ATT 1 - Active Transportation Plan and Appendices — Council Transportation Committee, August 31, 2026

ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
PLAN
AUGUST 2026
FINAL

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
II

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
III

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
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.

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

BICYCLE AND

PEDESTRIAN

ADVISORY

COMMITTEE
Lada Adamic*
Terry Barton
Serge Bronte
Valerie Fenwick*
Peggy Huang
James Kuszmaul
John (Isaac) Stone
*Denotes past committee
member
ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION

PLAN TECHNICAL

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Terry Barton, BPAC Member
Alisa Campbell, Santa Clara
County Public Health
Department
Thida Cornes, Mountain View
Los Altos High School Board
Mary Dateo, Canopy Board
Member
Bruce England, Mountain
View Coalition for Sustainable
Planning
Ian Lin, VTA
Lauren Ledbetter,* VTA
Maria Marroquin, Day Worker
Center
Anna Marie Morales, MV
Mobile Home Alliance
Tom Myers, CSA Cares
Peter Kartz, Mountain View
Chamber of Commerce
Jaeden Pietrofeso, MVLA
Jennifer Stewart, MVWSD
Jennifer Sumant, Kaiser
Permanente
Mike Tkalcevic, VTA
April Webster, SVBC &
Canopy Board Member
Michelle Wexler, Santa
Clara County Public Health
Department
Rebecca Westover, MVWSD
Jesse Cupp, Mountain View
Chamber of Commerce
*Denotes past ATPAC Members

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
Lauren Ledbetter
Ria Lo*
Lorenzo Lopez
Jennifer Ng
Carrie Sandahl
Brandon Whyte*
*Denotes past city team member

CONSULTANT TEAM
Nelson\Nygaard
Metta Urban Design

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
IV

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary vi
Introduction 1
What is an Active Transportation Plan?
The Role of Public and
Stakeholder Engagement
Why Does This Plan Matter
and How Will It Be Used?
What’s It Like to Walk,
Bicycle and Roll In Mountain
View Today? 1 2
Community Characteristics
Existing Transportation Infrastructure
Safety
Key Takeaways
Recommendations 36
What’s Working?
Recommendations for the Future
Let’s Roll! Implementing the
ATP 56
Implementation Process Considerations
Funding Sources for Active
Transportation Projects
Appendix A: Project
Prioritization
Appendix B: Cutsheet
Development
Appendix C: Recommended
Improvements
Appendix D: VZAP/
LRSP Non-Infrastructure
Recommendations
Appendix E: Existing
Conditions and Needs
Summary

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
V

EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

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 for people using 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
VII

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

Vision Statement:

Mountain View leads the region with an Active Transportation Plan that defines a series of connected, low-stress, and green corridors that invite active transportation. The corridors include shade, wildlife habitat, and public open spaces. The plan enables the City to intentionally support a culture of walking and biking, enhance biodiversity, and reduce climate change impacts.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
VIII

DEVELOPING THE MVATP
The MVATP
involved a
multiphase
engagement and
analysis process,
including the
following phases:

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
IX

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 lay out 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 commitment to 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 plans and initiatives that support active transportation, safety, sustainability, and biodiversity, including the Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Roadway Safety Plan, the Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, and the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan. The MVATP, together with these complementary city plans, provide accountability for the community’s commitment to these values.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
X
FIG URE 1 MVATP PRIORITY PROJECTS XI

INTRODUCTION
01 INTRODUCTION
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.

Chapter 1 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 (including use of 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. Several state and federal funding programs require projects to be identified in documents like an active transportation plan to be eligible for grants.

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 and planning processes 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 2026 Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan, the 2026 Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, 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
1 MULTI-PHASE PROCESS
The MVATP involved three primary phases:

FIG URE 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 off- street 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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
2 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 longer- term 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.

The technical phases happened in parallel with and were informed by a robust community engagement process, described in the next section.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
3 The Role of Public and
Stakeholder Engagement
Inclusive public and stakeholder participation was a critical component of the MVATP’s overall development. Activities were designed to engage the diverse Mountain View community, across ages, income, language, ability and how people travel. Multi-lingual (English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian) translation and interpretation services were available 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 plan development.
4) The Council Transportation Committee (CTC), composed of three City Council members, provided input on city-wide and regional transportation planning topics.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
4 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 community-wide 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 representing a range of ages and abilities 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.

FIG URE 3 BICYCLE TOUR

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
5 ‣ 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.

These engagement methods were designed to reach communities often under-represented in planning processes, meeting people where they live and travel and in the languages they speak.

The input gathered served as a project scoring criterion, with locations receiving the most comments scoring higher. The scoring process also prioritized projects in low- and mid-income census tracts and projects that close gaps in the sidewalk and all ages and abilities bicycle networks.

FIG URE 4 MULTI-LINGUAL MVATP SURVEY

P ROMOTION (LEFT)
FIG URE 5 WALK TOUR (BELOW)

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
6 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.

FIG URE 6 MISTRAL WALK TOUR PARTICIPANT NOTES

PUBLIC OFFICIAL

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

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
7 FIG URE 7 COMMUNITY COMMENTS ON CHALLENGING PLACES
Note: a Key Locations table can be found in Chapter 2.
8 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:

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
9 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. The MVATP actions complement related actions in other city planning efforts, including the City’s Vision Zero Action Plan, Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan, and Parks and Recreation Strategic Plan. 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. This plan will help guide collaborations with Caltrans, Santa Clara County, and VTA, all of which own and operate major transportation facilities within Mountain View.

FIG URE 8 DOWNTOWN MOUNTAIN VIEW STREETSCAPE

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
10 “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.”
FIG URE 9 COMMUNITY QUOTES

F ROM MAPTIONNAIRE SURVEY

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
11 02
WHAT’S IT LIKE TO

WALK, BICYCLE 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. Unless otherwise noted, demographic data are drawn from U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 2021 5-year estimates.

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.

FIG URE 1 0 STREETSCAPE ALONG CASTRO STREET

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
13 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). Income in Mountain View spans a wide range. While almost 40% of households earn more than $200,000 per year and the median household
income is $158,104, approximately 6% of households live below the poverty level.

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 11). Those neighborhoods also have higher youth densities (Figure 12).

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%
TA BLE 1 RACE AND ETHNICITY IN MOUNTAIN VIEW

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
14 FIG URE 1 1 POPULATION DENSITY (2020) 15
FIG URE 1 2 YOUTH (AGES 18 AND UNDER) POPULATION DENSITY (2020) 16 HOW DO WE MOVE ABOUT MOUNTAIN VIEW?
Mountain View is an active community. Census commute data from the ACS 5-year estimate shows that people bicycle to work at far 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, while walking rates are comparable to state and national averages at 2.5% (Table 2). Mountain View residents also use public transportation at higher rates than the state and nation, with 3.9% of workers commuting by transit compared with 2.9% statewide and 3.2% nationally.

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 30% of public-school students in Mountain View get to school by walking, biking, rolling, or transit and 6% carpool. Refer to Table 3 for the breakdown of how students get to school.

TA BLE 2 COMMUTE MODE COMPARISON

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 2024 5-year estimate
TA BLE 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%
Source: Student Travel Tally Survey (2024-2025), Mountain View Safe Routes to School

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
17 FIG URE 1 3 SIDEWALK CONDITIONS
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. While the city’s sidewalk network is nearly complete, there are scattered sidewalk gaps and some areas with a higher concentration of missing sidewalks.

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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
18 Beyond sidewalks, 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.

FIG URE 1 4 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.

Paseos are typically located between buildings, through mid-block connections, and within residential or mixed-use developments. They are often found linking neighborhoods to parks, schools, transit stops, commercial areas, and other community destinations.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
19 FIG URE 1 5 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. It is important to note that some of these larger arterial roads are under jurisdiction of Caltrans or Santa Clara County. This is particularly an issue where signalized crossing opportunities are more widely spaced, shown in Figure 16.

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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
20 FIG URE 1 6 DISTANCE BETWEEN MARKED CROSSWALKS
21 BICYCLE NETWORK
The city has a varied network of bicycle facilities (Figure 18), 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 19). 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. Access MV’s AAA bicycle network map served as the starting point for this plan’s bicycle network development. The MVATP’s recommended bicycle network, presented later in this chapter (Figure 27), upgrades facility types on some of these corridors.

Parks and trails are among the community’s favorite places to walk, bicycle, and roll, serving as both routes and enjoyable, car-free destinations. Survey respondents described using the Stevens Creek Trail for recreational rides, commuting, and reaching everyday places such as grocery stores and the library. 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 sidewalk gaps 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.

FIG URE 1 7 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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
22 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 (Class IIIB) 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.

FIG URE 1 8 TYPES OF BICYCLE FACILITIES IN MOUNTAIN VIEW’S

ALL AGES AND ABILITIES (AAA) BICYCLE NETWORK

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
23 FIG URE 1 9
EXISTING AND PLANNED/FUNDED AAA BICYCLE FACILITIES VS. EXISTING BICYCLE NETWORK Note: This map shows the all ages and abilities network identified in the 2021 AccessMV analysis, which served as the starting point for this plan’s bicycle network development. The MVATP’s recommended bicycle network, presented later in this chapter (Figure 27), upgrades facility types on some of these corridors.

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.
24 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 high-
quality regional and local transit services.

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 20).

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.

FIG URE 2 0 TRANSIT ACCESS CONDITIONS

IN MOUNTAIN VIEW

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
25 FIG URE 2 1 TRANSIT RIDERSHIP AND PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 26 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. (Figure 22 and Figure 23). The top community-identified challenging locations are summarized in Table 4. These ten challenging spots all involve a roadway owned and operated by Caltrans or Santa Clara County, making sustained collaboration with these partner agencies essential to improving safety in Mountain View.*
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 bicycle lanes,
curb extensions, and/or
pedestrian interval phasing
and bicycle signals that
may reduce conflict points
and should be considered
when designing multimodal
streets.

TA BLE 4 TOP 10 CHALLENGING SPOTS FOR WALKING, BIKING,

A ND 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
*As of mid-2026, Caltrans is leading a Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan for the segment of El Camino Real in Santa Clara County and the County is seeking funds for a study to explore the feasibility of improving bicycle and pedestrian accommodations on Central Expressway. Both efforts will identify bicycle and pedestrian improvements. City staff are providing input into the Caltrans CMCP and will provide input into the County's study once it begins.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
27 FIG URE 2 2

FREQUENCY OF COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE WALKING AND CHALLENGING LOCATIONS 28 FIG URE 2 3

FREQUENCY OF COLLISIONS INVOLVING PEOPLE ON BICYCLE AND CHALLENGING LOCATIONS 29 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. In 2026, the City adopted a Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (BUPF) 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.

FIG URE 2 4 PUBLIC TREE PLANTING LOCATIONS
Source: City of Mountain View - Tree Technical Manual

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
30 PLANTABLE SPACE
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 (Figure 24). 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. Incorporating street trees into roadway capital projects can move the city toward realizing the 22.7 percent tree canopy coverage goal established in the 2015 Community Tree Master Plan and restated in the BUFP. Bicycle and pedestrian projects identified in the MVATP provide an opportunity to plant trees and shrubs in planting strips, medians, and bikeway buffers, directly contributing to that goal.

New plantings also present an opportunity to increase the proportion of local native species.

Native trees such as Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, and California Buckeye provide biodiversity benefits that common non-native species do not, supporting the pollinators and ecosystems of this region. The city’s BUFP establishes the city’s approach to native planting and canopy goals.

IMPERVIOUS SURFACES
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, and are consistent with the BUFP.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
31 Key Takeaways

COMMUNITY SUPPORT FOR ACTIVE

TRANSPORTATION
Mountain View is an active community. Through the survey, walk and bicycle 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 25, Figure 26, and Figure 27).

The holistic network maps serve several purposes. They represent the complete pedestrian and bicycle network the city is working toward over the life of this plan and beyond, a long-term vision rather than a committed project list. By mapping the full network, they ensure that individual improvements connect to one another and build toward a citywide system rather than isolated segments. The improvements shown on these maps formed the full set of over 100 potential projects that were evaluated and scored through the process described in Chapter 3, with the highest scoring improvements becoming the priority projects. The maps also guide decisions beyond the priority projects, informing the review of private development along the network, the design of street maintenance and repaving projects, and the pursuit of grant funding, so that each of these opportunities contributes to completing the network over time.

The holistic maps in this chapter present the full long-term network vision. Improvements shown on the holistic maps but not identified as priority projects remain part of the plan and may advance as opportunities arise.

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 shown on the holistic pedestrian network maps are in these unimproved areas and are not proposed for construction under current policy.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
32 FIG URE 2 5 HOLISTIC PEDESTRIAN NETWORK (EXISTING) 33 FIG URE 2 6 HOLISTIC PEDESTRIAN NETWORK (PROPOSED) 34 FIG URE 2 7 HOLISTIC BICYCLE NETWORK
35 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. These projects involve multiple departments, such as Public Works, Community Services, Police and Fire, Community Development, and local school districts/schools and transit partners. 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.
‣ 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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
37 ‣ El Camino Real Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements: In partnership with the City, in 2024/25, Caltrans implemented significant pedestrian and bicycle improvements on El Camino Real. The project upgraded curb ramps to current ADA standards, added No Right on Red signs at selected intersections, installed protected bikeways along El Camino Real, and installed three new pedestrian crossings with pedestrian hybrid beacons. The project improves pedestrian and bicycle travel along and across this major corridor, which is noted as a critical and challenging barrier in the existing conditions community survey. While the project is a significant improvement, Caltrans was limited in what they could incorporate into the repaving project that delivered the improvements. Community members have noted that the bikeway protection drops at intersections and bus stops to permit drivers to turn right and bus operators to pull to the curb. This is one of several permissible design options for protected bikeways at intersections. Future plans and projects along El Camino Real, including the El Camino Real Comprehensive Multimodal Corridor Plan (in progress 2026), and city-led targeted intersection improvements, will identify ways to provide safety improvements, such as protected intersections.
‣ 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: Safe and active travel starts in childhood. Mountain View’s Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program is a cornerstone of the city’s active transportation strategy, using education, encouragement, engineering, and enforcement to promote walking and bicycling to school. The program is also responding to emerging travel trends, developing e-bike safety education materials for students as well as parents and caregivers. The program improves safety for students and families, helps establish lifelong active transportation habits, and maintains ongoing outreach and partnerships with school communities that should be continued and expanded. The MVATP builds on this foundation. School access is embedded in the plan’s project scoring, described later in this section, with additional points assigned to projects near schools, on suggested routes to school, or fronting a school. The plan’s recommended programs and policies, also described later in this section, support safe school travel, including school zone speed limit enforcement, expansion of the Safe Routes model to parks and transit, and community walks and rides organized through SRTS.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
38 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 28). These provide safe, off-street, and low-stress connections for people walking, biking, and rolling in the city.

FIG URE 2 8 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, 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
39 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 plan.

SCORING AND 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 ten year time frame 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, and a Feasibility category. Each scoring criteria had an associated metric that allowed for measurement of the criteria using objective data, community comments or 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.

The prioritization scored over 100 potential pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure project opportunities identified through the existing conditions analysis and holistic network map development. Potential projects were initially screened to estimate the general scale and scope

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
40 of project types (for example, signage and striping projects versus major civil improvements) and categories of possible project types (pedestrian improvements, bicycle improvements, green streets, etc.).

The potential projects were then scored based on the degree to which the anticipated improvements met each scoring criteria’s metric threshold. Potential project total scores ranged from a high of 88.5 to a low of 7, with a maximum of 100 possible. Additional details on the scoring methodology are provided in Appendix A.

City staff reviewed the list of potential projects. The highest scoring projects include improvements to both the pedestrian and bicycle holistic networks (Table 6 and Figure 29). Cut- sheets for sixteen of these projects are included in Appendix B. The full list of potential projects evaluated as part of scoring and prioritizing is contained in Appendix C.

TA BLE 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 low- to
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 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
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 6.5
Maximum score for Access and Equity scoring criteria 27

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
41 GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA
DATA

SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
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
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 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
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 TABLE 5 MOUNT AIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED)

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
42 GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA
DATA

SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
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
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
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
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 Maximum score for Sustainability and Biodiversity scoring criteria 9 TABLE 5 MOUNT AIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED)

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
43 GUIDING

PRINCIPLE

SCORING

CRITERIA
DATA

SOURCE METRIC THRESHOLDS SCORE
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
TABLE 5 MOUNT AIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION SCORING CRITERIA (CONTINUED)

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
44 TA BLE 6 MVATP IDENTIFIED PRIORITY PROJECTS WITH EXTENTS, MILEAGE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS* * Improvements A, B, and C outline the multiple improvements that may occur within the project extent.

PROJECT NAME,

EXTENTS MILEAGE

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENT
A

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENT
B

RECOMMENDED

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,
Shoreline Boulevard
to Bush Street

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, El Camino
Real to Montecito
Avenue

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

0.85 Shoreline Boulevard -
Protected Intersection
Oak Street - Crossing
to Eagle Park
Pioneer Memorial
Park Crossing
Pedestrian Improvement Bicycle Improvement

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
45 Note: See Figure 29 for map reference.

TABLE 6 M VATP IDENTIFIED PRIORITY PROJECTS WITH EXTENTS, MILEAGE, AND RECOMMENDATIONS* (CONTINUED)
* Improvements A, B, and C outline the multiple improvements that may occur within the project extent.

PROJECT NAME,

EXTENTS MILEAGE

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENT
A

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENT
B

RECOMMENDED

IMPROVEMENT
C

Rengstorff Avenue,
Leghorn Street to
Garcia Avenue

0.4 101 Ramp Crossings
Garcia/Amphitheater
Protected
Intersection
-
Dana St, Bush Street
to 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 Continental
Circle

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
Pedestrian Improvement Bicycle Improvement

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
46 FIG URE 2 9 MVATP PRIORITY PROJECTS
47 TA BLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS

POLICY AND PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS
Infrastructure changes are not the only “tool in the toolbox” to improve the travel experience for people who walk, roll, and ride in Mountain View. Table 7 contains a recommended list of policies and programs that support active transportation and are aligned with the MVATP vision and guiding principles. The list is based on a review of Mountain View and peer community precedent, best practices, and state legislation and program research. Mountain View staff across several departments reviewed the list to determine feasibility, roles and responsibilities, and alignment with broader city values. The list also contains some policy and program recommendations from the previously adopted Mountain View Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan with relevance to active transportation. A comprehensive list of those recommendations are included in Appendix D.

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)
Updated Design
Standards to be
Informed by Best
Practices
Use best practice guidance documentation
and standards to inform the design of
transportation projects to improve the safety
and comfort of roadway users of all ages and
abilities.

Mobility &
Connectivity

Safety & Comfort
PW
&
Community
Development
Department (CDD)
Updated Design Standards to be Informed by Best Practices There is a rich resource library of national best practice guidance and standards available to communities across the country to support the safety and comfort of roadway users of all ages and abilities. The City of Mountain View uses guidance documents and standards from Caltrans, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), U.S. Access Board, National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO), and the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), as well as applicable state and federal design guidelines and standards to inform the design of transportation projects. The MVATP reinforces the importance of the guidance represented in these documents and the need for the City to review and update standards to remain consistent with best practices. Strong design standards are also tools to ensure developments construct adequate pedestrian infrastructure.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
48 TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Leading Pedestrian
Interval Policy
Providing pedestrians with a head start when
entering a crosswalk will promote pedestrian
safety and prioritization at intersections
evaluated and recommended by staff.

Access & Equity PW
Upgrade
Pedestrian Signals
to Accessible
Pedestrian Signals
(APS)
Accessible Pedestrian Signal provide
information about when to cross the street in
a non-visual format such as auditory tones,
messages and/or vibrations.

Access & Equity PW
Improve Visibility
at Intersections
(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

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
49 TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
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),

CDD & PW
Greening / Tree Canopy Improvements
The MVATP and the BUFP are complementary to one another with shared goals and principles and methods to achieve them. The recently adopted BUFP states Mountain View’s
commitment to planting and protecting native trees and
vegetation to enhance native biodiversity, strengthen climate resilience, and support community health and connections.

Active transportation corridors such as the existing and proposed bikeways in the MVATP are considered priorities within the BUFP's Heat Mitigation Strategy Zone and are included in that plan’s connectivity analyses.

Additionally, the BUFP contains three actions directly
related to the MVATP Sustainability and Biodiversity Guiding Principle. They are:
‣ Action 1 Seek to strategically include green features in active transportation improvement project design to
both increase ecological value and achieve other City priorities. ‣ Action 10 Maximize biodiversity support within city parks and trail corridors while continuing to meet community needs.
‣ Action 17 Prioritize shade tree planting in the Cooling Zone, mapped in Guide A: Urban Landscaping, to protect against heat and improve walkability.

The MVATP and BUFP support the City’s overall sustainability goals and emphasize the importance of incorporating greenery and street trees into infrastructural improvements of varying scale along roadways. Not only do they have the benefit of serving environmental and planning goals but they are also valuable elements of a safer street design.

FIG URE 3 0 CITY OF MOUNTAIN

VIEW BIODIVERSITY AND URBAN

FOREST PLAN

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
50 Managing and Enforcing the Transportation System of All Road Users The safety of all road users is improved when space is appropriately managed and the regulations and rules of the road are followed and enforced. No parking or stopping in bicycle lanes and managing and maintaining sidewalk space are examples of actions that can reduce the risk of modal conflict and potential crashes.

Curb management is one important component of this. In today’s transportation landscape, there is an increased amount of desired curbside uses along city streets, including parking, deliveries, passenger drop off/pick up, seating, and waste management.

Protected bicycle lanes successfully co-exist with the demands of the curb in many locations across the globe but require enforcement of bicycle lane and curb regulations such as parking and loading zones to ensure the mobility and safety of bicycle riders.

Similarly, the demand on the sidewalk has also changed over time. The pandemic brought an increase in outside dining spaces, delivery bots share space with pedestrians, and sidewalks are also often parking and storage locations for bicycles, scooters, trash receptacles, and other amenities. This increased use of the sidewalk can lead to constrained or blocked paths of travel for people who walk and roll, which limits movement and can force those travelers into the roadway at unanticipated locations and into possible conflict with other road users.

The City will continue to enforce the travel spaces available to all road users, including those spaces designed to improve the safety and mobility of those using active transportation.

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
Managing and
Enforcing the
Transportation
System of All Road
Users
The safety of all road users is improved when
space is appropriately managed and the
regulations and rules of the road are followed
and enforced. No parking or stopping in bicycle
lanes for unloading/loading or deliveries,
No parking or stopping in bicycle lanes and
managing and maintaining sidewalk space are
examples of actions that can reduce the risk of
modal conflict and potential crashes.

Safety & Comfort PW & PD
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
51 TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
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
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
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

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
52 PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
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
Maintenance
of Active
Transportation
Facilities
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
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. The City’s TDM ordinance went into
effect in June 2026.

Mobility &
Connectivity PW
TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED) Transportation Demand Management (TDM) focuses on strategies to reduce travel demand and encourage more healthy, sustainable patterns of transportation. TDM strategies can include programs that encourage mode shift such as Safe Routes to School, transit pass discounts, parking cash out programs, incentives for bike commuting, corporate shuttle services, carpool coordination, and preferential parking spaces for carpool and vanpool. They can also include policies that support an integrated land use and transportation approach, such as transit-oriented development and incentives for new development that support more sustainable transportation choice and reduce vehicle miles traveled. Mountain View passed a citywide TDM Ordinance and Program Standards in June 2026.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
53 Social Walks/Rides
City-supported social walks and rides are a valuable tool for community connection and transportation education. They allow people to experience first-hand walking, bicycling or rolling in different parts of the city and also invite people to get to know their community and the amenities and local businesses that exist throughout it. The walks and rides can also be an opportunity to discuss road safety and best practices in infrastructure design—and just enjoy each other’s company! Walks and rides could be scheduled on a regular basis, rotating through neighborhoods in the city and designed to be inviting for individuals of all ages and abilities. The City can co-host the events in collaboration with neighborhood partners such as schools or a community-based organization or neighborhood business, to provide a hyper-local point of contact for each event.

TABLE 7 LIST OF RECOMMENDED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS (CONTINUED)

PROGRAM/

POLICY DESCRIPTION GUIDING

PRINCIPLES

RESPONSIBLE

DEPARTMENT (S)
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
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
Develop Key
Performance
Indicators (KPIs)
to Measure Active
Transportation
Progress
KPIs can be developed by city staff to measure
and report annual overall progress towards the
ATP Guiding Principles.

All PW
FIG URE 3 1 COMMUNITY

MEMBERS ON A WALK IN

THE MISTRAL ELEMENTARY

SCHOOL AREA

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
54 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
55 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 projects from concept to construction and policies and programs from ideas to execution, 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. Continued public engagement and collaboration with partners are also important components of implementation.

The Green Street scenario demonstrates how street space can be re-envisioned to improve safety, mitigate heat and stormwater issues, and enhance the public realm. By examining material alternatives and identifying ways to manage challenges, it shows why strategic project development matters.

Successful implementation relies on collaboration and trust across City departments and with regional partners to advance shared transportation goals.

PRIORITY PROJECT 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.

All the infrastructure recommendations presented in this section will require further public engagement and engineering review to confirm design adequacy and feasibility prior to implementation.

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
57 Reconstruction
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 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 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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
58 PROJECT LENGTH
(MILES)

BIKEWAY CL ASS

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 are for resurfacing projects which include unit assumptions for intersections and linear components of a resurfacing project (e.g., markings, signage, temporary materials for protection, pavement resurfacing).

TA BLE 8 ESTIMATED RESURFACING PROJECT COST FOR PRIORITY PROJECTS

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
59 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. 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.

FIG URE 3 2 CONCEPT ILLUSTRATION OF GREEN STREET
Green street infrastructure represents a strategic investment in community well-being, environmental sustainability, and urban livability.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
60 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 compliance with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP 3.0).

FIG URE 3 3 ADD-ON COST PER MILE FOR MATERIAL ALTERNATIVES IN

R EIMAGINED 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 33 illustrates the costs of various material alternatives for the reimagined street section.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
61 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
Upfront costs can be reduced or offset by incorporating into capital projects early in a project life cycle, phasing improvements, and pursuing grant funding, while 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 engineered solutions such as structural soils and modified sidewalk sections can provide adequate root space and reduce the risk of root-related damage.

Potential property damage from falling limbs
Tree species with strong branch attachment, appropriate placement, and routine maintenance reduce limb risk without limiting tree size. Small or medium varieties are selected only in response to valid concerns from adjacent property owners.

Reduced visibility within the right-of-way
Tree 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.

TA BLE 9 COMMON GREEN STREET CHALLENGES AND POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
62 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 traffic-
calming 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 34 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
63 FIG URE 3 4 A FEW GREEN STREET ELEMENTS AND THEIR BENEFITS Planting strip: Replaces heat-
absorbing 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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
64 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. Mountain View often uses local funds to support transportation planning studies, design, and environmental review stages of transportation infrastructure projects, and utilizes regional, state, and federal grant funds for construction. Programs such as Safe Routes to School are also funded with municipal funds.

A non-exhaustive list of potential funding options includes (Table 10):

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
65 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 (one-quarter cent of the general statewide sales tax) 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. While the amount of annual TDA3 funding allocated varies and depends upon the total sales tax revenues generated, Mountain View in past years has been allocated approximately $120,000 annually from this funding source. The City has used past TDA3 grant funds for a pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure improvements and program and policy elements such as city bike maps, bike racks, and education programs. Mountain View coordinates with VTA to access these funds and can bank up to five years of funds if needed to plan for larger projects.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
66 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 2016 Measure B Santa Clara County voters approved 2016 Measure B, a 30-year, half-cent countywide sales tax to enhance transit, highways, expressways, and active transportation. Collection began in April 2017. Funds are allocated across nine Program Categories, including Local Streets and Roads, BART Phase II, Caltrain Grade Separations, Transit Operations, and Bicycle and Pedestrian. The Bicycle and Pedestrian category funds projects of countywide significance, with priority given to projects that connect to schools, transit, and employment centers, fill gaps in the existing bicycle and pedestrian network, safely cross barriers to mobility, and make bicycling and walking more convenient for county residents and visitors.

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 via both a formulaic and competitive process 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. While Mountain View is not directly eligible for these funds, they may coordinate with regional agencies such as but not limited to VTA, Bay Area Toll Authority (BATA), and Caltrain to submit projects for consideration.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
67 TA BLE 1 0 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.

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) 2016 Measure B Fiscal
County tax measure enacting a 30-year, half-cent
sales tax to enhance transit, highways, expressways,
and active transportation. Funds are provided for nine
program categories, including Bicycle and Pedestrian.

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.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
68 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 on any given project with local, regional, and state partners such as Caltrans, VTA, Santa Clara County, and Mountain View’s neighboring cities of Sunnyvale, Los Altos, and Palo Alto to move projects toward implementation. Additional partners adds complexity to projects and can extend the overall project timeline due to the increased amount of coordination and engagement, but is necessary to achieve shared transportation goals, particularly for corridors that span multiple jurisdictions. 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. State level agency focus in recent years on Complete Streets, state highways as Main Streets, vulnerable road users and transit priority suggest more alignment and coordination on local and state level priorities going forward.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
69 PUBLIC INPUT
Active transportation is a part of everyone’s life in Mountain View. The City is strongly committed to public involvement and will continue to engage as the MVATP is implemented. Public input allows the city to understand how a street is being used and learn concerns that may not be obvious from quantitative data sources.

For smaller bicycle and pedestrian projects, the City typically seeks public input at early design stage, through public presentations at the Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC), Council Transportation Committee (CTC), and approval of design at City Council. After design is approved, the project goes out to bid and construction begins. During construction, the city notifies nearby property owners of the construction.

For larger projects or projects that significantly modify the transportation system, the City may conduct a feasibility study to identify a preferred concept before beginning engineering design.

Feasibility studies are an extended planning process to understand existing conditions, establish goals for the project, develop several alternative concepts, analyze how the concepts support project goals and impact transportation safety and operations, seek community input on the concepts, and bring a preferred concept to City Council for approval. The BPAC and CTC are typically updated and invited to provide input at key points during the feasibility study. Outreach strategies the City has used for feasibility studies include walking or biking tours of the project area, public workshops, online surveys, presentations to local groups and organizations, mailers to adjacent properties, and other ways of soliciting public input. The City ensures materials are multi-lingual and offers interpretation and translation services.

The City will seek public input as it advances the priority projects in the MVATP. The level of engagement will generally align with the size or impact of the project, as described above.

Resurfacing projects that do not significantly alter the transportation system will typically follow the small project process. Reconstruction projects and those that significantly alter the transportation system will go through additional analysis, up to and including a feasibility study, before engineering design begins.

PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND THE MVATP
Mountain View is committed to expanding and growing in a way that supports housing and active transportation. Through the development review process, the City works with developers to ensure they are constructing the planned improvements identified in adopted city plans, such as Precise Plans, Utility Master Plans and this ATP. This plan recognizes the need to strengthen tools the City uses to ensure developments support the City’s active transportation vision.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
70 COMMITMENT TO THE VISION AND

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.

Using the Guiding Principles of Mobility & Connectivity, Safety & Comfort, Access & Equity, Sustainability & Biodiversity, and Innovation & Action-Orientation, 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 for the next 5-10 years for the city to move projects forward in the capital planning process. The city’s commitment to multimodal transportation mobility, safety, and connectivity can be measured through the progress and timely delivery of the priorities outlined in this plan.

The MVATP is a commitment by the city to creating an active transportation system that strengthens the community’s access to housing, employment, parks, schools and other destinations and enhances biodiversity. The plan’s priority projects, programs and policies complement 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. The MVATP will also help the City continue to be a leader in the region, and the state, in community walking and bicycling activity.

MOUNTAIN VIEW ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN
71 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 or 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 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
7 Guiding Principle Scoring Criteria Data source Metric thresholds Scoring federal poverty level
(FPL).

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 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
Ȃ

ǡ
Ǥ

ǡ

Ǥǡ
ǡ

Ǥǡͳ͹
"QQFOEJY$DPOUBJOTUIFGVMMMJTU PGQPUFOUJBMQSPKFDUTFWBMVBUFEBTQBSUPGUIFTDPSJOHBOEQSJPSJUJ[BUJPOQSPDFTT"MMJOGSBTUSVDUVSF SFDPNNFOEBUJPOTXJMMSFRVJSFGVSUIFSQVCMJ DFOHBHFNFOUBOEFOHJOFFSJOHSFWJFXUPDPO GJSNEFTJHO BEFRVBDZBOEGFBTJCJMJUZQSJPSUPJNQMFNFOUBUJPO
Table 1: Identified Priority Projects
Rank Project
Name Extent Total
Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
1

ͺͺǤͷ

2

ͺ͹Ǥͷ
Ȃ

ʹͲʹͷ

3

͹ͺǤͷ

4

͹͸Ǥͷ

5

͹ͶǤͷ

6

͹͵Ǥͷ

7

͸ͻǤͷ

8

͸ͺǤͷ

9

͸ͺǤͷ

-
ȗ

͸͹Ǥͷ
10
Ȁ

͸͸Ǥͷ

11

͸͸
Ȃ

ʹͲʹͷ

Rank Project
Name Extent Total
Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
-
ȗȗ

͸͸
Ǧ

12
͸ͷǤͷ

-

͸Ͷ
ǦǦ

13

͸Ͷ
Ǧ

ʹͲʹͷ

-

ȗȗ

͸͵Ǥͷ
Ȃ

14

͸͵Ǥͷ

ȋ

Ȍ
15

͸ʹǤͷ

16

͸ͳǤͷ

17
ͷ͹

ȋ

Ȍ
Rank Project
Name Extent Total
Score
Short Term
Alternative
Long Term
Alternative Notes
-

ȗȗ

ͷ͹
Ȃ

-
ȗȗ

ͷ͸Ǥͷ
Ȃ

ȗ

ȗȗ

ǣ

Ǥ

ǡ

Ǥ

ǡ

ǡ
ǲǳ
Ǥ

Ǣǡ
ǦǦ

Ǥ

ǡǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ

ǯ
ǦǦȋǤǤǡǡ
ǤȌǡ
Ǥ

ǦǦǡ

Ǥ

ǡ

ǤǦ Ǧ
Ǥ

ǡǡ
ǡ
Ǥ
Ǧǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ
Table 2: Basis of Design
Cross Section Element Width (min. unless noted)
ͷ
ͶǤͷ
ͳͳ
ͳʹ
ȋ

ΪȌ ͷ
ʹΪͶ
͸ȋȌ
ͺ

ǦǦǤ
ǡǤ

Ǥ

ȋǤǤ

ȌǤ
ǦǢ ǡ

Ǥ
ǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ

ǡ

ǡǡ
ǡ

ǡǡ
ǡ
ǡǡ
Ǥ
ǡ

Ǥ

Ǥ ǡ

Ǥ
ǡ
ǡǡ

Ǥ

ǡ

ǡǡ
Ǥ

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 oﬀ this street include Rengstorﬀ 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 buﬀers
to planting strips and constructing protected
intersections at Escuela Avenue, Rengstorﬀ
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
Rengstorﬀ 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 diﬀerently. *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).

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.

Rengstorﬀ Ave
These concepts are draft and not ﬁnal. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and ﬁnal plans may diﬀer from what is shown here.

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 diﬀerently. *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 necessary to understand the feasibility of this proposal.

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.

WHISMAN ROAD
Dana Street to Fairchild Drive (1.43 miles)

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Fairchild Dr
Dana St
Chetwood
Park
Vargas
Elementary
Paciﬁc DrWhisman Station
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 removing one travel lane in each direction to install Class IV bikeways. There are no major implementation considerations for this concept.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes widening the
city-owned bridge over Central Expressway to match the
right-of-way width on the southern approach. 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 traﬃc. 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.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
El Camino Real
Crisanto Ave
Rengstorﬀ
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 Rengstorﬀ 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 traﬃc 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 Rengstorﬀ Park. In addition to
Caltrans coordination, this concept will alter existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs.
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.

These concepts are draft and not ﬁnal. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and ﬁnal plans may diﬀer from what is shown here.
*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 diﬀerently.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Shoreline Blvd
Bush StEagle Park
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 diﬀerent 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.

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

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Moﬀett 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 Rengstorﬀ 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.

These concepts are draft and not ﬁnal. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, 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 *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).

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Showers Dr
Escuela 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 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 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 narrowing parking lane 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
Avenue and Escuela Avenue, a protected intersection at
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
ParkMOBILITY 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 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.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes narrowing parking lane to widen sidewalks and provide landscape strip. Sidewalk widening will be explored for the entire length and will be determined based on space available and ADA needs. Mature trees are intended to remain with the proposed improvements.

The concept also proposes adding trees where feasible in the parking lane. Spot improvements include constructing crossings at Showers Drive, midblock between Ortega Avenue and
Rengstorﬀ Avenue, midblock between Rengstorﬀ Avenue and Escuela Avenue, a protected intersection at Rengstorﬀ
Avenue, and a protected intersection at Escuela Avenue.

This concept will alter existing drainage patterns by
relocating curbs.

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 traﬃc 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. Traﬃc operations, parking analysis, and maintenance considerations and costs must be evaluated to determine the feasibility of this concept.

This project intersects with County and Caltrain right of way which will require coordination.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes upgrading
the bikeway buﬀers 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.

These concepts are draft and not ﬁnal. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, 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 *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).

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 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. Sidewalk widening will be explored for the entire length and will be determined based on space available and ADA needs. Mature trees are intended to remain with the proposed improvements. Treatments include a protected
intersection at Shoreline Boulevard and pedestrian crossings at Oak Street and Pioneer Memorial Park. This concept
may alter existing drainage patterns by relocating curbs. 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.

These concepts are draft and not ﬁnal. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, 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 *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).

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

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

RECONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Existing:
has commercial land use near Leghorn Street
the Bayshore Expressway. There are on and
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 coordinates with the VTA-led
Improvement Project, which will improve
crossings at 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
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.

Garcia Ave
Leghorn St
101 Ramp

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 diﬀerently.

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 traﬃc
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 to 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 the removal
of one travel lane in each direction to install Class IV bikeways while maintaining on-street parking. This
project 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.

GUIDING PRINCIPLES
Marilyn Dr
El Camino Real

MIRAMONTE AVENUE
El Camino Real to Marilyn Drive (0.5 miles)
Park Dr
Sonia Way
2 1 PLANNED, NEAR TERM

RECONSTRUCTION

PROPOSED CONCEPTS

1. Planned, Near Term: 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 buﬀer 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.

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 installation of sidewalks and a planted median. This concept will alter existing drainage patterns by installing curbs.
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.

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 diﬀerently.

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 and Sunnyvale’s
project to construct a Class I Shared Use Path on the north side of Evelyn. There are drainage implications for this project due to modiﬁed curb lines and Caltrain coordination will be required. Traﬃc analysis will also be needed.

3. Reconstruction: This concept proposes raising the two-way 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 scenario 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
These concepts are draft and not ﬁnal. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and ﬁnal plans may diﬀer from what is shown here.

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 traﬃc 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 traﬃc 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 buﬀer to curbed planting strip and widening the sidewalk by removing the center turn lane. This scenario would require traﬃc 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)
These concepts are draft and not ﬁnal. Final design of the proposed improvements will require further community input, feasibility analysis, and engineering review on a case-by-case basis, and ﬁnal plans may diﬀer from what is shown here.

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 constructing
a separated bikeway on both sides of the street. This
concept also includes enhancing pedestrian comfort
by spot-widening the sidewalk to provide accessible
pedestrian clearances throughout the corridor.

Additional intersection improvements and speed
reduction measures could be implemented. This project
requires Caltrans Coordination and a parking utilization study. Cross-section shows the most constrained
section. South of Dana St, parking on one side can be
retained with this option.
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 – 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 Expwy 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 Expwy 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 Ellis St 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 Ravendale Dr Central Expwy N Bernardo Ave Class IIB 0.54 None N Bernardo Ave Middlefield Rd Central Expwy 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 Loop Class IIIB 0.16 None
Central Expwy 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 Expwy 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 Shoreline 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) Charleston Rd Shoreline Blvd Class I 0.46 Class II New Trail Charleston Rd Stevens Creek Trail Class I 0.20 None 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 144’ south of Wright Ave Sidewalk on 1-side 0.08 Sidewalk On One Side Wright Ave Polaris Ave 144' east of Polaris 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 *Carol Avenue is subject to the City’s Unimproved Streets Policy regarding improving streets that were accepted by the City as unimproved or partially improved through annexation from the County of Santa Clara. The plan’s recommended improvements were established independently of the Unimproved Streets Policy.

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 Rengstorff 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 Montecito 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

APPENDIX D:

VZAP/LRSP NON-

INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX D:

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY

PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE RECOMMENDATIONS
The 2024 Mountain View Vision Zero Action Plan and Local Road Safety Plan (VZAP/LRSP) established both infrastructure and non-infrastructure recommendations to eliminate fatal and severe injury crashes in Mountain View. The non-infrastructure recommendations address the policy and programming side of roadway safety, covering education, encouragement, engagement, enforcement, emergency response, and evaluation in accordance with the FHWA Safe System Approach.

The safety of people walking, bicycling, and rolling depends on programs and policies as much as on infrastructure, and the VZAP/LRSP non-infrastructure recommendations form the safety programming foundation that the MVATP builds on. Several of the programs and policies recommended in Chapter 3 of this plan carry forward or expand VZAP/LRSP recommendations, including Safe Routes to School programming, Vision Zero marketing and outreach, staff continuing education on the Safe Systems Approach, speed limit evaluation, and high-visibility enforcement focused on behaviors associated with fatal and severe injury crashes such as speeding and failure to yield. The full list presents recommendation's timeline, responsible department, and implementation status alongside the MVATP's recommendations, and supports coordinated implementation of both plans.

Non-Infrastructure Recommendations
Non-infrastructure recommendations focus on policy and programming activities that can be implemented by the city and/or community partners to improve road safety for all road users. Programs and policies may focus on community awareness and understanding of the rights and rules of the road of all travelers regardless of mode; enforcement efforts that focus on behaviors known to be associated with fatal and severe injury crashes, such as speed and yielding; and education on the benefits of roadway improvements and travel mode choices on safety, sustainability and livability in Mountain View. Lastly, the non-infrastructure recommendations include policy and organizational efforts to support Vision Zero, regular monitoring and communications regarding crash data and evaluation of road improvement projects to assess progress towards the three stated goals in the 2019 Vision Zero Policy.

The non-infrastructure recommendations were developed using the eight VZAP/LRSP emphasis areas and cover the other “Es” of education, encouragement, engagement, enforcement, emergency response and evaluation (Table 1). In accordance with the FHWA Safe System Approach, non-infrastructure recommendations are presented in relation to the five elements:
▪ Safe Road Users (RU) - Safety of all road users, including those who walk, bike, drive, ride transit, and travel by other modes.
▪ Safe Roads (SR) – Roads designed to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances can greatly reduce the severity of crashes that do occur.
▪ Safe Speeds (SP) – Speed reduction can accommodate human injury tolerances in three ways:
reducing impact forces, providing additional time for drivers to stop, and improving visibility. ▪ Safe Vehicles (VE) - Vehicles are designed and regulated to minimize the occurrence and severity of crashes using safety measures that incorporate the latest technology and ▪ Post-Crash Care (CC) - When a person is injured in a crash, they rely on emergency first responders to quickly locate them, stabilize their injury, and transport them to medical facilities. Post-crash care also includes forensic analysis at the crash site, traffic incident management, and other activities.

Table 1: Non-Infrastructure Recommendation List
ID Recommendations Timeline Dept Status
Safe Road Users
RU-1 Continue Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program with a focus on traffic safety training for students walking, biking, taking transit and driving*
Annual PW Underway
RU-2 Strengthen SRTS collaboration and partnerships with parents, schools and students to encourage safe walking, biking and school access
Annual PW Underway
RU-3 Provide helmet giveaways and bicycle repairs at City or community events such as food pantries, back to school
events or Monster Bash
Annual PW/PD Underway
RU-4 Conduct multilingual Vision Zero Outreach and Marketing with behavior change campaigns and targeted media buys on emphasis areas
2024-25 PW/CM
O
Planning
RU-5 Lead community-promoted walk / bike tours in different areas of the City with a focus on encouragement and training for new users
Biannual PW Underway
RU-6 Support traffic safety workshop or walk tour at Senior Center to identify issues and provide individualized trip planning/tips for changing abilities
Biannual PW TBD
RU-7 Encourage community-based bicycle education and safety classes covering basic skills, network awareness, laws, rules, and safety tips
Annual PW TBD
RU-8 Implement programs, workshops, or trainings to empower youth and address high risk behaviors such as riding against traffic, midblock turns and not wearing helmets
2024-25 PW/PD Planning
RU-9 Conduct high-visibility enforcement on speed,
distracted/impaired driving, yield compliance, red light running, and key maneuvers on HIN and school routes
Ongoing PD Underway
RU-10 Implement multilingual ambassador program related to blocked bike lanes and red zones where parking in such
locations introduces safety concerns

TBD PW/PD TBD
RU-11 Periodically review the crossing guard program to optimize its effectiveness
Biannual PW/PD Underway

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
* See VZAP/LRSP Appendix E: Countermeasures for more information on these topics ID Recommendations Timeline Dept Status
RU-12 Provide universal graphics and/or multilingual
communications regarding high visibility enforcement
activities
Annual PD/CM
O
TBD
RU-13 Encourage residential transportation demand management strategies including orientation on getting around without a car
TBD PW Planning
RU-14 Support state legislation to incorporate pedestrian / bicycle safety training into state education standards

TBD PW/CM
O
TBD
Safe Roads
SR-1 Implement Impaired Driving Policies* TBD PD TBD
SR-2 Prioritize capital projects on the HIN, school routes and equity priority locations as part of the capital improvement program (CIP) process
Biannual PW Underway
SR-3 Advance SRTS walk audits observations into improvement recommendations
Annual PW Underway
SR-4 Obtain grants to accelerate implementation of priority capital projects to enhance safety of all road users
Biannual PW Underway
SR-5 Provide staff training on VZAP / LRSP 2024-25 PW TBD SR-6 Provide staff training on defensive driving in City vehicles 2024-25 PW TBD SR-7 Provide staff training on Safe Systems Approach and safety countermeasures
2024 PW TBD
SR-8 Coordinate periodic site visits of VZ best practices with or without regional partners
Annual PW Underway
SR-9 Adopt NACTO, PROWAG and/or other best practice
guidance to inform engineering judgment
2025 PW Ongoing
SR-10 Update City standard details to reflect Vision Zero best practices
2026 PW TBD
SR-11 Provide multilingual VZ-informed outreach on capital projects and programming
2024-25 PW/CM
O
Underway
SR-12 Update VZAP every five years Every five
years
PW TBD

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
* See VZAP/LRSP Appendix E: Countermeasures for more information on these topics ID Recommendations Timeline Dept Status
SR-13 Support state legislation to address potential safety enhancements

TBD PW/CM
O
TBD
SR-14 Explore processes for implementing No Turn on Red (NTOR) and develop a policy for NTOR consideration
TBD PW Planning
SR-15 Provide periodic progress reports on implementation of VZAP and LRSP recommendations to BPAC and CTC
Annual PW Planning
SR-16 Review City protocols to improve consistency with Vision Zero policy

TBD PW TBD
SR-17 Provide training to relevant staff to be well versed on VZ countermeasures

TBD PW TBD
SR-18 Provide input on projects that aligns Vision Zero goals TBD PW TBD Safe Speeds
SP-1 Conduct Vision Zero marketing that encompasses speed management campaign
2024 PW TBD
SP-2 Share Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP) study results and study data with Mountain View’s SRTS
Coordinator

TBD PW TBD
SP-3 Conduct high-visibility traffic enforcement on speed along the HIN
Ongoing PD TBD
SP-4 Implement speed limit reductions in accordance with AB 43 2025 PW Planning SP-5 Track AB 645 automated enforcement pilot and support state legislation to expand the permanent program to all California cities
2025 CMO/P
W
Underway
Safe Vehicles
VE-1 Conduct public education campaign on benefits of pedestrian friendly vehicles such as compacts cars

TBD PW TBD
VE-2 Support free bicycle repair events 2024 PW Underway VE-3 Provide education for decision makers on vehicle size and design impacts

TBD CMO/P
W
TBD
VE-4 Support state legislation for vehicle technology that addresses key crash factors

TBD CMO/P
W
TBD

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
ID Recommendations Timeline Dept Status
Post-Crash Care
CC-1 Provide multilingual emergency response teams for
empathetic engagement with victims’ families

TBD FD/PD TBD
CC-2 Provide continuing ed for emergency responders to
understand travel behavior, decisions and lived experience of local pedestrians/bicyclists
TBD PD Underway
CC-3 Establish protocols for best practice communications to encourage accurate and agency-based narratives in media stories on crashes

TBD CMO/P
W/PD
Underway
CC-4 Explore opportunities for acknowledgment and/or
remembrance program

TBD CMO/P
D
TBD
CC-5 Establish a rapid response crash team (MVRRT) to examine factors associated with crashes on HIN and potential solutions

TBD FD/PD/
PW
TBD
CC-6 Establish requirement to share fatal and serious injury crash reports with Traffic and Transportation staff in a timely manner
2024 PD/PW Underway
CC-7 Improve consistency of reporting for vehicle-pedestrian and vehicle-bicycle crashes
2024 PD/PW Underway
CC-8 Monitor crash data on a scheduled basis to measure progress toward VZ goals
Biannual PD/PW Underway
CC-9 Conduct quarterly Vision Zero Working Group meetings addressing recent activities, debriefing on recent crashes, and progress toward goals
2024 PW+ Underway
CC-10 Collect before and after data when infrastructure improvements are made to measure behavior change

TBD PW TBD
* See VZAP/LRSP Appendix E: Countermeasures for more information on these topics

VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN AND LOCAL ROAD SAFETY PLAN NON-INFRASTRUCTURE

RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX E:

EXISTING

CONDITIONS AND

NEEDS SUMMARY

Mountain View
Active Transportation Plan
Appendix E
Existing Conditions
and Needs Summary
October 2023
Revised July 2026

Note
This report was written in 2023 and a draft was presented to the Mountain View Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee in October 2023. The report should be viewed as a snapshot in time and may not be reflective of current conditions.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026

Contents
Page
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 1

1. Demographics and Mode Share ..................................................................................................................... 6

2. Mobility and Connectivity ...............................................................................................................................14

3. Safety and comfort .............................................................................................................................................29

4. Access and equity ...............................................................................................................................................39

5. Sustainability and biodiversity .......................................................................................................................46

6. Code Review .........................................................................................................................................................64

Figures
Figure 1: The ATP Survey was promoted in four languages using print and digital communications ............................................................................................................................. 3 Figure 2 Worksheet from Walk Tour ........................................................................................................ 4 Figure 3 Population Density ........................................................................................................................ 7 Figure 4 Youth Population Density (Ages 18 and Under) ................................................................ 8 Figure 5 Mode Share – Percent of Commuters Who Walk ...........................................................11 Figure 6 Mode Share – Percent of Commuters Who Bike .............................................................12 Figure 7 Household Vehicle Access .......................................................................................................13 Figure 8 Examples of Paseos and Car-Free Connections in Mountain View ..........................15 Figure 9 Pedestrian Network in Mountain View................................................................................16 Figure 10 High Quality Sidewalk in Mountain View ...........................................................................17 Figure 11 Types of Bicycle Facilities in Mountain View’s All Ages and Abilities (AAA) Bike Network .................................................................................................................................18

Figure 12 Existing and Planned/Funded AAA Bicycle Facilities vs. Existing Bicycle Network ...........................................................................................................................................19

Figure 13 Bicycle Network and Challenging Routes for Walking, Biking, and Rolling..........20 Figure 14 Household Vehicle Access and Existing Bicycle Network ............................................21 Figure 15 Examples of Bike Racks and Bicycle Push Button ............................................................23 Figure 16 Examples of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) and Curb Bulbout in Other Jurisdictions ...................................................................................................................................25

Figure 17 Pedestrian Network and Challenging Spots for Walking, Biking, and Rolling .....26 Figure 18 Distance Between Marked Crosswalks (Major Roads)...................................................27 Figure 19 Distance Between Pedestrian Crossings (Marked or Unmarked, All Roads) ........28 Figure 20 Examples of Favorite Places to Walk and Bike in Mountain View ............................29

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026

Figure 21 Collisions Involving People Walking by Severity of Injury and Challenging Locations .........................................................................................................................................31 Figure 22 Collisions Involving People on Bikes by Severity of Injury and Challenging Locations .........................................................................................................................................32

Figure 23 Frequency of Collisions Involving People on Bikes and Challenging Locations .........................................................................................................................................33

Figure 24 Frequency of Collisions Involving People Walking and Challenging Locations .........................................................................................................................................34

Figure 25 Reported Near-Miss Collisions Involving People Walking or Biking, 2021- 2022 ..................................................................................................................................................35 Figure 26 Example of Enhanced and Marked Crossings in Mountain View ..............................37 Figure 27 Marked Crossings, Signalized Intersections, and Enhanced Intersections ............38 Figure 28 Job Locations and Bicycle Access ..........................................................................................41 Figure 29 Job Locations and Pedestrian Access ..................................................................................42 Figure 30 Mountain View Transit Center as a Destination ..............................................................43 Figure 31 Transit Ridership and Bicycle Access ....................................................................................44 Figure 32 Transit Ridership and Pedestrian Access ............................................................................45 Figure 33 Tree Canopy Coverage ..............................................................................................................50 Figure 34 Public Tree Planting Types .......................................................................................................51 Figure 35 Mountain View's Top 10 Street Trees ..................................................................................52 Figure 36 Street Tree Count by Type .......................................................................................................52 Figure 37 Heritage Trees ...............................................................................................................................53 Figure 38 Vacant Planting sites by location...........................................................................................54 Figure 39 Public Tree Planting by Type ...................................................................................................56 Figure 40 Examples of Planting Strips with Detached Sidewalks ..................................................57 Figure 41 Examples of Planting Strips with Attached Sidewalks ...................................................58 Figure 42 Examples of Median Plantings ...............................................................................................58 Figure 43 Examples of Protected Intersections and Bikeways .......................................................59 Figure 44 Examples of Cul-de-Sac Plantings.........................................................................................60 Figure 45 Examples of Tree Wells ..............................................................................................................61 Figure 46 Examples of Tree Wells in a Parking Space .......................................................................61 Figure 47 Examples of Phased Greening ................................................................................................62 Figure 48 Percentage of Impervious Surfaces (Map and Table) ....................................................63

Tables
Table 1 Mountain View Age Demographics........................................................................................ 6 Table 2 Race and Ethnicity in Mountain View (2021) ...................................................................... 9 Table 3 Household Income Distribution in Mountain View .......................................................... 9 Table 4 Commute Mode Share in Mountain View (2021) ...........................................................10

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026

Table 5 Top 10 Challenging Routes as Indicated by Community Input. ................................22 Table 6 Top 10 Challenging Intersections for Walking, Biking, and Rolling as Indicated by Community Input ..............................................................................................24 Table 7 Commute Mode Share in Mountain View and Peer Cities (2021) ............................40 Table 8 Green Streets Benefits and Challenges ...............................................................................48 Table 9: Code Review Summary ........................................................................................................................64

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 1

INTRODUCTION
Mountain View’s 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) aims to identify citywide policies and projects that will improve walking (including wheelchairs or disability-related devices), biking, rolling (including e- scooters and other micromobility devices), and green streets in Mountain View.

The ATP is guided by a vision statement and five guiding principles:

About this Report
The Existing Conditions and Needs Summary describes key aspects of existing infrastructure, demographics, and other community characteristics that influence walking, biking, and green streets in Mountain View. In addition to summarizing quantitative data, this report includes qualitative data in the form of public input and comments. Understanding existing conditions allows the City to identify what works well and areas for improvement. The data collected for this report was used to identify and prioritize recommendations for the Active Transportation Plan.

Vision Statement:

Mountain View leads the region with an Active
Transportation Plan that defines a series of
connected, low-stress, and green corridors that invite
active transportation. The corridors include shade,
wildlife habitat, and public open spaces. The plan
enables the City to intentionally support a culture of
walking and biking, enhance biodiversity, and reduce
climate change impacts.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 2
The report begins with an overview of community demographics and mode share in Mountain View and then uses four of the MVATP’s guiding principles to understand current conditions for active transportation:
Mobility & Connectivity
Safety & Comfort
Access & Equity
Sustainability & Biodiversity
Data Sources
Data sources used in this report are summarized below. Data used in this report reflects what was available in 2022-2023 when the report was drafted.

City Databases
Data from the City of Mountain View's open data portal provided information on physical infrastructure including street centerlines, sidewalks, crosswalks, bicycle facilities, posted speed limits, land uses, tree canopy, stormwater, current and planned projects, shuttle services, and public safety records.

Census Data
Community demographics were collected from the U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates.

State Crash Database
Historical crash data was downloaded from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), which is a geodatabase of police-reported crashes in California, from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System..

Transit Service Data
The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Mountain View Transportation Management Association (MTMA), and Caltrain provided data on transit stops, routes and ridership.

Community Input
Community input is an important data source to understand the existing conditions, which are not only about what is physically on the ground or in a policy but also how it is experienced by those who travel. The City deployed a multi-pronged approach to engagement during the existing conditions phase of the MVATP, recognizing that people vary in their comfort or preference for providing input. A mix of digital, print and in-person opportunities at various times and with interpretation helped to make engagement open and

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 3
inclusive. Additional multilingual engagement was conducted to improve response rates from under-represented groups including Spanish-speaking communities.

Engagement efforts are summarized below.

ATP Survey
An online mapping survey was developed in the spring of 2023 using a survey platform called Maptionnaire. The survey asked participants a series of questions about their experiences walking and rolling in Mountain View— their favorite places and routes, their challenging spots and routes and what and where they would like to see improvements.

Participants were asked to digitally record their answers on maps of the city of Mountain View and to share any additional comments. Sociodemographic information was optional.

The survey, available in English, Spanish, Chinese and Russian, was open for public participation from May 15 – July 31, 2023. It was promoted via postcards, flyers and lawn signs distributed around Mountain View, digital social media promotions and email blasts. (Figure 1) Six hundred fifty-five people participated in the survey.

Figure 1: The ATP Survey was promoted in four languages using print and digital communications In-person meetings/presentations
Pop-up and i n-person meetings were held to connect with communities that often do not participate as frequently in engagement activities in Mountain View. The meetings gathered input on participant experiences walking, biking and rolling in Mountain View. These events are listed below:

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 4
x Thursday June 15, 2023, 4:30–7:30 p.m. : Community Services Agency (CSA) (with Spanish interpretation)
x Monday, July 17, 2023, 8:30–9:30 a.m. : Mountain View Dayworker Center (Spanish interpretation)
x Tuesday, August 22, 2023, 11 a.m.–1 p.m.: Mountain View Senior Center x Wednesday, July 26, 2023, 2:00–3:30 p.m.: The View Teen Center.

Bike Tours
Two bike tours were held to gather community input on the bicycling experience in Mountain View. Approximately 40 adults and three children participated in the three- hour,11-mile bike tours, which focused on areas identified as important bicycle connections or challenging areas in Access MV, Ask MV, and survey comments. The events were held:
x Saturday, May 13, 2023, 10:00 a.m.–noon: South of Caltrain x Sunday, September 23, 2023, 10:00 a.m.–noon: North of Caltrain Walk Tours
Three walk tours were held to gather
community input on the walking experience in
Mountain View. A park, a school and an area
known to have more seniors were
intentionally selected to understand their
experiences. Events were held:
x Friday, August 11, 2023, 6:00–7:30 p.m.:

Rengstorff Avenue, Latham Street and
El Camino Real (27 participants)
x Saturday, August 12, 2023, 9:30–11:00
a.m.: Escuela Avenue, California Street
and Latham Street (10 participants)
x August 25, 2023, 5:30–7:00 p.m.: Sylvan
Avenue, Glenborough Drive and
Moorpark (22 participants)
AskMV
The City of Mountain View maintains an
online comment platform called AskMV,
where individuals can share on a variety of topics. City staff monitor the platform for comments related to walking and bicycling experiences, recommended improvements and Figure 2 Worksheet from Walk Tour

The walk tours were organized to solicit a wide
range of views from the community, such as this
young student’s perspective

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 5
transportation safety. Approximately three years of feedback was gleaned to identify community concerns.

BPAC
Mountain View Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) members are appointed by the City Council to represent the interests of people who walk and bike in the city. BPAC reviewed and provided input on ATP-related topics at the following meetings:
x Tuesday, November 30, 2021 – Review and comment on proposed task list for MVATP x Wednesday, February 22, 2023 – Receive report on scope of work for MVATP x Wednesday, October 25, 2023 – Receive draft existing conditions report x Wednesday, April 24, 2024 – Review and provide feedback on MVATP scoring criteria x Wednesday, March 11, 2025 – Recommend holistic network maps and scoring criteria to City Council
x Wednesday, April 29, 2026 – Review and comment on the Public Draft MVATP Active Transportation Plan Advisory Committee
The Active Transportation Plan Advisory Committee (ATPAC) was formed to have an external advisory group that can provide input to the ATP as it is developed and act as a liaison for their networks. Members represent non-profit organizations and public agencies that work in active transportation, green streets or serve the needs of those that walk and roll, such as but not limited to, the Community Services Agency, Santa Clara Public Health Department, VTA, the 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 helped organize and participate in many of the engagement activities.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 6

1. DEMOGRAPHICS AND MODE SHARE
Demographics
The City of Mountain View is a Santa Clara County community that experiences the opportunities and challenges of a strong Bay Area economy. Based on the 2020 U.S.

Decennial Census, the city’s population is approximately 82,000, an increase of over 10% since 2010. Additionally, the influx of professionals to public and private employers increases the city population by over 100,000 during most weekdays. Approximately 55 percent of the population identifies as male and 45 percent as female. The city is relatively young, with almost 67 percent of its population under 44 (median age 35.3 years) and approximately 22% under the age of 18 (U.S. Census 2021 American Community Survey [ACS] 5-year estimates)— a demographic for which a robust and safe active transportation network provides an opportunity for independent mobility (Table 1).

Table 1 Mountain View Age Demographics
Age Number Percent
Under 5 5238 6.4
5 to 14 years 9,113 11.1
15 to 19 years 3,720 4.5
20 to 24 years 4,343 5.3
25 to 44 years 32,655 39.6
45 to 64 years 18,192 22.1
65 to 79 years 6,624 8.0
80 and over 2,524 3.1
Total 82,409 100.0
ACS 2021 5-year estimates
Mountain View’s overall population density is low to medium, with some areas in the central west portion of the city between Central Expressway/Caltrain and El Camino Real being of higher density (Figure 3). Those neighborhoods also tend to have higher youth density (Figure 4).

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 7
Figure 3 Population Density

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 8
Figure 4 Youth Population Density (Ages 18 and Under)

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 9
According to the 2021 ACS 5-year estimates (Table 2), approximately 48 percent of the population of Mountain View identifies as white, 33 percent identify as Asian (with most identifying as Chinese), and 18 percent identify as Hispanic or Latino.

Table 2 Race and Ethnicity in Mountain View (2021)
Race and Ethnicity in Mountain View % 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 in Mountain View % of Residents Not Hispanic or Latino 82.0%
Hispanic or Latino: 18.0%
ACS 2021 5-year estimate
Approximately 5.5 percent of the community is below poverty level. The median household income in Mountain View is $158,104, while the mean is $213,751 (Table 3). As of August 2023, the median home price in Mountain View is $1.79 million.1 Table 3 Household Income Distribution in Mountain View
Income range % of Residents
Less than $50,000 16.8%
$50,000 to $99,999 15.8%
$100,000 to $149,999 15.2%
Median household income: $158,104
$150,000 to $199,999 13.0%
$200,000 or more 39.2%
ACS 2021 5-year estimate

1 https://www.redfin.com/city/12739/CA/Mountain-View/housing-market, retrieved October 2023

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 10
Mode Share and Vehicle Access
Approximately 5.6% of workers 16 years and over in Mountain View bike to work (compared with 0.8% statewide and 0.5% nationally), with males riding at a higher rate than females (Table 4). Approximately 3.2% of workers reported walking to work (compared with 2.4% statewide and 2.5% nationally), with females walking at a slightly higher rate than males.

More than half of Mountain View residents commute to work by driving alone, while over 30% work from home. Commute mode share in Mountain View and peer cities is discussed further in Part 4 and summarized in Table 7.

Figure 5 and Figure 6 show the geographic distribution of walking and biking commute behavior in Mountain View. While the Journey to Work data set of the U.S. Census only provides a snapshot of rates of walking and bicycling within the city by one trip purpose, it indicates that even with that limited trip focus, travel by active transportation modes are utilized in the city.

Table 4 Commute Mode Share in Mountain View (2021)
Commute Mode Mountain View California United States
Drove alone 53.2% 70.1% 73.2%
Carpooled 4.5% 9.6% 8.6%
Public transportation 2.1% 4.1% 4.2%
Walked 3.2% 2.4% 2.5%
Bicycle 5.6% 0.8% 0.5%
Taxicab, motorcycle, or other means 1.2% 1.6% 1.4%
Worked from home 30.2% 11.4% 9.7%
Source: ACS 2021 5 Year Estimate
Almost 5% of households in Mountain View do not have a motor vehicle available (2021 ACS 5-year estimates). In looking at this data spatially, some block groups in Mountain View report up to 24% of households without access to a vehicle (Figure 7). Some of these block groups mirror those with higher percentages of population and youth density and bicycling to work.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 11

Figure 5 Mode Share – Percent of Commuters Who Walk

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 12
Figure 6 Mode Share – Percent of Commuters Who Bike

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 13
Figure 7 Household Vehicle Access

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 14

2. MOBILITY AND CONNECTIVITY
In Mountain View, pedestrian and bicycle networks are essential components of the transportation system. Evaluating the coverage and continuity of these networks can help the City identify where improvements are needed to better support the daily needs of everyone who lives, works, goes to school, and visits the City.

Pedestrian Network Coverage and Gaps
Mountain View has a well-connected pedestrian network that supports walking and rolling throughout most of the city. Figure 9 shows the extent of the existing sidewalk and pedestrian network in Mountain View today, including sidewalks, trails, and pedestrian paseos, and highlights places where there are gaps, or missing segments in the sidewalk network, along with areas where the sidewalk is less than four feet in width.

Sidewalks
The city’s sidewalk network is 95% complete. However, there are a few neighborhoods with missing and narrow sidewalks, such as Moorpark Way and along Wright Avenue, or in the southern portion of the city, such as west of Miramonte between Marilyn and Barbara, and southeast Mountain View between Grant Road and SR-85.

Many areas with missing sidewalks were annexed from the County and did not include sidewalks at the time of annexation. 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 the sidewalks. The policy references resident desires to maintain the rural character of these streets by not improving streets to current standards.

Mountain View’s mobile home parks (Santiago Villa, Sahara Mobile Village, New Frontier, Moorpark Mobile Homes, Moffett Mobile Home Park and Sunset Village) are privately owned and shown as areas of “no data” on Figure 8. Mobile home parks are typically constructed with private streets which do not include a separate sidewalk from the vehicle drive aisle.

While the City has limited control over internal street standards for existing private streets, there can be opportunities to better connect the surrounding City sidewalk network to the mobile home parks. Residents in these neighborhoods, where access to vehicles is lower (Figure 7), may rely more on walking and other non-driving transportation modes to meet daily travel needs.

Survey respondents and community members noted missing or incomplete sidewalks on one or both sides of Martens Avenue, Sleeper Avenue, Franklin Avenue, Eunice Avenue, and Carmelita Drive. These streets connect pedestrians from residential streets to nearby parks

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 15
and schools, such as Sleeper Park, Cuesta Park, Cooper Park, Stevens Creek Trail and Amy Imai Elementary School.

Survey participants also noted issues with sidewalks on Moffett Boulevard near the Stevens Creek Trail access point, such as sidewalk gaps, the condition of sidewalks, and the desire for an improved crossing to access the trail.

Paseos
Mountain View’s pedestrian network includes more than just sidewalks and crosswalks—a host of paseos and trails also support connectivity and mobility throughout the City for people who walk (Figure 9). A paseo is a short connection, often utilizing a public access easement that allows for increased pedestrian and cycling connections. Paseos most commonly occur in the middle of very large blocks (Figure 8).

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.

Survey respondents suggested more 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 8 Examples of Paseos and Car-Free Connections in Mountain View

Paseos are a useful tool to provide public access
through private areas.

This separated pedestrian and bike connection at the
southern end of Sterling Street provides a car-free
connection to Central Expressway at Moffett Blvd.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 16
Figure 9 Pedestrian Network in Mountain View

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 17
Sidewalk Accessibility
As noted earlier, the city’s sidewalk network
is 96% complete, and many newer sidewalks
provide comfortable pedestrian conditions.

In some locations, however, there are
obstructions (such as utility poles or signs)
or poor physical conditions (such as uplift,
missing curb cuts, narrow sidewalks). Some
of these conditions are associated with the
age of the sidewalks and standards in place
at the time of construction.

The City of Mountain View is actively
developing an ADA Transition Plan which
will seek to identify non-compliant curb
ramps, sidewalks, and other infrastructure in
the right-of-way and develop a work plan to
bring those locations into compliance.

Bicycle Network Coverage and Gaps
The city has a varied network of bicycle facilities, some of which are well connected and some of which are separated by gaps or barriers.

The term All Ages and Abilities (AAA) refers to bikeways designs that are comfortable for all different types of bicyclists, including the most concerned. In Access MV, the City identified a future AAA Bike Network made up of existing and planned/funded projects (Figure 12).

Facility types represented in the AAA existing and planned/funded network include but are not limited to bicycle boulevards, trails, protected bikeways and bike lanes on lower volume and speed streets (described in Figure 11).

Figure 12 shows that the density of the future AAA network varies across the city. The existing and planned/funded AAA network is robust in the northern parts of the city, including North Bayshore and Shoreline Park. The Stevens Creek Trail provides a continuous AAA-quality connection between the northern and southern parts of the City for bicyclists. In other areas, such as the residential neighborhoods in the city's southern parts, there are gaps in the AAA network, and some bikeways on major roads such as Springer Road and Grant Road may not fall under the AAA designation.

Figure 10 High Quality Sidewalk in Mountain View

Sidewalks should be set back from the street, wide
enough to allow comfortable side-by-side walking,
and have trees spaced close enough to provide
consistent shade like this one on Evelyn Street.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 18
Figure 11 Types of Bicycle Facilities in Mountain View’s All Ages and Abilities (AAA) Bike Network

Bicycle boulevards (Class III) are shared streets with
low motor vehicle speeds and volumes with features
and pavement markings designed to prioritize
bicycles.

Trails (Class I) are shared-use bicycle and pedestrian
paths that are separated from motor vehicle traffic. In Mountain View, most trails are paved.

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.

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

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 19
Figure 12 Existing and Planned/Funded AAA Bicycle Facilities vs. Existing Bicycle Network

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 20
Figure 13 Bicycle Network and Challenging Routes for Walking, Biking, and Rolling

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 21
Figure 14 Household Vehicle Access and Existing Bicycle Network

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 22
Survey respondents were asked to identify challenging walking or biking routes, summarized in Figure 13 and Table 5. Note that the City does not have jurisdiction over El Camino Real or Central Expressway, these are owned by Caltrans and the County of Santa Clara, respectively.

Beginning in winter 2023, the City and Caltrans are partnering to implement bike lanes (Class II) and flex post-protected bikeways (Class IV) along El Camino between Sylvan Avenue and Rengstorff Avenue, which will significantly improve bicycle network connectivity for many community members. Community feedback about the El Camino corridor supports these improvements as well as improved bicycle access across and adjacent to El Camino Real.

Table 5 Top 10 Challenging Routes as Indicated by Community Input.

Rank Challenging Route
1 El Camino Real* (between Dale Avenue and Rengstorff Avenue/Ortega Avenue)
2 Miramonte-Shoreline Boulevard (between Sonia Way and Wright Avenue) 3 Central Expressway* (between Thompson Avenue and SR-85) 4 Grant Road (between Bentley Square and El Camino Real) 5 Rengstorff Avenue (between El Camino Real and Montecito Avenue) 6 Latham Street (between Ortega Avenue and Leksich Avenue) 8 Escuela Avenue (between El Camino Real and Villa Street) 9 California Street (between Chiquita Avenue and Ortega Avenue) 10 Leland Avenue/Crisanto Avenue (between College Avenue and Escuela Avenue)
Source: ATP Survey (2023)
* El Camino Real is owned by Caltrans and Central Expressway is owned by the County of Santa Clara. The City does not have jurisdiction over these roads.

Bike Parking and End-of-Trip Facilities
Beyond the availability of community bikeways, a complete bicycle network includes other infrastructure and facilities that support the needs of people who bicycle. A comprehensive bicycle network includes safe and secure bike parking, accurate bicycle detection, bicycle maintenance stations, restrooms, drinking fountains, and clear wayfinding for bicyclists (Figure 15).

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 23
Figure 15 Examples of Bike Racks and Bicycle Push Button

Bike rack located in Downtown Mountain View Bicycle push buttons allow bicyclists to request a green light
Pedestrian and Bicycle Connectivity
The City’s sidewalk network provides consistent connectivity and coverage within most neighborhoods. This connectivity can be improved by providing enhanced and additional crossings of major roadways.

East/West, North/South Connections
Survey respondents were asked to identify specific points where they would like improvements. These points concentrated at intersections on major east-west roadways like El Camino Real, Central Expressway, and Highway 101 interchanges, particularly where they intersect with significant north-south roadways such as Rengstorff Avenue, Shoreline Boulevard and Castro Street/Moffett Boulevard (Figure 17). Other top locations for improved crossings suggested through survey responses and community meetings include Grant Road and El Camino Real, Escuela Avenue and El Camino Real, Showers Drive and California Street, Rengstorff Avenue and West Middlefield Road. These user-identified locations are displayed in Figure 17 and the top ten challenging spot locations identified by users are listed in Table

6. All ten of these locations are intersections or interchanges that are owned by, and under the authority of, the state or county.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 24
Table 6 Top 10 Challenging Intersections for Walking, Biking, and Rolling as Indicated by Community Input
Rank Challenging Spot
1 Rengstorff Avenue & Central Expressway (and by extension: Rengstorff Avenue & Leland Avenue/Crisanto Avenue)
2 Castro Street/Moffett Boulevard & Central Expressway (and by extension: Castro Street & Evelyn Avenue)
3 El Camino Real & Castro Street
4 Central Expressway & Shoreline Boulevard
5 Grant Road & El Camino Real
6 Miramonte Avenue/Shoreline Boulevard & El Camino Real 7 SR-85 & El Camino Real
8 US -101 & Shoreline Boulevard
9 SR-85 & Central Expressway
10 El Camino Real & Escuela Avenue
Source: ATP Survey (2023)
Note: The city has limited control over these locations. Central Expressway is owned and operated by Santa Clara County and El Camino Real, SR-85 and US-101 are owned and operated by Caltrans.

Distance between Crosswalks
Figure 18 shows the distance between marked crosswalks along Mountain View’s major roads. Along El Camino Real and Central Expressway, some distances between crossings are more than 1,300 feet or ¼ mile. Other arterial roads with segments with long distances between marked crossings include East Middlefield Road, segments of Shoreline Boulevard, and Rengstorff Avenue.

Figure 19 shows the distance between marked or unmarked crosswalks for all the City’s roads. Longer block lengths exist on several segments throughout the city, such as Showers Drive, Latham Street, California Street, East Middlefield Road, and Grant Road.

Survey respondents noted that the lack of crossings creates a significant barrier to access for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling north and south, especially when accessing downtown Mountain View from the south.

El Camino Real
Survey respondents noted that the lack of crossings on El Camino Real creates a significant barrier to access for pedestrians and bicyclists traveling north and south, especially when accessing downtown Mountain View from the south.

Three new Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHBs) will be installed on El Camino Real at Bonita Avenue, Crestview Drive, and Pettis Avenue as part of a Caltrans repaving project that will

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 25
begin construction in 2024. These PHBs will improve connectivity and reduce the distance between intersection crossings. In addition to the three PHBs and the aforementioned bicycle improvements, plans to improve El Camino Real include curb ramp upgrades, high visibility crosswalks at all signalized intersections, and corner bulbouts at some of the unsignalized cross streets (Figure 16). Further mobility and connectivity enhancements, such as protected intersections, will be addressed through City capital projects following the Caltrans repaving work.

Figure 16 Examples of a Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon (PHB) and Curb Bulbout in Other Jurisdictions

PHBs include flashing lights and marked
crossings that alert vehicles to crossing
pedestrians.

Curb bulbouts reduce the distances between curbs for
crossing pedestrians and reduce vehicle turning speeds.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 26
Figure 17 Pedestrian Network and Challenging Spots for Walking, Biking, and Rolling

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 27
Figure 18 Distance Between Marked Crosswalks (Major Roads)

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 28
Figure 19 Distance Between Pedestrian Crossings (Marked or Unmarked, All Roads)

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 29

3. SAFETY AND COMFORT
Many places in Mountain View provide safe and enjoyable spaces for people who walk, bike, and roll—especially places where people feel separated from vehicles and offer access to nature and open space.

Community-Identified Favorite Places and Routes
Survey respondents were asked to share their favorite places to walk, bike, or roll. Many identified parks and trails in Mountain View. Trails are both routes and destinations where the car-free environments add to people’s feeling of safety and enjoyment. Survey respondents use Stevens Creek Trail for a wide variety of purposes, including recreational bike rides with family and kids, commuting to work, and accessing key destinations like grocery stores and the library. Respondents expressed appreciation for the safe pedestrian and bicycle environment of Sylvan Park and Rengstorff Park. In other places, such as Shoreline Park, respondents reported driving to these places to walk or bike.

Downtown, especially the pedestrian-only portion of Castro Street, was celebrated as a great place for walking by survey respondents and community conversation participants. The safe and enjoyable environment, the appeal of no automobile traffic, and the availability of many fun activities and destinations, make this area a favorite for community members. (Figure 20) Figure 20 Examples of Favorite Places to Walk and Bike in Mountain View

Trails that provide a space for walking and biking
away from motorized vehicles were popular
destinations for survey respondents.

Survey respondents enjoy walking in the car-free
segments of Castro Street downtown.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 30
Community-Identified Challenging Locations for Walking and Biking Survey respondents were asked to map challenging places to walk, bike, or roll. Challenging locations were concentrated along El Camino Real , at Rengstorff Avenue and Central Expressway intersection, and at crossings of US 101 and SR 85. Lastly, survey respondents and community members identified the intersection of Castro Street, Central Expressway, Moffett Boulevard, and Caltrain as a challenging area to walk and bike.

Collisions Involving Bicycles and Pedestrians
From 2015 to 2022, there were 563 reported collisions involving people walking and biking in Mountain View, including 11 fatal and 52 severe injury collisions. According to the 2024 Mountain View Local Roadway 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.

As shown in Figure 21, f atal and severe -injury (FSI) p edestrian collisions were particularly concentrated along arterial roadways, which represent 20% of the city’s street network. As shown in Figure 22, FSI bicycle crashes were distributed throughout the city. However, when looking at all crashes, not just FSI crashes, the locations generally overlap with locations that community members reported as challenging in the MVATP survey. See Figure 23 and Figure

24. Near Misses
Pedestrian and bicycle collisions are usually underreported in many communities for a variety of reasons. Near misses are also not consistently reported but provide additional information for decision makers. Figure 25 maps near miss reports submitted to AskMV between 2021 and 2022. The locations are in the Downtown area, Rengstorff Avenue, El Camino Real and neighborhood locations. Given that the data presented in Figure 25 is self-reported and limited, it should not be used to draw broad conclusions.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 31
Figure 21 Collisions Involving People Walking by Severity of Injury and Challenging Locations

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 32
Figure 22 Collisions Involving People on Bikes by Severity of Injury and Challenging Locations

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 33
Figure 23 Frequency of Collisions Involving People on Bikes and Challenging Locations

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 34
Figure 24 Frequency of Collisions Involving People Walking and Challenging Locations

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 35
Figure 25 Reported Near-Miss Collisions Involving People Walking or Biking, 2021-2022

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 36
Sidewalk and Roadway Conditions
The City has 277.8 linear miles of sidewalk, which represents 96% sidewalk completion.

US Access Board’s Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) provides guidance for accessible pedestrian facilities, including but not limited to stability of surface, width, slope, cross-slope, curb ramps, and detectible surfaces. The City is currently undertaking an ADA Self- Evaluation and Transition Plan that will provide detailed data on accessibility.

Community engagement for the Active Transportation Plan also noted conditions that affect user comfort including:
x leaves, dirt, gravel, debris and drainage issues on some sidewalks, bike lanes and roadway edges;
x uneven or bumpy pavement for pedestrians or bicyclists, including at crosswalks, sidewalks, curb ramps, and places where paving materials transition; x difficult-to-see curb edges, abrupt driveway transitions, gutter joints in bike lanes, and driveway lips, including near schools and senior facilities; x parked cars blocking bike lanes or sidewalks with rolled curbs; and x road segments with a high number of driveways and potential vehicle- pedestrian conflict points.

Roadway Crossings, Signals, and Visibility
The City has 2,042 crosswalks including 1,156 marked and 886 unmarked crossings, in addition to 92 signalized intersections and more than 30 LED-enhanced crosswalks or rectangular rapid flashing beacons. These crossing facilities are displayed in Figure 27.

Crossing vehicular roadways, especially those with fast-moving traffic and multiple lanes, was a recurring comfort and safety challenge as indicated by community members. While the City continues to improve and enhance crossings and intersections with features that support pedestrian and bicycle safety, such as high visibility crosswalks, raised crosswalks, RRFBs, PHBs, and “daylighting” or removing visual barriers near intersections to improve visibility, some community members expressed that driver behavior continues to create challenges for safe crossings—especially across larger arterial roads su ch as El Camino Real and Central Expressway. As seen in Figure 28, both of those roadways currently lack enhanced pedestrian crossing infrastructure, though the previously mentioned project on El Camino Real that will begin in spring 2024 will bring some improvements along this roadway.

In contrast, the North Bayshore area has several pedestrian signals and enhanced crosswalks.

Some survey respondents highlighted that shade is limited in some areas where there are long waits at signalized intersections.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 37
Lastly, some survey respondents encountered visibility challenges between bicyclists and vehicles while entering or exiting trails in Mountain View.

Figure 26 Example of Enhanced and Marked Crossings in Mountain View

This raised crosswalk and pedestrian-activated LED
enhanced sign is located near Mistral Elementary
Land Use and Urban Design Considerations
Through the ATP survey and other engagement conversations, many community members highlighted how land use and urban design can affect safety and comfort for walking, biking, and rolling. For example, in some parts of Mountain View, the shape and limited connectivity of the street network leads to lengthy pedestrian and bicycle routes to destinations that are relatively close (Figure 9 and Figure 12). However, treatments such as new mid-block crossings and paseos that can mitigate otherwise circuitous pedestrian and bicycle paths and create more shaded, pleasant ways to travel.

Survey respondents and community conversation participants frequently identified vibrant, walkable shopping areas such as downtown and the San Antonio Shopping Center as favorite places for safe and comfortable walking. As part of the AccessMV study (2021), the City analyzed Pedestrian Quality of Service (PQOS), which highlighted the impacts of the land use mix on the pedestrian experience, by utilizing WalkScore (TM) data, which prioritizes connections to certain business types and community assets.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 38
Figure 27 Marked Crossings, Signalized Intersections, and Enhanced Intersections

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 39

4. ACCESS AND EQUITY
For many, biking, walking, and rolling are essential transportation options for meeting daily travel needs. Equitable access to key destinations can be challenging even in neighborhoods with a complete and connected pedestrian and bicycle network. An accessible and equitable active transportation network must connect people with critical services and destinations and be designed to reflect different needs and abilities. The same routes, facilities, and crossings that are easily navigable for some people can be stressful or difficult to navigate for others.

Equitable Access to Destinations and Services
The City has made strides in creating pedestrian and bicycle facilities that support mobility and provide affordable access for people of all socio-economic groups. Correspondingly, Mountain View has higher rates of walking and bicycling to work (3.2% and 5.6% respectively) compared to many neighboring cities (Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and Santa Clara) as well as the county, state and national rates (Table 7). Some peer cities including Palo Alto and Davis have higher rates of walking and/or biking to work than Mountain View.

Several neighborhoods in Mountain View have higher populations density, higher youth density, and a higher proportion of zero-vehicle households and/or low-income households.

For these areas and households, gaps in the active transportation network can make biking, walking, or rolling more challenging for those who rely on them the most. (Figure 9 and Figure 14).

Participants in walking tours in these neighborhoods noted areas for improvement:
x A connected network of AAA bicycle facilities;
x Addressing sidewalk obstructions that can make it difficult to travel with strollers x Completion of sidewalk gaps, and connections to surrounding neighborhoods and destinations;
x More shade along sidewalks
Job Access
As shown in Figure 28, the existing AAA network in Mountain View includes Stevens Creek Trail, Permanente Creek Trail, and protected bikeways along Charleston Road and S. Castro Street. These bikeways connect residential neighborhoods to many of the city's major employers, areas of high job density, and recreational areas. The planned protected bikeway on El Camino Real will further extend AAA access to jobs.

Figure 29 compares the sidewalk network to job density. The sidewalk network is nearly complete, and all job dense areas have sidewalks. The sidewalk network follows the respective roadway network, so office parks in North Bayshore have a circuitous sidewalk network, and downtown Mountain View has a dense, grid network.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 40
Table 7 Commute Mode Share in Mountain View and Peer Cities (2021)

Total
Workers
(Age 16+)
Drove alone Carpooled Public
transit Walked Bicycle
Taxicab,
motorcycle,
or other
Worked
from home
Mountain
View 44,414 53.20% 4.50% 2.10% 3.20% 5.60% 1.20% 30.20% Sunnyvale 87,798 61.6% 9.1% 5.1% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 19.6%
Cupertino 27,965 67.7% 5.8% 1.8% 2.8% 0.5% 1.4% 20.0%
Santa Clara
(City) 69,840 58.2% 5.7% 2.2% 2.5% 0.9% 2.3% 28.3%
Palo Alto 33,763 46.10% 2.40% 1.60% 6.40% 9.20% 1.70% 32.60% Davis 31,129 51.90% 5.20% 7.10% 3.00% 13.80% 1.00% 17.90% Santa Clara
County 967,786 59.3% 8.9% 2.1% 2.0% 1.5% 1.5% 24.8%
California 18,283,118 70.10% 9.60% 4.10% 2.40% 0.80% 1.60% 11.40% United
States 160,577,736 73.20% 8.60% 4.20% 2.50% 0.50% 1.40% 9.70% Source: ACS 2021 5 Year Estimate

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 41
Figure 28 Job Locations and Bicycle Access

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 42
Figure 29 Job Locations and Pedestrian Access

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 43
Equitable Access to Transit
Fixed-route transit services in the City include VTA light rail, Caltrain service, VTA bus service, and Mountain View shuttle service. While some community members have attractive and reliable pedestrian and bicycle access to these services, others report challenges or barriers to access.

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, bike, and roll. Some survey respondents identified access to a transit stop or station as a favorite destination for walking, biking, and rolling, especially the downtown transit center and other rail stations. Other respondents reported challenges getting to and from transit, especially bus stops on busy roadways with widely spaced crossings (Figure 30).

In most of the city, bus services on major roads and arterials are connected to adjacent neighborhoods via low-stress bicycle and pedestrian routes. However, most major roads and arterials (on which buses operate) can be more stressful for bicyclists and pedestrians and can make the first and the last mile access challenging. Some of the highest transit ridership in Mountain View occurs along El Camino Real, which is not a comfortable environment for many pedestrians or bicyclists, has long block lengths and crossings, and sees a higher concentration of crashes (Figure 31).

Figure 30 Mountain View Transit Center as a Destination

Community members identified the Mountain View
Transit Center as a favorite destination to walk, bike, or roll to.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 44
Figure 31 Transit Ridership and Bicycle Access

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 45
Figure 32 Transit Ridership and Pedestrian Access

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 46

5. SUSTAINABILITY AND BIODIVERSITY
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 now undertaking a biodiversity strategy 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.

Defining Biodiversity
Biodiversity refers to the variety of living organisms on Earth.

California and the Bay Area are global biodiversity hotspots because they contain a high number of native species including plants, animals, birds, bacteria, fungi and insects that are found nowhere else in the world! These species do not just live in wilderness areas a long way away from cities; they also include native plants that grow (or could grow) along public streets, trails and parks, as well as the birds, insects and other living organisms that depend upon these plants.

Native plants evolved to thrive in the soils, moisture and changing weather conditions of this region. They therefore require less supplemental watering and pest control than many non- native species and may not perform well with watering regimes designed for other species.

Additionally, native species coevolved to have specific symbiotic relationships with other living organisms. For example, dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta) is the primary host plant to the endangered Bay Checkerspot Butterfly; showy milkweed (Asclepias speciosa) is a host plant for the Monarch Butterfly; and Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) is a keystone species which serves many other species within the ecosystem.

In areas like Mountain View, a loss of biodiversity is associated with many factors including habitat destruction, degradation or fragmentation for development, introduction of invasive species, non-native species, monoculture, pollution, biocides, and climate change. Loss of biodiversity can result in extirpation or even extinction of species, which can have cascading effects on the wider ecosystem.

Defining Green Streets
Green Streets are streets that provide space for natural elements to support biodiversity, incorporate sustainable stormwater strategies, slow motor vehicle traffic, and prioritize active transportation modes (biking, walking, rolling) for people of all ages and abilities. Green streets are a holistic approach that combines active transportation, biodiversity promotion, and green infrastructure development.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 47
Green Streets = Active Transportation + Biodiversity + Green Infrastructure.

Green streets are an important component within the active transportation system and can provide access to recreation, nature and open spaces through green treatments that are integrated into the street. They present 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. Green streets influence how people use the street, often slowing motor vehicle traffic and increasing the comfort of pedestrians and cyclists by creating space and incorporating natural elements into the street.

Benefits of Green Streets
Can help the city comply with the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 3.0, which requires green stormwater infrastructure in certain transportation projects. Green streets support active transportation by creating healthy settings where people want to walk and bike, fostering social connections and an active lifestyle. Trees, vegetation and green stormwater infrastructure provide and complement traffic-calming efforts, contributing to safer streets by slowing vehicular traffic. Green street features make public spaces more attractive and comfortable for people through shade, heat absorption, visual vibrancy and clear local identity. Street trees and impermeable surfaces reduce heat island effects, making streets cooler and safer during heat events, and mitigating impacts of climate change. Green stormwater infrastructure and plants manage stormwater by increasing pervious surfaces, reducing, slowing and treating runoff, and improving water quality. Green streets enhance air quality by filtering out pollutants. Green streets with native species provide habitat corridors that support survival of native plants, pollinators and ecosystems in this region which is a biodiversity hotspot.

Challenges of Green Streets
Green streets also come with potential challenges, which can be reduced or eliminated by selecting the right tree for the right place and by timely, species-appropriate maintenance.

The following potential challenges should be considered when designing a green street. Tree roots can uplift sidewalks, creating uneven walking surfaces. Property owners may incur costs related to planting strip maintenance and care. Certain trees and plants may be perceived as messier than others, dropping leaves, nuts, and fruits on the ground.
Plants may trigger seasonal allergies especially when only male trees or plants are planted in order to avoid seeds, pods and fruit.
Trees can be susceptible to storm damage, dropping debris and limbs, or falling over completely during large storm events.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 48
Trees and large shrubs can encroach on sightlines if not properly placed.

Below is a quick reference to the benefits and challenges of green streets.

Table 8 Green Streets Benefits and Challenges
Benefits Challenges
Encourages walking and biking Roots can uplift sidewalks.

Fosters social connections and community Can incur cost to the property owner Enhances air quality, filters air pollutants Can produce debris such as leaves, nuts, fruit Reduces temperatures, keeps streets cool Requires maintenance Reduces stormwater runoff and water pollution Can exacerbate seasonal allergies Slows vehicles, calms traffic calming Can result in property damage if limbs fall Increases property values for property owners Can reduce visibility in right of way Provides habitat for wildlife and pollinators
Provides beauty, seasonal interest, mental
health benefits

Helps conserve energy
Supports compliance with MRP 3.0
Mountain View’s Urban Forest
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.

Commitment to the Urban Forest
The City of Mountain View boasts a history of dedication to preserving and enhancing its urban forest, spanning several decades. This commitment is evidenced by a series of pivotal milestones:
1961 - Enactment of the Street Tree Ordinance
1975 - Adoption of the Heritage Tree Ordinance
1983 - Introduction of the First Street Tree Policy and Reforestation Plan 1993 - Establishment of the Urban Forestry Management Plan 2001 - Recognition of Mountain View as a Tree City USA 2013-2015 - City Council goals to improve the urban forest and preserve habitat 2015 - Launch of the Community Tree Master Plan (CTMP) 2021-2023, 2023-2025 - City Council Strategic Priority to develop a Biodiversity Strategy

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 49
2022 - Revision of the Tree Technical Manual
2026 - Adoption of the Biodiversity Strategy and Urban Forest Plan

Tree Coverage
According to the 2022 revised Tree Technical Manual, Mountain View’s existing urban forest covers 17.7 percent of the city with tree canopy. To put this in context, this coverage is slightly higher than the California urban area average of 15 percent (according to the USDA Forest Service) and approximately 50 percent lower than adjacent communities directly to the north of Mountain View.

A higher percentage of tree coverage brings substantial benefits, such as filtering out air pollution, reducing stormwater runoff, reducing water pollution, sequestering carbon, reducing urban heat island effects, reducing health risks associated with heat events, contributing to mental and physical health, and increasing climate resilience. In Mountain View, the 2015 Community Tree Master Plan (CTMP) establishes a goal to increase tree coverage to 22.7 percent, representing a 28 percent or 5 percentage point increase. This increase is equivalent to planting an additional 11,000 trees citywide.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 50
Figure 33 Tree Canopy Coverage

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 51
Street Trees in Mountain View
Mountain View has over 28,000 public trees, which enhance the City’s natural beauty and provide shade and clean air. These trees are cataloged in the City’s Urban Forest GIS database, encompassing attributes such as common name, species, tree group (deciduous, evergreen, palm), trunk diameter, circumference, planting type (the type of public land where the tree was planted), heritage designation, and ownership and maintenance data. According to the Tree Technical Manual, a significant portion of all urban trees–approximately 25%–line city streets. As shown in Figure 39, approximately 2/3 of public trees are found in planting strips, which represent an opportunity for additional community trees.

Figure 34 Public Tree Planting Types

In addition to efforts to increase permeable space and reduce the use of biocides, Mountain View’s commitment to biodiversity requires a shift away from monocultural planting, which is more susceptible to diseases, and a focus on native plant species needed to support local pollinators and ecosystems.

In relation to monoculture, the City has 237 unique species of street trees, ranging from large shade trees to small ornamental trees, palms, to evergreens. While this seems like a lot of species, there are 6,000 species endemic to California. Historically, the City planted a single tree species along each street to create a unified aesthetic for the neighborhood. Single species planting creates vulnerabilities for plant health, and the City is shifting away from this type of monocultural planting.

In relation to the focus on native species, Figure 39 lists the top 10 most common street trees found in Mountain View. Of this list, Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) is native to California. The City has shifted toward native species for plant lists.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 52
Figure 35 Mountain View's Top 10 Street Trees

Heritage Trees
The city has designated 9,297 community trees as heritage trees, and 7,332 are street trees. A “Heritage Tree” is defined as any tree that has a trunk circumference of 48 inches or more measured at fifty-four inches (54”) above grade. Three genera, oak (Quercus), redwood (Sequoia), and cedar (Cedrus), are considered Heritage if they have a circumference of 12 inches or more.

Figure 36 Street Tree Count by Type

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 53
Figure 37 Heritage Trees

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 54
Street Tree Planting and the Urban Forest
The City of Mountain View has made considerable effort in planting and nurturing an urban forest of over 230 tree species.

Like many Cities in California, however, most tree and shrub species planted along City streets are non-native species. All street trees provide important shade, cooling, stormwater, water pollution reduction, and air purification services. However, non-native trees and shrubs like London Plane trees, Chinese Pistache, and Ginkgo do not provide the critical biodiversity and habitat benefits of local native species like Coast Live Oak, Valley Oak, Big Leaf Maple, Arroyo Willow, California Laurel, California Buckeye, and Box Elder.

Street tree planting sites represent a significant opportunity for increasing the City’s canopy cover and increasing the proportion of local native species. According to the CTMP, street tree planting sites account for 92 percent of vacant planting sites in the City (see Figure 42 ).

Strengthening the City’s street tree presence and increasing the proportion of native species can allow the city to reach its goal of increasing tree coverage and enhancing biodiversity.

Figure 38 Vacant Planting sites by location

Development Review
The City has a role in maintaining or increasing tree planting and canopy coverage along active transportation networks as part of the development entitlement process. Requirements for developers to preserve or plant trees affect the comfort and amenity of pedestrian facilities in Mountain View as well as the potential for transportation networks to contribute to broader environmental goals.

Development projects are reviewed by City staff relative to approved and posted standards and plans such as:

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 55
Mountain View City Code (MVCC) sections such as MVCC Chapter 36 on Zoning, which outlines specifications such as lot coverage, setback and floor-area-ratio (FAR); Precise Plans such as the North Bayshore Precise Plan, which outlines requirements related to a Habitat Overlay Zone, and
2019 Standard Provisions and Details, which outline details such as sidewalk width, lane widths and visibility triangles at driveways and corners.

Standards and regulations such as those listed above provide clarity for developers and also have implications for achieving goals related to active transportation, green streets and biodiversity. For example, Mountain View design standards for redevelopment of existing sites typically result in a consolidation and reduction in the number of driveways for most land uses especially on large transportation corridors, which can increase the area for green stormwater infrastructure, landscaping and street trees.

Street Tree Planting Types
Over the years, the city has successfully planted public trees along streets, including plantings in tree wells, planting strips, medians, parking spaces, and cul-de-sacs, each offering unique challenges and opportunities. Based on the City’s Urban Forest GIS Data, existing street tree planting locations in Mountain View are categorized by the following type of planting:

x Planting Strips (67%)
x Parks (16%)
x Medians (12%)
x Tree Wells (5%)
While the city’s data categorizes planting locations into four primary groups, this Existing Conditions report delves deeper into trees planted within the public right-of-way, differentiating planting types into eight categories. A brief explanation of each planting type is provided after Figure 40 including the associated challenges and opportunities.

1. Planting Strip - Detached Sidewalks and Curb Extension

2. Planting Strip - Attached Sidewalks

3. Medians

4. Protected Intersections and Bikeways (Class IV)

5. Cul-de-sac

6. Tree Wells - Sidewalk

7. Tree Wells - Parking

8. Phased Greening

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 56
Figure 39 Public Tree Planting by Type 9.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 57

1. Planting Strip - Detached Sidewalks and Curb Extensions Planting strips located between the street and sidewalk along the roadway and at the intersection, provide space for planting vegetation along a road. Depending on their width, they can accommodate plants from towering shade trees to low-lying perennials. These strips physically distance sidewalks from vehicular lanes, narrowing the roadway with trees that create a sense of enclosure, which can help slow traffic and improve safety and comfort for all users.

Challenges: The city maintains designated street trees; all other plant material in the planting strip is the adjacent property owner's responsibility. Overgrown vegetation may impede narrow sidewalks. Plants in curb extensions and within sight triangles should be carefully chosen and placed to maintain visibility.

Opportunities: Detached sidewalks and planted curb extensions foster safe and more comfortable pedestrian environments in residential neighborhoods. They provide shade for pedestrians, create a buffer from traffic, slowing traffic, enhancing road safety and encouraging more walking trips.

Figure 40 Examples of Planting Strips with Detached Sidewalks

Top: Morgan Street, Middle: Middlefield Road, Bottom: Oxnard, California, Source Dan Burden BikePedImages.org

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 58

2. Planting Strip - Attached Sidewalks
Planting strips between sidewalks and private property often act as buffers between the street and parking lots, buildings, or other private spaces, offering a protective boundary between public and private spaces.

Challenges: Planting strips with attached sidewalks do not provide separation between the street and the sidewalk as detached sidewalks do. Overgrown vegetation may impede narrow sidewalks.

Opportunities: Planting areas along sidewalks creates a sense of enclosure, making pedestrians feel more comfortable and less exposed. Consideration can be given to providing additional space for greening the street.

Figure 41 Examples of Planting Strips with Attached Sidewalks Left: Morse Avenue, Center: Central Expressway, Right: San Ramon Avenue

3. Medians
Street medians present opportunities for green street elements like trees and vegetation in the center of the roadway. Some large roads, like Central Expressway and West Middlefield Road, have expansive median plantings.

Challenges: Medians may be difficult to maintain due to their location in the middle of the street. They also do not provide the same sense of enclosure, shade, or roadway benefits as planting strips.

Opportunities: Expanding green street treatments in medians along larger roads can help to reduce vehicle speeds, infuse vibrancy, and contribute to climate and tree canopy goals.

Top: Central Expressway, Bottom: El Camino Real
Figure 42 Examples of
Median Plantings

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 59

4. Protected Intersections and Bikeways (Class IV)
The space between the bike lane and the motor vehicle travel lane, also called the protective buffer, presents opportunities for green street elements, including trees, vegetation, and bioswales. Protected intersections provide space for low-lying green treatments at the corner island.

Challenges: Protective buffer areas require available roadway space and can increase costs for plant maintenance. Other challenges include plant encroachment upon the bike lane, including tree branches. Low-lying plants should be used in protected intersection corner islands to maintain visibility.

Opportunities: Opportunities include expanding green street treatments to reduce vehicle speeds, infuse vibrancy, contribute to climate and tree canopy goals, and create separation between the bikeway and motor vehicles, thereby increasing comfort and safety for cyclists of all ages and abilities.

Top Left: Charleston Avenue, Top Right: Shoreline Boulevard at Charleston Avenue, Bottom: Charleston Avenue
Figure 43 Examples of Protected Intersections and Bikeways

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 60

5. Cul-de-sac
Some residential neighborhoods incorporate planting space in the centers of cul-de-sacs and small intersections, introducing greenery and expanding the tree canopy over paved areas.

These planting spaces break up expanses of pavement and help maintain slower vehicular speeds. This unique Mountain View example of planting location can serve as a model for other cities.

Challenges: Limited planting area and possibly limited neighborhood support. Difficult establishment period after planting due to limited irrigation.

Opportunities: Transform traditionally non-green cul-de-sacs into lush green spaces. Serve as a model for other cities, with minimal impact on traffic flow.

Figure 44 Examples of Cul-de-Sac Plantings

Left: Damian Way, Right: Hedgerow Court

6. Tree Well – Sidewalk
Tree wells provide planting space within paved areas and are often used in urban settings like downtown areas. Tree wells can be open or covered with tree grates and are typically integrated with sidewalks.

Challenges: Limited planting areas reduce soil volume and room for water infiltration and root growth. Few tree species are well suited for these conditions, so choices can be limited, depending on the size of the planting space.

Opportunities: Plantings in tree wells help increase tree canopy in high-activity areas and create a human-scaled environment and sense of enclosure with trees on both sides of the street.

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 61

Left: Moffett Boulevard Middle: West Evelyn Avenue Right: Bryant Street

7. Tree Well - Parking Space
Tree wells can also be situated within parking spaces along streets.

Challenges: Tree wells in parking areas may reduce the number of parking spaces and increase the difficulty of changing the roadway layout later.

Opportunities: Tree wells in parking areas provide an innovative way to boost tree canopy on streets without impacting sidewalks. This prioritizes walking space and aligns with climate goals by promoting mode shift and reducing car dependency.

Left: Castro Street, Right: Castro Street

8. Phased Greening
Temporary planters and parklets have gained prominence as strategies to increase greenery and placemaking along streets, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic when cities opened streets for people and closed them for cars. These serve as valuable tools for piloting ideas and can offer interim planting spaces.

Figure 45 Examples of Tree Wells
Figure 46 Examples of Tree Wells in a Parking Space

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 62
Challenges: Existing infrastructure may pose an obstacle to temporary planters and parklets, and parking may be limited.

Opportunities: These strategies provide short-term opportunities to enhance the vibrancy and comfort of the street. Strategic placement can leverage existing planting spaces.

Left: Castro Street (east side), Right: Castro Street (west side)

Impervious Surface Cover
Impervious surfaces include concrete and asphalt surfaces, roofs, and other hard materials that do not allow water to soak into the ground. In contrast, porous surfaces, like gardens and other unpaved areas, allow water to soak into the ground. As cities grow, they tend to have more impervious surfaces in the form of roads, parking lots, and buildings. Impervious surfaces are associated with more stormwater runoff, flood risk and water pollution, and higher surface temperatures. Trees and other vegetation can make a positive difference in areas filled with impervious surfaces by soaking up rainwater and cooling down the surroundings.

In Mountain View, different neighborhoods have varying percentages of impervious surfaces, as seen in the Figure 48. More impervious surfaces mean higher surface temperatures and more stormwater runoff.

Figure 47 Examples of Phased Greening

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 63

Neighborhood
Average
Impervious
Surface
Percentage
Rex Manor 46%
Waverly Park 50%
Blossom Valley 51%
Martens-Carmelita 52%
Cuesta Park 53%
Old Mountain View 55%
North Whisman 58%
Willowgate &
Jackson Park 58%
Stierlin Estates 60%
Cuernavaca 60%
Shoreline West 61%
Slater 63%
Whisman Station 63%
Monta Loma 65%
Sylvan Park 67%
Gamelo & St.

Francis 67%
Castro City & The
Crossings 68%
Figure 48 Percentage of Impervious Surfaces (Map and Table)

Mountain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 64

6. CODE REVIEW
As part of the MVATP, a review was conducted of existing City documents and codes that set policy and criteria that determine the final form of the built environment. The Code Review included:
2002 Standard Design Criteria (SDC)
2019 Standard Provisions and Standard Details (SP&D)
Mountain View City Code
The findings from this code review can be used as a starting point for updating the City’s standards. Mountain View’s FY2627 Recommended Budget includes Project 27-27, Mountain View Standards Update. The project will update current standard details for street widths (including lane widths), sidewalks and landscape strip widths, bike lane widths, and drop off duckouts and GSI in landscape strips.
the City may consider updating the following codes and standards to better support bicyclists and pedestrians:

Table 9: Code Review Summary
2002 Standard Design Criteria
Item Notes
Chapter 7 - Street Lighting
Section 3.5 Curb, Gutters, Sidewalk and Driveways
x Section 3.5.1 - commercial driveways
x Section 3.5.2 curb radius
Commercial driveway maximum
width 35 ft
Curb return minimum radius 30
ft
Chapter 7 - Street Lighting
2019 Standard Provisions and Standard Details
Item Notes
Chapter 36 Street Trees
Standard Detail E-11 Traffic Signal Detector Loops Provides details for in-ground detector loops
Standard Details A-1 through A-9 Sidewalk and
street cross-sections
Define typical street cross-
sections and driveway details
Mo
untain View Active Transportation Plan | Existing Conditions and Needs Summary October 2023, Rev. July 2026 65
Curb Ramp Details Mountain View refers to
Caltrans Standards
Standard Details A-22 Side Street/Driveway
Pedestrian and Vehicle Triangle of Safety
Defines vehicular and
pedestrian triangle of safety for
high volume, low volume,
residential, and commercial
driveways
City Code
Item Notes
Section 36.22.50 Required Number of Parking
Spaces, Bicycle Parking
Section 36.32.85 Bicycle parking facilities
Provision of bike parking is a
function of vehicle parking
Details bicycle parking design
standards

Council Transportation CommitteeAugust 31, 2026

Council Transportation Committee
August 31, 2026