HomeMy WebLinkAbout011624-09.1 LRSP LETTER & QUESTIONS - DANVILLE TOWN COUNCIL(JANUARY 15, 2024) edited (3)Subject: Urgent Request to Reevaluate Approval of Resolution No. 3-2024 - Town of
Danville's Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) (PDF attached)
Dear Members of the Danville Town Council, January 15, 2024
I am writing to urge the Town Council to carefully consider the impact of adopting Resolution
No. 3-2024, Agenda item 9.1, the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), on the January 16, 2024,
agenda. I recommend that the Council withhold approval. Instead, LSRP should be referred to
the Bicycle Advisory Commission for thorough review, input, and finally, approval.
Several concerns have surfaced regarding the LRSP that require careful consideration:
1. Lack of Substantive Revisions: The Town Staff has presented a Final Report,
dated January 16, 2024, which appears to be a mere rebranding of the January 23, 2023,
Draft LRSP. Notably, essential edits provided by community members Alan Kalin and
Bruce Bilodeau were disregarded (PDF's attached), leaving both versions virtually
identical. Additionally, two stakeholder meetings were held by Town Staff in 2022,
months after the appointment of the Bicycle Advisory Commission, yet the
Commissioners were not invited.
2. Incomplete and Inaccurate Data: The LRSP relies on the Town's limited dataset
of bicycle and pedestrian crash data, encompassing only the years 2017 to 2021, a period
where there is a significant discrepancy between the State of California's collision data
and the Town's. One of Kalin and Bilodeau's specific objections was the report's focus
on just KSI collisions (Killed or Severely Injured). Every collision between a vehicle and
a bicyclist or pedestrian is potentially severe, so every collision should be
considered. Also, the use of a "Rolling Five years" approach, discarding valuable
historical data, raises concerns about the relevance and comprehensiveness of the
recommendations and subsequent funding decisions outlined in the plan.
3. Boilerplate Concerns: The LRSP, created by consultants at TJKM, incorporates
significant portions of content from LRSPs of other cities, such as Napa and Moraga. The
inclusion of boilerplate material compromises the integrity and originality of the
Danville -specific plan.
4. Lack of Collaboration: Despite persistent efforts to collaborate and provide
valuable insights, the Town Staff has been unresponsive to repeated requests for
collaboration on tailoring the LRSP to address Danville's specific safety issues with
regard to bicycles. The Bicycle Advisory Commission, established for this purpose, has
not been given the opportunity to provide input on either the January 2023 Draft or the
January 2024 Final LRSP Reports.
In light of these concerns, I propose the following actions:
1
• Comprehensive Data Review: Reevaluate the LRSP collision data, considering all
available bicycle and pedestrian crash data from 2009 to 2022, as per the more recent
Town of Danville Collision Map.
• Address Boilerplate Concerns: Scrutinize the LRSP to ensure that the content is
original, aligning with Danville's unique needs and the challenges faced by our
community.
• Bicycle Advisory Commission Involvement: Schedule a Workshop to allow the
Bicycle Advisory Commission to collaborate with the Town Staff, providing their
expertise and fulfilling their role in offering "advice and guidance" for the LRSP.
I firmly believe that involving the Bicycle Advisory Commission in this process will lead to a
more comprehensive and data -driven LRSP. By working together, the Commission and Town
Staff can ensure that the safety plans put forth by the Town of Danville are of the highest quality,
aiming to reduce traffic collisions, prevent injuries, and ultimately save lives. Publishing a
flawed, boilerplate LRSP will make it appear that the Town of Danville does not consider
bicyclist and pedestrian safety a priority.
The following are a list of questions that need to be asked:
1. Decide if there has been sufficient use of SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) to tailor the plan to
Danville's unique needs.
2. Decide if the data used in the report is of good enough quality to make funding
recommendations.
3. Decide if the data used in the report is relevant enough to make recommendations for bicycle
and pedestrian safety mitigation
4. Decide if the LRSP will be accepted by Caltrans and the Danville public.
1. A significant portion of the LRSP involves bicycle and pedestrian safety. How did the
Town Staff involve the Bicycle Advisory Commission in writing this report?
a. Has the Bicycle Advisory Commission approved this plan?
b. Has the Bicycle Advisory Commission reviewed this plan?
c. The LRSP provides a list of "Safety Partners" that doesn't include the Bicycle
Advisory Commission. The BAC was appointed in March 2022 and stakeholder
meetings were held in May and October 2022, yet the BAC was not invited to
attend. Why is the BAC not considered a "Safety Partner"?
2. LRSPs are supposed to be data -driven, according to Caltrans and the Federal Highway
Administration. The plan only considers collision data from a 5 -year period from 2017 to
2021. Is there more recent data available?
a. If yes, will the more recent data make the plan more relevant?
b. How much staff or consultant effort would it take to bring the plan up to date?
c. The Danville Collision Analysis Map has collision data from 2009 to 2022. If you
included all 14 years of this data, would it affect the report?
d. 2017 was the first year that the Crossroads database was used by the Town. Prior to
that, the Police reported collisions to the California State collision database
2
(SWITRS). Have you compared the collision data in Crossroads to the California
State database to see if any collision data is missing from Crossroads?
e. In the 5 -year period, how many collisions in the State database were missing from the
Crossroads database?
f. The LRSP identified six intersections and seven roadway segments as high risk for
bicyclists and pedestrians. Would the same intersections be identified if all the data
in the Danville Collision Analysis Map were used?
3. The LRSP focuses heavily on the 32 KSI collisions (Killed/Severely Injured) out of a
total of 642 collisions in this 5 -year period in order to identify mitigation
recommendations ("countermeasures") . Any time a car collides with a bicyclist or a
pedestrian, it is severe.
a. Reducing KSI collisions is important, but why limit the collision data analysis to this
subset of the data collected by the Police Dept?
b. If you included all of the collision data, would it affect the mitigation
recommendations?
4. Does this LRSP meet all of the Caltrans requirements and recommendations for a Local
Roadway Safety Plan?
a. How could this safety plan be improved?
b. Could it be improved and still meet the grant application deadlines?
c. The plan says it should be routinely reviewed and updated. When is the next planned
review and update?
d. Many of the recommendations in the section on improving bicycle safety to reduce
the number of KSIs have nothing to do with bicyclists, they are more focused on
pedestrians. In fact, this section is almost identical to the City of Napa's
LRSP strategies for pedestrians, written by the same consultant. Also, the report
doesn't mention the Iron Horse Trail or I-680 as safety focus areas. Are you sure the
recommendations in this report will meet Danville's specific needs?
For guiding documents from the FHWA see:
Local and Rural Road Safety Briefing Sheets - Safety 1 Federal Highway Administration
For guiding documents from Caltrans see:
https://dot. ca. gov/programs/local-assistance/fed-and-state-programs/highway-safety-
improvement-program/local-roadway-safety-plans
Thank you for your attention to these critical matters. I trust that the Town Council will prioritize
the well-being and safety of our citizens.
Sincerely, Alan Kalin
Attachments: Draft Town of Danville Local Roadway Plan, January 23, 2023, edits and
comments by Alan Kalin, February 8, 2023. Draft Town of Danville Local Roadway Plan,
January 23, 203, edits and comments by Bruce Bilodeau February 2023.
3