Item 5 Additional Material posted 4-06-20MEMORANDUM City of Poway
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
(Agenda Related Writings/Documents provided to City Council or Staff after distribution of the
Agenda Packet for the April 7, 2020 Council Meeting)
DATE: April 6, 2020
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Faviola Medina, CMC
CONTACT: (858) 668-4535 or fmedina@poway.org
SUBJECT: Item #5 - An Ordinance Adopting the 2019 Engineering and Traffic Survey
Attached please find correspondence received after the agenda posting deadline.
Reviewed/Approved By:
.;J:e4A
Wendy I<Oserman Alan Fenstermacher Chr s H tirltine
Assistant City Manager City Attorney City Manager
Reviewed By: Approved By:
1 of 5 April 7, 2020, Item #5
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Ana Alarcon
Subject: FW: FW: Council Meeting April 7
From: Chris Olps <csolps@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 1:24 PM
To: Faviola Medina <FMedina@poway.org>
Cc: Jasmine Pernicano <JPernicano@poway.org>; Melody Rocco <MRocco@poway.org>
Subject: Re: FW: Council Meeting April 7
Thank you Faviola,
As I said before, I do not disagree with the overall recommendation. I would like to point out however that per guidance
from the Federal Highway Administration's Methods and Practices for Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report,
specifically crash data section the following is stated:
Isolating the effect of one crash factor, such as speed, can be a challenge. Often it is difficult to identify the role of speed in crashes, and for this
reason it is thought that speed -related crashes are often under-reported.47 For this reason, all crashes may be considered in setting speed
limits.
It is just my opinion, that identifying more accidents (especially since running of lights is frequent and can be related to
speed) further illustrates the need for a lower speed limit (maintaining the 35 as recommended which is the 5mph lower
based on 85 percentile of 39). As it currently stands the 'rate' of 1.39 vs state average (1.36) almost suggests that there is
not a problem.
In this case with the noted 'under -reporting', and a difference in accidents well over 100 (53 over 3 years vs over 160 in a
shorter 2 year period), it would suggest that either intersections along Poway Rd have a SERIOUS problem (I would posit,
they do), AND/or a significant number of accidents likely related to speed are being missed. For reference though I don't
not have the actual hard number in this case, the accidents across Poway in total are only 60% vs just Poway Rd at 40% (the
provided table supports this). Adding in intersections, again across Poway, does not alter that and probably skews it more
toward Poway Rd. This suggests that there IS a problem, and while the report mildly suggests speed; this could be related
to intersection function and is happening at a rate multiple times higher than "regular" accidents. There are (at least) 11
intersections along almost 7 miles of road. That is assuming based on the statement with regard to intersection operation,
these are traffic signal intersections. That is almost half a mile of ignored road, a full 6% of the monitored section of Poway
Rd, is somehow responsible for OVER double the amount of accidents, solely from traffic signal operation? If it is any
intersection, more is ignored (up to over a mile worth). So while this is specific to speed, and yes the speed limit should be
maintained at the reduced 35mph, there is a clear underlying problem along Poway Road that in not being addressed. It
can't be blamed on construction (that wasn't going during much of the study or even my own monitoring. If it is specific to
intersections, what is the plan to address what is easily to vast majority of accidents in Poway at only 11 different 'location'?
Faviola, if possible I would like this to be a comment in regards to this item on the agenda. My questions may not
specifically deal with the speed limit, but an "engineering and traffic survey" seems like a very appropriate item to deal with
the issue. In fact, based on reference under -reporting, it may be directly related to speed, but at the very least this study
shows (or hides) a serious problem with no solution currently.
-Chris
On Mon, Apr 6, 2020 at 11:26 AM Faviola Medina <FMedina@poway.org> wrote:
2 of 5 1 April 7, 2020, Item #5
Good Morning,
I am forwarding the City Engineer's responses to the questions you submitted. See email thread below.
Thank you,
Faviola Medina, CMC
City Clerk
City of Poway 1 City Clerk's Office
13325 Civic Center Drive 1 Poway, CA 92064
fmedina@poway.org 1 858-668-4535
From: Melody Rocco <MRocco@poway.org>
Sent: Monday, April 6, 2020 11:21 AM
To: Faviola Medina <FMedina@poway.org>
Cc: Jasmine Pernicano <JPernicano@poway.org>
Subject: FW: Council Meeting April 7
Favi,
Below are responses to Chris' questions are in bold text:
When was the 3 year period? March 2016 through March 2019
What is the cutoff date? (Julian date, fiscal year, etc.) There is not a specific cut-off date. This is the 3 -year period
selected by the Consultant completing the study.
3 of 5 2 April 7, 2020, Item #5
How is the location determined with regards to accidents at intersections? We did not include accidents in the segment
analysis were related to the intersections. Accidents with a distance from an intersection that is less than 100 feet were
removed from the calculations. Per guidance from the Federal Highway Administration's Methods and Practices for
Setting Speed Limits: An Informational Report, when crash data are collected for the establishment or reevaluation of a
speed limit, mid -block and intersection crashes need to be differentiated. Intersection related collisions are not
considered during analysis because they are likely a result of intersection operations and not a result of the segment's
posted speed limit.
Is this an average over 3 years or total during 3 years? The table provided as Attachment B to the report includes Total
Accidents per Segment, the Accident Rate per Million Vehicle Miles, and the State Average for similar segments.
Thanks,
Melody
From: Faviola Medina <FMedina@poway.org>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 1:42 PM
To: Bob Manis <BManis@poway.org>; Melody Rocco <MRocco@poway.org>
Subject: FW: Council Meeting April 7
Faviola Medina, CMC
City Clerk
City of Poway 1 City Clerk's Office
13325 Civic Center Drive 1 Poway, CA 92064
fmedina@poway.org 1 858-668-4535
From: Chris Olps <csolps@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 1, 2020 1:40 PM
4 of 5
3
April 7, 2020, Item #5
To: Jasmine Pernicano <JPernicano@poway.org>; Faviola Medina <FMedina@poway.org>
Subject: Council Meeting April 7
Good afternoon,
I have a specific question in regards to the upcoming council meeting on 7 April. Item 5 - First Reading of an Ordinance
Adopting the 2019 Engineering and Traffic Survey has a traffic survey summary on pages 6/7. This summary has a
column/section labelled "Accidents (3 -yr period)". What do this mean explicitly? By this I mean:
When was the 3 year period?
What is the cutoff date? (Julian date, fiscal year, etc.)
How is the location determined with regards to accidents at intersections?
Is this an average over 3 years or total during 3 years?
The reason for these questions is very simple. I have maintained a log for accidents ONLY on Poway Rd as reported by
Pulsepoint (in most cases that mean serious enough to warrant a response vehicle of some kind). For the last two years,
going back to to February of 2018, the number of accidents along the length of Poway Rd were well over 80. Yes this is not
separated by the segments listed on the agenda item, however the total of those sections only adds to 53. This is a very
large discrepancy. I am trying to understand if it is possible that the intersections for some accidents meant that it was
counted on a different segment or street.
I don't disagree with the maintaining of the speed limit, or anything in the item as currently written, but that large of a
discrepancy is troubling. I have dates for all of the accidents as well, though I can say so far this year the number is far
lower, likely due to the stay at home order.
-Chris
5 of 5 4 April 7, 2020, Item #5