City of
Foster City
LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN
FINAL DRAFT
MAY 2024
/ City of Foster City
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
/ City of Foster City
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.
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 t o 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. / City of Foster City
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 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 Foster City
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 Crash Data & Trends ............................................................................................................................................................... 9 Emphasis Areas ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9 Countywide High Injury Network ................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Project Identification & Prioritization ................................................................................................................................ 15 Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 Social Equity ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Results ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 17 Improvements – Engineering, Policy & Programs .......................................................................................................... 20 Project Scopes .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 Engineering Countermeasure Toolbox..................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Proposed Policy, Program, and Guidelines Recommendations .............................................................................................................25 Near-Term Actions ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................25 Long-Term or Ongoing Actions .............................................................................................................................................................................. 26 Implementation & Monitoring ............................................................................................................................................. 28
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Phase 1 pop-up event held as part of the City of Foster City’s “Summer Days.” ............................................................ 5 Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool........................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Foster City ............................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Foster City ..................................................................................................................................... 14 Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)....................................................................... 15 Figure 6. Bicycle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) ............................................................................... 16 Figure 7. Motor Vehicle Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent) ................................................................ 16 Figure 8: Foster City Priority Locations .......................................................................................................................................................................... 19 / City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. City of Foster City Safety Policies, Plans, Guidelines, Standards, and Programs .............................................................. 4 Table 2. Community Engagement Phases and Events ....................................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3. Countywide HIN Segments in Foster City ................................................................................................................................................. 13 Table 4. Priority Locations ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Table 5. City of Foster City Countermeasure Toolbox ......................................................................................................................................... 21 Table 6. City of Foster City Policy and Program Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 25 Table 7. Foster City Goals and Measures of Success ........................................................................................................................................ 28
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 3
INTRODUCTION
This chapter serves as a standalone local roadway safety plan (LRSP) for the City of Foster City. 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 City will revisit and update this LRSP at least every five years.
The City of Foster City has a 2023 population of 32,703 per California Department of Finance. The city has 50 total centerline miles per Caltrans 2022 California Public Road Data. From 2018 through 2022, there were 150 reported crashes on surface streets in the City and 13 fatal/severe injury crashes. In that time period, pedestrians were involved in 13 percent of all reported crashes and 46 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes.
Bicyclists were involved in 11 percent of all reported crashes and 23 percent of fatal/severe injury crashes. The LRSP provides Safe System-aligned strategies tailored to Foster City’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 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 r ecommendations
Implementation and tracking
Prioritized projects and social
equity considerations
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 4
VISION & GOALS
The City of Foster City’s vision for roadway safety is:
• Eliminate all traffic fatalities and reduce the number of non-fatal crashes by 50 percent by 2050 as part of a broader effort to promote roadway safety in Foster City’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. Provide opportunities for community engagement to identify issues and inform safety solutions across the community.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Existing Safety Efforts
This LRSP relies on Foster City’s solid foundation of plans, policies, and programs that support safe, equitable mobility in the city. For a list of the City of Foster City’s existing initiatives and ongoing efforts to build a Safe System, see Table 1:
Table 1. City of Foster City 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
General citywide
improvement
initiatives
The City plans to improve safety through multiple tools and programs. The Police Department will enforce policies and help to lead public education programs. Meanwhile, the Traffic Review Committee will map and monitor collisions, conduct speed surveys, and review safety improvements to make
recommendations.
Safe Roads,
Safe Speeds,
Safe Road
Users, Safe
Vehicles
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 5
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 Foster City’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
• Foster City Police Department
Figure 1. Phase 1 pop-up event held as part of the City of Foster City’s “Summer Days.” / City of Foster City
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.
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.
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 Phase 1 Pop-up/Tabling Event:
Shared crash data analysis;
received input on locations and
safety concerns
East Palo Alto
August 19, 2023 Half Moon Bay Farmers Market
August 20, 2023 Foster City Summer Days
August 27, 2023 San Carlos Block Party
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
/ City of Foster City
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 2). Respondents were able to record location-specific feedback, associate a travel mode, and leave a detailed comment pertaining to a safety concern.
Figure 2. Online Map Survey Tool
Countywide, there were a total of 528 comments recorded by 352 respondents. There were five comments made within the City of Foster City in addition to the conversations and feedback recorded at the Phase 1 event in August. The comments included the following:
Biking Concerns/Requests
• Request to add new bike infrastructure such as bike lanes. Noted location includes San Mateo Bridge.
Pedestrian Concerns/Requests
• Signage requests including push buttons for WALK signs and pedestrian hybrid beacons.
Traffic Enforcement Concerns
• Concerns regarding speeding observed and requests for traffic calming, especially near school zones.
Roadway Infrastructure/ Traffic Operations Concerns
• Concerns regarding high traffic volumes and traffic congestion on Highway 101. • Requests to improve signal timing design to reduce intersection delay.
The location and modal emphasis of comments in Foster City is presented in Figure 44. 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 City. Those are presented in the Community Engagement section of the Countywide LRSP.
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 8
Figure 3. Webmap Comments in Foster City
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 9
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 B.
Emphasis Areas
The project team analyzed crash data in Foster City 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 Foster City:
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 Foster City, pedestrians and bicyclists were involved in 46 percent and 23 percent of the 13 reported F/SI crashes—higher than their overall share of all injury crashes (13 percent and 11 percent, total).
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 Foster City, four of the six fatal/severe injury pedestrian crashes (67 percent) and three of the four fatal/severe injury motor vehicle crashes (75 percent) occurred in dark conditions.
3. Unsignalized intersections on arterials/collectors. Countywide, crashes for all modes most frequently occurred at the intersection of higher order and lower order roadways – most commonly along arterial and collector roadways. Pedestrian and bicyclist crashes most frequently occur at unsignalized intersections.
4. Vulnerable age groups (youth and aging). Countywide across all modes, crash victims between the 15 to 34 years old are more likely to be injured including F/SI as a result of traffic safety than other groups.
Victims between the ages 50 – 69 and 75 to 84 are also more likely to be severely injured than other groups. In Foster City, 8 crashes or 5 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 / City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 10
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 Foster City, “Too fast for conditions” was the top-cited violation among motor vehicle crashes (in 39 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.
The next pages present summary findings from a crash data review that compares the City of Foster City 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)
18%
(20)
Foster City—Crash History
Most Frequent Collision Types
12%
(787) 30%
(1,908)
10%
(607)
39%
(44)
11%
(13)
14%
(16)
18%
(21)
Broadside, rear-end, head-on, and hit-object crashes were the most common crash types in the region. Here is how
Foster City compares:
CountywideFoster
City 3% (5) 5% (8)
of reported collisions
in Foster City
involved drugs or
alcohol
of reported collisions
in Foster City
involved young
drivers2
29%
(1,858)
Total Crashes
In Foster City, 150 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
71% (143)
State Highway
29% (7)
Foster
City
Broadside
Rear end
Head on Other
Hit object
Mode Involvement
Pedestrian Crashes (20)
Bicycle Crashes (16)
Motor Vehicle1 Crashes (114)
23% (3)
31% (4)
46% (6)13% (20)
11% (16)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
13% (1,073)
13% (1,067)
75% (6,324)
23% (208)
20% (176)
57% (515)
76% (114)
Foster City
Foster City
Foster City
1. Motor crashes include motor vehicles and motorcyclists.
2. Y oung driver crashes are crashes that involve at fault drivers who are under 30 years old.
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)
Foster City—Crash History
Foster City
Foster City
Foster City
Share of Bicyclist Crashes in Dark Conditions (1)
Share of Pedestrian Crashes in Dark Conditions (8)
Share of Motor Vehicle Crashes in Dark Conditions (28)
All Injury Crashes (114)
All Injury Crashes (16)
All Injury Crashes (20)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (4)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (3)
Fatal/Severe Injury Crashes (6)
67% (4)
0% (0)
Countywide
Countywide
Countywide
25% (28) 75% (3)
Dark Conditions
Crashes reported in nighttime conditions were found to be more severe—especially in dark, unlit conditions. Here is how Foster City compares to Countywide crashes:
6% (1)
40% (8)
Reported Pedestrian Crashes (20)
Reported Bicycle Crashes (16)
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersection
Bicyclist Proceeding Straight
Pedestrian Crossing
Not at a Crosswalk
Countywide
Countywide
Agency
Agency
Perpendicular
Bicyclist Crashes
30%
(6)
24%
(256)
Motorist Making
left turn
30%
(6)
15%
(163)
Motorist proceeding
straight
10%
(2)
25%
(2)
Motorist proceeding
straight
13%
(2)
21%
(186)
6%
(1)
12%
(106)
13%
(2)
11%
(100)
Motorist
making
right turn
Motorist
proceeding
straight
Motorist
making
left turn
38%
(6)
35%
(372)
34% (363)
11% (122)
26% (1,674)
47% (98)
15% (26)
34% (173)
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 13
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 Foster City
Roadway name
All County Jurisdiction(s)
including this HIN Roadway
Total Length, all
jurisdictions
included (mi)
Motor
Vehicle
HIN
Bicyclist
HIN
Pedestrian
HIN
Foster City Blvd Foster City 1.7 X X
Metro Center
Blvd
Foster City 0.7 X
Shell Blvd Foster City 1.1 X
Hillsdale Blvd Foster City, San Mateo 3.9 X X X
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 14
Figure 4. Countywide HIN within the City of Foster City
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 15
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).
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 46, Figure 47, and Figure 48).
Figure 5. Pedestrian Prioritization Factor/Criteria Weighting (Sum to 100 Percent)
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 16
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,
8.1%
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
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 17
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 Chess Dr and Foster City Blvd Intersection No X
2 Regulus St and Edgewater Blvd Intersection No X
3 Catamaran St and Shell Blvd Intersection No X X
4 Galleon Ln and Foster City Blvd Intersection No X X X 5 Hillsdale Blvd and Parkway Ln Intersection No X X X
6 Marlin Ave and Foster City Blvd Intersection No X X
7 Foster City Blvd and 3rd Ave Intersection No X
8 Beach Park Blvd and Egret St Intersection No X X
9 Altair Ave and Edgewater Blvd Intersection No X
10 Marlin Ave and Beach Park
Blvd
Intersection No X
11 3rd Ave and Mariners Island
Blvd
Intersection No X
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 18
ID Location Corridor/
Intersection
State
Highway?
Motor Vehicle
Emphasis
Bicycle
Emphasis
Pedestrian
Emphasis
12 Commons Ln and Metro
Center Blvd
Intersection No X
13 Foster City Blvd and Caravel Ln Intersection No X X 14 Shell Blvd and Bounty Dr Intersection No X
15 Hillsdale Blvd and Meridian
Bay Ln
Intersection No X X
16 Hillsdale Blvd and Admiralty Ln Intersection No X X 17 Foster City Blvd and Civic
Center Dr
Intersection No X
18 Foster City Blvd and Admiralty
Ln
Intersection No X
19 Shell Blvd and Civic Center Dr Intersection No X
20 Hillsdale Blvd and Portal Ln Intersection No X
21 Promontory Point Ln and
Hillsdale Blvd
Intersection No X
22 Foster City Blvd and Hillsdale
Blvd
Edgewater Blvd and Dorado Ln
Intersection No X
23 Beach Park Blvd and Swordfish
St
Intersection No X
24 Edgewater Blvd and Ram Ln Intersection No X
25 Tarpon St and Beach Park Blvd Intersection No X
26 Foster City Blvd, Chess Dr to
Bounty Dr
Corridor No X X X
27 Hillsdale Blvd, Sea Spray Ln to
north of Pilgrim Dr
Corridor No X X X
28 Shell Blvd, Hillsdale Blvd to
Beach Park Blvd
Corridor No X X
29 Edgewater Blvd, Hillsdale Blvd
to Beach Park Blvd
Corridor No X X
30 Hillsdale/Beach Park Blvd,
Pilgrim Dr to Foster City Blvd
Corridor No X X
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 19
Figure 8: Foster City Priority Locations
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 20
IMPROVEMENTS – ENGINEERING,
POLICY & PROGRAMS
This section presents Safe System-aligned recommendations that can create levels of redundancy for traffic safety in the City of Foster City. 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.
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:
Shell Blvd and Civic Center Dr. Recommended improvements include:
o Upgraded, larger stop sign at Civic Center Dr
o Installation of a pedestrian crossing at the west leg of the intersection
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 21
o Installation of a pedestrian hybrid beacon at the west leg of the intersection Marlin Ave and Foster City Blvd. Recommended improvements include:
o Change of traffic control
o Pedestrian countdown signal heads
o Advance stop bar before all crosswalks (bicycle box)
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 Foster City. 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 Foster City 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
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 $-$$$ Medium
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict left turns and U-turns
(signalized intersection)*
SI Signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.5 $-$$ Medium
Install raised pavement
markers and striping*
SI Wet, night, all 0.1 $ High
Install flashing beacons as
advance warning (SI)*
SI Rear end,
broadside
0.3 $-$$ Medium
Centerline hardening or
continuous raised median
SI All crashes 0.46 $ Medium
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 22
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Install pedestrian
countdown signal heads*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.25 $ High
Install pedestrian crossing* SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.25 $ High
Install advance stop bar
before crosswalk (bicycle
box)*
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.15 $ High
Modify signal phasing to
implement a Leading
Pedestrian Interval (LPI)
SI Pedestrian
crashes,
signalized
local/arterial
intersections
0.6 $ High
Convert to all-way STOP
control (from two-way or
Yield control)*
UI All crashes 0.5 $ Low
Install signals* UI All crashes 0.3 $$$ Low
Create directional median
openings to allow (and
restrict) left turns and U-turns
(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 $-$$$ Medium
Install/upgrade larger or
additional STOP signs or
other intersection warning
or regulatory signs*
UI Turning crashes
related to lack
of driver
awareness
0.15 $ High
Upgrade intersection
pavement markings*
UI Turning crashes
related to lack
0.25 $ High
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 23
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
of driver
awareness
Install pedestrian signal or
pedestrian hybrid beacon*
UI Pedestrian and
bicycle
0.3 $$$ High
Road diet (Reduce travel
lanes from four to three,
and add a two-way, left-
turn lane and bike lanes)*
R All crashes 0.35 $ Medium
Corridor access
management
R N/A 0.35 $ Medium
Install separated bike lanes* R Pedestrian and
bicycle
0.45 $-$$ High
Install/upgrade pedestrian
crossing (with enhanced
safety features)*
R Pedestrian and
bicycle
0.35 $$-$$$ Medium
Install raised pedestrian
crossing*
R Pedestrian and
bicycle
0.35 $ Medium
Remove or relocate fixed
objects outside of clear
recovery zone*
R Hit object 035 $-$$ 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 $-$$ Low
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 24
Countermeasure
Name
Applicable
Location(s)1
Crash Types
Applicable
Crash
Reduction
Factor (If
Available)
Cost (if
available)2
Systemic
Opportunity?
Bicycle crossing (solid green
paint)
UI Bicycle N/A $ Medium
Bicycle signal/exclusive bike
phase
SI Bicycle N/A $-$$ 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
Approach curvature UI, 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 above 2: $ = ≤$50,000; $$ = $50,000 - $200,000; $$$ = > $200,000
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 25
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 Foster City 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)
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
LEO3: Educational Materials for New Facilities
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: City of Foster City 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. / City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 26
Lead agency: City of Foster City Public Works
LONG-TERM OR ONGOING ACTIONS
LCS2: High-Visibility Media Campaign
Coordinate with County Public Health and the City of Foster City 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, City of Foster City Police Department, City of Foster City Public Works LEC2: Speed Monitoring Awareness Radar Trailer
Coordinate with Foster City 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: City of Foster City Police Department
Coordinating partners: City of Foster City 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 Foster City 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 Foster City 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 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.) / City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 27
Include information about the purpose and goals of this infrastructure.
Lead agency: City of Foster City Public Works
LPE1: Annual Review
Provide an annual 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 Foster City 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: City of Foster City Public Works
LPE4: Safe Routes to School
Continue to participate in school safety assessments at all public and private schools, develop implementation plans for improvements up to one quarter mile from the schools. Develop a plan and timeline to include all schools in the City.
Lead agency: SMCOE
Coordinating partners: City of Foster City 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 Foster City Public Works
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 28
IMPLEMENTATION & MONITORING
A key part of achieving Foster City’s vision is consistently evaluating roadway safety performance and tracking progress towards the goals. The City of Foster City 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 Foster City can initiate immediately, and longer-term actions, which may require coordination and additional staff time.
This section identifies recommendations for Foster City 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. Foster City 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.
• 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
• Implementation of a high-visibility media campaign
• Report-backs to the City Council and TSAC regarding community engagement, including information about outreach to
disadvantaged communities where applicable
• 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
2. Provide opportunities for
community engagement to
identify issues and inform safety
solutions across the community.
• 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.
• Expansion of SRTS and Roadway Safety Education in Schools programs to more schools within the City
• Community engagement included as part of all C/CAG-funded safety project development activities
• Number of engagement touchpoints and number of community member interactions citywide for safety plans or projects. • Percent of school district participation in SRTS and roadway safety education opportunities
/ City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP. / 29
Appendix A
Webmap Comments
City of Foster City
San Mateo C/CAG Countywide LRSP