Att 2 - Local Roadway Safety Plan — San Mateo City Council, May 20, 2024

1 CITY OF SAN MATEO

LOCAL ROADWAY

SAFETY PLAN
May 2024

2 3
PREPARED FOR:

City of San Mateo
330 West 20th Avenue
San Mateo, CA 94403
PREPARED BY:

Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
155 Grand Avenue, Suite 505
Oakland, CA 94612
510.839.1742

4 Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION 11

1.1 What is an LRSP? 12

1.2 Plan Overview 15
2 VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS 17

2.1 Vision 17

2.2 Mission Statement 17

2.3 Overarching Goals 17
3 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 19

3.1 Project Development Team (PDT) 20

3.2 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission (SIC) 21 4 EXISTING SAFETY CONDITIONS 23

4.1 Existing Safety Practice and Culture 23

4.2 Engagement and Outreach 26

4.3 Citywide Safety Performance Analysis 36
5 EMPHASIS AREAS 55
6 COUNTERMEASURES AND STRATEGIES 5 7

6.1 Countermeasures vs. Strategies 5 7

6.2 Available Countermeasures 5 7

6.3 Available Strategies 6 3
7 RECOMMENDATIONS 66

7.1 Systemic vs. Site-Specific Treatments 66

7.2 Systemic Treatments 6 7

7.3 Site Specific Treatments 7 4
Section 7.4 Prioritization of Improvements 7 4
8 ACTION ITEMS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES 7 8

8.1 Plan Updates and Evaluation 80
9 FUNDING 83

9.1 Federal Programs 83

9.2 State Programs 85
10 CEQA EXEMPTION ELIGIBILITY MEMORANDUM 8 9
5 List of Figures
Figure 1: FHWA’s Safe System Elements 14
Figure 2: FHWA LRSP Planning Process 19
Figure 3: MTC Equity Priority Communities and CalEPA Disadvantaged Communities with Collision Overlay 30
Figure 4: SS4A Underserved Communities with Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Overlay 31 Figure 5: Screenshot of San Mateo LRSP Story Map 33
Figure 6: Pop-up Community Engagement 34
Figure 7: Comments Webmap from Community Engagement Activities 3 5 Figure 8: Reported Collisions by Severity (2017-2021) 3 7 Figure 9: Collision Tree – San Mateo Collisions by Location, Severity, Mode (2017-2021) 3 9 Figure 10: Annual Reported Collisions for Fatal and Severe Injury Collisions (2017-2021) 40 Figure 11: Collision Type of Reported Collisions by Collision Severity (2017-2021) 4 1 Figure 12: Share of Fatal or Severe Injury Collisions by Collision Type and Collision Severity (2017-2021) 42
Figure 13: Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Severity (2017-2021) 42 Figure 14: Bicyclist-Involved Collisions by Severity (2017-2021) 43 Figure 15: Broadside Collisions by Severity (2017-2021) 43 Figure 16: PCF by Collision Severity (2017-2021) 45
Figure 17: Share of Fatal or Severe Injury Collisions by PCF and Collision Severity (2017-2021) 45 Figure 18: Priority Intersections – City of San Mateo 4 9 Figure 19: Priority Roadway Segments – City of San Mateo 51 Figure 20: Citywide Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Shares by Challenge Area Compared to Statewide Statistics 5 3
Figure 21: Near-Term Leading Pedestrian Interval Opportunities 68 Figure 22: Signal Visibility Improvement Opportunities 7 1 Figure 23: Speed Management Opportunities 7 2
Figure 24: Centerline Hardening Example in Oakland, California 7 3 6 List of Tables
Table 1: Race and Origin (Information directly from ACS) 27 Table 2: Language Spoken at Home 27
Table 3: Proportion of Fatal or Severe Injury Collisions in Disadvantaged Areas 29 Table 4: Collision Severity of Reported Collisions by Road User Involved (2017-2021) 37 Table 5: Collision Weights by Severity and Location Type 46 Table 6: Priority Intersections – City of San Mateo 48
Table 7: Priority Roadway Segments – City of San Mateo 50 Table 8: Summary of Available Countermeasures Toolbox for the City 58 Table 9: Site-Specific Projects (and Countermeasures) 75

7 Appendices
Appendix A: SIC Meeting Presentation
Appendix B: Document Review Memorandum
Appendix C: Community Engagement Summary Memorandum
Appendix D: Countermeasure Toolbox Memorandum
Appendix E: Priority Projects with Proposed Countermeasures

8 Glossary
Aggressive Driving Challenge Area includes behaviors such as speeding, tailgating, running traffic signals or signs, and other reckless maneuvers (SHSP page 43).

Aging Drivers Challenge Area includes instances where the driver of a motor vehicle is 65 years or older (SHSP page 45).

Bicyclists Challenge Area includes instances where a motor vehicle is involved in a collision with a bicyclist (SHSP page 47).

Challenge Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions identified by the California Department of Transportation’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). These areas, when addressed, have the most potential to improve roadway safety.

Commercial Vehicles Challenge Area includes instances where the collision involves a truck, truck tractor, school bus or other bus (SHSP page 49).

Countermeasures are engineering infrastructure improvements that can be implemented to reduce the risk of collisions.

Distracted Driving Challenge Area includes instances where the driver of a motor vehicle was not paying attention or using an electronic device (SHSP page 51).

Emphasis Areas represent types of roadway users, locations, or collisions with safety issues identified based on local trends that merit special focus in City of San Mateo’s approach to reducing fatal and severe injury collisions.

Impaired Driving Challenge Area describes operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of a substance, including alcohol, marijuana, illicit drugs, or some prescription medications.

Intersections Challenge Area includes collisions identified by the responding officer as occurring at an intersection or involving a train or rail vehicle (SHSP page 62).

Lane Departures Challenge Area includes head-on, hit object, and overturned collisions (SHSP page 63).

Local Roadway Safety Plans, or LRSPs, are documents that provide local-level assessments of roadway safety and identify locations and strategies to improve safety on local roadways. 9 Crash Severity KABCO, as defined by the guidelines established by the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC, Fifth Edition), is defined as a functional measure of the injury severity for any person involved in the crash.
• Fatal Collision [K] is death because of an injury sustained in a collision or an injury resulting in death within 30 days of the collision.
• Severe Injury [A] is an injury other than a fatal injury which results in broken bones, dislocated or distorted limbs, severe lacerations, or unconsciousness at or when taken from the collision scene.

It does not include minor laceration.
• Other Visible Injury [B] includes bruises (discolored or swollen); places where the body has received a blow (black eyes and bloody noses); and abrasions (areas of the skin where the surface is roughened or blotchy by scratching or rubbing which includes skinned shins, knuckles, knees, and elbows).
• Complaint of Pain [C] classification could contain authentic internal or other non-visible injuries and fraudulent claims of injury. This includes: 1. Persons who seem dazed, confused, or incoherent (unless such behavior can be attributed to intoxication, extreme age, illness, or mental infirmities).

2. Persons who are limping but do not have visible injuries; 3. Any person who is known to have been unconscious because of the collision, although it appears he/she has recovered; 4. People who say they want to be listed as injured do not appear to be so. • Property Damage Only [O] Collision is a noninjury motor vehicle traffic collision which results in property damage.

Motorcyclists Challenge Area includes instances where a motorcycle or moped is involved in a collision (SHSP page 65).

Occupant Protection Challenge Area includes collisions involving misuse, non-use, or lack of vehicle safety equipment including lap belts, shoulder harnesses, passive restraints, or child restraints (SHSP page 67).

Pedestrians Challenge Area includes instances where a motor vehicle is involved in a collision with a pedestrian (SHSP page 69).

Primary Collision Factors (PCFs) convey the violation or underlying causal factor for a collision.

Although there are often multiple causal factors, a reporting officer at the scene of a collision indicates a single relevant PCF related to a California Vehicle Code violation.

The Safe System Approach is a layered method for roadway safety promoted by the FHWA. This approach uses redundancies to anticipate mistakes and minimize injury. For more, visit https:/ /safety. fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/docs/FHWA_SafeSystem_Brochure_V9_508_200717.pdf.

Safety Partners are agencies, government bodies, businesses, and community groups that City of San Mateo can work with to plan, promote, and implement safety projects.

Strategies are non-engineering tools that can help address road user behavior, improve emergency services, and build a culture of safety.

Work Zones Challenge Area includes instances where the collision occurs in a work zone for construction, maintenance and/or roadway repairs (SHSP page 71).

Young Drivers Challenge Area includes instances where one or more of the drivers of the motor vehicles are between 15 and 20 years old (SHSP page 73). 10 SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION
11 1 INTRODUCTION
The City of San Mateo is located about 20 miles south of San Francisco and borders Burlingame to the north, Hillsborough to the west, San Francisco Bay and Foster City to the east, and Belmont to the south. The City’s population, at the 2022 Census, was 100,9841. The City of San Mateo’s roadways see an average of one fatality and 16 severe injuries annually in the past five years. Despite an overall reduction in total collisions during the pandemic, the frequency of fatal and severe injury collisions has increased. Additionally, severe injuries involving people walking, biking, and rolling have tripled in the last five years.2 The City has a total of 418 lane miles of roadways, including freeways and state routes, according to Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s standards3.

The City of San Mateo (City) is committed to eliminating fatal and severe injury collisions on its roadways. To advance this mission, the City developed a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), which establishes a framework to help San Mateo residents and visitors travel safely through the city to their destinations.

The City of San Mateo’s Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) is a living document designed to be updated to respond to evolving community needs. The City of San Mateo is diverse in terms of land use context, comprising of urban and suburban neighborhoods, as well as a multilingual population.

Additionally, the City’s growing economy and the presence of several major state-owned highways require the City to balance both the local and regional travel needs. Given these factors, this LRSP will be revisited and updated approximately every five years, to account for changes in travel patterns and road user behavior. Additionally, the Action Items and Performance Measures identified in the LRSP should be tracked annually to assess progress towards achieving the LRSP’s Vision, Mission, and Goals.
1 https:/ /www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanmateocitycalifornia/PST045222 2 UC Berkeley. Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS). Retrieved from https:/ /tims.berkeley. edu/tools/safetypm/
3 https:/ /www.cityofsanmateo.org/2133/Frequently-Asked-Questions#:~:text=Q%3A%20How%20 many%20miles%20of,A%3A%20210.
12 1.1 What is an LRSP?
The purpose of an LRSP is to assess the safety
of a city’s roadways, identify areas that need
improvement, and recommend engineering
countermeasures and strategies to address
those identified issues. The LRSP provides
a range of strategies to address safety
concerns, from engineering countermeasures
to educational campaigns and emerging
technology related strategies. The safety
plan also provides a timeline and goals for
implementation and evaluation. The approach
is multi-disciplinary, meaning that stakeholders
from different agencies and organizations
will need to work together to implement the
recommended countermeasures, strategies,
and overall vision for the plan. This includes
law enforcement, fire department, neighboring
jurisdictions, public health services, emergency
response providers, community organizations,
and the broader community.

LRSPs are recognized as a proven safety
countermeasure by the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). They prioritize
investments and assist with the implementation
of engineering strategies. Two Federal funding
programs, the Highway Safety Improvement
Program (HSIP) and Safe Streets and Roads
for All (SS4A), provide funding for the
implementation of countermeasures that
address road safety challenges on public
roads. In California, to pursue HSIP grant funds
through Caltrans’ grant program, a local agency
must have an LRSP or an equivalent planning
document. To pursue federal SS4A funding, a
local agency must have a safety action plan
that is equivalent to an LRSP, provided certain
implementation frameworks are included that
associate actions with timing, funding, and
leads. In addition to these federal funding
programs, the Active Transportation Program
(ATP), managed by California Transportation
Commission (CTC) consolidates federal and
state transportation programs to encourage
increased use of active transportation modes
and ensure that disadvantaged communities
fully share in the benefits of the program.

Access to these funds can help the City to
fund engineering- and non-engineering-related
solutions that can make its roads safer for
everyone.

1.1.1 ALIGNING WITH THE

CALIFORNIA STRATEGIC

HIGHWAY SAFETY PLAN
LRSPs across the state complement the 2020-
2024 California Strategic Highway Safety Plan
(SHSP), providing intentional and continual
assessment and improvements to enhance
roadway safety. The SHSP sets out California’s
vision, goals, and objectives for reducing fatal
and severe injury collisions on public roadways
(local roadways and state highways).4 The
California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) leads ongoing efforts to analyze
collision data and collaborate with traffic safety
partners across the entire state to identify
these focus areas and continually monitor and
identify actions to address these focus areas.

The SHSP identifies key safety needs and guides
investment decisions toward strategies and
countermeasures with the most potential to save
lives and prevent injuries.

The SHSP identified California’s 16 Challenge
Areas, or areas that should be the focus for
roadway safety in California. As discussed in
greater detail in the Statewide Comparison
discussion in Section 4: Existing Safety
Conditions, the three items bolded on this list
were identified as high priority challenge areas
for San Mateo, meaning improvements in these
areas have the greatest opportunity to reduce
death and severe injury.
4 Caltrans. Strategic Highway Safety Plan (SHSP). Retrieved from https:/ /dot.ca.gov/programs/safety- programs/shsp
13 1.1.2 INCORPORATING THE

SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH
In January 2022, the United States Department
of Transportation (USDOT) released its National
Roadway Safety Strategy that adopted the Safe
System Approach as its core strategy5.

There are five elements (or layers) to a Safe
System (see Figure 1):
• Safe Roadway Users – All roadway users,
including bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit
riders, should be able to travel safely.
• Safe Vehicles – Vehicles should be designed
and regulated to reduce the frequency and
severity of collisions.
• Safe Speeds – The faster a vehicle is
traveling, the greater its risk to human life.

Safe speeds are speeds that reduce impact
forces, improve stopping time, and improve
visibility.
• Safe Roadways – Roadway design can
accommodate human mistakes and improve
injury tolerances through strategies, such
as physically separating those traveling at
different speeds or using signage to alert
drivers to hazards.
• Post-Collision Care – If a collision does
occur, first responders must assess,
stabilize, and transport those who were
injured. Forensic investigation or incident
management teams are also important parts
of post-collision care.1.1.2.1 San Mateo and the
Safe Systems Approach

1.1.1.1.1 SHSP CHALLENGE AREAS
• Pedestrians
• Bicyclists
• Aging Drivers
• Commercial Vehicles
• Distracted Driving
• Driver Licensing
• Emergency Response
• Emerging Technologies
• Impaired Driving
• Intersections
• Lane Departures
• Motorcyclists
• Occupant Protection
• Speed Management / Aggressive
Driving
• Work Zones
• Young Drivers
Historically, the SHSP has used the five
E’s (Education, Enforcement, Engineering,
Emergency Response, and Emerging
Technologies) to organize strategies. In 2021,
state transportation officials shifted focus and
adopted guiding principles that integrate social
equity, utilize the Safe System Approach, and
encourage the use of proven countermeasures
and emerging technologies.
5 National Roadway Safety Strategy, United
States Department of Transportation, January
2022 https:/ /www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.
gov/files/2022-02/USDOT-National-Roadway-
Safety-Strategy.pdf
14 Figure 1: FHWA’s Safe
System Elements
Source: FHWA, 2022
https:/ /safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths/zero_deaths_vision.cfm

1.1.2.1 SAN MATEO AND THE SAFE SYSTEMS APPROACH
This LRSP uses the Safe System Approach to identify ways that San Mateo and its safety partners can create layers to help protect all roadway users – even when they make mistakes. The City is the driving force behind implementing engineering-related safety measures such as speed management or roadway design. Commitment from City staff and road safety partners to prioritize safety in their efforts and to implement both proven and innovative ideas are key to advancing road safety and for the LRSP to be impactful. The Safe System Approach considers all road users and identifies potential conflicts, as well as locations where proactive safety treatments can be implemented. Collaboration among all stakeholders, including road users, transportation system managers, law enforcement, emergency responders, and vehicle manufacturers, is crucial for achieving its goal of eliminating fatal and severe injuries.

To build redundancy in the local transportation system, San Mateo and its teaming partners can:
• Establish and continue to revisit vision, goals, and partnerships to help implement the LRSP. • Identify systemic and location-specific engineering countermeasures and use them proactively and reactively.
• Provide education programs and overlap stakeholder efforts to communicate key roadway safety information to residents, business owners, and schools and create a culture of roadway safety. • Review and revisit policies, guidelines, and standards to prioritize roadway safety in the City. • Identify potential funding sources for project implementation, including quick-build projects.

This LRSP and its recommendations can help create a Safe System and culture of roadway safety in the City of San Mateo. However, state and federal policies, such as legislation for automated speed enforcement and continued regulation of vehicle safety standards will be essential to complete the Safe System categories that the City and local agencies cannot directly affect. 15 1.2 Plan Overview
This LRSP uses historical collision data and an understanding of local context to assess existing roadway safety conditions in San Mateo, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommended actions and an implementation plan. Ultimately, this LRSP creates a data-driven and community- informed decision-making framework to reduce the number of fatal and severe injury collisions on local roadways.

The plan is organized into five main sections:

1. Vision, Mission, and Goals – Establishes a larger vision for transportation safety in San Mateo and sets goals for how to get there.

4. Emphasis Areas, Countermeasures, and Strategies – Details the emphasis areas and lists proven countermeasures and strategies that can improve roadway safety.

5. Recommendations, Actions, and Implementation – Prioritizes short- and long-term projects and sets a strategy for assessing progress toward established goals.

2. Plan Development Process
– Details the collaborative
data-driven and community-
informed planning process.

3. Existing Safety Conditions
– Provides an analysis of
collisions in San Mateo.

EMPHASIS
AREAS
Based on the
collision trends and
patterns, key safety
concerns were
identified for the
City to focus on.

COUNTERMEASURES

AND STRATEGIES
After identifying
emphasis areas, specific
engineering infrastructure
improvements and non-
engineering strategies
to address the safety
concerns were identified.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Proposed
countermeasures are
then assessed to confirm
feasibility given the City’s
street context and land
use.
16 SECTION 2

VISION, MISSION, AND
GOALS
17 2 VISION, MISSION, AND GOALS
The Vision, Mission, and Goals of the LRSP were created collaboratively by representatives from the City and the Project Development Team (PDT) and covers both short- and long-term outcomes. The City of San Mateo is committed to implementing the FHWA's Safe System Approach in its future efforts related to road safety, to achieve its goals. Although the City's road network is extensive and intricate, ongoing, and anticipated safety initiatives are designed to gradually reduce the risk of accidents on the City's roads.

2.1 Vision
Our vision is to cultivate a roadway network that prioritizes the safety of all users through proactive planning, redundant improvements, and a belief that fatalities and severe injuries are unacceptable.

We strive to create a roadway environment where every trip ends safely.

2.2 Mission Statement
The City of San Mateo will use a collaborative, data-driven, and community-informed approach to proactively identify and address collision risk factors to implement safety countermeasures, strategies, and programs that can ultimately eliminate preventable fatalities and severe injuries within the City.

The City of San Mateo is committed to using data and Safe System principles recommended by FHWA and the California SHSP to assess road safety to prevent collisions proactively and systemically across the entire roadway network. The City is committed to reaching its goal of eliminating all preventable traffic fatalities and severe injuries by 2050.

2.3 Overarching Goals
The following goals will guide collaborative planning efforts with the PDT and other safety related partners:
• Use a data-driven and community-informed approach to identify priority locations for safety improvements.
• Implement proactive approaches to improve roadway safety and identify cost-effective systemic countermeasures.
• Prioritize investments in countermeasures and strategies that reduce collisions in identified emphasis areas.
• Collaborate with agencies and safety partners towards implementation. • Educate and promote safe travel practices in the City of San Mateo. • Periodically monitor and evaluate collision reduction goals with respect to emphasis areas and overall safety performance of the City’s transportation network. 18 SECTION 3

PLAN DEVELOPMENT

PROCESS
19 3 PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
This LRSP was developed according to the guidelines and requirements set forth by Caltrans and followed the FHWA's Developing Safety Plans manual and the Safe System Approach. The FHWA's LRSP development process is captured in Figure 2, and consists of four main steps:

The first step of the plan involved bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, the Project Development Team (PDT), to provide input on roadway safety issues and identify needs.

Subsequently, the City analyzed available roadway and collision data to understand collision patterns, risk factors, and areas for improving safety. However, since data can be incomplete or inaccurate, the LRSP used a community-informed approach that combined data analysis with input from the community and the PDT to provide a more comprehensive understanding of transportation safety issues. Based on this analysis, a selection of proven countermeasures was identified to form a countermeasure toolbox and guide the implementation plan for the LRSP.

Figure 2: FHWA LRSP Planning Process
Source: FHWA, 2022, https:/ /safety.fhwa.dot.gov/LRSPDIY/downloads/LRSP_FinalBuild_ Infographic_508.pdf
1 ESTABLISHING STAKEHOLDERS
3 CHOOSING PROVEN SOLUTIONS
2 USING SAFETY DATA
(analyzing safety data and identifying collision
types and high-collision risk locations)
4 IMPLEMENTING SOLUTIONS
20 The following two stakeholder groups have been
valued partners that represent a unique set
of experiences, needs, and views on roadway
safety in the City of San Mateo.

3.1 Project Development
Team (PDT)
The PDT was developed to include
representatives from a broad cross section
of community, business, educational, and
government interests. Each person represents
a unique set of experiences and perspectives
on the transportation system in San Mateo
that helped shape the LRSP. The following
departments and organizations were
represented in the PDT:
• San Mateo Consolidated Fire Department
• San Mateo County Office of Education
• San Mateo County Health
• City of San Mateo Senior Citizens
Commission
• San Mateo Police Department
• City of San Mateo Age-Friendly
Implementation Committee
• Center for Independence of Individuals with
Disabilities, serving San Mateo County

3.1.1 MEETING DATES AND
TOPICS
The PDT met twice over the course of the LRSP’s
development, discussing topics as summarized
below:

3.1.1.1 MEETING 1|JUNE 26, 2023
• Define LRSP purpose and scope.
• Present and gather feedback on preliminary
data analysis.
• Present network screening results.
• Discuss potential emphasis areas based on
data findings.

During the meeting, the PDT members
requested the project team to refer to the
High Injury Network (HIN) created by the Safe
Routes to School (SRTS) team for identifying
priority locations near San Mateo Schools,
as applicable. Furthermore, the project team
was advised to consider specific collision data
related to vehicle types, collision trends, and
develop maps detailing pedestrian and bicycle-
specific collisions in the LRSP. Lastly, the PDT
encouraged the project team to look at the
City’s older populations’ origins and destinations
to better understand and evaluate the sidewalk
network within these regions.

For development of the countermeasure toolbox
in the LRSP, the PDT members suggested
including the following measures currently being
installed near schools:
• Curb extensions
• Mini traffic circle
• High visibility crosswalks
• Rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFBs)

3.1.1.2 MEETING 2|JANUARY 17, 2024
• Discuss community engagement activity and
reach.
• Discuss actions and performance measures.
• Review Draft LRSP recommendations.
• Discuss implementation and responsibilities.

One of the PDT members noted that the
crosswalk at the intersection of 3rd Avenue/
El Camino Real is slippery. The PDT members
suggested tracking drivers running a red light
and recommending installing stop signs or
plaques indicating intersections are not all-way
stop controlled, specifically at two-way stop-
controlled intersections.

One of the PDT members noted that the
Pedestrian Hybrid Beacons (PHB’s) are helpful
for individuals with disabilities as they are
mounted overhead rather than on the side of
the roadway. They also noted that consideration
is needed at high-traffic locations to make
sure that the pedestrians in wheelchairs are
visible and are in the driver’s line of sight. This
PDT member also noted the consideration
of pedestrian and bicycle improvements on
Pacific Boulevard from Hillsdale Boulevard
to south City limits and at the 25th Avenue/
Flores Street intersection. These two locations
were not part of the Tier 1 locations identified
in this LRSP (noted in Section 4.3.2 Safety
Performance Network Screening). As a result,
they were neither specifically evaluated nor any
countermeasures were recommended in this
study.
21 3.2 Sustainability and Infrastructure Commission
(SIC)
The SIC is an advisory body to the City Council, established to advise on policies and programs related to environmental sustainability, transportation and infrastructure. Each committee member represents a unique set of experiences, needs, and views of the transportation system and roadway safety in the City of San Mateo that helped shape the LRSP. Continuing to leverage City relationships with the SIC will help in identifying proactive safety strategies, countermeasures at high-risk locations, and administering or promoting programs that encourage safe transportation behaviors.

Similar to the PDT, the SIC met twice over the course of the LRSP’s development, discussing the same topics as summarized above. The SIC meetings took place on July 12, 2023 and March 13, 2024.

Copies of the SIC presentations are included in Appendix A. The SIC meetings were also open to the community.

During the first meeting, the SIC commented that the outreach should be transparent about the costs of implementing the safety improvements. The SIC members were also concerned about the intersection of Hillsdale Boulevard and Saratoga Drive which currently lacks a marked crosswalk on the eastbound leg of the intersection. Furthermore, the SIC suggested that the project team consider quick-build improvements6.

During the second meeting, the SIC commented that representation from individuals with disabilities committee would be helpful to understand their perspective on LRSP. One of the SIC members noted that there are three intersections on Santa Inez Avenue that are identified in the Tier 2 priority intersections list and that more explanation is needed in the LRSP on how Tier 1 and Tier 2 intersections are designated.
6 Quick-Build projects require minor construction activities but are built with durable, low to moderate cost materials, and last from one year to five years. These projects have moderate design flexibility to anticipate some adjustments that may occur. The purpose of a Quick-Build project is to immediately implement safety needs, allowing a community to benefit quickly from improvements made, and allowing the people of a community affected by the project to provide input and test the project improvements before they are permanently constructed. 22 SECTION 4

EXISTING SAFETY

CONDITIONS
23 4 EXISTING SAFETY CONDITIONS
The existing safety conditions are determined by reviewing relevant regional and local planning documents, community engagement, and collision analysis. Prior to engaging with the community, the project team developed a community outreach and engagement strategy that incorporated an equity analysis to identify underserved and disadvantaged communities. The engagement strategy was revised periodically as the LRSP progressed to ensure effective and meaningful engagement. The outcome from the existing conditions informed the emphasis areas and priority locations.

4.1 Existing Safety Practice and Culture
This section summarizes the regional and local planning documents pertaining to local roadway safety in San Mateo. Additionally, a summary is included to show the relevance of the document in the development of LRSP. The complete synthesis of roadway safety-related documents for the City of San Mateo and adjacent jurisdictions is included in Appendix B.

4.1.1 MTC REGIONAL SAFETY/
VISION ZERO POLICY (2020)
The MTC Regional Safety/Vision Zero Policy
establishes a strategy for working with partner
agencies to support equitable and data-driven
action towards eliminating traffic deaths and
serious vehicular injuries in the Bay Area by
2030.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Establishes regional vision for collaborative
and data-driven approach to eliminate traffic
deaths and serious injuries.
• Emphasizes equity in roadway safety
management planning and implementation.

4.1.2 C/CAG OF SAN MATEO

COUNTY SAFE ROUTES TO
SCHOOL REPORTS (2017)
In 2010, the C/CAG partnered with the San
Mateo County Office of Education (SMCOE) to
develop and implement the San Mateo County
Safe Routes to School program to the 25
school districts in San Mateo County, in which
elementary schools and middle schools in the
City of San Mateo are affiliated with San Mateo-
Foster City Elementary School District, and
high schools in the City are affiliated with San
Mateo Union High School District. The goal of
the program was to improve the health, well-
being, and safety of children by encouraging and
enabling them to walk and bike to school.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Opportunity for collaboration across
agencies to create safe routes for students
and integrate strategies across the LRSP and
Safe Routes to School program.
• Identifies a toolbox of potential
improvements for school-specific concerns
and risks.
• Surveys include community-perceived
barriers to walking and biking to school,
which could inform development of targeted
countermeasures for the LRSP.
24 4.1.3 SAN MATEO COUNTY

SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL

HIGH INJURY NETWORK
REPORT (2022)
The High Injury Network (HIN) report details
the process and outcomes of a youth-based
HIN analysis. The HIN identifies segments in a
roadway network where many pedestrian and
bicycle collisions have occurred, prioritizing
those with greater severity and those involving
youth or active-mode victims. HIN synthesizes
information about collision characteristics,
collision patterns, and user types to identify
roadway segments that account for the highest
number of specific types of collisions.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Opportunity to use HIN to identify segments
near schools where students traveling to
or from school may face increased safety
challenges.

4.1.4 TRANSIT-ORIENTED

DEVELOPMENT (TOD)

PEDESTRIAN ACCESS PLAN
(2022)
The San Mateo Transit-Oriented Development
Pedestrian Access Plan serves as a roadmap
to enhance pedestrian safety and create
comfortable walking routes to transit for all ages
and abilities. The scope of the Plan includes
the pedestrian path of travel within a half-mile
radius of the City’s three Caltrain stations and
along El Camino Real to account for frequent
SamTrans service along this corridor. Caltrain
and SamTrans have created new visions for
their service in San Mateo County and this plan
aims to complement these visions by making
it easy to access transit for existing and future
residents, employees, and visitors.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Identifies issues informed by the community
related to pedestrian access to transit.
• Provides examples and takeaways from
community engagement which informed the
LRSP’s community engagement activities
and safety recommendations.

4.1.5 SAN MATEO BICYCLE
MASTER PLAN (2020)
The 2020 San Mateo Bicycle Master Plan is the
culmination of over a year of robust community
engagement, data analysis, planning, and design
work. This Plan is an update of the City’s 2011
Bicycle Master Plan and serves as a blueprint for
expanding and improving the San Mateo bicycle
and mobility network in the coming years.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Establishes goal to reduce bicycle-related
crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
• Identifies bicyclist safety-related concerns
and hotspots.
• Proposes bicycle facilities and intersection
improvements that would enhance safety
and comfort of bicyclists.

4.1.6 SAN MATEO CITYWIDE

PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN
(2012)
The Citywide Pedestrian Master Plan is a
blueprint for the City of San Mateo to improve
the pedestrian environment, secure funds
dedicated to pedestrian safety and livable
communities, and increase the number of
walking trips. The Plan provides a broad vision,
strategies, and actions for improving the
pedestrian environment in the city. Safety is
identified as one of the six goals of the Plan.

Specifically, the City sought to reduce the
number of pedestrian related crashes, injuries
and fatalities by 50 percent from 2010 levels by
2020.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Establishes goal to reduce pedestrian-related
crashes, injuries, and fatalities.
• Identifies pedestrian safety-related concerns
and hotspots.
• Integrates existing regulations and
best practices into a set of pedestrian
enhancements that can enhance the safety,
convenience, and mobility for pedestrians
in the City which was coordinated with the
LRSP recommendations.
25 4.1.7 SAN MATEO 2030
GENERAL PLAN (2010)
The San Mateo’s General Plan is the community’s
planning guide that defines the long-term
vision and provides the framework for all
zoning and land use decisions within the
community. The General Plan seeks to establish
a balance between the need for new growth
and development and the preservation of the
City’s high quality of life. At the time of writing
this LRSP, the City is working on updating the
General Plan 2040, which will likely be adopted
in March 2024. More information on this General
Plan 2040 can be found at www.cityofsanmateo.
org/1537/General-Plan.

The Strive San Mateo General Plan 2040
includes ten big ideas that will guide the next
20 years of San Mateo. These Big Ideas are a
mix of enduring principles that have guided
decision-making in San Mateo for many years
and support the City’s history and fabric while
introducing new concepts and topics that reflect
present-day concerns and challenges. The ideas
are as follows:

1. Balance growth and change,

2. Enhance San Mateo’s neighborhood fabric
and quality of life,

3. Preserve nature as the foundation of the city,

4. Encourage all ways to travel around the city,

5. Support the local economy,

6. Address historic preservation holistically,

7. Initiate a comprehensive sea level rise
strategy,

8. Strengthen community outreach,

9. Focus on equity and health for all residents,
and,

10. Improve community safety planning and
awareness.

This General Plan 2040 recognizes the
importance of improving the safety of the
multimodal transportation network and includes
a Vision Zero policy. Vision Zero is based on
the five elements of a Safe Systems Approach
advanced by the FHWA to eliminate traffic
fatalities and serious injuries on roadways – the
components and elements of the Safe System
Approach is explained in detail in Section 1.1.2
Incorporating the Safe System Approach.

The General Plan also notes an action related to
the Vision Zero Plan, as follows:

Action C 1.12 Vision Zero Plan: Complete and
regularly update a plan that uses a safe systems
approach to work towards Vision Zero and
identifies specific citywide changes to policies,
practices, funding, and other action items that
will reduce speeding, collisions, and collision
severity.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Citywide safety-related goals and policies
were considered in the LRSP.
• Coordination of long-term citywide
improvements with LRSP recommendations
and strategies.

4.1.8 AGE FRIENDLY SAN

MATEO THREE-YEAR ACTION
PLAN 2022-2025
The Age-Friendly Task force used public data
to identify likely walking routes for older adults
and partnered with the City Public Works
Department to encourage prioritization of
sidewalk repairs and minimizing safety hazards
on those routes to reduce liability risk and
encourage walking by seniors for health and
socialization. These results were also shared
with the San Mateo Police Department to assist
with enforcement of rules regarding parking that
obstructs sidewalks.

Relevance to the LRSP development
• Identifies likely walking routes for older
adults and locations for prioritizing sidewalk
repairs.
26 4.2 Engagement and Outreach
As part of this LRSP, a series of public engagement activities were organized to gain insights on safety issues and needs from the community. These activities were tailored towards the unique character of the City of San Mateo and informed by discussions with City staff. Focused neighborhoods for community engagement were determined based on the results from collision analysis and equity analysis.

A comprehensive collision database was developed using the reported collision data from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. Collision analysis revealed collision types, primary collision factors, and intersections and segments that have the highest collision frequency and severity. More information on collision analysis is described in Section 4.3 Citywide Safety Performance Analysis.

4.2.1 EQUITY ANALYSIS
Equity is a fundamental consideration of the Safe System Approach, particularly given that pedestrian and bicyclist fatality rates on a per-capita basis vary largely by race,7 as well as by income, age, and gender to varying degrees in varying places.8 These outcomes underscore the need to explicitly examine correlations between sociodemographic and risk factors related to roadway infrastructure and operations.

To inform the communities in the City that are or have been historically underserved, Kittelson conducted the following evaluation:
• Demographic analysis
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (MTC) Equity Priority Communities (EPC) • State of California’s Disadvantaged Communities
• Transportation Disadvantaged Population Index
• SS4A Underserved Communities Census Tracts (Historically Disadvantaged Communities and Areas of Persistent Poverty)
7 Federal Highway Administration. “Integrating Equity into the Safe System Approach” Presentation.

Accessed Apr. 17, 2023: https:/ /highways.dot.gov/safety/zero-deaths/integrating-equity-safe-system- approach-presentation.
8 Vision Zero Network. N.d. Equity Strategies for Practitioners. Accessed April 17, 2023: https:/ / visionzeronetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/VisionZero_Equity.pdf 27 Table 1: Race and Origin (Information directly from ACS) Table 2: Language Spoken at Home
Race and Origin Population Percentage
White alone, percent 55,216 52.9%
Black or African American alone, percent 2,044 2.0%
American Indian and Alaska Native alone, percent 408 0.4% Asian alone, percent 25,141 24.1%
Chinese 11,593 11.1%
Filipino 4,393 4.2%
Asian Indian 3,355 3.2%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, percent 2,617 2.5% Two or More Races, percent 7,175 6.9%
Hispanic or Latino, percent 26,154 25.1%
White alone, not Hispanic or Latino, percent 42,623 40.9% Language Population (5
years and over) Percentage
Percentage speak
English less than
“very well”
English only 55,177 56.8% N/A
Spanish 18,403 18.9% 54.4%
Indo-European Languages 7,019 7.2% 26.0%
Asian and Pacific Languages 15,546 16.0% 38.7%
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-19 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table DP05 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2014-19 ACS 5-Year Estimates, Table S1601 Table 2 shows the language spoken at home data for San Mateo’s over the age of 5 years.

Findings
• 53 percent of the population is White, 25% of the population identify as Hispanic or Latino, and 24 percent Asian. Chinese, Filipino and Asian Indian constitute the major Asian groups in the City. • Approximately, 57 percent people speak only English at home. Spanish is the second most common language spoken in the city with 19 percent residents fluent in Spanish, of which 54 percent do not speak English very well. Asian and Pacific Island languages constitute about 16 percent of the population, of which 39 percent do not speak English very well.

4.2.1.1 DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS
The City of San Mateo has a population of 104,333 according to the American Community Survey (ACS) 2019 5-year estimates. The working age population cohort (ages 20 to 64) represents the largest population segment in the City at more than 60 percent of the total population. San Mateo residents are highly educated, with nearly half (48 percent) of people aged 25 years or older holding at least a bachelor’s degree. Table 1 shows the racial compostion of the City. 28 4.2.1.2 EQUITY PRIORITY COMMUNITIES
Formerly called “Communities of Concern,” EPCs are Census tracts that have a significant concentration of underserved populations, such as households with low income and people of color.

A combination of additional factors helps define these areas, including Limited English proficiency households, seniors 75 years and older, zero-vehicle households, single parent households, people with a disability, and rent-burdened households. The EPCs were updated in 2021 and use ACS 2018 5-year estimates.9 Figure 3 shows the EPCs in the City of San Mateo.

Findings
• Areas of North Central, Shoreview and parts of Downtown San Mateo as EPCs. These areas are generally located between Delaware Street, Peninsula Avenue, 5th Avenue and Bay Trail.

4.2.1.3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES The Disadvantaged Communities (DAC) represent Census tracts that experience high levels of pollution and/or Census tracts that are federally recognized as tribal areas. The DAC designations were updated in 2022 to designate census tracts receiving the highest 25 percent of overall scores in CalEnvironScreen4.0 as disadvantaged.10 Figure 3 shows the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 top 25th percentile DAC extent in the City of San Mateo.

Findings
• Similar to the EPCs, DACs are also located in the North Central and Downtown San Mateo. 9 MTC Equity Priority Communities: https:/ /mtc.ca.gov/planning/transportation/access-equity- mobility/equity-priority-communities accessed on September 12 , 2022 10 CalEnviroScreen is a screening methodology that can be used to help identify California communities that are disproportionately burdened by multiple sources of pollution. 29 4.2.1.4 SS4A UNDERSERVED COMMUNITIES CENSUS TRACTS
The SS4A program allocates grants to support local initiatives aimed at preventing roadway fatalities and severe injuries. In alignment with the Justice40 initiative, USDOT is actively working to tackle and rectify decades of inadequate investment in underserved communities. Currently, 25 percent of the total population is in Disadvantaged Census Tracts in San Mateo.

Figure 4 shows SS4A underserved communities.11
Findings
• Similar to the EPCs and DACs, North Central and Downtown neighborhood remain underserved communities with an addition of the Hillsdale neighborhood west of El Camino Real.

Table 3 provides the total number and the percentage of fatal or severe injury collisions in EPCs and SS4A communities.

Disadvantaged Area
Number
of Fatal or
Severe Injury
Collisions in
San Mateo
Number of Fatal or
Severe Injury Collisions
in Disadvantaged Area
% of Fatal or Severe
Injury Collisions in
Disadvantaged Area
Equity Priority Communities
89 26 29.2%
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (Top
25%) 14 15.7%
SS4A Underserved
Communities 31 34.8%
Table 3: Proportion of Fatal or Severe Injury Collisions in Disadvantaged Areas Source: Kittelson and Associates, Inc (2023)
11 USDOT. SS4A Underserved Communities. Accessed from https:/ /www.arcgis.com/apps/ dashboards/99f9268777ff4218867ceedfabe58a3a
30 Figure 3: MTC Equity Priority Communities and CalEPA Disadvantaged Communities with Collision Overlay
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
∙þ35
∙þ82
∙þ92
ß/101
§¨¦
280
FOSTER

CITY BLVD

CRYSTALSPRINGSRD
ISLAND
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULAAVE

ALAMEDADELAS
PULGAS

PACIFICBLVD

SARATOGADR

RALSTON AVE
9TH AVE
EDGEW
A

TERBLVD

BE ACHPARKBLVD

SHELLBLVD

ELCAMINO
REAL

OLDCOUNTYRD
M

ARINERS
IS

LANDBLVD

S DELAWARE ST
W

HIL LSDALE BLVD
SH

OREWAYRD

W POPLAR AVE

DEANZABLVD

SNORFOLK
ST
VINTAG
E
PARKDR

SKYLINE
BLV
D

JHART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILLDR
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 4 Collison and Roadway Analysis\_gis\D1_EPC Crash Overlay.mxd Date: 4/3/2024 Equity Priority Communities with
Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Overlay
[L E G E N D
City Boundary
Equity Priority Communities
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Top 25%
Collision Severity
! Fatal
! Severe Injury
0 10.5 Miles
Source: MTC 2050 Plan Bay Area, Equity Priority Commnunities; CalEPA, SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
∙þ35
∙þ82
∙þ92
ß/101
§¨¦
280
FOSTER

CITY BLVD

CRYSTALSPRINGSRD
ISLAND
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULAAVE

ALAMEDADELAS
PULGAS

PACIFICBLVD

SARATOGADR

RALSTON AVE
9TH AVE
EDGEW
A

TERBLVD

BE ACHPARKBLVD

SHELLBLVD

ELCAMINO
REAL

OLDCOUNTYRD
M

ARINERS
IS

LANDBLVD

S DELAWARE ST
W

HIL LSDALE BLVD
SH

OREWAYRD

W POPLAR AVE

DEANZABLVD

SNORFOLK
ST
VINTAG
E
PARKDR

SKYLINE
BLV
D

JHART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILLDR
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 4 Collison and Roadway Analysis\_gis\D1_EPC Crash Overlay.mxd Date: 4/3/2024 Equity Priority Communities with
Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Overlay
[L E G E N D
City Boundary
Equity Priority Communities
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Top 25%
Collision Severity
! Fatal
! Severe Injury
0 10.5 Miles
Source: MTC 2050 Plan Bay Area, Equity Priority Commnunities; CalEPA, SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
31 Figure 4: SS4A Underserved Communities with Fatal/Severe Injury Collision Overlay !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
∙þ35
∙þ82
∙þ92
ß/101
§¨¦
280
FOSTER

CITY BLVD

CRYSTALSPRINGSRD
ISLAND
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULAAVE

ALAMEDADELAS
PULGAS

PACIFICBLVD

SARATOGADR

RALSTON AVE
9TH AVE
EDGEW
A

TERBLVD

BE ACHPARKBLVD

SHELLBLVD

ELCAMINO
REAL

OLDCOUNTYRD
M

ARINERS
IS

LANDBLVD

S DELAWARE ST
W

HIL LSDALE BLVD
SH

OREWAYRD

W POPLAR AVE

DEANZABLVD

SNORFOLK
ST
VINTAG
E
PARKDR

SKYLINE
BLV
D

JHART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILLDR
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 4 Collison and Roadway Analysis\_gis\D2_SS4A Crash Overlay.mxd Date: 4/3/2024 SS4A Communities with Fatal/
Severe Injury Collision Overlay
[L E G E N D
City Boundary
SS4A Underserved Communities
Collision Severity
! Fatal
! Severe Injury
0 10.5 Miles
Source: MTC 2050 Plan Bay Area, Equity Priority Commnunities; CalEPA, SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
∙þ35
∙þ82
∙þ92
ß/101
§¨¦
280
FOSTER

CITY BLVD

CRYSTALSPRINGSRD
ISLAND
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULAAVE

ALAMEDADELAS
PULGAS

PACIFICBLVD

SARATOGADR

RALSTON AVE
9TH AVE
EDGEW
A

TERBLVD

BE ACHPARKBLVD

SHELLBLVD

ELCAMINO
REAL

OLDCOUNTYRD
M

ARINERS
IS

LANDBLVD

S DELAWARE ST
W

HIL LSDALE BLVD
SH

OREWAYRD

W POPLAR AVE

DEANZABLVD

SNORFOLK
ST
VINTAG
E
PARKDR

SKYLINE
BLV
D

JHART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILLDR
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 4 Collison and Roadway Analysis\_gis\D2_SS4A Crash Overlay.mxd Date: 4/3/2024 SS4A Communities with Fatal/
Severe Injury Collision Overlay
[L E G E N D
City Boundary
SS4A Underserved Communities
Collision Severity
! Fatal
! Severe Injury
0 10.5 Miles
Source: MTC 2050 Plan Bay Area, Equity Priority Commnunities; CalEPA, SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities
32 Collision analysis identified collision patterns, trends, and high-priority intersections and roadways, and equity analysis informed the historically underserved areas within the City, with potential issues related to specific collision types and severities. These two pieces of information were used to determine focused neighborhoods in the City that warranted extra attention during community engagement activities.

The overview of engagement strategies is provided below, detailed information related to each of these strategies and their reach can be found in Appendix C.

4.2.2 PROJECT WEBPAGE
Kittelson collaborated closely with the City staff
to create a project webpage12, which was hosted
on the City’s website. This dedicated webpage
served as a one-stop shop for updates and
information related to the LRSP. The webpage
featured an array of valuable resources,
including an overview of the LRSP, details on
upcoming events, project updates, an interactive
web map, a story map, and access to relevant
documents.

4.2.2.1 INTERACTIVE MAP
The interactive map was utilized to get location-
specific feedback from communities throughout
the city. A total of 507 comments were received
between early June 2023 through September
2023 after Labor Day, September 8, 2023. Of
the total comments, 57 percent (289) of the
comments were in focused neighborhoods.

Duplicate comments were removed during
the review. Figure 4 shows the location of
comments by user-defined type.

4.2.2.2 STORY MAP
Kittelson completed data analysis of collision
trends in the city and compiled examples of
safety countermeasures (or improvements) that
can address these collision related trends in the
Story Map13. A Story Map is an interactive web-
based tool that provides information on the
overview of LRSP, citywide collision patterns
and trends, preliminary data analysis findings,
countermeasures list, and a link directing users
to interactive map, shown in Figure 5.

4.2.3 PROJECT FLYERS AND

POSTERS
Kittelson identified the greatest safety
performance needs and historically underserved
communities in the city, also known as
focused neighborhoods, that required focused
community outreach – Downtown, Hillsdale, and
North Central. Kittelson placed 100 community-
specific flyers in English, Spanish, and simplified
Chinese, selecting spots in these neighborhoods
strategically focusing on activity-centers, i.e.,
near the schools, transit stops, commercial and
retail centers/hubs, community centers, and
areas with high pedestrian movement.

4.2.4 POP-UP EVENTS
This LRSP was developed concurrently with
the ongoing 2024 Complete Streets Plan,
which organized a series of public engagement
events. Because safety is central to both plans’
recommendations, those public activities and
feedback inform locations, priorities, and input
for this LRSP. The 2024 Complete Streets
Plan project team conducted a series of pop-
up events, of which the LRSP project team
participated in two pop-up events (Figure 6).

These were conducted at the San Mateo Central
Park and San Mateo Farmers’ Market. At these
public engagement activities, City Staff and
project team members received input on what
infrastructure would best meet the needs of San
Mateo’s residents, business owners, workers, and
other visitors.

4.2.4.1 BUSINESS CARDS
Kittelson developed easy-to-carry business
cards for the participants that attended the
pop-up events. The business cards provided
a link and QR code to the project webpage.

The business cards were developed in two
languages, English and Spanish.
12 www.cityofsanmateo.org/SafetyPlan
13 https:/ /storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/11cb2a44f9aa4280948c0d2ec924d1b5 33 Figure 5: Screenshot of San Mateo LRSP Story Map

4.2.5 FINDINGS
Figure 7 shows the location of comments received on Interactive Map tool based on user-defined type. Most of these comments include speeding cars near schools and residential areas, intersections with limited access for vulnerable users, inadequate pedestrian crossings, poor visibility, and maintenance issues. Additionally, some comments are related to traffic congestion, illegal parking, and inadequate infrastructure for bikes. The residents suggested improvements at certain locations such as implementing speed bumps, adding stop signs or traffic lights, improving crosswalks, enhancing bike lanes, increasing enforcement, and narrowing or removal of traffic lanes.

Below is list of key themes of safety issues and
concerns from the pop-up events:

Red Light Running and Speeding:
• Red light running at intersections: 12th
Avenue/Hobart Ave/El Camino Real, 20th
Avenue & El Camino Real, and El Camino
Real corridor.
• Speeding on several streets in the City,
including El Camino Real, Tilton Avenue,
Palm Avenue, and 20th Avenue.

Pedestrian Safety:
• Need for pedestrian crossing signals, signal
heads, additional crosswalks, pedestrian
related infrastructure improvements near
schools and in higher pedestrian activity
areas.

Bike Safety:
• Lack of bike lane presence, bike
infrastructure, and bicycle lane connectivity.

School Zones:
• Speeding in school zones, safety concerns at
school pick-up/drop-off areas.
• Suggestions included reducing pedestrian
crossing lengths by adding curb extensions
at intersections.

Intersection Design:
• Need for stop signs and better visibility.

Traffic Calming Measures:
• Need for more speed humps and speed
cushions on various streets, including
Alameda de las Pulgas and Delaware Street.

Pavement Conditions:
• Presence of potholes on various streets,
including Poplar Avenue, El Camino Real, and
Pacific Blvd.
34 The findings from the data were informed and expanded using community engagement and feedback. For key themes identified above, if the data findings were supported by community feedback (for example, need for speed management on some city roadways), we addressed those key themes by identifying systemic treatments as discussed in Section 7.2. For site-specific comments from the community, if the data findings supported community feedback and experience, site-specific treatments were recommended at priority locations that address those factors identified, described in detail in Section 7.3. For key themes and comments from the community that were not informed by the data (for example, maintenance needs on city roadways), we were not able to assess if pavement conditions are associated with an increase in collisions. The City may consider monitoring this as part of their implementation of the LRSP. By incorporating findings from the data and listening directly to community needs, this LRSP reflects data-driven and community-informed desires to improve roadway safety performance in the City of San Mateo.

Figure 6: Pop-up Community Engagement

35 Figure 7: Comments Webmap from Community Engagement Activities ∙þ35
∙þ82
∙þ92
ß/101
§¨¦
280

FOSTER CITY BLVD

CRYSTALSPRINGSRD
ISLAND
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULAAVE

ALAMEDADELAS
PULGAS

PACIFICBLVD

SARATOGADR

RALSTON AVE
EDGEW
A

TERBLVD

BE ACHPARKBLVD

SHELLBLVD

ELCAMINO
REAL

OLDCOUNTYRD
M

ARINERS
IS

LANDBLVD

S DELAWARE ST
W

HIL LSDALE BLVD
SH

OREWAYRD

W POPLAR AVE

DEANZABLVD

SNORFOLK
ST
VINTAG
E
PARKDR

SKYLINE
BLV
D

JHART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

FOSTER CITY BLVD

CRYSTALSPRINGSRD
ISLAND
PKWY

POLHEMUS
RD
2ND AVE

PENINSULAAVE

ALAMEDADELAS
PULGAS

PACIFICBLVD

SARATOGADR

RALSTON AVE
EDGEW
A

TERBLVD

BE ACHPARKBLVD

SHELLBLVD

ELCAMINO
REAL

OLDCOUNTYRD
M

ARINERS
IS

LANDBLVD

S DELAWARE ST
W

HIL LSDALE BLVD
SH

OREWAYRD

W POPLAR AVE

DEANZABLVD

SNORFOLK
ST
VINTAG
E
PARKDR

SKYLINE
BLV
D

JHART CLINTON DR

CHAT EAU DR
3RD AVE

PARROTT DR

S HUMBOLDT ST

BUNKERHILLDR
D o w n t o w nD o w n t o w n
N o r t hN o r t h
C e n t r a lC e n t r a l
H i l l s d a l eH i l l s d a l e
H:\27\27516 - San Mateo LRSP\Task 2 Stakeholder and Community Engagement\gis\mxd\27516_InteractiveMapComments_v2.mxd Date: 12/29/2023 Interactive Map Comments
[L E G E N D
City Boundary
Focused Neighborhood
Bicycling
Walking
Driving
Transit
Other
Roadway Segment Comment
0 10.5 Miles
36 4.3 Citywide Safety Performance Analysis
Kittelson developed a collision database using the reported collision data from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2021. The data was cross-checked and supplemented with information from the California Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), University of California Berkeley’s Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), and City’s internal collision database.

Collisions on Caltrans-owned and operated roads such as US 101 and State Route 92 were excluded from the data, while those on at-grade facilities with direct interaction with the City’s roadway network, such as State Route 82, were included. Collisions reported at the ramp terminal intersections that are associated with grade-separated freeways and highways in the City are also included in the analysis database. Duplicate records were also identified and removed. The final dataset is comprised of 1,909 collisions from SWITRS/TIMS and 690 collisions from the City’s internal collision database.

The citywide roadway safety performance is summarized using findings from the following analyses:
• Citywide Collision Patterns and Trends, which identifies relevant collision factors such as collision types, primary collision factors, and users involved.
• Network Screening, which spatially locates collisions and identifies intersections and segments with the highest collision frequency and severity to determine locations where improvements may have the highest impact.
• Statewide Comparison, which compares local collision statistics with statewide data to identify areas for safety improvement.

4.3.1 CITYWIDE COLLISION PATTERNS AND TRENDS SUMMARY
This section describes collision patterns and trends for all reported collisions between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2021. These statistics helped develop systemic and location-specific countermeasures for safety projects across the city. The following is a summary of key findings from all reported collisions:
2,599 collisions were reported (an
average of 519.8 per year), including
89 fatal or severe injury
collisions (an average of

17.8 per year).

Intersection collisions are
more frequent than roadway
collisions, representing 93% of
reported collisions and 92% of
fatal/severe injury collisions.
230 collisions (9% of reported) involved
pedestrians, including 31 fatal and
severe injury collisions
(34% of fatal and
severe injury).
144 collisions (6% of reported) involved
bicyclists, including 15 fatal and severe
injury collisions
(17% of fatal and
severe injury).

Sideswipe (26%), rear-end (22%), and
broadside (18%) collisions are the most
frequently cited
collision type.

Improper turning (26%), unsafe speed
(15%), and driving or bicycling
under the influence (14%)
are the most frequently cited
primary collision factors.

In this analysis, the project team focused on understanding the overall collision risk factors and primary contributing factors, with an emphasis on their relationship with fatal and severe injury collisions. This is because Caltrans Director’s Policy commits to Safe System Approach to eliminate deaths and serious injuries on California roadways.
37 Figure 8 and Table 4 summarize the reported collisions by severity in the City of San Mateo. Table 4 also shows a breakdown of City collisions by road users involved. 230 collisions involved pedestrians, 31 of which were fatal or severe injury collisions (1.2% of total collisions, but 35% of fatal and severe injury collisions citywide). Similarly, 144 collisions involved bicyclists, 15 of which were fatal and severe injury collisions (0.5% of total collisions, but 17% of fatal and severe injury collisions citywide).

Figure 8: Reported Collisions by Severity (2017-2021)
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, City of San Mateo, compiled by Kittelson (2023) 2,599

REPORTED

COLLISIONS
20%

COMPLAINT

OF PAIN
21%
OTHER

VISIBLE
INJURY56%

PROPERTY

DAMAGE ONLY
3%
SEVERE
INJURY
<1%
FATAL
Source: SWITRS, TIMS, City of San Mateo, compiled by Kittelson (2023) Table 4: Collision Severity of Reported Collisions by Road User Involved (2017-2021) Road Users
Involved
Fatal (% of
column)
Severe
Injury (% of
column)
Other
Visible
Injury (% of
column)
Complaint
of Pain (%
of column)
Property
Damage
Only (% of
column)
Total (% of
column)
Pedestrian-
Involved 4 (50%) 27 (33%) 106 (19%) 79 (15%) 14 (1%) 230 (9%) Bicycle-
Involved 2 (25%) 13 (16%) 81 (15%) 43 (8%) 5 (<1%) 144 (6%) Vehicle Only or
Vehicle-Fixed
Object
2 (25%) 42 (52%) 366 (66%) 396 (77%) 1,421 (99%) 2,227 (86%) Reported
Collisions 8 (100%) 81 (100%) 553 (100%) 517 (100%) 1,440 (100%)
2,599
(100%)
Severity Share
of Reported
Collisions
<1% 3% 21% 20% 55% 100%
38 Due to uncertainty in the reported locations of collisions, 1,159 out of 2,599 reported collisions were geolocated and analyzed when assessing collision location (essentially all non-PDO crashes).

Figure 9 shows the collision tree with fatal and injury collisions broken down by collision location (intersection/roadway segment) and road user involved (pedestrian, bicycle, motor vehicle). 91% of reported collisions and 92% of fatal and severe injury collisions occurred at an intersection. Of the 1,055 general collisions and 82 fatal/severe injury collisions related to intersections, over half took place at unsignalized intersections.
92% of fatal
and severe
injury collisions
occurred at an
intersection
82 fatal/severe
injury collisions
related to
intersections
91% of reported collisions
occurred at an intersection
39 TOTAL COLLISIONS
1,159
89 TOTAL COLLISIONS