Town of
Atherton
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
DRAFT
MARCH 2024
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ 2 List of Tables.......................................................................................................................... 2 Appendices ........................................................................................................................... 2 Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................. 3 C/CAG Project Management Team........................................................................................................3 Advisory Group Members................................................................................................................................3 Local Jurisdiction Representatives.......................................................................................................3 Partner Agency Representatives ...........................................................................................................3 Consultant Team...................................................................................................................................................1 Kittelson & Associates, Inc...........................................................................................................................1 Safe Streets Research & Consulting.....................................................................................................1 Circlepoint..............................................................................................................................................................1 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 2 Contents .....................................................................................................................................................................2 Vision & Goals....................................................................................................................... 3 Plan Development ............................................................................................................... 3 Existing Safety Efforts..........................................................................................................................................3 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................4 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................5 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................5 Online Map Survey...........................................................................................................................................6 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback...............................................................................6 Crash Data & Trends ............................................................................................................7 Emphasis Areas .....................................................................................................................................................7 Countywide High Injury Network.................................................................................................................11 Project Identification & Prioritization .............................................................................13 Methodology.......................................................................................................................................................... 13 Social Equity ...........................................................................................................................................................15 Results ........................................................................................................................................................................15 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs .......................................................19 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox.................................................................................................19 / Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations......................................... 22 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ........................................................................................................... 22 Implementation & Monitoring......................................................................................... 25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A Phase 2 pop-up event held at the Atherton Public Library.......................................................................................................4 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................6 Figure 3. Countywide HIN within the Town of Atherton.......................................................................................................................................12 Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)........................................................................13 Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) ............................................................................... 14 Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................ 14 Figure 7: Atherton Priority Locations ............................................................................................................................................................................... 18
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Town of Atherton Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs...............................................................3 Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events................................................................................................................................................................5 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Atherton ......................................................................................................................................................11 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Table 5. Town of Atherton Policy and Program Recommendations ........................................................................................................22 Table 6. Town of Atherton Goals and Measures of Success......................................................................................................................... 25
APPENDICES
Appendix A Webmap Comments
Appendix B Phase 2 Engagement Comments
Appendix C Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis
Appendix D Prioritization Results
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
C/CAG Project
Management Team
Jeff Lacap
Eva Gaye
Advisory Group Members
LOCAL JURISDICTION
REPRESENTATIVES
Robert Ovadia, Town of Atherton
Matt Hoang, City of Belmont
Tracy Scramaglia, City of Belmont
Karen Kinser, City of Brisbane
Tomas Santoyo, City of Brisbane
Andrew Wong, City of Burlingame
Abdulkader Hashem, Town of Colma
Richard Chiu, Jr.; City of Daly City
Irene Chiu, City of East Palo Alto
Humza Javed, City of East Palo Alto
Anwar Mirza, City of East Palo Alto
Justin Lai, City of Foster City
Francine Magno, City of Foster City
Amy Zhou, City of Foster City
Maz Bozorginia, City of Half Moon Bay
Jonathan Woo, City of Half Moon Bay
Paul Willis, Town of Hillsborough
Matthew Hui, City of Menlo Park
Sam Bautista, City of Millbrae
Lisa Peterson, City of Pacifica
Howard Young, Town of Portola Valley
Malahat Owrang, City of Redwood City
Hae Won, City of San Bruno
Harry Yip, City of San Bruno
Hanieh Houshmandi, City of San Carlos
Steven Machida, City of San Carlos
Bethany Lopez, City of San Mateo
Azalea Mitch, City of San Mateo
Jeff Chou, City of South San Francisco
Matthew Ruble, City of South San Francisco
Yazdan Emrani, Town of Woodside
Sindhi Mekala, Town of Woodside
Diana Shu, County of San Mateo
PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Office of
Sustainability
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jess Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mike Alston
Matt Braughton
Laurence Lewis
Grace Carsky
Michael Ruiz-Leon
Doreen Gui
SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &
CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale
CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison
GLOSSARY OF TERMS
Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.
Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in the Town’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.
Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways.
Crash Severity is defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition) and is a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash. ▪ Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
▪ Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene. It does not include minor laceration.
▪ Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows). ▪ Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities). 2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so.
▪ Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially. / Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.
Safe Streets for All (SS4A) is a federal discretionary grant program created by the 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law with $5 billion in appropriated funds for 2022 through 2026.
Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.
Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that the Town can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.
Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.
Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system. / Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the Town of Atherton. It was developed concurrently with the Countywide LRSP; therefore, some discussion will refer back to the Countywide LRSP to avoid redundancy.
However, because every community has unique safety challenges, this LRSP includes individually tailored emphasis areas, crash trends, prioritized project lists, project scope recommendations, Safe System-aligned recommendations, and implementation/monitoring recommendations. A living document, this LRSP is designed to be flexible and responsive to evolving community needs. The Town will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.
The Town of Atherton has a 2023 population of 6,678 per California Department of Finance. The town has 51 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 121 reported crashes on surface streets in the Town and 4 fatal/severe injury crashes. Pedestrians were involved in 10 percent of all reported crashes and 50 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. Bicyclists were involved in 21 percent of all reported crashes and no fatal/severe injury crashes. Of reported at-grade crashes, 36 (30 percent) occurred on or along state highways. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Atherton’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.
This LRSP was informed by technical analysis as well as from input from key stakeholders and the general public. The following sections describe the plan development and recommendations.
Contents
This LRSP provides the following:
Upon Council adoption and affirmation of the plan’s vision and goals in 2024, this plan will be posted online by the Town for public viewing.
A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3
VISION & GOALS
The Town of Atherton’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in Atherton’s departments, educational institutions, and residents.
To support this vision, the Town has established the following goals:
1. Regularly review crash history and community needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages and abilities.
2. Implement safety countermeasures systemically and as part of all projects to target emphasis areas and underserved communities.
3. Promote plan recommendations with identified safety partners to incorporate roadway safety through safety projects and educational campaigns in Atherton.
4. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.
5. Embrace the Safe System approach to promote engineering and non-engineering strategies in the community.
6. Identify opportunities to incorporate social equity into safety improvements.
7. Monitor implementation of the Atherton LRSP to track progress towards goals.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Existing Safety Efforts
This LRSP relies on the Town of Atherton’s solid foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of Atherton’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System, see Table 1:
Table 1. Town of Atherton Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
San Mateo C/CAG
Safe Routes to
School (SR2S)
Program Guide
The SR2S program works to make it easier and safer for students to walk and bike to school. C/CAG partners with the County Office of Education to increase biking and walking and safe travel to school. Annual reports summarize schools’ participation.
Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road
Users
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan
The Town’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan outlines identified needs and active transportation routes.
Safe Roads
Safe Road
Users
Neighborhood
Traffic Management
Plan
The Town’s Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan outlines neighborhood traffic calming measures and programs to reduce travel speeds and cut-through traffic with an intent to improve safety for all modes of travel.
Safe Roads
Safe Road
Users
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
Alameda de las
Pulgas Traffic and
Safety
Improvements
The Town is currently preparing project plans for Alameda de las Pulgas Drive, which project will include a traffic signal and reconfiguration at Atherton Avenue, signalization at Cam al Lago, pedestrian crossing improvements at Stockbridge, and relocation of a midblock pedestrian signal between Cam al Lago and Mills Avenue.
Safe Roads
El Camino Real
Complete Streets
Gap Closure
Planning Study
The Town is currently working with the San Mateo County Transportation Authority on a planning study for El Camino Real to identify active transportation improvements on the roadway between Selby and Valparaiso.
Safe Roads
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their Figure 1. A Phase 2 pop-up event held at the Atherton Public Library / Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
support of the Town of Atherton’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Office of Sustainability
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)
• Caltrans
• Atherton Police Department
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.
ENGAGEMENT TIMELINE AND EVENTS
The project team hosted a series of public engagement events countywide to support the concurrent development of the Countywide LRSP and of the Town’s plan. These events focus on jurisdiction-specific issues and on countywide concerns. The table below lists the events, organized by themed engagement phases, and is followed by the community input themes we heard.
Table 2. C/CAG Public Engagement Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff meeting – Sharing the purpose and timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event Shared crash data analysis; received input on locations and safety
concerns
East Palo Alto
August 19, 2023 Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
December 17, 2023 Phase 2 Pop-up/Tabling Event
Shared draft prioritized locations and types of
engineering recommendations; received
comments on locations and votes/input on types
of treatments and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle,
Pedestrian, and Traffic Safety
Committee Meeting
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
ONLINE MAP SURVEY
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure
2. Online Map Survey Tool). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were two comments made within the Town of Atherton. The comments included the following:
• Request to provide modal filters: to allow only bicycles and pedestrians on certain streets. • Noted locations include Selby Lane at Stockbridge Avenue, and Barry Lane.
The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the Town. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.
PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Atherton Library in January as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. Comments received are provided in Appendix B. The following themes were identified:
Pedestrian Comments
• Desire for pedestrian facilities, such as sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals, to make walking safer and more comfortable, especially along El Camino Real and in the neighborhood east of Middlefield Road
• Desire for better pedestrian crossings over the Caltrain rail tracks Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
• Concern that drivers are running through stop signs and red signals, specifically along Isabella Avenue and at El Camino Real / Fair Oaks Lane and Maple Avenue / Dinkelspiel Station Lane Bicycle Comments
• Concerns that there is not enough separation between bicyclists and drivers along El Camino Real. [There are no bike lanes on El Camino Real.]
• Concerns of poor visibility—due to curved roads, inadequate lighting, and parked cars at corners—that makes biking unsafe
Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire for lighting to improve visibility along roadways • Concerns over traffic and congestion in Atherton
• Concerns over blind corners and site line issues, especially along El Camino Real and at the Fair Oaks Lane / Dinkelspiel Station Lane intersection.
Countermeasures Comments
• Desire for lane or road narrowing, specifically along Atherton Avenue and El Camino Real and side, and a desire to do more to improve safety
• Concerns that bike lane improvements are dangerous to drivers
CRASH DATA & TRENDS
This section provides an overview of the five years of crash data used for this analysis. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System25F 1 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years
2018 through 2022. TIMS is a commonly used data source for safety plans. This analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. We removed crashes along grade-separated freeways from the dataset, but we retained crashes that occur along at-grade State Highway facilities and those that occurred within the influence area of freeway ramp terminal intersections.
The crash records used provide the best available data for analysis but do not account for crashes that go unreported or for near-miss events. This plan includes recommendations that would improve jurisdictions’ ability to capture one or both of those elements and enhance future crash analyses.
The discussion that follows provides a high-level overview of crash trends that informed the plan recommendations. For a more complete description of trends and findings, refer to Appendix C.
Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Atherton and compared countywide trends to establish emphasis areas. Emphasis areas are crash dynamic, behavioral, or road user characteristics that the Town can focus on to maximize fatal and severe injury reduction on local roads.
A review of crash data and input led to the development of the following emphasis areas for the Town of Atherton:
1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of all injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Atherton, pedestrians were involved in 50 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (10 percent). Bicyclists were involved in 21 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu / Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
percent of all reported injury crashes. None of the bicyclist-involved crashes resulted in fatality or severe injury.
2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight. In Atherton, one of the four fatal/severe injury crashes occurred in dark conditions.
3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.
4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging). Countywide across all modes, crash victims between the 15 to 34 years old are more likely to be injured including F/SI as a result of traffic safety than other groups.
Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Atherton, 9 crashes or 7 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
5. Motor vehicle speed related roadway segment crashes. Countywide, motor vehicle crashes were more severe along roadway segments than at any other location type; unsafe speed was the most commonly cited the primary crash factor (27 percent of all injury crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes). In Atherton, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among reported injury crashes (37 percent).
6. High speed roadways (35+mph). Countywide, crashes on roadways with posted speeds 40mph or higher had an average crash severity per mile 13 times higher than along roadways with posted speeds of 25 mph or less.
The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the Town of Atherton to countywide trends in these emphasis areas. It includes summary statistics related to the above-cited emphasis areas but also shows:
• The share of local crashes that occurred on or at a State Highway facility compared to Countywide levels. • The most frequently reported local crash types compared to Countywide levels. • The share of bicyclist and motor vehicle crashes among all injury crashes and among F/SI crashes.
Countywide and locally, bicyclist crashes account for a higher share of F/SI crashes than among all injury levels.
• The share of local and Countywide crashes occurring in dark conditions for crashes of all injury levels and for F/SI crashes (organized by mode).
• Reported pedestrian and bicyclist crashes summarized by the most common preceding movements countywide, with a comparison of those movements’ share of local crashes to Countywide shares. • The local and Countywide share of crashes involving drugs or alcohol and involving drivers under age 30. 18%
(1,164)
Atherton—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
46%
(39)
2%
(2)
16%
(13) 29%
(24)
7%
(6)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Atherton compares:
Atherton Countywide
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
2% 7%
of reported collisions
in Atherton involved
drugs or alcohol
of reported collisions
in Atherton involved
young drivers1
8%
(625)
5%
(472)
(2) (9)
29%
(1,858)
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (12)
Atherton
Atherton
Atherton
Bicycle Crashes (25)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (84)
0% (0)
50% (2)
10% (12) 50% (2)
21% (25)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
69% (84)
Local
70% (85)
State Highway
30% (36)
Total Crashes
Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
In Atherton, 121 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:
Atherton Countywide
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.
2. Young driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
Atherton—Crash History
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (12)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (25)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
24%
(256)
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
8%
(1)
8%
(1)
15%
(163)
17%
(2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist proceeding
straight
Motorist Making
left turn
16%
(4)
21%
(186)
32%
(8)
12%
(106)
20%
(5)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
36%
(9)
35%
(372)
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
Atherton
Atherton
Atherton
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (2)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (2)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (11)
All Injury Crashes (84)
All Injury Crashes (25)
All Injury Crashes (12)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (0)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2)
50% (1)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
13% (11) 0% (0)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe— especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Atherton compares to Countywide crashes:
17% (2)
8% (2)
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the HIN segments identified within the Town.
Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Atherton
Roadway name
All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Oak Grove Ave Atherton, Menlo Park 1.2 X X
Ravenswood
Ave
Atherton, Menlo Park 0.6 X X X
Middlefield Rd Atherton, Menlo Park, Redwood
City, Unincorporated 3.8 X X X
Marsh Rd
Atherton, Menlo Park,
Unincorporated 1.3 X
El Camino Real
San Carlos, Atherton, Menlo Park,
Redwood City, Millbrae, San Bruno,
Belmont, San Mateo, Burlingame,
South San Francisco, Colma,
Unincorporated
23.5 X X X
Alameda de las
Pulgas
San Carlos, Atherton, Redwood
City, Belmont, San Mateo,
Unincorporated
6.7 X X X
Sequoia
Tract
Stanford
Lands
Atherton
Flood Park
ß/101
¦§¨280
Toyon Rd
Lassen
Dr
Catalpa Dr
Oakdell Dr
Vine St
Branner Dr
Olive St
Fletcher
Dr
Trinity
Dr
Park Ln
Sharon Park Dr
Valley Ct
Alma St
Watkins Ave
Atherton
Ave
Arbor Rd
Crane St
Walsh Rd
Greenoaks Dr
Pine St
Palmer Ln
Cotton St
14th Ave
9th Ave
Sierra St
Almendral Ave
Fair
Oaks
Ln
Gordon St
Wallea Dr
6th Ave
E
el a
nor
Dr
3rd St
Isa
b
ella
Ave
Stern Ln
Elena Ave
Mills St
N Lemon Ave
7th Ave
Shearer
Dr
Nueva St
Marsh Rd
8th Ave
Roble Ave
Bonita Ave
Euclid Ave
Patricia Dr
Lawler Ranch Rd
Service Road
Fairview Ave
Burns Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Hobart St
Monte Vista Ave
Heather Dr
Adam Way
Tuscaloosa Ave
aS
ndHillCir
El Camino Real
Sand Hill Rd
Atherton Ave
Woodside Rd H:\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 3/12/2024 Pedestrian + Bicyclist + Motor Vehicle
Combined High Injury Network (HIN)
Town of Atherton, CA
Figure 4
0 0.5Miles [
! Schools
BART Station
Caltrain Station
Unincorporated
Places
Parks
Local HIN
Motor Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
C/CAG Equity
Focus Aeas
Highway HIN
Motor Vehicle
Bicycle
Pedestrian
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 13
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,
7.2%
Posted speed
35mph+, 7.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 6.8%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
& PRIORITIZATION
Methodology
Using the results of the crash data analysis and adding a focus on social equity, the project team identified priority locations for the Town to target for future safety improvements. The prioritization used three equally weighted factors to prioritize locations for safety projects:
• Crash history – used to identify the locations with the highest reported five-year crash frequency and severity.
• Social equity – used to identify locations where projects would benefit disadvantaged populations and align with future grant funding opportunities that emphasize social equity. • Systemic factors – used to identify locations that have roadway and land use characteristics associated with crash frequency and severity. Using systemic factors emphasizes a proactive rather than purely reactive approach. Each factor was weighted relative to the other factors based on the average severity of relevant crashes (for example, if pedestrian crashes on arterials/collectors were overall twice as severe as pedestrian crashes at unsignalized intersections overall, then the former would be weighted twice the latter).
Each factor is comprised of multiple criteria and overlaid on jurisdictions’ roadway data to identify locations for future safety projects. The prioritization process was conducted three times, one for each travel mode. The weighting scheme for each mode is presented in the three figures below (Figure 4, Figure 5, and Figure 6). The resulting scores are sorted per jurisdiction, so that Atherton’s prioritized locations are compared to themselves rather than to other County jurisdictions.
Figure 4. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) / Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Figure 5. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 6. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,
8.1%
Posted speed
35mph+, 16.0%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.3%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
Bike Crash Severity
Score, 16.7%
Bike HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 8.0%
Arterial or Collector,
8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical consideration for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. Ultimately the prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the Town to understand which locations meet which measures.
Results
The prioritization resulted in the following top locations. For more details (including the scores of each location), consult Appendix D. Figure 7 also shows the locations.
Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 El Camino Real and
Columbia Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
2 Loyola Ave and El Camino
Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
3 El Camino Real and 5th
Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
4 Amherst Ave and El
Camino Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
5 El Camino Real and
Berkshire Ave*,**
Intersection Yes X X
6 El Camino Real and
Stockbridge Ave
Intersection Yes X X X
7 Selby Ln and El Camino
Real*,**
Intersection Yes X X X
8 Wilburn Ave and El
Camino Real
Intersection Yes X X
9 El Camino Real and
Almendral Ave
Intersection Yes X
10 Alameda de las Pulgas
and Stockbridge Ave*
Intersection No X X
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
11 Robert S Dr and
Valparaiso Ave***
Intersection No X
12 Glenwood Ave and Laurel
St***
Intersection No X X X
13 Valparaiso Ave and Lee
Dr
Intersection No X X
14 Elder Ave and Atherton
Oaks Ln
Intersection No X
15 Park Ln and Valparaiso
Ave***
Intersection No X
16 Middlefield Rd and
Ravenswood Ave***
Intersection No X X
17 Middlefield Rd and
Ringwood Ave***
Intersection No X X
18 Middlefield Rd and Encina
Ave*
Intersection No X X
19 El Camino Real and
Spruce Ave***
Intersection Yes X
20 Middlefield Rd and Palmer
Ln
Intersection No X
21 Middlefield Rd and
Watkins Ave
Intersection No X
22 Middlefield Rd and Oak
Grove Ave
Intersection No X
23 Oak Grove Ave and Oak
Grove Ave
Intersection No X X
24 Alameda de las Pulgas
and Walsh Rd
Intersection No X X
25 Lane Pl and Middlefield Rd Intersection No X
26 De Bell Dr and Middlefield
Rd
Intersection No X
27 Middlefield Rd and San
Benito Dr
Intersection No X
28 Callado Way and
Alameda de las Pulgas
Intersection No X
29 Fletcher Dr And Alameda
De Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
30 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Atherton Ave
Intersection No X
31 El Camino Real and
Isabella Ave
Intersection Yes X
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
32 El Camino Real and
Ashfield Rd
Intersection Yes X
33 Maple Ave and El Camino
Real
Intersection Yes X
34 El Camino Real and
Walnut Ave
Intersection Yes X
35 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Polhemus Ave
Intersection No X
36 Alameda De Las Pulgas
and Karen Way
Intersection No X
37 El Camino Real and
Tuscaloosa Ave
Intersection Yes X
38 El Camino Real and
Redwood Way
Intersection Yes X
39 El Camino Real and
Lloyden Dr
Intersection Yes X
40 Oak Grove Ave and de
Bell Dr
Intersection No X
41 El Camino Real, Berkshire
Ave to Spruce Ave (E to W
town limits)****
Corridor Yes X X X
42 Alameda de las Pulgas,
Stockbridge Ave to Cam
Al Lago (E to W town
limits)****
Corridor No X X X
43 Valparaiso Ave, Camino
por los Arboles to Victoria
Dr*
Corridor No X X
44 Middlefield Rd, Encina
Ave to Ringwood Ave
Corridor No X X
*
Intersection is shared jurisdictionally with Unincorporated San Mateo County. **Roadway is Caltrans jurisdiction.
***
Intersection is shared jurisdictionally with Menlo Park. ****The Town is currently preparing a study on this corridor (see Table 1). !
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@
@
@
@
@ @
@ @
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!!
!
!
!
!
!
!
@
@@@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
@
@
@@
@
@
@
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
Menlo
Oaks
North
Fair
Oaks
Sequoia
Tract
Stanford
Lands
Atherton
Flood Park
ß/101
∙þ84
¦§¨280
Pierce Rd
Page St
Maple St
Edge Rd
Melanie Ln
Toyon Rd
Nimitz Ave
Charter St
Sherman Ave
Madison Ave
Lassen
Dr
Catalpa Dr
Elder Ave
Oakdell Dr
Linfield Dr
Redwood Ave
Polhemus Ave Roble Ave
Vine St
Cerrito Ave
1st Ave
Oxford St
Edison Way
W Selby Ln University Dr
Branner Dr
Santa Clara Ave
Coleman Ave
Middle Ave
Menlo Ave
Olive St
Felton
Dr
Regent St
10th
Ave
College Ave
Placitas Ave James
Ave
17th Ave
Burgess
Dr
Sharon
Rd
M
Laurel St
assachusetts Ave
F
el tcher Dr
2nd Ave
Creek Dr
Harvard Ave
Monte Rosa Dr
Cloud Ave
Trinity Dr
Austin Ave
Avy Ave
Arbor Dr
Vera Ave
Park Ln
Glenwood Ave
Camino A Los Cerros
Jefferson Dr
Maddux
Dr
San Mateo Dr
Kentu
cky
St
Flynn
Av
Heller St
e
Sharon Park Dr
Lane Pl
Valley Ct
Lorelei Ln
Orange Ave
Fremont St
Shasta St
Alma St
Watkins Ave
Linden St
Oak Ave
Lathrop St
Connecticut Dr
Johnson St
Windsor Dr
Moore Rd
Ebener St
Linden
Ave
Leland Ave
El Camino Real
Faxon Rd
Harrison Ave
Altschul Ave
3rd Ave
Fair Oaks Ave
Park Rd
Reservoir Rd
Spring St
Valota Rd
Park St
William Ave
Middlefield Rd
Tioga Dr
Northgate Dr
Center St
Willow Rd
Virginia Ave
Lemon St
Market Pl
Arbor Rd
Haven Ave
Continental Dr
Delaware Ave Crane St
Hess Rd
15th Ave
Bay
Laurel Dr
Scott Ave
St Francis St
Walsh Rd
Greenoaks Dr
Clinton St
Magnolia Dr
Fulton St
Douglas Ave
Ravenswood Ave
Carolina Ave
Chilco St
Ridgeview Dr
Irving
Ave
Rosew
ood
Dr
Alley
Poplar Ave
Waverley St
Ruby St
Iris St
Jackson Ave
Santa Monica Ave
Kentfield Ave
Hurlingame
Ave
4th Ave
Lincoln Ave 12th Ave
Grand St
Spruce St
Roosevelt Ave
Berkeley
Ave
Leahy St
Camino De Los Robles
Menlo
Oaks
Dr
Merrill St
Encinal Ave Oak Grove Ave Pine St
Palmer Ln
Ringwood Ave
S
a
n
Benito
Ave
Live Oak Ave
Rutherford Ave
Alexander Ave
Cotton St
18th Ave
Camino
Al
Lago
Mills Ave
Warrington Ave
14th Ave
16th Ave
O
h
oi Ave
Palm Ave
E
Cre
e
k
Dr
Sta
nford Ave
Maple Ave
9th Ave 5th Ave
Barron
Ave
Princeton Dr
Sierra St
Union Ave
Almendral Ave
Central Ave
Hampton Ave
Encina Ave
Sterling Ave
Oakley Ave Gordon Ave Ashton Ave
King St
Fernside St
Cambridge Ave
Adams St
Fay St
Selby Ln
Gordon St
Wallea Dr
Valley Rd
Scott Dr
Seminary Dr
6th Ave
Oak Knoll Ln
Eleanor Dr
3rd St
Isabella
Ave
Stern Ln
Elena Ave
Lloyden Dr
Hudson St
Orchard Ave
W 4th St
Arlington Way
Siskiyou Dr
Mills St
N Lemon Ave
Doris Dr
Crest Ln
Emilie Ave
7th Ave
Shearer
Dr
Bohannon Dr
Nueva St
Marsh Rd
Hillview Dr
8th Ave
Arden Rd
De Bell Dr
Alejandra Ave
Hedge Rd
Bonita Ave
Euclid Ave
Patricia Dr
Hawthorne Dr
Service Road
Politzer Dr
Partridge Ave
Burns Ave
Linda Vista Ave
Hobart St
Hermosa Way
Monte Vista Ave
Heather Dr
Lawler Ranch Rd
Adam Way
Tuscaloosa Ave
Sand Hill Cir
Bay Rd
Sa
nta
Cruz
Ave
El Camino Real
Selby Ln
Fair Oaks
Ln
Sand Hill Rd
Marsh
Rd
Jefferson Ave
Valparaiso Ave
Middlefield Rd
Main St
Alpine
Rd
Woodside Rd
Willow Rd
Alameda De Las Pulgas
Stockbridge AveAtherton Ave
H:\28\28717 - C_CAG San Mateo Countywide LRSP\GIS\28717 San Mateo LRSP.aprx Date: 3/12/2024 Priority Intersections
and Segments
Town of Atherton, CA
0 0.25 0.5Miles
! Schools [
C/CAG Equity
Focus Aeas
Highway Priority Locations
! Pedestrian Intersections
@ Bicycle Intersections
@ Motor Vehicle Intersections
Highway Priority Segments
Local Priority Locations
! Pedestrian Intersections
@ Bicycle Intersections
@ Motor Vehicle Intersections
Non-Highway Priority Segments
Figure 8
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,
POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the Town of Atherton. First is a table of engineering countermeasures proven to reduce fatal and severe injury crashes. The countermeasures align to the crash types as listed in the table. Complementing those countermeasures is a holistic set of policy and programmatic recommendations that will help align Town departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals.
Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox
Table 5. Town of Atherton Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Lighting along high speed
corridors*
All Nighttime 0.4 $$ Medium
Improve signal hardware:
lenses, back plates with
retroreflective borders,
mounting, size, and number*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.15 $ Very High
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all 0.1 $ High
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
No Right Turn on Red (RTOR) SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ Medium
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.25 $-$$ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Bicycle
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.15 $ High
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.6 $ High
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from stop or
yield control on minor road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Covert intersection to miniroundabout*UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low Install pedestrian crossings
(signs and markings only)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle
0.25 $-$$$ High
Install pedestrian crossings
(with enhanced safety
features like Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacons)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle
0.35 $-$$$ Medium
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or
other intersection warning or
regulatory signs*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness
0.15 $ High
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
Countermeasure Name Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning
crashes
related to
lack of driver
awareness
0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle
0.3 $$$ High
Install buffered or separated
bike lanes*
R Pedestrian
and bicycle
0.45 $-$$ High
Install raised pedestrian
crossing*
UI Pedestrian
and bicycle
0.35 $ Medium
Install delineators, reflectors,
and/or object marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver
behavior
0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian crossing
time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000 / Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the Town aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the Town’s Safe System Approach.
Table 5. Town of Atherton Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee Participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF2: Equitable Investment LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleet
LEO6: Conspicuity Enhancements and Education
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan
NEAR-TERM ACTIONS
LCS1: Transportation Safety Advisory Committee Participation Actively participate in the newly-formed County Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC). Bring agenda items as relevant, including but not limited to:
• Safety project updates with every step along the project development process (studies initiated / under way /complete, funding identified, design phases initiated / under way / complete) • Annual updates to the TSAC regarding implementation progress that may be relevant for C/CAG annual monitoring reporting (e.g., projects on identified priority locations and/or the regional High Injury Network, community engagement efforts and summaries, safety funding applied for / received) / Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
• Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.
Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Town of Atherton Public Works
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
More effectively target resources to pedestrian crash problems in a limited geographic area. Realizing these zones requires upfront analysis and planning, countermeasure development, and implementation.
Implementation can focus on addressing particular problems or on increasing general safety in specific areas during windows of peak pedestrian activity. (For example: Friday nights in commercial districts, Sundays on recreational routes/areas, etc.)
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF2: Equitable Investment
Prioritize townwide safety investments in disadvantaged communities. Use the presence of disadvantaged communities (as identified with C/CAG Equity Focus Areas, MTC Equity Priority Communities, USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities, and/or USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty) as a factor to elevate funding for certain projects or other safety-related programs.
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LF3: Prioritize Investments
Use the priority locations identified in this plan to determine safety project opportunities to advance for further project development and to identify funding. Identify pathways for improvement for the locations on the list.
Continue to engage the community to refine the priorities within the list of identified sites.
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
• Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Office of Sustainability, SVBC LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
Develop and distribute educational materials and/or videos demonstrating how to navigate and interact with newer active transportation facilities (e.g., bike boxes, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons, separated bike lanes, etc.) Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Provide educational materials for Town staff who drive Town vehicles and integrate safety awareness training into contracting process with vendors who provide Town services. Other measures include installing safety features (such as pedestrian/obstacle detection and speed tracking) on Town vehicles and reporting on correction plans against unsafe driving.
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE1: Annual Review
Provide an annual review of plan implementation progress. This review includes an update and presentation to Town Council as well as a written update to the TSAC so that C/CAG may compile county plan implementation status.
Lead agency: Town of Atherton
LPE2: Plan Update
Update the plan within five years of publication. The plan update will revise actions to reflect current crash trends and will integrate technological advancements and changes in best practices as needed.
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.
Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the Town.
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: Town of Atherton Public Works
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan
Per California Assembly Bill 43 (passed in 2021), identify business activity districts, safety corridors, and in areas with high ped/bike activities to implement reduced speeds. To the extent possible, complement the speed reduction with design treatments like those identified in this plan to effect reduced speeds by the desired amount.
Lead agency: Town of Atherton Public Works
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Atherton’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. Atherton will develop a process to regularly collect data and information around the performance measures that can be used to assess changes townwide and at the top priority locations.
Implementation actions are organized by plan goals and grouped by time: near-term actions, which Atherton can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.
This section identifies recommendations for Atherton and other county-level safety partners to implement the plan.
These are aligned with the Safe System Approach and include a framework to measure plan progress over time.
Table 6. Town of Atherton Goals and Measures of Success
GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS
1. Regularly review crash history and community
needs to identify and prioritize opportunities to
reduce crash risk for roadway users of all ages
and abilities. Review proposed improvement
plans to ensure that roadway projects,
retrofits, and maintenance projects
incorporate complete streets that support
multiple modes of travel.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified
2. Implement safety countermeasures
systemically and as part of all projects to
target emphasis areas and underserved
communities.
3. Promote plan recommendations with
identified safety partners to incorporate
roadway safety through safety projects and
educational campaigns in Atherton.
4. Provide opportunities for community
engagement in roadway capital improvement
projects to identify safety solutions.
5. Identify opportunities to incorporate social
equity into safety improvements.
• Community engagement included as part of all
C/CAG-funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and community
member interactions for safety plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the Town Council and TSAC
regarding community engagement, including
information about outreach to disadvantaged
communities where applicable
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs)
versus outside these areas
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in
Schools programs to more schools within the Town
6. Embrace the Safe System Approach to
promote engineering and non-engineering
strategies in the community.
• Percent of school district participation in SRTS and
roadway safety education opportunities
• Number of trainings Town staff have participated in
regarding Safe System elements, available tools, or
practices
• Improved data availability or maintenance to
enhance safety analysis and practice
7. Monitor implementation of the Atherton LRSP
to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table
/ Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Town of Atherton
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP