk beacon (HAWK)) are needed to provide an active
warning to motorists when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk.
Why It Works:
Adding a pedestrian signal has the opportunity to greatly enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as
being problematic. Nearly one-third of all pedestrian-related crashes occur at or within 50 feet of an
intersection. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and
motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and
cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses
of the roadway that should be expected.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-33
ROADWAY COUNTERMEASURES
R01: Add Segment Lighting
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R1 100% Night
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $10,000 per street light
Countermeasure Description:
Adding intersection lighting to roadway segments helps improve visibility throughout the roadway and
helps reduce potential conflicts. Adequately illuminated intersections increase driver awareness of
crossing pedestrians for approaching motorists and assists pedestrians navigating the crosswalks.
Where to Use:
Where to use: Noted substantial patterns of nighttime crashes. In particular, patterns of rear-end, right-
angle, turning or roadway departure collisions on the roadways may indicate that night-time drivers can
be unaware of the roadway characteristics.
Why It Works:
Providing roadway lighting improves the safety during nighttime conditions by (1) making drivers more
aware of the surroundings, which improves drivers' perception-reaction times, (2) enhancing drivers'
available sight distances to perceive roadway characteristic in advance of the change, and (3) improving
non-motorist's visibility and navigation.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-34
R03: Install Median Barrier
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R3 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $50-$500 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment installs a median barrier between vehicles traveling in opposite directions to reduce cross
median crashes by redirecting vehicles that strike either side of the barrier. Costs vary based on barrier
used including cable barriers, guardrail, and concrete barriers. Concrete median barriers are most
commonly used.
Where to Use:
Areas where crash history indicates drivers are unintentionally crossing the median and the cross-overs
are resulting in high severity crashes. The installation of median barriers can increase the number of PDO
and non-severe injuries. The net result in safety from this countermeasure is connected more to reducing
the severity of crashes not the number of crashes. It is recommended to review the warrants as outlined
in Chapter 7 of the Caltrans Traffic Manual when considering whether to install median barriers.
Why It Works:
This strategy is designed to prevent head-on collisions by providing a barrier between opposing lanes of
traffic. The variety of median barriers available makes it easier to choose a site-specific solution. The main
advantage is the reduction of the severity of the crashes. The key to success would be in selecting an
appropriate barrier based on the site, previous crash history, maintenance needs, and median width.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-35
R04: Install Guardrail
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R4 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $50-$250 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of guardrail is an effective method for protecting drivers from drop-offs or colliding with
fixed objects on the median or roadside. Guardrails can be installed very quickly and in a fast manner.
Where to Use:
Guardrail is installed to reduce the severity of lane departure crashes. However, guardrail can reduce
crash severity only for those conditions where striking the guardrail is less severe than going down an
embankment or striking a fixed object. Guardrail should only be installed where it is clear that crash
severity will be reduced, or there is a history of run-off-the-road crashes at a given location that have
resulted in severe crashes. New and upgraded guardrail and end-treatments must meet current safety
standards; see Method for Assessing Safety Hardware (MASH) for more information. Caltrans (or other
national accepted guidance) slope/height criteria need to be considered and documented.
Why It Works:
Guardrail redirects a vehicle away from embankment slopes or fixed objects and dissipates the energy of
an errant vehicle.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-36
R08: Install Raised Median
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R8 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $30 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Raised medians help prevent accidents caused by crossover traffic, reduce headlight glare distraction and
separate left-turning traffic from through lanes when combined with left-turn lanes. This treatment
involves installing raised median within roadway segments directly over existing pavement. This method
does not require excavation of the existing pavement.
Where to Use:
Areas experiencing head-on collisions that may be affected by both the number of vehicles that cross the
centerline and by the speed of oncoming vehicles. Installing a raised median is a more restrictive approach
in that it represents a more rigid barrier between opposing traffic. Application of raised medians on
roadways with higher speeds is not advised -instead a median barrier should be considered. Including
landscaping in new raised medians can be counterproductive to the HSIP safety goals and should only be
done in ways that do not increase drivers’ exposure to fixed objects and that will maintain driver's sight
distance needs throughout the life of the proposed landscaping. Agencies need to consider and document
impacts of additional turning movements at nearby intersections.
Why It Works:
Adding raised medians is a particularly effective strategy as it adds to or reallocates the existing cross
section to incorporate a buffer between the opposing travel lanes and reinforces the limits of the travel
lane. Raised median may also be used to limit unsafe turning movements along a roadway.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-37
R10PB: Install Pedestrian Median Fencing on Approaches
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R10PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $50-$75 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of pedestrian median fencing along approaches helps direct pedestrians to a preferred
formal crossing point and discourages pedestrians from making dangerous crossing movements where
visibility may be limited.
Where to Use:
Roadway segments with high pedestrian-generators and pedestrian-destinations nearby (e.g. transit
stops) may experience a high volume of pedestrians J-walking across the travel lanes at mid-block
locations instead of walking to the nearest intersection or designated mid-block crossing. When this safety
issue cannot be mitigated with shoulder, sidewalk and/or crossing treatments, then installing a
continuous pedestrian barrier in the median may be a viable solution.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian median fencing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted as
being problematic involving pedestrians running/darting across the roadway outside designated
pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian median fencing can significantly reduce this safety issue by creating a
positive barrier, forcing pedestrians to the designated pedestrian crossing.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-38
R11: Install Acceleration / Deceleration Lanes
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R11 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years $30,000 - $70,000
Countermeasure Description:
The installation of acceleration/deceleration lanes helps reduce conflict between slow speed and higher
speed vehicles. Acceleration/deceleration lanes allow drivers to speed up or slow down in a space not
used by high-speed through traffic.
Where to Use:
Areas proven to have crashes that are the result of drivers not being able to turn onto a high speed
roadway to accelerate until the desired roadway speed is reached and areas that do not provide the
opportunity to safety decelerate to negotiate a turning movement. This CM can also be used to improve
the safety of merging vehicles at a lane-drop location.
Why It Works:
A lane that does not provide enough deceleration length and storage space for turning traffic may cause
the turn queue to back up into the adjacent through lane. This can contribute to rear-end and sideswipe
crashes. An acceleration lane is an auxiliary or speed-change lane that allows vehicles to accelerate to
highway speeds (high speed roadways) before entering the through-traffic lanes of a highway.
Additionally, if acceleration by entering traffic takes place directly on the traveled way, it may disrupt the
flow of through-traffic and cause rear-end and sideswipe collisions.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-39
R14: Road Diet (Reduce Travel Lanes From 4 to 3 and Add a Two W ay
Left-Turn and Bike Lanes)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R14 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 20 years $50,000 - $150,000 per mile
Countermeasure Description:
A road diet reconfiguration involves the conversion of an undivided four lane roadway to a three-lane
undivided roadway made up of two through lanes, a center two-way left-turn lane, and bike lanes. The
reduction of lanes allows the roadway cross section to be reallocated for other uses such as bike lanes,
pedestrian refuge islands, transit uses, and/or parking.
Where to Use:
Areas noted as having a higher frequency of head-on, left-turn, and rear-end crashes with traffic volumes
that can be handled by only 2 free flowing lanes. Using this strategy in locations with traffic volumes that
are too high could result in diversion of traffic to routes less safe than the original four-lane design. It may
also result in congestion levels that contribute to other crashes.
Why It Works:
The application of this strategy usually reduces the roadway segment speeds and serious head-on crashes.
In many cases the extra pavement width can be used for the installation of bike lanes. In addition to
increasing bicycle safety, these bike lanes can improve the safety of on-street parking.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-40
R15: Widen Shoulder
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R15 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 20 years $30,000-$70,000
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves the addition/widening of a shoulder lane to provide space that allows drivers to
get out of the travel lane and avoid crashes. By widening the shoulders or providing a shoulder where one
previously did not exist, drivers have more recovery area to regain control in the event of a roadway
departure. A minimum of 2 feet width must be added and the new/resulting shoulders must be a
minimum of 4 feet wide.
Where to Use:
Roadways that have a frequent incidence of vehicles leaving the travel lane resulting in an unsuccessful
attempt to reenter the roadway. The probability of a safe recovery is increased if an errant vehicle is
provided with an increased paved area in which to initiate such a recovery.
Why It Works:
Based on the best available research, adding shoulder or widening an existing shoulder provides a greater
area to regain control of a vehicle, as well as lateral clearance to roadside objects such as guardrail, signs
and poles. They may also provide space for disabled vehicles to stop or drive slowly, provide increased
sight distance for through vehicles and for vehicles entering the roadway, and in some cases reduce
passing conflicts between motor vehicles and bicyclists and pedestrians. The likely safety benefits for
adding or widening an existing shoulder generally increase as the widening width increases -practitioners
should refer to NCHRP Report 500 Series, the CMF Clearinghouse or other references for more details.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-41
R17: Improve Horizontal Alignment (Flatten Curves)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S17 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
50% 20 years Varies by Project Scope
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment is used to reduce roadway departure crashes and usually involves total reconstruction of
the roadway. It also may require acquisition of additional right-of-way and an environmental review. This
countermeasure is not eligible unless done as the last step of an “incremental approach”.
Where to Use:
Roadways with horizontal curves that have experienced lane departure crashes as a result of a roadway
segment having compound curves or a severe radius. This strategy should generally be considered only
when less expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control
devices have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.
Why It Works:
Increasing the radius of a horizontal curve can be very effective in improving the safety performance of
the curve. Curve modification reduces the likelihood of a vehicle leaving its lane, crossing the roadway
centerline, or leaving the roadway at a horizontal curve; and minimizes the adverse consequences of
leaving the roadway. Horizontal alignment improvement projects are expected to include
standard/improved superelevation elements, which should be considered part of this CM and not an
additional CM.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-42
R18: Flatten crest vertical curve
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
S18 90% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 20 years Varies by Project Scope
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment is used to change the horizontal and / or vertical alignment to provide additional sight
distance. This countermeasure only applies to crashes that occur within the limits of the improved
alignment. This countermeasure is not eligible unless done as the last step of an “incremental approach”.
Projects that utilize this countermeasure are typically quite extensive, expensive, and take several years
to accomplish – particularly if additional right-of-way is required or environmental impacts are expected.
The key to creating a cost effective project with a competitive benefit cost ratio (BCR) for the HSIP program
is to target using the countermeasure at higher-hazard locations.
Where to Use:
The target for this strategy is usually unsignalized intersections with restricted sight distance due to
vertical geometry and with patterns of crashes related to that lack of sight distance that cannot be
ameliorated by less expensive methods. This strategy should generally be considered only when less
expensive strategies involving clearing of specific sight obstructions or modifying traffic control devices
have been tried and have failed to ameliorate the crash patterns.
Why It Works:
Adequate sight distance for drivers at stopped approaches to intersections has long been recognized as
among the most important factors contributing to overall intersection safety. Vertical alignment
improvement projects are expected to include standard/improved superelevation elements, which should
be considered part of this CM and not an additional CM.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-43
R21: Improve Pavement Friction (High Friction Surface Treatments)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R21 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
55% 10 years $50 per square yd
Countermeasure Description:
High friction surface treatment (HFST) involves the application of high-quality aggregate to the pavement
using a polymer binder to restore pavement friction at intersections that have less friction than is needed
for the roadway approach speeds and/or geometry. HFST aids motorists in maintaining better control in
dry and wet driving conditions.
Where to Use:
Nationally, this countermeasure is referred to as "High Friction Surface Treatments" or HFST. Areas as
noted having crashes on wet pavements or under dry conditions when the pavement friction available is
significantly less than actual roadway speeds; including but not limited to curves, loop ramps,
intersections, and areas with short stopping or weaving distances. This treatment is intended to target
locations where skidding is determined to be a problem, in wet or dry conditions and the target vehicle is
one that runs (skids) off the road or is unable to stop due to insufficient skid resistance.
Why It Works:
Improving the skid resistance at locations with high frequencies of wet-road crashes and/or failure to stop
crashes can result in a reduction of 50 percent for wet-road crashes and 20 percent for total crashes.
Applying HFST can double friction numbers, e.g. low 40s to high 80s. This CM represents a special focus
area for both FHWA and Caltrans, which means there are extra resources available for agencies interested
in more details on High Friction Surface Treatment projects.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-44
R22: Install/Upgrade Signs with New Fluorescent Sheeting (Regulatory
or Warning)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R22 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
15% 10 years $300 per sign
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing new or upgrading existing regulatory or warning signs with new
florescent sheeting to increase visibility. This countermeasure is not eligible unless it is done as part of a
larger sign audit project.
Where to Use:
The target for this strategy should be on roadway segments with patterns of head on, nighttime, non -
intersection, run-off road, and sideswipe crashes related to lack of driver awareness of the presence of a
specific roadway feature or regulatory requirement. Ideally this type of safety CM would be combined
with other sign evaluations and upgrades (install chevrons, warning signs, delineators, markers, beacons,
and relocation of existing signs per MUTCD standards.)
Why It Works:
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by lack of driver awareness (or compliance) roadway
signing. It is intended to get the drivers attention and give them a v isual warning by using fluorescent
yellow sheeting (or other retroreflective material).
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-45
R25: Install Curve Advance Warning Signs (Flashing Beacon)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R25 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 10 years $500 per sign
Countermeasure Description:
Curve advance warning signs provide a visual cue to drivers that they are approaching a horizontal curve.
This treatment is appropriate for locations where relatively sharp curves have resulted in crashes. This
treatment should be installed in combination with additional treatments such as chevron signs,
delineators, and pavement markers to provide increased awareness of the curved roadway alignment.
Where to Use:
Roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes on relatively sharp curves. Flashing beacons in
conjunction with warning signs should only be used on horizontal curves that have an established severe
crash history to help maintain their effectiveness.
Why It Works:
This strategy primarily addresses problem curves, and serves as an enhanced advance warning of an
unexpected or sharp curve. It provides advance information and gives drivers a visual warning that their
added attention is needed. Flashing beacons are an added indication that a curve may be particularly
challenging.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-46
R26: Install Dynamic/Variable Speed Warning Signs
Countermeasure Description:
Dynamic/variable speed warning signs can be implemented on roadways with a high frequency of unsafe
speed crashes or run off road crashes on curvilinear segments. The speed warning signs alert drivers to
their current travel speed and give a visual warning once drivers exceed the recommended speed for a
segment or curve. Dynamic/variable speed warning signs can be powered by solar, thus reducing the
issues relating to a power source. This countermeasure does not apply to dynamic regulatory speed
warning signs.
Where to Use:
Curvilinear roadways that have an unacceptable level of crashes due to excessive speeds on relatively
sharp curves.
Why It Works:
This strategy primarily addresses crashes caused by motorists traveling too fast around sharp curves. It is
intended to get the drivers attention and give them a visual warning that they may be traveling over the
recommended speed for the approaching curve. Care should be taken to limit the placement of these
signs to help maintain their effectiveness.
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R26 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
30% 10 years $8,000 per sign
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-47
R28: Install Edge-Lines and Centerlines
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment helps drivers to better understand the limits of roadway. Depending on the width of the
roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be most
appropriate.
Where to Use:
Any road with a history of run-off-road right, head-on, opposite-direction-sideswipe, or run-off-road-left
crashes is a candidate for this treatment -install where the existing lane delineation is not sufficient to
assist the motorist in understanding the existing limits of the roadway. Depending on the width of the
roadway, various combinations of edge line and/or center line pavement markings may be the most
appropriate. Incorporating raised/reflective pavement markers (RPMs) into centerlines (and edge-lines)
should be considered as it has been shown to improve safety.
Why It Works:
Installing edge-lines and centerlines where none exists or making significant upgrades to existing lines
(paint to thermoplastic, adding audible disks/bumps in the thermoplastic stripes, or adding RPMs) are
intended/designed to help drivers who might leave the roadway because of their inability to see the edge
of the roadway along the horizontal edge of the pavement or crossover the centerline of the roadway into
oncoming traffic. New pavement marking products tend to be more durable, are all-weather, more visible,
and have a higher retroreflectivity than traditional pavement markings.
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R28 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
25% 10 years $4 per linear foot
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-48
R30: Install Centerline Rumble Strips / Stripes
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R30 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
20% 10 years $1-$3 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Centerline rumble strips/stipes are installed at or near the center line of an undivided roadway, and may
be comprised of either a single or double line of rumbles. This treatment is intended to alert inattentive
drivers through vibration and sound that their vehicles have left the travel lane.
Where to Use:
Center Line rumble strips/stripes can be used on virtually any roadway – especially those with a history of
head-on crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire
route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be
sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Care should be taken when considering installing rumble strips
in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle volumes.
Why It Works:
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they
are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross
the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced
marking, especially in wet dark conditions.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-49
R31: Install Edgeline Rumble Strips / Stripes
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R31 100% All
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
15% 10 years $1-$3 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
Edge line rumble strips are placed at the edge of the travel lane in line with the edge line pavement
marking. This treatment is intended to alert inattentive drivers through vibration and sound that their
vehicles have left the travel lane. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically
along an entire route instead of only at spot locations.
Where to Use:
Shoulder and edge line milled rumble strips/stripes should be used on roads with a history of roadway
departure crashes. It is recommended that rumble strips/stripes be applied systematically along an entire
route instead of only at spot locations. For all rumble strips/stripes, pavement condition should be
sufficient to accept milled rumble strips. Special requirements may apply and care should be taken when
considering installing rumble strips in locations with residential land uses or in areas with high bicycle
volumes.
Why It Works:
Rumble strips provide an auditory indication and tactile rumble when driven on, alerting drivers that they
are drifting out of their travel lane, giving them time to recover before they depart the roadway or cross
the center line. Additionally, rumble stripes (pavement marking in the rumble itself) provide an enhanced
marking, especially in wet dark conditions.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-50
R32PB: Install Bike Lanes
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R32PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $4 per linear foot of striping
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing Class II bicycle lanes to address crashes between bicycles and vehicles.
Adding striped bicycle lanes can range from the simply restriping the roadway and minor signing to
projects that require roadway widening, right-of-way, and environmental impacts.
Where to Use:
Roadway segments noted as having crashes between bicycles and vehicles or crashes that may be
preventable with a buffer/shoulder. Most studies suggest that bicycle lanes may provide protection
against bicycle/motor vehicle collisions. Striped bike lanes can be incorporated into a roadway when is
desirable to delineate which available road space is for exclusive or preferential use by bicyclists.
Why It Works:
Most studies present evidence that bicycle lanes provide protection against bicycle/motor vehicle
collisions. Bicycle lanes provide marked areas for bicyclist to travel along the roadway and provide for
more predictable movements for both bicyclist and motorist. Evidence also shows that riding with the
flow of vehicular traffic reduces bicyclists’ chances of collision with a motor vehicle. Locations with bicycle
lanes have lower rates of wrong-way riding. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and
markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and
markings directing cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of
non-motorized uses of the roadway that should be expected.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-51
R33PB: Install Separated Bike Lanes
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R33PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
45% 20 years $8 per linear foot of striping
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing separated bike paths or bike lanes on streets with high volumes of
bicycle traffic and/or high bicycle-vehicle collisions in urban or suburban areas. Separation types range
from simple, painted buffers and flexible delineators, to more substantial separation including raised
curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and parking lanes.
Where to Use:
Separated bikeways are most appropriate on streets with high volumes of bike traffic and/or high bike-
vehicle collisions in urban or suburban areas. Separation types range from painted buffers and flexible
delineators to more substantial separation with raised curbs, grade separation, bollards, planters, and
parking lanes. Additional space may also be provided where pedestrian and bicyclists interact, such as the
parking buffer, or loading zones, or extra bike lane width for cyclists to pass one another. Options will
range due to roadway characteristics, space, and cost.
Why It Works:
Separated bike lanes provide increased safety and comfort for bicyclists beyond conventional bicycle
lanes. By separating bicyclists from motor traffic, “protected” or physically separated bike lanes can offer
a higher level of comfort and are attractive to a wider spectrum of the public. Intersections and
approaches must be carefully designed to promote safety and facilitate left-turns for bicyclists from the
primary corridor to cross street. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-
motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing
cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized uses
of the roadway that should be expected.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-52
R34PB: Install Sidewalk/Pathway (To Avoid Walking Along Roadway)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R34PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
80% 20 years $35 per linear foot
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing new sidewalks or pathways to address pedestrian crashes related to
people walking along the roadway. This countermeasure cannot be used to replace an existing sidewalk
with a wider one unless prior Caltrans approval is included. A walkway is any type of defined space or
pathway for use by a person travelling on foot or using a wheelchair.
Where to Use:
Areas noted as not having adequate or no sidewalks and a history of walking along roadway pedestrian
crashes. In rural areas asphalt curbs and/or separated walkways may be appropriate.
Why It Works:
Sidewalks and walkways provide people with space to travel within the public right-of-way that is
separated from roadway vehicles. The presence of sidewalks on both sides of the street has been found
to be related to significant reductions in the “walking along roadway” pedestrian crash risk compared to
locations where no sidewalks or walkways exist. Reductions of 50 to 90 percent of these types of
pedestrian crashes. In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized
and motorized roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians
and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs and markings warning motorists of non-motorized
uses of the roadway that should be expected.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-53
R35PB: Install/Upgrade Pedestrian Crossing (With Enhanced Safety Features)
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R35PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $50,000 - $100,000 per location
Countermeasure Description:
At many locations, a marked crosswalk alone may not be sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized
users. This treatment involves the installation of flashing beacons, curb extensions and other safety
features in order to complement the standard crossing elements.
Where to Use:
Roadway segments with no controlled crossing for a significant distance in high-use midblock crossing
areas and/or multilane roads locations. Based on a Zegeer study, a marked crosswalk alone may not be
sufficient to adequately protect non-motorized users. In these cases, flashing beacons, curb extensions,
medians and pedestrian crossing islands and/or other safety features should be added to complement
the standard crossing elements.
Why It Works:
Adding pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features can greatly enhance pedestrian safety.
Enhanced safety elements may include curb extensions, pedestrian crossing islands, beacons, and lighting.
Combined with pavement markings, this delineates the portion of the roadway designated for pedestrian
crossing. Care must be taken to warn drivers of pedestrians crossing the roadway. Guidance signs and
markings for non-motorized and motorized roadway users should be considered, including sign and
markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on appropriate/legal travel paths and signs. When agencies
opt to install aesthetic enhancement to crossing like stamped concrete/asphalt, the project costs can
significantly increase. For HSIP applications, these costs must be accounted for in the B/C calculation, but
costs over standard crosswalk markings must be tracked separately and are not federally reimbursable.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-54
R36PB: Install Raised Pedestrian Crossing
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R36PB 90% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $25,000 - $50,000
Countermeasure Description:
Raised pedestrian crossings enhanced marked crossing locations by providing a raised crossing that
vehicles must navigate over. This treatment should be used in lower-speed roadways and emergency
vehicle access should be considered as part of any evaluation of the treatment.
Where to Use:
On lower-speed roadways, where pedestrians are known to be crossing roadways that involve significant
vehicular traffic. Based on the Zegeer study (Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at
Uncontrolled Locations) at many locations, a marked crosswalk alone, may not be sufficient to adequately
protect non-motorized users. In these cases, raised crossings can be added to complement the standard
crossing elements. Special requirements may apply and extra care should be taken when considering
installing raised crossings to ensure unintended safety issues are not created, such as: emergency vehicle
access or truck route issues.
Why It Works:
Adding a raised pedestrian crossing has the opportunity to enhance pedestrian safety at locations noted
as being especially problematic. The raised crossing encourages motorists to reduce their speed and
provides improved delineation for the portion of the roadway that is designated for pedestrian crossing.
In combination with this CM, better guidance signs and markings for non-motorized and motorized
roadway users should be considered, including: sign and markings directing pedestrians and cyclists on
appropriate/legal travel paths.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - C-55
R37PB: Install Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
LRSM COUNTERMEASURE FEDERAL FUNDING ELIGIBILITY CRASH TYPES ADDRESSED
R37PB 100% Pedestrian and Bicycle
CRASH REDUCTION FACTOR EXPECTED LIFE APPROXIMATE COST
35% 20 years $12,000 per assembly
Countermeasure Description:
This treatment involves installing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) including pedestrian-
activated flashing lights and additional signage at mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Where to Use:
Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) includes pedestrian-activated flashing lights and additional
signage that enhance the visibility of marked crosswalks and alert motorists to pedestrian crossings. It
uses an irregular flash pattern that is similar to emergency flashers on police vehicles. RRFBs are installed
at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian crossings.
Why It Works:
RRFBs can enhance safety by increasing driver awareness of potential pedestrian conflicts and reducing
crashes between vehicles and pedestrians at unsignalized intersections and mid-block pedestrian
crossings. The addition of RRFB may also increase the safety effectiveness of other treatments, such as
crossing warning signs and markings.
APPENDIX D
PRIORITY PROJECT SUMMARIES
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Citywide Pedestrian Countdown Signal Head Upgrades ..................................................................... 2
Citywide Traffic Signal Hardware Upgrades .......................................................................................... 8
Installation of Dynamic Variable Speed Warning Systems .............................................................. 15
Signal Timing and Communication Upgrades ..................................................................................... 19
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-2
CITYWIDE PEDESTRIAN COUNTDOWN SIGNAL
HEAD UPGRADES
LSRM Countermeasure:
S17PB: Install pedestrian countdown signal heads.
Project Description:
Install countdown pedestrian signal heads, pedestrian APS Push buttons, and new controllers at traffic
signals citywide.
Project Location:
55 Traffic Signals Citywide.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-3
INT # SIGNALIZED PROJECT INTERSECTION
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT
Countdown
Ped Heads APS
Controller
Upgrades
1 Butterfield Stage Rd & La Serena Wy 8 8 1
2 Butterfield Stage Rd & Pauba Rd 8 8 1
3 Butterfield Stage Rd. & Royal Crest Pl. 8 8 1
4 Butterfield Stage Rd. & Welton Wy./Channel St. 8 8 1
5 Date St. & Kingwood Rd. 4 4 1
6 De Portola Rd. & Campanula Wy. 8 8 1
7 Deer Hollow Wy. & Peach Tree Wy. 8 8 1
8 Jefferson Ave. & Sanborn Ave. 4 4 1
9 Margarita Rd. & Abbott Vascular Dr./Solana Ridge 6 6 1
10 Margarita Rd. & Avenida Barca 6 6 1
11 Margarita Rd. & Date St. 6 6 1
12 Margarita Rd. & Harveston Wy. 4 4 1
13 Margarita Rd. & La Serena Wy. 4 4 1
14 Margarita Rd. & Moraga Rd. 4 4 1
15 Margarita Rd. & N General Kearny Rd. 8 8 1
16 Margarita Rd. & Overland Dr. 4 4 1
17 Margarita Rd. & Pauba Rd. 8 8 1
18 Margarita Rd. & Pio Pico Rd. 8 8 1
19 Margarita Rd. & Harveston School Rd./Rustic Glen Dr. 6 6 1
20 Margarita Rd. & Stonewood Rd. 8 8 1
21 Meadows Pkwy. & Leena Wy. 8 8 1
22 Meadows Pkwy. & De Portola Rd. 8 8 1
23 Meadows Pkwy. & Campanula Wy. 8 8 1
24 La Serena Wy. & Meadows Pkwy. 4 4 1
25 Meadows Pkwy. & McCabe Dr./Sunny Meadows Pkwy. 8 8 1
26 Pauba Rd. & Meadows Pkwy. 8 8 1
27 Rancho Vista Rd. & Meadows Pkwy. 8 8 1
28 Nicolas Rd. & N General Kearny Rd. 8 8 1
29 Nicolas Rd. & Rancho Temecula Town Center 6 6 1
30 N General Kearny Rd. & Camino Campos Verdes 4 4 1
31 Overland Dr. & Promenade Wy./Nicole Ln. 8 8 1
32 Pauba Rd. & Via Rami 6 6 1
33 Pechanga Pkwy. & Deer Hollow Wy. 4 4 1
34 Pechanga Pkwy. & Loma Linda Rd. 6 6 1
35 Pechanga Pkwy. & Muirfield Dr. 6 6 1
36 Pechanga Pkwy. & Pechanga Resort Dr. 4 4 1
37 Pechanga Pkwy. & Wolf Creek Dr. N 6 6 1
38 Pechanga Pkwy. & Wolf Creek Dr. S 8 8 1
39 Pechanga Pkwy. & Wolf Valley Rd./Via Eduardo 6 6 1
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-4
INT # SIGNALIZED PROJECT INTERSECTION
PROPOSED EQUIPMENT
Countdown
Ped Heads APS
Controller
Upgrades
40 Ring Rd. & Promenade Mall North 4 4 1
41 Ring Rd. & Promenade Mall West 4 4 1
42 Ring Rd. & Promenade Mall South 4 4 1
43 Rancho Vista Rd. & Mira Loma Dr. 8 8 1
44 Wolf Valley Rd. & Redhawk Pkwy. 4 4 1
45 Vail Ranch Pkwy. & Tehachapi Pass 8 8 1
46 Winchester Rd. & Winchester Creek Ave./Willows Ave. 6 6 1
47 Wolf Valley Rd. & Wolf Creek Rd. S 8 8 1
48 Ynez Rd. & County Center Dr. 4 4 1
49 Ynez Rd. & Date St. 8 8 1
50 Ynez Rd. & DLR Dr. 8 8 1
51 Ynez Rd. & Motor Car Pkwy. 8 8 1
52 Ynez Rd. & Overland Dr. 8 8 1
53 Ynez Rd. & Promenade Mall North 6 6 1
54 Ynez Rd. & Promenade Mall South 6 6 1
55 Ynez Rd. & Solana Wy. 4 4 1
Total 350 350 55
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-5
Existing Conditions Photos:
Figure 1: Existing pedestrian signal head on northbound traffic signal pole at Ynez Rd & North Promenade
Mall.
Figure 2: Existing pedestrian signal head on eastbound traffic signal pole at La Serena Wy & Meadows
Pkwy.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-6
Crash Analysis:
38 Total Pedestrian and Bicycle Collisions (2016-2020).
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
0 4 15 16 3
COLLISION TYPE
HEAD-ON SIDESWIPE REAR END BROADSIDE HIT OBJECT
0 1 0 7 0
OVERTURNED VEHICLE/PED OTHER NOT STATED
0 22 3 5
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
DUI IMPEDING TRAFFIC UNSAFE SPEED FOLLOWING TOO
CLOSELY
WRONG SIDE OF
ROAD
0 0 2 0 7
IMPROPER
PASSING
UNSAFE LANE
CHANGE
IMPROPER
TURNING
AUTO ROW
VIOLATION
PED ROW
VIOLATION
0 0 0 1 11
PED VIOLATION TRAFFIC SIGNALS
AND SIGNS
HAZARDOUS
PARKING LIGHTS BRAKES
4 5 0 0 0
OTHER UNSAFE STARTING
OR BACKING
PED OR
OTHER DUI FELL ASLEEP
UNKNOWN OR
NOT STATED
6 0 0 0 2
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-7
HSIP Analyzer Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for Construction Items:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT
COST TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(S17PB)
%
FOR
OS*
%
FOR
NS**
1 Mobilization LS 1 $25,000 $25,000 100% 0% 0%
2 Traffic Control LS 1 $10,000 $10,000 100% 0% 0%
3
Remove Existing Traffic Signal
Equipment (controller, ped heads,
push buttons)
LS 1 $15,000 $15,000 100% 0% 0%
4 New Type 2070 Traffic Signal
Controller EA 55 $4,500 $247,000 100% 0% 0%
5 New LED Countdown Timer
Pedestrian Head Module EA 350 $400 $140,000 100% 0% 0%
6 New APS Pedestrian Push Button EA 350 $1200 $420,00 100% 0% 0%
WEIGHTED AVERAGE (%) 100% 0% 0%
TOTAL ($) $857,500
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, AS % OF THE ABOVE “TOTAL” OF THE
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS 10% $85,750
TOTAL CONSTRUTION COST
(ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST HUNDREDS) $943,300
HSIP Analyzer Project Cost Estimate:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST
HSIP /
TOTAL
(%)
HSIP
FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $3,000 100% $3,000 $0
PS&E $70,000 100% $70,000 $0
Subtotal – PE $73,000 100% $73,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 100% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $90,000 100% $90,000 $0
Construction Items $943,300
(Read only – from Section I) 100% $943,300 $0
Subtotal - Construction $1,033,300 100% $1,033,300 $0
PROJECT TOTAL $1,106,300 100% $1,106,300 $0
Priority Project Summary:
TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT TOTAL PROJECT COST BENEFIT COST RATIO
$9,823,418 $1,106,300 8.88
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-8
CITYWIDE TRAFFIC SIGNAL HARDWARE UPGRADES
LSRM Countermeasure:
S2: Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size,
and number.
Project Description:
Upgrade existing safety lighting to LED lighting and street name signs to LED internally illuminated street
name signs (IISNS) at traffic signals Citywide.
Project Location:
116 Signalized Intersections Citywide.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-9
# LOCATION # LED
LUMINAIRE
1 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & CROWNE HILL DRIVE 4
2 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & DE PORTOLA ROAD 4
3 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & LA SERENA WAY 4
4 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & NIGHTHAWK PASS 4
5 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & PAUBA ROAD 4
6 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & ROYAL CREST PLACE 4
7 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & WELTON WAY/CHANNEL STREET 4
8 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & WOLF STORE ROAD 4
9 DATE STREET & LAKEVIEW ROAD 4
10 DEER HOLLOW WAY & PEACH TREE STREET/VIA LA COLORADA 5
11 DEER HOLLOW WAY & PEPPERCORN DRIVE/JON WILLIAM WAY/ANZA ROAD 4
12 DIAZ ROAD & RANCHO WAY 4
13 JEFFERSON AVENUE & DEL RIO ROAD 4
14 JEFFERSON AVENUE & OVERLAND DRIVE 4
15 JEFFERSON AVENUE & SANBORN AVENUE 4
16 JEFFERSON AVENUE & VIA MONTEZUMA 4
17 MARGARITA ROAD & AVENIDA BARCA 4
18 MARGARITA ROAD & DARTOLO ROAD/LUCKY CENTER 4
19 MARGARITA ROAD & DATE STREET 4
20 MARGARITA ROAD & DE PORTOLA ROAD 4
21 MARGARITA ROAD & HARVESTON WAY 4
22 MARGARITA ROAD & LA SERENA WAY 4
23 MARGARITA ROAD & MORAGA ROAD 4
24 MARGARITA ROAD & NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD 4
25 MARGARITA ROAD & OVERLAND DRIVE 4
26 MARGARITA ROAD & PAUBA ROAD 4
27 MARGARITA ROAD & PIO PICO ROAD 4
28 MARGARITA ROAD & WINCO DRIVEWAY 2
29 MARGARITA ROAD & RANCHO VISTA ROAD 4
30 MARGARITA ROAD & RUSTIC GLEN DRIVE/HARVESTON SCHOOL ROAD 4
31 MARGARITA ROAD & SANTIAGO ROAD 4
32 MARGARITA ROAD & SOLANA WAY 4
33 MARGARITA ROAD & STONEWOOD ROAD 4
34 MARGARITA ROAD & VERDES LANE 4
35 MARGARITA ROAD & WINCHESTER ROAD 4
36 MARGARITA ROAD & YUKON ROAD/HONORS DRIVE 4
37 MEADOWS PARKWAY & LEENA WAY 4
38 MEADOWS PARKWAY & DE PORTOLA ROAD 4
39 MEADOWS PARKWAY & CAMPANULA WAY 4
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-10
# LOCATION # LED
LUMINAIRE
40 LA SERENA WAY & MEADOWS PARKWAY 4
41 MEADOWS PARKWAY & MCCABE DRIVE/SUNNY MEADOWS DRIVE 4
42 MEADOWS PARKWAY & PAUBA ROAD 4
43 RANCHO VISTA RD & MEADOWS PARKWAY 4
44 NICOLAS ROAD & NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD 4
45 NICOLAS ROAD & RANCHO TEMECULA TOWN CENTER 4
46 NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD & CAMINO CAMPOS VERDE 4
47 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET & SANTIAGO ROAD/FIRST STREET 4
48 OVERLAND DRIVE & PROMENADE WAY/NICOLE LANE 4
49 PAUBA RD & VIA RAMI/LINFIELD SCHOOL 4
50 PECHANGA PARKWAY & DEER HOLLOW WAY 4
51 PECHANGA PARKWAY & LOMA LINDA ROAD 4
52 PECHANGA PARKWAY & MUIRFIELD DRIVE 4
53 PECHANGA PARKWAY & NORTH CASINO DRIVE 3
54 PECHANGA PARKWAY & SOUTH CASINO DRIVE 4
55 PECHANGA PARKWAY & PECHANGA RESORT DRIVE/MINIMART 4
56 PECHANGA PARKWAY & RAINBOW CANYON ROAD 4
57 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH 4
58 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF CREEK DRIVE SOUTH 4
59 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY ROAD 4
60 RING ROAD & PROMENADE MALL WEST 4
61 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & BUSINESS PARK DRIVE/RIDGE PARK DRIVE 4
62 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 4
63 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & DIAZ ROAD/VINCENT MORAGA DRIVE 4
64 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & HUMBER DRIVE/COSMIC DRIVE 4
65 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & JEFFERSON AVENUE/ OLD TOWN FRONT STREET 4
66 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & LYNDIE LANE 4
67 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & MARGARITA ROAD 4
68 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & MEADOWS PARKWAY 4
69 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & MORAGA ROAD 4
70 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & TOWN CENTER/HOPE WAY 4
71 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & VIA LAS COLINAS 4
72 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & YNEZ RD 4
73 RANCHO CALIFORNIA ROAD & YUKON ROAD/ASTEROID WAY 4
74 REDHAWK PARKWAY & OVERLAND TRAIL/PASEO PARALLON 4
75 REDHAWK PARKWAY & PEPPERCORN DRIVE 4
76 REDHAWK PARKWAY & VAIL RANCH PARKWAY 4
77 REDHAWK PARKWAY & VIA RIO TEMECULA/WOLF STORE ROAD 4
78 REDHAWK PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY ROAD 4
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-11
# LOCATION # LED
LUMINAIRE
79 TEMECULA PARKWAY & AVENIDA DE MISSIONES/RANCHO PUEBLO ROAD 4
80 TEMECULA PARKWAY & BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD 4
81 TEMECULA PARKWAY & CAMINO DEL SOL 4
82 TEMECULA PARKWAY & COUNTRY GLEN WAY 4
83 TEMECULA PARKWAY & JEDEDIAH SMITH ROAD 4
84 TEMECULA PARKWAY & KEVIN PLACE/RANCHO COMMUNITY WAY 4
85 TEMECULA PARKWAY & LA PAZ ROAD 4
86 TEMECULA PARKWAY & MAHLON VAIL ROAD 4
87 TEMECULA PARKWAY & MARGARITA ROAD/REDHAWK PARKWAY 4
88 TEMECULA PARKWAY & MEADOWS PARKWAY/APIS ROAD 4
89 TEMECULA PARKWAY & OLD TOWN FRONT STREET/WESTERN BYPASS 4
90 TEMECULA PARKWAY & PECHANGA PARKWAY 4
91 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY & NIGHTHAWK PASS 4
92 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY & TEHACHAPI PASS/EL CHIMISAL ROAD 4
93 WINCHESTER ROAD & DIAZ ROAD 4
94 WINCHESTER ROAD & ENTERPRISE CIRCLE NORTH/SOUTH 4
95 WINCHESTER ROAD & JEFFERSON AVENUE 4
96 WINCHESTER ROAD & PROMENADE MALL EAST/MARGARITA MEADOWS 4
97 WINCHESTER ROAD & NICOLAS ROAD 4
98 WINCHESTER ROAD & PROMENADE MALL WEST 4
99 WINCHESTER ROAD & RORIPAUGH ROAD 4
100 WINCHESTER ROAD & YNEZ ROAD 4
101 WOLF VALLEY ROAD & WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH/WOLF CREEK DRIVE SOUTH 4
102 YNEZ ROAD & COUNTY CENTER DRIVE 4
103 YNEZ ROAD & DATE STREET 4
104 YNEZ ROAD & DLR DRIVE 4
105 YNEZ ROAD & EQUITY DRIVE 4
106 YNEZ ROAD & MOTOR CAR PARKWAY 4
107 YNEZ ROAD & OVERLAND DRIVE 4
108 YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA NORTH/PROMENADE MALL NORTH 4
109 YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA SOUTH/PROMENADE MALL SOUTH 4
110 YNEZ ROAD & PAUBA ROAD 4
111 YNEZ ROAD & RANCHO VISTA ROAD 4
112 YNEZ ROAD & SANTIAGO ROAD 4
113 YNEZ ROAD & SOLANA WAY 4
114 YNEZ ROAD & TOWN CENTER NORTH/TOWER PLAZA NORTH 4
115 YNEZ ROAD & TOWN CENTER SOUTH/TOWER PLAZA SOUTH 4
116 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & CALLE CHAPOS 4
TOTAL 462
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-12
Existing Conditions Photos:
Figure 1: Existing 250W high pressure sodium (HPS) safety lighting luminaire and street name sign on the
southbound traffic signal pole on the southwest corner of Rancho California Rd & Ynez Rd
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-13
Crash Analysis:
947 Total Nighttime Collisions (2016-2020)
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
5 21 107 341 473
COLLISION TYPE
HEAD-ON SIDESWIPE REAR END BROADSIDE HIT OBJECT
32 109 368 274 105
OVERTURNED VEHICLE/PED OTHER NOT STATED
3 34 1 21
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
DUI IMPEDING TRAFFIC UNSAFE SPEED FOLLOWING TOO
CLOSELY
WRONG SIDE OF
ROAD
100 1 302 7 8
IMPROPER
PASSING
UNSAFE LANE
CHANGE
IMPROPER
TURNING
AUTO ROW
VIOLATION
PED ROW
VIOLATION
3 22 86 65 13
PED VIOLATION TRAFFIC SIGNALS
AND SIGNS
HAZARDOUS
PARKING LIGHTS BRAKES
75 112 0 0 0
OTHER UNSAFE STARTING
OR BACKING
PED OR
OTHER DUI FELL ASLEEP
UNKNOWN OR
NOT STATED
61 25 0 0 67
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-14
HSIP Analyzer Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for Construction Items:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT
COST TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(S2)
%
FOR
OS*
%
FOR
NS**
1 LED Safety Lighting Luminaire EA 462 $1,000 $462,000 100% 0% 0%
2 LED Internally Illuminated Street
Name Sign EA 66 $1,000 $66,000 100% 0% 0%
3 Mobilization LS 1 $65,000 $65,000 100% 0% 0%
4 Traffic Control LS 1 $55,000 $55,000 100% 0% 0%
WEIGHTED AVERAGE (%) 100% 0% 0%
TOTAL ($) $648,000
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, AS % OF THE ABOVE “TOTAL” OF THE
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS 15% $97,200
TOTAL CONSTRUTION COST
(ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST HUNDREDS) $745,200
HSIP Analyzer Project Cost Estimate:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST
HSIP /
TOTAL
(%)
HSIP
FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $3,000 100% $3,000 $0
PS&E $50,000 100% $50,000 $0
Subtotal – PE $53,000 100% $53,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 100% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $104,000 100% $104,000 $0
Construction Items $745,200
(Read only – from Section I) 100% $745,200 $0
Subtotal - Construction $849,200 100% $849,200 $0
PROJECT TOTAL $902,200 100% $902,200 $0
Priority Project Summary:
TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT TOTAL PROJECT COST BENEFIT COST RATIO
$27,118,311 $902,200 30.06
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-15
INSTALLATION OF DYNAMIC VARIABLE SPEED
WARNING SYSTEMS
LSRM Countermeasure:
R26: Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs
Project Description:
Implement dynamic speed warning signage on curvilinear roadways that have an unacceptable level of
crashes due to excessive speeds on relatively sharp curves.
Project Location:
8 Roadway Segment Locations Citywide.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-16
# CORRIDOR LOCATION # DYNAMIC
SIGNS
1 Rainbow Valley Rd (2 Locations) 4
2 Vail Ranch Pkwy 2
3 De Portola Rd 2
4 Butterfield Stage Rd 2
5 Jefferson Ave (2 Locations) 4
6 Margarita Rd 2
7 Meadows Pkwy 2
8 Cantrell Rd 2
Total 20
Existing Conditions Photos:
Figure 1: Existing curve in roadway looking south on Rainbow Valley Rd.
Figure 2: Existing curve in roadway looking west on Cantrell Rd.
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-17
Crash Analysis:
20 Total Collisions Along Curved Roadways (2016-2020).
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
6 2 12 0 0
COLLISION TYPE
HEAD-ON SIDESWIPE REAR END BROADSIDE HIT OBJECT
1 0 3 2 11
OVERTURNED VEHICLE/PED OTHER NOT STATED
3 0 0 0
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
DUI IMPEDING TRAFFIC UNSAFE SPEED FOLLOWING TOO
CLOSELY
WRONG SIDE OF
ROAD
8 0 1 0 0
IMPROPER
PASSING
UNSAFE LANE
CHANGE
IMPROPER
TURNING
AUTO ROW
VIOLATION
PED ROW
VIOLATION
0 0 7 1 0
PED VIOLATION TRAFFIC SIGNALS
AND SIGNS
HAZARDOUS
PARKING LIGHTS BRAKES
0 0 0 0 0
OTHER UNSAFE STARTING
OR BACKING
PED OR
OTHER DUI FELL ASLEEP
UNKNOWN OR
NOT STATED
2 0 0 0 1
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-18
HSIP Analyzer Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for Construction Items:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT
COST TOTAL
% FOR
CM#1
(R26)
%
FOR
OS*
%
FOR
NS**
1 Mobilization LS 1 $35,000 $35,000 100% 0% 0%
2 Traffic Control LS 1 $30,000 $30,000 100% 0% 0%
3
Speed Feedback Warning Sign
with Solar Panel System
Controllers and Pole with
Foundation Complete
EA 20 $15,000 $300,000 100% 0% 0%
WEIGHTED AVERAGE (%) 100% 0% 0%
TOTAL ($) $365,000
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, AS % OF THE ABOVE “TOTAL” OF THE
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS 15% $54,750
TOTAL CONSTRUTION COST
(ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST HUNDREDS) $419,800
HSIP Analyzer Project Cost Estimate:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST HSIP /
TOTAL (%)
HSIP
FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $4,000 100% $4,000 $0
PS&E $75,000 100% $75,000 $0
Subtotal – PE $79,000 100% $79,000 $0
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 100% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 100% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 100% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $62,000 100% $62,000 $0
Construction Items $419,800
(Read only – from Section I) 100% $419,800 $0
Subtotal - Construction $481,800 100% $481,800 $0
PROJECT TOTAL $560,800 100% $560,800 $0
Priority Project Summary:
TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT TOTAL PROJECT COST BENEFIT COST RATIO
$11,530,243 $560,800 20.56
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-19
SIGNAL TIMING AND COMMUNICATION
UPGRADES
LSRM Countermeasure:
S03: Improve signal timing: coordination, phases, red, yellow, or operation
Project Description:
Improve signal operations by implementing new network switches and providing either fiber optic or
wireless radio communications.
Project Location:
89 Signalized Intersections Citywide.
INT
# SIGNALIZED PROJECT INTERSECTION
Proposed Equipment
New
Controller
Network
Switch
Communication
Equipment?
(Fiber/Wireless)
1 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & CROWNE HILL DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
2 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & DE PORTOLA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
3 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & LA SERENA WAY 1 1 Fiber
4 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & NIGHTHAWK PASS 1 1 Wireless
5 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & PAUBA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
6 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & ROYAL CREST PLACE 1 1 Fiber
7 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & WELTON WAY/CHANNEL STREET 1 1 Wireless
8 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & WOLF STORE ROAD 1 1 Fiber
9 CAMPANULA WAY & CAMINO DEL SOL 1 1 Fiber
10 DATE STREET & KINGWOOD ROAD 1 1 Fiber
11 DATE STREET & LAKEVIEW ROAD 1 1 Fiber
12 DE PORTOLA ROAD & CAMPANULA WAY EAST 1 1 Fiber
13 DEER HOLLOW WAY & PEACH TREE STREET/VIA LA COLORADA 1 1 Fiber
14 DEER HOLLOW WAY & PEPPERCORN DRIVE/JON WILLIAM
WAY/ANZA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
15 DIAZ ROAD & RANCHO WAY 1 1 Fiber
16 JEFFERSON AVENUE & DEL RIO ROAD 1 1 Fiber
17 JEFFERSON AVENUE & OVERLAND DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
18 JEFFERSON AVENUE & SANBORN AVENUE 1 1 Fiber
19 JEFFERSON AVENUE & VIA MONTEZUMA 1 1 Fiber
20 MARGARITA ROAD & ABBOTT VASCULAR DRIVE/SOLANA RIDGE 1 1 Fiber
21 MARGARITA ROAD & AVENIDA BARCA 1 1 Fiber
22 MARGARITA ROAD & DATE STREET 1 1 Fiber
23 MARGARITA ROAD & HARVESTON WAY 1 1 Fiber
24 MARGARITA ROAD & LA SERENA WAY 1 1 Fiber
25 MARGARITA ROAD & MORAGA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-20
INT
# SIGNALIZED PROJECT INTERSECTION
Proposed Equipment
New
Controller
Network
Switch
Communication
Equipment?
(Fiber/Wireless)
26 MARGARITA ROAD & NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD 1 1 Fiber
27 MARGARITA ROAD & OVERLAND DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
28 MARGARITA ROAD & PAUBA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
29 MARGARITA ROAD & PIO PICO ROAD 1 1 Fiber
30 MARGARITA ROAD & WINCO DRIVEWAY 1 1 Fiber
31 MARGARITA ROAD & RUSTIC GLEN DRIVE/HARVESTON SCHOOL
ROAD 1 1 Fiber
32 MARGARITA ROAD & SANTIAGO ROAD 1 1 Fiber
33 MARGARITA ROAD & SOLANA WAY 1 1 Fiber
34 MARGARITA ROAD & STONEWOOD ROAD 1 1 Fiber
35 MARGARITA ROAD & VERDES LANE 1 1 Fiber
36 MARGARITA ROAD & YUKON ROAD/HONORS DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
37 MEADOWS PARKWAY & LEENA WAY 1 1 Fiber
38 MEADOWS PARKWAY & DE PORTOLA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
39 MEADOWS PARKWAY & CAMPANULA WAY 1 1 Fiber
40 LA SERENA WAY & MEADOWS PARKWAY 1 1 Wireless
41 MEADOWS PARKWAY & MCCABE DRIVE/SUNNY MEADOWS DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
42 MEADOWS PARKWAY & PAUBA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
43 RANCHO VISTA RD & MEADOWS PARKWAY 1 1 Wireless
44 NICOLAS ROAD & NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD 1 1 Fiber
45 NICOLAS ROAD & RANCHO TEMECULA TOWN CENTER 1 1 Fiber
46 NORTH GENERAL KEARNY ROAD & CAMINO CAMPOS VERDE 1 1 Wireless
47 OLD TOWN FRONT STREET & SANTIAGO ROAD/FIRST STREET 1 1 Wireless
48 OVERLAND DRIVE & PROMENADE WAY/NICOLE LANE 1 1 Fiber
49 PAUBA ROAD & FIRE STATION 84/CALLE VENTURA 1 1 Fiber
50 PAUBA RD & VIA RAMI/LINFIELD SCHOOL 1 1 Wireless
51 PECHANGA PARKWAY & DEER HOLLOW WAY 1 1 Fiber
52 PECHANGA PARKWAY & LOMA LINDA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
53 PECHANGA PARKWAY & MUIRFIELD DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
54 PECHANGA PARKWAY & NORTH CASINO DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
55 PECHANGA PARKWAY & SOUTH CASINO DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
56 PECHANGA PARKWAY & PECHANGA RESORT DRIVE/MINIMART 1 1 Fiber
57 PECHANGA PARKWAY & RAINBOW CANYON ROAD 1 1 Fiber
58 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH 1 1 Fiber
59 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF CREEK DRIVE SOUTH 1 1 Fiber
60 PECHANGA PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY ROAD 1 1 Fiber
61 RING ROAD & PROMENADE MALL NORTH 1 1 Wireless
62 RING ROAD & PROMENADE MALL WEST 1 1 Wireless
63 RING ROAD & PROMENADE MALL SOUTH 1 1 Wireless
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-21
INT
# SIGNALIZED PROJECT INTERSECTION
Proposed Equipment
New
Controller
Network
Switch
Communication
Equipment?
(Fiber/Wireless)
64 RANCHO VISTA ROAD & MIRA LOMA DRIVE 1 1 Wireless
65 REDHAWK PARKWAY & OVERLAND TRAIL/PASEO PARALLON 1 1 Wireless
66 REDHAWK PARKWAY & PEPPERCORN DRIVE 1 1 Wireless
67 REDHAWK PARKWAY & VAIL RANCH PARKWAY 1 1 Wireless
68 REDHAWK PARKWAY & VIA RIO TEMECULA/WOLF STORE ROAD 1 1 Wireless
69 REDHAWK PARKWAY & WOLF VALLEY ROAD 1 1 Wireless
70 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY & NIGHTHAWK PASS 1 1 Wireless
71 VAIL RANCH PARKWAY & TEHACHAPI PASS/EL CHIMISAL ROAD 1 1 Wireless
72 WOLF VALLEY ROAD & WOLF CREEK DRIVE NORTH/WOLF CREEK
DRIVE SOUTH 1 1 Fiber
73 YNEZ ROAD & COUNTY CENTER DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
74 YNEZ ROAD & DATE STREET 1 1 Fiber
75 YNEZ ROAD & DLR DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
76 YNEZ ROAD & EQUITY DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
77 YNEZ ROAD & MOTOR CAR PARKWAY 1 1 Fiber
78 YNEZ ROAD & OVERLAND DRIVE 1 1 Fiber
79 YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA NORTH/PROMENADE MALL NORTH 1 1 Fiber
80 YNEZ ROAD & PALM PLAZA SOUTH/PROMENADE MALL SOUTH 1 1 Fiber
81 YNEZ ROAD & PAUBA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
82 YNEZ ROAD & RANCHO VISTA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
83 YNEZ ROAD & SANTIAGO ROAD 1 1 Fiber
84 YNEZ ROAD & SOLANA WAY 1 1 Fiber
85 YNEZ ROAD & TIERRA VISTA ROAD 1 1 Fiber
86 YNEZ ROAD & TOWN CENTER NORTH/TOWER PLAZA NORTH 1 1 Fiber
87 YNEZ ROAD & TOWN CENTER SOUTH/TOWER PLAZA SOUTH 1 1 Fiber
88 BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROAD & CALLE CHAPOS 1 1 Fiber
89 TEMECULA PARKWAY & OLD TOWN FRONT STREET/WESTERN
BYPASS 1 1 Fiber
Total 89 89 –
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-22
Existing Conditions Photos:
Figure 1: Existing traffic signal cabinet with Model 170E Controller located at the intersection of Rancho
Vista Rd & Meadows Parkway.
Crash Analysis:
883 Total Collisions at Signalized Intersections (2016-2020).
SEVERITY
FATAL SEVERE INJURY OTHER VISIBLE
INJURY
COMPLAINT
OF PAIN
PROPERTY
DAMAGE ONLY
3 25 106 328 421
COLLISION TYPE
HEAD-ON SIDESWIPE REAR END BROADSIDE HIT OBJECT
31 83 306 292 111
OVERTURNED VEHICLE/PED OTHER NOT STATED
4 35 6 15
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-23
PRIMARY COLLISION FACTOR
DUI IMPEDING TRAFFIC UNSAFE SPEED FOLLOWING TOO
CLOSELY
WRONG SIDE OF
ROAD
101 1 267 6 13
IMPROPER
PASSING
UNSAFE LANE
CHANGE
IMPROPER
TURNING
AUTO ROW
VIOLATION
PED ROW
VIOLATION
4 9 81 51 14
PED VIOLATION TRAFFIC SIGNALS
AND SIGNS
HAZARDOUS
PARKING LIGHTS BRAKES
78 137 0 0 0
OTHER UNSAFE STARTING
OR BACKING
PED OR
OTHER DUI FELL ASLEEP
UNKNOWN OR
NOT STATED
31 18 0 0 72
TEMECULA LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN - D-24
HSIP Analyzer Detailed Engineer’s Estimate for Construction Items:
NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY UNIT
COST TOTAL
%
FOR
CM#1
(S03)
%
FOR
OS*
%
FOR
NS**
1 Fiber Optic Cable Upgrades LS 1 $670,000 $670,000 100% 0% 0%
2 Wireless Radio Communication
System LS 1 $130,000 $130,000 100% 0% 0%
3 Layer 2 Managed Ethernet Switch
in Traffic Signal Cabinet. EA 89 $4,000 $356,000 100% 0% 0%
4 Remove Existing Equipment LS 1 $8,000 $8,000 100% 0% 0%
5 Mobilization LS 1 $70,000 $70,000 100% 0% 0%
6 Traffic Control LS 1 $70,000 $70,000 100% 0% 0%
WEIGHTED AVERAGE (%) 100% 0% 0%
TOTAL ($) $1,304,000
*Cost % for Other Safety-Related components;
**Cost % for Non Safety-Related components
CONTINGENCIES, AS % OF THE ABOVE “TOTAL” OF THE
CONSTRUCTION ITEMS 10% $130,400
TOTAL CONSTRUTION COST
(ROUNDED UP TO THE NEAREST HUNDREDS) $1,434,400
HSIP Analyzer Project Cost Estimate:
DESCRIPTION TOTAL COST HSIP /
TOTAL (%)
HSIP
FUNDS
LOCAL /
OTHER
FUNDS
Preliminary Engineering (PE) Phase
Environmental $5,000 50% $2,500 $2,500
PS&E $145,000 50% $72,500 $72,500
Subtotal – PE $150,000 50% $75,000 $75,000
Right of Way (ROW) Phase
Right of Way Engineering $0 50% $0 $0
Appraisals, Acquisitions & Utilities $0 50% $0 $0
Subtotal – Right of Way (ROW) $0 50% $0 $0
Construction (CON) Phase
Construction Engineering (CE) $215,000 50% $107,500 $107,500
Construction Items $1,434,400
(Read only – from Section I) 50% $717,200 $717,200
Subtotal - Construction $1,649,400 50% $824,700 $824,700
PROJECT TOTAL $1,799,400 50% $899,700 $899,700
Priority Project Summary:
TOTAL EXPECTED BENEFIT TOTAL PROJECT COST BENEFIT COST RATIO
$27,506,418 $1,799,400 15.29
California
Highway Patrol
Temecula Area
Report for January 2022
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
Services Provided
•10 child safety seats
installed
•1 Start Smart Classes
•1 Community Event Safety
Booths
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC
Enforcement Activity
•Citations Issued –544
•Total Enforcement Contacts –1150
•Special Enforcement Detail January 22nd Murrieta PD
•January 31st detail on Winchester at Benton and Winchester at Thompson with 16 enforcement contacts
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
Driving Under the
Influence
•Monthly Arrests –47 (( DUI t/c’s)
•Monthly Drug DUI arrests –5
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC
BY ND
Traffic Collisions
•Non-Injury –59
•Injury –33
•Fatal –0
•Fatal Year to Date –0
•Total Collisions –92
Fatal Traffic Collisions /
Major Investigations
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA
City of Temecula Fire Department
Incident Type
Commercial Fire 0
False Alarms 73
Haz Mat 1
Medical 735
Multi-Fam 1
Other Fire 5
Other Misc 10
Public Assist 41
Residential Fire 6
Rescue 3
Ringing Alarm 4
Standby 7
Traffic Collision 47
Wildland/Vehicle Fire 3
Total 936
Temecula Fire Department Service Calls
January 2022
City of Temecula Fire Department
Temecula Fire Department
Plan Review and Inspections
January 2022
Plan Review and Inspections January Year to Date
Plan Review 335 335
Construction Inspections 274 274
Annual Inspections 294 294
Counter/Public Inquiries 32 32
City of Temecula Fire Department
Temecula Fire Department
Spark of Love Toy Drive
Received 469 applications
Filled 717 toy requests
Big Thank You to the community,
we collected 5,995 toys
Created by: Deputy R. Renick #2840 Southwest Station Traffic Division
City of Temecula Southwest Station Traffic Report
Temecula Traffic Incidents, Activities and Events Report for the month of January 2022
Created by: Deputy R. Renick #2840 Southwest Station Traffic Division
City of Temecula Southwest Station Traffic Report
Total Hazardous Citations 837
Total Non-Hazardous Citations 155
(Seatbelt cites included) 31
(Cell phone cites included) 110
Parking Citations 89
Total Citations Issued 1081
Written Warnings Issued 196
City Funded Targeted Enforcement
(S.L.A.P. Cite included) 93
(Commercial Enforcement Cites included) 16
Created by: Deputy R. Renick #2840 Southwest Station Traffic Division
City of Temecula Southwest Station Traffic Report
D.U.I. Arrests 37
D.U.I. Arrests YTD 37
D.U.I. Previous Year (2021) 35
OTS/City Funded Special Operations
DUI Checkpoints 0
Know Your Limit Campaign 0
DUI Sweep 0
Targeted Traffic Enforcement Saturation 0
Created by: Deputy R. Renick #2840 Southwest Station Traffic Division
City of Temecula Southwest Station Traffic Report
2021-2022 – Citations / Incidents Nov Dec Jan 3 Month Total
Citations Issued for Hazardous Violations (Moving Viol.) 989 471 837 2297
Non-Hazardous Citations 211 237 155 603
“Click It or Ticket” and/or Seatbelt Violations 5 4 31 40
Distracted Driver (Cell Phone Use) 57 50 110 217
Parking Citations 161 101 89 351
Written Warning Citations 235 173 196 604
Stop Light Abuse / Intersection Program (SLAP) Red Light 31 41 93 165
Commercial Enforcement Cites 29 34 16 79
Injury Collisions 26 30 27 83
DUI Arrests 37 39 37 113
Created by: Deputy R. Renick #2840 Southwest Station Traffic Division
City of Temecula/Southwest Station Uniform Crime Report (December 2021)
Jurisdiction
Violent
Crime Homicide
Sexual
Assault Robbery Aggravated
Assault
Property
Crime Burglary
Vehicle
Theft
Larceny/
Theft Arson
Total Pt 1
Crimes
Southwest 6 0 1 1 4 62 11 13 38 0 68
Violent Crime = homicide, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault totals combined
Property Crime = burglary, vehicle theft, larceny-theft totals combined
Temecula 12 0 1 3 8 214 31 26 157 1 227
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pat Thomas, Director of Public Works
FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Manager – PW Streets
DATE: January 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report for December 2021
CC: Amer Attar, Engineering Manager, Capital Improvements
Ron Moreno, Principal Civil Engineer – Land Development
Nick Minicilli, Senior Civil Engineer – Traffic Division
Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst – Capital Improvements
Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II – Traffic Division
Jenny McConville, Senior Office Specialist – Public Works
Tammy Petricka, Office Specialist II – Maintenance Division
Attached please find the Monthly Activity Report for the Month of December 2021
The attached spreadsheets detail the maintenance activities and related costs completed by
both in-house crews and maintenance contractors.
Attachments:
Monthly Activity Report Street Maintenance Division
Street Maintenance Contractors Detail Report
Contracted Maintenance Work Completed
Graffiti Removal Chart
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Manager
DATE: January 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report – December 2021
The Street Maintenance Division performed the following activities for the month of December 2021:
I. SIGNS
A. Total signs replaced 36
B. Total signs installed 9
C. Total signs repaired 8
D. Banners Replaced 84
II. TREES
A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 0
III. ASPHALT REPAIRS
A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 2752
B. Total Tons 10
IV. CATCH BASINS
A. Total catch basins cleaned 53
B. Down Spouts 0
C. Under sidewalks 0
D. Bowls 0
V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 0
VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A. Total locations 23
B. Total S.F. 943
VII. STENCILING
A. 0 New and Repainted Legends
B. 52 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping
C. 0 Bull Nose – L.F.
D. 0 Thermal Plastic
E. 0 RPMs Installed
VIII. STREET LIGHTS
A. Total street lights repaired 6
City Maintenance staff responded to 43 service order requests ranging from weed abatement,
tree trimming, sign repair, HVAC failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is compared to
78 service order requests for the month of November 2021.
City Maintenance staff also responded to 6 service order requests for street light outages
and maintenance. This is compared to 11 street light-related service order requests for the
month of November 2021.
The Maintenance Crew put in 131 hours of overtime, which includes stand-by time, special
events and response to street emergencies.
The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by external contractors for the month of December
2021 was $ 11,970.00 ; compared to $ 55,410.00 for the month of November 2021.
Account No. 5401 $__________________
Account No. 5402 $_____11,970.00_____
Account No. 999-5401 $__________________
Account No. 999-5402 $__________________
Electronic Copies:
Pat Thomas, City Engineer Director of Public Works
Amer Attar, Engineering Manager Capital Improvements
Ron Moreno, Principal Civil Engineer Land Development
Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Manager Public Works
Julie Tarrant, Sr. Management Analyst Capital Improvements
Nick Minicilli, Senior Civil Engineer Traffic Division
Tammy Petricka, Office Specialist II Public Works
Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II Land Development
Jenny McConville, Senior Office Specialist Public Works
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of December 2021
DATE
ACCOUNT
STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION
OF WORK
TOTAL COST
SIZE
CONTRACTOR: West Coast Arborists, Inc.
Date: 11/15/21
# 179725
Citywide
ROW tree trimming
TOTAL COST
$11,970.00
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
CONTRACTOR:
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
CONTRACTOR:
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
Date:
#
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST FOR ACCOUNT #5401 $______________________
TOTAL COST FOR ACCOUNT #5402 $_____11,970.00_________
TOTAL COST FOR ACCOUNT #99-5401 $______________________
TOTAL COST FOR ACCOUNT #99-5402 $______________________
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSDate Submitted: January 1, 2022MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORTSubmitted By: Patrick ThomasSTREET MAINTENANCE DIVISIONPrepared By: Rodney Tidwell2ND QUARTERSCOPE OF WORK Unit CostWORK COMPLETEDCOSTWORK COMPLETEDCOSTWORK COMPLETEDCOSTWORKCOMPLETEDCOSTTOTAL COST FOR LAST FISCAL YEARASPHALT CONCRETE:Square Footage: $3.47 1,2554,354.85$ 3,11510,809.05$ 2,7529,549.44$ 8,22235,553.62$ -$ Tons: 18 47.5 10 99Parking Lot Slurry Seal Square Footage:Gallons:PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE:Square Footage: $3.47 0-$ -$ 0-$ 0-$ -$ PCC Yards:0-$ STENCILING:Red curb & Striping (linear feet): $0.11 10.11$ 15016.50$ 525.72$ 8,4793,564.66$ -$ New & Repainted Legends (each): $9.00 0-$ 763.00$ 0-$ 89819,017.00$ -$ Bull Noses (linear feet): $0.11 3,328366.08$ 0-$ 0-$ 9,4731,042.03$ -$ Raised Pavement Markers-RPM's (each): 0 0 0 4Thermo Plastic Legends (each): 29 0 30 SIGNS & BANNERS:No. of Signs REPLACED: $28.31 812,293.11$ 401,132.40$ 36 1824,671.15$ -$ Material (cost per sign): $50.004,050.00$ 2,000.00$ 8,250.00$ -$ No. of Signs INSTALLED: $28.31 0-$ 256.62$ 915877.61$ -$ Material (cost per sign): $50.00-$ 100.00$ 1,550.00$ -$ No. of Signs REPAIRED: $28.31 9254.79$ 7198.17$ 8432,831.00$ -$ Material (cost per sign): $50.00450.00$ 350.00$ 5,000.00$ -$ No. of BANNERS installed: $28.31 1363,850.16$ 1173,312.27$ 84 3507,615.39$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0-$ -$ GRAFFITI REMOVAL:No. of Locations: 24 35 23 104Square Footage: 1,568 2,347 943 6,801DRAINAGE FACILITIES CLEANED:Catch Basins: $28.31 2827,983.42$ 27764.37$ 531,500.43$ 53521,685.46$ -$ Down Drains (down spouts): $28.31 4113.24$ 0-$ 0-$ 4113.24$ -$ Under sidewalk Drains $28.31 712,010.01$ 0-$ 0-$ 712,010.01$ -$ Detention Basins (bowls): $28.31 0-$ 0-$ 0-$ 0-$ -$ Bridge Deck Drains: $28.31-$ -$ 0-$ Channels: $28.31-$ -$ -$ TREES:No. of Trees Trimmed: $28.31 384.93$ 128.31$ 0-$ 421,783.53$ -$ R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENT:Area Abated (square feet): $0.090 0-$ 0-$ 0-$ 2502,102.40$ -$ The Street Maintenance Division also responds to service requests for a variety of other reasons, the total number of Service Order Requests, some of which include work reported above is reported monthly.SERVICE ORDER REQUESTSNo. of SOR's: 102 78 43 295Personnel assigned to the Street Maintenance Division are on-call and respond to after hours emergencies or support City sponsored special eventsOvertime Hours: $39.59 642,533.76$ 532,098.27$ 131.05,186.29$ 35019,003.20$ -$ TOTALS: $28,344.46 $20,928.96 $16,241.88 36,247 $136,670.30-$ FISCAL YEAR 2021 - 2022Oct-21 Nov-21 Dec-21 FISCAL YEAR TO DATER:\MAINTAIN\MOACRPT\JULY.AUG.SEPT.
MonthNumberof CallsSquareFootageJul 22 1,943Aug 37 2,985Sep 27 1,232Oct 24 1,568Nov 23 2,347Dec 23 943JanFebMarAprMayJunTotals 156 11,018CITY OF TEMECULAGRAFFITI REMOVALFISCAL YEAR 2021 - 2022DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION051015202530354005001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,500Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunNo. of CallsSquare FeetSquareFootageNumberof Calls
MEMORANDUM
TO: Pat Thomas, Director of Public Works
FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Manager
DATE: February 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report for January 2022
CC: Amer Attar, Engineering Manager, Capital Improvements
Ron Moreno, Principal Civil Engineer – Land Development
Nick Minicilli, Senior Civil Engineer – Traffic Division
Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst – Capital Improvements
Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II – Traffic Division
Jenny McConville, Senior Office Specialist – Public Works
Tammy Petricka, Office Specialist II – Maintenance Division
Attached please find the Monthly Activity Report for the Month of January 2022
The attached spreadsheets detail the maintenance activities and related costs completed by
both in-house crews and maintenance contractors.
Attachments:
Monthly Activity Report Street Maintenance Division
Street Maintenance Contractors Detail Report
Contracted Maintenance Work Completed
Graffiti Removal Chart
MEMORANDUM
TO: Patrick Thomas, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
FROM: Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Manager
DATE: February 1, 2022
SUBJECT: Monthly Activity Report – January 2022
The Street Maintenance Division performed the following activities for the month of January 2022:
I. SIGNS
A. Total signs replaced 27
B. Total signs installed 8
C. Total signs repaired 17
D. Banners Replaced 106
II. TREES
A. Total trees trimmed for sight distance and street sweeping concerns 3
III. ASPHALT REPAIRS
A. Total square feet of A. C. repairs 3013
B. Total Tons 15
IV. CATCH BASINS
A. Total catch basins cleaned 2
B. Down Spouts 0
C. Under sidewalks 0
D. Bowls 0
V. RIGHT-OF-WAY WEED ABATEMENT
A. Total square footage for right-of-way abatement 0
VI. GRAFFITI REMOVAL
A. Total locations 27
B. Total S.F. 3399
VII. STENCILING
A. 133 New and Repainted Legends
B. 15 L.F. of new and repainted red curb and striping
C. 0 Bull Nose – L.F.
D. 0 Thermal Plastic
E. 35 RPMs Installed
City Maintenance staff responded to 73 service order requests ranging from weed
abatement, tree trimming, sign repair, HVAC failures, litter removal, and catch basin cleanings. This is
compared to 43 service order requests for the month of December 2021.
City Maintenance staff also responded to 11 service order requests for street light outages
and maintenance. This is compared to 6 street light-related service order requests for the
month of December 2021.
The Maintenance Crew put in 62 hours of overtime, which includes stand-by time, special
events and response to street emergencies.
The total cost for Street Maintenance performed by external contractors for the month of January 2022
was $ 10,342.00 ; compared to $ 11,970.00 for the month of December 2021.
Account No. 5401 $_____8,568.00 _____
Account No. 5402 $_____1,774.00______
Account No. 999-5401 $__________________
Account No. 999-5402 $__________________
Electronic Copies:
Pat Thomas, City Engineer Director of Public Works
Amer Attar, Engineering Manager Capital Improvements
Ron Moreno, Principal Civil Engineer Land Development
Rodney Tidwell, Maintenance Manager Public Works
Julie Tarrant, Principal Management Analyst Capital Improvements
Nick Minicilli, Senior Civil Engineer Traffic Division
Tammy Petricka, Office Specialist II Maintenance Division
Anissa Sharp, Office Specialist II Land Development
Jenny McConville, Senior Office Specialist Public Works
STREET MAINTENANCE CONTRACTORS
The following contractors have performed the following projects for the month of January 2022
DATE
ACCOUNT
STREET/CHANNEL/BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION
OF WORK
TOTAL COST
SIZE
CONTRACTOR: Rene’s Commercial Management Date: 12/6/2021
# 4521
Citywide
Weed abatement
TOTAL COST $1,744.00 Date: 1/26/2022
# 02-22
Citywide Post emergent spraying of city channels
TOTAL COST $8,568.00 Date:
#
TOTAL COST Date:
#
TOTAL COST
CONTRACTOR: Date:
#
TOTAL COST Date:
#
TOTAL COST CONTRACTOR: Date:
#
TOTAL COST Date:
#
TOTAL COST
TOTAL COST FOR ACCOUNT #5401 $________8,568.00______
TOTAL COST FOR ACCOUNT #5402 $________1,774.00_______
TOTAL COST FOR ACCOUNT #99-5401 $______________________
TOTAL COST FOR ACCOUNT #99-5402 $______________________
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKSDate Submitted: February 1, 2022MONTHLY ACTIVITY REPORTSubmitted By: Patrick ThomasPrepared By: Rodney Tidwell3RD QUARTERSCOPE OF WORK Unit CostWORK COMPLETEDCOSTWORK COMPLETEDCOSTWORK COMPLETEDCOSTWORKCOMPLETEDCOSTTOTAL COST FOR LAST FISCAL YEARASPHALT REPAIRS:Square Footage: $3.47 3,01310,455.11$ -$ -$ 56,84946,008.73$ -$ Tons: 15113.5Parking Lot Slurry Seal Square Footage:Gallons:PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE:Square Footage: $3.47 0-$ -$ -$ 0-$ -$ PCC Yards:0STENCILING:Red curb & Striping (linear feet): $0.11 151.65$ -$ -$ 8,4943,566.31$ -$ New & Repainted Legends (each): $9.00 1331,197.00$ -$ -$ 1,03120,214.00$ -$ Bull Noses (each): $0.11 0-$ -$ -$ 9,4731,042.03$ -$ Raised Pavement Markers-RPM's (each): 3539Thermo Plastic Legends (each): 030SIGNS & BANNERSNo. of Signs REPLACED:$28.31 27764.37$ -$ -$ 2095,435.52$ -$ Material (cost per sign): $50.001,350.00$ -$ -$ 9,600.00$ -$ No. of Signs INSTALLED:$28.31 8226.48$ -$ -$ 231,104.09$ -$ Material (cost per sign): $50.00400.00$ -$ -$ 1,950.00$ -$ No. of Signs REPAIRED:$28.31 17481.27$ -$ -$ 603,312.27$ -$ Material (cost per sign): $50.00850.00$ -$ -$ 5,850.00$ -$ No. of BANNERS installed:$28.31 1063,000.86$ -$ -$ 45610,616.25$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 0-$ -$ GRAFFITI REMOVALNo. of Locations: 27131 0Square Footage: 3,39910,200 0DRAINAGE FACILITIES CLEANEDCatch Basins: $28.31 256.62$ -$ -$ 53721,742.08$ -$ Down Drains: $28.31 0-$ -$ -$ 4113.24$ -$ Under sidewalk Drains $28.31 0-$ -$ -$ 712,010.01$ -$ Detention Basins: $28.31 0-$ -$ -$ 0-$ -$ Bridge Deck Drains: $28.31 0-$ -$ -$ 0-$ TREES TRIMMEDNo. of Trees Trimmed: $28.31 384.93$ -$ -$ 451,868.46$ -$ R.O.W. WEED ABATEMENTArea Abated (square feet): $0.090 0-$ -$ 0-$ 2502,102.40$ -$ The Street Maintenance Division also responds to service requests for a variety of other reasons, the total number of Service Order Requests, some of which include work reported above is reported monthly.SERVICE ORDER REQUESTSNo. of SOR's: 73368 0Personnel assigned to the Street Maintenance Division are on-call and respond to after hours emergencies or support City sponsored special eventsOvertime Hours: $39.59 62.02,454.58$ -$ -$ 41221,457.78$ $0.00TOTALS: 6,935.0 21,322.87$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 88,796 157,993.17$ $0.00FISCAL YEAR 2021 - 2022Jan-22 Feb-22 Mar-22 FISCAL YEAR TO DATE
MonthNumberof CallsSquareFootageJul 22 1,943Aug 37 2,985Sep 27 1,232Oct 24 1,568Nov 23 2,347Dec 23 943Jan 27 3,399FebMarAprMayJunTotals 183 14,417CITY OF TEMECULAGRAFFITI REMOVALFISCAL YEAR 2021 - 2022DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STREET MAINTENANCE DIVISION051015202530354005001,0001,5002,0002,5003,0003,5004,000Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May JunNo. of CallsSquare FeetSquareFootageNumberof Calls