Image: Sir Speedy after a car slammed into it in 2025 by Todd Flora.
Over the next several years, Santa Monicans can look forward to changes big and small on Santa Monica Boulevard. But it may take a couple months to readjust priorities based on a staff presentation which received significant skepticism and feedback on Tuesday evening.
The city will, ultimately, implement traffic and safety improvements all geared toward lowering the risk for injuries or fatalities on our stretch of the storied highway.
The effort germinated from a Santa Monica Boulevard Safety Study that began in October 2024, but it had roots that go back ten years.
A History of Traffic Study
Exactly a decade ago, in February 2016, the city council adopted a Pedestrian Action Plan. This included the frequently discussed “Vision Zero” commitment “to eliminate fatalities and serious injuries caused by traffic collisions on Santa Monica roadways,” as stated in the latest staff report.
Two important pillars arose from this:
- The city analyzed crash data between 2006 and 2016 to create a Priority Network made up of the 10% of city streets accounting for half of all severe or fatal accidents
- In 2022, the city recommitted to study crash data between 2015-2019, and created the Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP). The Plan helped further identify and prioritize safety improvements.
According to the staff report, the LRSP qualified the city “to receive state and regional grant funding for numerous roadway design improvements targeted at addressing specific roadway challenges identified in the data, such as the Wilshire Boulevard Safety Study and Improvement projects, the East Pico Safety Study quick-build project, and smaller interventions such as crosswalk modernization, daylighting efforts, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), and all-way stop implementation.”
One common denominator between the Vision Zero Priority Network analysis and the LRSP was that Santa Monica Blvd. stood out for its number of crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
The most recent study that began in October 2024, which was funded by CalTrans, allowed the city to study the variety of crashes and identify specific, target recommendations along the corridor.
In addition to “in-depth crash analysis,” the grant required a robust community engagement process to better understand crash patterns and the community’s lived experience, observations, and safety concerns.
The key trends identified in the crash analysis are:
- The two most common age groups for people involved in crashes are between 26–35 and 36–45. The account for 24% and 17% of those involved, respectively.
- Adults aged 65+ make up 23% of all pedestrians involved in injury crashes, a higher proportion than the 13% of drivers in this age group.
- Pedestrians are overrepresented in fatal and severe injury crashes, making up 29% of such incidents compared to 11% in all crashes.
- Bicycle and scooter crashes are also overrepresented in serious injury crashes (26%) compared to all crashes (8.4%).
- 83% of all crashes occur at intersections, while the remaining 17% occur at midblock locations.
- Crashes also occur most frequently at signalized intersections, but injury severity is highest at unsignalized intersections where the side streets are stop-sign controlled.
- In the past 10 years, one fatality along the corridor has occurred at the intersection of 18th Street.
- The most common vehicle to vehicle crashes involves two vehicles proceeding straight. These movements are typical for broadside crashes. Other common scenarios include a vehicle proceeding straight colliding with a vehicle making a left turn, or a vehicle proceeding straight into a stopped vehicle.
- The dominant movement preceding vehicle to pedestrian crashes involves a vehicle making a left turn into a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at an intersection.
- The most common preceding movement in vehicle to bicycle crashes involves a vehicle making a right turn, making a left turn, or proceeding straight, while the bicycle was proceeding straight in all instances.
Community Engagement
The Safety Study Team engaged with the public on multiple fronts. They made presentations before several two Neighborhood Associations, the Pico Neighborhood Association and Mid-City Neighbors (where a large stretch of Santa Monica Blvd. resides). It also addressed Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. and the City Planning Commission.
They installed a pop-up exhibit for three weeks at the main branch of the library, conducted a walking audit in conjunction with Providence St. John’s Health Center, and held an open-house workshop at the YMCA. In addition, they mailed postcards with project information to 10,000 residents and businesses within a half-mile radius, and went door-to-door to chat with businesses in the corridor.
An online survey was also offered and earned more than 350 comments suggesting desired changes and improvements.
To enrich the development of the Safety Study, “the project team also established a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) consisting of representatives from DOT’s Mobility Division, Traffic Management, Public Works, Santa Monica Police Department, Santa Monica Fire Department, and Big Blue Bus,” according to the staff report.
Specific Proposals
Ultimately, the Study advocates for a phased approach to better safety on Santa Monica Blvd. Phase One could be implemented within two to five years and draw from existing funding like Measure K, Measure M, Transportation Impact Fees (TIF), or the City General Fund. It could also be coordinated with other scheduled improvements along the boulevard (e.g. annual repaving).
Existing funding would be intended for simpler measures that could be more quickly deployed, tested, and then modified if need be before more permanent, “capital-intensive measures” are constructed or installed.
Phase Two would include, according to the staff report, “long-term projects that require more significant design/civil engineering work, change curb lines, and/or impact utilities.” These are changes we can expect over the next 10 years.
Four criteria guided the development of 14 specific intersection improvements: history of weighted crash severity, community feedback, land use and proximity to community resources, and field observations by both the community and the TAC.
The 14 recommendations for improvements at intersections are outlined on pages 14-18 of the staff report, found here.
City Council Discussion
There was consensus among members of the public who spoke before the council that what’s being proposed isn’t good enough and needs to be reworked. They cited that the plan does too little surrounding bus lanes and that what’s proposed prioritizes traffic throughput over safety.
Santa Monica Forward, a grassroots organization that believes equity, sustainability and diversity should guide what shapes Santa Monica’s future, put out a statement saying, “It significantly falls short of the city’s goals to make Santa Monica Blvd safe and actually eliminate traffic deaths. The design is quite similar to what was done on Wilshire in recent years. Unfortunately, that design led to four deaths in the last year or so.”
The council spent more than a half hour asking staff a number of questions surrounding push buttons at crosswalks, bus lanes, and signal automation. Mayor Caroline Torosis contended that what’s been proposed seems to favor implementing “low-hanging fruit” versus prioritizing projects that truly strengthen safety.
Councilmember Dan Hall recalled a story of a crash, close to home on Yale and Santa Monica, that was so overwhelming it shook his home office window. He also reminded the chamber of the recent crash that took out a Sir Speedy print office at Santa Monica and Princeton.
“These are not fluke accidents,” said Hall. “We should expect this to happen when speed meets forgiving engineering.”
He encouraged his colleagues to adopt a motion that includes language affirming the council’s prioritizing safety over throughput. He stated that he would not vote to adopt the report tonight, instead recommending staff return in 60 days with an improved proposal prioritizing safety.
While he agreed with colleagues’ concerns about getting this right, Councilmember Ellis Raskin said, “I wouldn’t want any delay to slow down anything that could be implemented now to improve safety.”
“When safety improvements are in conflict with vehicular level of service, we have to calibrate around safety, not level of service,” said Torosis. She moved that rather than adopting recommendations tonight, staff return in 60 days (or less, if ready) with the report that makes adjustments based on the following feedback:
That staff:
- Provide information on what out of the capital improvements budget would give the council the best bang for its buck on safety improvements
- Prioritize safety over service, and transit over parking
- State what can actually be done in the next 6-12 months, not just in two years.
- Reevaluate everything in Phase One for greatest safety impact
- Present real Key Safety Indicators (KSIs) on improvements that can be measured and reported out
- Prioritize pedestrian recall over push-buttons at crosswalks
- Strongly consider elevated crossings
Hall seconded her motion. After some clarifications, the motion passed, 7-0.
Author
About The Author
