City of Cupertino | 1
To: David Stillman, Transportation Manager, City of Cupertino Mat thew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner, City of Cupertino From: Christopher Kidd, Alta Planning + Design
Date: December 10, 2025
Re: Cupertino ATP: Project Prioritization Criteria
Introduction
Proposed improvements will prioritize the development of a complete active transportation network that imposes fair outcomes, safety, access, and comfort for people of all ages and abilities. Draft criteria were originally proposed in the Summer of 2025, with criteria screened with the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council in the Fall of 2025 for their input. Following input from these bodies, prioritization criteria were updated to better reflect feedback.
Criteria for prioritization have been aligned with the Goals of the Active Transportation Plan:
- Safety
- Access
- Sustainability
- Multimodal Balance
- Cost Effectiveness
Pr
ojects will be scored according to their corresponding tables below, then scores will be normalized to create a unified set of scores for a single project list.
Project Type Maximum Score Score modifier Consolidated list maximum score
Bicycle Network
Recommendations
100 1x
100
Pedestrian Intersection
Recommendations
80 1.25x
Pedestrian Sidewalk
Recommendations
80 1.25x
Transportation Technology
Corridor Recommendations
90 1.11x
City of Cupertino | 2
Table 1: Bicycle Network Project Prioritization Matrix
Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 20 pts if on a HIN corridor
10 pts if within 1000 ft
0 pts if not
20 30
Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of stress analysis 10 pts: BLTS 4 5 pts: BLTS 3
0 pts: BLTS 2 or 1
10 Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20 pts if along a suggested route 0 pts if not 20
30 High Frequency
Transit Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway 5 pts within 0.25 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5 Parks & Other
Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on # of
destinations within 0.5 mile per
mile of project length. 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle trip potential or high e-bike trip potential
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average
ATP score 5
10 SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average gap score 5
Balance
General Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal based upon aerial imagery
10 pts if no parking removal or lane
reduction is needed to implement
project
0 pts if needed to implement
project
10 20
Arterial Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal based upon aerial imagery 10
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost
10 pts if below $500k
5 pts if $500k - $2M
0 pts if over $2M
10 10
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 3
Table 2: Pedestrian Intersection Project Prioritization Matrix Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 20 pts if on a HIN corridor
10 pts if within 1000 ft
0 pts if not
20 30
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian level of stress analysis 10 pts: PLTS 4 5 pts: PLTS 3
0 pts: PLTS 2 or 1
10 Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20 pts if along a suggested route 0 pts if not 20
30 High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway 5 pts within 0.25 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5 Parks & Other Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on # of
destinations within 0.5 mile 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active pedestrian trip potential Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average ATP score 5
10 SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average gap score
5 Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost
10 pts if below $500k
5 pts if $500k - $2M
0 pts if over $2M
10 10
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 4
Table 3: Pedestrian Sidewalk Projects Prioritization Matrix Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal Max
Score
Safety
Collision History Roadway segment is near a corridor identified in the City of Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan (2024) High Injury Network (HIN) 20 pts if on a HIN corridor
10 pts if within 1000 ft
0 pts if not
20 30
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian and bicycle level of stress analysis 10 pts: PLTS 4
5 pts: PLTS 3
0 pts: PLTS 2 or 1
10 Access
School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested routes to school 20 pts if along a suggested route 0 pts if not 20
30 High Frequency Transit
Proximity Presence of major transit stops along the roadway 5 pts within 0.25 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
2 pts within 0.5 mile proximity to
major transit stops (VTA)
0 pts if not.
5 Parks & Other
Destination Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on # of
destinations within 0.5 mile. 5
Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active trip potential Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average ATP score 5
10 SAST Gap Score Project is within a high gap score area Scale 0 to 5 pts based on average gap score 5
Cost
Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost
10 pts if below $500k
5 pts if $500k - $2M
0 pts if over $2M
10 10
Recommendation Development Approach and Data
Alta Planning + Design, Inc. City of Cupertino 5
Table 4: Transportation Technology Corridors Prioritization Matrix Goal Criteria Metric (Source) Scoring Max
Score
Goal
Max
Score
Safety
Collision History The corridor includes an intersection identified as a VZAP High Injury Network Intersection
4 pts for every intersection ranked 1-7 in the corridor 2 pts: if 7-24
0 pts: 24-48
10 40
Collision History # of collisions with a cause of "unsafe speed" per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero Dashboard Data)
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on percentage of total collisions on the corridor (last 5 yrs) by # of collisions with a cause of “unsafe speed”.
10 Collision History
# of collisions with a cause of "traffic signals and signs" per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero
Dashboard Data)
Scale 0 to 5 pts based on percentage of total collisions on the corridor (last 5 yrs) by # of collisions with a cause of “traffic signals and signs”. 10
Level of Traffic
Stress Average PLTS for the corridor
10 pts: PLTS 4
5 pts: PLTS 3
0 pts: PLTS 2 or 1
10 Access
School Proximity % of corridor length on Suggested Route to School 20 pts: >75% of length on Suggested Route
10 pts: 25–75%
0 pts: <25% 20
30 Parks & Other
Destination
Proximity
Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the corridor
Scale 0 to 10 pts based on # of within .25 miles of corridor per mile of project length.
10 Sustainability
Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike short-trip share intersecting the corridor
Scale 0 to 10 based on average ATP score for bicycle/e-bike 10 20
SAST Gap Score % of corridor length within high SAST gap-score areas Scale 0 to 10 based on average gap score 10