AgdaPkt 2016-11-07 Joint SA PFA - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

the interim and the final data were collected. The number is different, but that isn't an error in the analysis. - for the collision data - it's reported as a monthly average so that we can compare different time periods. The best way to compare the collision data would be to collect data for 3 - 5 years after the change, but due to the 1-year length of the pilot we don't have that option. Thank you for taking the time to review the report and to provide feedback. -Jessica From: Sherine Khalil > Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 7:42 PM To: GRP-Farm Hill Feedback; CD-Jessica Manzi Subject: Re: Farm Hill Pilot Project Final Data Set & the October 5th Meeting Hi there, I did not hear back from anyone who receives this email. I just had a chance to review the final evaluation prepared by Kimley Horn. The summary chart of Goal vs. Met or Worsened at the end is far too simplistic to capture an actual analysis of the data. Further, the fact that the traffic diversion outcome is considered "inconclusive" is a significant result. Across the board in all the charts the number of actual cars have increased since pre-pilot. This can likely be linked to the increased development in the downtown, but nowhere in the evaluation or analysis does it mention that this is the reason, nor does any analysis or outcome of any of the objectives consider this as a co-factor. Instead, the analysis examines each objective alone and without any context. For example, saying that bikes increased by 7 more bicyclists means nothing if you take into consideration the addition of the city's population and commuters, yet the summary chart portrays it as a positive and meeting the goal. In addition, are you aware that some of the data included in the Interim report does not match or add up to the numbers in the Final report? For example, the number of people crossing the street at Farm Hill and McGarvey said pre-pilot was 0 and interim was 20, but now in the final it says 14. This is an actual number, not an average during the pilot. So, something is wrong with the data, by example of this alone. Finally, no statistician would ever validate data based on different lengths of time - Comparing 2010 to 2014 for the average number of crashes at 1.28 to just 1 year of crashes post-pilot to 1, basically implies that we will have more crashes per year with this pilot design than we did with our previous 4 lane street, but again, the summary chart shows this as a decrease of crashes and meeting goal. This is incorrect. 8.A. - Page 69