Atherton City Council
November 20, 2024

Hillsborough Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
HB_1 Hillsborough Skyline Boulevard (SR 35), N town limit to Hayne Road Yes 1.6 4 4 4 4 HB_2 Hillsborough Crystal Springs Road, El Cerrito Road to S town limit No 1.2 5 5 5 5

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Portola Valley Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_4 PV_2 0 0 22 22 2 Portola Rd And Grove Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 3 Portola Rd And Georgia Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 4 Portola Rd And Corte Madera Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 5 Alpine Rd And Indian Xing No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_5 PV_2 PV_4 11 0 11 22 6 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_5 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 191 191 7 Alpine Rd And Saddleback No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_5 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 8 Alpine Rd And Echo Ln No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_5 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 9 Alpine Rd And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_1 PV_15 22 0 0 22 10 Alpine Rd And Golden Oak Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_3 PV_11 6 0 191 197 11 Stonegate Rd And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_11 0 0 191 191 12 Westridge Dr And Alpine Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_13 0 0 11 11 13 Westridge Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_14 0 0 6 6 14 Portola Rd And Unnamed No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 15 Wyndham Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 16 Santa Maria Ave And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 17 Portola Rd And Farm Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 18 Golden Oak Dr And Alpine Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Portola Valley Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 PV_1 PV_4 PV_5 0 0 191 191 2 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_2 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 22 22 3 Alpine Rd And Arastradero Rd No 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.5 PV_3 PV_4 PV_21 0 0 213 213 4 Alpine Rd And Indian Xing No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_4 PV_2 PV_5 11 0 11 22 5 Los Trancos Rd And Alpine Rd No 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.5 PV_5 PV_4 PV_21 0 0 202 202 6 Portola Rd And Grove Dr No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 0 0 7 Portola Rd And Georgia Ln No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 0 0 8 Portola Rd And Corte Madera Rd No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 0 0 9 Alpine Rd And Saddleback No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_5 0 0 0 0 10 Alpine Rd And Echo Ln No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_5 0 0 0 0 11 Alpine Rd And Golden Oak Dr No 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 PV_11 PV_3 PV_9 6 0 191 197 12 Stonegate Rd And Portola Rd No 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 PV_11 PV_4 PV_9 0 0 191 191 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Portola Valley Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Alpine Rd And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_9 PV_15 22 0 0 22 2 Alpine Rd And Indian Xing No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_2 PV_5 PV_4 11 0 11 22 3 Alpine Rd And Golden Oak Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_3 PV_9 PV_11 6 0 191 197 4 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_1 PV_2 0 0 22 22 5 Portola Rd And Grove Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_1 PV_6 0 0 0 0 6 Portola Rd And Georgia Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_1 PV_6 0 0 0 0 7 Portola Rd And Corte Madera Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_1 PV_6 0 0 0 0 8 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_5 PV_1 0 0 191 191 9 Alpine Rd And Saddleback No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_5 PV_6 0 0 0 0 10 Alpine Rd And Echo Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_5 PV_6 0 0 0 0 11 Stonegate Rd And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_11 0 0 191 191 12 Westridge Dr And Alpine Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_13 0 0 11 11 13 Westridge Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_14 0 0 6 6 14 Portola Rd And Unnamed No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 15 Wyndham Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 16 Santa Maria Ave And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 17 Portola Rd And Farm Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 18 Golden Oak Dr And Alpine Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 19 Alpine Rd And Arastradero Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_3 0 0 213 213 20 Los Trancos Rd And Alpine Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_5 0 0 202 202 21 Alpine Rd And Unnamed No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 22 Portola Rd And Nathhorst Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 23 Portola Rd And Canyon Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 24 Portola Rd And Willowbrook Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 25 Portola Rd And Wayside Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 26 Portola Rd And Hayfields Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 27 Alpine Rd And Firethorn Way No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 28 Alpine Rd And Paso Del Arroyo No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 29 Alpine Rd And Nathhorst Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 30 Alpine Rd And Null Null No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 31 Portola Rd And Null Null No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 32 Firethorn Way And Los Trancos Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_33 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Portola Valley Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
PV_1 Portola Valley Portola Road, W town limit to Alpine Road No 2.3 18 6 12 18 PV_2 Portola Valley Alpine Road, Corte Madera Road to N town limit No 2.6 14 6 7 14

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 San Carlos Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Brittan Ave And Cordilleras Ave No 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 SC_1 SC_3 SC_52 11 191 0 202 2 El Camino Real And Eaton Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_2 SC_1 191 0 191 382 3 Brittan Ave And Cedar St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_3 SC_52 11 0 0 11 4 Greenwood Ave And Tamarack Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_7 SC_52 6 0 0 6 5 Brittan Ave And Rosewood Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_9 SC_52 0 0 0 0 6 Woodland Ave And Brittan Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_9 SC_52 0 0 0 0 7 Brittan Ave And Chestnut St No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_9 SC_52 0 0 0 0 8 Brittan Ave And Orange Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_9 SC_52 0 0 0 0 9 Brittan Ave And Dayton Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_34 SC_52 0 0 0 0 10 Walnut St And Brittan Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_10 SC_9 SC_74 0 0 0 0 11 Brittan Ave And Brook St No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_10 SC_34 SC_74 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 San Carlos Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 El Camino Real And Eaton Ave Yes 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 SC_1 SC_2 SC_2 191 0 191 382 2 Alameda De Las Pulgas And San Carlos Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_23 SC_42 28 0 0 28 3 Cambridge St And San Carlos Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_25 SC_31 11 0 0 11 4 San Carlos Ave And Charlton St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_31 0 0 0 0 5 San Carlos Ave And Kenton Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_31 0 0 0 0 6 San Carlos Ave And Beverly Dr No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_31 0 0 0 0 7 San Carlos Ave And Arundel Rd No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_42 0 0 0 0 8 Plymouth Ave And San Carlos Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_42 0 0 0 0 9 Wellington Dr And San Carlos Ave No 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.4 SC_9 SC_124 SC_60 0 0 120 120 10 Howard Ave And Alameda De Las Pulgas No 0.8 0.6 0.0 1.3 SC_10 SC_137 SC_134 0 0 202 202 11 Rockridge Rd And Alameda De Las Pulgas No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_11 SC_131 SC_64 22 0 0 22 12 Lupin Ave And Alameda De Las Pulgas No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_11 SC_137 SC_96 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 San Carlos Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Belmont Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 SC_1 SC_47 SC_13 230 0 11 241 2 El Camino Real And Eaton Ave Yes 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 SC_2 SC_2 SC_1 191 0 191 382 3 Brittan Ave And Cordilleras Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_3 SC_1 SC_52 11 191 0 202 4 Brittan Ave And Cedar St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_3 SC_2 SC_52 11 0 0 11 5 Brittan Ave And Elm St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_3 SC_18 SC_74 11 0 0 11 6 El Camino Real And Greenwood Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_3 SC_76 SC_16 11 0 0 11 7 Greenwood Ave And Tamarack Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_7 SC_4 SC_52 6 0 0 6 8 White Oak Way And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_7 SC_76 SC_16 6 0 0 6 9 Brittan Ave And Rosewood Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_4 SC_52 0 0 0 0 10 Woodland Ave And Brittan Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_4 SC_52 0 0 0 0 11 Brittan Ave And Chestnut St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_4 SC_52 0 0 0 0 12 Brittan Ave And Orange Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_4 SC_52 0 0 0 0 13 Walnut St And Brittan Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_10 SC_74 0 0 0 0 14 El Camino Real And Central Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_76 SC_13 0 0 11 11 15 Brittan Ave And Old County Rd No 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.5 SC_15 SC_14 SC_310 285 120 11 416 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

San Carlos Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
SC_1 San Carlos Brittan Avenue, Alameda De Las Pulgas to Laurel Street No 1.0 10 0 10 12 SC_2 San Carlos El Camino Real, Belmont Avenue to E town limit Yes 0.5 4 1 1 4 SC_3 San Carlos San Carlos, west of Wellington Drive to W town limit No 0.8 0 7 0 7

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Miramontes Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_1 WSD_15 WSD_3 0 0 0 0 2 Woodside Rd And Fox Hollow Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_1 WSD_15 WSD_3 0 0 0 0 3 Woodside Rd And Albion Ave Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_1 WSD_15 WSD_46 0 0 0 0 4 La Honda Rd And Skyline Blvd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_6 WSD_2 22 0 202 224 5 La Honda Rd And Fox Hill Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_6 WSD_47 22 0 0 22 6 Portola Rd And Mountain Home Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_9 WSD_8 11 0 11 22 7 La Honda Rd And Grandview Dr Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_9 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 8 Portola Rd And Montecito Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_15 WSD_8 0 0 11 11 9 Portola Rd And Phillip Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 10 Skywood Way And La Honda Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 11 Tripp Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 12 Churchill Ave And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_12 WSD_105 WSD_41 11 0 0 11 13 Canada Rd And Corto Ln No 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.8 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_8 0 191 11 202 14 Woodside Rd And Lindenbrook Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_1 WSD_47 202 0 0 202 15 Martinez Rd And La Honda Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_2 WSD_5 191 0 191 382 16 Portola Rd And Old La Honda Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_2 WSD_13 191 0 0 191 17 Woodside Rd And Northgate Dr Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_4 WSD_13 33 0 0 33 18 Interstate Highway 280 Hwy And Farm
Hill Blvd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_4 WSD_47 28 0 0 28 19 La Honda Rd And Portola Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_6 WSD_1 22 0 404 426 20 Portola Rd And Home Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_9 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 21 Woodside Rd And Bear Gulch Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_9 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 22 Canada Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_9 WSD_47 11 0 0 11 23 High Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_14 WSD_8 6 0 11 17 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
24 Woodside Rd And Unnamed Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_5 0 0 191 191 25 Canada Rd And Olive Hill Ln No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_8 0 0 11 11 26 Portola Rd And Forest View Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 27 Southgate Dr And State Highway 84 Hwy Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 28 Smoke Tree Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 29 Canada Rd And Eucalyptus Ct No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 30 Canada Rd And Bardet Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 31 Canada Rd And Arbor Ct No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 32 Canada Rd And Alta Vista Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 33 Canada Rd And Neuman Ln No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 34 Canada Rd And Runnymede Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 35 Why Worry Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 36 Woodside Rd And Roberta Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 37 La Honda Rd And Friars Ln Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 38 Kings Mountain Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 39 Woodside Rd And Martin Ln Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 40 Woodside Rd And Bridle Ln Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
41 Woodside Rd And Montelena Ct Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 42 Canada Rd And Mission Trail Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 43 Canada Rd And Glenwood Ave No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 44 Canada Rd And Laning Dr No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 45 Tadin Ln And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 46 Moore Rd And State Highway 84 Hwy Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 47 Whiskey Hill Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 48 Quail Meadows Dr And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 49 Woodside Rd And Hobart Heights Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 50 Shine Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 51 Canada Ln And Canada Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 52 Woodside Rd And Haciendas Dr Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 53 Dean Rd And Canada Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 54 Canada Rd And Monticello Ct No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 55 Canada Rd And Jefferson Ave No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 56 Canada Rd And Godetia Dr No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 La Honda Rd And Portola Rd Yes 1.0 0.8 0.0 1.8 WSD_1 WSD_6 WSD_14 22 0 404 426 2 La Honda Rd And Skyline Blvd Yes 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.5 WSD_2 WSD_6 WSD_4 22 0 202 224 3 Miramontes Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 WSD_3 WSD_15 WSD_1 0 0 0 0 4 Woodside Rd And Fox Hollow Rd Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 WSD_3 WSD_15 WSD_1 0 0 0 0 5 Martinez Rd And La Honda Rd Yes 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 WSD_5 WSD_2 WSD_14 191 0 191 382 6 Woodside Rd And Unnamed Yes 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 WSD_5 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 191 191 7 Kings Mountain Rd And Greer Rd No 1.0 0.5 0.0 1.5 WSD_7 WSD_57 WSD_60 0 0 382 382 8 Portola Rd And Mountain Home Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_8 WSD_9 WSD_4 11 0 11 22 9 Portola Rd And Montecito Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_8 WSD_15 WSD_4 0 0 11 11 10 Canada Rd And Corto Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_8 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 191 11 202 11 High Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_8 WSD_14 WSD_14 6 0 11 17 12 Canada Rd And Olive Hill Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_8 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 11 11 13 Portola Rd And Old La Honda Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_2 WSD_14 191 0 0 191 14 Woodside Rd And Northgate Dr Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_4 WSD_14 33 0 0 33 15 La Honda Rd And Grandview Dr Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_9 WSD_4 11 0 0 11 16 Portola Rd And Home Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_9 WSD_14 11 0 0 11 17 Woodside Rd And Bear Gulch Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_9 WSD_14 11 0 0 11 18 Portola Rd And Phillip Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_4 0 0 0 0 19 Skywood Way And La Honda Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_4 0 0 0 0 20 Tripp Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_4 0 0 0 0 21 Portola Rd And Forest View Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 22 Southgate Dr And State Highway 84 Hwy Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 23 Smoke Tree Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
24 Canada Rd And Eucalyptus Ct No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 25 Canada Rd And Bardet Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 26 Canada Rd And Arbor Ct No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 27 Canada Rd And Alta Vista Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 28 Canada Rd And Neuman Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 29 Canada Rd And Runnymede Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 30 Why Worry Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 31 Woodside Rd And Roberta Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 32 La Honda Rd And Friars Ln Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 33 Kings Mountain Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 34 Woodside Rd And Martin Ln Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 35 Woodside Rd And Bridle Ln Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 36 Woodside Rd And Montelena Ct Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 37 Canada Rd And Mission Trail Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 38 Canada Rd And Glenwood Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 39 Canada Rd And Laning Dr No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 40 Tadin Ln And Portola Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_14 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Woodside Rd And Lindenbrook Rd Yes 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.2 WSD_1 WSD_14 WSD_47 202 0 0 202 2 Martinez Rd And La Honda Rd Yes 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.2 WSD_2 WSD_14 WSD_5 191 0 191 382 3 Portola Rd And Old La Honda Rd No 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.2 WSD_2 WSD_14 WSD_13 191 0 0 191 4 Woodside Rd And Northgate Dr Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_4 WSD_14 WSD_13 33 0 0 33 5 Interstate Highway 280 Hwy And Farm
Hill Blvd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_4 WSD_14 WSD_47 28 0 0 28 6 La Honda Rd And Portola Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_6 WSD_14 WSD_1 22 0 404 426 7 La Honda Rd And Skyline Blvd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_6 WSD_4 WSD_2 22 0 202 224 8 La Honda Rd And Fox Hill Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_6 WSD_4 WSD_47 22 0 0 22 9 Portola Rd And Mountain Home Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_9 WSD_4 WSD_8 11 0 11 22 10 La Honda Rd And Grandview Dr Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_9 WSD_4 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 11 Portola Rd And Home Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_9 WSD_14 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 12 Woodside Rd And Bear Gulch Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_9 WSD_14 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 13 Canada Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_9 WSD_14 WSD_47 11 0 0 11 14 High Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_14 WSD_14 WSD_8 6 0 11 17 15 Miramontes Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_1 WSD_3 0 0 0 0 16 Woodside Rd And Fox Hollow Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_1 WSD_3 0 0 0 0 17 Woodside Rd And Unnamed Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_5 0 0 191 191 18 Portola Rd And Montecito Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_4 WSD_8 0 0 11 11 19 Canada Rd And Corto Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_13 WSD_8 0 191 11 202 20 Canada Rd And Olive Hill Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_8 0 0 11 11 21 Portola Rd And Phillip Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_4 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 22 Skywood Way And La Honda Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_4 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 23 Tripp Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_4 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
24 Portola Rd And Forest View Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 25 Southgate Dr And State Highway 84 Hwy Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 26 Smoke Tree Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 27 Smoke Tree Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 28 Canada Rd And Eucalyptus Ct No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 29 Canada Rd And Bardet Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 30 Canada Rd And Arbor Ct No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 31 Canada Rd And Alta Vista Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 32 Canada Rd And Neuman Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 33 Canada Rd And Runnymede Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 34 Why Worry Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 35 Woodside Rd And Roberta Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 36 La Honda Rd And Friars Ln Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 37 Kings Mountain Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 38 Woodside Rd And Martin Ln Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 39 Woodside Rd And Bridle Ln Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 40 Woodside Rd And Montelena Ct Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
41 Canada Rd And Mission Trail Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 42 Canada Rd And Glenwood Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 43 Canada Rd And Laning Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 44 Tadin Ln And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 45 Woodside Rd And Albion Ave Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_1 WSD_46 0 0 0 0 46 Moore Rd And State Highway 84 Hwy Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 47 Whiskey Hill Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 48 Quail Meadows Dr And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 49 Woodside Rd And Hobart Heights Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 50 Shine Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 51 Canada Ln And Canada Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 52 Woodside Rd And Haciendas Dr Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 53 Dean Rd And Canada Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 54 Canada Rd And Monticello Ct No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 55 Canada Rd And Jefferson Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 56 Canada Rd And Godetia Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 WSD_15 WSD_14 WSD_47 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Woodside Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State
Highway
Network
Length
(Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
WSD_1 Woodside Portola Road, Family Farm Road to E town limit No 0.8 4 4 4 4 WSD_2 Woodside Canada Road, W town limit to Woodside Road (SR84) No 2.0 17 11 17 17 WSD_3 Woodside Portola Road, Woodside Road (SR84) to E town limit No 0.8 4 4 4 4 WSD_4 Woodside Woodside Road, E town limit to Haciendas Dr Yes 1.3 4 4 4 4 WSD_5 Woodside Woodside Road, Haciendas Dr to Mountain Home Road Yes 0.3 2 0 2 2 WSD_6 Woodside Woodside Road, Mountain Home Road to Kings Mountain RoadYes 0.7 6 4 6 6 WSD_7 Woodside Woodside Road/La Honda Road, Kings Mountain Road to S town limit Yes 5.3 16 15 16 16

November 13, 2023 Page 11
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attachment 2
Draft Prioritized Project Maps

!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@@ @
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!

Menlo
Oaks
North
Fair Oaks
Sequoia
Tract
Stanford
Lands
West
Menlo Atherton Park
Flood Park
ß/101
¦§¨280
Horgan Ave
Edge Rd
Melanie Ln
Toyon Rd
Nimitz Ave
Sherman Ave
Lassen
Dr
Catalpa Dr
Beresford Ave
Elder Ave
Oakdell Dr
Linfield Dr
2nd Ave
Redwood Ave
Polhemus Ave
Roble Ave
Vine St
Willow Rd
Cerrito Ave
1st Ave
Oxford St
Edison Way
W Selby Ln
University Dr
Branner Dr
Santa Clara Ave
Sequoia Ave
Middle Ave
Menlo Ave
Olive St
Spring St
Bellair Way
Felton
Dr
Regent St
College Ave
Placitas Ave
Camino A Los Cerros
James Ave
Inyo Pl
Burgess
D
r
Laurel St
Fletcher Dr
Creek Dr Harvard Ave
Monte Rosa Dr
Cloud Ave
Trinity Dr
Austin Ave
Avy Ave
Arbor Dr
Vera Ave
Carlos Ave
Park Ln
Glenwood Ave
San Mateo Dr
K
e
ntucky St
Sharon Rd
Sharon Park Dr
Middlefield Rd
Connecticut Dr
Lane Pl
Valley Ct
Lorelei Ln
Orange Ave
Fremont St
Shasta St
Alma St
Watkins Ave
Linden St
Oak Ave
Johnson St
Windsor Dr
Maryland St
Moore Rd
Palm
Ave
Ebener St
Linden Ave
Leland Ave
El Camino Real
Faxon Rd
18th Ave
Campbell Ln
Seminary Dr
Altschul Ave
3rd Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Park Rd
Reservoir Rd
Warrington Ave
Valota Rd
Park St William Ave
Gloria Cir
Tioga Dr
Northgate Dr
Center St
Virginia Ave
Lemon St
Arbor Rd
Continental Dr
Crane St
Hess Rd
15th Ave
B
ay
Laurel
Dr
Walsh Rd
Greenoaks Dr
Clinton St
Cleveland St
Laburnum
Rd
Magnolia Dr
Fulton St
Ravenswood Ave
C
a
rolina Ave
Klamath
Dr
Serrano Dr
Irving
Ave
Ridgeview Dr
Ro
s
e
wood
Dr
Alley
Poplar Ave
Waverley St
Belmont Ave
Kentfield Ave
4th Ave
Lincoln Ave 12th Ave
Cedar Ave
Roosevelt Ave
Leahy St
Camino De Los Robles
Menlo
Oaks
Dr
Alto Ln
Merrill St
Encinal Ave
Oak Grove Ave
5th Ave
San Carlos Ave
Garwood Way
Pine St
Palmer Ln
Ringwood
Ave
Carleton Ct
Sa
n
Benito
Ave
Live Oak Ave
FloodCri
Rutherford Ave
Alexander Ave
Cotton St
Camino
Al
Lago
Mills Ave
17th Ave
14th Ave
16th Ave
Ohio Ave
E Creek Dr
Stanford Ave
Marlborough Ave
Danbury Ln
Jennings
Ln
Maple Ave
9th Ave
Mccormick Ln
Princeton Dr
Sierra St
Union Ave
Almendral Ave
Hampton Ave
Encina Ave
Hoover St
Sterling Ave
Gordon Ave Ashton Ave
King St
Iris St
Cambridge Ave
Adams St
Fay St
Selby Ln
Gordon St
Wallea Dr
Valley Rd
6th Ave
E
el a
nor
Dr
Oak Knoll Ln
3rd St
Isabella
Ave
Stern Ln
Elena Ave
Lloyden Dr
Hudson St
Orchard Ave
W 4th St
Arlington Way
Siskiyou Dr
Noel Dr
Mills St
N Lemon Ave
Doris Dr
Crest Ln
Emilie Ave
7th Ave
Shearer
D
r
Bohannon Dr
Marsh Rd
Hillview Dr
Anamor St
8th Ave
Arden Rd
De
BellDr
Alejandra Ave
Hedge Rd
Loyola Ave
Oakhu sr
l Pt
Euclid Ave
Patricia Dr
Lawler Ranch Rd
Hawthorne Dr
Service Road
Politzer
Dr
Partridge Ave
Fairview Ave
Burns Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Che l sea
D r
Hermosa Way
Hobart St
Monte Vista Ave
Heather Dr
Adam
Way
Tuscaloosa Ave
aS
ndHillCir
Main St
Bay Rd
Marsh
Rd
Santa Cruz Ave
Alpine
Rd
El Camino Real
Selby Ln
Fair Oaks
Ln
Sand Hill Rd
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
Willow Rd
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Stockbridge Ave Atherton Ave Woodside Rd \\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Atherton, CA
Figure C-1
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@ @
@
@ @@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@ @
@
@
@ @
@
@
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
@
@@@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@

Devonshire
Peninsula
Golf And
Country Club
Belmont
Cal. Fish
And Game
Water Dog
Lake Park
Laurelwood
Park
Eaton Park
Sugarloaf
Mtn.

Big Canyon
Park
ß/101
∙þ92
¦§¨280
Elmer St
Dolton Ave
Coronet Blvd
Lynton
Ave
Tramanto Dr
Terrace Dr
Laurel St
B
si
hopRd
Bayview
Av
e
Port Royal Ave
Graceland Ave
Lincoln Ave
S
h
e
lford Ave
Windsor Dr
Lyall Way
Hillcrest
Rd
Dartmouth Ave
Valley View Dr
Hastings Dr
Manor Dr
Ponce Ave
Village Dr
43rd Ave
Portola Dr
Sunnyslope Ave
Farragut Blvd
41st Ave
Elm St
Hiller St
Oneill Ave
Broadway
Trinidad Ln
Wooster Ave
Baffin
St
San Juan Blvd
Palm Pl
Hillman Ave
Devonshire Blvd
Casanova Dr
Live Oak Dr
M
adera Dr
ClipperDr
El Verano Way
Old County Rd
30th Ave
Hillcrest
D
r
24th Ave
Arbor Ave
23rd Ave
De Anza Ave
Tahoe Dr
Lyon
Ave
St James Rd
Fernwood
St
Lower Lock Ave
Hull Dr
22nd Ave
Eaton Ave
27th Ave
Vista Ave
Isabelle Ave
Wilshire Ave
Beresford St
Walnut St
Dolores St
Hill St
Hewitt
D
r
Folger Dr
Colegrove St
Belle Ave
Sunset Dr
Bodega St
E 39th Ave
Tamarack
Ave
Cordilleras Ave
Holly Rd
E 40th Ave
Mason
Ln
Rosilie St
Shasta
Dr
Playa St
Ora
n
ge
Ave
nA
t
gi
ua Ln
Pasadena Dr
Melendy Dr
Branson Dr
Kingridge Dr
26th Ave
Howard Ave
6th Ave
Flores St
J
a
m
a
i
c
a
S
t
Buckland Ave
Comsto
c
k
Cir
Ensenada Way
Donner St
George Ave
Magnolia
Ave
O
verland
Dr
Haskin
s
D
r
Arroyo Ave
Mezes Ave
E 41st
P
D
l
el
Monte
St
Baze
R
d
Casabona Ave
Pitcairn Dr
42nd Ave
Alley
South Rd
Belburn Dr
Gate
Wellington Dr
Monterey St
Holly St
Chula Vista Dr
Cherry St
F St
Forest Ave
Cipriani Blvd
Briar Ln
Sycamore St
Wessex Way
29th Ave
W 39th Ave
Cedar St
Edison St
W 40th Ave
San Miguel Way
Pico Ave
Anita Ave
Sunset Ter
Barclay Way
Boothbay
Ave
Solana Dr
Monterey
Ave
La Casa Ave
Thatcher Ln
Park Pl
Highland Ave
Molitor Rd
Torino Dr
Carlmont Dr
Prindle Rd
Monte Cresta
Dr
Prospect St
Nimitz
L
n
5th Ave
Vine St
Middle Rd
Sylvan Ave
Otay Ave
Louise Ln
Read Ave
E
Laurel Creek Rd
Edgehill Dr
North Rd
Fairway Dr
Wakefield Dr
Academy
Av
e
Fir St
Martin Dr
Sky
m
o
nt
Dr
Taylor Way
Laurelwood Dr
Ruth Ave
Ventura Ave
Birch Ave
Oakview
Dr
Clifton Ave
Portofino
Dr
Oracle Pkwy
So
m
erset Dr
Knoll Dr
Plateau
Dr
Chesterton Ave
Belmont Canyon Rd
Carmelita Ave
Winding Way
Buena Vista Ave
Talbryn Dr
Curtiss St
36th Ave
Notre
Da
m
e
Ave
Sequoia Ave
Rock Harbor Ln
E 38th Ave
Chesham Av e
Chestnut St
Parkwood
Dr
W 25th Ave
Mclellan Ave
Coronado Ave
Beverly
Dr
Wemberley Dr
Poinsettia Ave
Davis Dr
Arundel Rd
Monroe Ave
Villa Ave
Lodge Dr
Sylvan Dr
Pul ml
an Ave
Oneill Dr
Davey Glen Rd
Madera Ave
Hill Way
Lago St
Alhambra Dr
Bauer
D
r
Deepwell Ct
Bayview Dr
Hallmark Dr
Lupin Ave
Quarry Rd
Nb 280 Hwy
Exeter
Av
e
Viewridge Dr
Countryside Dr
Cherrywood Dr
S
h
eep Camp Trail
Bartlett Way
S El Camino Real
Harbor Blvd
I
s
a
l
n
d
Pkw
4 y
2nd Ave
Alameda
De
Las
Pulgas
La Selva St
Crestview Dr
Marine Pkwy
37th Ave
Brittan Ave
Holly St
De Anza Blvd
E Hillsdale Blvd
Pacific Blvd
Beach Park Blvd
Edison St
Old County Rd
El Camino Real
Hacienda St
S Delaware St
San Carlos Ave
Twin Dolphin Dr
28th Ave
Shoreway Rd
Franklin Pkwy
Ralston Ave
Los
Pra
d
o
s
St
Saratoga
Dr
G
e
l
n
d
ora
Dr
31st Ave
E
d
g
e
w
a
t
e
r
Blv
d
W Hillsdale Blvd
I
ndustrial Way
Club Dr
Ca
m
pus
Dr
Canada Rd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Belmont, CA
Figure C-2
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@ @ @ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@@@
@
@
@
@ @@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
Brisbane
Quarry
San Bruno
Mtn Park
Brisbane
San Bruno Mt.
ß/101
Mission Blue Dr
Sierra Point Rd
S
a
n
t
a
Cl
a
ra
St
Humboldt Rd
Schwerin St
Ottilia St
San Benito Rd
Glen
Pkwy
Solano St
T
u
l
a
re
St
Silverspot Dr
Alexis Cir
Ann
is
R
Alley
d
Bayshore Blvd
Kings Rd
Greenpa rkTe r
B
Martin St
ay Ridge Dr
Park Ln
Mon
o
St
Mendocino St
Sierra Point Pkwy
Main St
Klamath St
Monterey St
Alvarado St
Butterweed Ln
Mariposa St
Trinity
Rd
San Francisco Ave
V si
i
at
c
oi n
Ave
Valley Dr
Rio Verde St
Beatrice Rd
Park Pl
N Hill Dr
Acacia St
Highcrest Ln
Hill Dr
S Hill Dr
Oriente St
W Hill Dr
Macdonald Ave
Shoreline Ct
PaulAve
Elderberry Ln
Northcrest Dr
Martin Trl
Farrier Pl
Esta Ave
Mclain Rd
W Hill Pl
Parkgrove Dr
Linda
Vista
Dr
Gladys Ave
Callippe Ct
Monarch Dr
Harn
ey
Way
Arthur Rd
Beatty Rd
Ridge Trl
Quarry Rd
Harold Rd
Marina
Blvd
Industrial
Way
Inyo St
Radio Rd
Old County Rd
Sierra
P
oi
nt
P
kwy
Martin St
Bayshore Blvd
San Bruno Ave
Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy
Hillside Blvd
Geneva Ave
Carter St
Tu
n
nel
Ave
Lagoon Rd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Brisbane, CA
Figure C-3
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
San Bruno
Mtn Park
Colma
Gellert
Park
San Bruno Mt.

Alta
Loma
Park
∙þ1
¦§¨280
¦§¨280
Lausanne Ave
Bruno Ave
Hoffman St
Villa St
Albert M Teglia Blvd
2nd Ave
Clay Ave
Baywood Ave
Evergreen Dr
Holly Ave
Isabelle Ci
r
P
h
illi
p
D
r
W Market St
Serravista
Ave
Station Ave
Clark Ave
Morningside Ave
O
rc hid Dr
Alta Loma Dr
Victoria St
Newman Dr
Arlington Dr
Dundee Dr
Catamaran Ln
Franciscan Dr
Longford Dr
Crown Cir
Willow Ave
Camaritas
Ave
Duval Dr
Gardenside Ave
Mariner Ln
Miller Ave
E
kl
wood Dr
Del Monte Ave
Sequoia Ave
Byrne St Chester St
Price St
Bart
Castle St
Marbly Ave
Vale St
Valley St
Crestwood Dr
A St
B St
Byron
Dr
Dolores
Wa
Hickey Blvd y
3rd Ave
Kipling Ave
nI n
isfree
Dr
Hill St
1 s
t
A
v
e
Cymbidium Cir
Forest View
Dr
Wyandotte Ave
Mclellan
Dr
H
a
rbor
Dr
Lisbon St
Sylvan St
Abbot Ave
C St
Ford St
Orange St
Sunnyside Dr
E St
Werner Ave
Mateo Ave
D St
County St
Mooring Ln
Villa Ave
Shelter Ln
Birch Ave
Imperial
Way
Haven Dr
El Rancho Dr
Yacht Ln
Clifden Dr
Dockside Dr
Ferndale Ave
Marcie Cir
Bradford Dr
Seashore Dr
Lighthouse
L
n
Mansfield Dr
Buxton Ave
H
alf
M
o
o
n
Ln
Wicklow Dr
Garibaldi St
Serra Ln
Radio Rd
Bart Acc
Adrian Ave
Calvert Ave
Heather Way
Westview Ave
Sa
nd
Hill
R
O
d
livet Pkwy
Mission St
Mission Rd
Washington St
San Pedro Rd
E Market St
School St
C
a
lla
n
Blvd
Grand Ave
Hickey Blvd
Price St
D St
Hillside Blvd
Collins Ave
Reiner St
El Camino Real
Junipero Serra Blvd
F St
Junipero Serra
S
e
r
ra
monte
Ctr
Ge
llert
Blvd
Serramonte Blvd
Colma Blvd
Lawndale Blvd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Colma, CA
Figure C-4
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@ @
@
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@ @
@ @
@
@
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
East Palo
Alto
M.l.k.

Park
Ravenswood
Baylands
Preserve
S.f. Bay
Wildlife
Refuge
ß/101
∙þ84
Menalto Ave
O'brien Dr
Myrtle St
Woodland Ave
Walnut St
Garden St
Michigan Ave
Daph
n
e
Way
Oaks St
Grayson Ct
E O'keefe St
Donohoe St
Lincoln St
N
e
w
ell R
d
Saratoga Ave
Runnymede St
Westminster Ave
Palo Verde
Av
e
Wilks St
Azalia Dr
Verbena
Dr
W Bayshore Rd
Notre Dame Ave
Kavanaugh Dr
T
a
e
t
S
t
Gonzaga St
Mcnair St
Du
m
barto
n
Ave
O'connor St
Ursula Way
Sage St
Camellia Dr
Green St
G
l
o
r
i
a
W
a
y
Hollyburne Ave Sevier Ave Ivy Dr
Newbridge St
Alberni St
Bell St
Arnold Way
Hamilton Ave
Missio
n
r D
Pope St Manhattan Ave
Holland St
Gilbert Ave
Elm St
O'keefe St
Illinois St
Daisy Ln
Circle Dr
Haze
lwo
o
d
Wa
y
Durham St
Chester St
Haight St
Tulane Ave
Glen Way
Georgetown St
Alley
Laurel Ave
Mouton Cir
Poplar Ave
Central Ave
Madera Ave
Larkspur Dr
Mello St
Cooley Ave
Pulgas Ave
Oak Ct
Xavie
r
S
t
Ralmar Ave
Adams Ct
Jervis Ave
Clarke Ave
Beech St
Euclid Ave
Gardenia Way
Fordham St
Addison Ave
Elliot
Dr
Avelar St
Emmett Way
Hamilton Ct
Gates St
Wisteria Dr
Annapolis St
Baines St
Hunter
St
As
et
r
Way
Oakwood Dr
Weeks St
Abelia
W
a
y
Capitol Ave
Willow Rd
Carlton Ave
Cypress St
Ad
a
ms
Dr
Jasmine Way
Schembri Ln
Tara St
Rogge Rd
E Bayshore Rd Demeter St
University
Ave
Bay Rd
Willow Rd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of East Palo Alto, CA
Figure C-5
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!! @
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Foster
City
Sea Cloud
Park
Bay Marshes
Leo
J. Ryan Park
S.f. Bay
Wildlife
Refuge
ß/101
∙þ92
∙þ92
Wh si pe
wr
ave Cir
Catamaran St
Reef Dr
Avocet Dr
Port Dr
Port Royal Ave
Clipper St
Fathom
Dr
Leo Dr
Newport Cir
E
Cou
rt
L
n
SaltCt
Miramar
MonacoDr
Farragut Blvd
Regan Dr
Gillis Dr
Shannon Way
Grebe St
Polaris
Ave
Baffin St
Corr
ei
n
et
P
oi n te
Dr
Casanova Dr
Clipper Dr
Celestial Ln
Timberhead Ln
Comet Dr
Nina Ln
Greenwich Ln
Holland St
Kimberly
Way
M
Bounty Dr
arina Vista
V
e
s
p
u
c
c
i
L
n
Orinda Dr
Crane Ave
Island Dr
Balclutha Dr
Lu
rli
n
e
D
r
Gull Ave
Harvester Dr
Polynesia Dr
Po mp
a
n o
ri
C
Bodega St
E 40th Ave
E 39th Ave
Santa Clara Way
Chesapeake Ave
Decatur St
Mullet
C
t
Playa St
Aruba nL
Swordfish St
Schooner St
Antigua Ln
Pasadena Dr
Branson Dr
Balboa St
Hanbury Ln
Armada Way
J
u
n
o
Ln
Altair Ave
Triton Dr
Constit
u
t
o
i
n
Dr
Jamaica St
Barnegat Ln
Vega Cir
Portal Ln
Bowfin
St
E 41st Pl
Baker Way
Kehoe Ave
Marsh Dr
Oracle Pkwy
Lido Ln
Shoal Dr
Swan St
Pitcairn Dr
Port Walk Pl
Puffin Ct
Ma
r
l
i
n
A
v
e
Tower Ln
Carina Ln
Shoreline Dr
aT
urusDr
Alley
Boothbay
Ave
Spinnaker St
Winchester
Ct
Monterey
Ave
Barkentine St
Thatcher Ln
Cortez Ln
Velocity Way
Curtiss St
Poinsettia Ave
Flying Fish
St
Widgeon St
Nimitz Ln
Dolphi
n
I
sle
Haddock
St
H
a
l
s
e
y
B
l
v
d
Matsonia Dr
Trinidad Ln
Martin Dr
Flying Mist
Isle
Shearwater Isle
Alma Ln
Ribbon St
Nice
Ct
Elliott St
Anchor Cir
Halibut St
Cutwater
Ln
Llan
o
St
Vista Del Mar
Peary Ln
Chess Dr
Marlin Ct
Castor St
Pizarro Ln
Davit Ln
s
I
landPl
Marina Ct
Pilgrim Dr
Durand Dr
Flying Cloud Isle
B
l
yt
h
e
St
Rock Harbor Ln
Day Ave
Tarpon St
Regulus St
Ha
t
ch
Dr
Estrella Way
Laguna
Cir
Mira St
Pensac
o
l
a
S
t
Lake St
Hosmer St
Bridgepointe Cir
Oneill Dr
B
a
bl oa
Ln
Winward Way
Sea Cloud Dr
er G
na
Lago St
da Ln
Niantic Dr
Sea
Spray
Ln
Baltic Cir
Arcturu
s
Cir
C
o
m
p
a
s
s
L
n
La
ke
s
i
d
e
D
r
Foster City Blvd
La Selva St
Shell Blvd
Marine Pkwy
V
i
n
t
a
g
e
P
a
r
k
D
r
Metro Center Blvd
Chess Dr
3rd Ave
Los Prados St
Fashion Island Blvd
Mariners
Isla
n
d
B
vl d
S Norfolk St
Shell Pkwy
Edgewater Blvd
E 3rd Ave
Beach Park Blvd
E Hillsdale Blvd
B
r
d
i
g
e
P
kwy
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Foster City, CA
Figure C-6
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@
@
@ @
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@@
@@
@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!

Burlingame
Hills
San Mateo
Highlands
Hillsborough
Cal. Fish
And Game
∙þ92
¦§¨280
¦§¨280
Carmelita Ave Adeline
Dr
Parkside Ave
Chapin
Ln
Stonehedge Rd
Elm Ave
Woodland Dr
Bella Vista Dr
Tartan Trail Rd
Avondale Rd
Alvarado Ave
Crescent Ave
Roblar Ave
Hillside Dr
Edgehill Dr
B
al
ck
M
o
u
ntain
Rd
Tiptoe Ln
Bayswater Ave
Oak Grove Ave
Va
dl
e
fl
ores Dr
California Dr
Park Rd
Bel Aire Rd
Oregon Ave
Marlborough Rd
Harvard Rd
Virginia
Ave
Southdown Rd
Live
Oak
Dr
Palm Dr
Vancouver Ave
East Ln
R
a
lston
Ave
Jac
kl
i
n
g
D
r
Prospect Row
Buckingham Way
Jacaranda Cir
Ascension Dr
Easton Dr
Ridgeway Rd
Euca
y
l
ptus
Ave
Fairfield Rd
Sugar
H
ill D
r
Yew St
Carolan Ave
San
Raymundo
Rd
Remillard Dr
Warren Rd
Bairn Dr
Forge Rd
Edgewood Rd
C
h
il et
rn Rd
Willow Rd
Arguello Dr
Howard Ave
Hillsborough Blvd
Bromfield Rd
Moseley Rd
Walnut Ave
Bernal Ave
Nevada
Ave
Broadway
Uplands Dr
Oak Rim Dr
Clydesdale Dr
Grand Blvd
Hale
Dr
Fairfax Ave
Sharon Ave
Tournament Dr
Overla
nd
Dr
Ri
z
al
Dr
Canyon
Rd
N Ellsworth Ave
Glendale
Rd
Victoria Rd
Rockridge Rd
Country Cl
ub
r D
Newton Dr
Kenilworth
Rd
N Claremont St
Laurent Rd
Butternut Dr
De Sabla Rd
Vista Rd
State St
Csm Dr
Woodside Way
Barroilhet Ave
Forest View Ave
Foothill Dr
Drake Ave
Los
Robles
Dr
Oaks Dr
Chapin Ave
Burlingame Ave
Poppy Dr
Capuchino Ave
Rowan Tree Ln
Tarrytown
St
Redington Rd
I
wr
i
n
Dr
Fagan
Dr
Armsby
Dr
W Santa Inez Ave
Cabrillo Ave
Alturas Dr
Pepper Ave
C
o
sta
Rica
Ave
Bowhill
Rd
Floribunda Ave
Baywood Ave
Hayne Rd
Occidental Ave
Skyfarm Dr
Villa Ter
Paloma Ave
Seabury Rd
Benito Ave
Rainbow Dr
Bancroft Rd
W Bellevue Ave
Ericson Rd
Brentwood Rd
Cortez Ave
Bellevue Ave
Highland Ave
Brewe
r
Dr
Ramona St
Elm St
Bloomfield Rd
Stanley Rd
Lorton Ave
Clarendon Rd
Channing Rd
Dwight Rd
Anita Rd
Castillo Ave
Myrtle Rd
Pullman Dr
Sierra Dr
Alley
Roehampton Rd
Primrose Rd
Carlos Ave
Balboa Ave
Hurlingham Ave
Southdown Ct
Clark Dr
E Bellevue Ave
Bridge Rd
Perimeter Rd
Robinwoo d Ln
Darrell Rd
Gram
ercy D r
Denise Dr
Culebra Rd
Summit Dr
Privet Dr
Oakdale Rd
Newhall Rd
E
l
Cerrito Ave
Barbara Way
Columbia Dr
Sawyer Camp Trl
Rivera Dr
Falkirk
Ln
Churchill Dr
Wedgewood Dr
Fa
m
r
Ln
La
keview
D
r
E
l
Arroyo Rd
Alberta Way
Brookvale Rd
Parrott
Dr
S
o
t
n
e
pine
Rd
Eugenia Way
Los Altos
D
r
Geri Ln
Tobin Clark Dr
New Place Rd
Macadamia Dr
Woodridge
Rd
Craig Rd
Pinehill
Rd
Robin
Rd
Golf Course Dr
Lifemark Rd
Skyline Blvd
W Hillsdale Blvd
Peninsula Ave
N Humboldt St
W 3rd Ave
Hillside Dr
W Poplar Ave
Skyline Blvd
California Dr
Crys
a
t
l
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
Rd
E Poplar Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Yale Dr
N Delaware St
N El Camino Real
El Camino Real
N San Mateo Dr
Ralston Ave
Parr
ott
Dr
Murphy Dr
Ca
m
pus
Dr
Black Mountain Rd
Chateau Dr
Polhemus Rd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Hillsborough, CA
Figure C-7
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
El Granada
Miramar
Princeton
Half
Moon Bay
Cal. Fish
And Game
Burleigh-murray
Ranch
W Point Ave
Capistrano Rd
Wavecrest Rd Park Ave
First Ave
Airport St
Higgins Canyon Rd
TouraineLn
Kelly Ave
Silver Ave
Filbert St
Poplar St
Alameda Ave
Ferdinand Ave
Bridgeport Dr
Spindrift Way
Mill St
Miramontes St
J
o
h
nsto
n
St
Dolores Ave
Sonora Ave
Railroad
Ave
The Alameda
Palma St
P
u
ris
s
i
m
a
St
Anna Ave
Redondo Beach Rd Beach Ave Fairview Ave
Miramontes Point Rd
E
l
Gra
nada
Blvd
Correas St
Columbus
S
t
Ocean Blvd
Alley
Seymour St
Fairway Dr
Frontage Rd
Frenchmans Creek
Rd
Dehoff Canyon
Rd
Digges
Canyon
Rd
Avenue Alhambra
Main St
C
a
b
ri
l
l
o
H
wy
San Mateo Rd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Half Moon Bay, CA
Figure C-8
0 0.5 1Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
@ @
@
@@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Ladera
Los Trancos
Woods
Sky Londa
Stanford
Lands
Portola
Valley
Windy Hill
Coal Creek
Rapley Ranch Rd
Santa Maria Ave
La Mesa Dr
Pinon Dr
Medway Rd
Ruolf Trail
Farm Rd
Nathhorst Ave
Lake Rd
Los
Trancos Cir
Cervantes Dr
Old Spanish
Trl
Los Trancos Rd
Ramoso Rd
Valley
Oa
k
St
Montecito Rd
Corte
Madera
Rd
Golden Oak Dr
Rap
ley
T
r
a
i
l
Gra
n
d
v
e
i
w
Dr
Horseshoe Bnd
JoaquinRd
Big Tree
Rd
Hidden Valley Ln
Grove Dr
Alpine Rd
Escobar Rd
Old
La
Honda
Rd
Hayfields Rd
Canyon Dr
Sausal Dr
Wayside Rd
Ramona Rd
Indian
Xing
Martinez Rd
Sh
awn e e Pass
Morsehead Rd
Family Farm Dr
Willowbrook
Dr
Mapache Dr
Degas
Rd
Meadowood Dr
Rdi
g
e
Trl
Golden Hills Dr
Summit Rd
Vista Verde Way
B
e
a
r
G
ulch
Dr
B
uck Meadow Dr
Goya
Rd
Redberry Rdg
Rapley
Trl
Fawn Ln
Westridge Dr
Hillbrook Dr
Alamos
Rd
Es
p
i
nosa Rd
Gabarda Way
Minoca Rd
Home Rd
Preston
Rd
Upenuf Rd
Null Null
Portola
Rd
Alpine Rd
La
Hond
a
R
d
Skyline Blvd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Portola Valley, CA
Figure C-9
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@ @
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@!

Devonshire
Emerald
Lake Hills
Palomar
Park
San
Carlos
Red
Morton
Park
Cal. Fish
And Game
Edgewood
Pulgas Ridge
Eaton Park
Big Canyon
Park
S.f. Bay
Wildlife
Refuge
ß/101
¦§¨280
Hopkins Ave
Elmer St
Dolton Ave
Belmont Ave
Coronet Blvd
Harding Ave
Lynton
Ave
Hudson St
Tramanto Dr
Terrace Dr
Arlington Rd
Upton St
Bayvi
e
w
Ave
Hillman Ave
Graceland Ave
Oak Knoll Dr
W Summit Dr
S
h
elford
Ave
Loma Rd
North Rd
Windsor Dr
Scenic Dr
Lyall Way
Hillcrest Rd
Dartmouth Ave
Teredo
Dr
Valley V i ew
D
r
Valota Rd
La Mesa Dr
Hastings Dr
Manor Dr
Ponce
Ave
Edmonds Rd
Village Dr
Arch St
Granada St
Sunnyslope Ave
Hiller St
Oneill Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
Blvd
E St
White Oak Way
Springdale Way
St Francis Way
Upland Rd
Brittan Ave
Devonshire Blvd
Pine Ave
Howard Ave
El Verano
Way
Greenwood Ave
Arbor Ave
De Anza Ave
Emerald Ave
St Francis St
Olive St
Cherry St
Arroyo Ave
Lyon Ave
S Palomar Dr
Hull Dr
Harrison Ave
Vista Ave
Grand St
Cedar St
Palomar Dr
Walnut St
D St
Center St
Quartz St
Hill St
Hewitt Dr
Folger Dr
Rosewood Ave
Belle Ave
Sunset Dr
nI
nerCir
Arguello St
Lenolt St
Tamarack
Ave
Old County Rd
Cordilleras Ave
Vera Ave
Stafford St
Holly Rd
Washington St
Broadway
Cordilleras
Rd
Pine Knoll Dr
Melendy Dr
Park Ln
Elm St
6th Ave
Fairfield
Bu
Dr
ckland Ave
Madison Ave
HillcrestDr
Pearl Ave
Magnolia
Ave
Finger Ave
Blandford Blvd
Alley
Mezes Ave
James Ave
Katherine Ave
Topaz St
Casabona Ave
South Rd
Belburn Dr
Clinton St
Iris St
Canyon Rd
Wellington Dr
Greenbriar Rd
Bromley Dr
Hillside Rd
Holly St
Chula Vista Dr
C
i
p
ria
ni
Blvd
Forest Ave
F St
Ruby St
Laurel St
Cervantes Rd
Ridge Rd
Sycamore St
Wessex Way
A St
Woodland Ave
Tiller Ln
Qu
a
y
Ln
Solana Dr
Orange Ave
Sapphire St
La Casa Ave
American St
B St
Highland Ave
Molitor Rd
Bransten Rd
Torino Dr
C St
Carlmont Dr
Lowell St
Fulton St
Prindle Rd
Edgewood Rd
Summit Dr
Prospect St
5th Ave
Jeter St
Vine St
Middle Rd
Eaton Ave
Skyway
Rd
Read Ave
King St
Fairway Dr
Acade
my
Ave
Fir St
Garnet Ave
Taylor Way
Sylvan
W
ay
Sim Ln
Pico Blvd
Myrtle St
Birch Ave
G St
Oakview Dr
Hall St
Clifton Ave
Terminal Way
Portofino
Dr
Knoll Dr
Carmelita Ave
Winding Way
Birch St
Talbryn Dr
Nevada St
Edgehill Dr
Ruby Ave
Elwood St
Fairmont Ave
Alberta Ave
Notre Dame Ave
Bing St Chesham Ave
Chestnut St
Oakhurst Ave
Kelton Ave
Mc Cue Ave
Montalvo
Rd
Coronado Ave
Beverly
Dr
Bain Pl
Arundel Rd
Monroe Ave
Villa
Ave
Sylvan Dr
LakeviewWay
Pullman Ave
Shoreline Dr
Madera Ave
Hill Way
BauerDr
Deepwell Ct
Bayview Dr
Belle Roche
Ct
Commercial St
Lupi n
Ave
Quarry Rd
Nb 280 Hwy
Exeter
Av
e
Bennett Rd
Intersta
te
H
i
g
h
w
a
y
280
Hwy
Hassler Rd
Harbor Blvd
Jefferson Ave
Ralston Ave
Brewster Ave
Crestview Dr
Howard Ave
Holly St
Industrial Rd
Whipple Ave
Old County Rd
Edgewood Rd
San Carlos Ave
Twin Dolphin Dr
Brittan Ave
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Laurel St
El Camino Real
Shoreway Rd
R
e
dwood
Shores Pkwy
Industrial Way
Club Dr
Skyway Rd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of San Carlos, CA
Figure C-10
0 0.5Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
!
!
Emerald
Lake
Hills
Sky Londa
Stanford
Lands
Woodside
Wunderlich
Cal. Fish
And Game
El Corte
De Madera
Edgewood
La Honda
Creek
Skeggs Point
Huddart
¦§¨280
¦§¨280
Hillside Dr
Nimitz Ave
Albion Ave
Mountain
Hom
e
Rd
Pinon
Dr
Manzanita
W
a
y
Polhemus Ave
Farm Rd
Cerrito Ave
Maddux Dr
W Selby
Ln
Santa Clara Ave
Godetia
Dr
Cervantes Dr
Trinity Dr
Lakeview Way
Fletcher Dr
Selby Ln
Harcross Rd
Tripp Rd
Kentucky St
Kebet Ridge Rd
aL k
me
ead Way
Valley Ct
Bret Harte Dr
Shine
Rd
Connecticut Dr
Sharon Park Dr
Maryland St
Moore Rd
Montecito Rd
Country
Club D r
Valota Rd
SkywoodWay
Roan Pl
Virginia Ave
Grandview
D
r
Big Tree
Rd
Walsh Rd
California Way
Carson
St
Laning
Dr
Greer Rd
Grove
D
r
Oakhill Dr
Phleger Rd
Eden Bower Ln
Huddart Park Rd
Service Road
Ridgeway Rd
Joselyn Ln
Summit Springs Rd
Old La
H
o
nda
Rd
Hayfields Rd
S tadler Rd
Westridge Dr
W Glen Way Fernside St
Wayside Rd
Eleanor Dr
M artinez R d
Morsehead Rd
Family Farm Dr
Olive Hill Ln
Mapache Dr
muS
mit Rd
Allen Rd
Golden Hills Dr
Bear Gulch Rd
Partition Rd
Woodside Rd
Mountain Meadow Dr
Goya
Rd
Hardwick Rd
Patrol Rd
Crest Rd
S
kyline Dr
Espinosa Rd
Roberta Rd
Win
d
i
ng
Way
Lawler Ranch Rd
Pres
ton Rd
Raymundo Dr
Hooper Ln
Jane Rd
Runnymede Rd
Null Null
Whiskey Hill Rd
Selby Ln
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Portola Rd
Atherton Ave
L
a
H
o
n
da
Rd
Woodside Rd
Woodside Dr
High Rd
Sand Hill Rd
Jefferson Ave
Skyline Blvd
Canada Rd
Farm
Hill
B
v
l
d
Stockbridge Ave
Kings Mountain Rd
\\kittelson.com\fs\H_Projects\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 11/8/2023 Priority Intersections and Segments
City of Woodside, CA
Figure C-11
0 0.5 1Miles [
Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle
! Schools
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Highway Priority Segments
Non-Highway
Priority Intersections
! Pedestrian
@ Bicycle Priority
@ Motor Vehicle

November 13, 2023 Page 12
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attachment 3
Explanation of Social Equity Scoring

November 13, 2023 Page 13
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

An intersection can lie just within or just beyond a social equity priority area boundary. As a result, binary scoring (“in” or “out”) does not consistently reflect whether an intersection serves an identified social equity priority area.

Therefore, we employed an area-weighted proportional allocation approach. The equity data used in this analysis include binary indicators (yes/no) for C/CAG’s Equity Focus Areas, MTC’s Equity Priority Communities, USDOT’s Historically Disadvantaged Communities, and USDOT’s Areas of Persistent Poverty.

The area-weighted allocation approach is applied to each location for each of the four equity indicators. A score is determined based on the percentage of a 100-foot buffer that overlaps with the equity indicator geometry. For example, if 100% of the buffer overlaps with an equity indicator geometry, a score of 1.0 is assigned. If 75% of the buffer overlaps (as shown in Figure 4), a score of 0.75 is assigned.

The area-weighted proportional allocation approach adds granularity to the prioritization process and is recommended over a typical “intersection” approach, which awards the full score to each intersection/roadway segment if the road/intersection touches the equity data indicator and may therefore over-prioritize longer roadway segments.

Figure 4: Example of Area-Weighted Proportional Allocation Approach

/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Appendix E
SamTrans Bus Stop Priority Analysis

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
March 12, 2024 Project# 28717
To: Jess Manzi, PE; Daniel Shockley
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

RE: C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan - SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis Introduction
This memo presents the results of a SamTrans bus stop prioritization conducted for the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Countywide Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). The Kittelson and Safe Streets Research Consulting (SSRC) teams analyzed bus stop data provided by SamTrans to identify correlation of roadway and intersection risk factors with crash history around highridership bus stops.

This memo presents a ranking of bus stops based on crash history, social equity, and systemic factors. It presents separate lists based on pedestrian crash history and bicyclist crash history.

Attached is the detailed analysis and findings of pedestrian safety around bus stops in San Mateo County (Appendix A).

METHODOLOGY
Based on available data, several risk factors were analyzed in relation to pedestrian crashes around bus stop locations. We used a set of risk factors outlined in Appendix A to develop a prioritization methodology to identify a priority list of locations for SamTrans for future improvements. To be consistent with the Countywide LRSP, we used a similar prioritization process to identify priority SamTrans bus stops as was done for priority locations (see Appendix B for details). Three equally weighted factors were used to prioritize SamTrans bus stops:
◼ Crash History: used to identify bus stop locations with the highest reported five-year pedestrian and bicyclist crash frequency and severity using two equally weighted criteria:
– Crash severity score1 of the bus stop’s intersection or roadway segment – Bus stop is located on the Pedestrian/Bicycle High Injury Network (HIN) ◼ Social Equity: used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. 1 Crashes have been assigned an Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) value, which is a severity-based weight that allows us to better understand the general crash frequency and intensity (e.g., severity of injury outcomes) when analyzing crash frequencies in cross tabs. Weights are pulled from the Caltrans Local Road Safety (Version 1.6) document. A higher EPDO value may suggest that a particular roadway characteristic is associated with higher crash severities and/or crash frequencies. 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742

March 12, 2024 Page 2
C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan - SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
– Bus stop is at a location within an Equity Priority Area2 ◼ Systemic characteristics: used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity (i.e., using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach).
– Bus stop is at an uncontrolled location (i.e., unsignalized intersections or midblock crossings) – Bus stop is at a location with no sidewalks
– Bus stop is at a location where the posted speed limit is 35 mph or greater

RESULTS
The three factors and constituent criteria were combined, resulting in overall pedestrian and bicycle scores for each bus stop location. Figure 1 shows the factor and criteria weighting and how much each contributed to a location’s overall score.

Figure 1: Factor/Criteria Weighting for Bus Stops
Separate priority lists were developed for pedestrians and bicyclists to better target the improvements for those users. Table 1 presents the priority bus stop locations based on pedestrian crash history and Table 2 presents the locations based on bicycle crash history. Each list contains the top 30 locations. The total number of locations was determined by identifying a natural break in crash severity scores and presence on the pedestrian or bicycle HIN (many locations are tied). Figure 2 shows where these priority bus stops are located within San Mateo County. In some cases, a bus stop was identified as a priority location in both the pedestrian and bicyclist lists.

Kittelson proposes to include these tables in the Project Prioritization section of the C/CAG LRSP regional chapter. SamTrans can use this list to aid in future planning efforts and coordination with local agencies for bus stop improvements. SamTrans can use the prioritization sheet and scores provided alongside its ridership numbers to further prioritize stops as desired. 2 SamTrans identified Equity Priority Areas using a ranked composite index that accounts for household income, non-white households, and zero-vehicle households based on 2014-2018 American Community Survey 5-year Estimates and 2017 Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD) data.

March 12, 2024 Page 3
C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan - SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 1. Priority Bus Stop Locations for Pedestrian Improvements Ped
Rank
Stop ID Stop Location Jurisdiction Crash History Equity Systemic Characteristics Total Score
(0-1)
Bike
Rank
Ped
Crash
Severity
Score
(0-432)
Ped
HIN
Ped
Crash
History
Score
(Normalized
0-1)
Equity
Score
(0-1)
Uncontrolled
Location
(0-1)
Absence of
Sidewalks
(0-1)
> 35
MPH
(0-1)
Char.

Score
(Normalized 0-1)
1 351002
3745 Bayshore Blvd-Andrys
Trailer Park Brisbane 165 1 0.69 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.89 30+
2 336039 El Camino Real & Silva Ave Millbrae 371 1 0.93 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.86 30+ 3 332221
Mission St & Evergreen AveDaly City Daly City 241 1 0.78 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.81 30+ 4 344658 Jefferson Ave at Adams St
Redwood
City 224 1 0.76 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.80 8
5 344657 Jefferson Ave at Adams St
Redwood
City 213 1 0.75 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.80 7
6 344086 El Camino Real & Lincoln Ave
Redwood
City 202 1 0.73 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.79 4
7 336027
El Camino Real & Center StMillbrae Millbrae 393 1 0.95 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.76 30+ 8 336028
El Camino Real & Center StMillbrae Millbrae 393 1 0.95 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.76 30+ 9 336038 El Camino Real & Silva Ave Millbrae 371 1 0.93 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.75 30+ 10 334246 S Spruce Ave & Railroad Ave
South San
Francisco 356 1 0.91 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.74 30+
11 332154 Hillside Blvd & Brunswick St Daly City 334 1 0.89 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.73 30+ 12 332233 Mission St & Price St Daly City 44 1 0.55 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.73 30+ 13 332129 Geneva Ave & Schwerin St Daly City 34 1 0.54 1 0 1 1 0.67 0.73 30+ 14 335612 Jenevein Ave & El Camino Real San Bruno 322 1 0.87 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.73 30+ 15 351001
3800 Bayshore Blvd-Andrys
Trailer Park Brisbane 165 0 0.19 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.72 30+

March 12, 2024 Page 4
C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan - SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Ped
Rank
Stop ID Stop Location Jurisdiction Crash History Equity Systemic Characteristics Total Score
(0-1)
Bike
Rank
Ped
Crash
Severity
Score
(0-432)
Ped
HIN
Ped
Crash
History
Score
(Normalized
0-1)
Equity
Score
(0-1)
Uncontrolled
Location
(0-1)
Absence of
Sidewalks
(0-1)
> 35
MPH
(0-1)
Char.

Score
(Normalized 0-1)
16 332232 Mission St & Parkview Ave Daly City 17 1 0.52 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+ 17 341109 N Delaware St & E Bellevue Ave San Mateo 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+ 18 341111 N Delaware St & Tilton Ave San Mateo 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 5 19 344087 El Camino Real & Main St
Redwood
City 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 6
20 344095
El Camino Real & Winklebleck
St
Redwood
City 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 2
21 363041 Bay Rd & Oakwood Dr
East Palo
Alto 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
22 363602 Bay Rd & Pulgas Ave
East Palo
Alto 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
23 335635
Sneath & Huntington Inbound
BART San Bruno 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
24 344085 El Camino Real & Jefferson Ave
Redwood
City 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 21
25 332184 Junipero Serra Blvd & School St Daly City 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+ 26 363605 Bay Rd & Pulgas Ave
East Palo
Alto 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
27 334078 El Camino Real & Brentwood Dr
South San
Francisco 6 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
28 344416 Jefferson Ave & Myrtle St
Redwood
City 6 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
29 363002 Bay Rd & Gloria Way
East Palo
Alto 6 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
30 341058
Alameda de las Pulgas &
Parkside Way San Mateo 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+

March 12, 2024 Page 5
C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan - SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 2. Priority Bus Stop Locations for Bicycle Improvements Bike
Rank
Stop ID Stop Location Jurisdictio
n
Crash History Equity Systemic Characteristics Total
Score
(0-1)
Ped
Rank
Bike Crash
Severity
Score
(0-367)
Bike
HIN
Bicycle
Crash Score
(Normalized
0-1)
Equity
Score
(0-1)
Uncontrolled
Locations
(0-1)
Absence of
Sidewalks
(0-1)
>35
MPH
(0-1)
Char.

Score
(Normalized 0-1)
1 344900
El Camino Real & Dumbarton
Ave
North Fair
Oaks 0 1 0.50 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.83 30+
2 344095
El Camino Real & Winklebleck
St
Redwood
City 191 1 0.76 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.80 20
3 344207 Middlefield Rd & Flynn Ave
Redwood
City 28 1 0.54 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.73 30+
4 344086 El Camino Real & Lincoln Ave
Redwood
City 17 1 0.52 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 6
5 341111 N Delaware St & Tilton Ave San Mateo 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 18 6 344087 El Camino Real & Main St
Redwood
City 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 19
7 344657 Jefferson Ave at Adams St
Redwood
City 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 5
8 344658 Jefferson Ave at Adams St
Redwood
City 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 4
9 363067
University Ave & Sacramento
St
East Palo
Alto 11 1 0.51 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
10 342054 El Camino Real & Ruth Ave Belmont 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+ 11 342085
Old County Rd & Dale View
Ave Belmont 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
12 344195 Middlefield Rd & Cassia St
Redwood
City 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
13 344196 Middlefield Rd & Elm St
Redwood
City 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
14 344420 Veterans Blvd & Hansen Way
Redwood
City 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
15 344448 Woodside Rd & Bonita Ave
Redwood
City 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+

March 12, 2024 Page 6
C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan - SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bike
Rank
Stop ID Stop Location Jurisdictio
n
Crash History Equity Systemic Characteristics Total
Score
(0-1)
Ped
Rank
Bike Crash
Severity
Score
(0-367)
Bike
HIN
Bicycle
Crash Score
(Normalized
0-1)
Equity
Score
(0-1)
Uncontrolled
Locations
(0-1)
Absence of
Sidewalks
(0-1)
>35
MPH
(0-1)
Char.

Score
(Normalized 0-1)
16 344659 Jefferson Ave at Grand St
Redwood
City 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
17 344901
El Camino Real &
Northumberland Ave
North Fair
Oaks 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
18 341142 El Camino Real & 43rd Ave San Mateo 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+ 19 335099 Huntington Ave & Sneath Ln San Bruno 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+ 20 363064
2111 University Ave-Bell St
Park
East Palo
Alto 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 30+
21 344085
El Camino Real & Jefferson
Ave
Redwood
City 0 1 0.50 1 1 0 1 0.67 0.72 24
22 315013 Hwy 1 & Kelly Ave
Half Moon
Bay 0 1 0.50 1 0 1 1 0.67 0.72 30+
23 344203
Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton
Ave
North Fair
Oaks 191 1 0.76 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.69 30+
24 344204
Middlefield Rd & Dumbarton
Ave
North Fair
Oaks 191 1 0.76 1 1 0 0 0.33 0.69 30+
25 363065
University Ave & Runnymede
St
East Palo
Alto 148 1 0.70 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.67 30+
26 363066
University Ave & Runnymede
St
East Palo
Alto 148 1 0.70 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.67 30+
27 341943 Hillsdale Blvd & Saratoga dr San Mateo 131 1 0.68 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.66 30+ 28 344450 Woodside Rd & Hess Rd
Redwood
City 131 1 0.68 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.66 30+
29 344624 Woodside Rd & Hess Rd
Redwood
City 131 1 0.68 1 0 0 1 0.33 0.66 30+
30 315901 Hwy 92 & Hwy 35-Skyline Blvd
Unincorpor
ated San
Mateo
County 0 0 0.00 1 1 1 1 1.00 0.66 30+

Atherton
Belmont
Brisbane
Burlingame
Colma
Daly City
East
Palo Alto
Foster City Hillsborough
Half Moon
Bay
Millbrae
Menlo Park
Pacifica
Portola
Valley
Redwood City
San Bruno
San Carlos
San Mateo
South
San
Francisco
Woodside
Broadmoor
El Granada
Emerald
Lake Hills
La Honda
Ladera
Loma Mar
Los
Trancos
Woods
Montara
Moss
Beach
North
Fair Oaks
Palomar Park
Pescadero
San Bruno
Mtn Park
San Francisco
International
Airport
Sequoia
Tract
Sky Londa
Stanford
Lands
West
Menlo
Park
Wunderlich
Cal. Fish
And Game
El Corte
De Madera
Edgewood
Russian Ridge
Skyline Ridge
Pescadero
Memorial Park
La Honda
Creek
San Bruno Mt.

Ano Nuevo
Reserve
Bayfront
Park
Skeggs Point
Huddart
Bean Hollow
Mcnee Ranch
Purisima
Creek
Pulgas Ridge
Baylands
Preserve
Milagra
Ridge
(ggnra)
Long Ridge
Sugarloaf
Mtn.

San Pedro
Valley
Sweeny Ridge
Sam Mcdonald
Windy Hill
Big Basin
Burleigh-murray
Ranch
Portola
Redwoods
Quiroste
Valley
S.f. Bay
Wildlife
Refuge
San Gregorio
Ano Nuevo Sp
Butano Sp
Sharp Park
Coal Creek
ß/101
ß/101
ß/101
∙þ92
∙þ1
∙þ9
∙þ84
¦§¨380
¦§¨280
¦§¨280
¦§¨280
¦§¨280
Skyline Blvd
S El Camino Real
Bay Rd
Sullivan Ave
Gellert Blvd
Polhemus Rd
Callan
Blvd
Airport Blvd
Whiskey
Hill
Rd
U
n
v
i
e
r
s
i
yt
A
v
e
Westborough Blvd
El Camino Real
Mission
St
Santa Cruz Ave
S
Linden
Ave
S Spruce
Ave
42nd Ave
Club Dr
Ocea
n
a
Blvd
Edgewood Rd
Chestnut St
Hillcrest Blvd
Edgewater
Blvd
Carolan Ave
Palm Ave
Whipple Ave
Crestview Dr
9th Ave
Shell Blvd
S Airport Blvd
Avalon Dr
Manor Dr
Mar
n
i
e
r
s
I
s
land
Blvd
Selby Ln
E Grand Ave
Junipero Serra Blvd
Li
n
den
Ave
Holly St
Redwood Shores Pkwy
St
Fra
ncis
Blvd
La Honda Rd
San Mateo Ave
Sharp Park Rd
Farm Hill Blvd
Industrial Rd
Spruce Ave
Pacific Blvd
Hacienda
St
Page Mill Rd
S Grant St
Grand Ave
Sierra
P
oi
nt
P
kwy
Alameda De Las Pulgas
R
o
b
e
rta
Dr
Hillside Blvd
Stockbridge Ave
Portola Rd
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
E 4th Ave
Atherton Ave
Oyster Point Blvd
De Anza Blvd
Bayshore Blvd
Maple St
Francisco Blvd
Jefferson Ave
Ralston Ave
Peninsula Ave
S Norfolk St
Woodside Dr
King Dr
Edison
St
S B St
Hillside Dr
Old County Rd
Pescadero
Creek
Rd
Marsh Rd
Al
p
i
n
e
R
d
E Hillsdale Blvd
N San Mateo Dr
S Delaware St
Pa
l
m
e
t
t
o
Av
e
Shoreview Ave
Woodside Rd
Veterans Blvd
N Access Rd
San Carlos Ave
Main St
Brewster Ave
28th Ave
Kings Mountain Rd
Chateau Dr
Chess Dr
C
a
rt
er
St
Trousdale Dr
Crystal Springs Rd
Hickey
Blvd
Twin Dolphin Dr
Br
di
g
e
P
k wy
So
uth
g
a
te
A
v
e
Brittan Ave
Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy
Chestnut Ave
John Daly Blvd
N Humboldt St
N Delaware St
31st Ave
Sand Hill Rd
Saratoga Dr
Laurel St
Sh
a
w
R
d
Bunker Hill Dr
Marine Pkwy
Old Bayshore Hwy
Mission Rd
Canada Rd
Coast Hwy
Shoreway Rd
Parrott Dr
Willow
Rd
Foster City Blvd
Forbes Blvd
F St
San Mateo Rd
E Bayshore Rd
Linda Mar Blvd
W Hillsdale Blvd
N Bayshore Blvd
E 3rd Ave
Sneath Ln
Dna Way
Beach Park
Blvd
T
u
n
n
e
l
Ave
S Mcdonnell Rd
N
Mcdonnell
Rd
Serramonte Blvd
Cabrillo Hwy
Tom Lanos Tunnel
Priority Bus Stops (Bicyclists)
Priority Bus Stops (Pedestrians)
BART Station
Caltrain Station
Railroad
Parks
Cities
Unincorporated Places
H:\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 3/12/2024 SamTrans Priority Bus Stops San Mateo County, CA
Figure 2
0 1 2 3 4 5Miles
[

March 12, 2024 Page 8
C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan - SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis Appendix A: Detailed Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix A: Detailed Analysis

MEMO
TO: Mike Alston, Kittleson & Associates, Inc
FROM: Brian Almdale, Rebecca Sanders, PhD, RSP2B
DATE: March 5, 2024
RE: Pedestrian Safety Analysis at SamTrans Bus Stops
PROJECT: C/CAG Local Road Safety Plan
Introduction
This document presents the results of a detailed exploration of pedestrian safety near bus stops as part of a supplemental analysis for the City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). The regional transit provider, SamTrans, provided enhanced bus stop data that was collected by SamTrans as part of their Bus Stop Improvement Plan effort. The enhancements made to the bus stop data consisted of manual data collection using Google Street View ™ to inventory bus stop amenities, roadway characteristics, and bus stop location characteristics (e.g., near-side v. far-side of an intersection).

The bus stop data provided to the consultant team has been reviewed and assessed for quality control concerns. Several possible data quality concerns are noted throughout this document, largely relating to the consistency of roadway characteristics assigned to each bus stop. There does not appear to have been a systemic process employed as part of the manual data collection effort. Due to budget and project timeline limitations, these possible data quality concerns are not able to be fully remedied, and therefore the results of this analysis should be interpreted with caution.

Table of Contents
Introduction _________________________________________________________________ 1 Acronyms ________________________________________________________________________ 3 Injury Weights ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Summary of Key Findings from LRSP___________________________________________________ 4 Key Findings from SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis __________________________________________ 5 Methodology ________________________________________________________________ 7 Temporal Data Limitations __________________________________________________________ 8 Classifying Intersection versus Midblock Bus Stops _______________________________________ 9 Pedestrian Safety Analysis at Bus Stops __________________________________________ 11 Location Type____________________________________________________________________ 11 Crossing Control ________________________________________________________________________12 Presence of a Crosswalk __________________________________________________________________13 Presence of a Marked Crosswalk at Unsignalized Intersections by Crossing Control____________________15 Sidewalks _______________________________________________________________________ 16 Functional Classification ___________________________________________________________ 17 Primary Streets and Posted Speed Limit______________________________________________________18 Highest and Lowest Functional Classification __________________________________________________19 Posted Speed Limit _______________________________________________________________ 20 HIN ____________________________________________________________________________ 22 Functional Classification __________________________________________________________________22 Crossing Control ________________________________________________________________________23 Sidewalk ______________________________________________________________________________24 Position Type___________________________________________________________________________25 Activity Density _________________________________________________________________________25 On-Street Parking _______________________________________________________________________26 Driveway Conflicts_______________________________________________________________________27 Caltrans Jurisdiction_______________________________________________________________ 29 Functional Classification (Excludes Residential Streets) __________________________________________29

Crossing Control ________________________________________________________________________30 Presence of sidewalk_____________________________________________________________________31 Equity Priority Area _______________________________________________________________ 33 Pedestrian HIN _________________________________________________________________________33 Conclusion__________________________________________________________________ 34 Acronyms
Acronym Definition
C/CAG City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County EPDO Equivalent Property Damage Only
HIN High Injury Network
F/SI Killed or severely injured
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
OSM OpenStreetMap
PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Several instances in this report refer to arterial/collector streets, which are segments with an OpenStreetMap (OSM) functional classification of primary, secondary, tertiary, or trunk.

Injury Weights
Crashes have been assigned an Equivalent Property Damage Only (EPDO) value, which is a severity-based weight that allows us to better understand the general crash frequency and intensity (e.g., severity of injury outcomes) when analyzing crash frequencies in cross tabs.

These costs are pulled from the Caltrans Local Road Safety (Version 1.6) document. A higher EPDO value may suggest that a particular roadway characteristic is associated with higher crash severities and/or crash frequencies. Most tables in this report present EPDO values via the total EPDO by variables as well as the average EPDO score per crash (total EPDO divided by the total number of crashes) to help us understand average crash severity. The table below outlines the combinations of injury severities and location types and the corresponding EPDO value.

Crash Severity*
Location Type Crash Cost*** Equivalent
Property
Damage Only
**Fatal and Severe Injury (KA)
Signalized Intersection $1,787,000 119.93
Non-Signalized
Intersection $2,843,000 190.81
Roadway $2,461,000 165.17
Evident Injury – Other Visible (B) $159,000 10.67
Possible Injury – Complaint of Pain (C) $90,900 6.10
****Property Damage Only (O) $14,900 1.00
* The letters in parenthesis (K, A, B, C and O) refer to the KABCO scale; it is commonly used by law enforcement agencies in their crash reporting efforts and is further documented in the HSM. ** Figures were calculated based on an average Fatality (K) / Severe Injury (A) ratio for each area type, a crash cost for a Fatality (K) of $8,112,200, and a crash cost of a Severe/Disabling Injury (A) of $437,100.

These costs are used in the HSIP Analyzer.
*** Based on Table 7-1, Highway Safety Manual (HSM), First Edition, 2010. Adjusted to 2022 Dollars. **** Property Damage Only Crashes are excluded from this analysis (and excluded from the C/CAG LRSP).

Summary of Key Findings from LRSP
The C/CAG LRSP systemic safety analysis found that pedestrian crashes were concentrated at intersections with a bus stop. Intersections within 250 feet of a transit stop had a crash rate of 20 crashes per 100 intersections, compared to just 4 crashes per 100 intersections for those intersections further away. Following are key findings from the LRSP analysis exploring crashes near bus stops:
• Signalized intersections with a bus stop had roughly six times the rate of both crashes per 100 intersections and F/SI crashes per 100 intersections as unsignalized intersections with a bus stop.
• F/SI crashes at signalized intersections with a bus stop generally involved the pedestrian crossing and being struck by a motorist going straight (29 percent), or the pedestrian crossing and a motorist turning left (24 percent). Both crash types most frequently involved a motorist who failed to yield to the pedestrian (77 percent of all crashes; 50 percent of F/SI crashes). These patterns were similar for unsignalized intersections with a bus stop.

• Three-quarters of all crashes and F/SI crashes, regardless of signalization, occurred at an intersection between an arterial (primary, secondary, or tertiary) and a residential street with a bus stop.
• Crashes most frequently occurred at a primary-residential intersection with a bus stop (30 percent of all crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by a secondaryresidential intersection with a bus stop (28 percent of all crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes).

Key Findings from SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis
The supplemental SamTrans bus stop analysis reveals additional potentially important findings about pedestrian safety, although, as stated in the introduction, these findings should be treated cautiously given the lack of a systematic data collection effort. Following is a consolidated list of the key findings from this supplemental analysis, which can be found throughout the remainder of the Safety Analysis at Bus Stops section as the bulleted lists at the end each summary. This analysis focused on pedestrian crashes involving a motorist. • Location Type: Crashes and F/SI crashes are heavily concentrated at signalized intersections.
• Location Type: Crashes near midblock bus stops were more likely to be severe (F/SI outcome, 34 percent) than those at signalized intersections (20 percent F/SI) or unsignalized intersections (18 percent F/SI).
• Location Type & Crossing Control: Crashes and F/SI Crashes are concentrated at signalized intersections. These locations also had a crash rate and F/SI crash rate of between 2-3 times the rate of bus stops at unsignalized intersections. • Location Type & Presence of a Marked Crosswalk: Marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections appear to have safety benefits, suggested by a lower proportion of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome, lower proportion of F/SI crashes occurring during darkness, and a lower average EPDO score.
• Location Type & Stop Control & Presence of a Marked Crosswalk (Unsignalized Intersections): Bus stops at stop-controlled intersections had a lower share of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome, lower share of F/SI crashes occurring during darkness, and lower average EPDO score compared to bus stops with an unmarked crosswalk and no crossing control.
• Presence of a Sidewalk & Posted Speed Limit: More than one-third (38 percent) of bus stops without a sidewalk are along streets with a speed limit of 25 mph, followed by 45 mph (22 percent).
• Presence of a Sidewalk & Functional Classification: More than one-third (38 percent) of bus stops without a sidewalk are along secondary streets, followed by residential (24 percent) and tertiary streets (15 percent). Most crashes and all six F/SI crashes near bus stops without a sidewalk were along primary streets.
• Presence of a Sidewalk: Two of the 25 crashes and two of the six F/SI crashes that occurred near a bus stop without a sidewalk were near/at a midblock bus stop.

• Functional Classification: Crashes and F/SI crashes are concentrated along primary and secondary streets, and crashes along primary streets tend to be more severe than crashes at other locations. In contrast, crashes along residential streets are generally less severe than crashes that occurred along higher functional classifications. • Functional Classification: However, residential streets are brought in at the intersection:
crashes are concentrated at primary-residential and secondary-residential intersections. • Functional Classification: Additionally, crashes at primary-residential intersections tend to be more severe than crashes at other locations. Furthermore, nearly two-thirds of F/SI crashes at primary-residential intersections occurred during dark lighting conditions.
• Posted Speed Limit: Bus stops along higher speed streets had a higher concentration of crashes and F/SI crashes compared to streets with a lower posted speed limit (25 mph). • Pedestrian HIN: Pedestrian crashes and F/SI crashes are overwhelmingly concentrated along the pedestrian HIN. Given this high capture rate for pedestrian F/SI in particular, the C/CAG regional pedestrian HIN can be an effective tool to prioritize bus stops with pedestrian crash risk issues in SamTrans safety prioritization. • Pedestrian HIN & Functional Classification: Along the pedestrian HIN, F/SI crashes are concentrated at primary streets (29.4 F/SI crashes compared to the average along the pedestrian HIN of 23.9).
• Pedestrian HIN & Functional Classification: Additionally, a large proportion (73 percent) of F/SI crashes at bus stops along the pedestrian HIN and primary streets occurred during dark lighting conditions.
• Pedestrian HIN & Crossing Control: F/SI crashes are concentrated at signalized and unsignalized crossings along the pedestrian HIN. Bus stops with uncontrolled crossings had a higher rate of F/SI crossings per 1,000 riders (6.2) than signalized crossings (4.8). • Pedestrian HIN & Crossing Control: Bus stops with no crossing control were associated with the highest proportion of pedestrian F/SI crashes occurring during dark lighting conditions (62 percent).
• Pedestrian HIN & Position Type: F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops are more concentrated at far-side locations (26.6) compared top near-side (20.9) and midblock (22.2) locations. • Pedestrian HIN & On-Street Parking: Bus stops lacking on-street parking had a higher rate of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops (25.5), lower F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders (n=4.7), and a higher average EPDO score per bus stop (48.9) compared to bus stops with onstreet parking. • Pedestrian HIN & Driveway Conflicts: Bus stops with a driveway conflict along the pedestrian HIN had higher rates of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops and per 1,000 riders, particularly along arterial/collector streets, compared to bus stops without a driveway conflict.
• Caltrans Facilities: Bus stops along Caltrans facilities had about 2.5 times the rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops compared to bus stops along county and local roads.

• Caltrans Facilities & Functional Classification: Crashes and F/SI crashes along primary streets are concentrated along state-owned facilities.
• Caltrans Facilities & Crossing Control: Bus stops along state-owned roads at uncontrolled crossings have roughly one-third of the average daily ridership compared to bus stops at signalized locations, but have similar rate of crashes and F/SI crashes on a per 1,000 ridership basis. This finding suggests for pedestrian safety measures (lane reductions, speed reductions, adding crossing control, etc.) at uncontrolled intersections along state routes to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings • Caltrans Facilities & Crossing Control: There are very few bus stops along state-owned roads that have crossing controls other than traffic signals (such as PHB or RRFB). • Caltrans Facilities & Presence of a Sidewalk: Bus stops along state-owned roads with a connecting sidewalk had a higher rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops, but a lower rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders compared to bus stops without a connecting sidewalk.
• Equity Priority Area: Bus stops within an Equity Priority Area have a disproportionately high rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops. • Equity Priority Area: Bus stops within an Equity Priority Area had a very large percentage of F/SI crashes occur in darkness (62 percent) compared to bus stops outside of Equity Priority Areas (28 percent).
• Equity Priority Area & Pedestrian HIN: Crashes and F/SI crashes are heavily concentrated at bus stops along the pedestrian HIN within Equity Priority Communities. • Equity Priority Area & Pedestrian HIN: A much higher proportion of F/SI crashes that occurred in darkness was observed at bus stops within an Equity Priority Community and along the pedestrian HIN, compared to locations outside of Equity Priority Areas regardless of location along the HIN.

Methodology
Pedestrian crashes summarized in this analysis occurred within 250 feet of a bus stop. This is the same distance threshold used in the LRSP systemic safety analysis. The unit of analysis is the bus stop. All crashes that occurred within 250 feet of the bus stop were joined to the bus stop, with specific fields created in the bus stop data (ped_all, ped_ka, ped_all_dark, ped_all_dark_ka, etc.)
Bus stops that are located outside of the C/CAG study area were removed from the analysis.

This included 96 bus stops located in San Francisco and Palo Alto. The final study dataset used in this analysis includes 1,969 bus stop records.

The crash data do not provide information about where the pedestrian or bicyclist was traveling to or from. As such, we cannot determine if the road user was a transit user at the time of the crash or simply in close proximity of the bus stop. Furthermore, if the road user was in fact traveling to or from the bus stop, we do not have the information to be able to identify which stop they were traveling to or from. As such, crashes are assigned to all bus stops if they are

within 250 feet (Euclidean distance). This methodology results in some double counting of crashes when summarizing by crash frequencies. For example, the crash (red star) in Figure 1 is assigned to both bus stops (blue boxes). To work around this double counting, all crashes and F/SI crashes are converted to crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops and 1,000 bus riders (i.e., crash frequencies divided by the number of bus stops and bus riders and scaled, respectively) and summarized for each variable explored in this analysis. The crashes and F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders is a coarse approach to estimate pedestrian exposure, in that bus stops with higher volumes of transit users are likely to be correlated with higher pedestrian volumes overall. This is not true for all bus stops, and these crash rates should be interpreted with caution as the crash per 1,000 riders is a planning-level estimate. In the tables summarized in this document, the raw crash count and F/SI crash count are included to show the magnitude of crashes, but possible duplication of crash counts is possible if the crash is within 250 feet of two or more bus stops.

Figure 1. Example relationship between bus stop locations and a crash.

Temporal Data Limitations
Data collected, consolidated, and processed as part of the LRSP systemic safety analysis were used for this analysis in addition to the SamTrans bus stop data. This includes intersection variables, roadway characteristics, the regional pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN), and other data used in the LRSP. Temporal data are not available in the roadway data used in the LRSP and the attributes in the SamTrans bus stop data, such as installation dates for safety countermeasures and roadway geometry characteristics (e.g., speed limit, number of lanes, etc.). This analysis focused on crashes that occurred over a five-year study period, from 2018 through 2022. The compiled roadway data reflect current conditions, and it is likely that some changes to the roadway design and operations occurred during this five-year period. For example, if a rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) was installed at a crossing in 2021 and a

crash occurred at that crossing in 2019, this analysis will link that crash with the present day RRFB. As such, the findings from this analysis should be interpreted with caution.

Classifying Intersection versus Midblock Bus Stops
The intersection coding definition used a different approach than what was used in the systemic safety analysis in the LRSP, which used different buffer thresholds based on the functional classification of the intersecting streets. This is appropriate for crashes, but a more nuanced approach is needed for bus stops, which can be midblock, near-side, or far-side with the latter two accounting for bus length. As such, the consultant team deferred to SamTrans’ staff expertise in assigning these location attributes. For this analysis, bus stops were coded as an intersection if the bus stop was classified by SamTrans as being at the far-side, near-side, or mid-intersection in the position_int field. If the stop was coded as “unable to determine”, the stop was coded as an intersection if the stop was within 150 feet of an intersection. If any bus stop, regardless of the coded position_int value, was more than 500 feet away from any intersection in the GIS database, the bus stop was coded as midblock. All other stops are coded as midblock (this includes stops already coded as midblock by SamTrans). Intersection variables (posted speed limit, functional classification, etc.) are joined to all bus stops coded as being at an intersection, and segment variables are joined to the midblock bus stops. This means that the OSM functional classification already coded to the bus stop by SamTrams is superseded to follow the same methodology used in the C/CAG LRSP.

After reviewing the position_type field, it is not clear if SamTrans used a systematic method in assigning these position types that require a minimum distance threshold from the nearest intersection to determine if a bus stop is considered midblock. Upon investigation of the data, the “midblock location” designation appears to be inconsistently assigned to bus stops, with many bus stops that are far away from an intersection being coded as far-side or near-side, rather than midblock (see Figure 2).

Figure 2. Example of SamTrans coded intersection bus stop that appears to be midblock.

Pedestrian Safety Analysis at Bus Stops
Location Type
The location type was assigned to each bus stop using the following criteria, and is only used in a small number of crosstabs included in this report:
• Signalized Intersection: bus stop was coded by SamTrans as not being midblock and having a traffic signal or pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) at the intersection. This includes near-side, far-side, and mid-intersection bus stop positions. • Unsignalized Intersection: bus stop was coded by SamTrans as not being midblock and not having a traffic signal or PHB at the intersection. This includes near-side, far-side, and mid-intersection bus stop positions. It is not clear how the crossing control is assigned to the bus stop, as several bus stops are assigned a “stop-controlled” control type, but require the pedestrian to cross more than one intersection to reach that crossing control.
• Midblock: bus stop was coded by SamTrans as being midblock. There are 31 bus stops coded as having a traffic signal. Upon investigation, the control device at those 31 locations appear to be related to the intersection control at the nearest crossing opportunity that is not adjacent to the bus stop.

Table 1 summarizes crashes by the bus stop location type (using the above criteria). Most bus stops are located at signalized intersections (58 percent), and pedestrian crashes and F/SI crashes are concentrated at signalized intersections (76.4 crashes and 15.1 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops). These crash rates per 100 bus stops are roughly three times the rates for unsignalized intersections. When looking at the share of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome, midblock crashes were more likely to result in a F/SI compared to intersection crashes, regardless of traffic control type. This is likely a result of higher motorist travel speeds at midblock locations, resulting in a higher level of kinetic energy transferred to the pedestrian at the time of the crash. Interestingly, crashes at unsignalized intersections had the lowest proportion of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome (18 percent).

The proportion of crashes that occurred in darkness was similar across location types. However, the proportion of F/SI crashes that occurred in darkness is highest at unsignalized locations (52 percent) and lowest at midblock locations (40 percent). • Crashes and F/SI crashes are heavily concentrated at signalized intersections. • Crashes near bus stops that are located midblock had a higher share of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome (34 percent) compared to signalized intersections (20 percent) and unsignalized intersections (18 percent).

Table 1 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type, 2018-2022 Location
Type
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Ridership
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Crashes*
# F/SI
Crashes*
Signalized
Intersection 556 28% 41.5 76.4 15.1 18.4 3.6 28.2 20% 37% 48% 425 84 Unsignalized
Intersection 1,151 58% 16.7 28.6 5.2 17.1 3.1 11.4 18% 36% 52% 329 60 Midblock 262 13% 49 12.2 3.8 2.5 0.8 6.8 31% 34% 40% 32 10 Total 1,969 100% 28 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Crossing Control
Table 2 summarizes pedestrian crashes at bus stops by location type and crossing control type.

It is unclear how SamTrans assigned crossing control to each bus stop. Upon review of the data, several midblock bus stops coded as having a “stop sign” control type require the pedestrian to cross through one or more intersections before reaching a stop-controlled intersection.

Additionally, several midblock bus stops coded as “NA” are adjacent to a stop-controlled intersection. It is unclear how many of these cases exist and it is out of scope to do a detailed quality control process for these data, but multiple instances were found in our preliminary review. As such, we recommended interpreting these findings with caution.

Unsignalized intersections with no crossing control have the largest share of bus stops in the region (36 percent) followed by signalized (28 percent) and stop-controlled (19 percent) intersections. All crashes and F/SI crashes are concentrated at signalized intersections (76.7 crashes per 100 bus stops; 15.1 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops) and had a crash rate and F/SI crash rate of between 2-3 times the rate of bus stops at unsignalized intersections.

For unsignalized intersections that are stop-controlled or have no control, uncontrolled crossings had a higher rate of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops (5.6 v. 4.9) and per 1,000 riders (3.8 v. 2.3), and a higher share of crashes resulting in a a F/SI outcome (26 percent v. 11 percent). Nearly two-thirds of F/SI crashes at uncontrolled intersections occurred in dark lighting conditions, compared to one-third for stop-controlled intersections.

When normalizing F/SI crashes by the average daily riders, signalized intersections have a similar crash rate per 1,000 riders (3.6) as intersections without crossing control (3.8). Of the 56 bus stops that are near a RRFB (40 at intersection and 16 midblock), there were no reported F/SI crashes and 11 crashes, although we cannot determine if these crashes occurred before or after the RRFB was installed.

• Crashes and F/SI Crashes are concentrated at signalized intersections. These locations also had a crash rate and F/SI crash rate of between 2-3 times the rate of bus stops at unsignalized intersections.

Table 2 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type and Crossing Control Type, 2018-2022 Location
Type
Crossing
Control
Type
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crash
es in
Dark
% of
F/SI
crashe
s in
Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Intersection Signalized 550 28% 41.5 76.7 15.1 18.5 3.6 28.2 20% 37% 47% 422 83 Intersection NA 715 36% 14.9 21.4 5.6 14.4 3.8 11 26% 46% 62% 153 40 Intersection
StopControlled 370 19% 21.4 42.4 4.9 19.9 2.3 12.8 11% 30% 33% 157 18 Intersection
Unable to
Verify 26 1% 0.0 30.8 7.7 NA NA 14.3 25% 0% 0% 8 2
Intersection PHB 6 0% 39.2 50 16.7 12.8 4.3 35.5 33% 67% 100% 3 1 Intersection RRFB 40 2% 16.8 27.5 0 16.4 0 3 0% 0% 0% 11 0 Midblock NA 182 9% 35.2 8.8 4.4 2.5 1.2 7.5 50% 31% 25% 16 8 Midblock Signalized 31 2% 34.9 29 6.5 8.3 1.9 11.7 22% 22% 100% 9 2 Midblock RRFB 16 1% 24.4 18.8 0 7.7 0 2.1 0% 67% 0% 3 0 Midblock
StopControlled 22 1% 145.3 9.1 0 0.6 0 0.8 0% 50% 0% 2 0 Midblock
Unable to
Verify 11 1% 158.7 18.2 0 1.1 0 1.5 0% 50% 0% 2 0
Total - 1,969 100% 28.0 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Presence of a Crosswalk
Our review of the SamTrans crosswalk data in comparison to Google Street View and other aerial imagery data sources surfaced data quality concerns, as many of the midblock bus stops that are noted as having a crosswalk do not appear to exist. As such, we urge caution when interpreting these findings. See Figure 3 for one example where no crosswalk is visible at the bus stops or within a walking distance of the bus stops.

Figure 3. Midblock bus stops miscoded as having a marked crosswalk when a crosswalk is not visible Table 3 summarizes pedestrian crashes at bus stops by location type and the presence of a marked crosswalk. All bus stops at a signalized intersection are reported to have a marked crosswalk, representing 28 percent of all bus stops. These bus stops had the highest rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops, which likely reflects both pedestrian and motorist exposure and street size (signalized intersections are generally at wider and higher volume streets).

Slightly under half (44 percent) of bus stops at unsignalized intersections are reported to have a marked crosswalk (506 with a marked crossing compared to 615 without a marked crossing and 30 unverified/NA). Crashes are highly concentrated at marked crosswalks (41.7 crashes per 100 bus stops) compared to unmarked crosswalks (17.6), which is likely associated with higher pedestrian crossing volumes at marked crosswalks. However, F/SI crashes between the two location types are nearly the same (5.3 v. 5.0), and bus stops with marked crosswalks have a substantially lower proportion of crashes that resulted in a KA outcome (13 percent at marked crossings v. 29 percent for unmarked crossings). Furthermore, the proportion of F/SI crashes that occurred in darkness is three times as large at unmarked crosswalks compared to marked crosswalks (74 percent compared to 30 percent).
• Marked crosswalks at unsignalized intersections appear to have safety benefits, suggested by a lower proportion of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome, lower proportion of F/SI crashes occurring during darkness, and a lower average EPDO score.

Table 3 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type and Presence of a Marked Crosswalk, 2018-2022 Location Type
Presence
of
Marked
Crosswalk
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Signalized
Intersection Yes 556 28% 42 76.4 15.1 18.4 3.6 28.2 20% 37% 48% 425 84 Unsignalized
Intersection Yes 506 26% 23 41.7 5.3 18.4 2.4 13.5 13% 30% 30% 211 27 Unsignalized
Intersection No 615 31% 13 17.6 5 14.1 4 9.6 29% 49% 74% 108 31 Unsignalized
Intersection
Unable to
Verify 26 1% 0 30.8 7.7 NA NA 14.3 25% 0% 0% 8 2
Unsignalized
Intersection NA 4 0% 19 50 0 26.3 0 5.5 0% 50% 0% 2 0
Midblock Yes 97 5% 79 16.5 3.1 2.1 0.4 5.6 19% 31% 67% 16 3 Midblock NA 82 4% 42 12.2 6.1 2.9 1.5 10.8 50% 30% 0% 10 5 Midblock No 73 4% 10 5.5 2.7 5.8 2.9 4.8 50% 50% 100% 4 2 Midblock
Unable to
Verify 10 1% 100 20 0 2 0 1.7 0% 50% 0% 2 0
Total - 1,969 100% 28 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Presence of a Marked Crosswalk at Unsignalized Intersections by Crossing Control Table 4 looks at unsignalized intersections by presence of a marked crosswalk and crossing control to better understand what may be contributing to the lower severity of crashes and proportion of F/SI crashes occurring during darkness at marked crosswalks compared to unmarked crosswalks. Crossing control appears to play an important role in pedestrian safety at unsignalized intersections. Bus stops at stop-controlled intersections with marked crosswalks represent one-third of bus stops at unsignalized intersections. These locations had a lower share of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome (11 percent) compared to bus stops with a marked crosswalk and no crossing control (21 percent) and bus stops with neither a marked crosswalk nor a crossing control (29 percent). Bus stops with an RRFB had no F/SI crashes during the 5- year study period across the 40 bus stops that have this countermeasure (recall that we cannot confirm if all severity crashes occurred before or after the RRFB was installed). A much lower share of F/SI crashes occurred in darkness at bus stops with stop-controlled intersections (33 percent) compared to bus stops that lack both a crossing control and a marked crosswalk (74 percent).

• Bus stops at stop-controlled intersections had a lower share of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome, lower share of F/SI crashes occurring during darkness, and lower average EPDO score compared to bus stops with an unmarked crosswalk and no crossing control.

Table 4 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type, Presence of a Marked Crosswalk, and Crossing Control, 2018-2022 Location
Type
Presence
of
Marked
Crosswalk
Crossing
Control
# of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Unsignalized
Intersection Yes
StopControlled 368 21.5 42.7 4.9 19.9 2.3 12.9 11% 30% 33% 157 18 Unsignalized
Intersection Yes NA 98 29.8 43.9 9.2 14.7 3.1 20.1 21% 37% 22% 43 9 Unsignalized
Intersection Yes RRFB 40 16.8 27.5 0 16.4 0 3 0% 0% 0% 11 0 Unsignalized
Intersection No NA 613 12.5 17.6 5.1 14.1 4.1 9.6 29% 49% 74% 108 31 Unsignalized
Intersection No
StopControlled 2 4.5 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
Total - - 1,121 17.1 28.5 5.2 16.7 3 11.3 18% 36% 53% 319 58

Sidewalks
Table 5 summarizes pedestrian crashes by the presence of a sidewalk at each bus stop. Roughly 10 percent (n=206) of bus stops in the region lack a sidewalk. These bus stops had the lowest rate of crashes (12.1) and F/SI crashes (2.9) per bus stop compared to bus stops with an existing sidewalk (43.5 crashes per 100 bus stops and 8.5 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops). However, these stops also have very low average daily ridership, with 6.3 riders per day compared to 30.6 for bus stops with sidewalks. When looking at the rate of crashes per 1,000 riders, bus stops without a sidewalk had a higher rate of all crashes (19.2) and F/SI crashes (4.6) compared to bus stops with a sidewalk.
• More than one-third (38 percent) of bus stops without a sidewalk are along streets with a speed limit of 25 mph, followed by 45 mph (22 percent). • More than one-third (38 percent) of bus stops without a sidewalk are along secondary streets, followed by residential (24 percent) and tertiary streets (15 percent). Most crashes and all six F/SI crashes near bus stops without a sidewalk were along primary streets.
• Two of the 25 crashes and two of the six F/SI crashes that occurred near a bus stop without a sidewalk were near/at a midblock bus stop.

Table 5 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Presence of a Sidewalk, 2018-2022 Presence
of a
Sidewalk
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Ridership
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Crashes*
# F/SI
Crashes*
Yes 1,727 88% 30.6 43.5 8.5 14.2 2.8 16.9 19% 37% 49% 751 146 No 206 10% 6.3 12.1 2.9 19.2 4.6 5.4 24% 28% 67% 25 6
Unable
to Verify 36 2% 27.9 27.8 5.6 10 2 10.8 20% 10% 0% 10 2 Total 1,969 100% 28 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Functional Classification
Table 6 summarizes pedestrian crashes near a bus stop by functional classification. Most pedestrian crashes occurred at stops along primary and secondary streets. Primary streets had the highest rate of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops (18.4) followed by secondary (7.9), and tertiary (6.2) streets. Interestingly, while bus stops at/along primary streets accounted for the largest number of crashes and F/SI crashes, primary streets have fewer bus stops (15 percent) compared to secondary (36 percent), tertiary (21 percent), and residential (25 percent) streets.

While we may expect higher volumes of pedestrian along primary streets, the average EPDO score is substantially higher for these streets than for all other functional classifications. When looking the percentage of crashes that occurred during dark lighting conditions, there is very little difference between the different functional classifications (aside from trunk), with the proportion ranging from 35-37 percent. However, the percentage of F/SI crashes that occurred during dark lighting conditions was highest along primary streets (64 percent), followed by residential streets (62 percent).
• Crashes and F/SI crashes are concentrated along primary and secondary streets. • Crashes along primary streets tend to be more severe than crashes at other locations.

Crashes along residential streets are generally less severe than crashes that occurred along higher functional classifications.

Table 6 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Functional Classification, 2018-2022 Functional
Classification
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Ridership
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Crashes*
# F/SI
Crashes*
primary 304 15% 49.3 93.1 18.4 18.9 3.7 33.3 20% 37% 64% 283 56 secondary 712 36% 18.6 39 7.9 21 4.2 16.6 20% 37% 36% 278 56 tertiary 404 21% 22.7 30.7 6.2 13.5 2.7 12.9 20% 35% 32% 124 25 residential 499 25% 24.3 18.4 3.2 7.6 1.3 6.6 17% 35% 62% 92 16 trunk 34 2% 5.4 26.5 2.9 48.6 5.4 5.8 11% 11% 100% 9 1
ramp 3 0% 5.0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
alley 1 0% 324.0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
NA 12 1% 425.2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
Total 1,969 100% 28.0 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Primary Streets and Posted Speed Limit
Taking the finding from the previous section, primary streets (which had the highest crash and F/SI crash rate per 100 bus stops) are explored further to better understand pedestrian safety along those streets near bus stops. Table 7 summarizes pedestrian crashes near a bus stop along a primary street by posted speed limit.

Nearly half (48 percent) of the bus stops along primary streets are along streets with a posted speed limit of 35 mph followed by 45 mph (38 percent). There are very few bus stops along primary streets that have a posted speed limit other than 35 mph and 45 mph (n=41). Crashes along 35 mph streets had over twice the average EPDO value (41.9) and nearly twice the average F/SI crash rate per 1,000 riders (4.8) as the regional EPDO score of crashes and F/SI crash rate per 1,000 riders that occurred near bus stops regardless of functional classification (avg EPDO=15.5; F/SI per 1,000 riders=2.8). Bus stops along 35 mph roadways had a greater percentage of F/SI crashes in darkness (69 percent) than those posted at 45 mph (30 percent), which may be related to the types of destinations near bus stops along 35 mph streets compared to 45 mph streets (i.e., the 35 mph streets may attract more pedestrians).

Table 7 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Along Primary Streets by Posted Speed Limit, 2018-2022 Posted
Speed
Limit
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Ridership
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Crashes*
# F/SI
Crashes*
<=25 12 4% 22.2 58.3 0 26.2 0 5.6 0% 29% 0% 7 0
30 6 2% 8.2 133.3 66.7 163.3 81.6 117.3 50% 50% 50% 8 4 35 147 48% 49.7 103.4 23.8 20.8 4.8 41.9 23% 45% 69% 152 35 40 20 7% 88.3 135 15 15.3 1.7 29.7 11% 44% 100% 27 3
45 116 38% 47.6 73.3 8.6 15.4 1.8 18.4 12% 19% 30% 85 10 50+ 3 1% 24.7 133.3 133.3 54.1 54.1 160 100% 100% 100% 4 4 Total 304 100% 49.3 93.1 18.4 18.9 3.7 33.3 20% 37% 64% 283 56 Highest and Lowest Functional Classification
This section only analyzes bus stops that are coded by SamTrans as being at the near-side or far-side of an intersection or are noted as mid-intersection The lowest functional classification has been simplified for this section using the criteria below:
• arterial/collector: primary, secondary, tertiary, and trunk • residential: residential
Table 8 shows that most bus stops are at an intersection between an arterial or collector of some kind (primary, secondary, tertiary, or trunk) and a residential street, with most stops being at a secondary-residential intersection (30 percent), followed by residential-residential (24 percent), tertiary-residential (18 percent) and primary-residential (13 percent). When looking at the rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops, bus stops at intersections between primary and residential streets had the highest rates (99.5 crashes per 100 bus stops and 19.8 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops). This means that every intersection bus stop at a primary-residential intersection has seen one pedestrian crash on average over the 5-year study period, with one in five of those resulting in a F/SI outcome. Two-thirds of F/SI crashes at these locations occurred during dark lighting conditions and the average EPDO score is 35.9, more than twice the average for bus stops at intersections throughout the region. • Crashes at primary-residential intersections tend to be more severe than crashes at other locations.
• Crashes are concentrated at primary-residential and secondary-residential intersections. • Nearly two-thirds of F/SI crashes at primary-residential intersections occurred during dark lighting conditions.

Table 8 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops at Intersections by Highest and Lowest Functional Classification, 2018-2022 Highest
Functional
Classification
Lowest
Functional
Classification
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
primary
arterial/
collector 63 4% 53 90.5 17.5 17 3.3 30.6 19% 32% 64% 57 11 primary residential 217 13% 48 99.5 19.8 20.6 4.1 35.9 20% 40% 63% 216 43 secondary
arterial/
collector 120 7% 19 43.3 4.2 22.8 2.2 10.5 10% 42% 20% 52 5 secondary residential 519 30% 20 42.4 9.1 21.5 4.6 19.1 21% 36% 36% 220 47 tertiary
arterial/
collector 40 2% 31 57.5 5 18.7 1.6 12.4 9% 30% 0% 23 2
tertiary residential 309 18% 22 31.1 7.1 14.1 3.2 14.7 23% 33% 36% 96 22 trunk
arterial/
collector 8 0% 6 87.5 12.5 145.8 20.8 22 14% 14% 100% 7 1 trunk residential 23 1% 6 8.7 0 15 0 1 0% 0% 0% 2 0
residential residential 408 24% 19 19.9 3.2 10.4 1.7 6.6 16% 36% 77% 81 13 Total - 1,707 100% 25 44.2 8.4 17.8 3.4 16.9 19% 36% 49% 754 144 Posted Speed Limit
Table 9 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops by posted speed limit. Most bus stops are along streets with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or lower (42 percent) followed by 35 mph (23 percent) and 45 mph (23 percent). Crash rates per 100 bus stops are similar among the different speed limit categories aside from 40 mph (high rate with a low number of bus stops) and 25 mph (very low rate). Higher speed streets had the highest rates of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops. Crashes that occurred at bus stops along 45 mph streets had a lower share of F/SI crashes that occurred during dark lighting conditions (26 percent) than other locations, which may again reflect lower pedestrian exposure along those streets, particularly at night. When looking at the location of the bus stops along 45 mph streets, the F/SI rate per 100 bus stops is comparable between signalized intersections (12.4) and unsignalized intersections (9.0). A slightly higher proportion of crashes occurred during dark lighting conditions at unsignalized intersections (23 percent) compared to signalized intersections (18 percent) along those 45 mph streets.
• Bus stops along higher speed streets had a much higher concentration of crashes and F/SI crashes compared to streets with a posted speed limit of ≤ 25 mph.

Table 9 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type, 2018-2022 Posted
Speed
Limit
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Ridership
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Crashes*
# F/SI
Crashes*
<=25 826 42% 23.3 21.9 3.8 9.4 1.6 8 17% 35% 52% 181 31 30 157 8% 26.8 54.1 8.9 20.2 3.3 19.2 16% 45% 64% 85 14 35 451 23% 25.1 50.8 11.5 20.2 4.6 21.3 23% 43% 54% 229 52 40 54 3% 63.4 74.1 9.3 11.7 1.5 20.1 12% 48% 100% 40 5
45 446 23% 25.7 53.4 10.5 20.8 4.1 21.6 20% 25% 26% 238 47 50+ 23 1% 15.2 56.5 21.7 37.2 14.3 29.5 38% 38% 100% 13 5 NA 12 1% 425.2 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
Total 1,969 100% 28.0 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154

HIN
Table 10 summarizes pedestrian crashes at bus stops by location along the pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN). Most bus stop are not along the regional pedestrian HIN, with only 25 percent of stops along the HIN. However, crashes were overwhelmingly concentrated at bus stops along the pedestrian HIN, with the crash rate per 100 bus stops along the HIN being five times the rate of bus stop not along the HIN (98.4 v. 20.6), and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops along the pedestrian HIN being nearly ten times the rate for bus stops not along the pedestrian HIN (23.9 v. 2.5). This stark difference between bus stops and proximity to the pedestrian HIN is also seen when looking at the rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 1,000 bus riders. • Crashes and F/SI crashes are overwhelmingly concentrated along the pedestrian HIN. • Given the capture rate of pedestrian F/SI, using the C/CAG regional pedestrian HIN in SamTrans safety prioritization can be an effective method to prioritize bus stops with pedestrian crash risk issues.

Table 10 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Pedestrian HIN, 2018-2022 Pedestrian
HIN
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Ridership
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Crashes*
# F/SI
Crashes*
Yes 490 25% 46.8 98.4 23.9 21 5.1 46.1 24% 39% 50% 482 117 No 1,479 75% 21.8 20.6 2.5 9.4 1.1 5.4 12% 31% 43% 304 37 Total 1,969 100% 28.0 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Functional Classification
Table 11 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops at or along the pedestrian HIN by functional classification (using a 100-foot distance threshold). Most bus stops along the pedestrian HIN are along secondary streets (45 percent) followed by primary streets (28 percent). Pedestrian F/SI crashes were concentrated at primary streets (29.4 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops), and all other functional classifications had similar rates, ranging between 19.8 to 22.7 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops. Crashes that were at bus stops along residential streets had the highest proportion of F/SI crashes, though the number of F/SI crashes is relatively low (n=10) and vulnerable to regression towards the mean and possible duplication due to the crash aggregation methodology. Nearly three-quarters (73 percent) of F/SI crashes at bus stops along primary streets occurred during dark lighting conditions. • F/SI crashes are concentrated on primary streets along the pedestrian HIN (29.4 F/SI crashes compared to the average along the pedestrian HIN of 23.9).

• Bus stops on primary streets along the pedestrian HIN had a very large proportion of F/SI crashes occur during dark lighting conditions (73 percent).

Table 11 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops along the Pedestrian HIN by Functional Classification, 2018-2022 Pedestrian
HIN
Functional
Classification
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Yes primary 136 28% 66 147.1 29.4 22.3 4.5 52.7 20% 38% 72% 200 40 Yes secondary 220 45% 28 90 22.7 32.1 8.1 46.4 25% 39% 38% 198 50 Yes tertiary 86 18% 48 68.6 19.8 14.3 4.1 39.7 29% 42% 35% 59 17 Yes residential 48 10% 76 52.1 20.8 6.9 2.7 37.9 40% 40% 50% 25 10 Total - 490 100% 47 98.4 23.9 21 5.1 46.1 24% 39% 50% 482 117 Crossing Control
Table 12 summarizes pedestrian crashes along the pedestrian HIN by crossing control. Most bus stops along the pedestrian HIN are at signalized crossings (52 percent), followed by no crossing control (26 percent) and stop-control (19 percent). Focusing on these three control types (due to low sample sizes for other control types), F/SI crash rates per 100 bus stops are highest and similar between signalized crossings (27.0) and uncontrolled/NA (25.4). Interestingly, when looking at F/SI crash rates per 1,000 riders, uncontrolled/NA bus stops had a higher rate of 6.2, compared to 4.8. Additionally, uncontrolled crossings had a higher proportion of F/SI crashes that occurred in darkness (62 percent) compared to signalized (51 percent), though both percentages are high.
• F/SI crashes are concentrated at signalized and unsignalized crossings along the pedestrian HIN. When looking at F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders, bus stops with uncontrolled crossings had a higher rate (6.2) compared to signalized crossings (4.8). • Bus stops with no crossing control had the highest proportion of pedestrian F/SI crashes occurring during dark lighting conditions (62 percent).

Table 12 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops along the Pedestrian HIN by Crossing Control, 2018-2022 Pedestrian
HIN
Crossing
Control
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Yes Signalized 256 52% 56 119.9 27 21.3 4.8 49.4 22% 38% 51% 307 69 Yes NA 126 26% 41 77 25.4 18.9 6.2 50.6 33% 49% 62% 97 32 Yes
StopControlled 92 19% 32 75 14.1 23.4 4.4 32.6 19% 33% 23% 69 13 Yes
Unable to
Verify 8 2% 0 62.5 25 Inf Inf 43 40% 0% 0% 5 2
Yes PHB 2 0% 73 150 50 20.7 6.9 106.5 33% 67% 100% 3 1
Yes RRFB 6 1% 45 16.7 0 3.7 0 1.8 0% 0% 0% 1 0
Total - 490 100% 47 98.4 23.9 21 5.1 46.1 24% 39% 50% 482 117 Sidewalk
Table 13 summarizes pedestrian crashes along the pedestrian HIN by presence of a sidewalk.

Nearly all bus stops along the pedestrian HIN have an existing sidewalk (97 percent), with only 1 percent (n=7 bus stops) lacking a sidewalk. Bus stops with a connecting sidewalk had a higher concentration of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops compared to stops without a sidewalk. This does not mean bus stops without a sidewalk are safer, but rather there are more people walking/rolling near bus stops with a sidewalk (as reflected in the average daily ridership).

Table 13 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops along the Pedestrian HIN by Presence of a Sidewalk, 2018-2022 Pedestrian
HIN
Presence of
a Sidewalk
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Yes Yes 475 97% 48 99.4 24 20.7 5 46.4 24% 40% 51% 472 114 Yes No 7 1% 17 71.4 14.3 41 8.2 28.4 20% 40% 100% 5 1
Yes
Unable to
Verify 8 2% 0 62.5 25 NA NA 43 40% 0% 0% 5 2
Total - 490 100% 47 98.4 23.9 21 5.1 46.1 24% 39% 50% 482 117

Position Type
Table 14 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops along the pedestrian HIN by bus stop position type. Most bus stops are positioned at the far-side of an intersection (55 percent), followed by near-side (35 percent) and few midblock bus stops (6 percent). Note the possible QC concern discussed earlier regarding the classification of midblock bus stops. When looking at the number of crashes per 100 bus stops, there is very little difference between far-side (105.5) and near-side (100.6). There are about one-third the number of crashes per 100 bus stops at midblock bus stops (33.3) compared to the other intersection bus stops. Near-side bus stops had a lower rate of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops (20.9) and per 1,000 riders (4.2) compared to far-side (26.6 per 100 bus stops; 6.0 per 1,000 riders) and midblock bus stops (22.2 per 100 bus stops; 11.8 per 1,000 riders).
• F/SI crashes are more concentrated at far-side (26.6) bus stops compared top near-side (20.9) and midblock (22.2) on a per 100 stop basis.

Table 14 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops along the Pedestrian HIN by Bus Stop Position Type, 2018-2022 Pedestrian
HIN
Bus Stop
Position
Type
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Yes Far-Side 271 55% 45 105.5 26.6 23.6 6 50.7 25% 41% 49% 286 72 Yes Near-Side 172 35% 50 100.6 20.9 20 4.2 42.2 21% 37% 56% 173 36 Yes Midblock 27 6% 19 33.3 22.2 17.7 11.8 36.5 67% 56% 50% 9 6 Yes
Unable to
Verify 13 3% 107 61.5 15.4 5.8 1.4 29 25% 12% 0% 8 2
Yes
MidIntersection 7 1% 43 85.7 14.3 20 3.3 33 17% 67% 100% 6 1 Total - 490 100% 47 98.4 23.9 21 5.1 46.1 24% 39% 50% 482 117 Activity Density
Note: The method SamTrans used to define the five categories of activity density is unclear. It is also not clear what types of activities are included and the data source for the activities. As a result of these uncertainties, please interpret this section with caution.

Table 15 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops along the pedestrian HIN by activity density. Most bus stops are located in areas with low-medium activity density (34 percent), followed by medium density (28 percent). Only four bus stops (eight when including bus stops not along the pedestrian HIN) are located within the high-density category, and they have the highest average daily ridership by a large margin. There were no reported F/SI crashes within

250 feet of these high activity density bus stops, which likely reflects the density classification process assigning so few high density bus stops, but may also reflect a substantially different dynamic in these high-activity locations. The concentration of F/SI crashes among the classifications is similar, ranging from 23.6 to 26.7 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops. The proportion of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome is highest for the low-activity areas (37 percent) and lowest in the medium-high category (18 percent, with 0 percent in the high category). This may reflect that motorists expect pedestrians in higher-activity areas compared to lower-activity areas.

Table 15 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops along the Pedestrian HIN by Activity Density, 2018-2022 Pedestrian
HIN
Activity
Density
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Yes High 4 1% 158 150 0 9.5 0 12.8 0% 33% 0% 6 0
Yes
MediumHigh 92 19% 66 142.4 25 21.5 3.8 55.5 18% 45% 65% 131 23 Yes Medium 135 28% 43 103.7 26.7 24.4 6.3 49.1 26% 35% 39% 140 36 Yes
LowMedium 165 34% 41 92.7 23.6 22.8 5.8 45.2 25% 35% 46% 153 39 Yes Low 94 19% 40 55.3 20.2 13.9 5.1 35.8 37% 52% 63% 52 19 Total - 490 100% 47 98.4 23.9 21 5.1 46.1 24% 39% 50% 482 117 On-Street Parking
Table 16 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops along the pedestrian HIN by presence of on-street parking at the bus stop. Approximately three-quarters of the bus stops along the pedestrian HIN lack on-street parking at the bus stop, and those stops have a higher average number of daily riders compared to bus stops with on-street parking. Bus stops with on-street parking had a lower rate of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops (19.0), higher F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders (n=7.1), and a lower average EPDO score per bus stop (38.3) compared to bus stops without on-street parking, although a slightly higher percentage of crashes at on-street parking locations result in a F/SI outcome (28 percent compared to 24 percent). Daylighting can be an effective countermeasure to mitigate obstructed driver views from on-street parking.

Interestingly, bus stops with on-street parking had a much lower proportion of F/SI crashes that occurred during dark lighting conditions (18 percent) compared to bus stops without on-street parking (59 percent).

• Bus stops lacking on-street parking had a higher rate of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops (25.5), lower F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders (n=4.7), and a higher average EPDO score per bus stop (48.9) compared to bus stops with on-street parking.

Table 16 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops along the Pedestrian HIN by Presence of On-Street Parking, 2018-2022 Pedestrian
HIN
Presence
of OnStreet
Parking
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Yes Yes 116 24% 27 69 19 25.7 7.1 38.3 28% 30% 18% 80 22 Yes No 364 74% 54 108.5 25.5 20 4.7 48.9 24% 42% 59% 395 93 Yes
Unable
to Verify 10 2% 4 70 20 200 57.1 36.6 29% 14% 0% 7 2
Total - 490 100% 47 98.4 23.9 21 5.1 46.1 24% 39% 50% 482 117 Driveway Conflicts
Note: The criteria SamTrans used to define a driveway conflict are unclear. As a result of this uncertainty, please interpret this section with caution. Upon visual review, it appears many of these driveway conflicts are at locations where a driveway is blocked when a bus pulls over at a bus stop.

Table 17 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops along the pedestrian HIN by presence of a driveway conflict at the bus stop and arterial v. residential functional classification. Roughly one-third of bus stops are at locations with a driveway conflict (31 percent). Most of the driveway conflicts are along arterial/collector (primary, secondary, tertiary, and trunk) streets (135 of 151 bus stops). In general, bus stops along an arterial/collector on the pedestrian HIN that have a driveway conflict had a higher rate of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops (25.9) and F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders (7.0) compared to other bus stops along arterials/collectors on the pedestrian HIN that lack a driveway conflict (23.2 F/SI crashes per 100 stops; 4.8 F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders).
• Bus stops with a driveway conflict along the pedestrian HIN had higher rates of F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops and per 1,000 riders, particularly along arterial/collector streets, compared to bus stops on the pedestrian HIN without a driveway conflict.

Table 17 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops along the Pedestrian HIN by Presence of a Driveway Conflict, 2018-2022 Pedestrian
HIN
Presence
of a
Driveway
Conflict
Functional
Classificatio
n Category
# of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Yes Yes
Arterial/
Collector 135 36.9 111.9 25.9 30.4 7

53.0 23% 38% 40% 151 35
Yes Yes Residential 16 14.4 62.5 43.8 43.3 30.3

73.2 70% 50% 29% 10 7
Yes No
Arterial/
Collector 298 47.8 100 23.2 20.9 4.8

43.9 23% 41% 58% 298 69
Yes No Residential 32 106.5 46.9 9.4 4.4 0.9

20.2 20% 33% 100% 15 3
Yes
Unable to
Verify
Arterial/
Collector 9 7.4 88.9 33.3 119.4 44.8

61.9 38% 12% 0% 8 3
Total - - 490 46.8 98.4 23.9 21 5.1

46.1 24% 39% 50% 482 117

Caltrans Jurisdiction
Table 18 shows that bus stops along a Caltrans facility represent 15 percent of bus stops in the region. These bus stops have nearly twice the average daily ridership volumes of bus stops not along a Caltrans facility. Like the findings from the systemic safety analysis, Caltrans facilities had a disproportionate share of crashes and F/SI crashes on a per 100-bus stop basis (82.5 crashes per 100 bus stops; 16.2 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops) compared to crashes not along a Caltrans facility (32.4 crashes per 100 bus stops; 6.3 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops).

Additionally, Caltrans facilities had a higher proportion of F/SI crashes that occurred during darkness (60 percent) than bus stops along local or county streets (43 percent). While many factors relate to F/SI crashes during darkness, higher motorist travel speed and number of lanes, both of which are common on Caltrans facilities, are established correlates of pedestrian F/SI crashes in darkness.
• Bus stops along Caltrans facilities had about 2.5 times the rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops compared to bus stops along county and local roads.

Table 18 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type, 2018-2022 Caltrans
Facility
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Ridership
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Crashes*
# F/SI
Crashes*
Caltrans 297 15% 46.0 82.5 16.2 17.9 3.5 29.3 20% 34% 60% 245 48 County
or local 1,672 85% 24.8 32.4 6.3 13 2.6 13.1 20% 37% 43% 541 106 Total 1,969 100% 28.0 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Functional Classification (Excludes Residential Streets) Table 19 excludes bus stops along residential streets and compared bus stops by functional classification and Caltrans jurisdiction, focusing on primary streets. As mentioned above, bus stops along Caltrans facilities represent only 15 percent of bus stops, and the vast majority of these bus stop are along primary streets (241 of 297 bus stops). When comparing the rate of crashes and KA crashes per 100 bus stops between Caltrans and local/county roads for primary streets, it’s clear that crashes are concentrated along state-owned facilities for all crashes and F/SI crashes. For both state-owned and local/county-owned primary streets, the majority of F/SI crashes occurred during dark lighting conditions, with local/county streets having a higher proportion (89 percent) but a much lower frequency of F/SI crashes (n=9 with possible duplication effects).
• Crashes and F/SI crashes along primary streets are concentrated along state-owned facilities.

Table 19 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type, 2018-2022 Functional
Classification
Caltrans
Facility
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
primary Caltrans 241 17% 55 97.9 19.5 17.9 3.6 35.3 20% 35% 60% 236 47 primary
County
or local 63 4% 28 74.6 14.3 26.6 5.1 25.8 19% 51% 89% 47 9 secondary Caltrans 18 1% 13 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
secondary
County
or local 694 48% 19 40.1 8.1 21.4 4.3 17 20% 37% 36% 278 56 tertiary Caltrans 1 0% 11 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
tertiary
County
or local 403 28% 23 30.8 6.2 13.5 2.7 12.9 20% 35% 32% 124 25 trunk Caltrans 34 2% 5 26.5 2.9 48.6 5.4 5.8 11% 11% 100% 9 1 ramp Caltrans 3 0% 5 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
alley
County
or local 1 0% 324 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
Total - 1,458 100% 26 47.6 9.5 18.3 3.6 18.7 20% 36% 47% 694 138 Crossing Control
Table 20 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops by crossing control and Caltrans jurisdiction. The majority of bus stops along state routes are at a signalized crossing (64 percent or 191 bus stops). Crashes and F/SI crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections, with a crash rate and F/SI crash rate per 100 bus stops of 110.5 and 19.4, respectively. Uncontrolled crossings on state-owned roads had roughly one-third of that rate for all crashes and about half that rate for F/SI crashes, but the crash and F/SI crash rates per 1,000 riders are similar (18.7 v.

14.1 crashes per 1,000 riders; 3.3 v. 4.2 F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders, respectively). This finding is important because bus stops with uncontrolled crossings have nearly one-third of the average daily ridership, but the deltas between the crash rate and F/SI crash rates are fairly close, underscoring the risk for pedestrians who may be trying to cross state-owned roads at uncontrolled crossings.
• Bus stops along state-owned roads at uncontrolled crossings have roughly one-third of the average daily ridership compared to bus stops at signalized locations, but have similar rates of crashes and F/SI crashes on a per-1,000 rider basis. This finding underscores the need for pedestrian safety measures (lane reductions, speed reductions, adding crossing control, etc.) at uncontrolled intersections along state routes to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings

• There are very few bus stops along state-owned roads that have crossing controls other than traffic signals (such as PHB or RRFBs).

Table 20 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type, 2018-2022 Caltrans
Facility
Crossing
Control
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Caltrans Signalized 191 10% 59 110.5 19.4 18.7 3.3 35.5 18% 33% 62% 211 37 Caltrans PHB 6 0% 39 50 16.7 12.8 4.3 35.5 33% 67% 100% 3 1 Caltrans
StopControlled 4 0% 7 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0% 0% 0% 0 0
Caltrans NA 93 5% 23 32.3 9.7 14.1 4.2 17.2 30% 37% 56% 30 9 Caltrans
Unable to
Verify 3 0% 0 33.3 33.3 1,000.0 1,000.0 40 100% 0% 0% 1 1 County
or local Signalized 390 20% 32 56.4 12.3 17.4 3.8 23.3 22% 40% 38% 220 48 County
or local RRFB 56 3% 19 25 0 13.2 0.0 2.8 0% 14% 0% 14 0 County
or local
StopControlled 388 20% 29 41 4.6 14.4 1.6 12.3 11% 30% 33% 159 18 County
or local NA 804 41% 19 17.3 4.9 9.3 2.6 9.5 28% 46% 56% 139 39 County
or local
Unable to
Verify 34 2% 51 26.5 2.9 5.2 0.6 7.9 11% 11% 0% 9 1
Total - 1,969 100% 28 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Presence of sidewalk
Table 21 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops by presence of a sidewalk and Caltrans jurisdiction. As mentioned earlier in this report, the majority of bus stops throughout the region and along state-owned routes have an existing sidewalk connecting to the bus stop. Bus stops along state-owned roads and along local/county roads have higher average daily ridership at bus stops with a connecting sidewalk. When looking at the concentration of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops, crashes are concentrated at bus stops with existing sidewalks. This finding is likely related to higher pedestrian activity at/near these stops, as indicated by their higher average daily ridership. Bus stops with a sidewalk along state-owned roads had a lower rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders than bus stops without a sidewalk.

• Bus stops along state-owned roads with a connecting sidewalk had a higher rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops, but a lower rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 1,000 riders compared to bus stops without a connecting sidewalk.

Table 21 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Location Type, 2018-2022 Caltrans
Facility
Presence
of a
Sidewalk
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Caltrans Yes 242 12% 55 97.1 17.8 17.7 3.2 32.7 18% 34% 63% 235 43 Caltrans No 52 3% 7 17.3 7.7 23.8 10.6 12.9 44% 22% 50% 9 4 Caltrans
Unable
to Verify 3 0% 0 33.3 33.3 1000.0 1000.0 40 100% 0% 0% 1 1 County
or local Yes 1,485 75% 27 34.7 6.9 13.1 2.6 14.3 20% 38% 43% 516 103 County
or local No 154 8% 6 10.4 1.3 17.3 2.2 2.9 12% 31% 100% 16 2 County
or local
Unable
to Verify 33 2% 30 27.3 3 9.0 1.0 8.2 11% 11% 0% 9 1
Total - 1,969 100% 28 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154

Equity Priority Area
Table 22 summarizes pedestrian crashes near bus stops that are coded by SamTrans as being within an Equity Priority Area (EPA). Nearly half (45 percent) of bus stops are located within an EPA. The bus stops within these EPAs have more than twice the average daily ridership, crashes per 100 bus stops, and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops as the bus stops outside of EPAs.

Alarmingly, nearly two in three F/SI crashes within an EPA occurred during dark lighting conditions, compared to only 28 percent in non-EPA areas. • Bus stops within an Equity Priority Area have a disproportionately high rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops.
• Bus stops within and Equity Priority Area had a very large percentage of F/SI crashes occur in darkness (62 percent) compared to bus stops outside of Equity Priority Areas (28 percent).

Table 22 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Equity Priority Community, 2018-2022 Equity
Priority
Area
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Ridership
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Crashes*
# F/SI
Crashes*
Yes 884 45% 40.3 58.4 10.6 14.5 2.6 21.5 18% 40% 62% 516 94 No 1,085 55% 17.9 24.9 5.5 13.9 3.1 10.7 22% 29% 28% 270 60 Total 1,969 100% 28.0 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Pedestrian HIN
Table 23 summarizes pedestrian crashes at bus stops by Equity Priority Areas and the pedestrian HIN. Roughly one-third of bus stops within an Equity Priority Area (330 of 554 bus stops) are along the pedestrian HIN. These stops also have the highest average daily ridership (57.3) compared to all other location types. Additionally, these stops had the highest rate of crashes per 100 bus stops (107.6) and F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops (n=23.6), followed by bus stops outside of an Equity Priority Area but also along the pedestrian HIN (79.4 crashes per 100 bus stops; 24.4 F/SI crashes per 100 bus stops). Like all bus stops within an Equity Priority Area, F/SI crashes within these areas and also along the pedestrian HIN had a very high proportion of crashes occurring in darkness (64 percent), compared to 23 percent of F/SI crashes outside of an Equity Priority Community but along the pedestrian HIN. • Crashes and F/SI crashes are heavily concentrated at bus stops along the pedestrian HIN within Equity Priority Communities.

• A much higher proportion of F/SI crashes that occurred in darkness was observed at bus stops within an Equity Priority Community and along the pedestrian HIN, compared to locations outside of Equity Priority Areas regardless of location along the HIN.

Table 23 Pedestrian Crashes at Bus Stops by Equity Priority Community and Pedestrian HIN, 2018-2022 Equity
Priority
Area
Pedestrian
HIN
# of
Stops
% of
Stops
Avg.

Rider
ship
Crashes
per 100
Stops
KA
Crashes
per 100
Stops
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
F/SI
Crashes
per
1,000
Riders
Avg.

EPDO
%
Crashes
that
Resulted
in F/SI
% of
crashes
in Dark
% of
F/SI
crashes
in Dark
#
Cras
hes*
# F/SI
Crash
es*
Yes Yes 330 17% 57 107.6 23.6 18.8 4.1 46.3 22% 42% 64% 355 78 Yes No 554 28% 30 29.1 2.9 9.6 1.0 6.7 10% 35% 50% 161 16 No Yes 160 8% 25 79.4 24.4 31.8 9.8 45.8 31% 32% 23% 127 39 No No 925 47% 17 15.5 2.3 9.2 1.4 4.6 15% 27% 38% 143 21 Total - 1,969 100% 28 39.9 7.8 14.3 2.8 15.5 20% 36% 49% 786 154 Conclusion
This memo examined several aspects of pedestrian safety near SamTrans bus stops over a fiveyear study period (2018-2022) by looking at key systemic safety variables (as data availability allowed), reported lighting conditions, and enhanced bus stop data collected by SamTrans staff.

The findings from this analysis can help inform future project identification and bus stop prioritization to improve pedestrian safety near SamTrans bus stops.

March 12, 2024 Page 9
C/CAG Countywide Local Roadway Safety Plan - SamTrans Bus Stop Analysis Appendix B: Project Prioritization Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Appendix B: Project Prioritization
Methodology

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
November 13, 2023 Project# 28717
To: Jeff Lacap, Eva Gaye
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CC: C/CAG LRSP Advisory Group Members
RE: C/CAG Regional LRSP – Draft Project List and Methodology

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY

INTRODUCTION
As part of the C/CAG Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), Kittelson and Safe Streets Research & Consulting (SSRC) have developed draft priority project lists for each participating agencies. This memo provides those draft lists, explains the methodology used to prioritize project locations, and identifies next steps for participating agencies and for the project team.

This memo is organized as follows:
◼ Introduction and Summary
◼ Prioritization Process
◼ Next Steps
◼ Attachments
– Attachment 1: Draft Prioritized Project Lists
– Attachment 2: Draft Prioritized Project Maps
– Attachment 3: Explanation of Social Equity Scoring

SUMMARY AND NEXT STEPS

INCLUDED IN THIS DELIVERABLE
This deliverable includes draft prioritized intersections and corridors per jurisdiction by mode (motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicyclist) for each of the 11 participating agencies. Using a three-part prioritization comprised of crash history, social equity, and systemic risk factors, we have:
◼ Scored all intersections in the jurisdiction and provided a ranked list that includes at least 10 non-state highway locations. A list may be longer than 10 locations for two reasons:
– We included state highway locations on the list for completeness but included as many total locations as necessary to achieve at least 10 non-state highway locations. – In the event that several locations had the same prioritization score, we included all tied locations so that the list would equal 10 or more locations. ◼ Developed priority project corridors that represent roadways with a high number and/or concentration of priority intersection locations.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742

November 13, 2023 Page 2
C/CAG LRSP Introduction and Summary
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

PROJECT TEAM NEXT STEPS
Once we receive participating agency feedback, we will:
◼ Finalize the intersection and segment lists. For example, a participating agency may want to truncate a list in the event of tied scores and/or remove state highway locations. ◼ Develop up to two project scopes per jurisdiction and develop benefit-cost ratios for those project scopes. Project scopes include a description of the project location and extents, along with recommended safety treatments.

PARTICIPATING AGENCY NEXT STEPS
To facilitate project team next steps, participating agencies will:
◼ Give feedback on any locations they believe should be removed or added to the lists. For example, an agency may prefer to:
o Remove all intersections on state highways and all state highway segments. o Remove locations that have recent or imminent safety projects constructed or to be constructed.
o Remove locations such that the total number of locations is lower than what is presented here (e.g., remove locations with tied scores or end up with ten total locations instead of ten per mode).
o Add a location that ought to be prioritized for reasons other than those listed in this memo.
◼ Give feedback on the types of project scopes desired (which may include selecting from among listed locations or identifying desired types of projects). A project scope may be:
o A systemic, low cost application of safety countermeasure(s) at a number of locations or along a corridor.
o A combination of treatments at a single, high-crash location.

November 13, 2023 Page 3
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

PRIORITIZATION PROCESS
In discussion with C/CAG and to incorporate best practices, we used three equally weighted factors (33.3% each) 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 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 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3).

For all modes, the three factors are each weighted equally. For crash history and social equity, the constituent criteria make up equal parts of the prioritization and are the same across modes.

For systemic characteristics, there are some differences across modes:
◼ We added in relevant systemic characteristics based on the results of the Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis, with different characteristics per mode. ◼ 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).

More details on the criteria are provided in the next section.

November 13, 2023 Page 4
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 1. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100%) Figure 2. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100%) Figure 3. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100%) 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
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

November 13, 2023 Page 5
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

CRASH HISTORY
The crash history factor is comprised of two criteria. First, the five-year mode-specific crash severity score was calculated for each location (intersections and roadways). 1 Additionally,
locations were prioritized if they are on the identified High Injury Network (HIN). The resulting total scores range from 0 to a maximum of 2.

Table 1. Crash History Criteria Scoring
Crash History Criteria Measure Scoring
Crash severity score (modespecific)Five-year crash severity score
Five-year crash severity
score, proportionally scored
(each location divided by
the maximum observed
score)
Continuous scores:
0: no five-year mode-specific
crash history
through
1: maximum observed
mode-specific countywide
crash history
High Injury Network (HIN)
Presence (mode-specific)
Location is on the modespecific HINBinary Scores:
0: location is not on the
mode-specific HIN
or
1: location is on the modespecific HIN

SOCIAL EQUITY
The next factor for project prioritization is whether each location is within identified social equity areas. 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. For example, Safe Streets for All (SS4A) funding eligibility utilizes the USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities and Areas of Persistent Poverty (APP) when reviewing grant applications.

Table 2 presents the social equity criteria used to calculate the overall factor scores. See Attachment 3 for an explanation of the scoring method. The resulting total scores range from 0 to a theoretical maximum of 4.
1 The severity score uses the equivalent property damage only (EPDO) framework which accounts for frequency and severity. The EPDO framework and scores were described in the Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis memoPage 1101 of 1188 .

November 13, 2023 Page 6
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 2. Social Equity Metrics and Scoring
Social Equity Criterion Measure Scoring
C/CAG Active Transportation
Equity Focus Areas (EFAs)
Areas with equity scores of

0.8 or greater were used to
prioritize locations
Continuous scores:
0: 100-foot buffer not within
EFA at all
through
1: 100-foot buffer completely
within EFA
MTC Equity Priority Communities
(EPCs)
Areas within any equity
classification (i.e., high,
higher, or highest) for 2050
were used to prioritize
locations
Continuous scores:
0: 100-foot buffer not within
EPC at all
through
1: 100-foot buffer completely
within EPC
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged Communities
(HDDs)
Census tracts that are
flagged as Historically
Disadvantaged were used
to prioritize locations
Continuous scores:
0: 100-foot buffer not within
HDD at all
through
1: 100-foot buffer completely
within HDD
USDOT Areas of Persistent
Poverty (APPs)
Census tracts that are
flagged as Areas of
Persistent Poverty were
used to prioritize locations
Continuous scores:
0: 100-foot buffer not within
APP at all
through
1: 100-foot buffer completely
within APP

SYSTEMIC CHARACTERISTICS
To emphasize a proactive approach rather than a purely reactive one, we included the presence of systemic characteristics as a factor. Systemic characteristics are roadway, land use, and environmental factors that, based on the Task 3 Existing Conditions analysis, are shown to be associated with higher crash frequency and severity countywide compared to other characteristics.

Table 3 presents the systemic criteria used to calculate the overall factor scores. Refer back to Figure 1, Figure 2, and Figure 3 for a visual illustration of the relative weight of the systemic criteria for each mode.

November 13, 2023 Page 7
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 3. Systemic Characteristics and Scoring
Systemic
Characteristics
Criterion
Mode(s) Measure Scoring1
Functional
classification
All modes Functional classification is
an arterial or collector
road (either roadway, if
intersection)
Binary Weighted Scores:
0 – location is not on an
arterial or collector road

42.8 (ped) / 32.7 (bike) / 19.3
(MV): location is on an
arterial or collector road
Highest posted
speed
All modes Highest posted speed is 35
miles per hour or greater
(either roadway, if
intersection)
Binary Weighted Scores:
0: location is not on a road
with a posted speed limit of
35 mph or greater

42.1 (ped) / 25.7 (bike) / 38.1
(MV): location is on a road
with a posted speed limit of
35 mph or greater
Unsignalized
intersection
All modes Intersection is unsignalized Binary Weighted Scores:
0 – location is at a signalized
intersection

40.5 (ped) / 37.4 (bike) / 22.2
(MV): location is at an
unsignalized intersection
Schools Pedestrian
and Bicycle
Location is within ¼ mile of
a school
Binary Weighted Scores:
0: location is not within 1/4 mi
of a school

30.3 (Bike) / 33.7 (ped):
location is within 1/4 mi of a
school
Transit Stops Pedestrian Location is within 250 feet
of a transit stop
Binary Weighted Scores:
0: location is not within 250’
of a transit stop

33.7: location is within 250’ of
a transit stop
1 The scores reflect the average severity score for all crashes meeting that description. These average severity scores then provide relative weights for each systemic characteristic to emphasize the characteristics associated with higher average crash severity.

The resulting total scores range from 0 to a theoretical maximum of 199.2 (pedestrian), 126.1 (bicycle), and 79.6 (motor vehicle).

November 13, 2023 Page 8
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER: PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
The three factors and constituent criteria were combined according Table 4, resulting in overall pedestrian, bicycle, and motor scores for every location. Factor scores were normalized to all range from 0 to 1 and be equally weighted, for a theoretical maximum overall score of 3.

Table 4. Prioritization Scoring
Factor Factor
calculation
Criteria Proposed
Factor
Weight
Criterion Weight
Overall
Ped Bike MV

1. Crash
History
Sum of 2
criteria.

Normalize by
dividing by
maximum
score.

1. Mode-specific EPDO

33.3%

16.7%

2. Mode-specific HIN
presence 16.7%

2. Social
Equity
Sum of 4
criteria.

Normalize by
dividing by
maximum
score.

1. C/CAG Equity Focus
Area. Binary

33.3%

8.3%

2. MTC Equity Priority
Communities 8.3%

3. USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty 8.3%

4. USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities

8.3%

3. Systemic
Characteristics
Sum of 3 to 5
criteria.
1 Normalize by
dividing by
maximum
score.

Highest functional class
arterial or collector

33.3%

7.2% 8.6% 8.1%
Highest posted speed ≥35
mph 7.0% 6.8% 16.0%
Unsignalized intersection
(or for roadway segments,
presence of any
unsignalized intersections
on the segment)

6.8% 9.9% 9.3%

5. ≤1/4 mile from school 6.7% 8.0% -
≤250 feet from a transit
stop 5.6% - -
1 See Table 3 for pedestrian related systemic characteristics. 2 See Table 3 for bicycle related systemic characteristics. 3 See Table 3 for motor vehicle related systemic characteristics.

November 13, 2023 Page 9
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Attachment 1
Draft Prioritized Project Lists

November 13, 2023 Page 10
C/CAG LRSP Prioritization Process
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

This attachment provides jurisdiction-specific, mode-specific priority location tables.

Each table provides the following:

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Atherton Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Middlefield Rd And Oak Grove Ave No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_1 ATH_287 ATH_28 35 6 28 69 2 El Camino Real And Columbia Ave Yes 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 ATH_2 ATH_1 ATH_2 40 0 0 40 3 Loyola Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 ATH_3 ATH_2 ATH_3 0 0 0 0 4 El Camino Real And 5th Ave Yes 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 ATH_4 ATH_3 ATH_7 68 11 11 90 5 El Camino Real And Stockbridge Ave Yes 0.0 0.6 0.4 1.0 ATH_5 ATH_6 ATH_5 12 0 0 12 6 Amherst Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 0.8 0.1 0.9 ATH_6 ATH_4 ATH_6 6 0 0 6 7 Oak Grove Ave And Oak Grove Ave No 0.5 0.4 0.0 0.9 ATH_7 ATH_58 ATH_25 0 0 0 0 8 El Camino Real And Berkshire Ave Yes 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.9 ATH_8 ATH_5 ATH_4 11 0 0 11 9 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Walsh Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_9 ATH_32 ATH_8 0 0 0 0 10 Lane Pl And Middlefield Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_9 ATH_32 ATH_30 0 0 23 23 11 De Bell Dr And Middlefield Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_9 ATH_27 ATH_32 6 0 0 6 12 Middlefield Rd And San Benito Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_9 ATH_27 ATH_32 6 0 0 6 13 Glenwood Ave And Laurel St No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_13 ATH_12 ATH_12 6 0 0 6 14 Valparaiso Ave And Lee Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_13 ATH_13 ATH_42 0 0 0 0 15 Selby Ln And El Camino Real Yes 0.2 0.4 0.1 0.7 ATH_15 ATH_7 ATH_1 237 203 393 833 16 Middlefield Rd And Encina Ave No 0.0 0.6 0.1 0.7 ATH_16 ATH_18 ATH_29 0 0 0 0 17 Middlefield Rd And Ravenswood Ave No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 ATH_17 ATH_16 ATH_43 22 6 6 34 18 Middlefield Rd And Ringwood Ave No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 ATH_17 ATH_17 ATH_44 11 6 0 17 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Atherton Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Selby Ln And El Camino Real Yes 1.0 0.6 0.1 1.7 ATH_1 ATH_7 ATH_15 237 203 393 833 2 El Camino Real And Columbia Ave Yes 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.6 ATH_2 ATH_1 ATH_2 40 0 0 40 3 Loyola Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.6 ATH_3 ATH_2 ATH_3 0 0 0 0 4 El Camino Real And Berkshire Ave Yes 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.5 ATH_4 ATH_5 ATH_8 11 0 0 11 5 El Camino Real And Stockbridge Ave Yes 0.5 0.6 0.4 1.4 ATH_5 ATH_6 ATH_5 12 0 0 12 6 Amherst Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 0.8 0.1 1.4 ATH_6 ATH_4 ATH_6 6 0 0 6 7 El Camino Real And 5th Ave Yes 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 ATH_7 ATH_3 ATH_4 68 11 11 90 8 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Walsh Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 ATH_8 ATH_32 ATH_9 0 0 0 0 9 Ravenswood Ave And 1st St No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 ATH_8 ATH_32 ATH_20 0 0 0 0 10 Callado Way And Alameda De Las Pulgas No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 ATH_8 ATH_32 ATH_20 0 0 0 0 11 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Stockbridge
Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 ATH_11 ATH_10 ATH_19 23 0 0 23
12 Glenwood Ave And Laurel St No 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.2 ATH_12 ATH_12 ATH_13 6 0 0 6 13 Wilburn Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_13 ATH_8 ATH_41 11 0 0 11 14 Fletcher Dr And Alameda De Las Pulgas No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_14 ATH_32 ATH_29 0 0 11 11 15 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Atherton
Ave No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_14 ATH_32 ATH_29 0 0 11 11
16 El Camino Real And Isabella Ave Yes 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_22 ATH_29 18 0 0 18 17 El Camino Real And Ashfield Rd Yes 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_27 ATH_29 6 0 0 6 18 Maple Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_27 ATH_43 6 0 0 6 19 El Camino Real And Walnut Ave Yes 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_32 ATH_29 0 0 0 0 20 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Polhemus
Ave No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_32 ATH_29 0 0 0 0
21 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Karen Way No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_32 ATH_43 0 0 0 0 22 El Camino Real And Tuscaloosa Ave Yes 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_32 ATH_43 0 0 0 0 23 El Camino Real And Redwood Way Yes 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_32 ATH_43 0 0 0 0 24 El Camino Real And Lloyden Dr Yes 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 ATH_16 ATH_32 ATH_43 0 0 0 0 25 Oak Grove Ave And Oak Grove Ave No 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 ATH_25 ATH_58 ATH_7 0 0 0 0 26 Oak Grove Ave And De Bell Dr No 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 ATH_25 ATH_58 ATH_55 0 0 0 0 27 Laurel St And Fennwood Estate Dvwy No 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 ATH_25 ATH_58 ATH_55 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Atherton Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 El Camino Real And Columbia Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.9 ATH_1 ATH_2 ATH_2 40 0 0 40 2 Loyola Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.9 ATH_2 ATH_3 ATH_3 0 0 0 0 3 El Camino Real And 5th Ave Yes 0.6 0.7 0.4 1.7 ATH_3 ATH_4 ATH_7 68 11 11 90 4 Amherst Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 1.0 0.1 1.6 ATH_4 ATH_6 ATH_6 6 0 0 6 5 El Camino Real And Berkshire Ave Yes 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.5 ATH_5 ATH_8 ATH_4 11 0 0 11 6 El Camino Real And Stockbridge Ave Yes 0.5 0.5 0.4 1.4 ATH_6 ATH_5 ATH_5 12 0 0 12 7 Selby Ln And El Camino Real Yes 0.7 0.5 0.1 1.3 ATH_7 ATH_15 ATH_1 237 203 393 833 8 Wilburn Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.1 ATH_8 ATH_41 ATH_13 11 0 0 11 9 El Camino Real And Almendral Ave Yes 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 ATH_9 ATH_28 ATH_47 6 11 0 17 10 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Stockbridge
Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 ATH_10 ATH_19 ATH_11 23 0 0 23
11 Robert S Dr And Valparaiso Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_11 ATH_52 ATH_96 11 0 0 11 12 Glenwood Ave And Laurel St No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_12 ATH_13 ATH_12 6 0 0 6 13 Valparaiso Ave And Lee Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_13 ATH_13 ATH_42 0 0 0 0 14 Elder Ave And Atherton Oaks Ln No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_13 ATH_37 ATH_95 0 0 11 11 15 Park Ln And Valparaiso Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 ATH_13 ATH_52 ATH_96 0 0 0 0 16 Middlefield Rd And Ravenswood Ave No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 ATH_16 ATH_17 ATH_43 22 6 6 34 17 Middlefield Rd And Ringwood Ave No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 ATH_17 ATH_17 ATH_44 11 6 0 17 18 Middlefield Rd And Encina Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.6 ATH_18 ATH_16 ATH_29 0 0 0 0 19 El Camino Real And Spruce Ave Yes 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 ATH_19 ATH_43 ATH_47 39 0 0 39 20 Middlefield Rd And Palmer Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 ATH_20 ATH_29 ATH_47 23 0 0 23 21 Middlefield Rd And Watkins Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 ATH_20 ATH_43 ATH_45 23 0 11 34 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Atherton Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State
Highway
Network
Length
(Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
ATH_1 Atherton
El Camino Real, Berkshire Avenue to Spruce Avenue (E to W town limits) Yes 1.3 10 15 7 17
ATH_2 Atherton
Alameda De Las Pulgas, Stockbridge Avenue to Cam Al Lago (E to W town limits) No 0.9 1 7 1 7
ATH_3 Atherton Valparaiso Avenue, Camino Por Los Arboles to Victoria Drive No 1.1 4 0 1 4 ATH_4 Atherton Middlefield Road, Encina Avenue to Ringwood Avenue No 1.7 5 0 7 9

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Belmont Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Monroe Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_1 BEL_53 BEL_47 11 0 0 11 2 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Cipriani Blvd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_1 BEL_58 BEL_47 0 0 0 0 3 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Lyon Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_1 BEL_58 BEL_47 0 0 0 0 4 Alameda De Las Pulgas And Forest Ave No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 BEL_4 BEL_58 BEL_47 0 0 0 0 5 Pullman Ave And Lyall Way No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_5 BEL_7 BEL_2 247 11 0 258 6 Davis Dr And Ralston Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_6 BEL_12 BEL_2 11 0 0 11 7 Ralston Ave And Belmont Canyon Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_6 BEL_14 BEL_2 0 0 0 0 8 Merry Moppet Ln And Ralston Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BEL_8 BEL_14 BEL_1 0 0 11 11 9 Belmont Canyon Rd (W) And Ralston Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BEL_8 BEL_6 BEL_40 263 0 0 263 10 Belmont Canyon Rd € And Ralston Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BEL_8 BEL_14 BEL_40 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Belmont Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Merry Moppet Ln And Ralston Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 BEL_1 BEL_14 BEL_8 0 0 11 11 2 Pullman Ave And Lyall Way No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 BEL_2 BEL_7 BEL_5 247 11 0 258 3 Davis Dr And Ralston Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 BEL_2 BEL_12 BEL_6 11 0 0 11 4 Ralston Ave And Belmont Canyon Rd No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 BEL_2 BEL_14 BEL_6 0 0 0 0 5 Ralston Ave And Academy Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_5 BEL_58 BEL_42 0 0 22 22 6 Ralston Ave And Maywood Dr No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_6 BEL_53 BEL_39 11 11 11 33 7 Ralston Ave And Furlong St No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_6 BEL_47 BEL_42 33 0 11 44 8 Ralston Ave And Villa Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_6 BEL_58 BEL_42 0 0 11 11 9 Ralston Ave And Chula Vista Dr No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_9 BEL_48 BEL_21 22 11 0 33 10 Granada St And Ralston Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_9 BEL_48 BEL_27 22 0 0 22 11 Notre Dame Ave And Ralston Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_9 BEL_53 BEL_42 11 0 0 11 12 Ralston Ave And Misty Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_9 BEL_53 BEL_42 11 0 0 11 13 Ralston Ave And Chevy St No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 BEL_9 BEL_58 BEL_42 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Belmont Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Anita Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 BEL_1 BEL_34 BEL_16 22 0 0 22 2 Ruth Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 BEL_2 BEL_11 BEL_16 17 0 0 17 3 El Camino Real And Belmont Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 BEL_2 BEL_31 BEL_16 17 22 0 39 4 El Camino Real And North Rd Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 BEL_4 BEL_11 BEL_16 6 0 0 6 5 El Camino Real And Davey Glen Rd Yes 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.2 BEL_5 BEL_23 BEL_29 17 0 0 17 6 Belmont Canyon Rd (W) And Ralston Ave No 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.2 BEL_6 BEL_8 BEL_40 263 0 0 263 7 Pullman Ave And Lyall Way No 0.2 1.0 0.0 1.2 BEL_7 BEL_5 BEL_2 247 11 0 258 8 El Camino Real And 5th Ave Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_8 BEL_11 BEL_16 50 0 0 50 9 Flashner Ln And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_9 BEL_11 BEL_16 29 0 0 29 10 El Camino Real And Broadway Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_10 BEL_11 BEL_14 17 0 22 39 11 El Camino Real And Emmett Ave Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_10 BEL_11 BEL_15 17 0 11 28 12 Davis Dr And Ralston Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_12 BEL_6 BEL_2 11 0 0 11 13 Oneill Ave And Old County Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_12 BEL_34 BEL_16 11 0 0 11 14 Ralston Ave And Belmont Canyon Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_6 BEL_2 0 0 0 0 15 Merry Moppet Ln And Ralston Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_8 BEL_1 0 0 11 11 16 Belmont Canyon Rd € And Ralston Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_8 BEL_40 0 0 0 0 17 Hill St And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_11 BEL_16 0 0 0 0 18 Sterling View Ave And Old County Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_11 BEL_16 0 0 0 0 19 Belmont Canyon Rd And Ralston Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_11 BEL_57 0 0 0 0 20 Lassen Dr And Ralston Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_11 BEL_57 0 0 0 0 21 Old County Rd And Waltermire St No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_33 BEL_16 0 6 0 6 22 El Camino Real And Waltermire St Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_34 BEL_16 0 0 0 0 23 Belmont Canyon Rd And Ralston Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_34 BEL_57 0 0 0 0 24 Harbor Blvd And Us Highway 101 Hwy Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BEL_14 BEL_34 BEL_57 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Belmont Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
BEL_1 Belmont El Camino Real, North Road to F Street Yes 1.6 11 0 0 11 BEL_2 Belmont Ralston Avenue, Villa Street to west of South Road No 0.8 0 7 0 7 BEL_3 Belmont Ralston Avenue, Christrian Drive to Villa Street No 1.9 9 5 6 10

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Brisbane Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy And Bayshore
Blvd No 0.7 0.6 0.0 1.3 BRI_1 BRI_13 BRI_58 6 240 0 246 2 Bayshore Blvd And Tunnel Ave No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 BRI_2 BRI_3 BRI_58 170 0 0 170 3 Bayshore Blvd And Valley Dr No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 BRI_2 BRI_10 BRI_58 28 0 0 28 4 Valley Dr And Park Ln No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_4 BRI_16 BRI_1 11 0 0 11 5 Park Pl And Valley Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_4 BRI_17 BRI_1 0 0 0 0 6 San Bruno Ave And Mendocino St No 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.7 BRI_6 BRI_25 BRI_7 0 191 0 191 7 Bayshore Blvd And Main St No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 BRI_7 BRI_1 BRI_4 33 0 0 33 8 Bayshore Blvd And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 BRI_7 BRI_2 BRI_4 17 0 0 17 9 Cypress Ln And Valley Dr No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 BRI_9 BRI_17 BRI_1 0 0 0 0 10 Bayshore Blvd And Industrial Way No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 BRI_10 BRI_12 BRI_58 11 0 0 11 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Brisbane Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Valley Dr And Park Ln No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_1 BRI_16 BRI_4 11 0 0 11 2 Park Pl And Valley Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_1 BRI_17 BRI_4 0 0 0 0 3 Cypress Ln And Valley Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_1 BRI_17 BRI_9 0 0 0 0 4 Bayshore Blvd And Main St No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_4 BRI_1 BRI_7 33 0 0 33 5 Bayshore Blvd And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_4 BRI_2 BRI_7 17 0 0 17 6 Hill Dr And Silverspot Dr No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 BRI_6 BRI_17 BRI_22 0 0 0 0 7 San Francisco Ave And Old County Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_20 BRI_11 11 6 0 17 8 San Bruno Ave And Mariposa St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_20 BRI_29 11 0 0 11 9 Old County Rd And Park Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_23 BRI_12 6 0 0 6 10 Klamath St And Visitacion Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_23 BRI_29 6 0 0 6 11 San Bruno Ave And Mendocino St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_6 0 191 0 191 12 Santa Clara St And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_12 0 0 0 0 13 San Bruno Ave And Alvarado St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_12 0 0 0 0 14 Glen Pkwy And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_12 0 0 0 0 15 Lake St And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_12 0 0 0 0 16 San Bruno Ave And Tulare St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_12 0 0 0 0 17 Monterey St And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_12 0 0 0 0 18 Ross Way And Glen Pkwy No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 19 San Francisco Ave And Plumas St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 20 Park Pl And Park Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 21 San Francisco Ave And Inyo St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 22 Mariposa St And Visitacion Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 23 Visitacion Ave And Monterey St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 24 Mariposa St And Inyo St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Brisbane Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
25 Sierra Point Rd And Humboldt Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 26 Solano St And Mendocino St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 27 Solano St And San Francisco Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 28 Mariposa St And Solano St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 29 Sierra Point Rd And Lassen St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 30 Mono St And Klamath St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 31 Visitacion Ave And Mendocino St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 32 Humboldt Rd And Lassen St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 33 Humboldt Rd And Lake St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 34 Solano St And Humboldt Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 35 Main St And Hill Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 36 Gladys Ave And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 37 Klamath St And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 38 San Bruno Ave And Thomas Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 39 Sierra Point Rd And Ross Way No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 40 Humboldt Rd And Glen Pkwy No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 41 Sierra Point Rd And Glen Pkwy No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 42 Humboldt Rd And Kings Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 43 Humboldt Rd And Sierra Point Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 44 Humboldt Rd And San Diego Ct No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 45 Mariposa St And Plumas St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 46 Alvarado St And Visitacion Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 47 Alvarado St And Monterey St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 48 Alvarado St And Mendocino St No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 49 William Ave And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 50 Humboldt Rd And Annis Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 51 Lake St And No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 BRI_7 BRI_25 BRI_29 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Brisbane Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Bayshore Blvd And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BRI_1 BRI_7 BRI_4 33 0 0 33 2 Bayshore Blvd And San Bruno Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 BRI_2 BRI_7 BRI_4 17 0 0 17 3 Bayshore Blvd And Tunnel Ave No 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.9 BRI_3 BRI_2 BRI_58 170 0 0 170 4 Sierra Point Pkwy And Lagoon Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_4 BRI_23 BRI_52 11 0 0 11 5 Beatty Rd And Tunnel Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_5 BRI_23 BRI_52 0 0 0 0 6 Esta Ave And Tunnel Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_5 BRI_23 BRI_52 0 0 0 0 7 Alana Way And Beatty Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_5 BRI_23 BRI_52 0 0 0 0 8 Sierra Point Pkwy 101 Nb Hwy And 101
Nb Sierra Point Pkwy Hwy Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_5 BRI_23 BRI_52 0 0 0 0 9 Tunnel Ave And Lagoon Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 BRI_5 BRI_23 BRI_52 0 0 0 0 10 Bayshore Blvd And Valley Dr No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 BRI_10 BRI_2 BRI_58 28 0 0 28 11 Guadalupe Canyon Pkwy And Hill Dr No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 BRI_11 BRI_19 BRI_58 22 0 0 22 12 Bayshore Blvd And Industrial Way No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 BRI_12 BRI_10 BRI_58 11 0 0 11 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Brisbane Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
BRI_1 Brisbane Bayshore Boulevard, Geneva Avenue to S town limits No 2.6 5 2 6 6 BRI_2 Brisbane Valley Drive, Bayshore Boulevard to Hills Drive No 0.6 1 3 4 4 BRI_3 Brisbane Tunnel Avenue, N town limit to Bayshor Boulevard No 1.6 4 0 1 4

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Colma Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Junipero Serra Blvd And Colma Blvd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 CMA_1 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 2 Junipero Serra Blvd And Southgate Ave No 0.5 0.6 0.0 1.1 CMA_2 CMA_1 CMA_4 11 0 0 11 3 El Camino Real And F St Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_3 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 4 Hillside Blvd And Evergreen Dr No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_4 CMA_2 CMA_4 6 0 0 6 5 Phillip Dr And Junipero Serra Blvd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_1 0 0 0 0 6 Hillside Blvd And Sand Hill Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_3 0 0 11 11 7 El Camino Real And Mission Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 8 El Camino Real And Collins Ave Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 9 Villa Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 10 El Camino Real And Olivet Pkwy Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 11 Lawndale Blvd And Mission Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_11 CMA_13 CMA_12 17 0 0 17 12 El Camino Real And F St Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_12 CMA_12 CMA_23 0 0 0 0 13 Serramonte Blvd And 280 Nb On Ramp
Hwy No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_13 CMA_14 CMA_2 11 0 0 11
14 El Camino Real And Serramonte Blvd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_13 CMA_15 CMA_24 0 0 0 0 15 Colma Blvd And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 CMA_13 CMA_15 CMA_24 0 0 0 0 16 Hoffman St And Villa St No 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 CMA_16 CMA_20 CMA_13 11 0 0 11 17 Hoffman St And Sylvan St No 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 CMA_17 CMA_21 CMA_14 11 0 0 11 18 Lisbon St And Hoffman St No 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 CMA_17 CMA_23 CMA_14 0 0 0 0 19 Hoffman St And Linden St No 0.0 0.4 0.1 0.5 CMA_17 CMA_23 CMA_14 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Colma Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Phillip Dr And Junipero Serra Blvd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 CMA_1 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 2 Serramonte Blvd And 280 Nb On Ramp
Hwy No 0.5 0.5 0.0 1.0 CMA_2 CMA_14 CMA_13 11 0 0 11
3 Hillside Blvd And Sand Hill Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_3 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 11 11 4 Junipero Serra Blvd And Southgate Ave No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_4 CMA_1 CMA_2 11 0 0 11 5 Hillside Blvd And Evergreen Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_4 CMA_2 CMA_4 6 0 0 6 6 Junipero Serra Blvd And Colma Blvd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_1 0 0 0 0 7 El Camino Real And F St Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_3 0 0 0 0 8 El Camino Real And Mission Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 9 El Camino Real And Collins Ave Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 10 Villa Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 11 El Camino Real And Olivet Pkwy Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 CMA_4 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 12 Lawndale Blvd And Mission Rd No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 CMA_12 CMA_13 CMA_11 17 0 0 17 13 Hoffman St And Villa St No 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.7 CMA_13 CMA_20 CMA_16 11 0 0 11 14 Hoffman St And Sylvan St No 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.7 CMA_14 CMA_21 CMA_17 11 0 0 11 15 Lisbon St And Hoffman St No 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.7 CMA_14 CMA_23 CMA_17 0 0 0 0 16 Hoffman St And Linden St No 0.0 0.5 0.1 0.7 CMA_14 CMA_23 CMA_17 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Colma Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Junipero Serra Blvd And Southgate Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_1 CMA_2 CMA_4 11 0 0 11 2 Hillside Blvd And Evergreen Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_2 CMA_4 CMA_4 6 0 0 6 3 Junipero Serra Blvd And Colma Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_3 CMA_1 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 4 El Camino Real And F St Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_3 CMA_3 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 5 Phillip Dr And Junipero Serra Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_3 CMA_4 CMA_1 0 0 0 0 6 Hillside Blvd And Sand Hill Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_3 CMA_4 CMA_3 0 0 11 11 7 El Camino Real And Mission Rd Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_3 CMA_4 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 8 El Camino Real And Collins Ave Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_3 CMA_4 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 9 Villa Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_3 CMA_4 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 10 El Camino Real And Olivet Pkwy Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 CMA_3 CMA_4 CMA_4 0 0 0 0 11 Lawndale Blvd And Hillside Blvd No 0.1 0.7 0.0 0.8 CMA_11 CMA_20 CMA_24 131 0 0 131 12 El Camino Real And F St Yes 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.8 CMA_12 CMA_12 CMA_23 0 0 0 0 13 Lawndale Blvd And Mission Rd No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 CMA_13 CMA_11 CMA_12 17 0 0 17 14 Serramonte Blvd And 280 Nb On Ramp
Hwy No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 CMA_14 CMA_13 CMA_2 11 0 0 11
15 El Camino Real And Serramonte Blvd Yes 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 CMA_15 CMA_13 CMA_24 0 0 0 0 16 Colma Blvd And El Camino Real Yes 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 CMA_15 CMA_13 CMA_24 0 0 0 0 17 Hillside Blvd And Serramonte Blvd No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 CMA_15 CMA_20 CMA_24 0 0 0 0 18 Olivet Pkwy And Hillside Blvd No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 CMA_15 CMA_20 CMA_24 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Colma Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
CMA_1 Colma El Camino Real, N town limit to S town limit Yes 1.1 8 5 8 8 CMA_2 Colma Junipero Serra Boulevard, N town limit to S town limit No 1.3 4 4 4 4 CMA_3 Colma Hillside Boulevard, Serramonte Boulevard to S town limit No 1.2 4 2 2 4 CMA_4 Colma Hoffman Street, Hillside Boulevard to E town limit No 0.3 0 4 4 4

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 East Palo Alto Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Bay Rd And Palo Verde Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.8 2.3 EPA_1 EPA_17 EPA_13 0 0 0 0 2 Bay Rd And Addison Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.6 EPA_2 EPA_21 EPA_19 6 11 0 17 3 Oakwood Dr And Bay Rd No 0.5 1.0 0.6 1.6 EPA_3 EPA_22 EPA_19 0 0 0 0 4 Gloria Way And Bay Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.8 1.8 EPA_4 EPA_15 EPA_32 11 6 0 17 5 Dumbarton Ave And Bay Rd No 0.5 0.8 0.7 1.7 EPA_5 EPA_19 EPA_14 0 0 11 11 6 Bay Rd And Ralmar Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.4 EPA_6 EPA_25 EPA_7 11 0 0 11 7 Glen Way And Bay Rd No 0.5 0.6 0.8 1.8 EPA_7 EPA_16 EPA_30 6 0 12 18 8 Clarke Ave And Illinois St No 0.7 0.8 0.4 1.4 EPA_8 EPA_27 EPA_80 0 191 11 202 9 Bay Rd And University Ave Yes 0.5 0.6 0.7 2.2 EPA_9 EPA_5 EPA_17 312 28 0 340 10 Demeter St And Bay Rd No 0.5 0.6 0.6 1.6 EPA_10 EPA_20 EPA_39 11 0 0 11 11 Bay Rd And Fordham St No 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.4 EPA_11 EPA_24 EPA_81 23 11 0 34 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 East Palo Alto Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 University Ave And Adams Dr Yes 0.7 1.0 0.8 2.5 EPA_1 EPA_3 EPA_17 34 0 191 225 2 Purdue Ave And University Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.8 2.3 EPA_2 EPA_1 EPA_16 107 11 0 118 3 O'Brien Dr And University Ave Yes 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.1 EPA_3 EPA_10 EPA_27 11 0 120 131 4 University Ave And Michigan Ave Yes 0.5 0.8 0.8 2.0 EPA_4 EPA_4 EPA_26 29 11 6 46 5 Notre Dame Ave And University Ave Yes 0.5 0.7 0.8 2.0 EPA_5 EPA_6 EPA_27 34 0 11 45 6 University Ave And Kavanaugh Dr Yes 0.5 0.7 0.8 2.0 EPA_6 EPA_6 EPA_27 39 0 0 39 7 Bay Rd And Ralmar Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.9 EPA_7 EPA_25 EPA_6 11 0 0 11 8 Newbridge St And Menalto Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.8 EPA_8 EPA_31 EPA_46 203 0 11 214 9 Donohoe St And University Ave Yes 0.8 0.5 0.5 1.8 EPA_9 EPA_9 EPA_118 327 0 279 606 10 Newbridge St And Poplar Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.8 EPA_10 EPA_59 EPA_46 11 0 0 11 11 University Ave And Sacramento St Yes 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.8 EPA_11 EPA_8 EPA_43 0 0 11 11 12 University Ave And Weeks St Yes 0.5 0.8 0.5 1.8 EPA_12 EPA_2 EPA_45 404 197 0 601 13 Bay Rd And Palo Verde Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.8 EPA_13 EPA_17 EPA_1 0 0 0 0 14 Dumbarton Ave And Bay Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.7 EPA_14 EPA_19 EPA_5 0 0 11 11 15 Cooley Ave And University Ave Yes 0.5 0.8 0.4 1.7 EPA_15 EPA_11 EPA_54 12 0 11 23 16 Woodland Ave And University Ave No 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.7 EPA_16 EPA_14 EPA_83 62 0 153 215 17 Bay Rd And University Ave Yes 0.5 0.5 0.7 1.7 EPA_17 EPA_5 EPA_9 312 28 0 340 18 University Ave And Runnymede St Yes 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.6 EPA_18 EPA_12 EPA_82 266 17 148 431 19 Bay Rd And Addison Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.6 EPA_19 EPA_21 EPA_2 6 11 0 17 20 Oakwood Dr And Bay Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.6 EPA_19 EPA_22 EPA_3 0 0 0 0 21 University Ave And Yes 0.7 0.5 0.5 1.6 EPA_21 EPA_18 EPA_118 12 0 120 132 22 Mello St And Newbridge St No 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.6 EPA_22 EPA_33 EPA_85 197 0 11 208 23 Saratoga Ave And Newbridge St No 0.5 0.6 0.5 1.6 EPA_22 EPA_34 EPA_85 191 0 11 202 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 East Palo Alto Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Purdue Ave And University Ave Yes 0.6 1.0 0.8 2.3 EPA_1 EPA_16 EPA_2 107 11 0 118 2 University Ave And Weeks St Yes 0.8 1.0 0.5 2.3 EPA_2 EPA_45 EPA_12 404 197 0 601 3 University Ave And Adams Dr Yes 0.5 1.0 0.8 2.3 EPA_3 EPA_17 EPA_1 34 0 191 225 4 University Ave And Michigan Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.8 2.3 EPA_4 EPA_26 EPA_4 29 11 6 46 5 Bay Rd And University Ave Yes 0.8 0.7 0.7 2.2 EPA_5 EPA_9 EPA_17 312 28 0 340 6 Notre Dame Ave And University Ave Yes 0.5 0.7 0.8 2.0 EPA_6 EPA_27 EPA_5 34 0 11 45 7 University Ave And Kavanaugh Dr Yes 0.5 0.7 0.8 2.0 EPA_6 EPA_27 EPA_6 39 0 0 39 8 University Ave And Sacramento St Yes 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.0 EPA_8 EPA_43 EPA_11 0 0 11 11 9 Donohoe St And University Ave Yes 0.8 0.7 0.5 2.0 EPA_9 EPA_118 EPA_9 327 0 279 606 10 O'Brien Dr And University Ave Yes 0.5 0.7 0.8 2.0 EPA_10 EPA_27 EPA_3 11 0 120 131 11 Cooley Ave And University Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.4 1.9 EPA_11 EPA_54 EPA_15 12 0 11 23 12 University Ave And Runnymede St Yes 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.9 EPA_12 EPA_82 EPA_18 266 17 148 431 13 University Ave And Bell St Yes 0.7 0.7 0.5 1.9 EPA_13 EPA_57 EPA_31 226 137 44 407 14 Woodland Ave And University Ave No 0.6 0.7 0.5 1.8 EPA_14 EPA_83 EPA_16 62 0 153 215 15 Gloria Way And Bay Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.8 EPA_15 EPA_4 EPA_32 11 6 0 17 16 Glen Way And Bay Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.8 EPA_16 EPA_7 EPA_30 6 0 12 18 17 Bay Rd And Palo Verde Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.8 1.8 EPA_17 EPA_1 EPA_13 0 0 0 0 18 University Ave And Yes 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.7 EPA_18 EPA_118 EPA_21 12 0 120 132 19 Dumbarton Ave And Bay Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.7 1.7 EPA_19 EPA_5 EPA_14 0 0 11 11 20 Demeter St And Bay Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.6 EPA_20 EPA_10 EPA_39 11 0 0 11 21 Bay Rd And Addison Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.6 EPA_21 EPA_2 EPA_19 6 11 0 17 22 Oakwood Dr And Bay Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.6 1.6 EPA_22 EPA_3 EPA_19 0 0 0 0 23 Pulgas Ave And Bay Rd No 0.2 1.0 0.3 1.5 EPA_23 EPA_14 EPA_83 202 11 17 230 24 Bay Rd And Fordham St No 0.0 1.0 0.4 1.4 EPA_24 EPA_11 EPA_81 23 11 0 34 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

East Palo Alto Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
EPA_1 East Palo Alto Bay Road, Newbridge to Pulgas No 1.0 10 6 11 12 EPA_2 East Palo Alto University Ave (SR 109), N town limits to Donohoe Rd Yes 1.3 13 12 1 13 EPA_3 East Palo Alto Newbridge Street,Bay Road to W town limits No 0.4 0 5 1 5

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Foster City Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Catamaran St And Shell Blvd No 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 FC_1 FC_3 FC_22 11 202 0 213 2 Galleon Ln And Foster City Blvd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_2 FC_3 FC_9 11 0 0 11 3 Foster City Blvd And Caravel Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_2 FC_16 FC_9 0 0 0 0 4 Balclutha Dr And Foster City Blvd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_4 FC_3 FC_22 11 11 0 22 5 Hillsdale Blvd And Parkway Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_3 FC_3 11 0 0 11 6 Marlin Ave And Foster City Blvd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_3 FC_22 11 0 0 11 7 Shell Blvd And Bounty Dr No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_14 FC_22 6 0 0 6 8 Hillsdale Blvd And Meridian Bay Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_16 FC_2 0 0 11 11 9 Hillsdale Blvd And Admiralty Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_16 FC_3 0 0 0 0 10 Foster City Blvd And Civic Center Dr No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_16 FC_22 0 0 0 0 11 Foster City Blvd And Admiralty Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_16 FC_22 0 0 0 0 12 Shell Blvd And Civic Center Dr No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_16 FC_22 0 0 0 0 13 Shell Blvd And Beach Park Blvd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_5 FC_16 FC_22 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Foster City Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Beach Park Blvd And Gull Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 FC_1 FC_16 FC_28 0 11 11 22 2 Hillsdale Blvd And Meridian Bay Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_2 FC_16 FC_5 0 0 11 11 3 Hillsdale Blvd And Parkway Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_3 FC_3 FC_5 11 0 0 11 4 Hillsdale Blvd And Admiralty Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_3 FC_16 FC_5 0 0 0 0 5 Hillsdale Blvd And Portal Ln No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_3 FC_16 FC_16 0 0 0 0 6 Promontory Point Ln And Hillsdale Blvd No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 FC_3 FC_16 FC_53 0 0 0 0 7 Foster City Blvd And Hillsdale Blvd No 0.7 0.5 0.0 1.1 FC_7 FC_77 FC_14 45 131 120 296 8 Edgewater Blvd And Dorado Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_8 FC_16 FC_29 0 6 11 17 9 Galleon Ln And Foster City Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_9 FC_3 FC_2 11 0 0 11 10 Foster City Blvd And Caravel Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_9 FC_16 FC_2 0 0 0 0 11 Beach Park Blvd And Egret St No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_9 FC_3 FC_30 11 0 0 11 12 Beach Park Blvd And Swordfish St No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_9 FC_16 FC_30 0 0 0 0 13 Edgewater Blvd And Ram Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_9 FC_16 FC_30 0 0 0 0 14 Tarpon St And Beach Park Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_9 FC_16 FC_30 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Foster City Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Chess Dr And Foster City Blvd No 0.1 1.0 0.0 1.1 FC_1 FC_16 FC_22 66 0 0 66 2 Regulus St And Edgewater Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_2 FC_39 FC_22 45 0 0 45 3 Catamaran St And Shell Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_1 FC_22 11 202 0 213 4 Galleon Ln And Foster City Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_2 FC_9 11 0 0 11 5 Balclutha Dr And Foster City Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_4 FC_22 11 11 0 22 6 Hillsdale Blvd And Parkway Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_5 FC_3 11 0 0 11 7 Marlin Ave And Foster City Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_5 FC_22 11 0 0 11 8 Foster City Blvd And 3rd Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_16 FC_22 11 0 0 11 9 Beach Park Blvd And Egret St No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_30 FC_9 11 0 0 11 10 Altair Ave And Edgewater Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_39 FC_22 11 0 0 11 11 Marlin Ave And Beach Park Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_39 FC_22 11 0 0 11 12 3rd Ave And Mariners Island Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_53 FC_20 11 0 22 33 13 Commons Ln And Metro Center Blvd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 FC_3 FC_53 FC_22 11 0 0 11 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Foster City Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
FC_1 Foster City Foster City Boulevard, Chess Drive to Bounty Drive No 1.0 2 3 5 6 FC_2 Foster City Hillsdale Boulevard, Sea Spray Lane to north of Pilgrim Drive No 1.1 1 5 3 5 FC_3 Foster City Shell Boulevard, Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard No 0.9 1 0 4 4 FC_4 Foster City Edgewater Boulevard, Hillsdale Boulevard to Beach Park Boulevard No 0.7 2 2 0 4 FC_5 Foster City Hillsdale/Beach Park Boulevard, Pilgrim Drive to Foster City Boulevard No 2.5 2 4 0 5

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Half Moon Bay Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Main St And Poplar St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_1 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 2 Main St And Metzgar St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_1 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 3 Main St And Bloom Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_1 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 4 Correas St And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_1 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 5 Miramontes St And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_1 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 6 Arnold Way And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.2 HMB_6 HMB_20 HMB_18 0 0 0 0 7 Main St And Magnolia St No 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.1 HMB_7 HMB_23 HMB_19 0 0 0 0 8 Main St And Grove St No 0.0 1.0 0.1 1.1 HMB_8 HMB_24 HMB_20 0 0 0 0 9 Kelly Ave And Main St No 0.0 0.8 0.3 1.1 HMB_9 HMB_9 HMB_9 11 0 0 11 10 Main St And Filbert St No 0.0 0.8 0.3 1.1 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_5 0 0 11 11 11 Mill St And Main St No 0.0 0.8 0.3 1.1 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 12 Main St And Spruce St No 0.0 0.8 0.3 1.1 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Half Moon Bay Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Cabrillo Hwy And Kelly Ave Yes 0.7 0.7 0.2 1.5 HMB_1 HMB_43 HMB_19 33 0 120 153 2 Cabrillo Hwy And Belleville Blvd Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 HMB_2 HMB_36 HMB_15 0 0 0 0 3 Cabrillo Hwy And San Mateo Rd Yes 0.5 0.7 0.1 1.3 HMB_3 HMB_46 HMB_31 0 0 0 0 4 Cabrillo Hwy And Grandview Blvd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 HMB_4 HMB_32 HMB_20 11 0 11 22 5 Main St And Filbert St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_5 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 11 11 6 Terrace Ave And Cabrillo Hwy Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 HMB_6 HMB_32 HMB_20 11 0 0 11 7 Cabrillo Hwy And Silver Ave Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 HMB_6 HMB_32 HMB_20 11 0 0 11 8 Cabrillo Hwy And Frontage Rd Yes 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 HMB_6 HMB_36 HMB_57 0 0 0 0 9 Kelly Ave And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_9 HMB_9 11 0 0 11 10 Main St And Poplar St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_1 0 0 0 0 11 Main St And Metzgar St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_1 0 0 0 0 12 Main St And Bloom Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_1 0 0 0 0 13 Correas St And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_1 0 0 0 0 14 Miramontes St And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_1 0 0 0 0 15 Mill St And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 16 Main St And Spruce St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_10 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 17 Cabrillo Hwy And Main St Yes 0.5 0.7 0.0 1.2 HMB_17 HMB_47 HMB_67 62 0 0 62 18 Arnold Way And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.2 1.2 HMB_18 HMB_20 HMB_6 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Half Moon Bay Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Osborn Ave And Cabrillo Hwy Yes 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 HMB_1 HMB_20 HMB_53 202 0 0 202 2 Cabrillo Hwy And Guerrero Ave Yes 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 HMB_1 HMB_57 HMB_53 202 0 0 202 3 Cabrillo Hwy And Roosevelt Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 HMB_3 HMB_20 HMB_24 22 0 191 213 4 Frenchmans Creek Rd And Cabrillo Hwy Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 HMB_3 HMB_20 HMB_53 22 0 0 22 5 Cabrillo Hwy And Lowney Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 HMB_5 HMB_57 HMB_53 11 0 0 11 6 Morris Ave And Cabrillo Hwy Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 HMB_6 HMB_20 HMB_53 0 0 0 0 7 Cabrillo Hwy And Knewing Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 HMB_6 HMB_57 HMB_53 0 0 0 0 8 Cabrillo Hwy And Young Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 HMB_6 HMB_57 HMB_53 0 0 0 0 9 Kelly Ave And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_9 HMB_9 HMB_9 11 0 0 11 10 Main St And Poplar St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_1 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 11 Main St And Metzgar St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_1 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 12 Main St And Bloom Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_1 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 13 Correas St And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_1 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 14 Miramontes St And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_1 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 15 Main St And Filbert St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_9 HMB_5 0 0 11 11 16 Mill St And Main St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_9 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 17 Main St And Spruce St No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_9 HMB_9 0 0 0 0 18 Main St And Stone Pine Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.3 1.3 HMB_10 HMB_13 HMB_22 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Half Moon Bay Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
HMB_1 Half Moon Bay Cabrillo Highway, N town limit to Silver Avenue Yes 1.9 8 5 0 13 HMB_2 Half Moon Bay Cabrillo Highway, Silver Avenue to south of Kelly Avenue Yes 0.6 0 3 0 3 HMB_3 Half Moon Bay Main Street, Stone Pine Road to Seymour Street No 1.0 10 10 12 13

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Hillsborough Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Hayne Rd And Golf Course Dr Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 HB_1 HB_2 HB_1 0 0 11 11 2 Skyline Blvd And Butternut Dr Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 HB_1 HB_2 HB_2 0 0 0 0 3 Skyline Blvd And Rowan Tree Ln Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 HB_1 HB_2 HB_2 0 0 0 0 4 Skyline Blvd And Skyfarm Dr Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 HB_4 HB_1 HB_4 11 0 0 11 5 El Cerrito Ave And Gramercy Dr No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 HB_5 HB_5 HB_5 0 0 0 0 6 Kammerer Ct And Bellevue Ave No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 HB_6 HB_23 HB_12 0 0 0 0 7 Merner Rd And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 HB_7 HB_9 HB_6 11 0 0 11 8 Crystal Springs Ter And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 HB_7 HB_10 HB_6 0 0 0 0 9 Crystal Springs Rd And Ridgeway Rd No 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 HB_7 HB_10 HB_6 0 0 0 0 10 Woodridge Rd And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 HB_7 HB_10 HB_6 0 0 0 0 11 Crystal Springs Rd And El Cerrito Ave No 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 HB_7 HB_10 HB_6 0 0 0 0 12 Santa Inez Ave And Arlington Ln No 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 HB_12 HB_5 HB_86 0 0 0 0 13 Black Mountain Rd And Denise Dr No 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 HB_12 HB_5 HB_86 0 0 0 0 14 Black Mountain Rd And Wedgewood Dr No 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.4 HB_12 HB_5 HB_86 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Hillsborough Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Hayne Rd And Golf Course Dr Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 HB_1 HB_2 HB_1 0 0 11 11 2 Skyline Blvd And Rowan Tree Ln Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 HB_2 HB_2 HB_1 0 0 0 0 3 Skyline Blvd And Butternut Dr Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 HB_2 HB_2 HB_1 0 0 0 0 4 Skyline Blvd And Skyfarm Dr Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 HB_4 HB_1 HB_4 11 0 0 11 5 El Cerrito Ave And Gramercy Dr No 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.7 HB_5 HB_5 HB_5 0 0 0 0 6 Merner Rd And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 HB_6 HB_9 HB_7 11 0 0 11 7 Crystal Springs Ter And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 HB_6 HB_10 HB_7 0 0 0 0 8 Crystal Springs Rd And Ridgeway Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 HB_6 HB_10 HB_7 0 0 0 0 9 Woodridge Rd And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 HB_6 HB_10 HB_7 0 0 0 0 10 Crystal Springs Rd And El Cerrito Ave No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 HB_6 HB_10 HB_7 0 0 0 0 11 Stonepine Rd And Barroilhet Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.6 HB_11 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 11 11 12 Ralston Ave And Chateau Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_15 HB_15 11 0 0 11 13 Kammerer Ct And Bellevue Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_6 0 0 0 0 14 Homeplace Ct And Barroilhet Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 15 Eucalyptus Ave And Tamarack Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 16 Stonepine Rd And Stonepine Ct No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 17 Tamarack Dr And Farmhill Ct No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 18 Tartan Trail Rd And Lakeview Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 19 Downey Way And Acorn Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 20 Fagan Dr And Margo Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 21 Fagan Dr And Jackling Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 22 Irwin Dr And Forest View Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 23 Forest View Ave And Denham Ct No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 24 Carmelita Ave And Armsby Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 25 Armsby Dr And Reynolds Ct No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 26 Eucalyptus Ave And Geri Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 27 El Cerrito Ave And Waverly Pl No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 28 Warm Canyon Way And Remillard Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 29 Hayne Rd And Darrell Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 30 Remillard Dr And Mosswood Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 31 Barbara Way And Hayne Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 32 Camphor Ct And Rowan Tree Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Hillsborough Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
33 Sherwood Ct And De Sabla Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 34 Roehampton Rd And Richmond Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 35 El Cerrito Ave And Poett Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 36 Roblar Ave And Milford Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 37 Laureldale Rd And Bridge Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 38 Roehampton Rd And Poett Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 39 Santa Inez Ave And Santa Maria Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 40 Stonehedge Rd And St Francis Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 41 Roblar Ave And El Cerrito Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 42 El Cerrito Ave And Stonehedge Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 43 Roblar Ave And Severn Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 44 Roblar Ave And Ericson Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 45 El Cerrito Ave And Wickham Pl No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 46 Fallenleaf Dr And Bridge Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 47 Homs Ct And El Cerrito Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 48 Stonehedge Rd And Bridge Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 49 Floribunda Ave And Pepper Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 50 Floribunda Ave And Highgate Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 51 Fairway Cir And Floribunda Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 52 Pepper Ave And Summerholme Pl No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 53 Newhall Rd And Willow Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 54 Alberta Way And Roberts Way No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 55 Alberta Way And Hayne Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 56 Robinwood Ln And Hayne Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 57 Roberts Way And No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 58 Butternut Dr And Privet Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 59 Churchill Dr And No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 60 Privet Dr And Churchill Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Hillsborough Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
61 Grevillea Ct And Butternut Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 62 Rowan Tree Ln And Darrell Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 63 Poett Rd And Roblar Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 64 Redwood Dr And Sierra Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 65 Bridge Rd And Redwood Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 66 Fallenleaf Dr And Uplands Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 67 Uplands Dr And Normandy Ct No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 68 Uplands Dr And Redwood Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 69 Uplands Dr And Rockridge Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 70 Rockridge Rd And Greenbriar Way No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 71 Rockridge Rd And Creekwood Way No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 72 Barroilhet Ave And Conifer Ln No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 73 Eucalyptus Ave And Barroilhet Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 74 Woodland Dr And Tournament Dr No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 75 Fairway Cir And No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 76 Floribunda Ave And Walnut Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 77 Eucalyptus Ave And New Place Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 78 Eucalyptus Ave And Floribunda Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 79 Floribunda Ave And Madrone Pl No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 80 Eucalyptus Ave And Ralston Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 81 Eucalyptus Ave And Bayberry Pl No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 82 Parkside Ave And Ralston Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 83 Eucalyptus Ave And Tevis Pl No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_12 HB_23 HB_15 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Hillsborough Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Skyline Blvd And Skyfarm Dr Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 HB_1 HB_4 HB_4 11 0 0 11 2 Hayne Rd And Golf Course Dr Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 HB_2 HB_1 HB_1 0 0 11 11 3 Skyline Blvd And Butternut Dr Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 HB_2 HB_1 HB_2 0 0 0 0 4 Skyline Blvd And Rowan Tree Ln Yes 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 HB_2 HB_1 HB_2 0 0 0 0 5 El Cerrito Ave And Gramercy Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 HB_5 HB_5 HB_5 0 0 0 0 6 Santa Inez Ave And Arlington Ln No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 HB_5 HB_12 HB_86 0 0 0 0 7 Black Mountain Rd And Denise Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 HB_5 HB_12 HB_86 0 0 0 0 8 Black Mountain Rd And Wedgewood Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 HB_5 HB_12 HB_86 0 0 0 0 9 Merner Rd And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_9 HB_7 HB_6 11 0 0 11 10 Crystal Springs Ter And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_10 HB_7 HB_6 0 0 0 0 11 Crystal Springs Rd And Ridgeway Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_10 HB_7 HB_6 0 0 0 0 12 Woodridge Rd And Crystal Springs Rd No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_10 HB_7 HB_6 0 0 0 0 13 Crystal Springs Rd And El Cerrito Ave No 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 HB_10 HB_7 HB_6 0 0 0 0 14 Stonehedge Rd And Baywood Ave No 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.3 HB_14 HB_88 HB_90 22 0 0 22 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Hillsborough Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
HB_1 Hillsborough Skyline Boulevard (SR 35), N town limit to Hayne Road Yes 1.6 4 4 4 4 HB_2 Hillsborough Crystal Springs Road, El Cerrito Road to S town limit No 1.2 5 5 5 5

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Portola Valley Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_4 PV_2 0 0 22 22 2 Portola Rd And Grove Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 3 Portola Rd And Georgia Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 4 Portola Rd And Corte Madera Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 5 Alpine Rd And Indian Xing No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_5 PV_2 PV_4 11 0 11 22 6 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_5 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 191 191 7 Alpine Rd And Saddleback No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_5 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 8 Alpine Rd And Echo Ln No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_5 PV_4 PV_6 0 0 0 0 9 Alpine Rd And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_1 PV_15 22 0 0 22 10 Alpine Rd And Golden Oak Dr No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_3 PV_11 6 0 191 197 11 Stonegate Rd And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_11 0 0 191 191 12 Westridge Dr And Alpine Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_13 0 0 11 11 13 Westridge Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_14 0 0 6 6 14 Portola Rd And Unnamed No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 15 Wyndham Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 16 Santa Maria Ave And Portola Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 17 Portola Rd And Farm Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 18 Golden Oak Dr And Alpine Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 PV_9 PV_4 PV_15 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Portola Valley Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 PV_1 PV_4 PV_5 0 0 191 191 2 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_2 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 22 22 3 Alpine Rd And Arastradero Rd No 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.5 PV_3 PV_4 PV_21 0 0 213 213 4 Alpine Rd And Indian Xing No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_4 PV_2 PV_5 11 0 11 22 5 Los Trancos Rd And Alpine Rd No 0.8 0.8 0.0 1.5 PV_5 PV_4 PV_21 0 0 202 202 6 Portola Rd And Grove Dr No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 0 0 7 Portola Rd And Georgia Ln No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 0 0 8 Portola Rd And Corte Madera Rd No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_1 0 0 0 0 9 Alpine Rd And Saddleback No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_5 0 0 0 0 10 Alpine Rd And Echo Ln No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 PV_6 PV_4 PV_5 0 0 0 0 11 Alpine Rd And Golden Oak Dr No 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 PV_11 PV_3 PV_9 6 0 191 197 12 Stonegate Rd And Portola Rd No 0.7 0.8 0.0 1.5 PV_11 PV_4 PV_9 0 0 191 191 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Portola Valley Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Alpine Rd And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_1 PV_9 PV_15 22 0 0 22 2 Alpine Rd And Indian Xing No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_2 PV_5 PV_4 11 0 11 22 3 Alpine Rd And Golden Oak Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_3 PV_9 PV_11 6 0 191 197 4 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_1 PV_2 0 0 22 22 5 Portola Rd And Grove Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_1 PV_6 0 0 0 0 6 Portola Rd And Georgia Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_1 PV_6 0 0 0 0 7 Portola Rd And Corte Madera Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_1 PV_6 0 0 0 0 8 Brookside Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_5 PV_1 0 0 191 191 9 Alpine Rd And Saddleback No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_5 PV_6 0 0 0 0 10 Alpine Rd And Echo Ln No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_5 PV_6 0 0 0 0 11 Stonegate Rd And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_11 0 0 191 191 12 Westridge Dr And Alpine Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_13 0 0 11 11 13 Westridge Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_14 0 0 6 6 14 Portola Rd And Unnamed No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 15 Wyndham Dr And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 16 Santa Maria Ave And Portola Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 17 Portola Rd And Farm Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 18 Golden Oak Dr And Alpine Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_9 PV_15 0 0 0 0 19 Alpine Rd And Arastradero Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_3 0 0 213 213 20 Los Trancos Rd And Alpine Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_5 0 0 202 202 21 Alpine Rd And Unnamed No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 22 Portola Rd And Nathhorst Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 23 Portola Rd And Canyon Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 24 Portola Rd And Willowbrook Dr No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 25 Portola Rd And Wayside Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 26 Portola Rd And Hayfields Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 27 Alpine Rd And Firethorn Way No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 28 Alpine Rd And Paso Del Arroyo No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 29 Alpine Rd And Nathhorst Ave No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 30 Alpine Rd And Null Null No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 31 Portola Rd And Null Null No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_15 0 0 0 0 32 Firethorn Way And Los Trancos Rd No 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 PV_4 PV_21 PV_33 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

Portola Valley Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
PV_1 Portola Valley Portola Road, W town limit to Alpine Road No 2.3 18 6 12 18 PV_2 Portola Valley Alpine Road, Corte Madera Road to N town limit No 2.6 14 6 7 14

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 San Carlos Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Brittan Ave And Cordilleras Ave No 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 SC_1 SC_3 SC_52 11 191 0 202 2 El Camino Real And Eaton Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_2 SC_1 191 0 191 382 3 Brittan Ave And Cedar St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_3 SC_52 11 0 0 11 4 Greenwood Ave And Tamarack Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_7 SC_52 6 0 0 6 5 Brittan Ave And Rosewood Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_9 SC_52 0 0 0 0 6 Woodland Ave And Brittan Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_9 SC_52 0 0 0 0 7 Brittan Ave And Chestnut St No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_9 SC_52 0 0 0 0 8 Brittan Ave And Orange Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_9 SC_52 0 0 0 0 9 Brittan Ave And Dayton Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_4 SC_34 SC_52 0 0 0 0 10 Walnut St And Brittan Ave No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_10 SC_9 SC_74 0 0 0 0 11 Brittan Ave And Brook St No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_10 SC_34 SC_74 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 San Carlos Bike Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Bike Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Risk Factors
Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Bike Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 El Camino Real And Eaton Ave Yes 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 SC_1 SC_2 SC_2 191 0 191 382 2 Alameda De Las Pulgas And San Carlos Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_23 SC_42 28 0 0 28 3 Cambridge St And San Carlos Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_25 SC_31 11 0 0 11 4 San Carlos Ave And Charlton St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_31 0 0 0 0 5 San Carlos Ave And Kenton Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_31 0 0 0 0 6 San Carlos Ave And Beverly Dr No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_31 0 0 0 0 7 San Carlos Ave And Arundel Rd No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_42 0 0 0 0 8 Plymouth Ave And San Carlos Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_2 SC_34 SC_42 0 0 0 0 9 Wellington Dr And San Carlos Ave No 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.4 SC_9 SC_124 SC_60 0 0 120 120 10 Howard Ave And Alameda De Las Pulgas No 0.8 0.6 0.0 1.3 SC_10 SC_137 SC_134 0 0 202 202 11 Rockridge Rd And Alameda De Las Pulgas No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_11 SC_131 SC_64 22 0 0 22 12 Lupin Ave And Alameda De Las Pulgas No 0.5 0.8 0.0 1.3 SC_11 SC_137 SC_96 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 San Carlos Motor Vehicle Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
MV Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
MV Systemic
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
MV Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Belmont Ave And El Camino Real Yes 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 SC_1 SC_47 SC_13 230 0 11 241 2 El Camino Real And Eaton Ave Yes 0.7 1.0 0.0 1.7 SC_2 SC_2 SC_1 191 0 191 382 3 Brittan Ave And Cordilleras Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_3 SC_1 SC_52 11 191 0 202 4 Brittan Ave And Cedar St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_3 SC_2 SC_52 11 0 0 11 5 Brittan Ave And Elm St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_3 SC_18 SC_74 11 0 0 11 6 El Camino Real And Greenwood Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_3 SC_76 SC_16 11 0 0 11 7 Greenwood Ave And Tamarack Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_7 SC_4 SC_52 6 0 0 6 8 White Oak Way And El Camino Real Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_7 SC_76 SC_16 6 0 0 6 9 Brittan Ave And Rosewood Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_4 SC_52 0 0 0 0 10 Woodland Ave And Brittan Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_4 SC_52 0 0 0 0 11 Brittan Ave And Chestnut St No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_4 SC_52 0 0 0 0 12 Brittan Ave And Orange Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_4 SC_52 0 0 0 0 13 Walnut St And Brittan Ave No 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_10 SC_74 0 0 0 0 14 El Camino Real And Central Ave Yes 0.5 1.0 0.0 1.5 SC_9 SC_76 SC_13 0 0 11 11 15 Brittan Ave And Old County Rd No 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.5 SC_15 SC_14 SC_310 285 120 11 416 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

San Carlos Priority Segments
ID Jurisdiction Segment
State Highway
Network Length (Miles)
Motor Vehicle
Priority
Intersections
Included
Bike Priority
Intersections
Included
Pedestrian
Priority
Intersections
Included
Unique Priority
Intersections
Included (Any
Mode)
SC_1 San Carlos Brittan Avenue, Alameda De Las Pulgas to Laurel Street No 1.0 10 0 10 12 SC_2 San Carlos El Camino Real, Belmont Avenue to E town limit Yes 0.5 4 1 1 4 SC_3 San Carlos San Carlos, west of Wellington Drive to W town limit No 0.8 0 7 0 7

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
1 Miramontes Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_1 WSD_15 WSD_3 0 0 0 0 2 Woodside Rd And Fox Hollow Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_1 WSD_15 WSD_3 0 0 0 0 3 Woodside Rd And Albion Ave Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_1 WSD_15 WSD_46 0 0 0 0 4 La Honda Rd And Skyline Blvd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_6 WSD_2 22 0 202 224 5 La Honda Rd And Fox Hill Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_6 WSD_47 22 0 0 22 6 Portola Rd And Mountain Home Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_9 WSD_8 11 0 11 22 7 La Honda Rd And Grandview Dr Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_9 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 8 Portola Rd And Montecito Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_15 WSD_8 0 0 11 11 9 Portola Rd And Phillip Rd No 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 10 Skywood Way And La Honda Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 11 Tripp Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_4 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 12 Churchill Ave And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.8 0.0 0.8 WSD_12 WSD_105 WSD_41 11 0 0 11 13 Canada Rd And Corto Ln No 0.2 0.6 0.0 0.8 WSD_13 WSD_15 WSD_8 0 191 11 202 14 Woodside Rd And Lindenbrook Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_1 WSD_47 202 0 0 202 15 Martinez Rd And La Honda Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_2 WSD_5 191 0 191 382 16 Portola Rd And Old La Honda Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_2 WSD_13 191 0 0 191 17 Woodside Rd And Northgate Dr Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_4 WSD_13 33 0 0 33 18 Interstate Highway 280 Hwy And Farm
Hill Blvd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_4 WSD_47 28 0 0 28 19 La Honda Rd And Portola Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_6 WSD_1 22 0 404 426 20 Portola Rd And Home Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_9 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 21 Woodside Rd And Bear Gulch Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_9 WSD_13 11 0 0 11 22 Canada Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_9 WSD_47 11 0 0 11 23 High Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_14 WSD_8 6 0 11 17 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.

C/CAG LRSP - Draft Priority Project Locations November 10, 2023 Woodside Pedestrian Priority Intersections
ID Location
State
Hwy
Ped Crash
History Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Risk
Factors Score
(0 to 1)
Social Equity
Score
(0 to 1)
Ped Total
Score
(0 to 3)
Jurisdiction
Ped Rank
Jurisdiction
MV Rank
Jurisdiction
Bike Rank
MV Crash
Sev Score
Ped Crash
Sev Score
Bike Crash
Sev Score
Overall
Crash Sev
Score
24 Woodside Rd And Unnamed Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_5 0 0 191 191 25 Canada Rd And Olive Hill Ln No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_8 0 0 11 11 26 Portola Rd And Forest View Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 27 Southgate Dr And State Highway 84 Hwy Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 28 Smoke Tree Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 29 Canada Rd And Eucalyptus Ct No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 30 Canada Rd And Bardet Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 31 Canada Rd And Arbor Ct No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 32 Canada Rd And Alta Vista Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 33 Canada Rd And Neuman Ln No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 34 Canada Rd And Runnymede Rd No 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 35 Why Worry Ln And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 36 Woodside Rd And Roberta Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 37 La Honda Rd And Friars Ln Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 38 Kings Mountain Rd And Woodside Rd Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 39 Woodside Rd And Martin Ln Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 40 Woodside Rd And Bridle Ln Yes 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.6 WSD_14 WSD_15 WSD_13 0 0 0 0 Note: Gray shaded cells are locations on the State Highway Network.