28717_CCAG-Countywide-LRSP-Countywide-Local-w-appendices_Jun7_2 — Atherton City Council, November 20, 2024 (part 2 of 4)

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

3. Monitor implementation of the Half
Moon Bay LRSP to track progress
towards goals.
• See above in this table
/ City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of Half Moon Bay
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Town of
Hillsborough

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

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

LOCAL JURISDICTION

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

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

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

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

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

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

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

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

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

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 Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

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

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

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

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

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

The Town of Hillsborough has a 2023 population of 10,962 per California Department of Finance. The Town has 82 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 11 reported crashes on surface streets in the Town and 2 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 11 percent of all reported crashes and 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

Bicyclists were involved in 18 percent of all reported crashes and 40 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Hillsborough’s crash history and local priorities, as well as performance measures to evaluate progress.

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

Contents
This LRSP provides the following:

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

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 Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safe Roads
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of Hillsborough’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Sustainability Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)
• Caltrans
• Hillsborough Police Department
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

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

Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events
Date Event Location
August 10, 2023 Countywide Virtual Kickoff
Meeting: Shared the purpose and
timing of the plan
Virtual meeting (recorded and
posted to plan website)
August 16, 2023 East Palo Alto
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
Date Event Location
August 19, 2023 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event:

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

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

Various

Figure 1. Online Map Survey Tool
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.

Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There was one comment made within the Town which was a comment that there is a general lack of coordination between cities in roadway safety planning. That comments is provided in Appendix A.

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Hillsborough, among five reported F/SI crashes, a pedestrian was involved in one and bicyclists were involved in two. There was one recorded pedestrian F/SI crash and two recorded bicyclist F/SI crashes (out of 5 F/SI crashes in the period).

2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight. In Hillsborough, 9 or 33 percent of motor vehicle crashes occurred in dark conditions.

3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial 1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu / Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.

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

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

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

6. Alcohol involvement. Countywide, one in ten (10 percent) of motor vehicle injury crashes and one in five F/SI motor vehicle crashes (19 percent) involved alcohol. In Hillsborough, 13 percent of all reported injury crashes involve impaired driving.

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

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

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

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

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

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

Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (4)
Bicycle Crashes (7)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (27)
40% (2)
40% (2)
11% (4) 20% (1)
18% (7)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
71% (27)
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
Hillsborough
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Hillsborough—Injury & Fatal Crash History
Hillsborough
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (9)
All Injury Crashes (27) Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (2) 0% (0)
Countywide 26% (1,674) 34% (173)
33% (9)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Hillsborough compares to Countywide crashes:

Reported Bicycle Crashes (7)
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Agency Countywide
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
14%
(1)
21%
(186)
Motorist
proceeding
straight
14%
(1)
12%
(106)
Motorist
making
left turn
57%
(4)
35%
(372)
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 2 show the HIN segments identified within the Town.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Hillsborough
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Golf Course Dr Hillsborough, Unincorporated 0.2 X
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 12
Figure 2. Countywide HIN within the Town of Hillsborough / Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 13
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,

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

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION &

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

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 3, Figure 4, and Figure 5).

Figure 3. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) / Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Figure 4. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 5. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,

8.1%
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 Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical factor for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. The prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the Town to understand which locations meet which measures.

Results
The prioritization resulted in the following top locations. For more details (including the scores of each location), consult Appendix D. Figure 6 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Skyline Blvd and Skyfarm Dr Intersection No X X X
2 Hayne Rd and Golf Course Dr Intersection No X X
3 Skyline Blvd and Butternut Dr Intersection No X X X
4 Skyline Blvd and Rowan Tree
Ln
Intersection No X X X
5 El Cerrito Ave and Gramercy
Dr
Intersection No X X X
6 Santa Inez Ave and Arlington
Ln
Intersection No X
7 Black Mountain Rd and
Denise Dr
Intersection No X
8 Black Mountain Rd and
Wedgewood Dr
Intersection No X X
9 Merner Rd and Crystal
Springs Rd
Intersection No X X X
10 Crystal Springs Ter and
Crystal Springs Rd
Intersection No X X X
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
11 Crystal Springs Rd and
Ridgeway Rd
Intersection No X X X
12 Woodridge Rd and Crystal
Springs Rd
Intersection No X X X
13 Crystal Springs Rd and El
Cerrito Ave
Intersection No X X X
14 Stonehedge Rd and
Baywood Ave
Intersection No X
15 Hayne Rd and Golf Course Dr Intersection Yes X
16 Kammerer Ct and Bellevue
Ave
Intersection No X X
17 Black Mountain Rd and
Denise Rd
Intersection No X
18 Barbara Way and Hayne Rd Intersection No X
19 El Cerrito Ave and
Stonehedge Rd
Intersection No X X
20 Eucalyptus Ave and Ralston
Ave
Intersection No X X
21 Stonepine Rd and Barroilhet
Ave
Intersection No X
22 Ralston Ave and Chateau Dr Intersection No X
23 Homeplace Ct and
Barroilhet Ave
Intersection No X
24 Eucalyptus Ave and
Tamarack Dr
Intersection No X
25 Stonepine Rd and Stonepine
Ct
Intersection No X
26 Tamarack Dr and Farmhill Ct Intersection No X
27 Tartan Trail Rd and Lakeview
Dr
Intersection No X
28 Downey Way and Acorn Dr Intersection No X
29 Fagan Dr and Margo Ln Intersection No X
30 Fagan Dr and Jackling Dr Intersection No X
31 Irwin Dr and Forest View Ave Intersection No X
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
32 Forest View Ave and
Denham Ct
Intersection No X
33 Carmelita Ave and Armsby
Dr
Intersection No X
34 Armsby Dr and Reynolds Ct Intersection No X
35 Eucalyptus Ave and Geri Ln Intersection No X
36 El Cerrito Ave and Waverly Pl Intersection No X
37 Warm Canyon Way and
Remillard Dr
Intersection No X
38 Hayne Rd and Darrell Rd Intersection No X
39 Remillard Dr and Mosswood
Rd
Intersection No X
40 Barbara Way and Hayne Rd Intersection No X
41 Camphor Ct and Rowan
Tree Ln
Intersection No X
42 Sherwood Ct and De Sabla
Rd
Intersection No X
43 Roehampton Rd and
Richmond Rd
Intersection No X
44 El Cerrito Ave and Poett Rd Intersection No X
45 Roblar Ave and Milford Ave Intersection No X
46 Laureldale Rd and Bridge Rd Intersection No X
47 Roehampton Rd and Poett
Rd
Intersection No X
48 Santa Inez Ave and Santa
Maria Ln
Intersection No X
49 Stonehedge Rd and St
Francis Rd
Intersection No X
50 Roblar Ave and El Cerrito Ave Intersection No X
51 Roblar Ave and Severn Ave Intersection No X
52 Roblar Ave and Ericson Rd Intersection No X
53 El Cerrito Ave and Wickham
Pl
Intersection No X
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
54 Fallenleaf Dr and Bridge Rd Intersection No X
55 Homs Ct and El Cerrito Ave Intersection No X
56 Stonehedge Rd and Bridge
Rd
Intersection No X
57 Floribunda Ave and Pepper
Ave
Intersection No X
58 Floribunda Ave and
Highgate Ln
Intersection No X
59 Fairway Cir and Floribunda
Ave
Intersection No X
60 Pepper Ave and
Summerholme Pl
Intersection No X
61 Newhall Rd and Willow Ave Intersection No X
62 Alberta Way and Roberts
Way
Intersection No X
63 Alberta Way and Hayne Rd Intersection No X
64 Robinwood Ln and Hayne Rd Intersection No X
65 Roberts Way and Intersection No X
66 Butternut Dr and Privet Dr Intersection No X
67 Churchill Dr And Intersection No X
68 Privet Dr and Churchill Dr Intersection No X
69 Grevillea Ct and Butternut Dr Intersection No X
70 Rowan Tree Ln and Darrell Rd Intersection No X
71 Poett Rd and Roblar Ave Intersection No X
72 Redwood Dr and Sierra Dr Intersection No X
73 Bridge Rd and Redwood Dr Intersection No X
74 Fallenleaf Dr and Uplands Dr Intersection No X
75 Uplands Dr and Normandy
Ct
Intersection No X
76 Uplands Dr and Redwood Dr Intersection No X
77 Uplands Dr and Rockridge
Rd
Intersection No X
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
78 Rockridge Rd and Greenbriar
Way
Intersection No X
79 Rockridge Rd and
Creekwood Way
Intersection No X
80 Barroilhet Ave and Conifer Ln Intersection No X
81 Eucalyptus Ave and
Barroilhet Ave
Intersection No X
82 Woodland Dr and
Tournament Dr
Intersection No X
83 Fairway Cir and Fairway Cir Intersection No X
84 Floribunda Ave and Walnut
Ave
Intersection No X
85 Eucalyptus Ave and New
Place Rd
Intersection No X
86 Eucalyptus Ave and
Floribunda Ave
Intersection No X
87 Floribunda Ave and Madrone
Pl
Intersection No X
88 Eucalyptus Ave and
Bayberry Pl
Intersection No X
89 Parkside Ave and Ralston
Ave
Intersection No X
90 Eucalyptus Ave and Tevis Pl Intersection No X
91 Skyline Blvd (SR 35), N town
limit to Hayne Rd
Corridor Yes X X X
91 Crystal Springs Rd, El Cerrito
Rd to S town limit
Corridor No X X X
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
Figure 6: Hillsborough Priority Locations
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

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

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

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

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

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

Complementing those countermeasures is a holistic set of policy and programmatic recommendations that will help align Town departments and partners in pursuit of the plan’s vision and goals. / Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Table 5. Town of Hillsborough Countermeasure Toolbox
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (SI)*
UI, R Rear end,
broadside

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

0.15 $ High
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or
other intersection warning
or regulatory signs*
UI Turning crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness

0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver behavior 0.3 $ High
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the Town aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the Town’s Safe System Approach.

Table 6. Town of Hillsborough Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee Participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC1: Law Enforcement Training
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF3: Prioritize Investments Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
LEO6: Conspicuity Enhancements and Education
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Annual Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE5: Data Quality Improvements
LPE6: Crash Data Enhancements
LPE7: Big Data
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan

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

Lead agency: Town of Hillsborough Public Works

LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the Town of Hillsborough Police Department to implement a local high-visibility media campaign pertaining to one or more emphasis areas identified in this plan.

Dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness.

Potential communication tools:
• Bus ads • Social media • Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, SMCOE, Town of Hillsborough Police Department, Town of Hillsborough Public Works LEC1: Law Enforcement Training
Coordinate with the Town’s Police Department to identify opportunities for integrating safety into training for new offices (e.g., NHTSA’s pedestrian training for law enforcement).

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

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol, Town of Hillsborough Public Works LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Trailer
Coordinate with Hillsborough PD to deploy a trailer to monitor speeds on streets and to raise awareness of speeding. It can be deployed long term along HIN and other arterials, or short term in neighborhoods. Use the priority locations and data in this plan to identify locations and schedule for deployment.

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

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

Lead agency: Town of Hillsborough Public Works
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects / Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
• ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
Plan community engagement efforts to be tailored for vulnerable road users and all travel modes. Make outreach materials available in accessible formats and multiple languages.

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

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

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

Lead agency: Town of Hillsborough Public Works
LEO6: Conspicuity Enhancements and Education
Educate pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable users in the importance of wearing reflective clothing and traveling in well-lit areas. Additional measures could include distributing reflective clothing to residents.

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

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

Lead agency: Town of Hillsborough Public Works
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools. / Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the Town.

Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: Town of Hillsborough Public Works LPE5: Data Quality Improvements
Conduct one or more studies to address the following challenges:
• Integrating hospital and police data
• Providing a means to collect and incorporate near-miss data into safety analysis Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, Local Jurisdictions, Local Police Departments, Town of Hillsborough
LPE6: Crash Data Enhancements
Study integrating crash data with Police Department's tracking system for timely, efficient reporting and sharing of injury crashes, including geolocated data.

Review current crash data form and study existing best practices. Consider adding select visible disability statuses to the crash data form. If feasible and prudent, add this field to the crash data form.

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: California Highway Patrol, C/CAG, MTC LPE7: Big Data
Coordinate with C/CAG through the TSAC to identify a pathway for obtaining and incorporating integrated curb-level activity data including volumes, paths, speeds, and behaviors of pedestrians, bicycles, vehicles, etc.

These data are available from a number of big data sources on the market. The goal would be to enable improved data availability for safety planning.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: MTC, SMCTA, Town of Hillsborough 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 Hillsborough Public Works
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27

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

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

Table 7. Town of Hillsborough Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

1. Regularly review crash history and
community needs to identify and
prioritize opportunities to reduce
crash risk for roadway users of all
ages and abilities.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes, fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and crashes by emphasis areas identified

2. Implement safety
countermeasures systemically
and as part of all projects to
target emphasis areas and
underserved communities.
• Distribution at the jurisdiction level for safety projects within equity focus areas (C/CAG EFAs or MTC EPCs) versus outside these areas
• Report-backs to the Town Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about outreach to disadvantaged communities where applicable.
• Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in Schools programs to more schools within the Town

3. Promote plan recommendations
with identified safety partners to
incorporate roadway safety
through safety projects and
educational campaigns in
Hillsborough.
• Community engagement included as part of all C/CAG-funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions townwide for safety plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the Town Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about outreach to disadvantaged communities where applicable

4. Provide opportunities for
community engagement to
identify issues and inform safety
solutions across 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
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28

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

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

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

7. Monitor implementation of the
Hillsborough LRSP to track
progress towards goals.
• See above in this table
/ Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
Town of Hillsborough
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
City of
San Carlos

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

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

LOCAL JURISDICTION

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

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

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

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

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

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

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) is one of the nation’s core federal-aid programs. Caltrans administers HSIP funds in the state of California and splits the state share of HSIP funds between State HSIP (for state highways) and local HSIP (for local roads). The latter is administered through a call for projects biennially. / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision. Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

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

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

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

Systemic safety defines an analysis and improvement approach based on roadway and environmental factors correlated with crash risk (rather than targeting locations solely on documented crash history). The approach takes a broad view to evaluate risk across an entire roadway system. / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision & Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Online Map Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Community Engagement Feedback.......................................................................................................................................................................7 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback.................................................................................................................................................. 8 Crash Data & Trends ...............................................................................................................................................................9 Emphasis Areas .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................14 Project Identification & Prioritization ................................................................................................................................ 16 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Social Equity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ..........................................................................................................23 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................24 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations............................................................................................................ 30 Near-Term Improvements...........................................................................................................................................................................................31 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ................................................................................................................................................................................31 Implementation & Monitoring............................................................................................................................................ 34

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A Phase 1 pop-up event held at the San Carlos Block Party. .......................................................................................................5 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in San Carlos ............................................................................................................................................................9 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of San Carlos.................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 16 / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................................17 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent).................................................................17 Figure 8: San Carlos Priority Locations..........................................................................................................................................................................22

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of San Carlos Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs.............................................................4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events.......................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in San Carlos ............................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 5. City of San Carlos Countermeasure Toolbox...................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6. City of San Carlos Policy and Program Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 30 Table 7. City of San Carlos Goals and Measures of Success........................................................................................................................ 34 / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of San Carlos. 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 San Mateo City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG) will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.

The City of San Carlos has a 2023 population of 29,496 per California Department of Finance. The city has 89 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 281 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 32 fatal/severe injury crashes In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 14 percent of all reported crashes and 28 percent of all fatal/severe injury crashes.

Bicyclists were involved in 14 percent of all reported crashes and 13 percent of all fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to San Carlos’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 C/CAG Board and San Carlos City Council adoption and affirmation of the plan’s vision and goals in 2024, this plan will be posted online by the City for public viewing.

A vision and associated goals
Crash data and trends
Engagement and coordination activities
Policies, plans, guidelines and standards
Safe System – aligned recommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 4

VISION & GOALS
The City of San Carlos’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in San Carlos’s departments, businesses, and residents.

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

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

2. 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 San Carlos.

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 San Carlos LRSP to track progress towards goals.

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

Table 1. City of San Carlos 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. The City’s audits are included on its Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan website.

Safe Roads
Safe Speeds
Safe Road
Users
Bicycle and
Pedestrian Master
Plan
The 2020 Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan establishes a longterm vision for improving walking and bicycling in San Carlos and provides a strategy to develop a comprehensive bicycling and / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
walking network that provides access to transit, schools, and downtown.
2017 Neighborhood
Traffic Management
Program (NTMP)
The City’s 2017 NTMP helps the City achieve an efficient multimodal transportation system and maintain safe streets by providing a process for identifying traffic-calming and speed reduction measures to reduce speeds, improve pedestrian safety, reduce cut-through traffic, and reduce collisions and noise and air pollution.

Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of San Carlos’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:

Figure 1. A Phase 1 pop-up event held at the San Carlos Block Party. / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Sustainability Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)
• Caltrans
• San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

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

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

Shared draft prioritized locations
and types of engineering
recommendations; received
comments on locations and
votes/input on types of treatments
and desired locations
Belmont Farmers’ Market
December 20, 2023 Woodside Public Library
January 9, 2024 Colma BART Station
January 16, 2024 Atherton Library
January 18, 2024 Brisbane Farmers’ Market
February 7, 2024 Portola Valley Bicycle, Pedestrian, &
Traffic Safety Committee
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7
March – April 024 Phase 3 Draft Plan
Share the draft plan publicly on the
project website, through electronic
distribution channels, and with
presentations to C/CAG
Committees and the Board.

Various

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

Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were 69 comments made within the City of San Carlos in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. The comments received are provided in Appendix A. The comments included the following:

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
Biking Concerns/Requests
• Add new bike infrastructure such as protected bike lanes, separated bike lanes, road diets and bike paths on overpasses/underpasses.
• Requests for maintenance of existing bike infrastructure such as repaving bike lanes. • Requests for a more connected bike network.
• Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including high traffic volumes and congestion, vehicle speeds, right of way issues, and turning conflicts at intersections. • Remove on-street parking to make more way for bikes along the roadway.

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
• Request to provide modal filters: to allow only bicycles and pedestrians on certain streets.

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks, widening existing sidewalks, raised pedestrian crossing, pedestrian refuge islands, and high visibility crosswalks.
• Support for additional pedestrian signals and signage to enhance pedestrian safety. • Concerns regarding conflicts with motor vehicles including right of way issues, speeding, and running STOP signs.
• Concerns regarding curb ramps being insufficient for wheelchair or other mobility challenged roadway users.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Multiple concerns regarding running STOP signs.
• Concerns regarding speeding observed at multiple locations. • Concerns regarding illegal parking along roadways and on sidewalks.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Concerns regarding narrow lanes and steep slopes in the city. • Support for additional signals and signs to reduce vehicle conflict points at intersections. • Requests to convert two-way streets to one-way streets. • Clear sight triangles to improve visibility on intersection approaches. • Request to provide more parking downtown.

The location and modal emphasis of comments in San Carlos is presented in Figure 70. The project team also identified common themes in the responses made countywide which may be relevant to the City. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.

PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Belmont Farmers’ Market in January as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. During the Belmont Farmers’ Market outreach, community members shared feedback on locations specific to San Carlos. The following themes were identified for locations in the City of San Carlos:

General Comments
• Concerns that some roadways are too narrow for traveling • Concerns that some three- or four-way intersections are confusing to navigate Bicycle Comments
• Desire for separated bike lanes, specifically on hilly street like Brittan Avenue Motor Vehicle Comments
• Concerns about congestion on roadways that connect to highways, such as Windsor Drive • Concerns about speeding on roadways, such as Industrial Road / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in San Carlos
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10

CRASH DATA & TRENDS
This section provides an overview of the five years of crash data used for this analysis. The data were downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System1 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years 2018 through 2022. TIMS is a commonly used data source for safety plans. This analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. We removed crashes along grade-separated freeway 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. Near-miss data could serve as a good surrogate measure for safety but are very difficult to accurately define and record systematically. Some agencies have successfully used videobased conflict monitoring algorithms to capture near-miss information at select locations. The techniques show promise for identifying conflicts that correlate to crashes, but the ability to scale the technology is still unclear.
2This 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 B.

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

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

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In San Carlos, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 28 percent and 13 percent of the 32 reported F/SI crashes. The pedestrian share is higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (14 percent).

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 San Carlos, 28 percent of the two 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.
1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu 2 For example, the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation evaluated the technology as part of its SMART intersections project. More information is available online at https://www.penndot.pa.gov/ProjectAndPrograms/Planning/Research-AndImplementation/Documents/Smart%20Intersections.pdf / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11

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 San Carlos, 21 crashes or 7 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.

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

In San Carlos, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 30 percent of injury crashes).

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

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the City of San Carlos 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)
13%
(26)
San Carlos—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
29%
(58)
10%
(21)
12%
(25)
36%
(73)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
San Carlos compares:

Countywide San
Carlos 7% 5%
of reported collisions
in San Carlos
involved drugs or
alcohol
of reported collisions
in San Carlos
involved young
drivers1
(21) (15)
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In San Carlos, 281 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Countywide
Local
82% (233)
State Highway
18% (48)
San
Carlos

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

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

Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (38)
Bicycle Crashes (40)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (203)
13% (4)
59% (19)
14% (38) 28% (9)
14% (40)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
72% (203)
San Carlos
San Carlos
San Carlos
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
8%
(625)
5%
(472)
San Carlos—Crash History
San Carlos
San Carlos
San Carlos
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (4)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (10)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (43)
All Injury Crashes (203)
All Injury Crashes (40)
All Injury Crashes (38)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (19)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (4)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (9)
25% (1)
11% (1)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
21% (43)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how San Carlos compares to Countywide crashes:
10% (4)
26% (10)
37% (7)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (38)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (40)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
29%
(11)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
16%
(6)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
8%
(3)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
18%
(7)
21%
(186)
10%
(4)
12%
(106)
20%
(8)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
35%
(14)
35%
(372)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 3 and Figure 4 show the HIN segments identified within the City.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in San Carlos
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Belmont Ave San Carlos 0.6 X
Brittan Ave San Carlos 1.4 X X
Laurel St San Carlos 1.5 X
San Carlos Ave San Carlos 1.4 X
El Camino Real
San Carlos, Atherton, Menlo Park,
Redwood City, Millbrae, San Bruno,
Belmont, San Mateo, Burlingame,
South San Francisco, Colma,
Unincorporated

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

6.7 X X X
Old County Rd San Carlos, Belmont,
Harbor/Industrial 3.4 X X
Holly St San Carlos, Redwood City 1.0 X X
Industrial Rd San Carlos, Redwood City 2.4 X X
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of San Carlos
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,

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

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

Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,

8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical factor for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. The prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the City to understand which locations meet which measures.

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

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Brittan Ave and Cordilleras
Ave
Intersection No X X
2 Brittan Ave and Cedar St Intersection No X X X
3 Brittan Ave and Elm St Intersection No X X
4 Greenwood Ave and
Tamarack Ave
Intersection No X
5 Brittan Ave and Rosewood
Ave
Intersection No X X
6 Woodland Ave and Brittan
Ave
Intersection No X
7 Brittan Ave and Chestnut St Intersection No X
8 Brittan Ave and Orange Ave Intersection No X X
9 Walnut St and Brittan Ave Intersection No X X
10 Brittan Ave and Old County
Rd
Intersection No X X
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
11 Industrial Rd and Brittan
Ave
Intersection No X
12 Laurel St and Brittan Ave Intersection No X X
13 Industrial Rd and
Washington St
Intersection No X X
14 Edmonds Rd and Edmond
Dr
Intersection No X
15 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
San Carlos Ave
Intersection No X
16 Tanklage Rd and Industrial
Rd
Intersection No X
17 Cambridge St and San
Carlos Ave
Intersection No X
18 Circle Star Way and G St Intersection No X
19 Brittan Ave and Hudson Ct Intersection No X
20 Upland Ave and San Carlos
Ave
Intersection No X
21 Brittan Ave and Dayton Ave Intersection No X
22 Brittan Ave and Brook St Intersection No X
23 Industrial Rd and San
Carlos Ave
Intersection No X
24 American St and Industrial
Rd
Intersection No X
24 Industrial Rd and
Montgomery Ln
Intersection No X
25 Terminal Way and
Industrial Rd
Intersection No X
26 Center St and Industrial Rd Intersection No X
27 Industrial Way and Taylor
Way
Intersection No X
28 Industrial Rd and Cherry Ln Intersection No X
29 San Carlos Ave and Laurel
St
Intersection No X
30 Brittan Ave and Alameda
De Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
31 Rockridge Rd and Alameda
De Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
32 Lupin Ave and Alameda De
Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
33 San Carlos Ave and Club Dr Intersection No X
34 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Alma St
Intersection No X
35 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Graceland Ave
Intersection No X
36 Old Country Rd and Taylor
Way
Intersection No X
37 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Carmelita Ave
Intersection No X
38 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
St Francis Way
Intersection No X
39 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Pine Ave
Intersection No X
40 Quarry Rd and Old Country
Rd
Intersection No X
41 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Madera Ave
Intersection No X
42 Eaton Ave and Alameda De
Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
43 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Oakview Dr
Intersection No X
44 Hill Way and Alameda De
Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
45 Alameda De Las Pulgas and
Wildwood Ave
Intersection No X
46 Ridge Rd and Alameda De
Las Pulgas
Intersection No X
47 Orange Ave and Arroyo Ave Intersection No X
48 Arroyo Ave and Walnut St Intersection No X
49 Cedar St and Arroyo Ave Intersection No X
50 Brittan Ave, from Industrial
Rd to Crestview Dr
Corridor Yes X X X
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
51 San Carlos Ave, from city
limits W of Cranfield to E of
Industrial Rd
Corridor No X X
52 Industrial Rd, from city
limits N of Quarry to Center
St
Corridor No X X
53 Alameda De Las Pulgas,
from San Carlos Ave to
Eaton Ave
Corridor No X X
54 Old County Rd, from
Commercial St to city limit
S of Bing St
Corridor No X X
55 Arroyo Ave, from Tamarack
Ave to Industrial Rd
Corridor No X X
56 Cedar St, from San Carlos
Ave to Brittan Ave
Corridor No X X X
57 Laurel St, from Bush St to
Brittan Ave
Corridor No X X
58 Holly St, from Magnolia Ave
to Industrial Rd
Corridor No
59 Cherry St, from Cedar St to
El Camino Real
Corridor No
60 Cordilleras Ave, from San
Carlos Ave to Brittan Ave
Corridor No X X
61 Howard Ave, from Old
County Rd to Industrial Ave
Corridor No
62 Chestnut St, from San
Carlos Ave to Woodland
Ave
Corridor No
63 Bransten St, from Old
County Rd to Industrial Rd
Corridor No
64 Commercial Ave, from Old
County Rd to Industrial Rd
Corridor No
65 Washington St, from Old
County Rd to Industrial Rd
Corridor No X
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Figure 8: San Carlos Priority Locations
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

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

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

The City can move forward with further project development and community engagement to advance solutions at these locations. They may also consider bundling some of the treatments identified with the same treatments at other, similar locations identified in this plan, for a systemic approach. / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
The project scopes were developed exclusively from a list of City-approved engineering countermeasures, which are presented as an engineering toolbox in the next section. The team prepared a suite of treatments to reduce crashes at the project locations. For each treatment, the list presents a planning-level cost of the treatments as recommended and the crash reduction benefit.

The scoped project locations include:
 Brittan Ave—Crestview Dr to Industrial Rd. Recommended improvements include:
o Pedestrian crossing signs and markings
o Signs with fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Edgeline rumble strips/stripes (outside of residential areas) o Separated bike lanes
o Improved signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)
o Installation of advance stop bar before crosswalk (bicycle box) o Modified signal phasing to include leading pedestrian interval o Reduction in travel lanes
 San Carlos Ave—city limits to Industrial Rd. Recommended improvements include:
o Improved signal hardware (lenses, backplates with retroreflective borders, mounting, size, and number)
o Installation of advance stop bar before crosswalk (bicycle box) o Modified signal phasing to include a leading pedestrian interval o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Separated bike lanes
Another corridor of interest for City concept advancement is Alameda de las Pulgas. Development of that project scope is beyond the scope of this plan but represents a next step for the City. For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix D.

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

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

0.15 $ Very high
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install left-turn lane and
add turn phase*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections

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

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

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

0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI All crashes 0.1 $ High
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning*
SI Rear-end,
broadside

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

0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,

0.25 $ High
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
Install pedestrian
scramble*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

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

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

0.6 $ High
Install painted safety zone SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $ High
Install Protected
Intersection Elements
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $-$$$ Low
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from all-way
stop)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Convert intersection to
roundabout (from STOP or
yield control on minor
road)*
UI All crashes Varies $$$ Low
Convert intersection to
mini-roundabout*
UI All crashes 0.3 $$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and Uturns (unsignalized
intersections)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised medians
(refuge islands)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

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

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

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

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

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

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

0.3 $$$ High
Install transverse rumble
strips on approaches
UI All crashes 0.2 $ High
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
(outside of residential
areas)*
Install splitter islands on
the minor road
approaches*
UI All crashes 0.4 $ Medium
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, leftturn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install edgeline rumble
strips/stripes (outside of
residential areas)*
R All crashes 0.15 $-$$$ High
Install separated bike
lanes*
R Pedestrian and
bicycle

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

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

0.35 $ Medium
Remove or relocated fixed
objects outside of clear
recovery zone*
R Hit object 0.35 $-$$ High
Install delineators,
reflectors, and/or object
marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver behavior 0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian crossing
time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Extend green time for bikes SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid
green paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Bicycle signal/exclusive
bike phase
SI Bicycle N/A $-$$ Low
Curb extensions UI All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
Curb radius reduction SI, UI All crashes N/A $$ Low
Splitter islands UI, SI All crashes N/A $$ Medium
Approach curvature US, SI All crashes N/A $$$ Low
Roadside design features All All crashes N/A $-$$$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the City aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the City’s Safe System Approach.

Table 6. City of San Carlos Policy and Program Recommendations Category Near-Term Recommendations Long-Term or Ongoing Recommendations Local Culture Shift
(LCS)
LCS1: Transportation Safety
Advisory Committee Participation
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
LCS3: Communication Protocol
LCS4: Implement Car-Free Zones
Local Enforcement
Coordination (LEC)
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Local Funding (LF) LF1: Dedicated Funding LF2: Equitable Investment LF3: Prioritize Investments
Local Education /
Outreach (LEO)
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in Schools
LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
LEO5: Safe City Fleet
Local Planning/
Evaluation (LPE)
LPE1: Biennial Review
LPE2: Plan Update
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
LPE8: Speed Limits/Speed Management Plan
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31

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) • Updates to the TSAC regarding implementation progress that may be relevant for C/CAG annual monitoring reporting (e.g., projects on identified priority locations and/or the regional High Injury Network, community engagement efforts and summaries, safety funding applied for / received) • Opportunities for cross-jurisdiction coordination (e.g., roadways or intersections shared with adjacent jurisdictions or Caltrans)
• Requests for trainings / best practices that could be provided through the TSAC Lead agency: City of San Carlos Public Works
LF1: Dedicated Funding
Propose ongoing, dedicated funding and staffing for implementation and monitoring of the safety plan, including presiding over the TSAC. This role may be fulfilled by a partial FTE or through staff augmentation.

Lead agency: City of San Carlos Public Works

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

Dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness.

Potential communication tools:
• Bus ads • Social media • Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, SMCOE, City of San Carlos Public Works
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: City of San Carlos 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 / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32
recreational routes/areas, etc.)
Lead agency: City of San Carlos Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Trailer
Coordinate with San Matteo County Sheriff’s Office to deploy a trailer to monitor speeds on streets and to raise awareness of speeding. It can be deployed long term along HIN and other arterials, or short term in neighborhoods. Use the priority locations and data in this plan to identify locations and schedule for deployment.

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

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

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

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

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

Lead agency: City of San Carlos Public Works
LEO4: Transportation Safety Campaign
Run education campaigns and outreach to foster community awareness of a shared responsibility for road safety. Use the emphasis areas highlighted in this plan as focus areas and target groups for a campaign. / City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 33
Lead agency: City of San Carlos Public Works
Coordinating partners: C/CAG, County Public Health
LEO5: Safe City Fleets
Provide educational materials for City staff who drive City vehicles and integrate safety awareness training into contracting process with vendors who provide City services. Other measures include installing safety features (such as pedestrian/obstacle detection and speed tracking) on City vehicles and reporting on correction plans against unsafe driving.

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

Lead agency: City of San Carlos Public Works
LPE2: Plan Update
Update the plan, likely as part of a Countywide plan update, 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: C/CAG
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools.

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

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

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

Lead agency: City of San Carlos Public Works
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 34

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

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

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

Table 7. City of San Carlos Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

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

2. Review proposed improvement plans to
ensure that roadway projects, retrofits,
and maintenance projects incorporate
complete streets that support multiple
modes of travel.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Three-year total reported crashes, fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and crashes by emphasis
areas identified

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

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

5. Provide opportunities for community
engagement in roadway capital
improvement projects to identify safety
solutions.
• Community engagement included as part of all C/CAGfunded safety project development activities • Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions citywide for safety plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about
outreach to disadvantaged communities where
applicable
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 35

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

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

7. Monitor implementation of the San Carlos
LRSP to track progress towards goals.
• See above in this table
/ City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 36
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of San Carlos
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Town of
Woodside

LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN

FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP

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

LOCAL JURISDICTION

PARTNER AGENCY REPRESENTATIVES
Mackenzie Crouch, California Highway Patrol
Greg Currey, Caltrans
Joel Slavit, County of San Mateo Sustainability
Department
Bryan Redmond, Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
Jessica Manzi, SamTrans
Theresa Vallez-Kelly, San Mateo County Office of
Education
Liz Sanchez, San Mateo County Health
Anthony Montes, Silicon Valley Bicycle Commission
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Consultant Team
KITTELSON & ASSOCIATES, INC.

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

SAFE STREETS RESEARCH &

CONSULTING
Rebecca Sanders
Brian Almdale

CIRCLEPOINT
Stacey Miller
Ivy Morrison

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................................................3 Contents ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3 Vision & Goals...........................................................................................................................................................................4 Plan Development ...................................................................................................................................................................4 Existing Safety Efforts............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Safety Partners .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 Community Engagement and Input........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Engagement Timeline and Events........................................................................................................................................................................... 6 Online Map Survey...............................................................................................................................................................................................................7 Phase 2 Community Engagement Feedback.................................................................................................................................................. 9 Crash Data & Trends ............................................................................................................................................................. 10 Emphasis Areas .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 Countywide High Injury Network...................................................................................................................................................................................14 Project Identification & Prioritization................................................................................................................................. 16 Methodology..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 Social Equity ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs ..........................................................................................................23 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox....................................................................................................................................................................24 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations.............................................................................................................27 Near-Term Improvements.......................................................................................................................................................................................... 27 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions ...............................................................................................................................................................................28 Implementation & Monitoring............................................................................................................................................. 31

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. A pop-up event held by the project team at the Woodside Public Library .......................................................................5 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Woodside ..............................................................................................................................................................8 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the Town of Woodside................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 16 Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)................................................................................17 / Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 2
Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent).................................................................17 Figure 8: Woodside Priority Locations ...........................................................................................................................................................................22

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Town of Woodside Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs............................................................4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events.......................................................................................................................................6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Woodside................................................................................................................................................. 14 Table 4. Priority Locations...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Table 5. Town of Woodside Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................................................... 24 Table 6. Town of Woodside Policy and Program Recommendations.....................................................................................................27 Table 7. Town of Woodside Goals and Measures of Success........................................................................................................................31 / Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 3

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

The Town of Woodside has a 2023 population of 5,128 per California Department of Finance. The town has 45 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 185 reported crashes on surface streets in the Town and 44 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 1 percent of all reported crashes and 2 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.

Bicyclists were involved in 39 percent of all reported crashes and 48 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Woodside’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.

VISION & GOALS
The Town of Woodside vision for roadway safety is:
• Achieve 50 percent reduction in fatal and severe injury crashes by 2050.

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

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

2. Reduce the number of annual fatal and severe injury crashes across all public Town roadways.

3. Implement safety countermeasures systemically to target emphasis areas.

4. Partner with other local agencies to incorporate roadway safety into all actions.

5. Provide opportunities for citizen engagement in identifying issues and inform solutions for roadway safety across the community.

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

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

8. Monitor implementation to track progress towards goals.

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

Table 1. Town of Woodside 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
Roadway lighting
and conspicuity
improvements
The Town has made or will make the following lighting and conspicuity enhancements:
• Installed lighted crosswalks
• Made striping improvements
• Added pedestrian markings where applicable
• Increased pedestrian warning signs
Safe Roads,
Safe Road
Users, Safe
Vehicles
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 5
Program Name Program Description Safe System
Elements
General roadway
design
improvements
The Town has made or will make the following general design improvements:
• Added curb ramps
• Added pathways
• Reduced crosswalk lengths where appropriate
Safe Roads,
Safe Vehicles,
Safe Speeds
Safety Partners
A variety of agency staff and community partners were involved throughout the development of this LRSP and played an integral role in identifying priorities, providing local context, and reviewing the existing conditions analysis. Many of the strategies identified in this plan will require coordination with these partners and their support of Woodside’s effort to create a culture of roadway safety. While additional partners may be identified in the future, those involved in development of the LRSP include:
• City/County Association of Governments of San
Mateo County (C/CAG)
• County Public Health
• Sustainability Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE)
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
(SMCTA)
• California Highway Patrol
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC)
• Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC)
• Caltrans
• San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office
Figure 1. A pop-up event held by the project team at the Woodside Public Library / Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 6
Community Engagement and Input
This LRSP includes community members’ experiences and concerns gathered from project team hosted pop-up events and an interactive webmap.

Various
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 7

ONLINE MAP SURVEY
The project team made an online countywide webmap tool and survey available during August and September 2023 for the public to provide comments and respond to questions to guide the plan’s development (see Figure 76). 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 five comments made within the Town of Woodside in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. The comments included the following:

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

Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Add new pedestrian infrastructure or upgrade existing infrastructure such as building new sidewalks and high visibility crosswalks.
• Conflicts with motor vehicles due to speeding, running STOP signs and right of way issues. • Concerns regarding speeding bicycles and creating potential conflicts with pedestrians.

Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Concerns regarding speeding and running STOP signs.

Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Concerns regarding high traffic volumes and traffic congestion.

Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 8
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Woodside
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 9
PHASE 2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT FEEDBACK
The project team held an event at the Woodside Public Library in December as part of Phase 2, which provided the project team with input on specific location concerns, general traffic safety/behavioral concerns, and opinions on specific engineering treatments or strategies. The comments received are provided in Appendix B.

The following themes were identified:

General Comments
• Desire for improved bus service in the Town (e.g., more frequent buses) • Desire to reduce intersection footprint so crosswalks are shorter distances and vehicles can slow down when making turns
• Desire to create more separation for people walking, biking, and driving Pedestrian Comments
• Desire for sidewalks, specifically on Woodside Road
• Desire for crosswalks at key destinations, such as schools, parks, and town center, especially along Woodside Road
• Concerns that existing crosswalks around schools are not visible enough for children to cross safely Bicycle Comments
• Desire for multiuse paths, shoulders, and/or bike lanes to separate bicycles and motor vehicles Motor Vehicle Comments
• Desire for signage and other improvements on winding roadways to alert drivers of curves and encourage slower speeds, specifically on Old La Honda Road, Kings Mountain Road, and Woodside Road • Desire for signals and signs at crosswalks, such as Canada Road • Concerns that parking/access management delays traffic, specifically at Canada Road and Woodside Road
Countermeasure Comments
• Desire for urban and rural countermeasures
• Desire for additional lighting / flashing lights at intersections, especially around schools and commercial areas
• Desire for larger or additional signs, especially at crosswalks • No desire for curb extensions or pedestrian refuge islands, especially on narrow roads / Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 10

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

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 Woodside 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 Woodside:

1. Pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Countywide, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes, showing a disproportionate involvement in the most severe outcomes. Similarly, bicyclists were involved in 13 percent of injury crashes but 20 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. In Woodside, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 2 percent and 48 percent of the 44 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (0.5 percent and 39 percent, total). Bicyclists were involved in 72 reported injury crashes and 21 reported F/SI crashes.

2. Nighttime/low light safety. Countywide, crashes occurring in dark conditions—especially in dark, unlit conditions--are more severe than those that occur in daylight. Motor vehicle crashes in dark, unlit conditions have about double the average severity when they occur compared to crashes in daylight. In Woodside, 7 or 32 percent of the fatal/severe injury motor vehicle crashes occurred in dark conditions.

Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Woodside, 4 crashes or 2 percent of all reported injury crashes involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
1 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu / Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 11

In Woodside, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 46 percent of injury crashes).

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

7. Alcohol involvement. Countywide, one in ten (10 percent) of motor vehicle injury crashes and one in five F/SI motor vehicle crashes (19 percent) involved alcohol. In Woodside, 6 percent of all reported injury crashes involve impaired driving.

The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the Town of Woodside 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)
27%
(30)
Woodside—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
11%
(12)
16%
(18)
34%
(38)
14%
(11)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Woodside compares:

Woodside Countywide 6% 2%
of reported collisions
in Woodside involved
drugs or alcohol
of reported collisions
in Woodside involved
young drivers1
(12) (4)
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In Woodside, 185 fatal and injury crashes were reported on at-grade facilities between 2018 – 2022, where:

Local
57% (5,756)
State Highway
43% (2,712)
Countywide
Local
39% (74)
State Highway
61% (111)
Woodside

1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.

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

Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (1)
Bicycle Crashes (72)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (112)
48% (21)
50% (22)
1% (1) 2% (1)
39% (72)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
61% (112)
Woodside
Woodside
Woodside
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
All Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes
Compared to the countywide total, where
5% (472) of reported collisions involved
young drivers2
Compared to the countywide total,
where 8% (625) of reported collisions
involved drugs or alcohol
8%
(625)
5%
(472)
Woodside—Crash History
Woodside
Woodside
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (0)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (25)
All Injury Crashes (112)
All Injury Crashes (72)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (22)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (21)
0% (0)
32% (7)
Countywide
Countywide
22% (25)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Woodside compares to Countywide crashes:
0% (0)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (72)
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Agency Countywide
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
6%
(4)
21%
(186)
6%
(4)
12%
(106)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
10%
(7)
35%
(372)
4%
(3)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
15% (26)
34% (173)
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 14
Countywide High Injury Network
In addition to the systemic analysis findings, the analysis included countywide spatial analysis to identify a countywide high injury network for each travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles). The countywide HIN results were folded into the subsequent regional and local prioritization (described in the next section). Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them were identified as risk factors and incorporated into emphasis areas and into a systemic portion of the prioritization process. Table 88 and Figure 78 show the HIN segments identified within the Town.

Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Woodside
Roadway name All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Portola Rd Portola Valley, Woodside,
Unincorporated

4.2 X X
SR 84 Woodside, Menlo Park 2.6 X
SR 35
Woodside, Pacifica, San Bruno,
South San Francisco, Daly City,
Unincorporated

25.3 X X
Farm Hill Blvd Woodside, Redwood City 1.8 X
Woodside Rd Woodside, Redwood City,
Unincorporated

7.0 X X
Canada Rd Woodside, Unincorporated 7.1 X X
Kings Mountain
Rd Woodside, Unincorporated 3.5 X
La Honda Rd Woodside, Unincorporated 14.0 X X
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 15
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the Town of Woodside
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 16
Ped Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% Ped HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
≤250 ft
from
transit stop, 5.6%
≤1/4 mile
from school, 6.7%
Arterial or Collector,

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

PROJECT IDENTIFICATION &

Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) / Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 17
Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) MV Crash Severity
Score, 16.7% MV HIN Presence, 16.7%
C/CAG Active
Transportation Equity
Focus Areas, 8.3%
MTC Equity Priority
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Historically
Disadvantaged
Communities, 8.3%
USDOT Areas of
Persistent Poverty, 8.3%
Arterial or Collector,

8.6%
Posted speed
35mph+, 6.8%
Unsignalized
intersection, 9.9%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
Crash
History
Social
Equity
Systemic
Criteria
Factors
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 18
Social Equity
Social equity is a critical factor for project prioritization, and emphasizing social equity within a project prioritization process helps to promote infrastructure spending and improvements in disadvantaged and/or disinvested neighborhoods. We considered and included multiple local, regional, and national datasets for social equity prioritization to reflect different measures available and because available funding opportunities use different indicators. The prioritization included measures accounting for all of the following indicators:
• C/CAG Active Transportation Equity Focus Areas
• MTC Equity Priority Communities
• USDOT Historically Disadvantaged Communities
• USDOT Areas of Persistent Poverty
Layering in these four indicators allows the prioritization to identify more locations that may meet the criteria for just one of these indicators while still elevating locations that show up in multiple or all indicators. The raw scoring data also equips the 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 8 also shows the locations.

Table 4. Priority Locations
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
1 Woodside Rd and
Lindenbrook Rd
Intersection Yes X X
2 Martinez Rd and La
Honda Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
3 Portola Rd and Old La
Honda Rd
Intersection No X X X
4 Woodside Rd and
Northgate Dr
Intersection Yes X X X
5 Interstate Highway 280
Hwy and Farm Hill Blvd
Intersection Yes X X
6 La Honda Rd and Portola
Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
7 La Honda Rd and Skyline
Blvd
Intersection Yes X X X
8 La Honda Rd and Fox Hill
Rd
Intersection Yes X X
9 Portola Rd and Mountain
Home Rd
Intersection No X X X
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 19
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
10 La Honda Rd and
Grandview Dr
Intersection Yes X X X
11 Portola Rd and Home Rd Intersection No X X X
12 Woodside Rd and Bear
Gulch Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
13 Canada Rd and
Woodside Rd
Intersection Yes X X
14 High Rd and Woodside Rd Intersection Yes X X X
15 Miramontes Rd and
Woodside Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
16 Woodside Rd and Fox
Hollow Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
17 Woodside Rd and Oakhill Intersection Yes X X X
18 Portola Rd and Montecito
Rd
Intersection No X X X
19 Canada Rd and Corto Ln Intersection No X X X
20 Canada Rd and Olive Hill
Ln
Intersection No X X X
21 Portola Rd and Phillip Rd Intersection No X X X
22 Skywood Way and La
Honda Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
23 Tripp Rd and Woodside
Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
24 Portola Rd and Forest
View Rd
Intersection No X X X
25 Southgate Dr and State
Highway 84 Hwy
Intersection Yes X X X
26 Smoke Tree Ln and
Woodside Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
27 Canada Rd and
Eucalyptus Ct
Intersection No X X X
28 Canada Rd and Bardet
Rd
Intersection No X X X
29 Canada Rd and Arbor Ct Intersection No X X X
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 20
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
30 Canada Rd and Alta Vista
Rd
Intersection No X X X
31 Canada Rd and Neuman
Ln
Intersection No X X X
32 Canada Rd and
Runnymede Rd
Intersection No X X X
33 Why Worry Ln and
Woodside Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
34 Woodside Rd and
Roberta Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
35 La Honda Rd and Friars Ln Intersection Yes X X X
36 Kings Mountain Rd and
Woodside Rd
Intersection Yes X X X
37 Woodside Rd and Martin
Ln
Intersection Yes X X X
38 Woodside Rd and Bridle
Ln
Intersection Yes X X X
39 Woodside Rd and
Montelena Ct
Intersection Yes X X X
40 Canada Rd and Mission
Trail Rd
Intersection No X X X
41 Canada Rd and
Glenwood Ave
Intersection No X X X
42 Canada Rd and Laning Dr Intersection No X X X
43 Tadin Ln and Portola Rd Intersection No X X X
44 Woodside Rd and Albion
Ave
Intersection Yes X X
45 Moore Rd and State
Highway 84 Hwy
Intersection Yes X X
46 Whiskey Hill Rd and
Woodside Rd
Intersection Yes X X
47 Quail Meadows Dr and
Woodside Rd
Intersection Yes X X
48 Woodside Rd and Hobart
Heights Rd
Intersection Yes X X
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 21
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
49 Shine Rd and Woodside
Rd
Intersection Yes X X
50 Canada Ln and Canada
Rd
Intersection No X X
51 Woodside Rd and
Haciendas Dr
Intersection Yes X X
52 Dean Rd and Canada Rd Intersection No X X
53 Canada Rd and
Monticello Ct
Intersection No X X
54 Canada Rd and Jefferson
Ave
Intersection No X X
55 Canada Rd and Godetia
Dr
Intersection No X X
56 Churchill Ave and
Woodside Rd
Intersection Yes X
57 Kings Mountain Rd and
Greer Rd
Intersection No X
58 Portola Rd, Family Farm
Rd to E town limit
Corridor No X X X
59 Canada Rd, W town limit
to Woodside Rd (SR84)
Corridor No X X X
60 Portola Rd, Woodside Rd
(SR84) to E town limit
Corridor No X X X
61 Woodside Rd, E town limit
to Haciendas Dr
Corridor Yes X X X
62 Woodside Rd, Haciendas
Dr to Mountain Home Rd
Corridor Yes X X
63 Woodside Road,
Mountain Home Road to
Kings Mountain Road
Corridor Yes X X X
64 Woodside Rd/La Honda
Rd, Kings Mountain Rd to
S town limit
Corridor Yes X X X
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 22
Figure 8: Woodside Priority Locations
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 23
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,

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

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

The scoped project locations include:
 Canada Rd—W town limit to Woodside Rd (SR 84). Recommended improvements include:
o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Separated bike lanes
o Two pedestrian crossings with enhanced safety features (flashing beacons, curb extensions, advance “yield” lines)
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 24
 Woodside Rd—Mountain Home Rd to Kings Mountain Rd. Recommended improvements include:
o Upgraded signs with new fluorescent sheeting (regulatory or warning) o Dynamic/variable speed warning signs
o Separated bike lanes
For more information on the location, cost, and crash diagnostics of these project scopes, see Appendix E.

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

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

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

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

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

0.25 $-$$$ Medium
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI All crashes 0.1 $ High
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

0.25 $ High
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 25
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections

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

0.15 $ High
Install Protected
Intersection Elements
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
N/A $-$$$ Low
Install pedestrian crossings
(signs and markings only)*
UI Pedestrians
and bicycle

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

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

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

0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI Pedestrian and
bicycle

0.3 $$$ High
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, leftturn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 26
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install separated bike
lanes*
R Pedestrian and
bicycle

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

0.35 $$-$$$ Medium
Remove or relocated fixed
objects outside of clear
recovery zone*
R Hit object 0.35 $-$$ High
Install delineators,
reflectors, and/or object
marker*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install/upgrade signs with
new fluorescent sheeting
(regulatory or warning)*
R All crashes 0.15 $ High
Install dynamic/variable
speed warning signs*
R Driver behavior 0.3 $ High
Extend pedestrian crossing
time
SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Pedestrian phase recall SI Pedestrian N/A $ High
Extend green time for bikes SI Bicycle N/A $ High
Extend yellow and all-red
time
SI All crashes N/A $ High
Lane narrowing R All crashes N/A $-$$ Low
Bicycle crossing (solid
green paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
ADA-compliant directional
curb ramps and audible
push buttons
SI Pedestrian N/A $-$$ Low
*Indicates countermeasure is eligible for California HSIP funding as of the most recent funding cycle 1: UI = Unsignalized Intersection; SI = Signalized Intersection; R = Roadway segments; All = All of the above2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 27
Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines
Recommendations
In addition to the engineering countermeasures and projects recommended above, the Town aims to promote policies, programs, and standards that foster a culture of safety. The table below defines several policy and program recommendations organized into thematic categories. Implemented in cooperation with partners, these recommendations will deepen the dedication to safety shared throughout the community and round out the Town’s Safe System Approach.

Table 6. Town of Woodside 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) • 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 Woodside Public Works
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 28
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 Woodside Public Works

Dedicated law enforcement with media supporting the enforcement activity to ensure public awareness.

Potential communication tools:
• Bus ads • Social media • Text messages
Lead agency: County Public Health
Coordinating partners: County Sheriff’s Office, California Highway Patrol, Sustainability Department, SMCOE, Town of Woodside Public Works
LCS3: Communication Protocol
Adopt and develop safety-related communication protocols in coordination with the TSAC. The protocols will promote consistent public communication regarding language usage and statements related to transportation safety. Encourage language in line with Vision Zero and Safe System principles that acknowledges mistakes are inevitable but death and severe injury are preventable. For example, promote use of the word crash rather than accident.

Lead agency: C/CAG
Coordinating partners: Town of Woodside Public Works
LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Trailer
Coordinate with San Matteo County Sheriff’s Office to deploy a trailer to monitor speeds on streets and to raise awareness of speeding. It can be deployed long term along HIN and other arterials, or short term in neighborhoods. Use the priority locations and data in this plan to identify locations and schedule for deployment.

Lead agency: County Sheriff’s Office
Coordinating partners: Town of Woodside 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 Woodside 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 Woodside Public Works
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 29
LEO1: Roadway Safety Education in School
Continue School Travel Fellowship Program to provide the following:
• Technical assistance to schools and planners to implement demonstration projects • ATP Project Specialist to work with educators to provide technical assistance (bike rodeos, parent engagement workshops and resources, walk and bike audits, and additional support for walk/bike to school encouragement events) to schools in EPCs
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: County Public Health, Sustainability Department, SVBC LEO2: Engagement Accessibility
Plan community engagement efforts to be tailored for vulnerable road users and all travel modes. Make outreach materials available in accessible formats and multiple languages.

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

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

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

Lead agency: Town of Woodside Public Works
LEO6: Conspicuity Enhancements and Education
Educate pedestrians, bicyclists, and other vulnerable users in the importance of wearing reflective clothing and traveling in well-lit areas. Additional measures could include distributing reflective clothing to residents.

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

Lead agency: Town of Woodside Public Works
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 30
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 Woodside 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 Woodside Public Works
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 31

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

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

Table 7. Town of Woodside Goals and Measures of Success

GOAL MEASURE OF SUCCESS

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

2. Reduce the number of annual fatal and
severe injury crashes across all public
Town roadways.
• Number of LRSP project locations advanced through
project development, reported at the agency level
• Annual and three-year total reported crashes,
fatal/severe injury crashes, crashes by mode, and
crashes by emphasis areas identified

3. Implement safety countermeasures
systemically to target emphasis areas.

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.

6. Partner with other local agencies to
incorporate roadway safety into all
actions.
• Community engagement included as part of all C/CAGfunded safety project development activities • Number of engagement touchpoints and number of
community member interactions townwide for safety
plans or projects.
• Report-backs to the Town Council and TSAC regarding
community engagement, including information about
outreach to disadvantaged communities where
applicable

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

8. Monitor implementation of the
Woodside LRSP to track progress
towards goals.
• See above in this table
/ Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP / 32
d
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
Town of Woodside
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Appendix A
Web Comments received by Agency
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
NOT STATED 147239 Lots of potholes. Road improvements Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-16 18:25:02 UTC 0 NOT STATED 147241 Bike safety improvements along north fair oaks Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-16 18:29:28 UTC 0
NOT STATED 147243 Woodland and Newell the light in front splits and there are a ton of potholes. No bike lanes and a lot of kids Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-16 18:32:26 UTC 0
NOT STATED 147247 Lots of drivers speeding and running red lights. Causes a ton of accidents Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-16 18:36:28 UTC 0 NOT STATED 147437 Middlefield Rd - poor visibilitySan Carlos Pop-up 2023-08-28 18:56:03 UTC 0 ATHERTON 148067
Install a modal filter at Selby and Stockbridge so motor vehicles cannot continue straight on Selby. Selby is a busy bike commute route, it should not serve drivers who are trying to bypass El Camino.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:55:00 UTC 1
ATHERTON 148068
Modal filter needed here, or at the Barry/Atherton intersection. Only bikes and pedestrians should be able to use Barry Lane to connect between Atherton Ave and Elena Ave, motor vehicles should not be allowed through.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:57:41 UTC 1
BELMONT 147137 Unsafe for pedestrians, speeding observed Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-11 00:56:42 UTC 2
BELMONT 147140 Speeding observed on Broadway, unsafe for pedestrians.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-11 01:31:02 UTC 0
BELMONT 147324 Narrow road with a lot of bikers in the street, which makes it unsafe for both cars and bikers. Since the road is windy, it's extra dangerous. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 17:23:34 UTC 0 BELMONT 147325 Roads are rough/unfinished. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 17:26:08 UTC 0 BELMONT 148049
Old County Rd between Ralston Ave and Brittan Ave: remove all street parking and install buffered bike lanes all the way through this important north-south bike corridor. Bike lanes need to be wide enough or buffers open for faster bikes to pass. Install Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:58:54 UTC 0
BELMONT 148077
This should be a 3 way intersection with stop sign at Buckland and Lyndhurst. There is bottle necking here due to parked cars on side of road, and a blind hill. So, cars driving in center of road without visibility of oncoming cars at the 3/way perpendic Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-18 15:00:45 UTC 0 BELMONT 148081
The curb extension which is supposed to protect the pedestrian crossing inhibits the flow of southbound el Camino bicyclists who are riding to the far right of the travel lanes (no dedicated bike infrastructure). This curb extension forces bicyclists int Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-18 23:11:10 UTC 0
BRISBANE 147348 Cars on Main St. fail to yield to (or try to beat) oncoming bike traffic on Bayshore Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 14:42:54 UTC 3
BRISBANE 147369
merging from the southbound bike lane on the straight-away to the ""go forward"" bike box at the intersection often creates bike / car conflicts. a more prominent bike lane transition (dotted lines in paint) would make this a safer and more appealing ro Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 18:28:29 UTC 4
BRISBANE 147390
Very difficult merge for cyclists heading north on bayshore that turn left onto Geneva. The rumble strip extends a large distance. This signal would benefit from more specific bike lanes and a signal.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 22:10:02 UTC 4
BRISBANE 147546
This "flyover" is an accident waiting to happen. You have cyclists trying to merge with cars going 60-65 mph, way over the limit and the cars going north from the flyover are using freeway speeds.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-31 20:56:34 UTC 2
BRISBANE 147548
More cars using Bayshore to avoid the freeway. Posted speed is 45. I am constantly passed by cars going 65. This is a residential part of Bayshore and this high rate of speed is unacceptable. Someone is going to get killed. Roadway needs traffic calming Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-31 20:59:29 UTC 2
BRISBANE 147550
Treacherous intersection for anyone wishing to cross the street to reach the bus stop. Cars going 65 mph and running the light. Very wide intersection with nothing to indicate pedestrians might be crossing.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-31 21:03:40 UTC 1
BRISBANE 147551
Excessive speed and lack of roadway separation for bicyclists (and pedestrians) is atrocious. Cars go 55,65 mph on this stretch of road that seems rural but isn't. At least separate the roadway because someone is going to get hurt.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-31 21:07:25 UTC 2
BRISBANE 147552 Speed on this stretch of road is usually 60 mph where the posted limit is 40. Either enforce the speed or at least lower to 35 and then maybe cars will go 40. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 21:10:36 UTC 1 BRISBANE 147693
From the intersection of Bayshore and San Bruno Avenue in the south to the entrance to Brisbane in the north, there is NO safe walkable space for pedestrians. There is no sidewalk, there is no separation of pedestrians from traffic that is travelling upw Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-03 00:20:23 UTC 3
BRISBANE 147765 kids travel this route on their way to school 2023-09-06 02:24:25 UTC 1 BRISBANE 147812
Vehicles routinely exceed the 45mph speed limit, usually traveling at 55-60 mph on this stretch of Bayshore Blvd. There are pedestrians (no sidewalk), bicycles, buses, heavy trucks and vehicles making unprotected left turns. This is a very dangerous ro Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 15:26:51 UTC 2 BRISBANE 147813 Pedestrians and children going to school routinely walk along this stretch of Bayshore Blvd. There is no sidewalk. It is dangerous Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 15:28:45 UTC 2
BRISBANE 147824 A pedestrian crosswalk with overhead flashing red/yellow lights may be helpful at the bus stop area to assist people walking across to catch the bus or shuttle. 2023-09-07 16:29:05 UTC 2 BRISBANE 147826 Pedestrian sidewalk is narrow. Absence of crosswalks.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 17:12:01 UTC 3
BRISBANE 147864
It would be a great help to pedestrians (SamTrans riders who work on Sierra Point, for example) and cyclists (wanting to avoid Bayshore Blvd.) if there was a safe crossing south of the Lagoon.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-08 18:30:44 UTC 1
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
BRISBANE 147865
It would be a great help to pedestrians (SamTrans riders who work on Sierra Point, for example) and cyclists (wanting to avoid Bayshore Blvd.) if there was a safe crossing south of the Lagoon.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-08 18:32:00 UTC 0
BRISBANE 148007 Large trucks cannot make the turn without going into oncoming traffic which is concerning given the limited visibility in the turn. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-15 16:34:45 UTC 1 BRISBANE 148091
The southbound Sierra Point Parkway bike path narrows dangerously as one enters the underpass area - exactly where visibility dims due to the shade/absence of lighting. There is a gravel side path that could be - and should be - finished properly that w Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-20 23:47:49 UTC 1
BRISBANE 148092 The Bay Trail stops and is broken at this point. Need to find a way to extend and continue it to the north.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-20 23:50:57 UTC 1
BURLINGAME 147032 Bike lanes
Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-03 22:50:02 UTC 0
BURLINGAME 147249
North San Mateo, Burlingame, Los Altos, Menlo Park - good for biking EPA Farmers Market 2023-08-16 18:41:17 UTC 0
BURLINGAME 147365
Old Bayshore Highway between Milbrae Ave and Broadway feels unsafe when biking due the nature of there not being a bike lane (unprotected or protected) and because Old Bayshore is a 4-lane road. I'd argue that traffic on this route is not very high, and Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 17:21:44 UTC 6
BURLINGAME 147395
Southbound on Old Bayshore Hwy is nervewracking through the intersection here, especially since I want to continue straight and turn left at Airport Blvd (to turn into Bay Park and continue on the bike path). I was actually struck by a car, thankfully a Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 22:21:13 UTC 3
BURLINGAME 147398
It would be great to extend the bay trail so that it goes along the bay. There are two gaps that force me to take the interior trail (and go on Beach road). It's not bad, but it's narrow, bumpy, and often there are pedestrians walking dogs off-leash wh Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 22:26:21 UTC 1
BURLINGAME 147402 Completely agree with what is said here, no clear path to go to the turn left lane 2023-08-22 22:39:47 UTC 1 BURLINGAME 147403
Yeah I second this, It's the most dangerous intersection on my commute. In order to get to the bike path over broadway you have to go from the bike lane to the left lane going straight through broadway, crossing 2 lanes in an area where cars are often sp 2023-08-22 22:42:34 UTC 1 BURLINGAME 147530
A lot of El Camino in Burlingame needs to be repaved due to a combination of potholes and large tree roots damaging the roads. I have never walked here but I would guess the tree roots are probably messing up the sidewalks too. I donâ€™t know if widening Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 05:00:22 UTC 0 BURLINGAME 147531
Better signage is needed to indicate what lanes are going where when getting on and off 101 at the Broadway exit. Drivers are often in the wrong lane and cutting others off with very short distances before reaching the next intersection that will get the Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 05:13:24 UTC 0 BURLINGAME 147760
The intersection of El Camino Real/Primrose Road/Bayswater Ave./Cypress Ave./Carol Ave. is very complex, and confusing for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists.

Often times, it is very difficult to know which roadway leg has the right-of-way given the Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-05 22:36:20 UTC 0
BURLINGAME 147830
This intersection could use a sign or painted road to guide the cyclists to bay trail and not onto the narrow shared road thats shared with pedestrians, cars and commuter buses!
Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 21:57:55 UTC 0
BURLINGAME 147831 I second this! 2023-09-07 21:59:08 UTC 0 BURLINGAME 147902
The eastern (or northeastern?) crosswalk for Trousdale and El Camino is actually at Trousdale and Irwin, where there are no pedestrian signals. It's unclear when it is safe to cross, or when cars may be turning left onto Trousdale from El Camino. Please Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 21:52:54 UTC 0
BURLINGAME 148244 Bad visibility for side road drivers turning onto ECR. I lost a car here a few years ago. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 21:15:28 UTC 0 DALY CITY 147842 Limited visibility of pedestrians when exiting bart garage Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 23:18:34 UTC 0
DALY CITY 147896 The onramp to southbound 280 means cars are entering/leaving quickly and don't always slow down for pedestrians or even see pedestrians.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 21:33:21 UTC 1
DALY CITY 147897
No protection for pedestrians walking on highway overpass sidewalk. Bollards or barrier wall would enhance pedestrian safety. This is true for strip starting at east end of Boulevard Cafe all the way to intersection between John Daly Blvd and Junipero Se Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 21:35:32 UTC 0
DALY CITY 147898
Cars speed down Sheffield, take sharp turns onto Lake Vista and speed down the street heading to the elementary school for drop-off and pick-up. Traffic calming (stop sign at Lake Vista and Sheffield, speed bumps on both streets) should be added to prote Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 21:38:07 UTC 0
DALY CITY 147899
There is no crosswalk here to connect the library to the neighborhood (which is also where most people park for the library). Cars move at a fast speed down Southgate and crossing the street can feel unsafe, especially with kids in tow.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 21:39:54 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148125 Skyline Boulevard (Highway 35) is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:30:34 UTC 0 DALY CITY 148153
This stop-sign controlled four-way intersection is high risk for pedestrians. Cars often are competing with each other to go first and due to the width of the intersection it's hard for cars to track pedestrians and the other cars they are competing with Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-28 16:38:20 UTC 1
DALY CITY 148154
This portion of King was recently restriped for parking, bike lane, and one vehicle lane, which is awesome, but a lot of drivers think the bike lane striping is a second vehicle lane, creating an unsafe condition for bicyclists, parked cars and drivers.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 16:41:53 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148155 This is a tough intersection for pedestrians because it's so wide and can be really foggy. Pedestrian lighting or better signage would be helpful.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-28 16:46:19 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148156
This is Caltrans ROW and most likely on the high-injury network. Pavement quality is poor and there needs to be proper bike facilities (Class I or IV) and serious traffic calming, especially at pedestrian crossings.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:05:54 UTC 0
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
DALY CITY 148157
This is a terrible suggestion for a bike route due to street width, high traffic volumes, steep grade, and congestion. Please make Mission Street better and/or remove parking to create proper bike facilities (Class II or IV).

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:08:01 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148158
The recent streetscape project was a wasted opportunity to bring protected bike facilities (Class I or IV at the least) and improve intersections for people walking and biking heading east from Daly City BART. For the next round of improvements, please c Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:11:29 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148159
Because Mission and John Daly are high-volume and steep streets with sub-standard bike facilities, there needs to be a path to go south-north. Sharrows (and intersection improvements near BART) should be the minimum for facilitating bike traffic south fr Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:14:05 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148160
There's essentially no reliably safe way to get from Westlake to Daly City BART, two popular destinations, without a car or bus. This corridor needs to be redesign to accommodate for improved pedestrian facilities (wider and more pleasant sidewalks, espe Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:17:47 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148161
Westlake to Lake Merced/SFSU is a popular route and destination generator. SFMTA is already constructing improved bike facilities on Lake Merced Boulevard. Daly City should continue the improvements from the border to John Daly Boulevard at minimum, whic Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:19:50 UTC 2
DALY CITY 148163 There's too much road and not enough space for bikes and pedestrians to feel comfortable. A road diet, separated bike lanes, and wider sidewalks are needed.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:24:25 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148164
This is on Daly City's Central Corridors plan, but there are only sharrows on this high-speed, high-volume road. There needs to be more protection to facilitate crucial north-south connections.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:27:20 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148165
San Francisco was able to road diet and install bike lanes on their portion of San Jose Avenue. SM County's portion should also pursue this road diet and improved bike facilities from the county line to John Daly Boulevard.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:29:14 UTC 0
DALY CITY 148166 Curb radii should be sharper to prevent rolling stops and high-speed turns. Particularly for the EBRT movement from King to Gellert. 2023-09-28 17:37:51 UTC 0 DEVONSHIRE 148085
Need a three way stop sign here. Cars speed up Windsor on their way up Torino to Heather Elementary/Crestview/Edgewood and turn right at the Windsor/Winding T intersection without looking left or pausing. Hard to see cars coming around trees, pedestrians Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-19 04:27:03 UTC 0 EAST PALO ALTO 147237 The lack of sidewalks makes it hard to walk; I like to walk and bike a lot with my child.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-16 17:51:27 UTC 0
EAST PALO ALTO 147238 People do donuts in my neighborhood. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-16 18:03:45 UTC 0 EAST PALO ALTO 147246 More bike lanes throughout east Pablo alto and to get to east pall alto from other areas to enjoy the bay Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-16 18:34:07 UTC 0
EAST PALO ALTO 147251
Pulgas Ave
Lots of schools on this road - children don't know/follow the traffic safety precautions EPA Farmers Market 2023-08-16 19:00:30 UTC 1
EAST PALO ALTO 147490 Heavy congestion during peak hours, vehicles block intersections and drive fast during non-peak hours Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-30 21:00:42 UTC 0
EL GRANADA 147876
Impossible to safely cross Rt 1 on foot/ bike from Miramar neighborhood (near Medio) without walking far north or south to traffic lights. Waiting for pause in traffic risks drivers stopping to allow one to cross, only to have oncoming drivers behind the Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-10 19:22:28 UTC 5
EL GRANADA 148093
On El Granada Blvd, a very windy and steep road this is our only evacuation route, large vehicles consistently park on both sides of the road on sharp curves.

Specifically near addresses 321 and 338. But anywhere on these curves, when large trucks park o Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-21 15:20:18 UTC 0 EL GRANADA 148198 ELG Blvd us not a highway. Good suggestion but probably not relevant to this survey. 2023-09-29 06:28:42 UTC 0 EL GRANADA 148227
We need a high-visibility crosswalk on Santiago Ave. at Francisco St. where many El Granada Elementary School students cross to get to school. I would also be helpful to have a loading zone along the west side of Santiago Ave. to provide a safe place for Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 15:28:20 UTC 1
EL GRANADA 148233
This intersection at Coronado and Avenue Alhambra/Santiago is confusing for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. Specifically, we need high-visibility crosswalks at the intersection since we have bus stops located here and 2 schools within a block. The s Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 16:12:27 UTC 1
EL GRANADA 148264
There's a very confusing "passing lane" here that's not really long enough. It's so short that the "lane ends, merge left" sign is placed before the lane even splits. The second lane ends right where traffic from Capistrano is trying to turn left ont Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-30 22:08:38 UTC 1 EL GRANADA 148285 This location pin is in the incorrect place 2023-10-01 04:44:26 UTC 0 EMERALD LAKE HILLS 147368
Edgewood road is heavily used by both cyclist and cars, there is a shoulder for bikes, but it is not marked as a bike lane (marking/green paint). The bike lane should be protected, especially at the top section where the road curves and cars veer into th Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 17:38:22 UTC 0
EMERALD LAKE HILLS 147385
I have watched a scary accident here where both drivers were in the wrong - a very slow moving construction vehicle was holding up commuter traffic (8 am weekday) and cars were going around the vehicle even though it is one lane in both directions. I wat Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 21:47:11 UTC 1 FOSTER CITY 147326 Gull Ave. near school should have a speed bump because people go way too fast and there's no guarantee they'll slow down for students.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-21 17:28:59 UTC 1
FOSTER CITY 147334 The intersection and crosswalks here to get to the elementary school are unsafe for kids. It would be safer with the addition of a blinking light for cars.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-21 17:42:06 UTC 0
FOSTER CITY 147341
Edgewater to 101 is too crowded, and another road should be introduced as an alternative to 101, especially for people commuting from Belmont and Foster City. If there was another option up to Seaport Blvd to avoid congestion, that would help traffic. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 17:59:07 UTC 1 Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
FOSTER CITY 147342 The traffic lights at this intersection are timed poorly, and motorists have to wait a long time when there are no cars. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 18:10:19 UTC 0 FOSTER CITY 148053 San Mateo Bridge needs a bike path.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 00:53:08 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 147440
Widen the 92!
San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 18:58:18 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 147780
This intersection is very dangerous, there have been lots of crashes here over the years, and it is next to a multi-use path that students use to get to the elementary school. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-06 20:42:00 UTC 7 HALF MOON BAY 147781 Lots of pedestrian-involved accidents on this street. There are no continuous sidewalks, and many drivers are going very fast on their way to and from the beach.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-06 20:46:21 UTC 5
HALF MOON BAY 147782
This intersection and much of Kelly Ave is hazardous for cyclists. Drivers come off the Hwy going too fast, multiple schools are along this street as well as two bike shops. this is a major corridor to downtown and the Beach. It can get crowded during sc Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-06 20:51:33 UTC 4
HALF MOON BAY 147783
There are many accidents on this part of 92 between Hwy 1 and Main Street. There is terrible pedestrian and biking infrastructure around here and no safe way to cross Hwy 92 along Hwy 1 Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-06 20:56:01 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 147784 Lots of kids use this road to get to school, but there are not good sidewalks, so kids must walk/ ride on the road.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-06 21:18:39 UTC 5
HALF MOON BAY 147789 Poplar/highway 1 needs to be upgraded to a protected intersection for increased safety for pedestrians and cyclists.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 03:15:08 UTC 7
HALF MOON BAY 147790 Dangerous intersection to cross with kids on our way to school. Lots of cars & buses zooming down Poplar.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 03:22:42 UTC 4
HALF MOON BAY 147791
This multi-use trail is designed poorly, as there are no zebra crossings to cross the streets coming off HW1, so cars turning off HW1 donâ€™t stop. The crossings are very wide, especially if you are with kids.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 03:27:44 UTC 6
HALF MOON BAY 147804
Very dangerous intersection for pedestrians and bikes. Cars run red light regularly. The sidewalk disappears on the east side of route 1 after the cross walk making it very difficult to safely walk to and from town, to and from the beach. People also dri 2023-09-07 12:29:22 UTC 5 HALF MOON BAY 147805 Strongly agree, this is a problem. This area is not safely accessed by bike. 2023-09-07 12:31:38 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 147807
Agree. There have been multiple serious accidents on Kelly involving bikes and pedestrians. The sidewalk along Kelly stops part way down the street. Cars are racing toward limited beach parking or driving poorly from hours in traffic. They drive fast and 2023-09-07 12:39:03 UTC 3 HALF MOON BAY 147808
Agree with this comment. There is also no safe way for bikes and pedestrians to cross 1 here, even though it would be a major corridor into town and one of few streets thatâ€™s has sidewalks east of 1. Sidewalks are required on the west side of filbert a 2023-09-07 12:43:38 UTC 4 HALF MOON BAY 147809
Traffic calming needed. There are few stop signs so cars drove too fast on this road. Will be exacerbated once traffic calming on neighboring street poplar is put in place as, without similar measures here, will increase traffic, speeding. This street ha Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 12:56:08 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 147810
Agree. There is no safe space to walk. Really limits ability to get around town in a sustainable way. Cars, trucks, busses use this narrow road, which must be shared with peds and bikes and they all go too fast. 2023-09-07 12:58:00 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 147811
Agree 100%. Very difficult crossing here. There is a lot going on with cars coming on and off 1 as well as crossing it, going very fast, plus the trail, no sidewalks on west side. This is a major school commute route for elementary school kids. 2023-09-07 13:00:16 UTC 4 HALF MOON BAY 147817 Mirada Bridge
Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 15:46:54 UTC 3
HALF MOON BAY 147820
Bridge closure approaching 4 years and bypass diversion of pedestrians and cyclists onto Highway 1 has eliminated the shoulder for cars and has mixed peds and cyclists on the other side barrier, which is stressful for many citizens. More auto accident 2023-09-07 15:55:02 UTC 3 HALF MOON BAY 147822
Mirada road erosion is rapidly increasing. New. roadway lines painted in April 2023 on pavement have already shown massive broken parts that have fallen into the beach below. 2023 Winter storms expedited the erosion and rock barriers were greatly reduce Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 16:01:22 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 147825 This intersection is dangerous for children who walk and ride to Hatch Elementary school. Suggested fix: street striping and school zone signage.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 16:32:56 UTC 4
HALF MOON BAY 147845 Sidewalk at Surfer's Beach is 1/2 gone, damaged in the 2023 winter storms. This cuts the walking path used heavily by peds and cyclists in half.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 23:24:08 UTC 5
HALF MOON BAY 147863 Multiple vehicle/cyclist collisions have happened here, one as recent as last weekend (9/1/23) in which a cyclist was taken away in an ambulance. 2023-09-08 18:20:26 UTC 3 HALF MOON BAY 147867
This is a busy intersection for pedestrians and cyclist, there should be crosswalks on both north and south sides. Also HMB has build the bike infra going east west, would be great if caltrans completed the intersection for cyclists 2023-09-08 20:48:14 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 147868
this is a main corridor for school children riding their bikes to hatch or to cunha and seacrest yet there is little to no bike infra going east/west. THere should also be a crosswalk on both north and south sides.

Also, the island for pedestrians is 2023-09-08 20:51:16 UTC 3 HALF MOON BAY 147869
there is no cross walk for school kids to cross busy HWY 1, also accidents happen often as there is no turn our lane for cars and cars going north will turn both east and west at the same time 2023-09-08 20:53:22 UTC 2
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
HALF MOON BAY 147870 There are no sidewalks no bike lanes, no stop signs. Children use this route to get to school, extremely dangerous 2023-09-08 20:54:51 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 147871
main route for children to get to school (Hatch) there are no cross walks, sidewalks, bike lanes or signage that you are in a school zone. Child was hit here last year with no corrective action taken 2023-09-08 20:56:21 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 147872 main corridor for beach traffic, pedestrians walk in the middle of the street (no sidewalks), no bike paths, NOT ADA compliant at all, hazard 2023-09-08 20:58:21 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 147889
Agree. Why has this not been repaired? It was damaged in the storm of Dec 2023/Jan 2023!!! We know that HMBay is broke, but this is â€œtheirâ€• side of Highway One! 2023-09-11 18:03:35 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 147890 Typo: Dec. 2022 Jan 2023 I repaired storm damage. 2023-09-11 18:05:45 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 147903
The intersection of Kelly Avenue and Hwy 1 is one of the most highly used intersections by Cabrillo Unified School District students. It is less than half a mile from 3 schools and a mile from Half Moon Bay High School. The crosswalks are long and the po 2023-09-11 22:13:00 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 147904
The intersection of Kelly Avenue and Hwy 1 is one of the most highly used intersections by Cabrillo Unified School District students. It is less than half a mile from 3 schools and a mile from Half Moon Bay High School. The crosswalks are long and the po Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 22:21:49 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 147906
There are currently no sidewalks between 92 and Kelly Ave. along Highway 1. Many people, including many schoolchildren, are forced to walk on the side of Highway

1. It is not safe. We need a sidewalk on the west side, and a separated multi-use pathway on Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 22:29:43 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 147910
Moonridge Apartment residents do not have a safe route into town or to schools. We need a separated bike/ped pathway on the east side of Hwy 1. It would be ideal to connect the trail to Cunha Intermediate School. Also need a bike/ped pathway along Miramo Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-11 22:37:19 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 147921
Curious about this as well. Why has there been no repair attempt here? There has been a construction crew shaping and reinforcing the jetty and paving the path for the new restroom with all of the necessary equipment sitting 50 yards away for the last ye 2023-09-12 00:23:57 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 147922 Yes what the heck is going on with the bridge? Open the darn thing already. 2023-09-12 00:25:41 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 147924
It is extremely dangerous to cross at this intersection at Terrace Ave and Hwy 1 in HMB. There is no light, and traffic is moving at high speed at all times. There is no sidewalk or other way to get into Half Moon Bay without endangering your life if on Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-12 00:44:53 UTC 4
HALF MOON BAY 147925
Cannot emphasize this enough. Crossing hwy 1 walking or biking east into downtown is so dangerous -no sidewalkEspecially vehicles taking right (on red) driving north on 1, they turn east so fast onto poplar and I've experienced numerous close calls 2023-09-12 02:43:07 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 147926
With the recent addition of the #15 bus, I've seen cars drive around the bus while it is stopped at poplar and 3rd. Need better stop signage, intersection more clearly marked, and sidewalk access heading west on poplar
(and east towards downtown as we
Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-12 02:46:53 UTC 1
HALF MOON BAY 147929
There should be a dedicated bike lane on the west side of highway 1 from the ritz to downtown half moon bay. Thereâ€™s a bike path that ends near Cameronâ€™s at wave crest Blvd. it needs to be extended for safety so the southern part of the community can Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-13 03:20:11 UTC 3
HALF MOON BAY 147930
This intersection is dangerous for cyclists traveling west on Kelly. There is no safe way to cross Kelly to get to the correct side of the street, so cyclists are forced to ride on the left side of the street on the sidewalk, into oncoming pedestrian tra 2023-09-13 09:25:10 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 148016
Can we get a retro-reflective green bike lane between Kelly and Main St on Hwy 1 on both NB and SB directions? Iâ€™ve seen many a cyclists riding on 1 getting almost run down by cars turning onto 92 and New Leaf shopping center. 2023-09-15 23:28:59 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 148017
Green lanes recently painted over on Main St in Half Moon Bay have little to no visibility at night. Were these not painted with retro-reflective paint? Also, they already look pretty beat up. 2023-09-15 23:31:59 UTC 1
HALF MOON BAY 148018
There have been 4 accidents here. This intersection needs stop signs on all corners. This is a main corridor for children to walk to and from school. With parking on all 4 corners, someone crossing the street has to go to the center of the street to s Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-16 03:13:55 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 148026 This sidewalk is narrow, crowded by bushes, and has huge streetlights posts in the middle, making it very difficult to walk or cycle to Safeway and other stores.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 18:25:16 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 148027
No bike lane on the 1 between Kelly and 92, meaning no access to Strawflower and New Leaf shops for the big population south of 92. Pedestrians and bicycles are frequently walking on the hard shoulder, very dangerous. (The so-called alternative via Pilar Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 18:31:14 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 148028 This is path is not maintained, and unsuitable for walking and bicycling, but is a much safer way to get between the 1 and Arleta Park.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 18:33:18 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 148029 This should be a bike path giving access the the bike path along the 1.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 18:34:46 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 148030 This should be a paved path giving access to the 1 sidewalk. Currently dirty and dark - unsafe.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-16 18:35:55 UTC 3
HALF MOON BAY 148032 This path is used by school kids - it is not clearly marked, and bikes come flying into the road and drivers are not expecting them.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 18:37:22 UTC 1
HALF MOON BAY 148086
Very unsafe for pedestrians, no crosswalk and no sidewalks or bike paths to access the nearest crosswalk north or south. Cars travel at 50mph. When a car is traveling north and turning onto Spindrift, impatient motorists from behind the turning vehicle w Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-20 04:57:50 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 148099
Several commercial businesses with substantial employee (100+)and vendor traffic have to turn left onto Highway 1 from Frenchmans Creek Road. The speeds on Highway 1 at that location and the absence of a light either at Spindrift or Frenchmans Creek Rd Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-22 04:36:19 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148104 Deep potholes on hi1 force people to dangerously swerve and causes tire damage we canâ€™t afford Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-23 05:50:57 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 148105 We need traffic enforcement to reduce speeds and maintain order. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-23 05:56:40 UTC 4 Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
HALF MOON BAY 148106 Place a barrier on hi1 between north and south lanes to prevent head on collisions. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-23 05:58:55 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148107 We mostly have zero law enforcement and many reckless drivers. We deserve law enforcement Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-23 06:03:07 UTC 3 HALF MOON BAY 148117
Hwy 1 and Hwy 84 are absolute raceways any day of the week. We need more patrol on both of these Hwy's. I drive these roads daily and I can't tell you how many near misses I have had with oncoming traffic in my lane on blind turns and people doing spee Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 12:01:18 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 148128
essential maybe but bicyclists need to adhere to the rules.Too many breeze through red light, utilize sidewalks and quite often are rude when anything is pointed out to them 2023-09-26 16:15:30 UTC 2
HALF MOON BAY 148142
We need traffic law enforcement (we have almost none), and each neighborhood needs a signal light to enter and exit their neighborhood safely. Safety and sanity is much more important than travel speeds on hi 1. 2023-09-27 17:45:00 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 148176
Agree, as a resident of Filbert I see many cars turning on to Filbert from HWY 1 and there are no safety lanes and no crosswalks to indicate pedestrians and bike crossings. This is a school route for children. 2023-09-29 01:01:28 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 148177
Very dangerous- pedestrians and bikes cross while cars are traveling at full speed. Why not a pedestrian bridge over the highway? AND- cars are taking lefts across the highway. In the 5 years since Iâ€™ve been here I have seen at least 10 collisions. 2023-09-29 01:09:16 UTC 2 HALF MOON BAY 148178
There is a "Slower traffic keep right" sign on Southbound Rte 1 just before a "Right lane turns right" sign. The first sign encourages drivers to use the right lane, which is about to end. This leads to many unsafe sudden land changes (into the left Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 01:12:06 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 148181
Straighten the curves on 92 between Main Street and Pilarcitos Creek. Add a k-rail to separate the westbound and eastbound lanes. Periodically add a roundabout so that traffic can reach the businesses and homes.

This would reduce accidents and improve Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 03:31:15 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148184
Improve pedestrian crossing between Spindrift Way and Beach Ave. Add an island or pedestrian safety zone on highway 1 at the north side of Spindrift, so that pedestrians have a safe place to stop while crossing the road.

Create the same safety island 2023-09-29 03:42:59 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148185 Add a receiving lane for cars going northbound onto Highway 1 from the Frontage Road. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 03:45:11 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148188
Between Hwy 1 and â€œSantaâ€™s Tree Farmâ€• there are many twists and tourist attractions or nurseries. I agree that they should widen the roadway there as well as straighten the curves and add K-Rail. 2023-09-29 05:40:08 UTC 1 HALF MOON BAY 148191 I might agree but the specifics of what part of HWY 1 is missing. 2023-09-29 05:48:01 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148193
HMB has plans to widen HWY from Terrace Ave north to Sea Haven but â€œlo siento no dineroâ€• (They are broke) If they would contract for better traffic enforcement then the citizens could safely get out of their neighborhoods.

Or, better yet, create ro 2023-09-29 06:04:03 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 148195
HMB is â€œBrokeâ€•, so they only contract to pay the SMC Sheriffs a minimal amount.

The CHP could be more present to enforce traffic laws on HWY One, but perhaps The City is resistant (in order to not p-off visitors).

Or, the CHP sees the Coast as lo 2023-09-29 06:13:37 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148196
Emergency Vehicles need the central roadway to get to the accidents! Some motorists donâ€™t even pull over when lights and sirens are used! 2023-09-29 06:16:51 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148201
I would not use the Hwy One underpass near the Pilarcitos Creek because of the creek-dwellers that linger there.

CalTrabs needs to keep that area safe, and cleared of the Bike-parts and other debris, they carty down there.
2023-09-29 06:45:59 UTC 1
HALF MOON BAY 148202
Plus, that is where the northbound traffic on Hwy One narrows from two lanes down to one.

I have heard of plans for yet another traffic signal but this will simply cause more bunching of traffic which is why l already refuse to drive to shop in HMB. 2023-09-29 06:56:00 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148209 MidPen Housing should contribute to bike pathways, since the City of HMB is â€œbrokeâ€•, and the County ignores the needs of the unincorporated residents. 2023-09-29 07:43:25 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148213
That side of Highway One at â€œSurferâ€™s Beachâ€ (west side) is under the the control of the City of HMB while the east side is County. Maybe itâ€™s not repaired 10 Months after the storm damage us because HMB us broke or they have not pestered CalTran 2023-09-29 08:15:34 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148214
Sadly, the County does not wish to spend money on the Coastside and HMB us broke, so the erosion is going to continue. The only hope will be the dredging that is planned for the Princeton Harbor Area. 2023-09-29 08:22:34 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148215
Letâ€™s hope they remove the detour along the highway soon. I am tired of that orange K-Rail barrier. The stairs are probably going to be finished before Thanksgiving, fingers crossed before Halloween! 2023-09-29 08:26:00 UTC 0 Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
HALF MOON BAY 148216
Enforcement on west Poplar in HMB should be provided by tge SMC Sheriffâ€™s Dept. But likely Is not due to minimal staffing. HMB needs to step up and pay for full staffing in their next contract with the SMC Sheriffsâ€™s Dept. going forward. 2023-09-29 08:30:33 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148217 Half Moon Bay should address this as a Safe Streets to School program. 2023-09-29 08:34:11 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148221 CalTrans Underpass feels creepy due to vagrants and lots of debris Uber the highway. CalTrans needs to keep this area free if debris from creek dwellers. 2023-09-29 09:29:49 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148226
High-visibility crosswalks and continuous unobstructed sidewalks are needed in this area on 3rd Ave up to Central Ave. where many Hatch Elementary school children walk and bicycle to school. 2023-09-29 15:21:47 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 148254
Potholes are dangerous and everywhere. No way to drive into and out of my neighborhood safely. No highway patrol. This is a mess that will only get more dangerous as population increases. 2023-09-30 17:48:57 UTC 1
HALF MOON BAY 148259 Cars do not stop at intersection. Dangerous for pedestriand Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-30 20:59:26 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 148260 Dangerous intersection. Cars do not stop at stop sign which is in front of the school Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-30 21:02:37 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 148262 Lack of safe pedestrian crossings between El Granada and Frenchman's Creek is a serious hazard to pedestrians, and prevents connection between neighborhoods.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-30 21:43:48 UTC 1
HALF MOON BAY 148263
There should be stepped-up law enforcement by the Highway Patrol on Route One. Speeding, not signaling, cutting drivers off, passing on the right with two lanes.

Cars pulling on the highway in front of oncoming cars, drivers on cell phone. taligating.. 2023-09-30 21:51:24 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148271
I have watched more cars than I can count on both hands pass traffic waiting at the stoplight using the right hand turn lane into this neighborhood bypass traffic and running this red light. Police officers could sit here and write tickets all day long! Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-30 23:03:57 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148272
There is no safe pedestrian area from the Naomi Partridge Trail into town to Main Street. When can we expect a safe route for foot and bike traffic along this corridor? The east side of our community from downtown Half Moon Bay to Montara has no safe ped Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-30 23:10:15 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 148273
There is no safe pedestrian area from the Naomi Partridge Trail into town to Main Street. When can we expect a safe route for foot and bike traffic along this corridor? The east side of our community from downtown Half Moon Bay to Montara has no safe ped Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-30 23:11:31 UTC 0
HALF MOON BAY 148274 Northbound traffic stopped on the highway to make an illegal left turn onto Frontage Rd is a constant traffic hazard. Police could write tickets here all day long. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-30 23:15:01 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148276
Northbound traffic stopped on the highway to make an illegal left turn into hotels and restaurants is a constant traffic hazard. Motor traffic rarely stops or slows down but rather drives along the highway to pass the stopped motorists making the illegal Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-30 23:19:14 UTC 0 HALF MOON BAY 148286 +1 this needs repairing and the sea wall needs to be re-inforced else we will loose highway one sooner rather than later! 2023-10-01 04:47:46 UTC 0 HILLSBOROUGH 147250
Lack of coordination between cities for road safety improvement EPA Farmers Market 2023-08-16 18:42:57 UTC 0
KENSINGTON SQUARE 147367 As someone who lives on this block of Alameda, cars travel far too quickly and more steps should be taken to reduce/police speed here. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 17:34:24 UTC 1 LA HONDA 148256
The community needs safer pedestrian/bicycle crossings on La Honda Rd at Sears Ranch Rd and Entrada Way to enable community members to get to the elementary school, post office, and shops. This would include improving pathways to these locations.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-30 18:48:24 UTC 0
MENLO PARK 147242 Scary to bike here -- a lot of people riding to work on this road Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-16 18:31:53 UTC 0
MENLO PARK 147244 Crossing 101 on a bike is scary
Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-16 18:32:44 UTC 0
MENLO PARK 147245 More public transportation options would be good -- people want to take public transportation, but it's not really an option.

Safety Concern - Public
Transit 2023-08-16 18:33:33 UTC 0
MENLO PARK 147248
Marsh RD - near Dumbarton bridge
people speed like it's a freeway, but it's not
EPA Farmers Market
2023-08-16 18:40:07 UTC 0
MENLO PARK 148051
This intersection needs a bike/ped over- or underpass to connect Bay Trail on the north side of Hwy 84 with the access to Dumbarton Bridge on the south side of 84, and with the bike trail on the east side of University Ave. The long wait times at the exi Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 00:50:12 UTC 0
MENLO PARK 148052 The Dumbarton Bridge bike trail needs major improvements. It is in very poor shape and too narrow.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 00:52:18 UTC 0
MILLBRAE 147770 HAWK Crossings along El Camino. People still do not know what the protocol is when the HAWK is activated.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-06 15:48:03 UTC 0
MILLBRAE 147771
Residents complain that there should be a left green arrow and for Eastbound Millbrae Avenue from Southbound Magnolia as people report that there are constant vehicle / pedestrian conflicts at this intersection.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-06 15:51:55 UTC 1
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
MILLBRAE 147772 Potential conflict: Bicyclist vs. Vehicle coming off of 280 Offramp.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-06 15:53:45 UTC 0
MILLBRAE 147815
On SB El Camino, in the left turn lane (turning from El Camino onto EB Milbrae Ave), for the first cars in line, the view of pedestrians crossing El Camino in a westbound direction is obstructed by street signs. While the intersections is well managedSafety Concern - Walking 2023-09-07 15:38:18 UTC 1
MILLBRAE 147818
The section of NB Rollins Road between Adrian Rd. and Millbrea Ave. is poorly signalized and poorly designed.

1. Traffic turning left from SB Rollins Rd. into the Fastfood/Car Wash/Gas Station shopping center routinely block NB Rollins Rd. traffic.

Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 15:48:29 UTC 1
MILLBRAE 147843 Need better daylighting of corner, especially on Anita side. Cars park completely onto the corner, making it very difficult to see when driving. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 23:22:01 UTC 0 MILLBRAE 147844
Cars drive very fast on this stretch of Helen. They treat most of this road as a freeway on ramp to and from downtown to 280. Traffic calming measures should be taken throughout Helen Drive. It is a residential street, not a multilane road. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 23:23:57 UTC 0 MILLBRAE 147846
Cars use Bayshore Blvd. between Geneva and Sister Cities as a speedway at all times of the day and night. It is frightening to drive north or south on Bayshore Blvd in this stretch. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-08 01:55:26 UTC 0 MILLBRAE 147847
Several problems at 101 South Exit at Millbrae Avenue: People don't heed the ""lane ending"" markers and speed ahead in the far right ""ending"" lane; once you make it to the exit - the 2 right turn lanes need better markers - people get confused and dr Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-08 02:00:08 UTC 0 MILLBRAE 148171
Monterey-Hemlock-Aviador is my preferred way of north-south connections to Millbrae BART/Caltrain. This route should be better signed and marked for those who want to avoid ECR.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 18:34:27 UTC 0
MIRAMAR 147873
Very dangerous, school children are dropped off by samtrans with no cross walk to get home, they have to jaywalk against busy rush hour traffic going 50 MPH to get home. We have children coming from elementry, junior high and high school. The road is a 2023-09-08 21:01:02 UTC 6 MIRAMAR 147888 Medio area in Miramar would be an excellent location for a roundabout or a pedestrian under/over-pass. 2023-09-11 17:58:58 UTC 4 MIRAMAR 148211 Agree! Round-a-bouts keep traffic moving (as opposed to traffic signals). Pedestrians and cyclists benefit too, because car speeds are reduced at roundabouts! 2023-09-29 08:03:00 UTC 2 MIRAMAR 148258
Yes, roundabouts! And a catwalk at this location would be great! So many accident, near misses, even deaths at Highway One and Medio. Turning left to southbound 1 from Medio east is taking your life into your hands. 2023-09-30 20:57:55 UTC 1 MIRAMAR 148265 Nine times out of ten I have to turn right to turn left. Iâ€™ve had so many near misses trying to turn left on one. 2023-09-30 22:18:44 UTC 1 MIRAMAR 148266
Highway 1 and Medio is an incredibly dangerous area for all pedestrians. Iâ€™m not sure how many accidents and deaths need to happen before safety is put first for our community but I bet there will be more before avoidable tragedies here before anything 2023-09-30 22:45:13 UTC 0 MIRAMAR 148268
Multi million dollar county trail ends without connection to the city trail (Naomi Partridge Trail) thatâ€™s a stoneâ€™s through away. This trail to nowhere forces pedestrians onto the highway shoulder and oncoming traffic. How could such a massive and e Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-30 22:51:26 UTC 1
MONTARA 148228
We do not have a continuous safe route to Farallone View Elementary School. Recommend Main St. to 5th St., Left on Le Conte Ave. Some sidewalks would need to be installed, and STOP signs at intersections with NO stop control on 5th St. (5th and LeConte/5 Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 15:36:04 UTC 0
MONTARA 148229
Franklin St. leads to an informal pathway used by Farallone View Elementary School students. There are two intersections with NO STOP control on Franklin St. We need STOP signs at Franklin and Birch and Franklin and Acacia St..

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 15:40:15 UTC 0
MONTARA 148230 5th and Le Conte Ave is an uncontrolled intersection. Stop or yield signs are needed (route to Farallone View Elementary School).

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 15:42:51 UTC 0
MONTARA 148231
We need STOP signs or yield signs at this uncontrolled intersection close to Farallone View Elementary School. This is an uncontrolled intersection (NO STOP Signs) and the community has been asking for STOP signs here for years (5th and East).

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 15:47:01 UTC 0
MONTARA 148232
We need and have requested STOP control at 7th and East Ave. This route is used by many to walk to the post office (In Montara we go to the post office to get our mail. It is not delivered to our homes). This is currently an uncontrolled intersection whe Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 15:56:56 UTC 0
MOSS BEACH 147836 it can be very difficult to make left turns onto highway 1 on this whole stretch, so drivers make risky maneuvers. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 22:54:01 UTC 6 MOSS BEACH 147885
SMC promised a Roundabout here for residents of Seal Cove & Pillar Ridge plus SMC Parks attractions of the bluff trail & Fitzgerald Marine Reserve to be paid by Developer of the Big Wave Office Park but there have been two accidents at this intersection Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-11 17:43:57 UTC 3 MOSS BEACH 147886
I donâ€™t believe there is ample room to move the parking lot to tge westside, but l also donâ€™t think that is the highest and best use of money when the Moss Beach Corridor needs better highway lighting and at least one roundabout at Cypress and Highwa 2023-09-11 17:52:56 UTC 0 MOSS BEACH 147891 This reply was intended for Gray Whale Cove not Cypress/SR-1 intersection 2023-09-11 18:08:36 UTC 0 MOSS BEACH 147914
No paved or protected safe bike passage from Montara to Moss Beach. This is a dangerous corridor where cars speed well over posted limits at all hours of the day while local traffic attempts to make left turns across HWY 1. Very narrow shoulder where muc Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-12 00:00:03 UTC 2
MOSS BEACH 147920
Agreed. All talk and no action on the round abouts. The left turns on HWY 1 in Moss Beach need to be addressed. HWY 1 traffic here often moves at freeway speeds.

Unsafe for vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians. 2023-09-12 00:19:31 UTC 1 MOSS BEACH 147940
With the awesome park nearby, moss beach is attracting more families, it would be nice if crossing the 1 was less hectic.

If there were a traffic light, or walking path it'd be really nice. The flags put there by the community area great but cars do 2023-09-13 21:26:09 UTC 0 MOSS BEACH 148208
Since CalTrans closed their Coastside Corporation Yard (HMB) the January 2023 Storm debris has still never been cleared from the Gwy One Shoulders and there not even any place to pull over along Devilâ€™s Slide because of fallen branches, bark strips, ro 2023-09-29 07:28:50 UTC 0 Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
MOSS BEACH 148212
Agree, and the way CalTrans is going, we wonâ€™t be seeing ANY major fix before 2030 according to a recent Hwy One Safety Workshop put on by tge County. In Montara there at least is a center â€œholding laneâ€• do cars can enter the Highway and wait to ge 2023-09-29 08:12:05 UTC 1 MOSS BEACH 148220
Left (northbound) turns from the West side of Cypress are difficult for some drivers when Hwy One traffic is heavy because there is no acceleration lane. The County has a street light on Cypress but there is no highway illumination for seeing this inters 2023-09-29 09:25:19 UTC 0 MOSS BEACH 148277 We could use that exact same interim fix for Miramar where you are risking your life to walk, bike, drive from one side of the road to the other. 2023-09-30 23:21:36 UTC 0 NORTH FAIR OAKS 147436
Bay & 9th (Redwood City) - Difficult to see on the left turn San Carlos Pop-Up
2023-08-28 18:53:41 UTC 0
NORTH FAIR OAKS 147450
Selby Ln & El Camino Real - dangerous crosswalk
San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:29:56 UTC 0
NORTH FAIR OAKS 147463 North Fair Oaks have narrow streets. People double park and it is a very dense neighborhood. More crosswalks are necessary. 2023-08-28 22:03:05 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148118 Linda Mar Boulevard is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:22:05 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148119 Terra Nova Boulevard is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:23:51 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148120 Manor Drive is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:25:30 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148121 Sharp Park Road is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:26:31 UTC 1 PACIFICA 148122 Oceana Boulevard is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:27:35 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148123 Palmetto Avenue is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:28:35 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148124 Clarendon Road is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:29:34 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148126 Highway 1 (Westport Drive to Southern Limits) is on the City of Pacifica's High Injury Network. Westport in as unsignalized intersection connecting to Highway 1. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-26 15:32:55 UTC 1 PACIFICA 148162
This is a terrible intersection. Poorly lit, zero visibility due to the fog, high-speed and high-volume traffic, and steep grades. One can feel how many collisions there just by looking at the amount of pole takedowns and replacements Caltrans had to mak Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-28 17:23:05 UTC 0
PACIFICA 148192
One can see the damaged trees on Sharp Park Road westbound after Gypsy Hill Road.

A barrier needs to exist to keep cars on the roadway and save those trees from more accidents.

Also the K-rail actually has Eucalyptus trees sprouts due so little maint 2023-09-29 05:59:37 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148194
Often this area is bumper-to-bumper due to end Freeway speed reduction and signals at Vallemar, and Fassler and back- ups from thru- traffic to the MidCoast. 2023-09-29 06:08:36 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148267 This is a dangerous intersection (Highway 1 and Fassler) for everyone including drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. 2023-09-30 22:50:36 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148269
Reina Del Mar Ave. is heavily used during school hours and unfortunately, there is only one way in and one way out to Vallemar School and few options for alternative places to drop off students. Turning from Reichling Ave onto Reina Del Mar is difficult Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-30 22:56:36 UTC 0
PACIFICA 148270 Traffic moves at a high speed on Hickey Blvd. Traffic calming measures would help (road diet?). 2023-09-30 22:58:57 UTC 0 PACIFICA 148275
Crespi at Roberts can be a dangerous area. This is a well-used route for community members going to the post office, community center, and Cabrillo School. Consider traffic calming measures, high-visibility crosswalks, bicycle lanes...

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-30 23:17:54 UTC 0
PACIFICA 148278
Francisco Blvd. at Lakeside Ave is a dangerous intersection. I have seen many near-accidents here in this residential area. Lakeside Ave from Clarendon to Francisco is a safety concern. 2023-09-30 23:22:03 UTC 0
PACIFICA 148279
Sharp Park is great access road for coastsiders to the other side, but it is windy and cars often drive too fast, making it dangerous. Determine how to slow speeds and improve safety. 2023-09-30 23:26:36 UTC 1
PESCADERO 148255
Families would like a safe walking/biking route between Pescadero MS/HS and Pescadero Elementary Schools. This would likely include continuous sidewalks/bikeways on Stage Rd (downtown). 2023-09-30 18:43:53 UTC 0 PORTOLA VALLEY 148069
Alpine Inn accommodates more patrons than they have parking space for, so dozens of cars are illegally parked on Arastradero Rd. Alpine Inn needs to reduce its operations or have its permit pulled. Speeding rideshare drivers on Arastradero and the parked Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 02:09:07 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147240 N bound potholes on 101 and southbound near wood side. Improvements on Middle field near schools. Lots of kids bike and there are no bike lanes Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-16 18:27:53 UTC 0
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
REDWOOD CITY 147352
This is a very dangerous part of alameda de las pulgas to ride. The shared bike line here is not appropriate due to cars going too quickly (well over posted 25MPH limit) down this slight downhill. There needs to be either speedbumbs, or a dedicated bike Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 16:26:59 UTC 2
REDWOOD CITY 147354
Jefferson Ave west of alameda de las pulgas is a heavily travelled street for both cars and bikes. There should be a dedicated bike lane, at least in the uphill lane, to protect cyclists from quickly moving cars.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 16:29:37 UTC 1
REDWOOD CITY 147384
The intersection of Edgewood and Alameda de las Pulgas is really scary when there is a power outage in the area because drivers do not understand right of way in a four direction stop light with turn lanes. I have only been a driver here but I cannot ima Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 21:36:54 UTC 1 REDWOOD CITY 147389
Speeding is common in this residential stretch (Adams/Oak/Clinton/Redwood) and with drivers illegally parking on the corner (not just here but all over the neighborhood), poor visibility makes it really difficult to be able to turn out of streets as a dr Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 22:07:56 UTC 0 REDWOOD CITY 147410
This is a highly used area by walkers/runners and there are no crosswalks in some areas. Some of the odd angles of intersections in this area (this one is a good example) would make it a good idea to put crosswalks at some of these intersections.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-23 16:27:07 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147411
Flashing pedestrian lights at more of the entrances to Red Morton Park might be a good idea as lots of families, dog walkers, etc. cross Roosevelt to access or leave the park and drivers aren't always cautious enough when passing by. My suggestion would Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-23 16:32:58 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147412
Please put a flashing light for this crosswalk - I have never walked across the street here (I would be terrified to) but as a driver there have definitely been times I have been caught off guard by pedestrians because I just did not see them with so man Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-23 16:38:42 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147413
Please put a flashing pedestrian light at this intersection to draw attention to pedestrians / bicyclists - this is another spot where it is not easy for drivers to see pedestrians when people park on the corners.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-23 16:41:49 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147414
The intersections of Marshall/Jefferson and Broadway/Jefferson have high driver traffic volume, particularly during peak commuter hours. Particularly at the Marshall intersection, drivers frequently try to 'cut the line' by driving up into the left turn Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-23 16:52:06 UTC 0 REDWOOD CITY 147443
Massive bump on whipple - dangerous
San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:01:54 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147444
Rain near Sequoia Hospital on Alameda de las Pulgas - hit a bubble/pothole in the road and swerved; safety concern; need for road maintenance San carlos Pop-Up event 2023-08-28 19:21:06 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147458 The East to West bike route from the sequoia track to downtown redwood city is not good Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-28 21:56:13 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147586 Large oleander bushes impinge on the sidewalk, forcing pedestrians off the sidewalk and into the street.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-01 19:13:01 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147587
Removable posts across one half of the street cause drivers to swerve into the wrong half of the street when turning onto the street.

As a result, driving speeds are not reduced, but safety for drivers, pedestrians, and bicyclists are all reduced.

Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-01 19:18:47 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 147827
This intersection is dangerous for pedestrians. Specifically, one example is that there are bushes on the park and ride corner of Veterans/Whipple that prevents pedestrians who are crossing to the park and ride to get their company's shuttle from seeing Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 17:12:54 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148008
84 needs safe pedestrian crossing from Cypress to Middlefield and Middlefield to Hess - cyclists and pedestrians, including school children, use this overpass and it's not safe. 2023-09-15 17:23:58 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148041
Redwood City has committed willful reckless endangerment against cyclists with their design of speed humps going across the bike lanes. The humps in the bike lanes must be removed and there need to be barriers between the motor vehicle speed humps and th Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:25:05 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148054
It would be great to have a bike bridge here, crossing 101 to connect 2nd Ave with E Bayshore Rd. Bridge should be a straight line or an "S", not a "U", with the ramp on Bayshore pointing to the east and the ramp on Rolison pointing the the west, or Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:00:36 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148055 We need a bike tunnel alongside the train tracks that connects Chestnut St with Seaport Blvd.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:03:09 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148056
Several Redwood City Police officers need to be reminded that the vehicle code applies to them when they drive their personal vehicles (muscle cars). They often speed over the Maple Street bridge and put cyclists at risk. These individuals should be remo Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:07:00 UTC 1
REDWOOD CITY 148057 The Maple St bridge across Hwy 101 becomes narrow in its blind hill section, which is unsafe for biking. We need bike lanes here.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:08:58 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148058
This intersection needs priority timing for cyclists and pedestrians headed towards the Caltrain station. Eliminate both left turns off of El Camino onto Broadway so that the additional time can be used for more frequent green phases to cross El Camino.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:14:52 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148059
Install a modal filter here (forcing motor vehicles to turn, allow only bikes to continue straight) to reduce cut-through motor vehicle traffic and make this corridor more bike friendly.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:18:51 UTC 1
REDWOOD CITY 148060 Block Valota Rd for motor vehicle through traffic using modal filters.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:20:10 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148065 Remove all street parking on Alameda de las Pulgas, use the space to create buffered bike lanes wide enough to take fast growing number of bike commuters.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:46:19 UTC 2
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
REDWOOD CITY 148109
Cars take this merge at high speed, making it very dangerous for pedestrians and bikes on Holly. Recommend doing away with the merge and replacing it with a squared-off T intersection.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-24 00:52:19 UTC 0
REDWOOD CITY 148257 Dangerous intersection for pedestrians Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-30 20:54:51 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 147336 Bikers and scooters ride on sidewalks and are dangerous for pedestrians Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-21 17:46:02 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 147338 Cars don't stop for the crosswalk from Cunningham to the senior center. The 280 on-ramps make this especially dangerous.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-21 17:55:38 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 147409 Cars routinely run this stop sign. I have almost been hit twice crossing Crystal Springs as a pedestrian.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-23 14:00:26 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 147485 Areas of the bike lane are worn out completely in either direction with cars frequently exceeding the speed limit on this curvy road on the downhill direction Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-29 17:39:49 UTC 1
SAN BRUNO 147486
There is no convenient way for cyclists to get from Sneath Lane to the Centennial Way Trail / S Maple Ave creating risky interactions between bikes and pedestrians, busses, & cars.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-29 17:42:51 UTC 1
SAN BRUNO 147487 Additionally, it is very tumultuous to bike from west of 280 to commute to Oyster Point due to the lack of crossings to cross the railroad and freeways 2023-08-29 17:49:43 UTC 0 SAN BRUNO 147664
This is a blind hill with terrible visibility. And cars routinely park on the sidewalk on this whole street with no enforcement making it even more dangerous for pedestrians Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-02 06:07:39 UTC 1 SAN BRUNO 147707
Very difficult intersection to walk across and drive across. Need a signal or a 4 way stop. Have lived in the neighborhood for 25+ years and canâ€™t tell you how many close calls Iâ€™ve seen and been a part of. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-04 00:20:33 UTC 2 SAN BRUNO 147833
Put a no U turn sign for people coming down the off-ramp. People make aggressive uturns to get back on 280 here, and this intersection has limited visibility and the maneuver is dangerous. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 22:46:59 UTC 2 SAN BRUNO 147834
Better signage on light cycles for drivers on Jenevein -- some signage that would indicate that each cycle runs separately (ie, you can immediately start making turns).

Because people unfamiliar with the area do not drive right away, this ends up delayin Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 22:50:05 UTC 2 SAN BRUNO 147837
There needs to be more daylighting around the crosswalks on Oak near the school. Specifically at Oak and Niles theres a very large vehicle that typically parks that makes it impossible to see if pedestrians are waiting to cross. Extra daylighting around Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 22:56:07 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 147838
Many of the intersections on Jenevein are difficult for seeing pedestrians because they are blocked by parked cars (especially turning). There should be more daylighting around the corners than exists currently.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 22:57:51 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 147840
It can be difficult to see the stop sign at this intersection (heading East on Jenevein toward downtown). There's a very pretty tree that obscures the sign partially.

Please do *not* cut down the whole tree under any circumstances, but if there's a way o Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 23:14:17 UTC 0 SAN BRUNO 147841
Increasing double parking without any enforcement along this whole stretch of San Mateo Ave, leads cars to make aggressive and unsafe maneuvers to get around double parked cars. This could be exacerbated by the new parking meters that are supposedly goin Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 23:16:48 UTC 0 SAN BRUNO 147859
Why are the streets east of 1st Ave not also a C/CAG Equity Focus Area? The income levels, demographics, and housing prices are similar to the area just west of 1st Ave. 2023-09-08 16:45:41 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 148170
The Huntington-San Antonio connection should be improved for people on bikes who want to go north-south but not use ECR. This can be in the form of improved wayfinding, sharrows (or bike lanes if possible), and traffic calming to slow vehicle speeds.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 18:32:31 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 148243
As a resident of Crestwood Drive, I observe that roughly half of the vehicles traveling on Crestwood Drive between Fleetwood Drive and Valleywood Drive are greatly exceeding the 25 MPH speed limit and 5-10% are traveling up to 45 MPH or more. I believe t Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 20:45:43 UTC 1 SAN BRUNO 148245
Intersection of San Bruno Ave and Glenview Dr. The south side of Glenview has the Lunardi's supermarket and a gas station - lots of foot traffic from the surrounding neighborhood to the supermarket and vehicular traffic to the gas station. The Skyline Dr 2023-09-29 21:22:06 UTC 0 SAN BRUNO 148246
Intersection of Glenview Dr and Earl Ave. No stop signs for North-South traffic on Glenview Dr at the intersection. The intersection lies at the lowest point of the street for traffic coming either from the North or South on Glenview and cars speed up to Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 21:30:55 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 148247 Portola Highlands needs stop signs on the streets that intersect with Monterey Drive. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 23:56:27 UTC 0 SAN BRUNO 148248 When turning right from Kains on to El Camino, the cars parked on El Camino (to the left) completely blocks the view of the oncoming (El Camino) traffic. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-30 00:26:06 UTC 0 SAN BRUNO 148249 Need a sidewalk going up San Bruno Avenue.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-30 00:29:57 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO 148250 El Camino is not shown as a high Bicycle Injury corridor, which it should be. The current lack of bike lanes on El Camino makes this road really dangerous, 2023-09-30 00:33:21 UTC 0 SAN BRUNO 148253
Put a flashing red or yellow light or a stop sign just before the uphill portion of the bend on Cunningham Way. There is limited visibility for people exiting 280 who want to turn left onto Cunningham and vehicles approaching that intersection from Cryst Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-30 17:11:59 UTC 0 SAN BRUNO MTN PARK 147764
Mountain Bikes should be allowed on the ridge trail. It has ranger trucks and PGE trucks all the time. Mountain bikes are dramatically less impactful than either.

Arguably less impactful than hikers on foot.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-06 02:23:34 UTC 0
SAN BRUNO MTN PARK 148095 No! Mountain bikes travel too fast to be able to fully assess their impact. Wildlife can too easily be disrupted by a fast-moving bike. 2023-09-21 19:52:01 UTC 2 SAN CARLOS 147362 Brittan from ADLP to Crestview has no bike lanes, is identified on our Bike/Ped Masterplan as high stress.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 16:54:39 UTC 0
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
SAN CARLOS 147363 There have been two minor injury ped crashes at this intersection.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 16:59:17 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147364
Crestview is also stress level 4 from Brittan to city limits in the south and level 3 from Brittan north to Belmont City limits.

Several minor injury crashes annually on Crestview north and south of Brittan.

Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 17:03:01 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147438
Would like protected bike paths in San Carlos
San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 18:56:51 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147439 Elm & Magnolia - to Elm --> Holly stop sign is confusing and there is speeding. People don't stop for pedestrians and this is a dangerous intersection for kids 2023-08-28 18:57:48 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147441
Pedestrian & Bicylce safety concerns identified on Brittan Ave & Laurel St +1 from another community member. Connect bike lane across Laurel on Brittan Ave San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 18:59:40 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147442
San Carlos - mobility access --> time to cross the street is not sufficient for mobility-impaired/elderly San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:00:52 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147445
Speeding on Alameda de las Pulgas & Hilltop Drive
San carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:22:00 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147446
People go into a blindspot between Brittan and Whipple
San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:22:51 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147447
San Carlos & Upland Ave - Intersection Timing Left or Right especially during peak hours traffic San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:23:44 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147449
Dartmouth Ave next to park - street has not reopened
San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:25:31 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147452
Elm & Magnolia - apartment complex here that causes lots of people to park on/block sidewalk with their cars San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:50:07 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147453
Exit on Holly St towards downtown 2 lane road; cars parked on the right are dangerous. There is no available parking otherwise.

San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:51:10 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147454
Cedar & Cherry St - lots of speeding; dangerous crosswalk here. Would be great to have a button to press so sidewalk flashes when people cross San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:52:15 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147455
Drivers running red lights and speeding
San carlos pop-up 2023-08-28 19:52:56 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147456
Would like protected bike lanes in San Carlos!
San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:53:35 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147460 Brittan Avenue there are a lot of cars speeding and not stopping at stop signs Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-28 21:58:08 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147461 There is a ton of speeding along Phelps Rd. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-28 21:59:27 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147462
Burton Park on Brittan Avenue during the morning school rush. The crosswalk with sign slows down traffic. need to figure out better flow of traffic. People speed along the side neighborhoods and rushing. Streamline Brittan Avenue better during rush hour Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-28 22:01:34 UTC 1 SAN CARLOS 147464 Keep Laurel Street 600 Block off to cars always 2023-08-28 22:03:54 UTC 1 SAN CARLOS 147465 San Carlos Avenue. The signals into the hills people are trying to hit all the greens and speeding and running red lights. Aggressive driving. 2023-08-28 22:05:15 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147466 People speed and do not stop at crosswalks at Cedar and Brittan Avenue. 2023-08-28 22:06:06 UTC 1 SAN CARLOS 147467 Cherry and Laurel St in San Carlos is a dangerous intersection. 2023-08-28 22:07:10 UTC 1 Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
SAN CARLOS 147468 People drive down the wrong way between Laurel and Walnut. Place more signs there 2023-08-28 22:08:21 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147469 People not respecting the stop sign at Cedar and Howard intersection 2023-08-28 22:09:01 UTC 1 SAN CARLOS 147470 People park on side of road and sidewalk 2023-08-28 22:10:19 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147471 Bike lane from cvs to wellington drive but then it stops; would be great to have a bike lane beyond this 2023-08-28 22:11:29 UTC 3 SAN CARLOS 147472 unclear whop has the right of way at this intersection. Make it a 4-way stop sign 2023-08-28 22:12:10 UTC 1 SAN CARLOS 147473 Speeding; friend was hit here 2023-08-28 22:12:44 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147785
Very unsafe route for bicycles. Traffic moves at high speed on this route which is the only passable route between these parts of San Carlos and Belmont. Itâ€™s also the only route to several schools in the area. The road is also very narrow. Traffic cal Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-06 22:13:12 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 147786
There's a pedestrian right-of-way here that has long been closed and should be reopened. Very safe, shorter walking route for Cental & Arroyo schools and for access to the senior center and downtown.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-06 23:13:13 UTC 4
SAN CARLOS 147787
There are cars constantly driving in the bike lanes here.

Consider putting the bike lanes on one side and the cars on the other. With one bike lane of both sides the cars drift into them.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-06 23:15:54 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 147788 Cars park on the sidewalk. Why is there a soft curb here? The street is one way so there is no need to encourage sidewalk parking. 2023-09-06 23:19:34 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147792 Lack of sidewalk on steep curved section of road makes this very dangerous area for high volume pedestrian school traffic. Impossible to safely bike.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 04:09:33 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147793
Very wide intersection on steep hill/blind curve with no controlled crosswalk (no crosswalk at all) with high volume school pedestrian and driver traffic. Needs controlled intersection to control speed, assure visability. Needs sidewalks throughout for p Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 04:12:17 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147794
Very narrow street with steep slope and curve, with uncontrolled intersection with low visibility adjacent to playground for young children. Needs to be one way, with sidewalk for pedestrian access to park and nearby schools. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 04:14:41 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147795
Speed needs to be reduced around this blind turn. Very dangerous for drivers, bikers, and pedestrians, including kids attempting to cross the street to get to school and people trying to exit driveways. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 04:17:30 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147796 What is being done about the speeding on Howard Ave.?!?! Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 04:18:58 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147797 Impossible to safely turn off of Geneva onto Howard. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 04:20:35 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147798 Very dangerous for bikers to get across El Camino on Howard.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 04:21:48 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147799 Cars speed too fast on Howard for it to be bike boulevard as currently setup.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 04:22:50 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147800 Dangerous intersection based on parked cars and speed of traffic on Alameda. 2023-09-07 04:25:41 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147803
Holly is a residential street that is used as a feeder road to 101. The road is congested with traffic zooming way past the speed limit of 25. Trucks ply on the road despite being disallowed. There are many young families on the street that have raised c Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 06:26:13 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 147828 Cars turning from Morse to El Camino southbound frequently ignore the stop sign. As a pedestrian, I've almost been hit here multiple times.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-07 17:27:28 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 147858
The map shows the entire Holly St in orange which indicates it is already known to be a motor vehicle high injury network. The difference between this street and many streets with the same color is that the street is also fully residential on both sides.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-08 16:38:50 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 147862
A three-way stop at Crestview and Melendy is really needed. It is almost impossible to see the speeding traffic coming both ways on Crestview when trying to make a left turn from Melendy. Pedestrians, including children catching the bus to school also Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-08 18:10:25 UTC 1 SAN CARLOS 147932 Bicyclist safety is impaired crossing hwy 101 on Holly St. Cars entering and exiting the hwy put cyclists in danger.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-13 12:45:43 UTC 3
SAN CARLOS 147933 curb cutouts insufficient for wheelchair or other mobility challenges. witnessed a wheelchair user tip over at the SE corner (Starbucks). Needs improvement.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-13 12:50:24 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 147937
Side Walk is missing on Beverly Dr between Club Dr & Bay View Drive. It's risky to walk on the street especially if it's dark. Also, to make a left on Beverly Dr. from Bay View Dr. is tricky.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-13 16:13:51 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 148025
Large cracks in the asphalt on this section of old county make it very difficult to ride on a bicycle. Old county/Pacific Blvd are an invaluable route for north south travel for cyclists, giving a low traffic alternative to El Camino with fewer interacti Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 17:36:21 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 148034
Westbound bike lane is too narrow. Half of the bike lane is the gutter, it is not safe to ride in the gutter and close to the curb. On Fridays, residents put their trash and recycling bins into the bike lane, forcing bikes to swerve in and out of motor v 2023-09-16 22:51:25 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 148035
This is the only school route to Mariposa/TL/Carlmont, and its dangerous condition prevents hundreds of students from riding their bikes to school every day. We need a quick-build project here that removes all on-street parking and installs protected or Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 22:56:50 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148036
There is absolutely no reason to wait for the Belmont traffic circle project, which is not going to improve anything anyway. We need bike lanes here in San Carlos in this section of San Carlos Avenue right now. We cannot sacrifice the safety of students Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:01:28 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148037
All schools need to close their drive-through drop-off circles. These driveways are a huge waste of precious space that could be used to build better school yards or maybe housing for teachers, and it creates traffic congestion and puts students who walk Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-16 23:04:52 UTC 0
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
SAN CARLOS 148038
The bike lanes on both sides are too narrow. Drivers keep drifting into the bike lanes because they do things on their phone screens (or they just don't know how to drive).

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:07:35 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148039
Drivers keep swerving into the bike lanes. This road is wide enough to build protected bike lanes, it just needs to have on-street parking removed. In the mean time, we need zero-tolerance enforcement against motor vehicles entering bike lanes and agains Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:11:35 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 148040
I share your frustration with these inept drivers (which is almost every driver on this road), but I'm against a two-way bike lane on one side of the road. In my experience, this creates too many conflicts at driveways and intersections where drivers wil 2023-09-16 23:18:10 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 148042
The wait times for pedestrians and bikes waiting to cross El Camino are unacceptable. People need to be able to cross without a long wait since most of them are trying to catch a train.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-16 23:27:55 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148043
Close this section of San Carlos Ave to motor vehicle traffic going westbound. Direct one-way traffic to El Camino onto one side of the median, and divide the other side into a two-way bike street plus additional space for pedestrians and outdoor restaur Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:33:43 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148044
This intersection needs to give better priority to pedestrians and cyclists such that they can access Caltrain without needing to wait several minutes to cross El Camino.

To do so, eliminate westbound motor vehicle traffic on San Carlos Avenue between El Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-16 23:37:05 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148045
There should be a bike/ped over- or underpass here, connecting E San Carlos Ave with Skyway. Stop wasting decades on fancy design/feasability "studies", just give us something that works!
Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:41:13 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 148046 Holly St needs a road diet and protected bike lanes.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:42:52 UTC 2
SAN CARLOS 148047 San Carlos Ave needs a road diet and protected bike lanes from El Camino to Prospect St.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:46:09 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148048
Turn the San Carlos/Redwood City city limit at Old County Rd, or the Cordilleras Creek bridge, into a modal filter so only bikes and pedestrians can go through. There are enough lanes on El Camino for motor vehicles going north/south already.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-16 23:54:23 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148066 Make Laurel St a pedestrian mall.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-17 01:47:47 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 148074
This section of Phelps between San Carlos Ave and Palm Ave intersections that leads to Arundel elementary school is lacking a sidewalk. Many little kids and their parents walk on this section dodging cars. Could we plan for a sidewalk please? Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-17 16:36:58 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148076 This crosswalk is ignored by hurried vehicles turning blind corner. 2x near accident of car hitting child pedestrian in crosswalk. 8/25 @ 7:50am and 9/8 @8:00am Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-18 14:54:42 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148078
The Holly EL Camino intersection is super hostile to pedestrians. The timing to cross Holly on the northbound side is too short to safely cross. Northbound el Camino has double turn lanes to Holly, so going north as a pedestrian the first lane usually st Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-18 15:48:51 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 148079
Almost been run over trying to cross eastbound on the north side of the El Camino San Carlos ave intersection. Southbound El Camino cars have right turn on red, so they often blow through the pedestrian cycle and nearly run us over. Pedestrians don't get Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-18 15:56:45 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148080
Crosswalk is a deathtrap. No signal, not daylighted (parked cars near by), multiple lanes to cross in both directions, no physical vehicle slowdown mechanisms, no safely islands, 30 to 40 mph car speeds. Literally seen people run over here. Seen elderly Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-18 16:03:54 UTC 1
SAN CARLOS 148082
This crossing is a deathtrap on a bicycle. High-speed freeway traffic (entering or exiting) is put in conflict with bicyclists, with poor visibility due to the tight spiral turns.

I would never bike this. And walking it wouldn't be much better. I bike al Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-18 23:18:31 UTC 2
SAN CARLOS 148083
Biking along here is super dangerous. Two lanes per direction barely fit cars, and parked cars force unexpected lane changes. Where are you supposed to bike here? This area needs protected bike lanes to make biking safe. It's so bad this is where you wal Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-18 23:26:09 UTC 2
SAN CARLOS 148084
There are not continuous sidewalks nor crosswalks for pedestrians. No bike lanes either. Traffic often moving at dangerous speeds even though homes are close to the road, kids and pedestrians often present and SamTrans buses regularly use this route. 2023-09-19 00:59:08 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 148098 protected bike lane would be very nice. I don't feel safe riding bike in this section 2023-09-21 20:22:55 UTC 0 SAN CARLOS 148110
Cars turning right on red from Old County southbound onto Holly westbound cannot see pedestrians until it's too late. There is a large concrete retaining wall that holds up the train tracks and surrounding landscaping. This wall blocks the driver's view.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-24 00:59:15 UTC 0
SAN CARLOS 148111
This pedestrian tunnel exit is unsafe for pedestrians. The pedestrian emerges onto a high-speed road, and drivers cannot see the pedestrian until the pedestrian is in the road. Please place a raised crosswalk and a stop sign here. Belmont has stop signs Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-24 01:02:28 UTC 1
SAN FRANCISCO INTL AIRPORT 147397
The lanes need to be more clearly labeled that one is turning onto San Bruno Ave and the other is continuing on N McDonnell. There are often people who choose the wrong lane and are trying to go straight from the left turn lane or vice versa, cutting peo Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 22:26:19 UTC 0 SAN MATEO 147229 Highly unsafe for pedestrians.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-15 21:11:56 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 147236 The bike lanes along Peninsula Ave do not make it to the intersection of Humboldt St.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-16 17:41:27 UTC 2
SAN MATEO 147327
When biking across the bridge, you have to cross two on-ramps: there should be a blinking light here to warn cars of bikers. The two-lane on-ramp is dangerous as well, because cars in the second lane from the shoulder might not see bikers.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-21 17:31:34 UTC 1
SAN MATEO 147328 The railing on this bridge cuts off so when bicyclists come down they go into incoming traffic and it's very dangerous. The railing needs to be extended a few feet.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-21 17:33:09 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 147329
Going into this overpass you can't see the cars lined up at the light: there's low visibility before the intersection. There are too many cars and there should be blinking lights to warn about incoming light. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 17:34:25 UTC 0 Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
SAN MATEO 147330 This overpass/intersection should be made safer for bikers so they can get to San Mateo station easily.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-21 17:35:10 UTC 1
SAN MATEO 147331 There's always slowdown at this exit on 101 but there's no light or cause. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 17:37:17 UTC 0 SAN MATEO 147332 This exit is always very jammed, and there should be clear signage to get to 92. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 17:39:02 UTC 0 SAN MATEO 147333
This overpass is really not good for bikers. Going towards Hillsdale Station on bike is an important route for commuters and bikers can be unsafe near the overpass entrance to 101.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-21 17:40:18 UTC 1
SAN MATEO 147335 Motorists are running red lights on this overpass; almost got T-boned driving across the intersection. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 17:43:15 UTC 0 SAN MATEO 147339 This overpass should have raised barriers for bikers.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-21 17:56:14 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 147340 Cars run red lights and go too fast through intersections here all the time, which is very dangerous. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-21 17:57:34 UTC 0 SAN MATEO 147380
When coming off the freeway on the Kehoe exit freeway offramp, the city has placed double wide stripe to prevent a left hand turn right off of the freeway onto Norton St. There should be a barrier there to prevent left hand turns. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 19:28:28 UTC 0 SAN MATEO 147399 Switching to left turn lane to go toward Coyote Point Dr direction is not safe here for bicycling Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 22:35:59 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 147400 Sorry I was referring to a different location 2023-08-22 22:38:28 UTC 0 SAN MATEO 147448
Alameda de las pulgas - to many cars, cannot see well
San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:24:29 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 147532 This is a stressful merge as the two right most lanes collapse together very quickly after going through the Hillsdale mall intersection heading north. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 05:19:14 UTC 1 SAN MATEO 148009
The current Peninsula Ave overpass of Hwy 101 is dangerous and uncomfortable for walking or biking, so I must drive my family the one mile to Coyote Point and the regional amenities that are walled off from active transportation. The City should do a qui Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-15 17:39:57 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 148011
Along ECR in downtown San Mateo from Tilton Ave to 9th Ave:

1. Automatic ped (bike) crosswalk recall

2. Minimize ped/bike conflict with turning (L & R) vehicles thru separate signals

3. Longer leading pedestrian intervals

4. Longer pedestrian cycle
Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-15 20:45:03 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 148012 Thereâ€™s no reliable bus route to get to the park or senior center here.

Safety Concern - Public
Transit 2023-09-15 20:46:28 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 148013 Thereâ€™s no convenient or reliable bus route to get to this park.

Safety Concern - Public
Transit 2023-09-15 20:48:13 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 148014 Thereâ€™s no convenient or reliable bus route to get to Coyote Point or the Bay Trail.

Safety Concern - Public
Transit 2023-09-15 20:49:00 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 148015
Pedestrians should be able to cross on both sides of the street here. Other safety measures should be put in place to protect pedestrians. The street design here is such that the City of San Mateoâ€™s new rules for reduced speeds near schools wonâ€™t app Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-15 20:51:55 UTC 0
SAN MATEO 148172
I don't know how the development that removed what little was left of the bikeway on Delaware got approved. This location and all of Delaware needs a continuous bikeway, especially on a high-injury corridor.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 18:39:03 UTC 0
SKY LONDA 148050
Skyline Blvd needs zero-tolerance enforcement of speed limits. There needs to be a level of patrolling at which every one of the recreational (or Australian professional) race car drivers is guaranteed to lose their driver's license if they speed here.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 00:09:54 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147337 There are no buttons for the crosswalk to signal pedestrian crossing to the Caltrain station.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-21 17:48:01 UTC 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147347
Pedestrian access from the east to the west side of 101 between Sister Cities Blvd and Oyster Point Blvd is treacherous. Sidewalk's are absent from sections of this crossing
Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 04:46:22 UTC 4
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147349 Agreed - there is also a large number of people illegally turning from Airport onto Oyster Point, making that crossing dangerous 2023-08-22 15:48:29 UTC 2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147350
Visibility as drivers come out of the cove is challenging due to the landscaping lining the median to the Gateway turnaround loop. This coupled with people rarely looking both ways before turning makes it dangerous to cross here because you may or may no Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 15:59:31 UTC 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147351
If you activate the crosswalk signal to cross Airport as cars are coming down Sister Cities, the signal does not activate when the light cycles around. You must press the signal again at another part of the light cycle (when cars are coming down airport Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 16:05:39 UTC 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147356
This intersection is the closest I have actually come to being hit by a car as drivers are turning onto 101N and not looking for pedestrians who are crossing towards or away from Dubuque. Again, this road is sloped such that if you are walking away from Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 16:31:55 UTC 2
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147357
No crosswalk on the west side of this intersection. forces the many pedestrians that cross the intersection each day to walk out of their way to get back and forth.

More and more people are riding the commuter buses into the area and then walk to their o Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 16:33:29 UTC 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147359
Many Genentech and other bio tech company employees live in SSF, west of the 101 and would bike or walk into work if it weren't for the dangerous conditions.

Crossing the 101 is a major barrier for biking to work in E101.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 16:35:41 UTC 8
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147361
Cars turning right to go towards Costco / 101S often do not look for pedestrians, particularly if they are on the side that is heading towards gateway. However, even crossing from the other direction cars will turn until the last possible second rather t Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 16:47:40 UTC 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147366
Bike utilization of this route is still relatively low because it still feels unsafe. There have been great infrastructure to help bikes feel safer, but still more could be done.

I'd look to the model of how the Palo Alto Caltrain station connects to the Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 17:28:21 UTC 6
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147370
The disappearing bike lane (uphill, westbound) forces cyclists to merge with a traffic lane or take a distressingly small section of "shoulder" adjacent to fast-moving commute traffic. The solution is to provide a continuous bike lane on uphill grades Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 18:31:53 UTC 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147371
This section of Sister Cities has no bike lane and instead there are only ""sharrows"". The speed differential here where you are biking up hill while two lanes of car traffic goes by at 40+ mph is significant. This creates a very dangerous section wher Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 18:34:37 UTC 4
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147372
Chestnut is an appealing bike route towards E101, to avoid the heavy traffic on Three Sisters. However, the lack of a bike lane causes bike/car conflicts, particularly on the northbound uphill side, and especially where the road narrows north of Sunset A Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 18:36:48 UTC 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147376
Cars usually drive really far into the bike lane when they turn right into the Costco parking lot (Coming from south). They also usually don't really look when they come out of there which makes it quite dangerous for bikers.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 18:59:55 UTC 6
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147378
This is a little scary as a cyclist as cars try to park in the long-term SFO parking and push bikers to the narrow shoulder. There is no bike lane in this section as a few car lanes merge/split coming off of the 380/101 offramp.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 19:15:03 UTC 6
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147381
To the last point, I would call out that there are often nails, screws, and other sharp objects in the bike lane - making for costly repairs to inner tubes and tires if/when they get punctured. 2023-08-22 21:12:45 UTC 4
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147382
Pedestrian access to Genentech south campus (buildings 40-48) is pretty poor. There are low hanging trees over the sidewalk at this point that force pedestrians to enter the street without clear view of oncoming traffic. The most convenient way to access Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 21:17:53 UTC 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147383
This intersection should also have a stop sign on Randolph instead of just on Gardiner. This is not a great intersection because people park illegally too close to the corner, making it difficult for you to see if someone is coming on Gardiner before mak Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 21:30:06 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147386
Areas of the sidewalk are in poor condition in certain places (or non-existent on some of stretches of East Grand), along with construction blocking off walking paths frequently
Routes are especially not good for electric scooters/skateboards/flywheel Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 21:56:06 UTC 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147387
Traffic light for the right turn from Airport onto East Grand, under the 101, is very dim and not visible at all.

Many drivers do not pay attention to the "No Right Turn on Red" signage or notice the light is currently red because the light itself i Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-22 22:00:04 UTC 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147388 This merger is very dangerous for bikers and drivers. The drivers exit the offramp at a high rate of speed and bikers are supposed to merge across.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 22:07:03 UTC 5
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147391
Definitely. I commute this way everyday, and having a dedicated space for bikes separated from cars is important. This whole stretch, in both directions, that is between roads leading to freeways can be nerve wracking. 2023-08-22 22:13:48 UTC 1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147392
Lack of road markings cause many drivers to consistently turn left from the right lane in front of other cars. There are near hits every hour particularly during the morning rush hours. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 22:13:58 UTC 4 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147393
Southbound on S Airport Blvd through this stretch leading to the freeway onramps needs better bike safety, especially continuing on to N McDonnell road. Most cars are focused on getting on to the freeway, and not necessarily focused on cyclists.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-22 22:17:53 UTC 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147394
Since the addition of the median on E Grand that blocks Kimball, cars coming out of Kimball turn right and make a U turn around this median to exit towards 101. I don't know what the intended exit path was for these cars, but the high volume of traffic c Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 22:18:18 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147396 Littlefield desperately needs to be repaved, the potholes are a major hazard for drivers. 2023-08-22 22:21:22 UTC 3 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147401 I third this 2023-08-22 22:39:32 UTC 1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147407 The debris field in this intersection (westbound, left lane) is a regular puncture threat for bike tires, and it's difficult to avoid when on a bike. 2023-08-23 00:07:55 UTC 1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147415
Genentech bus that serves BART/ Caltrain - allows all area employees to ride - stops in this area. Because there is no mid block crossing or enough lights to cross, people are walking across the street, through the medium, across traffic to cross the str Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-23 20:23:56 UTC 3
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147416
Lot's of potholes and pavement issues on OP blvd, lead to cars swerving to miss and driving in bike lane. Bike lane conditions are rough too, up against lanes of traffic going 40 mph.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-23 20:26:11 UTC 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147417 Could be used as a secondary thoroughfare for bikes (the bike lanes are on OP Blvd and E. Grand where speeds are high and traffic volumes very high) 2023-08-23 20:31:06 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147418 Would be great to have high occupancy vehicles lanes on E. Grand and OP Blvd during peak commuter hours. This would really increase the people througput. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-23 20:33:01 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147451
Chestnut & Commercial Intersection in South San Francisco - unclear who has right of way at this intersection. Consider a stop sign/4-way intersection San Carlos Pop-Up 2023-08-28 19:31:00 UTC 0
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147474 relatively narrow road with heavy traffic and a large amount of big rig traffic during commute hours. Despite having a bike lane it's not very safe for cyclists Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-08-29 03:43:36 UTC 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147475
cant poletti way be extended to Veterans blvd? As a bike / ped path it could go adjacent to the caltrain right of way and create a traffic free, interesection free safe path between SSF caltrain & the cove & connect to the bay trail / Sierra Point Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-29 03:47:57 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147520 A lot of the turn lane traffic lights in this stretch of Gateway are older and very dim - it is quite difficult to see when you get the green arrow to turn 2023-08-31 04:25:11 UTC 1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147521
The timing of this light for cars turning left from Oyster Point onto Airport is not adequate. If you are the third or fourth car to reach the line and the light is green, by the time youâ€™ve turned the corner the light has already turned red. This need 2023-08-31 04:30:37 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147522
Add signage heading towards 101 - either (or both) physical signs or writing on the ground to indicate what lanes go to 101 N, 101 S, or continue straight. Drivers often donâ€™t realize until theyâ€™re going through the Gateway and Oyster Point intersect Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 04:37:40 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147523
A couple really bad potholes over here on East Grand. Timing of this light could also be looked at especially during peak traffic times - this should be a demand light for every direction except going straight down East Grand where it switches only when Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 04:43:42 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147524 Left turn lane to go from East Grand to Littlefield needs to be longer. Cars waiting to turn left are often blocking the left lane of traffic going straight on East Grand. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 04:45:40 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147525 Drivers turning right out of verily from this intersection often do not look for pedestrians.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-31 04:47:19 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147527
I donâ€™t know where all of them are, but each crosswalk not at an intersection on the downtown stretch of Grand should have flashing lights. Itâ€™s challenging as a driver to see pedestrians enter the street due to a combination of parked cars and trees Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-31 04:53:51 UTC 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147553 Please take a look at the timing of the lights on Gateway. They will turn red for no reason and with no cars visible on side streets and these are VERY LONG lights. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 21:14:15 UTC 2 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147554
Please examine ways to get the traffic through the north and southbound lanes of Airport Blvd. during peak hours. The timing of the lights is not working and cars merging from the freeway or side streets just back it up further. One can sit thru three li Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-31 21:17:46 UTC 1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147753
There is a lot of debris (including things like nails, metal, broken class) in the bike lane along Grand from the Caltrain station to the end (Genentech campus). I would expect there to be debris given there is an industrial use of this route for trucks, Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-05 16:28:09 UTC 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147814
The merging of the 101 NB Bayshore Exit, Bayshore Blvd and Bike Route at this location is very dangerous for cyclists. Cars exit at high speed, vehicles already on Bayshore are at high speed and the markings, warnings and location off the Bike Path are Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 15:33:02 UTC 2
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147816 There should not be right turn on red from Allerton onto E Grand, though some drivers still try. It is too difficult to see oncoming traffic coming around the curve. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 15:43:27 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147819
A lot of the lights on Gateway are old and very dim, particularly the left turns - it is quite difficult to see when these lights change, especially when the sun is rising and setting. 2023-09-07 15:50:22 UTC 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147821
This merge is extremely dangerous for bicyclists who intend to continue going straight down E Grand while drivers simultaneously are turning right on Haskins. I wish I could say that the addition of bike lane paint had helped here, but I just watched a n Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-07 15:55:59 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147829 I fourth this! The bike lane suddenlyy disappears in this section? 2023-09-07 21:53:33 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147832 I second this. 2023-09-07 22:00:33 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147839
The lights here for South Airport Boulevard going northbound are quite close together, and I have on multiple occasions seen drivers run the first red light because they see a green at the second red light. I'm not sure how to solve this problem, but wan Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 23:11:34 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147860 Blind entry of bikeway to street. There is a beg button, but both pedestrians and cyclists are obscured by shrubbery.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-08 18:00:02 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147861
Blind connection of bike path to street. In order to yield the path to pedestrians, many cyclists use this point to shift from path to street. However - even with the beg button in use, I have nearly been hit a few times because the shrubbery obscures Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-08 18:05:48 UTC 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147900
There is no crosswalk on the north part of this intersection, even though most people arriving on transit shuttles walk on the northern part of the sidewalk to reach businesses on the other side of Veterans Blvd.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 21:41:23 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147901 Agreed! Please consider a pedestrian overpass here. Or no turn on red sign perhaps. Anything to make what's basically a highway crossing safer. 2023-09-11 21:44:15 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 147913
Lots of potholes on OP Blvd and the switch of the bike lane into traffic, crossing the right-turn-only lane at this specific crossroad is very dangerous! Cars (and buses!!!) speed on this stretch of road and don't slow down to turn right.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-11 23:27:01 UTC 1
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148088 Crosswalk signal and traffic light here is very confusing. Cars run red light coming off 101 ramp.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-20 16:31:26 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148089 Cars in slip lane don't stop for pedestrians in crosswalk Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-20 16:32:39 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148090
Any cycling in this intersection is dangerous, but especially the left turns from southbound Airport Blvd. on to eastbound Oyster Point Blvd. I am anxiously alert as a driver when I see cyclists making this turn. Most drivers seem so determined to preve Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-20 23:41:52 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148094 Westbound E. Grand Ave bike lane disappears here.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-21 19:48:51 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148096
East of 101 access to the SSF Caltrain station is very dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. Dubuque Ave is difficult for bikes and pedestrians and Poletti Way is only slightly better.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-21 20:10:29 UTC 0
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148097
East of 101 access to the SSF Caltrain station is very dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians. Dubuque Ave is difficult for bikes and pedestrians and Poletti Way is only slightly better.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-21 20:12:08 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148167 There should be better bike wayfinding through signs and sharrows (or lanes, even better) to get from King Drive to SSF BART and ECR.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:39:11 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148168 There needs to be protected bike lanes connecting the Centennial Way Trailheads, especially with the new developments happening there.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-28 17:43:00 UTC 0
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148169
Very narrow street that is used as a main throughfare to get from old-town SSF to upper SSF and the schools. Cars are parked on both sides of the street and the parked cars are hit by moving cars. Often these cars are driving recklessly and speeding. Spe Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-28 17:58:12 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148222
From So. Airport Blvd to El Camino Real on the segment of 380 the Light bulbs are out on multiple highway light poles and never seem to get replaced. This creates a very dark driving experience for older drivers (or even younger drivers with poor eyes ri 2023-09-29 09:35:23 UTC 1 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148223 CalTrabs Light poles at 280 southbound on Westborough (west) off-ramp need bulbs replaced. They have been burned out for years. 2023-09-29 09:38:39 UTC 0 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 148236
For traffic east bound on Westboroutgh to Chestnut at El Camino, the close proximity of traffic lights at Chestnut & El Camino and Chestnut & Antoinette and the fact that they are not synchronized results in traffic backing-up onto El Camino and blocking Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 17:32:38 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 147379
Highway 92 from Highway 280 to the coastal Highway 1 is too narrow for the types of traffic that travel out to the coast. It is a single lane highway most of the way and no barriers to separate the east bound and west bound traffic. Accidents are very ba Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-22 19:24:59 UTC 7 UNINCORPORATED 147457
Please make a bike lane the full length of the Canada road / 92 / Skyline route - very dangerous at 92!!!!!! San Carlos Pop-up 2023-08-28 19:54:57 UTC 0
UNINCORPORATED 147769 Potential conflict with Bicyclists riding to the San Andreas Trail and vehicles coming off of SB 280.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-06 15:45:48 UTC 0
UNINCORPORATED 147835
Please put a street name sign on the mast arm of the stoplight across Skyline Ave. The existing signs are very small and hard to read. This lack of clarity can lead drivers to make unsafe maneuvers. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-07 22:52:28 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 147866
You see many cyclist and pedestrians on this road with no where to walk or ride. You have bus stops that drop people off with no where to walk to. proper paths for pedestrians would help
on 84 they have pop-out lanes for cyclist which may help a 2023-09-08 20:45:57 UTC 4 UNINCORPORATED 147874
Pedestrains block the sidewalks (waiting for restaurants )pushing other pedestrians into the street, cyclist are forced to use a narrow street where cars are going 25 MPH and trying to squeeze past pedestrians spilling into the street and cyclists stuck 2023-09-08 21:03:45 UTC 3 UNINCORPORATED 147877
In the 30+ years that I have lived on the Coastside and driven Hwy 1 between Montara and Pacifica frequently, I have witnessed many close calls where a car stopped for pedestrians at Gray Whale Cove or pedestrians darted out across the hwy, forcing drive Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-11 04:07:19 UTC 3 UNINCORPORATED 147887
The roadway through Princeton Harbor Area (Capistrano) has no bicycle lane and the cyclists ride on the sidewalks. There was a stabbing in front of Barbaraâ€™s Fishtrap when a cyclist politely asked a restaurant patron out front waiting for a table to le 2023-09-11 17:57:10 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 147911
As a Montara resident that regularly drives this route on busy weekends, I am very concerned about the pedestrians trying to cross from the parking lot to Grey Whale Cove beach. At times there are cars parked along the roadway and many pedestrians trying Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-11 22:50:54 UTC 1
UNINCORPORATED 147912
On Highway 1 heading south, between Linda Mar Blvd and the Tom Lantos Tunnel, there is almost no shoulder space for bicyclists and the road is winding. Many weekend tourists drive this stretch of HWY 1 and are not expecting to find bicyclists in the vehi Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-11 23:02:18 UTC 1
UNINCORPORATED 147915
Agreed. There should be some sort of speed decreasing measure here or the state needs to build a pedestrian tunnel under the roadway. No residential area here, install rumble strips at a minimum. 2023-09-12 00:02:04 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 147916 No bike lane on Hwy 1 connecting Montara to HMB coastal bike route starting in El Grenada.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-12 00:04:40 UTC 3
UNINCORPORATED 147917
Airport street needs a protected bike path. Many people (mostly service workers and residents who live in the trailer park) commute via bicycle on this road often at night with no lights to their jobs in Moss Beach. There are no street lights and this r Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-12 00:08:56 UTC 3
UNINCORPORATED 147918
There needs to be a better parking solution for Montara state beach. The parking lot was paved and striped to hold less cars than when it was dirt. This lot needs to be bigger and parking on HWY 1 needs to be restricted and enforced. Busy weekends here c Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-12 00:12:34 UTC 2 UNINCORPORATED 147919
Enforcement of traffic violations inside the tunnel needs to be done. People often use the shoulder lane or the approach shoulder to pass inside the tunnel at unsafe speeds. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-12 00:16:13 UTC 2 UNINCORPORATED 147923
Road is collapsing here. Temporary road closure signs for months. If the road looks this bad I can help but wonder what the sewage and gas lines conditions are under here. Seems like a neigborhood disaster waiting to happen Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-12 00:28:29 UTC 2 UNINCORPORATED 148020
All traffic bottlenecks at the Lemos Farm / Landfill turnoffs and the risky / illegal left turns people make over the double yellows out of these generate most of the accidents on 92. I would favor continuing the downhill cement median even further. Or Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-16 05:37:23 UTC 4 UNINCORPORATED 148061
The Hwy 1 bridge crossing Tunitas Creek is dangerous for cyclists because the shoulder suddenly ends and drivers do not pay attention to bikes in the traffic lane. The bridge needs to be widened to accommodate shoulders. In the interim it would help to p Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:30:01 UTC 1
UNINCORPORATED 148062 Close Canada Rd to all motor vehicle traffic between Palm Circle Rd and Hwy 92. Issue special single-use permits for vehicle access to Filoli and the Water Temple.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:37:04 UTC 0
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
UNINCORPORATED 148063 Close Canada Rd to all motor vehicle traffic between Hwy 92 and Palm Circle Rd in Woodside.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:38:40 UTC 0
UNINCORPORATED 148064
Close all freeway ramps connecting Hwy 280 with the section of Skyline Blvd between Hwy 92 and Black Mountain Rd, to reduce speeding and cut-through traffic that puts cyclists on Skyline in danger.

Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-17 01:42:56 UTC 0
UNINCORPORATED 148087
Widen 92. This road cannot handle the population of the coastside and the traffic we get from visitors. Accidents regularly close what should be an evacuation route.

Forget the NIMBYism this is a matter of public safety. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-20 05:02:24 UTC 3 UNINCORPORATED 148101
92 between 280 and hi 1 is a blood alley due to head on collisions. Weekly, access is cutoff or greatly delayed. Add an overhead freeway. And complete the barrier between east and west lanes so no more need die or be maimed. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-23 05:43:39 UTC 3 UNINCORPORATED 148102 Deep potholes and poorly patched potholes on 92 cause accidents as people must swerve. We also sustain tire damage. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-23 05:46:19 UTC 2 UNINCORPORATED 148103 Huge trucks are allowed to drive too fast on 92 and they frequently cross over the center line. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-23 05:48:46 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 148179
Driving on Hi 92 from 280 to the coast is exceptionally dangerous. The frequent collisions must be reduced. Bypass or alter 92 physically to prevent crashes. Begin law enforcement. Fire whoever is currently sending out traffic notifications and begin rel Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 03:07:51 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 148180
A barrier is needed on all parts of 92 from 280 to HMB to prevent head onâ€™s. Cal Trans wrote me a couple years ago that not enough people have died or been injured to warrant a center divide barrier. Many more have been injured and at least one more Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 03:15:08 UTC 2 UNINCORPORATED 148182
Straighten the curves on 92 between Main Street and Pilarcitos Creek. Add a k-rail to separate the westbound and eastbound lanes. Periodically add a roundabout so that traffic can reach the businesses and homes.

This would reduce accidents and improve Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 03:32:20 UTC 2 UNINCORPORATED 148183
Tunnel under the Highway 1 for pedestrians to go between Gray Whale Cove and the parking lot east of highway 1. The existing slope of the terrain from the parking lot going west towards the Gray Whale Cove access road is downhill. The tunnel can go under Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 03:37:20 UTC 1
UNINCORPORATED 148186
Donâ€™t spend a penny on Gray Whale Cove until after the improvements to the Safety of the Moss Beach Corridor are funded and completed! I agree that an underpass is needed but do not agree that it needs to be a priority. 2023-09-29 05:34:29 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148187
Hwy 92 accidents are weekly so something needs to be done.

Especially if they could create an uphill passing lane on Westbound 92 between the Reservoir and Skyline (Hwy 35). 2023-09-29 05:37:39 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148189
They need to crunch the 92 numbers again.

Hwy 92 is a Nightmare between HMB & Crystal Sorings!
I avoid it whenever l can because it is so unpredictable. 2023-09-29 05:42:38 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 148190
CalTrans could let motorists know of incidents on Hwy 92 if they installed VMS* between HMB and Anza in San Mateo plus on 280 before the 92 westbound exits!!!
(*Variable Message Signs) 2023-09-29 05:46:10 UTC 0
UNINCORPORATED 148197
The HMB City Council is not in favor of widening Hwy 92, but someday it may come to pass, as they kept building hotels and more low income housing, and holding events like Pumpkin Festival, Dream Machines or Maverickâ€™s plus all the visiting beach goers 2023-09-29 06:27:34 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 148200 Yes to a roundabout! 2023-09-29 06:42:23 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 148203
Since the SMC DPW closed the road with some ugly sawhorses there has been Absolutely NO COMMUNICATION with neighbors as to the proposed repaired or fix. The County Planning Department keeps issuing building permits, but wonâ€™t spend a dime To repair 2023-09-29 07:00:05 UTC 0
UNINCORPORATED 148204
Agree! The tunnel is a blessing, but there are often out-of-the-area, impatient drivers in a hurry to get somewhere while they endanger others. The non-driving lane needs yellow striping to denote that it is NOT a passing lane! 2023-09-29 07:03:36 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148205
Airport Street in Moss Beach needs Street Lighting. (Big Wave LLC should pay for it as it will benefit their trips generated by the Office Park that is now going in. There have been several fatalities on this roadway since the Mid-1980â€™s to present. 2023-09-29 07:09:14 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148206
Many years back the SM County â€œstudiedâ€• completing the CA Coastal Trail, But put the plan away in a drawer and never funded it. Now, they want to shoe-horn in a 71 Unit Cypress Point affordable housing project in Moss Beach, but the safety improv 2023-09-29 07:16:07 UTC 1
UNINCORPORATED 148207
The Highway One roadway will be a choke-point between Linda Mar and the tunnel in an Emergency Evacuation like we have seen in Paradise Ca and Lahaina, on Maui. Residents fleeing the MidCoast will be trapped with no breakdown lanes, or even a sufficient 2023-09-29 07:24:04 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148210
It us difficult to see what part of HWY 92 this comment refers to, but more would walk or bike to school if there was a safe way to do so.

Unfortunately HMB us broke and never addresses ANY traffic issues. 2023-09-29 08:00:45 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148218
The fly-over ramp from NB 280 to Westbound Hwy 92 has several street lights burned out and this is very dangerous on a Foggy night with no lights on a curve high above 280! 2023-09-29 08:58:38 UTC 1
Web Comments - All Comments
City/County Name id Comment Comment Type Created Likes
UNINCORPORATED 148219
Roadside debris from January Storms has never been cleared along the shoulders of Hwy One from Moss Beach to Linda Mar in a Pacifica. Mudflows, tree parts & loose rocks are left where they landed and obstruct shoulders that are too narrow already for cyc Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-29 09:20:34 UTC 0
UNINCORPORATED 148234 We need a high-visibility crosswalk across Obispo at Coronado along with complete sidewalks on both sides of Coronado from Hwy 1 to Avenue Alhambra/Santiago.

Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-09-29 16:17:15 UTC 1
UNINCORPORATED 148235 Implement traffic calming measures in this school zone. 2023-09-29 16:19:35 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 148237 It is difficult and dangerous for vehicles to exit Lifemark onto east bound Highway 92. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-29 17:35:11 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 148242
Why isn't there isn't a wider paved road shoulder from the edge of Pacifica through the Tom Lantos tunnel to Montara? I'm talking maybe a foot extra on some areas or even half that. There are loads of steep curves, so visibility isnâ€™t good for drivers Safety Concern -
Bicycling 2023-09-29 20:37:23 UTC 1
UNINCORPORATED 148251
In the 1980â€™s a barrier was placed between the lanes on highway 101 turning what was then called Blood Alley into a safe section of highway. Please do the same for 92 which will eliminate our constant accidents, injuries, never ending delays. Coastsid Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-30 15:37:55 UTC 1 UNINCORPORATED 148252 Then they made a second road to bypass it which is our current 101 2023-09-30 16:48:01 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148261
The HWY1 corridor between El Granada and Moss Beach is dangerous for bicyclists and pedestrians. Providing a direct and safe path for bike and foot traffic between El Granada would allow everyone without a car to move between these communities (children, 2023-09-30 21:40:19 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148280
Current conditions at the Red Barn location include excessive speeding and passing. Midpen's La Honda Feasibility Study to evaluate potential expanded public access are evaluating potential improvements that could include a median to prevent passing an Safety Concern - Driving 2023-10-01 00:54:22 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148281
Current conditions include excessive speeds. Midpen's La Honda Feasibility Study to evaluate potential expanded public access recommend considering potential improvements to improve line of sight. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-10-01 01:10:19 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148282
San Mateo County's Trails Master Plan and Midpen's Purisima-to-the-Sea Trails Feasibility Study call for trail crossings of Verde Road and Highway 1 to connect the Bay Area Ridge Trail and California Coastal Trail. Pedestrian improvements could include s Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-10-01 01:14:59 UTC 0
UNINCORPORATED 148283
San Mateo County's Trails Master Plan and Midpen's Purisima-to-the-Sea Trails Feasibility Study call for trail crossings of Verde Road and Highway 1 to connect the Bay Area Ridge Trail and California Coastal Trail. Pedestrian improvements could include s 2023-10-01 01:15:48 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148284
Turning left onto the highway at Etheldore & Highway 1 and at Marine & Highway 1 is terrifying. It is a problem of volume already and will get much, much worse if the development at Sierra adds traffic to the already scary flow. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-10-01 04:29:14 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148302
All the curves in 92 need new right shoulder striping. Itâ€™s dangerous at night & impossible in the rain at night to visually find the edge of the road. What about using an irradescent in the paint as well? 2023-10-02 15:51:09 UTC 0 UNINCORPORATED 148303
Potholes all along 92 to the coast, including highway 1, cause drivers to swerve into traffic or tire damage. Potholes arenâ€™t being filled and when they are the fix isnâ€™t done properly so they donâ€™t last. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-10-02 16:27:03 UTC 0 WOODSIDE 147459 People treat woodside rd. like a freeway. Speeding from freeway to freeway Safety Concern - Driving 2023-08-28 21:57:09 UTC 0 WOODSIDE 147489
Children cannot safely get home from school because there is no crosswalk at Miramontes and Woodside Rd. This effects many families and young children in our town. The north side of the street has a ditch and so children would have to walk in the bike la Safety Concern -
Walking 2023-08-30 20:49:22 UTC 1
WOODSIDE 147761
La Honda Road aand Old La Honda Road need major renovation to be safe for the 7500/day traffic that floes over the roadway.

Kings Mountain Road has somilar safety issues. Safety Concern - Driving 2023-09-05 23:35:48 UTC 0 WOODSIDE 148023
Bicycles are dangerous.they speed, pass cars causing potentially fatal situations , follow no rules for driving on the road and say itâ€™s not their fault because they are a little bicycle. I was passed at a stop sign when I stopped with an oncoming ca 2023-09-16 15:02:50 UTC 2 WOODSIDE 148199 Too many testosterone-fueled cyclists with self-centered attitudes need to be ticketed! 2023-09-29 06:40:51 UTC 0 / City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Appendix B
Phase 2 Engagement Comments
Event/
Date City
Highway or Non-Highway Priority
Intersection?
Pedestrian, Bicycle Priority, or
Motor Vehicle concern? Specific Road/Intersection? Feedback Belmont Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle El Camino Real El Camino Real is sometimes the only direct path through the peninsula and there is no safe way to bike it; need separate bike lanes
Belmont Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian El Camino Real El Camino Real has too short crosswalk times, need longer times to cross the street Belmont Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle El Camino Real El Camino Real has poorly timed stop-lights Belmont Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle El Camino Real El Camino is pretty wide for bikers, maybe need better marking of bike lanes Belmont Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle
El Camino Real/Old County Rd.
and Ralston Ave.

The area where Ralston Ave. intersects El Camino Real and Old County Rd. is problematic and unsafe
Belmont Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
El Camino Real and Harbour
Blvd. People run the light at this intersection and it is dangerous for pedestrians Belmont General Comment General Comment All the priority locations are good/accurate Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Davey Glen Rd. Tree blocking turn sign on Davey Glen Rd.

Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Wessex Way Wessex Way is difficult for pedestrians because cars whip around curves Belmont General Comment Pedestrian
Pedestrians don't have enough time to cross the road for older folks. Increase pedestrian walk times everywhere.

Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
Bike lanes in the middle of the road are very dangerous for cyclists; need raised barriers for those lanes
San Carlos Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Highway 101 and Ralston Ave.

People make illegal u-turns at the same time as cars have a green light to turn onto 101 from Holly St. There have been accidents where people run into each other and this intersection is a known issue in the community.

Belmont Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Highway 101 and Ralston Ave.

Get rid of metering lights to get onto 101 from Ralston Ave. There is not enough space to accelerate safely.

Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Chula Vista Dr. between
Ralston Ave. and Alameda de
las Pulgas Very congested when the three schools get out at the same time Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Ralston Ave. between Alameda
de las Pulgas intersection and
Ralston Middle School
Need more stop signs (larger signs and stop lights), because there are unlighted crosswalks without stop signs and not safe for children walking to school Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
Ralston Ave. north of Alameda
de las Pulgas
Need bike path or some marking improvements for cyclists on Ralston Ave. from Alameda de las Pulgas to Canada Rd.

Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
Alameda de las Puglas north of
Ralston Ave.

Prioritize bike improvements on Alameda north of Ralston Ave. South of Ralston Ave., bike lanes are not bad
Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Ralston Rd. east of Alameda de
las Pulgas The driving on Ralston Rd. east of Alameda de las Pulgas before El Camino Real is not bad Redwood City Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Alameda de las Pulgas
between Jefferson and Whipple
On Alameda de las Pulgas between Jefferson and Whipple, cars go too fast (60-70 mph); need speed bumps or stop signs
Belmont General Comment General Comment Reduce the speed limits Belmont General Comment Pedestrian Problem with electric bikes riding on sidewalks; dangerous for pedestrians Belmont General Comment General Comment Speed bumps need better lighting and signage Belmont Farmers' Market, 12/17/23
Event/
Date City
Highway or Non-Highway Priority
Intersection?
Pedestrian, Bicycle Priority, or
Motor Vehicle concern? Specific Road/Intersection? Feedback Belmont General Comment General Comment
Carlmont School and Ralston Middle have the same start times which causes huge traffic and buses are late. Having start times 20 minutes apart would make a big difference.

Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Old County Rd. and Ralston
Ave. Need signal improvements on this intersection
Belmont General Comment General Comment Old County Rd.

Parking is needed on Old County Rd. around the 900 addresses; new apartment complex there only has one parking spot. Could be traffic problem.

Belmont Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Old County Rd. Should have separated bike lanes on Old County Rd.

Redwood City General Comment General Comment
Redwood City has too many speed bumps and needs more lighting. Speed bumps are pollutants because of constant accelerating/decelerating; dips are better than speed bumps at slowing cars down and are less noisy
San Carlos Non-Highway Priority Intersection General Comment Some 3 and 4 way stop sign intersections are confusing San Carlos Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Windsor Dr.

Way too congested and too much traffic because Windsor Dr. is one of only routes to 280/101; there are no sidewalks, stop signs, or lights
San Carlos Non-Highway Priority Intersection General Comment Torino Dr. Street is too narrow San Carlos Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Industrial Rd. and San Carlos
Ave.

Cars go 50+ mph on Industrial, dangerous especially at the Industrial Rd. and San Carlos Ave. intersection
San Carlos Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
Brittan Ave. west of Alameda
de las Pulgas
Hills in this area make car/bike relationship dangerous. The cars crest the hill and may not see cyclists; need a better marked bike lane
San Mateo Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Hacienda Ave. and 24th This is a four-way intersection with a 2-way stop sign and is very dangerous; needs some attention/improvement
Half Moon Bay Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Intersections between Highway
1 and Main Street
People drive too fast on the intersections between Highway 1 and Main Street; need improvements in this area (stop signs, lights, bumps, etc.) Belmont Farmers'
Event/
Date City
Highway or Non-Highway Priority
Intersection?
Pedestrian, Bicycle Priority, or
Motor Vehicle concern? Specific Road/Intersection? Feedback Woodside General Comment General Comment Priority locations in Woodside are pretty representative of where there are safety issues Woodside General Comment Bicycle
Main roads in San Mateo County don't need separated bike lanes -- add wide bike lanes instead
Woodside General Comment General Comment
The suggested countermeasures are very urban-centered. Rural areas have different requirements
Woodside General Comment General Comment
Would like bus service in Woodside; i.e. from Redwood City to church in Woodside. The existing service is very intermittent
Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Old La Honda Rd. Very windy road and very scary. Need more focus on signage/speed deterrents here.

Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle La Honda Rd. On La Honda, there isn't enough space for bikes and cars. Same on Kings Mountain Rd.

Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Kings Mountain Rd. Windy and steep Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Kings Mountain Rd. Get the bicycles off Kings Mountain Rd. They are disrespectful to the cars Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Mountain Home Rd.

Narrow without enough room for 3ft between cyclists and cars. Lots of horses also create congestion on this street
Woodside General Comment General Comment
We need something in the road to slow people down; i.e. speed bumps with holes for the wheels so cars slow down but don't have to go over the bump/create noise Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Whiskey Hill Rd.

Currently have bike lanes on this big street but bikes don't go there. A lot of streets don't have room for bike lanes but are used by bikes
Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Whiskey Hill Rd.

Whiskey Hill Rd. is good. They painted interior lines separating bike lane and traffic lane, and added bike buffer. This should be implemented on other roads Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Woodside Rd. and Albion Ave.

Intersection
Crosswalks around this intersection from Woodside Elementary need autosensors instead of manual buttons for flashing lights because sometimes the children don't push them. Cars pause at this intersection to drive into the school and cars behind them go around them using the bike lane, which is dangerous for cyclists/pedestrians.

Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Woodside Rd. and Albion Ave.

Intersection Crosswalk from school to library needs brighter flashing lights, it's dangerous for kids crossing Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Woodside Rd. between Tripp
Rd. and Kings Mountain Rd. This section of Woodside Rd. needs better pedestrian access Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Woodside Rd. between Tripp
Rd. and Kings Mountain Rd. Twisty roads with not enough shoulder space and too many blind corners Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Woodside Rd. between Tripp
Rd. and Kings Mountain Rd. Very narrow road, hard for runners and cyclists Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle La Honda Rd. and Skyline
Blvd./Highway 35
The intersection at Alice's restaurant is a large angle; approach to Highway 35/Skyline should be perpendicular, which will increase visibility of oncoming traffic and be a lot safer Woodside General Comment Bicycle Should have bike trails on dirt like the equestrian trails Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Woodside Rd. along
Wunderlich County Park
This section of Woodside Rd. needs better pedestrian access for runners/pedestrians walking around the park and into town. It also needs bike lanes Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Woodside Rd. along
Wunderlich County Park Need sidewalks here, especially for pedestrians and runners Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
Woodside Rd. next to
Wunderlicht County Park People come out of Wunderlicht and the trail goes too close to the main road Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Portola Rd. and Woodside Rd.

No signal at this intersection and Woodside Rd. has right of way. Maybe four-way stop? There are really sharp turns into Portola Rd.

Woodside Library, 12/20/23
Event/
Date City
Highway or Non-Highway Priority
Intersection?
Pedestrian, Bicycle Priority, or
Motor Vehicle concern? Specific Road/Intersection? Feedback Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Portola Rd. and Woodside Rd.

At this intersection the road dips and there's low visibility. Need reflectors/lighting/signage here to alert cars/bikes
Woodside General Comment General Comment Pelotons ride in the middle of the road because there's no bike lane and hold up traffic Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Canada Rd. and Woodside Rd.

This intersection is terrible; people back out of parking spaces outside of Roberts into the road, interrupting traffic. The right turn from Canada onto Woodside is also too fast and it's dangerous for pedestrians
Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Canada Rd. and Woodside Rd.

Replace stop signs at this intersection with lights. In general, need more places to cross Woodside Rd. safely
Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Canada Rd. and Woodside Rd. Need safer crosswalk at Roberts intersection Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Canada Rd. and Woodside Rd. Parking at Roberts impedes traffic at this intersection, very troublesome Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Canada Rd. and Woodside Rd.

At this crosswalk, hard to see the South side of the intersection, especially with parked cars at Roberts
Woodside General Comment Motor Vehicle
Woodside has incredibly wide lanes and cars go too fast on them; on all roads under 35 mph speed limit, lanes should be 10 feet wide or less
Woodside General Comment General Comment
Make intersections sharper/more acute angles; this makes the crosswalk shorter and cars will slow down more
Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Woodside Rd.

Need sidewalks on Woodside Rd. There's currently conflict between pedestrians and cyclists using the same narrow strip of road
Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Woodside Rd. Need sidewalks on Woodside Rd.

Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Woodside Rd. Need sidewalks on Woodside Rd.

Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Woodside Rd. Want sidewalks on Woodside Rd.

Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Grandview Dr. at top of 84 People use Skyline as race course and need better policing of it Woodside General Comment General Comment Need more space between bikes and cars Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Canada Rd. along 280 Don't define bike lanes vs. shoulder on Canada. Need just a shoulder definition line so cars know where to park
Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Canada Rd. Improve signals at crosswalks on Canada Rd. I.e. flashing lights Woodside General Comment General Comment Canada Rd. There are no issues on Canada Rd. because there's different lanes for different things Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Canada Rd. All lanes should be 10 feet and the speed limit should be 35 mph, with separated bike lanes Woodside Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Canada Rd. and Edgewood Rd.

Should add rumblestrips on rural roads so you know you're cocming up to a stop, well ahead of the stoplight. Should also get rid of pork chops like when you're turning right from Edgewood Rd. to Canada. It lengthens the crosswalk and cars go too fast.

Portola Valley General Comment General Comment Do not want any bike lanes in Portola Valley, but want shoulder to be kept clean Portola Valley Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Corte Madera Rd. Add dirt bicycle trail on Corte Madera Portola Valley Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Alpine Rd. down the hill People drive way too fast down Alpine Rd. and make it dangerous for cyclists/pedestrians/other motorists
Portola Valley Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Alpine Rd. Don't want shoulder on Alpine to be a green bike lane, just clean it up for bikes to use Portola Valley Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Alpine Rd.

Need clear bike lane on Alpine. Class 1 bike lane. Would also love to have Class 1 bike lane from town center to the school. Maybe on the other side there could be an equestrian trail.

Portola Valley Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Alpine Rd.

Part of Alpine needs an extra evacuation lane, or a wider bike lane that can be used as an evacuation lane
Portola Valley Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Alpine Rd.

Add flat roundabouts on key intersections on Alpine Rd. to curb speeding, i.e. Golden Oak intersection
Event/
Date City
Highway or Non-Highway Priority
Intersection?
Pedestrian, Bicycle Priority, or
Motor Vehicle concern? Specific Road/Intersection? Feedback Colma Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Hillside Rd.

People drive way too fast, especially southbound. There should be speed bumps every 1/4 mile and flashing lights to show that speed limits are radar enforced Colma Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Lawndale Blvd.

There should be speed bumps and speed limit signs along Lawndale between Mission Rd. and Hillside Blvd. And the fees for speeding infractions should be higher Colma Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle El Camino Real People drive too fast down El Camino Real; need more speed bumps or lights Colma General Comment General Comment
Junipero Serra Blvd. and
Collins Ave. Concern with general safety and shoplifting at this intersection.

Colma General Comment General Comment Local road safety in Colma is generally pretty good.

Colma General Comment Motor Vehicle A couple streets (could not remember which) are narrow and hard to drive in a car.

Colma General Comment Pedestrian
In general, feels pretty safe as a pedestrian, although the sidewalk abruptly ends in a few Colma BART Station, 1/9/24
areas.

Event/
Date City
Highway or Non-Highway Priority
Intersection?
Pedestrian, Bicycle Priority, or
Motor Vehicle concern? Specific Road/Intersection? Feedback Atherton General Comment Motor Vehicle Streets in Atherton are very dark and need better lighting.

Atherton General Comment Motor Vehicle Traffic and congestion are bigger issues in Atherton than safety.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle El Camino Real El Camino Real doesn't have enough space between cars and cyclists. Bike lanes aren't paved well so they encroach on drivers, and distracted drivers drift into the bike lane.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle El Camino Real On El Camino, cyclists bike against traffic, which is dangerous for pedestrians and motorists.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle El Camino Real Bike lanes on El Camino are too close to the cars.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle El Camino Real Should make El Camino 2 lanes instead of 3 Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle El Camino Real Biking on El Camino is too difficult. There are too many fast cars, parked cars, cars pulling out, poor bike visibility. The bike signal on the intersection of El Camino and Atherton Ave. is very helpful.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian El Camino Real There are flashing lights that pedestrians can push to cross El Camino, but cars often drive through them. Perhaps a more permanent stop sign, or light, would be safer.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
El Camino Real south of
Atherton Ave.

The biggest problem for cyclists is El Camino Real, especially south of Atherton Ave. There is no shoulder for biking and to turn at intersections
Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
El Camino Real and Fair Oaks
Lane
People run stoplights at this intersection. It would also be nice to have a four-way crosswalk at this intersection, and directional paint on the streets to make it clearer how to navigate the intersection.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle
El Camino Real and Alejandra
Ave.

It's hard to make a left turn from Alejandra Ave. onto El Camino Real to the point where it's easier to turn right and make a U-turn.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle El Camino Real and Watkins Do not put a stoplight at this intersection.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle El Camino Real and Maple Ave.

There are blind corners that need signage or mirrors to make visibility better, like at the intersection of El Camino and Maple Ave.

Atherton Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle El Camino Real and Maple Ave.

This intersection is blind, especially turning right. There need to be mirrors so those turning can see oncoming traffic. Often drivers sit here for a very long time waiting for the turn to be safe, and at night it's very hard to see incoming motorists. It would be beneficial to have lights or stoplights here.

Atherton General Comment Pedestrian Need better crosswalks for strollers, especially getting on and off curbs.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Maple Ave. and Dinkelspiel
Station Lane Cars go too fast on this intersection, there should be a pedestrian flashing lights sign here.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Maple Ave. and Dinkelspiel
Station Lane This intersection needs to be made safer for pedestrians, especially at night.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Fair Oaks Ln. intersection with
Caltrain tracks This road between Atherton Library and Caltrain tracks needs a crosswalk.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Fair Oaks Lane and Dinkelspiel
Station Lane There is a blind intersection here that could be improved. Residents often complain about it.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Fair Oaks Lane and Dinkelspiel
Station Lane This intersection is very dangerous; cars need better signage or paint to direct them.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Fair Oaks Lane and Dinkelspiel
Station Lane
There is no stop sign turning left onto Dinkelspiel Station Lane from Fair Oaks Lane. There should be an incoming traffic sign here.

Atherton General Comment Bicycle
It's safer when cars aren't allowed to park on the corners of busy roads. This gives more visibility for cyclists at intersections.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
Valparaiso Ave. at Menlo
School
Atherton General Comment Bicycle
Motorists have a lot of close calls with bikes because there's not enough light at night to reflect off the bike reflectors.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Middlefield Rd. north of 9th Ave.

This section of Middlefield is not safe for cyclists, roads are narrow and cars backing out of parking spots.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Alameda de las Pulgas There are a lot of bicycle priority green dots on the map, but biking here is pretty safe because there is a bike lane and there are shoulders.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Isabella Ave. between El
Camino Real and Elena Ave.

Cars speed very fast down Isabella and the curve of the road creates blind turns and makes it very dangerous. We need mirrors to see around blind turns and to see approaching vehicles, as cyclists and pedestrians.

Atherton General Comment Pedestrian
Neighborhood east of
Middlefield Rd. There should be better pedestrian support in this area, including better sidewalks Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
Atherton Ave immediately West
of El Camino Real
There is a curve on Atherton Ave. here that has a curb in the middle of the road. This makes it hard for cars to pass cyclists.

Atherton Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Selby Lane and Stockbridge
Ave. Turning left onto Stockbridge from Selby Lane is very dangerous.

Atherton Library, 1/16/24
Event/
Date City
Highway or Non-Highway Priority
Intersection?
Pedestrian, Bicycle Priority, or
Motor Vehicle concern? Specific Road/Intersection? Feedback Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Bayshore Blvd. and Tunnel
Ave. and Old County Road This intersection is dangers; fatalities happen here every year Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Bayshore Blvd. and San Bruno
Ave.

You can only make a right turn at this intersection. The block on left turns from Bayshore onto San Bruno should only be in effect during commuting hours. Otherwise it makes it so much longer to access the neighborhoods on San Bruno Ave.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Tunnel Ave. near Bayshore
Blvd. and Tunnel Ave. and Old
County Road intersection There is no railing along the railroad tracks to protect pedestrians.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian San Benito Rd.

Cars speed on this road and the cars parked along the windy road make it very dangerous.

This is also near a school and there is no sidewalks for children.

Brisbane General Comment Pedestrian Need to even out the sidewalks all over Brisbane Brisbane General Comment Bicycle
In general, it would be nice to have clearer bike lanes throughout Brisbane. Right now it's not clear where it's safe to bike.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Valley Dr. Valley Dr. needs better street lighting, it's really dark at night.

Brisbane Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle 101 Exit to Bayshore Blvd. The right side of this exit is fenced off and cars go too fast, it's not safe Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
San Bruno Ave. and Mendocino
St.

People run through stop signs at this intersection frequently, and San Bruno Ave. is the walkway kids use to get to Brisbane Elementary School. Larger pedestrian walking signs are needed on San Bruno.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Bayshore Blvd. Would like separated bike lanes on Bayshore to make it safer to cycle.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Glen Park Way between San
Bruno Ave. and Humboldt Rd.

Cars speed over 45 mph on this road going up the hill. Speed bumps and stop signs are needed along this road to curb speeding.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Mariposa St.

Going up Mariposa towards Brisbane Elementary there are cars parked along the road and there's low visibility. Cars park in the sidewalk and kids can't use the sidewalk to safely walk to school. This is very dangerous
Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Alvarado St. between Visitacion
Ave. and San Bruno Ave.

Cars go too fast down Alvarado and there is a preschool and elementary school on Alvarado.

Need speed bumps on this street
Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle 5-way intersection (Old County
Rd., San Francisco Ave.,
Visitacion Ave., San Bruno
Ave.) This intersection is very poorly lit at night and visibility of the other cars needs to be improved.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian San Benito Rd.

Cars speed down San Benito and there are no sidewalks for kids to walk down the super narrow street every morning to the elementary school. Need stop signs because this is a super curvey road with little visibility.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Valley Dr.

Should take out a lane on each side, i.e. lane narrowing, to put in a safer bike lane. There isn't much traffic on this road so it won't be a problem to take out the lanes.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle 5-way intersection (Old County
Rd., San Francisco Ave.,
Visitacion Ave., San Bruno
Ave.)
Coming down Visitacion towards this intersection, cars and trucks park outside of the hardware store and you can't see the oncoming traffic on San Bruno Ave. Shouldn't allow parking there, it's dangerous.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian San Bruno Ave. Near Brisbane Elementary, it is so dangerous when cars speed and kids are walking to school.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Bayshore Blvd. to Thomas Ave. Route from Bayshore to Thomas is very badly lit and there's low visibility. Need street lighting Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle West of San Bruno Ave. These roads are too curvy and there's low visibility Brisbane General Comment Bicycle
It would be great to have a bike path or walkway to make it safe walking South on Bayshore to get to the Bayfront. It's a beautiful walk but dangerous to even attempt now.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle 5-way intersection (Old County
Rd., San Francisco Ave.,
Visitacion Ave., San Bruno
Ave.) No one stops at stop signs at this intersection. Should limit speed on Visitacion.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle San Bruno Ave. and Santa
Clara St. Need to enforce stop sign at this intersection Brisbane Farmers Market, 1/18/24
Event/
Date City
Highway or Non-Highway Priority
Intersection?
Pedestrian, Bicycle Priority, or
Motor Vehicle concern? Specific Road/Intersection? Feedback Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle 5-way intersection (Old County
Rd., San Francisco Ave.,
Visitacion Ave., San Bruno
Ave.)
Add a signal at this intersection; people almost get hit all the time and cars run through the stop sign. This is the most dangerous intersection in the city.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle San Benito Rd. Cars drive too fast on this road and it's dangerous for other cars, pedestrians.

Brisbane Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Bayshore Blvd. at 101 Exit The bike crossing at this exit is very dangerous Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Bayshore Blvd.

There is no separated bike lane on Bayshore and it's easy to be hit by cars. Need a separate bike path here and physical barrier between bikes and the road.

Brisbane Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle On stretch of 101 near Brisbane Trees cover signage along 101 near Brisbane and makes them hard/impossible to read.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
San Bruno Ave. near Brisbane
Elementary
The new drainage infrastructure on San Bruno around the elementary school is a tripping hazard, especially as it's in the way of kids walking to and from school.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Sierra Point East There needs to be more signage on Sierra Point East.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Sierra Point Rd.

The sidewalks on Sierra Point are really dangerous for pedestrians, especially East of Glen Park Way
Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle 5-way intersection (Old County
Rd., San Francisco Ave.,
Visitacion Ave., San Bruno
Ave.) There should be a roundabout at this intersection to make it safer Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Sierra Point Rd. The road is very bumpy, needs resurfacing Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Bayshore Blvd. and Old County
Rd.

As you make a left from Bayshore onto Old County, there are very uneven road surfaces that need improvement
Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle Tunnel Rd. underpass The underpass on Tunnel Rd. needs a bike lane Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle 5-way intersection (Old County
Rd., San Francisco Ave.,
Visitacion Ave., San Bruno
Ave.)
People don't stop at this intersection and it is so dangerous, especially for pedestrians. Need a camera here to capture those who don't stop and have flashing lights for pedestrians.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle 5-way intersection (Old County
Rd., San Francisco Ave.,
Visitacion Ave., San Bruno
Ave.) This intersection is confusing and dangerous
Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle San Bruno Ave. near Brisbane
Elementary We need a stoplight on San Bruno near Brisbane Elementary Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Tunnel Rd. underpass When crossing Tunnel Rd. at the bottom of the bridge underpass going towards South City, people blow past the stop sign and the stop sign gets covered by trees.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Kings Rd.

People drive too fast through the curvy, narrow road, especially in the morning. There are no sidewalks to safely walk as pedestrians.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Humboldt Rd. and Placer Way This intersection is so dangerous because it's curved and a blind corner. People don't stop at the stop sign and it's dangerouos for pedestrians.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Visitacion Ave. and Monterey
St. At this intersection people don't stop at stop signs and many pedestrians are nearly hit here.

Brisbane General Comment General Comment Should lower speed limit on narrow roads, especially in the hills.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Bayshore Blvd. People drive too fast here, there are no crosswalks and it is not pedestrian friendly.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
Visitacion Ave. and Mariposa
St.

This is not an easily visible intersection for pedestrians crossing. Should have a 4-way stop here.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Tunnel Ave., Lagoon Rd. These roads are too narrow and very bouncy. There is a lot of traffic and a lot of biking.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Visitacion Ave. and Mariposa
St. Curbs in the middle of the road make turning very hard; should remove these.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian Visitacion Ave. and Klamath St. There should be a diagonal intersection here for people to easily cross to the coffeeshop.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle Sierra Point Rd. and San Benito
Rd.

Very dark at both intersections of San Benito and Sierra Point. The biggest problem is the western intersection.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Motor Vehicle San Bruno Ave. All stoplights need to be more visible along San Bruno, they are covered by trees.

Brisbane Non-Highway Priority Intersection Pedestrian
San Bruno Ave. near Brisbane
Elementary
Dangerous when people fly down San Bruno by the elementary school. We need crosswalks with buttom to turn on flashing lights and more signage.

Brisbane Highway Priority Intersection Bicycle
101 exit, Bayshore Blvd. and
Oyster Point
Navigating this intersection is super dangerous for bikers because cars are rushing to get onto the freeway and the bike lane totally disappears. There is no sidewalk or bikelane for this very high traffic area.

Brisbane Farmers Market, 1/18/24
/ City/County Association of Governments
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP
Appendix C
Crash Analysis Memo
Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Technical Memorandum
February 5, 2024 Project# 28717
To: Jeff Lacap and Eva Gaye, C/CAG
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc. and Safe Streets Research & Consulting, LLC RE: C/CAG LRSP – Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo

INTRODUCTION
This memo summarizes the methodology and key findings for hot spot and systemic crash analysis in San Mateo County as part of the C/CAG LRSP. Except where noted, the analysis was conducted countywide. The memo is organized as follows:
◼ Key Findings: Provides a high-level snapshot of systemic findings that can be used to identify priority locations countywide and within jurisdictions. ◼ Summary of Findings: Provides a more thorough description of findings, organized by travel mode (pedestrians, bicyclists, motor vehicles).
◼ Methodology: Describes how analysis data were obtained, processed, and analyzed ◼ Hot Spot Analysis: Uses crash data to develop mode-specific high injury networks ◼ Descriptive Systemic Analysis: Analyzes countywide crashes to assess crash risk associations among environmental, location, roadway geometry, behavioral, and demographic variables in available data.
◼ Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis: Supplements the countywide analysis by providing a perjurisdiction breakdown for the nine county jurisdictions without plans of top crash factors, roadway locations along the identified HINs, and intersections with the most frequent and severe crash history.
◼ Next Steps: Provides a summary of next steps for the project in relation to the findings in this memo.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
February 5, 2024 Page 2
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Contents
Introduction........................................................................................................................................................1 List of Tables....................................................................................................................................................4 List of Figures...................................................................................................................................................6 Key Findings........................................................................................................................................................7 Hot Spot Analysis............................................................................................................................................7 Systemic Analysis............................................................................................................................................7 Summary of Findings by Mode.....................................................................................................................11 Pedestrians.................................................................................................................................................11 Bicyclists......................................................................................................................................................13 Motor Vehicles..........................................................................................................................................15 Methodology ...................................................................................................................................................18 Hot Spot Analysis..........................................................................................................................................18 Sliding Window Analysis...........................................................................................................................18 High Injury Networks.................................................................................................................................19 Systemic Descriptive Analysis ....................................................................................................................19 Crash Data Overview .................................................................................................................................20 Roadway Data.............................................................................................................................................23 Quantifying Crash Severity.........................................................................................................................23 Data Preparation.........................................................................................................................................24 Roadway Functional Classification.......................................................................................................24 Coding Intersection versus Segment Crashes....................................................................................25 Injury Description ......................................................................................................................................25 Hot Spot Analysis Results ................................................................................................................................27 Pedestrian High Injury Network..................................................................................................................27 Bicyclist High Injury Network.......................................................................................................................31 Motor Vehicle High Injury Network ...........................................................................................................34 Combined High Injury Network.................................................................................................................37 Descriptive Analysis.........................................................................................................................................39 Crashes by Year ...........................................................................................................................................43 Environmental/Land Use ............................................................................................................................48 Lighting Conditions...................................................................................................................................48 Weather Conditions.................................................................................................................................51 Roadway Conditions...............................................................................................................................51 February 5, 2024 Page 3
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Proximity to Transit Stop...........................................................................................................................51 Crash Locations............................................................................................................................................53 Intersection Crashes.................................................................................................................................56 Roadway Crash Geometric Characteristics..........................................................................................70 Functional Classification .........................................................................................................................70 Speed Limit ................................................................................................................................................74 Crash Dynamics/Behaviors........................................................................................................................77 Crash Type/Pre-Crash Movement Analysis .........................................................................................77 Violations....................................................................................................................................................83 Alcohol/Drug Usage ................................................................................................................................87 Solo Bicyclist Crashes ..................................................................................................................................89 Demographic Party and Victim Variables..............................................................................................92 Age..............................................................................................................................................................92 Sex ...............................................................................................................................................................99 Race..........................................................................................................................................................100 Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis.......................................................................................................................103 Belmont ....................................................................................................................................................105 Brisbane....................................................................................................................................................109 East Palo Alto...........................................................................................................................................113 Foster City.................................................................................................................................................118 Half Moon Bay.........................................................................................................................................122 Hillsborough .............................................................................................................................................126 Portola Valley ..........................................................................................................................................130 San Carlos................................................................................................................................................134 Woodside.................................................................................................................................................139 Next Steps.......................................................................................................................................................143 Appendix A Pedestrian HIN Maps by Jurisdiction
Appendix B Bicyclist HIN Maps by Jurisdiction
Appendix C Motor Vehicle HIN Maps by Jurisdiction
Appendix D Combined HIN Maps by Jurisdiction
Appendix E Countywide Combined HIN Locations
February 5, 2024 Page 4
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

List of Tables
Table 1: Most Common Intersection Functional Classes, All Modes (2018-2022).................................8 Table 2: Crash data overview, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022).....................................................21 Table 3: Crashes by Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022)..................................................22 Table 4: Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type...........................................................................23 Table 5 Highest Pedestrian HIN Intersections Countywide......................................................................29 Table 6 Highest Bicyclist EPDO Intersections Countywide.......................................................................32 Table 7 Motor Vehicle HIN Intersections.....................................................................................................35 Table 8: Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022) .............................................................39 Table 9: AADT by Route (2017-2021)............................................................................................................40 Table 10: Crashes by Year and Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022)..............................41 Table 11: Crashes by Mode, Countywide (2018-2022)............................................................................42 Table 12: Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022) ...........................................................43 Table 13: Pedestrian Crashes by Year and Severity (2018-2022) ...........................................................45 Table 14: Bicyclist Crashes by Year and Severity (2018-2022) ................................................................46 Table 15: Motor Vehicle Crashes by Year and Severity...........................................................................47 Table 16: Lighting Conditions, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022).............................................................48 Table 17: Lighting Conditions, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022) ..................................................................49 Table 18: Lighting Conditions, Motor Vehicle Crashes (2018-2022).......................................................50 Table 19: Proximity to Transit Stop, Pedestrian Intersection Crashes (2018-2022) ...............................52 Table 20: Crash Locations, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022)...................................................................53 Table 21: Crash Locations, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022)........................................................................54 Table 22: Crash Locations, Motor Vehicle Crashes..................................................................................55 Table 23: Pedestrian Intersection Crashes by Functional Classification (2018-2022).........................57 Table 24: Bicyclist Intersection Crashes by Functional Classification (2018-2022)..............................58 Table 25: Motor Vehicle Intersection Crashes by Functional Classification.........................................59 Table 26: Intersection Signalization, Pedestrian Intersection Crashes (2018-2022).............................61 Table 27: Intersection Signalization, Bicyclist Intersection Crashes (2018-2022)..................................62 Table 28: Motor Vehicle Intersection Crashes Intersection Control ......................................................63 Table 29: Number of Legs, Pedestrian Intersection Crashes (2018-2022).............................................64 Table 30: Number of Legs, Bicyclist Intersection Crashes (2018-2022)..................................................65 Table 31: County Roadway Mileage by Posted Speed Limit .................................................................66 Table 32: Posted Speed Limit, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) .............................................................67 Table 33: Posted Speed Limit, Bicycle Crashes (2018-2022)....................................................................68 Table 34: Motor Vehicle Intersection Crashes by Posted Speed Limit..................................................69 Table 35: Roadway Functional Class and Posted Speed Distribution, Countywide..........................70 Table 36: Functional Classification, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022)....................................................71 Table 37: Functional Classification, Bicycle Crashes (2018-2022)..........................................................72 Table 38: Functional Classification, Motor Vehicle Crashes (2018-2022) .............................................73 Table 39: Posted Speed Limit, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) .............................................................74 Table 40: Posted Speed Limit, Bicycle Crashes (2018-2022)....................................................................75 Table 41: Speed Limit, Motor Vehicle Crashes ..........................................................................................76 Table 42: Movement-Based Crash Types, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022).........................................78 Table 43: Movement-Based Crash Types, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022)..............................................80 Table 44: Crash Type and Severity, Motor Vehicle Intersection Crashes.............................................81 February 5, 2024 Page 5
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 45: Crash Type and Severity, Motor Vehicle Roadway Crashes.................................................82 Table 46: Reported Violations, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022)............................................................84 Table 47: Reported Violations, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022) .................................................................85 Table 48. Primary Collision Factors - Motor Vehicles.................................................................................86 Table 49: Under the Influence of Alcohol, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022)........................................87 Table 50: Under the Influence of Alcohol, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022).............................................88 Table 51: Alcohol/Drug Usage Crashes, Motor Vehicles.........................................................................88 Table 52: Solo Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022)...............................................................................................89 Table 53: Victim age breakdown, Pedestrian crashes (2018-2022) ......................................................93 Table 54: Victim age breakdown, Bicyclist crashes (2018-2022)............................................................95 Table 55: Victim age breakdown, Motor Vehicle Only crashes (2018-2022) ......................................96 Table 56: Victim sex breakdown (2018-2022).............................................................................................99 Table 57: Fatally and severely injured victims by sex and mode (2018-2022)...................................100 Table 58: Victim racial breakdown (2018-2022)......................................................................................101 Table 59: Fatally and severely injured victims by race and mode (2018-2022)................................102 Table 60: Crashes by Severity, Mode, and Jurisdiction..........................................................................103 Table 61: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Belmont .............................................................................105 Table 62: HIN Roadways in Belmont ..........................................................................................................108 Table 63: Belmont top EPDO intersections ...............................................................................................108 Table 64: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Brisbane.............................................................................109 Table 65: HIN Roadways in Brisbane..........................................................................................................112 Table 66: Brisbane top EPDO intersections...............................................................................................112 Table 67: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, East Palo Alto ...................................................................113 Table 68: HIN Roadways in East Palo Alto ................................................................................................116 Table 69: East Palo Alto top EPDO intersections......................................................................................116 Table 70: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Foster City .........................................................................118 Table 71: HIN Roadways in Foster City ......................................................................................................121 Table 72: Foster City top EPDO intersections............................................................................................121 Table 73: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Half Moon Bay..................................................................122 Table 74: HIN Roadways in Half Moon Bay...............................................................................................125 Table 75: Half Moon Bay top EPDO intersections....................................................................................125 Table 76: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Hillsborough ......................................................................126 Table 77: HIN Roadways in Hillsborough...................................................................................................129 Table 78: Hillsborough top EPDO intersections........................................................................................129 Table 79: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Portola Valley ...................................................................130 Table 80: HIN Roadways in Portola Valley................................................................................................133 Table 81: Portola Valley top EPDO intersections.....................................................................................133 Table 82: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, San Carlos.........................................................................134 Table 83: HIN Roadways in San Carlos......................................................................................................137 Table 84: San Carlos top EPDO intersections...........................................................................................137 Table 85: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Woodside..........................................................................139 Table 86: HIN Roadways in Woodside.......................................................................................................142 Table 87: Woodside top EPDO intersections............................................................................................142 Table 88: Countywide Combined HIN Roadways, sorted Alphabetically.........................................149 February 5, 2024 Page 6
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Introduction Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

List of Figures
Figure 1: Example of Sliding Window, Count of Crashes for Mile Segments........................................18 Figure 2 Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN)............................................................................................30 Figure 3 Bicyclist High Injury Network (HIN).................................................................................................33 Figure 4 Motor Vehicle High Injury Network (HIN).....................................................................................36 Figure 5 Countywide High Injury Network (HIN).........................................................................................38 Figure 6: Annual EPDO Scores by Mode.....................................................................................................44 February 5, 2024 Page 7
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Key Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

KEY FINDINGS
Hot Spot Analysis
The analysis identified high injury networks were developed for each travel mode, and top intersections were identified based on crash frequency and severity. These locations include state highways and local streets and will be used in subsequent project phases to identify project locations. Additionally, the characteristics of the HIN and crashes along them indicate risk factors that can be used to screen and identify priority locations.

All HINs, and the resulting combined HIN, can be viewed dynamically at this link. Static maps are contained in the body and appendix of this memo.
◼ The pedestrian HIN is represented by 98 miles of the street network that had the highest concentration of weighted crashes on a per mile basis. The minimum weighted crash threshold was substantially higher along state routes (i.e., Caltrans roadways) compared to local roads. This differential scoring was used to keep state routes from dominating the HIN and precluding insights about locally-controlled roadways. The Pedestrian HIN covers just

3.4 percent of the street network for the county but accounts for half of all pedestrian crashes and 69 percent of F/SI pedestrian crashes from 2018-2022. Roughly 12 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along a state route and 10 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along El Camino Real (SR 82).
◼ The bicyclist HIN was produced using the same approach as the pedestrian HIN (i.e., evaluating state routes separately from local streets and using the same relative scoring).

The bicyclist HIN represents 96 miles of the street network and accounts for 3.3 percent of the street network. Twenty-seven percent of the network is along a state route, with El Camino Real comprising nearly 10 percent of the bicyclist HIN mileage. Most crashes along the bicyclist HIN involved both a bicyclist and a motorist (82 percent of total crashes; 67 percent of F/SI crashes), while the remaining crashes were solo bicyclist crashes. ◼ The Motor Vehicle HIN was developed using the same sliding window analysis as the pedestrian and bicyclist HIN but used the same crash threshold for state highways and local roadways. The motor vehicle HIN represents 283 miles of the street network and accounts for about 10 percent of the street network, 63 percent of fatal/injury motor vehicle crashes, and 44 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crashes. Forty-two (42) percent of the network is along a state route.

Systemic Analysis
Similarities in Modal Findings
The following findings generally held true across modes:
◼ Crashes by year: Crashes reduced at the start of the pandemic (2020-21) but increased in severity during that time. Crash frequencies rebounded somewhat in 2022, consistent with traffic volumes picking back up and activities reopening.

February 5, 2024 Page 8
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Key Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Lighting: Lighting conditions have a strong correlation with crash severity across modes.

Although most crashes occur in daylight, crashes occurring in dark conditions are more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions.
◼ Crash Severity by Location: Across modes, segment and unsignalized intersection pedestrian crashes tended to be more severe than signalized intersections. This is likely explained by speed – for example, no intersection control along a major roadway unsignalized intersection. Higher speeds result in higher kinetic energy and limited reaction time, both of which may contribute to greater injury severity from these crashes. The perintersection crash rate was higher for signalized intersections across all modes, which makes sense given that signalized intersections are typically installed at locations that serve higher traffic volumes and that the vast majority of intersections in the County are unsignalized. ◼ Functional Classification: Primary and secondary roadways are overrepresented in crashes across modes although they only make up 3 and 7 percent of the roadway network by mileage. Residential streets account for relatively high shares of overall crashes but lower shares of F/SI crashes and markedly lower shares per roadway mile. ◼ Intersection Functional Classification: Crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways. Four combinations dominate crash and F/SI crash frequency, shown below. Across all modes, intersections with primary roadways as the highest functional class have the highest rate of F/SI crashes per 100 intersections.

Table 1: Most Common Intersection Functional Classes, All Modes (2018-2022) Intersection
Functional Classes
% Share of Intersection Crashes (% Share of F/SI Crashes) Pedestrians Bicyclists Motor Vehicles
Secondaryresidential23 (25) 28 (24) 21 (18)
Primary-residential 20 (23) 17 (16) 24 (23)
Residentialresidential19 (13) 18 (13) 14 (!6)
Tertiary-residential 16 (13) 16 (18) 11 (12)
Source: TIMS, C/CAG, OSM 2023
◼ Speed: For all modes, roadways with 25 mph speed limits show relatively high shares of overall crashes but lower F/SI shares. Both shares are low compared to the proportion of the network they comprise (80 percent 25 mph and below). Higher speed roadways (45 mph and above) showed some of the highest shares of F/SI crashes and average equivalent property damage only (EPDO) scores (for more information on EPDO scores, see page 34). ◼ Age: Across all modes, victims between the ages of 15 and 34 are more likely to be injured including F/SI as result of traffic safety issues on average than other groups. Victims between the ages of 50 to 69 and 75 to 84 are more likely to be severely injured as a result of traffic February 5, 2024 Page 9
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Key Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
safety issues on average than other groups. Research has found that an injury to a 65-yearold is approximately the same the injury a 30-year old would experience at 11 mph higher1. ◼ Sex: Males are more likely to be crash victims and are more likely to be injured than females.

They are killed or severely injured at a rate about 1.3 times higher than their share of the population.
◼ Race: Black and Hispanic travelers are victims in crashes at rates 2.2 time and 1.2 times their share of the population, respectively.

Differences in Modal Findings or Unique Modal Findings
◼ Proximity to Transit Stop: Intersections within 250 feet of a transit stop had much higher crash frequencies and rates per intersection than those farther away from transit stops, regardless of functional classification.
◼ Roadway Conditions: A low proportion of crashes (for all modes) occurred with any type of non-typical roadway condition, but 13 of the 17 such bicyclist e solo bicyclist crashes. This underscoring the vulnerability of bicyclists, the need for well-maintained roads, and perhaps the low likelihood of bicyclist crash reporting at lower severity levels. ◼ Location type: The most frequent locations vary by mode: pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections, but for motor vehicles the most frequent location is along roadway segments—which is where more F/SI bicyclist crashes occur than any other locations. To target trends systemically, agencies may consider different location types by mode.
◼ Intersection Number of Legs: Most pedestrian crashes and F/SI crashes occurred at fourlegged intersections, even though four-legged intersections represent only one-quarter of the network. However, most bicyclist crashes and bicyclist F/SI crashes occurred at threelegged intersections (though the per-intersection rate is lower than four-leg intersections).

For pedestrians the four-leg intersections may simply introduce more motor vehicle throughput, larger intersection size, and greater overall complexity. For bicyclists, there may be network/bicycle route reasons why three-leg intersections are the majority. A more robust roadway and intersection spatial data inventory could allow further insight into these trends to inform potential solutions.
◼ Crash types and pre-crash movements: The dynamics of crash types and pre-crash movements are meaningfully different across modes, both in terms of the data features that best describe trends and the most frequent movement patterns. High-level mode-specific findings are discussed in the Summary of Findings, and more detail is provided in relevant memo sections.
◼ Alcohol Usage: A smaller proportion of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes included a party under the influence of alcohol compared to motor vehicle crashes: four percent of pedestrian crashes, less than two percent of bicyclist crashes, and 10 percent of motor vehicles crashes. F/SI proportions were higher across the board, indicating that such crashes are more severe, but the numbers still differed by mode: six percent of F/SI pedestrian crashes, just under five percent of F/SI bicyclist crashes, and 19 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crashes.
◼ Sex: A higher share of males killed or severely injured in crashes are bicyclists (144 or 666, or 22 percent) than females (33 of 319, or9 percent), and a much higher share of bicyclists are male (144 or 177, or81 percent) than female (33 of 177, or19 percent). 1 Tefft, Brian C. 2013. Impact speed and a pedestrian's risk of severe injury or death. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50: 871-878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.07.022.

February 5, 2024 Page 10
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Key Findings Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Race: Over half of bicyclist F/SI victims are white, higher than their 38 percent share of the population and commensurate 37 percent share of drivers fatally or severely injured. Thirty (30) percent of pedestrians fatally or severely injured were Hispanic, which is 1.25 times higher than their 24 percent share of the population.

Data Recommendations
The degree of systemic analysis findings possible is limited by data availability. In some cases, available findings point toward likely or possible causal factors, but without more detailed spatial data inventory we cannot draw conclusions more definitively. Some examples for potential future spatial data collection efforts include lane numbers, sidewalk inventory, presence and type of pedestrian crossing treatments, systemwide vehicle/pedestrian/bicycle volumes, and bicycle facility type/year constructed. This is by no means an exhaustive list but is indicative of the types of data that would enable further explanation of potential causal relationships indicated by this analysis. The Countywide LRSP may make data collection and inventory recommendations along these lines to further improve understanding of safety countywide.

February 5, 2024 Page 11
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Summary of Findings by Mode Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS BY MODE
This section provides a brief overview of findings, listed by travel mode and by topic area. Some findings refer to overall EPDO score, which is a measure that combines crash frequency and severity by assigning weighted values to crashes and presenting a weighted total score. The measure is described in more detail in the Motor Vehicle High Injury Network section on page 34.

Pedestrians
Crashes by Year
◼ There was a sharp reduction in crashes at the start of the pandemic; however, crashes appear to have slightly increased in severity during the core pandemic years, from 18-20 percent of total EPDO scores in 2018-2019 to 22-23 percent of total EPDO scores in 2020- 2021.
◼ Pedestrian crash frequencies increased in 2022 as pandemic-related restrictions ease and travel/activities begin to increase, although the overall share of severe and fatal crashes dropped back to about 16 percent.

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

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

Crash Locations
◼ Most crashes occurred at an intersection (76 percent of all crashes; 68 percent of F/SI crashes), with the remainder coded to segment locations (24 percent of all crashes; 32 percent of F/SI crashes).
◼ Segment and unsignalized intersection pedestrian crashes tended to be more severe, with an average EPDO score of 51 and 40.5, respectively, compared to crashes at signalized intersections (average EPDO score of 30.5). Motorist speeds may be higher midblock than at intersections, resulting in higher kinetic energy and limited reaction time, both of which may contribute to greater injury severity from segment crashes.

Functional Classification
◼ Primary streets had the highest rate of crashes per 100 miles (340 crashes per 100 miles) and F/SI crashes (81 F/SI crashes per 100 miles), followed by secondary streets (137 crashes per 100 miles; 29 F/SI crashes per 100 miles). This finding supports research showing consistent pedestrian crash risk along major arterials, which generally have higher vehicle speeds, higher vehicle volumes, and greater crossing widths2.
2 Schneider, R.J., Sanders, R.L., Proulx, F.R., & Moayyed, H. (2021). United States Pedestrian Crash Hot Spot Locations and Characteristics. Journal of Transport & Land Use, 14:1, 1-23. DOI: 10.5198/jtlu.2021.1825 February 5, 2024 Page 12
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Summary of Findings by Mode Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Functional Classification - Intersection Locations
◼ Crashes occurred most frequently at
– secondary and residential streets (23 percent of all crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), – primary and residential streets (20 percent of all crashes; 23 percent of F/SI crashes), and – residential and residential streets (19 percent of all crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes). ◼ Intersections between a primary and either another primary, a secondary, or a tertiary street had some of the highest rates of F/SI crashes and EPDO scores per 100 intersections.

Intersection Control
◼ Most intersection crashes (63 percent) and F/SI crashes (61 percent) occurred at unsignalized intersections.
◼ Crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (51 crashes per 100 intersections; 9 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections).
◼ Crashes at signalized intersections most frequently involved:
– A pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk was struck by a left turning motorist (38 percent of all crashes; 29 percent of F/SI crashes).
– A pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk who was struck by a right turning motorist (23 percent of all crashes; 9 percent of F/SI crashes).
◼ Crashes that involved a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection with a motorist going straight accounted for the second largest share of F/SI crashes (23 percent); these crashes were also disproportionately severe when they occurred, with 42 percent resulting in a F/SI outcome.

Number of Legs at Intersection
◼ Most pedestrian crashes (59 percent) and F/SI crashes (61 percent) occurred at four-legged intersections, even though four-legged intersections represent only one-quarter of the network. This finding likely reflects motor vehicle throughput, intersection size, and greater overall complexity.

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

Pre-Crash Movements
◼ Most pedestrian crashes involved:
– A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist turning left (24 percent). These crashes most frequently occurred at a signalized intersection (45 percent), but most of the F/SI crashes with this crash type occurred at unsignalized intersections.

February 5, 2024 Page 13
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Summary of Findings by Mode Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
– A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist proceeding straight (15 percent).

These crashes most frequently occurred at unsignalized intersections for overall crashes (77 percent) and F/SI crashes (59 percent).
– A pedestrian crossing not in a crosswalk with a motorist proceeding straight (13 percent).

These crashes most often occurred at segment locations (46 percent of all crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by unsignalized intersections (39 percent of all crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes).
◼ Of those three crash types, those that involved a motorist proceeding straight had a higher share of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome and a higher average EPDO score.

Violation Types
The most common violations Included:
◼ pedestrian right of way3 (50 percent of all crashes; 37 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ pedestrian violation (19 percent of all crashes; 30 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ unknown (5 percent of all crashes; 10 percent of F/SI crashes) Alcohol Usage
◼ The vast majority of crashes did not have any road user found to be under the influence of alcohol (96 percent of all crashes; 94 percent of F/SI crashes). ◼ Despite the small sample size, crashes in which a pedestrian was reported to be under the influence of alcohol were much more likely to result in a F/SI .

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

Lighting Conditions
◼ The vast majority of bicyclist crashes occurred during daylight conditions (84 percent), which fits with when most bicyclist trips occur.
◼ Bicyclist crashes were more likely to result in a fatal or severe injury outcome during dark lighting conditions (21 percent) compared to daylight conditions (16 percent).

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

Roadway Conditions
◼ Most crashes occurred at locations with no unusual conditions (95 percent of crashes). ◼ Though a comparatively small sample, the majority of F/SI bicyclist crashes that occurred with any type of non-typical roadway condition (n=17) were solo bicyclist crashes (n=13), underscoring the vulnerability of bicyclists and the need for well-maintained roads. 3 See Appendix F for a definition of violation types.

February 5, 2024 Page 14
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Summary of Findings by Mode Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

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

Functional Classification
◼ Most bicyclist crashes occurred along:
– secondary streets (39 percent),
– residential streets (20 percent), and
– primary streets (20 percent).
◼ Residential streets accounted for the second largest share of crashes and third largest share of F/SI crashes but had the lowest rates of crashes per 100 miles (11) and F/SI crashes per 100 miles (7) compared to primary streets (260 crashes per 100 miles; 224 F/SI crashes per 100 miles) and secondary streets (177 crashes per 100 miles; 128 F/SI crashes per 100 miles).

Functional Classification - Intersection Locations
◼ Crashes occurred most frequently at
– secondary-residential intersections (28 percent of all crashes; 24 percent of F/SI crashes), – residential-residential intersections (18 percent of all crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes), – primary-residential intersections (17 percent of all crashes; 16 percent of F/SI crashes), and
– tertiary-residential intersections (16 percent of all crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes). ◼ Crashes at intersections with only non-residential streets had a substantially higher rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 intersections.

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

Number of Legs at Intersection
◼ Unlike pedestrian crashes, most bicyclist crashes (52 percent) and bicyclist F/SI crashes (55 percent) occurred at three-legged intersections. However, the three-legged locations still had a lower rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 intersections compared to four-legged intersections.

February 5, 2024 Page 15
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Summary of Findings by Mode Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

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

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

Violation Types
The most frequent violation types included:
◼ automobile right of way (19 percent of crashes; 15 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ unsafe speed (18 percent of crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ improper turning (17 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes) Alcohol Usage
◼ Few reported crashes identified either the motorist or bicyclist as being under the influence of alcohol (less than two percent of all crashes; less than five percent of F/SI crashes).

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

Lighting Conditions
◼ About 26 percent of motor vehicle crashes were observed to have occurred in the dark.

Crashes with no streetlights had nearly double the per-crash EPDO score of daylight crashes.

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

February 5, 2024 Page 16
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Summary of Findings by Mode Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Functional Classifications
◼ Secondary roadways are overrepresented in in F/SI share (36 percent) compared to total share (29 percent).
◼ Intersection crashes along primary and secondary roads account for the majority of intersection crashes (36 and 29 percent each) and similarly large shares of F/SI crashes (35 and 29 percent). The highest average EPDO scores were at intersections along the trunk and primary roadway system where they intersect with lower-order intersections. When looking at the signalized versus unsignalized breakdown of these combinations, the unsignalized intersections all have higher average EPDO scores—indicating that unsignalized minor-street intersections along arterial roadways have a disproportionate severity burden in the county.

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

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

Crash Types
◼ At intersections, the most frequent and severe motor vehicle crashes were the following types and locations:
– Broadside 61 percent occurred unsignalized intersections (66 percent of EPDO score) – Rear end 55 percent at occurred at signalized intersections (51 percent of EPDO score) – Head-on 51 percent at occurred at signalized intersections (59 percent of EPDO score) ◼ On roadway segments, the predominant crash types are rear end (29 percent), hit object (21 percent), and broadside (18 percent). Hit object crashes account for disproportionately large 35 percent of F/SI crashes and 30 percent of EPDO score, compared to 21 percent overall.

Violation Types
The most frequent violation types included:
◼ Unsafe Speed (27 percent of all crashes, 23 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ Automobile right of way (19 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ Improper turning (18 percent of crashes; 19 percent of F/SI crashes) February 5, 2024 Page 17
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Summary of Findings by Mode Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Alcohol Usage
About 10 percent of the motor vehicle crashes included a driver under the influence, but those accounted for 19 percent of F/SI crashes and had an average EPDO about 1.5 times as high as other motor vehicle crashes.

February 5, 2024 Page 18
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

METHODOLOGY
This section outlines the elements related to two analyses that have been conducted: a hot spot analysis and a systemic crash analysis. The elements described in this section listed below are produced for the county as a whole and for the selected jurisdictions that do not have an existing safety plan.

Hot Spot Analysis
The hot spot analysis leveraged a sliding window approach to identify countywide HINs. Both are described in more detail below.

Sliding Window Analysis
Sliding Window Analysis is a segment-based approach that calculates crash frequency along a stretch of roadway (often weighted by injury severity). The sliding windows analysis consists of a virtual window of a predetermined length that is moved along the street network at predetermined step lengths and aggregates crashes that are within each window. One-mile window lengths and 1/10th-mile step increments were used in this analysis. Additionally, only fatal, severe injury, and minor injury crashes were included in the sliding window analysis and HIN development process. This decision was made to prioritize locations that have a history and high concentration of crashes that resulted in injury.

Figure 1 provides a graphical representation of the methodology. The figure shows segmentation (in purple) of a two-mile road using an analysis length of one-mile, with an analysis interval of a half-mile. Three segments are created. The crashes, shown in blue, are then associated with each segment, double-counting crashes as they overlap with one or more segments. Note that as the analysis interval decreases, the number of overlapping windows will increase if the analysis length remains constant, and vice-versa.

Figure 1: Example of Sliding Window, Count of Crashes for Mile Segments February 5, 2024 Page 19
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

High Injury Networks
High injury networks are constructed by identifying a subset of the sliding window outputs. To produce an HIN, a minimum crash frequency or weighted aggregate value threshold is identified by reviewing the distribution of crashes for each mode along the HIN and the percentage of the network that is along the HIN.

HINs are a blend of art and science, needing to be large enough to be meaningful, but not so large as to be meaningless. This balance is even more pronounced for larger HINs, e.g., at the county level, that cover vastly different land use patterns and city sizes. To strike this balance, each mode-specific HIN is produced by an initial determination of a minimum threshold for the weighted crash value of segments to be included in the HIN, followed by review of the distribution of crashes for each mode along the relevant HIN and the percentage of the network that is along that HIN. If necessary, the threshold is adjusted to achieve the sought-after balance described above.

HINs can make for a useful communication tool because the data are reduced to a simple binary: streets on and off the HIN. At the same time, this data reduction masks variation, so the underlying granular sliding windows data may be more useful for internal prioritization procedures. Unlike intersection hot spot analysis, sliding windows analysis and HINs can identify entire corridors that have experienced patterns of crashes, leading to the possibility of systemic treatments.

Systemic Descriptive Analysis
A systemic descriptive analysis was conducted to identify patterns, trends, and potential risk factors based on five-year County crash data. The descriptive analysis identifies environmental, design, and user characteristics most associated with F/SI outcomes. The analysis includes the development of mode-specific crash types, which will further help develop a better understanding of the contributing factors which can lead to a more targeted and effective countermeasure selection process.

These findings will be used to define a set of Safe System-aligned recommendations, to target roadway or behavioral factors for those recommendations, and to provide prioritization and network screening inputs. Analyzing crashes at the countywide level provides sufficient number of observations to identify trends and allows for identification of issues that occur frequently across the network in similar locations but have may not occurred repeatedly at the same locations.

The list below includes common elements that have been included in a descriptive crash analysis. For each element, the frequency of overall crashes and fatal/severe injury (F/SI) crashes are analyzed to help identify factors that contribute to crashes for each mode. ◼ Crashes by Year
◼ Environmental/land use variables:
– Lighting condition
February 5, 2024 Page 20
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
– Weather conditions
– Roadway conditions
– Proximity to transit stop
◼ Crash locations and roadway characteristics:
– Intersections versus roadway segment
– Intersection functional classification, control, number of legs, and speed limits – Roadway functional classification and speed limits
◼ Roadway variables, mid-block crashes:
– Functional classification
– Posted speed limit
◼ Crash dynamics/behaviors:
– Crash type analysis using the Location Movement Classification Method – Crash types and pre-crash movements for first two primary parties – Primary collision factors and violation types
– Alcohol/Drug usage
◼ Demographic, vehicle, and victim variables:
– Victims by age (compared to county population)
– Victims by sex (compared to county population)
– Victims by race (compared to county population)
Other variable relationships were explored but omitting from findings in cases where findings were not novel, unexpected, or relevant to future phases of the project. These analysis results are the basis for identifying countywide risk factors and emphasis areas.

Crash Data Overview
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 System4 (TIMS) Crash database representing the full years 2018 through 2022.

The crash, party and victim data tables were pulled from TIMS and processed for analysis. These tables have a relational structure, which is common for storing crash data. For every reported crash, there is one crash record. For every crash, the associated party table contains one entry for each primary actor in a crash: drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and parked vehicles involved.

For every party, an associated victim table includes one entry for each “victim”—which includes all people involved in the crash. For example, a car with a driver and two passengers would account for one party (the driver) but three victims (the driver plus the two passengers).

As described in the Task 2 methodology memo, this analysis includes only crashes for which some level of injury is reported and excludes property damage only (PDO) crashes. For motor vehicle-only crashes, PDO crashes are not predictive or descriptive of fatal or severe injury risk, so using injury crashes is sufficient and preferable. For pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, PDO crashes 4 Transportation Injury Mapping System, http://tims.berkeley.edu February 5, 2024 Page 21
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
are rare and so infrequently reported as to add limited value to the analysis. Overall, PDO reporting practices vary from agency to agency and within agencies over time, so including PDOs may result in inconsistent frequencies or may bias findings based on reporting practices rather than true crash outcomes.

We removed crashes along grade-separated freeway were removed 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 resulting dataset gave 8,468 injury and fatal crashes countywide.

Table 2 summarizes the total number of crashes that were observed Countywide, and Table 3 lists crashes that have occurred in each jurisdiction of the County along with the state highway versus local share of those crashes.

Countywide, 57 percent of reported crashes were on the state highway system. The following jurisdictions showed the highest variation from that share:
◼ Brisbane (contains no at-grade state highways): 100 percent local ◼ Portola Valley (SR 35 defines the southwestern boundary but otherwise contains no at-grade state highways): 100 percent local
◼ Hillsborough: 87 percent local
◼ Half Moon Bay: 23 percent local
◼ Unincorporated: 37 percent local
◼ Woodside: 39 percent local
Table 2: Crash data overview, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022) Year Total Count Crashes
on nonfreeway
roadways
Crash Breakdown
State
Highway
Crashes
State
Highway
Share (%)
Local
Roadway
Crashes
Local
Roadway
Share
(%)
2018-
2022
12,526 8,468 2,712 43% 5,756 57%
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 22
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 3: Crashes by Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022) Jurisdiction Count State
Highway
Crashes
% State
Highway
Crashes
Local
Roadway
Crashes
% Local
Roadway
Crashes
Atherton 121 36 30% 85 70%
Belmont 244 66 29% 178 71%
Brisbane 69 - 0% 69 100%
Burlingame 267 90 30% 177 70%
Colma 11 3 59% 8 41%
Daly City 863 143 29% 720 71%
East Palo Alto 458 150 33% 308 67%
Foster City 150 7 29% 143 71%
Half Moon Bay 145 116 77% 29 23%
Hillsborough 38 5 13% 33 87%
Menlo Park 542 188 33% 354 67%
Millbrae 230 94 38% 136 62%
Pacifica 394 141 56% 253 44%
Portola Valley 39 - 0% 39 100%
Redwood City 1,137 295 26% 842 74%
San Bruno 412 171 36% 241 64%
San Carlos 281 48 18% 233 82%
San Mateo 869 176 29% 693 71%
South San Francisco 866 168 17% 698 83%
Unincorporated 1,147 704 61% 443 39%
Woodside 185 111 61% 74 39%
Total 8,468 2,712 43% 5,756 57%
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 23
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Roadway Data
The analysis was conducted using the county-provided roadway centerline spatial data obtained from the San Mateo County open data website.5 After careful review, we found that file to be the most complete available dataset. Even so, that dataset included the following limitations:
◼ Centerline data are missing in some locations, including for example along local roads where the data makes the roadway appear to be discontinuous even though in reality the route is continuous. However, this limitation did not prevent such roadways from being appropriately evaluated in the hot spot analysis or crashes being associated with the roadway along which they occurred.
◼ Some “paper streets” are present in the roadway file: roads that exist in data but do not exist as true roads in the network. We removed these where possible but may not have completely eliminated them given budgetary limitations on the ability to perform quality control reviews on the entire county’s roadway network. As a result, there are some intersections created from this roadway file that may not be “true” intersections. The results do not affect the HIN development but may result in some non-intersection crashes being coded as occurring at an intersection with a minor side street.

Quantifying Crash Severity
The analysis throughout this memo uses crash frequency and severity to identify findings. To include severity, we use the EPDO performance measure, which assigns weighting factors to crashes by severity relative to property damage only (PDO) crashes. The measure, referred to as “EPDO score,” assigns weight to individual crashes based on the crash severity and location of the crash. Weights may vary depending on agency data and priorities; in this analysis we use weights presented in the 2022 Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual and shown in Table 4.

These weights are based on California crash cost data assembled by Caltrans.

Table 4: Crash Weights by Severity and Location Type
Location Type
Crash Weighting by Severity
Fatal Severe
Injury Minor Injury Possible Injury
Signalized Intersection 120
11 6
Unsignalized Intersection 191
Roadway 165
Source: Caltrans, Local Roadway Safety: A manual for California’s Local Road Owners (Version 1.6), 2022.

The weights prioritize fatal and severe injury crashes equally to recognize that a death versus a severe injury is often a function of the individual involved or of emergency response time. 5 https://data-smcmaps.opendata.arcgis.com/. Accessed May 1, 2023.

February 5, 2024 Page 24
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Therefore, both outcomes represent locations where the region may want to prioritize improvements. Crash weights vary by location due to the relative costs associated with the crash severity at the location types. Specifically, unsignalized intersections have a higher cost for fatal and severe crashes because fatal and severe crashes at these locations tend to result in more severely injured persons on average. The EPDO score is calculated by multiplying each crash severity total by its associated weight and summing the results, using the following formula:

EPDO Score = Fatal weight * # of fatal crashes + severe injury weight * # of severe injury crashes + minor injury weight * # of minor injury crashes + possible in jury weight * # of possible injury weight crashes
The EPDO score is annualized by dividing the score by the number of years of crash data used in the analysis.

Data Preparation
To prepare the data for analysis, we proceeded with the following preprocessing steps.

Roadway Functional Classification
We associated crashes with the functional classification of the roadways on which they occurred or, for crashes at intersections, the combination thereof. Functional classification is a hierarchical understanding of the types of roads on a street network. Generally, higher functional classes have higher traffic volumes and speeds than lower functional class roads.

Functional classifications were taken from Open Street Map (OSM). These classifications in OSM are based on user-contributed data and may vary.

This analysis presents crash findings in relation to OSM-defined functional classifications because they provided more granularity than the county-provided roadway file. The following definitions and descriptions can be used to relate the values presented here back to the locally defined functional classifications:
◼ Trunk Roads: Trunk roads represent high speed arterials that can be partially separated.

These will typically be the state highway network and principal arterials. ◼ Primary Roads: Primary roads are smaller than trunk roads and represent interstate business routes and state routes in dense urban areas. These will be state highways that have a given street name as well as intracity arterial roadways.
◼ Secondary Roads: Secondary roads are generally smaller than primary roads and represent major urban streets. These will typically be collector roadways. ◼ Tertiary Roads: Tertiary roads are generally smaller than secondary roads and represent minor roads that connect local communities.
◼ Residential Roads: Residential roads similarly represent the local street network.

February 5, 2024 Page 25
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Coding Intersection versus Segment Crashes
To facilitate analysis by location and the hot spot analysis, the team established variable intersection buffer definitions and coded all crashes to an intersection or, if not within any of the buffers described below, as a roadway segment (i.e., non-intersection) crash. ◼ A 250-foot buffer was used to define the influence area for the following intersections:
– trunk-trunk
– primary-primary
◼ A 150-foot buffer was used to define the influence area for the following intersections:
– trunk-secondary
– trunk-tertiary
– trunk-residential
– primary-secondary
– primary-tertiary
– primary-residential
◼ A 100-foot buffer was used to define the influence area for the following intersections:
– secondary-secondary
– secondary-tertiary
– secondary-residential
◼ A 75-foot buffer was used to define the influence area for the following intersections:
– tertiary-residential
– residential-residential
Injury Description
The officer-reported injury severity levels used in this analysis are specific to the most severely injured (MSI) party. Where the analysis reports all-modes crashes combined, the crash is coded by the highest level of severity for any party involved. However, the analysis primarily separates motor vehicle-only crashes, pedestrian-involved crashes, and bicyclist crashes. The San Francisco Department of Public Health (DPH) has documented reporting errors related to miscoded injury severities, particularly for severe injuries, suggesting a need for some fluidity when discussing minor and severe injuries.

For reference, the injury severities recorded in the crash data and summarized in this analysis are defined in the California Highway Patrol Collision Investigation Manual6:
◼ Fatal: A fatal injury is any injury that results in death within 30 days after the crash in which the injury occurred.
◼ Severe Injury: An injury, other than a fatal injury, that includes the following:
– Broken or fractured bones
– Dislocated or distorted limbs
6 HMP 110.5: Collision Investigation Manual. California Highway Patrol, February 2003, Pages 2-10 to 2-11 February 5, 2024 Page 26
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Methodology Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
– Severe lacerations
– Skull, spinal, chest or abdominal injuries that go beyond “other visible injuries” – Unconsciousness when taken from the crash scene
– Severe burns
◼ Minor Injury: A minor injury is any injury that is evident at the scene of the crash (also referred to as “other visible injuries”). Examples include:
– Bruises, discoloration, or swelling
– Minor lacerations or abrasions
– Minor burns
◼ Possible Injury: A possible injury is any injury reported or claimed which is not a fatal, suspected severe, or suspected minor injury (also referred to as “complaint of pain”).

Examples include people who:
– Seem dazed, confused, or incoherent.
– Are limping or complaining of pain or nausea
– May have been unconscious but appear to have recovered. – Exhibit momentary loss of consciousness, claim of injury, limping, or complaint of pain or nausea. Say they want to be listed as injured but do not appear to be so.

February 5, 2024 Page 27
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

HOT SPOT ANALYSIS RESULTS
The hot spot analysis consists of analyzing historic crash data for the county and within each local jurisdiction. Hot spot analysis is a valuable method to visualize locations with historic crash issues, but it does not prospectively identify locations with higher crash risk. To identify the modal High-Injury Networks (HINs) for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motor vehicles; a sliding window analysis was conducted as described in the Methodology section on page 18.

Pedestrian High Injury Network
The pedestrian HIN is displayed in Figure 2 and can be viewed dynamically online at this link7.

Static maps showing each jurisdiction are included in Appendix A.

The pedestrian HIN was developed using two separate weighted crash thresholds. State routes were analyzed separately due to the interjurisdictional coordination that is required to implement safety countermeasures along state routes, as well as the reality that the roadway characteristics present along state routes are not necessarily representative of local roads.

The pedestrian HIN used screening weights of three (for fatal and severe injury crashes) to one (for minor injury crashes). The pedestrian HIN is represented by 98 miles of the street network that had the highest concentration of weighted crashes on a per mile basis. The minimum weighted crash threshold was substantially higher along state routes (minimum score of 16) compared to local roads (minimum score of 6). This differential scoring was used to keep state routes from dominating the HIN and precluding insights about locally-controlled roadways. The Pedestrian HIN covers just 3.4 percent of the street network for the county, but accounts for half of all pedestrian crashes and 69 percent of F/SI pedestrian crashes from 2018-2022. Roughly 12 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along a state route and 10 percent of the pedestrian HIN is along El Camino Real.

Crashes along the pedestrian HIN shared a similar pattern with countywide crashes when exploring crashes by lighting condition. Most crashes occurred during daylight conditions (62 percent), which is expected given that most pedestrian trips occur during daylight hours.

However, most F/SI crashes occurred during dark lighting conditions (53 percent), when walking tends to be much less common. If we had temporally-adjusted pedestrian exposure, we would likely see that nighttime severe crash risk for pedestrians is even higher. Furthermore, crashes are nearly twice as likely to result in a F/SI outcome (27 percent) along the HIN during dark lighting conditions compared to daylight conditions (16 percent), underscoring pedestrian risk along this network.

Posted speed limit along the pedestrian HIN also appears to be associated with crash severity.

Roughly 30 percent of pedestrian crashes along 25mph HIN segments resulted in a F/SI outcome compared to 36 percent for 35mph streets. When looking at crashes by posted speed limit per 10 miles, HIN segments with a posted speed limit of 40 mph had the largest concentration of total pedestrian crashes (115 crashes per 10 miles; 9 F/SI crashes per 10 miles) followed by 30mph 7 https://kai.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=97ffc3b8dec94cf7a1d65ae3e3324de4 February 5, 2024 Page 28
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
(74 crashes per 10 miles; 13 F/SI crashes per 10 miles) and 45 mph (54 crashes per 10 miles; 13 F/SI crashes per 10 miles).

The most frequent violation types include driver shall yield to pedestrian crossing the roadway at an intersection (60 percent of total crashes; 47 percent of F/SI crashes) followed by pedestrians shall yield right-of-way to vehicles except when at a marked crosswalk or an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection (10 percent of total crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes).

Crashes along the HIN occurred predominantly at intersections (85 percent of total crashes; 76 percent of F/SI crashes). However, crashes that occurred at segment locations were generally more severe with 44 percent of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome, compared to 23 percent at intersection. This is consistent with the countywide analysis and is likely related to higher motor vehicle speeds and kinetic energy at the time of the crash. When looking at intersection signalization, unsignalized locations accounted for a larger share of pedestrian crashes and F/SI crashes (47 percent of total crashes; 50 percent of F/SI crashes) compared to signalized intersections (39 percent of total crashes; 30 percent of F/SI crashes), though signalized intersections had a much larger concentration of crashes due to there being fewer of them throughout the network.

Of the pedestrian crashes that occurred along the pedestrian HIN, the most common locationmovement crash type included the following:
◼ “intersection – pedestrian crossing in crosswalk, motorists making a left turn” (26 percent of total crashes; 21 percent of F/SI crashes),
◼ “intersection – pedestrian crossing in crosswalk, motorists proceeding straight” (20 percent of total crashes; 19 percent of F/SI crashes), and
◼ “intersection – pedestrian crossing in crosswalk, motorist making a right turn” (12 percent of total crashes; 6 percent of F/SI crashes).

Regardless of location type and pedestrian action at the time of the crash, crashes most frequently involved a motorist proceeding straight (40 percent of total crashes; 54 percent of F/SI crashes) followed by a motorist making a left turn (31 percent of total crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes). Crashes that involved a motorist going straight also tended to be more severe than crashes involving a motorist turning making a left turn or right turn: 37 percent of crashes involving a motorist going straight resulted in a F/SI outcome, and these crashes had the highest average EPDO score (67.3).

The Pedestrian HIN is largely concentrated near or within more urban areas of the county. This concentration is expected, as the generally higher volumes of pedestrian and motorist volumes in these areas lead to more pedestrian-motorist interactions and higher crash frequencies. The following communities accounted for the largest share of the pedestrian HIN by overall mileage:

South San Francisco (18 percent), San Mateo (18 percent), and Daly City (15 percent).

For informational purposes, the highest-scoring intersections in the county using EPDO scores for pedestrian crashes only are given in Table 5. The top three per jurisdiction are given in the Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis section beginning on page 103.

February 5, 2024 Page 29
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 5 Highest Pedestrian HIN Intersections Countywide Intersection Name Jurisdiction State Highway Network? EPDO Score N Humboldt Street / E Poplar Avenue San Mateo No 606
E San Bruno Avenue / 3rd Avenue San Bruno No 410
El Camino Real / Center Street Millbrae Yes 393
W San Bruno Avenue / Masson Avenue San Bruno No 382
El Camino Real / Silva Avenue Millbrae Yes 371
El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue South San
Francisco Yes 273
Westborough Boulevard / Galway
Drive
South San
Francisco No 240
Bayshore Boulevard / Guadalupe
Canyon Parkway Brisbane No 240
Mission Street / Evergreen Avenue Daly City No 230
Hillside Boulevard / Brunswick Street Daly City No 214
February 5, 2024 Page 30
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 2 Pedestrian High Injury Network (HIN)
February 5, 2024 Page 31
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclist High Injury Network
The countywide bicyclist HIN can be found in Figure 3 and can be viewed dynamically online at this site8. Static maps showing each jurisdiction are included in Appendix B. The bicyclist HIN was produced using the same approach as the pedestrian HIN (i.e., evaluating state routes separately from local streets and using the same relative scoring). In this case, the minimum weighted bicyclist crash score per mile is six for both state routes and local streets, due to particularities of the data. The bicyclist HIN represents 96 miles of the street network and accounts for 3.3 percent of the street network. Twenty-seven percent of the network is along a state route, with El Camino Real comprising nearly 10 percent of the bicyclist HIN mileage. Most crashes along the bicyclist HIN involved both a bicyclist and a motorist (82 percent of total crashes; 67 percent of F/SI crashes), while the remaining crashes were solo bicyclist crashes.

Posted speed limit along the bicyclist HIN appears to be positively associated with bicyclist injury severity: the percentage of bicyclist crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome is higher along streets posted at 35mph or greater compared to streets posted at 30mph or lower. Interestingly, HIN segments with a posted speed limit of 45mph account for the largest share of HIN mileage (36 percent), followed by those posted at 35mph (27 percent) and 25mph (21 percent). HIN segments with a posted speed limit of 35mph had the largest share of bicyclist crashes (33 percent of total crashes; 39 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by 45mph segments (32 percent of total crashes; 32 percent of F/SI crashes). Streets with posted speed limits between 25mph and 35mph had comparable crash rates, ranging between 52 to 56 crashes per 10 miles. However, streets with a posted speed limit of 35mph had the highest rate of F/SI crashes per 10 miles (n=14), followed by 50mph (n=9) and 45mph (n=9).

Bicyclist crashes on the HIN occurred most frequently at intersections (64 percent of total crashes; 57 percent of F/SI crashes), and particularly at unsignalized intersections (43 percent of all crashes; 40 percent of F/SI crashes). However, crashes at segment locations were disproportionately severe (36 percent of all crashes; 43 percent of F/SI crashes). In terms of crash details, most bicyclist-motorist crashes included the roadway users traveling in perpendicular directions of travel (43 percent of crashes), followed by the same direction (34 percent of all crashes). Same direction crashes were disproportionately severe, comprising 41 percent of F/SI crashes. Unfortunately, roughly one-third of crashes and 41 percent of F/SI crashes do not have pre-crash movement data for both roadway users. Without these data, it is difficult to understand what types of behaviors may have contributed to these crashes. In the absence of these data, we can use the reported violation type, although this introduces a possible reporting bias or reporting errors and is a less objective attribute compared to using pre-crash movements.

With that caveat, failure to yield while entering highway was the most common violation type for perpendicular bicyclist crashes (13 percent of all crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by disregard red traffic signal (13 percent of all crashes; 25 percent of F/SI crashes) and drive on right except when passing (12 percent of all crashes; 2 percent of F/SI crashes). For same direction crashes, the most common violation types include inappropriate turn (28 percent of all crashes; 17 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by too fast for conditions (19 percent of all crashes; 25 percent of F/SI crashes).
8 https://kai.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=97ffc3b8dec94cf7a1d65ae3e3324de4 February 5, 2024 Page 32
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

When looking at functional classification, secondary streets account for the largest share of the HIN in terms of network mileage (46 percent) followed by tertiary (21 percent) and primary (18 percent) streets. Crash rates per 10 miles are similar between residential streets (43 crashes per 10 miles), tertiary (47 crashes per 10 miles), and secondary (47 crashes per 10 miles) streets, with primary streets having the highest rate (54 crashes per 10 miles). However, primary and secondary streets had the highest rate of F/SI crashes per 10 miles, with 11 and 10 F/SI crashes per 10 miles, respectively. These types of streets generally have higher vehicle speeds, higher vehicle volumes, and are generally larger streets – all risk factors for F/SI crashes.

The Bicyclist HIN is largely concentrated near or within more urban areas of the county. This concentration is expected, as urban areas generally have higher volumes of bicyclist and motorist volumes, leading to more bicyclist-motorist interactions and higher crash frequencies.

However, roughly 15 percent of the bicyclist HIN is located in unincorporated areas of the county, a substantially higher amount than the corresponding part of the pedestrian HIN (roughly 2 percent). This finding likely reflects that bicyclists are able to travel longer distances than pedestrians, as well as a relatively high percentage of recreational bicycle trips in the county. The following communities had the largest share of the bicyclist HIN in terms of network mileage: Redwood City (16 percent), Menlo Park (10 percent), San Mateo (8 percent), and Woodside (8 percent).

For informational purposes, the highest-scoring intersections in the county using EPDO scores for bicyclist crashes only are given in Table 6. The top three per jurisdiction are given in the Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis section beginning on page 103.

Table 6 Highest Bicyclist EPDO Intersections Countywide Intersection Name Jurisdiction State Highway Network EPDO Score La Honda Road/ Portola Road Woodside Yes 404
El Camino Real / Selby Lane Atherton Yes 393
Manzanita Way / Sand Hill Road Unincorporated No 382
Donohoe Street / University Avenue East Palo Alto No 279 Portola Road / Sand Hill Road Unincorporated No 231
Alpine Road / Arastradero Road Portola Valley No 213
Alpine Road / Los Trancos Road Portola Valley No 202
Alameda De Las Pulgas / Howard Avenue San Carlos No 202 Alameda De Las Pulgas / Nassau Drive Unincorporated No 202 Skyline Boulevard / La Honda Road Woodside Y 202
February 5, 2024 Page 33
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 3 Bicyclist High Injury Network (HIN)
February 5, 2024 Page 34
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicle High Injury Network
The countywide motor vehicle HIN can be found in Figure 4 and can be viewed dynamically online at this site9. Static maps showing each jurisdiction are included in Appendix C.

The Motor Vehicle HIN was developed using the same sliding window analysis as the pedestrian and bicyclist HIN but used the same crash threshold for state highways and local roadways and also used the EPDO scoring presented in the Methodology section on page 18. The minimum annualized EPDO score for inclusion on the motor vehicle HIN is 165 (representing, for example, one fatal roadway crash per year or 17 minor injury crashes per year), though where gaps were short identified along otherwise contiguous portions of roadways without underlying characteristic changes, they were connected.

The motor vehicle HIN represents 283 miles of the street network and accounts for about 10 percent of the street network. Forty-two (42) percent of the network is along a state route, and the roadways with the highest cumulative share of the HIN area include Skyline Boulevard, El Camino Real, and State Route 1 (cumulatively 24 percent of the HIN). Roadways in unincorporated areas of the county comprise about 27 percent of the HIN.

As with motor vehicle crashes overall, higher posted speed limit correlates crash outcomes: 50 percent of crashes on the HIN are along 45+ mph roadways (58 percent of F/SI crashes). The crashes that occurred at higher speeds along the HIN are primarily along roadway segments (60 percent) and include the following as the most frequent and severe crash types on these highspeed roadways:
◼ Segment hit object crashes (18 percent of crashes, 22 percent of F/SI) ◼ Segment head-on crashes (11 percent of crashes, 15 percent of F/SI) ◼ Unsignalized intersection broadside crashes (9 percent of crashes 8 percent of F/SI) The majority of crashes on the motor vehicle HIN occur along primary and secondary roadways (39 percent each) along with F/SI crashes (25 percent primary and 50 percent secondary). The most frequent intersection combinations represented among HIN crashes were:
◼ Primary-residential roadways (22 percent of crashes and 15 percent of F/SI crashes), which were primarily signalized.
◼ Secondary-residential roadways (14 percent of crashes and 9 percent of F/SI crashes), which were majority unsignalized.

Among violations, three violations dominated:
◼ Unsafe speed (30 percent of crashes, 23 percent of F/SI), distributed among location types ◼ Automobile right of way (18 percent of crashes and of F/SI), primarily at unsignalized intersections (55 percent)
◼ Improper turning (15 percent of crashes and 13 percent of F/SI), primarily on roadway segments (46 percent) indicating access points as possible causal factor. 9 https://kai.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=97ffc3b8dec94cf7a1d65ae3e3324de4 February 5, 2024 Page 35
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

For informational purposes, the highest-scoring intersections in the county using EPDO scores for motor vehicle crashes only are given in Table 7. The top three per jurisdiction are given in the Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis section beginning on page 103.

Table 7 Motor Vehicle HIN Intersections
Intersection Name Jurisdiction State Highway
Network?
EPDO Score
Half Moon Bay Road / Old Cañada
Drive Unincorporated Yes 612
Skyline Boulevard / Alpine Road Unincorporated Yes 573
Linden Avenue / Baden Avenue South San
Francisco
No 421
University Avenue / Weeks Street East Palo Alto Yes 404 Skyline Boulevard / John Daly Boulevard Daly City Yes 402 Woodside Road / Middlefield Road Redwood City Yes 396
Cabrillo Highway / Pescadero Creek
Road Unincorporated Yes 388
Edgewood Road / Junipero Serra
Freeway Unincorporated Yes 382
Woodside Road / Broadway Street Redwood City Yes 372
Whipple Avenue / Veterans Boulevard Redwood City No 371 February 5, 2024 Page 36
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 4 Motor Vehicle High Injury Network (HIN)
February 5, 2024 Page 37
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Combined High Injury Network
For the purpose of identifying a consolidated network of high injury segments for the San Mateo County and specific jurisdictions, motor vehicle HIN, pedestrian HIN and bicycle HIN were combined to identify, for every roadway segment in the County, whether it is part of zero, one, two, or all three of the modal HINs.

The countywide combined HIN can be found in Figure 5 and can be viewed dynamically online at this site10. Static maps showing each jurisdiction are included in Appendix D, and a complete table showing every roadway along any of the modal HINs is included in Appendix E.

In subsequent project tasks, these HIN scores (zero through three) may be combined and weighted to identify priority locations per mode or overall. 10 https://kai.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=97ffc3b8dec94cf7a1d65ae3e3324de4 February 5, 2024 Page 38
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Hot Spot Analysis Results Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 5 Countywide High Injury Network (HIN)
February 5, 2024 Page 39
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS
This section includes descriptive analysis findings that form the basis for systemic safety findings.

The analysis starts with a pre-pandemic vs pandemic comparison to understand the differences in safety, considering the significant change of travel behaviors that occurred during the pandemic. It is then followed by an in-depth analysis of crashes that have occurred from the year 2018-2022, conducted by modes including pedestrian, bicyclists, and motor vehicles. Crash locations for both intersection and mid-block crashes have been analyzed. Lastly, characteristics of individuals involved in crashes has been observed to account for the age, sex, and race.

Pre-Pandemic versus Pandemic Comparison
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on travel patterns, behaviors, and traffic volumes. The analysis considered crashes that occurred before the pandemic (2017-2019) and during the pandemic years (2020-2022) to observe changes in safety due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Based on the findings as listed in Table 8, the total number of crashes have decreased, but the number of F/SI crashes before versus after is quite similar (52 compared to 48 percent of the sixyear total). This is also evident in the EPDO score per crash which indicates that in the pandemic era the average severity has been about 20 percent higher compared to 2017-2019.

Table 8: Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022) Year Count % of 6-year
Total Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of Total
F/SI Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO Score
2017-
2019
6,109 58% 555 52% 139,258 54% 22.8
2020-
2022
4,436 42% 518 48% 120,774 46% 27.2
Total 10,545 100% 1,073 100% 260,032 100% 24.7
Source: TIMS 2023
Based on the findings as listed in Table 9, traffic volumes have decreased along state highway routes in the San Mateo County area with the exception of the Route 35 San Mateo County and Santa Clara County line traffic census location which has stayed the same from 2017 to 2021.

Largest reductions in traffic volume were recorded along Route 82 in Colma and Daly City where traffic volumes have decreased by 37.9% from 2017 to 2021.

February 5, 2024 Page 40
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 9: AADT by Route (2017-2021)
Route Description 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
%
Change
from
2017 to
2021
1 Santa Cruz/San Mateo
County Line 5,400 5,400 5,000 3,900 3,900 -28%
1 Jct. Rte. 84 East 7,600 7,600 7,600 5,900 6,000 -21%
1 San Mateo/San
Francisco County Line 90,300 90,300 101,000 79,000 80,000 -11% 35 Jct. Rte. 92 3,400 3,400 3,400 3,300 3,300 -3%
35 John Daly Boulevard 32,000 32,000 32,000 30,000 30,500 -5% 82 Jct. Rte. 84 39,400 36,100 36,100 28,500 31,000 -21% 82 San Mateo, Jct. Rte. 92 47,300 42,200 42,200 33,000 36,000 -24% 82 Colma, Mission Road 31,000 31,600 31,600 24,800 27,000 -13% 82 Daly City, Mission Street 15,300 10,600 10,600 8,300 9,500 -38% 82 San Mateo/San
Francisco County Line 15,300 10,600 10,600 8,300 9,500 -38% 84 Pescadero Road 2,200 2,300 2,300 2,000 2,100 -5%
84 Redwood City, Jct. Rte.
82 51,000 47,000 47,000 40,000 40,500 -21%
92 Jct. Rte. 35 South 28,900 29,500 29,500 23,000 23,200 -20% 92 Jct. Rte. 82 109,200 93,000 93,000 72,000 88,000 -19% 101 San Mateo, Jct. Rte. 92 280,400 272,800 267,000 214,000 203,000 -28% 101 San Francisco/San
Mateo County Line 226,800 220,600 219,000 175,000 166000 -27% 280 Junipero Sierra 226,000 216,700 216,700 175,000 162000 -28% 380 South San Francisco, Jct.

Rte. 101 23,700 23,700 23,000 19,300 19,500 -18%
Source: Caltrans Traffic Census Program
Based on the findings as listed in Table 10, the total number of crashes have decreased from pre-pandemic to pandemic era in most jurisdictions with the exception of Broadmoor, East Palo Alto, Half Moon Bay, and Woodside. The cities of Atherton, Broadmoor, Burlingame, Daly City, East Palo Alto, Foster City, Millbrae, Pacifica, Portola Valley, Redwood City, San Carlos, Woodside, and Unincorporated San Mateo County (64 percent of total jurisdictions) all recorded higher F/SI crashes in the pandemic era.

February 5, 2024 Page 41
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 10: Crashes by Year and Jurisdiction, All Modes Aggregated (2017-2022) Jurisdiction Year F/SI Other Crashes Total
Atherton 2017-2019 2 116 118
2020-2022 3 41 44
Belmont 2017-2019 5 164 169
2020-2022 5 130 135
Brisbane 2017-2019 8 53 61
2020-2022 8 23 31
Burlingame 2017-2019 3 212 215
2020-2022 11 116 127
Colma 2017-2019 22 9 31
2020-2022 0 1 1
Daly City 2017-2019 4 544 548
2020-2022 39 434 473
East Palo Alto 2017-2019 10 250 260
2020-2022 33 229 262
Foster City 2017-2019 4 106 110
2020-2022 10 74 84
Half Moon Bay 2017-2019 10 77 87
2020-2022 9 82 91
Hillsborough 2017-2019 4 30 34
2020-2022 2 13 15
Menlo Park 2017-2019 23 430 453
2020-2022 15 252 267
Millbrae 2017-2019 11 142 153
2020-2022 24 107 131
Pacifica 2017-2019 21 249 270
2020-2022 24 167 191
Portola Valley 2017-2019 2 25 27
2020-2022 10 11 21
Redwood City 2017-2019 41 783 824
2020-2022 50 546 596
San Bruno 2017-2019 56 266 322
2020-2022 23 187 210
San Carlos 2017-2019 15 155 170
February 5, 2024 Page 42
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Jurisdiction Year F/SI Other Crashes Total
2020-2022 19 139 158
San Mateo 2017-2019 58 715 773
2020-2022 23 326 349
South San Francisco 2017-2019 66 530 596
2020-2022 43 424 467
Unincorporated 2017-2019 113 625 738
2020-2022 137 529 666
Woodside 2017-2019 14 73 87
2020-2022 30 87 117
Source: TIMS 2023
Summary by Mode
Table 11 presents countywide crashes broken out by travel mode of the constituent parties. The table shows that pedestrian and bicyclist crashes are disproportionately severe when compared to motor vehicle crashes. Eight percent of motor vehicle injury crashes are F/SI, but the shares are 20 and 17 percent of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, respectively. These pedestrian and bicyclist shares are higher than their respective 13 percent share of all injury level crashes. These statistics highlight the risk of fatal or severe injuries to people walking or biking when involved in a crash. Among injury crashes alone, pedestrian crashes have approximately double the average EPDO score compared to injury motor vehicle crashes (39.5 compared to 25.6).

Table 11: Crashes by Mode, Countywide (2018-2022)
Mode Count % of 5-year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Pedestrians 1,064 13% 208 23% 42,081 19% 39.5
Bicyclists 1,058 13% 175 20% 37,630 17% 35.6
Motor
Vehicle
Alone
6,328 75% 515 57% 136,817 63% 21.6
Total 8,450 100% 898 100% 216,528 100% 25.6
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 43
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Crashes by Year
Table 12 summarizes crash frequency and severity for all modes by year for the study period. F/SI crash frequency and overall crash frequency and severity (as measured by EPDO) decreased each year from 2019 to 2020 with sharp decreases in the first two pandemic years (2020-21). This reduction is likely related to changes in travel behaviors due to the COVID-19 pandemic safety precautions and the regional stay at home order that was in effect. At the same time, the percrash severity has increased – from 23.2 EPDO per crash in 2018 to 26.5 in 2022.

Table 12: Crashes by Year, All Modes Aggregated (2018-2022) Year Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of Total
EPDO
Score
Average EPDO Score
2018 2,068 24% 187 21% 47,949 22% 23.2
2019 1,964 23% 194 22% 48,136 22% 24.5
2020 1,415 17% 166 19% 38,844 18% 27.5
2021 1,428 17% 173 19% 39,679 18% 27.8
2022 1,593 19% 179 20% 42,251 20% 26.5
Total 8,468 100% 899 100% 216,859 100% 25.6
Source: TIMS 2023
Figure 6 displays the annual EPDO scores for each mode, which highlights the overall frequency and severity of crashes. The figure shows:
◼ The annual EPDO scores for motor vehicle crashes decreased from 31,630 in 2018 to 24,621 in 2020, which is the largest net decrease across modes. The annual EPDO values have increased from 2020 but not to pre-pandemic levels.
◼ Motor vehicle and bicyclist EPDO scores have increased by 7 percent and 57 percent, respectively. Pedestrian EPDO scores have fluctuated over time, with no discernably consistent trend.

What this figure does not show is the relative severity on a per-crash basis. The ensuing sections demonstrate the disproportionately high relative severity of pedestrian and bicyclist crashes compared to motor vehicles. The crash trends by mode are described in sections below.

February 5, 2024 Page 44
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Figure 6: Annual EPDO Scores by Mode
Source: TIMS 2023
5,508 6,377 5,463 8,440 8,590
8,524 7,138 6,931
7,427 6,150
31,640 31,247
24,621
22,964 26,345
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
50,000
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Bike EPDO Ped EPDO Motor Vehicle EPDO
February 5, 2024 Page 45
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Pedestrians
Table 13 summarizes pedestrian crashes by injury severity and year. Pedestrian crash frequencies were highest during the first two years of the five-year study period and lowest during the core period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). Note, however, that pedestrian crashes appear to have slightly increased in severity during the core pandemic years, from an average EPDO score of 39.5 per crash in 2018-2019 to 45.1 per crash in 2020-2021. This finding aligns with national trends in which higher vehicle speeds and higher rates of reckless driving were observed during the pandemic.11 Pedestrian crash frequencies rose again in 2022 as pandemic-related restrictions ease and travel/activities continued to increase, although the overall share of severe and fatal crashes dropped back to about 16 percent (average EPDO score of 33.1).

Table 13: Pedestrian Crashes by Year and Severity (2018-2022) Year Count % of 5-
year
count total
Fatal Severe
Injury
Minor
Injury
Possible
Injury
EPDO % of Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO Score
2018 250 24% 6 44 159 41 9,946 24% 40.6
2019 251 24% 10 35 172 34 9,556 22% 38.5
2020 178 17% 8 33 106 31 7,830 19% 45.1
2021 174 16% 6 33 113 22 7,885 18% 45.1
2022 211 20% 5 28 147 31 6,864 16% 33.1
Total 1,064 100% 35 173 697 159 42,081 100% 40.1
Source: TIMS 2023
11 https://www.ghsa.org/resources/news-releases/GHSA/NHTSA-Speeding-Statement22 https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/pandemic-lockdowns-made-rush-hour-speeding-risky-driving-the-newnormal#:~:text=the%20new%20normal-,Pandemic%20lockdowns%20made%20rush%2Dhour%20speeding%2 C%20risky%20driving%20the%20new,returned%20to%20pre%2Dpandemic%20levels.

February 5, 2024 Page 46
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 14 summarizes bicyclist crashes by injury severity and year. Like the other modes, bicyclist crash frequencies were highest during the first two years of the five-year study period and lowest during the core period of the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2021). As with the other modes, bicyclist crash severity also appeared to increase from pre-pandemic years to pandemic years (average EPDO score of 20 from 2018-2019 compared to 40.2 from 2020-2021). Unlike pedestrian crashes, however, bicyclist crashes appeared to stay more severe in 2022, with an average EPDO score of 43.2.

Table 14: Bicyclist Crashes by Year and Severity (2018-2022) Year Count % of
5-
year
count
total
Fatal Severe
Injury
Minor
Injury
Possible
Injury
EPDO % of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
2018 235 22% 2 25 180 28 6,302 17% 27.3
2019 227 22% 1 32 162 32 7,305 19% 32.7
2020 196 19% 4 25 141 26 6,371 17% 33.3
2021 191 18% 1 43 125 22 8,802 23% 47.0
2022 209 20% 2 40 143 24 8,850 24% 43.2
Total
1,058 100% 10 165 751 132 37,630 100% 36.3
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 47
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Motor vehicle crashes (see Table 15) reported a large reduction in frequency from 2018, while fatal crashes have fluctuated over time with no discernable trend. There has been a decrease in reported severe injury crashes from 2019 to 2022. From 2018 to 2022, minor injury and possible injury crashes have decreased. As with the other modes, frequency of crashes decreased in 2020 through 2022 as the average EPDO score increased, indicating that fewer, but more severe, crashes were occurring.

Table 15: Motor Vehicle Crashes by Year and Severity
Year Count % of
5-
Year
Total
Fatal Severe Injury Minor
Injury
Possible
Injury
EPDO % of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
2018 1,577 25% 15 95 1,013 454 31,640 23% 20.1
2019 1,483 23% 10 106 900 467 31,247 23% 21.1
2020 1,039 16% 10 86 616 327 24,621 18% 23.7
2021 1,060 17% 15 75 662 308 22,964 17% 21.7
2022 1,169 19% 14 89 724 342 26,345 19% 22.5
Total 6,328 100% 64 451 3,915 1,898 136,817 100% 21.6
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 48
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Environmental/Land Use
Lighting Conditions
Pedestrians
Table 16 summarizes pedestrian crashes by lighting condition. Most pedestrian crashes (62 percent) occurred during daylight conditions, an expected finding given that most trips are made during daylight conditions. However, lighting condition shows a strong correlation with severity: crashes that occurred in darkness or low-light (i.e., dusk or dawn) conditions were much more likely to result in a F/SI outcome (27 percent) compared to those that occurred during daylight (15 percent). This disproportionality was even stronger in dark, unlit (i.e., lacking streetlight) conditions (32 percent F/SI). While the sample size for dark, unlit conditions was small (n=38), these disparities have been found in national and California-based research on pedestrian fatalities.
12 Lack of visibility and slower detection and reaction times likely contribute to these nighttime crashes. Slower detection and reaction times can result in the motorist traveling at a higher speed (and transferring more kinetic energy) at the time of the crash, leading to a more severe outcome.

Table 16: Lighting Conditions, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) Lighting
Condition
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Daylight 667 62% 100 48% 21,983 52% 33.8
Dark - Street
Lights 325 30% 86 41% 15,944 38% 49.8
Dusk - Dawn 41 4% 10 5% 1,882 5% 47.2
Dark - No Street
Lights 35 3% 11 5% 2,047 5% 60.0
Dark - Street
Lights Not
Functioning 3 <1% 1 1% 213 1% 71.0
Unknown 2 <1% 0 0% 12 <1% 6.0
Total 1,073 100% 208 100% 42,081 100% 40.1
Source: TIMS 2023
12 Sanders, R.L., Schneider, R.J.., & Proulx, F.R. (2022). Pedestrian Fatalities in Darkness: What Do We Know, and What Can Be Done? Transport Policy. 120(May): 23-39. DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2022.02.010 February 5, 2024 Page 49
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 17 summarizes bicyclist crashes by lighting condition. The vast majority of bicyclist crashes occurred during daylight conditions (84 percent), which fits with when most bicyclist trips occur.

Like pedestrian crashes, bicyclist crashes were more likely to result in a fatal or severe injury outcome during dark lighting conditions (21 percent) compared to daylight conditions (16 percent). Crash outcomes were even more likely to be severe in dark, unlit conditions (29 percent F/SI), though again the sample size was relatively small (n=14).

Table 17: Lighting Conditions, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022) Lighting
Condition
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Daylight 896 84% 137 78% 30,149 80% 34.6
Dark - Street
Lights 108 10% 22 13% 4,375 12% 42.1
Dusk - Dawn 43 4% 11 6% 2,134 6% 50.2
Dark - No Street
Lights 13 1% 4 2% 801 2% 63.6
Unknown 6 1% 1 1% 160 <1% 26.7
Dark - Street
Lights Not
Functioning 1 <1% 0 0% 11 <1% 11.0
Total 1,067 100% 175 100% 37,630 100% 36.3
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 50
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 18 presents motor vehicle crashes by reported lighting conditions. The majority of crashes occurred in daylight conditions (70 percent), which corresponds to when most travel occurs. Of the 6,328 crashes, 22 percent reported to have occurred in the dark where streetlights were present, and 5 percent occurred where streetlights were not present or functioning. Crashes with no streetlights had nearly double the per-crash EPDO score of daylight crashes. Though relatively rare (n=6), crashes that occurred where streetlights were not functioning had an average EPDO score that was more than three times that of crashes that occurred in the dark where streetlights were functioning.

Table 18: Lighting Conditions, Motor Vehicle Crashes (2018-2022) Lighting
Condition
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Daylight 4,447 70% 328 64% 91,247 67% 20.5
Dusk - Dawn 188 3% 12 2% 3,484 3% 18.5
Dark – Street
Lights
1,374 22% 119 23% 30,289 22% 22.0
Dark – No Street
Lights
294 5% 52 10% 10,945 8% 37.2
Dark – Street
Lights Not
Functioning
6 <1% 2 <1% 400 <1% 66.7
Unknown 19 <1% 2 <1% 452 <1% 23.8
Total 6,328 100% 515 100% 136,817 100% 21.6
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 51
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Weather Conditions
Weather conditions do not appear to be a significant factor in crash patterns in San Mateo County.
◼ More than 90 percent of total crashes and F/SI pedestrian and bicyclist crashes occurred during clear weather conditions. The percentage of F/SI crashes during rainy conditions was slightly higher for pedestrians (six percent) compared to bicyclists (one percent). These findings likely reflect low exposure during rainy conditions, particularly for pedestrians and bicyclists who have access to other transportation options when necessary. ◼ Of motor vehicle crashes, 84 percent occurred during clear weather conditions, 11 percent occurred during cloudy conditions, and 4 percent occurred during rainy conditions.

Roadway Conditions
Pedestrians and Bicyclists
For both modes, the vast majority of crashes occurred at locations with no unusual conditions (98 percent of pedestrian crashes; 95 percent of bicyclist crashes). For bicyclist F/SI crashes (n=175), the majority of F/SI crashes that occurred with any type of non-typical roadway condition (n=17) were solo bicyclist crashes (n=13), underscoring the vulnerability of bicyclists and the need for well-maintained roads. Note that these data may underestimate the degree to which roadway conditions contribute to crashes, particularly for bicyclists, given known patterns of underreporting and common exclusions of solo-bicycle crashes from reported crash data13.

Motor Vehicles
Roadway conditions do not appear to be a significant factor in motor vehicle crash patterns in San Mateo County. Of motor vehicle crashes, 98 percent occurred during no unusual roadway conditions, 1 percent occurred during construction or repair zone conditions, and 1 percent occurred during flooded conditions.

Proximity to Transit Stop
Table 19 summarizes pedestrian crashes that occurred at an intersection within 250 feet of a transit stop. Pedestrian crashes were nearly evenly split between intersections near a transit stop (48 percent of all crashes; 45 percent of F/SI crashes)and those further away. However, crash rates per intersection type indicate a stronger relationship to pedestrian safety than raw crash numbers suggest. Intersections within 250 feet of a transit stop had a crash rate of 20 crashes per 100 intersections, compared to just four crashes per 100 intersections for those intersections further away. This disproportionality may result from higher pedestrian exposure near transit locations and locations in which transit service is provided (employment centers, commercial/retail, higher density housing, etc.), as well as other roadway or crossing 13 https://www.visionzerosf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Severe-Injury-Trends 2011-2020 final report.pdf February 5, 2024 Page 52
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
characteristics that may increase crash risk (e.g., bus stops being frequently located along arterial or collector streets that are higher-speed, higher-volume streets).

When exploring pedestrian crashes near transit and the presence of intersection signalization, the following patterns were noteworthy:
◼ There is a similar near-even split between signalized intersections (49 percent of all crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes) and unsignalized intersections. However, signalized intersections had roughly six times the rate for both crashes per 100 intersections and F/SI crashes per 100 intersections as unsignalized intersections.
◼ F/SI crashes at signalized intersections 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.
◼ 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. ◼ Crashes most frequently occurred at a primary-residential intersection (30 percent of all crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by a secondary-residential intersection (28 percent of all crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes).

Cumulatively, these findings suggest a need for additional countermeasure support for pedestrians at intersections near transit stops and along arterial roadways. For unsignalized intersections, these countermeasures likely need to focus on driver stopping or yielding, such as through a pedestrian hybrid beacon or roadway reconfiguration and speed reduction measures that change driver thinking, behavior, and detection-reaction time. For signalized intersections, these countermeasures likely need to strengthen separation in time, such as through leading pedestrian intervals and protected left turn signalization. For all intersections, lighting should be considered as an important countermeasure where it does not currently exist.

Table 19: Proximity to Transit Stop, Pedestrian Intersection Crashes (2018-2022) Within 250’ of
transit stops
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO Score
Yes 392 48% 64 45% 13,079 44% 33.7
No 427 52% 78 55% 16,839 56% 39.5
Total 819 100% 142 100% 29,918 100% 36.8
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 53
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Crash Locations
The following sections discuss crashes by location type. The crashes were assigned as intersection or segment crashes according to the methodology discussed in the Quantifying Crash Severity section on page 23.

Pedestrians
Table 20 summarizes pedestrian crashes by location type. ◼ Most crashes occurred at an intersection (76 percent of all crashes; 68 percent of F/SI crashes), with the remainder coded to segment locations (24 percent of all crashes; 32 percent of F/SI crashes). This distribution is expected, as interactions between pedestrians and motorists typically occur at intersection locations, rather than midblock. ◼ When looking at crash locations and signalization, pedestrian crashes occurred most frequently at unsignalized intersections (48 percent of all crashes; 41 percent of F/SI crashes).
◼ Both segment and unsignalized pedestrian crashes tended to be more severe, with an average EPDO score of 51 and 40.5, respectively, compared to crashes at signalized intersections (average EPDO score of 30.5). Motorist speeds are often higher midblock than at intersections, resulting in higher kinetic energy and limited reaction time, both of which may contribute to greater injury severity from segment crashes.

Countywide sidewalk and driveway data would help us better assess the degree to which pedestrian segment crashes are associated with the absence of sidewalks or presence of driveway locations.

Table 20: Crash Locations, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) Crash Location Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Coun
t
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashe
s
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO Score
Unsignalized
Intersection
515 48% 86 41% 20,717 49% 40.5
Signalized
Intersection
304 28% 56 27% 9,201 22% 30.5
Segment
254 24% 66 32% 12,739 30% 51.0
Total
1,073 100% 208 100% 42,657 100% 40.1
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 54
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 21 summarizes bicyclist crashes by crash location. Most bicyclist crashes (43 percent) occurred at unsignalized intersections, but most F/SI crashes occurred at segment locations (43 percent). Roughly one-third of the F/SI crashes at unsignalized intersections were solo bicyclist crashes; these crashes were disproportionately severe, which may reflect reporting bias (i.e., people tend not to report minor injury solo bicyclist crashes). Excluding solo bicyclist crashes, most F/SI crashes at unsignalized intersections involved both parties traveling in perpendicular directions, either both going straight (n=7) or the bicyclist going straight and the motorist making a left turn (n=4).

Similar to unsignalized crashes, roughly 40 percent of the segment F/SI crashes involved a solo bicyclist. Excluding solo bicyclist crashes, both parties traveling in the same direction of travel (e.g., an overtaking or dooring crash) was the most common direction of travel for overall crashes (45 percent) and F/SI crashes (58 percent). The most frequent movement combination overall involved both the bicyclist and motorist going straight (14 percent) and among F/SI crashes involved the bicyclist going straight and the motorist making some other unsafe turn (15 percent).

Countywide data on bicycle facilities (including accurate installation dates), number of lanes on the roadway, and presence of on-street parking would allow us to further assess the relationships between specific roadway characteristics and bicycle crashes. For example, with these data, we could gain additional insights about injury severity and crash types relative to bicycle facility type. A complete countywide dataset with detailed bicycle facility data would allow additional insights into bicycle crash risk factors.

Table 21: Crash Locations, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022) Crash Location Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Coun
t
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashe
s
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO Score
Unsignalized
Intersection
457 43% 69 39% 17,083 45% 37.7
Segment
386 36% 76 43% 15,685 41% 41.2
Signalized
Intersection
224 21% 30 17% 5,604 15% 25.0
Total
1,067 100% 175 100% 38,372 100% 36.3
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 55
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 22 summarizes frequency and severity for motor vehicle crashes based on location type.

Crashes most frequently occur along roadway segments (39 percent of total, 52 percent of F/SI crashes) occur along roadway segments (i.e., not within an intersection influence area).

Unsignalized intersection crashes are the most severe (average 24.5 EPDO score), followed by segment crashes (average 23.5). Both occupy a larger share of total F/SI crashes and EPDO score compared to their overall share of crashes.

Table 22: Crash Locations, Motor Vehicle Crashes
Crash Location Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO Score
Midblock 2,488 39% 267 52% 64,326 47% 25.9
Unsignalized
Intersection 2,158 34% 159 31% 47,971 35% 22.2
Signalized Intersection 1,678 27% 89 17% 25,702 19% 15.3 Total 6,324 100% 515 100% 137,999 100% 21.8
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 56
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Intersection Crashes
Roadway Functional Class
The subsequent sections analyze intersection crashes by the functional classification of their constituent roadways according to OSM-provided classifications. For a discussion of those classifications and how they map to the locally defined functional classifications, see the Methodology section beginning on page 24.

Pedestrians
Table 23 summarizes pedestrian intersection crashes by highest and lowest functional classification of the intersecting streets.
◼ The largest share of pedestrian crashes occurred at:
– secondary and residential streets (23 percent of all crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes) – primary and residential (20 percent of all crashes; 23 percent of F/SI crashes) – residential and residential (19 percent of all crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ Intersections between a primary street and either another primary, secondary, or tertiary street had some of the highest rates of F/SI crashes and EPDO scores per 100 intersections.

Compared to streets that intersect with a residential street, there are relatively few intersections between only non-residential streets, but crashes that occur at these locations are disproportionately severe.
◼ Residential-residential intersections accounted for the third largest share of pedestrian crashes but make up 71 percent of the network, resulting in a very low intersection crash rate (1.8 crashes per 100 intersections).

February 5, 2024 Page 57
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 23: Pedestrian Intersection Crashes by Functional Classification (2018-2022) Higher Order
Roadway
Other
Roadway
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
Ints
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
ints
Trunk total 6 1% 1 1% 170 6.5 1.1
Trunk Trunk 0 0% 0 0% 0 0.0 0.0
Primary 0 0% 0 0% 0 0.0 0.0
Secondary 2 <1% 0 0% 17 25.0 0.0
Tertiary 3 <1% 1 1% 142 30.0 10.0
Residential 1 <1% 0 0% 11 1.4 0.0
Primary total 228 28% 43 30% 7,940 44.3 8.3
Primary Primary 4 1% 3 2% 437 28.6 21.4
Secondary 28 3% 4 3% 728 71.8 10.3
Tertiary 29 4% 4 3% 750 67.4 9.3
Residential 167 20% 32 23% 6,025 39.9 7.6
Secondary total 260 32% 54 38% 11,136 17.3 3.6
Secondary Secondary 19 2% 3 2% 505 19.4 3.1
Tertiary 52 6% 12 9% 2,332 44.8 10.3
Residential 189 23% 39 28% 8,299 14.7 3.0
Tertiary total 167 20% 25 18% 5,710 10.8 1.6
Tertiary Tertiary 38 5% 7 5% 1,288 30.9 5.7
Residential 129 16% 18 13% 4,422 9.0 1.3
Residential total 158 19% 19 13% 4,962 1.8 0.2
Residential Residential 158 19% 19 13% 4,962 1.8 0.2
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 58
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 24 summarizes bicyclist intersection crashes by highest and lowest functional classification of the intersecting streets.
◼ Like pedestrian crashes, crashes occurred most frequently at:
– secondary-residential intersections (28 percent of all crashes; 24 percent of F/SI crashes) – residential-residential intersections (18 percent of all crashes; 13 percent of F/SI crashes) – primary-residential intersections (17 percent of all crashes; 16 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ As with pedestrian crashes, In comparison, crashes at intersections with only non-residential streets had a substantially higher rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 intersections than crashes at intersections with residential streets. Intersections involving a residential street accounted for a large share of crashes, but they also represent 96 percent of the network.

Table 24: Bicyclist Intersection Crashes by Functional Classification (2018-2022) Higher
Order
Roadway
Other
Roadway
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
Ints
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
ints
Trunk total 14 2% 4 4% 651 15.1 4.3
Trunk Trunk 3 <1% 0 <1% 33 75.0 0.0
Primary 0 0% 0 <1% 0 0.0 0.0
Secondary 3 <1% 1 1% 137 37.5 12.5
Tertiary 1 <1% 1 1% 120 10.0 10.0
Residential 7 1% 2 2% 361 10.1 2.9
Primary total 169 22% 24 24% 5,155 32.8 4.7
Primary Primary 5 1% 2 2% 339 35.7 14.3
Secondary 27 4% 2 2% 510 69.2 5.1
Tertiary 24 4% 4 4% 680 55.8 9.3
Residential 113 17% 16 16% 3,626 27.0 3.8
Secondary
total 259 38% 37 37% 8,464 17.3 2.5
Secondary Secondary 40 6% 6 6% 1,343 40.8 6.1
Tertiary 31 5% 7 7% 1,307 26.7 6.0
Residential 188 28% 24 24% 5,814 14.6 1.9
Tertiary total 120 18% 21 21% 48,87 7.7 1.4
Tertiary Tertiary 12 2% 3 3% 672 9.8 2.4
Residential 108 16% 18 18% 4,215 7.6 1.3
Residential
total 119 18% 13 13% 3,558 1.4 0.1
Residential Residential 119 18% 13 13% 3,558 1.4 0.1
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 59
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 25 presents motor vehicle crashes by functional classification. The following disproportionate relationships stand out:
◼ Intersection crashes along primary and secondary roads account for the majority of intersection crashes (36 and 29 percent each) and similarly large shares of F/SI crashes (35 and 29 percent).
◼ The highest average EPDO scores were at intersections along the trunk and primary roadway system where they intersect with lower-order intersections. When looking at the signalized versus unsignalized breakdown of these combinations, the unsignalized intersections all have higher average EPDO scores—indicating that unsignalized minor-street intersections along arterial roadways have a disproportionate severity burden in the county. ◼ Trunk and residential unsignalized intersections consist of two percent of total crashes but make up for six percent of total F/SI crashes.

Table 25: Motor Vehicle Intersection Crashes by Functional Classification Higher
Order
Roadway
Other
Roadway
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
Ints
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
ints
Trunk total 164 4% 17 7% 4,442 176.3 176.3
Trunk Trunk 31 1% 0 0% 286 775.0 775.0
Primary - 0% 0 0% - 0.0 0.0
Secondary 31 1% 4 2% 900 387.5 387.5
Tertiary 15 0% 1 0% 320 150.0 150.0
Residential 87 2% 12 5% 2,936 126.1 126.1
Primary total 1,387 36% 86 35% 24,738 269.3 269.3
Primary Primary 50 1% 6 2% 1,398 357.1 357.1
Secondary 209 5% 12 5% 3,332 535.9 535.9
Tertiary 196 5% 11 4% 3,201 455.8 455.8
Residential 932 24% 57 23% 16,807 222.4 222.4
Secondary
total
1,121 29% 72 29% 21,631 74.7 74.7
Secondary Secondary 139 4% 12 5% 3,027 141.8 141.8
Tertiary 174 5% 15 6% 3,837 150.0 150.0
Residential 808 21% 45 18% 14,767 62.8 62.8
Tertiary total 546 14% 39 16% 11,725 35.2 35.2
Tertiary Tertiary 129 3% 10 4% 2,490 104.9 104.9
Residential 417 11% 29 12% 9,235 29.2 29.2
Residential
total
618 16% 34 14% 11,137 7.0 7.0
Residential Residential 618 16% 34 14% 11,137 7.0 7.0
February 5, 2024 Page 60
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Intersection Control
Pedestrians
Table 26 summarizes pedestrian intersection crashes by intersection signalization.

Most intersection crashes (63%) and F/SI crashes (61%) occurred at unsignalized intersections. This finding is expected as the vast majority of intersections across the county are unsignalized intersections, and these intersections include uncontrolled locations along higher-traffic streets.

However, when looking at crashes per 100 intersections, crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (50.9 crashes per 100 intersections; 9.4 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections).

At signalized intersections, the following pre-crash movement trends were most prevalent:
◼ a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk who was struck by a left turning motorist (38 percent of all crashes; 29 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by
◼ a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk who was struck by a right turning motorist (23 percent of all crashes; 9 percent of F/SI crashes).

Looking just at injury severity per driver pre-crash movement at signalized intersections, the following trends stand out:
◼ 40 percent of crashes involving motorists proceeding straight resulted in a F/SI outcome, while
◼ 15 percent of crashes involving a left-turning driver resulted in an F/SI outcome.

Crashes that involved a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection with a motorist going straight accounted for the second largest share of F/SI crashes (23 percent); these crashes were also disproportionately severe when they occurred, with 42 percent of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome.

At unsignalized intersections, the following pre-crash movement trends were most prevalent:
◼ a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk who was struck by motorist going straight (24 percent of all crashes; 27 percent of F/SI crashes), and
◼ a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk who was struck by motorist making a left turn (22 percent of all crashes; 22 percent of F/SI crashes).

Looking just at injury severity per driver pre-crash movement at unsignalized intersections, the following trends stand out:
◼ 22 percent of crashes involving a motorist going straight resulted in a F/SI outcome, ◼ 16 percent of crashes involving a motorist turning left resulted in a F/SI outcome, and ◼ 9 percent of crashes involving a right turning motorist resulted in an F/SI outcome.

This order of F/SI outcomes by motorist pre-crash movement likely directly reflects the motorist’s speed at the time of the crash. Proceeding straight and turning left are generally associated with higher vehicle speeds compared to turning right.

February 5, 2024 Page 61
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 26: Intersection Signalization, Pedestrian Intersection Crashes (2018-2022) Traffic Signal Count % of
5-year
Total
Crash
es
F/SI
Count
% of
Total F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Avg
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
Ints
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
Ints
Signalized 304 37% 56 39% 9,201 31% 30.5 50.9 9.4
Unsignalized 515 63% 86 61% 20,717 69% 40.5 4.3 0.7
Total 819 100% 142 100% 29,918 100% 36.8 6.6 1.1
Source: TIMS 2023
Bicyclists
Table 27 summarizes bicyclist intersection crashes by intersection signalization. Sixty-seven percent of all crashes and 70 percent of F/SI crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections.

When looking at crashes per 100 intersections, crashes were concentrated at signalized intersections (37.5 crashes per 100 intersections; 5 F/SI crashes per 100 intersections). The percentage of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome was comparable between location types, with 15 percent of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome at unsignalized intersections compared to 13 percent at signalized intersections.

At signalized intersections, the following pre-crash movements between a motorist and bicyclist were the most prevalent:
◼ Perpendicular pre-crash directions of travel (48 percent of all crashes; 50 percent of F/SI crashes) and
◼ Same direction movements (32 percent of all crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes).

Perpendicular F/SI crashes most commonly involved a bicyclist proceeding straight and the motorist proceeding straight (31 percent), followed by a bicyclist proceeding straight and the motorist making a left turn (12 percent).

In terms of violation type at signalized intersections:
◼ Disregarding a red traffic signal was the most frequent reported violation type for all crashes (22 percent) and F/SI crashes (39 percent), followed by ◼ Improper turning (15 percent of all crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes).

The same trends in pre-crash movements existed at unsignalized intersections, with some differences in severity. The following pre-crash movements between a motorist and bicyclist were the most prevalent:
◼ Perpendicular pre-crash directions of travel (49 percent of all crashes; 45 percent of F/SI crashes) and
February 5, 2024 Page 62
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
◼ Same direction (28 percent of all crashes; 38 percent of F/SI crashes).

Most perpendicular crashes occurred at intersections between residential-residential streets (30 percent) and secondary-residential streets (29 percent), though crashes were more likely to result in a F/SI outcome or a higher EPDO at locations between any arterial type (primary, secondary, and tertiary) and a residential street, compared to an intersection only between residential streets.

This finding may reflect both the higher speeds of arterial streets and the challenges a bicyclist may experience when trying to cross a larger street without a traffic control device to accommodate a safe and comfortable crossing.

Table 27: Intersection Signalization, Bicyclist Intersection Crashes (2018-2022) Traffic
Signal
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
Ints
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
Ints
Signalized 224 33% 30 30% 5,604 25% 25.0 37.5 5.0
Unsignalized 457 67% 69 70% 17,083 75% 37.7 3.9 0.6
Total 681 100% 99 100% 22,687 100% 33.5 5.5 0.8
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 63
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 28 presents motor vehicle crashes by intersection control. The majority of motor vehicle crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections, but signalized intersections have a much higher crash rate per 100 intersections. This reflects the roadway network: unsignalized intersections are far more abundant (95 percent of countywide intersections), but signalized intersections carry higher traffic volumes.

In terms of severity, the average EPDO score at unsignalized intersections is higher as previously noted, and the EPDO score share is higher than the crash share.

Table 28: Motor Vehicle Intersection Crashes Intersection Control Traffic
Signal
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
Ints
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
Ints
Signalized 1,678 44% 89 36% 25,702 35% 15.3 281.1 14.9
Unsignalized 2,158 56% 159 64% 47,971 65% 22.2 18.2 1.3 Total 3,836 100% 248 100% 73,673 100% 19.2 30.8 2.0
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 64
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Number of Legs
Pedestrians
Table 29 summarizes pedestrian crashes at intersections by the number of intersection legs.

Interestingly, three-quarters of the network is comprised of three-legged intersections. However, most pedestrian crashes (59 percent) and F/SI crashes (61 percent) occurred at four-legged intersections. While four-legged intersections only represent about a quarter of intersections, these locations are often riskier than three-legged intersections due to pedestrians having higher exposure levels to moving vehicles, resulting in a higher frequency of interactions that can lead to crashes. The average EPDO scores are essentially the same between three- and four-legged intersections, though crashes are much more concentrated at four-legged intersections when looking at crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 intersections. When looking at signalization and number of legs, crashes most frequently occurred at unsignalized four-legged intersections (33 percent of all crashes; 35 percent of F/SI crashes), although crashes and F/SI crashes are concentrated at signalized four-legged intersections, which have roughly six times the rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 intersections.

Table 29: Number of Legs, Pedestrian Intersection Crashes (2018-2022) # of
Legs
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
Ints
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
Ints
3 319 389% 53 37%
11,54
3 39% 36.2 3.4 0.6
4 485 59% 86 61%
17,89
8 60% 36.9 16.3 2.9
5+ 15 2% 3 2% 477 2% 31.8 28.8 5.8
Total
819 100% 142 100%
29,91
8 100% 36.5 6.6 1.1
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 65
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 30 summarizes bicyclist crashes at intersections by number of legs. Unlike pedestrian crashes, most bicyclist crashes (52 percent) and F/SI crashes (55 percent) occurred at threelegged intersections. However, the three-legged locations still had a lower rate of crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 intersections compared to four-legged intersections. As with pedestrians, the higher rate of bicyclist crashes at four-legged intersections likely relates to the role these intersections play in moving traffic throughout the county, and the resultant greater exposure of bicyclists to motor vehicles at these locations. For both pedestrians and bicyclists, greater exposure increases crash risk unless effective safety countermeasures are in place. When looking at signalization, intersections with traffic signals had a higher concentration of crashes (crashes per 100 intersections) for each number of legs category and tended to be more severe with having a higher average EPDO score compared to unsignalized intersections.

Table 30: Number of Legs, Bicyclist Intersection Crashes (2018-2022) # of
Legs
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
Ints
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
Ints
3 355 52% 54 55%
12,59
5 55% 35.5 3.8 0.6
4 322 47% 45 46%
10,07
6 44% 31.3 10.8 1.5
5+ 4 1% 0 0% 44 <1% 11.0 7.7 0.0
Total 681 100% 99 100% 22,71
5 100% 33.5 5.5 0.8
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 66
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Speed Limit
The following sections present intersections crashes by maximum posted speed limit and compare the results to the total mileage of roadway by speed limit. First, The summary of roadways by speed limit is provided in Table 31 for context. Note that roadways with posted speeds 45 mph or higher account for 11 percent of the total roadway network, whereas roadways with posted speed 25 mph or less account for 80 percent. The findings below show a much higher share of crashes occurring on those higher speed roadways.

Table 31: County Roadway Mileage by Posted Speed Limit
Posted
Speed
Limit
Length
(miles)
Share of
Total
Roadway
Mileage
≤25 2306 80%
30 34 1%
35 193 7%
40 17 1%
45 234 8%
50+ 92 3%
Total 2877 100%
Source: C/CAG 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 67
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Pedestrians
Table 32 summarizes pedestrian crashes by the posted speed limit. We found that 25-mph streets accounted for the largest share of pedestrian crashes (38 percent) and F/SI crashes (34 percent). This distribution makes sense, given that 80 percent of the street network has a speed limit of 25mph or less. As such, the rate of crashes and average EPDO scores per 100 miles is the lowest for 25 mph of all posted speed limits. Streets with a posted speed limit of 45 mph had the second largest share of crashes (27 percent) and F/SI crashes (29 percent), followed by 35-mph streets (23 percent of all crashes; 27 percent of F/SI crashes). These higher speed streets had some of the highest percentages of crashes resulting in an F/SI outcome, average EPDO scores, and EPDO scores per 100 miles. These findings support the current understanding that higher speed roads have serious safety implications for vulnerable road users.

Table 32: Posted Speed Limit, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) Posted
Speed
Limit
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
EPDO/
Crash
EPDO/
100
Miles
25 400 38% 69 34% 15,366 37% 38.4 666
30 82 8% 11 5% 2,586 6% 31.5 7,511
35 237 23% 55 27% 10,299 25% 43.5 5,339
40 34 3% 4 2% 972 2% 28.6 5,570
45 277 27% 59 29% 11,626 28% 42.0 4,971
50+ 13 1% 5 3% 728 2% 56.0 790
Total 1,043 100% 203 100% 41,577 100% 39.9 1,445
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 68
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 33 summarizes bicyclist crashes by the posted speed limit. Streets with a posted speed limit of 25 mph (32 percent of all crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes) accounted for the second largest share of crashes but given that these streets represent 80 percent of the network, they had the lowest rate of EPDO scores (n=202) on a 100-mile basis. In contrast, higher-speed streets tend to have very high EPDO scores per 100 miles.

The following streets accounted for the largest share of F/SI crashes and the highest rates of EPDO per 100 miles:
◼ 45 mph accounted for the largest share of all crashes (32 percent) and F/SI crashes (31 percent) and had the highest rate of EPDO scores per 100 miles (2,129), while 45-mph streets comprise only eight percent of the network.
– Additional exploration of streets with a posted speed limit of 45 mph shows that the largest share of crashes (37 percent) and F/SI crashes (45 percent) occurred at segment (non-intersection) locations.
– Most segment crashes and F/SI crashes involved a bicyclist and motorist traveling in the same direction. These same direction crashes often involved violations pertaining to unsafe speed and improper turns.
◼ 35 mph accounted for the third largest share of all crashes (25 percent) and F/SI crashes (27 percent) but had the second highest rate of EPDO scores per 100 miles (n=1,713), while 35- mph streets comprise only seven percent of the network. – Crashes along 35-mph streets most frequently occurred at unsignalized intersections (40 percent of all crashes; 47 percent of F/SI crashes).
– These crashes at unsignalized intersections generally involved both roadway users traveling in perpendicular directions (39 percent of all crashes; 27 percent of F/SI crashes). These perpendicular direction crashes often involved violations pertaining to failing to stop at a stop sign.

Table 33: Posted Speed Limit, Bicycle Crashes (2018-2022) Posted
Speed
Limit
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
EPDO/
Crash
EPDO/
100 Mile
25 330 32% 231 31% 4,648 32% 14.1 202
30 51 5% 44 6% 73 1% 1.4 212
35 261 25% 200 27% 3,304 23% 12.7 1,713
40 29 3% 24 3% 70 1% 2.4 401
45 330 32% 233 31% 4,980 34% 15.1 2,129
50+ 31 3% 19 3% 1,444 10% 46.6 1,566
Total 1,032 100% 751 100% 14,519 100% 14.1 505
February 5, 2024 Page 69
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 34 presents motor vehicle crashes by intersection control and posted speed limit. Crashes most frequently occurred at intersections with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or higher (41 percent and 45 percent of F/SI crashes), although those roadways account for just 12 percent of the roadway network. Roadways posted at 40-45 mph show the highest EPDO per 100 miles, as well.

The higher-speed intersection primarily occurred at unsignalized intersections:
◼ 70 percent of 40mph intersections
◼ 55 percent of 45 mph intersections
◼ 61 percent of 50+ mph intersections
Notably, almost 47 percent of the 40mph+ unsignalized intersection crashes occurred along secondary roadways A majority of crashes at 45 mph or higher intersections were at unsignalized intersections (56 percent), and most of the frequency and severity was along secondary roadways intersecting lower-order roadways (48 percent of EPDO).

Table 34: Motor Vehicle Intersection Crashes by Posted Speed Limit Posted
Speed
Limit
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
EPDO/
Crash
EPDO/
100 Mile
25 1,081 28% 66 27% 20,785 28% 19.2 901
30 218 6% 10 4% 3,439 5% 15.8 9,988
35 931 24% 60 24% 17,072 23% 18.3 8,850
40 166 4% 10 4% 3,288 4% 19.8 18,842
45 1276 33% 88 35% 25,384 34% 19.9 10,853
50+ 164 4% 14 6% 3,705 5% 22.6 4,019
Total 3,836 100% 248 100% 73,673 100% 19.2 2,561
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 70
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Roadway Crash Geometric Characteristics
Functional Classification
Table 35 presents the roadway functional classification and posted speed limit countywide distribution. The majority (84 percent) of the countywide roadway network has a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less and the majority (66 percent) of roadways are classified as residential.

Table 35: Roadway Functional Class and Posted Speed Distribution, Countywide Functional
Classification
Posted Speed
Total
<=25 30-35 40+
Trunk 0% 0% 1% 1%
Primary <1% 1% 1% 3%
Secondary 2% 2% 3% 7%
Tertiary 5% 2% 1% 8%
Residential 64% 2% <1% 66%
Other <1% 0% <1% 1%
Unknown 13% <1% 1% 15%
Total 84% 8% 8% 100%
Source: C/CAG, OSM 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 71
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Pedestrians
Table 36 summarizes pedestrian crashes by functional classification. Most pedestrian crashes (29 percent) and F/SI crashes (31 percent) occurred along secondary streets. The distribution of pedestrian crashes is somewhat uniform between secondary, primary, residential, and tertiary streets, with the percentage of crashes by functional class ranging between 20 percent (tertiary) and 29 percent (secondary). However, when looking at mileage-based crash rates, primary streets had the highest rate of crashes per 100 miles (340 crashes per 100 miles) and F/SI crashes (81 F/SI crashes per 100 miles), followed by secondary (137 crashes per 100 miles; 29 F/SI crashes per 100 miles). This supports the current understanding of pedestrian crash risk along major arterials, which generally have higher vehicle speeds, higher vehicle volumes, and greater widths to cross.

Table 36: Functional Classification, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) Functional
Class
Miles Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
miles
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
miles
Secondary 225 308 29% 65 31% 13,307 31% 137 29
Primary 78 264 25% 63 30% 11,385 27% 13 2
Residential
1,82
4 242 23% 32 15% 7,806 18% 89 17
Tertiary 246 219 20% 41 20% 8,711 20% 340 81
Unknown 30 3% 5 2% 1,080 3% 20 4
Trunk 49 10 1% 2 1% 368 1% 137 29
Total 1,073 100% 208 100% 42,657 100% 36 7
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 72
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 37 summarizes bicyclist crashes by functional classification. Most bicyclist crashes (39 percent) occurred along secondary streets, followed by residential (20 percent) and primary (20 percent) streets. Residential streets accounted for the second largest share of crashes and third largest share of F/SI crashes but had the lowest rate of crashes per 100 miles (11) and F/SI crashes per 100 miles (7) compared to primary streets (260 crashes per 100 miles; 224 F/SI crashes per 100 miles) and secondary streets (177 crashes per 100 miles; 128 KS crashes per 100 miles).

Like pedestrian crashes, these findings likely indicate the vulnerability of bicyclists traveling along or across major streets that generally have higher vehicle volumes and speeds and are larger streets to cross.

When looking at crashes along secondary streets, most crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (43 percent), and most F/SI crashes occurred at segment locations (44 percent).

Most crashes at unsignalized locations involved both roadway users traveling in perpendicular directions of travel (41 percent), while most segment F/SI crashes involved a solo bicyclist (45 percent) or the motorist and bicyclist traveling in the same direction (38 percent).

Table 37: Functional Classification, Bicycle Crashes (2018-2022) Functional
Class
Miles Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
miles
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
miles
Secondary 225 399 39% 288 38.% 5,930 41% 177 128
Residential 1,824 236 20% 135 18% 3,347 23% 11 7
Tertiary 246 203 18% 131 17% 2,401 17% 77 53
Primary 78 151 20% 174 23% 1,142 8% 260 224
Trunk 49 35 3% 20 3% 1,104 8% 59 41
Ramp 88 30 1% 1 <1% 237 2% 9 1
Alley 21 8 <1% 2 <1% 341 2% 15 10
Motorway 3 3 <1% 0 0% 17 <1% 61 <1%
Total 1,032 100% 751 100% 14,519 100% 36 26
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 73
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 38 presents motor vehicle roadway crashes by functional classification. Secondary roadways are overrepresented in in F/SI share (36 percent) compared to total share (29 percent). Both of those shares are higher than the total secondary roadway share—just 8 percent of the county roadway network. Tertiary roadways are similarly overrepresented – 23 percent of F/SI and 29 percent of total compared to 9 percent of the roadway network. The tertiary crashes have by far the largest crashes and F/SI crashes per 100 miles of roadway network.

Table 38: Functional Classification, Motor Vehicle Crashes (2018-2022) Functional
Class
Miles Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Cou
nt
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Crashes
per 100
miles
F/SI
Crashes
per 100
miles
Secondary 225 1,828 29% 184 36% 45,476 33% 813.8 81.9
Residential 1,824 1,065 17% 64 12% 19,968 14% 58.4 3.5
Tertiary 246 1,819 29% 121 23% 34,058 25% 2,342.3 155.8 Primary 78 843 13% 69 13% 19,179 14% 343.1 28.1
Trunk 49 409 6% 58 11% 13,056 9% 828.9 117.6
Ramp 88 187 3% 6 1% 2,687 2% - -
Alley 21 165 3% 10 2% 3,035 2% 187.6 11.4
Motorway 3 6 0% 3 1% 523 0% 1.7 0.9
Total 1 0% 0 0% 6 0% 4.9 0.0
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 74
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Speed Limit
Pedestrian
Table 39 summarizes pedestrian crashes by the posted speed limit. We found that 25-mph streets accounted for the largest share of pedestrian crashes (38 percent) and F/SI crashes (34 percent). This distribution makes sense, given that 80 percent of the street network has a speed limit of 25 mph or less. As such, the rate of crashes and average EPDO scores per 100 miles is the lowest for 25 mph of all posted speed limits. Streets with a posted speed limit of 45 mph had the second largest share of crashes (27 percent) and F/SI crashes (29 percent), followed by 35-mph streets (23 percent of all crashes; 27 percent of F/SI crashes). These higher speed streets had some of the highest percentages of crashes resulting in an F/SI outcome, average EPDO scores, and EPDO scores per 100 miles. These findings support the current understanding that higher speed roads have serious safety implications for vulnerable road users.

Table 39: Posted Speed Limit, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) Posted
Speed
Limit
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
EPDO/
Crash
EPDO/
100
Miles
25 400 38% 69 34% 15,366 37% 38.4 666
30 82 8% 11 5% 2,586 6% 31.5 7,511
35 237 23% 55 27% 10,299 25% 43.5 5,339
40 34 3% 4 2% 972 2% 28.6 5,570
45 277 27% 59 29% 11,626 28% 42.0 4,971
50 13 1% 5 3% 728 2% 56.0 790
Total 1,043 100% 203 100% 41,577 100% 39.9 1,445
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 75
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclist
Table 40 summarizes bicyclist crashes by the posted speed limit. Streets with a posted speed limit of 25 mph (32 percent of all crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes) accounted for the second largest share of crashes, but given that these streets represent 80 percent of the network, they had the lowest rate of EPDO scores (n=202) on a 100-mile basis. In contrast, higher-speed streets tend to have very high EPDO scores per 100 miles.

The following streets accounted for the largest share of F/SI crashes and the highest rates of EPDO per 100 miles:
◼ 45 mph accounted for the largest share of all crashes (32 percent) and F/SI crashes (31 percent) and had the highest rate of EPDO scores per 100 miles (n=2,129), while 45-mph streets comprise only eight percent of the network.
– Additional exploration of streets with a posted speed limit of 45 mph shows that the largest share of crashes (37 percent) and F/SI crashes (45 percent) occurred at segment (non-intersection) locations.
– Most segment crashes and F/SI crashes involved a bicyclist and motorist traveling in the same direction. These same direction crashes often involved violations pertaining to unsafe speed and improper turns.
◼ 35 mph accounted for the third largest share of all crashes (25 percent) and F/SI crashes (27 percent) but had the second highest rate of EPDO scores per 100 miles (n=1,713), while 35- mph streets comprise only seven percent of the network. – Crashes along 35-mph streets most frequently occurred at unsignalized intersections (40 percent of all crashes; 47 percent of F/SI crashes).
– These crashes at unsignalized intersections generally involved both roadway users traveling in perpendicular directions (39 percent of all crashes; 27 percent of F/SI crashes). These perpendicular direction crashes often involved violations pertaining to failing to stop at a stop sign.

Table 40: Posted Speed Limit, Bicycle Crashes (2018-2022) Posted
Speed
Limit
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
EPDO/
Crash
EPDO/
100
Miles
25 330 32% 231 31% 4,648 32% 14.1 202
30 51 5% 44 6% 73 1% 1.4 212
35 261 25% 200 27% 3,304 23% 12.7 1,713
40 29 3% 24 3% 70 1% 2.4 401
45 330 32% 233 31% 4,980 34% 15.1 2,129
50+ 31 3% 19 3% 1,444 10% 46.6 1,566
Total 1,032 100% 751 100% 14,519 100% 14.1 505
February 5, 2024 Page 76
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 41 presents motor vehicle crashes by posted max speed limit. Roadways with posted speed limits of 40 mph or higher consist of 12 percent of County roadways but make up 44 percent total crashes and the majority (55 percent) of total F/SI crashes. Crashes that occurred on roadways with a posted speed limit of 40 mph or higher had an average EPDO per mile that was more than thirteen times that of crashes occurring on roadways with a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less.

The majority of the roadways (80 percent) in the County have a posted speed limit of 25 mph or less and make up 28 percent of total crashes and 23 percent of total F/SI crashes.

Speed plays a role in crash risk and severity in the following three ways:
◼ Higher vehicle speeds involve more kinetic energy transfer, resulting in more severe outcomes.
◼ Drivers traveling at higher speeds have a narrower field of vision. ◼ Drivers have less margin for reaction times and require greater distance both to react and to brake or avoid a conflict, making crashes more likely.

Table 41: Speed Limit, Motor Vehicle Crashes
Posted
Speed
Limit
Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
EPDO/
Crash
EPDO/
Miles
<=25 1,760 28% 118 23% 35,196 26% 20.0 1,526
30 299 5% 16 3% 5,074 4% 17.0 14,737
35 1310 21% 92 18% 25,611 19% 19.6 13,277
40 222 4% 13 3% 4,311 3% 19.4 24,705
45 2,092 33% 209 41% 51,557 37% 24.6 22,044
50+ 454 7% 61 12% 13,563 10% 29.9 14,712
Unknown 187 3% 6 1% 2,687 2% 14.4 -
Total 6,324 100% 515 100% 137,999 100% 21.8 4,796
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 77
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Crash Dynamics/Behaviors
Crash Type/Pre-Crash Movement Analysis
This section analyzes pre-crash movements and crash types. The crash type coding available in the data are more meaningful for describing vehicle-to vehicle or solo vehicle dynamics than for pedestrian and bicyclists crashes. Therefore, for pedestrian and bicyclist crashes, pre-crash movement is used here as a more useful way to determine crash dynamics while the motor vehicle analysis uses crash types.

Pedestrians
Table 42 summarizes the top ten pedestrian crashes by pre-crash movements. Most crashes involved:
◼ A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist making a left turn (24 percent) ◼ A pedestrian crossing at an intersection with a motorist proceeding straight (15 percent) ◼ A pedestrian crossing not in a crosswalk with a motorist proceeding straight (13 percent) Of those three crash types, those that involved a motorist proceeding straight had a higher share of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome and a higher average EPDO score. These findings likely relate to higher vehicle speeds at the time of the crash, which lead to a more severe pedestrian injury.

Most crashes involving a motorist making a left turn and the pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk occurred at a signalized intersection (45 percent), but most of the F/SI crashes with this crash type occurred at unsignalized intersections. These F/SI crash types occurred most frequently at secondary streets; along these streets, crashes were generally split between signalized and unsignalized intersections. The vast majority of this crash type was associated with the motorist failing to yield to the pedestrian (87 percent of all crashes; 85 percent of F/SI crashes of this type). Additionally, most of crashes that involved a pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk and a motorist making a left turn occurred during daylight conditions (73 percent of all crashes; 83 percent of F/SI crashes) and were on average more severe than crashes that occurred during dark lighting conditions.

Crashes that involved a pedestrian crossing an intersection with a motorist proceeding straight most frequently occurred at unsignalized intersections for overall crashes (77 percent) and F/SI crashes (59 percent). This may be a result of the pedestrian attempting to cross a larger street who was struck by a motorist who did not have a stop sign or signal. Furthermore, crashes at these unsignalized locations most often involved a motorist who did not yield to the crossing pedestrian (80 percent of all crashes; 87 percent of F/SI crashes). Additionally, most F/SI crashes for this crash type (62 percent) occurred during dark lighting conditions, which is higher than the percentage in darkness for all pedestrian crashes countywide (47 percent).

February 5, 2024 Page 78
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 42: Movement-Based Crash Types, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) Movement-Based Crash
Types, Pedestrian
Count % of
Crashes
# of F/SI
Crashes
% of
F/SI
Crashe
s
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Avg
EPDO
Score
Ped Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection, MV Making Left
Turn
256 24% 40 19% 8,570 20% 33.5
Ped Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection, MV Proceeding
Straight
163 15% 39 19% 7,696 18% 47.5
Ped Crossing Not in
Crosswalk, MV Proceeding
Straight
139 13% 49 24% 9,005 21% 64.8
Ped Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection, MV Making
Right Turn
122 11% 11 5% 2,826 7% 23.2
Ped In Road, Including
Shoulder, MV Proceeding
Straight
80 8% 19 9% 3,697 9% 46.8
Ped Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection, MV Not Stated
26 2% 3 1% 654 2% 25.2
Ped Crossing Not in
Crosswalk, MV Making Left
Turn
24 2% 6 3% 1,151 3% 48.0
Ped Crossing in Crosswalk
Not at Intersection, MV
Proceeding Straight
17 2% 5 2% 1,014 2% 63.4
Ped Not in Road, MV
Backing
16 2% 2 1% 484 1% 30.3
Ped Not in Road, MV
Proceeding Straight
13 1% 4 2% 724 2% 60.3
Other
217 20% 30 15% 6,836 16% 31.5
Total 1,073 100% 208 100% 42,657 100% 40.1
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 79
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Crashes that involved a pedestrian crossing not in a crosswalk with a motorist proceeding straight occurred most often at segment locations (46 percent of all crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by unsignalized intersections (39 percent of all crashes; 31 percent of F/SI crashes). Some caution should be used when interpreting the reported action of the pedestrian crossing within a crosswalk or not, as there may be some reporting errors related to a pedestrian crossing within an unmarked crosswalk being coded as not in crosswalk. Regardless of location type (signalized, unsignalized, or segment), most crashes involved the motorist not yielding to the pedestrian (71 percent of all crashes; 59 percent of F/SI crashes).

Crashes that occurred at segment locations tend to be more severe, having a higher percentage of crashes that resulted in a F/SI outcome (41 percent) and a higher average EPDO score (73) compared to intersection crashes (31 percent of crashes resulting in a F/SI outcome; 58 average EPDO). This difference in injury severity outcomes likely reflects higher vehicle speeds at the time of the crash. Additionally, most F/SI crashes with this crash type (71 percent) occurred during dark lighting conditions – much higher than the percentage of pedestrian crashes for all crash types countywide (47 percent). This combination of midblock crossing, higher vehicle speeds, and dark lighting conditions may be a key factor in severe pedestrian crashes throughout the county.

Bicyclists
Table 43 summarizes the top 10 movement-based bicyclist crash types for crashes that involved at least one bicyclist and one motorist, solo bicyclist crashes are excluded. Most crashes involved both roadway users proceeding straight at the time of the crash for both the overall crashes (21 percent) and F/SI crashes (18 percent). This finding is not surprising, given that velocity for roadway users going straight is generally higher than for other pre-crash movements, and higher velocities reduce reaction time and increase injury severity in the event of a crash.

These crashes occurred most frequently at unsignalized intersections (53 percent), whereas F/SI crashes occurred most frequently at signalized intersections (43 percent). The most frequent violation types relate to failure to stop at a stop sign (15 percent of call crashes; 19 percent of F/SI crashes), disregarding a traffic signal (12 percent of all crashes; 29 percent of F/SI crashes), and unsafe speed (11 percent of all crashes; 5 percent of F/SI crashes).

The second most common crash type involved a bicyclist proceeding straight and a motorist turning left (12 percent of all crashes; 9 percent of F/SI crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (25 percent of all crashes; 46 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by signalized intersections (25 percent of all crashes; 36 percent of F/SI crashes). These crashes were most frequently cited as a road user failing to yield to oncoming traffic before making a turn (43 percent of all crashes; 46 percent of F/SI crashes) and failure to making a turn in a safe place and use a turn signal (15 percent of all crashes; 0 F/SI crashes).

The third most common crash type involved a bicyclist proceeding straight and a motorist making a right turn (11 percent of all crashes; 6 percent of F/SI crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (43 percent of all crashes; 29 percent of F/SI crashes) and signalized intersections (32 percent of crashes; 53 percent of F/SI crashes). Note that we have February 5, 2024 Page 80
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
incomplete crash types for more than 18 percent of crashes (motorist or bicyclist action “not stated”), which hampers a complete understanding of bicyclist safety in the county.

Table 43: Movement-Based Crash Types, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022) Movement-Based Crash Types,
Bicyclists
Count % of
Crashes
# of
F/SI
Crash
% of
F/SI
Crash
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Avg
EPDO
Score
Bike Proceeding Straight, MV
Proceeding Straight 186 21% 21 18% 4,911 18% 26.7
Bike Proceeding Straight, MV Making
Left Turn 106 12% 11 9% 2,705 10% 25.5
Bike Proceeding Straight, MV Making
Right Turn 100 11% 7 6% 2,025 8% 20.3
Bike Not Stated, MV Proceeding
Straight 49 6% 9 8% 1,919 7% 39.2
Bike Proceeding Straight, MV Not
Stated 36 4% 9 8% 1,831 7% 50.9
Bike Making Left Turn, MV Proceeding
Straight 22 3% 5 4% 1,009 4% 45.9
Bike Not Stated, MV Making Left Turn 22 3% 5 4% 1,074 4% 51.1 Bike Proceeding Straight, MV Entering
Traffic 21 2% 2 2% 576 2% 27.4
Bike Not Stated, MV Making Right Turn 18 2% 0 0% 188 1% 10.4 Bike Traveling Wrong Way, MV Making
Right Turn 17 2% 1 <1% 357 1% 21.0
Other 297 34% 48 41% 10,570 40%

36.2 Total 874 100% 118 100% 27,165 100% 31.4
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 81
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Intersection
Table 44 summarizes frequency and severity for all intersection motor vehicle crashes based on crash type. The predominant crash types are broadside (38 percent), rear end (30 percent) and sideswipe (11 percent). These three make up the majority of total crashes (79 percent) and total F/SI crashes (56 percent). Head-on and hit object account for 17 percent of total crashes but make up 26 percent of F/SI crashes and twenty five percent (24 percent) of the total EPDO score.

The top three intersection crash types accounting for EPDO score – broadside, rear end, and head-on – have the following location characteristics:
◼ Broadside: 61 percent occurred unsignalized intersections (66 percent of EPDO score) ◼ Rear end: 55 percent at occurred at signalized intersections (51 percent of EPDO score) ◼ Head-on: 51 percent at occurred at signalized intersections (59 percent of EPDO score) Table 44: Crash Type and Severity, Motor Vehicle Intersection Crashes Crash Type Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Broadside 1,471 38% 93 38% 28,167 38% 19.1
Rear End 1,145 30% 30 12% 14,951 20% 13.1
Sideswipe 411 11% 13 5% 5,492 7% 13.4
Head-On 366 10% 45 18% 9,982 14% 27.3
Hit Object 277 7% 40 16% 9,046 12% 32.7
Other 102 3% 8 3% 2,333 3% 22.9
Overturned 48 1% 14 6% 3,018 4% 62.9
Unknown 7 0% 2 1% 285 0% 40.7
Total 3,827 100% 245 100% 73,274 100% 232.0
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 82
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Roadway
Table 45 summarizes frequency and severity for all roadway motor vehicle crashes based on crash type. The predominant crash types are rear end (29 percent), hit object (21 percent), and broadside (18 percent). Hit object crashes account for disproportionately large 35 percent of F/SI crashes and 30 percent of EPDO score, compared to 21 percent overall.

Table 45: Crash Type and Severity, Motor Vehicle Roadway Crashes Crash Type Count % of 5-
year
Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Rear End 713 29% 32 12% 11,460 18% 16.1
Hit Object 510 21% 92 35% 18,963 30% 37.2
Broadside 437 18% 26 10% 8,074 13% 18.5
Sideswipe 340 14% 23 9% 6,483 10% 19.1
Head-On 241 10% 49 18% 9,960 16% 41.3
Overturned 168 7% 33 12% 6,785 11% 40.4
Other 69 3% 11 4% 2,352 4% 34.1
Unknown 9 0% 0 0% 84 0% 9.3
Total 2,487 100% 266 100% 64,161 100% 215.9
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 83
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Violations
Pedestrians
Table 46 summarizes pedestrian crashes by the officer-reported violation types. The most common violations Included:
◼ pedestrian right of way (50 percent of all crashes; 37 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ pedestrian violation (19 percent of all crashes; 30 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ unknown (5 percent of all crashes; 10 percent of F/SI crashes) For pedestrian right of way crashes, the detailed violation descriptions reflect that the vast majority of these crashes involved a driver who did not yield to a pedestrian at an intersection (96 percent of crashes), followed to a much lesser extent by drivers who did not yield to a pedestrian at a driveway (3 percent of crashes). Most of these crashes occurred at unsignalized intersections (56 percent of all crashes; 65 percent of F/SI crashes), and they tended to be more severe than crashes at signalized intersections.

Most pedestrian violation crashes involved a pedestrian who failed to yield right of way (78 percent of all crashes; 76 percent of F/SI crashes), followed by illegal midblock crossing (9 percent of crashes; 10 percent of F/SI crashes). For these latter sub-violation types (both within pedestrian violation), about one third of crashes resulted in an F/SI outcome.

When looking at lighting conditions for the top two violation types, dark lighting conditions appear to have a weaker association with F/SI crashes for pedestrian right of way, with one-third of F/SI crashes having occurred during dark lighting conditions compared to two-thirds of F/SI crashes for pedestrian violation. This finding may reflect pedestrian crossings at locations that lack safety countermeasures (71 percent of F/SI crashes occurred at unsignalized locations).

February 5, 2024 Page 84
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 46: Reported Violations, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) Reported Violation Count % of
Crashes
# of F/SI
Crashes
% of
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Avg
EPDO
Score
Pedestrian Right of Way 541 50% 76 37% 17,638 41% 32.7
Pedestrian Violation 198 19% 63 30% 11,375 27% 58.0
Unknown 57 5% 21 10% 3,546 8% 62.2
Unsafe Speed 65 6% 14 7% 2,637 6% 41.9
Improper Turning 55 5% 7 3% 1,644 4% 30.4
Unsafe Starting or
Backing 45 4% 6 3% 1,441 3% 32.0
Traffic Signals and Signs 30 3% 6 3% 1,217 3% 40.6
Driving or Bicycling Under
the Influence of Alcohol
or Drug
14 1% 3 1% 637 2% 45.5
Other Improper Driving 9 1% 3 1% 582 1% 64.7
Not Stated 10 1% 3 1% 548 1% 54.8
Improper Passing 5 1% 2 1% 415 1% 83.0
Other (violation with < 1%
share of EPDO) 44 4% 4 2% 977 2% 22.2
Total 1,073 100% 208 100% 42,657 100% 40.1
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 85
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 47 summarizes bicyclist crashes by officer-reported violation types. The most frequent violation types included:
◼ automobile right of way (19 percent of crashes; 15 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ unsafe speed (18 percent of crashes; 28 percent of F/SI crashes) ◼ improper turning (17 percent of crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes) Crashes cited as automobile right of way generally involved a road user failing to yield to traffic when entering or crossing a highway/road (32 percent of all crashes), not yielding to oncoming traffic before turning or making a U-turn (30 percent of crashes), and not stopping at a stop sign and yielding to other road users who do not have a stop sign (23 percent of crashes).

The majority of crashes cited as unsafe speed were cited as the bicyclist traveling too fast (83 percent of crashes; 88 percent of F/SI crashes); of these 187 unsafe speed crashes, 101 were solo bicyclist crashes. Most of these 187 crashes occurred at segment locations (55 percent), followed by unsignalized locations (34 percent). Note that these data should be interpreted with caution, as unsafe speed violation type may be used as a blanket violation or a default violation when the proper violation type is not entirely clear from the responding officer’s perspective.

Table 47: Reported Violations, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022) Reported Violation Count % of
Crashes
# of F/SI
Crashes
% of
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Avg
EPDO
Score
Unsafe Speed 187 18% 49 28% 10,005 26% 53.5
Automobile Right of
Way 199 19% 27 15% 6,392 17% 32.3
Improper Turning 180 17% 21 12% 5,068 13% 28.3
Traffic Signals and Signs 95 9% 18 10% 3,441 9% 37.4
Other Hazardous
Violation 66 6% 14 8% 2,754 7% 43.0
Unknown 53 5% 13 7% 2,615 7% 50.3
Wrong Side of the Road 118 11% 6 3% 2,144 5% 18.2
Other Than Driver (or
Pedestrian) 21 2% 7 4% 1,350 4% 67.5
Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of
Alcohol or Drug
13 1% 6 3% 1,114 3% 85.7
Not Stated 24 2% 3 2% 753 2% 31.4
Improper Passing 38 4% 2 1% 706 2% 18.6
Unsafe Starting or
Backing 18 1% 3 2% 686 2% 38.1
Other (violation with <
1% share of EPDO) 33 3% 3 2% 740 2% 22.4
Total 1,067 100% 175 100% 38,372 100% 36.3
February 5, 2024 Page 86
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 48 summarizes frequency and severity for motor vehicle crashes based on primary collision factors. The predominant crash types are unsafe speed (27 percent), automobile right of way (19 percent), and improper turning (18 percent) make up the majority of total crashes (46 percent) and total F/SI crashes (58 percent).

Table 48. Primary Collision Factors - Motor Vehicles
Primary Collision Factor Count % of
Crashes
Count of
F/SI
Crashes
% of F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Unsafe Speed 1,732 27% 118 23% 33,985 25% 19.6
Automobile Right of
Way 1,177 19% 61 12% 20,581 15% 17.5
Improper Turning 1,108 18% 97 19% 25,170 18% 22.7
Traffic Signals and
Signs 632 10% 41 8% 11,597 8% 18.3
Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence
of Alcohol or Drug
598 9% 95 18% 20,366 15% 34.1
Following Too
Closely 206 3% 3 1% 2,470 2% 12.0
Unsafe Starting or
Backing 179 3% 9 2% 2,874 2% 16.1
Unknown 140 2% 15 3% 3,063 2% 21.9
Wrong Side of the
Road 136 2% 32 6% 6,002 4% 44.1
Other Than Driver (or
Pedestrian) 100 2% 16 3% 3,480 3% 34.8
Other 320 5% 28 5% 7,229 5% 22.6
Total 6,328 100% 515 100% 136,817 100% 21.6
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 87
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Alcohol/Drug Usage
This section analyzes alcohol/drug usage as a reported factor in crashes.

Pedestrians
Table 49 summarizes pedestrian crashes by whether the driver or pedestrian was under the influence of alcohol. The vast majority of crashes did not have any road user found to be under the influence of alcohol (96 percent of all crashes; 94 percent of F/SI crashes). Crashes were much more likely to result in a F/SI if the pedestrian was reported to be under the influence of alcohol, with 35 percent of crashes resulting in F/SI compared to 19 percent for crashes in which no one was found to be under the influence of alcohol. Additionally, 10 of the 12 F/SI crashes with one of the roadway users under the influence occurred during dark lighting conditions.

Table 49: Under the Influence of Alcohol, Pedestrian Crashes (2018-2022) Driver
under the
Influence
Pedestrian
under the
Influence
Count % of Crashes # of F/SI
Crashes
% of
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO Score % of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
No No 1,033 96% 196 94% 40,278 94% 39.3
No Yes 23 2% 8 4% 1,529 4% 66.5
Yes No 17 2% 4 2% 850 2% 50.0
Total 1,073 100% 208 100% 42,657 100% 40.1
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 88
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Bicyclists
Table 50 summarizes bicyclist crashes by whether the driver or bicyclist was under the influence of alcohol. Like pedestrian crashes, few reported crashes identified either the motorist or bicyclist as being under the influence of alcohol (1.8 percent of all crashes; 4.6 percent of F/SI crashes).

Table 50: Under the Influence of Alcohol, Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022) Driver
under the
Influence
Bicyclist
under
the
Influence
Count % of Crashes # of F/SI
Crashes
% of
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO Score % EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
No No 1,047 98% 167 95% 36,923 96% 35.6
No Yes 11 1% 4 2% 713 2% 64.8
Yes No 9 1% 4 2% 736 2% 81.8
Total 1,067 100% 175 100% 38,372 100% 36.3
Source: TIMS 2023
Motor Vehicles
Table 51 summarizes frequency and severity for all motor vehicle crashes based on alcohol/drug usage being report. Drivers were recorded as under the influence in 10 percent of total crashes but 19 percent of F/SI crashes.

Table 51: Alcohol/Drug Usage Crashes, Motor Vehicles
Alcohol/Drug
Usage
Reported?
Count % of 5-
year Total
Crashes
F/SI
Count
% of
Total
F/SI
Crashes
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Average
EPDO
Score
Yes
606 10% 97 19% 20,731 15% 34.2
No 5,718 90% 418 81% 117,268 85% 20.5
Total 6,324 100% 515 100% 137,999 100% 21.8
Source: TIMS 2023
February 5, 2024 Page 89
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Solo Bicyclist Crashes
Table 52 summarizes crashes for solo bicyclist crashes and crashes that involved both a bicyclist and a motorist. Given the relatively high share of F/SI crashes that solo bicyclist crashes represent (only 18 percent of all crashes, but 33 percent of F/SI crashes), this section aims to see if there are distinct patterns between the two crash types.

Table 52: Solo Bicyclist Crashes (2018-2022)
Mode Type Bicyclist
Crashes
% of
Crashes
# of
F/SI
Crashe
s
% of
F/SI
Crashe
s
EPDO
Score
% of
Total
EPDO
Score
Averag
e EPDO
Score
Bicyclist-Motorist 874 82% 118 67% 27,165 14% 31.4
Solo bicyclist 193 18% 57 33% 11,207 30% 58.4
Total 1,067 100% 175 100% 38,372 17% 36.3
Source: TIMS 2023
Violation type
The reported violation types are distinct for the two crash types. The majority of solo bicyclist crashes were cited as unsafe speed for all crashes and F/SI crashes. For bicyclist-motorist crashes, in contrast, the most frequent violation type was automobile right of way. The distribution of crashes by violation for each crash type also differs unsafe speed had a substantially larger proportion of crashes (52 percent) for solo bicyclist crashes, while automobile right of way accounted for a much smaller share of bicyclist-motorist crashes (23 percent). It is highly unlikely that a solo bicyclist crash would have an automobile right of way violation, but officers may code this while interpreting a bicyclist as an automobile user who they deem to have violated right of way.
◼ Solo bicyclist
– Unsafe Speed: 52 percent of all crashes; 56 percent of F/SI crashes – Improper turning: 18 percent of all crashes; 14 percent of F/SI crashes – Other than Driver or Pedestrian: 10 percent of all crashes; 12 percent of F/SI crashes ◼ Bicyclist-Motorist
– Automobile right of way: 23 percent of all crashes; 23 percent of F/SI crashes – Improper turning: 17 percent of all crashes; 11 percent of F/SI crashes – Wrong side of the road: 13 percent of all crashes; 5 percent of F/SI crashes February 5, 2024 Page 90
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Location Type
Solo bicyclist crashes occur more frequently at segment locations (55 percent) compared to bicyclist-motorist crashes (23 percent), although it is the unsignalized intersection crashes that are disproportionately severe for solo bicyclists. Solo bicyclist segment crashes had a much larger share of crashes that had some kind of roadway condition issue (20 percent) compared to bicyclist-motorist crashes (2 percent). While bicyclists are particularly vulnerable to injury with involved in a crash with a motorist, they are also vulnerable to poor roadway conditions, which can cause the bicyclist to fall or lost control while making an evasive maneuver. ◼ Solo bicyclist
– segment: 55 percent of all crashes; 54 percent of F/SI crashes – unsignalized intersection: 33 percent of all crashes; 39 percent of F/SI crashes – signalized intersection: 11 percent of all crashes; 7 percent of F/SI crashes ◼ Bicyclist-Motorist
– segment: 23 percent of all crashes; 38 percent of F/SI crashes – unsignalized intersection: 45 percent of all crashes; 40 percent of F/SI crashes – signalized intersection: 23 percent of all crashes; 22 percent of F/SI crashes Functional Classification
A key difference between the two crash types is that solo bicyclists crashes, and particularly F/SI crashes, occurred less frequently along or at primary roadways. Aside from crashes along or at primary roadways , the distribution of crashes by functional classification are similar, and both crash types most frequently occurred along secondary streets. ◼ Solo bicyclist
– Primary: 13 percent of all crashes; 5 percent of F/SI crashes – Secondary: 40 percent of all crashes; 44 percent of F/SI crashes – Tertiary: 17 percent of all crashes; 21 percent of F/SI crashes – Residential: 18 percent of all crashes; 18 percent of F/SI crashes ◼ Bicyclist-Motorist
– Primary: 20 percent of all crashes; 22 percent of F/SI crashes – Secondary: 36 percent of all crashes; 35 percent of F/SI crashes – Tertiary: 18 percent of all crashes; 17 percent of F/SI crashes – Residential: 19 percent of all crashes; 16 percent of F/SI crashes Posted Speed Limit
Solo bicyclist crashes occurred more often along 45mph streets than bicyclist-motorist crashes, although they were more likely to be severe on 30-35 mph streets. ◼ Solo bicyclist
– 25 mph: 25 percent of all crashes; 30 percent of F/SI crashes – 30-35 mph: 21 percent of all crashes; 30 percent of F/SI crashes February 5, 2024 Page 91
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
– 40-45 mph: 42 percent of all crashes; 32 percent of F/SI crashes – 50+ mph: 5 percent of all crashes; 4 percent of F/SI crashes ◼ Bicyclist-Motorist
– 25 mph: 32 percent of all crashes; 25 percent of F/SI crashes – 30-35 mph: 31 percent of all crashes; 32 percent of F/SI crashes – 40-45 mph: 32 percent of all crashes; 33 percent of F/SI crashes – 50+ mph: 3 percent of all crashes; 7 percent of F/SI crashes Unincorporated Areas
Solo bicyclist crashes had nearly three times the share of crashes that occurred in unincorporated areas of the county. Many of the solo bicyclist crashes in unincorporated areas are clustered along Skyline Blvd, Tunitas Creek Rd, Kings Mountain Rd, Half Moon Bay Rd, and Cañada Rd. Most of these streets are narrow, have narrow or no shoulders, and are popular recreation bicycling routes.
◼ Solo bicyclist
– Unincorporated: 33 percent of all crashes; 30 percent of F/SI crashes ◼ Bicyclist-Motorist
– Unincorporated: 12 percent of all crashes; 20 percent of F/SI crashes February 5, 2024 Page 92
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Demographic Party and Victim Variables
This section provides analysis of the victims compared for all crashes as well as specifically for fatal and severe injury (F/SI) outcomes for different age groups, sex, and racial groups. Analyzing these characteristics helps identify any disparities and inequities in road safety. In addition, it becomes possible to better understand the factors contributing to crashes and their outcomes.

Different age groups, sex, and racial groups may have varying and intersecting risk factors, behaviors and vulnerabilities that contribute to crashes. This insight can inform the County as well as specific jurisdictions towards development and implementation of effective safety measures to specific groups, including engineering and operational improvements, as well as policies, programs, and targeted educational campaigns aligned with the Safe System Approach.

The analysis looks into the victim characteristics by their mode of travel (motor vehicle drivers/occupants, pedestrians, and bicyclists). This comparison is based on the number of victims, and not the number of crashes, so the total numbers are different than in the other analyses within this memo. Any given crash may injure multiple victims, at different levels of severity. The relationship among crashes, parties, and victims is explained in Crash Data Overview on page 20.

Analyzing the victim data provides additional insight into these crashes and potential crash dynamics. This analysis compared the distribution of parties involved in crashes to the population distribution of San Mateo County. Values greater than one suggest that a certain segment of the population is overrepresented on a per capita basis, while values less than one suggest that that segment of the population is underrepresented on the same basis. It is important to note that this comparison is imperfect in two ways. First, if more or fewer people from a segment of the population bicycle, walk, or drive, we would expect that to be reflected in crash rates, all else equal – and this proportion of people who bicycle, walk, or drive may not reflect their per capita proportion. We likely see this, for example, in trends related to age and sex, and potentially related to race. In the absence of more nuanced exposure data, however, a per capita understanding is still valuable to help us understand how crashes are distributed among various segments of the population. Second, the home zip code is not readily available for all parties involved in the crash, so we cannot rule out that some people riding a bicycle or driving a motor vehicle live outside of San Mateo and their inclusion will therefore marginally affect the accuracy of the victim-to-population ratio. This effect is more likely to apply to drivers (who have longer travel distances on average) than to bicyclists or pedestrians in the county.

Age
Pedestrians
Table 53 summarizes pedestrian victims involved in a crash by age. Pedestrian victims aged between 15 to 29 and 55 to 59 years of age accounted for the largest share of victims for all injury severities. However, pedestrian victims aged from 40 to 44 and 55 to 74 years of age had the largest share of F/SI victims. This is likely a reflection of the level of force the human body can endure as people age, such that pedestrian victims aged in their twenties are less likely to experience a severe injury than a victim aged in their seventies. Indeed, research has found that February 5, 2024 Page 93
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
an injury to a 65-year-old is approximately the same the injury a 30-year old would experience at 11 mph higher14. This is also reflected in the F/SI victim-to-population ratios which show victims aged 65 or older were the most overrepresented age cohorts, whereas younger populations were generally underrepresented in F/SI crashes. Furthermore, younger populations between 15 to 19 years of age were the most overrepresented victims but fairly underrepresented in F/SI crashes.

Table 53: Victim age breakdown, Pedestrian crashes (2018-2022) Age Victims F/SI Victims % of
Victims
% of
F/SI
Victims
Share of
Population15
Victims:

Population
Ratio
F/SI
Victims:

Population
Ratio
0 - 4 18 2 2% 1% 6% 0.3 0.2
5 - 9 25 5 2% 2% 6% 0.4 0.4
10 - 14 75 11 7% 5% 6% 1.2 0.9
15 - 19 94 8 9% 4% 5% 1.6 0.7
20 - 24 79 11 7% 5% 5% 1.4 1.0
25 - 29 91 13 8% 6% 7% 1.2 0.9
30 - 34 76 10 7% 5% 8% 0.9 0.6
35 - 39 72 13 7% 6% 8% 0.9 0.8
40 - 44 63 19 6% 9% 7% 0.9 1.3
45 - 49 65 13 6% 6% 7% 0.9 0.9
50 - 54 68 11 6% 5% 7% 0.9 0.8
55 - 59 100 19 9% 9% 7% 1.3 1.3
60 - 64 69 18 6% 9% 6% 1.0 1.4
65 - 69 72 19 7% 9% 5% 1.3 1.7
70 - 74 63 19 6% 9% 4% 1.5 2.3
75 - 79 30 8 3% 4% 3% 1.0 1.4
14 Tefft, Brian C. 2013. Impact speed and a pedestrian's risk of severe injury or death. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 50: 871-878. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2012.07.022. 15 Based on ACS 5-year estimates
February 5, 2024 Page 94
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Age Victims F/SI Victims % of
Victims
% of
F/SI
Victims
Share of
Population15
Victims:

Population
Ratio
F/SI
Victims:

Population
Ratio
80 - 84 25 10 2% 5% 2% 1.2 2.5
85 + 0 0 0% 0% 2% 0.0 0.0
Unknown 31 5 3% 2%
Total 1085 209 100% 100% 100% 1.0 1.0
Source: TIMS 2023, American Community Survey 2021 5-year tables Bicyclists
Table 54 summarizes bicyclist victims involved in a crash by age. Younger victims aged between 10 to 19 years of age and victims aged between 50 to 54 accounted for the largest share of victims involved in a crash; these cohorts are also some of the most overrepresented victims in overall crashes. In contrast, victims aged at least 70 were the most underrepresented victims, which likely reflects bicycling exposure amongst various age groups. Younger victims aged between 10 to 19 were neither over nor underrepresented in F/SI crashes in these data.

However, victims aged between 45 to 64 accounted for the largest share of F/SI victims, and victims aged between 45 to 54, 60 to 64, and 75 to 79 were the most overrepresented age cohorts in terms of fatal or severe injury.

February 5, 2024 Page 95
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 54: Victim age breakdown, Bicyclist crashes (2018-2022) Age Victims F/SI
Victims
% of
Victims
% of F/SI
Victims
Share of
Population16
Victims:

Population
Ratio
F/SI
Victims:

Population
Ratio
0 - 4 1 0 <1% 0.0% 5.5% 0.0 0.0
5 - 9 18 1 2% 0.6% 5.7% 0.3 0.1
10 - 14 120 11 11% 6.2% 5.8% 1.9 1.1
15 - 19 116 9 11% 5.1% 5.4% 2.0 0.9
20 - 24 68 8 6% 5% 5% 1.2 0.9
25 - 29 90 13 8% 7% 7% 1.2 1.1
30 - 34 79 8 7% 5% 8% 0.9 0.6
35 - 39 64 12 6% 7% 8% 0.8 0.9
40 - 44 71 11 7% 6% 7% 1.0 0.9
45 - 49 77 19 7% 11% 7% 1.0 1.5
50 - 54 121 27 11% 15% 7% 1.6 2.2
55 - 59 79 11 7% 6% 7% 1.1 0.9
60 - 64 72 20 7% 11% 6% 1.1 1.8
65 - 69 56 11 5% 6% 5% 1.0 1.2
70 - 74 28 6 3% 3% 4% 0.6 0.8
75 - 79 15 8 1% 5% 3% 0.5 1.7
80 - 84 9 2 1% 1% 2% 0.4 0.6
85 + 0 0 0% 0% 2% 0.0 0.0
Unknown 4 0 0% 0%
Total 1084 177 100% 100% 100.0% 1.0 1.0
Source: TIMS 2023, ACS 2021 5-year tables
16 Based on ACS 5-year estimates
February 5, 2024 Page 96
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Motor Vehicles
Table 55 compares the motor vehicle victim age breakdown against the age breakdown of residents in San Mateo County. Values greater than one indicate that a given age group is overrepresented in the crash data.

The table shows that victims between the ages of 10 and 29 are more likely to be injured, including F/SI as result of traffic safety issues on average than other groups. Victims between the ages 15 to 24 are especially over-represented with victims and F/SI ratios over two.

Local safety plan review identified children, young adults, and older adults as target victim age populations.

Victims ranging from ages 0-14 (children) account for 18 percent of the countywide population and 14 percent of total crashes and 8 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims. Victims ranging from ages 15-24 (young adult) account for 11 percent of the countywide population but account for 22 percent of total crashes and 26 percent of F/SI motor vehicle crash victims.

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

Table 55: Victim age breakdown, Motor Vehicle Only crashes (2018-2022) Age Victims % of Victims F/SI
Victims
% of
F/SI
Victims
Share of
Population17
Victims:

Population
Ratio
F/SI Victims:

Population
Ratio
0 - 4 271 3% 2 0% 5% 0.5 0.1
5 - 9 315 3% 6 1% 6% 0.5 0.2
10 - 14 854 8% 41 7% 6% 1.4 1.2
15 - 19 1,140 11% 73 12% 5% 2.0 2.3
20 - 24 1,090 11% 81 14% 5% 2.0 2.6
25 - 29 951 9% 71 12% 7% 1.3 1.7
30 - 34 832 8% 39 7% 8% 1.0 0.9
35 - 39 703 7% 32 5% 8% 0.9 0.7
40 - 44 669 6% 37 6% 7% 1.0 0.9
45 - 49 643 6% 45 8% 7% 0.9 1.1
50 - 54 637 6% 40 7% 7% 0.9 1.0
17 Based on ACS 5-year estimates
February 5, 2024 Page 97
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Age Victims % of Victims F/SI
Victims
% of
F/SI
Victims
Share of
Population17
Victims:

Population
Ratio
F/SI Victims:

Population
Ratio
55 - 59 326 3% 3 1% 7% 0.5 0.1
60 - 64 511 5% 33 6% 6% 0.8 0.9
65 - 69 414 4% 35 6% 5% 0.8 1.1
70 - 74 312 3% 16 3% 4% 0.7 0.7
75 - 79 204 2% 16 3% 3% 0.7 1.0
80 - 84 130 1% 9 2% 2% 0.7 0.8
85 + 15 <1% 0 0% 2% 0.1 -
Unknown 353 3% 13 2% 0% N/A N/A
Total 10,370 100% 592 100% 100% 1.0 1.0
Source: TIMS 2023, ACS 2021 5-year tables
Table 56 compares the driver’s age breakdown against the age breakdown of residents in San Mateo County. Values greater than one indicate that a given age group is over-represented in the crash data. Drivers summarized in this table are the drivers involved in all crashes (pedestrian, bicyclists, motor vehicle only, solo-motor vehicle, etc.). This table also summarizes the number and share of driver who were involved in F/SI crashes, in which the driver may not have sustained a F/SI but rather a pedestrian or bicyclist may have been fatally or severely injured.

The table shows that drivers between the ages of 20 and 44 are disproportionately likely (on a per-capita basis) to be involved in a crash, and drivers aged between 20 and 34 are overrepresented in F/SI crashes compared to other groups. Drivers between the ages 20 to 24 are especially over-represented in crashes and F/SI ratios.

The table also shows that the aging population is generally underrepresented in both overall crashes and F/SI crashes. Additional research is needed to better reflect travel behaviors within the region, as these results may indicate that younger populations drive more frequently, more recklessly, and/or during higher-risk times (e.g., when visibility is limited (darkness)) compared to the aging population.

February 5, 2024 Page 98
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 56: Driver age breakdown, All crashes (2018-2022) Driver Age #
Drivers
%
Drivers
# Drivers
in F/SI
Crashes
# Drivers in
F/SI
Crashes
Share of
Population18
Driver:

Population
Ratio
F/SI Driver:

Population
Ratio
0 - 4 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 5% 0.00 0.00
5 - 9 1 0.0% 0 0.0% 6% 0.00 0.00
10 - 14 12 0.2% 0 0.0% 6% 0.03 0.00
15 - 19 351 5.6% 32 5.3% 5% 1.03 0.98
20 - 24 750 11.9% 76 12.7% 5% 2.25 2.39
25 - 29 777 12.4% 84 14.0% 7% 1.78 2.01
30 - 34 673 10.7% 69 11.5% 8% 1.38 1.48
35 - 39 636 10.1% 46 7.7% 8% 1.31 0.99
40 - 44 522 8.3% 39 6.5% 7% 1.22 0.96
474 7.5% 41 6.8% 7% 1.08 0.98
50 - 54 483 7.7% 51 8.5% 7% 1.13 1.25
55 - 59 480 7.6% 43 7.2% 7% 1.11 1.04
60 - 64 356 5.7% 39 6.5% 6% 0.91 1.05
65 - 69 301 4.8% 33 5.5% 5% 0.90 1.04
70 - 74 233 3.7% 19 3.2% 4% 0.92 0.79
75 - 79 151 2.4% 17 2.8% 3% 0.89 1.05
80 - 84 85 1.4% 11 1.8% 2% 0.72 0.97
85 + 0 0.0% 0 0.0% 2% 0.00 0.00
Unknown 31 0.5% 5 0.8% 0%
Total 6286 100.0% 600 100.0% 100% 1.00 1.00
Source: TIMS 2023, ACS 2021 5-year tables
18 Based on ACS 5-year estimates
February 5, 2024 Page 99
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Sex
Disclaimer: Party sex is based on officer’s assumption or visual impression, which can be problematic and inaccurate. The only categorical values for sex in the crash report form include “male”, “female”, and “Not Stated” and do not include other sex identities. The party representation and comparison made to the San Mateo county population should be interpreted with caution given these reporting shortcomings.

Table 57 compares the victim sex breakdown against the sex breakdown of residents in San Mateo County. To compare these distributions, the percentage of victims and of F/SI victims within each sex divided by the percentage share in the population overall. Values greater than one indicate that a given sex is over-represented in the crash data.

The table shows that male victims are more likely to be injured including F/SI as result of traffic safety issues on average than other victims.

Table 57: Victim sex breakdown (2018-2022)
Sex Victims % of
Victims
F/SI
Victims
% of F/SI
Victims
Share of
Population19
Victims:

Populations
Ratio
F/SI
Victims:

Population
Ratio
Male 6,829 53% 666 67% 50% 1.1 1.3
Female 5,915 46% 319 32% 50% 0.9 0.6
Other 139 1% 3 <1% 0% N/A N/A
Not
Stated
1 <1% 0 0% 0% N/A N/A
Total 12,884 100% 988 100% 100% 1.0 1.0
Source: TIMS 2023, ACS 2021 5-year tables
Table 58 shows fatally and severely injured victims by sex and mode. Male victims are more overrepresented in F/SI outcomes than in all crashes—67 percent F/SI victims—and account for approximately three times as many F/SI bicyclist and driver victims. 19 Based on ACS 5-year estimates.

February 5, 2024 Page 100
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 58: Fatally and severely injured victims by sex and mode (2018-2022) Victim Type Male Female Other Not Stated
F/SI
Victims
% of
F/SI
Victims
F/SI
Victims
% of
F/SI
Victims
F/SI
Victims
% of F/SI
Victims
F/SI
Victims
% of
F/SI
Victims
Bicyclist 144 15% 33 3% - 0% - -
Driver 351 36% 121 12% 1 <1% - -
Other 4 - 2 - - 0% - -
Passenger 48 5% 69 7% 1 <1% - -
Pedestrian 119 12% 94 10% 1 <1% - -
Total 666 67% 319 32% 3 <1% - -
Source: TIMS 2023,
Race
Disclaimer: Party race is based on an officer’s assumption or visual impression, which can be problematic and inaccurate. Additionally, there are only five racial categories (excluding “Not Stated”) within the crash data, in contrast to the American Community Survey (ACS), which has nearly twice as many race and ethnicity categories. The party representation and comparison made to the San Mateo county population should be interpreted with caution given these reporting shortcomings.

Victims are assessed based on race to identify whether any racial groups are substantially overrepresented. The police report data encodes victim races as “Asian”, “Black”, “Hispanic”, “Other”, and “White”, based solely on the reporting officer’s observation and best judgment. 20 This information is not included on personal identification unlike sex. This method of reporting inevitably leads to inaccurate classification of some victims. In addition, these racial classifications do not cover the full range of ethnic and racial groups that individuals are able to self-report in the context of the ACS, so a direct comparison to the distribution within the population is not possible. Despite this, we used our best judgment to connect the victim racial breakdown to the overall population, as presented in Table 59. The findings and comparisons should be interpreted with caution. Lastly, race information is recorded in crash data at the party level rather than at the victim level, so the total numbers will differ from the age and sex findings previously listed. For example, if a car has a driver and two passengers, then all three people are included in the victims table but only the driver is included in the party table: hence, there is no passenger information in the subsequent tables. 20 California Highway Patrol. “Collision Investigation Manual.” 2003.

February 5, 2024 Page 101
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

These results suggest that Hispanic, Black, and “Other” victims are disproportionately victims of traffic crashes, and that these groups are disproportionately killed or severely injured. However, this table does not reflect how people travel in San Mateo County, e.g., if people in one race drive significantly more than those of another race, and therefore cannot provide a true picture of traffic risk. Additionally, it bears repeating that the reporting method is likely error-prone; thus, any conclusions drawn from this section should be caveated with recognition of a need for further research.

Table 59 clearly shows an overrepresentation of Black and Hispanic victims in crashes, at rates

2.2 time and 1.2 times their share of the population. This disproportionality may be due to several factors, including historic and current underinvestment in pedestrian and bicyclist infrastructure in predominantly minority neighborhoods, underinvestment in education campaigns in these neighborhoods, and the percentages of residents in these neighborhoods that walk, use transit, and/or bicycle for transportation, and interactions between these factors.

Victims identified as “Other” races may also be overrepresented, though again it is not clear what the makeup of that category is among crash victims compared to the ACS categories.

Table 59: Victim racial breakdown (2018-2022)
Race Victims F/SI
Victims
% of
Victims21
% of F/SI
Victims
Share of
Population22
Victims:

Populations
Ratio
F/SI
Victims:

Population
Ratio
White 5,243 521 30% 36% 38% 0.8 0.9
Hispanic 4,911 366 28% 25% 24% 1.2 1.1
Not
Stated
3,489 270 20% 19% 0% N/A N/A
Other 1,487 114 9% 8% 5% 1.7 1.6
Asian 1,371 127 8% 9% 31% 0.3 0.3
Black 760 61 4% 4% 2% 2.2 2.1
Total 17,261 1,459 100% 100% 100% 1.0 1.0
Source: TIMS 2023, ACS 2021 5-year tables
In addition to looking at the overall burden of traffic crashes by race, we can consider how the fatally and severely injured victims of each race are impacted while traveling in various ways, as depicted in Table 60. White and Hispanic travelers are the most likely to be severely injured or 21 Percentages are assessed based on total number of victims with a stated race. 22 Based on ACS 5-year estimates.

February 5, 2024 Page 102
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Descriptive Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
killed while walking, and that White and Hispanic travelers are the most likely to be severely injured or killed while riding a bicycle.

Over half of bicyclist F/SI victims are white. That is higher than their 38 percent share of the population and commensurate 37 percent share of drivers fatally or severely injured, though we do not have an adequate understanding of the demographics of overall biking in the County for comparison. Likewise, 30 percent of pedestrians fatally or severely injured were Hispanic, which is 1.25 times higher than their 24 percent share of the population.

Table 60: Fatally and severely injured victims by race and mode (2018-2022) Victim
Type
Asian Black Hispanic Other White Not
Stated
Total
# % # % # % # # # # # % # %
Bicyclist 19 1% 8 1% 27 2% 13 1% 104 7% 10 1% 181 13%
Driver 86 6% 41 3% 280 19% 91 6% 355 24% 110 8% 963 66% Other 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 4 <1% 119 8% 123 8%
Pedestrian 22 2% 12 1% 58 4% 10 1% 58 4% 31 2% 191 14%
Total 127 9% 61 4% 366 25% 114 8% 521 36% 270 19% 1,459 100% Share of
Population
31% 2% 24% 5% 38% 0% 100%
Source: TIMS 2023, ACS 2021 5-Year Tables
February 5, 2024 Page 103
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

JURISDICTION-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS
The descriptive analysis entails findings from a County-level analysis where the number of crashes is suitably large to establish robust and jurisdiction specific findings. This section provides supplemental findings which are specific to the 9 jurisdictions that do not have a safety plan.

Each section starts with top three of the following crash characteristics as observed:
◼ Crash Location
◼ Crash Type
◼ Functional Classification
◼ Lighting Conditions
◼ Posted Speed Limit
◼ Pre-Crash Movement
◼ Relative Direction of Travel
◼ Violation Type
Following this, the analysis identified and lists the top three HIN intersections by mode identified for all 9 jurisdictions. Table 61 lists the number of reported crashes for the nine jurisdictions and the percentage share of crashes that involved pedestrians and bicyclists.

Table 61: Crashes by Severity, Mode, and Jurisdiction
Jurisdiction Severity Level Number of
Reported
Crashes
Pedestrian
Share
Bicyclist
Share
Belmont All Injury/Fatal 244 10.7% 20.7%
F/SI 8 12.5% 25.0%
Brisbane All Injury/Fatal 69 11.6% 7.2%
F/SI 12 50.0% 16.7%
East Palo Alto All Injury/Fatal 458 12.2% 16.4%
F/SI 48 27.1% 20.8%
Foster City All Injury/Fatal 150 13.3% 10.7%
F/SI 13 46.2% 23.1%
Half Moon Bay All Injury/Fatal 145 9.0% 10.3%
F/SI 17 17.6% 11.8%
Hillsborough All Injury/Fatal 38 10.5% 18.4%
F/SI 5 20.0% 40.0%
February 5, 2024 Page 104
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Jurisdiction Severity Level Number of
Reported
Crashes
Pedestrian
Share
Bicyclist
Share
Portola Valley All Injury/Fatal 39 7.7% 64.1%
F/SI 14 0.0% 85.7%
San Carlos All Injury/Fatal 281 13.5% 14.2%
F/SI 32 28.1% 12.5%
Woodside All Injury/Fatal 185 0.5% 38.9%
F/SI 44 2.3% 47.7%
February 5, 2024 Page 105
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Belmont
The following tables show crash statistics for key variables, locations along the modal HINs, and top intersections based on EPDO. The intersection table is shared for informational purposes and does not represent a potential project list, which will be evaluated and developed as part of a subsequent task. The modal HINs can be viewed dynamically online at this site. 23 Table 62: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Belmont Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
All Crashes 26 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes
35 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes
168 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes
Crash
Location
1 Segment
(11 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Unsignalized
Intersection
(17 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Segment
(72 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Unsignalized
Intersection
(13 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Segment
(10 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Unsignalized
Intersection
(70 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Signalized
Intersection
(2 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Signalized Intersection
(8 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Signalized Intersection
(41 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Crash Type
1 Perpendicular – Ped
Crossing Not in
Crosswalk, MV
Proceeding Straight
(5 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Same Direction -
Other
(5 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Broadside
(52 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Perpendicular - Other
(4 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Solo - Other
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Rear End
(75 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Perpendicular - Ped
Crossing in Crosswalk
at Intersection, MV
Making Right Turn
(3 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Same Direction- Bike
Proceeding Straight,
MV Proceeding
Straight
(5 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Sideswipe
(23 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
23 https://kai.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=97ffc3b8dec94cf7a1d65ae3e3324de4 February 5, 2024 Page 106
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
Functional
Classification
1 primary
(4 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
primary
(8 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
secondary
(81 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
2 secondary
(10 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
alley
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
primary
(43 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
3 residential
(8 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
secondary
(13 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
residential
(37 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Lighting
Condition
1 Light
(18 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Light
(30 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Light
(135 Crashes, 5 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Dark
(8 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Dark
(5 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Dark
(47 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Unknown
(1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Posted
Speed Limit
1 35
(8 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
<=25
(8 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
35 (55 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
2 <=25
(8 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
45 (3 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
40 (33 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
3 30
(7 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
35 (15 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
<=25
(40 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Pre-Crash
Movement 1
Ped Crossing Not in
Crosswalk, MV
Proceeding Straight
(6 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Other
(11 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Other
(50 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
February 5, 2024 Page 107
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
2 Other
(7 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Bike Proceeding
Straight, MV
Proceeding Straight
(8 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
MC Proceeding
Straight, MV Entering
Traffic
(2 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Ped Crossing in
Crosswalk at
Intersection, MV
Making Left Turn
(3 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Bike Proceeding
Straight, MV Making
Right Turn
(5 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
MV Proceeding
Straight, MV Stopped
(35 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Relative
Direction of
Travel
1 Perpendicular
(19 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Same Direction
(14 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Same Direction
(94 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Same Direction
(5 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Solo
(4 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Perpendicular
(41 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Unknown
(1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Perpendicular
(9 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Opposite
(22 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Violation
Type
1 Failure to yield to
pedestrian at
intersection
(13 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Inappropriate turn
(9 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Too fast for conditions
(44 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Pedestrian failed to
yield right of way
(5 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Open door safely
(3 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Inappropriate turn
(27 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Too fast for conditions
(2 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Failure to yield while
entering highway
(6 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Failure to yield while
entering highway
(19 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
February 5, 2024 Page 108
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 63: HIN Roadways in Belmont
Roadway name Length (mi)1 Motor Vehicle
HIN2
Bicyclist HIN2 Pedestrian HIN2
Alameda de las Pulgas 6.7 X X X
El Camino Real 23.5 X X X
Lyall Way 0.3 X
Old County Road 3.4 X X
Ralston Avenue 3.5 X X
[1] The length value is for the entire HIN corridor, which may represent portions in neighboring jurisdictions. [2] This column identifies whether any portion of the selected roadway is along the HIN (results may differ within select jurisdictions)
Table 64: Belmont top EPDO intersections
Intersection Name State Highway Network EPDO Score
Motor Vehicle Only
Ralston Avenue / Belmont Canyon Road N 263
Ralston Avenue / Pullman Avenue N 247
El Camino Real / Ralston Avenue Y 128
Pedestrian
Alameda De las Pulgas / Carlmont Drive N 22
El Camino Real / Belmont Avenue Y 22
El Camino Real / Ralston Avenue Y 22
Bicycle
El Camino Real / W 39th Avenue Y 191
El Camino Real / Ralston Avenue Y 55
Ralston Avenue / Academy Avenue N 22
February 5, 2024 Page 109
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Brisbane
The following tables show crash statistics for key variables, locations along the modal HINs, and top intersections based on EPDO. The intersection table is shared for informational purposes and does not represent a potential project list, which will be evaluated and developed as part of a subsequent task. The modal HINs can be viewed dynamically online at this site. 24 Table 65: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, Brisbane Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
All Crashes 8 Crashes, 6 F/SI
Crashes
5 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes
56 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes
Crash
Location
1 Segment
(4 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
Segment
(4 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Segment
(26 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Signalized
Intersection
(2 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Signalized Intersection
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Signalized Intersection
(19 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Unsignalized
Intersection
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Unsignalized
Intersection
(11 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Crash Type
1 Perpendicular - Other
(2 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Same Direction- Other
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Rear End
(14 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Perpendicular - Ped
Crossing Not in
Crosswalk, MV
Proceeding Straight
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Solo - Overturned
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Broadside
(16 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Perpendicular - Ped
In Road, Including
Shoulder, MV
Proceeding Straight
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Solo - Other
(1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Hit Object
(12 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
24 https://kai.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=97ffc3b8dec94cf7a1d65ae3e3324de4 February 5, 2024 Page 110
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
Functional
Classification
1 primary
(4 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
primary
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
primary
(34 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
2 tertiary
(4 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
secondary
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
tertiary
(14 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
3 tertiary
(2 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
secondary
(5 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Lighting
Condition
1 Dark
(4 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
Light
(5 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Light
(42 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Light
(4 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Dark
(14 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Posted
Speed Limit
1 <=25
(4 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
50+
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
45 (30 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
2 45
(2 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
<=25
(3 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
<=25
(21 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
3 50+
(2 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
45 (1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
50+
(5 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Pre-Crash
Movement
1 Other
(3 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Other
(3 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Other
(18 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Ped Crossing Not in
Crosswalk, MV
Proceeding Straight
(2 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Overturned
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Hit Object
(12 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
February 5, 2024 Page 111
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
3 Ped In Road,
Including Shoulder,
MV Proceeding
Straight
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Bike Not Stated, MV
Making Right Turn
(1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
MV Proceeding
Straight, MV
Proceeding Straight
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Relative
Direction of
Travel
1 Perpendicular
(5 Crashes, 5 F/SI
Crashes)
Same
(3 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Same
(20 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Unknown
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Solo
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Solo
(16 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Same Direction
(1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Perpendicular
(12 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Violation
Type
1 Pedestrian failed to
yield right of way
(3 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
Too fast for conditions
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Driving while under
the influence of
alcohol
(9 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Failure to yield to
pedestrian at
intersection
(3 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Unknown
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Broke law while driving
under the influence of
alcohol
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Too fast for conditions
(1 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Allow adequate
space for passing
(1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Disregarded signal
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
February 5, 2024 Page 112
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 66: HIN Roadways in Brisbane
Roadway name Length (mi)1 Motor
Vehicle HIN2
Bicyclist HIN2 Pedestrian
HIN2
Bayshore Boulevard 2.9 X X
Guadalupe Canyon Parkway 2.5 X
Sierra Point Highway 1.4 X
[1] The length value is for the entire HIN corridor, which may represent portions in neighboring jurisdictions. [2] This column identifies whether any portion of the selected roadway is along the HIN (results may differ within select jurisdictions)
Table 67: Brisbane top EPDO intersections
Intersection Name State Highway Network EPDO Score
Motor Vehicle Only
Bayshore Boulevard / Main Street N 170
Valley Drive / N Hill Drive N 39
Bayshore Boulevard / Old County Road N 33
Pedestrian
Bayshore Boulevard / Guadalupe Canyon Parkway N 240
Bicycle
Valley Drive / N Hill Drive N 120
February 5, 2024 Page 113
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

East Palo Alto
The following tables show crash statistics for key variables, locations along the modal HINs, and top intersections based on EPDO. The intersection table is shared for informational purposes and does not represent a potential project list, which will be evaluated and developed as part of a subsequent task. The modal HINs can be viewed dynamically online at this site. 25 Table 68: Crash Statistics for Key Variables, East Palo Alto Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
All Crashes 56 Crashes, 13 F/SI
Crashes
75 Crashes, 10 F/SI
Crashes
327 Crashes, 25 F/SI
Crashes
Crash
Location
1 Unsignalized
Intersection
(33 Crashes, 8 F/SI
Crashes)
Signalized Intersection
(28 Crashes, 6 F/SI
Crashes)
Unsignalized
Intersection
(171 Crashes, 15 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Segment
(14 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
Unsignalized
Intersection
(34 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
Signalized Intersection
(96 Crashes, 5 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Signalized
Intersection
(9 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Segment
(13 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Segment
(60 Crashes, 5 F/SI
Crashes)
Crash Type
1 Perpendicular - Other
(6 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Perpendicular - Bike
Proceeding Straight,
MV Proceeding
Straight
(13 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Broadside
(138 Crashes, 8 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Unknown - Other
(3 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Same Direction- Bike
Proceeding Straight,
MV Proceeding
Straight
(5 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Rear End
(75 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Unknown - Ped Not in
Road, MV
Proceeding Straight
(2 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Same Direction- Bike
Not Stated, MV
Proceeding Straight
(2 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Head-On
(32 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
25 https://kai.maps.arcgis.com/apps/instant/basic/index.html?appid=97ffc3b8dec94cf7a1d65ae3e3324de4 February 5, 2024 Page 114
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
Functional
Classification
1 tertiary
(14 Crashes, 5 F/SI
Crashes)
primary
(26 Crashes, 6 F/SI
Crashes)
primary
(112 Crashes, 7 F/SI
Crashes)
2 residential
(14 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
tertiary
(10 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
residential
(91 Crashes, 6 F/SI
Crashes)
3 secondary
(8 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
secondary
(19 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
secondary
(46 Crashes, 7 F/SI
Crashes)
Lighting
Condition
1 Dark
(27 Crashes, 8 F/SI
Crashes)
Light
(55 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
Light
(209 Crashes, 15 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Light
(29 Crashes, 5 F/SI
Crashes)
Dark
(19 Crashes, 6 F/SI
Crashes)
Dark
(117 Crashes, 10 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Unknown
(1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Unknown
(1 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Posted
Speed Limit
1 <=25
(28 Crashes, 8 F/SI
Crashes)
35 (35 Crashes, 7 F/SI
Crashes)
<=25
(178 Crashes, 17 F/SI
Crashes)
2 35
(22 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
<=25
(33 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
35 (123 Crashes, 8 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Unknown
(6 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
40 (4 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Unknown
(15 Crashes, 0 F/SI
Crashes)
Pre-Crash
Movement
1 Other
(13 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
Bike Proceeding
Straight, MV
Proceeding Straight
(21 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Other
(92 Crashes, 6 F/SI
Crashes)
February 5, 2024 Page 115
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Variable Rank Pedestrian Bicyclist Motorists
2 Ped Crossing Not in
Crosswalk, MV
Proceeding Straight
(12 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
Other
(21 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Hit Object
(21 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Ped Not in Road, MV
Proceeding Straight
(2 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Bike Proceeding
Straight, MV unknown
(4 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
MV Proceeding
Straight, MV
Proceeding Straight
(56 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Relative
Direction of
Travel
1 Perpendicular
(33 Crashes, 7 F/SI
Crashes)
Perpendicular
(36 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Perpendicular
(109 Crashes, 8 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Unknown
(12 Crashes, 5 F/SI
Crashes)
Opposite
(14 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
Same
(89 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Same
(7 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Same
(15 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
Solo
(33 Crashes, 5 F/SI
Crashes)
Violation
Type
1 Pedestrian failed to
yield right of way
(15 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
Disregarded signal
(12 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
Too fast for conditions
(71 Crashes, 8 F/SI
Crashes)
2 Failure to yield to
pedestrian at
intersection
(16 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
Inappropriate turn
(15 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Inappropriate turn
(74 Crashes, 4 F/SI
Crashes)
3 Inappropriate turn
(6 Crashes, 2 F/SI
Crashes)
Drive on right except
when passing
(3 Crashes, 1 F/SI
Crashes)
Unknown
(17 Crashes, 3 F/SI
Crashes)
February 5, 2024 Page 116
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Table 69: HIN Roadways in East Palo Alto
Roadway name Length (mi)1 Motor Vehicle
HIN2
Bicyclist HIN2 Pedestrian HIN2
Bay Road 3.3 X X
Bayshore Rd 1.7 X X X
Capitol Avenue 0.2 X
Clarke Avenue 0.3 X
Donohoe Street 0.5 X X
Newbridge Street 1.0 X X
O’Connor Street 0.6 X
Pulgas Avenue 1.5 X X
Runnymede Street 0.9 X
Scofield Street 0.1 X
US 101 1.2 X
University Avenue 2.1 X X
Willow Road 2.3 X X
[1] The length value is for the entire HIN corridor, which may represent portions in neighboring jurisdictions. [2] This column identifies whether any portion of the selected roadway is along the HIN (results may differ within select jurisdictions)
Table 70: East Palo Alto top EPDO intersections
Intersection Name State Highway Network EPDO Score
Motor Vehicle Only
University Avenue / Weeks Street Y 404
Donohoe Street / University Avenue Y 327
University Avenue / Bay Road Y 312
Pedestrian
February 5, 2024 Page 117
Final Task 3 Existing Conditions Analysis Memo Jurisdiction-Specific Analysis Kittelson & Associates, Inc.

Atherton City CouncilNovember 20, 2024

Atherton City Council
November 20, 2024