The crash history at this location does not indicate a need for increased control at this location, 0 crashes reported 2010-2017.

Staff will evaluate intersection sight distance at this location.

It's a pity that common knowledge of numerous near-misses doesn't warrant an inexpensive add-on to a stop sign. We have to wait until accidents occur, and they must be frequent enough to call for "increased control"? We're only talking about little pieces of metal that say "Cross Traffic Does Not Stop."

It's not an issue of sight distance, so your instructions to staff are pointless with regard to this request.

The intersection has been evaluated for additional signing needs. Due to lack of reported crashes over the last 10 years and lack of sight distance obstruction found, no changes will be made to signage at this time.

You may be interested in our traffic calming program (a2gov.org/trafficcalming) or our sidewalk program (https://www.a2gov.org/departments/engineering/pages/new-sidewalks-faq.aspx).

The certified data set for any calendar year is typically released the following May or June. The current 10 year data set used for analysis includes 2010-2019. No reported crashes occurred during this 10 year period. A single crash would not generate a crash pattern.

Many of the comments focus on pedestrian concerns and driver behavior.

Information about sidewalks can be found here: www.a2gov.org/departments/engineering/pages/new-sidewalks-faq.aspx

Information about traffic calming can be found here: www.a2gov.org/trafficcalming

Both of these programs would be more effective at addressing the underlying concerns than a static sign with little effectiveness for a familiar driver population.

I don't know if that's the same accident I heard about a few months ago, but a neighbor out walking told me how he felt lucky to avoid being hit when a recent collision happened there; he (and his kid?) were on the sidewalk at the corner and narrowly escaped injury as pedestrians. I remembered this request & the "there haven't been accidents" thing.

Those of us who drive down Marlborough know how common it is for traffic on Page to either run the stop sign or, more commonly, seem to assume they have a 4-way stop, and pull out in front of someone on Marlborough, as if they think we're going to stop. I've suggested friends riding in a vehicle with me to slow way down at that intersection if they themselves are driving along Marlborough there.

Many many many near misses should count for something. Plus there HAVE been accidents. And it's a cheap fix to add the "cross traffic does not stop" thing--- and how would it hurt to do so?

Perhaps going through the City Council would get some action. But I dunno. I feel pretty discouraged by the response here.

I'll add that the "driver population" coming down Page is often not familiar with what should happen at the intersection, and might not come to be so after many crossings. It's a bit counterintuitive to someone on Page, have gone past other neighboring cross streets that stop when it doesn't; Marlborough doesn't look any more "major" than Kensington, for instance.

Ultimately, tho, it's the shared experience of many of us around here that there are a *lot* of folks either running the stop sign on Page or, more often, seeming to think traffic on Marlborough will stop, and thus pulling out in front of cross traffic that has no stop sign. Seems like exactly the situation for "cross traffic does not stop".