Salinas staff proposes speed-focused changes to traffic-calming prioritization

At the July 10 meeting of the Salinas Traffic and Transportation Commission, staff presented proposed updates to the city's traffic-calming prioritization criteria and asked commissioners for feedback. The presentation covered changes to data collection, scoring and thresholds used to decide which neighborhood streets move forward for traffic-calming measures.

The changes staff highlighted would: remove the maximum cap on the score awarded for measured speeds and for crash history so very high-speed and high-crash streets can receive additional priority; change vehicle counts and speed measurements from a three-day weekday sample to a seven-day sample; reduce the geometrics/engineering-judgment category from a 20-point maximum to 15 points while adding a new 5-point credit for streets that appear in the city's approved planning documents (Safe Routes to School and the Active Transportation Plan); and set formal thresholds so that petitions scoring 75 or higher trigger an expedited "safety" process while petitions scoring 20 or lower would be closed automatically and petitioners notified.

Staff summarized the program's history, noting the policy was adopted in 2009 and the initial, quantifiable prioritization criteria were adopted in 2017 after demand for traffic-calming requests grew. A staff presenter said the majority of petitions ("95% of petitions that we receive") concern speed, and that change to the scoring is intended to reflect that pattern and focus limited resources on higher-risk locations.

Commissioners and members of the public asked about outreach and communication after field data collection. Commissioners suggested notifying the petition lead and, ideally, posting results on the city website so neighbors can see speed and volume data once field counts are compiled. Several commissioners said they want the city to shorten the time between data collection and public notification so residents are informed earlier in the prioritization process.

Members of the public raised operational questions about the pneumatic road-tube counters used in counts: whether motorcycles, four-wheelers and very small recreational vehicles are detected accurately, and whether animal strikes appear in the crash data. A resident asked whether the person who submitted a petition receives the results; staff said the lead petitioner is contacted with status updates and that staff can provide speed/volume results when requested.

Commissioners also pressed staff on the crash-history adjustments staff proposes to emphasize "preventable collisions" -- defined by staff as collisions that, based on collision circumstances and known effectiveness of traffic-calming devices (for example speed cushions), could plausibly have been prevented by those devices. Staff clarified that crashes such as some right-angle collisions or DUI-caused crashes often would not be counted as preventable for the purpose of traffic-calming scoring.

There was no formal action required or taken on the proposed criteria at the meeting; staff sought commissioner feedback and questions before returning with a revised policy for future action.

The commission will revisit the proposed criteria and thresholds in a future meeting after incorporating commissioner feedback.