City staff present draft Safety Action Plan; commission discusses speed management, school routes and equity

City of Palo Alto transportation staff and a consultant presented a draft Safety Action Plan during the Human Relations Commission meeting, outlining a safe-system approach meant to reduce roadway fatalities and serious injuries and to position the city to apply for federal Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A) funding.

Sylvia Starlak, Transportation Planning Manager, introduced the plan and the consultant Ashley Takushi of Fair and Pierce, who described the plan's principles: design the system to anticipate human error, manage kinetic energy transfer to survivable levels and prioritize population-level changes such as physical separation and speed management over education-only strategies. "A fundamental objective of the safe system approach is to eliminate fatal and serious injuries for all road users by accommodating human mistakes and keeping impacts on the human body at tolerable levels," Takushi said.

Key findings and recommendations - Data and scope: The analysis uses collision data from 2018 through 2022 for fatal and severe-injury collisions (KSIs) on public roadways (excluding grade-separated Caltrans facilities). Staff noted 47 KSIs in that period and said 63% of collisions in the city occur on 4% of streets (the city's high-injury network). Commissioners also referred to a figure referenced in the meeting record of about 1,132 injury crashes across the 2018–2022 period. - Plan elements: Because the plan is funded through SS4A, it incorporates nine required elements for future SS4A grant compliance. The plan emphasizes an upstream, population-level focus: roadway redesign, protected bike facilities, traffic calming and a citywide speed management plan consistent with the safe-system approach. - Equity and data: The plan notes that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has not designated Equity Priority Communities (EPCs) within Palo Alto, so the consultants used other equity indicators, including census blocks with 10–20% of households below the federal poverty line and corridors that connect to EPC geographies in adjacent jurisdictions. - Near-term actions proposed: develop a citywide speed management plan; review development impact fees (including whether to base fees on VMT); collaborate with neighboring agencies and Caltrans on first/last-mile connections; update public works standard drawings to align with safe-system guidance (NCHRP 1036, Caltrans DIB 94); pursue trauma-center data sharing; and develop user guidance for e-bikes and e-scooters. Staff recommended using standing committee meetings (including HRC) to track progress.

Commissioner discussion and staff responses Commissioners asked about Safe Routes to School work and Middle/High school outreach; staff said an additional position is planned to focus on middle and high schools and on student-led safety programming. Commissioners raised concerns about speeding around schools, conflicts between parked cars and bike lanes, and the Palo Alto Link service schedule for evening trips. Staff said Palo Alto Link is a subsidized on-demand service and that an operational analysis would be presented to the Planning and Transportation Commission in late January.

Commissioners also pressed staff on equity mapping and whether the high-injury network disproportionately affects lower-income residents or households that rely on transit; staff said the plan used multiple equity measures and will prioritize connections to transit corridors used by riders from adjacent EPC geographies. Commissioners suggested San Antonio Road as an implementation priority because housing allocations and planned growth in that corridor present an opportunity to deploy safe-system treatments alongside housing and economic development.

Timing and next steps Staff said the draft plan is intended to be a living document and that feedback is open through February 14. Staff asked the commission for input on an aspirational target year to reach zero fatalities (options discussed included 2035 and 2040). No formal commission action was taken on the plan at this meeting; the item was presented for review and feedback.

Speakers quoted in this report are identified below under "speakers."