Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Safer Streets topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Littleton staff outline five‑year Safer Streets strategic plan and pilots to slow speeds
Summary
Public works staff presented a draft five‑year strategic plan for the Safer Streets program, describing goals, pilot projects and performance measures; board members pressed for clearer funding, enforcement roles and ways to reduce visual clutter in quick‑build traffic calming.
Public works staff presented a draft five‑year strategic plan for the Safer Streets program and outlined work to turn short‑term pilot projects into longer‑term, funded changes.
The plan is intended as an internal program‑management framework, staff said, with a vision of “people‑first” streets, four goal areas (people‑for‑streets, culture change, data‑driven decision making, and collaboration/resources) and key performance indicators to produce an annual report card. Stuart (Safer Streets staff) told the board the draft plan is being finalized and staff hopes to have a completed document “sometime in March.”
Why it matters: Board members and staff said the initiative aims to move Littleton from ad hoc pilot projects toward a sustained, accountable program. Several members urged staff to attach clearer 5‑, 10‑ and 15‑year project prioritizations and a funding strategy so the city can show what it intends to deliver and when.
What staff described: Stuart said the strategic plan is “really meant for program management” and will list strategies, actions, lead and supporting partners, timing and metrics. He said staff developed the plan with a consultant and seven stakeholder groups and that the plan will emphasize pilot projects and “quick builds” to test treatments before investing in permanent infrastructure. The draft includes KPI tracking and an annual report.
Board questions and concerns: Board members repeatedly pressed staff on funding and enforcement. One member noted that some projects require ongoing staffing or police enforcement to be effective and asked how Safer Streets will compete with other capital priorities such as park or service center work. Staff acknowledged grant funding has been used heavily and said the program needs a “detailed funding strategy” and work to identify city and grant sources.
Pilot projects and design tradeoffs: Staff described pilot projects that have reduced measured vehicle speeds but drawn mixed public feedback because they produced visual clutter. Aaron (public works staff) and Jeremy (operations staff) said staff is evaluating alternatives — for example modular medians instead of many small posts — to preserve safety benefits while reducing confusion. Emily (behavior‑change staff) said the program will combine engineering, education and enforcement.
Implementation and next steps: Staff said plan tracking will include a working spreadsheet of strategies and a 2025 work plan with specific actions. The board asked to see the final strategic plan and the tracking tool; staff committed to share the finalized plan and the spreadsheet once internal reviews are complete.
Board involvement: Several board members asked to be more engaged in prioritizing projects and suggested the board receive periodic briefings on the plan’s implementation and funding requests to council. Staff said the Safer Streets plan will be rolled into the broader Transportation Master Plan process as appropriate.
Ending: Staff described the plan as an operational tool to coordinate infrastructure pilots, data collection and community outreach. Board members asked staff to translate the plan into a prioritized short‑term project list and funding ask that can be tracked against the plan’s KPIs.
