Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Transportation Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pittsylvania County supervisors review Safe Streets and Roads for All safety action plan

3464359 · May 23, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A planner from the Danville MPO summarized an SS4A-funded safety action plan that identifies high-injury corridors in Danville and Pittsylvania County and recommends low-cost and corridor-specific measures; board members discussed adoption and noted the county can apply separately for implementation grants.

Joe Venano of the West Piedmont Planning District Commission and the Danville Metropolitan Planning Organization presented the Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) safety action plan to the Pittsylvania County Board of Supervisors at its May 20, 2025, work session.

Venano told supervisors the infrastructure investment and jobs act set aside $5 billion nationally for the SS4A program and said the MPO’s safety action plan was funded by a $200,000 FHWA award, with $160,000 in direct grant funds and a $40,000 local match ($30,000 from the City of Danville and $10,000 from Pittsylvania County). "The purpose of the program is to prevent serious injuries and fatalities on our nation's transportation system using the safe systems approach," Venano said.

The plan compiles a safety analysis and public outreach conducted with consultant EPRPC and sets four goals: improve streets and speeds for all users; recognize traffic safety as a public-health issue; expand connected walking/rolling/bicycling networks; and improve emergency response and post-crash care. Venano summarized initial data showing 68 fatalities and 494 serious injuries in the MPO area from 2018–2023 and said 57% of those crashes occurred on roughly 8% of the MPO’s roadways, enabling the team to identify a high-injury network.

The presentation highlighted three priority corridor groups with corridor-specific recommendations. For the U.S. 29 corridor the plan repeats earlier MPO recommendations such as roundabouts and turn-lane work and adds lower-cost countermeasures including oversized intersection warning signs, edge treatments, speed feedback signs and flashing yellow arrows where appropriate. Franklin Turnpike recommendations align with a recent VDOT pipeline study and include a new traffic signal at Franklin Turnpike and Orphanage Road, a shared-use path on the corridor’s west side and converting a two-way left-turn lane to a median; the plan also lists speed cameras in school zones and targeted signage. For Kentuck Road the plan restates earlier MPO recommendations (turn-lane and signal work) and adds systemic measures such as centerline rumble strips, wider edge lines and selective enforcement at school zones.

Venano described many of the recommended countermeasures as relatively low-cost, suitable for SS4A implementation grants, and said that if the county adopts the plan it would be able to apply for implementation funding on its own. "Most of these that came directly out of this plan are generally low cost ones that can be implemented through the implementation grant," he said. He also noted the FHWA implementation grant intake was open and that the current cycle closes June 26, 2025.

Board members asked clarifying questions about specific measures and responsibilities. Supervisor Twirl asked, "What is a stop bar?" Venano replied, "A stop bar is basically that white paint on the road that goes along with the stop sign; it adds a little more attention to the drivers." Supervisor Bowman, who said he serves as the MPO chair, praised the plan and recommended the board adopt it: "I would recommend, to the board that we do adopt this." The presentation closed with the MPO consultant inviting further questions and offering to provide plan materials to the board.

The work session record does not show a formal motion or vote to adopt the plan during the meeting; board members discussed adoption and next steps but no official board action on adoption was recorded in the work-session transcript.