Atherton City Council
November 20, 2024

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 32
Figure 5. Countywide Pedestrian High Injury Network

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 33
Figure 6. Countywide Bicyclist High Injury Network

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 34
Figure 7. Countywide Motor Vehicle High Injury Network

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 35
Figure 8. Countywide Combined High Injury Network

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 36

SYSTEMIC DESCRIPTIVE FINDINGS
In addition to the spatial and location-based findings, the analysis analyzed the crash data for systemic findings. Those are organized by mode (pedestrian, bicyclist, and motor vehicles). An overview of crashes by mode for the 5-year period is provided in Table 6. The following pages describe high-level Countywide systemic crash findings. Pages 40-41 show countywide findings in relation to the County emphasis areas.

Table 6: Injury/Fatal Crashes by Mode, Countywide (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Mode Count % of 5-year Total Crashes F/SI Count % of Total F/SI Crashes Pedestrians 1,064 13% 208 23%
Bicyclists 1,058 13% 175 20%
Motor Vehicle Alone 6,328 75% 515 57%
Total 8,450 100% 898 100%
Source: TIMS 2023

EMPHASIS AREAS
The project team analyzed crash data countywide to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that agencies can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads. Countywide emphasis areas are listed below.

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight.

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.

4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging). Countywide across all modes, crash victims between the 15 to 34 years old are more likely to be injured including F/SI as a result of traffic safety than other groups.

Victims between the ages 50 and 69 and between 75 and 84 are more likely to be severely injured than other groups.

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of all injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes)

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 37

6. High speed roadways (35+mph). Countywide, crashes on roadways with posted speeds 40mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile 13 times higher than along roadways with posted speeds of 25 mph or less.

7. Alcohol involvement. Countywide, one in ten (10 percent) of all motor vehicle injury crashes and one in five F/SI motor vehicle crashes (19 percent) involved alcohol.

SYSTEMIC FINDINGS BY MODE
The systemic findings highlight the following topics for modes as appropriate. More detail is provided in a detailed analysis memo provided as Appendix C.
• Crashes by Year
• Lighting Conditions
• Weather Conditions
• Roadway Conditions
• Proximity to Transit Stop
• Crash Locations
• Functional Classification
• Intersection Control
• Number of Legs at
Intersection
• Posted Speed Limit
• Functional Classification
• Pre-Crash Movements
• Violation Types
• Alcohol Usage
• Violation Types
• Victim Age
Pedestrian Findings
Crashes by Year
• There was a sharp reduction in crashes at the start of the pandemic; however, crashes appear to have increased in severity during the core pandemic years.
• Pedestrian crash frequencies increased in 2022 as pandemic-related restrictions eased and travel and activities begin to increase, although the overall share of severe and fatal crashes dropped back to about 16 percent.

Lighting Conditions
• Lighting condition has a strong correlation with F/SI outcomes. Crashes that occurred in darkness or lowlight (i.e., dusk or dawn) conditions were much more likely to result in a F/SI outcome (27 percent) compared to those that occurred during daylight (15 percent), and this disproportionality was even stronger in dark, unlit conditions (32 percent F/SI).

Proximity to Transit Stop
• Intersections within 250 feet of a transit stop had a crash rate of 20 crashes per 100 intersections, compared to just four crashes per 100 intersections for those intersections further away.

Crash Locations
• Most crashes occurred at an intersection (76 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 68 percent of F/SI crashes), with the remainder coded to segment locations (24 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 32 percent of F/SI crashes). • Segment and unsignalized intersection pedestrian crashes tended to be more severe, compared to crashes at signalized intersections. Motorist speeds may be higher midblock than at intersections, resulting in higher kinetic energy and limited reaction time, both of which may contribute to greater injury severity from segment crashes.

Functional Classification
• Primary streets had the highest rate of crashes per 100 miles (340 crashes per 100 miles) and F/SI crashes (81 F/SI crashes per 100 miles), followed by secondary streets (137 crashes per 100 miles; 29 F/SI crashes per 100

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 38
miles). This finding supports research showing consistent pedestrian crash risk along major arterials, which generally have higher vehicle speeds, higher vehicle volumes, and greater crossing widths. • At intersections, crashes occurred most frequently at:
– Secondary and residential streets (23 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), – Primary and residential streets (20 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 23 percent of F/SI crashes), and – Residential and residential streets (19 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes).

Intersection Control
• A majority of intersection crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (63 percent of injury/fatal and 61 percent of F/SI crashes).
• Crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (51 crashes per 100 intersections; 9 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections).
• Crashes that involved a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection with a motorist going straight accounted for the second largest share of F/SI crashes (23 percent); these crashes were also disproportionately severe when they occurred, with 42 percent resulting in a F/SI outcome.

Posted Speed Limit
• Roadways with 25 mph speed limits are underrepresented in F/SI crashes even though they accounted for the largest share of pedestrian crashes. They accounted for 38 percent of pedestrian crashes and 34 percent of F/SI crashes, but 80 percent of the street network has a speed limit of 25mph or less. • Streets with a posted speed limit of 45 mph had the second largest share of crashes (27 percent) and F/SI crashes (29 percent), followed by 35 mph streets (23 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 27 percent of F/SI crashes). These higher speed streets had some of the highest percentages of crashes resulting in an F/SI outcome, average crash severity scores, and crash severity scores per 100 miles.28 These findings support the current understanding that higher speed roads have serious safety implications for vulnerable road users.

Pre-Crash Movements
• Most pedestrian crashes involved the following:
– A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist turning left (24 percent). These crashes most frequently occurred at a signalized intersection (45 percent), but most of the F/SI crashes with this crash type occurred at unsignalized intersections. – A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist proceeding straight (15 percent). These crashes most frequently occurred at unsignalized intersections for overall crashes (77 percent) and F/SI crashes (59 percent).
– A pedestrian crossing not in a crosswalk with a motorist proceeding straight (13 percent). These crashes most often occurred at segment locations (46 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by unsignalized intersections (39 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes).
28 The crash severity score is a normalized measure that scores a crash based on its average societal cost and compares it to a typical reported crash resulting in property damage only (PDO). For example, a crash at a signalized intersection resulting in death or severe injury is weighted 120 times a PDO crash; a crash resulting in a minor injury is weighted 11 times a PDO; and crash resulting in a possible injury is weighted six times a PDO. A higher average crash severity score means that those crashes resulted in more severe outcomes more often.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 39
• Of those three crash types, those that involved a motorist proceeding straight had a higher share of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome and a higher average crash severity score.

Alcohol Usage
• The vast majority of crashes did not have any road user found to be under the influence of alcohol (96 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 94 percent of F/SI crashes).

Victim Age
• Pedestrian victims aged between 15 and 29 years of age and between 55 and 59 years of age accounted for the largest share of victims for all injury severities. However, pedestrian victims aged from 40 to 44 and from 55 to 74 years of age had the largest share of F/SI victims.

Bicyclist Findings
Crashes by Year
• Bicyclist crash frequencies were highest during the first two years of the five-year study period and lowest during the core period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). • Crash severity appears to be getting worse. Bicyclist injury trends showed that 20-23 percent of crashes resulted in a F/SI outcome in 2021-2022, compared to 11-15 percent of crashes in 2018-2020.

Lighting Conditions
• The vast majority of bicyclist crashes occurred during daylight conditions (84 percent), which fits with when most bicyclist trips occur.
• Bicyclist crashes were more likely to result in an F/SI outcome during dark lighting conditions (21 percent) compared to daylight conditions (16 percent).

Weather Conditions
• More than 90 percent of total crashes and F/SI bicyclist crashes occurred during clear weather conditions.

Roadway Conditions
• Most crashes occurred at locations with no unusual conditions (95 percent of crashes). • Though a comparatively small sample, the majority of F/SI bicyclist crashes that occurred with any type of non-typical roadway condition (n=17) were solo bicyclist crashes (n=13), underscoring the vulnerability of bicyclists and the need for well-maintained roads.

Crash Locations
• Most bicyclist crashes (43 percent) occurred at unsignalized intersections, but most F/SI crashes occurred at segment locations (43 percent). Roughly one-third of the F/SI crashes at unsignalized intersections were solo bicyclist crashes.
• Among the crashes at unsignalized intersections, and excluding solo bicyclist crashes, it was most common for both parties to be traveling in the same direction (e.g., an overtaking or dooring crash) in both overall crashes (45 percent) and F/SI crashes (58 percent).
• Among the unsignalized same-direction crashes, most involved both the bicyclist and motorist going straight (17 percent).
• Most F/SI crashes at unsignalized intersections involved both parties traveling in perpendicular directions, either both going straight (n=7) or the bicyclist going straight and the motorist making a left turn (n=4).

Functional Classification
• Most bicyclist crashes occurred along:

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 40
– Secondary streets (39 percent),
– Residential streets (20 percent), and
– Primary streets (20 percent).
• At intersections, crashes occurred most frequently at:
– Secondary-residential intersections (28 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 24 percent of F/SI crashes), – Residential-residential intersections (18 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes), – Primary-residential intersections (17 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 16 percent of F/SI crashes), and – Tertiary-residential intersections (16 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes).

Intersection Control
• Most crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, accounting for 67 percent of injury/fatal crashes and 70 percent of F/SI crashes. When looking at crashes per 100 intersections, crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (38 crashes per 100 intersections; 5 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections). The percentage of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome was comparable between location types, with 15 percent of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome at unsignalized intersections compared to 13 percent at signalized intersections.

Posted Speed Limit
• Higher-speed streets tend to higher crash severity scores per 100 miles. Most crashes and F/SI crashes occurred along 45 mph roadways (32 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes), while only 8 percent of the network is made up of 45 mph streets.
• Streets with a posted speed limit of 40 mph had the largest rate of crashes per 100 miles (n=166) and F/SI crashes per 100 miles (n=138). Given that these streets comprise less than 1 percent of the network, these statistics indicate that a disproportionate share of overall crashes and F/SI crashes occur on these roads.

Pre-Crash Movements
• Most bicyclist crashes involved:
– Both roadway users proceeding straight at the time of the crash (21 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes). These crashes occurred most frequently at unsignalized intersections (53 percent), whereas F/SI crashes occurred most frequently at signalized intersections (43 percent). – A bicyclist proceeding straight and a motorist turning left (12 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 9 percent of F/SI crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (25 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 46 percent of F/SI crashes).
– A bicyclist proceeding straight and a motorist turning right (11 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 6 percent of F/SI crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (43 percent of injury/fatal crashes; 29 percent of F/SI crashes) and signalized intersections (32 percent of crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes).

Violation Types
The most frequent violation types included:
• Automobile right-of-way (19 percent of crashes; 15 percent of F/SI crashes), • Unsafe speed (18 percent of crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), and • Improper turning (17 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes).

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 41
Alcohol Usage
• Few reported crashes identified either the motorist or bicyclist as being under the influence of alcohol (less than 2 percent of injury/fatal crashes; less than 5 percent of F/SI crashes).

Motor Vehicle Findings
Crashes by Year
• Motor Vehicle crash frequencies were highest during the first two years of the five-year period and lowest during the core period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). • Crash severity has decreased, with the highest crash severity observed in 2018 which then decreased during the pandemic years (2020-2021).

Lighting Conditions
• About 26 percent of motor vehicle crashes were observed to have occurred in the dark—22 percent under street lights and 5 without street lights. Crashes with no streetlights had approximately double the per-crash severity score of daylight crashes and 70 percent higher average score than crashes under street lights.

Crash Locations
• About 39 percent of motor vehicle crashes and 52 of F/SI motor vehicle crashes occurred at a segment or midblock location. Unsignalized intersection and roadway segment crashes are both more severe on average than signalized intersection crashes.

Functional Classifications
• Secondary roadways are overrepresented in in F/SI share (36 percent) compared to total share (29 percent).
• Intersection crashes along primary and secondary roads account for the majority of intersection crashes (36 and 29 percent each) and similarly large shares of F/SI crashes (35 and 29 percent). The highest crash severity scores were at intersections along the trunk and primary roadway system where they intersect with lower-order intersections—particularly at unsignalized intersections. This indicates that unsignalized minorstreet intersections along arterial roadways have a disproportionate severity burden in the county.

Intersection Control
• The majority of motor vehicle crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, but signalized intersections have a much higher crash rate per 100 intersections.

Posted Speed Limit
• Higher-speed streets tend to have very high crash severity. Most crashes and F/SI crashes occurred along roadways with speed greater than 40 mph roadways (56 percent of all crashes; 70 percent of F/SI crashes). • Notably, almost 47 percent of the 40 mph+ unsignalized intersection crashes occurred along secondary roadways A majority of crashes at 45 mph or higher intersections were at unsignalized intersections (56 percent)
• Roadways with posted speed limits of 40 mph or higher consist of 12 percent of County roadways but make up 44 percent total crashes and the majority (55 percent) of total F/SI crashes. Crashes that occurred on roadways with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile that was more than thirteen times that of crashes occurring on roadways with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less.

Crash Types
• At intersections, the most frequent and severe motor vehicle crashes were the following types and locations:

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 42
– Broadside: 61 percent occurred unsignalized intersections, – Rear-end: 55 percent at occurred at signalized intersections, and – Head-on: 51 percent occurred at signalized intersections. • On roadway segments, the predominant crash types are rear-end (29 percent), hit-object (21 percent), and broadside (18 percent). Weighted by severity, hit-object crashes are disproportionately overrepresented.

Violation Types
The most frequent violation types included:
• Unsafe speed (27 percent of injury/fatal crashes, 23 percent of F/SI crashes), • Automobile right-of-way (19 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes), and • Improper turning (18 percent of crashes; 19 percent of F/SI crashes).

Alcohol Usage
About 10 percent of the motor vehicle crashes included a driver under the influence, but those accounted for 19 percent of F/SI crashes and had an average crash severity score about 1.5 times as high as other motor vehicle crashes.
• Victims between the ages of 10 and 29 are more likely to be injured, including F/SI as result of traffic safety issues on average than other groups. Victims between the ages 15 to 24 are especially overrepresented with victims and F/SI ratios over 2.
• Victims ranging from ages 0 to 14 (children) account for 18 percent of the countywide population and 14 percent of total crashes and 8 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims. • Victims ranging from ages 15 to 24 (young adult) account for 11 percent of the countywide population but account for 22 percent of total crashes and 26 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims.

Victims ranging from ages 65 and up account for 16 percent of the countywide population but account for 10 percent of total crashes and 14 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims.

18%
(1,164)
San Mateo County—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in San Mateo County.

Countywide
8% 5%
of reported collisions
in the Countywide
total involved drugs
or alcohol
of reported collisions
in the Countywide
total involved young
drivers1
(625) (472)
29%
(1,858)
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (1,073)
Bicycle Crashes (1,067)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (6,324)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
Total Crashes
Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
In San Mateo County, 8,464 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Countywide
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

2. Young driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

San Mateo County—Crash History
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (1,073)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (1,067)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
24%
(256)
Countywide
Countywide
15%
(163)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist making
left turn
21%
(186)
12%
(106)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
35%
(372)
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (122)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (363)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (1,674) All Injury Crashes (6,324)
All Injury Crashes (1,067)
All Injury Crashes (1,073)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (515)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (176)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (208)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe— especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here are the Countywide crashes in dark conditions:

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 45

STATE HIGHWAYS IN SAN MATEO
COUNTY
State Highways are some of the most critical interjurisdictional facilities across the C/CAG region. They connect multiple jurisdictions; move high volumes of people across many travel modes; serve critical freight needs; and in some communities serve as high-activity walking, biking, and commercial corridors.

Any planning and project development requires cross-jurisdictional coordination.

The County includes the at-grade State Highways which run through the jurisdictions shown in Table 7.

Table 7. San Mateo County State Highways and Local Jurisdictions Local
Jurisdictions
At-Grade State Routes Freeways
1 35
(Skyline
Blvd)
82 (El
Camino
Real) 84
92 (Half
Moon
Bay Rd)
109
(University
Ave)
114
(Willow
Rd)
US
101 I-280 I-380
Atherton X
Belmont X X
Brisbane X
Burlingame X X X
Colma X X
Daly City X X X X
East Palo Alto X X X
Foster City X
Half Moon Bay X X X
Hillsborough X X
Menlo Park X X X X X X
Millbrae X X X
Pacifica X X
Portola Valley
Redwood City X X X
San Bruno X X X X X
San Carlos X X
San Mateo X X X

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 46
Local
Jurisdictions
At-Grade State Routes Freeways
1 35
(Skyline
Blvd)
82 (El
Camino
Real) 84
92 (Half
Moon
Bay Rd)
109
(University
Ave)
114
(Willow
Rd)
US
101 I-280 I-380
South San
Francisco

X X X X
Unincorporated
County

X X X X X X
Woodside X X X
Total 3 4 13 5 3 2 2 12 11 1
Safety on At-Grade State Highways
At-grade State Highways serve a high volume of traffic to, though, and within San Mateo County. As a result, they account for a considerable share of countywide crashes.

Table 8 provides a breakdown of reported non-freeway crashes from 2018 to 2022 in the County and a share occurring within each jurisdiction on the State Highway network. Overall, the State Highway network accounted for 43 percent of at-grade crashes within the County and was as high as 77 percent within any jurisdiction.

The following jurisdictions showed the highest variation from that share:
 Brisbane (contains no at-grade State Highways): 100 percent local  Portola Valley (SR 35 defines the southwestern boundary, but otherwise contains no at-grade State Highways): 100 percent local
 Hillsborough: 100 percent local
 Half Moon Bay: 23 percent local
 Unincorporated: 37 percent local
 Woodside: 39 percent local

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 47
Table 8. Injury/Fatal Crashes by Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022), Non-Freeway Crashes Jurisdiction Count
State Highway
Crashes
Percent (%)
State Highway
Crashes
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Percent (%)
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Atherton 121 36 30% 85 70%
Belmont 244 66 29% 178 71%
Brisbane 69 - 0% 69 100%
Burlingame 267 90 30% 177 70%
Colma 11 3 59% 8 41%
Daly City 863 143 29% 720 71%
East Palo Alto 458 150 33% 308 67%
Foster City 150 7 29% 143 71%
Half Moon Bay 145 116 77% 29 23%
Hillsborough 38 - 0% 38 100%
Menlo Park 542 188 33% 354 67%
Millbrae 230 94 38% 136 62%
Pacifica 394 141 56% 253 44%
Portola Valley 39 - 0% 39 100%
Redwood City 1,137 295 26% 842 74%
San Bruno 412 171 36% 241 64%
San Carlos 281 48 18% 233 82%
San Mateo 869 176 29% 693 71%
South San Francisco 866 168 17% 698 83%
Unincorporated 1,147 704 61% 443 39%
Woodside 185 111 61% 74 39%
Total 8,468 2,712 43% 5,756 57%
Source: TIMS 2023

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 48
Existing Plans and Directives to Improve Safety
Caltrans has already taken steps to address safety on at-grade State Highways in San Mateo County, as included in the following documents, discussed in more detail below:
• Director’s Policy 36: Road Safety
• Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24
• District 4 Bike Plan
• District 4 Pedestrian Plan
CALTRANS DIRECTOR’S POLICY 36: ROAD SAFETY – ESTABLISHES THE VZ

COMMITMENT
Director’s Policy 36, issued in February 2022, establishes a vision for Caltrans to eliminate fatalities and severe injuries (F+SIs) on California’s roadways by 2050.20F
29 The statement includes the following intended results:
• “….to establish a corporate expectation to prioritize safety in order to achieve its goal of zero fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.”
• “All Divisions shall align their programs, plans, policies, procedures, and practices with the Safe System Approach as appropriate to their division.”
• This statement includes a commitment to:
• A safety first mindset
• Prioritize eliminating F+SIs through existing programs and the development of new programs. • Eliminate race-, age-, ability- and mode-based disparities in road safety outcomes.

The policy statement also formally adopts the Safe System Approach, which aligns with this Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan.

CALTRANS ROAD SAFETY ACTION PLAN 2023-24
The Caltrans Road Safety Action Plan 2023-24 lays out a coordinated plan to support Caltrans’ goal of eliminating fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050.21F 30 Importantly, the Plan includes the following actions relevant to this Countywide LRSP.
29 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/policy/dp_36-a11y.pdf 30 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/traffic-operations/documents/safety/road-safetyaction-plan-2023-24-a11y.pdf

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 49
Table 9. Caltrans SAP Actions Related to LRSP
Action Relevance to this Plan

1.5 Propose to extend Caltrans’ delegation to
approve proactive safety projects in addition
to reactive projects.

This plan includes countywide and jurisdiction-specific priority locations identified through a combination of
reactive and proactive measures. C/CAG and local
jurisdictions will look for opportunities to coordinate with Caltrans to identify proactive safety projects (i.e., the locations may not have risen to the top of Caltrans’ own prioritization process).

2.1 Develop best-practice guidance to
improve the safety of pedestrians and
bicyclists on the State Highway System.

This plan includes a list of context-appropriate
recommended countermeasures, including for pedestrians
and bicyclists, for each jurisdiction to improve safety. This list of countermeasures aligns with the Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual, and jurisdictions may cross check available countermeasures against forthcoming Caltrans bestpractice guidance to identify alignment and, therefore, opportunities to coordinate on projects.

3.1 Develop a statewide inventory of safety
devices to support proactive safety initiatives
and create a framework to extend the
database to include additional roadside
safety features.

DISTRICT 4 BIKE PLAN
The 2018 District 4 Bike Plan includes a list of top tier bicyclist/pedestrian projects on Caltrans facilities.22F 31 The
plan includes over 100 bicycle/pedestrian projects on Caltrans facilities based on how they address safety, mobility, and/or equity. Many of these projects are located on at-grade State Highways. Those are included as an attachment. For those that have not yet been implemented, Caltrans and the relevant jurisdictions will use the advisory group to be formed as a recommendation from this plan to coordinate and bring forward pathways to implementation.

DISTRICT 4 PEDESTRIAN PLAN
The 2021 District 4 Pedestrian Plan includes an assessment of walking conditions and a tiered ranking of priority highway segments and crossings for pedestrian improvements.23F 32 The plan also includes recommendations for
local coordination to advance pedestrian projects.

Improvements to Date in the County
Local jurisdictions have successfully partnered with Caltrans to bring forward safety projects on State Highways in the County. The following projects can serve as a model for cross-jurisdictional coordination in the name of safety improvements:
 Town of Colma – El Camino Real
31 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/district-4/documents/d4-bikeplan/caltransd4bikeplan_report_lowres-r6.pdf 32 Available online at https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/transportation-planning/documents/activetransportation-complete-streets/district4-finalreport-a11y.pdf

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 50
The Town of Colma worked closely with Caltrans to develop the 2021 El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvement Plan which proposes a series of projects along the corridor along with potential funding sources.24F
33 The Town has successfully received SMCTA and OBAG funding to improve the El Camino Real/Mission Road intersection as a result of this plan. The Town is continuing to look for funding and implementation opportunities.
 South San Francisco El Camino Real
The City of South San Francisco has teamed with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority, the San Mateo County Office of Education, and the Silicon Valley Bike Coalition to install a demonstration project along a 0.3-mile stretch of El Camino Real. The project includes a class IV separated bike lane, a newly striped crosswalk, and a boarding platform for SamTrans buses. The project proceeded with Caltrans coordination.

Caltrans Recommendations and Actions
Given the nature and scale of crash history along at-grade State Highways, and in light of C/CAG’s and Caltrans’ Vision Zero commitment, Caltrans will participate in the recommended County Safety Advisory Group and will work with the group to achieve the following outcomes:
• Consult the Caltrans District 4 Bike Plan and Pedestrian Plan Project list to further advance projects not yet funded.
• Develop a list of safety treatments or project types meeting each of the following three criteria:
– “Caltrans maintained” – Local jurisdictions would be able to install these treatments provided they reach agreement with Caltrans for Caltrans to maintain the treatments. – “Locally maintained” – Local jurisdictions would be able to install these treatments and would be required to maintain on at-grade State Highways without the need for a maintenance agreement. – “Coordination required” – Caltrans would be generally supportive of such a project, but some maintenance details would need to be negotiated.
• Develop a template or exemplar for a maintenance agreement that agencies can use in an “off-the-shelf” fashion to more easily advance safety projects in partnership with Caltrans. • Caltrans will proactively identify when projects are moving into certain project development phases or project streams, to provide the opportunity for local jurisdiction input and coordination to improve safety. • Caltrans will listen to input and help shape areas of need and project opportunity countywide, including proactive safety projects.
33 Available online at https://www.colma.ca.gov/documents/ecr-improvement-plan/

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc / 51

SAFE SYSTEM-ALIGNED

RECOMMENDATIONS
This section offers engineering recommendations, which include physical countermeasures to be implemented onto roadways, as well as policy and program recommendations, which work to increase safe travel behavior in roadway users through action-based outreach, strategic funding, and equitable prioritization of resources.

Each individual recommendation is designed to bring the Countywide roadway network and its users into better alignment with the values and practices of the Safe System Approach. When implemented in tandem, however, these twin tracks of recommendations will create the holistic, layered protection in the Countywide roadway network that the Safe System Approach requires.

Engineering
C/CAG does not own any local roadways and therefore will not design, implement, or maintain engineering countermeasures. However, through this project it has coordinated with the participating jurisdictions to develop lists of city- or town-approved countermeasures. The following table presents the cumulative list of countermeasures developed among agencies

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 52
Table 10: Engineering Countermeasures
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
All Lighting [2] Nighttime $$
All Roadside Design Features [4] All Varies
SI Improve signal hardware: lenses, back-plates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number [2]
Signalized Local/Arterial
Intersections $
SI Install left-turn lane and add turn phase [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $-$$
SI Convert signal to mast arm (from pedestal-mounted) [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $$$
SI Install raised median on approaches [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and Uturns (signalized intersection) [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized
Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install raised pavement markers and striping [2] Wet, Night, all $ SI Install flashing beacons as advance warning (S.I.) [2] read-end, broadside $$$ SI No Right Turn on Red (RTOR) Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Centerline Hardening or Continuous Raised Median [3] All crashes $ SI Convert intersection to roundabout (from signal) [2] Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $$$
SI Install pedestrian countdown signal heads [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install pedestrian crossing [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 53
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
SI Install pedestrian scramble [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install Bicycle Box [2] Bicyclist Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Modify signal phasing to implement a Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) [2] Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install painted safety zone Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Install Protected Intersection Elements Pedestrian Crashes, Signalized Local/Arterial Intersections $
SI Extend pedestrian crossing time Pedestrian $
SI Pedestrian Phase Recall Pedestrian $
SI Extend green time for bikes Bikes $
SI Extend Yellow and All Red Time All $
SI Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint) Bikes $
SI Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase Bikes $
SI ADA-compliant directional curb ramps and audible push buttons Pedestrian $ SI,UI Splitter Islands [4] All $
SI,UI Approach Curvature [4] All Varies
SI,UI Curb Radius Reduction [3] All $-$$

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 54
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
UI Convert intersection to roundabout (from all way stop) [2] All $$$ UI Convert intersection to roundabout (from stop or yield control on minor road) [2] All $$$
UI Convert intersection to mini-roundabout [2] All $$$
UI Create directional median openings to allow (and restrict) left-turns and uturns (unsignalized intersections) [2] All $ UI Install raised medians (refuge islands) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ UI Install pedestrian crossings (signs and markings only) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ UI Install pedestrian crossings (with enhanced safety features) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $$$ UI Install/upgrade larger or additional stop signs or other intersection warning or regulatory signs [2]
Rear-end, right-angle, or
turning crashes related to lack
of driver awareness
$
UI Install flashing beacons at stop-controlled intersection [2] Broadside, Rear-end $$$ UI Install Pedestrian Signal, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon, or Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon [2] Pedestrian and Bicycle $$$
UI Install transverse rumble strips on approaches [2] All $ UI Install splitter islands on the minor road approaches [2] All $ UI Curb Extensions All $
UI,SI Splitter Islands [4] All $
UI,SI Approach Curvature [4] All Varies

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 55
Location
Type [1]
Countermeasure Crash Types Cost
UI,SI Curb Radius Reduction [3] All $-$$
R Road diet (Reduce travel lanes from 4 to 3 and add a two way left-turn and bike lanes) [2] All Varies
R Corridor access management [2] Varies
R Install edgeline rumble strips/stripes [2] All Varies R Install separated bike lanes [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $$$ R Install/upgrade pedestrian crossing (with enhanced safety features) [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $$$ R Install raised pedestrian crossing [2] Pedestrian and Bicyclists $ R Remove or relocate fixed objects outside of Clear Recovery Zone [2] Hit Object Varies R Install delineators, reflectors and/or object marker [2] All $ R Install/upgrade signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) [2] All $
R Install dynamic/variable speed warning signs [2] Driver Behavior Varies R Lane Narrowing All $
1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above Sources: [2] Caltrans Local Roadway Safety Manual (2022); [3] NCHRP Report 926; [4] NCHRP Report 613 $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 56
Policy and Program
Based on the goals, existing conditions, and opportunities identified in the development of this plan, this section identifies categories of actions C/CAG and identified partners can take to support LRSP implementation. The recommendations fall into a few categories, as shown in Table 11.

The recommendations are described in more detail following the table, and Table 12 on page 62 provides a list of recommendations and partner roles.

Table 11. Recommendations and Categories
Category Near-Term
Recommendations
Ongoing
Recommendations
Long-Term or Ongoing
Recommendations
Organize (O) O1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee O2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Educate (E) E1: Best Practices Training
E2: Law Enforcement Training
E3: Technical Assistance for Safety Education in Schools E4: Communication Protocol
Coordinate
(C)
C1: AB413 Implementation C2: Safe System Enabling
Legislation
C3: Graduated Traffic Fine
Structure
Fund (F) F1: Dedicated Funding F2: Equitable Investment F3: Prioritize Investments
F4: Identify Targeted Enforcement Funding
Research (R) R1: Safety and Equity Impacts
Evaluation
R2: Data Quality Improvements
R3: Crash Data Enhancements
R4: Big Data
Plan (P) P1: Safe Routes to School
P2: Annual Review
P3: Plan Update

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 57

ORGANIZE
O1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee
Convene the Plan’s Advisory Group as the newly-established San Mateo County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC) to coordinate on safety plan implementation and discuss relevant safety topics in the region, like enforcement coordination and AVs. The TSAC will include seats for the agencies listed in this table and will identify additional seats dedicated to representatives of equity priority communities, vulnerable road users, youth, older adults, parents of school-age children, local businesses, traffic violence victim families, etc.

The TSAC will include representation from Caltrans to allow coordination on State Highway locations in the County. As a member of the TSAC, Caltrans will proactively identify when projects are moving into certain project development phases or project streams, to provide the opportunity for local jurisdiction input and coordination to improve safety. Caltrans will also listen to input and help shape areas of need and project opportunity countywide, including proactive safety projects.

Convene meetings quarterly. Expected agenda topics include (but are not limited to):
• Scheduling and developing and approach for interim evaluations and updated plans (at the jurisdiction and county level)
• Tracking and coordinating funding opportunities, especially where cross-jurisdiction collaboration is desirable
• Keeping agencies apprised of Caltrans, MTC, USDOT, SMCTA, and other funding guidelines and requirements
• Prioritizing items among the remaining recommendations within this plan Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions, County Public Health, Sustainability Department, County Office of Education, SMCTA, California Highway Patrol, MTC, SVBC, Caltrans, County Sheriff’s Office, BART O2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Conduct a safety media campaign. This may be exclusively a media campaign to raise awareness about the emphasis areas identified in this plan, or this may be a high-visibility enforcement campaign. If the latter, the campaign includes dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness. Potential communication tools:
 Bus ads
 Social media
 Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff's Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, San Mateo County Office of Education

EDUCATE
E1: Best Practices Training
Through the TSAC, convene best practices training to keep local jurisdictions informed of state-of-the art practices related to safety planning and implementation. Example education session topics may include: (1) support for developing competitive grant applications, (2) share safety best practices including updated safety countermeasure recommendations, (3) training on available data sources.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 58
C/CAG will organize and schedule the workshops and will seek assistance from MTC and Caltrans in identifying relevant topics and training resources (especially related to grant-related topics).

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, Caltrans, constituent jurisdictions E2: Law Enforcement Training
Integrate safety into training for new officers (e.g., NHTSA’s pedestrian training for law enforcement).

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol
E3: Technical Assistance for Safety Education in Schools Continue to fund School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• technical assistance to schools and planners to implement roadway safety demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: San Mateo County Office of Education
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC E4: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident to emphasize shared responsibility.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions

COORDINATE
C1: AB413 Implementation
Coordinate among jurisdictions through the TSAC to provide an implementation pathway for Assembly Bill 413, which prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the approach of any marked or unmarked crosswalk, or 15 feet where a curb extension is present. Prior to January 1, 2025, jurisdictions may only issue warnings unless the violation occurred where red paint or signage prohibits the stopping, standing, or parking.

Communicating and enforcing AB413 presents logistical challenges for local jurisdictions, but through the TSAC they may prepare common and individualized implementation pathways.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions
C2: Safe System Enabling Legislation
Consider advocating for legislation that could support the Safe System Approach—for example, authorization to implement automated enforcement. Include public engagement and input from constituent jurisdictions while the implementation of Assembly Bill 645 brings speed cameras to Glendale, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 59
Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, Caltrans, California Transportation Commission (CTC) C3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure
Through legislative agenda, consider advocating for an income-based graduated traffic fine structure at the state level, so fines do not disproportionately impact people with lower incomes. Such a change would allow traffic enforcement to occur where necessary while tempering disproportionate burdens.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: TSAC members
FUND
F1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: SMCTA, MTC, Caltrans, CTC
F2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize investments in disadvantaged communities. Include social equity criteria in scoring when making funding available. Consider using a combination of indices in allowing local agencies to identify disadvantaged communities. For example, consider including C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty, and other relevant indices subsequently developed locally, regionally, or federally.

Lead agency: C/CAG
F3: Prioritize Investments
Incorporate the regional High Injury Network and local jurisdictions’ prioritized locations when allocating and scoring funding opportunities for local jurisdictions. (This includes identified locations for the 11 jurisdictions with safety plan updates as part of the regional LRSP and for the ten jurisdictions not included in this plan document.) Award points or a similar priority mechanism for projects that improve conditions in these identified locations. Stipulate community engagement requirements for projects receiving funding.

Lead agencies: C/CAG, SMCTA
F4: Identify Targeted Enforcement Funding
Identify grant opportunities to expand targeted traffic enforcement of emphasis areas or other targeted behaviors associated with fatal/severe injury outcomes. Local jurisdictions lack discretion over law enforcement priorities and some cities who contract with the County Sheriff’s Office would benefit from additional resource allocation dedicated specifically to target behaviors. One such funding opportunity would be through the California Office of Traffic Safety, which has a grant program related to priority program areas provided documented crash data are available: alcohol impaired driving, distracted driving, drug-impaired driving, emergency medical services, motorcycle safety, occupant protection, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and police traffic services.

Lead agency: C/CAG, SMCTA
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 60

RESEARCH
R1: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
Conduct a study to address traffic injury and enforcement inequities to inform policies, projects, programs, and needed data quality improvements. Solicit feedback on the report's equity analysis from groups representing equity priority communities. Topics for the study may include injury burdens related to homelessness, race/ethnicity, language, income, and immigration status, citations by demographics, citation type, and location.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, County Sheriff’s Office
R2: Data Quality Improvements
Conduct one or more studies and/or convene working groups to address the following challenges:
• Integrating hospital and police data
• Providing a means to collect and incorporate near-miss data into safety analysis • Collecting and incorporating crash data where AVs are involved • Developing a consistent countywide crash database that would prevent the time lag present in SWITRS, provide accurate and timely monitoring of crashes and allow monitoring of injury trends over time.

Some agencies have successfully used video-based conflict monitoring algorithms to capture near-miss information at select locations. The techniques show promise for identifying conflicts that correlate to crashes, but the ability to scale the technology is still unclear.34 Funding may be available through the California Office of Traffic Safety grant program, which lists Roadway Safety and Traffic Records as a category among its priority program areas.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, County Sheriff’s Office, constituent jurisdictions, local police departments
R3: Crash Data Enhancements
Study integrating crash data with Police Department's tracking system for timely, efficient reporting and sharing of injury crashes, including geolocated data. Review current crash data form and study existing best practices.

Consider adding select visible disability statuses to the crash data form. If feasible and prudent, add this field to the crash data form.

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol, C/CAG, MTC R4: Big Data
Identify a pathway for obtaining and incorporating integrated curb-level activity data including volumes, paths, speeds, and behaviors of pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, etc. These data are available from a number of big data sources on the market. The goal would be to enable improved data availability for safety planning.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, SMCTA, Constituent Jurisdictions 34 For example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation evaluated the technology as part of its SMART intersections project. More information is available online at https://www.penndot.pa.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Planning/Research-AndImplementation/Documents/Smart%20Intersections.pdf

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 61
PLAN
P1: Safe Routes to School
Continue to conduct school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

Lead agency: San Mateo County Office of Education
P2: Annual review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to the C/CAG board and information posted on the C/CAG website.

Lead agency: C/CAG
P3: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication and approximately every subsequent five years. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.

Alternately, coordinate with all 21 jurisdictions to see that local plans are pursued and updated consistent with best practices within the five-year timeframe.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Constituent jurisdictions

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 62
Table 12: Policy/Program Recommendations and Partner Roles Recommendation
Agency Involvement (L = Lead; P = Participate)
C/CAGCalifornia Highway PatrolCaltransConstituent JursidictionsCounty Office of EducationCounty Public HealthCounty Sheriff’ s Office Sustainability DepartmentMTCSMCTASVBC O1: Transportation Safety Advisory
Committee

L P P P P P P P P P P
O2: High-Visibility Media Campaign P P L P P
E1: Best Practices Training L P P P
E2: Law Enforcement Training P L
E3: Technical Assistance for Safety
Education in Schools

L P P P
E4: Communication Protocol L P
C1: AB413 Implementation
C2: Safe System Enabling Legislation L P P
C3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure L P P P P P P P P P P F1: Dedicated Funding L P P P
F2: Prioritize Investments L P
F3: Equitable Investment L
F4: Identify Targeted Enforcement Funding L L
R1: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation L P
R2: Data Quality Improvements L P P P
R3: Crash Data Enhancements P P L P
R4: Big Data L P P
P1: Safe Routes to School P L
P2: Annual Review L P
P3: Plan Update L P

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 63

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
The spatial HIN analysis identified the regionally highest-crash locations by frequency and severity. Based on that work and the accompanying systemic analysis, the plan development team worked with participating jurisdictions to identify priority project locations. The methodology and jurisdiction-specific results are included as Appendix D.

For those jurisdictions, the prioritization used the following three factors:
• Crash history – used to identify the locations with the highest reported five-year crash frequency and severity.
• Social equity – used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. • Systemic factors – used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity. Using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach. Each factor was weighted relative to the other factors based on the average severity of relevant crashes (for example, if pedestrian crashes on arterials/collectors were overall twice as severe as pedestrian crashes at unsignalized intersections overall, then the former would be weighted twice the latter).

In line with this plan’s goals, C/CAG supports the development of safety projects and solutions along countywide HIN corridors or along subsequently identified project priority locations. For the 11 participating jurisdictions, those remaining priority locations are included in subsequent chapters. For the 10 jurisdictions with existing or developing plans, refer to those plans documents for identified priority project locations.

This plan places particular emphasis on locations where projects could provide safety benefits to disadvantaged neighborhoods. Accordingly, Table 13 and Table 14 provide summary statistics on the mileage of the Countywide HIN by modal emphasis and by the jurisdictions they are located within. The tables also provide the percentage of each HIN corridor that passes through identified social equity areas:
• C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, as defined in the C/CAG Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan. • MTC Equity Priority Communities (formerly called “Communities of Concern”) as guided by MTC’s Equity Platform.
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty, as defined by the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST) developed by the Council on Environmental Quality.
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, as defined by the CEJST.

This plan identifies the following emphasis areas which local agencies may use to define systemic treatments for safety problems town- or city-wide, or to further screen locations among those on the Countywide HIN or on their priority project lists.

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety

2. Nighttime/low light safety

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors

4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging)

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes

6. High speed roadways (35+mph)

7. Alcohol involvement

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 64
Table 13: Local HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Total 87.7 70.8 167.7 231.7 3.4 5.4 4.2 9.1 2.2 24.4 8.5 5.5 2.2 0.0 11.5 5.4 6.7 5.7 27.2 10.0 11.6 25.4 30.9 36.4 5.6 2nd 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.6 554 0.6 89% 29%
3rd 1.8 0.0 0.7 1.8 569 0.7 1.1 28% 18%
42nd 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 339 0.7 100%
4th 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 384 0.4 100%
5th 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 571 1.1 45% 29%
87th 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 352 0.3 1.0 87% 78%
9th 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 389 0.8 64%
Adams 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 499 0.1 100% 100%
Airport 2.6 0.0 2.9 3.0 991 3.0 93% 97% 57%
Alameda De Las Pulgas 2.0 3.5 1.7 6.7 732 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.6 3.0 0.7 Alpine 0.0 4.5 3.0 7.5 628 0.5 3.3 4.1 15%
Amphlett 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 572 0.1 1.5 100% 20%
Avalon 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 264 0.1 1.0 74%
Baden 1.3 0.0 1.3 1.3 1,075 1.3 8% 100% 100%
Bay 1.8 0.0 3.3 3.3 1,051 1.8 0.7 1.2 27% 55% 100% 70%
Bayshore 2.0 0.8 4.7 4.7 1,177 2.7 0.3 1.7 0.1 9% 37% 31% Beech 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 601 0.2 100% 100%
Belmont 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 268 0.6
Brewster 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 527 1.5

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 65
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Brittan 1.4 0.0 1.4 1.4 1,383 1.4
Broadway 3.3 2.4 3.2 3.8 1,647 1.3 2.5 37% 8% 42% 34%
California 0.0 2.5 1.3 2.5 789 2.5 0.1 48%
Canada 0.0 6.3 3.2 7.1 554 5.5 1.7
Capitol 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 506 0.2 100% 100%
Carlos 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 352 0.0
Chester 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 407 0.4 0.1 68%
Chestnut 0.9 0.8 1.4 1.8 714 0.8 0.9 0.0 35% 63% 65%
Claremont 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 275 1.2 58% 33% 17%
Clarke 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 286 0.3 100% 100%
Coast 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 1,067 1.4
Commercial 1.3 0.0 0.0 1.3 686 1.3 94% 94%
Crocker 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 418 1.1 61%
Crystal Springs 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 400 1.1 9% 9%
Cypress 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 231 0.5 43% 100% 100%
Delaware 2.3 1.4 1.1 3.6 569 3.6 11% 39% 9%
Donohoe 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 888 0.5 100% 100%
Dwight 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 448 0.6 0.1
Eastmoor 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 737 0.7 85% 85%
Edgewood 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 635 2.5
Eucalyptus 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 488 0.5 55% 82%

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 66
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Farm Hill 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 565 1.4 0.5
Foster City 1.7 0.0 1.2 1.7 678 1.7
Gellert 1.2 0.0 2.7 2.7 527 1.7 1.1 33%
Geneva 0.8 0.0 0.8 0.8 1,241 0.8 100% 13% 100%
Grand 1.9 1.8 3.4 3.4 1,347 3.4 50% 89% 48%
Grant 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 356 0.6 71% 35%
Guadalupe Canyon 0.0 0.0 2.5 2.5 719 0.1 0.4 2.2 8%
Harvey 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 829 0.1
Haven 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 275 0.3 100% 100%
Hickey 1.3 0.0 2.8 2.8 759 1.9 0.9 0.2 18% 18% 25%
Hillcrest 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 329 0.4 100%
Hillsdale 3.1 2.6 2.4 3.9 953 1.9 2.1 13% 18%
Hillside 1.4 0.0 1.9 3.3 531 0.7 1.2 1.1 0.5 14% 46%
Holly 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.0 713 0.2 0.9 20%
Hopkins 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 461 1.3
Howard 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 536 1.1 0.1 9%
Hudson 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 385 1.4 71% 43%
Humboldt 2.0 1.8 2.0 2.0 2,172 0.4 1.7 20% 85% 15%
Huntington 1.1 1.0 0.0 1.2 758 1.0 0.3 28% 60% 60%
Industrial 1.7 0.0 2.4 2.4 881 0.5 2.0
James 1.2 0.0 0.0 1.2 361 1.2

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 67
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Jefferson 1.7 1.3 1.6 1.7 942 1.7 35% 24%
Jenevein 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 494 0.8 13% 49%
John Daly 1.8 0.0 1.9 1.9 1,152 1.9 32% 32% 11% 32%
Junipero Serra 2.0 1.6 5.4 5.8 935 1.3 1.7 3.1 9% 27%
King 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 785 1.3 0.0 0.1 82%
Kings Mountain 0.0 3.5 0.0 3.5 528 2.1 1.7
Laurel 1.5 1.0 0.0 2.5 406 0.2 1.0 1.5
Lincoln 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 668 0.5 100% 76%
Linda Mar 1.1 1.6 1.9 1.9 880 1.9 21%
Linden 1.6 0.0 1.8 1.8 1,195 0.1 1.8 83% 100% 100%
Lyall 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 246 0.3
Magnolia 1.5 0.0 0.0 1.5 454 0.3 1.3 13% 47%
Main 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 451 1.1 0.9 31% 75%
Maple 0.7 1.1 1.2 1.9 889 1.2 0.7 26% 16% 79% 74%
Market 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 356 0.8 91%
Marsh 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 543 0.4 0.7 0.5 47% 47% 38%
Menlo 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 449 0.3
Metro Center 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 361 0.7
Middle 0.0 1.1 0.0 1.1 416 1.1
Middlefield 2.2 2.2 3.8 3.8 2,166 1.2 0.6 1.5 1.0 26% 8% 39% 24% Millbrae 1.5 0.0 1.5 1.5 878 1.5 39% 20%

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 68
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Miller 1.3 0.0 1.1 1.3 682 1.3 23% 45%
Mission 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.9 1,062 1.8 0.2 5% 68%
Newbridge 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1,089 0.4 0.7 70% 100% 100%
Norfolk 0.0 1.9 0.0 1.9 384 1.9 9%
Oak Grove 1.1 1.2 0.0 1.2 527 0.4 0.9
O'Connor 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.6 319 0.6 100% 72%
Old Bayshore 1.3 0.0 1.4 1.4 815 1.2 0.3 85%
Old Canada 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 606 1.1
Old County 0.0 1.9 3.4 3.4 884 1.2 0.1 2.2 0.3
Old Page Mill 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 393 0.5 100%
Orange 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 330 1.0 60% 80% 70%
Oyster Point 0.0 0.0 1.1 1.1 482 1.1 100% 100% 9%
Palmetto 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 635 2.1
Park Plaza 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.4 362 0.4 100% 100% 100% 100%
Peninsula 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1,101 0.1 1.0 10%
Pescadero Creek 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 341 1.4 100%
Poplar 1.4 0.0 0.9 1.4 1,361 1.4 37%
Portola 0.0 4.2 2.4 4.2 1,277 2.4 0.4 1.7
Price 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 264 0.8 0.1 93%
Pulgas 1.3 0.0 1.5 1.5 862 1.5 13% 100% 20%
Railroad 0.0 0.0 0.7 0.7 253 0.7 41% 100% 100%

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 69
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Ralston 0.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 488 3.5 0.1
Randolph 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 539 0.8 38% 38%
Ravenswood 0.0 0.6 0.6 0.6 580 0.2 0.6
Redwood Shores 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 444 2.0 35%
Rollins 0.0 0.0 2.4 2.4 407 2.4 0.1 38% 4%
Roosevelt 0.0 1.1 1.2 1.2 429 1.2 58% 33%
Runnymede 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.9 449 0.9 100% 86%
San Anselmo 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 363 0.4 0.6 68% 21%
San Bruno 1.7 0.0 0.8 1.7 1,940 1.7 23% 23%
San Carlos 0.0 1.4 0.0 1.4 471 1.4
San Marco 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 356 0.0 100%
San Mateo 1.4 0.0 9.8 9.8 1,101 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.6 5.6 10% 13% 34% San Pedro 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 839 0.5 16% 100%
Sand Hill 0.0 2.6 0.0 2.6 734 1.1 1.7 4%
Santa Cruz 0.0 1.6 0.0 1.6 503 1.6
Santa Domingo 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 532 0.0 100%
Santa Inez 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 499 0.3
Scofield 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 374 0.1 100% 100%
Sequoia 0.8 0.0 0.0 0.8 363 0.4 0.6 64%
Serramonte 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 253 0.1 1.0 33% 33% 33%
Sharp Park 0.0 0.0 2.1 2.1 858 1.6 0.6 69%

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 70
Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Shell 1.1 0.0 0.0 1.1 641 1.1
Sierra Point 0.0 0.0 1.4 1.4 352 1.4
Sister Cities 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.9 570 0.9 11%
Sneath 1.0 0.0 1.3 1.8 418 1.8 5%
Southgate 3.1 0.0 2.7 3.1 792 0.1 3.1 10% 52% 26% 61%
Spruce 1.7 0.0 1.7 1.7 817 1.7 60% 72% 84%
Stafford 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 11 0.4 0.1
Sullivan 0.5 0.0 1.3 1.3 781 1.2 0.2 100% 1% 100%
Tilton 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.8 758 0.8 43% 69%
Valota 0.0 0.0 1.2 1.2 395 1.2
Veterans 1.2 1.1 1.7 1.7 877 1.7 17% 17%
Walnut 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 235 0.3 25% 63% 63%
Washington 0.9 0.0 0.9 0.9 758 0.4 0.6 89% 43%
Westborough 1.8 0.0 2.7 2.7 1,501 0.1 2.3 1.2 64%
Westmoor 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.4 396 0.4 75% 100%
Whipple 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 1,057 1.8
Willow 0.0 2.3 1.8 2.3 504 0.5 2.1 25% 43% 43%
Winslow 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.8 330 0.8

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 71
Table 14: State Highway HIN Segments by Mode, Jurisdiction, and Social Equity Neighborhoods Road name
Length (mi) of appliable criterion / location Percent of Corridor in Social Equity Area Pedestrian HINBicyclist HINMotor Vehicle HINTotal HIN Length, Any ModesMax 1/2 Mile Crash Severity ScoreATHERTONBELMONTBRISBANEBURLINGAMECOLMADALY CITYEAST PALO ALTOFOSTER CITYHALF MOON BAYHILLSBOROUGHMENLO PARKMILLBRAEPACIFICAPORTOLA VALLEYREDWOOD CITYSAN BRUNOSAN CARLOSSAN MATEOSOUTH SAN FRANCISCOUNINCORPORATEDWOODSIDE USDOT
APP
USDOT
HDC
MTC
EPC
C/CAG Equity Focus
Areas
Total 15.2 27.1 120.1 122.6 3.4 5.4 4.2 9.1 2.2 24.4 8.5 5.5 2.2 0.0 11.5 5.4 6.7 5.7 27.2 10.0 11.6 25.4 30.9 36.2 5.6 El Camino Real 10.2 9.3 23.2 23.5 2,670 1.5 1.6 3.0 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.5 2.1 2.0 4.3 2.9 0.8 17% 13% 18% Golf Course 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 246 0.2
John Daly 1.8 0.0 1.9 1.9 1,152 1.9 32% 32% 11% 32%
La Honda 0.0 1.1 13.7 14.0 1,874 10.5 3.5 59%
Marsh 0.0 0.0 1.3 1.3 543 0.4 0.7 0.5 47% 47% 38%
Mission 1.9 0.0 1.9 1.9 1,062 1.8 0.2 5% 68%
San Jose 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 279 0.2 100%
San Mateo 1.4 0.0 9.8 9.8 1,101 1.1 1.4 1.2 0.6 5.6 10% 13% 34% Skyline 0.0 3.0 24.2 25.3 1,160 7.0 2.5 2.3 0.6 14.8 0.5 24% 6% 15% State Highway 1 0.0 4.2 26.7 26.7 1,511 5.3 5.4 16.8 34% 16% State Highway 84 0.0 0.0 2.6 2.6 658 2.2 0.4 83% 83% 4% State Highway 92 0.0 0.0 1.8 1.8 844 0.1 1.7
Tom Lanos Tunnel 0.0 0.0 2.2 2.2 407 2.2
University 0.0 2.1 1.8 2.1 2,597 1.7 0.5 56% 100% 100%
Willow 0.0 2.3 1.8 2.3 504 0.5 2.1 25% 43% 43%
Woodside 0.0 5.2 6.9 7.0 1,666 3.1 0.5 3.6 11% 23% 8%

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 72
SamTrans Bus Stop Prioritization
The plan development team analyzed bus stop data provided by SamTrans to identify correlation of roadway and intersection risk factors with crash history around high-ridership bus stops. Systemic roadway and intersection characteristics were identified and used to develop a priority list of bus stops for SamTrans. The detailed methodology and results are included in Appendix E. Table 15 presents the priority bus stop locations as they relate to pedestrian and bicycle crash history, equity, and systemic risk factors.

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 73
Table 15. Priority Bus Stop Locations for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements

RANK STOP ID STOP LOCATION JURISDICTION

CRASH HISTORY EQUITY SYSTEMIC CHARACTERISTICS
TOTAL
SCORE
(0-1)
Ped & Bike
Crash
Severity
Score
(0-432)
Ped HIN Bike HIN Ped & Bike Crash
History Score
(Normalized 0-1)
Equity
Score (0-1)
Uncontrolled
Location
(0-1)
Absence of
Sidewalks
(0-1)
> 35 MPH
(0-1)
Char. Score
(Normalized 0-1)
1 344658 Jefferson Ave at Adams St Redwood City 235 1 1 1.27 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.97 2 344657 Jefferson Ave at Adams St Redwood City 224 1 1 1.26 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.97 3 344086 El Camino Real & Lincoln Ave Redwood City 219 1 1 1.25 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.96 4 344095 El Camino Real & Winklebleck St Redwood City 202 1 1 1.23 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.96 5 344203 Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 399 1 1 1.46 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.92 6 344204 Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 399 1 1 1.46 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.92 7 344207 Middlefield Rd & Flynn Ave Redwood City 28 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 8 341111 N Delaware St & Tilton Ave San Mateo 22 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 9 344087 El Camino Real & Main St Redwood City 22 1 1 1.03 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.89 10 351002 3745 Bayshore Blvd-Andrys Trailer Park Brisbane 165 1 0 0.69 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.89 11 344085 El Camino Real & Jefferson Ave Redwood City 11 1 1 1.01 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 12 344195 Middlefield Rd & Cassia St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 13 344196 Middlefield Rd & Elm St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 14 344659 Jefferson Ave at Grand St Redwood City 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 15 335099 Huntington Ave & Sneath Ln San Bruno 0 1 1 1.00 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.88 16 361094 E Hillsdale Blvd & Center Park Ln Foster City 285 1 1 1.33 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.88 17 334127 Grand Ave & Maple Ave South San Francisco 263 1 1 1.30 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.87 18 334128 Grand Ave & Maple Ave South San Francisco 263 1 1 1.30 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.87 19 336039 El Camino Real & Silva Ave Millbrae 371 1 0 0.93 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.86 20 334122 Grand Ave & Eucalyptus Ave South San Francisco 224 1 1 1.26 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.86 21 334123 Grand Ave & Eucalyptus Ave South San Francisco 224 1 1 1.26 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.86 22 344193 Middlefield Rd & 5th Ave North Fair Oaks 213 1 1 1.25 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.85 23 334131 Grand Ave & Spruce Ave South San Francisco 153 1 1 1.18 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.83 24 334132 Grand Ave & Spruce Ave South San Francisco 153 1 1 1.18 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.83 25 344900 El Camino Real & Dumbarton Ave North Fair Oaks 0 0 1 0.50 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.83 26 341278 Peninsula Ave & Humboldt St San Mateo 131 1 1 1.15 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 27 344082 El Camino Real & Hopkins Ave Redwood City 120 1 1 1.14 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 28 344083 El Camino Real & Hopkins Ave Redwood City 120 1 1 1.14 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.82 29 332221 Mission St & Evergreen Ave-Daly City Daly City 252 1 0 0.79 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.81 30 334124 Grand Ave & Linden Ave South San Francisco 55 1 1 1.06 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.79

/ San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Kittelson & Associates, Inc. Page 74

IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING
A key part of achieving C/CAG’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. C/CAG will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes city-wide and at the top priority locations.

Implementation actions are organized by plan goals and grouped by time: near-term actions, which C/CAG can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for C/CAG and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan. These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.

/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 75
Table 16. Implementation Goals and Measures of Success
Goal Measure of Success
 Regularly review crash history and community
needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to
reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages
and abilities.
 Partner with local agencies to incorporate
roadway safety into all actions.
 Convene TSAC meetings 2-4 times per year.
 Number of project locations identified in this plan
advanced through project development, reported
at the agency level, and aggregated regionally.
 Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified.
 Improved data availability or maintenance to
enhance safety analysis and practice.
 Amount of grant funding money awarded for safety
projects.
 Implement context-appropriate safety
countermeasures systemically and as part of
all projects to target emphasis areas and
underserved communities.
 Share of project locations identified in this plan
advanced through project development by
presence within equity focus areas, reported at the
agency level, and aggregated regionally.
 Support agencies in providing opportunities for
citizen engagement to identify issues and
inform Countywide safety solutions.
 Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
 Percent of school participation in SRTS and roadway
safety education opportunities.
 Quantification of education campaigns, through
number of participants reached, events held, and
similar measures.
 Number or percent of C/CAG-funded safety project
development activities that include community
engagement.
 Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions countywide for
safety plans or projects.
 Report-backs from local jurisdictions to the TSAC
regarding community engagement, including
information about outreach to disadvantaged
communities where applicable.
 Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and non-engineering
strategies in the community.
 Number of trainings conducted regarding Safe
System elements, available tools, or practices.

Town of
Atherton

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members

LOCAL JURISDICTION

REPRESENTATIVES
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mike Alston
Matt Braughton
Laurence Lewis
Grace Carsky
Michael Ruiz-Leon
Doreen Gui

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in the Town’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.

Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash.  Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
 Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
 Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows).  Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
 Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially.

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

Safe Streets for All (SS4A) is a federal discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with $5 billion in appropriated funds for 2022 through 2026.

Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that the Town can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system.

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision & Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Online Map Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback...................................................................................................................................................7 Crash Data & Trends ...............................................................................................................................................................8 Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................12 Project Identification & Prioritization ................................................................................................................................14 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Social Equity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ..........................................................................................................20 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................20 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations.............................................................................................................23 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................23 Implementation & Monitoring.............................................................................................................................................26

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A Phase 2 pop-up event held at the Atherton Public Library.......................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Countywide HIN within the Town of Atherton.......................................................................................................................................13 Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 14 Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)............................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 15 Figure 7: Atherton Priority Locations............................................................................................................................................................................... 19

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Town of Atherton Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs...............................................................4 Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events................................................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Atherton .....................................................................................................................................................12 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. Town of Atherton Policy and Program Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 23 Table 6. Town of Atherton Goals and Measures of Success......................................................................................................................... 26

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the Town of Atherton. It was developed concurrently with the Countywide LRSP; therefore, some discussion will refer back to the Countywide LRSP to avoid redundancy.

However, because every community has unique safety challenges, this LRSP includes individually tailored emphasis areas, crash trends, prioritized project lists, project scope recommendations, Safe System-aligned recommendations, and implementation/monitoring recommendations. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The Town will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

The Town of Atherton has a 2023 population of 6,678 per California Department of Finance. The town has 51 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 121 reported crashes on surface streets in the Town and 4 fatal/severe injury crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 10 percent of all reported crashes and 50 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 21 percent of all reported crashes and no fatal/severe injury crashes. Of reported at-grade crashes, 36 (30 percent) occurred on or along state highways. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Atherton’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

This LRSP was informed by technical analysis as well as from input from key stakeholders and the general public. The following sections describe the plan development and recommendations.

Contents
This LRSP provides the following:

Upon Council adoption and affirmation of the plan’s vision and goals in 2024, this plan will be posted online by the Town for public viewing.

A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION & GOALS
The Town of Atherton’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in Atherton’s departments, educational institutions, and residents.

To support this vision, the Town has established the following goals:

1. Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.

2. Implement context-appropriate safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.

3. Promote plan recommendations with identified safety partners to incorporate roadway safety through safety projects and educational campaigns in Atherton.

4. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.

5. Embrace the Safe System approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.

6. Identify opportunities to incorporate social equity into safety improvements.

7. Monitor implementation of the Atherton LRSP to track progress towards goals.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Existing Safety Efforts
This LRSP relies on the Town of Atherton’s solid foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of Atherton’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System, see Table 1:

Table 1. Town of Atherton Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
San Mateo C/CAG
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
Program Guide
The SR2S program works to make it easier and safer for students to walk and bike to school. C/CAG partners with the County Office of Education to increase biking and walking and safe travel to school. Annual reports summarize schools’ participation.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road
Users
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan
The Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan outlines identified needs and active transportation routes.

Safe Roads
Safe Road
Users
Neighborhood
Traffic Management
Plan
The Town’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan outlines neighborhood traffic calming measures and programs to reduce travel speeds and cut-through traffic with an intent to improve safety for all modes of travel.

Safe Roads
Safe Road
Users

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Alameda de las
Pulgas Traffic and
Safety
Improvements
The Town is currently preparing project plans for Alameda de las Pulgas Drive, which project will include a traffic signal and reconfiguration at Atherton Avenue, signalization at Cam al Lago, pedestrian crossing improvements at Stockbridge, and relocation of a midblock pedestrian signal between Cam al Lago and Mills Avenue.

Safe Roads
El Camino Real
Complete Streets
Gap Closure
Planning Study
The Town is currently working with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority on a planning study for El Camino Real to identify active transportation improvements on the roadway between Selby and Valparaiso.

Safe Roads
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their Figure 1. A Phase 2 pop-up event held at the Atherton Public Library

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
support of the Town of Atherton’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Sustainability Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)
• Caltrans
• Atherton Police Department
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE AND EVENTS
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and of the Town’s plan. These events focus on jurisdiction-specific issues and on countywide concerns. The table below lists the events, organized by themed engagement phases, and is followed by the community input themes we heard.

Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff meeting – Sharing the purpose and timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event Shared crash data analysis; received input on locations and safety
concerns
East Palo Alto
August 19, 2023 Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared draft prioritized locations and types of
engineering recommendations; received
comments on locations and votes/input on types
of treatments and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Traffic Safety
Committee Meeting

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7

ONLINE MAP SURVEY
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure

2. Online Map Survey Tool). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were two comments made within the Town of Atherton. The comments included the following:
• Request to provide modal filters: to allow only bicycles and pedestrians on certain streets. • Noted locations include Selby Lane at Stockbridge Avenue, and Barry Lane.

The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the Town. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.

PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Atherton Library in January as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. Comments received are provided in Appendix B. The following themes were identified:

Pedestrian Comments
• Desire for pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals, to make walking safer and more comfortable, especially along El Camino Real and in the neighborhood east of Middlefield Road
• Desire for better pedestrian crossings over the Caltrain rail tracks Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
• Concern that drivers are running through stop signs and red signals, specifically along Isabella Avenue and at El Camino Real / Fair Oaks Lane (signalized) and Maple Avenue / Dinkelspiel Station Lane (unsignalized).

Bicycle Comments
• Concerns that there is not enough separation between bicyclists and drivers along El Camino Real. [There are no bike lanes on El Camino Real.]
• Concerns of poor visibility—due to curved roads, inadequate lighting, and parked cars at corners—that makes biking unsafe
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire for lighting to improve visibility along roadways • Concerns over traffic and congestion in Atherton
• Concerns over blind corners and site line issues, especially along El Camino Real and at the Fair Oaks Lane / Dinkelspiel Station Lane intersection.

Countermeasures Comments
• Desire for lane or road narrowing, specifically along Atherton Avenue and El Camino Real and side, and a desire to do more to improve safety
• Concerns that bike lane improvements are dangerous to drivers CRASH DATA & TRENDS This section provides an overview of the five years of crash data used for this analysis. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System1 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years
2018 through 2022. TIMS is a commonly used data source for safety plans. This analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. We removed crashes along grade-separated freeways from the dataset, but we retained crashes that occur along at-grade State Highway facilities and those that occurred within the influence area of freeway ramp terminal intersections.

The crash records used provide the best available data for analysis but do not account for crashes that go unreported or for near-miss events. This plan includes recommendations that would improve jurisdictions’ ability to capture one or both of those elements and enhance future crash analyses.

The discussion that follows provides a high-level overview of crash trends that informed the plan recommendations.

Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Atherton and compared countywide trends to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that the Town can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads.

A review of crash data and input led to the development of the following emphasis areas for the Town of Atherton:

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Atherton, pedestrians were involved in 50 percent of fatal/severe injury 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
crashes, higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (10 percent). Bicyclists were involved in 21 percent of all reported injury crashes. None of the bicyclist-involved crashes resulted in fatality or severe injury.

2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight. In Atherton, one of the four fatal/severe injury crashes occurred in dark conditions.

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.

4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging). Countywide across all modes, crash victims between the 15 to 34 years old are more likely to be injured including F/SI as a result of traffic safety than other groups.

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Atherton, 9 crashes or 7 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of all injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). In Atherton, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among reported injury crashes (37 percent).

6. High speed roadways (35+mph). Countywide, crashes on roadways with posted speeds 40mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile 13 times higher than along roadways with posted speeds of 25 mph or less.

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the Town of Atherton to countywide trends in these emphasis areas. It includes summary statistics related to the above-cited emphasis areas but also shows:
• The share of local crashes that occurred on or at a State Highway facility compared to Countywide levels. • The most frequently reported local crash types compared to Countywide levels. • The share of bicyclist and motor vehicle crashes among all injury crashes and among F/SI crashes.

Countywide and locally, bicyclist crashes account for a higher share of F/SI crashes than among all injury levels.
• The share of local and Countywide crashes occurring in dark conditions for crashes of all injury levels and for F/SI crashes (organized by mode).
• Reported pedestrian and bicyclist crashes summarized by the most common preceding movements countywide, with a comparison of those movements’ share of local crashes to Countywide shares. • The local and Countywide share of crashes involving drugs or alcohol and involving drivers under age 30.

18%
(1,164)
Atherton—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
46%
(39)
2%
(2)
16%
(13) 29%
(24)
7%
(6)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Atherton compares:

Atherton Countywide
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
2% 44%
of reported collisions
in Atherton involved
drugs or alcohol
of reported collisions
in Atherton involved
young drivers1
8%
(625)
5%
(472)
(2, 0) (39, 14)
29%
(1,858)
Mode Involvement (Local Road Crash Count, State Highway Count) Pedestrian Crashes (12 Total: 8 Local , 3 State Highway) Atherton
Atherton
Atherton
Bicycle Crashes (25 Total: 20 Local, 5 State Highway)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (84 Total, 57 Local, 27 State Highway) 0% (0)
50% (0, 2)
10% (8, 4) 50% (0, 2)
21% (20, 5)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
69% (57, 27)
Local
70% (85)
State Highway
30% (36)
Total Crashes
Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
In Atherton, 121 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Atherton Countywide
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

2. Young driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

Atherton—Crash History
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (12)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (25)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
24%
(256)
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
8%
(1, 0)
8%
(0, 1)
15%
(163)
17%
(0, 2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist Making
left turn
16%
(3, 1)
21%
(186)
32%
(7, 1)
12%
(106)
20%
(4, 1)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
36%
(5, 4)
35%
(372)
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
Atherton
Atherton
Atherton
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (2)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (2)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (11)
All Injury Crashes (84)
All Injury Crashes (25)
All Injury Crashes (12)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (0)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
50% (0, 1)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
13% (9, 2) 0% (0)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe— especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Atherton compares to Countywide crashes:
17% (1, 1)
8% (2, 0)

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 12
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the HIN segments identified within the Town.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Atherton
Roadway
name
All County
Jurisdiction(s) including
this HIN Roadway
Length
within
Atherton
(mi)
Total Length,
all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Oak Grove
Ave Atherton, Menlo Park 0.3 1.2 X X
Ravenswood
Ave Atherton, Menlo Park 0.1 0.6 X X X
Middlefield
Rd
Atherton, Menlo Park,
Redwood City,
Unincorporated

1.1 3.8 X X X
Marsh Rd Atherton, Menlo Park,
Unincorporated 0.2 1.3 X
El Camino
Real
San Carlos, Atherton,
Menlo Park, Redwood
City, Millbrae, San Bruno,
Belmont, San Mateo,
Burlingame, South San
Francisco, Colma,
Unincorporated

0.9 23.5 X X X
Alameda de
las Pulgas
San Carlos, Atherton,
Redwood City, Belmont,
San Mateo,
Unincorporated

0.9 6.7 X X X

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 13
Figure 3. Countywide HIN within the Town of Atherton

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,

7.2%
Posted speed
35mph+, 7.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 6.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
& PRIORITIZATION
Methodology
Using the results of the crash data analysis and adding a focus on social equity, the project team identified priority locations for the Town to target for future safety improvements. The prioritization used three equally weighted factors to prioritize locations for safety projects:
• Crash history – used to identify the locations with the highest reported five-year crash frequency and severity.
• Social equity – used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. • Systemic factors – used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity. Using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach. Each factor was weighted relative to the other factors based on the average severity of relevant crashes (for example, if pedestrian crashes on arterials/collectors were overall twice as severe as pedestrian crashes at unsignalized intersections overall, then the former would be weighted twice the latter).

Each factor is comprised of multiple criteria and overlaid on jurisdictions’ roadway data to identify locations for future safety projects. The prioritization process was conducted three times, one for each travel mode. The weighting scheme for each mode is presented in the three figures below (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). The resulting scores are sorted per jurisdiction, so that Atherton’s prioritized locations are compared to themselves rather than to other County jurisdictions.

Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,

8.1%
Posted speed
35mph+, 16.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
Bike Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Bike HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 8.0%
Arterial or Collector,

8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical consideration for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. Ultimately the prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the Town to understand which locations meet which measures.

Results
The prioritization resulted in the following top locations. For more details (including the scores of each location), consult Appendix C. Figure 7 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
El Camino Real, Berkshire
Ave to Spruce Ave (E to W
town limits)****
Corridor Yes X X X
1 El Camino Real and
Columbia Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
2 Loyola Ave and El Camino
Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
3 El Camino Real and 5th
Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
4 Amherst Ave and El
Camino Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
5 El Camino Real and
Berkshire Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X
6 El Camino Real and
Stockbridge Ave
Intersection Yes X X X
7 Selby Ln and El Camino
Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
8 Wilburn Ave and El
Camino Real
Intersection Yes X X
9 El Camino Real and
Almendral Ave
Intersection Yes X

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
10 El Camino Real and
Spruce Ave***
Intersection Yes X
11 El Camino Real and
Isabella Ave
Intersection Yes X
12 El Camino Real and
Ashfield Rd
Intersection Yes X
13 Maple Ave and El Camino
Real
Intersection Yes X
14 El Camino Real and
Walnut Ave
Intersection Yes X
15 El Camino Real and
Tuscaloosa Ave
Intersection Yes X
16 El Camino Real and
Redwood Way
Intersection Yes X
17 El Camino Real and
Lloyden Dr
Intersection Yes X
Alameda de las Pulgas,
Stockbridge Ave to Cam
Al Lago (E to W town
limits)****
Corridor No X X X
18 Alameda de las Pulgas
and Stockbridge Ave*
Intersection No X X
19 Alameda de las Pulgas
and Walsh Rd
Intersection No X X
20 Callado Way and
Alameda de las Pulgas
Intersection No X
21 Fletcher Dr And Alameda
De Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
22 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Atherton Ave
Intersection No X
23 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Polhemus Ave
Intersection No X
24 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Karen Way
Intersection No X
Valparaiso Ave, Camino
por los Arboles to Victoria
Dr*
Corridor No X X
25 Robert S Dr and
Valparaiso Ave***
Intersection No X
26 Valparaiso Ave and Lee
Dr
Intersection No X X
27 Park Ln and Valparaiso
Ave***
Intersection No X

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
28 Elder Ave and Atherton
Oaks Ln
Intersection No X
Middlefield Rd, Encina Ave
to Ringwood Ave
Corridor No X X
29 Middlefield Rd and
Ravenswood Ave***
Intersection No X X
30 Middlefield Rd and
Ringwood Ave***
Intersection No X X
31 Middlefield Rd and Encina
Ave*
Intersection No X X
32 Middlefield Rd and Palmer
Ln
Intersection No X
33 Middlefield Rd and
Watkins Ave
Intersection No X
34 Middlefield Rd and Oak
Grove Ave
Intersection No X
35 Lane Pl and Middlefield Rd Intersection No X
36 De Bell Dr and Middlefield
Rd
Intersection No X
37 Middlefield Rd and San
Benito Dr
Intersection No X
Other Corridors
38 Oak Grove Ave and Oak
Grove Ave
Intersection No X X
39 Glenwood Ave and Laurel
St***
Intersection No X X X
40 Oak Grove Ave and de
Bell Dr
Intersection No X
*
Intersection is shared jurisdictionally with Unincorporated San Mateo County. **Roadway is Caltrans jurisdiction.
***Intersection is shared jurisdictionally with Menlo Park. ****The Town is currently preparing a study on this corridor (see Table 1).

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
Figure 7: Atherton Priority Locations

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the Town of Atherton. First is a table of engineering countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. The countermeasures align to the crash types as listed in the table. Complementing those countermeasures is a holistic set of policy and programmatic recommendations that will help align Town departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals.

Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
Table 5. Town of Atherton Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
All Location Types
Lighting along high speed
corridors*
All Nighttime 0.4 $$ Medium
Signalized Intersections
ADA-compliant directional curb
ramps and audible push
buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Extend pedestrian crossing time SI Pedestrian N/A $ High Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ Very High
Install advance stop bar before
crosswalk (bicycle box)*
SI Bicycle
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ High
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $-$$ High
Install raised pavement markers
and striping*
SI Wet, night, all 0.1 $ High
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.6 $ High
No Right Turn on Red (RTOR) SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ Medium
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Unsignalized Intersections
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Covert intersection to miniroundabout*UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or yield
control on minor road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Install pedestrian crossings
(signs and markings only)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian crossings
(with enhanced safety features
like Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.35 $-$$$ Medium
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or other
intersection warning or
regulatory signs*
UI Turning
crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness

0.15 $ High
Install buffered or separated
bike lanes*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.45 $-$$ High
Install delineators, reflectors,
and/or object marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.3 $$$ High
Install raised pedestrian
crossing*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.35 $ Medium
Upgrade intersection pavement
markings*
UI Turning
crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness

0.25 $ High
Roadways
Install/upgrade signs with new
fluorescent sheeting (regulatory
or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable speed
warning signs*
R Driver
behavior

0.3 $ High
Lane Narrowing R All Varies $ Medium
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the Town aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the Town’s Safe System Approach.

Table 5. Town of Atherton Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee Participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF2: Equitable Investment LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleet
LEO6: Conspicuity Enhancements and Education
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan

NEAR-TERM ACTIONS
LCS1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee Participation Actively participate in the newly-formed County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Bring agenda items as relevant, including but not limited to:
• Safety project updates with every step along the project development process (studies initiated / under way /complete, funding identified, design phases initiated / under way / complete) • Annual updates to the TSAC regarding implementation progress that may be relevant for C/CAG annual monitoring reporting (e.g., projects on identified priority locations and/or the regional High Injury Network, community engagement efforts and summaries, safety funding applied for / received)

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
• Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize townwide safety investments in disadvantaged communities. Use the presence of disadvantaged communities (as identified with C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, and/or USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty) as a factor to elevate funding for certain projects or other safety-related programs.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF3: Prioritize Investments
Use the priority locations identified in this plan to determine safety project opportunities to advance for further project development and to identify funding. Identify pathways for improvement for the locations on the list.

Continue to engage the community to refine the priorities within the list of identified sites.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
• Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
Develop and distribute educational materials and/or videos demonstrating how to navigate and interact with newer active transportation facilities (e.g., bike boxes, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, separated bike lanes, etc.) Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Provide educational materials for Town staff who drive Town vehicles and integrate safety awareness training into contracting process with vendors who provide Town services. Other measures include installing safety features (such as pedestrian/obstacle detection and speed tracking) on Town vehicles and reporting on correction plans against unsafe driving.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE1: Annual Review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to Town Council as well as a written update to the TSAC so that C/CAG may compile county plan implementation status.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton
LPE2: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the Town.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan
Per California Assembly Bill 43 (passed in 2021), identify business activity districts, safety corridors, and in areas with high ped/bike activities to implement reduced speeds. To the extent possible, complement the speed reduction with design treatments like those identified in this plan to effect reduced speeds by the desired amount.

Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING A key part of achieving Atherton’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. Atherton will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes townwide and at the top priority locations.

Implementation actions are organized by plan goals and grouped by time: near-term actions, which Atherton can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for Atherton and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan.

These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.

Table 6. Town of Atherton Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Regularly review crash history and community
needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to
reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages
and abilities. Review proposed improvement
plans to ensure that roadway projects,
retrofits, and maintenance projects
incorporate complete streets that support
multiple modes of travel.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified

2. Implement context-appropriate safety
countermeasures systemically and as part of
all projects to target emphasis areas and
underserved communities.

3. Promote plan recommendations with
identified safety partners to incorporate
roadway safety through safety projects and
educational campaigns in Atherton.

4. Provide opportunities for community
engagement in roadway capital improvement
projects to identify safety solutions.

5. Identify opportunities to incorporate social
equity into safety improvements.
• Community engagement included as part of all
C/CAG-funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and community
member interactions for safety plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the Town Council and TSAC
regarding community engagement, including
information about outreach to disadvantaged
communities where applicable
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
versus outside these areas
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in
Schools programs to more schools within the Town

6. Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and non-engineering
strategies in the community.
• Percent of school district participation in SRTS and
roadway safety education opportunities
• Number of trainings Town staff have participated in
regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or
practices
• Improved data availability or maintenance to
enhance safety analysis and practice

7. Monitor implementation of the Atherton LRSP
to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table

/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

City of
Belmont

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members

LOCAL JURISDICTION

REPRESENTATIVES
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mike Alston
Matt Braughton
Laurence Lewis
Grace Carsky
Michael Ruiz-Leon
Doreen Gui

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in the City’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.

Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash.  Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
 Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
 Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows).  Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
 Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially.

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

Safe Streets for All (SS4A) is a federal discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with $5 billion in appropriated funds for 2022 through 2026.

Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that the City can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system.

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision & Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Online Map Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback.................................................................................................................................................. 8 Crash Data & Trends ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Emphasis Areas .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................14 Project Identification & Prioritization 16
Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Social Equity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ..........................................................................................................22 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................23 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations.............................................................................................................28 Near-Term Actions...........................................................................................................................................................................................................28 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................29 Implementation & Monitoring.............................................................................................................................................32

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Online Map Survey Tool......................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Webmap Comments in Belmont ..................................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 3. Countywide HIN within the City of Belmont.......................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 16 Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................................17 Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent).................................................................17 Figure 7: Belmont Priority Locations.................................................................................................................................................................................21

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Belmont Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs...................................................................4 Table 2. Countywide HIN Segments in Belmont..................................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 3. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 4. City of Belmont Policy and Program Recommendations ........................................................................................................... 28 Table 5. City of Belmont Goals and Measures of Success............................................................................................................................. 32

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of Belmont. It was developed concurrently with the Countywide LRSP; therefore, some discussion will refer back to the Countywide LRSP to avoid redundancy.

However, because every community has unique safety challenges, this LRSP includes individually tailored emphasis areas, crash trends, prioritized project lists, project scope recommendations, Safe System-aligned recommendations, and implementation/monitoring recommendations. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The City will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

The City of Belmont has a 2023 population of 26,793 per California Department of Finance. The city has 68 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 244 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 8 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 11 percent of all reported crashes and 13 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 14 percent of all reported crashes and 25 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Belmont’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

This LRSP was informed by technical analysis as well as from input from key stakeholders and the general public. The following sections describe the plan development and recommendations.

Contents
This LRSP provides the following:

Upon Council adoption and affirmation of the plan’s vision and goals in 2024, this plan will be posted online by the City for public viewing.

A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION & GOALS
The City of Belmont’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2040.

To support this vision, the City has established the following goals:

1. Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.

2. Implement safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.

3. Promote plan recommendations with identified safety partners to incorporate roadway safety through safety projects and educational campaigns in Belmont.

4. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.

5. Embrace the Safe System Approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.

6. Identify opportunities to incorporate social equity into safety improvements.

7. Monitor implementation of the Belmont LRSP to track progress towards goals.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Existing Safety Efforts
This LRSP relies on Belmont’s solid foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of the City of Belmont’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System,, see Table 1:

Table 1. City of Belmont Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
San Mateo C/CAG
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
Program Guide
The SR2S program works to make it easier and safer for
students to walk and bike to school. C/CAG partners with the County Office of Education to increase biking and walking and safe travel to school. Annual reports summarize schools’ participation.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
Comprehensive
Pedestrian and
Bicycle Plan
The key goals of the plan are to support efforts to increase the rate of walking and bicycling, as well as to support adopted policies that are aimed at providing complete
streets.

Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Safe Road
Users
Traffic-Calming
Policy
This policy seeks to address speeding and other driving behavior issues.

Safe Road Users,
Safe Speeds

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Parking and Traffic
Safety Committee
(PTSC)
This committee is comprised of senior members of the
Department of Public Works, Police Department, and Fire Department. Residents may submit traffic and parking
problems and/or recommendations to the Parking Traffic
and Safety Committee (PTSC). The PTSC will evaluate the request based on current policy, perform field investigations if required, review existing traffic information, and schedule the item for discussion at a public PTSC meeting if needed.

Safe Roads
Stop Sign Warrant
Policy
The City maintains a policy for all-way stop, 2-way stop, and 3-way stop sign installation. It is available on the City’s Parking & Traffic Safety Committee website.

Safe Speeds, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Roads
Speed Cushion
Guidelines
The City’s Guidelines for the Installation of Speed Humps provides criteria for the placement and design of speed humps. They are available on the City’s Parking & Traffic Safety Committee website.

Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds
Truck Parking Policy This policy states that no large trucks can park at an intersection.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users
Complete Streets
Policy
The City’s commitment to creating and maintaining
Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and
convenient travel for all users.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds, Post-Crash
Care, Safe Vehicles
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City of Belmont’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Sustainability Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)
• Caltrans
• Belmont Police Department
• Parking and Traffic Safety Committee (PTSC)

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE AND EVENTS
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and of the City’s plan. These events focus on jurisdiction-specific issues and on countywide concerns. The table below lists the events, organized by themed engagement phases, and is followed by the community input themes we heard.

Table 1. Community Engagement Phases and Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff Meeting:

Shared the purpose and timing of the
plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event:

Shared crash data analysis; received
input on locations and safety
concerns
East Palo Alto
August 19, 2023 Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
August – September, 2023 Phase 1 Concurrent Online Input Online webmap (countywide input)
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event:

Shared draft prioritized locations and
types of engineering
recommendations; received
comments on locations and
votes/input on types of treatments
and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle, Pedestrian,
& Traffic Safety Committee
March – April 2024 Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on the
project website, through electronic
distribution channels, and with
presentations to C/CAG Committees
and the Board.

Various

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7

ONLINE MAP SURVEY
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see ).

Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes and separated bike lanes. • Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, and turning conflicts at intersections. • Remove on-street parking to make more way for bikes along the roadway. • Request to provide modal filters: to allow only bicycles and pedestrians on certain streets.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, speeding, and running STOP signs.
• Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Concerns regarding speeding and on-street parking.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Clear sight triangles to improve visibility on intersection approaches. • Requests to install STOP signs at unsignalized intersections. • Concerns regarding narrow and windy roads.
• Concerns regarding maintenance of roadway infrastructure including high friction of the roadway surfaces.

Figure 1. Online Map Survey Tool

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
The location and modal emphasis of comments in Belmont is presented in Figure 2. Webmap Comments in Belmont. The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the City. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.

PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Belmont Farmers’ Market in December as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. The comments received are provided in Appendix B.

The following themes were identified:

General Comments
• Desire to reduce speed limits
• Desire for better signage and lighting near speed bumps • Concerns around traffic near schools during drop-off and pick-up Pedestrian Comments
• Desire for more signage around crosswalks so pedestrians can cross safely, especially around schools • Concern that pedestrians do not have enough time to cross the street • Concern that bicyclists using sidewalks to ride bikes and e-bikes put pedestrians in danger Bicycle Comments
• Desire for separated bike lanes, specifically on El Camino Real, Alameda de las Pulgas and Old County Road
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire for signal improvements to make traveling more efficient Countermeasures Comments
• Desire for more lighting at intersections, specifically flashing lights • Desire for larger signal backplates and signal visibility during sunrise and sunset • Concerns that curb extensions would impact bicyclist safety • Concerns that lane narrowing would make driving and biking more dangerous • Concerns that pedestrian refuge islands are dangerous to vehicles

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
Figure 2. Webmap Comments in Belmont

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10

CRASH DATA & TRENDS
This section provides an overview of the five years of crash data used for this analysis. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System1 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years 2018 through 2022. TIMS is a commonly used data source for safety plans. This analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. We removed crashes along grade-separated freeways from the dataset, but we retained crashes that occur along at-grade State Highway facilities and those that occurred within the influence area of freeway ramp terminal intersections.

The crash records used provide the best available data for analysis but do not account for crashes that go unreported or for near-miss events. This plan includes recommendations that would improve jurisdictions’ ability to capture one or both of those elements and enhance future crash analyses.

The discussion that follows provides a high-level overview of crash trends that informed the plan recommendations. For a more complete description of trends and findings, refer to Appendix C.

Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Belmont and compared countywide trends to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that the City can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads.

A review of crash data and input led to the development of the following emphasis areas for the City of Belmont:

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Belmont, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 13 percent and 25 percent of the 8 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (11 percent and 14 percent, total).

2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight. In Belmont, one in every four crashes (25 percent) occurred in dark conditions.

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.

4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging). Countywide across all modes, crash victims between the 15 to 34 years old are more likely to be injured including F/SI as a result of traffic safety than other groups.

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Belmont, 17 crashes or 7 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11
In Belmont, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 26 percent of injury crashes).

6. High speed roadways (35+mph). Countywide, crashes on roadways with posted speeds 40mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile 13 times higher than along roadways with posted speeds of 25 mph or less.

7. Alcohol involvement. Countywide, one in ten (10 percent) of motor vehicle injury crashes and one in five F/SI motor vehicle crashes (19 percent) involved alcohol. In Belmont, 12 crashes or 5 percent of all reported injury crashes involve impaired driving.

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the City of Belmont to countywide trends in these emphasis areas. It includes summary statistics related to the above-cited emphasis areas but also shows:
• The share of local crashes that occurred on or at a State Highway facility compared to Countywide levels. • The most frequently reported local crash types compared to Countywide levels. • The share of bicyclist and motor vehicle crashes among all injury crashes and among F/SI crashes.

Countywide and locally, bicyclist crashes account for a higher share of F/SI crashes than among all injury levels.
• The share of local and Countywide crashes occurring in dark conditions for crashes of all injury levels and for F/SI crashes (organized by mode).
• Reported pedestrian and bicyclist crashes summarized by the most common preceding movements countywide, with a comparison of those movements’ share of local crashes to Countywide shares. • The local and Countywide share of crashes involving drugs or alcohol and involving drivers under age 30.

18%
(1,164)
Belmont—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
Local
71% (178)
State Highway
29% (66)
41%
(75)
6%
(11)
9%
(17)
15%
(28) 28%
(52)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Belmont compares:

Belmont Countywide 5% (12) 7%
of reported collisions
in Belmont involved
drugs or alcohol
of reported collisions
in Belmont involved
young drivers1
(17)
29%
(1,858)
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (26)
Belmont
Belmont
Belmont
Bicycle Crashes (35)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (183)
25% (2)
63% (5)
11% (26) 13% (1)
14% (35)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
75% (183)

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

2. Young driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

Total Crashes
In Belmont, 244 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Belmont Countywide
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
8%
(625)
5%
(472)

Belmont—Crash History
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (26)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (35)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
12%
(3)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
12%
(3)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
23%
(6)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
23%
(8)
21%
(186)
11%
(4)
12%
(106)
14%
(5)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
26%
(9)
35%
(372)
Belmont
Belmont
Belmont
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (5)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (8)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (47)
All Injury Crashes (183)
All Injury Crashes (35)
All Injury Crashes (26)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (5)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (1)
0% (0)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
26% (47) 0% (0)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Belmont compares to Countywide crashes:
31% (8)
14% (5)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the HIN segments identified within the City.

Table 2. Countywide HIN Segments in Belmont
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Lyall Way Belmont 0.3 X
Ralston Ave Belmont, Unincorporated 3.5 X X
El Camino Real
San Carlos, Atherton, Menlo Park,
Redwood City, Millbrae, San Bruno,
Belmont, San Mateo, Burlingame,
South San Francisco, Colma,
Unincorporated

23.5 X X X
Alameda de las
Pulgas
San Carlos, Atherton, Redwood
City, Belmont, San Mateo,
Unincorporated

6.7 X X X
Old County Rd San Carlos, Belmont,
Harbor/Industrial 3.4 X X

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Figure 3. Countywide HIN within the City of Belmont

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,

7.2%
Posted speed
35mph+, 7.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 6.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
& PRIORITIZATION
Methodology
Using the results of the crash data analysis and adding a focus on social equity, the project team identified priority locations for the City to target for future safety improvements. The prioritization used three equally weighted factors to prioritize locations for safety projects:
• Crash history – used to identify the locations with the highest reported five-year crash frequency and severity.
• Social equity – used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. • Systemic factors – used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity. Using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach. Each factor was weighted relative to the other factors based on the average severity of relevant crashes (for example, if pedestrian crashes on arterials/collectors were overall twice as severe as pedestrian crashes at unsignalized intersections overall, then the former would be weighted twice the latter).

Each factor is comprised of multiple criteria and overlaid on jurisdictions’ roadway data to identify locations for future safety projects. The prioritization process was conducted three times, one for each travel mode. The weighting scheme for each mode is presented in the three figures below (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6).

Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,

8.1%
Posted speed
35mph+, 16.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
Bike Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Bike HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 8.0%
Arterial or Collector,

8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical factor for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. Ultimately the prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the City to understand which locations meet which measures.

Results
The prioritization resulted in the following top locations. For more details (including the scores of each location), consult Appendix D. Figure 7 also shows the locations.

Table 3. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Anita Ave and El Camino
Real
Intersection Yes X
2 Ruth Ave and El Camino
Real
Intersection Yes X
3 El Camino Real and
Belmont Ave
Intersection Yes X
4 El Camino Real and North
Rd
Intersection Yes X
5 El Camino Real and
Davey Glen Rd
Intersection Yes X
6 Belmont Canyon Rd (W)
and Ralston Ave
Intersection No X X
7 Pullman Ave and Lyall
Way
Intersection No X X X
8 El Camino Real and 5th
Ave
Intersection Yes X

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
9 Flashner Ln and El
Camino Real
Intersection Yes X
10 El Camino Real and
Broadway
Intersection Yes X
11 El Camino Real and
Emmett Ave
Intersection Yes X
12 Davis Dr and Ralston Ave Intersection No X X X
13 Oneill Ave and Old
County Rd
Intersection No X
14 Ralston Ave and Belmont
Canyon Rd
Intersection No X X X
15 Merry Moppet Ln and
Ralston Ave
Intersection No X X X
16 Belmont Canyon Rd (E)
and Ralston Ave
Intersection No X X
17 Hill St and El Camino Real Intersection Yes X
18 Sterling View Ave and Old
County Rd
Intersection No X
19 Belmont Canyon Rd and
Ralston Ave
Intersection No X
20 Lassen Dr and Ralston
Ave
Intersection No X
21 Old County Rd and
Waltermire St
Intersection No X
22 El Camino Real and
Waltermire St
Intersection Yes X
23 Belmont Canyon Rd and
Ralston Ave
Intersection No X
24 Harbor Blvd and Us
Highway 101 Hwy
Intersection Yes X
25 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Monroe Ave
Intersection No X
26 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Cipriani Blvd
Intersection No X
27 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Lyon Ave
Intersection No X

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
28 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Forest Ave
Intersection No X
29 Ralston Ave and
Academy Ave
Intersection No X
30 Ralston Ave and
Maywood Dr
Intersection No X
31 Ralston Ave and Furlong
St
Intersection No X
32 Ralston Ave and Villa Ave Intersection No X
33 Ralston Ave and Chula
Vista Dr
Intersection No X
34 Granada St and Ralston
Ave
Intersection No X
35 Notre Dame Ave and
Ralston Ave
Intersection No X
36 Ralston Ave and Misty Ln Intersection No X
37 Ralston Ave and Chevy St Intersection No X
38 El Camino Real, North
Road to F Street
Corridor Yes X
39 Ralston Avenue, Villa
Street to west of South
Road
Corridor No X
40 Ralston Avenue,
Christrian Drive to Villa
Street
Corridor No X X X

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
Figure 7: Belmont Priority Locations

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Belmont. First is a table of engineering countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. The countermeasures align to the crash types as listed in the table. Complementing those countermeasures is a holistic set of policy and programmatic recommendations that will help align City departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals.

Project Scopes
With the development of this plan the project team worked with the City to identify two project locations or two groups of project locations to apply safety treatments. We worked from the list of priority project locations and used potential benefit-to-cost ratio to identify a suite of treatments the City could consider at these locations.

The City can move forward with further project development and community engagement to advance solutions at these locations. They may also consider bundling some of the treatments identified with the same treatments at other, similar locations identified in this plan, for a systemic approach.

The project scopes were developed exclusively from a list of City-approved engineering countermeasures, which are presented as an engineering toolbox in the next section. The team prepared a suite of treatments to reduce crashes at the project locations. For each treatment, the list presents a planning-level cost of the treatments as recommended and the crash reduction benefit.

The scoped project locations include:
 Ralston Ave—Villa Avenue to eastern city limits. Recommended improvements include:
o Larger or additional regulatory signs
o Pedestrian crossing signs and markings
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Separated or buffered Class II bike lanes where feasible o Pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (flashing beacons, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines)
o Raised pedestrian crossings
 Ralston Ave—Villa Ave to Christian Dr (western city limits). Recommended improvements include:
o Creation of bike lanes and contiguous sidewalks
o Reduction in travel lane widths and center median widths to accommodate bike/ped infrastructure
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Delineators
o Pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (flashing beacons, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines)
o Separated and/or buffered bike lanes
Another location not scoped but noted for consideration is El Camino Real within city limits. The roadway is maintained by Caltrans, so the city may consider partnering with Caltrans and with adjacent jurisdictions to seek grant funding for safety treatments along El Camino Real. A project could include, for example, separated bike lanes.

For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix E.

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
Table 5. City of Belmont Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Lighting* All Nighttime 0.4 Medium
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ Very High
Install left-turn lane and add
turn phase*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.55 $-$$$ Low
Convert signal to mast arm
(from pedestal mounted)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.3 $-$$$ Medium
Install raised median on
approaches*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $-$$$ Medium
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict left turns and U-turns
(signalized intersection)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all 0.1 $ High
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (SI)*
SI Rear end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal)
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
Varies $-$$$ Low
Install pedestrian countdown
signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ High
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.6 $ High
Install painted safety zone SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ High
Install Protected Intersection
Elements
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $-$$$ Low
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all-way
stop)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Covert intersection to miniroundabout*UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and Uturns (unsignalized
intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised medians
(refuge islands)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.45 $ Medium
Install pedestrian crossings
(signs and markings only)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian crossings
(with enhanced safety
features)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.35 $-$$$ Medium
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or
other intersection warning or
regulatory signs*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness

0.15 $ High
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness

0.25 $ High
Install flashing beacons at
stop-controlled intersection*
UI Broadside,
rear end

0.15 $$$ High
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.3 $$$ High
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three, and
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
add a two-way, left-turn lane
and bike lanes)*
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install separated bike lanes* R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.45 $-$$ High
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced
safety features)*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.35 $$-$$$ Medium
Install raised pedestrian
crossing*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.35 $ Medium
Remove or relocate fixed
objects outside of clear
recovery zone*
R Hit object 035 $-$$ High
Install delineators, reflectors,
and/or object marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver
behavior

0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian crossing
time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Extend green time for bikes SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Approach curvature UI, SI All crashes N/A $$$ Low
Roadside design features All All crashes N/A $-$$$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the City aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the City’s Safe System Approach.

Table 4. City of Belmont Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee participation
LCS3: Communication Protocol
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
LEC4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Citation Diversion
Program
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF2: Equitable Investment LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleet
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan

NEAR-TERM ACTIONS
LCS1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee Participation Actively participate in the newly formed County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Bring agenda items as relevant, including but not limited to:
• Safety project updates with every step along the project development process (studies initiated / under way /complete, funding identified, design phases initiated / under way / complete) • Annual updates to the TSAC regarding implementation progress that may be relevant for C/CAG annual monitoring reporting (e.g., projects on identified priority locations and/or the regional High Injury Network, community engagement efforts and summaries, safety funding applied for / received) • Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC • Belmont should complete a comprehensive, citywide transportation master plan to: address future growth; enhance multimodal transportation safety; increase safety for people biking and walking; increasing mode split for people biking, walking, and taking transit; replace and update the 2016 Comprehensive Pedestrian and Bike Plan; determine a new list of CIPs; and decrease single-occupant driving
Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
LF1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: City of Belmont Public Works
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
More effectively target resources to pedestrian crash problems in a limited geographic area. Realizing these zones requires upfront analysis and planning, countermeasure development, and implementation.

Implementation can focus on addressing particular problems or on increasing general safety in specific areas during windows of peak pedestrian activity. (For example: Friday nights in commercial districts, Sundays on recreational routes/areas, etc.)
Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with Belmont PD to deploy a trailer to monitor speeds on streets and to raise awareness of speeding.

It can be deployed long term along HIN and other arterials, or short term in neighborhoods. Use the priority locations and data in this plan to identify locations and schedule for deployment.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Police Department
Coordinating partners: City of Belmont Public Works
LEC4: Bicycle and Pedestrian Citation Diversion Program Implements an alternative citation structure for bicyclists and pedestrians. Upon incurring a traffic violation, these users can reduce or remove the fee associated with the violation by instead attending a class. Requires local law enforcement to sanction preexisting curricula or to sanction original material of their own.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Police Department
LF2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize citywide safety investments in disadvantaged communities. Use the presence of disadvantaged communities (as identified with C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Disadvantaged Communities, and/or USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty) as a factor to elevate funding for certain projects or other safety-related programs.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
LF3: Prioritize Investments
Use the priority locations identified in this plan to determine safety project opportunities to advance for further project development and to identify funding. Identify pathways for improvement for the locations on the list.

Continue to engage the community to refine the priorities within the list of identified sites.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
Plan community engagement efforts to be tailored for vulnerable road users and all travel modes. Make outreach materials available in accessible formats and multiple languages.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
Develop and distribute educational materials and/or videos demonstrating how to navigate and interact with newer active transportation facilities (e.g., bike boxes, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, separated bike lanes, etc.) Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
Run education campaigns and outreach to foster community awareness of a shared responsibility for road safety. Use the emphasis areas highlighted in this plan as focus areas and target groups for a campaign.

Lead agency: City of Belmont
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Provide educational materials for City staff who drive City vehicles and integrate safety awareness training into contracting process with vendors who provide City services. Other measures include installing safety features (such as pedestrian/obstacle detection and speed tracking) on City vehicles and reporting on correction plans against unsafe driving.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
LPE1: Annual Review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to City Council as well as a written update to the TSAC so that C/CAG may compile county plan implementation status.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31
LPE2: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
Fund a study to address traffic injury and enforcement inequities to inform policies, projects, programs, and needed data quality improvements.

Solicit feedback on the report’s equity analysis from groups representing equity priority communities. Topics for the study may include injury related to homelessness, race/ethnicity, language, income, and immigration status, citations by demographics, citation type, and location.

Alternately, coordinate with the TSAC to participate in a countywide version of the same that can include the City as part of its scope.

Lead agency: C/CAG
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the City.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of Belmont Public Works
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan
Per California Assembly Bill 43 (passed in 2021), identify business activity districts, safety corridors, and in areas with high ped/bike activities to implement reduced speeds.

To the extent possible, complement the speed reduction with design treatments like those identified in this plan to effect reduced speeds by the desired amount.

Lead agency: City of Belmont Public Works

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Belmont’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The City of Belmont will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes city-wide and at the top priority locations.

Implementation actions are organized by plan goals and grouped by time: near-term actions, which Belmont can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for Belmont and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan. These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.

Table 5. City of Belmont Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Regularly review crash history and
community needs to identify and
prioritize opportunities to reduce crash
risk for roadway users of all ages and
abilities. Review proposed improvement
plans to ensure that roadway projects,
retrofits, and maintenance projects
incorporate complete streets that
support multiple modes of travel.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes, fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and crashes by
emphasis areas identified

2. Implement safety countermeasures
systemically and as part of all projects
to target emphasis areas and
underserved communities.

3. Promote plan recommendations with
identified safety partners to incorporate
roadway safety through safety projects
and educational campaigns in Belmont.

4. Provide opportunities for community
engagement in roadway capital
improvement projects to identify safety
solutions.

5. Identify opportunities to incorporate
social equity into safety improvements.
• Community engagement included as part of all C/CAGfunded safety project development activities • Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions citywide for safety plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about
outreach to disadvantaged communities where
applicable
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
versus outside these areas
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in
Schools programs to more schools within the City

6. Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and nonengineering strategies in the community.
• Percent of school district participation in SRTS and
roadway safety education opportunities
• Number of trainings city staff have participated in
regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or
practices

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 33

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS
• Improved data availability or maintenance to enhance
safety analysis and practice

7. Monitor implementation of the Belmont
LRSP to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table

/ City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 34
City of Belmont
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

City of
Brisbane

LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members

LOCAL JURISDICTION

REPRESENTATIVES
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mike Alston
Matt Braughton
Laurence Lewis
Grace Carsky
Michael Ruiz-Leon
Doreen Gui

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in the City’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.

Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash.  Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
 Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
 Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows).  Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
 Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially.

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

Safe Streets for All (SS4A) is a federal discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with $5 billion in appropriated funds for 2022 through 2026.

Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that the City can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system.

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision & Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Online Map Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback.................................................................................................................................................. 8 Crash Data & Trends .............................................................................................................................................................. 11 Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................15 Project Identification & Prioritization .................................................................................................................................17 Methodology.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17 Social Equity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ......................................................................................................... 24 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................25 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations............................................................................................................ 30 Policy Categories ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 30 Implementation & Monitoring............................................................................................................................................ 34

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A pop-up event held at the Brisbane Farmers’ Market...................................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Brisbane ............................................................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Brisbane......................................................................................................................................... 16 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)........................................................................17

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)............................................................................... 18 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 18 Figure 8: Brisbane Priority Locations ............................................................................................................................................................................. 23

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Brisbane Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs..................................................................4 Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events................................................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Brisbane.................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Table 5. City of Brisbane Policy and Program Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 30 Table 6. City of Brisbane Goals and Measures of Success............................................................................................................................ 34

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of Brisbane. It was developed concurrently with the Countywide LRSP; therefore, some discussion will refer back to the Countywide LRSP to avoid redundancy.

However, because every community has unique safety challenges, this LRSP includes individually tailored emphasis areas, crash trends, prioritized project lists, project scope recommendations, Safe System-aligned recommendations, and implementation/monitoring recommendations. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The City will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

The City of Brisbane has a 2023 population of 4,648 per California Department of Finance. The city has 26 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 69 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 12 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 12 percent of all reported crashes and 50 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 7 percent of all reported crashes and 17 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Brisbane’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

This LRSP was informed by technical analysis as well as from input from key stakeholders and the general public. The following sections describe the plan development and recommendations.

Contents
This LRSP provides the following:

Upon Council adoption and affirmation of the plan’s vision and goals in 2024, this plan will be posted online by the City for public viewing.

A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION & GOALS
The City of Brisbane’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2040. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in Brisbane’s departments, businesses, and residents.

To support this vision, the City has established the following goals:

1. Work with Brisbane Police Department to review crash history and community needs on a semi-annual basis to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.

2. Utilize existing plans, such as the Brisbane Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, to implement safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities

3. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.

4. Embrace the Safe System approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.

5. Identify opportunities to incorporate social equity into safety improvements.

6. Monitor implementation of the Brisbane LRSP to track progress towards goals.

PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Existing Safety Efforts
This LRSP relies on Brisbane’s solid foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of the City of Brisbane’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System, see Table 1:

Table 1. City of Brisbane Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
San Mateo C/CAG
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
Program Guide
The SR2S program works to make it easier and safer for
students to walk and bike to school. C/CAG partners with the County Office of Education to increase biking and walking and safe travel to school. Annual reports summarize schools’ participation.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
2017 Bicycle
Pedestrian Master
Plan
The key goals of the plan are to support efforts to increase the rate of walking and bicycling, as well as to support adopted policies that are aimed at providing complete
streets.

Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Safe Road
Users

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Complete Streets
Safety Committee
This citizen council advises the City Council on issues of roadway safety and Complete Streets development.

Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Safe Road
Users, Safe Vehicles
Complete Streets
Policy
The City’s commitment to creating and maintaining
Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and
convenient travel for all users.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds, Post-Crash
Care, Safe Vehicles
SafeTREC Complete
Streets Safety
Assessment
The Complete Streets Safety Assessment, offered through the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, saw a team of safety experts conduct a study for roadway safety in the City. The assessment included a phone consultation and
field study, and concluded with a summary of findings and suggestions for roadway focus areas.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds, Post-Crash
Care, Safe Vehicles
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of the City of Brisbane’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Sustainability Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
• Caltrans
• Brisbane Police Department

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE AND EVENTS
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and of the City’s plan. These events focus on jurisdiction-specific issues and on countywide concerns. The table below lists the events, organized by themed engagement phases, and is followed by the community input themes we heard.

Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff
Meeting: Shared the purpose and
timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 East Palo Alto
Figure 1. A pop-up event held at the Brisbane Farmers’ Market

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
Date Event Location
August 19, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event:

Shared crash data analysis;
received input on locations and
safety concerns
Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
August – September, 2023 Phase 1 Concurrent Online Input Online webmap (countywide input)
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event:

Shared draft prioritized locations
and types of engineering
recommendations; received
comments on locations and
votes/input on types of
treatments and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle, Pedestrian,
& Traffic Safety Committee
March – April 2024 Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on
the project website, through
electronic distribution channels,
and with presentations to C/CAG
Committees and the Board.

Various

ONLINE MAP SURVEY
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure 2). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were 14 comments made within the City of Brisbane. The comments included the following:

Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes and separated bike lanes. • Provide a more connected bike network: continuous bike lanes (especially through intersections) and the Bay Trail.
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, parking, and turning conflicts at intersections. • Requests to install leading bicycle intervals at signalized intersections.

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks, widening existing sidewalks, and high visibility crosswalks. • Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, speeding, and running STOP signs.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Multiple concerns regarding running STOP signs and red lights. • Concerns regarding speeding observed especially on Bayshore Boulevard.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Clear sight triangles to improve visibility on intersection approaches. • Requests to design roadway infrastructure for large vehicles (safe turning places at intersections).

The location and modal emphasis of comments in Brisbane is presented in Figure 3. The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the City. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.

PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Brisbane’s Farmers’ Market in January as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. The comments received are provided in Appendix B.

The following themes were identified:

Pedestrian Comments
• Desire for sidewalks, especially in school zones
• Desire for larger or additional signage to mark pedestrian crossings, especially in school zones Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
• Concerns that areas are not pedestrian friendly due to drivers speeding and running stop signs, specifically on San Benito Road, San Bruno Avenue, Sierra Point Road, Kings Road, Bayshore Boulevard, and the intersections of San Bruno Avenue / Mendocino Street, Humboldt Road / Placer Way, and Visitacion Avenue / Monterey Street
Bicycle Comments
• Desire for separated bicycle facilities throughout the City, especially on Bayshore Boulevard, Valley Drive, and Tunnel Road
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire to lower speed limits on narrow roads, especially in the hills • Desire for traffic calming treatments, such as speed bumps and stop signs, to encourage slower speeds, especially along Glen Park Way and Alvarado Street
• Desire for additional lighting to increase visibility along roadways and at intersections, specially at Valley Drive, Bayshore Boulevard, the Sierra Point Road / San Benito Road intersection, and the Old Country Road / San Francisco Avenue / Visitacion Avenue / San Bruno Avenue intersection • Concerns about sign visibility and site distance issues due to tree cover, parked cars, and curved roadways, specifically along US-101, San Bruno Avenue, Tunnel Road, and the Old Country Road / San Francisco Avenue / Visitacion Avenue / San Bruno Avenue intersection • Concerns that curb bulbouts make turning difficult, specifically along Visitacion Avenue and Mariposa Street
Countermeasure Comments
• Desire for signs that encourage slower speeds on roadways • Desire for additional stop signs
• Desire for additional lighting / flashing lights at intersections, especially for pedestrian crossings • No desire for curb extensions or pedestrian refuge islands, especially on narrow roads

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Brisbane

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11

CRASH DATA & TRENDS
This section provides an overview of the five years of crash data used for this analysis. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System1 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years 2018 through 2022. TIMS is a commonly used data source for safety plans. This analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. We removed crashes along grade-separated freeways from the dataset, but we retained crashes that occur along at-grade State Highway facilities and those that occurred within the influence area of freeway ramp terminal intersections.

The crash records used provide the best available data for analysis but do not account for crashes that go unreported or for near-miss events. This plan includes recommendations that would improve jurisdictions’ ability to capture one or both of those elements and enhance future crash analyses.

The discussion that follows provides a high-level overview of crash trends that informed the plan recommendations. For a more complete description of trends and findings, refer to Appendix C.

Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Brisbane and compared countywide trends to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that the City can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads.

A review of crash data and input led to the development of the following emphasis areas for the City of Brisbane:

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Brisbane, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 50 percent and 17 percent of the 12 reported F/SI—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (12 percent and 7 percent, total).

2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight. In Brisbane, four of the six fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes (67 percent) and two of the four fatal/severe injury motor vehicle crashes (50 percent) occurred in dark conditions.

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.

4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging). Countywide across all modes, crash victims between the 15 to 34 years old are more likely to be injured including F/SI as a result of traffic safety than other groups.

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Brisbane, 3 or 4 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 12
cited primary crash factor (27 percent of injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). In Brisbane, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 20 percent of injury crashes).

6. High speed roadways (35+mph). Countywide, crashes on roadways with posted speeds 40mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile 13 times higher than along roadways with posted speeds of 25 mph or less.

7. Alcohol involvement. Countywide, one in ten (10 percent) of motor vehicle injury crashes and one in five F/SI motor vehicle crashes (19 percent) involved alcohol. In Brisbane, 14 percent of all reported injury crashes involve impaired driving.

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the City of Brisbane to countywide trends in these emphasis areas. It includes summary statistics related to the above-cited emphasis areas but also shows:
• The share of local crashes that occurred on or at a State Highway facility compared to Countywide levels. • The most frequently reported local crash types compared to Countywide levels. • The share of bicyclist and motor vehicle crashes among all injury crashes and among F/SI crashes.

Countywide and locally, bicyclist crashes account for a higher share of F/SI crashes than among all injury levels.
• The share of local and Countywide crashes occurring in dark conditions for crashes of all injury levels and for F/SI crashes (organized by mode).
• Reported pedestrian and bicyclist crashes summarized by the most common preceding movements countywide, with a comparison of those movements’ share of local crashes to Countywide shares. • The local and Countywide share of crashes involving drugs or alcohol and involving drivers under the age of 30.

16%
(9)
Brisbane—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
25%
(14)
9%
(5)
21%
(12)
29%
(16)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Brisbane compares:

Brisbane Countywide 14% 4% (3)
of reported collisions
in Brisbane involved
drugs or alcohol
of reported collisions
in Brisbane involved
young drivers1
(10)
29%
(1,858)
Local
100% (69)
Total Crashes
In Brisbane, 69 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Brisbane Countywide
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (8)
Brisbane
Brisbane
Brisbane
Bicycle Crashes (5)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (56)
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/all injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
Fatal/severe injury crashes
17% (2)
33% (4)
12% (8) 50% (6)
7% (5)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
81% (56)

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

2. Young driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
8%
(625)
5%
(472)

Brisbane—Crash History
Brisbane
Brisbane
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (4)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (14)
All Injury Crashes (56)
All Injury Crashes (8)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (4)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (6)
67% (4)
Countywide
Countywide
25% (14) 50% (2)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Brisbane compares to Countywide crashes:
50% (4)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (8)
Pedestrian Crossing
at Intersection
Predestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Agency Countywide
13%
(1)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
25%
(2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
34% (363)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
34% (173)

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the HIN segments identified within the City.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Brisbane
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Sierra Point
Pkwy
Brisbane 1.4 X
Guadalupe
Canyon Pkwy
Daly City, Brisbane,
Unincorporated

2.5 X
Bayshore Blvd South San Francisco, Daly City,
Brisbane

2.9 X X

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Brisbane

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,

7.2%
Posted speed
35mph+, 7.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 6.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
& PRIORITIZATION
Methodology
Using the results of the crash data analysis and adding a focus on social equity, the project team identified priority locations for the City to target for future safety improvements. The prioritization used three equally weighted factors to prioritize locations for safety projects:
• Crash history – used to identify the locations with the highest reported five-year crash frequency and severity.
• Social equity – used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. • Systemic factors – used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity. Using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach. Each factor was weighted relative to the other factors based on the average severity of relevant crashes (for example, if pedestrian crashes on arterials/collectors were overall twice as severe as pedestrian crashes at unsignalized intersections overall, then the former would be weighted twice the latter).

Each factor is comprised of multiple criteria and overlaid on jurisdictions’ roadway data to identify locations for future safety projects. The prioritization process was conducted three times, one for each travel mode. The weighting scheme for each mode is presented in the three figures below (Figure 5, Figure 6, and Figure 7).

Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Bike Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Bike HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 8.0%
Arterial or Collector,

8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,

8.1%
Posted speed
35mph+, 16.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical factor for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. The prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the City to understand which locations meet which measures.

Results
The prioritization resulted in the following top locations. For more details (including the scores of each location), consult Appendix D. Figure 8 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Bayshore Blvd and Main
St
Intersection No X X X
2 Bayshore Blvd and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X XX X
3 Bayshore Blvd and Tunnel
Ave
Intersection No X X
4 Sierra Point Pkwy and
Lagoon Rd
Intersection No X
5 Beatty Rd and Tunnel Ave Intersection No X
6 Alana Way and Beatty Rd Intersection Yes X
7 Sierra Point Pkwy 101 NB
Hwy and NB 101 Sierra
Point Pkwy Hwy
Intersection Yes X
8 Tunnel Ave and Lagoon
Rd
Intersection No X
9 Bayshore Blvd and Valley
Dr
Intersection No X X

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
10 Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy
and Hill Dr
Intersection No X
11 Bayshore Blvd and
Industrial Way
Intersection No X X
12 Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy
and Bayshore Blvd
Intersection No X
13 Valley Dr and Park Ln Intersection No X X
14 Park Pl and Valley Dr Intersection No X X
15 San Bruno Ave and
Mendocino St
Intersection No X X
16 Cypress Ln and Valley Dr Intersection No X X
17 Hill Dr and Silverspot Dr Intersection No X
18 San Francisco Ave and
Old County Rd
Intersection No X
19 San Bruno Ave and
Mariposa St
Intersection No X
20 Old County Rd and Park
Ln
Intersection No X
21 Klamath St and Visitacion
Ave
Intersection No X
22 Santa Clara St and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
23 San Bruno Ave and
Alvarado St
Intersection No X
24 Glen Pkwy and San Bruno
Ave
Intersection No X
25 Lake St and San Bruno
Ave
Intersection No X
26 San Bruno Ave and Tulare
St
Intersection No X
27 Monterey St and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
28 Ross Way and Glen Pkwy Intersection No X
29 San Francisco Ave and
Plumas St
Intersection No X

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
30 Park Pl and Park Ln Intersection No X
31 San Francisco Ave and
Inyo St
Intersection No X
32 Mariposa St and
Visitacion Ave
Intersection No X
33 Visitacion Ave and
Monterey St
Intersection No X
34 Mariposa St and Inyo St Intersection No X
35 Sierra Point Rd and
Humboldt Rd
Intersection No X
36 Solano St and Mendocino
St
Intersection No X
37 Solano St and San
Francisco Ave
Intersection No X
38 Mariposa St and Solano
St
Intersection No X
39 Sierra Point Rd and
Lassen St
Intersection No X
40 Mono St and Klamath St Intersection No X
41 Visitacion Ave and
Mendocino St
Intersection No X
42 Humboldt Rd and Lassen
St
Intersection No X
43 Humboldt Rd and Lake St Intersection No X
44 Solano St and Humboldt
Rd
Intersection No X
45 Main St and Hill Dr Intersection No X
46 Gladys Ave and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
47 Klamath St and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
48 San Bruno Ave and
Thomas Ave
Intersection No X
49 Sierra Point Rd and Ross
Way
Intersection No X

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
50 Humboldt Rd and Glen
Pkwy
Intersection No X
51 Sierra Point Rd and Glen
Pkwy
Intersection No X
52 Humboldt Rd and Kings
Rd
Intersection No X
53 Humboldt Rd and Sierra
Point Rd
Intersection No X
54 Humboldt Rd and San
Diego Ct
Intersection No X
55 Mariposa St and Plumas
St
Intersection No X
56 Alvarado St and
Visitacion Ave
Intersection No X
57 Alvarado St and Monterey
St
Intersection No X
58 Alvarado St and
Mendocino St
Intersection No X
59 William Ave and San
Bruno Ave
Intersection No X
60 Humboldt Rd and Annis
Rd
Intersection No X
61 Lake St and Glen Park
Way
Intersection No X
62 Bayshore Blvd, Geneva
Ave to S city limits
Corridor No X X X
63 Valley Dr, Bayshore Blvd
to Hills Dr
Corridor No X X X
64 Tunnel, N city limit to
Bayshore Blvd
Corridor No X X

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Figure 8: Brisbane Priority Locations

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Brisbane. First is a table of engineering countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. The countermeasures align to the crash types as listed in the table. Complementing those countermeasures is a holistic set of policy and programmatic recommendations that will help align City departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals.

Project Scopes
With the development of this plan the project team worked with the City to identify two project locations or two groups of project locations to apply safety treatments. We worked from the list of priority project locations and used potential benefit-to-cost ratio to identify a suite of treatments the City could consider at these locations.

The City can move forward with further project development and community engagement to advance solutions at these locations. They may also consider bundling some of the treatments identified with the same treatments at other, similar locations identified in this plan, for a systemic approach.

The project scopes were developed exclusively from a list of City-approved engineering countermeasures, which are presented as an engineering toolbox in the next section. The team prepared a suite of treatments to reduce crashes at the project locations. For each treatment, the list presents a planning-level cost of the treatments as recommended and the crash reduction benefit.

The scoped project locations include:
 Bayshore Blvd to Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy. Recommended improvements include:
o Improvements to signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
o Installation of advance stop bar before crosswalk (bicycle box) o Modified signal phasing with a leading pedestrian interval  Bayshore Blvd and Main St. Recommended improvements include:
o Installation and/or upgrading of larger stop signs and other intersection warning or regulatory signs o Pavement markings
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix E.

Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
Table 5. City of Brisbane Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Lighting* All Nighttime 0.4 Medium
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and
number*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ Very High
Install left-turn lane and
add turn phase*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.55 $-$$$ Low
Convert signal to mast
arm (from pedestal
mounted)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.3 $-$$$ Medium
Install raised median on
approaches*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $-$$$ Medium
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict left turns and Uturns (signalized
intersection)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all 0.1 $ High

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install flashing beacons
as advance warning (SI)*
SI Rear end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian
crossing*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ High
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.6 $ High
Install painted safety zone SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ High
Install Protected
Intersection Elements
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $-$$$ Low

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all-way
stop)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor
road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Covert intersection to
mini-roundabout*
UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and Uturns (unsignalized
intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised medians
(refuge islands)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.45 $ Medium
Install pedestrian
crossings (signs and
markings only)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian
crossings (with enhanced
safety features)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

0.35 $-$$$ Medium
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or
other intersection warning
or regulatory signs*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness

0.15 $ High

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness

0.25 $ High
Install flashing beacons at
stop-controlled
intersection*
UI Broadside,
rear end

0.15 $$$ High
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid
beacon*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.3 $$$ High
Install splitter islands on
the minor road
approaches*
UI All crashes 0.4 $ Medium
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, leftturn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
Install edge line rumble
strips/stripes*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ High
Install separated bike
lanes*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.45 $-$$ High
Install/upgrade
pedestrian crossing (with
enhanced safety
features)*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.35 $$-$$$ Medium
Install raised pedestrian
crossing*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle

0.35 $ Medium
Remove or relocate fixed
objects outside of clear
recovery zone*
R Hit object 035 $-$$ High
Install delineators,
reflectors, and/or object
marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver
behavior

0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian
crossing time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Extend green time for
bikes
SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid
green paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Bicycle signal/exclusive
bike phase
SI Bicycle N/A $-$$ Low
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant
directional curb ramps
and audible push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Splitter islands UI, SI All crashes N/A $$ Medium
Roadside design features All All crashes N/A $-$$$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations

POLICY CATEGORIES
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the City aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the City’s Safe System Approach.

Table 5. City of Brisbane Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS3: Communication Protocol
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF2: Equitable Investment
LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Update
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
LPE4: Safe Routes to School

NEAR-TERM ACTIONS
LCS1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee Participation Actively participate in the newly-formed County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Bring agenda items as relevant, including but not limited to:
• Safety project updates with every step along the project development process (studies initiated / under way /complete, funding identified, design phases initiated / under way / complete) • Annual updates to the TSAC regarding implementation progress that may be relevant for C/CAG annual monitoring reporting (e.g., projects on identified priority locations and/or the regional High Injury Network, community engagement efforts and summaries, safety funding applied for / received) • Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the Brisbane Police Department to implement a local high-visibility media campaign pertaining to one or more emphasis areas identified in this plan. Dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness. Potential communication tools:
• Bus ads • Social media • Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, SMCOE, City of Brisbane Police Department, City of Brisbane Public WorksLCS3: Communication LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: City of Brisbane Public Works
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
More effectively target resources to pedestrian crash problems in a limited geographic area. Realizing these zones requires upfront analysis and planning, countermeasure development, and implementation.

Implementation can focus on addressing particular problems or on increasing general safety in specific areas during windows of peak pedestrian activity. (For example: Friday nights in commercial districts, Sundays on recreational routes/areas, etc.)
Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with Brisbane PD to deploy a trailer to monitor speeds on streets and to raise awareness of speeding. It can be deployed long term along HIN and other arterials, or short term in neighborhoods. Use the priority locations and data in this plan to identify locations and schedule for deployment.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane Police Department
Coordinating partners: City of Brisbane Public Works
LF2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize citywide safety investments in disadvantaged communities. Use the presence of disadvantaged communities (as identified with C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, and/or USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty) as a factor to elevate funding for certain projects or other safety-related programs.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32
LF3: Prioritize Investments
Use the priority locations identified in this plan to determine safety project opportunities to advance for further project development and to identify funding. Identify pathways for improvement for the locations on the list.

Continue to engage the community to refine the priorities within the list of identified sites.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
Plan community engagement efforts to be tailored for vulnerable road users and all travel modes. Make outreach materials available in accessible formats and multiple languages.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
Develop and distribute educational materials and/or videos demonstrating how to navigate and interact with newer active transportation facilities (e.g., bike boxes, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, separated bike lanes, etc.) Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
Run education campaigns and outreach to foster community awareness of a shared responsibility for road safety. Use the emphasis areas highlighted in this plan as focus areas and target groups for a campaign.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Provide educational materials for City staff who drive City vehicles and integrate safety awareness training into contracting process with vendors who provide City services. Other measures include installing safety features (such as pedestrian/obstacle detection and speed tracking) on City vehicles and reporting on correction plans against unsafe driving.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LPE1: Annual Review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to City Council as well as a written update to the TSAC so that C/CAG may compile county plan implementation status.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works
LPE2: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.

Lead agency: City of Brisbane Public Works

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 33
LPE3: Safety and Equity Impacts Evaluation
Fund a study to address traffic injury and enforcement inequities to inform policies, projects, programs, and needed data quality improvements. Solicit feedback on the report’s equity analysis from groups representing equity priority communities. Topics for the study may include injury related to homelessness, race/ethnicity, language, income, and immigration status, citations by demographics, citation type, and location.

Alternately, coordinate with the TSAC to participate in a countywide version of the same that can include the City as part of its scope.

Lead agency: C/CAG
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the City.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of Brisbane Public Works

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 34

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Brisbane’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The City of Brisbane will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes city-wide and at the top priority locations.

Implementation actions are organized by plan goals and grouped by time: near-term actions, which Brisbane can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for Brisbane and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan. These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.

Table 6. City of Brisbane Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Work with Brisbane Police Department to
review crash history and community needs
on a semi-annual basis to identify and
prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk
for roadway users of all ages and abilities.

2. Utilize existing plans, such as the Brisbane
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, to
implement safety countermeasures
systemically and as part of all projects to
target emphasis areas and underserved
communities
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified

3. Identify opportunities to incorporate social
equity into safety improvements.

4. Provide opportunities for community
engagement in roadway capital
improvement projects to identify safety
solutions.
• Community engagement included as part of all
C/CAG-funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions citywide for safety
plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about
outreach to disadvantaged communities where
applicable
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
versus outside these areas
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in
Schools programs to more schools within the City
• Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 35

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

5. Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and non-engineering
strategies in the community.
• Percent of school district participation in SRTS and
roadway safety education opportunities
• Number of trainings city staff have participated in
regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or
practices
• Improved data availability or maintenance to enhance
safety analysis and practice

6. Monitor implementation of the Brisbane LRSP
to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table

/ City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 36
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of Brisbane
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

Town of
Colma

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members

LOCAL JURISDICTION

REPRESENTATIVES
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

Mike Alston
Matt Braughton
Laurence Lewis
Grace Carsky
Michael Ruiz-Leon
Doreen Gui

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in the Town’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.

Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash.  Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
 Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
 Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows).  Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
 Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially.

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

Safe Streets for All (SS4A) is a federal discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with $5 billion in appropriated funds for 2022 through 2026.

Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that the Town can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system.

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision & Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events............................................................................................................................................................................7 Online Map Survey.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback.................................................................................................................................................. 8 Crash Data & Trends ...............................................................................................................................................................9 Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................12 Project Identification & Prioritization ................................................................................................................................14 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................14 Social Equity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs .......................................................................................................... 19 Project Scopes ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox.....................................................................................................................................................................19 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations.............................................................................................................23 Policy Categories ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Near-Term Actions...........................................................................................................................................................................................................24 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................25 Implementation & Monitoring.............................................................................................................................................28

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A pop-up event at a BART station in the Town of Colma...............................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3. Countywide HIN within the City of Colma...............................................................................................................................................13 Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 14 Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)............................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 15

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Figure 7. Colma Priority Locations.................................................................................................................................................................................... 18

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Town of Colma Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs ...................................................................4 Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Colma..........................................................................................................................................................12 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Table 5. Town of Colma Policy and Program Recommendations............................................................................................................ 24 Table 6. Town of Colma Goals and Measures of Success ............................................................................................................................. 28

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the Town of Colma. It was developed concurrently with the Countywide LRSP; therefore, some discussion will refer back to the Countywide LRSP to avoid redundancy.

However, because every community has unique safety challenges, this LRSP includes individually tailored emphasis areas, crash trends, prioritized project lists, project scope recommendations, Safe System-aligned recommendations, and implementation/monitoring recommendations. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The Town will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

The Town of Colma has a 2023 population of 1,359 per California Department of Finance. The town has 8 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 11 reported crashes on surface streets in the Town and 2 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, there were no reported pedestrian crashes and one reported bicyclist crash, which was a fatal/severe injury crash.

This LRSP was informed by technical analysis, as well as from input from key stakeholders and the general public. The following sections describe the plan development and recommendations.

Contents
This LRSP provides the following:

Upon Council adoption and affirmation of the plan’s vision and goals in 2024, this plan will be posted online by the Town for public viewing.

A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations