BPC 8-20-2025 Written CommunicationsBPC 8-20-2025
Item No.3
Active
Transportation
Plan
Written
Communications
Students are one of the most vulnerable groups when it comes to transportation, and should be
prioritized accordingly. The current draft limits consideration of school proximity to only a
quarter mile, which is much less than the average commute for students of all ages in
Cupertino. In fact, typical commute distances are a 1/2 mile for elementary schoolers, 1 mile
for middle schoolers, and over 1 mile for high schoolers. The 1/4 scope severely limits the
efficacy of the ATP by failing to account for the majority of students who would benefit from
the projects outlined in the plan.
Instead, I suggest that the weighting points for all modes for the "School Proximity" criteria
are changed to the following:
20 points if within 1/4 mile of a school
15 points if within 1/2 mile of school
5 points if on a school commute path > ½ mile from school
This will ensure that more Cupertino students are represented accurately and fairly in the ATP
and help prioritize projects accordingly. I appreciate your consideration and ongoing efforts
towards the ATP.
Thank you, Ishan Khosla
on biking to get to school, the library, and around town every day, I appreciate all of the work
going into Cupertino's new Active Transportation Plan. That being said, I would like to share a
few suggestions for how the draft prioritization can be improved with regard to our student
population.
Hello,
My name is Ishan Khosla, and I am a junior at Cupertino High School. As someone who relies
David Stillman; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh
(she/her)
Subject:
From:
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Ishan Khosla
City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission;
Changes to ATP Prioritization for Students
Friday, August 15, 2025 10:47:40 PMDate:
To:
this topic.
The most heavily weighted goals for the ATP should be Safety and Access. These have the
greatest effect on our residents, and are the least subjective.
The weighting for School Proximity (within Access), Sustainability, Balance, and Fairness all
should be modified. Access should include consideration for our seniors, and Sustainability
should include proximity to trails and biking networks. Here are specifics on this:
1.Access/School proximity weighting should include points for commute paths to
school, as the vast majority of students in Cupertino must commute more than ¼ mile to
their schools and we need to prioritize our most vulnerable residents. Making the
weighting only right at the school—instead of considering their commute—is not
logical. School Proximity should be weighted instead to:
20 pts if within ¼ mile of a school
15 pts if within ½ mile of school
5 pts if on a school commute path > ½ mile from school
2.Access should also include weighting for proximity to senior and low-income
housing/facilities. This also prioritizes our more vulnerable residents, many of whom
walk or use mobility devices such as four wheel scooters. Adding these points also
considers equity, as many lower income residents do not drive but instead walk. bike, or
use public transit. Proximity to senior housing (like Westport), the senior center,
and low income housing units should be weighted as:
10 pts if within ½ mile of designated senior housing, the senior center, or single
residential locations with >10 low income housing units
3.Sustainability should also include proximity to other low-stress active
transportation facilities such as trails and protected bike lanes. This encourages a
network of safe pedestrian facilities to the borders of Cupertino, and will result in a
higher usage of facilities, as shown by numerous studies. A modest weighting for
proximity to trails (for all), and other protected bike lanes (for Bicycle Network)
including neighboring cities could be:
I’m a cyclist and resident of Cupertino, who not only walks and uses my bike daily for
transportation to shops, destinations, and church, but also had her children do the same to all
their schools. I recently reviewed the proposed scoring rubric for the Active Transportation
Plan (ATP) projects, and saw that some key changes could improve it significantly for our
city’s residents. I ask that you make the suggested changes in your recommendations on
Dear Bicycle Pedestrian Commissioners, Planning Commissioner, and Staff:
Date:
City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission;
From:J Shearin
Tuesday, August 19, 2025 5:32:35 PM
To:
(she/her)
Subject:
City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu GhoshDavid Stillman;
ATP Prioritization Rubric (BPC 8/20 and Planning Commission 9/9)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Cupertino's Vision Zero Plan says “Prioritize multimodal safety and quality of
service over motor vehicle level of service and on-street parking.” By adding
weight to level-of-service (car “throughput”) and to on street parking, the ATP
would be prioritizing the exact opposite of the Vision Zero Plan’s requirement.
CA Senate Bill 743 is also clear that all projects must be assessed using Vehicle
Miles Traveled, and not Vehicle Level of Service. This category negatively
penalizes projects that have lane losses out of a fear that this may cause cars to be
slower—a clear stand-in for an LOS metric.
Last, many studies show that removal of a lane has not been shown to
increase traffic congestion, including here in Cupertino for DeAnza’s buffered
bike lanes. Instead, there is a well-documented phenomenon of induced demand,
whereby when more lanes and space are allocated to cars, more people drive and
cause more traffic.
5.Fairness (public comment count) is not an objective measure. It should be
eliminated altogether or reduced to a minimal 5 points. Public input should encourage
where to consider projects, but subjective comments should not influence how high of a
priority a project is. It’s just too easy to “game” the system with loads of positive or
negative comments. We should be data driven, about where projects are needed based
on accidents, access, demand, equity, and sustainability.
With these changes, the ATP will rightfully prioritize projects that further safety and access;
prioritize our youngest and oldest residents; and make rankings based on data, and not on
subjectivity or stand-ins for measurements which have been banned by the state legislature.
This will result in the best plan for all residents. I encourage you to make these changes in
your recommendations.
Thank you for your work on behalf of Cupertino.
Sincerely,
Jennifer Shearin
5 pts if within ¼ mile of a trail or protected bike lanes
4.Balance weighting should be reduced to 5pts or eliminated altogether, as it directly
opposes Cupertino’s recently approved Vision Zero plan regarding parking as well as
CA Senate Bill 743, which mandates that projects are only assessed on Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT), not Level of Service (car throughput).
The proposed criteria indicate a +20 score if the improvement is on a roadway with
high injuries.
Please also include in this if an improvement will provide a route that means user no
longer have to go on a high injury route. For example, opening up access between
neighborhoods what are currently blocked (for example: opening a sound wall to
allow pedestrians and/or bicycles to traverse between two roads that are otherwise
blocked. In other words, does this allow a HIN to be bypassed by a user.
Access
I now regularly bike by a couple of schools, and with school starting, I also am seeing
kids bike as well. Please ensure that the rating criteria covers students that are not
immediately next to a school and are commuting from a further distance. (My
commute is ~3.5 miles, and I never need to leave Cupertino city limits, I see students
on the trail and road covering 1-2 miles of my commute.)
Balance
I don't believe that a HIN should be negated for the sake of balance. If there are
many accidents in an area, this should be addressed. We should not ignore it
because it will inconvenience people. Improvements should be considered (such as
separated bike lanes and walkways) even if it may require taking space away from
parking or removing a lane. (Ideally projects would be done to improve access for
everyone (such as by using roundabouts instead of traffic lights - which would
improve car throughput, or adding over street crossings - again, improving car
throughput, or even adding alternative crossing locations like the Mary Ave bridge).
If alternatives cannot be done that improve things for everyone, then safety should
still be prioritized - the city has Vision Zero. If, for example, Steven Creek has a lot of
injuries, then things should still be addressed there.
Sustainability
Please prioritize items that encourage people to walk and bike. In other words, does
the project / impact location connect the user to other trails or ATP projects (for
example, connecting to the Regnart Creek Trail, buffered or separated bike lanes,
connecting to the library, parks, or other future projects like the potential East
Channel Trail that Sunnyvale is studying (starting at Ortega Park)
The better connected a network, the more likely it is to encourage its use.Thanks you for considering my comments,
Evan Lojewski
I have a few comments that I hope the commission will consider based on the presentation and
proposed prioritization criteria
Safety
Pedestrian Commission was discussion the ATP, including "Feedback on the Draft Project
Prioritization Criteria" (per the posted agenda).
Piu GhoshDavid Stillman;
Attachments:
To:
From:
City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; City of Cupertino Planning Commission;
Subject:Comments - Cupertino Active Transportation Plan, Phase 2 Kickoff
signature.asc
Evan Lojewski
Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:15:19 PM
(she/her)
Date:
publickey - evan@lojewski.xyz - 0x51A23DD9.asc
Bicycle and Pedestrian Commission,
I am a resident of Cupertino who daily commutes to work and stores. I saw that the Bicycle +
From:Jian He
To:City of Cupertino Bike and Ped Commission; David Stillman; City of Cupertino Planning Commission; Piu Ghosh
(she/her)
Subject:Strong Recommendations for the Active Transportation Plan Prioritization
Date:Tuesday, August 19, 2025 10:52:10 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you
recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission,
This is Jian He, a Cupertino resident for more than 20 years. I am writing to you today
to strongly urge you to adopt a project prioritization weighting scheme for the new
Active Transportation Plan (ATP) that is centered on safety and access. The
decisions you make now will determine what gets built for the next 10 years, and it is
crucial that this plan serves all Cupertino residents, especially our most vulnerable.
The draft prioritization framework is a good start, but it can be improved significantly
to align with our city’s stated goals and best practices. I have specific
recommendations to ensure the final plan prioritizes projects that will have the
greatest positive impact.
Prioritize Safety and Access
The most heavily weighted categories in the ATP prioritization should be Safety and
Access. These are the least subjective metrics and have the most profound effect on
residents' quality of life. An effective ATP must prioritize the safety of all road users,
particularly pedestrians and cyclists, and ensure that our active transportation
network is accessible to everyone.
Adjust Specific Weighting Categories
I urge you to modify the weightings for several categories to create a more effective
and equitable ATP.
Access: This category should be expanded to include proximity to senior and
low-income housing and facilities. Prioritizing projects that serve our senior
population and those with limited transportation options is a matter of equity and
responsible urban planning. Furthermore, the School Proximity sub-category
should award points for commuter paths to schools. The vast majority of
students live more than a quarter-mile from school, and we must prioritize safe
routes for our most vulnerable residents.
Sustainability: This category should also include points for a project’s proximity
to existing low-stress active transportation facilities, such as trails and protected
bike lanes. This approach encourages the development of a cohesive and
connected network of safe pedestrian and bicycle facilities, which is more likely
to be used and provides greater value to the community.
Balance: The weighting for Balance should be significantly reduced to 5 points
or eliminated entirely. This category, which often considers factors like parking
loss, directly conflicts with Cupertino’s approved Vision Zero plan and
California Senate Bill 743. SB 743 mandates that project impacts be assessed
on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), not on Level of Service (traffic throughput).
Placing a high priority on balancing competing interests can lead to the rejection
of essential safety projects.
Fairness: The weighting for Fairness, which appears to be tied to public
comment count, should be reduced to 5 points or eliminated. While public input
is vital for identifying project locations, a quantitative count of subjective public
comments is not an objective measure of a project’s priority or effectiveness.
Prioritization should be based on data-driven metrics like safety and access, not
on the loudest voices or the number of complaints.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I trust that you will create a prioritization
scheme that truly serves the needs of all Cupertino residents and moves our city
toward a safer, more accessible, and more sustainable future.
--
Blessings,
Jian
"...all things work together for good..." --- Romans 8:28