ATT 1 - PUBLIC DRAFT – Active Transportation Plan Appendices — Council Transportation Committee, June 16, 2026

ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
APRIL 2026

PUBLIC DRAFT
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 1

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
2 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DEDICATION
This Active Transportation Plan is dedicated to the people of Mountain View who walk, bike, roll, and take transit through the city each day. It honors community members and partners who have advocated for safer streets, healthier neighborhoods, and equitable access to transportation for all. May this plan support a more connected, inclusive, and sustainable Mountain View for generations to come.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 3

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

CITY COUNCIL
Margaret Abe-Koga*
Chris Clark
Alison Hicks
Ellen Kamei
Lisa Matichak*
John McAllister
Lucas Ramirez
Emily Ann Ramos
Patricia Showalter
*denotes past council member
ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION

PLAN TECHNICAL

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Terry Barton
Alisa Campbell
Thida Cornes
Mary Dateo
Bruce England
Ian Lin
Lauren Ledbetter
Jennifer Stewart
April Webster
Rebecca Westover

CITY TEAM
Stephen Achabal
Priyoti Ahmed
Eric Anderson
Lauren Anderson
Ed Arango
Lisa Au
Brian Babcock
Allison Boyer
Quynh Byrer
Jennifer Cutter
Matthew Feisthamel
Darwin Galang
Chris Goff
Maureen Grzan-Pieracci
Russell Hansen
Joy Houghton
Lorenzo Lopez
Jennifer Ng
Carrie Sandahl

BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN

ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
Terry Barton
Serge Bronte
Peggy Huang
James Kuszmaul
John (Isaac) Stone

CONSULTANT TEAM
Nelson\Nygaard
Metta Urban Design
Thank you to the individuals and organizations that made the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan possible, as well as the many residents whose input is reflected in this document. 4 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary 6
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan
Introduction 12
What is an Active Transportation Plan?
The Role of Public & Stakeholder Engagement
Why Does This Plan Matter and How Will It Be Used?
What’s It Like to Walk, Bike and Roll
In Mountain View Today? 24
Community Characteristics
Existing Transportation Infrastructure
Safety
Key Takeaways
Recommendations 48
What’s Working?
Recommendations for the Future
Let’s Roll! Implementing the ATP 64
Implementation Process Considerations
Funding Sources for Active Transportation Projects
Appendix A: Project Prioritization
Appendix B: Cutsheet Development
Appendix C: Recommended Improvements
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 5

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY
Mountain View
Active Transportation Plan
Mountain View envisions an active transportation network that is safe and comfortable for all users regardless of age, ability, income, race or language.

The Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (MVATP) is data and community-driven at its core, responding to the actual active transportation experiences, priorities, and vision of people who walk, bicycle and roll in Mountain View. It builds on the work of previous plans to recommend citywide projects, policies, and programs that can improve walking (including wheelchairs or disability-related devices), bicycling, rolling (including e-scooters and other micromobility devices), and green streets in Mountain View.

WHAT IS AN ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN?
An Active Transportation Plan (ATP)
outlines projects, policies, and programs
that promote and support walking, bicycling,
and rolling for everyone in a community, and
provides an action plan for implementation
of the recommendations.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 7

VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE MVATP
The MVATP is guided by a Vision Statement and five Guiding Principles.

Vision Statement:

The City of Mountain View will lead regionally by creating an active transportation plan system that strengthens the community’s access to housing, employment, schools, and other destinations.

The Active Transportation Plan will enable the City to intentionally plan with policies that support walkable and bikeable places, programs that create a culture of walking and biking, and projects that produce a connected, low-stress and inviting active transportation network that doubles as corridors of shade, habitat, and public open space.

This network of streets and trails will encourage biking and walking, enhance biodiversity, and reduce climate change impacts. 8 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

DEVELOPING THE MVATP
The MVATP
involved a multiphase engagement
and analysis process
that occurred over
an approximately
two-year period.

The phases included:

The MVATP includes the following sections and content:

Chapter 1:

Introduction
This chapter introduces the MVATP and the process that
was followed throughout its development, including details on public and stakeholder engagement. It also outlines the MVATP’s Vision Statement and Guiding Principles.

Chapter 2:

What’s it like to walk,
bicycle and roll in
Mountain View today?
This chapter provides an overview of the community of
Mountain View: the people who live and work there, how
they move about the community, the infrastructure,
services and policies that may influence active transportation and a holistic network vision for the future.

Chapter 3:

Recommendations
This chapter highlights current positive actions in Mountain View and recommended projects, programs and policies to further support active travel.

Chapter 4:

Let’s Roll!
Implementing the
MVATP
This chapter discusses ways to implement the
recommendations discussed in Chapter 3, including the
costs and benefits of green street infrastructure, project phasing considerations, funding support, and the importance of collaboration and commitment for actions to advance.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 9

TAKING ACTION
The MVATP recommends priority infrastructure projects focused on completing gaps in the all ages and abilities bicycle network and improving the safety, comfort and connectivity of people walking along the city’s pedestrian infrastructure (Figure 1). Several of the recommended projects include both a near-term, lower cost design to move an improvement forward, and a longer-term, more extensive reconstruction to layout a vision for the future.

Additionally, the plan outlines a number of active transportation-focused programs and policies that align with the MVATP’s vision and guiding principles to improve mobility and connectivity, safety and comfort, access and equity, sustainability and biodiversity, and that are innovative and action oriented.

COMMITTING TO A SAFE AND ACTIVE COMMUNITY
Active transportation is an integral part of life in Mountain View. The MVATP is a commitmentto creating an active transportation system that strengthens the community’s access to housing, employment, schools, parks, open spaces and other destinations and enhances biodiversity. The plan complements other Mountain View planning documents and initiatives that support active transportation, safety, sustainability and biodiversity and will help to provide accountability to the community’s commitment to these values.
10 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FIGURE 1 HOLISTIC NETWORK MAP WITH PRIORITY PROJECTS 11

INTRODUCTION
01 What is an Active
Transportation Plan?
Mountain View envisions an active transportation network that is safe and comfortable for all users regardless of age, ability, income, race, or language.

This section outlines the multi-phase approach, summarizes public and stakeholder engagement methods, and presents the vision and guiding principles that shaped the plan’s recommendations.

It explains why the plan matters and how it will be used to improve active transportation throughout Mountain View.

PURPOSE AND PROCESS
Active transportation plans use data and community input to identify the gaps and opportunities to improve the environment for walking, bicycling/scootering and rolling (wheelchairs or disability-related devices). The plans typically contain recommendations for infrastructure projects, programs and policies that support active travel and an implementation plan to help recommendations move toward action.

The Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (MVATP) reflects the active transportation experiences and priorities of people who walk, bicycle, and roll in Mountain View. Building on previous City mode-specific plans (the 2014 Pedestrian Master Plan and the 2015 Bicycle Transportation Plan), the MVATP takes a holistic look at active transportation and the coordinated solutions that support both pedestrian and bicycle travel. Several other city, regional and state-level documents informed the development of the MVATP such as the 2020 Access MV Comprehensive Modal Plan, the 2024 Mountain View Vision Zero Action Plan, various Mountain View Precise Plans, the 2019 Environmental Sustainability Action Plan 4, the 2025 Metropolitan Transportation Commission Active Transportation Plan and Complete Street Policy, and the 2024 Caltrans Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Complete Street design documents (various years), and District 4 Pedestrian (2021) and Bicycle Plans (2018).

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 13

MULTI-PHASE PROCESS
The MVATP involved three primary phases:

FIGURE 2 MVATP PROJECT PHASES Phase 1
‣ Reviewed over 30 local, regional, and state planning documents related to transportation, general planning and green streets/sustainability to provide a contextual understanding of past planning recommendations and support for active transportation within Mountain View, the region and state.
‣ Analyzed current conditions that affect the ease, safety and comfort of people who walk, bicycle and roll in Mountain View, including physical infrastructure and complementary transportation services such as transit.
‣ Developed holistic active transportation network maps that identified on-street and offstreet gaps and opportunities for active transportation improvements. ‣ Reviewed Mountain View Municipal Code focusing on those that may impact recreation, walking, and bicycling.
‣ Conducted a best practice review of policy and programming activities to identify resulting transportation behavior and outcomes that could be improved. 14 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Phase 2
‣ Developed scoring criteria to evaluate potential physical infrastructure projects based on the MVATP guiding principles.
‣ Identified a list of sustainable projects based on the scoring process that improve safe, equitable and comfortable connections across the city.
‣ Coordinated the review of projects by stakeholders.
‣ Accelerated a prioritized list of physical infrastructure projects for planning level design and preliminary cost estimates.
‣ Developed a list of active transportation supportive policy and programming efforts based on best practice, past planning documents, and city code review.

Phase 3
‣ Prepared planning level design and preliminary cost estimates for seventeen projects considering near-term improvements that could be done with resurfacing and longerterm reconstruction efforts to support active transportation. ‣ Evaluated the short and long-term costs and benefits of green street infrastructure through a series of project development scenarios.
‣ Identified implementation factors such as funding sources, department and interagency collaboration, and commitment to innovation and action.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 15
The Role of Public &
Stakeholder Engagement
Public and stakeholder participation was a critical component of the MVATP’s overall development. Public engagement was multi-lingual (English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian), with translation and interpretation services for key events such as community walk tours and small group meetings. Across the three project phases, multiple methods of public outreach and engagement were used.

ADVISORY COMMITTEES
Two project-specific committees and two city-wide committees provided input at key milestones of the project:
1) The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), an internal project committee with representatives from departments across the city with involvement in active transportation and green streets, such as Public Works, Community Development, Community Services, Police and Fire.
2) The Active Transportation Plan Advisory Committee (ATPAC), an external project committee whose members represent community-based organizations and public agencies working on active transportation, green streets, and issues of concern to vulnerable road users, such as Santa Clara County Public Health Department, Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the Community Services Agency, Mountain View Day Worker Center, MV Mobile Home Alliance, Youth Advisory Committee, Mountain View Los Altos High School District, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, and Mountain View Chamber of Commerce. ATPAC members acted as liaisons with wider community networks, helped organize and participate in many of the ATP engagement activities, and provided input on the plan development. 3) The Mountain View Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), a committee appointed by City Council to represent the interests of people who walk and bicycle in the city, reviewed and provided input on ATP-related topics at BPAC meetings throughout the project.
4) The Council Transportation Committee (CTC), composed of three City Council members, provided input on city-wide and regional transportation planning topics. 16 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

LIVED EXPERIENCES
Lived experiences were critical to understanding the active transportation needs and opportunities in Mountain View. These insights were captured in Phase 1 by conducting three community walk tours, two bicycle tours, hosting a communitywide mapping survey, in-person small group meetings, and review of the AskMV platform comments. These insights both confirmed and highlighted community needs.
‣ Three walk tours were held to understand user experience for people who walk in Mountain View. Walk tours began at Rengstorff Park, Mistral Elementary school, Sunset Estates Mobile Home Park. Approximately 15-25 people took part in each tour, walking the streets adjacent to these community and residential locations, to better understand the walking experience of vulnerable road users.
‣ Two bicycle tours were held to understand user experience bicycling in Mountain View. Approximately 40 adults and three children participated in a three-hour-long collaborative process that covered over 11 miles of Mountain View, and focused on areas identified (in AccessMV, AskMV and survey comments) as high-stress critical connections in the bicycling network.

FIGURE 3 BICYCLE TOUR
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 17
FIGURE 4

MULTI-LINGUAL MVATP SURVEY PROMOTION
‣ An online map-based community survey was developed in spring 2023 via Maptionnaire. The survey sought information on user experience related to walking, biking and rolling in Mountain View, including favorite places and routes, challenging spots and routes, and requested improvements.

Participants digitally recorded responses on maps and provided qualitative comments and optional sociodemographic information. The survey was available in English, Spanish, Chinese, and Russian from May 15 till July 31, 2023. Six hundred fifty-five (655) people participated in the survey. ‣ Small multilingual group meetings with stakeholders to discuss Maptionnaire survey questions in person, with translators present. In-person meetings were held to connect with communities who were under-represented (relative to census demographics) in initial community survey responses. The meetings gathered input on experiences walking, biking and rolling in Mountain View. ‣ The City of Mountain View maintains an online comment platform, AskMV, where people share feedback on various topics. City staff monitors the platform for comments regarding walking and bicycling, and transportation safety. Approximately three years of feedback was gleaned to identify frequent concerns.

FIGURE 5 WALK TOUR
18 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PUBLIC WORKSHOPS,

POP-UPS, AND

COMMENT PERIODS
Pop-ups, workshops and comments during
community events and public meetings were used
as opportunities to gather additional feedback on
MVATP findings and recommendations.

FIGURE 6 MISTRAL WALK TOUR PARTICIPANTNOTES

PUBLIC OFFICIAL

ENGAGEMENT
Presentations to BPAC, CTC, and City Council
were conducted at project milestones, including
existing conditions, scoring criteria, holistic
maps and final recommendations.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 19
FIGURE 7 COMMUNITY COMMENTS ON CHALLENGING PLACES
Note: a Key Locations table can be found in Chapter 2.
20 VISION & GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE MVATP
With input from the ATPAC, TAC, and BPAC, a Vision Statement and Guiding Principles were developed that reflected the goals, purpose and values of the MVATP. The Vision Statement and Guiding Principles were reviewed and approved by City Council.

Vision Statement:

The City of Mountain View will lead regionally by creating an active transportation plan system that strengthens the community’s access to housing, employment, schools, and other destinations.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 21
Why Does This Plan Matter
and How Will It Be Used?
Achieving a future that supports sustainable active transportation for all in Mountain View requires a holistic approach and commitment to action. Through the development of an Active Transportation Plan,the City of Mountain View took an important step forward.

The MVATP helps the public and decision makers understand the importance of active transportation for community mobility, livability, health, and sustainability and its vision for it based on Mountain View values. The MVATP identifies a host of actions to create a truly active transportation system for Mountain View residents and visitors. Through these actions, the MVATP documents the community’s commitment to active transportation through policy, programming and infrastructure, laying the groundwork for financial and organizational support for active transportation projects.

In addition, the MVATP informs future Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs), helping prioritize investments in active transportation projects. It also serves as guidance for private development along priority corridors, encouraging alignment with planned improvements without establishing strict requirements.
22 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
“We cannot achieve our climate,
pollution, and health goals
without replacing some individual
car trips with active or shared
transportation. Plus, we’ve got
the best climate in the world!”
“Mountain View should think
about this as a goal: ‘Active
Transportation should be the
preferred method of travel in
Mountain View.’ Think about
how it would change our street
and sidewalk design decisions if
we at least asked ourselves that
question every time a streetscape
design decision is made.”
“Mountain View has the potential
to create an active transit
Mecca given its size (5 miles)
and amenities. It will sustain us
through economic highs and lows
because people want to live where
they can walk whether they know
it or not.”
“Every bicyclist on a trail is
one fewer car on the road, so
while the infrastructure may be
expensive, it provides a benefit to
all Mountain View residents and
not only the ones who use it.”
FIGURE 8 COMMUNITY QUOTES

FROM MAPTIONNAIRE SURVEY
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 23
02 WHAT’S IT LIKE TO

WALK, BIKE AND ROLL

IN MOUNTAIN
VIEW TODAY?
Community Characteristics
Mountain View is a diverse community with a strong foundation of active transportation infrastructure and transit systems.

Through this ATP, the City aspires to be better. The existing system can be improved to increase connectivity, accessibility and safety, and provide more green infrastructure that can improve public and environmental health within the community by reducing heat exposure, improving air quality, stormwater retention, and biodiversity.

This chapter provides an overview of the existing conditions which is one of the first steps in the development of the MVATP. It describes key aspects of demographics, infrastructure, services, and other community characteristics that influence walking, bicycling, and green streets in Mountain View today.

THE PEOPLE OF MOUNTAIN VIEW
Mountain View is a jobs-rich Santa Clara County community that faces the opportunities and challenges of a strong Silicon Valley economy. The city’s population is approximately 82,000, yet it also has a daily influx of workers for more than 100,000 jobs. Two thirds of the population is under the age of 44, and 22% is under 18.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 25
The city is ethnically diverse. Approximately 48% of
Mountain View residents identify as white, 33% identify as Asian, with Chinese being the predominant Asian
ethnicity, and 18% identify as Hispanic or Latino (Table 1).

While the overall population density of Mountain View is low-to-medium, higher densities exist along and between key commercial and transit corridors such as Central
Expressway/Caltrain and El Camino Real, and between
Rengstorff Avenue and Escuela and Sierra Vista Avenues
(Figure 9). Those neighborhoods also have higher youth
densities (Figure 10).

SECONDARY DATA

SOURCES
for Existing Conditions Analysis:
‣ City Open Data Portal -
spatial data
‣ Geomate - satellite data
‣ U.S. Census Bureau, American
Community Survey (ACS)
5-year estimates
‣ California Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System
(SWITRS) - crash data
‣ Transit Service Data (Santa
Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA)
‣ Mountain View Transportation
Management Association
(MTMA) and Caltrain
Source: ACS 2021 5-year estimate

RACE AND ETHNICITY

IN MOUNTAIN VIEW PERCENT OF RESIDENTS
White alone 48.4%
Asian alone 33.3%
Black or African American alone 2.4%
Native American, Native Alaskan alone 0.4%
Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander alone 0.0%
Some other race alone 5.8%
Two or more races 9.6%

HISPANIC OR LATINO

POPULATION PERCENT OF RESIDENTS
Not Hispanic or Latino 82.0%
Hispanic or Latino 18.0%
TABLE 1 RACE AND ETHNICITY IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
26 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FIGURE 9 POPULATION DENSITY (2020) 27
28 FIGURE 10 YOUTH (AGES 18 AND UNDER) POPULATION DENSITY (2020) HOW DO WE MOVE ABOUT MOUNTAIN VIEW?
Mountain View is an active community. Commute data shows that people bicycle and walk to work at higher rates than other communities in California and the United States. Approximately

3.8% of workers ages 16 and over in Mountain View bicycle to work (compared with 0.7% statewide and 0.4% nationally) and 2.5% walk to work (compared with 2.4% statewide and 2.4% nationally). Together, walking and bicycling account for 5.3% of commutes, exceeding the 3.9% who take public transportation. (Table 2)
Journey to Work data from the U.S. Census only provides a snapshot of walking and bicycling rates by one trip purpose. The Mountain View Safe Routes to School Program conducts an annual Student Travel Tally, capturing how students actually get to and from school. The 2024–2025 findings show that 25% of elementary school students, 33% of middle school students, and 27% of high school students walk or bicycle to school. Refer to Table 3 for the overall student travel mode share.

COMMUTE MODE MOUNTAIN VIEW CALIFORNIA UNITED STATES
Drove alone 51.8% 65.7% 68.8%
Carpooled 5.4% 9.5% 8.5%
Public transportation 3.9% 2.9% 3.2%
Walked 2.5% 2.4% 2.4%
Bicycle 3.8% 0.7% 0.4%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 1.9% 1.7% 1.5%
Worked from home 30.6% 17.2% 15.1%
Source: ACS 2021 5-year estimate
Source: Student Travel Tally Survey (2024-2025), Mountain View Safe Routes to School TABLE 2 COMMUTE MODE COMPARISON (2024)
TABLE 3 STUDENT TRAVEL MODE SHARE (2024-2025)

PARENTS DROVE/

STUDENTS DROVE
ALONE

CARPOOL PUBLIC

TRANSIT
SCHOOL

BUS WALK BICYCLE

SCOOTER,

SKATEBOARD, OR

HOVERBOARD
64% 6% 3% 2% 17% 7% 1%
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 29
Existing Transportation
Infrastructure
This section summarizes current transportation conditions in Mountain View. It focuses on features that support walking and biking, highlights existing strengths in the active transportation network, and identifies key opportunities for improvement.

PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE
Mountain View’s sidewalk network is 96% complete and supports walking and rolling throughout the city through a series of connected sidewalks, paseos, plazas, signalized and unsignalized crosswalks, and enhanced crosswalks. Many newer sidewalks provide comfortable pedestrian conditions, allowing two people to walk side by side; however, some older sidewalks and driveways are not up to current standards.

Through community engagement, surveys, and field work conducted by Mountain View staff, several existing issues were identified, including uplifted sidewalks, obstructions, deteriorating concrete, and outdated driveway slope design. Community input also indicated that parked cars often block drivers’ views of pedestrians on the sidewalk as they pull into driveways. Some of these issues stem from standards that were acceptable at the time of construction but do not reflect current best practices.

FIGURE 11 SIDEWALK CONDITIONS
30 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Beyond sidewalks and crosswalks, Mountain View’s pedestrian network includes a host of paseos and trails that further support connectivity and mobility throughout the city.

Paseos are a valuable tool to provide public permeability for pedestrians and cyclists through private areas. These are often built as part of multi-family residences in Mountain View. They have the added benefit of providing “eyes on the street,” which increases visibility and promotes a sense of community. Survey respondents suggested more publicly accessible pathways, or paseos, through apartment and office complexes near schools and on routes to transit, such as the Caltrain stations, to increase active transportation accessibility.

FIGURE 12 CAR-FREE PASEO EXAMPLES
WHAT IS A PASEO?
A paseo is a short connection, often utilizing a public access easement that allows for increased pedestrian and cycling connections. Participants in the Rengstorff Park Walk Tour noted how the paseo connecting Latham to El Camino between Rengstorff and Ortega improved access to destinations on El Camino Real.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 31
FIGURE 13 MARKED CROSSWALKS IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
Mountain View has over 2,100 signalized intersections, marked crosswalks, High-Intensity Activated CrossWalK beacons (HAWKs), LED-enhanced crosswalks, and rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs), all of which help draw attention to pedestrians crossing the roadway.

Crossings are a critical component of walking and bicycling routes throughout the city..

However, crossing roadways with higher speeds and multiple lanes was a recurring comfort and safety concern from Mountain View Residents, particularly along larger arterial roads such as El Camino Real and Central Expressway, where signalized crossing opportunities are more widely spaced (Figure 14). It is important to note that some of these larger arterial roads are under jurisdiction of Caltrans or Santa Clara County.

To improve the pedestrian network, the City
continues to enhance crossings and intersections
with features that support pedestrian and bicycle
safety, such as high visibility crosswalks, raised
crosswalks, RRFBs, pedestrian hybrid beacons
(PHBs), wave-actuated pedestrian push buttons,
and removal of visual barriers near intersections.
32 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FIGURE 14 DISTANCE BETWEEN MARKED CROSSWALKS 33

BICYCLE NETWORK
The city has a varied network of bicycle facilities (Figure 16), some of which are well connected and some of which are fragmented due to gaps or barriers The city has 2.0 linear miles of Class IV protected bikeway, 24.3 miles of Class I trail, and 27.6 linear miles of Class II bike lanes.

Different people have various levels of comfort, physical ability, and levels of risk they are willing to accept as they travel through the city. In Access MV, the City’s multimodal transportation plan, the City identified a future all ages and abilities (AAA) bicycle network made up of existing and planned/funded projects (Figure 17). Facility types represented in the AAA network include bicycle boulevards, trails such as Stevens Creek Trail (a continuous AAA connection between the northern and southern parts of the City), protected bikeways and bicycle lanes on lower-speed, lower-volume streets.

However, not all neighborhoods have good connections to the trail network. Bicycle tour and survey participants noted difficult trail access conditions such as safety bollards, crossing challenges, a lack of trailheads and a lack of connecting sidewalks where Stevens Creek Trail meets major corridors such as Evelyn Ave, El Camino Real, Moffett Boulevard and West Middlefield Road, requesting or noting a need for improvements to the Permanente Creek Trail and its neighborhood connections.

FIGURE 15 EXAMPLE OF BICYCLE RACK
Bicycle Parking and
End-of-Trip Facilities
A complete bicycle network includes
other supportive infrastructure and
facilities including safe and secure bicycle
parking, accurate bicycle detection,
bicycle maintenance stations, restrooms,
drinking fountains, and clear wayfinding
for bicyclists.
“Much more bike parking is needed on streets,
and in retail parking lots.”
34 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Trails (Class I) are shared-use bicycle and
pedestrian paths that are physically separated
from motor vehicle travel lanes, typically
through horizontal separation and/or grade
separation. In Mountain View, most Class I trails
are paved, though some may be unpaved or have
natural surface treatments.

Bicycle lanes (Class II) are striped bicycle
facilities that do not include a physical barrier
separating cyclists from motor vehicle lanes.

Bicycle boulevards and bike routes (Class III)
are shared streets with low motor vehicle
speeds and volumes, featuring design
elements and pavement markings intended
to prioritize bicycles.

Protected bikeways (Class IV) are bicycle
facilities with physical barriers between bicyclists
and motorized vehicles. Physical barriers can be
provided with flexible plastic posts, concrete,
plants and trees, or other treatments.

FIGURE 16
TYPES OF BICYCLE FACILITIES IN MOUNTAIN VIEW’S ALL AGES AND ABILITIES (AAA) BICYCLE NETWORK MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 35
FIGURE 17
EXISTING AND PLANNED/FUNDED AAA BICYCLE FACILITIES VS. EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK Note: LTS (Level of Traffic Stress): a measure of how comfortable or stressful a roadway is for bicyclists based on traffic speed, volume, and bike facility conditions. 36 TRANSIT SERVICES

IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
‣ Caltrain commuter rail service
‣ VTA light rail service
‣ VTA bus service (including
Rapid Bus Route 522 on El
Camino Real)
‣ Mountain View Community
Shuttle service
‣ MVgo commute-hour shuttles

TRANSIT IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
Transit connections are made by walking, biking and
rolling. Mountain View is well served by several highquality regional and local transit services.

VTA light rail station areas like Whisman Station are
well connected by a complete sidewalk network and
low-stress bicycle routes. In some areas, such as Pacific Drive near Whisman station, station area planning has
helped create walkable, shaded streets that improve
transit access for people who walk, bicycle, and roll.

In most of the city, bus services on major roads and
arterials are connected to adjacent neighborhoods via
low-stress bicycle and pedestrian routes (Figure 18).

Survey respondents noted that the major arterials
are some of the more challenging routes and crossing
locations, making first and the last mile transit access important for active transportation infrastructure
design.

FIGURE 18 TRANSIT ACCESS CONDITION

IN MOUNTAIN VIEW
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 37
38 FIGURE 19 TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
Safety
Between 2015 and 2022, Mountain View reported 563 crashes involving people walking and biking, including 11 fatal and 52 severe injury crashes. According to the 2024 Mountain View Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP), 73% of fatal and severe injury (FSI) collisions occurred along arterials with higher vehicle speeds (35 mph or above), more vehicle lanes, and higher traffic volume.

Pedestrian collisions (typically involving a motor vehicle) were particularly concentrated along arterial roadways, which represent 20% of the city’s street network. FSI bicycle crashes were more distributed throughout the city. However, both pedestrian and bicycle FSI crash locations overlapped with locations that community members reported as challenging in the MVATP survey. (Figures 20 and 21). The top community-identified challenging locations are summarized in Table 4.

Crash types at
intersections included
conflicts during turning
movements and broadsides,
whereas crashes along the
road often involved vehicle
lane departures. There are
several potential roadway
improvements such as
protected bike lanes,
curb extensions, and/or
pedestrian interval phasing
and bicycle signals that
may reduce conflict points
and should be considered
when designing multimodal
streets.

TABLE 4 TOP 10 CHALLENGING SPOTS FOR WALKING, BIKING,

AND ROLLING AS INDICATED BY COMMUNITY INPUT

CHALLENGING SPOTS
Rengstorff Avenue & Central Expressway (and by extension:

Rengstorff Avenue & Leland Avenue/Crisanto Avenue)
Castro Street/Moffett Boulevard & Central Expressway
(and by extension: Castro Street & Evelyn Avenue)
El Camino Real & Castro Street
Central Expressway & Shoreline Boulevard
Grant Road & El Camino Real
Miramonte Avenue/Shoreline Boulevard & El Camino Real
SR-85 & El Camino Real
SR-101 & Shoreline Boulevard
SR-85 & Central Expressway
El Camino Real & Escuela Avenue
MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 39
FIGURE 20

FREQUENCY OF COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING AND CHALLENGING LOCATIONS 40 FIGURE 21

FREQUENCY OF COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE ON BICYCLE AND CHALLENGING LOCATIONS 41 GREEN STREETS
In 2021, the Mountain View City Council established a goal to “protect and enhance local ecosystems and biodiversity through rewilding and other measures” as part of their Sustainability & Climate Resiliency strategic priority. The City is developing a Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan to enhance the health of local ecosystems and prevent species loss through a multi-pronged approach. One element of this approach is planning for active transportation networks that double as wildlife corridors to preserve biodiversity assets, create new spaces for local native plants, and support local ecosystems.

Green Streets are a holistic approach that combines active transportation, biodiversity promotion, and green infrastructure development. Including Green Streets as a component of the MVATP presents a unique opportunity to support Mountain View’s sustainability and biodiversity goals by providing space for natural systems to thrive within the public right-of-way, while influencing how people use the street, often slowing motor vehicle traffic and increasing the comfort of pedestrians and cyclists of all ages and abilities by creating space and incorporating natural elements into the street. Metrics in the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan will evaluate green street projects for their contribution to canopy coverage, native species integration, habitat corridor function, and stormwater performance.

For the purpose of identifying possible improvements and developing project concepts (discussed in Chapter 3), the MVATP focused on two aspects of sustainability and biodiversity/green streets:
plantable space and impervious surface cover.

FIGURE 22 PUBLIC TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS
42 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Trees are a valuable community resource and an essential component of civic infrastructure. The City of Mountain View has been committed to preserving and enhancing its urban forest since 1960 when the City Council established tree care services. Street trees provide important shade, cooling, stormwater, water pollution reduction, and air purification services.

Approximately 2/3 of public trees are found in planting strips, which represents the biggest opportunity for additional community trees. Planting strips with trees adjacent to the roadway also provide an important physical buffer between the pedestrian and vehicular space, increasing comfort, safety and shade (Figure 22).

Impervious surfaces include concrete and asphalt surfaces, roofs, and other hard materials that do not allow water to soak into the ground. On the other hand, porous surfaces, like gardens and other unpaved areas, allow water to soak into the ground. Impervious surfaces affect the environment and natural systems in various ways, causing more stormwater runoff, flood risk and water pollution, and higher surface temperatures. Greening strategies, such as planting strips, tree wells, landscaped medians, and bicycle buffers, can increase pervious surfaces. These green street elements make a positive difference in areas filled with impervious surfaces by soaking up rainwater and cooling the surroundings, improving the overall environment in Mountain View neighborhoods.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 43
Key Takeaways

COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
Mountain View is an active community. Through the survey, walk and bike tours, and data analysis, Mountain View residents noted the desire to walk, bicycle, and roll safely throughout the community. They desire access to key destinations such as shopping, schools, parks and transit.

They also want end-of-trip support, such as secure bicycle parking at locations throughout the city to make it feasible and desirable to travel by active modes.

OPPORTUNITIES FOR A HOLISTIC ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION NETWORK
As demonstrated in the findings presented in this chapter, Mountain View has a strong foundation for its active transportation network. However, opportunities for improvement exist, whether filling gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network or improving the quality of the existing infrastructure to increase connectivity, safety, comfort and sustainability. Holistic active transportation network maps were developed to highlight these future opportunities to expand the quantity and quality of the active transportation network in Mountain View (Figure 23, Figure 24, and Figure 25).

Note: The Policy on Unimproved Streets adopted by City Council in 1993 affirms the direction to not construct sidewalks in residential areas unless homeowners initiate an assessment district to fund these sidewalk. The policy references resident desires to maintain the rural character of these streets by not improving streets to current standards. Many missing sidewalks are in these unimproved areas. 44 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FIGURE 23 HOLISTIC PEDESTRIAN NETWORK (EXISTING) 45
46 FIGURE 24 HOLISTIC PEDESTRIAN NETWORK (PROPOSED)
FIGURE 25 HOLISTIC BICYCLE NETWORK 47
03 RECOMMENDATIONS
What’s Working?
The analysis of existing conditions, prior planning projects, existing policies and code and the development of the holistic network maps highlighted current strengths and areas of opportunity for improving active transportation in Mountain View.

The recommendations are grounded in the MVATP vision and guiding principles, identifying actions that improve mobility, connectivity, safety, comfort and access with a focus on equity, sustainability and biodiversity. The projects, programs and policies build on the strong foundation of innovation that exists in Mountain View, and an eye toward action.

CURRENT PROGRESS
Mountain View is no stranger to active transportation programs and projects. The city currently supports walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation through a combination of programs, policy decisions, and capital projects. We highlight a few programs and projects that support the vision and guiding principles of this plan. ‣ Castro Street Pedestrian Mall: Originally created as a temporary COVID-19 response, the Castro Street Pedestrian Mall became a permanent feature of downtown Mountain View after City Council voted to make the closure permanent in 2024. Closing Castro Street between Evelyn and California Streets to vehicle traffic created vital outdoor space for gathering and recreation, improved pedestrian access to local businesses, and does not allow bicycling within the Pedestrian Mall. In December 2025, City Council also voted to extend the closure across the Caltrain tracks, further enhancing pedestrian connectivity in the downtown core.
‣ El Camino Real Protected Bikeways: In partnership with Caltrans, the City implemented protected bikeways along El Camino Real between Sylvan Avenue and Rengstorff Avenue in 2024. This project improves bicycle connectivity for community members traveling along this major corridor, noted as a critical and challenging route for bicyclists in the existing conditions community survey. While important progress has been made, continued expansion of low-stress bicycle facilities across and around El Camino Real should remain a priority to create a truly connected network.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 49
‣ California Street Complete Streets Pilot Program (Shoreline to Showers: Constructed in 2025, the pilot program implemented reduced vehicle lanes, protected intersections, high-visibility crosswalks and midblock crossings, and parking-protected bikeways with a buffered section and green bicycle lane striping at conflict points. The project exemplifies complete streets design, balancing the needs of all road users while improving safety and comfort for people walking and biking. Upon completion of the pilot period, the project will be evaluated based on safety outcomes, operational data, and community feedback.

That evaluation will inform a decision to either advance the project to a permanent installation or implement revisions accordingly.
‣ Vision Zero Marketing and Outreach Campaign: The City has completed the first phase of the Vision Zero outreach and education campaign to promote safety across Mountain View. Through this effort, the City provided information on pedestrian and bicycle safety at major citywide events and the farmers’ market, and conducted a digital campaign. This effort also included safety videos explaining how to use the bicycle lanes on El Camino Real and the protected bicycle lane on California Street. This work is important for educating road users about the new bicycle and pedestrian facilities. ‣ Safe Routes to School Program (SRTS): SRTS continues to be a cornerstone of Mountain View’s active transportation strategy. Through education, encouragement, engineering, and enforcement, the program promotes walking and bicycling to school, improves safety for students and families, and helps establish lifelong active transportation habits. The program’s ongoing outreach and partnerships with school communities are essential and should be continued and expanded.

Mountain View also benefits from a network of existing multi-use trails (Stevens Creek Trail, Permanente Creek Trail, and Hetch Hetchy Trail) and integrated green street design elements, such as the protected bikeway with landscape on both sides of Charleston Avenue (top), planting strips with detached sidewalks on Martens Avenue (middle), and tree wells on Castro Street (bottom) (Figure 26). These provide safe, off-street, and low-stress connections for people walking, biking, and rolling in the city.
50 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FIGURE 26 EXISTING GREEN STREET ELEMENTS
Other key successes demonstrate how programmatic tools and supportive programs help advance the ATP. The North Bayshore Precise Plan, for example, uses trip caps and regular monitoring to ensure transportation demand aligns with multimodal infrastructure investments, managing congestion while encouraging walking, biking, and transit use. Complementing this, initiatives such as the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP), downtown bicycle-sharing partnerships, and free to ride Mountain View Community Shuttle further support safe, convenient, active and low-stress travel throughout the city.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 51
Recommendations for the
Future
Using the Guiding Principles of Mobility & Connectivity, Safety & Comfort, Access & Equity, Sustainability & Biodiversity, and Innovation & Action-Orientation, the MVATP identified projects that improve safe, equitable and comfortable connections across the city and programs and policies that continue to support active transportation.

Infrastructure projects went through a scoring and prioritization process using spatial, demographic, community input and organizational data, whereas policy and program recommendations went through an internal city review to finalize the list, based on planning precedent, best practice and state legislation and program research conducted in the first phase of the project.

SCORING & PRIORITIZING

INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS
Scoring and prioritizing infrastructure projects is a standard exercise in transportation planning that grounds decision-making in data and community input. Projects are scored according to their potential to achieve the plan’s visions and goals, and prioritize practical aspects that may affect the feasibility of a project such as potential project costs, implementation timeline and the opportunity to leverage planned work or funding. While a scoring and prioritization process may evaluate an extensive list of potential projects, the goal of the exercise is to develop a list of projects that could be planned and/or implemented over the anticipated timeframe of the plan.

The MVATP scoring process used seventeen criteria distributed across four of the five guiding principles: Access and Equity, Safety and Comfort, Mobility and Connectivity, and Sustainability and Biodiversity. Each scoring criteria had an associated metric that allowed for measurement of the criteria using objective data, community comments and professional judgment (Table 5).

Mountain View staff across several departments, along with the TAC, ATPAC, BPAC, CTC, and City Council, all provided input into the scoring and prioritization process. 52 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
TABLE 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA

GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA

DATA SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
Access and
Equity
Supports lower
income residents
U.S. Census data
Project is not within a low- or lowto mid-income census tract 0 Project is within a low- to
mid-income census tract defined
as having more than 14% of the
population below 200% of the
federal poverty level (FPL).
7 Project is within a low-income
census tract defined as having
more than 28% of the population
below 200% of FPL.
14 Access and
Equity
Fills a gap in
existing sidewalk
network
City of Mountain View
GIS data
Project does not close a sidewalk
gap
0 Project partially closes a sidewalk
gap
3 Project does close a sidewalk gap 6.5
Access and
Equity
Fills a gap in All
Ages and Abilities
(AAA) bicycle
network
City of Mountain View
GIS data
Project does not close a gap in the
AAA bicycle network
0 Project partially closes a gap in
the AAA bicycle network
3 Project does close a gap in
the AAA bicycle network

GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA

DATA SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
Safety and
Comfort
Addresses existing
(historic) crash
patterns
GIS crash data analysis
from Mountain View
Local Road Safety Plan
Project area has no or low density
of fatal or severe injury crashes
(bottom third)
0 Project area has medium density
of fatal or severe injury crashes
(middle third)
7 Project area has a relatively high
density of fatal or severe injury
crashes (top third)
14 Safety and
Comfort
Improves
pedestrian
network density
Mountain View GIS
data measuring the
distance between
pedestrian crossing
opportunities
Project does not reduce pedestrian
block length at all
0 Project reduces pedestrian block
length but not to less than 500’
2 Project reduces pedestrian block
length to less than 500’
4 Safety and
Comfort
Reduces
pedestrian
crossing distance
Mountain View GIS
data measuring the
width of pedestrian
crossing distance at
intersections
Project does not decrease width of
pedestrian crossing distance
0 Project does decrease width of
pedestrian crossing distance
5 Maximum score for Safety and Comfort scoring criteria 32 Mobility and
Connectivity
Supports school
children
Mountain View GIS
data of all school
locations
Project is more than 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) from a school (public
or private)
0 Project is less than 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) from a school or on a
suggested route to school (public
or private)
4 Project fronts a school (public or
private)
9 TABLE 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED) 54 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA

DATA SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
Mobility and
Connectivity
Supports other
key destinations
(commercial
center, park, trail,
senior center
or senior living
community)
Mountain View GIS
data of key destinations
Project is more than 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) from a key destination
0 Project is less than 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) from a key destination
4 Project fronts a key destination 9
Mobility and
Connectivity
Improves first/last
mile connection
to transit
Mountain View GIS
data of all transit stops
Project is not within 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) of any transit stop (bus
or rail)
0 Project is within 5-minute walk
(0.25 mile) of any transit stop (bus
or rail)
2 Project is within 10-minute walk
(0.5 mile) of major transit stop or
high-quality transit corridor (bus
or rail)
4 Maximum score for Mobility and Connectivity scoring criteria 22 Sustainability
and
Biodiversity
Reduces
impervious
surface area
Mountain View satellite
imagery and GIS data
Project does not reduce
impervious surface area
0 Project reduces impervious surface
area by less than 4%
2 Project reduces impervious surface
area by 4% or more

4.5 Sustainability
and
Biodiversity
Provide Plantable
Space
Mountain View satellite
imagery and GIS data
Project does not increase open
space for plantings (per typical)
0 Project provides enough space for
ground cover plantings (plantable
spaces < 5’ wide)
2 Project provides enough space
for ground cover plantings and
shade trees (plantable spaces ≥ 5’
wide)

4.5 TABLE 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED) MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 55

GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA

DATA SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
Maximum score for Sustainability and Biodiversity scoring criteria 9 Feasibility
Order of
Magnitude
Cost (includes
environmental,
ROW, etc.)
Previous Mountain
View project unit costs
$$$ (> $10M) 0
$$ ($2M - $10M) 1
$ (< $2M) 2
Feasibility Interagency
Coordination
Assessment of
agency jurisdictions
and departmental
responsibilities
City and 2 or more additional
outside agencies
0 City and 1 additional outside
agency
1 None, only city departments 2
Feasibility
Practical
Implementation
Timeframe
Mountain View staff
professional judgment
Long 0
Medium 1
Short 2
Feasibility
Opportunity To
Leverage Existing
Planned Project
Mountain View staff
professional judgment
No 0
Yes 2
Feasibility
Alignment With
Local, Regional
And/or Federal
Funding Sources/
Opportunities
Mountain View
staff and consultant
professional judgement
No 0
Yes 2
Maximum score for Feasibility scoring criteria 10
Total maximum scoring across all scoring criteria 100
The existing conditions analysis and holistic network map development identified over 100 potential pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure project opportunities across the city of Mountain View. These potential projects were then scored using each scoring criteria’s metric threshold. A maximum score of 100 was possible; potential project scores ranged from a high of 88.5 to a low of 7. Additional details on the scoring methodology are provided in Appendix A.

City staff reviewed the twenty-four highest scoring potential projects and selected twenty to move forward into draft project concepts (the four other projects already have plans underway or are in the Caltrans right-of-way) (Table 6 and Figure 27).

TABLE 5 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED) 56 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PROJECT NAME,

EXTENTS

MILEAGE

RECOMMENDED

PED AND BICYCLE

IMPROVEMENT
A

RECOMMENDED

PED AND BICYCLE

IMPROVEMENT
B

RECOMMENDED

PED AND BICYCLE

IMPROVEMENT
C
California Street,
South Shoreline
Boulevard to Showers
Drive

1.38 Escuela Avenue
Protected Intersection
Shoreline Blvd
Protected
Intersection
-
California Street,
Showers Drive to Del
Medio Avenue

0.5 Showers Protected
Intersection
San Antonio
Protected
Intersection
-
Whisman Road,
Fairchild Drive to East
Dana Street

1.43 Dana Street Protected
Intersection
Whisman Station
Intersection
Reconstruction
Pacific Drive
Intersection
Reconstruction
Escuela Avenue,
Crisanto Ave to El
Camino Real

0.5 California/Escuela
Intersection
Reconstruction
Rengstorff Park
Pedestrian and Bicycle
Crossing
Crisanto Avenue
Intersection
Tightening
California Street,
Hope Street to South
Shoreline Blvd

0.32 Castro Intersection
Tightening - -
Showers Drive,
California Street to El
Camino Real

0.32 San Antonio Station
Pedestrian Crossing Target Paseo Crossing -
West Middlefield
Road, Moffett Blvd to
Old Middlefield Way
2 Farley Street Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Trail Connection to
Crittendon Middle
School
San Veron, San Pierre,
Terra Bella Pedestrian
Crossings
Old Middlefield
Intersection
Tightening
Latham Street,
Escuela Ave to
Showers Drive

0.84 Rengstorff Protected
Intersection
Showers Drive Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Crossing
Escuela Avenue
Protected Intersection
South Shoreline
Boulevard,
Montecito Avenue to
El Camino Real

1.1 Dana Street Bicycle
Connection
Montecito Avenue
Intersection
Tightening
Central Expy Ramp
Crossings
Latham St/Church
St, Castro Street to
Escuela Ave

0.85 Shoreline Boulevard -
Protected Intersection
Oak Street - Crossing
to Eagle Park
Pioneer Memorial
Park Crossing
TABLE 6 MVATP IDENTIFIED PRIORITY PROECTS WITH EXTENDS, MILEAGE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 57

PROJECT NAME,

EXTENTS

MILEAGE

RECOMMENDED

PED AND BICYCLE

IMPROVEMENT
A

RECOMMENDED

PED AND BICYCLE

IMPROVEMENT
B

RECOMMENDED

PED AND BICYCLE

IMPROVEMENT
C
Rengstorff Avenue,
Garcia Avenue to
Leghorn Street

0.4 101 Ramp Crossings
Garcia/Amphitheater
Protected
Intersection
-
Dana St, Bush Street
Moorpark Way

0.85 Moorpark Way
Intersection Tightening
Calderon Protected
Intersection -
Miramonte Ave,
El Camino Real to
Marilyn Drive

0.5 El Camino Real
Protected Intersection
Park Drive Pedestrian
Crossing
Sonia Way Pedestrian
Crossing
North Shoreline Blvd,
Plymouth Street to
Montecito Avenue

1.02 W Middlefield
Protected Intersection 101 Ramp Crossings -
Garcia Avenue,
Amphitheater
Parkway to Bayshore
Parkway

0.6 Permanente Creek
Trail Connection
Garcia/Amphitheater
Protected
Intersection
Salado Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
to Park
Evelyn Ave, Bush
Street to South
Bernardo Avenue

1.35 Stevens Creek Trail
Connection
Bernando Street
Undercrossing -
Phyllis Avenue, El
Camino Real to Grant
Road

0.5 El Camino Real,
Hans Avenue, Grant
Road Protected
Intersections
Tyler Park Way
and Pamela Drive
Mid-Block Crossings-
-
Sylvan Ave, Moorpark
Way to El Camino
Real

0.6 Moorpark Way
Intersection Tightening
Sevely Drive
Pedestrian Crossing
El Camino Real
Protected Intersection
North Shoreline
Blvd, North Road to
Plymouth Street

0.8 Amphitheater Parkway
Protected Intersection
Charleston Road
Connection to
Sidepath
-
Moffett Blvd, RT
Jones Road to Central
Expressway

1.29 Middlefield Protected
Intersection 101 Ramp Crossings
Stevens Creek Trail
Connection
Note: See Figure 27 for map reference.

TABLE 6 MVATP IDENTIFIED PRIORITY PROECTS WITH EXTENDS, MILEAGE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS (CONTINUED)
58 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
FIGURE 27 MVATP PRIORITY PROJECTS
59 TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

PROGRAM/
POLICY

DESCRIPTION

GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
No Right Turn on
Red Policy
Implement a pilot to prohibit right turns
on red (RTOR) at selected locations to
improve safety, comfort, and confidence
for pedestrians and cyclists at signalized
intersections. No RTOR can be reinforced
with various sign and signal interventions.

Safety & Comfort
Public Works (PW)
& Police Department
(PD)
Leading Pedestrian
Interval Policy
Providing pedestrians with a headstart when
entering a crosswalk will promote pedestrian
safety and prioritization at intersections
evaluated and recommended by staff.

Access & Equity PW
Greening /
Tree Canopy
Improvements
Incorporate greenery and street trees into
larger infrastructural improvements along
roadways. These can have the dual benefit of
serving environmental and planning goals and
elements of a safer street design.

Sustainability &
Biodiversity
Community Services
Department (CSD)
& Community
Development
Department (CDD)
& PW

POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
A list of policies and programs that support active transportation was developed, aligned with the MVATP vision and guiding principles. These were based on review of Mountain View and peer community planning precedent, best practices, and state legislation and program research.

Programs and policies from previous planning efforts such as the Local Road Safety Plan were included if the action had not yet been implemented and had relevance to active transportation.

These initiatives will be added as part of projects or programs, such as Safe Routes to School, not as new stand alone projects. Mountain View staff across several departments reviewed the list to determine feasibility, roles and responsibility and alignment with broader city values. The final list of policies and programs (Table 7) represent relatively low-cost actions that can be taken by the city to support active transportation.
60 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PROGRAM/
POLICY

DESCRIPTION

GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Daylighting
Implement and enforce the “Daylighting
Law”, Assembly Bill 413, which became law
in California in 2023. Daylighting prohibits
stopping, standing, or parking within 20
feet of the approach side of any marked or
unmarked crosswalk or within 15 feet where a
curb extension is present. Daylighting provides
greater visibility at intersections, improving
safety for pedestrians and bicyclist crossing the
street, as well as for drivers.

Safety & Comfort
Mobility &
Connectivity

PW & PD
Staff Continuing
Education
Staff continuing education on the Vision
Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety
Plan, defensive driving in City vehicles,
Safe Systems Approach, and safety
countermeasures will raise city staff
proficiency in promoting and enforcing Safe
Road interventions.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
Human Resources,
Fire Department,

CDD, PW & PD
Evaluation of
Speed Limits and
Speed Zones
Examine opportunities for speed limit
reductions allowable through the California
Vehicle Code, such as measured changes
in speed after a project’s completion or in a
specific district or zone when justified by an
engineering or traffic survey.

Safety & Comfort PW & PD
Enforcement of
School Zone Speed
Limits
Enforcing school zone speed limits promotes
driver awareness and caution in areas where
youth are gathered.

Safety & Comfort PW & PD
Update Bicycle
Parking Standards
Incorporate recommended revisions to the
Bicycle Parking Standards in Mountain View’s
municipal code that call for simplified and more
flexible standards to allow for the construction
of more high-quality bicycle parking.

Mobility &
Connectivity

PW & CDD
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED) MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 61

PROGRAM/
POLICY

DESCRIPTION

GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Education and
Enforcement
on Use of
Personal Electric
Micromobility
Devices
Public education campaigns and safety
trainings through established programs
like Safe Routes to School and other high
exposure outlets in Mountain View on the
legal and appropriate use of personal electric
micromobility devices (.e.g, Class 1-3 e-bikes,
e-motos, escooters), such as which devices are
street legal, who can use them, where they are
permitted to ride and park, applicable speed
limits, and other best practices and regulations
to promote safe and responsible use, and the
enforcement of such.

Mobility &
Connectivity

CDD, PD, CSD
& Local School
Districts/Schools.

Road Safety
Education
Road safety education for all modes and road
users to increase awareness of rules of the
road/transportation system and responsibilities
as travelers.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PD
Consideration
of Pedestrian
Connectivity via
Paseos in Property
Development.

Paseos, or pedestrian-only streets, are narrow
paths between buildings, alleys, or public
staircases that provide safe walking and biking
connections across neighborhoods. They must
be enforced as pedestrian-only to be effective.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PD
Bicycle Friendly
Community
Designation
The Bicycle Friendly Community designation
from the League of American Bicyclists opens
up resources that support the establishment
and improvement of bicycle infrastructure and
policy in Mountain View.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PW
Walk safe
designation/ re-up
The non-profit America Walks promotes
walkability in communities around the country
through Community Change grants and Walk
Safe Community designations.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PW
Expansion of Safe
Routes Programs
Building off of Mountain View’s successful
Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program,
add Safe Routes to Parks and Safe Routes
to Transit programs to encourage safe
walking, bicycling, transit riding and driving to
important destinations within Mountain View,
particularly for youth and families.

Safety & Comfort PW, CSD & Transit
Partners
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED) 62 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PROGRAM/
POLICY

DESCRIPTION

GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Transportation
Demand
Management
(TDM)
TDM focuses on establishing travel choice
within a community through policy and
programs to reduce dependency on
automobile travel. TDM supports larger active
transportation infrastructural improvements
by making walking and biking trips more
feasible. A TDM policy is currently underway
by city staff.

Mobility &
Connectivity
PW
Social Walks/ Rides
Regularly scheduled community-promoted
walk or bicycle tours in different areas of the
City focusing on encouragement and training
for new users, raising community awareness or
road safety and best practices. These could be
organized through established programs like
Safe Routes to School.

Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
PW
Maintenance
of Active
Transportation
Faciities
Funding and programming for regular
maintenance of active transportation facilities
such as bicycle lane street sweeping and
sidewalk cleaning and repair will uphold the
safety and comfort of active transportation
trips throughout the city.

Safety & Comfort PW
Waste Bin Policy
and Maintenance
Placing waste bins conspicuously throughout
Mountain View promotes the proper disposal
of waste.

Safety & Comfort PW
Evaluation of
Infrastructure
Projects
Evaluation of infrastructure projects is
important for monitoring and accountability.

It helps to show whether projects had
the intended impact of improving travel
behavior and safety for multiple modes.

Funding programs such as the CTC’s Active
Transportation Program require pre- and
post-counts of walking, bicycling and vehicles.

Mobility &
Connectivity
PW
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED) MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 63
04 LET’S ROLL!

IMPLEMENTING THE
ATP
Implementation Process
Considerations
The development of the project scenarios, cross sections, cost estimates, and implementation strategies translated the MVATP vision and guiding principles into a practical framework for action. This chapter outlines the steps, resources, and decisions needed to change and move priority projects from concept to construction, including how to prioritize investments, manage trade-offs, and align projects with available funding opportunities. The implementation approach balances ambition with feasibility, ensuring projects advance safety, comfort, access, sustainability, and biodiversity while working within real-world constraints.

The Green Street scenario illustrates this approach by demonstrating how street space can be reallocated to improve safety, environmental performance, and the public realm. By examining material alternatives and identifying ways to manage challenges, it shows why strategic implementation matters. Effective implementation relies on collaboration and trust across City departments and with regional partners to advance shared transportation goals. All the infrastructure recommendations presented in this section will require further engineering review to confirm design adequacy and feasibility prior to implementation.

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION AND

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
One of the five Guiding Principles of the MVATP is Action-Oriented and Innovation. To reflect this principle, priority project concepts were developed with two alternatives: resurfacing and reconstruction.

Resurfacing represents Action-Oriented, offering lower costs and fewer barriers to implementation.

Reconstruction represents Innovation, identifying opportunities to integrate new design guidance, infrastructure concepts, and green street elements.

Resurfacing
Resurfacing alternatives assume the street would undergo routine maintenance, including slurry seal or a grind and overlay, creating a “blank slate” for installing bicycle facilities. These alternatives do not involve moving curb lines; therefore, the existing curb-to-curb width defines the space available for reallocation. The scope includes pavement markings, signage, and improved bicycle facilities such as concrete curbs or flexible delineator posts. Sidewalk construction or other concrete work is not included, although minor sidewalk maintenance may be performed to meet Title II ADA requirements. Where projects intersect or cross another agency’s right-of-way (e.g. Caltrans, Santa Clara County), coordination will be needed.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 65
Reconstruction
Reconstruction alternatives assume the street is fully demolished and rebuilt within the existing rightof-way, typically as part of a major capital project triggered by pavement degradation or a similar scale of work. These alternatives allow for curb line adjustments and the installation of continuous Class IV bikeway separation, such as curbed planting strips along the bikeway. No additional right-of-way acquisition is assumed. Reconstruction projects may affect drainage patterns, trees, medians, and other existing features which will require further feasibility analysis. These projects are long-term, visionary concepts that would be adapted to site-specific conditions, recognizing that full implementation may not be practical on narrower streets.

For all alternatives, cross sections were developed based on these assumptions and are detailed in the cutsheets included in Appendix B. Each cutsheet provides a narrative describing existing conditions, proposed changes in each alternative, and implementation considerations, along with an illustrative cross section showing elements and widths. The cutsheets also include maps illustrating project limits and nearby destinations like parks and schools served by the improvements. Cross sections were developed using measurements from high-quality aerial imagery; however, field verification during future design may identify discrepancies that require adjustments.

Costs
Cost estimates for resurfacing alternatives were developed using generalized unit costs (based on city project bid results from 2023 and 2024) and frequency assumptions. These include, but are not limited to, resurfacing, striping, signage, and Class IV bikeway elements. The estimates are intended to reflect the incremental cost of installing bicycle facilities as part of a resurfacing project. Other elements that may be included in resurfacing projects—such as sidewalks or median islands—vary by location and are not included in these estimates.

The estimates also include percentage-based allowances for design, coordination, permitting, environmental review, and similar project development costs, which vary by project scale.

Costs for reconstruction alternatives were not developed. Reconstruction projects typically include substantial additional work unrelated to bicycle or pedestrian facilities, such as utility replacement and full-depth pavement reconstruction, and vary significantly by location. Due to these uncertainties, reliable cost estimates were not feasible. In most cases, the cost of bicycle and pedestrian facilities would represent a relatively small portion of the overall reconstruction project cost. 66 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

PROJECT LENGTH
(MILES)

BIKEWAY CLASS

IN RESURFACING

ALTERNATIVE
EST. PROJECT COST
(2025 DOLLARS IN

MILLIONS)
California Street, South Shoreline Boulevard to
Showers Drive 1.38 Class IV $5.5
California Street, Showers Drive to Del Medio
Avenue 0.5 Class IV $2.0
Whisman Road, Fairchild Drive to East Dana
Street 1.43 Class IV $5.7
Escuela Avenue, Crisanto Ave to El Camino Real 0.5 Class III $1.5 California Street, Hope Street to South
Shoreline Blvd 0.32 Class III $1.0
Showers Drive, California Street to El Camino
Real 0.32 Class IV $1.3
West Middlefield Road, Moffett Blvd to Old
Middlefield Way 2 Class IV $8.0
Latham Street, Escuela Ave to Showers Drive 0.84 Class III $2.5 South Shoreline Boulevard, Montecito Avenue
to El Camino Real 1.1 Class IV $4.4
Latham St/Church St, Castro Street to Escuela
Ave 0.85 Class III $2.5
Rengstorff Avenue, Garcia Avenue to Leghorn
Street 0.4 Class IV $1.6
Dana St, Bush Street Moorpark Way 0.85 Class IV $3.4
Miramonte Ave, El Camino Real to Marilyn
Drive 0.5 Class IV $2.0
Garcia Avenue, Amphitheater Parkway to
Bayshore Parkway 0.6 Class II $2.9
Evelyn Ave, Bush Street to South Bernardo
Avenue 1.35 Class IV $5.4
Phyllis Avenue, El Camino Real to Grant Road 0.5 Class IV $2.0 Sylvan Ave, Moorpark Way to El Camino Real 0.6 Class IV $2.4 Note: Costs are estimates in 2025 dollars, based on information available at the time, and are expected to increase over time. Costs have been rounded up to nearest $100,000.

TABLE 8 ESTIMATED RESURFACING PROJECT COST FOR PRIORITY PROJECTS MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 67
Material Alternatives
Based on block-level analysis, six material alternatives were evaluated against a base street modification cost of $2.82 million ($535 per foot of roadway) to create a 4-foot green infrastructure zone. Base costs assume one mile of street reconstruction and each material alternative’s cost would be added to that. The estimate includes both sides of the street with no change to the overall roadway width (Figure 29). These estimates are intended to indicate relative costs rather than final construction prices.

SCENARIO: GREEN STREET INFRASTRUCTURE
Many streets in Mountain View contain excess roadway width that can be reallocated to better support walking, biking, and ecological functions. By shifting curb lines inward where feasible, space can be created along sidewalks to provide separation between people and vehicles, accommodate trees and stormwater features, and improve safety and overall quality of the public realm. While green street infrastructure may involve a greater upfront capital cost, long-term environmental health, traffic safety and social benefits are notable.

Green street infrastructure represents
a strategic investment in community
well-being, environmental sustainability,
and urban livability.

FIGURE 28

CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION OF GREEN STREET
FIGURE 29 ASSUMPTIONS FOR EXISTING AND REIMAGINED STREET 68 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Benefits
‣ Mulch and aggregate provide immediate cost advantages over concrete. ‣ Drought-tolerant planted options begin providing environmental benefits early, such as temperature reduction and improved pedestrian comfort.
‣ Concrete provides durability, low maintenance, and predictable performance. ‣ Planted alternatives with irrigation and bioswales deliver growing returns over time such as expanded tree canopy, better air quality, stabilized maintenance costs, and cost-effective MRP 3.0 compliance.

FIGURE 30 ADD-ON COST PER MILE FOR MATERIAL ALTERNATIVES IN

REIMAGINED STREETS BEYOND BASE STREET MODIFICATION COST The estimate assumes full reconstruction of sidewalks and driveways within the right-of-way.

Driveways are assumed to occur every 100 feet and to be approximately 20 feet wide. Cost data are based on aggregated City of Mountain View bid prices for similar projects and were rounded.

Figure 30 illustrates the costs of various material alternatives for the reimagined street section.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 69
Trade-Offs
‣ Concrete has high upfront costs and limited ecological or community benefits. ‣ Mulch and aggregate may require more frequent replenishment or upkeep, adding to ongoing maintenance costs.
‣ Planted options need irrigation and care during establishment. ‣ Irrigated and bioswale-planted landscapes require higher initial investment. These plantings will also require maintenance such as irrigation and pruning after maturity.

Challenges and Mitigations
Moving curb lines can significantly increase project complexity and cost by triggering a range of additional infrastructure requirements. These include, but are not limited to: drainage analysis and utility adjustments; sidewalk, signal, and driveway demolition and reconstruction; and extensive coordination with property owners. It requires more complex engineering, construction, and interagency coordination beyond the basic street maintenance. Table 9 outlines the key considerations associated with green street projects and practical ways to reduce or manage them.

CHALLENGE MITIGATION
Higher upfront capital costs
While costs are primarily upfront, the environmental, aesthetic, and infrastructure benefits persist for the life of the tree and associated improvements.

Tree roots can lift sidewalks
Careful species selection, appropriate planting techniques, and the use of modified sidewalk sections can reduce the risk of root-related damage.

Potential property damage from falling
limbs
Tree species limited to small or medium-sized varieties that are unlikely to pose a risk to adjacent private property.

Reduced visibility within the right-ofwayTree placement will be carefully coordinated to avoid sight triangles and maintain safe visibility at intersections and driveways.

Requires ongoing maintenance All maintenance will be performed by the City as part of its standard operations.

TABLE 9 COMMON GREEN STREET CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS 70 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Implications of Green Streets
Green streets deliver measurable benefits that
extend far beyond aesthetics. They provide space for
natural elements to support biodiversity, incorporate
sustainable stormwater strategies, create inviting
environments through complementing trafficcalming efforts and prioritize active transportation modes for people of all ages and abilities. Simply put, Green Streets = Active Transportation +
Biodiversity + Green Infrastructure.

GREEN STREETS
Mountain View’s tree cover is

19.5% of the city, with a goal of

22.7% by 2030.

Refer to the Biodiversity and
Urban Forest Plan for more
information about green streets
progress, goals, and actions.
“I think trees can do wonders in making
some of the overwhelming walking areas
(e.g. along Central around Rengstorff)
less so and make it more pleasant and
psychologically feel safer.”
Figure 31 represents a range of green street elements
and its benefits. Green stormwater infrastructure is
required for Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 3.0
compliance, managing runoff through increased pervious
surfaces that reduce, slow, and treat stormwater while
improving water quality. Street trees and vegetation
enhance air quality by filtering pollutants and, when
using native species, provide habitat corridors that
support pollinators and ecosystems in this biodiversity hotspot region.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 71
FIGURE 31 A FEW GREEN STREET ELEMENTS AND THEIR BENEFITS Planting strip: Replaces heatabsorbing pavement; absorbs rainwater and reduces runoff
Bikeway: Provides safe,
comfortable, and shaded routes
Parklet: Creates public spaces for
rest and social interaction
Median: Filters air pollution and
adds greenery to busy roads
Cul-de-sac: Captures stormwater
and improves local drainage
Tree well: Supports tree growth,
providing cooling streets and
shade for pedestrians
Green street projects require strategic site selection, interagency coordination, and supporting policies.

Engaging the residents and businesses early helps build support, address concerns about visibility and maintenance, and ensure designs reflect community priorities. Implementation strategies that reduce risk and build momentum include:
‣ Pilot and phased projects: Start with lower-risk streets that have favorable conditions to demonstrate feasibility. Use a phased approach that allows vegetation to establish while monitoring safety, performance, and maintenance needs. Lessons learned from these pilots will inform expansion to more complex or higher-priority locations in future years.
‣ Target priority corridors and nodes: Once pilot projects demonstrate success, focus investments on high-priority routes such as streets near schools, commercial areas, flood-prone segments, and existing or planned bikeways and trail connections. This approach advances both stormwater compliance and active transportation goals simultaneously.
‣ Standardize designs: Use simple, repeatable typologies such as corner curb extensions with bioretention, mid-block rain gardens, and permeable parking lanes to streamline design, permitting, construction, and maintenance.

Good candidates for these treatments include streets that are in need of utility upgrades or repairs, have excess pavement width, have drainage conditions that allow for curb line modifications, and supportive property owners.

Any proposed green areas should be planned with consideration of existing underground utilities to avoid conflicts and ensure feasibility during installation and maintenance. Identifying streets with these characteristics can substantially reduce risk, cost, and implementation challenges. 72 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Funding Sources for
Active Transportation Projects
Funding to support active transportation infrastructure and programming is available from many different sources at the federal, state, regional and local level. A non-exhaustive list of potential funding options includes (Table 9):

Federal Funding
Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
SS4A is a federal-aid grant program for regional, local, and Tribal initiatives to improve roadway safety. Funding is provided for Planning and Demonstration Grants that support the development of a comprehensive safety action plan that identify the most pressing roadway safety concerns in a community and implement solutions. Implementation Grants fund projects and initiatives to address identified roadway safety issues. An eligible Action Plan must be adopted before applying for implementation funds.

Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
HSIP is a federal-aid program that supports states’ efforts to significantly reduce fatal and serious injuries on public roads with spot or systemic safety improvements. California splits HSIP funds between state HSIP for state highways and local HSIP for local roads. Recipient agencies are required to have a completed Local Road Safety Plan (LRSP) or an equivalent plan to be eligible.

Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
The CDBG program is a federal grant program funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to support various projects and programs serving low-income areas. CDBG funds may be used for transportation infrastructure projects such as sidewalk construction, provided they expand economic opportunities for low- and moderate-income households through increased mobility, safety, and accessibility. Mountain View receives about $600,000 each year in CDBG funds that are primarily allocated to non-profit agencies on a two-year application cycle.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 73
State/Regional Funding
California Transportation Commission Active Transportation Program (ATP) The Active Transportation Program consolidated various transportation programs into a single program and was originally funded at about $123 million a year from a combination of state and federal funds. The goals of the ATP include increasing trips completed by walking and biking, increasing the safety and mobility of pedestrians, advancing climate and public health goals, and supporting projects that benefit many types of users including disadvantaged communities.

Other Santa Clara County cities have previously been awarded ATP funds to fund pedestrian and bicycle safety projects.

Strategic Growth Council Affordable Housing and Sustainable Transportation Program (AHSC)
As a grant program of the State of California, the AHSC Program funds affordable housing and transportation projects close to jobs, schools, and other daily destinations to help California meet both its climate and equity goals. AHSC provides funding for affordable housing developments, sustainable transportation infrastructure, and programs that encourage residents to walk, bicycle, and use public transit. Mountain View received $49.7 million to transform an underutilized parking lot into a 7-story development with 161 apartment units within a ten-minute walk of a major multimodal transit station with bus, light rail, and commuter rail services.

Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA 3)
The TDA was enacted by the California Legislature in 1971 to improve existing public transportation services and encourage regional transportation coordination. It allocates tax revenue funding for transit and non-transit related purposes that comply with regional transportation plans. Eligible counties with a population under 500,000 may also use funds for local streets and roads, construction and maintenance. TDA 3 funds are a subset of the overall TDA funds collected specifically for bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), the nine-county MPO in the San Francisco Bay Area, allows counties to use these funds for projects that are reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee and approved by MTC.
74 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Measure B Santa Clara County voters approved a 30-year, half-cent sales tax to enhance transit, highways, expressways, and active transportation. Collection began April 2017 and funds are allocated across various categories including streets & roads, light and commuter rail, bicycle and pedestrian transportation, and transit operations. VTA releases a Call for Projects every year, with the most recent cycle offering $2.2 million of funding for proposals of at least $100,000.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation for Clean Air (TFCA) Regional Fund
Since 1991, the Department of Motor Vehicles has imposed a $4 surcharge on cars and trucks registering within the BAAQMD, also known as the “Air District”, to provide grant funding to projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions. The Air District’s Board of Directors approves Calls for Projects and allocates 60% of TFCA funds every year. The other 40% of funds are passed through nine Bay Area counties through the TFCA 40 Percent Fund.

Local Funding
California Transportation Commission (CTC) Local Partnership Program (LPP) Using an annual $200 million appropriation from the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account, the LPP provides funding to counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies that have approved fees or taxes dedicated to transportation improvements. LPP funds are used to improve aging infrastructure, road conditions, active transportation, transit and rail, and health and safety benefits.

TABLE 10 OVERVIEW OF POTENTIAL FUNDING OPTIONS

FUNDING MECHANISM ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTION
Federal
Safe Streets and Roads for All
(SS4A) Policy
Federal grant program for initiatives to improve
roadway safety projects that reduce or eliminate
roadway fatalities
Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) Policy
Federal-aid program supporting states’ efforts to
significantly reduce fatal and serious injuries on public roads.

Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) Policy
Federal grant program by HUD to support various
projects and programs serving low-income areas,
including infrastructure projects that expand economic
opportunities.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 75

COLLABORATION
Coordination and collaboration are critical for the implementation of projects, programs and policies. The complexity of coordination was a factor when scoring projects, considering not just internal collaboration among City departments but also the level of coordination needed with regional and state partners such as Caltrans, VTA, and Santa Clara County to move projects toward implementation. Additional partners adds complexity but also fosters collaboration and trust and can help to achieve shared transportation goals. A recent example of effective cross-agency collaboration is the El Camino Real protected bikeways, installed in partnership with Caltrans to improve multimodal access along this key corridor.

FUNDING MECHANISM ALIGNMENT DESCRIPTION
State/Regional
California Transportation
Commission Active Transportation
Program (ATP)
Policy
State program disbursing funds to active transportation projects that promote walking and biking trips, pedestrian safety and mobility, and climate and public health goals.

Strategic Growth Council
Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Transportation
Program (AHSC)
Policy
State grant program funding affordable housing and
transportation projects close to jobs, schools, and other daily destinations that encourage residents to walk,
bicycle, and use public transit.

Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) Measure B
Fiscal
County tax measure enacting a 30-year, half-cent
sales tax to enhance transit, highways, expressways, and active transportation. Funds are allocated to streets and roads, light and commuter rail, bicycle and pedestrian
transportation, and transit operations.

BAAQMD Transportation for
Clean Air (TFCA)
Fiscal
$4 surcharge on cars and trucks registering within the
Bay Area Air District. Funds are used for grants to
projects that reduce motor vehicle emissions.

Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA3)
Fiscal
Section of the 1971 TDA that specifically funds biking and pedestrian projects, Eligible counties with a population under 500,000 may also use funds for local streets and
roads, construction and maintenance.

Local
CTC Local Partnership Program
(LPP)
Fiscal
An annual $200 million appropriation for funding
counties, cities, districts, and regional transportation agencies that have approved fees or taxes dedicated to
transportation improvements. Funds can be used to
support initiatives to improve infrastructure, mobility, and public health.
76 MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

COMMITMENT TO THE VISION &

NEXT STEPS FOR THE CITY
Active transportation is an integral part of life in Mountain View, as evidenced by the high rates of walking and bicycling by those who travel about the city, and by the city and community’s investment in active transportation programs and facilities.

The MVATP is a commitmentto creating an active transportation system that strengthens the community’s access to housing, employment, parks, schools and other destinations and enhances biodiversity. The plan complements other Mountain View planning documents and initiatives that support active transportation, safety, sustainability and biodiversity and will help to provide accountability to the community’s commitment to these values.

Using the Guiding Principles of Mobility & Connectivity, Safety & Comfort, Access & Equity, Sustainability & Biodiversity, and Innovation & ActionOrientation, the MVATP identified sustainable projects that improve safe, equitable and comfortable connections across the city and programs and policies that continue to support active transportation. This list of projects, programs and policies provides an action plan and progress report for the next 5-10 years for the city to move projects forward in the capital planning process and to seek funding to further build out a sustainable and active infrastructure for all residents and visitors of Mountain View. All these elements would require in depth engineering review to determine their site-specific adequacy and feasibility.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 77
APPENDIX A:

PROJECT

PRIORITIZATION
Appendix A – Project Prioritization Memo
Project prioritization is a standard exercise in transportation planning projects that grounds decision making in data and community input. It provides an objective assessment of potential projects, typically using a screening process and scoring criteria associated with a plan’s vision and goals and practical aspects that may affect the feasibility of a project such as jurisdictional purview, potential project costs, implementation timeline and the opportunity to leverage planned work or funding. While screening, scoring and prioritization process may evaluate an extensive list of potential projects, the goal of the exercise is to come down to a list of projects that could be planned and/or implemented over the anticipated timeframe of the plan.

Screening
The existing conditions analysis and holistic network map development identified over 100 potential pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure project opportunities across the city of Mountain View. The potential projects were initially screened to estimate the general scale and scope of project types (e.g., quick build or paint and post projects vs. corridor green street improvements) and categories of possible project types (e.g., pedestrian improvements, bicycle improvements, green streets). Projects were also screened to determine if the project was within the purview of the City’s responsibilities. The majority of potential projects were retained through the screening process.

Scoring
The MVATP scoring process used seventeen criteria distributed across four of the five guiding principles: Access and Equity, Safety and Comfort, Mobility and Connectivity, and Sustainability and Biodiversity. Each scoring criteria had an associated metric that allowed for measurement of the criteria using objective data, community comments and professional judgment (Table 1:

Mountain View Active Transportation Scoring CriteriaTable 1). Mountain View staff across several departments, the TAC, ATPAC and BPAC and CTC and City Council all provided input into the scoring and prioritization process.

Table 1: Mountain View Active Transportation Scoring Criteria Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring Access and Equity Supports lower
income residents
U.S. Census
data
Project is not within a
low- or low- to midincome census tract0
Project is within a lowto mid-income census
tract defined as
having more than 14%
of the population
below 200% of the
7 Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring federal poverty level
(FPL).

Project is within a lowincome census tract
defined as having
more than 28% of the
population below
200% of FPL.
14 Access and Equity Fills a gap in existing
sidewalk network
City of
Mountain View
GIS data
Project does not close
a sidewalk gap 0
Project partially closes
a sidewalk gap 3
Project does close a
sidewalk gap

6.5 Access and Equity
Fills a gap in All Ages
and Abilities (AAA)
bicycle network
City of
Mountain View
GIS data
Project does not close
a gap in the AAA
bicycle network
0 Project partially close
a gap in the AAA
bicycle network
3 Project does close a
gap in the AAA
bicycle network

6.5 Maximum score for Access and Equity scoring criteria 27 Safety and
Comfort
Addresses community
concerns
GIS data
representing an
aggregation of
community
comments from
Maptionnaire
survey, walk
audits, other
community
events, and
Mountain View’s
online and 311
community
comment
portals
Project area has low
density of community
comments (lower
third)
0 Project area has
medium density of
community comments
(middle third)
4 Project area has high
density of community
comments (top third)
9 Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring Safety and
Comfort
Addresses existing
(historic) crash
patterns
GIS crash data
analysis from
Mountain View
Local Road
Safety Plan
Project area has no or
low density of fatal or
severe injury crashes
(bottom third)
0 Project area has
medium density of
fatal or severe injury
crashes (middle third)
7 Project area has a
relatively high density
of fatal or severe
injury crashes (top
third)
14 Safety and
Comfort
Improves pedestrian
network density
Mountain View
GIS data
measuring the
distance
between
pedestrian
crossing
opportunities
Project does not
reduce pedestrian
block length at all
0 Project reduces
pedestrian block
length but not to less
than 500’
2 Project reduces
pedestrian block
length to less than
500'
4 Safety and
Comfort
Reduces pedestrian
crossing distance
Mountain View
GIS data
measuring the
width of
pedestrian
crossing
distance at
intersections
Project does not
decrease width of
pedestrian crossing
distance
0 Project does decrease
width of pedestrian
crossing distance
5 Maximum score for Safety and Comfort scoring criteria 32 Mobility and
Connectivity
Supports school
children
Mountain View
GIS data of all
school locations
Project is more than
5-minute walk (0.25
mile) from a school
(public or private)
0 Project is less than 5-
minute walk (0.25
mile) from a school or
on a suggested route
to school (public or
private)
4 Project fronts a school
(public or private) 9
Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring Mobility and
Connectivity
Supports other key
destinations
(commercial center,
park, trail, senior
center or senior living
community)
Mountain View
GIS data of key
destinations
Project is more than
5-minute walk (0.25
mile) from a key
destination
0 Project is less than 5-
minute walk (0.25
mile) from a key
destination
4 Project fronts a key
destination 9
Mobility and
Connectivity
Improves first/last
mile connection to
transit
Mountain View
GIS data of all
transit stops
Project is not within 5-
minute walk (0.25
mile) of any transit
stop (bus or rail)
0 Project is within 5-
minute walk (0.25
mile) of any transit
stop (bus or rail)
2 Project is within 10-
minute walk (0.5 mile)
of major transit stop
or high-quality transit
corridor (bus or rail)
4 Maximum score for Mobility and Connectivity scoring criteria 22 Sustainability
and Biodiversity
Reduces impervious
surface area
Mountain View
satellite imagery
and GIS data
Project does not
reduce impervious
surface area
0 Project reduces
impervious surface
area by less than 4%
2 Project reduces
impervious surface
area by 4% or more

4.5 Sustainability
and Biodiversity
Provide Plantable
Space
Mountain View
satellite imagery
and GIS data
Project does not
increase open space
for plantings (per
typical)
0 Project
provides enough
space for ground
cover plantings
(plantable spaces < 5'
wide)
2 Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring Project
provides enough
space for ground
cover plantings and
shade trees
(plantable spaces ≥ 5'
wide)

4.5 Maximum score for Sustainability and Biodiversity scoring criteria 9 Feasibility
Order Of Magnitude
Cost (includes
environmental, ROW,
etc.)
Previous
Mountain View
project unit
costs
$$$ (> $10M) 0
$$ ($2M - $10M) 1
$ (< $2M) 2
Feasibility Interagency
Coordination
Assessment of
agency
jurisdictions and
departmental
responsibilities
City and 2 or more
additional outside
agencies
0 City and 1 additional
outside agency 1
None, only city
departments 2
Feasibility
Practical
Implementation
Timeframe
Mountain View
staff
professional
judgment
Long 0
Medium 1
Short 2
Feasibility
Opportunity To
Leverage Existing
Planned Project
Mountain View
staff
professional
judgment
No 0
Yes 2
Feasibility
Alignment With Local,
Regional And/or
Federal Funding
Sources/Opportunities
Mountain View
staff and
consultant
professional
judgement
No 0
Yes 2
Maximum score for Feasibility scoring criteria 10
Total maximum scoring across all scoring criteria 100
The screened potential projects were scored based on the degree to which the anticipated improvements met each scoring criteria’s metric threshold. A maximum score of 100 was possible; potential project scores ranged from a high of 88.5 to a low of 7.

Prioritizing
City staff reviewed the twenty-four highest scoring potential projects and selected twenty to move forward into draft project concepts (the four other projects already have plans underway or are in the Caltrans right of way).

APPENDIX B:

CUTSHEET

DEVELOPMENT
Appendix B – Cutsheet Memo
Cutsheet Development Process
After all potential projects were scored, the priority projects were identified. Three projects were removed from the list because they are in Caltrans ROW, which elevated three other projects for which cutsheets would be developed. Additionally, during cutsheet development, three projects were removed because an adopted Precise Plan had already codified their proposed future conditions. After these refinements, 17 cutsheets were developed.

Table 1: Identified Priority Projects
Rank
Project
Name
Extent
Total
Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
1 California
Street
South Shoreline
Boulevard to
Showers Drive

88.5 Y Y
2 California
Street
Showers Drive to
Del Medio Avenue

87.5 N – pilot
project
installed in
2025
Y
3 Whisman
Road
Fairchild Drive to
East Dana Street

78.5 Y Y
4 Escuela
Avenue
Crisanto Ave to El
Camino Real

76.5 Y Y
5 California
Street
Hope Street to
South Shoreline
Blvd

74.5 Y Y
6 Showers
Drive
California Street to
El Camino Real 73.5 Y Y
7 West
Middlefield
Road
Moffett Blvd to Old
Middlefield Way 69.5 Y Y
8 Latham
Street
Escuela Ave to
Showers Drive 68.5 Y Y
9 South
Shoreline
Boulevard
Montecito Avenue
to El Camino Real 68.5 Y Y
NA
El Camino
Real
Rengstorff Ave to
Shoreline Blvd

67.5 Caltrans
ROW
Rank
Project
Name
Extent
Total
Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
10 Latham
St/Church
St
Castro Street to
Escuela Ave

66.5 Y Y
11 Rengstorff
Avenue
Garcia Avenue to
Leghorn Street
66 N – Complete
Streets Study
underway in
2025
Y
NA Rengstorff El Camino Real to
Leghorn St
66 N - Planning
study
underway
12 Dana St
Bush Street
Moorpark Way

65.5 Y Y
NA
E
Middlefield
Rd
Moffet Blvd to
Central Expy
64 N - long-term
design
completed
13 Miramonte
Ave
El Camino Real to
Marilyn Drive
64 N - Complete
Streets Study
underway in
2025
Y
NA
North
Shoreline
Blvd
Plymouth Street to
Montecito Avenue

63.5 Removed –
Refer to
Precise Plan
14 Garcia
Avenue
Amphitheater
Parkway to
Bayshore Parkway

63.5 Y Y
Removed
Amphitheater
Parkway
(Garic
Avenue to Bill
Graham
Parkway)
15 Evelyn Ave
Bush Street to
South Bernardo
Avenue

62.5 Y Y
Rank
Project
Name
Extent
Total
Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
16 Phyllis
Avenue
El Camino Real to
Grant Road

61.5 Y Y
17 Sylvan Ave
Moorpark Way to
El Camino Real
57 Y Y
Removed The
Americana (El
Camino Real
to
Continental
Circle)
NA
North
Shoreline
Blvd
North Road to
Plymouth Street
57 Removed –
Refer to
Precise Plan
NA
Moffet
Blvd
RT Jones Road to
Central Expressway

56.5 Removed –
Refer to
Precise Plan
Most projects were developed with two alternatives: resurfacing and reconstruction. In some cases, a resurfacing alternative was not included if a related study is underway or a project has been recently implemented.

Resurfacing alternatives assume the street will undergo routine maintenance, including a grind and overlay, creating a “blank slate” for installing bike facilities. These alternatives do not involve moving curb lines; therefore, the existing curb-to-curb width defines the space available for reallocation. The scope for these alternatives typically includes pavement markings, signage, and Class IV bikeway elements such as rubber armadillos or flexible delineator posts. Sidewalk construction or other concrete work is not included, although minor sidewalk maintenance may be performed to meet Title II ADA requirements. Where projects intersect or cross another agency’s right-of-way (eg Caltrans, Santa Clara County, etc.), coordination will be needed.

Reconstruction alternatives assume the street is fully demolished and rebuilt within the existing right-of-way, typically as part of a major capital project triggered by utility replacement or a similar scale of work. These alternatives allow for curb line adjustments and the installation of permanent Class IV bikeway separation, such as curbed planting strips along the bikeway. No additional right-of-way acquisition is assumed. Reconstruction projects may affect drainage patterns, trees, medians, and other existing features which will require further feasibility analysis. These projects are long-term, visionary concepts that would be implemented only when or if an opportunity for full reconstruction arises.

A basis of design was established that set criteria for various widths of elements that comprise the cross section.

Table 2: Basis of Design
Cross Section Element Width (min. unless noted)
Sidewalk 5 ft
Sidewalk planting area 4.5 ft
Travel Lane 11 ft
Turning Lane 12 ft
Bike lanes (including curb + gutter) 5 ft
Buffered bike lanes 2 ft + 4 ft
Bike lanes 6 ft (preferred)
Parking lane 8 ft
Existing widths were then measured and documented in a spreadsheet to assess the available curb to curb and right-of-way width. For some projects, both widths vary within the limits. The most constrained segment was used to develop cross sections to represent a cross section that can be applied along the corridor. Future efforts will assess how to allocate excess width (e.g. widen Class IV buffers). Cross sections were developed using measurements from high-quality aerial imagery; however, field verification during future design may identify discrepancies that require adjustments. Once dimensions were reviewed and approved, cross section graphics were developed using these values. These graphics represent nominal width of each element and further design for these projects will refine dimensions.

Each cutsheet provides a narrative describing existing conditions like posted speed limit, traffic volume, destinations, transit service, existing cross section elements like travel lanes, bike lanes, sidewalks, planted space, turn lanes, etc. In addition, cutsheets also describe proposed changes in each alternative and implementation considerations as well as illustrative cross sections detailing the elements and widths. The cutsheets include area maps illustrating project limits and nearby destinations served by the improvements like schools and parks. Finally, the plan goals are linked to the project to describe how ATP goals are advanced by a given project. This narrative content, the maps, the plan goals, and the cross section were then compiled into a single page cutsheet for each project.

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: California Street was redesigned in
2025 to remove one travel lane in each direction
to add Class IV bikeways between Showers
Drive and South Shoreline Boulevard and add
3 mid-block crossings. The land use along the
street is primarily single-family residential toward
the east and multi-family residential with some
commercial toward the west. Destinations along
or just o this street include Rengstor Park,
Klein Park, Castro/Mistral Elementary School and
Mountain View Academy. Valley Transportation
Authority Route 21 operates along California
Street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

2. Reconstruction: This reconstruction concept
proposes upgrading the existing bikeway buers
to planting strips and constructing protected
intersections at Escuela Avenue, Rengstor
Avenue, and at Shoreline Drive. This concept
will alter existing drainage patterns and have
implications for future design and construction.
2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES

SAFETY AND COMFORT

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

NETWORK
1 Showers Dr
S Shoreline Blvd
Escuela Ave

EXISTING

RECONSTRUCTION
Rengstor Park
Castro/Mistral
Elementary
Mountain View
Academy
Klein Park

CALIFORNIA STREET
South Shoreline Boulevard to Showers Drive (1.38 miles) This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently. *Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the All Ages and Abilities bicycle network and access to schools, parks, and senior centers in a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View.
• Improves safety and comfort through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and decreases crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Rengstor Ave
Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently. *Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

CALIFORNIA STREET
Showers Drive to Del Medio Avenue (0.5 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Del Medio Ave
Showers Dr
San Antonio Rd

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: This segment of California Street is predominantly characterized by multi-family residential development, with occasional commercial uses. Class II bike lanes are provided between Showers Drive and San Antonio Street; however,
west of San Antonio, the bike lanes are replaced with on-street parking. A center turn lane replaces the median near Showers Drive. Recent development just east of San Antonio Street has enhanced the pedestrian realm with detached sidewalks and planting strips and a Class II bike lane in each direction and a mid-block crossing at Aspen Way. This segment of California connects Mountain View bike network to Palo Alto, accesses Community School of Music and Arts and provides access to transit on San Antonio Street including Valley Transportation Authority Route 21 and MVGO D Shuttle. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept narrows both travel lanes and one parking lane and consolidates parking to one side to create space for a Class IV bikeway in both directions. A parking analysis will be an implication consideration as this project develops.

3. Reconstruction: This concept upgrades the Class IV bikeways to include planting strips and repositions the on-street parking adjacent to the travel lane. This concept also proposes the construction a protected intersection at San Antonio Road and reconstruction at intersection with Showers Drive. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns and have implications for future design and construction. Project will require additional data collection to verify justification for parking changes.

Coordination with San Antonio Precise Plan will be required.

Community
School of
Music and Arts
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Del
Medio
Park
Fayette
Greenway
Park

SAFETY AND COMFORT

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the All Ages and Abilities bicycle network and access to commercial services and Del Medio Park in a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View. • Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and decreases crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections. • Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

WHISMAN ROAD
Dana Street to Fairchild Drive (1.43 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Fairchild Dr
Dana St
Chetwood
Park
Vargas
Elementary
Whisman Station
Pacific Dr
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: This segment of Whisman Road has primarily residential land use frontage, with some commercial frontage near Dana Street. Class II bike lanes exist along the corridor and connect to the Hetch Hetchy Trail, with on-street parking provided on the west side between Gladys Avenue and Fairchild Drive. The roadway has one travel lane in each direction from Fairchild Drive to East Middlefield Road and expands to two lanes in each direction for the remainder of the segment. There are no midblock crossings in this segment. The posted speed limit is 35 mph and there is 25mph school zone in front of Vargas Elementary School.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing travel
lanes to create wider Class II bike lanes. There are no major implementation considerations for this concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes widening the cityowned bridge over Central Expressway to match the rightof-way width on the southern approach. Key elements of the concept includes narrowing the median, upgrading the Class II bikes lanes to Class IV bikeways and increasing the width. The concept also proposes adding a sidewalk on the east side, and incorporating planting strip to increase separation between pedestrians and vehicle tra
c. A cycle track segment at Vargas
Elementary should be considered as this project develops.

This project also reconstructs the Pacific Drive and Whisman Station intersections and constructs a protected intersection at Dana Street. This project includes curb relocation as well as Santa Clara County and Caltrain coordination. Project will require additional data collection to verify justification of lane reconfiguration. Sidewalk widening will be constructed to maintain roadway widths as feasible. Coordination with details in East Whisman Precise Plan will be required.
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Magnolia
Park
Creekside
Park

SAFETY AND COMFORT

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY
Devonshire
Park
Evansdale Park
Whisman
Park
Stevens Creek Trail
Hetch Hetchy Trail
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity by completing a gap in the sidewalk network that provides better access to schools and other key destinations such as parks, commercial areas and transit. • Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway, and decreases crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
El Camino Real
Crisanto Ave
Rengstor
Park
California St
Mistral
Elementary
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Escuela Avenue is primarily residential land use frontage, with some commercial uses near El Camino
Real. The corridor also serves Castro/Mistral Elementary School and the Day Worker Center. The street provides
one travel lane in each direction and on-street parking.

Two improved crossings are provided—one serving Mistral Elementary and another serving a Red Route bus stop. At the California Street intersection, Valley Transportation Authority Route 21 serves the transit stops. Escuela
Avenue also connects to a bike- and pedestrian-only
entrance to Rengstor Park. The posted limit is 25 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing travel
lanes to reallocate width for the widening of parking
lanes to create a visual narrowing of the street to
manage speeds. There are no major implications for this concept but this project intersects with Caltrans right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes narrowing
parking lanes to reallocate width to the sidewalks,
increasing separation between pedestrians and
vehicular tra
c as well as adding trees where feasible
in the parking lane width. The concept also includes
reconstruction of the intersections at Crisanto Avenue
and California Street and constructing a pedestrian
and bicycle crossing to Rengstor Park. In addition to
Caltrans coordination, this concept will alter existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs and have
implications for future design and construction.
3 RECONSTRUCTION

ESCUELA AVENUE
El Camino Real to Crisanto Avenue (0.5 miles)
Rex Manor
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the comfort and accessibilty of walking to local schools, parks and community services through greater separation between the sidewalk and vehicles moving on the roadway in a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View.
• Improves mobility and connectivity through improved marked crossings at intersections and a mid-block/local road marked crossing.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis. *Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Shoreline Blvd
Eagle Park Bush St
Castro St

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: California Street is primarily fronted
with single-family homes, with commercial uses
concentrated near the intersection with Castro
Street. The corridor features continuous Class II
bike lanes, on-street parking, attached sidewalks,
and a landscaped median with trees. East of
Hope Street, the roadway narrows to one travel
lane in each direction, on-street parking, and
detached sidewalks. California Street serves as an
important connection into Downtown Mountain
View. Nearby destinations include Pioneer
Memorial Park, Eagle Park, and Mercy Bush
Park. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes
narrowing both travel and parking lanes to install
wider Class II bike lanes. There are no major
implications for this concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes
narrowing the median to create detached
sidewalks or widen existing sidewalk planting
strips. The project upgrades the Class II lanes to
Class IV bikeways with a curbed planting strip.

This concept reconstructs the intersection at
Castro Street. This project could require tree
removal and will include curb relocation along
the median and sidewalk which will alter existing
drainage patterns. East of Hope Street, the
available right of way narrows which means the
cross section will look dierent in that section.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Pioneer Memorial
Park
Mercy
Bush Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

CALIFORNIA STREET
Shoreline Boulevard to Bush Street (0.32 miles)
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through improved marked crossings at intersections and more physical separation between bicyclists and vehicles in the roadway.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

WEST MIDDLEFIELD ROAD
Moett Boulevard to Old Middlefield Way (2 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Moett Blvd
Old Middlefield Wy
Heritage
Park
Farley St
San Vernon,
San Pierre, Terra Bella

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: West Middlefield Road has a mix of single family residential, multifamily residential , and commercial land use.

The cross section includes attached sidewalks, continuous Class II bike lanes, two travel lanes in each direction, and a planted median with trees. The posted speed is 35 mph.

There are no mid-block crossings but there are two beacon crossings (Victory Avenue and Independence Avenue) and
enhanced pedestrian crossing signage at San Pierre Way
and Terra Bella Avenue. Middlefield Road has a connection to the Permanente Creek Trail at Farley Street and also serves as access for people biking or walking to Crittenden Middle School, Monta Loma Elementary School, and
Theuerkauf Elementary School. The Gray Route operates
along Middlefield Road. The posted speed limit is 35 mph and 9,000 vehicles in a day were counted east of Rengstor Ave in 2024.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing the travel and bike lanes to install Class IV bikeways. There are no major implications for this concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes upgrading the Class IV bikeways to include curbed planting strips. Additionally, the project reconstructs the Old Middlefield Way intersection and constructs a trail connection at Farley Street along with upgraded crossings at San Veron, San Pierre, and Terra Bella. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs and have implications for future design and construction. Project will require additional data collection to verify justification for parking changes.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Sierra Vista
Park
Crittenden
Middle
Theuerkauf
Elementary
Stevenson
Elementary
Jackson
Park
San Vernon
Park
Monta Loma
Elementary
Thaddeus
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES

NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway, a new trail connection and improved marked crossings at intersections.
• Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as parks, commercial areas, and transit.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Showers Dr
Escuela Ave
Rengstor Ave

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Latham Street has primarily multi-family
residential frontage. The cross section operates as two travel lanes with parking on both sides and attached sidewalks.

There are speed humps between Ortega Avenue and Escuela Avenue. Castro Elementary School is the east end of this segment and has a 15 mph school zone for Castro/Mistral Elementary School. The posted speed limit is otherwise 25 mph. Approximately 2,000 vehicles use this street west of Rengstor Avenue (2024 count) each day. The development patterns have created long blocks lengths which makes the crossings and sidewalk connections to north-south streets important for pedestrians as well as those trying to access Valley Transportation Authority Route 22 one block south on El Camino Real. Nearby parks include Klein, Rengstor and Gemello Parks.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing the travel lanes to widen the parking lanes to create a visual narrowing to manage vehicle speeds. There are no major implications for this concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes removing
on-street parking on one side of the road to widen the
sidewalks and incorporate sidewalk curbed planting strips (detached sidewalks). The concept also proposes adding
trees where feasible in the parking lane width. Spot
improvements include constructing crossings at Showers
Drive, midblock between Ortega Avenue and Rengstor
Avenue, midblock between Rengstor Avenue and Escuela
Avenue, a protected intersection at Rengstor Avenue, and a protected intersection at Escuela Avenue. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs and have implications for future design and construction.
1 EXISTING
2 RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION

LATHAM STREET
Showers Drive to Escuela Avenue (0.84 miles)
Castro
Elementary
Gemello
Park
Klein
Park
Rengstor MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY Park

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND

ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the comfort and accessibilty of walking to local schools, parks and community services through greater
separation between the sidewalk and vehicles moving on the roadway and at intersections in a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View.
• Improves mobility and connectivity through improved marked crossings at intersections and a mid-block/local road marked crossing.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

S SHORELINE BOULEVARD
El Camino Real to Montecito Avenue (1.1 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
El Camino Real
Montecito Ave
Eagle
Park
Mountain View
Academy
Central Expy
Dana St

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: South Shoreline Boulevard has continuous Class II bikes lanes, on-street parking, and three travel lanes in each direction and attached sidewalks. There is a planted median with trees from El Camino Real to Villa Street. North of Villa Street the median narrows and is not planted; there is no sidewalk until Jackson Street. This street provides access to Eagle Park, Pioneer Memorial Park, and Mountain View Public Library, and Mountain View Academy. There is one mid-block crossing at Mercy Street where a median restricts vehicle tra
c from
crossing South Shoreline Blvd. Valley Transportation Authority Route 21 can be accessed at the intersection with California Street and Gray Route can be accessed at Villa Street. There is a connection for bikes and pedestrians to access Evelyn Street which is grade separated from South Shoreline Boulevard.

Valley Transportation Authority Route 40 has a stop pair at Wright Street. The posted speed limit is 35 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes removing one travel lane in each direction to accommodate Class IV bikeways and relocating parking away from the curb to provide separation between the bike lanes and vehicle lanes. Tra
c operations
and parking analyses will implicate this project’s development as well as the maintenance considerations for planters. This project intersects with County and Caltrain right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes upgrading
the bikeway buers to curbed planting strips. This design also incorporates additional sidewalk planting space. Spot treatments include the Montecito Avenue intersection and constructing improved Central Expressway ramp crossings and a bike connection at Dana Street.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Mariposa
Park
Pioneer Memorial
Park
Jackson
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and improved marked crossings at intersections and Central Expressway ramp crossings. • Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as parks, community resources and transit. • Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Escuela Ave
Castro St

LATHAM/CHURCH STREET
Escuela Avenue to Castro Street (0.85 miles)
Shoreline Blvd
Oak St
Pioneer
Memorial
Park

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: This street is primarily single-family residential with some multi-family and commercial land use. The
block lengths are short and intersections are generally all way stops with marked crosswalks and some curb
extensions to shorten crossing distances for pedestrians.

The cross section includes on-street parking and two
travel lanes. There are no bike lanes and the sidewalks are attached. The intersection with Shoreline Blvd is the only signalized intersection and is large which can make crossing uncomfortable for people walking or biking. Destinations on this street serves the Castro/Mistral Elementary School, Mountain View Whisman School District preschool , Eagle Park, and Pioneer Memorial Park. Castro Street is an
important connection into downtown for people walking or biking. The posted speed limit is 25 mph and approximately 1500 vehicles a day use this street (2024 count).

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes the implementation of a bike boulevard which includes speed management
devices, bike boulevard markings, and wayfinding. There are no major implications for this concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes narrowing travel lanes and sidewalk planting spaces to reallocate width to the sidewalks. Treatments include a protected intersection at Shoreline Boulevard and pedestrian crossings at Oak Street and Pioneer Memorial Park. This project modifies curb lines which has drainage implications.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Castro
Elementary
Mariposa
Park
McKelvey
Ball Park
St Joseph
School
Eagle
Park
Mountain View
Academy

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility through the implementation of a bicycle boulevard and comfort for pedestrians via a widened sidewalks on a low speed/low volume roadway. • Improves connectivity through shorter crossing distances and marked crossings at intersections.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Garcia Ave
Leghorn St

RENGSTORFF AVENUE
Leghorn Street to Garcia Avenue (0.4 miles)
101 Ramp
2 1 EXISTING

RECONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Rengstor Avenue in this segment
has commercial land use near Leghorn Street
and then corporate campus o
ces north of
the Bayshore Expressway. There are on and
o ramps to the expressway in both directions.

There are continuous Class II bike lanes but
sidewalks are not continuous. This segment
is an important connection to Shoreline Park
and for employees travelling to and from work
at the large corporate campus. South of this
segment, from Leghorn Avenue to El Camino
Real, a complete streets study is underway.

2. Reconstruction: This concept proposes
removing one travel lane in each direction
to install Class IV bikeways. Curbed planting
strips are added both along the sidewalk and
between the bike lanes and vehicle travel lanes
to provide increased separation and protection
for cyclists. This project also constructs a
protected intersection at Garcia Avenue/
Amphitheatre Parkway and improves crossings
at the US-101 ramps. This concept will alter
existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs
and have implications for future design and
construction as wel as Caltrans coordination.

There is no resurfacing concept due to ongoing
Rengstor Complete Streets study. Project
will require additional data collection to verify
justification for lane reconfiguration.

SAFETY AND COMFORT
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway, and decreases crossing distances for pedestrians at intersections.

This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently.

DANA STREET
Bush Street to Moorpark Way (0.85 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Bush St
Calderon Ave

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Dana Street is a neighborhood street with
primarily residential use but there is some light industrial land use east of Highway 85. From Bush Street to
Calderon Avenue the street has parking on both sides,
one lane each direction, and the sidewalks are separated from the street by a planting strip. East of Calderon
Avenue, a planted median separates directions of tra
c
and there are Class II bike lanes. East of Pioneer Way, there are two travel lane each direction and no median.

The sidewalks are not separated from the street. This
street has a connection the Stevens Creek Trail and
directly serves Landels Elementary School. the posted
speed limit is 35 mph and about 6,200 vehicles use this street each day (2024 count) just east of Pioneer Way.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing travel
lanes and parking lanes and removing on-street parking
on one side to provide space for the installation of Class IV bikeways. This project cross intersects with Caltrans right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes a road
reconfiguration to make room for curbed planted
strips between the parking lane and the bike lane.

Construction of a protected intersection at Calderon
Avenue and reconstruction of the intersection at
Moorpark Way is also proposed. This concept will alter
existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs and have implications for future design and construction.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Mercy Bush
Park
Landels
Elementary
Creekside
Park
Sylvan
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
Moorpark Wy
Stevens Creek Trail
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and shorter crossing distances at intersections • Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as trails and employment areas. • Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Marilyn Dr
El Camino Real

MIRAMONTE AVENUE
El Camino Real to Marilyn Drive (0.5 miles)
Park Dr
Sonia Way
2 1 EXISTING

RECONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: This segment of Miramonte Avenue
has an active project underway called Miramonte
Avenue Complete Streets Study, Project 23-31.

Refer to that study for more information about
existing conditions. The posted speed limit is
25 mph and 2024 counts collected near Sonia
way showed about 6,000 vehicles use this
street each day. Destinations along and near this
street include Graham Middle School, St Joseph
Catholic School, Eagle Park, Pioneer Memorial
Park, and McElvey Ball Park.

2. Reconstruction: This concept proposes
upgrading the bike lane buer to a planted strip.

Additionally, this concept proposes constructing
a protected intersection at El Camino Real and
pedestrian crossings at Park Drive and Sonia Way.

This concept will alter existing drainage patterns
by relocating curbs and have implications for
future design and construction.

McKelvey
Ball Park
Bubb
Elementary
St Joseph School
Eagle
Park
Pioneer
Memorial
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and shorter crossing distances at intersections • Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as community resources and employment areas.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

GARCIA AVENUE
Bayshore Parkway to Amphitheatre Parkway (0.6 miles)
GUIDING PRINCIPLES Bayshore Pkwy
Amphitheatre Way
Salado Dr

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Garcia Avenue has corporate campus on
both sides. Garcia Avenue generally has one travel
lane in each direction and a center turn lane as well as continuous Class II bike lanes and some planted medians and mid-block crossings near Marine Way. Garcia
Avenue provides access to Shoreline Park which a major
destination for recreation and entertainment. The posted speed limit is 35 mph. This street is also addressed in the North Bayshore Precise Plan.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing travel
lanes to reallocate space for wider Class IV bikeways.

There are no major implications for this project.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes the removal
of one travel lane in each direction to provide space for the installation of curbed planting strips for the Class IV bikeways. A queuing analysis will be required to move this concept forward.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION

SAFETY AND COMFORT
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway, and the provision of sidewalks on both sides of the street.

Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

This cross-section shows only the typical section of the street; it does not represent every aspect of the roadway. Some segments may need to be addressed dierently.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
NOTE: These cross-sections were developed as part of an MTA technical assistance project.

Bernardo Ave
Bush St
*Illustrative concepts have been developed with references from AASHTO Bike Guide (2024), NACTO Bikeway Design Guide (2025), CA MUTCD (2014), and, Caltrans DIB-94 (2024).

EVELYN AVENUE
Bush Street to Bernardo Avenue (1.35 miles)
Stevens Creek

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Evelyn Avenue is a mix of single family,
multifamily, and commercial land use. This segment has
continuous Class II bike lanes typically with two travel lanes in each direction. There are several multi-family housing complexes in the segment and sidewalk only on the south curb from the Highway 85 exit to Bernardo Street. West
Evelyn Ave has a pedestrian and bicycle connection to the Stevens Creek Trail near the West Valley Freeway. This is an important connection into and out of downtown Mountain
View and to access Caltrain’s Mountain View Station.

Nearby destinations include Landels and Vargas Elementary Schools and Magnolia and Chetwood Parks. The posted
speed limit is 30 mph.

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes removing a travel lane in each direction, add a two-way cycle track on the north curb and a Class IV bikeway on the south curb.

The two-way cycle track aligns with the proposal for the Mountain View Transit Center improvements on Evelyn
Street. There are drainage implications for this project due to modified curb lines and Caltrain coordination will be required. Tra
c analysis will also be needed.

2. Reconstruction: This concept proposes raising the twoway cycle track on the north curb to sidewalk level and creating a shared use path and adding a curbed planting strip to the Class IV bikeway on the south curb. A new
bicycle/pedestrian crossing to the Stevens Creek Trail is also included. There are additional drainage implications for this sceanario as well as the need for removal of the planted median from Bernado to Highway 85.
1 EXISTING
2 RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Chetwood Park
Magnolia
Park
Vargas
Elementary
Landels Elementary

SAFETY AND COMFORT

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
Stevens Creek Trail
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves the All Ages and Abilities bicycle network and access to employment, transit, and trails. • Improves safety through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and improved marked crossings for pedestrians at intersections. • Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

Evelyn
Park
Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Key Map
El Camino Real
Grant
Hans Ave
Pamela Dr
Tyler Park Way

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Phyllis Avenue is a primarly residential street with some pockets of commerical land use at either end.

Phyllis includes on-street parking, a continuous Class II bike lane, and a wide center turn lane. In some segments, a planted median is present. At the south end, there is a large shopping center which attracts pedestrian tra
c along and
across Phyllis Avenue. There are no mid-block crossings - the only crossing in this segment is at the all way stop at Hans Avenue which also has some tra
c calming elements
to manage turning speeds/trajectories. Phyllis Avenue is an important connection for people walking or biking to Imai Elementary and Graham Middle schools. The posted speed
limit is 30 mph and about 5,600 vehicles use this street each day (2024 count).

2. Resurfacing: This project proposes narrowing the existing lane widths to install Class IV bikeways that are parking protected. This project includes protected intersections at El Camino Real, Hans Avenue, and Grant Road and
constructing mid-block crossings at Tyler Park Way and
Pamela Drive. This project intersects with Caltrans right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes that upgrading the bike lane buer to curbed planting strip and widening the sidewalk by removing the center turn lane. This scenario would require tra
c analysis.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Imai
Elementary

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY

ACCESS, EQUITY, AND ALL AGES AND ABILITIES NETWORK
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and shorter crossing distances at intersections. • Improves access to schools and other key destinations such as community resources and employment areas.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

PHYLLIS AVENUE
El Camino Real to Grant Road (0.5 miles)
Final design of the proposed improvements will require further feasibility analysis and engineering review on a case-by-case basis.

SYLVAN AVENUE/THE AMERICANA
Moorpark Way to Continental Circle (0.6 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
El Camino Real
Moorpark Way
Sevely Dr

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing: Sylvan Avenue is a mix of single family,
multifamily, and commercial land use. Sylvan Avenue
has Class II bike lanes and one travel lane in each
direction. There is parking on both sides of the street from East Dana Street to Moraga Drive and continuous
sidewalks. Sylvan Park is in the middle of this segment and a popular destination and has a pedestrian crossing.

The posted speed limit is 30 mph and about 6,000
vehicles travel on this street each day (2024 count).

2. Resurfacing: This concept proposes narrowing travel
lanes to reallocate space for wider bike lanes. This
project intersects with Caltrans right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes raising the
bike lane on one side of the roadway, reallocates onstreet parking away from the curb to enhance cyclist safety, and installs a curbed planting strip between
the bike lane and parking lane to provide additional
separation. This project includes reconstruction
at Moorpark Way intersection and constructing a
pedestrian crossing at Sevely Drive and a protected
intersection at El Camino Real. Sidewalk widening will
be constructed to maintain roadway widths as feasible.

This project requires Caltrans coordination.
2 1 EXISTING

RESURFACING
3 RECONSTRUCTION
Sylvan
Park

MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY

SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY
WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT?
This project:
• Improves mobility and connectivity through physical separation of bicyclists and vehicles on the roadway and improved marked crossings.
• Improves sustainability and biodiversity through increases in pervious surface area and plantable space.

APPENDIX C:

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENTS
Recommended Improvements – Sidewalks
Corridor From To Recommended
Improvement
Length
(Mi.) Existing Facility
S Whisman Rd Fairchild Dr E Dana St Widen Sidewalk 1.44 Sidewalks On Both Sides
Sylvan Ave Moorpark Way El Camino Real Widen Sidewalk 0.62 Sidewalks On Both Sides
Escuela Ave Crisanto Ave El Camino Real Widen Sidewalk 0.56 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Latham St Shower Dr Escuela Ave Widen Sidewalk 0.84 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Phyllis Ave El Camino Real Grant Rd Widen Sidewalk 0.47 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Rengstorff Ave Charleston Rd Leghorn St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.38 Sidewalk On One Side Latham St - Church
St Chiquita Ave Castro St Widen Sidewalk 0.64 Sidewalk on Both Sides Shorebird Way Charleston Rd 510' south of Charleston
Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 Sidewalk On One Side
Ellis St National Ave 220' south of National Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.05 Sidewalk On One Side Maude Ave 260' south of Logue Ave 100' south of Clyde Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.15 Sidewalk On One Side Easy St Gladys Ct 400' south of Gladys Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 Sidewalk On One Side Gladys Ct 100' south of Easy St Easy St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 No Sidewalks Fountain Park Ln Stierlin Rd 120' west of Stierlin Rd Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 Sidewalk On One Side Polaris Ave Wright Ave 430' south of Wright Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 Sidewalk On One Side Polaris Ave 430' south of Wright Ave 150' north of Wentworth St Sidewalk on 2- sides 0.02 No Sidewalks
Wildrose Way Wildrose Way East End Granada Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.11 No Sidewalks Canna Ct Granada Dr Granada Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 No Sidewalks Lilac Ln Granada Dr Granada Dr Sidewalk on 1-side 0.12 No Sidewalks Pilgrim Ave 100' east of Blackfield
Way 50' west of Mayflower Ct Sidewalk on 2-sides 0.03 No Sidewalks Pilgrim Ave 50' west of Mayflower Ct 100' east of Priscilla Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.10 Sidewalk On One Side Pilgrim Ave 100' east of Priscilla Ct El Monte Ave Sidewalk on 2- sides 0.04 No Sidewalks
High School Way Shoreline Blvd Oak St Sidewalk on 1-side 0.07 Sidewalk On One Side Harpster Dr Castro St Miramonte Ave Sidewalk on 2-
sides 0.11 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Carol Ave Sleeper Ave north end of street Sidewalk on 2- sides 0.11 No Sidewalks
Eunice Ave Hilo Ct 160'east of Hilo Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.03 Sidewalk On One Side California St Shoreline Blvd Hope St Widen Sidewalk 0.32 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Miramonte Ave El Camino Real Marilyn Dr Widen Sidewalk 0.50 Sidewalk on Both Sides
Grant Rd Bryant Ave Paula Ct Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 Sidewalk On One Side Recommended Improvements – Bicycle Facilities
Corridor From To Recommended
Improvement
Length
(Mi.)
Existing
Facility
Garcia Ave Bayshore Pkwy Amphitheatre Pkwy Class IV 0.64 Class II Rengstorff Ave Leghorn St El Camino Real Class IV 1.71 Class II Charleston Rd Inigo Way Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.28 Class II Charleston Rd Amphitheatre Pkwy Huff Ave Class I 0.44 Class II Casey Ave Marine Way East End Class IIIB 0.11 None
Marine Way Casey Ave Garcia Ave Class IIIB 0.31 None
Coast Ave Marine Way East End Class II 0.11 None
San Antonio Rd Bayshore Pkwy US 101 Class I 0.19 None
Plymouth Connector Plymouth St Shoreline Blvd Class I 0.35 None Pear Ave Shoreline Blvd East End Class II 0.24 None
New Trail La Avenida St Shorebird Connector Class I 0.26 None Independence Ave Charleston Rd Leghorn St Class II 0.17 None Leghorn St San Antonio Rd Sierra Vista Ave Class IIIB 0.62 None Independence Ave Leghorn St Rock St Class III 0.44 None Old Middlefield Way Middlefield Rd Stevens Creek Trail Class IV 0.77 None Rock St Independence Ave Camp Ave Class III 0.74 None
S Whisman Rd Fairchild Dr E Dana St Class IV 1.44 Class II Victory Ave Middlefield Rd Dell Ave Class IIIB 0.25 Class III Dell Ave Nita Ave Victory Ave Class IIIB 0.07 Class III Nita Ave Dell Ave 150' West of Mayfield Ave Class IIIB 0.13 Class III Mayfield Ave Nita Ave Whitney Dr Class IIIB 0.10 Class III Farley St Middlefield Rd Central Expy Class IIIB 0.64 Class III Whitney Dr Mayfield Ave Laura Ln Class IIIB 0.18 Class III Laura Ln Whitney Dr Thompson Ave Class IIIB 0.16 Class III Thompson Ave Junction Ave Central Expy Class IIIB 0.53 None Jane Ln Thompson Ave Fay Way Class IIIB 0.11 Class III
Fay Way Jane Ln Jewell Pl Class IIIB 0.11 Class III
Jewell Pl Fay Way Rengstorff Ave Class IIIB 0.05 Class III Montecito Ave Rengstorff Ae 800' East of San Pierre
Way Class IIIB 0.74 Class III
San Pierre Way Middlefield Rd Montecito Ave Class IIIB 0.36 None Granada Dr Montecito Ave Wright Ave Class IIIB 0.18 None Wright Ave Beatrice St Shoreline Blvd Class IIIB 0.44 None Stierlin Rd Shoreline Blvd Washington St Class IIIB 0.39 Class III Stierlin Rd Shoreline Blvd Stierlin Rd Class IV 0.17 None Colony St Rengstorff Ave East End Class IIIB 0.33 None
Terra Bella Ave Middlefield Rd San Rafael Ave Class IIIB 0.66 None San Rafael Ave Terra Bella Ave San Pablo Dr Class IIIB 0.15 None San Pablo Dr San Rafael Ave San Simeon Dr Class IIIB 0.05 None San Simeon Dr San Pablo Dr San Lucas Ave Class IIIB 0.10 None San Lucas Ave San Simeon Dr San Veron Ave Class IIIB 0.04 None San Veron Ave San Lucas Ave Middlefield Rd Class IIIB 0.09 None Sylvan Ave Moorpark Way El Camino Real Class IV 0.62 Class II Gladys Ave Easy St N Whisman Rd Class IIIB 0.39 Class III Keller Dr - Easy St Tyrella Ave Gladys Ave Class IIIB 0.65 None Tyrella Ave Fairchild Dr Keller Dr Class IIIB 0.18 None Evelyn Ave View St Bernardo Ave Class IV 1.43 Class II
Hetch Hetchy Trail Extension N Whisman Rd LR Trail Extension Class I 0.43 None LR Trail Extension Fairchild Dr Hetch Hetchy Trail
Extension Class I 0.25 None
Corridor From To Recommended
Improvement
Length
(Mi.)
Existing
Facility
Ellis St Manila Dr Fairchild Dr Class IV 0.51 Class II
Street B N Whiseman Rd EllisSt Class IV 0.33 None
Street A Fairchild Dr Middlefield Rd Class IV 0.56 None Street B Multi Use Path Ellis St Logue Ave Class I 0.16 None Logue Ave North End Maude Ave Class IIB 0.10 None
Clyde Ct Clyde Ave South End Class IIB 0.06 None
Street D Clyde Ct Logue Ave Class IIB 0.15 None
State Rd 237 Service Rd Maude Ave Middlefield Rd Class IV 0.24 None Revendale Dr Central Expy N Bernardo Ave Class IIB 0.54 None N Bernardo Ave Middlefield Rd Central Expy Class IIB 0.39 None Ferguson Dr Connector Furguson Dr Middlefield Rd Class I 0.42 None Compass Way Pyramid Way Ferguson Dr Class IIIB 0.16 None Pacific Dr Whisman Rd Melia Lp Class IIIB 0.16 None
Central Expy West City Limit East City Limit Class I 3.44 None EWPP Connection Ravendale Dr Furgeson Dr Connector Class I 0.61 None Dana St Bush St Moorpark Way Class IV 0.85 Class II,
Class III
Hope St Evelyn Ave Church St Class IIIB 0.50 None
Bush St Evelyn Ave Villa St Class III 0.08 None
Bush St Villa St El Camino Real Class IIIB 0.63 None
Escuela Ave Crisanto Ave El Camino Real Class III 0.56 None E Dana St Sylvan Ave East End Class IIIB 0.18 None
Foxborough Dr - Glenborough Dr Sylvan Ave Sylvan Ave Class IIIB 0.41 None Alice Ave - Rainbow Dr Moorpark Way Sylvan Ave Class IIIB 0.54 None Moorpark Way Alice Ave E Dana St Class IIIB 0.18 None
California St Hope St Bush St Class IIIB 0.14 Class III Casto St California St High School Way Class III 0.35 None Phyllis Ave El Camino Real Grant Rd Class IV 0.47 Class II New Trail Church St El Camino Real Class I 0.18 None
Martens Ave Grant Rd Carmelita Dr Class III 0.07 None
Martens Ave Carmelita Dr East End Class IIIB 0.33 None
Kentmere Ct Martens Ave East End Class IIIB 0.07 None
Alexander Ct Martens Ave End Class IIIB 0.03 None
Kentmere Connector Kentmere Ct Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.06 None Levin Ave Grant Rd Diericx Dr Class IIIB 0.72 None
Stevens Creek Trail Extension Dale Ave/Heatherstone
Way W Remington Dr Class I 0.74 None
Permanente Creek Trail Grant Rd Diericx Dr Class I 0.72 None Mariposa Ave Villa St El Camino Real Class IIIB 0.55 None Bonny/Villa Connector Villa St Bonny St Class I 0.25 None Ortega Ave California St El Camino Real Class III 0.28 None Pacchetti Way Village Green Dog Park El Camino Real Class III 0.26 None Private Road California St El Camino Real Class III 0.34 None San Antonio Rd Central Expwy El Camino Real Class IV 0.57 Class II San Antonio Cir San Antonio Rd San Antonio Rd Class III 0.21 None Miller Ave Del Medio Ave San Antonio Rd Class IIIB 0.17 None Fayette Dr Del Medio Ave Private Road Class IIIB 0.27 None Del Medio Ave California St El Camino Real Class III 0.32 None New Road Private Road Pacchetti Way Class IIIB 0.05 None Ferry Morse Way Evelyn Ave S Whisman Rd Class II 0.16 None Clark Ave El Camino Real Jardin Dr Class III 0.41 None
Marich Way Karen Way El Monte Ave Class IIIB 0.38 None
Corridor From To Recommended
Improvement
Length
(Mi.)
Existing
Facility
Todd St/Ernestine Ln/ Mountain View
Ave Springer Rd El Camino Real Class IIIB 0.51 None
Park Dr East End Miramonte Ave Class III 0.23 None
Marilyn Dr Springer Rd East End Class IIIB 0.22 None
Meadow Ln - Barbara Ave Marilyn Dr Phyllis Ave Class IIIB 1.10 None Fordham Way - Orangetree Ln Barbara Ave Lincoln Dr Class IIIB 0.85 None Bonita Ave El Camino Real Cuesta Dr Class IIIB 0.71 None Hans Ave Miramonte Ave Phyllis Ave Class IIIB 0.51 Class III Boranda Ave Isaac Newton Middle Hans Ave Class IIIB 0.08 None GMS Paseo GMS Boranda Ave Class I 0.05 None
New Trail Connector Diericx Dr Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.23 None National Ave Fairchild Dr Ellis St Class IIB 0.32 None
Rengstorff Ave Charleston Rd Leghorn St Class IV 0.38 Class II Shoreline Blvd - Miramonte Ave North Rd Castro St Class IV 3.44 Class II Moffett Blvd Central Expy City Limit East Class IV 1.29 Class II Showers Dr California St City Limit South Class IV 0.32 Class II Middlefield Rd Old Middlefield Way Moffett Blvd Class IV 1.94 Class II New Trail Terminal Blvd Garcia Ave Class I 0.38 None
Fairchild Dr - Clyde Ave Ellis St Clyde Ave Class IIB 0.16 None Sierra Vista Ave Leghorn St Silverwood Ave Class IIIB 1.21 None California St Del Medio Ave Showers Dr Class IV 0.49 Class II California St Hope St Castro St Class IV 0.07 Class III Bryant Ave Truman Ave Lubich Dr Class IIIB 0.27 None
Miramonte Ave Cuesta Dr City Limit South Class IV 0.53 Class II Cuesta Dr Miramonte Ave Grant Rd Class IV 0.51 Class II Grant St El Camino Real Martens Ave Class II 0.33 None
Casto St High School Way El Camino Real Class IIB 0.07 None Middlefield Rd Moffett Blvd City Limits East Class IV 1.80 Class II Miramonte Ave Castro St Hans Ave Class IV 0.12 Class II Space Park Way Shoreline Blvd Space Park Way (East
End) Class IV 0.25 None
El Monte Ave El Camino Real Springer Rd Class IV 0.41 Class II Ellis St Manila Dr Fairchild Dr Class II 0.18 Class III Franklin St Evelyn Ave Latham St Class IIIB 0.51 None
Dana St Pettis Ave Bush St Class IIIB 0.71 None
Green Loop Charleston Rd Shorline Blvd Class I 0.15 None Charleston Rd Shoreline Blvd Inigo Way Class IV 0.23 Class II Inigo Way Space Park Way Charleston Rd Class IIB 0.26 Class IIIB Monarch St Grove St Black St Class IIB 0.38 None
New Trail Shorebird Way Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.22 None Black St Charleston Rd Shorebird Way Class IV 0.10 None Willow St Shorebird Way Monarch St Class IIB 0.05 None
Manzanita St Space Park Way 300' South of Charleston
Rd Class IIB 0.18 None
Grove St Shorebird Way Space Park Way Class IIB 0.09 None Plymouth St Shorebird Way 355' East of Joaquin Rd Class IIB 0.07 None Plymouth St 140' West of Shorebird Way Alta Ave Class IV 0.34 Class II Huff Ave Charleston Rd Plymouth St Class IIB 0.28 None
Monarch St Shorebird Blvd Huff Ave Class IIB 0.27 None
C St - B St Plymouth St Main St Class IIB 0.31 None
Shorebird Way (Green Loop) Charlestone Rd Shoreline Blvd Class I 0.46 Class II New Trail Charlestone Rd Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.20 None Recommended Improvements – Crossings
Cross Street A Cross Street B Recommended Improvement Existing Facility Springer Rd Cuesta Dr Unsignalized crossing All-Way Stop Sylvan Ave Rainbow Dr Unsignalized crossing None
Miramonte Ave Trophy Dr Unsignalized crossing None
Whisman Rd Sherland Ave Unsignalized crossing None
Whisman Rd Devonshire Ave Unsignalized crossing None
Middlefield Rd San Veron Ave Unsignalized crossing None Middlefield Rd 160' West of Midrock Cors Unsignalized crossing None Stierlin Ct 860' East of Shoreline Blvd Mid-block crossing None Wyandotte St Rengstroff Ave Unsignalized crossing None
Cuesta Dr Bonita Ave Unsignalized crossing None
Moffett Blvd/Castro St Evelyn Ave Unsignalized Crossing None Cuesta Dr Miramonte Ave Signalized Crossing Signalized Crossing California St Escuela Ave Signalized Crossing Signalized Crossing Montecity Ave Granada Dr Mid-block crossing All-Way Stop Villa St Bush St Signalized crossing Signalized Crossing Calderon Ave Paul Ave Unsignalized Crossing None
Calderon Ave Loreto St Unsignalized crossing None
View St Dana St Unsignalized crossing All-Way Stop
Grant Ave Portland Ave Mid-block crossing None
Grant Rd Eureka Ave Mid-block crossing None
Grant Rd Fremont Ave Mid-block Crossing Signalized Crossing Hans Ave Phyllis Ave Mid-block crossing All-Way Stop
Bryant Ave Truman Ave Unsignalized crossing All-Way Stop Pear Ave Inigo Way Mid-block crossing None
Middlefield Rd Shoreline Blvd Signalized crossing Signalized Crossing View St Evelyn At Uncontrolled crossing All-Way Stop
Evelyn Ave Hope St Unsignalized crossing Signalized Crossing Evelyn Ave Bush St Signalized crossing Signalized Crossing Calderon Ave Evelyn Ave Signalized crossing Signalized Crossing Middlefield Rd 250' North of Logue Ave Mid-block crossing None

Council Transportation CommitteeJune 16, 2026

Council Transportation Committee
June 16, 2026