Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Menlo Park staff present 'Slow Streets' plan to speed neighborhood safety projects
Summary
City staff described a replacement for the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program that would drop the petition requirement, use a points-based scoring system tied to vehicle speeds and pedestrian/bicycle activity, and allow quicker, lower-cost projects; council members asked for more data validation and assurances of equitable distribution.
Menlo Park — City staff on March 10 presented a revised neighborhood traffic program, branded “Slow Streets,” designed to prioritize quick, low-cost safety projects using a points-based, data-driven scoring system rather than resident petitions.
Senior transportation planner Kathryn Maki told the council the program replaces the older NTMP and is intended to align with the city's Vision Zero goals. “El objetivo del programa es fomentar velocidades seguras y mejorar la seguridad,” she said, describing batch review cycles, a scoring model that weights vehicle speeds and concentrations of pedestrian and bicycle activity, and the removal of the petition requirement to reduce barriers to participation.
The staff presentation outlined how segments will be scored and prioritized, noting use of StreetLight vehicle-speed and volume data, local tube counts where available, and an equity lens to help guide implementation. Staff estimated typical quick-build devices could cost up to about $15,000 each, while larger projects could reach roughly $30,000.
Council members broadly supported the aim of faster implementation but pressed staff for more detail about the data and how the scoring would treat different uses. “Los datos no son perfectos,” said Councilmember Combs, urging that the city validate external datasets and make sure small local streets are not overlooked. Councilmembers asked that the model include a mechanism to give some additional priority to requests that have remained on a waiting list for years.
Councilmember Taylor asked whether child-care centers and small schools are counted in the scoring and how the program would reflect local factors such as school routes; staff said those sites are included where map layers identify them and that additional local counts can be added for project-specific reviews.
Council members debated the balance between giving staff flexibility to move quickly on small projects and retaining a clear council role to ensure distribution across districts. Some members suggested adding a longevity or age bonus for older requests so projects awaiting action are not indefinitely deprioritized.
The council did not take formal action on the Slow Streets framework during the study session; staff asked for guidance and will return with refined recommendations and validation data. The public-comment period included a resident who urged collaboration with the Complete Streets commission and emphasized a preference for standardized, low-risk measures the city can deliver with limited staff resources.
