Town of Atherton
Local Roadway Safety Plan
City Council Meeting
November 20, 2024
Image Source: http://astanehelaw.com/2020/09/02/san-mateo-county-passes-emergency-ordinance-establishing-paid-sick-leave-for-the-coronavirus-covid-19-pandemic/ 1 1
Presentation Topics
1. What is a Local Roadway Safety Plan?
2. Commitment to Vision Zero
3. Plan Development
4. Safety Analysis
5. Priority Projects
6. Recommendations
7. Next Steps
2 What is a Local Road Safety Plan?
A Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP):
• Follows Federal and State commitment to Safe
System approach to improve traffic safety
• Provides an assessment of historical and
existing roadway traffic safety
• Identifies actions and prioritized project lists
with implementation partners
Safe System Approach
What is a Local Road Safety Plan?
• Purpose
• Set a regionwide vision to advance roadway
safety, while also developing LRSPs for local
agencies without one
• Position all local agencies for OBAG, Caltrans
HSIP, and USDOT SS4A funding
• Plan document includes individual plans for 10
without existing or ongoing safety plan:
• Atherton
• Belmont
• Brisbane
• Colma
• East Palo Alto
• Foster City
• Half Moon Bay
• Hillsborough
• San Carlos
• Woodside
Reported Injury/Fatal Crash Frequency,
2017-2021
Commitment to Vision Zero
• The Countywide Plan aggregates and lists communities’ visions and goals.
• Countywide commitment to eliminate fatal/severe injuries by 2050.
• Aligns with State and Federal expectations / requirements • Includes recommendations to evolve from “business as usual” • The Town of Atherton’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Reduce fatal and severe injury crashes to zero by 2050. • Promote a culture of roadway safety in Atherton’s departments, educational institutions, and residents.
5 Plan Development – Advisory Group
• Engaged stakeholders and public throughout the plan
development process
6 Plan Development – Community Input
• Hosted events in communities
without existing plans
• Asked for community feedback on:
• Safety concerns and priorities
• Locations
• Safety analysis results
• Priority locations
• Engineering recommendations
7 Plan Development – Community
Engagement
• Online map for comments
• 528 comments by 352 respondents on
safety concerns and priorities
• 11 in-person engagement events
• Over 200 comments on priority
locations and proposed
countermeasures
• Comments included in the plan
document and provided as appendix for
future reference
Safety Analysis
• Created countywide High Injury Network
identified for motor vehicles,
pedestrians and bicyclists
• Based on 5-year county crash patterns
• Detailed findings provided for jurisdictions
without a plan
• Identified emphasis areas
• Behavior, environmental, and user
characteristics associated with fatal/severe
injury crashes
• Provide starting point for project
identification and grant opportunities
9 Countywide HIN
Emphasis Areas
• Used data to identify priority project
locations
• Three inputs to identify locations:
• Crash History - highest crash locations)
• Systemic Factors – roadway/land use
characteristics associated with crash
frequency/severity
• Social Equity – disadvantaged populations
10 Priority Projects
11 High Injury Network and Priority
Locations
12 High Injury Network Priority Locations
Recommendations - Engineering
• Roadway and intersection treatments
• Targeted to match emphasis areas
• Can be applied “systemically” – in
locations with high risk even if crashes
haven’t occurred
• Applied treatments to selected locations
as “project scopes” – starting point for
future concept designs and grant funding
13 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
(RRFB’s)
Intersection Lighting
Recommendations -
Policy/Program
14 • Safe System
recommendations to
improve safety beyond
engineering projects
• Include action items for
partner agencies
Plan Table of Recommendations
LRSP - Next Steps
• Adopt plan
• Pursue safety grant funding
• Continue participation through countywide Transportation Safety Advisory Committee (TSAC)
• Implement and track progress measures in plan
15 Requested Actions
• Approval of Draft LRSP
• Designation of Safety Corridors
• Alameda de las Pulgas
• Marsh Road
• Middlefield Road
• Referral of Potential Speed Limit Reductions to the
Transportation, Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Committee • Safety Corridors (5 mph reduction permitted per CVC 22358.7) • School Zones (15 mph limit permitted per CVC 22358.4) • Camino al Lago
• Edge Road
• Encinal Avenue
16 • Oak Grove Avenue
• Valparaiso Avenue
• Oak Grove
• Ringwood Avenue
• Selby Lane