Committee hears regional planning update and rising e‑bike injury concerns as Salem plans lower neighborhood speed limits

A committee member reported April 17 that regional planning work under the Salem in Motion effort is moving toward lower residential speed limits and more protected active‑transportation routes, and the committee’s acting council liaison raised concerns about rising e‑bike injuries among children and adults.

The committee member said Salem plans to drop many neighborhood speed limits from 25 to 20 miles per hour and has budgeted for thousands of new signs: “Salem is expecting to install around, 3,600 new speed signs around town as they drop the residential speed limit from 25 to 20,” the member reported. The member said Salem staff told attendees that reducing residential limits from 25 to 20 on low‑speed streets can be done with relatively little engineering work, while reductions on higher‑speed roads will be more complex and require study.

The regional planning report, described to the Keizer committee, also highlighted longer‑range goals of reducing driving per capita and increasing active transportation over time. The member said the preferred scenario calls for a significant increase in active modes and a substantial reduction in vehicle miles traveled by mid‑century; Keizer’s representative to the regional effort was identified as Bill Lawyer.

During the meeting the council liaison (filling in for the regular liaison) raised safety concerns tied to e‑bikes and scooters and said the committee should be aware of rising injuries. She summarized national injury counts as reported to the committee and cautioned parents and riders about high‑speed e‑bikes: “In 2017, there were 751 e‑bike injuries to children; in 2022 there were about 2,352; and in 2023 there were about 3,420,” she said (figures provided verbally to the committee). She added that higher‑powered e‑bikes that can exceed 20 miles per hour may be illegal for some uses in Oregon and increase crash risk.

Committee members and staff responded that these regional trends are relevant to local planning and enforcement. One committee member suggested Keizer focus on “high impact corridors” for any speed‑limit changes rather than changing every neighborhood street at once. Public‑works staff and police reiterated that engineering requirements and enforcement resources shape what the city can do and that pilot projects (for signage or pavement treatment) and staged rollouts could be practical first steps.

No formal action was taken on regional planning or e‑bike regulations at the meeting; the discussion was recorded for committee consideration when staff compiles recommended traffic‑calming measures and cost estimates.