Standing Committee & Public Feedback on the Safety Action Plan Collision Analysis February/March 2024
CSTSC – March 28
• Comment around the survey results not being representative of the entire community.
Response noted survey was made available through regular communication channels and received a higher response rate
• Comment around the need for more recent data
• Comment noted that collision data may be underrepresented because many collisions are not reported, especially by children/students. Response noted City’s ongoing exploration into an interactive map to document near-miss or minor collisions where police reports are not made
• Question regarding age information in TIMS database. Response noted that age in reports is limited to categories for youth (under 14 years old, 14-18 years old) • Comment that education is need for all school ages – elementary, middle, and high school
• Question around Walk and Roll Routes – how additional housing on ECR would affect Walk and Roll Routes, if the Walk and Roll Routes would be updated to reflect land use changes near San Antonio Road
• Comment around including data from the pandemic years when school was not in session
PABAC – March 5
• Question related to whether collisions occur along streets or crossing streets at the intersection
• Question relate to how HIN was segmented and % of streets was calculated • Question about collisions on Charleston and how that corresponds to previous improvements on the street
• Comment that broadside collisions are not prevented by separated facilities • Question on how bikes riding at night affect frequency of broadside bike collisions • Comment that low KSI means larger error bars
• Question related to how restricting right on red helps reduce broadside collisions and comment that right turn on green is more problematic
• Comments about residential arterials – housing development in the future will increase need to include countermeasures on San Antonio
• Question on how moving to parallel streets will address crossing high LTS concerns • Question on how the City will enforce new daylighting law • Comment to address grade separated crossing for ped and bikes over rail crossing • Question on statistical power of collision data used and whether we should be using 10 years of data instead
• Comment to add glossary of technical terms in report
• Comment related to bike facilities on Walk and Roll maps profile. It is misrepresented because many of the Walk and Roll routes have bike facilities PTC - February 28
• Question related to increase in 2020 collisions – during the pandemic, there were less cars on the road, leading to increase in speeds and dangerous driving behaviors • Comment related to the HIN on how 62% of collisions occurred on 3% of streets and an inference that ADT is likely higher on these streets
• Question related to how collision profiles were chosen • Comment to focus on collisions at intersections
• Question regarding trends in killed vs. serious injury collisions – project did not separate analysis between killed and serious injury collisions
• Request for full survey to be included with report
• Clarification on if Vision Zero goal was adopted – Answer: It will be adopted by Council with Plan
• Question if countermeasures would have eliminated deaths and comment that countermeasures would not solve problems
• Request to ensure project addresses human side, not just data • Comment to update map to layer KSIs on top – update complete • Request to show before and after of Charleston corridor improvements • Request to focus on intersection specific improvements • Question if survey response was sufficient – response was that it was high for City- released survey
• Request to include actions to address lighting at night and need for reflective surfaces • Comment on need for improvements on El Camino