Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Technical Memorandum
REVISED DRAFT PRIORITIZATION FRAMEWORK
The City of Palo Alto (City) is updating the 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP Update). This BPTP Update will serve as a comprehensive action plan for the City to provide improved bicycle and pedestrian facilities for its residents, employees, and visitors. This memorandum describes the prioritization framework proposed to be used as part of the BPTP Update. The prioritization criteria are intended to align with the BPTP Update objectives, which include the following:
◼ Safe and Inclusive: Prioritizing safety for all transportation network users regardless of age and ability, ensuring equitable access to pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, and reducing fatal and severe injury crashes.
◼ Connected and Accessible: Providing a convenient and interconnected network of sidewalks, bike lanes, and trails that offer efficient travel options and easy access to transit and important destinations; encouraging a shift away from driving that reduces air pollution.
◼ Comfortable and Enjoyable: Enhancing the comfort and enjoyment of walking and cycling through amenities such as shade, greenery, and well-designed streetscapes. ◼ Community-Led and Cooperative: Fostering community engagement and participation in promoting active transportation through education, programming, and infrastructure investments to cultivate learning for all network users of all ages. ◼ Integrated and Collaborative: Collaborating with neighboring cities to create a seamless, integrated, and efficient regional network of pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
P 510.839.1742
May 13, 2025 Project# 28476
To: Ozzy Arce, Senior Transportation Planner
City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation
From: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
CC: Sylvia Star-Lack, Transportation Planning Manager
RE: Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update
May 13, 2025 Page 2
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
This memo includes the following topics:
◼ Initial Prioritization is the initial quantitative prioritization applied to assess the level of alignment with BPTP Update objectives of safety and connectivity. ◼ Supplemental Evaluations describes the additional qualitative assessments that will be applied to further differentiate projects that score high under the proposed prioritization methodology to develop an implementation order using the following three feasibility-oriented factors of project readiness, project cost and funding opportunities, and project support.
◼ Next Steps presents subsequent actions for the City and consultant team.
Table 1: Proposed Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria Prioritization Factor Criteria
Initial Evaluation
Safety
High-Injury Corridors
Safe Route to School
Connectivity
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Access to Transit
Supplemental Evaluation*
Project Cost & Funding
High, Medium, Low Project Readiness
Project Support
*Only the projects that scored 70 or more points in the Initial Evaluation advance to the Supplemental Evaluation.
Initial Prioritization
Proposed Factors and Evaluation Criteria
The proposed evaluation process is informed by the framework from NCHRP Report 803:
ActiveTrans Priority Tool1 (APT), the result of a national research effort. The APT methodology was based on an extensive review of existing prioritization processes being used by agencies across the country at the state, regional, and local level. It uses a standard set of terms and definitions to describe the different steps in the process. The following definitions apply within the APT:
1 Lagerwey, Peter A., et al. Pedestrian and Bicycle Transportation Along Existing Roads—ActiveTrans Priority Tool Guidebook. NCHRP Report 803. Project No. 07-17. 2015. Available online at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_803.pdf May 13, 2025 Page 3
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
• Factors are the categories used to express community or agency values considered in the prioritization process and contain groups of variables with similar characteristics. The APT has selected nine primary factors commonly used by agencies across the country that are particularly suited for prioritization of active transportation needs. • Variables (or evaluation criteria) are characteristics of roadways, households, neighborhood areas, and other features that can be measured, organized under each factor. The terms variables and evaluation criteria may be used interchangeably. • Weights are the numbers used to indicate the relative importance of different factors based on community or agency values. In order to increase transparency and legibility in the weighting step, weights are applied to factors, not to variables (which are often much more technical in nature).
The proposed prioritization factors and criteria is informed by NCHRP Report 803 and by the BPTP Update’s goals as referenced above.
Table 2: Proposed Initial Prioritization Factors and Evaluation Criteria Factor Criteria Notes Ped Bicycle
Safety
High-Injury
Corridors
This criterion will prioritize locations based on
analysis and network screening of bicycle- and
pedestrian-related collisions. This criterion aligns
with the Safe and Inclusive, and Comfortable and
Enjoyable objectives.
X X
Safe Routes
to School
This criterion will prioritize projects on the Walk and Roll Suggested Route Maps available on the City of
Palo Alto Safe Routes to School website. This
criterion aligns with the Safe and Inclusive, and
Connected and Accessible objectives.
X X
Connectivity
Bicycle Level
of Traffic
Stress
This criterion will prioritize locations based on the
presence of high-stress bicycle facilities. The level of traffic stress for this criterion analysis was already
conducted for this project. This criterion aligns with
the Safe and Inclusive, and Comfortable and
Enjoyable objectives.
X
Access to
Transit
This criterion will prioritize locations near major
transit stops. This criterion aligns with the
Connected and Accessible, and Integrated and
Collaborative objectives.
X
May 13, 2025 Page 4
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Framework for Applying the Criteria
For the application of the factors and criteria discussed above, Kittelson will use the process from NCHRP Report 803. This report is accompanied by a pre-programmed APT spreadsheet tool2 that can be tailored to project, segment, or geographic area inputs. The spreadsheet tool may be used for the entire process, or it can be supplemented with calculations from GIS or performed manually. Given the spatial nature of pedestrian and bicycle planning, it is common to perform GIS calculations to create input variables—as is proposed for the factors identified in this section. The tool’s 10-step process is outlined and briefly annotated in italics below.
1. Define purpose. An agency first determines the purpose of the prioritization process. This prioritization process will prioritize locations at the segment level. The scored segments will then be linked to projects. This aligns with the scale at which data is available and allows for aggregation of segment-specific factors.
2. Select factors. An agency next selects the factors to be used in prioritization that align with their goals for the prioritization process. The proposed factors for the BPTP Update are identified in the preceding section.
3. Establish factor weights. Each factor is weighted on a scale of 1 to 10 to indicate its relative importance to other factors. The proposed weights are identified in the following section.
4. Select variables (criteria) for each factor. For each selected factor, agencies may select one or more variables to measure the factor. Kittelson has proposed two variables or indicators for each factor. See more details in the subsequent section.
5. Assess data availability. For all proposed factors and criteria, the project team has access to the necessary data.
6. Assess technical resources. Agencies assess their existing technical resources and capabilities to determine if existing resources are sufficient. The project team will use a combination of GIS software and the APT spreadsheet tool to perform calculations.
7. Set up prioritization tool. Having established the purpose, factors, variables, and required data, the next step is to set up a tool to implement the prioritization method. The project team will use the APT spreadsheet tool.
8. Input data.
9. Scale variables. Scaling involves selecting a common numeric scale and adjusting raw values to fit the common scale. Scaling should not be confused with weighting. Scaling is a more objective, technical function, while weighting is based on community/agency values. Scalin g is necessary so that variables have a comparable impact on the prioritization score in the absence of weighting. Scaling methods should be chosen carefully depending on the distribution and range of the data points. For example, this would be applied when applying
2 Available at: https://www.pedbikeinfo.org/topics/tools_apt.cfm May 13, 2025 Page 5
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
a low -medium-high scale to a numeric variable such as household income, in order to categorize census tracts in a city as having low, medium, or high household income. This step is not necessary for BPTP Update project prioritization as the variables are on a binary scale.
10. Calculate priority scores. Finally, agencies sum the weighted values for each factor to derive a total score for each location. The segments can then be ranked based on the prioritization score. In some cases, agencies may wish to revisit factors, variables, and/or weighting, and make adjustments to their prioritization based on additional input or evolving prioritization purposes. The spreadsheet used for this project allows for adjustment of factor weights and comparison of results.
Initial Prioritization Analysis Methodology
This section discusses the proposed methodology for each of the proposed initial prioritization criterion.
Table 3: Safety Criterion
High Injury Network
Description
This measure uses the results of the pedestrian and bicycle collision and high injury network screening analysis. The screening process used a severity- weighted collision score on the roadway network to identify locations associated with risk for people walking or biking.
Data Needs The spatial files representing the high-injury network analysis.
Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the presence on the high injury network. Locations on the high injury network will be assigned a value of 1. Locations not on the high injury network will be assigned a value of 0.
Scoring
Recommended method: Scoring will be binary:
1 = On the Pedestrian or Bicycle High Injury Network
0 = Not on the Pedestrian or Bicycle High Injury Network Limitations
Pedestrian and bicycle collision data used for this analysis will only include collisions that were reported to the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System database. Collisions that do not result in injury, death, or over a sufficient amount of property or vehicle damage are not required to be reported in California and would not necessarily be recorded in the data. As a result, not all pedestrian and bicycle collisions are represented in this data and the quality of collision data is limited by the amount of detail provided by the person completing the collision report form.
May 13, 2025 Page 6
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Pedestrian and bicycle count data are not consistently and completely available; therefore, pedestrian or bicycle exposure could not be accounted for in developing this criterion.
Finally, because numbers of pedestrian‐ and bicycle‐involved collisions are typically low relative to all collisions and may represent random and/or behavioral/human factor causes where the specific location is not inherently a factor in the collision, this criterion alone represents only a partial assessment of bicycle and pedestrian safety.
Safe Routes to School
Description This measure uses the Walk and Roll Suggested Route Maps.
Data Needs The spatial files representing the recommended walk and roll routes to school.
Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the presence on the network of Walk and Roll Suggested Route Maps. Locations on the suggested walk and roll routes to school will be assigned a value of 1. Locations not on the suggested walk and roll routes to school will be assigned a value of 0.
Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = On the Suggested Walk and Roll Routes to School
0 = Not on the Suggested Walk and Roll Routes to School Limitations
The suggested walk and roll routes to school used for this analysis include streets identified and mapped over five years ago. As a result, this does not reflect changes that have occurred (e.g., streetscape modifications that have been implemented, development that has occurred) since the map was created.
Additionally, this map represents a subset of streets in the City and not all streets that students use to walk and roll to school on are represented.
Table 4: Connectivity Criterion
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Description
This measure incorporates the results of previously-conducted bicycle level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis conducted for this project to assess low-stress bike network connectivity. Bicycle level of traffic stress was developed at the Mineta Transportation Institute in 2012 to estimate the level of stress a bicyclist may feel while riding along a particular roadway. In the method adopts a “worst case scenario” approach whereby the roadway characteristic with the highest stress level determines the score for the segment. Scores range from 1 (a comfortable facility for users of all ages and abilities) to 4 (a facility that only strong and fearless cyclists would feel comfortable using).
May 13, 2025 Page 7
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Data Needs The spatial files representing the output of the bicycle level of traffic stress analysis conducted for this project.
Proposed
Methodology
Kittelson will assign the computed LTS score to each roadway segment. If a prioritization segment is connected to multiple LTS analysis segments, it will be assigned the higher (i.e., more stressful) LTS score.
Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = High-stress biking facilities (LTS score of 3 or 4) 0 = low-stress biking facilities (LTS score of 1 or 2)
Limitations
The LTS analysis was conducted using roadway data provided by the City and supplemented with Open Street Map (OSM) data. In general, OSM data varies in quality and completeness by area. This variation exists because the data are open source and supplied by volunteers. OSM data also typically lacks extensive metadata, making it challenging to assess when the data was last updated.
Access to Transit
Description This measure prioritizes locations within walking distance (0.25-mile network distance, or 10-minute walk) of transit stops.
Data Needs The spatial location of transit stops.
Proposed
Methodology
The methodology will use the network distance (rather than straight-line distance) from the centroid of each roadway segment to the nearest among transit stops.
The road segments will be evaluated for whether they are within 0.25-mile or a ten-minute walking distance to the nearest stop.
Scoring
Scoring will be binary:
1 = Within a ten-minute walk (0.25-mile) of a transit stop 0 = Greater than a ten-minute walk (0.25-mile) of a transit stop Limitations
This methodology prioritizes proximity to transit stops within Palo Alto. It is possible that ridership demand for walking connections exist at other locations.
Weightings
This section revisits the framework with a few considered weightings, including the factor weighting ultimately selected by the City. The City has provided its feedback and chosen the weightings presented in the far-right column in
May 13, 2025 Page 8
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
Table 5.
Table 5: Possible Factor Weighting for Prioritization1
Factor Criteria
Equal
Weights
Method
Safety
Focus
Connectivi
ty Focus
Suggested
Weights
(Safety
Focus)
Final
Weights
Safety
High-Injury
Network
50% 66% 34% 70% 70%
Safe Routes
to School
Connectivity
Bicycle Level
of Traffic
Stress 50% 34% 66% 30% 30%
Access to
Transit
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1 The overall score is the sum of weighted scores, which range from 0 to 1
Supplemental Evaluation
The initial prioritization is used to develop scores for each segment location in Palo Alto.
Projects are then assigned numerical scores based on their respective locations on the scored segments. Through this quantitative approach, the City can consistently compare the level to which different projects align with the BPTP Update goals of Safety and Connectivity and do so in a repeatable way.
After the initial prioritization, the Project team will further assess the top ranked bikeways, crossings, intersections, studies, and special projects (those scoring higher than 70 points) through a supplemental evaluation that is more qualitative in nature and intended to further differentiate projects with similar scores to create an implementation order. Each of the higher scoring projects will be evaluated against the same subset of criteria and scored qualitatively May 13, 2025 Page 9
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
using a scale of high, medium, and low, for its performance. This supplemental evaluation provides a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of the factors of Project Readiness, Project Cost and Funding Opportunities, and Project Support to allow for more informed decisions about implementation. The draft supplemental evaluation metrics and scoring rubric are outlined in Table 6.
Table 6: Draft Supplemental Evaluation Metrics and Scoring Rubric Factor Evaluation
Metrics
Scoring Scale
Low Medium High
Project
Readiness
What stage of
development is
the project in?
The project is not on
the 5-year repaving
plan, Green Storm
Infrastructure (GSI)
priority street, or
Capital
Improvement
Program (CIP) list.
The project requires
reconstruction or
right-of-way
acquisition.
The project may be
on the 5-year
repaving plan, GSI
priority street, or
the CIP list.
The project may
require
reconstruction or
lane reconfiguration
or right-of-way
acquisition.
The project is on the
5-year repaving
plan, GSI priority
street, or the CIP
list. Concept or
construction plans
have been
developed. The
project does not
require right-of-way
acquisition but may
require lane
reconfiguration or
reconstruction.
Project Cost
and Funding
Opportunities
What is the
likelihood of
receiving funds
for the
project?
The project is not on
the repaving plan or
the CIP list.
The project is far
from housing
opportunity sites.
The project may not
be competitive for
various funding
sources.
The project may be
the repaving plan or
the CIP list.
The project may be
close to housing
opportunity sites.
The project may be
competitive for
multiple funding
sources.
The project is on the
repaving plan or the
CIP list.
The project is close
to housing
opportunity sites.
The project is
expected to be
competitive for
multiple funding
sources.
Project
Support
What level of
support does
the project
have?
Support for the
project has not been
expressed.
Some support for
the project has been
expressed.
Strong support for
the project has been
expressed.
Next Steps
Kittelson will apply the initial prioritization methodology to develop a preliminary ranking of the project list. After the projects are ranked, Kittelson will collaborate with City staff to review the May 13, 2025 Page 10
Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan Update Revised Draft Prioritization Framework Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
initial evaluation list and identify additional projects that may warrant further review as part of the supplemental evaluation. After the project list for supplemental evaluation has been finalized, Kittelson will conduct the supplemental evaluation and develop a near-term action plan that identifies the top priority projects for implementation.