22503_Menifee_SSAR_CrashAnalysisMemo_Final
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
MEMORANDUM
Date: June 1, 2018 Project #: 22503
To: Dawn Wilson
STC Traffic, Inc
From: Matt Braughton, Erin Ferguson, PE, Miao Gao, EIT
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Project: Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR)
Subject: Systemic Crash Analysis Findings
1.0 | INTRODUCTION
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. (Kittelson) is working with STC Traffic, Inc. and the
City of Menifee to identify countermeasures to improve roadway safety. This
work is being conducted through a Caltrans Systemic Safety Analysis Report
Program (SSARP) grant. This memorandum summarizes the approach and
findings for the crash analysis. The material below discusses citywide crash
patterns and trends as well as the network screening and systemic safety
evaluation. The information and findings in this memorandum will inform the
field work and countermeasures considered for high priority locations.
The following two subsections discuss the citywide crash patterns and trends
and the key findings.
MEMO OUTLINE>>>
This memo contains the following sections:
Citywide Crash Patterns and Trends
Network Screening and Systemic Findings
Draft Priority Locations
Next Steps
December 6, 2017
IN THIS MEMO>>
Citywide crash patterns
and trends
Network screening and
systemic evaluation
Key safety findings and
potential risk factors
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 2
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
1.1 KEY FINDINGS
Based on the analysis detailed below, key findings include:
Citywide Crash Patterns and Trends:
o The three most common crash types included: rear end
(3 2%), broadside (25%), and hit object (14%) crashes
o Unsafe speed (30% of all crashes), automobile right of
way 1 (1 4%), and improper turning (12%) were the top three
primary collision factors.
o Most of the reported crashes (61%) are coded as non-
intersection locations.
o Pedestrian-vehicle crashes were over-represented for fatal
and injury crashes (26% of fatal and injury crashes
compared to 4% of total crashes). Bicycle-vehicle crashes
were also over-represented for fatal and injury crashes
(11% of fatal and injury crashes compared to 4% of total
crashes).
o Nearly a third of pedestrian crashes (30%) occur in road,
including the shoulder.
o The most frequent crash type for bicycle crashes is
broadside crashes (45%).
o For citywide crashes, the City of Menifee’s roadway safety
performance is better (in most crash categories) than the
Cities of Perris and Hemet which are similar jurisdictions in the same Office of Traffic Safety population
category as Menifee.
Network Screening and Systemic Analysis Findings:
o The roadway network was screened using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) score to
determine roadway and intersections with higher score.
o Most of top quintile intersections and road segments are located along major corridors.
1 Automobile right of way refers to a crash resulting from one motorist’s failure to yield to another motorist who had the right of way.
KEY TERMS>>
Descriptive crash
statistics – Citywide and
corridor-specific
summaries of crash
severity, crash type,
and contributing factors
Network screening –
Evaluating the entire
citywide street network
to identify high-crash
locations based on
number of crashes,
severity of crashes, and
traffic volume
Systemic analysis –
Identifying risk factors
associated with high-
crash locations and
prioritizing locations
based on risk factors
and crash history
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 3
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
2.0 | CITYWIDE CRASH PATTERNS AND TRENDS
The following chapter presents citywide descriptive crash trends and
patterns. This information provides a general idea on City-wide crash
conditions. The findings from this section are also used to inform
consideration for countermeasures and treatments that could be
effective at a citywide level (e.g., reviewing and adjusting signal-timing
plans on a citywide basis to ensure adequate yellow-time to address
rear-end crashes).
2.1 DATA AND APPROACH
Kittelson obtained and analyzed the most recent five (5) years of complete crash data available from City of
Menifee Crossroads database. The crash data used were from January 1, 2013 through December 31, 2017; there
were 2,183 reported crashes in this period. Reported crashes for public streets (not including Interstate 215) in
Menifee were included in the database for analysis.
2.2 FINDINGS
In the five years of data analyzed, most crashes were vehicle-vehicle collisions (95%). The top three primary collision
factors include unsafe speed (30%), automobile right of way (14%), and improper turning (12%); the top three crash
types include rear end (3 3%), broadside (26%), and hit object (14%). The findings discussed below will inform the
identification and prioritization of safety-focused countermeasures for the City.
We considered the following crash characteristics to evaluate citywide crash patterns and trends:
severity;
crash type;
contributing factors;
year;
bicycle crash characteristics; and,
pedestrian crash characteristics.
Severity
Table 1 summarizes the reported crashes by severity and road user involved (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle, vehicle).
Severity is classified as fatal and severe injuries, non-severe injury, and property damage only (PDO) crashes. Non-
severe Injury crashes include other visible injuries and complaint of pain injuries.
IN THIS SECTION>>
Data and approach used
for the citywide analysis
Key insights into citywide
crash patterns and trends
Citywide crash patterns
compared to similar cities
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 4
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Table 1: Road Users Involved and Crash Severity, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Road Users Involved in
Crash
Fatal and Severe
Injuries Crash Injury Crash Property Damage
Only Total
Bicycle-Vehicle 5 34 5 44 (2%)
Pedestrian-Vehicle 15 37 5 57 (3%)
Vehicle-Vehicle 71 775 1236 2082 (95%)
Total Crashes 91 (4%) 846 (39%) 1246 (57%) 2,183
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
The majority of crashes (95%) were vehicle-vehicle.
There were 91 fatal and severe injuries crashes. Of these 91, 5 bicyclist-vehicle (5.5%), 15 pedestrian-vehicle
crashes (16.5%), and 71 vehicle-vehicle crashes (78.0%) resulted in fatality or severe injuries. Four percent of
reported crashes resulted in a fatality or severe injury.
Over half (57%) of all crashes recorded resulted in property damage only.
Figure 1 is a detailed view of severity by road users involved in the crash.
Figure 1: Road Users Involved and Crash Severity, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Pedestrian crashes had the highest percentage of fatalities (5%) when compared to crashes involving other
road users.
As expected for vulnerable road users, the proportions of bicyclist (11%) and pedestrian (26%) crashes
resulting in an injury or fatality were higher than the proportions for total reported crashes (4%) and vehicle-
vehicle crashes (4%).
Considering all reported crashes, almost half of crashes (43%) resulted in an at least one injury of some
severity (complaint of pain or more severe).
0%
11%
39%39%
11%5%
21%
28%
37%
9%
1%3%
10
%
27
%59
%
1%3%
11%
28%57%
Bicycle Crash Pedestrian Crash Vehicle to Vehicle
Crash
Total Reported Crashes
Fatal Injury (Severe) Injury (Other Visible) Injury (Complaint of Pain) Property Damage Only (PDO)
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 5
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Crash Type
Figure 2 identifies the crash types of the reported crashes.
Figure 2: Percent of Crash Types, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
*“Other” includes crash types that were categorized as “Other” or “Not Stated(blank)” in the Crossroads data.
Note: Vehicle/bicycle crashes are not coded as a separate crash type in Crossroads data but are codes as Vehicle/Pedestrian crashes.
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Rear end (32%), broadside (25%), and hit object (14%) crashes represent the three largest proportions of
crash types.
Sideswipe crashes are 12% of total crashes; all other crash types are less than 10% of the total reported
crashes each.
Rear End
32%
Broadside
25%
Hit Object
14%
Sideswipe
12%
Other*
8%
Head-On
5%
Vehicle/Pedestrian
2%
Not Stated
2%
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 6
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Table 2 summarizes the number of reported crashes and their percentages to total reported crashes by crash type
and severity.
Table 2: Reported Crashes by Crash Type and Severity, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Crash Type Fatal Crashes Injury crashes
Rear End 1 (0%) 340 (47%)
Broadside 2 (0%) 281 (50%)
Sideswipe 0 (0%) 59 (21%)
Hit Object 3 (1%) 87 (28%)
Head-On 3 (3%) 56 (52%)
Vehicle/Pedestrian 4 (7%) 46 (82%)
Not Stated 0 (0%) 11 (28%)
Other 1 (1%) 20 (27%)
Overturned 0 (0%) 23 (74%)
Total Crashes 14 (1%) 923 (42%)
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
The 14 fatal crashes resulted from five crash types: rear end, broadside, hit object, head-on,
vehicles/pedestrian and other.
82% of vehicle/pedestrian crashes resulted in injury.
Table 3 summarizes crash type and location (intersection or non-intersection) of the crash.
Table 3: Reported Crashes by Crash Type and Basic Location, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Crash Type Non-Intersection Crashes Intersection Crashes Total Crashes (% of reported crashes)
Rear End 557 167 724 (33%)
Broadside 210 347 557 (26%)
Sideswipe 176 108 284 (13%)
Hit Object 221 89 310 (14%)
Head-On 54 53 107 (5%)
Vehicle/Pedestrian 33 23 56 (3%)
Not Stated 16 23 39 (2%)
Other* 42 33 75 (3%)
Overturned 25 6 31 (1%)
Total Crashes 1334 (61%) 849 (39%) 2183 (100%)
*“Other” includes crash types that were categorized as “Other” or “Not Stated(blank)” in the data.
Source: City of Crossroads 2013-2017
Over half of the total crashes (61%) were reported as occurring at non-intersection locations (i.e., along a
street segment, which could include at or near a driveway access point).
Over half of broadside crashes (62%) occurred at an intersection.
Head-on crashes were split evenly between intersection and non-intersection locations.
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 7
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Contributing Factors
Figure 3 displays the crash count of the reported primary collision factors by severity.
Figure 3: Crash Count by Primary Collision Factor and Severity, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Note: Collision factors with fewer than 5 crashes were not listed here. These include “Pedestrian Right of Way”, “Hazardous Parking”, and “Impeding Traffic”.
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Unsafe speed (30% of reported crashes), automobile right of way 2 (14%), and improper turning (12%) were
the most frequently cited primary collision factors.
Improper turning, driving or bicycling under the influence, wrong side of the road, and pedestrian violations
represent the primary collision factors involved in fatal crashes in Menifee.
2 Automobile right of way refers to a crash resulting from one motorist’s failure to yield to another motorist who had the right of way.
Unsafe Speed
Automobile Right of Way
Improper Turning
Driving or Bicycling Under the Influence…
Other Improper Driving
Unknown
Traffic Signals and Signs
Other Hazardous Violation
Unsafe Starting or Backing
Unsafe Lane Change
Wrong Side of Road
Other Than Driver (or Pedestrian)
Pedestrian Violation
Improper Passing
Following Too Closely
Pedestrian Right of Way
Hazardous Parking
Impeding Traffic
Not Stated
Other Equipment
Lights
Brakes
Fell Asleep
Pedestrian or "Other" Under the…
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Crash Count
PDO Injury Fatal
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 8
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Year
Figure 4 summarizes the crash count and severity of crashes by year. The daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) for the
City of Menifee from Caltrans Office of Traffic Safety data 3 is displayed to show trends in traffic volume.
Figure 4: Severity of Crashes by Year, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017, Caltrans Office of Traffic Safety 2013-2015
There as a 509% increase in crashes from the year 2014 to 2017
Daily vehicle miles traveled (DVMT) has increased 4% from 2013 to 2015.
2017 had the highest number of crashes (585).
3 http://ots.ca.gov/Media_and_Research/Rankings/
228 184 221
305 308
104
109
196
238 276
3 1
3
6
1636,780 645,582 670,920
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
700,000
800,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Daily Vehicle Miles TraveledCrash CountYear
Fatal
Injury
PDO
DVMT
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 9
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Pedestrian Crashes
Figure 5 displays the pedestrian crashes by pedestrian action.
Figure 5: Pedestrian Crashes by Pedestrian Action, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Thirty percent (30%) of pedestrian crashes involved a pedestrian in road, including shoulder.
The three fatalities involved a pedestrian in the road (2) or crossing not in a crosswalk.
Figure 6 shows pedestrian crashes (injuries and fatalities) variation by time-of-day.
Figure 6 Pedestrian Crashes by Time-of-Day, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
The highest frequency of pedestrian crashes by hour (14%)occurred at night between 18:00 - 19:00 (7:00
p.m. to 8:00 p.m.).
50% of pedestrian crashes occurred between 14:00 and 21:00 (2:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m.).
2
10
13
15
17
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at Intersection
Not in Road
Crossing in Crosswalk at Intersection
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
In Road, Including Shoulder
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Crash Count
PDO
Injury Crashes
Fatal Crashes
2%2%
0%0%0%0%0%
5%5%4%5%
9%
5%
0%
12%
4%5%
7%
14%
7%
9%
2%2%2%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%Crash Frequency
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 10
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Bicycle Crashes
Figure 7 displays bicycle-involved crashes by crash type.
Figure 7: Bicycle Crashes by Crash Type, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Broadside crashes (45%) are the most frequency crash type for bicycle crashes.
Bicyclists were involved in eight crashes with pedestrians.
Figure 8 shows bicycle-involved crashes variation by time-of-day.
Figure 8 Bicycle Crashes by Time-of-Day, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
The hour with the highest frequency of bicycle crashes was 14:00-15:00 (2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.).
50% of pedestrian crashes occurred between 13:00 and 19:00 (1:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m.).
1
3
3
4
5
8
20
Not Stated
Head-On
Rear End
Sideswipe
Other
Vehicle/Pedestrian
Broadside
0 5 10 15 20 25
Crash Count
PDO
Injury Crashes
Fatal Crashes
0%0%0%0%0%0%0%
7%7%7%
0%
5%
7%
5%
14%
11%
2%
11%
9%
7%7%
2%
0%0%0%0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%Crash Frequency
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 11
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
2.3 CITYWIDE RANKING
California’s Office of Transportation Safety (OTS) maintains a ranking system to compare traffic safety statistics
among similarly sized California cities. The comparison allows cities to identify local trends relative to peers. Citywide
rankings are based on population, daily vehicle miles traveled, crash records, and crash trends. Data is collected
from SWITRS, Caltrans, California Department of Justice, and the Department of Finance. A number 1 in ranking in a
category is the worst performer relative to other peers in the group. This section presents available OTS rankings from
2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015.
The City of Menifee is one of 105 “Group C” cities, which have a population of 50,001-100,000 people. Other local
peer cities in Riverside County in this grouping include Perris and Hemet.
Findings
The City of Menifee has a composite OTS ranking of 49 out of the 105 cities in Group C in 2015. This composite score
is an aggregate of several rankings. This score indicates that the City has the 49th poorest overall traffic safety
performance relative to its peer cities. The 2015 OTS rankings are summarized in Table 4.
Table 4: 2015 City of Menifee OTS Rankings
2015 OTS Category OTS Ranking(1=Worst)
Total Fatal and Injury 38
Alcohol Involved 67
Had Been Drinking Driver < 21 55
Had Been Drinking Driver 21 - 34 56
Motorcycles 31
Pedestrians 90
Pedestrians < 15 95
Pedestrians 65+ 81
Bicyclists 94
Bicyclists < 15 38
Composite 49
Speed Related 17
Nighttime (9:00pm - 2:59am) 42
Hit and Run 62
Source: California’s Office of Transportation Safety (OTS)
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 12
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Figure 9 summarizes the OTS ranking trends in the City of Menifee from 2012 to 2015.
Figure 9: OTS Rankings by Year, Menifee, 2012 – 2015
Source: California’s Office of Transportation Safety (OTS)
In 2015, the City of Menifee ranked 38th out of 105 in the number of total fatal and injury collisions with 454
victims killed or injured. This ranking is its highest relative to the previous three years. In 2014 it was ranked
68th, in 2013 the City was ranked 65th, and in 2012 the City was ranked 71st.
During the 2012 to 2015 time-period there has been an increase in the number of alcohol-involved crashes
in the City of Menifee.
Most categories s in 2015 were worse than any year between 2012 to 2014, with the exception of the
pedestrian, bicyclists, and motorcycles crash categories which rank better in 2015 than at least some of the
prior three years of data.
<--Worse Better -->2012
2013
2014
2015
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 13
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Figure 10 presents OTS rankings of comparison cities in year 2015.
The colored horizontal bars in the figure represent the ranking the City received per category of crashes (e.g.,
speed-related, bicyclists). Higher rankings bars with green color background indicate better performance within
their peer group, and lower ranking bars at the bottom with red color background indicate worse performance.
Figure 10: 2015 OTS Rankings Comparison Cities, Menifee
Source: California’s Office of Transportation Safety (OTS)
The City of Menifee had better safety performance in 2015 than Perris and Hemet in most of crashes
categories, except total fatal and injury crashes and speed related crashes which were ranked worse than
the City of Perris.
For alcohol-Involved crashes, the City of Menifee performed better than the City of Perris and Hemet.
Given Menifee’s growing population, Menifee was also compared with the nearby “Group B” cities of Murrieta and
Temecula (with a population between 100,001 and 250,000). Direct comparisons between Menifee and these cities
are not possible because of the difference in rankings, but their relative position wi thin their population groups can
be considered.
The City of Temecula is ranked highly (better) in most of crashes categories in 2015, but it ranks low (worse)
for speed-related crashes (7th of 57 cities), similar to the City of Menifee within its population group.
The City of Murrieta is ranked highly (better) in nearly all categories and is one of the safest cities in “Group
B” cities for 2015.
0
20
40
60
80
100
Hemet Perris MenifeeOTS Ranking (1=Worst)Speed Related
Alcohol Involved
Bicyclists
Pedestrians
Total Fatal and Injury
Composite
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 14
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
3.0 | NETWORK SCREENING & SYSTEMIC FINDINGS
This section describes the network screening and systemic
evaluation of the City of Menifee’s roadway network. First, the data
and approach used to screen the City of Menifee’s roadway
network and identify potential systemic risk factors are described.
Second, key findings are discussed before identifying priority
locations in the following section.
3.1 DATA AND APPROACH
Kittelson identified the high-priority safety intersections and corridors
using the Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) performance
measure from the Highway Safety Manual (HSM). The EPDO screening was performed for intersections and
roadway segments within the city boundary of Menifee.
Equivalent Property Damage Only
The EPDO performance measure assigns weighting factors to crashes by severity relative to property damage only
(PDO) crashes. The weighting factors used for the network screening are based on the crash costs by severity used
for Caltrans’ HSIP Analyzer. The crash costs vary based on the location type: signalized intersection, unsignalized
intersection, or roadway segment. The weights for each crash severity by location type are shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type
Location Type
Crash Weights by Severity
Fatal Severe Injury
Other Visible
Injury
Complaint of
Pain Injury
Property
Damage
Only
Signalized Intersection 123.7 123.7 10.7 6.1 1
Unsignalized Intersection 195.8 195.8 10.7 6.1 1
Roadway 169.5 169.5 10.7 6.1 1
Source: Caltrans, Local Roadway Safety Manual, Appendix D, 2018.
The weights generally reflect an order of magnitude difference between the societal costs of fatal and severe injury
crashes versus non-severe injury crashes. The weighting factors intentionally weigh fatal and severe injuries equally
to recognize that the difference between a severe injury crash versus a fatal crash are often more of a function of
the individuals involved – therefore, both represent locations where the City may want to prioritize improvements.
The crash weights vary by location type due to the relative costs associated with the crash severity at those
location types. Hence, fatal or severe crashes at an unsignalized intersection location result in more persons injured
or more severely injured in a fatal or severe injury crash and as a result have a higher average cost than at a
signalized intersection or roadway location. As a result, unsignalized intersections have higher weights for those
severities than the other two location types.
Intersection Analysis Methodology
Reported crashes were first coded by severity. Crashes within 250 feet of an intersection were then spatially joined
and summarized in ArcGIS to develop the total number of crashes by severity at each intersection. Where
IN THIS SECTION>>
Data and approach used
for the network screening
and systemic analysis
Identification of potential
risk factors and additional
locations for consideration
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 15
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
intersections were less than 500 feet from each other, crashes were assigned to the nearest intersection. Crashes
occurring more than 250 feet from an intersection were included in the corridor analysis discussed below.
The EPDO score for intersections was calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by its associated weight
(by intersection type) and summing the results, using the following formula:
EPDO Score = Fatal weight * # of fatal crashes + severe injury weight * # of severe injury crashes
+ other visible injury weight * # of other visible injury crashes + complaint of pain injury weight * # of
complaint of pain injury weight crashes + PDO crashes
The EPDO score was then annualized by dividing the score by the number of years (5) of crash data used in the
analysis.
Corridor Analysis Methodology
Following the approach used for intersection analysis, reported crashes were first coded by severity. A Python script
was run in ArcGIS which segmented the City of Menifee street network into half-mile segments. This methodology
helps to identify portions of roadways with the greatest potential for safety improvements.
Once the roadway segments have been created, the script spatially joins crashes (including those at intersections)
to the corridor segment. Similar to the intersection methodology above, the crashes are summarized by severity,
and the totals are multiplied by the EPDO weights for roadway segments. The weighted crashes are then summed
and annualized by dividing the score by the number of years of crash data to generate an annualized EPDO score.
Risk Factor Identification
Kittelson applied a risk-based analysis using the top quintile of locations identified through the intersection and
roadway corridor network screening. Risk is defined in this instance as common traffic or physical characteristics
shared by the top quintile of corridors and intersections. Based on this commonality, their presence is indicative of a
potentially higher risk for crashes within the City of Menifee 4. The risk factors will be used during the field visit and
countermeasure development to assist in identifying treatments to reduce the frequency and severity of crashes
within the City. These risk factors can also be used to identify additional locations where crashes have not yet been
reported to make proactive low-cost improvements to those locations to further reduce the potential for future
crashes.
To determine risk factors, Kittelson reviewed the following roadway characteristics for top quintile sites to help
determine potential risk factors for intersections and roadway corridors:
Roadway classification;
Number of vehicle lanes;
Posted speed;
Median presence;
Traffic signal locations;
Dedicated left- or right-turn lane presence;
Intersection geometry (i.e., presence of offset or skewed approaches); and,
Presence of marked crosswalks.
4 Note: This commonality does not prove causality; it suggests a potential connection or contributing factor.
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 16
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
For this study, due to limited available roadway characteristic data in GIS, the risk factor analysis relied on a review
of available aerial imagery to determine common roadway characteristics of the highest-scoring segments and
intersections (e.g., posted speed, number of lanes, median presence, intersection skew and complexity, number of
approaches, right- and left-turn lane configuration).
Kittelson identified trends that were consistently present across the top quintile locations and could be tied to a
roadway characteristic. That characteristic was identified and documented as a risk factor. Corridor and
intersection potential risk factors are discussed in the Findings subsection below.
3.2 FINDINGS
Following the calculation of the network screening performance measures, priority intersections and corridors were
identified using the annualized EPDO scores. For intersection locations, the EPDO scores ranged from zero (no
crashes occurred during the five-year time frame analyzed) to 158.5. For roadway corridor segments, the EPDO
scores ranged from zero (no reported crashes occurred during the five-year time frame analyzed) to 155.5.
Intersection Screening Findings
As shown in Figure 11, the top quintile of intersection locations is made up of both signalized and unsignalized
intersections. Most of these locations are along arterial corridors, with fewer top quintile intersections located on
lower-order roadways. The top three intersections based on their EPDO scores include:
Newport Road and Haun Road (signalized)
Newport Road and Bradley Road (signalized); and,
State Route 74 and 3rd Street (unsignalized).
Roadway Segment Screening Findings
Based on the EPDO scoring results shown in Figure 12, the top quintile of roadway corridor segments with a reported
crash history are primarily located on the major corridors of City of Menifee. These corridors include:
Newport Road/Domenigoni Parkway;
State Route 74;
McCall Blvd;
Scott Road/Bundy Canyon Road;
Antelope Road; and,
Murrieta Road.
In addition, some top quintile road segments are located on the non-major corridors roads, these roads include:
Haun Road; and,
Sun City Blvd.
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 17
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Intersection and Roadway Segment Risk Factors
Intersection Risk Factors
Based on our review of the identified trends in intersection characteristics that were consistently present across the
top quintile of intersection locations, the following characteristics were identified as risk factors:
Undefined intersection approaches;
Limited lighting in rural contexts;
Obstructions near intersections;
Skewed intersection approaches; and,
Abrupt changes in approach cross-sections/context from one side of the intersection to the other.
Roadway Segment Risk Factors
Based on our review of the identified trends in roadway characteristics that were consistently present across the top
quintile of roadway segment locations, the following characteristics were identified as risk factors:
High-speed arterials with long block lengths;
Multilane (four or more lanes) roadways with a striped median or two-way left turn lane;
Driveway access points along high-speed roads;
Inconsistence of lane geometry;
Limited lightings in rural area;
Limited pedestrian crossings in shopping area; and,
Curve roadway alignments.
The risk factors identified for intersections and roadway corridors will be used as part of the field reviews to help
better understand potential contributing factors to collisions and possible treatments.
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 18
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Figure 11. Intersection EPDO Scoring Results by Quintile
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 19
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Figure 12. Road Segment EPDO Scoring Results by Quintile
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 20
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
4.0 | DRAFT PRIORITY LOCATIONS
After identifying the top quintile of locations, we aggregated
these sites to identify the roadway corridors and intersections that
are priority candidates for field review and potential
improvements. Kittelson has identified the following candidate
priority locations for field review:
4.1 DRAFT PRIORITY LOCATIONS
Corridors
Antelope Road from Aspenwood Way to Scott Road
Antelope Road from Mount San Jacinto College Entrance to Newport Road
Bundy Canyon Road from Murrieta Road to Sunset Avenue
Huan Road from Newport Road to Lacosse Street
McCall Boulevard from Encanto Drive to Chatham Lane
Murrieta Road from Murphy Ranch Road to Sun City Boulevard
Murrieta Road from Rolling Hills Drive to Wickerd Road
Newport Road from Bradley Road to Menifee Road
Newport Road from Lone Pine Drive to Goetz Road
Scott Road from Sweetwater Canyon Road to Haleblian Road
State Route 74 from 2nd Street to Interstate 215 Northbound Off Ramp
State Route 74 from Trade Winds Drive to Briggs Road
Sun City Boulevard from Cherry Hills Boulevard to Manchester Drive
Intersections
Antelope Road & Albion Lane
Bradley Road & Lazy Creek Road
Cherry Hills Boulevard & Pebble Beach Drive
Goetz Road & Normandy Road
Huan Road & Wickerd Road
Menifee Road & Matthews Road
Menifee Road & Heritage Lake Drive
IN THIS SECTION>>
Recommendations for
priority locations for
additional analysis and
field reviews
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 21
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Menifee Road & Watson Road
McCall Boulevard & Aspel Road
McCall Boulevard & Grosse Point Drive
McCall Boulevard & Sun City Boulevard
Newport Road & Bradley Road
Newport Road & Calle Tomas
Newport Road & Evans Road
Newport Road & Haun Road
Scott Road & Bradley Road
Scott Road & Zelders Road
Scott Road & Menifee Road
Scott Road & Tucker Road
Bundy Canyon Road & Murrieta Road
State Route 74 & 3rd Street
State Route 74 & Menifee Road
These candidate priority locations are shown in Figure 13.
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 22
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Figure 13. Draft Priority Locations
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 23
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
4.2 LOCATION-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS APPROACH
To help inform the selection of the priority sites, Kittelson refined the citywide crash pattern and trends analysis to
focus on the individual priority corridors and intersections. This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding
of how each priority corridor or intersection’s safety performance varies across the City. This refined understanding
of the individual crash patterns and trends for each location will assist in developing a crash profile for the site that
can be used to select appropriate safety treatments to improve safety performance.
To analyze crashes by priority corridor and intersection, Kittelson flagged crashes occurring within 250 feet of a
priority intersection or along a priority corridor (and not associated with an intersection). This extraction process
resulted in a focused crash data set of 282 priority intersection-related crashes and 261 priority corridor-related
crashes. These 543 crashes account for approximately 25% of all reported crashes in the City of Menifee over the
five-year study period. Of these 543 crashes, 54 were fatal or severe injury crashes, accounting for 60% of all
reported fatal and severe injury crashes in the City. More detailed summaries of key crash characteristics are
discussed below.
4.3 LOCATION-SPECIFIC FINDINGS
This section discusses crash trends along the priority corridors and intersections, highlighting notable differences
between patterns on a specific corridor and the citywide patterns previously discussed. The analysis includes the
following considerations:
Crash severity
Crash type
Crash contributing factor
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 24
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Crash Severity by Corridor and Intersection
Table 6 summarizes reported crashes by draft priority corridor and severity.
Table 6: Crashes by Priority Corridor and Severity, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Priority Corridor Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Injury PDO Total
Antelope Road from Aspenwood Way to
Scott Road 1 1 0 2 5 9
Antelope Road from Mount San Jacinto
College Entrance to Newport Road 0 1 3 2 4 10
Bundy Canyon Road from Murrieta Road to
Sunset Avenue 0 2 2 1 2 7
Huan Road from Newport Road to Lacosse
Street 1 1 1 5 5 13
McCall Blvd between Encanto Dr and
Chatham Ln 0 1 0 3 1 5
Murrieta Road from Murphy Ranch Road to
Sun City Boulevard 0 3 4 5 4 16
Murrieta Road from Rolling Hills Drive to
Wickerd Road 1 1 0 0 0 2
Newport Road from Bradley Road to
Menifee Road 1 3 5 44 80 133
Newport Road from Lone Pine Drive to
Goetz Road 0 1 1 1 2 5
Scott Road from Sweetwater Canyon Road
to Haleblian Road 1 2 1 11 12 27
State Route 74 from 2nd Street to Interstate
215 Northbound Off Ramp 1 0 0 1 2 4
State Route 74 from Trade Winds Drive to
Briggs Road 1 2 3 9 10 25
Sun City Boulevard from Cherry Hills
Boulevard to Manchester Drive 0 1 1 2 1 5
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 25
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Table 7 summarizes reported crashes by draft priority intersection and severity.
Table 7: Crashes by Priority Intersection and Severity, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Priority Intersection Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Visible
Injury
Complaint
of Pain
Injury PDO Total
Albion Ln & Antelope Rd 0 1 1 0 4 6
Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd 0 1 1 3 2 7
Cherry Hills Blvd & Pebble Beach Dr 0 1 1 1 0 3
Heritage Lake Dr & Menifee Rd 0 1 2 1 0 4
State Route 74 & 3rd St 1 1 1 1 2 6
Lazy Creek Rd & Bradley Rd 1 0 0 5 3 9
Matthews Rd & Menifee Rd 0 1 3 3 4 11
McCall Blvd & Aspel Rd 0 1 1 3 1 6
McCall Blvd & Grosse Point Dr 1 0 0 3 1 5
McCall Blvd & Sun City Blvd 1 0 1 7 4 13
Newport Rd & Bradley Rd 0 2 4 8 18 32
Newport Rd & Calle Tomas 0 2 1 0 2 5
Newport Rd & Evans Rd 0 1 1 1 2 5
Newport Rd & Haun Rd 0 3 5 18 42 68
Normandy Rd & Goetz Rd 0 1 2 2 3 8
Pinacate Rd & Menifee Rd 0 1 5 17 12 35
Scott Rd & Bradley Rd 0 1 0 3 4 8
Scott Rd & Tucker Rd 0 2 0 1 0 3
Scott Rd & Zelders Rd 0 1 3 5 10 19
Scott Rd and Menifee Rd 0 1 2 2 4 9
Watson Rd & Menifee Rd 0 1 0 7 1 9
Wickerd Rd & Haun Rd 1 0 0 6 4 11
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 26
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Crash Type by Corridor and Intersection
As already discussed, the most common crash types citywide are the following:
Rear-end (32% of total);
Broadside (25% of total); and,
Hit object (14% of total).
Figure 14 summarizes crash types on each of the priority corridors.
Figure 14: Crash Type by Corridor, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
The Antelope Road from Aspenwood Way to Scott Road, Bundy Canyon Road, Newport Road from Goetz
Road to Lone Pine Drive, and State Route 74 from I-215 Northbound Off Ramp to 2nd Street each had at least
20% head-on crashes.
Rear-end and broadside crashes were the most common crash types for each corridor
60% of crashes on the Sun City Boulevard corridor involved a pedestrian.
40%
8%
25%
7%
11%
50%
40%
23%
60%
8%
25%
20%
1%
8%
29%
10%
22%
8%
11%
40%
9%
50%
19%
15%
29%
20%
11%
8%
4%
2%
6%
23%
11%
1%
50%
8%
14%
33%
64%
50%
67%
62%
19%
60%
15%
10%
11%
4%
11%
40%
14%
8%
29%
11%
60%
6%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Sun City Blvd from Cherry Hills Blvd to Manchester Dr
State Route 74 from Trade Winds Dr to Briggs Rd
State Route 74 from I-215 NB Off Ramp to 2nd St
Scott Rd from Haleblian Rd to Sweetwater Canyon
Rd
Newport Rd from Goetz Rd to Lone Pine Dr
Newport Rd from Bradley Rd to Menifee Rd
Murrieta Rd from Rolling Hills Dr to Wickerd Rd
Murrieta Rd from Murphy Ranch Rd to Sun City Blvd
McCall Blvd from Encanto Dr to Chatham Ln
Haun Rd from Marketplace Dr to Lacosse St
Bundy Canyon Rd from Murrieta Rd to Sunset Ave
Antelope Rd from Mt. San Jacinto College Entrance
to Newport Rd
Antelope Rd from Aspenwood Way to Scott Rd
Broadside Head-On Hit Object Other Overturned Rear-End Sideswipe Vehicle - Pedestrian
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 27
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Figure 15 summarizes crash types on each of the priority intersections.
Figure 15: Crash Type by Priority Intersection, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Rear end and broadside crashes were the most common crash types, consistent with expectations.
Three intersections were overrepresented for head-on crashes (Bundary Canyon Road & Murrieta Road, State
Route 74 & 3rd Street, and Mattews Road & Menifee Road).
Vehicle-pedestrian crashes were more than 10% of all crashes at six of the priority intersections.
22%
75%
25%
33%
57%
41%
50%
17%
38%
28%
40%
43%
75%
40%
33%
18%
63%
100%
100%
17%
33%
11%
3%
17%
13%
2%
27%
13%
17%
11%
9%
17%
2%
20%
33%
18%
13%
17%
6%
13%
2%
4%
44%
25%
50%
29%
35%
50%
50%
25%
52%
40%
50%
36%
8%
20%
33%
36%
67%
33%
11%
6%
17%
14%
18%
13%
13%
14%
17%
17%
6%
2%
20%
50%
4%
17%
20%
13%
17%
17%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Wickerd Rd & Haun Rd
Watson Rd & Menifee Rd
State Route 74 & Menifee Rd
State Route 74 & 3rd St
Scott Rd and Menifee Rd
Scott Rd & Zelders Rd
Scott Rd & Tucker Rd
Scott Rd & Bradley Rd
Normandy Rd & Goetz Rd
Newport Rd & Haun Rd
Newport Rd & Evans Rd
Newport Rd & Calle Tomas
Newport Rd & Bradley Rd
McCall Blvd & Sun City Blvd
McCall Blvd & Grosse Point Dr
McCall Blvd & Aspel Rd
Matthews Rd & Menifee Rd
Lazy Creek Rd & Bradley Rd
Heritage Lake Dr & Menifee Rd
Cherry Hills Blvd & Pebble Beach Dr
Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd
Albion Ln & Antelope Rd
Broadside Head-On Hit Object Other Rear-End Sideswipe Vehicle - Pedestrian Overturned
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 28
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
Contributing Factor by Corridor and Intersection
As already discussed, the most frequently cited primary collision factors citywide include the following:
Unsafe Speed (30%);
Automobile Right of Way (14%); and,
Improper turning (12%).
A breakdown of cited collision factors by priority corridor is illustrated in Figure 16.
Figure 16: Primary Collision Factor by Priority Corridor 5, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Unsafe speed and improper turning wre the most common contributing factors on the priority corridors.
Driving under the influence also represented more than 10% of contributing factors on seven corridors.
5 Automobile right of way refers to a crash resulting from one motorist’s failure to yield to another motorist who had the right of way.
Pedestrian right of way refers to a crash in which a motorist failed to yield to a pedestrian who had the right of way.
Pedestrian violation refers to a crash in which a pedestrian was deemed at fault for a crossing or other infraction.
20%
50%
11%
4%
38%
20%
23%
30%
4%
11%
60%
8%
13%
20%
23%
29%
30%
1%2%
11%
20%
20%
7%
20%
7%
50%
13%
8%
29%
30%
56%
7%
20%
7%
6%
20%
14%
1%
14%
20%20%
6%
2%
4%
3%
14%
5%
8%
20%
64%
50%
59%
59%
50%
13%
20%
31%
10%
22%
6%
8%
8%
11%
4%
2%
6%
20%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Sun City Blvd from Cherry Hills Blvd to Manchester Dr
State Route 74 from Trade Winds Dr to Briggs Rd
State Route 74 from I-215 NB Off Ramp to 2nd St
Scott Rd from Haleblian Rd to Sweetwater Canyon
Rd
Newport Rd from Goetz Rd to Lone Pine Dr
Newport Rd from Bradley Rd to Menifee Rd
Murrieta Rd from Rolling Hills Dr to Wickerd Rd
Murrieta Rd from Murphy Ranch Rd to Sun City Blvd
McCall Blvd from Encanto Dr to Chatham Ln
Haun Rd from Marketplace Dr to Lacosse St
Bundy Canyon Rd from Murrieta Rd to Sunset Ave
Antelope Rd from Mt. San Jacinto College Entrance
to Newport Rd
Antelope Rd from Aspenwood Way to Scott Rd
Auto R/W Violation Driving Under Influence Following Too Closely Improper Passing
Improper Turning Other Hazardous Movement Other Improper Driving Ped R/W Violation
Pedestrian Violation Traffic Signals and Signs Unknown Unsafe Lane Change
Unsafe Speed Unsafe Starting or Backing Wrong Side of Road Other Than Driver
Not Stated
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 29
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
A breakdown of cited collision factors by priority intersection is illustrated in Figure 17.
Figure 17: Primary Collision Factor by Priority Intersection6, Menifee, January 2013 – December 2017
Source: City of Menifee Crossroads 2013-2017
Automobile right-of-way and unsafe speed violations were the most common contributing factor at priority
intersections.
Improper turning and driving under the influence were also common contributing factors at priority
intersections.
6 Automobile right of way refers to a crash resulting from one motorist’s failure to yield to another motorist who had the right of way.
Pedestrian right of way refers to a crash in which a motorist failed to yield to a pedestrian who had the right of way.
Pedestrian violation refers to a crash in which a pedestrian was deemed at fault for a crossing or other infraction.
22%
75%
19%
33%
18%
50%
17%
50%
12%
14%
33%
40%
17%
36%
38%
33%
100%
17%
33%
22%
9%
33%
12%
33%
13%
13%
14%
17%
33%
9%
13%
4%
9%
14%
12%
10%
20%
14%
20%
38%
17%
33%
6%
17%
6%
3%
20%
50%
17%
3%
6%
2%
17%
2%
4%
8%
13%
3%
29%
12%
8%
4%
8%
33%
11%
3%
13%
4%
8%
20%
33%
17%
3%
14%
8%
44%
25%
41%
29%
29%
50%
50%
25%
33%
40%
50%
36%
8%
20%
17%
55%
67%
17%
14%
5%
7%
8%
3%
20%
8%
17%
6%
3%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Wickerd Rd & Haun Rd
Watson Rd & Menifee Rd
State Route 74 & Menifee Rd
State Route 74 & 3rd St
Scott Rd and Menifee Rd
Scott Rd & Zelders Rd
Scott Rd & Tucker Rd
Scott Rd & Bradley Rd
Normandy Rd & Goetz Rd
Newport Rd & Haun Rd
Newport Rd & Evans Rd
Newport Rd & Calle Tomas
Newport Rd & Bradley Rd
McCall Blvd & Sun City Blvd
McCall Blvd & Grosse Point Dr
McCall Blvd & Aspel Rd
Matthews Rd & Menifee Rd
Lazy Creek Rd & Bradley Rd
Heritage Lake Dr & Menifee Rd
Cherry Hills Blvd & Pebble Beach Dr
Bundy Canyon Rd & Murrieta Rd
Albion Ln & Antelope Rd
Auto R/W Violation Driving Under Influence Improper Passing Improper Turning
Other Hazardous Movement Other Improper Driving Pedestrian Violation Traffic Signals and Signs
Unknown Unsafe Lane Change Unsafe Speed Unsafe Starting or Backing
Wrong Side of Road Other Hazardous Parking Not Stated
Systemic Safety Analysis Report (SSAR) Project #: 22503
January 30, 2018 Page 30
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Orange, California
5.0 | NEXT STEPS
Based on the findings from the citywide crash analysis and network screening, Kittelson and STC will develop a
countermeasure toolbox to assist in addressing common crash patterns and risk factors. Following from this step, STC
will collaboratively identify the priority locations with the city to move forward for field review and project
development.