DRAFT
VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN
&
LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN
ATTACHMENT 1
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | i
Table of Contents
Page
1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 What is a Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP)? ................................................................................. 1-1 What is a Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP)? ................................................................................... 1-3 Stakeholder and Community Engagement ................................................................................. 1-3 2 Systemic Safety Analysis .................................................................................................... 2-5 3 Emphasis Areas ............................................................................................................... 3-11 What are Emphasis Areas? ....................................................................................................... 3-11 4 Engineering Countermeasures ......................................................................................... 4-12 5 Candidate Locations ........................................................................................................ 5-16 Roadway and Land Use Factors ................................................................................................ 5-16 High Crash Locations ................................................................................................................. 5-18 Prioritization Method ............................................................................................................... 5-23 6 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 6-28 Infrastructure Recommendations ............................................................................................ 6-28 Non-Infrastructure Recommendations..................................................................................... 6-35 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................................. 6-1 Appendix A: Systemic Safety Analysis ........................................................................................ A1 Overall Crash Trends ................................................................................................................... A-1 Crashes by Mode of Transportation ........................................................................................... A-5 Demographics ............................................................................................................................. A-9 Crash Type ................................................................................................................................ A-14 Primary Crash Factor ................................................................................................................ A-15 Segment Crash Rates and High Injury Network ........................................................................ A-16 Roadway Characteristics ........................................................................................................... A-19 Crashes at Intersections ............................................................................................................ A-21 Environment Characteristics ..................................................................................................... A-24 Relationship to Land Use and Destinations .............................................................................. A-26 Maneuvers ................................................................................................................................ A-31 Appendix B: Toolbox of Safety Countermeasures ...................................................................... B-1 Pedestrian Signal Operations Modifications .............................................................................. B-1 Protected Left Turns ................................................................................................................... B-2 Curb Radius Reductions .............................................................................................................. B-3 Curb Extensions .......................................................................................................................... B-4 High-Visibility Crosswalks ........................................................................................................... B-5 Medians and Crossing Islands ..................................................................................................... B-6 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons .......................................................................................... B-7 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons ......................................................................................................... B-8 Access Management ................................................................................................................... B-9 Bike Signal Phasing.................................................................................................................... B-10 Bike Treatments at Intersections .............................................................................................. B-11 Protected Intersections ............................................................................................................ B-12 Class IV Protected Bikeways ..................................................................................................... B-13 DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | ii
Road Diets ................................................................................................................................. B-14 Bicycle Boulevards .................................................................................................................... B-15 Improved Lighting, Extension Lines, and Signage ..................................................................... B-16 Operational Improvements: No Turn on Red ........................................................................... B-17 Traffic Calming Measures ......................................................................................................... B-18 Traffic Calming: Horizontal Deflections .................................................................................... B-18 Traffic Calming: Vertical Deflections ......................................................................................... B-20 Appendix C: Prioritization Criteria ............................................................................................. C-1 Appendix D: Draft Priority Project Materials ............................................................................. D-1 Rengstorff Avenue Green Complete Streets .............................................................................. D-1 South Shoreline Boulevard Complete Streets Project ................................................................ D-3 San Antonio Complete Streets .................................................................................................... D-5 Middlefield Road / Independence Avenue Intersection Improvements .................................... D-6 Ortega Avenue / Latham Street Intersection Improvements ..................................................... D-7 Appendix E: Key Non-Infrastructure Recommendations ............................................................. E-1 Safe Routes to School (RU-1) ...................................................................................................... E-1 Vision Zero Marketing, Outreach and Engagement (RU-2) ........................................................ E-2 Impaired Driving Policies (SR-1) .................................................................................................. E-3
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | iii
Table of Figures
Page
Figure 1 Vision Zero "7E"s .................................................................................................... 1-1 Figure 2 High Injury Network, 2014-2019 ............................................................................ 1-2 Figure 4 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes per 100,000 people by year with 3-year average, 2014- 2022 ....................................................................................................................... 2-6 Figure 5 Severe Injury Crashes per 100,000 people by year with 3-year average, 2014-20222-6 Figure 6 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Mode, 2014-19 .............................................. 2-7 Figure 7 Key Maneuvers Involved in KSI Crashes, 2014-2019 ............................................. 2-8 Figure 8 VZAP/LRSP Emphasis Areas.................................................................................. 3-11 Figure 9 Summary of Common Fatal and Severe Crash Types and Potential Countermeasures 4-13 Figure 10 Locations of Roadway and Land Use Factors Associated with Fatal and Severe Crashes ............................................................................................................................. 5-17 Figure 11 High Crash Street Segments (Top Ten from 2014-2019 based on KSI Crashes per Mile) ............................................................................................................................. 5-18 Figure 12 Crash Intersections for People Walking and Biking (Top Ten, Ranked by Total Injury Crashes) ................................................................................................................ 5-19 Figure 13 Crash Intersections for Motor Vehicles (Top Ten, Ranked by Total Injury Crashes)5-20 Figure 14 Top 10 Crash Locations, All Modes ...................................................................... 5-22 Figure 15 Total Score and Project Information for Key Segments ....................................... 5-23 Figure 16 Total Score and Project Information per Key Intersection .................................. 5-26 Figure 17 Geographic Distribution of Scored Key Segments and Intersections .................. 5-27 Figure 18 Recommended Safety Corridor Projects .............................................................. 6-29 Figure 19 Recommended Safety Corridor Projects .............................................................. 6-31 Figure 20 Recommended Safety Intersection Projects ........................................................ 6-32 Figure 21 Recommended Safety Intersection Projects ........................................................ 6-34 Figure 22 Non-Infrastructure Project List ............................................................................ 6-35 Figure 23 Crashes by Year and Severity, 2014-2019 .............................................................. A-1 Figure 24 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes per 100,000 people by year with 3-year average, 2014- 2022 ....................................................................................................................... A-2 Figure 25 Severe Injury Crashes per 100,000 people by year with 3-year average, 2014, 2022A-2 Figure 26 Local Road Crash Density, 2014-2019 .................................................................... A-3 Figure 27 KSI per 1,000 Jobs and Households by Transportation Analysis Zone, 2014-2019A-4 Figure 28 Injury Severity by Mode, 2014-2019 ...................................................................... A-5 Figure 29 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Mode, 2014-19 .............................................. A-6 Figure 30 Local Crashes by Mode ........................................................................................... A7 Figure 31 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Someone Walking or Biking .......................... A-8 Figure 32 Age Distribution of People Involved in Crashes Relative to Mountain View Population, 2014-19 .................................................................................................................. A-9 Figure 33 Age Distribution of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes Relative to Mountain View Population ............................................................................................................ A-10 DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | iv
Figure 34 Age Distribution of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes Relative to Mountain View Population ............................................................................................................ A-10 Figure 35 Crashes Involving Seniors (age 65+) Pedestrian or Bikers ................................... A-11 Figure 36 Gender of Parties involved in Crashes by Mode, 2014-19 ................................... A-12 Figure 37 Race of Parties Involved in All Crashes, 2014-19 ................................................. A-13 Figure 38 Race of Parties Involved in all Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes, 2014-19 .................. A-13 Figure 39 Race of Parties Involved in all Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes, 2014-19 ........................ A-14 Figure 40 Crash Type of Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes, All Modes .................................. A-15 Figure 41 Primary Crash Factor Violation Category for Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes .... A-16 Figure 42 High Injury Network Crashes by Street Segment ................................................. A-17 Figure 43 High Injury Network (2006-2016) ........................................................................ A-18 Figure 44 Crash Severity by Posted Speed of Primary Roadway ......................................... A-19 Figure 45 Crashes and Road Miles by Posted Speed ........................................................... A-19 Figure 46 Crash Mode by Posted Speed of Primary Roadway ............................................. A-20 Figure 47 Crash Severity by Daily Traffic Volume ................................................................ A-21 Figure 48 Crashes by Traffic Volume ................................................................................... A-21 Figure 49 Fatal and Severe Crashes at Locations ................................................................. A-22 Figure 50 Crash Frequency and Severity by Intersection Control Type (percent of total) .. A-23 Figure 51 Mode of Fatal and Severe Crashes by Intersection Control Type ........................ A-23 Figure 52 Speed Limit at Intersections Where Fatal and Severe Crashes Occur ................. A-24 Figure 53 Lighting Conditions by Injury Severity ................................................................. A-25 Figure 54 Time of Day and Day of Week of All Crashes ....................................................... A-25 Figure 55 Time of Day and Day of Week of KSI Crashes ...................................................... A-26 Figure 56 Primary Adjacent Zoning at Crash Locations ....................................................... A-27 Figure 57 Crash Proximity to School and Youth Involvement ............................................. A-27 Figure 58 Age of People Biking Involved in Crashes Near Schools ...................................... A-28 Figure 59 Age of People Walking Involved in Crashes Near Schools ................................... A-28 Figure 60 Age of People Biking Involved in Crashes Near Parks .......................................... A-29 Figure 61 Age of People Walking Involved in Crashes Near Parks ....................................... A-29 Figure 62 Proximity to Transit Stop by Mode ...................................................................... A-30 Figure 63 Pedestrian Action Preceding Crash Near Transit Stop ......................................... A-30 Figure 64 Driver and Pedestrian Actions Prior to Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes, 2014-19 .... A-31 Figure 65 Driver and Pedestrian Action Prior Fatal and Severe Injury Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes, 2014-19 ................................................................................................................ A-31 Figure 66 Locations of Most Common Crash Types Involving People Walking ................... A-34 Figure 67 Driver and Bicyclist Actions Prior to Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes, 2014-19 ............... A-35 Figure 68 Driver and Bicyclist Actions Prior to Fatal and Severe Injury Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes at an Intersection, 2014-19 ...................................................................................... A-35 Figure 69 Locations of Most Common Crash Types Involving People Biking ...................... A-39 Figure 70 Driver Actions Prior to Vehicle Only Crashes, 2014-19 ........................................ A-40 Figure 71 Driver Actions Prior to Fatal and Severe Injury Motor Only Crashes................... A-40 DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | v
Figure 72 Severity of Crashes with Impairment ................................................................... A-41 Figure 73 Severity of Crashes without Impairment ............................................................. A-42 Figure 74 Crash Severity by Cost of Crash Type and Associated Weighting .......................... C-1 Figure 75 Converting Crash Weight to Score ......................................................................... C-1 Figure 76 Elements of Equity ................................................................................................. C-2 Figure 77 Proximity to Key Destinations Criteria .................................................................... C2 DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-1
1 Introduction
On December 10, 2019, the Mountain View City Council unanimously adopted a Vision Zero Policy to eliminate fatal traffic crashes in Mountain View by 2030. The adopted policy built on over two years of work by the community, City staff, and elected officials to elevate the topic of transportation safety in Mountain View.
Mountain View’s Vision Zero commitment sets a goal to eliminate fatal traffic crashes by 2030.1 The Policy sets an interim goal of working to decrease severe injuries and crashes by 15% ev ery three years. 2 By 2030, the City of Mountain View’s goal is to decrease severe crashes by 50%3 and eliminate fatal traffic crashes.
The Mountain View Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan (VZAP/LRSP) provides guidance on future actions and potential projects to improve transportation safety based on analysis of crash history, engagement, and community demographics such as age, gender and race . The actions and projects include both infrastructure recommendations and non- infrastructure programmatic and policy recommendations organized by the emphasis areas. The combination of the two plans addresses crashes systemically and recommend infrastructure and non- infrastructure improvements.
WHAT IS A VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN (VZAP)?
The VZAP, policies, plans, programs, and approaches
related to engineering/infrastructure, education,
enforcement, emergency response, encouragement,
engagement, equity, and evaluation (the “E’s”) are used to reduce the risk of fatality and serious injury on a
community’s streets (Figure 1). This plan provides a
framework to identify and prioritize strategies to prevent severe injury and fatal crashes based on a data driven
approach that focuses on the high injury network (Figure 2).
1 City of Mountain View Vision Zero Policy, December 2019. 2 The baseline 3-year average calculated in 2018 is 19 people, averaged from crashes in 2014, 2015, and 2016 due to an 18- month delay in the availability of statewide data.
3 Fifty percent reduction is from a 2016 baseline of 15 crashes.
Figure 1 Vision Zero "7E"s
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-2
Figure 2 High Injury Network, 2014-2019
Since the adoption of the initial Vision Zero policy in December 2019, the following actions have been implemented:
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-3
• Established the Vision Zero Working Group and improved interdepartmental communication and coordination on various transportation safety issues;
• Analyzed Pedestrian Quality of Service and Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress as part of AccessMV; • Prioritized and funded safety improvements along the City’s High Injury Network (including complete streets projects on El Camino Real, Shoreline Boulevard, Middlefield Road, and California Street) as part of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and grant efforts; • Resumed and expanded the Mountain View Safe Routes to School program; • Analyzed and expanded the City’s crossing guard program from 9 guards in 2019 to 21 in 2023; • Initiated the development of the Active Transportation Plan (underway); and • Started work on a Vision Zero Outreach, Marketing and Engagement project (underway).
WHAT IS A LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN (LRSP)?
A Local Road Safety Plan ( LRSP) provides a framework to systematically identify, analyze, and prioritize safety measures for local roadways based on California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) guidance and statewide Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). It produces a prioritized list of infrastructure countermeasures and the locations to consider implementing these measures in order to reduce risk of future fatal and severe injury crashes.
Local jurisdictions are required have an adopted LRSP to be eligible for state funding opportunities through the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP ). The City has used past HSIP grants help fund complete street improvements aimed at enhancing safety.
The LRSP process for the City of Mountain View follows the four -step process developed by the Federal Highway Administration:4
1. Identify stakeholders: coordinate with Vision Zero Working Group (VZWG);
2. Use safety data: identify crash types, roadway and land use factors;
3. Choose proven solutions: determine emphasis areas and select candidate countermeasures ; and
4. Implement solutions: screen and prioritize candidate locations for safety countermeasures , prioritize and advance projects through engineering feasibility evaluation, design and construction.
STAKEHOLDER AND COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Throughout the VZAP/ LRSP process, the project team engaged with the Vision Zero Inter -Departmental Working Group (VZWG) and the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC). The team also engaged with the broader Mountain View community to seek feedback on major project milestones.
Vision Zero Working Group (VZWG)
The VZWG typically meets twice a year to discuss and review components of the Vision Zero Action Plan. VZWG includes staff from:
Public Works (Transportation Planning, Traffic Engineering, Civil Infrastructure, Land Development, Streets Maintenance, and Construction Engineering Division sections) Community Development (Planning and Economic Development) Police (Traffic Enforcement and Analysis)
4 Federal Highway Administration. Local Road Safety Plans Website. https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/LRSPDIY/safety-data.cfm DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 1-4
City Manager (Sustainability and Communications and Outreach) Fire (Office of Emergency Services)
Community Services (Parks and Open Space, Urban Forestry, Recreation)) Library
Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC)
The Mountain View Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee ( BPAC) is a five -member committee of Council - appointed residents that advise the City Council and staff on active transportation policies, projects and programs.
BPAC reviewed elements of the VZAP at their meetings on January 27, 2021, March 30, 2022, February 22, 2023, and March 27, 2024.
Additionally, BPAC has reviewed various programs or projects related to, or arising from, Vision Zero analysis including Safe Routes to School and El Camino Real Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements project.
Community Engagement
On March 24, 2022, a community meeting was held to review crash analysis, countermeasures and prioritization criteria as well as solicit community input on traffic safety issues . A second community meeting was held on March 27, 2023, to review the VZAP prioritization process , emphasis areas , priority locations and non- infrastructure strategies. In addition, several community meetings have been held to advance specific actions including projects that have been included in the capital improvement program (CIP) as a result of Vi sion Zero data analysis. Figure 3 shows the integrated VZAP/LRSP process.
Figure 3 VZAP/LRSP Process
Vision Zero Policy
VZWG, Public
Engagement,
BPAC & Council
Dec. 2019
VZAP/LRSP Start
Consultant Selection
VZWG
May. 2020
Crash Data and
Systemic Safety
Analysis
VZWG & BPAC
Jan. 2021
Safety Projects in CIP
Expansion of Safety
education
BPAC & Council
Jun. - Nov. 2021
Countermeasure
Toolbox
Prioritization Criteria
VZWG, BPAC, CTC
& Public
Engagement
Mar. 2022
Emphasis Areas
Segment and
Intersection Projects
VZWG, BPAC &
Public Engagement
Feb.-Mar. 2023
VZAP/LRSP Report
VZWG, BPAC, CTC
& Public
Engagement
Mar. - May. 2024
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-5
2 Systemic Safety Analysis
Understanding the transportation safety risks is a fundamental piece of the VZAP/LRSP and is required of the City to be eligible to apply for Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding.
A systemic safety analysis focuses on understanding the factors associated with historic crashes to support citywide investments in countermeasures that could prevent crashes from happening at the same or similar locations. It is simultaneously a preliminary site analysis and a systemic approach. This systemic safety analysis includes identifying risk factors associated with multiple crashes, which could be addressed to enhance safety. A systemic analysis applies not only to infrastructure changes but also programming and policy items .
The systemic safety analysis for this integrated VZAP/LRSP examined California Statewide Integrated Traffic Record System (SWITRS) data from 2014 th rough 2019 via the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) developed by SafeTREC at the University of California, Berkeley. This data was examined to identify the who, what, where, when, and why of crashes, particularly serious injury or fatal crashes. Data on crashes that took place at railroad intersections was provided by Caltrain and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and is not part of the analyzed dataset.5 Three additional years (2019 to 2022) were added to provide an update to the overall crash analysis .
The detailed Systemic Safety Analysis is presented in Appendix A. Key findings are listed in the sections below.
Overall Crash Trends and Demographics
The analysis found that crashes in which someone was killed or severely injured (KSI) increased over the nine years for which the City has data, with a dip in the first year of the pandemic (Figure 4 and Figure 5).
In relation to transportation mode, almost all c rashes involved people driving , however, bicyclists and pedestrians are overrepresented as crash victims. Specifically, a majority of those killed or seriously injured (KSIs) in crashes were involved in driver-bicyclist and driver -pedestrian crashes (61% of KSIs). People walking and biking were therefore disproportionately affected compared to their mode share (Figure 6).
In terms of demographics, young people, men, Black people and Latinos are overrepresented in crashes. Y oung adults represent 7% of the City ’s population yet are involved in 12% of crashes . Males represent 53% of the City’s population yet are involved in 76% of the bicycle crashes and 57% of the vehicle crashes. Black people represent 2% of the City’s population, but 4% of the crashes. And Latinos represents 18% of Mountain View’s population but are involved in 22% of all crashes.
5 Consistent with the analysis carried out by the City of Mountain View in 2019 in support of their Vision Zero Policy, the analysis includes only those crashes that occurred on local streets and on State roads where the City has enforcement, access, or maintenance authority. Therefore, crashes that took place on El Camino Real and Central Expressway are included but crashes on U.S. 101, SR 85, and SR 237 are excluded. Crashes that took place at the intersection of a local street with a ramp leading to U.S. 101, SR 85, or SR 237 are also included. D ata associated with crashes at road crossings is restricted to location, date, number of fatalities, and number of injuries and is therefore excluded from some of the analysis.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-6
Figure 4 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes per 100,000 people by year with 3-year average, 2014-2022
Figure 5 Severe Injury Crashes per 100,000 people by year with 3-year average, 2014-2022
Mountain View total population from US Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates for 2014-2021, and 1-year estimates for 2022, Table DP05, with 2022 provisional crash data.
11 11 11
13 15
19 11
19 24
14.3 14.1 14.0
16.2 18.5
23.3 13.7
23.1 29.6
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Local KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes per 100,000 people
3 year moving avg. (KSI crashes)
3 year moving avg. (KSI crashes per 100,000)
11 7
11 10 10
15 9
16 22
14.3 9.0
14.0 12.5 12.3
18.4 11.2
19.4 27.1
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Local SI Crashes
SI Crashes per 100,000 people
3 year moving avg. (SI crashes)
3 year moving avg. (SI crashes per 100,000)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-7
Figure 6 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Mode, 2014-19
High Injury Network and Safety Corridors
The Systemic Safety Analysis found that crashes were concentrated Downtown and on the High Injury Network (Figure 2). Within this network, El Camino Real is consistently the highest injury corridor. Other corridors on the City’s High Injury Network include Shoreline Boulevard, Rengstorff Avenue, Middlefield Road, Central Expressway, California Street, El Monte Avenue, Old Middlefield Way, Ellis Street, and San Antonio Road.
Based on the California Vehicle Code (CVC) ,6 a Safety Corridor is a roadway segment within an overall roadway network where the highest number of serious injury and fatality crashes occur . Mountain View ’s process for identifying the High Injury Network (HIN) under the VZAP / LRSP is consistent with the CVC Safety Corridor definition and includes the following corridors within Mountain View City limits:
1. Rengstorff Avenue from El Camino Real to Garcia Avenue/Charleston Road;
2. Shoreline Boulevard from El Camino Real to North Road;
3. California Street from San Antonio Road to Hope Street;
4. Ellis Street from Middlefield Road to Manila Avenue; and
5. El Monte Avenue from Springer Road to El Camino Real;
6. San Antonio Road from El Camino Real to Central Expressway.
7. Middlefield Road from western city limit (400 feet east of San Antonio Road) to Central Expressway;
8. Old Middlefield Way from Middlefield Road to US-101;
6 California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 22358.7(a)(1) instructs Caltrans to define safety corridors in the revised California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) based on considerations regarding the number of serious injuries and fatalities.
54%
8%
38%
0% 0%
37%
27%
36%
0% 0%
76%
7%
3%
7% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Motor vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Public transit Other
Fatal Crashes
Severe Injury Crashes
Mode Share for Commute Trips
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-8
El Camino Real and Central Expressway are listed on the City’s High Injury Network, but do not meet Safety Corridor criteria because they are not within the authority of the City of Mountain View. These roads are within Caltrans and Santa Clara County jurisdictions, respectively.
Segments identified as Safety Corridors represent approximately 7% percent of Mountain View’s roadway network, which is well within the 20 percent maximum established under the CVC.
Roadway and Environmental Characteristics
The Systemic Safety Analysis identified several key roadway and environmental characteristics that were associated with fatal and severe injury crashes. Specifically, arterial roads with a posted speed limit of above 35 mph represent 20% of the City’s s treets (per linear miles) and 73% of KSI crashes in Mountain View . Additionally, intersections of roadways with a posted speed limit (PSL) of 35 mph with roadways with a PSL 25 mph represent 50% of KSI crashes.
Other key roadway factors include vehicular volume: Roadways with higher traffic volumes (10,000 to 20,0000 average daily trips or ADT) represent 7% of City roadways (per linear mile) and 38% of fatal crashes. Also, a majority (53%) of KSI crashes occurred at intersections.
In terms of environmental and land use factors, c rashes occurred more frequently during the e vening peak hours from 3 P.M to 6 P.M . Almost half (44%) of all crashes occurred within ¼-mile of a school, and crashes near schools or parks were more likely to involve children. Additionally, 14% of total crashes took place within 100 feet of a transit stop, and crashes near transit disproportionately affected pedestrians and bicyclists.
Key Maneuvers and Crash Factors
Based on the analysis, eight key maneuvers were involved in KSI crashes in Mountain View, including failure to yield to pedestrian and automobile right of way, pedestrian violation, unsafe speed and driving or bicycling under the influence of alcohol or drugs. The most typical types of maneuvers involved in KSI crashes are listed in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7 Key Maneuvers Involved in KSI Crashes, 2014-2019 Crash Maneuver Type Illustration
Driver making left turn and pedestrian crossing in a crosswalk at a signalized intersection without protected left turns
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-9
Crash Maneuver Type Illustration
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian in a crosswalk at a one- or two-way, stop-controlled intersection
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian crossing between intersections
Bicyclist proceeding straight broadsided by a driver at a signalized intersection
Bicyclist involved between intersections (e.g. sideswipe)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 2-10
Crash Maneuver Type Illustration
Driver turning right, bicyclist crossing (e.g. right hook)
Driver hits driver (broadside) between intersections (e.g. driveway t- bone)
Driver runs off road (e.g. fixed object) and/or the wrong side of the road (e.g. wrong way)
Driver or rider operating on the wrong side of the road (e.g. wrong way)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 3-11
3 Emphasis Areas
WHAT ARE EMPHASIS AREAS?
Emphasis areas represent topics that need to be addressed to achieve Vision Zero goals. The emphasis areas were identified through the crash and systemic analysis and vetted through stakeholder and community engagement (as described in Chapter 1).
The emphasis areas further define Mountain View’s Vision Zero goals and align with Council’s 2019 Vision Zero Policy. The areas also complement state -level safety planning goals and Challenge Areas identified in the California Strategic Highway Safety Plan (CA SHSP), an important consideration for future planning and funding. The overall goal for each of the eight emphasis areas are outlined in Figure 8.
Figure 8 VZAP/LRSP Emphasis Areas
Emphasis Area Goal Based on Crash Analysis
High Injury Network Achieve Vision Zero policy goals of reducing severe injury crashes and eliminating fatalities
Equity Priority Location Improve traffic safety for members of the Spanish speaking community throughout the city
School and Senior Center
Routes
Reduce crashes and KSIs along school routes and routes to the senior center Pedestrian Crossings Reduce pedestrian crashes at existing intersections and midblock crossing locations
Bicycle Safety Reduce bicycle crashes throughout the city Driver Behavior Increase driver attention to the roadways Speed Management Reduce prevailing speeds by roadway design on streets in Mountain View Data and Technology Increase transportation safety through use of data and future thinking including identifying data gaps in current data system, develop city policies that addresses emerging technology such automated vehicles
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-12
4 Engineering Countermeasures
The countermeasure toolbox provides an overview of infrastructure improvements that are best suited and demonstrated to address the specific types of fatal and severe crashes. The main sources for countermeasures include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)’s Proven Safety Countermeasures, other FHWA guidance such as FHWA Clear inghouse. The implementation of safety countermeasures will require further engineering analysis, feasibility study and design evaluation.
Appendix B provides a toolbox of safety countermeasures including a description of each countermeasure recommended for Mountain View , along with supporting documentation, feasibility considerations, and candidate locations that might be appropriate for their application. This information is an essential part of a LRSP in order to be completed in accordance with Caltrans requirements. Most of the listed safety countermeasures have already been used in some contexts in Mountain View.
Figure 7 and the following section summarizes common crash types and the safety countermeasures that can be used to address them. These countermeasures can be generally categorized as pedestrian improvements, bicycle improvements, and other multimodal improvements.
Pedestrian improvements that are recommended to enhance safety include the following:
Pedestrian signal improvements such as leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) and decreased walking speed for pedestrian clearance intervals;
Protected left turns and separated phases for large multi-lane intersections; Curb radius reductions;
Curb extensions;
High-visibility crosswalks;
Medians and pedestrian refuge islands;
Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs);
Pedestrian hybrid beacons (PHBs); and
Access management such as consolidation of driveways.
Bicycle improvements for enhancing safety include the following:
Bike signal phasing;
Bike treatments at intersections such as green bike boxes, and two-stage turn queue boxes; Protected intersections;
Class IV protected bikeways;
Road diets and r oadway configuration changes such as reducing the number or width of travel lanes, widening sidewalk and slip lane removal; and
Bicycle boulevard treatments.
Other multimodal improvements to enhance safety include the following:
Enhanced delineation such as pavement markings, and enhanced reflectivity of signage; DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-13
Improved intersection and crosswalk lighting, extension lines, and signage; Operational improvements such as no right turn on red restrictions and speed management by design; Traffic calming measures including but not limited to:
− Horizontal deflections such as chicane, traffic circles, and roundabouts, − Vertical deflections such as speed humps, speed tables, and raised crosswalks, − Narrowing such as reductions in travel lane widths and roadway widths, and − Trees in the public park strip or frontage; and
Speed feedback signs.
Figure 9 provides a quick reference guide of the most common fatal and severe crash types in Mountain View and the countermeasures that could be used to address them.
Figure 9 Summary of Common Fatal and Severe Crash Types and Potential Countermeasures Common KSI Crash Types in
Mountain View Crash Type Illustration Potential Safety Countermeasures Driver making left turn hits
pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at
signalized intersection
Pedestrian signal improvements
Protected left turns (signalized
intersection)
Curb radius reduction or curb
extensions
High-visibility crosswalks
Median and crossing islands
Protected intersections
Driver proceeding straight hits
pedestrian in crosswalk at one or
two-way stop-controlled
intersection
Curb radius reductions or curb
extensions
High-visibility crosswalks
Median and crossing islands
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons on uncontrolled
approach
Pedestrian hybrid beacons
Access management
Driver proceeding straight hits
pedestrian crossing between
intersections
New or improved mid-block crossing
elements such as:
Curb extensions
High-visibility crosswalks
Median and crossing islands
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons
Pedestrian hybrid beacons
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-14
Common KSI Crash Types in
Mountain View Crash Type Illustration Potential Safety Countermeasures Road diets
Traffic calming
Driver proceeding straight at
signalized intersection hits
bicyclist proceeding straight
(broadside)
Median and crossing islands
Bike signal phasing
Bike treatments at intersections
Protected intersections
Driver hits bicyclist between
intersections
Class IV protected bikeways
Road diets
Bicycle boulevards
Access management
Speed management
Driver hits driver (broadside)
between intersections
Road diets
Access management
Speed management
Traffic calming
Improved visibility of conflicting
traffic
Driver runs off road (e.g. fixed
object) and/or the wrong side of
the road (e.g. wrong way)
Enhanced delineation such as
pavement markings; and
Improved intersection, lighting
and signage
Driver or rider operating on the
wrong side of the road (e.g. wrong
way)
Improved lighting, extension
lines and signage
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 4-15
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-16
5 Candidate Locations
This section summarizes candidate locations for safety interventions based on the findings of the crash data analysis.
Candidate locations are identified based on:
• The presence of roadway and land use factors associated with fatal and severe crashes in the city (LRSP methodology); or
• A history of crashes, especially fatal and severe injury crashes, in that particular location (VZAP methodology).
The two methods will allow Mountain View to select the highest priority locations for improvement from a list of potential projects that includes places where crashes have already occurred, and places where there is opportunity to proactively and systemically enhance safety to prevent fatal and severe crashes in the future.
This section also describe s the prioritization method that was used to select the five highest priority locations for design and funding.
ROADWAY AND LAND USE FACTORS
The following roadway and land use characteristics were associated with a high incidence of fatal and severe injury crashes in Mountain View from 2014 through 2019. Locations with these characteristics are mapped in Figure 10. Streets with posted speed of 35 mph or above, which represent 20% of streets (per linear mile) and 73% of KSI crashes in Mountain View;
Intersections of 35 mph streets with 25 mph streets, which represent 50% of KSI crashes; Signalized intersections, which represent 30% of KSI crashes; Two-way-stop controlled intersections , which represent 18% of all KSI crashes and 45% of KSI crashes involving people walking; and
Commercial areas and Precise Plan zones, including Downtown Mountain View , which represent 60% of crashes, about 40% of land area. (The Castro Pedestrian Mall program was not implemented at the start of this study.)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-17
Figure 10 Locations of Roadway and Land Use Factors Associated with Fatal and Severe Crashes
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-18
HIGH CRASH LOCATIONS
The City of Mountain View Vision Zero Working Group identified a High Injury Network. Figure 11 identifies the specific segments of that network that have the highest rate per mile of fatal and severe crashes, roadway and land use factors, and common crash types. N ote that crash data used for this plan is prior to Castro Pedestrian Mall implementation, which was implemented summer 2020.
Figure 11 High Crash Street Segments (Top Ten from 2014-2019 based on KSI Crashes per Mile) Location
Total
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
per Mile
Roadway and Land
Use Factors
Common Crash Types in this
Location
East El Camino Real
(east of Grant Rd)
61 9 10.04 40 mph
Commercial /
Precise Plan
Driver right turn with pedestrian
Driver left turn (motor vehicle
only)
Ellis St (E Middlefield Rd
to Manila Ave)
16 4 5.68 40 mph
Commercial /
Precise Plan
Driver ran off road
Motorcycle involved
N Rengstorff Ave
(Central Expwy to
Middlefield Rd)
45 3 4.69 35 mph
Commercial /
Precise Plan
Driver left turn with bicyclist or
pedestrian
Pedestrian crossing between
intersections
Amphitheatre Pkwy
(Garcia Ave to Shoreline
Blvd)
23 3 4.45 35 mph Driver proceeding straight with
bicyclist (sideswipe)
N Shoreline Blvd
(Central Expwy to
Middlefield Rd)
33 3 4.42 35 mph
Commercial /
Precise Plan
Driver ran off road
Driver left turn with bicyclist
El Monte Ave (Full
Extent in Mountain
View)
13 2 4.34 35 mph
Commercial /
Precise Plan
Pedestrian crossing in crosswalk
and driver proceeding straight
California St (Rengstorff
Ave to Shoreline Blvd)
34 4 4.31 35 mph Bicycle involved
S Rengstorff Ave (El
Camino Real to Central
Expwy)
44 2 3.55 35 mph
Commercial /
Precise Plan
Bicycle involved
San Antonio Rd (Full
Extent in Mountain
View)
30 2 3.48 35 mph
Commercial /
Precise Plan
Bicycle or pedestrian at signalized
intersection
Castro St (Central
Expressway to
Miramonte Ave /Marilyn
Dr)
54 4 3.46 Commercial /
Precise Plan
Pedestrian crossing between
intersections
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-19
Data analysis conducted for the Local Road Safety Plan found that people walking and biking suffer from fatal and severe crashes at a disproportionately high rate in Mountain View compared to their mode share. During the period from 2014-2019 the City’s highest-crash intersections for people walking and biking include El Camino Real/Sylvan, Showers/Latham, Rengstorff/Latham, Charleston/Huff, El Monte/Marich, El Camino Real/Dale, San Antonio/Fayette, Ortega/Latham and Shoreline/Villa. Figure 12 lists these locations along with information on total crashes, total fatal and severe crashes, and roadway and land use factors.
Four intersections have been upgraded since the analysis period: Showers/Latham crosswalk was upgraded from in- pavement flashers to RRFBs; El Monte/Marich was upgraded to an LED -enhanced crosswalk with pedestrian refuge island; Shoreline/Villa was reconfigured with a new marked crosswalk, protected left turns , and slip lane removal ; and Charleston/Huff was converted to a 8-phase signal to eliminate left turn conflicts. Additional improvements are in design for Rengstorff/Latham.
Figure 12 Crash Intersections for People Walking and Biking (Top Ten, Ranked by Total Injury Crashes) Location
Ped/Bike
Crashes
KSI
Crashes Roadway and Land Use Factors Crash Types
El Camino Real and
Sylvan Ave / The
Americana*
3 2 Signalized
40 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Commercial/ Precise Plan
Driver right turn
with bicyclist
proceeding straight
Showers Dr and
Latham St
6 1 Three-way intersection (2023 RRFB
on Latham and Stop control on
Showers)
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Commercial/ Precise Plan
Driver and bike
proceeding straight
(broadside)
Pedestrian in
crosswalk with
driver left turn or
straight
Rengstorff Ave and
Latham St
5 1 Signalized
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Driver left turn with
pedestrian
Charleston Rd and
Huff Ave
5 1 Signalized
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Commercial/ Precise Plan
Driver left turn with
pedestrian in
crosswalk
El Monte Ave and
Marich Way
4 1 Three-way intersection (2019 LED
enhanced crosswalk on El Monte
Ave and stop control on Marich
Way)
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Pedestrian crossing
in crosswalk
El Camino Real and
Dale Ave*
3 1 Three-way intersection (Stop
controlled on Dale)
30 mph with 40 mph posted speed
limits
Commercial/ Precise Plan
Driver right turn
with pedestrian in
crosswalk
San Antonio Rd and
Fayette Dr
3 1 Signalized Bike-involved
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-20
Location
Ped/Bike
Crashes
KSI
Crashes Roadway and Land Use Factors Crash Types
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Commercial/ Precise Plan
Ortega Ave and
Latham St
3 1 Commercial/ Precise Plan Driver left turn with
pedestrian in
crosswalk
Shoreline Blvd and
Villa St
9 0 Signalized (2022 reconfiguration
and slip lane removal)
35 mph with 30 mph posted speed
limits
Driver left turn with
bicyclist or
pedestrian
*Intersections not owned by City of Mountain View
Figure 13 lists the top ten intersections for motor -vehicle-only crashes in the 2014- 2019 analysis period. These include SR237/Middlefield, Moffett/Central Avenue, Rengstorff/Old Middlefield, California/Franklin, El Camino Real/Shoreline, Plymouth/Joaquin, El Camino Real;/Phyllis, Central Expressway/Rengstorff, Rengstorff/Latham, and Shoreline/Villa. Most fatal and severe crashes involving motor vehicles took place between intersections during this study period.
Since the analysis period, safety enhancement s have been implemented at Shoreline/Villa, and California/Franklin.
Additional improvements are being planned or designed for SR 237/Middlefield, Moffett/Central Ave, El Camino Real/Shoreline, El Camino Real/Phyllis, Central Expressway/Rengstorff, and Rengstorff/Latham.
Figure 13 Crash Intersections for Motor Vehicles (Top Ten, Ranked by Total Injury Crashes) Location
Total
Motor
Vehicle
Crashes
Motor
Vehicle
KSI
Crashes
Roadway and Land Use
Characteristics Crash Types
SR 237 on/off
ramps and
Middlefield Rd*
43 2 Signalized
ramps speed not available
Broadside
Signal violation
Moffett Blvd and
Central Ave
6 1 Signalized
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Broadside
Signal or ROW
violation
Rengstorff Ave
and Old
Middlefield Way
5 1 Signalized
35 mph with 35 mph posted speed
limits
Broadside
Signal violation
California St and
Franklin St
10 0 Two-way stop (2020)
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Broadside
ROW violation
El Camino Real
and Shoreline
Blvd*
10 0 Signalized
35 mph with 35 mph posted speed
limits
Broadside
Signal violation
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-21
Location
Total
Motor
Vehicle
Crashes
Motor
Vehicle
KSI
Crashes
Roadway and Land Use
Characteristics Crash Types
Plymouth Street
and Joaquin Ave
8 0 Four-way stop
25 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Broadside
ROW violation
West El Camino
Real and Phyllis
Ave*
8 0 Signalized
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Unsafe speed/Rear
end
Signal
violation/Broadside
Central Expwy
and Rengstorff
Ave*
7 0 Signalized
45 mph with 35 mph posted speed
limits
Broadside
Signal or ROW
violation
Rengstorff Ave
and Latham St
6 0 Signalized
35 mph with 25 mph posted speed
limits
Broadside
Signal or ROW
violation
Shoreline Blvd
and Villa St
6 0 Signalized (2022 reconfiguration
and slip lane removal)
35 mph with 30 mph posted speed
limits
Broadside
Signal or ROW
violation
*Intersections not owned by City of Mountain View
High crash intersections for walking, biking and motor vehicles as well as high KSI roadway segments and the high injury network are displayed in Figure 14.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-22
Figure 14 Top 10 Crash Locations, All Modes
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-23
PRIORITIZATION METHOD
In conjunction with community members and BPAC, the project team developed three criteria to prioritize key street segments and intersections for the installation of countermeasures. These criteria include:
History and severity of crashes,
Equity, and
Proximity to key destinations.
More detailed information on the criteria and prioritization method is provided in Appendix 3.
The above criteria were applied to twenty-seven key segments and twenty-two key intersections in the City in order to develop a prioritized list of segments and intersections. The candidate segments and intersections were identified through the systemic safety analysis. As displayed in Figure 15, Figure 16, and Figure 17, each key segment was evaluated, with a total score that reflects a combination of the three key criteria.
Based on this analysis, Rengstorff Avenue corridor emerged as the highest VZAP/LRSP priority in the City. Other high priority segments include portions of El Camino Real, Shoreline Boulevard, California Street, El Monte Avenue, San Antonio Road, Middlefield Road, Latham Street, Grant Road, and Villa Street.
Many of these segments are associated with safety en hancements that have been implemented since the study period; have funding through construction in the next two years through the City Capital Improvement Program (CIP); or have Council approved conditions of approval for improvements that would be implemented by private development in the next five years. Locations with implemented, funded or conditioned improvements that fully address the respective maneuvers were not carried forward in the prioritization process.
Figure 15 Total Score and Project Information for Key Segments Corridor Segment Score
Projects Constructed since 2019 or
Fully Funded for Construction
S Rengstorff Ave El Camino Real – Central
Expressway
11 -
W El Camino Real* Rengstorff Ave – Castro St 10 CIP 20-61 High Visibility Crossings, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (Pettis), Protected
Bikeways
N Shoreline Blvd Central Expressway – Middlefield
Rd
10 CIP 17-41 Protected Intersection at
Montecito, Protected Bikeways from
Montecito to Middlefield.
N Rengstorff Blvd Central Expressway – Middlefield
Rd
10 -
California St Rengstorff Ave – Shoreline Blvd 10 CIP 21-40 Pilot Road Diet, High Visibility Crossings, Midblock Crossings, Parking
Protected Bikeways, and Protected
Intersections
S Shoreline Blvd El Camino Real – Central
Expressway
9 CIP 21-37 Shoreline Pathway from Wright to
Villa, CIP 16-27 Shoreline/Villa High Visibility
Crossings, Slip Lane Removal
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-24
Corridor Segment Score
Projects Constructed since 2019 or
Fully Funded for Construction
E El Camino Real* East of Grant Rd 9 CIPs 20-61 & 22-29 High Visibility Crossings, Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (Crestview),
Protected Bikeways
El Monte Ave Full Extent 8 CIPs 19-61 & 21-38 Road Diet, High Visibility Crossings, Buffered Bike Lanes, Green Street
Elements, Slip Lane Removal, Protected
Intersections (where feasible) pending
additional funding
San Antonio Rd Full Extent (in Mountain View) 8 -
E Middlefield Rd East of SR 85 7 CIP 24-28 High-visibility crossings, protected bikeways, and protected intersections on
Middlefield Road from Moffett Boulevard to
Bernardo Avenue.
Latham St West of Shoreline Blvd 7 High Visibility Crosswalks (completed) Grant Rd Southern City Limits – El Camino
Real
7 CIP 21-39 Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
(Grant/Sleeper)
Villa St Full Extent 7 High Visibility Crossings (Shoreline), Speed Humps
California St West of Rengstorff Ave 7 CIP 21-40 California Complete Streets Pilot (from Shoreline to Showers) – Road Diet,
High Visibility Crossings, Midblock Crossings,
Parking Protected Bikeways & Protected
Intersections.
N Rengstorff Ave North of Middlefield Rd 7 -
Central
Expressway*
Shoreline Blvd – Bernardo Ave 7 Managed and maintained by Santa Clara County
Old Middlefield
Way
Full Extent 7 -
E Evelyn Ave Full Extent 6 -
Amphitheater
Pkwy
Full Extent 6 Protected bikeways from Bill Graham to
Shoreline, protected intersection treatments
at Shoreline/Amphitheater
N Whisman Road Central Expressway – Fairchild Dr 6 -
Miramonte Ave El Camino Real – Southern City
Limits
6 CIP 20-01 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
and Bulbouts at Miramonte/Hans, Road Diet
and Buffered or Protected Bikeways from
Cuesta to Castro, Landscaped Medians Hans
to Castro, Sidewalk Gap Closure Starr to
Barbara
Sierra Vista Ave Full Extent 6 CIP xx All-way stop at Sierra Vista/Colony DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-25
Corridor Segment Score
Projects Constructed since 2019 or
Fully Funded for Construction
Cuesta Dr Miramonte Ave – Grant Rd 6 Buffered bike lanes from Springer to Miramonte
E Dana St Calderon Ave – Moorpark Ave 5 -
Garcia Ave Bayshore Blvd – Amphitheater
Pkway
4 -
*Intersections not owned by City of Mountain View
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-26
The same scoring and screening process was applied to the twenty -two candidate intersections. Intersections that emerged as the highest priorities include El Camino Real/Castro, Showers/Latham, Middlefield/Independence , Charleston/Amphitheater, Ortega/Latham, San Antonio/Fayette, Moffett/SR -85, Rengstorff/Old Middlefield, California/Pacchetti, and Whisman/Middlefield. These intersections as well as scoring results and funded projects are listed in Figure 16.
Figure 16 Total Score and Project Information per Key Intersection Street 1 Street 2 Score Completed and Funded Project through Construction El Camino Real Castro St 9 CIPs 20-61 & 22-29 High Visibility Crossings, Protected Bikeways
Showers Dr Latham St 8 RRFB Crossing Showers
Middlefield Rd Independence Ave 8 LED Enhanced Crosswalk Charleston Rd Amphitheater Pkwy 8 CIP 16-59 (Huff Ave to Salado Dr) Protected bikeways, protected intersections, sidewalks, and dedicated transit lanes
Ortega Ave Latham St 8
San Antonio Rd Fayette Dr 8 Partial Signal Upgrade
Charleston Rd Huff Ave 7 High Visibility Crossings, Transit Lanes Traffic signal upgrade (protected left signal)
Moffett Blvd SR 85 7 High Visibility Crossings
Rengstorff Ave Old Middlefield Way 7
California Street Pacchetti Way 7 Traffic signal upgrade to eliminate the left turn conflicts with peds crossing California by implementing split phasing in the northbound and southbound direction
Whisman Rd Middlefield Rd 6 CIP 24-28 High Visibility Crossing, Protected Intersection Whisman Rd Flynn Ave 6
Shoreline Blvd Amphitheater Pkwy 6 Protected Intersection (southside) E El Camino Real Grant Rd 5 Bike lanes on El Camino Real in 2024 Sierra Vista Ave Hackett Ave 5
Mountain Shadows
Dr
Shoreline Blvd 5
Rengstorff Ave San Ramon Ave 5
Charleston Rd Independence Ave 5
Bryant Ave Shady Spring Ln 4.5
Rengstorff Ave Plymouth St 4
Evelyn Ave Bernardo Ave 4
Madison Dr Van Buren Circ 4
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 5-27
The geographic distribution of the scored segments and intersections is illustrated in Figure 17.
Figure 17 Geographic Distribution of Scored Key Segments and Intersections
In a ddition to the three prioritization criteria , additional criteria related to the proven effectiveness of the countermeasures, engineering feasibility, opportunit ies to coordinate improvements with repaving or utility work, and the availability and timing of grant or other funds will be considered when projects are propo sed during the
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-28
capital improvement program (CIP) process. In general, City staff only applies for grant funds for projects that have already been identified as priorities through Council -approved plans processes (such as AccessMV, the VZAP/LRSP, and the forthcoming Active Transportation Plan) and are expected to perform competitively in the respective grant program.
6 Recommendations
The output of an VZAP/ LRSP is a list of recommended prioritized projects to improve road safety in a community.
These projects may be both infrastructure and non- infrastructure projects, which is the case for the recommendations presented in this section. The recommendations are aligned with the goals of the City of Mountain View Vision Zero Policy as well as current and future priority planning and programming efforts.
INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
As discussed in Chapter 2, the following safety corridors within Mountain View City limits have been identified through the VZAP/LRSP process:
1. Rengstorff Avenue from El Camino Real to Garcia Avenue/Charleston Road;
2. Shoreline Boulevard from El Camino Real to North Road;
3. California Street from San Antonio Road to Hope Street;
4. Ellis Street from Middlefield Road to Manila Avenue; and
5. El Monte Avenue from Springer Road to El Camino Real;
6. San Antonio Road from El Camino Real to Central Expressway;
7. Middlefield Road from western city limit (400 feet east of San Antonio Road) to Central Expressway; and
8. Old Middlefield Way from Middlefield Road to US-101.
Based on Caltrans guidance for developing a LRSP, more specific infrastructure recommendations and priorities are provided below. Note that all recommendation s still require further engineering review to determine design adequacy and feasibility.
Prioritized Corridor Segments and Intersections
The following are the prioritized corridor segments and intersections for infrastructure improvements. Th ese lists account for prioritization criteria related to crash history, equity and proximity to destinations. In addition, the list s account for planned network improvements that are funded and included in the City’s approved capital improvement program (CIP).
Recommended improvements indicated in Figure 18 and Figure 19 reflect key crash concerns and City plans and subject to further engineering feasibility analysis. Additionally, recommended improvements may be subject to DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-29
approval by another agency such as Caltrans which owns and regulates State Routes including El Camino Real; the County of Santa Clara which owns and regulates Central Expressway; and Valley Water which oversees waterways such as Stevens Creek Trail at Middlefield Road.
Figure 18 Recommended Safety Corridor Projects
ID Corridor
Segment /
Location
Recommended Improvements
beyond FY2023-247 Other Supporting Documents
S-1 Rengstorff Ave El Camino Real –
Middlefield Rd
Rengstorff Avenue Green
Complete Streets (Appendix D)
CIP 27-xx Rengstorff GCS Study
Shoreline Blvd El Camino Real –
Middlefield Rd
Protected Bikeways from El
Camino Real to Montecito
Shoreline Boulevard Corridor
Study
S-3 California St Showers Drive –
Shoreline Blvd
Permanent Installation –
pending pilot results (26-xx
California Construction
Showers-Shoreline)
21-40 California Complete
Street Pilot and evaluation
S-4 El Monte Ave City Limits to El
Camino Real
El Monte Corridor
Improvements (21-38 pending
additional funding)
El Monte Corridor
Improvements (19-61) & El
Camino Real Streetscape Plan
S-5 Ellis St Full Extent Protected Bikeways
S-6 San Antonio
Rd
Full Extent (in
Mountain View)
Complete Streets Overpass (by
Caltrain with County of Santa
Clara & City of Palo
Alto).Project schedule to be
determined.
-
S-7 E Middlefield
Rd
East of SR 85 Midblock Crossing at LRT and
Sidewalk over SR 85 and
Stevens Creek Trail
East Whisman Precise Plan &
CIP 25-xx Middlefield Road
Across SR85, Feasibility Study
S-8 Latham St West of Shoreline
Blvd
Sharrows, Curb Extensions or
Splitters, Advance Stop Bar,
High Visibility Crosswalks, Bike
Boulevard Signs and Markings
and Speed Humps West of
Escuela St
16-38 Latham/Church Bike
Boulevard (pg. 26-27, 33-35)
S-9 Grant Rd City Limits – El
Camino Real
High Visibility Crosswalks, New
Bikeways (Martens-El Camino
Real)
-
S-10 Central
Expressway
Shoreline Blvd –
Bernardo Ave
High Visibility Crosswalks,
Protected Bikeways (by County
of Santa Clara)
SCC Active Transportation Plan
(underway)
S-11 Old
Middlefield
Way
Full Extent High Visibility Crossings,
Protected Bikeways
Bicycle Transportation Plan
7 CIP References are based on the FY2023-24 Budget as outlined in the June 13, 2023 City Council Item 6.2 Attachment 1 DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-30
ID Corridor
Segment /
Location
Recommended Improvements
beyond FY2023-247 Other Supporting Documents
S-12 E Evelyn Ave Full Extent Bikeways (CIP 25-xx & 27-xx Evelyn Bikeway Design,
Construction)
MV Transit Center Master Plan
S-13 Amphitheater
Pkwy
Full Extent Protected Bikeways North Bayshore Circulation Study Table 1
S-14 N Whisman
Road
Central Expressway
– Fairchild Dr
Complete Streets East Whisman Precise Plan
Table 19
S-15 Miramonte
Ave
El Camino Real –
City Limits
Complete Streets Upgrades
Castro to El Camino Real (23-
31) & Southern City Limits to
Cuesta
Measure B funded Miramonte
Phase 2 Feasibility Study
S-16 Sierra Vista
Ave
Full Extent:
Silverwood Ave –
Rengstorff Ave
Bike Boulevard Treatments Bicycle Transportation Plan
S-17 Cuesta Dr Miramonte Ave –
Grant Rd
Potential Road Diet (where
feasible), Hi Viz Crossings,
Protected Bikeways from
Miramonte to Grant
Pedestrian Master Plan,
Bicycle Transportation Plan
S-18 E Dana St Calderon Ave –
Moorpark Ave
Speed reduction, Potential
Road Diet, Curb radii reduction,
High Visibility Crossing, Slip
Lane Removal, Protected
Bikeways over SR 85
Bicycle Transportation Plan,
Safe Routes to School
Suggested Maps
S-19 Garcia Avenue Bayshore Blvd –
Amphitheater
Parkway
Protected Bikeways North Bayshore Circulation
Study
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-31
Figure 19 Recommended Safety Corridor Projects
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-32
Figure 20 Recommended Safety Intersection Projects
Ran
k Street 1 Street 2
Recommended Improvements
beyond FY2023-248 Source Document
I-1 El Camino Real Castro Street Protected Intersection (CIP 25-xx, ECR/Castro)
El Camino Real
Streetscape Plan
I-2-3 El Camino Real Escuela, El Monte, Protected Intersections (CIP 22-29 ECR/Escuela/El Monte)
El Camino Real
Streetscape Plan
I-4-6 El Camino Real Shoreline,
Calderon, Sylvan
Protected Intersections (27-xx El
Camino Real Construction)
El Camino Real
Streetscape Plan
I-7 Middlefield Rd Independence Ave Median crossing island, pedestrian hybrid beacon, and improved
intersection lighting
I-8 Charleston Rd Amphitheater
Pkwy
High Visibility Crossing, Protected
Intersection
North Bayshore
Circulation Study
I-9 Ortega Ave Latham St Curb extension, high-visibility crosswalk, traffic calming with
traffic circle
Latham Bike
Boulevard Council
Direction
I-10 Moffett Blvd SR 85 Protected Bikeways (24-03) One Bay Area Grant 3 (OBAG3)
I-11 Rengstorff Ave Old Middlefield
Way
High Visibility Crossing CIP 27-xx Rengstorff
GCS Study
I-12 California Street Pacchetti Way Pedestrian Signal Modification, High Visibility Crosswalk, Median
Crossing, Curb Radius Reduction,
Bike Signal Phasing, Bike Treatment
at intersection
San Antonio Precise
Plan
I-13 Whisman Rd Middlefield Rd High Visibility Crossing, Protected Intersection
OBAG3 Projects
I-14 Whisman Rd Flynn Ave High Visibility Crossing East Whisman Precise Plan
I-15 Shoreline Blvd Amphitheater
Pkwy
Curb ramp and hydrant relocation
to clear bikeway
North Bayshore
Precise Plan
I-16 E El Camino Real Grant Rd High visibility crosswalk, Reduced curb radius, Curb extensions,
Green-colored dashed bike lanes,
Pedestrian signal heads, Adjusted
signal timing, Pedestrian refuge
islands, bike box, Right-turn-on-red
restrictions
El Camino
Streetscape Plan
(pg. 23)
I-17 Sierra Vista Ave Hackett Ave High Visibility Crossing, Bi- directional Ramp, Traffic Circle
8 CIP References are based on the FY2023-24 Budget as outlined in the June 13, 2023 City Council Item 6.2 Attachment 1 DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-33
Ran
k Street 1 Street 2
Recommended Improvements
beyond FY2023-248 Source Document
I-18 Shoreline Blvd Mountain Shadows
Dr
Pedestrian hybrid beacon
I-19 Rengstorff Ave Junction Ave (near
San Ramon Ave)
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon at
Junction Avenue
CIP 27-xx Rengstorff
GCS Study
I-20 Charleston Rd Independence Ave Pedestrian Refuge Islands & High Visibility Crossings
I-21 Bryant Ave Shady Spring Ln High Visibility Crossing I-22 Rengstorff Ave Plymouth St Pedestrian hybrid beacon or other improvement
CIP 27-xx Rengstorff
GCS Study
I-23 Evelyn Ave Bernardo Ave High Visibility Crossing Bernardo Undercrossing
I-24 Madison Dr Van Buren Circ Curb Extension
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-34
Figure 21 Recommended Safety Intersection Projects
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-35
In order to support grant applications for a limited number of high priority projects , potential project descriptions, including the corridor context, crash types addressed, recommended improvements, and associated emphasis areas are provided in Appendix D.
Potential grant sources include the FHWA Highway Safety Improvement Program ( HSIP), Caltrans Active Transportation Program ( ATP), and US D OT Safe Streets and Roads for All ( SS4A) Program as well as more local programs such as VTA Measure B programs, BAAQMD Transportation For Clean Air (TFCA ) fund and Transportation Development Act Cycle 3 (TDA3).
NON-INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
Non-infrastructure recommendations focus on policy and programming activities that can be implemented by the city and/or community partners to improve road safety for all road users. Programs and policies may focus on community awareness and understanding of the rights and rules of the road of all travelers regardless of mode; enforcement efforts that focus on behaviors known to be associated with fatal and severe injury crashes, such as speed and yielding; and education on the benefits of roadway improvements and travel mode choices on safety, sustainability and livability in Mountain View. Lastly, the non -infrastructure recommendations include policy and organizational efforts to support Vision Zero, regular monitoring and communications regarding crash da ta and evaluation of road improvement projects to assess progress towards the three stated goals in the 2019 Vision Zero Policy.
The non-infrastructure recommendations were developed using the eight VZAP/LRSP emphasis areas and cover the other “Es” of educ ation, encouragement, engagement, enforcement, emergency response and evaluation ( Figure 22). In accordance with the FHWA Safe System Approach, non- infrastructure recommendations are presented in relation to the five elements:
• Safe Road Users (RU) - Safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes.
• Safe Roads (SR) – Roads designed to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances can greatly reduce the severity of crashes that do occur.
• Safe Speeds (SP) – Speed reduction can accommodate human injury tolerances in three ways: reducing impact forces, providing additional time for drivers to stop, and improving visibility. • Safe Vehicles (VE) - Vehicles are designed and regulated to minimize the occurrence and severity of crashes using safety measures that incorporate the latest technology and • Post-Crash Care (CC) - When a person is injured in a crash, they rely on emergency first responders to quickly locate them, stabilize their injury, and transport them to medical facilities. Post -crash care also includes forensic analysis at the crash site, traffic incident management, and other activities.
Figure 22 Non-Infrastructure Project List
ID Segment / Location Timeline Dept Status
Safe Road Users
RU-1 Continue Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program
with a focus on traffic safety training for
students walking, biking, taking transit and
driving*
Annual PW Underway
RU-2 Strengthen SRTS collaboration and partnerships
with parents, schools and students to encourage
safe walking, biking and school access
Annual PW Underway
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-36
ID Segment / Location Timeline Dept Status
RU-3 Provide helmet giveaways and bicycle repairs at
City or community events such as food pantries,
back to school events or Monster Bash
Annual PW/PD Underway
RU-4 Conduct multilingual Vision Zero Outreach and
Marketing with behavior change campaigns and
targeted media buys on emphasis areas
2024-25 PW/CMO Planning
RU-5 Lead community-promoted walk / bike tours in
different areas of the City with a focus on
encouragement and training for new users
Biannual PW Underway
RU-6 Support traffic safety workshop or walk tour at
Senior Center to identify issues and provide
individualized trip planning/tips for changing
abilities
Biannual PW TBD
RU-7 Encourage community-based bicycle education
and safety classes covering basic skills, network
awareness, laws, rules, and safety tips
Annual PW TBD
RU-8 Implement programs, workshops, or trainings to
empower youth and address high risk behaviors
such as riding against traffic, midblock turns and
not wearing helmets
2024-25 PW/PD Planning
RU-9 Conduct high-visibility enforcement on speed,
distracted/impaired driving, yield compliance,
red light running, and key maneuvers on HIN
and school routes
Ongoing PD Underway
RU-
10 Implement multilingual ambassador program
related to blocked bike lanes and red zones
where parking in such locations introduces
safety concerns
TBD PW/PD TBD
RU-
11 Periodically review the crossing guard program
to optimize its effectiveness
Biannual PW/PD Underway
RU-
12 Provide universal graphics and/or multilingual
communications regarding high visibility
enforcement activities
Annual PD/CMO TBD
RU-
13 Encourage residential transportation demand
management strategies including orientation on
getting around without a car
TBD PW Planning
RU-
14 Support state legislation to incorporate
pedestrian / bicycle safety training into state
education standards
TBD PW/CMO TBD
Safe Roads
SR-1 Implement Impaired Driving Policies* PD TBD
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-37
ID Segment / Location Timeline Dept Status
SR-2 Prioritize capital projects on the HIN, school
routes and equity priority locations as part of
the capital improvement program (CIP) process
Biannual PW Underway
SR-4 Obtain grants to accelerate implementation of
priority capital projects to enhance safety of all
road users
Biannual PW Underway
SR-3 Advance SRTS walk audits observations into
improvement recommendations
Annual PW Underway
SR-5 Provide staff training on VZAP / LRSP 2024-25 PW TBD SR-6 Provide staff training on defensive driving in City vehicles
2024-25 PW TBD
SR-7 Provide staff training on Safe Systems Approach
and safety countermeasures
2024 PW TBD
SR-8 Coordinate periodic site visits of VZ best
practices with or without regional partners
Annual PW Underway
SR-9 Adopt NACTO, PROWAG and/or other best
practice guidance to inform engineering
judgment
2025 PW Underway
SR-10 Update City standard details to reflect Vision
Zero best practices
2026 PW TBD
SR-11 Provide multilingual VZ-informed outreach on
capital projects and programming
2024-25 PW/CMO Underway
SR-12 Update VZAP every five years Every
five
years
PW TBD
SR-13 Support state legislation to address potential
safety enhancements
TBD PW/CMO TBD
SR-14 Explore processes for implementing No Turn on
Red (NTOR) and develop a policy for NTOR
consideration
TBD PW Planning
SR-15 Report out on VZAP and LRSP recommendations
to BPAC
Annual PW Planning
SR-16 Review City protocols to improve consistency
with Vision Zero policy
TBD PW TBD
SR-17 Provide training to relevant staff to be well
versed on VZ countermeasures
TBD PW TBD
SR-18 Provide input on projects that aligns Vision Zero goals
TBD PW TBD
Safe Speeds
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-38
ID Segment / Location Timeline Dept Status
SP-1 Conduct Vision Zero marketing that
encompasses speed management campaign
2024 PW TBD
SP-2 Share Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program (NTMP) ineligible study results and
study data with Mountain View’s SRTS
Coordinator
TBD PW TBD
SP-3 Conduct high-visibility traffic enforcement on
speed along the HIN
Ongoing PD TBD
SP-4 Implement speed limit reductions in accordance
with AB 43
2025 PW Planning
SP-5 Track AB 645 automated enforcement pilot and
support state legislation to expand the
permanent program to all California cities
2025 CMO/PW Underway
Safe Vehicles
VE-1 Conduct public education campaign on benefits
of pedestrian friendly vehicles such as compacts
cars
TBD PW TBD
VE-2 Support free bicycle repair events 2024 PW Underway VE-3 Provide education for decision makers on
vehicle size and design impacts
TBD CMO/PW TBD
VE-4 Support state legislation for vehicle technology
that addresses key crash factors
TBD CMO/PW TBD
Post-Crash Care
CC-1 Provide multilingual emergency response teams
for empathetic engagement with victims’
families
TBD FD/PD TBD
CC-2 Provide continuing ed for emergency responders
to understand travel behavior, decisions and
lived experience of local pedestrians/bicyclists
TBD PD Underway
CC-3 Establish protocols for best practice
communications to encourage accurate and
agency-based narratives in media stories on
crashes
TBD CMO/PW/P
D
Underway
CC-4 Explore opportunities for acknowledgment
and/or remembrance program
TBD CMO/PD TBD
CC-5 Establish a rapid response crash team (MVRRT)
to examine factors associated with crashes on
HIN and potential solutions
TBD FD/PD/PW TBD
CC-6 Establish requirement to share fatal and serious
injury crash reports with Traffic and
Transportation staff in a timely manner
2024 PD/PW Underway
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | 6-39
ID Segment / Location Timeline Dept Status
CC-7 Improve consistency of reporting for vehicle-
pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle crashes
2024 PD/PW Underway
CC-8 Monitor crash data on a scheduled basis to
measure progress toward VZ goals
Biannual PD/PW Underway
CC-9 Conduct quarterly Vision Zero Working Group
meetings addressing recent activities, debriefing
on recent crashes, and progress toward goals
2024 PW+ Underway
CC-10 Collect before and after data when
infrastructure improvements are made to
measure behavior change
TBD PW TBD
* See Appendix E: Countermeasures for more information on these topics
APPENDICES
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-1
Appendix A: Systemic Safety Analysis
OVERALL CRASH TRENDS
There were 1,244 crashes on Mountain Views streets from 2014 through 2019 for which the injury severity was reported. Sixteen of these were fatal, and 64 resulted in severe injury. Injury severity by year is show in Figure 23.
Figure 23 Crashes by Year and Severity, 2014-2019
Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes Increased
Over the extended-year study period from 2014 to 2022, fatal and severe injury crashes and severe injury crashes alone trended up both in total numbers and when normalized by the population of Mountain View, with a dip from 2019 to 2022 during the COVID-19 pandemic, as shown in Figure 24 and Figure 25. 47 82 77
103 88 91
60 115 123
131
131 116
11 7 11
10 10 154
3 5 4
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Injury (Other Visible) Injury (Complaint of Pain) Injury (Severe) Fatal DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-2
Figure 24 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes per 100,000 people by year with 3-year average, 2014-2022
Figure 25 Severe Injury Crashes per 100,000 people by year with 3-year average, 2014, 2022
Mountain View total population from US Census American Community Survey 5-year estimates, Table DP05.
Crashes Were Concentrated Downtown and on High Injury Network Figure 26 shows the overall spatial distribution of crashes in the City of Mountain View in the form of a heat map with a grid of equally-sized hexagons. Between 2014 and 2019, crashes were concentrated in downtown, and along 11 11 11
13 15
19 11
19 24
14.3 14.1 14.0
16.2 18.5
23.3 13.7
23.1 29.6
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Local KSI Crashes
KSI Crashes per 100,000 people
3 year moving avg. (KSI crashes)
3 year moving avg. (KSI crashes per 100,000)
11 7
11 10 10
15 9
16 22
14.3 9.0
14.0 12.5 12.3
18.4 11.2
19.4 27.1
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Local SI Crashes
SI Crashes per 100,000 people
3 year moving avg. (SI crashes)
3 year moving avg. (SI crashes per 100,000)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-3
El Camino Real and other major streets including Shoreline Blvd and Rengstorff Ave. These roads are consistent with the previously identified high injury network as described further on page A-19.
Figure 26 Local Road Crash Density, 2014-2019
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-4
Figure 27 KSI per 1,000 Jobs and Households by Transportation Analysis Zone, 2014-2019
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-5
CRASHES BY MODE OF TRANSPORTATION
Almost All Crashes Involved People Driving
Almost all 1,244 crashes that resulted in an injury in Mountain View from 2014 to 2019 involve people driving motor vehicles as one of the involved parties. In fact, most crashes involve motor vehicles only. Among the 77 KSI crashes,
40.2% involve motor vehicles, whereas the majority involve pedestrians or bicycles.
The eight (8) crashes between 2014 and 2019 that did not involve a motor vehicle, bicycle, or pedestrian, involved a train. No people riding public transit were killed or injured by crashes during the study period (or prior analysis periods).
People Walking and Biking were Disproportionately Affected People walking and biking are disproportionately represented among crashes in Mountain View compared the respective mode share. US Census American Community Survey data shows that Mountain View residents walk and bike for less than 10% of their commute trips, yet 36% of all crashes involved someone walking or biking.
When it comes to fatal and severe crashes, people walking are especially over -represented. Pedestrians represent 3% of the commute trips, yet people walking are involved in 12.8% of all crashes, 35.9% of severe crashes and 50.0% of fatal crashes. While 3.9% of motor vehicle only crashes result in a fatalit y or severe injury, 19.5% of pedestrian crashes do, meaning pedestrian crashes were about five times more likely to result in a fatality or severe injury.
Figure 28 summarizes injury severity of all crashes by mode and Figure 29 compares the number of fatal and severe injury crashes by mode share. Fatal and severe injury crashes are sometimes referred to as “killed or severely injured” and abbreviated as KSI. The maps in Figure 30 and Figure 31 show the locations of all crashes, symbolized by mode, and fatal and severe crashes involving people walking and biking, respectively.
Figure 28 Injury Severity by Mode, 2014-2019
Mode Fatal
Severe
Injury
Other
Injury
Percent of
all crashes
Percent of all
KSI crashes
KSI as percent of
mode
Motor Vehicle Only 7 24 770 64.4% 38.8% 3.9%
Vehicle-Bicycle 1 17 266 22.8% 22.5% 6.3%
Vehicle-Pedestrian 8 23 128 12.8% 38.8% 19.5%
Grand Total 16 64 1165 100.0% 100.0% 6.4%
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-6
Figure 29 Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes by Mode, 2014-19
54%
8%
38%
0% 0%
37%
27%
36%
0% 0%
76%
7%
3%
7% 7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Motor vehicle Bicycle Pedestrian Public transit Other
Fatal Crashes
Severe Injury Crashes
Mode Share for Commute Trips
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-7
Figure 30 Local Crashes by Mode
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-8
Figure 31 Fatal and Severe Crashes Involving Someone Walking or Biking
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-9
DEMOGRAPHICS
Age, gender identity and race/ethnicity data were examined from the crashes that occurred in Mountain View from 2014 through 2019.
Young Adults were Over-Represented in Crashes
The analysis found that people aged 18 to 24 were slightly over-represented in the universe of all crashes (Figure 32), and also pedestrian and bicycle crashes, when compared to 18- to 24-year olds in Mountain View overall (Figure 33 and Figure 34). Individuals under 18 were under -represented in total crashes and pedestrian crashes, but over - represented in bicycle crashes, while those 65 and above were over-represented in pedestrian crashes (Figure 35).
Figure 32 Age Distribution of People Involved in Crashes Relative to Mountain View Population, 2014-19
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 39 40 to 64 65 and above
Parties Involved in Crashes Mountain View Population
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-10
Figure 33 Age Distribution of Bicyclists Involved in Crashes Relative to Mountain View Population
Figure 34 Age Distribution of Pedestrians Involved in Crashes Relative to Mountain View Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 39 40 to 64 65 and above
Parties Involved in Crashes Mountain View Population
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 39 40 to 64 65 and above
Parties Involved in Crashes Mountain View Population
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-11
Figure 35 Crashes Involving Seniors (age 65+) Pedestrian or Bikers
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-12
Males were Over-Represented in Crashes
As is the case in many communities, males were disproportionately represented as bicyclists and drivers in crashes in Mountain View (Figure 36).
Figure 36 Gender of Parties involved in Crashes by Mode, 2014-19
Black and Hispanic Populations were Over-Represented in Crashes While race and ethnicity data collected during crash incident reporting does not align exactly with US Census Race and Ethnicity categories, the following charts compare the reported race of people involved in crashes in Mountain View with race and ethnicity as reported by the US Census American Community Survey. The comparison suggests that Black and Hispanic/Latino people were disproportionately represented in crashes in Mountain View, particularly while walking and biking (Figure 37, Figure 38, and Figure 39). 49%
23%
41%
51%
76%
57%
47%
53%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Pedestrian Bicyclist Driver
Female parties involved in crashes, MV, 2014-19
Male parties involved in crashes, MV, 2014-19
Female population, MV, 2018
Male population, MV, 2018
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-13
Figure 37 Race of Parties Involved in All Crashes, 2014-19
Mountain View Total Population estimates shown here come from American Community Survey 2018 5-year estimates Table B03002, Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race.
Figure 38 Race of Parties Involved in all Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes, 2014-19
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Asian Black Hispanic White Other Not Stated
All Parties Mountain View Total Population
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
Asian Black Hispanic White Other Not Stated
Pedestrian Mountain View Total Population
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-14
Figure 39 Race of Parties Involved in all Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes, 2014-19
CRASH TYPE
Crash type describes the basic nature of the crash. Crashes involving someone walking are categorized as vehicle/pedestrian, while crashes involving motor vehicles only, or motor vehicles and people biking, are categorized by the way the vehicles collided with each other, such as broadside, rear end, and hit object .
Consistent with the finding that people walking were overrepresented in fatal and severe crashes, vehicle/pedestrian was the most common type of crash, followed by broadside, rear end, and hit object (Figure 40). 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Asian Black Hispanic White Other Not Stated
Bicyclist Mountain View Total Population
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-15
Figure 40 Crash Type of Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes, All Modes
PRIMARY CRASH FACTOR
The primary crash factor describes the violation of traffic rules that wa s determined to be the primary reason the crash occurred according to the crash Police report. As shown in Figure 41, the top six primary violation categories reported for fatal and severe injury crashes included violations of pedestrian right-of-way, automobile right-of-way, operating on the wrong side of the road, pedestrian violations, unsafe speed and operating under the influence of drugs or alcohol. A pedestrian right of way violation means the driver fails to yield when the person walking has the right of way (such as when crossing the street in a crosswalk). Similarly, an automobile right of way violation indicates failure to yield to a driver who has right of way.
Prior analyses of primary crash factors conducted as part of the Vision Zero Policy process included many of these factors, with a different order of occurrence (DUIs and speed ranked higher) as well as other factors that were less common in the current reporting period (such as improper turns). This variability may reflect random variability, differences in reporting choices, or trends over time. Additionally, other factors such as driver distraction are not provided as a standard option on incident report forms and may therefore not appear as frequently. 0 5
10 15
20 25
30 Fatal Injury (Severe)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-16
Figure 41 Primary Crash Factor Violation Category for Fatal and Severe Injury Crashes
SEGMENT CRASH RATES AND HIGH INJURY NETWORK
The High Injury Network (HIN) is the subset of roads that see the highest rate of fatal and severe crashes. The City of Mountain View identified the HIN as part of the Vision Zero Policy analysis based on data from 2006 to 2016. It included both those corridors that see the greatest number of fatal and severe crashes, and those that see the highest rate of fatal and severe crashes per mile.
El Camino Real Remained the Highest Injury Corridor
Data from 2014 to 2019 displayed the same pattern, with the following corridor s continuing to be identified as the High Injury Network (Figure 43):
El Camino Real
Shoreline Boulevard
Rengstorff Avenue
Middlefield Road
Central Expressway
California Street
El Monte Avenue
Old Middlefield Way
Ellis Street
San Antonio Road
Figure 42 summarizes the number and rate of crashes for street segments in the HIN. 10 10
10 107
7 23 Pedestrian Right of Way
Automobile Right of Way
Wrong Side of Road
Pedestrian Violation
Unsafe Speed
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Other
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-17
Figure 42 High Injury Network Crashes by Street Segment Street (Segment)
Total
crashes
KSI
crashes
KSI crash
per mile
KSI crash
per year
KSI per year
per mile
E El Camino Real (east of Grant Rd) 61 9 10.04 1.50 1.67 Ellis St 16 4 5.68 0.67 0.95
N Rengstorff Ave (Central Expwy to
Middlefield)
45 3 4.69 0.50 0.78
N Shoreline Blvd (Central Expwy to
Middlefield)
33 3 4.42 0.50 0.74
El Monte Ave 13 2 4.34 0.33 0.72
California St (Rengstorff to Shoreline) 34 4 4.31 0.67 0.72 S Rengstorff Ave (El Camino Real to
Central Expwy)
44 2 3.55 0.33 0.59
San Antonio Rd 30 2 3.48 0.33 0.58
N Rengstorff Ave (North of Middlefield) 49 3 2.78 0.50 0.46 Old Middlefield Way 24 2 2.56 0.33 0.43
W El Camino Real (Rengstorff to Castro) 79 3 2.46 0.50 0.41 California St (West of Rengstorff) 36 2 2.12 0.33 0.35
E Middlefield Rd 75 3 1.89 0.50 0.31
Central Expy (Shoreline to Bernardo) 45 3 1.66 0.50 0.28 N Shoreline Blvd (North of Middlefield) 57 4 1.57 0.67 0.26
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-18
Figure 43 High Injury Network (2006-2016)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-19
ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS
An essential feature of the systemic safety analysis is a review of roadway, environmental, and land use characteristics that are associated with a high number of crashes and a high rate of fatal and severe crashes to position the City of Mountain View to proactively address locations that have not had crash concentrations in the past but have similar features as those currently experiencing high levels of crashes. This section examines roadway characteristics such as posted speed, average daily traffic (where available), and design elements of intersections that are associated with crashes in Mountain View.
High Speed Arterials were Over-Represented in Crashes
Nearly 70% of streets in Mountain View have a posted speed limit of 25 mph, but the majority of crashes occurred on arterials with a posted speed of 35 mph (Figure 45). In addition to higher speeds, these roadways also have wider rights-of-way, more travel lanes, and higher traffic volumes than other streets suggesting collinearity between multiple factors including speed, volume and roadway design. Fatalities and severe injuries were also disproportionately located on arterials with posted speeds of 35 to 45 mph (Figure 44). In total, streets with speeds of 35 mph and above represent 20% of local road centerline miles in Mountain View but are the site of 73% of fatal and severe crashes.
Figure 44 Crash Severity by Posted Speed of Primary Roadway
Figure 45 Crashes and Road Miles by Posted Speed
Posted Speed KSI Crashes Total Crashes
Percent of
total KSI
Percent of
total crashes
Percent of
Road Miles
25 17 226 22.1% 18.2% 69.7%
30 5 76 6.5% 6.1% 4.7%
35 41 784 53.2% 63.3% 15.8%
40 12 71 15.6% 5.7% 1.6%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
25 30 35 40 45
Fatal Severe Other Visible Complaint of Pain Road Miles DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-20
45 3 83 3.9% 6.7% 2.9%
Figure 46 Crash Mode by Posted Speed of Primary Roadway
Streets with a posted speed of 35 mph were disproportionately represented among crashes affecting all modes (Figure 46). People walking were more likely to be involved in crashes on streets with posted speeds of 25 mph than other modes. These lower speed streets include most residential streets in Mountain Vi ew.
The City of Mountain View has traffic volume data for a portion of the local streets that are included in this crash analysis. Traffic volumes Note major streets for which traffic volumes were not available include Central Expressway, El Camino Real west of Boranda Ave, and California Street west of Escuela Ave.
Heavy Traffic Roadways were Over-Represented in Crashes Just over half (51%) of all crashes in Mountain View took place on a street segment for which traffic volume data was available. It should also be noted that traffic volume data is not up to date throughout the City, and some data was collected as long as 20 years ago. However, all of the streets with daily traffic volumes greater than 5,000 had more recent data, collected between 2009 and 2019.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
25 30 35 40 45
Percent of Total
Posted Speed
Motor Vehicle Only Bicycle Pedestrian Road Miles
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-21
Figure 47 Crash Severity by Daily Traffic Volume
Streets with traffic volumes above 5,000 vehicles per day were disproportionately represented in crashes at all injury levels, including fatal and severe (Figure 47). There were no fatalities on street s with known traffic volumes of less than 10,000 vehicles per day. Streets with volumes above 40,000 vehicles per day saw the greatest disproportion.
Those heavy volume streets saw 9% of all fatal and severe crashes even though they make up an estimated 1.5% of the centerline mileage in Mountain View (Figure 48).
Figure 48 Crashes by Traffic Volume
Daily Traffic Volume KSI Crashes Total Crashes
Percent of KSI
crashes
Percent of all
crashes
Percent of
Road Miles
<= 5,000 4 81 5.2% 6.5% 12.8%
5,001 – 10,000 11 123 14.3% 9.9% 3.6%
10,001 – 20,000 17 280 22.1% 22.6% 6.9%
20,001 – 40,000 5 103 6.5% 8.3% 2.3%
> 40,000 7 103 9.1% 8.3% 1.5%
No Data 34 608 44.2% 49.1% 72.9%
Grand Total 77 1239
CRASHES AT INTERSECTIONS
SWITRS data defines an intersection narrowly, as the area between the lines that extend from the curb line into the intersecting street. In order to include crashes that take place in crosswalks, this analysis categorized a crash at “at 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
<= 5,000 5,001 -
10,000
10,001 -
20,000
20,001 -
40,000
> 40,000 No Data
Percent of Total
Daily Traffic Volume
Fatal
Severe Injury
Other Visible Injury
Complaint of Pain
Percent of Road Miles
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-22
intersection” if the data indicates that it is within 25 feet of the intersection. This includes all of the crashes in which the crash report indicates that a person walking was “crossing at intersection.” Most KSI Crashes Occurred at Intersections
Just over half of fatal a nd severe crashes occurred at intersections during the study period (Figure 49). Of those, a greater number took place at signalized intersections tha n at intersections with stop signs or no traffic control.
Locations treated with traffic signals, also tend to be more complex intersections, with wider rights of way, more travel lanes and higher traffic volume.
When looked at as a percent of the total crashes at that type of intersection, fatal and severe crashes occurred at a slightly higher rate at intersections with one or two-way stop control (Figure 50).
Figure 49 Fatal and Severe Crashes at Locations
30%
18%
1%4%
47%
Signal Stop Sign 3 or 4-way Stop None Not at intersection DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-23
Figure 50 Crash Frequency and Severity by Intersection Control Type (percent of total)
Figure 51 Mode of Fatal and Severe Crashes by Intersection Control Type
The majority of motor vehicle-only crashes and crashes involving people biking that occurred at an intersection took place at a signal (Figure 51). People walking were more likely to be involved in a fatal or severe crash at a one or two-way stop. Half of fatal and severe crashes at intersections took place where a 35 mph street meets a 25 mph street (Figure 52).
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None
3 or 4-way Stop
Stop Sign
Signal
Fatal Injury (Severe) Injury (Complaint of Pain) Injury (Other Visible) 78%
67%
40% 5%
11%
33%
45%
11%
10%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Motor Vehicle Only
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Signal 3 or 4-way Stop Stop Sign None
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-24
Figure 52 Speed Limit at Intersections Where Fatal and Severe Crashes Occur
ENVIRONMENT CHARACTERISTICS
This section presents data on the lighting conditions, tim e of day, and day of week associated with crashes in Mountain View.
Crashes Occurred More Frequently During the Evening Peak Hours As shown in the following figures, crashes were most frequent during the evening rush hour on weekdays (Figure 54). Fatal and severe crashes were distributed across the day more than crashes overall (Figure 55). The 3-6 pm time period was still the most frequently represented (21% of KSI crashes) but was followed closely by the morning peak period of 6-9 am (19% of KSI crashes) and the later evening between 9 pm and midnight (18% of KSI crashes). 4 1 1 1
17 5
4 3
5 0
5 10
15 20
25 35 mph with 25
mph
35 mph with 35
mph
25 mph with 25
mph
40 mph with 25
mph
Other
Fatal Injury (Severe)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-25
Figure 53 Lighting Conditions by Injury Severity
Figure 54 Time of Day and Day of Week of All Crashes
Time
of Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Grand
Total
12 am -
3 am 3 5 2 6 5 10 12 43
3 am -
6 am 4 1 2 5 12
6 am -
9 am 20 24 33 31 32 9 6 155
9 am -
12 pm 28 36 40 39 39 14 17 213
12 pm
- 3 pm 25 32 27 26 36 29 23 198
3 pm -
6 pm 45 46 51 50 47 22 23 284
6 pm -
9 pm 43 36 46 39 38 18 22 242
1 1
5 6
4 21
39 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Dark - Street Lights Not Functioning
Dusk - Dawn
Dark - Street Lights
Daylight
Fatal Injury (Severe)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-26
9 pm -
12 am 8 16 15 21 15 12 8 95
Grand
Total 172 199 215 212 212 116 116 1242
Figure 55 Time of Day and Day of Week of KSI Crashes
Time
of Day Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Grand
Total
12 am -
3 am
1 2
1 1 5
3 am -
6 am
1 1
2 6 am -
9 am
4 1 6 2 1
1 15
9 am -
12 pm
2 1
2 1
6 12 pm
- 3 pm
1 1
3 1 2
8 3 pm -
6 pm
2 2 2 1 4 4 1 16
6 pm -
9 pm
4 1 1 2 2 1
11 9 pm -
12 am
1 2
7 1 2 1 14
Grand
Total
15 9 9 19 9 12 4 77
RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE AND DESTINATIONS
This section describes adjacent land use and proximity to destinations to crashes in Mountain View. This section also looks at age and the mode of crashes near schools and parks, and the mode and actions of crashes near transit stops.
As shown below, crashes were most likely to take place in commercial areas and areas with Precise Plan zoning, which are usually commercial areas or corridors, compared to the percent of city area (Figure 56).
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-27
Figure 56 Primary Adjacent Zoning at Crash Locations
Almost Half of all Crashes Occurred Near a School
During the study period, 44% of local road crashes in Moun tain View took place within ¼ -mile of a school . Crashes near schools (Figure 57) were slightly more likely to involve someone age 21 or younger.
Figure 57 Crash Proximity to School and Youth Involvement
Crashes Near Schools were More Likely to Involve Children As a percent of the total in Figure 58, more than twice as many bicyclists under the age of 18 were involved in crashes near schools (36%) than were involved in crashes that were further from a school (14%).
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Community Precise
Plan
Commercial Residential Industrial Other
Percent of Moutain View Area Percent of Crashes
23.3%
18.4%
76.7%
81.6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Within quarter-mile of school
Not within quarter-mile of school
Under age 22 Not under age 22
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-28
Figure 58 Age of People Biking Involved in Crashes Near Schools
In Figure 59, a higher proportion of pedestrians involved in crashes near schools were under the age of 18 (15.2%) than for crashes further from schools (12.1%).
Figure 59 Age of People Walking Involved in Crashes Near Schools
Crashes Near Parks were More Likely to Involve Children In Figure 60 and Figure 61, people walking and biking who were involved in crashes near parks were also more likely to be under 18 (14.7% and 25.8%) than for crashes that took place further from parks (9.8% and 20.3%).
14.2%
36.0%
21.9%
10.3%
36.1%
25.0%
20.6%
18.4%
7.1%
10.3%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Not within 1/4-mile of school
Within 1/4-mile of school
Under 18
18 to 24
25 to 39
40 to 64
65 and above
12.1%
15.2%
15.4%
11.4%
25.3%
27.8%
31.9%
31.6%
15.4%
13.9%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Not within 1/4-mile of school
Within 1/4-mile of school
Under 18
18 to 24
25 to 39
40 to 64
65 and above
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-29
Figure 60 Age of People Biking Involved in Crashes Near Parks
Figure 61 Age of People Walking Involved in Crashes Near Parks
Crashes Near Transit Disproportionately Affected Pedestrians and Bicyclists
There were 175 crashes, or 14% of the tota l crashes, took place within 100 feet of a transit stop. Crashes in close proximity to a transit stop were more likely to involve someone walking or biking (Figure 62).
20.3%
25.8%
21.6%
14.7%
27.0%
32.3%
23.0%
18.4%
8.1%
8.8%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Not within 1/4-mile of park
Within 1/4-mile of park
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 39 40 to 64 65 and above
9.8%
14.7%
14.6%
13.2%
19.5%
28.7%
36.6%
30.2%
19.5%
13.2%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Not within 1/4-mile of park
Within 1/4-mile of park
Under 18 18 to 24 25 to 39 40 to 64 65 and above
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-30
Figure 62 Proximity to Transit Stop by Mode
Figure 63 Pedestrian Action Preceding Crash Near Transit Stop
Over 75% of the people walking who were involved in a crash near a transit stop were crossing the street in a crosswalk at an intersection (Figure 63).
65.7%
57.7%
22.4%
25.7%
11.8%
16.6%
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Not within 100' of transit stop
Within 100' of transit stop
Motor Vehicle Only
Bicycle
Pedestrian
22 4
1 1 1
Crossing in Crosswalk at
Intersection
Crossing Not in Crosswalk
Crossing in Crosswalk Not at
Intersection
Not in Road
#N/A
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-31
MANEUVERS
A more detailed look at what types of actions precede crashes, particularly fatal and severe crashes, helps inform the types of countermeasures that will be most effective at preventing them in the future.
Majority of the Crashes Involving Driver-Pedestrian Occurred At An Intersection
In most crashes involving people walking, the person walking was crossing the street in the crosswalk at an intersection when the crash occurred ( Figure 64). The top four maneuvers for fatal and severe crashes were the same as for all crashes ( Figure 65) : driver turning left hit pedestrian in crosswalk; driver proceeding straight hit pedestrian in crosswalk; driver proceeding straight hit pedestrian crossing not in crosswalk; and driver turning right hit pedestrian in crosswalk.
Figure 64 Driver and Pedestrian Actions Prior to Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes, 2014-19
Motor
Vehicle
Action
Pedestrian Action
Crossing in
Crosswalk
at
Intersection
Crossing in
Crosswalk Not
at
Intersection
Crossing
Not in
Crosswalk
In Road,
Including
Shoulder
Not in
Road Total
Proceeding
Straight 21 14% 6 4% 18 12% 7 5% 6 4% 58 38%
Making Left
Turn 36 23% 2 1% 6 4% 3 2% 1 1% 48 31%
Making
Right Turn 23 15% 0 0% 0 0% 2 1% 8 5% 33 21%
Backing 1 1% 0 0% 2 1% 1 1% 2 1% 6 4%
Other 4 3% 2 1% 1 1% 2 1% 4 3% 13 8%
Total 85 55% 10 6% 27 18% 14 9% 18 12% 154 100%
Figure 65 Driver and Pedestrian Action Prior Fatal and Severe Injury Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes, 2014-19 Motor
Vehicle
Action
Pedestrian Action
Crossing in
Crosswalk
at
Intersectio
n
Crossing in
Crosswalk
Not at
Intersection
Crossing
Not in
Crosswalk
In Road,
Including
Shoulder
Not in
Road Total
Proceeding
Straight 4 14% 0 0% 4 14% 2 7% 2 7% 12 43%
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-32
Making Left
Turn 4 14% 1 4% 2 7% 1 4% 0 0% 8 29%
Making Right
Turn 3 11% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 11%
Parked 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% 2 7% 3 11%
Backing 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 4% 1 4% 2 7%
Other 2 7% 0 0% 1 4% 0 0% 0 0% 3 11%
Total 13 46% 1 4% 7 25% 4 14% 3
11 % 28 100%
Three fatal crashes involving people walking took place at railroad crossings and the pedestrian movement preceding the crash is unknown Key Vehicle-Pedestrian Crashes
For crashes that occurred when a motorist was making a left turn at an intersection (Figure 64), 23% of these crashes involved someone walking in a crosswalk. For fatal and severe injury crashes involving pedestrians (Figure 65), 14% of these crashes involved a motorist making a left turn who hit a person walking across the road in a crosswalk at an intersection. These crashes typically occurred at signalized intersection of an arterial road with a local street.
For crashes that occurred when a motorist was proceeding straight at an intersection (Figure 64 ), 14% of these crashes involved someone walking in a crosswalk. For fatal and severe injury crashes involving pedestrians (Figure 65), 14% of these crashes involved a motorist proceeding straight who hit a person walking across the road in a crosswalk at an intersection. These crashes typically occurred at an intersection of two local streets with a one-way or two-way stop control.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-33
For crashes that occurred when a motorist was turning right at an intersection (Figure 64), 15% of these crashes involved someone walking in a crosswalk. For fatal and severe injury crashes involving pedestrians (Figure 65), 11% of these crashes involved a motorist turning right who hit a person walking across the road in a crosswalk at an intersection. These crashes typically occurred at a signalized intersection of an arterial road with a local street. Right- turn crashes were also most common on El Camino Real and other High Injury Network thoroughfares.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-34
As discussed previously, most crashes involving pedestrians occurred on the high injury network and downtown (Figure 66).
Figure 66 Locations of Most Common Crash Types Involving People Walking
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-35
Among the 285 Vehicle -Bicycle crashes (Figure 67), 146, or 51%, of them occurred at intersections. The top three known maneuvers for fatal and severe crashes were: driver proceeding straight hit bicyclist proceeding straight; driver turning left hit bicyclist proceeding straight; and driver turning right hit bicyclist proceeding straight (Figure 68). A driver proceeding straight hit bicyclist turning left or right accounted for 17% of KSI crashes at an intersection.
Figure 67 Driver and Bicyclist Actions Prior to Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes, 2014-19 Bicyclist Action
Motorist Action
Proceeding
Straight Left turn
Changing
lanes
Traveling
wrong
way
Right
turn Other Total
Proceeding Straight 71 25% 13 5% 9 3% 5 2% 2 1% 10 4% 110 39% Right turn 62 22% 3 1% 0 0% 12 4% 0 0% 3 1% 80 28%
Left turn 33 12%
0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 3 1% 36 13%
Other 47 16% 2 1% 0 0% 3 1% 3 1% 4 1% 59 21%
Total 213 75% 18 6% 9 3% 20 7% 5 2% 20 7% 285 100%
Figure 68 Driver and Bicyclist Actions Prior to Fatal and Severe Injury Vehicle -Bicycle Crashes at an Intersection, 2014-19
Bicyclist Action
Motorist Action
Proceeding
Straight Left turn
Changing
lanes
Traveling
wrong
way
Right
turn Other Total
Proceeding Straight 2 17% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 1 8% 1 8% 5 42% Right turn 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 8% 2 17%
Left turn 2 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 1 8% 3 25%
Other 2 17% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 2 17%
Total 7 58% 1 8% 0 0% 0 0% 1 8% 3 25% 12 100%
Key Vehicle-Bicycle Crashes
For crashes that occurred when a motorist was turning left at an intersection or otherwise (Figure 67), 12% of these crashes involved someone biking. For fatal and severe injury crashes involving bicyclists at an intersection (Figure DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-36
68), 17% of these crashes involved a motorist turning left who hit a person biking straight. These crashes typically occurred at a signalized intersection of an arterial road with a local street or at a major driveway such as for businesses.
For crashes that occurred when a motorist was proceeding straight at an intersection or otherwise (Figure 67), 25% of these crashes involved someone biking. For fatal and severe injury crashes inv olving bicyclists at an intersection (Figure 68), 17% of these crashes involved a motorist proceeding straight who hit a person biking who was proceeding straight. About half of these crashes occurred at an intersection. For crashes that did not occur at intersections, the most common violation categories were operating on the “wrong side of the road” and “automobile right of way”.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-37
For crashes that occurred when a motorist was turning right at an intersection or otherwise (Figure 65), 22% of these crashes involved someone biking straight. For fatal and severe injury crashes involving bicyclists at an intersection (Figure 66), 8% of these crashes involved a motorist turning right who hit a person biking straight . These crashes (known as right hooks) were common at signalized intersections. Many of these crashes also occurred between intersections and are assumed to involve drivers turning in and out of major driveways.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-38
Most Vehicle-Bike Crashes Occurred on the High Injury Network Most crashes involving people biking took place on the bike network, particularly on major streets with bike lanes (Figure 69). About 2/3 of right hook crashes occurred on the High Injury Network including a concentration on El Camino Real, which has no bike facility.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-39
Figure 69 Locations of Most Common Crash Types Involving People Biking
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-40
Most Fatal or Severe Injury Vehicle Only Crashes Involved Motorists Running off the Road
Among all crashes, 86% involved 1 to 2 parties. Among these crashes, the ones that occurred when the vehicle ran off the road accounted for 11% (Figure 70). However, single vehicle crashes with the vehicle running off the road represented the highest percentage of KSI crashes (Figure 71) only involving motor vehicles in Mountain View (39%).
Impairment by alcohol, drugs or fatigue was a factor in the majority of these crashes.
Figure 70 Driver Actions Prior to Vehicle Only Crashes, 2014-19 Vehicle
Movement
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn Stopped
Making
Right
Turn
Changing
Lanes
Passing
Other
Vehicle
N/A
(Only 1
vehicle) Total
Proceeding
Straight
163 64 105 10 8 1 30 381
Ran Off Road 2 0 1 0 0 0 49 52
Making Right Turn 3 0 2 1 0 1 10 17
Slowing/Stopping 6 0 11 1 0 0 1 19
Entering Traffic 12 0 0 0 1 0 1 14
Total 186 64 119 12 9 2 91 483
Figure 71 Driver Actions Prior to Fatal and Severe Injury Motor Only Crashes Vehicle
Movement
Proceeding
Straight
Making
Left Turn Stopped
Making
Right
Turn
Changing
Lanes
Passing
Other
Vehicle
N/A
(Only 1
vehicle) Total
Proceeding
Straight
5 4 3 1 1 1 1 16
Ran Off Road 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 12
Making Right Turn 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Slowing/Stopping 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Entering Traffic 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
Total 6 4 4 1 1 1 14 31
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-41
Crashes involving Impaired Drivers were Far More Likely to Result in Death or Severe Injury Compared to Non-Impaired Drivers Among all crashes involving motor vehicles in Mountain View (1,244), the share of total drivers who were alcohol or drug impaired (101) was 8.1%. When impairment was involved, crashes were far more likely to result in death or severe injury – 17% compared to 5% of crashes that do not involve alcohol or drug impairment (Figure 72 and Figure 73).
Figure 72 Severity of Crashes with Impairment
3%
14%
42%
42%
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Injury (Other Visible)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | A-42
Figure 73 Severity of Crashes without Impairment
1%
4%
55%
39%
Fatal
Injury (Severe)
Injury (Complaint of
Pain)
Injury (Other Visible)
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-1
Appendix B: Toolbox of Safety
Countermeasures
The countermeasures below are from FHWA’s Proven Countermeasure Toolbox and FHWA Clearing House Toolbox, Pedestrian and Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System (PEDSAFE), Caltrans Pedestrian Safet y Countermeasure Toolbox and Bicycle Safety Guide and Countermeasure Selection System . All countermeasures listed are general and each application would need site specific engineering review to determine appropriateness.
PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL OPERATIONS MODIFICATIONS
Pedestrian signal operations modifications give more
time for pedestrians to cross, reduce pedestrian wait
times at signals, and provide clearer communication for both pedestrians and drivers. Potential improvements
include leading pedestrian intervals and reduced
standard walking speed.
A leading pedestrian interval (LPI) gives people walking a 3 to 10 second head start when entering an intersection by presenting the “walk” sign while motor vehicle traffic has a red light in all directions. This provides pedestrians an opportunity to begin crossing before motor vehicles proceed and to establish a presence in the crosswalk,
which increases their visibility to drivers and reduces conflicts with turning vehicles. The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CAMUTCD) provides guidance on implementation in Chapter 4E.06.19. 9 Historically, a standard walking speed of 4.0 feet per second has been used to calculate the minimum pedestrian clearance interval for signals. The CAMUTCD provides guidance that a slower walking speed of 3.5 feet per second should be used, and 2.8 feet per second should be considered where pedestrians who are older or who have disabilities routinely use the crosswalk. 10
Effects
FHWA classifies leading pedestrian intervals as a Proven Safety Countermeasure and reports that LPIs reduce crashes involving people walking at intersections by 13%.11
9 Caltrans. CAMUTCD 2014 Edition Chapter 4E: Pedestrian Control Features, Chapter 4E.06.19. https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot- media/programs/safety-programs/documents/ca-mutcd/rev8/camutcd2014-rev8-all.pdf 10 Caltrans. CA-MUTCD 2014 Edition Chapter 4E: Pedestrian Control Features, Chapter 4E.06.7 and 4E.06.10-10a. https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd/camutcd-files. 11 FHWA. Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI) Countermeasure Tech Sheet. Safe Transportation for Every Pedestrian. October 2019.
FHWA-SA-19-040. and FHWA. Safety Evaluation of Protected Left-Turn Phasing and Leading Pedestrian Intervals on Pedestrian Safety. October 2018. FHWA-HRT-18-044.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-2
Considerations
These pedestrian signal modifications should be considered in conjunction with accessible pedestrian signals (APS) to notify visually impaired pedestri ans when to begin crossing. Designers may also analyze the feasibility of increasing the pedestrian clearance interval based on each signal’s cycle length and phase splits. There is also potential to consider restrict right-turn-on-red at locations with LPIs to minimize conflicts between pedestrians and right turning vehicles
Crash Type Addressed
Driver turning left and pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at signalized intersection
PROTECTED LEFT TURNS
Protected left turns give a separate sig nal phase
for vehicles to turn left at an intersection. When
the signal displays a green left -turn signal,
oncoming traffic has a red light and pedestrians
are not permitted to cross with the conflicting
turn.
Effects
FHWA reports that protected left- turn phases
prevent conflicts between people walking and left-
turning vehicles almost completely, reducing
crashes by as much as 99%. 12 The Crash
Modification Factors (CMF) FHWA Clearinghouse
likewise notes that converting a permitted to a
protected left turn can reduce angle crashes by
99%.13
Considerations
The benefits of protected left turns should be weighed against their safety effects on both signal cycle lengths and pedestrian crossing distance. Caltrans’ Pedestrian Safety Countermeasures Toolbox also emphasizes the importance of reducing pedestrian crossing distance for pedestrian safety. However, protected left turns require a designated left-turn only lane or pocket, which increases crossing distance if a left -turn lane does not already exist. Protecte d left turns may also require longer mast arms and intersection operational impacts.
Crash Types Addressed
Driver turning left and pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at signalized intersection Bicyclist proceeding straight broadsided by motor vehicle at signalized intersection
12 Federal Highway Administration. 2008. Toolbox of Countermeasures and Their Potential Effectiveness for Pedestrian Crashes. <https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/tools_solve/ped_tctpepc/> 13 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. 2008. <http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-3
CURB RADIUS REDUCTIONS
Larger curb radii result in higher turning speeds for motor vehicles, while smaller radii can improve safety because they require motorists to reduce vehicle speed by making sharper turns.
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidance on Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares recommends a
curb return radius of 5 to 15 feet where there are high pedestrian volumes, low vehicle volumes, bicycle or parking lanes are present, and large vehicles constitute a very low proportion of turning vehicles. Turning templates should be used in the design of facilities to identify curb return radius and require d pavement width to avoid vehicle
encroachment into opposing travel lanes.
14 Effects
FHWA’s PEDSAFE Guide also recommends tighter corner
radii of 5 to 10 feet to reduce crossing distances and slow traffic. 15 Likewise, the Unsignalized Intersection
Improvement Guide sponsored by FHWA includes reducing intersection curb radii to reduce crashes involving bicyclists and pedestrians.16.
Considerations
Turning templates should be used in the design of facilities to identify curb return radius and required pavem ent width to avoid vehicle encroachment into opposing travel lanes. Implementation curb radius reductions should consider accommodating the turning radii of larger vehicles along certain routes such as designated freight routes.
Larger curb radii may also be to accommodate emergency vehicles , garbage trucks , turning bus es, van, truck, or oversized delivery truck into the opposing lane is not acceptable.
Drainage is an important consideration when implementing curb radius reductions especially where tighter corners involve relocation of drainage inlets.
Crash Types Addressed
Unsafe turning speed
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian in crosswalk at two-way stop controlled intersection
14 ITE. 2010. Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach, pp. 15 Federal Highway Administration. 2013. Curb Radius Reduction. <http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=28> 16 The Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2014. Unsignalized Intersection Improvement Guide. <http://toolkits.ite.org/uiig/treatments/46%20Reduce%20Curb%20Radius.pdf> Source: Nelson\Nygaard – ITE Implementing Context Sensitive Design for Multimodal Thoroughfares
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-4
CURB EXTENSIONS
Wide roadways can create difficult crossing situations
for pedestrians. Not only do pedestrians need more
time to cross the roadway (with more exposure to
traffic), but wider roadway widths encourage motorists
to speed or take turns quickly.
Curb extensions improve safety because they increase
visibility, reduce the speed of turning vehicles,
encourage pedestrians to cross at designated locations, shorten pedestrian crossing distance, and prevent
vehicles from parking at corners.
Effects
PEDSAFE from FHWA states curb extensions improve visibility of and for pedestrians.
17 Considerations
This strategy is most appropriate where there are on-street parking spaces or loading zones. However, curb extensions may n ot be appropriate along certain routes such as designated freight routes where there is a need to accommodate the turning radii of emergency vehicles and larger vehicles. The design of curb extensions may also need to be integrated with bus stops and buffered or protected bike lanes at corners.
Crash Types Addressed
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian in crosswalk at two-way stop controlled intersection
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian crossing between intersections (mid -block crossing) Driver turning left and pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at signalized intersection Unsafe speed
17 Federal Highway Administration. 2013. Curb Extensions. <http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=5>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-5
HIGH-VISIBILITY CROSSWALKS
High-visibility striped crosswalks make pedestrian
crossing locations more visible to people driving and
increase driver awareness of people walking.
Other visibility enhancements f or crosswalks can
include lighting, advance or in-street warning signage, pavement markings.
Effects
FHWA classifies PHBs as a Proven Safety
Countermeasure and the crosswalk visibility
enhancements can reduce crashes by 25-42%
18. Considerations
Implementation of high visibility crosswalks should
consider roadway context. For example, on their own,
unsignalized high visibility crossings do not provide
sufficient safety for pedes trians on multi -lane
roadways with greater than 10,000 AADT. At these
locations, additional treatments such as refuge
islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacons, or
pedestrian hybrid beacons should also be used.
Marked crosswalks should be placed using
engineering judgement and should not be placed indiscriminately.
When installing midblock crossings, block length and proximity to existing marked crosswalks should also be considered. With an optimal distance of 400 to 600 feet between crosswalks where det ermined appropriate by engineering review.
Crash Type Addressed
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian in crosswalk at two-way stop controlled intersection Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian crossing between intersections (mid -block crossing) Driver making left turn and pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at signalized intersection
18 Federal Highway Administration. 2018. Crosswalk Visibility Enhancements. <https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/TechSheet_VizEnhancemt_508compliant.pdf> Source: Ria Hutabarat Lo, Mountain View, California
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-6
MEDIANS AND CROSSING ISLANDS
Median pedestrian and bicycle refuge
islands make roadway crossings easier and
safer by limiting exposure to through
moving vehicles; enabling crossings to
commence when there are gaps in traffic
from one direction at a time; and providing
a safe stopping place in the middle of the
roadway for pedestrians who are not able
to make the complete street crossing
during the pedestrian phase. These
countermeasures may be used at
signalized and unsignalized intersections
or midblock.
Effects
FHWA classifies Medians and Pedestrian
Crossing Islands in Urban and Suburban areas as a Proven Safety Countermeasure. FHWA reports that pedestrian islands can reduce pedestrian crashes by 46% for raised medians and 56% reduction in pedestrian crashes for pedestrian crossing islands
19. Considerations
Median refuge islands can be used in conjunction with beacons (such as RRFBs and PHBs), additional signage and pavement markings at unsignalized intersections or midblock crossings. The design should also be considered in the context of available right -of-way and pavement width. For example, refuge islands require at least 4 feet in width, with wider islands of up to 8 feet being desirable. On designated freight routes, medians and crossing islands should accommodate the turning radii of larger vehicles. Other considerations include proximity to existing marked crosswalks (if installing a new crossing) and driveway access.
Crash Type Addressed
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian in crosswalk at two-way stop-controlled intersection Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian crossing between intersections (new mid -block crossing) Driver making left turn and pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at signalized intersection Bicyclist proceeding straight broadsided by motor vehicle at signalized intersection
19 Federal Highway Administration. 2018. Pedestrian Refuge Island. <https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/techSheet_PedRefugeIsland2018.pdf>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-7
RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BEACONS
The Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon (RRFB) is a device using
LED flashing beacons in
combination with pedestrian and
bicycle warning signs, to provide a
high-visibility stro be-like warning
to drivers when pedestrians and
bicyclists use a crosswalk. They can
be installed at mid-block crossings
or uncontrolled intersections of
major streets.
Effects
NCHRP Research Report 841
found the installation of RRFBs
can reduce pedestrian crashes by
47%
20. According to the CMF
Clearinghouse, installing an enhanced RRFB pedestrian crossing at mid -block crossing locations can reduce vehicle- pedestrian crashes by 36%.21
Considerations
Installation of RRFBs should be based on a study of the location with a focus on the number of lanes, presence of a median, ADT, and posted speed limit. The FHWA Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations22 provides guidance for when RRFBs are most appropriate based on these conditio ns. RRFBs are suitable for roads with a posted speed limit of less than 35 mph or an Annual Average Daily Traffic volume (AADT) up to 15,000 vehicles.
Crash Type Addressed
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian in crosswalk at two-way stop-controlled intersection Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian crossing between intersections
20Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon (RRFB). 2017 http://pedbikesafe.org/PEDSAFE/countermeasures_detail.cfm?CM_NUM=54 21 FHWA Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. 2008. <http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm> 22 Federal Highway Administration. Guide for Improving Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing Locations. 2018. < https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/docs/STEP_Guide_for_Improving_Ped_Safety_at_Unsig_Loc_3-2018_07_17- 508compliant.pdf> Please see Table 1 for a summary of where to apply pedestrian safety countermeasures.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-8
PEDESTRIAN HYBRID BEACONS
A pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB) is a traffic control device that makes drivers aware of pedestrians crossing the
street at uncontrolled mar ked crosswalk locations. It is activated by pedestrians when needed and is black when
not in use.
Effects
FHWA classifies PHBs as a Proven Safety Countermeasure.
FHWA reports PHBs can result in a 55% reduction in
pedestrian crashes, 29% reduction in total crashes, and 15% reduction in serious injury and fatal crashes.
23 Considerations
PHBs are relatively new traffic control devices. Therefore installation should be accompanied by an education and
outreach effort to ensure that users understand how to
behave with this device.
Design of PHBs should also consider proximity to existing traffic signals. The CA MUTCD provides guidance for activity warrants and recommends that PHBs be located at least 100 feet away from other intersections.
24 Crash Type Addressed
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian in crosswalk at two-way stop-controlled intersection Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian crossing between intersections
23 FHWA. 2019. Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons. <https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/ped_hybrid_beacon/> 24 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). < https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-9
ACCESS MANAGEMENT
Corridor access management can
reduce the frequency and mag nitude
of conflict points at intersections and
driveways by altering access patterns.
Access management can be achieved
through driveway consolidation,
driveway narrowing, and medians
that restrict access to right -in and
right-out turning movements.
Source: NN, ITE Implementing Context
Sensitive Design for Multimodal
Thoroughfares
Effects
The Highway Safety Manual reports
that reducing the driveway density
can reduce crashes by up to 31
percent25.
The AASHTO Green Book states each
additional access point p er mile
increases the crash rate by
approximately 3%.
FHWA does not yet classify access management as a Proven Safety Countermeasure, however various access management strategies are listed in the CMF Clearinghouse.
Considerations
Key considerations for ac cess management are opportunities for shared parking, driveway consolidation, and placement of driveways away from intersections. Additionally, potential traffic diversion as well as emergency and large vehicle access needs should be considered.
Crash Type Addressed
Motor vehicle broadside between intersections (assumed to be at driveways) Bicyclist involved between intersections
Driver proceeding straight and pedestrian in crosswalk at two-way stop-controlled intersection
25 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Highway Safety Manual. 2010.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-10
BIKE SIGNAL PHASING
Bike signal phases provide separate control
of bicycle movements at intersections.
These separate phases reduce the number
of conflicts between turning vehicles and
bikes traveling straight, reducing the
incidence of “right-hook” crashes for bikes.
NACTO’s guide, Don’t Give Up at the
Intersection, details alternative signal
configurations for reducing conflicts
between bikes and turning vehicles
including leading bike intervals, bike
scrambles, and protected bike signal
phases.
Effects
The City and County of San Francisco
compared 6 mixing zones to 2 separated
bike signals and found that conflicts
between bikes and vehicles dropped from
41% for mixing zones to 2% for bike
signals.
26 The same study found on
average, people biking complied with the
signals 86% of the time and vehicles complied 95% of the time.
Considerations
Installation of bicycle signal phasing should consider the intersection geometry (such as whether the intersection is a typical intersection or a protected intersection) and the number of turning vehicles that could conflict with bikes travelling straight (for concurrent bike phases only). Signal operations, ped volumes, Crash Type Addressed
Bicyclist proceeding straight broadsided by turning motor vehicle at signalized intersection
26SFMTA. Bike Signals and Mixing Zones. 2019. <https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and- documents/2019/05/bike_signals_factsheet_final.pdf>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-11
BIKE TREATMENTS AT INTERSECTIONS
A bike box is a designated area at the
head of a traffic lane at a signalized
intersection that provides bicyclists with
a safe and visible way to get ahead of
queuing traffic during the red signal
phase.
Two-stage turn que ue boxes offer
bicyclists a safe way to make left turns
from a right -side bike lane, or right turns
from a left side cycle track or bike lane.
Two-stage turn queue boxes may be used
at signalized or unsignalized intersections
and are typically applied wher e two bike
facilities intersect. Multiple positions are
available for queuing boxes, depending on intersection configuration.
Effects
A study of bike boxes in Portland, Oregon found that they decreased bike and vehicle encroachment in crosswalks.
Additionally, the number of conflicts between vehicles and bikes at the bike box locations decreased. 27 Considerations
Installation of bike boxes and two stage queue boxes should consider available right-of-way and pavement width at intersections to ensure bicyclists are kept clear of vehicle travel paths during opposing movements. Installation will also require bicycle detection loops and relocation of vehicle detection loops. This treatment may also have operational implications for restricting right -turns-on-red and eliminating protected right turn phases. It may also be advisable to implement education for people riding bikes on how to use bike boxes through signage or other materials.
Crash Type Addressed
Bicyclist proceeding straight broadsided by motor vehicle at signalized intersection.
27 Dill, J., Monsere, C., McNeil, N. Evaluation of Bike Boxes at Signalized Intersections. 2011.<https://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/OTREC-RR-11-06_Final.pdf>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-12
PROTECTED INTERSECTIONS
Protected intersections have been
implemented across North America
as cities have expanded their
protected bikeway networks. Also
known as Dutch, setback or offset
intersections, this design keeps
bicycles physically separate from
motor vehicles up until the
intersection, providing a high degree
of comfort and safety for people of
all ages and abilities.
This design can reduce the likelihood
of highspeed vehicle turns, improve
sightlines, and dramatically reduce
the distance and time during which
people on bikes are exposed to
conflicts.
Effects
In San Fra ncisco, a protected intersection design resulted in 98% of drivers yielding to people on bikes, and 100% yielding to people walking. A study in New York found that protected intersections had fewer vehicle -bike conflicts than even a dedicated turn lane with a dedicated bike signal phase. 28 The City of Berkeley conducted an analysis of a proposed protected intersection. The study found that the protected intersection decreased vehicle turning speed and, as a result, decreased severe injury risk for pedestri ans by 50%.29 FHWA does not yet classify a protected intersection as a Proven Safety Countermeasure, and it is listed as in Improving Intersection for Pedestrians and Bicyclists information guide by FHWA.
Considerations
Design and installation of protected intersections requires careful consideration of geometric constraints at the intersection. Design should also address emergency and large vehicle turning movements, which should be permitted to encroach into the next lane, as well as signal timing and op erations.
Crash Type Addressed
Bicyclist proceeding straight broadsided by motor vehicle at signalized intersection Driver turning left and pedestrian crossing in crosswalk at signalized intersection
28 NACTO. Protected Intersections. Don’t Give Up at the Intersection. https://nacto.org/publication/dont-give-up-at-the- intersection/protected-intersections/
29 City of Berkeley. King Safe Routes to School: Hopkins / The Alameda. 2017. <https://www.berkeleyside.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/06/2017_18May_Hopkins_Alameda_-1-1.pdf>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-13
CLASS IV PROTECTED BIKEWAYS
Protected bikeways provide an
attractive and safe bicycle facility for
people with a range of riding abilities
through the physical separation from
motor vehicle traffic using on street
parking, curb, and delineators or
landscaping. Protected bike lanes may
be one -way or two -way, and are
sometimes referred to as cycle tracks
or separated bike lanes.
Effects
Analysis for the FHWA Separated Bike
Lane Planning and Design Guide found
that the per capita crash rates for
people riding bikes decreased on
facilities after separated bike lanes
were installed.
30 FHWA does not yet classify protected bike lanes as a Proven Safety Countermeasure, however they are listed in the CMF Clearinghouse. FHWA Publication FHWA- HRT-21-012 indicates that adding bike lanes results i n a crash modification factor of 0.514 to 0.649.
31 FHWA-HRT 23-078 indicates that protected bikeways that use flex posts have a crash reduction factor of 0.50.32
Considerations
Key considerations for design and installation of protected bikeways include available right -of-way and potential impacts of repurposing travel lanes or parking lanes. Parking impacts will, in turn, be affected by driveway spacing and access. Design should also consider ADA access to curbs, loading and unloading access, integration with transit stops, drainage, green infrastructure and signal operations. Longer term considerations include maintenance operations to ensure that strategies are in place to allow for sweeping and ongoing maintenance (e.g. through use of contract sweeping or a narrower street sweeper).
Crash Type Addressed
Bicyclist involved between intersections
30 Federal Highway Administration. 2015. Separated Bike Lane Planning and Design Guide. <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/publications/separated_bikelane_pdg/separatedbikelane_pdg.pd f>
31 Federal Highway Administration. 2021. Developing Crash Modification Factors for Bicycle-Lane Additions While Reducing Lane and Shoulder Widths. <https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/21012/21012.pdf> 32 Federal Highway Administration. 2023. Developing Crash Modification Factors for Separated Bicycle-Lanes. <https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/FHWA-HRT-23-078.pdf>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-14
ROAD DIETS
Road diets (also known as lane reductions) are used
to reallocate available pavement between curbs to
accommodate expected traffic volumes and users
in fewer mixed purpose motor vehicle lanes. A
typical road diet reduces the number of through
lanes while maintaining intersection capacity for
the target level of service for all modes. With a goal
of increasing safety and available transportation
choices on a street, the reduction of lanes can allow
for new bike lanes, wider sidewalks, pedestrian
refuge islands, transit stops, parking and/or
additional landscaping.
Effects
FHWA reports 4 -lane to 3 -lane road diets can
reduce total crashes by 19-47%33.
In 2013, the City of Los Angeles installed a 4- to 3-
lane road diet on Rowena Avenue, which had an
AADT of 25,000 vehicles per day. A 5-year post
project analysis found that crashes decreased,
crashes caused by unsafe speeds decreased by
65%, and peak hour counts of bicycles on the new
bike lanes increased from 14 to 71, while traffic
volumes remained consistent.34
Considerations
Key considerations for road diets are prevailing
traffic volumes, intersection operations, and
vehicle speed.
Crash Type Addressed
Bicyclist involved between intersections (when combined with class IV protected bike lanes) Motor vehicle broadside between intersections (assumed to be at driveways) Unsafe speed
33 Federal Highway Administration. 2017. Road Diets. <https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/road_diets/> 34 Federal Highway Administration. 2017. Case Study: High-Volume Road Diet Success in Los Angeles. <https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/step/resources/docs/step_case_studies_LADOT_roaddiet.pdf> 4- to 2- lane road diet on Castro Street near Church between 1965 and 2023.
Source: Mountain View Historical Association (top), Mountain View, California.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-15
BICYCLE BOULEVARDS
Bicycle boulevards are a
type of Class III bike route
installed on streets that are,
or are planned to be, low
volume and low speed.
On bicycle boulevards,
shared lane markings,
wayfinding signs, and traffic
calming communicate to
residents and through
traffic that vulnerable
roadway users such as
pedestrians and bicyclists
are the priority on these
streets. At intersections with larger ro ads, traffic diverters and enhanced crossings maintain connectivity for vulnerable roadway users and maintain low traffic volumes by discouraging or restricting cut through motor vehicle traffic. Bioswales and landscaping amenities enhance water retention capabilities and shade.
Effects
A study in Berkeley, CA found that crash rates on the city’s bike boulevards were 8 times lower than those on parallel, adjacent arterial routes.
35 A study from Portland State University found that 54% of men and 44% of women felt very comfortable biking along a bike boulevard compared to only 16% of men and 10% of women felt very comfortable biking on a 30-35 mph road with a striped bike lane.36
FHWA does not yet classify protected bike lanes as a Proven Safety Countermeasure, however they are listed in the CMF Clearinghouse. Per the CMF Clearinghouse, installing a bicycle boulevard can reduce bicycle-vehicle crashes by 63%.
37 Considerations
Key considerations for bicycle boulevards are street connectivity, vehicle diversions, and access needs for emergency vehicles or large vehicles. Bicycle bo ulevard design should also consider traffic volumes and speeds as well as crossing design at major roadways. In Mountain View, traffic calming devices are subject to the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.
Crash Type Addressed
Bicyclist involved between intersections (on bike routes or low-speed streets) Unsafe speed
35 Minikel, E. Cyclist Safety on Bicycle Boulevards and Parallel Arterial Routes in Berkeley, California. 2012 <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.07.009>
36 Dill, J. A Case for Bike Boulevards. 2019. <https://jenniferdill.net/2019/06/27/a-case-for-bike-boulevards/> 37 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. 2008. <http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-16
IMPROVED LIGHTING, EXTENSION LINES, AND SIGNAGE
The combination of
sufficient lighting,
extension lines for turning
vehicles, and roadway
signage can improve
visibility and driver
awareness of medians.
Roadway lighting can
provide better visibility of
crosswalks, medians, and
other vehicles at an
intersection.
Recommended lighting
levels are outlined in the
FHWA Lighting Handbook.
38 The addition of extension lines for turn lanes can visually direct vehicles from approach lanes into the appropriate receiving lane, while installation of signage on medians at side street approaches and intersections can direct drivers to the correct side of the median. Extension lines and signage on medians (“Stay Right” and “One Way”) are included in the CA MUTCD.39
This suite of treatments aims to reduce crashes caused by driving on the wrong side of the road, especially along median divided roads.
Effects
FHWA does not classify these measures as Proven Safety Countermeasures, however, they are included in the Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse. Per the CMF Clearinghouse, installing intersection lighting can reduce nighttime crashes by 11.9%.
40 Considerations
Lighting, extension lines and signage design should consider roadway context, including roadway width and traffic operations, presence of a median, existing signage and possible sign clutter, as well as existing underground utility infrastructure. Lighting design should be based on photometric analysis.
Crash Type Addressed
Wrong side of road
38 FHWA. FHWA Lighting Handbook. 2012. <
https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/night_visib/lighting_handbook/pdf/fhwa_handbook2012.pdf> 39 California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 2014. <https://dot.ca.gov/programs/safety-programs/camutcd> 40 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. 2008. <http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm> Source: Google Maps
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-17
OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS: NO TURN ON RED
Operational improvements include changes to traffic signal operations to facilitate , separate or coordinate certain movements. Currently, the law allows drivers to turn right on red after coming to a stop at a signalized intersection. A “No Turn On Red” (NTOR) prohibits drivers from making right turns during a red signal. The tool improves driver awareness of their surroundings, increases pedestrian and bicyclist visibility, and prevents right-turning motorists from blocking crosswalk.
Effects
FHWA does not yet classify traffic calming as a Proven Safety Countermeasure, however, it is included in the Crash
Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse. According to th e CMF Clearinghouse, traffic calming can reduce crashes by 3%.48
In fall 2021, San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) posted NRTOR signs at over 50 intersections to study how they can make streets safer to cross 41 Findings from a before/after study reveal that N RTOR restrictions can keep crosswalks clear and reduce close calls on major intersections. Specifically, 92% of motorists demonstrated compliance with the restriction, and close calls for vehicle -pedestrians decreased from 5 close calls before N RTOR signs were posted to 1 close call after restrictions were in place. Additionally, there was a more than 70% reduction in motorists blocking or encroaching onto crosswalks on a red signal. There was no significant change in the percentage of turning vehicles that yield at the crosswalk to pedestrians on a green light.
Consideration
NTOR can be considered based on crash location, street geometry and land use.
Crash Type Addressed
At a signalized intersection, driver turning right side and hit pedestrian in a crosswalk
41 Tenderloin No Turn On Red Evaluation - https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and- documents/2022/04/tenderloinntor_factsheet_0.pdf
Source: Google Maps
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-18
TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES
FHWA reports that lower motor vehicle speeds result in both fewer and less severe crashes (i.e. crashes that are less likely to result in severe injury or fatalities). Therefore, reducing prevailing speeds through various design mechanisms—collectively referred to as traffic calming measures—will reduce the frequency of crashes and the risk of fatal and severe injury.
A traffic calming measure can cause a reduction in average vehicle speed and in the range of speeds observed (i.e., eliminating or reducing very high vehicle speeds).
Effects
Traffic calming treatments along Easy Street from Central Expressway to SR 85 on-ramp in Mountain View resulted in a reduction of the 85 th percentile speed from 39 mph to 2 2.6 mph. The traffic calming measures included installation of a speed humps, narrow median island, choker and electronic speed feedback sign.
FHWA does not yet classify traffic calming as a Proven Safety Countermeasure, however, it is included in the Crash Modification Factor (CMF) Clearinghouse. According to the CMF Clearinghouse, traffic calming can reduce crashes by 25-33%.
42 Considerations
In Mountain View, Traffic calming devices/elements can be added into developer projects and or CIP’s without going through the Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (NTMP), except for speed humps.
Crash Type Addressed
Unsafe speed
TRAFFIC CALMING: HORIZONTAL DEFLECTIONS
Horizontal deflections or shifts along a street segment are associated with reductions in travel speeds , which are in turn associated with fewer and less severe traffic crashes.
Examples of horizontal deflectors include chicanes, traffic circles, medians, channelizers, splitters, and roundabouts.
Chicanes
Chicanes are a series of alternating curves or lane shifts to steer drivers back and forth out of a straight travel path.
This curve path is intended to reduce vehicle speeds.
Effects
According to Crash Modification Factor (CMF)
Clearinghouse, chicanes can slow speeds 3 to 9 mph.43
Considerations
42 Crash Modification Factors Clearinghouse. 2008. <http://www.cmfclearinghouse.org/index.cfm> 43 Engineering Speed Management Countermeasures: A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed July 2014 . https://highways.dot.gov/sites/fhwa.dot.gov/files/2022-06/eng_ctm_spd_14.pdf
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-19
The design of chicanes should account for road type, land use, and crash history. Chicanes on local streets may require drivers to yield to oncoming traffic, while chicanes on arterials resemble a lane shift.
Crash Type Addressed
• Pedestrian-involved crashes
• Unsafe speed
Traffic Circles
Traffic circles are raised center islands constructed in within intersections with four way stop signs or yield signs. At traffic circles, it is permissible to turn left in front of the island, a maneuver that is prohibited at a conventional roundabouts.
Effects
According to Traffic Calming: State of the Practice (I
TE,
1999) and several recent research and data analysis
documents, traffic circles are associated with a
reduction in travel speeds of 3 to 4 mph.44 Lower travel speeds are associated with fewer and less severe
crashes.
Considerations
De
sign of traffic circles should account for intersection size and geometry. Larger intersections may be better
suited to roundabouts.
Crash Type Addressed
• Unsafe speed
• Drivers turning left or right and hitting pedestrian or bicyclist Roundabouts
Roundabout are intersection designs that incorporate channelized approaches, a center island, and circular design.
A roundabout provides a horizontal deflection with an island at the entry point and requires all motorists to yield to vehicles in the roundabout and follow a circuitous path no matter which departure leg they use.
Effects
According to CMF Clearinghouse, roundabouts can lower speeds by 15 to 20 mph 45 and reduce severe crashes by nearly 80 percent.46
44 Module 4: Effects of Traffic Calming Measures on Motor Vehicle Speed and Volume. https://highways.dot.gov/safety/speed- management/traffic-calming-eprimer/module-4-effects-traffic-calming-measures-motor#note17
45 FHWA, "A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed," July 2014. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm 46 FHWA, "Proven Safety Countermeasures - Roundabouts," FHWA-SA-12-005 (Washington, DC: 2012). Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/provencountermeasures/fhwa_sa_12_005.cfm.
Source: SF Better Streets
Source: Google Maps
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-20
Considerations
The geometry of roundabouts requires a s ubstantial
spatial footprint that may not be available at all
intersections. If space is available, roundabouts
provide considerable safety benefits at a lower capital and operating cost than other treatments such as
signalization. Due to the yielding requirements,
roundabouts work best at intersections with similar
vehicle flows from all approaches. Pedestrian and
bicycle accommodations should also be care fully
considered.
Crash Type Addressed
Unsafe speed
Intersection crashes
TRAFFIC CALMING: VERTICAL DEFLECTIONS
Vertical deflections or e levation changes along a street segment are associated with lower travel speeds as drivers need to decelerate when traveling through theses segment. Lower speeds are associated with fewer and less severe traffic crashes Examples of vertical deflectors include speed humps, dips, raised crosswalks and speed tables.
Speed Humps
Speed humps are r aised pavement structures with in a
roadway segment.
Effects
According to the Crash Modification Factor (CMF)
Clearinghouse, speed humps can be effective at reducing speeds by nearly 10 mph47.
Considerations
Speed humps are generally suitable for only residential streets or other low-speed roads.
Crash Type Addressed
Unsafe speed
Speed Tables
47 FHWA, "A Desktop Reference of Potential Effectiveness in Reducing Speed," July 2014. Available at: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt/ref_mats/eng_count/2014/reducing_speed.cfm Speed Humps in Mountain View, Mountain View
Source: Omni-Means, Ltd.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | B-21
Speed tables are similar to speed humps but have
an extended flat section typically between 3 and 6
inches above street level that can accommodate
an entire car.
Effects
According to the Crash Modification Factor (CMF)
Clearinghouse, speed tables have been found to
reduce speed by an average of 9 mph.
Considerations
Speed tables typically allow for speeds of 25 to 30
mph, which are typical for local and collector
streets. Speed tables are generally placed on
roadways where there is minimal heavy vehicle
traffic. Information on the design of speed humps
and speed tables are available in ITE’s Guidelines
for the Design and Application of Speed Humps and
Speed Tables (see www.ite.org).
Crash Type Addressed
Unsafe speed
Raised Crosswalks
A raised crosswalk is a variation of a flat-topped speed table where the crosswalk is level with the sidewalk and curb.
A raised crosswalk is marked and signed as a pedestrian crossing and enhances pedestrian safety by causing motorist to slow down at the crossing. Raised crosswalks
also increase the visibility of crossing pedestrians to motorists and improve the visibility of oncoming
vehicles to pedestrians.
Effects
According to the Traffic Calming: State of the
Practice and several recent research and data
analysis documents, speed tables (which are similar
to raised crosswalks), were associated with a 3%
reduction in total traffic.
Consideration
Crossing context and crash history are key
considerations for raised crosswalks. Some raised
crosswalks are installed at midblock crossing locations to increase the visibility of the crosswalk.
Crash Type Addressed
• Unsafe speed
• Pedestrian crossing at intersection
Example of Speed Table, NACTO
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | C-1
Appendix C: Prioritization Criteria
The following section outlines prioritization criteria used to rank infrastructure projects in Mountain View. Three criteria used for this analysis include crash severity, equity, and proximity to destinations.
Severity of Crashes
The crash severity criterion is consistent with City’s Vision Zero policy and Caltrans LRSP goals and metrics. This criterion weighs crash severity based on standardized crash cost estimates from Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual. The c rash cost represents the human and productivity cost to the society.
The total weighted crash cost was based on the number of crashes at each severity level in that location. Based on Caltrans guidance ( Figure 74) fatal or severe injury crashes were weighted at twenty times that of crashes with a complaint of pain. For example, a corridor where five fatal crashes and ten visible injury crashes occurred would have a total weighted crash value of 120. T he total weighted crash value for each location was then compared to the total weighted crash value for other projects, and each intersection was assigned between 1 and 5 points based on the quintile of total weighted crash values. For corridors, the total weighted crash value was normalized by the length of the corridor and each corridor was assigned between 1 and 5 points based on the quintile on a per -mile basis (Figure 75). A score of 5 represents locations or corridors with the most severe crash history. This analysis was undertaken for crash locations as well as risk levels for each location as identified in the systemic safety analysis.
Figure 74 Crash Severity by Cost of Crash Type and Associated Weighting Crash Type Crash Cost Weight
Fatal and Severe Injury $1,590,000 20
Other Visible Injury $142,300 2
Complaint of Pain $80,900 1
Source: Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual
Figure 75 Converting Crash Weight to Score
Total Crash Weight per Corridor Quintile-based Score
< 51 1
52 – 75 2
76 – 115 3
116 – 135 4
136 – 290 5
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | C-2
Equity
The Equity criterion includes several elements that are consistent with General Plan policies on equitable distribution of amenities (Figure 76).
Two d emographic factors included in this analysis were low -income populations and limited English -speaking households. For this analysis, each location was scored based on the characteristics of the population within a quarter-mile of the location relative to citywide rates for each factor. For example, on a citywide basis 23.7% of people have incomes at or below 150% of the poverty level, while 9.6% of households are limited English -speaking households. A third metric also addressed vulnerable road users’ level of stress and history of walking and bicycling crashes.
Figure 76 Elements of Equity
Factor Data Source Weight
The low -income population
within ¼-mile (percent of the
total population)
US Census American
Community Survey 2020 5 -
year estimates
Above citywide rate (23.7%) 1
Below the citywide rate (23.7% and
below) 0
Limited English -speaking
households within ¼- mile
(percent of the total
population)
US Census American
Community Survey 2020 5 -
year estimates
Above citywide rate (9.6%) 1
Below the citywide rate (9.6% and
below) 0
Vulnerable road users Crash history and level of
stress
High-stress location for biking or
walking AND Higher than average
number of bicycle and pedestrian
crashes or fatalities
2 High-stress location for biking or
walking OR Higher than average
number of bicycle and pedestrian
injury crashes
1 Neither of the above 0
Proximity to Key Destinations
The third criterion was proximity to key destinations ( Figure 77) . This criterion consider ed accessibility to destinations that are pedestrian and bicyclist attractors and locations that should be accessible for all modes of transportation. Key destinations included schools, parks and open spaces, commercial centers, senior centers, senior living communities, healthcare facilities and libraries. Feedback from community members indicated that schools were very important, so these destinations were weighted more heavily.
Figure 77 Proximity to Key Destinations Criteria
Element Weight
Proximity to school/on suggested route
to school
Within 0.25 miles of a school or on school
route
2 Within 0.5 mile 1
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | C-3
More than 0.5 mile and not on school route 0
Proximity to other key destination
(commercial center, park/open space,
trail, light rail stop, senior center or living
community)
Within 0.25 miles 1
Within 0.5 mile 0.5
More than 0.5 mile 0
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-1
Appendix D: Draft Priority Project
Materials
This appendix provides project information that may be used to support grant applications for a limited number of specific priority project.
RENGSTORFF AVENUE GREEN COMPLETE STREETS
Project Description
The Rengstorff Avenue Green Complete Streets will consider ways to improve conditions for people walking, bicycling, using public transit and driving along and across Rengstorff Avenue between El Camino Real and Leghorn Street. The project will incorporate technical analysis and community engagement with a view to developing agreed concepts including plan line drawings for the Rengstorff Avenue corridor from El Camino Real in the south to Leghorn Street in the north.
The Plan will build on previously planned improvements on the corridor, including:
Rengstorff Avenue Grade Separation at Central Expressway including Class IV bikeways, wider sidewalks, and a bicycle and pedestrian overcrossing between Leland Avenue and Crisanto Avenue. Intersection improvements at Latham Street and at Junction Ave Corridor Context
This corridor is served by multiple bus routes (VTA Route 21, Mountain View Community Shuttle Red and Grey lines).
The corridor connects residential areas, recreational facilities (Rengstorff Park, Rengstorff Pool, Heritage Park, Wyandotte Park , Mountain View Community Center, Mountain View Senior Center), nearby schools (including Castro Elementary, Monta Loma Elementary, Mistral Elementary, Stevenson Elementary, Crittenden Middle, Los Altos High, and Waldorf School), and businesses (including Monta Loma Plaza shops and various after -school services).
Rengstorff Avenue is a high-stress environment for walking (PQOS 5, which is the lowest quality of service, based on AccessMV 2021) and riding a bicycle (Level of Traffic Stress 3) and has been th e site of multiple crashes involving those modes (48 pedestrian and bicycle crashes from 2014 to 2019).
Emphasis Areas
High Injury Network (HIN): Rengstorff Avenue has been identified as part of the City’s HIN based on the concentration of fatal and severe injury crashes along the corridor. The segment of Rengstorff Avenue from DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-2
Central Expressway to Leghorn Street has also been identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as part of the Regional HIN. 48
School and Senior Routes : Rengstorff Avenue is a key school access route for Los Altos High School and Waldorf School. Additionally, the roadway is within the area allocated to each school for Castro Elementary, Monta Loma Elementary, Mistral Elementary, Stevenson Elementary, and Crittenden M iddle schools. The intersections of Rengstorff with Rock Street and Junction Avenue are part of the suggested routes to school for Crittenden Middle School and Monta Loma Elementary.
This corridor also serves the Mountain View Senior Center, which is located adjacent to Rengstorff Park. It also serves key senior routes between the Senior Center and the neighborhood with the highest proportion of senior housing bounded by Rengstorff Avenue, Middlefield Road, Farley Street and Central Expressway. Pedestrians: Pedestrians are over-represented in fatal and severe injury crashes throughout Mountain View.
Key pedestrian crossing locations in this plan area include the intersection of larger roads with higher posted speed limits such as Rengstorff Avenue with sma ller side streets with lower posted speed limits such as Latham Street, Junction Avenue, Rock Street, and Wyandotte Street. Bicyclists: Bicyclists are over -represented in fatal and severe- injury crashes throughout Mountain View.
Rengstorff Avenue is an i mportant north-south bicycle route within the City, particularly including segments south of Middlefield Road that are part of the suggested route to school for Los Altos High School. Driver Behavior: Based on Vision Zero analysis, key driver behaviors t o address include speed, compliance with traffic control devices including crosswalks, LED enhanced crosswalks and red lights, as well as distracted driving.
Speed Management : Rengstorff Avenue is an arterial roadway within Mountain View with a wide cross section (60 to 70 feet from curb to curb) and a posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. City policy requires prioritization of protected bikeways on roadways with posted speeds of 30 mph or greater where feasible. Equity Communities : Rengstorff Avenue co rridor is located along two locally recognized low -income communities including a neighborhood north of Central Expressway with a high proportion of senior housing (described above), and a neighborhood south of Caltrain with a high proportion of Spanish speaking households. Based on Vision Zero analysis, Spanish -speaking residents are over -represented in crashes involving all modes of transportation in the city.
Crash Types
Along this corridor, the following crash types are common:
Vehicle-bicycle crashes including crashes where drivers are making left turns Vehicle-pedestrian crashes where drivers are making left turns, Vehicle-pedestrian crashes including crashes where pedestrians are crossing outside of the crosswalk between intersections.
Improvements for consideration
The Plan could consider treatments that include the treatments listed below. However, all these elements would require in depth engineering review, including a traffic analysis, to determine their site- specific adequacy and feasibility.
Crossing improvements including high-visibility crosswalks and median crossing islands;
48 https://bayviz.mysidewalk.com/
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-3
New crossings with high -visibility crosswalks, median crossing islands, and RRFBs or Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons;
Intersection improvements such as better lighting and visibility and protected left -turn phases; Lane repurposing for Class IV Protected Bike Lanes;
Protected Intersections and other bicycle treatments at intersections; Driveway access management;
Lane narrowing and/or median treatments to reduce prevailing speeds; and
SOUTH SHORELINE BOULEVARD COMPLETE STREETS PROJECT
Project Description
The South Shoreline Boulevard Complete Streets project was developed through the City of Mountain View’s 2015 California/Escuela/Shoreline Complete Streets Feasibility Study, which analyzed existing conditions, incorporated extensive community input, assessed various design features, and developed preferred streetscape concepts for three corridors. This project will i nclude design and construction of complete streets improvements for South Shoreline Boulevard between El Camino Real and Montecito Avenue. Key design features include:
• Ramp reconfiguration to square up on- and off- ramps on the northeast and northwest side of the Shoreline Boulevard overpass over Central Expressway;
• Intersection improvements including high visibility crosswalks, corner bulb outs at smaller streets and protected intersections at Shoreline/California and Shoreline/Wright; • 6 to 4 lane reduction, lane narrowing and Class IV parking protected bikeways from El Camino Real to Wright Avenue – would require a traffic analysis to determine feasibility; • Lane narrowing (min 11’ wide) and Class II bike lane from Wright Avenue to Montecito Avenue; and • Landscaped buffers and green street treatments.
Corridor Context
This corridor is served by multiple bus routes (VTA Route 21, 40 and 51, Mvgo Routes B and D). The corridor connects residential areas, recreational facilities (Eagle Park, Eagle Pool, McKelvey Park), nearby schools (including Landels Elementary, Theuerkauf Elementary, Mistral Elementary, Stevenson Elementary, Graham Middle, Crittenden Middle, St Joseph, Saint Francis, and Mountain View Academy), and businesses (including Bailey Park Plaza Shopping Center).
South Shoreline Boulevard is a high- stress environment for walking (PQOS 5, which is the lowest quality of service based on AccessMV 2021) and riding a bicycle (Level of Traffic Stress 3) and has been the site of multiple crashes involving those modes (40 pedestrian and bicycle crashes from 2014 to 2019).
Emphasis Areas
High Injury Network (HIN): S Shoreline Boulevard has been identified as part of the City’s HIN based on the concentration of fatal and severe injury crashes along the corridor. The corridor has also been identified by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) as part of the Regional HIN. 49
49 https://bayviz.mysidewalk.com/
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-4
School and Senior Routes : Shoreline Boulevard is a key school access route for Graham Middle School, Crittenden Middle School and Mountain View Academy. Additionally, the roadway is within the school catchment for Landels Elementary, Theuerkauf Elementary, Mistral Elementary, Stevenson Elementary, St Joseph and Saint Francis schools. The intersections of Shoreline Boulevard with Latham Street, Villa Street, Wright Avenue and Montecito Avenue are part of the suggested routes to school for Crittenden Middle School and Graham Middle School. This corridor also serves senior access to Downtown Mountain View. Pedestrians: Pedestrians are over-represented in fatal and severe injury crashes throughout Mountain View.
Key pedestrian crossing locations in this plan area include the intersect ion of larger roads with higher posted speed limits such as Shoreline Boulevard with smaller side streets with lower posted speed limits such as Latham-Church Street, Mercy Street, Dana Street, and Wright Avenue. Bicyclists: Bicyclists are over-represented in fatal and severe-injury crashes throughout Mountain View. South Shoreline Boulevard is an important north- south bicycle route within the City including segments north of Latham Street that are frequently used by school students (though not officially a suggested route to school). Driver Behavior: Based on Vision Zero analysis, key driver behaviors to address include speed, compliance with traffic control devices including crosswalks, LED enhanced crosswalks and red lights, as well as distracted driving.
Speed Management : South Shoreline Boulevard is an arterial roadway within Mountain View with a wide cross section (100 to 114 feet from curb to curb from El Camino to Villa, 100 to 130 feet from Villa to Wright, and 70 to 85 feet from Wright to Montecito) and a high posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. City policy requires prioritization of protected bikeways on roadways with posted speeds of 30 mph or greater. In this corridor, City staff have received community comments that allege speeding on th e downhill side of the overpass north of Central expressway.
Crash Types
Along this corridor, the following crash types are common:
Crashes involving drivers making right turns on red
Vehicle-bicycle crashes including crashes where drivers are making left turns Vehicle-pedestrian crashes.
Improvements for consideration
The Plan could consider treatments that include the treatments listed below. However, all these elements would require in depth engineering review, including a traffic analysis, to determine their site -specific adequacy and feasibility.
Ramp reconfiguration to square up on - and off- ramps on the northeast and northwest side of the Shoreline Boulevard overpass over Central Expressway;
Intersection improvements including high visibility crosswal ks, corner bulb outs at smaller streets and protected intersections at Shoreline/California and Shoreline/Wright; 6 to 4 lane reduction, lane narrowing and Class IV parking protected bikeways from El Camino Real to Wright Avenue;
Lane narrowing and Class II bike lane from Wright Avenue to Montecito Avenue; and Landscaped buffers and green street treatments.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-5
SAN ANTONIO COMPLETE STREETS
Project Description
The San Antonio Complete Streets project may be a joint project between the State of California, Caltrain, and the City of Mountain View. The project will focus on crash reduction, vulnerable users, and vehicle speeds.
San Antonio Rd currently does not have city projects planned. However, the San Antonio Precise Plan provides key guiding principles, including the following:
Create open space and pedestrian-oriented frontages.
Improve connectivity to, from and within the San Antonio Plan Area. Leverage Transit resources and improve transit access. Prioritize pedestrian improvements.
Prioritize bicycle connections.
Corridor Context
This corridor is served by multiple bus routes (VTA Route 21, Mvgo Routes C and D, and the Standford Marguerite Shuttle Shopping Express Route, along with Caltrain Routes L1 and L3 near the intersection of Pacchetti Way). The corridor connects residential areas, recreational facilities (including Village Green Dog Park and Fayette Greenway Park), nearby schools (including the School for Independent Learners, Bullis Charter School North Campus, and Egan Junior High School), and businesses (including shopping centers, grocery stores, pharmacies, restaurants, banks, and other services).
The corridor is a highway -like environment that is stressful for people walking (PQOS 5, which is the lowest quality of service based on AccessMV 2021) and riding bicycles (Level of Stress 3) and has been the site of multiple crashes involving those modes (12 pedestrian and bicycle crashes from 2014 to 2019).
Emphasis Areas
High Injury Network (HIN): San Antonio Rd has been identified as part of the City’s HIN based on the concentration of fatal and severe injury crashes along the corridor. Pedestrians: Pedestrians are over-represented in fatal and severe injury crashes throughout Mountain View.
Key pedestrian crossing locations in this plan area include the intersection of larger roads such as El Camino Real, California Street, and Central Expressway, and smaller side streets such as Fayette Drive, Miller Avenue, and Lena Way.
Bicyclists: Bicyclists are over-represented in fatal and severe- injury crashes throughout Mountain View. San Antonio Road is an important north-south bicycle route within the city. Driver Behavior: Based on the Vision Zero analysis, key driver behaviors to address include speed, compliance with traffic control devices including crosswalks, LED-enhanced crosswalks and red lights, as well as distracted driving.
Speed Management: San Antonio Road is an arterial roadway within Mountain View with a wide cross section (80 to 100 feet from curb to curb from Central Expy to California St, and 100 feet from California St to El Camino Real) and a high posted speed limit of 35 miles per hour. City policy requires prioritization of protected bikeways on roadways with posted speeds of 30 mph or greater.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-6
Crash Types
Along this corridor, the following crash types are common:
Pedestrian and bicycle crashes at signalized intersections Improvements for consideration
The Plan could consider treatments that include the treatments listed below. However, all these elements would require in depth engineering review, including a traffic analysis, to determine their site- specific adequacy and feasibility.
Sidewalks or shared-use path on the bridge over Central Expwy; Improvements at intersections, in cluding pedestrian signal modifications, high -visibility; crosswalks, median crossing islands, and curb radius reduction, and improved lighting New pedestrian crossings with high visibility crosswalks, median crossing islands, rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) or pedestrian hybrid beacon (PHB);
Lane reduction for Class IV protected bike lanes;
Protected intersection and other bike treatments at intersections Enhanced delineation; and
Driveway access management
MIDDLEFIELD ROAD / INDEPENDENCE AVENUE INTERSECTION
IMPROVEMENTS
Project Description
Improvements for the intersection on Middlefield Road and Independence Avenue focus on vulnerable users, and improved visibility. The intersection currently does not have a city project planned.
Intersection Context
This intersection at W Middlefield Rd and Independence Ave is less than a 10 -minute walk from the intersection of W Middlefield Rd and Rengstorff Ave, where there are bus stops for VTA Route 40 and Mountain View Community Shuttle Routes Red and Gray. The intersection is on a network of suggested routes to Monta Loma Elementary School, Crittenden Middle School and the Waldorf School of the Peninsula. The intersection is also close to Thaddeus Park and several commercial destinations, including a grocery store, several restaurants, and a gas station.
The intersection is a stressful crossing for people walking (PQOS 4, the s econd-lowest quality of service, on W Middlefield Way, and PQOS 2, the second- highest quality of service, on Independence Ave, based on Access MV 2021) and people riding bicycles (Level of Stress 3 on W Middlefield Rd and Low Stress on Independence Ave) and has been the site of multiple crashes involving those modes (2 pedestrian and bicycle crashes from 2014 to 2019).
Emphasis Areas
High Injury Network (HIN): W Middlefield Rd, which intersects with Independence Ave, has been identified as part of the City’s HIN based on the concentration of fatal and severe injury crashes along the corridor.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-7
School Routes: The intersection at W Middlefield Rd and Independence Ave is on a network of suggested routes to several elementary and middle schools, including Art Sch ool of SF Bay, Monta Loma Elementary School, Hobbledehoy Montessori School, and Waldorf School of the Peninsula. Pedestrians: Pedestrians are over-represented in fatal and severe injury crashes throughout Mountain View.
The intersection at W Middlefield Road and Independence Ave is a key crossing location. Bicyclists: Bicyclists are over -represented in fatal and severe- injury crashes throughout Mountain View. W Middlefield Rd and Independence Ave are important east -west and north- south bicycle routes of var ying stress within the city.
Driver Behavior: Based on the Vision Zero analysis, key driver behaviors to address include speed, compliance with traffic control devices including crosswalks, LED-enhanced crosswalks and red lights, as well as distracted driving.
Speed Management: Middlefield Road is an arterial roadway while Independence Ave is a local roadway. The intersection of these streets has an average to wide cross -section of 40 to 80 feet. W Middlefield Road has a high posted speed of 35 miles per hour while Independence A ve has a medium posted speed of 35 miles per hour. City policy requires prioritization of protected bikeways on roadways with posted speeds of 30 mph or greater.
Crash Types
At this intersection, the following crash types are common:
A serious-injury crash involving a pedestrian and a driver due to the driver proceeding straight and violating the pedestrian’s right of way.
A complaint-of-pain-injury crash involving a bicyclist proceeding straight who was hit by a driver making a left turn.
Improvements for consideration
The improvements would require in depth engineering review, including a traffic analysis, to determine their site - specific adequacy and feasibility.
Median crossing islands;
Rectangular rapid flashing beacon (RRFB) or pedestrian hybrid beaco n; and Improved intersection lighting
ORTEGA AVENUE / LATHAM STREET INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS Project Description
Recommended i mprovements for the intersection at Ortega Ave and Latham St focus on vulnerable users. The intersection currently does not have a city project planned. However, the El Camino Real Precise Plan designated the area surrounding the intersection as residential land use only or medium intensity. The Precise Plan provides key guiding principles for the area surrounding the intersection, including the following:
Preserve, connect, and service adjacent neighborhoods. Prioritize pedestrian-oriented urban design and building form. Improve bicycle access and facilities.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-8
Furthermore, the San Antonio Precise Plan called for the development of 9. 2 acres between Showers Drive and Ortega Avenue, with 279 condominiums in a combination of two -story townhomes and three -story buildings containing one-story condominium units. Moreover, the Latham/Church Street Bicycle Boulevard Feasibility Study, which includes the intersection and its surrounding area, included the following intersection concepts as part of Council recommendations for the corridor:
Splitter islands to decrease motor vehicle speeds, and increase pedestrian visibility and reduce uninterrupted crossing distance;
Raised intersections to reduce motor vehicle speeds;
Cross culvert removal to eliminate risks of people biking or driving into the cross culvert; Curb extensions to decrease motor vehicle speeds, increase pedestrian visibil ity, and reduce pedestrian crossing distance;
High-visibility crosswalks to improve yielding behavior to pedestrians; and Advanced stop bars to improve yielding behavior to pedestrians and reduce encroachment on the crosswalk.
Intersection Context
The intersection at Ortega Ave and Latham St is about a 5 -minute walk from the intersection of Ortega Ave and California St, where there are bus stops for VTA Routes 21 and 40 and Mountain View Community Shuttle Routes Gray and Red. The intersection is also about a 5 -minute walk from the intersection of Latham St and Showers Dr, where there are also bus stops for VTA Routes 21 and 40 and Mountain View Community Shuttle Routes Gray and Red, as well as the Standford Marguerite Shuttle Shopping Express Route.
The intersection of Ortega Ave and Latham St is on a network of suggested routes to school, with connections to Portnov Computer School and Mountain View-Los Altos Montessori Children’s center. The intersection is within a 5- minute walk to Klein Park and is in an area with an above -average share of low -income residents. The intersection is near several commercial destinations, including a grocery store, a pharmacy, and plenty of restaurants and other businesses.
The intersection is a stressful crossing for pede strians (PQOS 5, the lowest quality of service, on Ortega Ave, and PQOS 2, the second -highest quality of service, on Latham St, based on Access MV 2021) and people riding bicycles (Level of Stress 3 on Ortega Ave and Low Stress on Latham St) and has been t he site of multiple crashes involving those modes (3 pedestrian and bicycle crashes from 2014 to 2019) Emphasis Areas
School Routes: Ortega Ave and Latham St are both suggested routes to elementary and high schools, with direct connections to Portnov Computer School and Mountain View-Los Altos Montessori Children’s Center. Pedestrians: Pedestrians are over-represented in fatal and severe injury crashes throughout Mountain View.
The intersection at Ortega Ave and Latham St is a key crossing location. Bicyclists: Bicyclists are over -represented in fatal and severe- injury crashes throughout Mountain View.
Ortega Ave and Latham St are important north -south and east-west bicycle routes of lower stress within the city.
Driver Behavior: Based on the Vision Zero analysis, key driver behaviors to address include speed, compliance with traffic control devices including crosswalks, LED-enhanced crosswalks and red lights, as well as distracted driving.
Equity Communities: Ortega Ave and Latham St is at the intersection o f a locally -recognized low -income community north of El Camino Real. The intersection is also in an area north of El Camino Real and east and west of Ortega Ave, where there is a high proportion of people who have low or no English proficiency. Based DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | D-9
on Vision Zero analysis, Spanish -speaking residents are over -represented in crashes involving all modes of transportation in the City.
Crash Types
At this intersection, the following crash types are common:
Crashes involving pedestrians where drivers are making left turns.
Improvements for consideration
The improvements would require in depth engineering review, including a traffic analysis, to determine their site - specific adequacy and feasibility.
Curb Extensions;
High-Visibility Crosswalk; and
Traffic Calming with Traffic Circle
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | E-1
Appendix E: Key Non-Infrastructure
Recommendations
SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL (RU-1)
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) is a
program that typically includes
engaging traffic safety
assemblies, hands on
pedestrian/bicycle safety
training for school students,
educational materials on
suggested routes to school, and
encouragement events such as
school based walk and roll days.
Best practice SRTS programs
also engage the broader school
community in encouraging
more sustainable school access,
evaluating student travel
patterns and parent attitudes,
identifying safety pain points and potential improvements, and empowering families and students to engage in safe school access such as bike trains and walking school buses.
Effects
SRTS programing does not appear to have been evaluated by FHWA as a potential safety countermeasure. However, many elements o f SRTS programs are associated with positive safety outcomes. For example, research note that research supports the effectiveness of educational campaigns on safety as well as the notion of safety in numbers. 50 Considerations
Implementation of SRTS program ming needs to be coordinated with school districts and members of the school community such as educators, parents and students.
50 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Countermeasures that Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices. 2020. < https://www.nhtsa.gov/book/countermeasures/countermeasures-work>
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | E-2
VISION ZERO MARKETING, OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT (RU-2)
Vision Zero marketing, outreach and engagement address unsafe driver or road user behaviors through coordinated multilingual communications strategies. Typically marketing campaigns for Vision Zero involve five steps:
• research and understanding of local safety concerns and key market segments; • development of campaign strategies and key messages;
• creative development and beta testing of campaign materials; • distribution of materials to target audiences via paid, owned and earned media; and • evaluation of outputs and outcomes.
These efforts aim to move recipients along a spectrum of awareness and action starting with developing awareness of safety issues; and then moving to developing an understanding of the problem behind these issues (such as the relationship between speed and safety outcomes); being ready to take action; committing to personal behavior change (like staying under the speed limit); and engaging in collective responsibility for safety outcomes.
Effective campaigns engage with community-based organizations and community partners to amplify messages, and ensure that they address the concerns of those overrepresented in crashes .
Effects
While Vision Zero marketing and engagement are broadly recognized as a central element of Vision Zero implementation, FHWA has not evaluated these approaches as safety countermeasures.
Considerations
Key issues to be addressed in a Vision Zero marketing a nd outreach campaign must be data driven. For example, campaigns could address key maneuvers identified in Mountain View such as speed (and stopping distance), driving under the influence, encroachment into pedestrian right of way, and taking care to look both ways at intersections.
DRAFT Vision Zero Action Plan / Local Road Safety Plan
City of Mountain View
Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. | E-3
IMPAIRED DRIVING POLICIES (SR-1)
Crashes involving impaired driving
represent 40% of all traffic
fatalities in California. Impaired
driving is classified as a high
priority challenge area for the
state in the California 2020 -2024
Strategic Highway Safety Plan
Report. Coordination with local,
regional, and state level partners
for policy and education action are
critical to reducing impaired
driving crashes.
A place of last drink (POLD) survey
may be included in an impaired
driving prevention strategy. The
survey documents where a
DUI/DWI subject consumed their
last drink and provides data for
the local community to establish
appropriate interventions.
Effects
Impaired driving policies are included as a recommended strategy in California Safe Roads: 2020- 2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
51 The strategy was implemented in Ventura, California. The city conducted 36 bar risk assessments of alcohol retail establishments, resulting in a reduction in survey mentions for 2 of the establishments.52
Considerations
Implementation of impaired driving policies should consider resources for policy implementation, and coordination with local, regional, and state level partners.
Crash Type Addressed
Alcohol or drug intoxication
51 California Department of Transportation. California Safe Roads - 2020-2024 Strategic Highway Safety Plan. 2020. <https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/safety-programs/documents/shsp/2020-2024-shsp-report.pdf> 52 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. A Summary Report of Six Demonstration Projects to Reduce Alcohol-Impaired Driving Among 21- to 34-Year-Old Drivers. 2008.
<http://www.nmprevention.org/Project_Docs/Report%20of%20Projects%20to%20Reduce%20Alc%20Imp%20Driving%20Amon g%2021-34%20yo%20NHTSA%202008.pdf>
California Statewide Impaired Driving Statistics. Source: 2020-2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan