Public Works Department
DA
TE: March 30, 2022
TO
: Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee
FR
OM: Priyoti Ahmed, Transportation Planner
Ria Hutabarat Lo, Transportation Manager
SUBJECT: Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
RECOMMENDATION
Rec
eive and review a report on the integrated Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan and provide feedback on:
1. The proposed Local Road Safety Plan countermeasures and Vision Zero Action Plan actions; and
2. The prioritization framework for the Local Road Safety Plan.
BACKGROUND
On
December 10, 2019 , City Council adopted a Vision Zero Policy . Policy deliberation was supported by Vision Zero ana lysis, which examined crash data to identify the City’s High Injury Network (HIN), key crash contributing factors, and other issues related to fatal and severe injury crashes (KSI). At the December 10, 2019 meeting, Council also received information on existing, recent, and proposed actions that might be included in a Vision Zero Action Plan (see Attachment 1). These actions include the 7Es : engineering, education, encouragement, engagement, emergency response, evaluation, and enforcement.
C
ity staff is now developing an integrated Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP) and Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP). This plan is a living document that provides a framework for identifying, analyzing, and prioritizing roadway safety improvements on local roads.
Bas
ed on Caltrans ’ direction, the LRSP approach utilizes a systemic safety analysis to identify engineering improvements that may be implemented at locations with similar characteristics to where respective KSI collisions have occurred. On January 27, 2021 , the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (B/PAC) reviewed and provided feedback on the analysis of KSI crash data Attachment 1
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
from 2014 to 2019. This analysis identified primary collision factors, vulnerable users, and roadway characteristics associated with fatal and severe injury crashes.
ANALYSIS
In 2020, the City hired a consultant to prepare an integrated VZAP and LRSP. VZAPs typically use a multi- pronged hot spot approach to transportation safety by addressing key factors in behaviors (such as DUI, speeding, and encroaching in pedestrian rights -of-way) and improving corridors on the HIN using the 7Es. By comparison, LRSPs use a systemic infrastructure approach to transportation safety by identifying locations with similar characteristics or movements to where KSI collisions have occurred and treating these locations with engineering countermeasures. Key steps in developing an LRSP include:
• Identification of roadway and land use factors associated with KSI crashes;
• Systemic analysis of locations featuring these roadway and land use factors;
• Compilation of proven safety countermeasures and condi tions under which these countermeasures would be applied;
• Development of prioritization criteria; and
• Prioritization of projects identified by applying countermeasures to locations.
Identification of Roadway and Land Use Factors
The LRSP process is an iterative process that produces systemwide recommendations based on the types of traffic crashes that occurred within a certain geographic area and time period. In this case, the systemic safety analysis included all crashes that occurred on roadways in Mountain View between 2014 and 2019. The crash data was obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), which is maintained by UC Berkeley , and typically has a time lag of approximately three years. This time lag reflects the considerable time that it takes to complete Police investigations, determine primary collision factors, submit local information to the Statewide system, compile information at the State level, and process data into a complete geocoded database.
Based on the crash data analysis from 2014 to 2019, the following roadway and land use factors were associated with a higher than average incidence of KSI collisions in the City:
• Streets with a posted speed of 35 mph or above (20% of streets in Mountain View, 73% of KSI crashes);
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
• Intersections of 35 mph streets with 25 mph streets (50% of KSI crashes);
• Signalized intersections (30% of KSI crashes);
• Two-way, stop-controlled intersections (18% of all KSI crashes, 45% of KSI crashes involving people walking); and
• Commercial areas and Precise Plan areas, including downtown Mountain View (60% of crashes, about 40% of land area).
Table 1 identifies the specific segments of the City’s network that have the highest KSI crash rate per mile, along with roadway and land use factors, and common crash types.
Table 1: High Crash Street Segment (Ranked by KSI Crash per Mile) (2014-2019)
Location Ped/Bike
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
per Mile
Roadway and
Land Use Factors
Common Crash
Types
East El Camino
Real (east of
Grant Road)
61 9 10.04 • 40 mph
• Commercial/
Precise Plan
area
• Driver right turn
with pedestrian
• Driver left turn
(motor vehicle
only)
Ellis Street 16 4 5.68 • 40 mph
• Commercial/
Precise Plan
area
• Driver ran off
road
• Motorcycle
involved
North
Rengstorff
Avenue
(Central
Expressway to
Middlefield
Road)
45 3 4.69 • 35 mph
• Commercial/
Precise Plan
area
• Driver left turn
with bicyclist or
pedestrian
• Pedestrian
crossing between
intersections
Amphitheatre
Parkway
23 3 4.45 • 35 mph • Driver proceeding
straight with
bicyclist
North
Shoreline
Boulevard
(Central
33 3 4.42 • 35 mph
• Commercial/
Precise Plan
area
• Driver ran off
road
• Driver left turn
with a bicyclist
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Location Ped/Bike
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
per Mile
Roadway and
Land Use Factors
Common Crash
Types
Expressway to
Middlefield
Road)
El Monte
Avenue
13 2 4.34 • 35 mph
• Commercial/
Precise Plan
area
• Driver proceeding
straight with
pedestrian
crossing
crosswalk
California
Street
(Rengstorff
Avenue to
Shoreline
Boulevard)
34 4 4.31 • 35 mph • Driver and
bicyclist involved
South
Rengstorff
Avenue (El
Camino Real
to Central
Expressway)
44 2 3.55 • 35 mph
• Commercial/
Precise Plan
area
• Driver and
bicyclist involved
San Antonio
Road
30 2 3.48 • 35 mph
• Commercial/
Precise Plan
area
• Driver collides
with bicycle or
pedestrian at a
signalized
intersection
Castro Street 54 4 3.46 • Commercial/
Precise Plan
area
• Driver collides
with pedestrian
crossing between
intersections
Roadway and Land Use Factors for Crashes involving People Walking and Biking
Both the Vision Zero crash analysis and LRSP systemic analysis found that people walking and biking are disproportionately affected by fatal and severe injury crashes. The location of crashes involving pedestrians and bicyclists during the study period are displayed in Figure 1.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Figure 1: Crash Locations for Walking and Biking, 2014-2019
Crash Locations
Crash Intersection for Walking and
Biking
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
As shown in Table 2, key factors associated with higher -crash intersections for people walking and biking include intersections between higher - and lower -speed roads and intersections in commercial or precise plan areas. The Sylvan Avenue/El Camino Real intersection had two KSI crashes involving someone walking or biking while nearly all the other listed intersections had one KSI in the 2014-2019 study. The intersection of Shoreline Boulevard/Villa Street, which had the highest number of c rashes involving pedestrians and bicycles, currently has a pedestrian/bicycle improvement project under construction funded by the State Transportation Development Act (TDA3) and Federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grants.
Table 2: High-Crash Intersections for People Walking and Biking, 2014-2019
Location Ped/Bike
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
Roadway and Land Use
Factors
Common Crash Types
Shoreline
Boulevard and
Villa Street
9 0 • Signalized
• 35 mph with 30 mph
• Driver left turn with
bicyclist or
pedestrian crossing
crosswalk.
Showers Drive
and Latham
Street
6 1 • Two-way Stop
• 35 mph with 25 mph
• Commercial/ Precise
Plan area
• Driver and bike
proceeding straight
(broadside).
• Driver left turn or
proceeding straight
with a pedestrian
crossing crosswalk.
Rengstorff
Avenue and
Latham Street
5 1 • Signalized
• 35 mph with 25 mph
• Driver left turn with
pedestrian crossing
crosswalk.
Charleston
Road and Huff
Avenue
5 1 • Signalized
• 35 mph with 25 mph
• Commercial/ Precise
Plan area
• Driver left turn with
pedestrian crossing
crosswalk.
El Monte
Avenue and
Marich Way
4 1 • Two-way Stop
• 35 mph with 25 mph
• Driver collides with
pedestrian crossing
in a crosswalk.
El Camino Real
and Dale
Avenue
3 1 • Two-way Stop
• 30 mph with 40 mph
• Commercial/ Precise
Plan area
• Driver right turn
with pedestrian
crossing crosswalk.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Location Ped/Bike
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
Roadway and Land Use
Factors
Common Crash Types
Sylvan
Avenue/The
Americana
and El Camino
Real
3 2 • Signalized
• 40 mph with 25 mph
• Commercial/Precise
Plan area
• Driver right turn
with bicyclist
proceeding straight.
San Antonio
Road and
Fayette Drive
3 1 • Signalized
• 35 mph with 25 mph
• Commercial/ Precise
Plan area
• Driver collides with
bicyclist.
Ortega
Avenue and
Latham Street
3 1 • Commercial/Precise
Plan area
• Driver left turn with
pedestrian crossing
crosswalk.
Roadway and Land Use Factors for Crashes involving Motorists
High-crash intersections for motor vehicles include all intersections where a crash resulted in a fatality or severe injury ; as well as all intersections with more than seven motor -vehicle-only crashes in the 2014-2019 analysis period.
Table 3: High-Crash Intersections for Motor Vehicles (2014-2019)
Location Total
Motor
Vehicle
Crashes
Motor
Vehicle
KSI
Crashes
Roadway and Land
Use Factors
Common Crash Types
Middlefield Road
and State Route 237
on-/off-ramps
43 2 • Signalized
• 35 mph with 35
mph
• Broadside
• Signal violation
Franklin Street and
California Street
10 0 • Two-way stop
• 35 mph with 25
mph
• Broadside
• ROW violation
El Camino Real and
Shoreline Boulevard
10 0 • Signalized
• 25 mph with 35
mph
• Broadside
• Signal violation
Plymouth Avenue
and Joaquin Road
8 0 • Two-way stop
• 25 mph with 25
mph
• Broadside
• ROW violation
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Location Total
Motor
Vehicle
Crashes
Motor
Vehicle
KSI
Crashes
Roadway and Land
Use Factors
Common Crash Types
West El Camino Real
and Phyllis Avenue
8 0 • Signalized
• 30 mph with 25
mph
• Unsafe speed/Rear
end
• Signal
violation/Broadside
Moffett Boulevard
and Central Avenue
6 1 • Signalized
• 35 mph with 25
mph
• Broadside
• Signal or ROW
violation
Rengstorff Avenue
and Old Middlefield
Way
5 1 • Signalized
• 35 mph with 35
mph
• Broadside
• Signal violation
Moffett Boulevard
and State Route 85
ramp
3 1 • Signalized
• 40 mph with 20
mph
• Broadside
• Signal violation
Chiquita Avenue and
California Street
2 1 • Two-way stop
• 25 mph with 35
mph
• Broadside
• ROW violation
Castro Street and El
Camino Real
1 1 • Signalized
• 30 mph with 35
mph
Ellis Street and
Fairchild Drive
1 1 • Two-way stop
• 40 mph with 25
mph
• Wrong side of the
road
Systemic Analysis of Locations Featuring Roadway and Land Use Factors
Based on the roadway and land use factors identified above, other locations throughout the City that share these characteristics have been identified as mapped in Figure 2.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Figure 2: Locations with Key Roadway and Land Use Factors
Roadway and Land use Factors
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Toolbox of Proven Safety Countermeasure
To reduce fatal and severe injury crashes, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed a list of infrastructure -oriented safety treatments with proven effectiveness and benefits. The FHWA recently updated the list of Proven Safety Countermeasures in 2021, with a crash reduction factor (CRF) identified for each strategy. The CRF is the percentage of crash reduction that might be expected after implementing a given countermeasure.
The table below summarizes the proven safety countermeasures best suited to address fatal and severe injury crashes in Mountain View . All c ountermeasures are already implemented or planned in certain areas of the City.
Table 4: Proven Countermeasures
1 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Countermeasure Tech Sheet. Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian. October 2019. FHWA-SA-19-040.
2 FHWA. 2008. Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/ped_tctpepc/ Countermeasure Description Benefit
Leading
Pedestrian
Interval
(LPI)1
Provides pedestrians a 3 to 10
second head start when entering a
signalized crossing, by presenting
the “walk” sign while vehicle traffic
has a red light in all directions.
• Reduces crashes by 13%.
• Increases visibility.
• Reduces conflicts between
drivers and pedestrians.
Protected
Left Turn
2 Separates vehicle and pedestrian
movements by providing separate
signal phases for pedestrians and
left-turning motorists.
• Reduces crashes by 99%.
• Increases visibility.
• Reduces conflicts between
drivers and pedestrians.
Curb Radius
Reduction
Reduces curb radius at corners,
which requires motorists to reduce
vehicle speed by making sharper
turns.
• Reduces vehicle turn
speed.
• Aligns curb ramps with
crosswalk.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
3 FHWA. 2018. Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/TechSheet_VizEnhancemt_508compliant.pdf 4 FHWA. 2018. Pedestrian Refuge Island.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/techSheet_PedRefugeIsland2018.pdf 5 Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB). 2017.
http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=54 Countermeasure Description Benefit
Curb
Extensions
Narrows the roadway or
intersection and creates more
space for pedestrians to wait and a
shorter crossing distance.
• Increases visibility.
• Reduces vehicle speed.
• Encourages crossing at
designated locations.
• Shortens crossing distance.
• Prevents drivers from
parking at corners.
High-Visibility
Crosswalks3
Provides high-visibility elements
such as striped crosswalk
markings, pavement markings,
lighting, and advanced or in-street
warning signage.
• Reduces crashes by 23-
48%.
• Increases visibility.
• Increases driver awareness.
Medians and
Pedestrian
Crossing
Islands
4 Provide areas between opposing
lanes of traffic to separate
pedestrians and bicyclists from
oncoming motorists and limit
exposure to moving vehicles.
• Reduces crashes 46% at
medians or 56% at islands.
• Increases visibility.
• Encourages crossing at
designated locations.
• Reduces crossing distance.
• Increases driver awareness.
Rectangular
Rapid Flash
Beacons
(RRFB)
5 When activated by pedestrians or
bicyclists, provide high-visibility
LED strobe-like warning to drivers
when pedestrians and bicyclists
use a crosswalk at mid-block
crossings or unsignalized
intersections.
• Reduces crashes by 47% at
major streets.
• Increases visibility.
• Increases driver awareness.
• Encourages crossing at
designated locations.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
6 FHWA. 2018. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon.
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/pdf/17_Pedestrian%20Hybrid%20Beacons_508.pdf Countermeasure Description Benefit
Pedestrian
Hybrid
Beacon
(PHB)
A traffic control device activated
by pedestrians and bicyclists that
makes drivers aware of
pedestrians crossing the street at
uncontrolled marked crosswalk
locations.
• Reduces crashes by 29%,
55% for pedestrians, 15%
for KSI.
6 • Increases visibility.
• Increases driver awareness.
• Encourages crossing at
designated locations.
Bike Signal
Phase
Provides separate signal phase for
bicycle movements at
intersections.
• Reduces right-hook
conflicts between turning
vehicles and bicyclists
traveling straight.
• Increases bicyclist visibility.
Bike Box
Treatments
at
Intersections
Designates space at the head of a
traffic lane at a signalized
intersection to provide bicyclists
with visible space ahead of
queuing traffic and tailpipe
emissions during the red signal
phase, or space to wait during two-
stage left turns.
• Increases bicyclist visibility.
• Provides designated space
for bicyclists to wait.
• Increases driver awareness
of bicyclists.
Protected
Intersection Keeps bicycles separated from
motor vehicles up until the
intersection, providing a high
degree of comfort and safety for
people of all ages and abilities.
• Reduces vehicle turning
speed.
• Improves sight lines.
• Reduces conflict points and
bicyclist exposure
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
7 FHWA. 2018. Bicycle Lane. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/pdf/PSC_New_Bicycle%20Lanes.pdf Countermeasure Description Benefit
Class IV
Protected
Bikeways
Provides a physical separation
between bicyclists and motor
vehicle traffic using on-street
parking, curbs, delineators, or
landscaping. Protected bike lanes
may be one-way or two-way and
are sometimes referred to as cycle
tracks.
• Reduces crashes by 49% on
four-lane roads and 30% on
two-lane roads.
7 • Improves bicyclist visibility
and comfort.
• Increases driver awareness
of people walking or biking.
• Reduces conflict points
between drivers and
bicyclists.
Road Diet Reallocates roadway space to
accommodate traffic volumes and
users in fewer mixed -purpose
motor vehicle lanes , i.e., reducing
the number of through lanes, while
maintaining intersection quality of
service for all modes.
• Crash reduction of 19% to
47%.
• Increases spaces of
sustainable modes, such as
bicyclist, pedestrian, and
transit.
• Reduces speed.
Bicycle
Boulevard
Provides shared lane markings,
wayfinding signs, traffic calming
and diverters on streets with low
volume and speeds to reduce
through traffic, reduce vehicle
speeds and prioritize vulnerable
road users.
• Reduces vehicle speeds.
• Reduces traffic volumes.
• Increases driver awareness
of bicyclists.
• Improves bicycle
connectivity.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Countermeasure Description Benefit
Access
Management
Consolidates driveways or employs
medians to restrict access to right-
in/right-out turning movements at
driveways or intersections
• Reduces the frequency and
magnitude of conflict
points at intersections and
driveways.
Improved
Intersection
Lighting,
Extension
Lines, and
Signage
Includes intersection lighting,
extension lines for turning vehicles
and roadway signage to enhance
visibility of medians, crosswalks ,
and other vehicles at intersections.
• Increases visibility.
• Directs drivers for different
lanes and direction.
Impaired
Driving
Policies
Coordinates local, regional, and
State partners for policy and
education action and implements
strategies such as place of last
drink (POLD) survey to provide
data for interventions.
• Reduces crashes due to
DUIs, which represent 40%
of all traffic fatalities in
California.
Reduce
Speed Limit
by 5 mph
Employs the option of reducing
posted speed by 5 mph relative to
the 85th percentile speed near
schools or senior centers per
California Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CA
MUTCD).
• Reduces speed where
applicable.
• Increases pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort.
25 mph
Business and
Residential
District
Sets prima facie speed limit to
25 mph in school zones, business
and residential areas, and areas
near senior centers in conjunction
with traffic calming per CA MUTCD
2B.13.
• Implements slow speed
where applicable.
• Increases pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Application of Countermeasures to Various Crash Types
Common crash types in Mountain View could be addressed through countermeasures as indicated in Table 5. Based on the systemic safety analysis, these strategies will be applied to specific locations in order develop a list of priority projects for the Local Road Safety Plan. These projects will be supplemented with targeted 7Es approaches to develop an integrated Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan.
Table 5: Summary of the Most Common Fatal and
Severe Crash Types and Potential Countermeasures
Crash Types Illustration Potential Countermeasures
Driver making left turn
and pedestrian crossing
in a crosswalk at a
signalized intersection
• Pedestrian signal
improvements (leading
pedestrian interval and
decreased walking speed)
• Protected left turn
• Curb radius reduction or curb
extension
• High-visibility crosswalk
• Median and crossing island
• Protected intersection
Countermeasure Description Benefit
Traffic
Calming
Reduces average vehicle speed and
eliminates high vehicle speeds
using vertical and horizontal
deflections, including speed
humps, traffic circles, and raised
intersections on local and collector
residential streets.
• Reduces speed where
applicable.
• Increases pedestrian and
bicyclist comfort.
• Increases driver’s
awareness of people
walking or biking.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Crash Types Illustration Potential Countermeasures
Driver proceeding
straight and pedestrian
in a crosswalk at a two-
way, stop-controlled
intersection
• Curb radius reduction or curb
extensions
• High-visibility crosswalk
• Median and crossing island
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon
• Pedestrian hybrid beacon
Driver proceeding
straight and pedestrian
crossing between
intersections
• New or improved midblock
crossing
• Curb extensions
• High-visibility crosswalk
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon
• Pedestrian hybrid beacon
Bicyclist proceeding
straight broadsided by a
driver at a signalized
intersection
• Protected left turn
• Median and crossing island
• Bike signal phase
• Bike treatments at
intersections
• Protected intersection
Bicyclist involved
between intersections
• Class IV protected bike lanes
• Road diet
• Bicycle boulevard
• Access management
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Crash Types Illustration Potential Countermeasures
Driver Turning Right,
Bicyclist Crossing (right
hook)
• Curb radius reduction or curb
extensions
• Leading pedestrian interval
and decreased walking speed
• Bike signal phase
• Bike treatments at
intersections
• No Right Turn on Red (NRTOR)
signs
Motor vehicle broadside
between intersections
(assumed to be at
driveways)
• Road diet
• Access management
Drivers runs off road
and/or the wrong side of
the road
• Enhanced delineation
• Improved Intersection Lighting,
Extension Lines, and Signage
Alcohol or drug
intoxication
• Impaired Driving Policies
Speed Management
• Curb radius reduction or curb
extensions
• Road diet
• Bicycle boulevards
• Reduce Speed Limits by 5 mph
• 25 mph business or residential
district
• Traffic calming measures
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Project Prioritization Criteria
Based on the systemic safety analysis and historic crash analysis, the countermeasures will be applied to specific locations to develop a list of projects. The project list will include historic KSI crash locations as well as other location(s) identified through the systemic safety analysis process.
This approach will help the City to proactively implement improvements that enhance safety.
The project prioritization criteria will be used to evaluate the project list and recommend five grant-ready (detailed project scope, project completion cost estimates, and implementation schedule and funding strategy) projects. Suggested project prioritization criteria include:
1. Severity of Crashes–This category includes the severity of crashes from the historical crash analysis. This criterion is consistent with City’s Vision Zero policy and Caltrans Local Road Safety Plan goals and metrics.
2. Proven Effectiveness–This category includes cost and benefits analysis for different safety improvements. FHWA has different proven effectiveness for different countermeasures.
Through this criterion, there will be a determination of what is the planning -level cost of implementation versus its proven effectiveness.
3. Equity–This goal is consistent with City’s General Plan related to improving equity throughout the City. The metrics associated with equity are income and vulnerable road users (i.e., bicyclists, pedestrians, seniors, youth, and people with disabilities).
4. Proximity to Key Destinations–This category improves accessibility to destinations that are pedestrian and bicyclist attractors and locations that should be accessible for all modes of transportation. Key destinations include schools, parks/open spaces, commercial centers, senior centers, senior living communities, healthcare facilities, and libraries.
5. Implementation–This category includes the implementation feasibility of different safety improvements. The metric includes the potential to leverage ongoing City efforts such as planned CIPs, development projects , or ongoing maintenance efforts, project completion time frame, and degree of agency coordination.
Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
Table 6: Project Prioritization Criteria
Priority Criteria Metric
Severity of Crash • Fatal
• Severe Injury
• Minor Injury
Proven Effectiveness • Crash reduction factor
• Planning-level cost
Equity • Median Household Income
• Vulnerable Road Users–Bicycle and Pedestrian
Proximity to Key Destinations • Schools
• Parks/Open Spaces
• Commercial centers
• Senior centers and senior living communities
• Health-care facilities
• Libraries
Ease of Implementation • Potential to Leverage Planned CIPs or Ongoing Development Projects
• Project Time Frame
• Degree of Agency Coordination
DISCUSSION
Staff seeks B/PAC input on the following key questions:
1. Are there any other Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) countermeasures (Table 4) or Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP) actions (Attachment 1) suggested for staff to evaluate to address the different crash types in Mountain View?
2. Does the B/PAC concur with the prioritization criteria for the LRSP?
NEXT STEPS
City staff will evaluate and incorporate community feedback and B/PAC feedback on the countermeasures and the prioritization criteria. In the upcoming months, staff will develop a list of projects and apply the revised prioritization criteria to recommend and provide details for five Vision Zero Action Plan/Local Road Safety Plan
March 30, 2022
grant-ready projects for this study. Staff will return with an updated project list in July to seek feedback from the community and B/PAC.
PA-RHL/BW/1/PWK
935-03-30-22M
Attachment: 1. Initial Vision Zero Action Plan Items