Agenda packet — Atherton City Council, November 20, 2024 (part 4 of 9)

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

VISION & GOALS
The Town of Colma’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 Town has established the following goals:

1. Regularly monitor crashes to respond to safety problems and changing conditions. Prioritize locations with high crash frequency or rates for safety improvements.

2. Review proposed improvement plans to ensure that roadway projects, retrofits, and maintenance projects incorporate complete streets which support multiple modes of travel.

3. Advance the active transportation efforts of the Town and regional agencies to achieve greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction.

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

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

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

7. Plan for disadvantaged communities to fully share in the benefits of the safety programs.

8. Monitor implementation of the Colma LRSP to track progress towards goals.

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

Table 1. Town of Colma 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
Town of Colma 2040
General
Plan—Mobility
Element
The Mobility Element Goal (M-1) is to provide and maintain a safe, efficient, and attractive circulation system that promotes a healthy, safe, and active community throughout Colma. The Town has established a “Vision Zero” to eliminate Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Safe Road
Users, Post-Crash
Care, Safe Vehicles

Page 419 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal
collisions by 50 percent by 2040.

Town of Colma
Systemic Safety
Analysis Report
(SSAR-2018)
The SSAR identified systemic treatment along roadway
segments and intersections to improve safety for all users of the Town’s roadway network.

Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Post-Crash
Care
Town of Colma
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan (2023)
The Plan focuses on developing a safe network of bikeways and walkways, identifying roadway improvements, and
documenting programs and policies that will support the Town’s goal of becoming a more bicycle- and pedestrianfriendly community.

Safe Speeds, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Roads
Town of Colma ADA
Transition Plan
(2010)
The Town of Colma’s ADA Transition Plan outlines its efforts to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and ensures its programs, services, facilities, and public rightsof-way are accessible to all members of the public.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users
Town of Colma
Complete Streets
Policies (2012)
The Town of Colma has adopted a Complete Streets Policy consistent with the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358). The goal of the plan is to create and maintain Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and
convenient travel along and across Town’s streets through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that
serves all categories of road users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and persons with disabilities.

Safe Roads, Safe
Speeds, Safe Road
Users, Post-Crash
Care, Safe Vehicles
Town of Colma
Climate Action Plan
2030 Update
The Town of Colma is updating the Climate Action Plan to further expand programs and policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) by 49 percent from the Town’s 2005
base-year level by 2030 to meet the new GHG reduction
targets established in Senate Bill 32. The Plan outlines a sustainable and integrated transportation system that
promotes public health by providing safe paths of travel for those walking, bicycling, and accommodating the needs for individuals with disabilities.

Safe Road Users,
Safe Speeds, Safe
Roads

Page 420 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
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 Colma’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
• Town of Colma Police Department
• Colma BART Station
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

Figure 1. A pop-up event at a BART station in the Town of Colma.

Page 421 of 1188 ends

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

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, 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 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

Page 422 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8

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 no comments made within the Town of Colma or by respondents who self-identified as Colma residents. Nonetheless, the project team 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.

General Comments
• Overall feeling that roadways are generally safe for people traveling Pedestrian Comments
• Concerns that sidewalks abruptly end in some areas
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Concern that some streets are too narrow to travel on • Concerns of speeding, specifically on El Camino Real, Lawndale Boulevard, and Hillsdale Road • Desire for roundabouts, speed bumps, and/or signage to encourage drivers to slow down on roadways PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Colma BART station 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 A. The following themes were identified:

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool

Page 423 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
General Comments
• Overall feeling that roadways are generally safe for people traveling Pedestrian Comments
• Concerns that sidewalks abruptly end in some areas
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Concern that some streets are too narrow to travel on • Concerns of speeding, specifically on El Camino Real, Lawndale Boulevard, and Hillsdale Road • Desire for roundabouts, speed bumps, and/or signage to encourage drivers to slow down on roadways

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 Colma 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 Colma:

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 Colma, there were no recorded pedestrian injury crashes from 2018-2022 and one recorded bicyclist injury crashes (out of 11 total in the period). Providing safe travel for people outside a motor vehicle is an emphasis area countywide and, in the Town, even in the absence of any reported pedestrian crashes in the 5-year period.

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 Colma, one of the eleven reported injury crashes occurred in dark conditions. 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu

Page 424 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10

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. 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).

In Colma, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among injury crashes (36 percent).

5. 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 section presents summary findings from a crash data review that compares the Town of Colma to countywide trends in these emphasis areas. It includes summary statistics related to the above-cited emphasis areas but also shows:
• The share of Town crashes that occurred on or at a State Highway facility compared to Countywide levels. • The most frequently reported 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 within the Town, bicyclist crashes account for a higher share of F/SI crashes than among all injury levels.
• The share of crashes occurring in dark conditions for crashes of all injury levels and for F/SI crashes (organized by mode).

Page 425 of 1188 ends

18%
(1,164)
Total Crashes
Colma—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (0)
Colma
Colma
Colma
Bicycle Crashes (1)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (10)
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
10%
(607)
30%
(3) 20%
(2)
11%
(1)
20%
(2)
0% (0)
50% (1)
50% (1)
0% (0)
9% (1)
20%
(2)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Colma compares:

Colma Countywide

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists. 29%
(1,858)
Local
41% (3)
State Highway
59% (8)
In Colma, 11 fatal and injury crashes were reported on
at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Colma
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
91% (10)
Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Countywide
Colma
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (1)
All Injury Crashes (10) Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (1) Countywide 26% (1,674) 34% (173)
10% (1) 0% (0)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Colma compares to Countywide crashes:

All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes

Page 426 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
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 39 and Figure 31 show the HIN segments identified within the Town.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Colma
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
El Camino Real
Belmont, Colma, Burlingame,
Menlo Park, Millbrae, Redwood
City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San
Mateo, South San Francisco,
Unincorporated

23.5 X X X
Hillside
Boulevard
Colma, Daly City, South San
Francisco, Unincorporated

3.1 X X
Serramonte
Boulevard Colma, Daly City 1 X
Southgate
Avenue Colma, Daly City 3.1 X X

Page 427 of 1188 ends

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

Page 428 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
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).

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

Page 429 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
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) 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

Page 430 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
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 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 B. Figure 7 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Hillside Blvd, from
Serramonte Blvd to Town
limit
Corridor No X X X
2 Serramonte Blvd & NB
Hwy on-ramp
Intersection No X X
3 Colma Blvd Corridor No X X X
4 Serramonte Blvd, from El
Camino Real to Hillside
Blvd
Corridor No X X X
5 Collins Ave, from
Serramonte Blvd to El
Camino Real
Corridor No X X X
6 Villa Ave & El Camino Real Intersection Yes X X X
6 El Camino Real Corridor Yes X X X
6 El Camino Real & Collins
Ave
Intersection Yes X X X

Page 431 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
6 El Camino Real & F St
(East)
Intersection Yes X X
6 El Camino Real & F St
(West)
Intersection Yes
6 El Camino Real & Mission
Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
6 El Camino Real & Olivet
Pkwy
Intersection Yes X X X
6 El Camino & Serramonte
Blvd
Intersection Yes X X X
7 Junipero Serra Blvd &
Southgate Ave
Intersection No X X
8 Junipero Serra Blvd &
Colma Blvd
Intersection No X X X
9 Phillip Dr & Junipero Serra
Blvd
Intersection No X X
10 Hillside Blvd &
Serramonte Blvd
Intersection No X X
11 Lawndale Blvd Corridor No X X
12 Junipero Serra Blvd, from
Colma Blvd to Collins Ave
Corridor No X X X

Page 432 of 1188 ends

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

Page 433 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
Project Scopes
With the development of this plan the project team worked with the Town 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 Town could consider at these locations.

The Town 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 Town-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:
 Serramonte Blvd and I-280 NB on-ramp intersection. Recommended improvements include:
o Lighting
o Installation of an advance stop bar for a bicycle box o Reconfiguration of the intersection to eliminate the fifth leg  Hillside Blvd—Serramonte Blvd to southern town limit
o Edgeline rumble strips/stripes
o Separated bike lanes
o Pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines)
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Flush median with a pedestrian cut-through at the Lucky Chances Casino Driveway on Hillside Blvd o Road diet
o Installation of street lighting at multiple locations on Hillside Blvd For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix C.

Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
This section presents Safe System-aligned engineering recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the Town of Colma. 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.

Page 434 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
Table 5. Town of Colma 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 flashing beacons as
advance warning*
SI Rear-end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
No right turn on red SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ 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

Page 435 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
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?
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 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
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

Page 436 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
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?
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 pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI Pedestrian and
bicycle

0.3 $$$ High
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, leftturn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ 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 delineators,
reflectors, and/or object
marker*
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
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

Page 437 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
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
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 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.

Page 438 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
Table 5. Town of Colma Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
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)
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: Town of Colma 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 Colma Public Works

Page 439 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the Town of Colma Police Department to implement a local highvisibility 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, Town of Colma Police Department, Town of Colma Public Works 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 Colma Public Works
LEC1: Law Enforcement Training
Coordinate with the Town’s Police Department to identify opportunities for integrating safety into training for new offices (e.g., NHTSA’s pedestrian training for law enforcement). Identify through the TSAC if opportunities for efficiency are available in coordination with the County Sheriff’s Office or California Highway Patrol.

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol, Town of Colma Public Works LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with Colma 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: Town of Colma Police Department
Coordinating partners: Town of Colma Public Works
LEC5: Progressive Ticketing
Coordinate with Colma PD to consider implementation of a 3-step model of Educating – Warning – Ticketing to establish awareness, allow time for behavioral change, and use ticketing as the final reserve.

Lead agency: Town of Colma Police Department
Coordinating partners: Town of Colma 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 Colma Public Works

Page 440 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
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 Colma 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: Town of Colma 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: Town of Colma Public Works
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, TSAC members
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: Town of Colma Public Works
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health
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 Colma 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: Town of Colma 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,

Page 441 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
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 Town 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 Town.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: Town of Colma Public Works
LPE5: Data Quality Improvements
Conduct one or more studies to address the following challenges:
• Integrating hospital and police data
• Providing a means to collect and incorporate near-miss data into safety analysis Alternately, coordinate with C/CAG through the TSAC to participate in and benefit from a regional version of the same, which could include developing a consistent countywide crash database. Such a database would prevent the time lag present in SWITRS, provide accurate and timely monitoring of crashes, and allow monitoring of injury trends over time.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, Local Jurisdictions, Local Police Departments, Town of Colma LPE6: 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 LPE7: Big Data
Coordinate with C/CAG through the TSAC to 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, Town of Colma
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 Colma Public Works

Page 442 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Colma’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking plan progress. The Town of Colma 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 Colma can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

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

Table 6. Town of Colma Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Regularly monitor crashes to respond to
safety problems and changing
conditions. Prioritize locations with high
crash rates for safety improvements.

2. 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

3. Advance the active transportation
efforts of the Town and regional
agencies to achieve the greenhouse
gas (GHG) reduction.
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs) versus
outside these areas
• Report-backs to the Town Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about
outreach to disadvantaged communities where applicable. • Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in
Schools programs to more schools within the Town

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

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

6. Ensure that disadvantaged
communities fully share in the benefits
of the safety programs.
• Community engagement included as part of all C/CAGfunded safety project development activities • Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions townwide 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

Page 443 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

7. 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 Town staff have participated in
regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or
practices
• Improved data availability or maintenance to enhance
safety analysis and practice

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

Page 444 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Appendix A
Phase 2 Engagement Comments
Town of Colma
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

Page 445 of 1188 ends

City of
East Palo Alto

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

Page 446 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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

Page 447 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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.

Page 448 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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.

Page 449 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision and 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 Crash Data & Trends ...............................................................................................................................................................9 Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................13 Project Identification & Prioritization................................................................................................................................. 15 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Social Equity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ..........................................................................................................20 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations.............................................................................................................25 Near-Term Actions.......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 26 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................27 Implementation & Monitoring............................................................................................................................................ 30

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Phase 1 pop-up event at a farmers’ market in East Palo Alto. ....................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in East Palo Alto ......................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of East Palo Alto.............................................................................................................................. 14 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)............................................................................... 16 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 16 Figure 8: East Palo Alto Priority Locations.................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Page 450 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of East Palo Alto Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs.......................................................4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events.......................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in East Palo Alto ..........................................................................................................................................13 Table 4. Priority Locations.......................................................................................................................................................................................................17 Table 5. City of East Palo Alto Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................................................21 Table 6. City of East Palo Alto Policy and Program Recommendations................................................................................................ 26 Table 7. City of East Palo Alto Goals and Measures of Success.................................................................................................................. 30

Page 451 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of East Palo Alto. 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 East Palo Alto has a 2023 population of 28,586 per California Department of Finance. The city has 39 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 458 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 48 fatal/severe injury crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 27 percent of reported fatal/severe injury crashes and 12 percent of all crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 21 percent of reported fatal/severe injury crashes and 16 percent of all crashes. The LRSP provides Safe Systemaligned strategies tailored to East Palo Alto’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

Page 452 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION AND GOALS
The City of East Palo Alto vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal injury crashes by 50 percent by 2030.

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

1. Implement traffic-calming and traffic-slowing measures on roads and at intersections with a high level of existing or planned pedestrian and non-motorized vehicle activity and/or crashes.

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

Table 1. City of East Palo Alto 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
Speed
maintenance
toolkit
The traffic control devices to be considered for use in addressing the speed of traffic will include, but are not limited to, the following:
25 mph speed limit signs
White “25” pavement legends (oversized legends may also be used)
Curve warning signs with speed advisory plates
“Watch Downhill Speed” signs
“Strict Enforcement Area” graphic and letter signs
Ceramic raised-pavement marker rumble strips
Perpendicular painted white bars
Centerline striping
Supplementary reflective raised pavement markers
Speed humps
Other traffic control devices as approved in the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices and/or the California Traffic Control Device Committee
Safe Roads,
Safe Speeds,
Safe Road Users

Page 453 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
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 East Palo Alto’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
• East Palo Alto Police Department
• East Palo Alto Fire Department
• Ravenswood City School District
Figure 1. Phase 1 pop-up event at a farmers’ market in East Palo Alto.

Page 454 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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. 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:

Various

Page 455 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were five comments made within the City of East Palo Alto in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. 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 throughout East Palo Alto and connecting to other cities in the Bay Area.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks, and high visibility crosswalks.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Concerns regarding speeding observed – requests for traffic calming. • Concerns regarding enforcement of traffic safety rules near school zones, especially on Pulgas Avenue.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Concerns regarding traffic congestion during peak hours.

The location and modal emphasis of comments in East Palo Alto 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.

Page 456 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in East Palo Alto

Page 457 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9

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 B.

Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto:

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 East Palo Alto, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 27 percent and 21 percent of the 48 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (12 percent and 16 percent, total).

In East Palo Alto, one in every two fatal/severe injury crashes (50 percent) occurred in dark conditions.

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 East Palo Alto, 33 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 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu Page 458 of 1188 / City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10
commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). In East Palo Alto, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes that resulted in fatal/severe injuries (32 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.

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 East Palo Alto, 7 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 East Palo Alto 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.

Page 459 of 1188 ends

18%
(1,164)
19%
(61)
East Palo Alto—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
10%
(32)
6%
(21)
23%
(75) 42%
(138)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
East Palo Alto compares:

East Palo Countywide
Alto 7% 7% (33)
of reported collisions
in East Palo Alto
involved drugs or
alcohol
of reported collisions
in East Palo Alto
involved young
drivers1
(28)
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In East Palo Alto, 458 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Countywide
Local
67% (308)
State Highway
33% (150)
East Palo
Alto
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (56)
Bicycle Crashes (75)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (327)
21% (10)
52% (25)
12% (56) 27% (13)
16% (75)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
71% (327)

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.

East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
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)

Page 460 of 1188 ends

East Palo Alto—Crash History
East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
East Palo Alto
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (19)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (27)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (117) All Injury Crashes (327)
All Injury Crashes (75)
All Injury Crashes (56)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (25)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (10)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (13)
62% (8)
60% (6)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
36% (117) 40% (10)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how East Palo Alto compares to Countywide crashes:
25% (19)
48% (27)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (56)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (75)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
9%
(5)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
13%
(7)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
21%
(12)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
28%
(21)
21%
(186)
8%
(6)
12%
(106)
8%
(6)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
48%
(36)
35%
(372)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)

Page 461 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 13
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 East Palo Alto
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Bayshore Rd East Palo Alto 1.7 X X X
Capitol Ave East Palo Alto 0.2 X
Clarke Ave East Palo Alto 0.3 X
Donohoe St East Palo Alto 0.5 X X
O’Conner St East Palo Alto 0.6 X
Pulgas Ave East Palo Alto 1.5 X X X
Runnymede St East Palo Alto 0.9 X
Scofield St East Palo Alto 0.1 X
Newbridge St East Palo Alto, Menlo Park 1 X X
University Ave East Palo Alto, Menlo Park 2.1 X X
Willow Rd East Palo Alto, Menlo Park 2.3 X X
U.S. 101 East Palo Alto, Redwood City,
South San Francisco

1.2 X
Bay Rd East Palo Alto, Redwood City,
Unincorporated

3.3 X X

Page 462 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of East Palo Alto

Page 463 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
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).

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

Page 464 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 7. 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

Page 465 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
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 C. Figure 8 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Purdue Ave and University Ave Intersection Yes X X
2 University Ave and Weeks St Intersection Yes X X
3 University Ave and Adams Dr Intersection Yes X X
4 University Ave and Michigan
Ave
Intersection Yes X X
5 Bay Rd and University Ave Intersection Yes X X X
6 Notre Dame Ave and University
Ave
Intersection Yes X X
7 University Ave and Kavanaugh
Dr
Intersection Yes X X
8 University Ave and
Sacramento St
Intersection Yes X X
9 Donohoe St and University Ave Intersection Yes X X
10 O’Brien Dr and University Ave Intersection Yes X X
11 Cooley Ave and University Ave Intersection Yes X X

Page 466 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
12 University Ave and
Runnymede St
Intersection Yes X X
13 University Ave and Bell St Intersection Yes X
14 Woodland Ave and
University Ave
Intersection No X X
15 Gloria Way and Bay Rd Intersection No X X
16 Glen Way and Bay Rd Intersection No X X
17 Bay Rd and Palo Alto
Verde Ave
Intersection No X X X
18 University Ave and 101 Ramps Intersection Yes X X
19 Dumbarton Ave and Bay Rd Intersection No X X X
20 Demeter St and Bay Rd Intersection No X X
21 Bay Rd and Addison Ave Intersection No X X X
22 Oakwood Dr and Bay Rd Intersection No X X
23 Pulgas Ave and Bay Rd Intersection No X
24 Bay Rd and Fordham St Intersection No X X
25 Bay Rd and Ralmar Ave Intersection No X X
26 Clarke Ave and Illinois St Intersection No X
27 Newbridge St and Menalto Ave Intersection No X
28 Newbridge St and Poplar Ave Intersection No X
29 Bay Rd and Addison Ave Intersection No X
30 Mello St and Newbridge St Intersection No X
31 Saratoga Ave and
Newbridge St
Intersection No X
32 Bay Rd, Newbridge St to
Pulgas Ave
Corridor No X X X
33 University Ave (SR 109), N city
limits to Donohoe Rd
Corridor Yes X X X
34 Newbridge St, Bay Rd to W
city limits
Corridor No X X

Page 467 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
Figure 8: East Palo Alto Priority Locations

Page 468 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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 City of East Palo Alto. First are engineering recommendations: identified project scopes and 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:
 University Ave and Weeks St. Recommended improvements include:
o Intersection lighting at the eastern side of the intersection o Raised median refuge islands at the north leg
o Pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (curb extensions and advance “yield” lines)

Page 469 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
o Upgraded intersection pavement markings at the intersection o Signal or pedestrian hybrid beacons at the north leg
 University Ave and Bell St. Recommended improvements include:
o Improved signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)
o Restriped intersection pavement markings
o Centerline hardening or continuous raised median at the north and south legs o Advance stop bar before crosswalk at the north and south legs o Modified signal phasing to include a leading pedestrian interval at the intersection For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix D.

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.

Table 5. City of East Palo Alto 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 USI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.5 $-$$ Medium

Page 470 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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?
turns (signalized
intersection)*
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all
crashes

0.1 $ High
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning*
SI Rear-end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
No right turn on red SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ Medium
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from signal)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
Varies $-$$$ Low
Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

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

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

0.4 $ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ High

Page 471 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
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
Convert intersection to mini
roundabout*
UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and U-turns
(unsignalized intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ 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

Page 472 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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/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 $$$ High
Install transverse rumble
strips on approaches
UI All crashes 0.2 $ High
Install splitter islands on the
minor road approaches
UI All crashes 0.4 $ Medium
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, leftturn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ 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 0.35 $-$$ High
Install delineators, reflectors,
and/or object marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High

Page 473 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
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?
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
bicycles
SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Bicycle signal/exclusive
bicycle phase
SI Bicycle N/A $-$$ Low
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Splitter islands SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Medium
Approach curvature SI, UI 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 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,

Page 474 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the City’s Safe System Approach.

Table 6. City of East Palo Alto 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
LEC3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure
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
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO5: Smart City Fleets
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

Page 475 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
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 East Palo Alto Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the City of East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto Police Department, City of East Palo Alto Public Works 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 East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto Police Department
Coordinating partners: City of East Palo Alto Public Works

Page 476 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
LEC3: Graduated Traffic Fine Structure
Through the legislative agenda, advocate for an income-based graduated traffic fine structure at the state level, so they do not disproportionately impact people with lower incomes.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: City of East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto 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 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 East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto 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: City of East Palo Alto Public Works
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.

Page 477 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
Lead agency: City of East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto 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.

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

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto Public Works

Page 478 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving East Palo Alto’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The City of East Palo Alto 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 East Palo Alto can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for East Palo Alto 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 7. City of East Palo Alto Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Eliminate traffic fatalities and
reduce the number of non-fatal
injury crashes by 50 percent by
2030.
• 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
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
• versus outside these areas
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding community engagement, including information about outreach to
disadvantaged communities where applicable.
• Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in Schools programs to more schools within the City
• 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
• 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

Page 479 of 1188 ends

/ City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of East Palo Alto
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

Page 480 of 1188 ends

City of
Foster City

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

Page 481 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

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

LOCAL JURISDICTION

Page 482 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
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.

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.

Page 483 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
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.

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.

Page 484 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
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 Crash Data & Trends ...............................................................................................................................................................9 Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................13 Project Identification & Prioritization ................................................................................................................................ 15 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Social Equity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ..........................................................................................................20 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations.............................................................................................................25 Near-Term Actions...........................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Implementation & Monitoring.............................................................................................................................................28

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Phase 1 pop-up event held as part of the City of Foster City’s “Summer Days.”............................................................5 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Foster City .............................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Foster City..................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)............................................................................... 16 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 16 Figure 8: Foster City Priority Locations .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19

Page 485 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 2

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Foster City Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs..............................................................4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events.......................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Foster City.................................................................................................................................................13 Table 4. Priority Locations.......................................................................................................................................................................................................17 Table 5. City of Foster City Countermeasure Toolbox.........................................................................................................................................21 Table 6. City of Foster City Policy and Program Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 25 Table 7. Foster City Goals and Measures of Success ........................................................................................................................................ 28

Page 486 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 3

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

The City of Foster City has a 2023 population of 32,703 per California Department of Finance. The city has 50 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 150 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 13 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of all reported crashes and 46 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

Bicyclists were involved in 11 percent of all reported crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Foster City’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.

Page 487 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 4

VISION & GOALS
The City of Foster City’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050 as part of a broader effort to promote roadway safety in Foster City’s departments, businesses, and residents.

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

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

Table 1. City of Foster City 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
General citywide
improvement
initiatives
The City plans to improve safety through multiple tools and programs. The Police Department will enforce policies and help to lead public education programs. Meanwhile, the Traffic Review Committee will map and monitor collisions, conduct speed surveys, and review safety improvements to make
recommendations.

Safe Roads,
Safe Speeds,
Safe Road
Users, Safe
Vehicles

Page 488 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 5
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 Foster City’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
• Foster City Police Department
Figure 1. Phase 1 pop-up event held as part of the City of Foster City’s “Summer Days.”

Page 489 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
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.

Various

Page 490 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 7

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were five comments made within the City of Foster City in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. The comments included the following:

Biking Concerns/Requests
• Request to add new bike infrastructure such as bike lanes. Noted location includes San Mateo Bridge.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Signage requests including push buttons for WALK signs and pedestrian hybrid beacons.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Concerns regarding speeding observed and requests for traffic calming, especially near school zones.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Concerns regarding high traffic volumes and traffic congestion on Highway 101. • Requests to improve signal timing design to reduce intersection delay.

The location and modal emphasis of comments in Foster City is presented in Figure 44. 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.

Page 491 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 8
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Foster City

Page 492 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 9

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 B.

Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Foster City 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 Foster City:

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 Foster City, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 46 percent and 23 percent of the 13 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (13 percent and 11 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 Foster City, four of the six fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes (67 percent) and three of the four fatal/severe injury motor vehicle crashes (75 percent) occurred in dark conditions.

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Foster City, 8 crashes or 5 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu Page 493 of 1188 / City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 10

In Foster City, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 39 percent of injury crashes).

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the City of Foster City 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.

Page 494 of 1188 ends

18%
(1,164)
18%
(20)
Foster City—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
39%
(44)
11%
(13)
14%
(16)
18%
(21)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Foster City compares:

Foster Countywide
City 3% (5) 5% (8)
of reported collisions
in Foster City
involved drugs or
alcohol
of reported collisions
in Foster City
involved young
drivers2
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In Foster City, 150 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Countywide
Local
71% (143)
State Highway
29% (7)
Foster
City
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (20)
Bicycle Crashes (16)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (114)
23% (3)
31% (4)
13% (20) 46% (6)
11% (16)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
76% (114)
Foster City
Foster City
Foster City

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.

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)

Page 495 of 1188 ends

Foster City—Crash History
Foster City
Foster City
Foster City
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (1)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (8)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (28)
All Injury Crashes (114)
All Injury Crashes (16)
All Injury Crashes (20)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (4)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (3)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (6)
67% (4)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
25% (28) 75% (3)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Foster City compares to Countywide crashes:
6% (1)
40% (8)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (20)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (16)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
30%
(6)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
30%
(6)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
10%
(2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
13%
(2)
21%
(186)
6%
(1)
12%
(106)
13%
(2)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
38%
(6)
35%
(372)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)

Page 496 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 13
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 Foster City
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Foster City Blvd Foster City 1.7 X X
Metro Center
Blvd Foster City 0.7 X
Shell Blvd Foster City 1.1 X
Hillsdale Blvd Foster City, San Mateo 3.9 X X X

Page 497 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 14
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Foster City

Page 498 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 15
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).

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

Page 499 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 16
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 7. 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,

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

Page 500 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 17
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 C. Figure 8 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Chess Dr and Foster City Blvd Intersection No X
2 Regulus St and Edgewater Blvd Intersection No X
3 Catamaran St and Shell Blvd Intersection No X X
4 Galleon Ln and Foster City Blvd Intersection No X X X 5 Hillsdale Blvd and Parkway Ln Intersection No X X X
6 Marlin Ave and Foster City Blvd Intersection No X X
7 Foster City Blvd and 3rd Ave Intersection No X
8 Beach Park Blvd and Egret St Intersection No X X
9 Altair Ave and Edgewater Blvd Intersection No X
10 Marlin Ave and Beach Park
Blvd
Intersection No X
11 3rd Ave and Mariners Island
Blvd
Intersection No X

Page 501 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 18
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
12 Commons Ln and Metro
Center Blvd
Intersection No X
13 Foster City Blvd and Caravel Ln Intersection No X X
14 Shell Blvd and Bounty Dr Intersection No X
15 Hillsdale Blvd and Meridian
Bay Ln
Intersection No X X
16 Hillsdale Blvd and Admiralty Ln Intersection No X X
17 Foster City Blvd and Civic
Center Dr
Intersection No X
18 Foster City Blvd and Admiralty
Ln
Intersection No X
19 Shell Blvd and Civic Center Dr Intersection No X
20 Hillsdale Blvd and Portal Ln Intersection No X
21 Promontory Point Ln and
Hillsdale Blvd
Intersection No X
22 Foster City Blvd and Hillsdale
Blvd
Edgewater Blvd and Dorado Ln
Intersection No X
23 Beach Park Blvd and Swordfish
St
Intersection No X
24 Edgewater Blvd and Ram Ln Intersection No X
25 Tarpon St and Beach Park Blvd Intersection No X
26 Foster City Blvd, Chess Dr to
Bounty Dr
Corridor No X X X
27 Hillsdale Blvd, Sea Spray Ln to
north of Pilgrim Dr
Corridor No X X X
28 Shell Blvd, Hillsdale Blvd to
Beach Park Blvd
Corridor No X X
29 Edgewater Blvd, Hillsdale Blvd
to Beach Park Blvd
Corridor No X X
30 Hillsdale/Beach Park Blvd,
Pilgrim Dr to Foster City Blvd
Corridor No X X

Page 502 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 19
Figure 8: Foster City Priority Locations

Page 503 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
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 City of Foster City. First are engineering recommendations: identified project scopes and 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.

The scoped project locations include:
 Shell Blvd and Civic Center Dr. Recommended improvements include:
o Upgraded, larger stop sign at Civic Center Dr
o Installation of a pedestrian crossing at the west leg of the intersection

Page 504 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 21
o Installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon at the west leg of the intersection  Marlin Ave and Foster City Blvd. Recommended improvements include:
o Change of traffic control
o Pedestrian countdown signal heads
o Advance stop bar before all crosswalks (bicycle box)
For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix D.

Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
This section presents Safe System-aligned engineering recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Foster City. 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.

Table 5. City of Foster City 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

Page 505 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
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?
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
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 $$$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and U-turns
(unsignalized intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ 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

0.25 $ High

Page 506 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 23
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
of driver
awareness
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI 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

Page 507 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
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?
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Bicycle signal/exclusive bike
phase
SI Bicycle N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ 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

Page 508 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 25
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 6. City of Foster City 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
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
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
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) • 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: City of Foster City 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.

Page 509 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 26
Lead agency: City of Foster City Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the City of Foster City Police Department to implement a local highvisibility 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 Foster City Police Department, City of Foster City Public Works LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with Foster City 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 Foster City Police Department
Coordinating partners: City of Foster City 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 Foster City 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 Foster City 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.)

Page 510 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 27
Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.

Lead agency: City of Foster City 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 Foster City 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 Foster City 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 City.

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

Page 511 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 28

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Foster City’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The City of Foster City 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 Foster City can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for Foster City 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 7. Foster City Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Regularly monitor crashes to
respond to safety problems and
changing conditions. Prioritize
locations with high crash rates for
safety improvements.
• 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
• Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding community engagement, including information about outreach to
disadvantaged communities where applicable
• 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

2. Provide opportunities for
community engagement to
identify issues and inform safety
solutions across the community.
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs) versus outside these areas • Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding community engagement, including information about outreach to
disadvantaged communities where applicable.
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in Schools programs to more schools within the City
• 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. • Percent of school district participation in SRTS and roadway safety education opportunities

Page 512 of 1188 ends

/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 29
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

Page 513 of 1188 ends

City of
Half Moon Bay

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

Page 514 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

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

LOCAL JURISDICTION

Page 515 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1
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.

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.

Page 516 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
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.

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.

Page 517 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision and Goals ......................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 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 ...........................................................................................................21 Project Scopes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................22 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations............................................................................................................ 26 Near-Term Improvements.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................27 Implementation & Monitoring............................................................................................................................................. 31

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A pop-up event at the Half Moon Bay Farmers Market................................................................................................................... 7 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Half Moon Bay ....................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Half Moon Bay............................................................................................................................ 15 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 16

Page 518 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................................17 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent).................................................................17 Figure 8: Half Moon Bay Priority Locations................................................................................................................................................................. 20

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Foster City Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs..............................................................4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events.......................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Half Moon Bay ....................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 5. City of Half Moon Bay Countermeasure Toolbox...............................................................................................................................22 Table 6. City of Half Moon Bay Policy and Program Recommendations...............................................................................................27 Table 7. City of Half Moon Bay Goals and Measures of Success .................................................................................................................31

Page 519 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

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

The City of Half Moon Bay has a 2023 population of 11,226 per California Department of Finance. The city has 30 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 145 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 17 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 9 percent of all reported crashes and 18 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

Bicyclists were involved in 10 percent of all reported crashes and 12 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Half Moon Bay’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.

Page 520 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION AND GOALS
The City of Half Moon Bay vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050.

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

3. Monitor implementation of the City of Half Moon Bay LRSP to track progress towards goals.

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

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road Users
City of Half Moon Bay
Bicycle and Pedestrian
Master Plan
This plan identifies needs and prioritizes improvements to the City of Half Moon Bay’s pedestrian and bicycle facilities and programs. Informed by existing infrastructure and current safety issues, this plan recommends improvements to
address current and future bike/ped demand based on
current conditions and anticipated infill development. This plan also provides a blueprint for the City to implement a complete bicycle and pedestrian network over time. Finally, the plan provides the City with the necessary tools to apply for a grant funding for implementation. The plan should be revised over time as new conditions and opportunities arise.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds
Capital Improvement
Project—Neighborhood
Traffic Safety Program
This program involves the implementation of a neighborhood traffic-calming and safety program and will provide a source of funding to address neighborhood concerns.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds

Page 521 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Capital Improvement
Project—Bicycle and
Pedestrian
Connectivity and
Safety Program
This program is intended to fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements identified in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan as part of other defined projects. Funds may also be used as a matching source for potential grant opportunities.

Examples of elements funded through this program include bike lane striping and regulatory/wayfinding signage.

Safe Roads, Safe
Road Users, Safe
Speeds
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 Foster City’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
• Foster City 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.

Page 522 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
Table 2. 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 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

Page 523 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
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 50). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were 44 comments made within the City of Foster City in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. The comments included the following:

Figure 1. A pop-up event at the Half Moon Bay Farmers Market

Page 524 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes, separated bike lanes, road diets, bike tunnels, and bike bridges.
• Upgrade or general maintenance concerns of existing bike infrastructure including restriping bike lanes and removing debris along bike paths.
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, and turning conflicts at intersections.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new and/or continuous sidewalks, widening existing sidewalks, providing pedestrian refuge islands, midblock crossings, and high visibility crosswalks.
• Requests to provide safe crossing paths across highways. • Signage requests including installing STOP signs at unsignalized intersections, installing rectangular rapid flashing beacons, push buttons for WALK signs and increasing pedestrian walk times and modifying signals to include a leading pedestrian interval (especially at schools). • Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including speeding, running STOP signs and conflicts at intersections.
• Pedestrian visibility concerns: street lighting is absent or insufficient. • Concerns regarding speeding bikes, creating potential conflicts with pedestrians.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Multiple concerns regarding running STOP signs, red lights, and illegal turning movements. • Concerns regarding speeding observed at multiple locations – requests for traffic calming especially in school zones.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Primary concerns include traffic congestion, and narrow lanes. • Concerns regarding maintenance of roadway infrastructure including high friction of the roadway surfaces, potholes, improving visibility at intersections, repairing roadways from storm damage. • Requests to separate traffic in opposing directions to prevent head-on crashes. • Requests to improve emergency vehicle access and to make the roadway infrastructure in the city ADA compliant.
• Install street lighting to increase visibility along roadways.

The location and modal emphasis of comments in Half Moon Bay is presented in Figure 51. 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 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 for locations in the City of Half Moon Bay:

Motor Vehicle Comments
• Concerns about speeding on roadways, specifically between Highway 1 and Main Street • Desire for improvements to encourage slower speeds

Page 525 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Half Moon Bay

Page 526 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10

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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay:

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 Half Moon Bay, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 18 percent and 12 percent of the 17 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (9 percent and 10 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 Half Moon Bay, two of the three fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes (67 percent) occurred in dark conditions. Among crashes of all modes, 24 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes occurred in dark conditions.

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Half Moon Bay, 8 crashes or 6 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu Page 527 of 1188 / City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11

In Half Moon Bay, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 37 percent of injury crashes).

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 Half Moon Bay, 13 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 Half Moon Bay 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.

Page 528 of 1188 ends

18%
(21)
Half Moon Bay—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
43%
(50)
9%
(10)
12%
(14)
19%
(22)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Half Moon Bay compares:

Half Moon Countywide
Bay 13% 6%
of reported collisions
in Half Moon Bay
involved drugs or
alcohol
of reported collisions
in Half Moon Bay
involved young
drivers1
(19) (8)
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In Half Moon Bay, 145 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Countywide
Local
23% (29)
State Highway
77% (116)
Half Moon
Bay
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (8)
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
12% (2)
71% (12)
9% (13) 18% (3)
10% (15)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
81% (117)
Half Moon Bay
Half Moon Bay
Half Moon Bay

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)

Page 529 of 1188 ends

Half Moon Bay—Crash History
Half Moon
Half Moon
Bay
Half Moon
Bay
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (3)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (6)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (36)
All Injury Crashes (117)
All Injury Crashes (15)
All Injury Crashes (13)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (12)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (3)
67% (2)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
31% (36) 17% (2)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Half Moon Bay compares to Countywide crashes:
20% (3)
46% (6)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (3)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (2)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
10%
(2)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
0%
(0)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
10%
(2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
7%
(1)
21%
(186)
7%
(1)
12%
(106)
27%
(4)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
47%
(7)
35%
(372)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)

Page 530 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
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 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Half Moon Bay
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
SR 1 Half Moon Bay, Pacifica,
Unincorporated

30.4 X X
San Mateo Rd Half Moon Bay, Unincorporated 6.6 X
Main St Redwood City, Half Moon Bay 2.0 X

Page 531 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Half Moon Bay

Page 532 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
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 &

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

Page 533 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 7. 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,

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

Page 534 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
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. 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 Highway 1 and Poplar St Intersection Yes X X X
2 Highway 1 and Ruisseau
Francais Ave
Intersection Yes X X X
3 Main St and Lewis Foster Dr Intersection No X X X
4 Highway 1 and Miramontes
Point Rd
Intersection Yes X
5 Highway 1 and Fairway Dr Intersection Yes X
6 Highway 1 and Mirada Rd Intersection Yes X
7 Highway 1 and Redondo Beach Intersection Yes X
8 Highway 1 and Roosevelt Blvd Intersection Yes X
9 Highway 1 and Filbert St Intersection Yes X
10 Highway 1 and Spindrift Way Intersection Yes X
11 Filbert St and Purissima St and
Main St
Intersection No X

Page 535 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
12 Highway 1 and Seymour St Intersection Yes X
13 Church St and Kelly Ave Intersection No X
14 Highway 1 and Highway 92 Intersection Yes X X X
15 Kelly Ave Corridor No X X X
16 Main St Corridor No X X X
17 Poplar St, from Highway 1 to
Railroad Ave
Corridor No X X X
18 Highway 1, from Miramontes
Point Rd to Main St South
Corridor Yes X X X
19 Highway 1, from Main Spindrift
Way to Russeau Francais Ave
Corridor Yes X X X
20 Wavecrest Rd, from Highway 1
to the Coastal Trail
Corridor No X X X
21 Miramontes Ave, from Alsace
Lorraine to east end
Corridor No X

Page 536 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
Figure 8: Half Moon Bay Priority Locations

Page 537 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Half Moon Bay. First are engineering recommendations: identified project scopes and 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.

The scoped project locations include:
 Kelly Ave E to W City limit. Recommended improvements include:
o Separated bike lanes

Page 538 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
o Midblock pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features (flashing beacons, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines)
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
 Main St N to City limit. Recommended improvements include:
o Separated bike lanes
o Pedestrian crossing with enhanced safety features (Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines) at Main St/Spruce St o Raised pedestrian crossings at three locations
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix E.

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.

Table 5. City of Half Moon Bay 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
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
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (SI)*
SI Rear end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
No right turn on red SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ Medium

Page 539 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
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 pedestrian
scramble*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.4 $ 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

Page 540 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
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?
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
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness

0.25 $ High

Page 541 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
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?
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 $$$ High
Install transverse rumble
strips on approaches*
UI All crashes 0.2 $ High
Install splitter islands on
the minor road
approaches*
UI All crashes 0.4 $ Medium
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ 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

Page 542 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
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?
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
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Splitter islands UI, SI All crashes N/A $$ Medium
Approach curvature UI, SI All crashes N/A $$$ 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 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.

Page 543 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Table 6. City of Half Moon Bay Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
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 Fleets
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)
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: City of Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the San Matteo County Sheriff’s Office to implement a local highvisibility media campaign pertaining to one or more emphasis areas identified in this plan.

Page 544 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Trailer
Coordinate with the San Matteo County Sheriff’s Office 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: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: City of Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay 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

Page 545 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay Public Works
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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay 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.

Page 546 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the City.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay Public Works

Page 547 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31

IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Half Moon Bay’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The City of Half Moon Bay 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 Half Moon Bay can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.

This section identifies recommendations for Half Moon Bay 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 7. City of Half Moon Bay 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.
• 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. 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

3. Monitor implementation of the Half
Moon Bay LRSP to track progress
towards goals.
• See above in this table

Page 548 of 1188 ends

/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

Page 549 of 1188 ends

Town of
Hillsborough

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024

Page 550 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

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

LOCAL JURISDICTION

Page 551 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
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.

Page 552 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
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.

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.

Page 553 of 1188 ends

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision and Goals ......................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Online Map Survey.............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Crash Data & Trends ............................................................................................................................................................... 7 Emphasis Areas .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Countywide High Injury Network.................................................................................................................................................................................... 11 Project Identification & Prioritization................................................................................................................................. 13 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 Social Equity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 Improvements – engineering, policy & programs...........................................................................................................21 Project Scopes .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations.............................................................................................................23 Near-Term Improvements..........................................................................................................................................................................................23 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................24 Implementation & Monitoring.............................................................................................................................................27

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Online Map Survey Tool.........................................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 2. Countywide HIN within the Town of Hillsborough..............................................................................................................................12 Figure 3. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)........................................................................13 Figure 4. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)............................................................................... 14 Figure 5. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 14 Figure 6: Hillsborough Priority Locations..................................................................................................................................................................... 20

Page 554 of 1188 ends

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

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Town of Hillsborough Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs......................................................4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events.......................................................................................................................................5 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Hillsborough .............................................................................................................................................11 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 5. Town of Hillsborough Countermeasure Toolbox................................................................................................................................22 Table 6. Town of Hillsborough Policy and Program Recommendations .............................................................................................. 23 Table 7. Town of Hillsborough Goals and Measures of Success .................................................................................................................27

Page 555 of 1188 ends

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

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the Town of Hillsborough. 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 Hillsborough has a 2023 population of 10,962 per California Department of Finance. The Town has 82 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, pedestrians were involved in 11 percent of all reported crashes and 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

Bicyclists were involved in 18 percent of all reported crashes and 40 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Hillsborough’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.

Page 556 of 1188 ends

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

VISION AND GOALS
The Town of Hillsborough’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050.

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 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 Hillsborough.

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 Hillsborough LRSP to track progress towards goals.

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

Table 1. Town of Hillsborough 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
Eucalyptus Pathway The Town has an ongoing project, identified through prior planning processes to construct a 1,900-foot-long ADAaccessible path. The Town has received funding from San Mateo County Transportation Authority and the project is under construction.

Safe Roads

Page 557 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Pedestrian Master Plan The Town is currently preparing its Bicycle and Pedestrian Pathway Master Plan. The Plan will be a guidance document for the Town to identify bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly pathways.

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 support of Hillsborough’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
• Hillsborough 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.

Page 558 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
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

Figure 1. Online Map Survey Tool

Page 559 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
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 was one comment made within the Town which was a comment that there is a general lack of coordination between cities in roadway safety planning. That comments is provided in Appendix A.

The Town may continue to monitor its SeeClickFix reports to monitor issues identified by residents and visitors.

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 Hillsborough 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 Hillsborough:

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 Hillsborough, among five reported F/SI crashes, a pedestrian was involved in one and bicyclists were involved in two. There was one recorded pedestrian F/SI crash and two recorded bicyclist F/SI crashes (out of 5 F/SI crashes in the period).

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 Hillsborough, 9 or 33 percent of motor vehicle 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 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu

Page 560 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.

In Hillsborough, “Too fast for conditions” was cited for 4 out of 38 reported injury crashes (11 percent).

6. 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 Hillsborough, 13 percent of all reported injury crashes involve impaired driving.

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the Town of Hillsborough 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.

Page 561 of 1188 ends

18%
(1,164)
15%
(4)
Hillsborough—Injury & Fatal Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
11%
(3)
22%
(6)
30%
(8)
22%
(6)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Hillsborough compares:

Hillsborough Countywide
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
13%
of reported collisions in
Hillsborough involved drugs
or alcohol
8% (5) (625)
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In Hillsborough, 38 injury crashes, including 1 fatal crash were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Countywide
Local
87% (33)
State Highway
13% (5)

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.

Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (4)
Bicycle Crashes (7)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (27)
40% (2)
40% (2)
11% (4) 20% (1)
18% (7)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
71% (27)
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes

Page 562 of 1188 ends

Hillsborough—Injury & Fatal Crash History
Hillsborough
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (9)
All Injury Crashes (27) Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2) 0% (0)
Countywide 26% (1,674) 34% (173)
33% (9)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Hillsborough compares to Countywide crashes:

Reported Bicycle Crashes (7)
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Agency Countywide
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
14%
(1)
21%
(186)
Motorist
proceeding
straight
14%
(1)
12%
(106)
Motorist
making
left turn
57%
(4)
35%
(372)

Page 563 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11
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 2 show the HIN segments identified within the Town.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Hillsborough
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Golf Course Dr Hillsborough, Unincorporated 0.2 X

Page 564 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 12
Figure 2. Countywide HIN within the Town of Hillsborough

Page 565 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 13
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).

Figure 3. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)

Page 566 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Figure 4. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 5. 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,

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

Page 567 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
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 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 D. Figure 6 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Skyline Blvd and Skyfarm Dr Intersection No X X X
2 Hayne Rd and Golf Course Dr Intersection No X X
3 Skyline Blvd and Butternut Dr Intersection No X X X
4 Skyline Blvd and Rowan Tree
Ln
Intersection No X X X
5 El Cerrito Ave and Gramercy
Dr
Intersection No X X X
6 Santa Inez Ave and Arlington
Ln
Intersection No X
7 Black Mountain Rd and
Denise Dr
Intersection No X
8 Black Mountain Rd and
Wedgewood Dr
Intersection No X X
9 Merner Rd and Crystal
Springs Rd
Intersection No X X X
10 Crystal Springs Ter and
Crystal Springs Rd
Intersection No X X X

Page 568 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
11 Crystal Springs Rd and
Ridgeway Rd
Intersection No X X X
12 Woodridge Rd and Crystal
Springs Rd
Intersection No X X X
13 Crystal Springs Rd and El
Cerrito Ave
Intersection No X X X
14 Stonehedge Rd and
Baywood Ave
Intersection No X
15 Hayne Rd and Golf Course Dr Intersection Yes X
16 Kammerer Ct and Bellevue
Ave
Intersection No X X
17 Black Mountain Rd and
Denise Rd
Intersection No X
18 Barbara Way and Hayne Rd Intersection No X
19 El Cerrito Ave and
Stonehedge Rd
Intersection No X X
20 Eucalyptus Ave and Ralston
Ave
Intersection No X X
21 Stonepine Rd and Barroilhet
Ave
Intersection No X
22 Ralston Ave and Chateau Dr Intersection No X
23 Homeplace Ct and
Barroilhet Ave
Intersection No X
24 Eucalyptus Ave and
Tamarack Dr
Intersection No X
25 Stonepine Rd and Stonepine
Ct
Intersection No X
26 Tamarack Dr and Farmhill Ct Intersection No X
27 Tartan Trail Rd and Lakeview
Dr
Intersection No X
28 Downey Way and Acorn Dr Intersection No X
29 Fagan Dr and Margo Ln Intersection No X
30 Fagan Dr and Jackling Dr Intersection No X
31 Irwin Dr and Forest View Ave Intersection No X

Page 569 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
32 Forest View Ave and
Denham Ct
Intersection No X
33 Carmelita Ave and Armsby
Dr
Intersection No X
34 Armsby Dr and Reynolds Ct Intersection No X
35 Eucalyptus Ave and Geri Ln Intersection No X
36 El Cerrito Ave and Waverly Pl Intersection No X
37 Warm Canyon Way and
Remillard Dr
Intersection No X
38 Hayne Rd and Darrell Rd Intersection No X
39 Remillard Dr and Mosswood
Rd
Intersection No X
40 Barbara Way and Hayne Rd Intersection No X
41 Camphor Ct and Rowan
Tree Ln
Intersection No X
42 Sherwood Ct and De Sabla
Rd
Intersection No X
43 Roehampton Rd and
Richmond Rd
Intersection No X
44 El Cerrito Ave and Poett Rd Intersection No X
45 Roblar Ave and Milford Ave Intersection No X
46 Laureldale Rd and Bridge Rd Intersection No X
47 Roehampton Rd and Poett
Rd
Intersection No X
48 Santa Inez Ave and Santa
Maria Ln
Intersection No X
49 Stonehedge Rd and St
Francis Rd
Intersection No X
50 Roblar Ave and El Cerrito Ave Intersection No X
51 Roblar Ave and Severn Ave Intersection No X
52 Roblar Ave and Ericson Rd Intersection No X
53 El Cerrito Ave and Wickham
Pl
Intersection No X

Page 570 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
54 Fallenleaf Dr and Bridge Rd Intersection No X
55 Homs Ct and El Cerrito Ave Intersection No X
56 Stonehedge Rd and Bridge
Rd
Intersection No X
57 Floribunda Ave and Pepper
Ave
Intersection No X
58 Floribunda Ave and
Highgate Ln
Intersection No X
59 Fairway Cir and Floribunda
Ave
Intersection No X
60 Pepper Ave and
Summerholme Pl
Intersection No X
61 Newhall Rd and Willow Ave Intersection No X
62 Alberta Way and Roberts
Way
Intersection No X
63 Alberta Way and Hayne Rd Intersection No X
64 Robinwood Ln and Hayne Rd Intersection No X
65 Roberts Way and Intersection No X
66 Butternut Dr and Privet Dr Intersection No X
67 Churchill Dr And Intersection No X
68 Privet Dr and Churchill Dr Intersection No X
69 Grevillea Ct and Butternut Dr Intersection No X
70 Rowan Tree Ln and Darrell Rd Intersection No X
71 Poett Rd and Roblar Ave Intersection No X
72 Redwood Dr and Sierra Dr Intersection No X
73 Bridge Rd and Redwood Dr Intersection No X
74 Fallenleaf Dr and Uplands Dr Intersection No X
75 Uplands Dr and Normandy
Ct
Intersection No X
76 Uplands Dr and Redwood Dr Intersection No X
77 Uplands Dr and Rockridge
Rd
Intersection No X

Page 571 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
78 Rockridge Rd and Greenbriar
Way
Intersection No X
79 Rockridge Rd and
Creekwood Way
Intersection No X
80 Barroilhet Ave and Conifer Ln Intersection No X
81 Eucalyptus Ave and
Barroilhet Ave
Intersection No X
82 Woodland Dr and
Tournament Dr
Intersection No X
83 Fairway Cir and Fairway Cir Intersection No X
84 Floribunda Ave and Walnut
Ave
Intersection No X
85 Eucalyptus Ave and New
Place Rd
Intersection No X
86 Eucalyptus Ave and
Floribunda Ave
Intersection No X
87 Floribunda Ave and Madrone
Pl
Intersection No X
88 Eucalyptus Ave and
Bayberry Pl
Intersection No X
89 Parkside Ave and Ralston
Ave
Intersection No X
90 Eucalyptus Ave and Tevis Pl Intersection No X
91 Skyline Blvd (SR 35), N town
limit to Hayne Rd
Corridor Yes X X X
91 Crystal Springs Rd, El Cerrito
Rd to S town limit
Corridor No X X X

Page 572 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
Figure 6: Hillsborough Priority Locations

Page 573 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the Town of Hillsborough. 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.

Project Scopes
With the development of this plan the project team worked with the Town 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 Town could consider at these locations.

The project scopes were developed considering a Town-approved list of 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:
 El Cerrito Ave and Gramercy Dr. Recommended improvements include:
o Installation of larger stop signs on all approaches
 Crystal Springs Rd—El Cerrito Ave to south town limit. Recommended improvements include:
o Upgraded, larger stop signs and other warning or regulatory signs o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix D.

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.

Page 574 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Table 5. Town of Hillsborough Countermeasure Toolbox
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)*
UI, R Rear end,
broadside

0.3 $-$$ Medium
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
UI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.15 $ High
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 dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver behavior 0.3 $ High
*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 above2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000

Page 575 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
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 6. Town of Hillsborough 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
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC1: Law Enforcement Training
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding 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
LEO6: Conspicuity Enhancements and Education
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE5: Data Quality Improvements
LPE6: Crash Data Enhancements
LPE7: Big Data
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan

Page 576 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
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 Hillsborough 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 Hillsborough Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the Town of Hillsborough 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.

Identify through the TSAC if opportunities for efficiency are available in coordination with the County Sheriff’s Office or California Highway Patrol.

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol, Town of Hillsborough Public Works LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Trailer
Coordinate with Hillsborough 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: Town of Hillsborough Police Department
Coordinating partners: Town of Hillsborough 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 Hillsborough 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

Page 577 of 1188 ends

/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
• 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: Town of Hillsborough 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: Town of Hillsborough 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: Town of Hillsborough Public Works
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health
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 Hillsborough Public Works
LEO6: Conspicuity Enhancements and Education
Educate pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable users in the importance of wearing reflective clothing and traveling in well-lit areas. Additional measures could include distributing reflective clothing to residents.

Lead agency: Town of Hillsborough 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 Hillsborough 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: Town of Hillsborough 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.

Page 578 of 1188 ends

Atherton City CouncilNovember 20, 2024

Atherton City Council
November 20, 2024