The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBPC 01-29-2026 PresentationsBPC 1-29-2026 Item No.2 Active Transportation Plan Presentations Active Transportation Plan City Of Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting January 29, 2026 Agenda Project Description Phase 2 Outreach •What we heard Updates and Changes •Revised prioritization criteria and ranked projects list •Transportation technology corridors Proposed New Project Guidelines •Project impact assessment memo •Project effectiveness memo Project Background April 4, 2023:The City Council approved the FY 23/24 City Work Program (CWP), including the ATP as an item "to be considered" in the FY 24/25 City Work Program. April 3, 2024: The City Council approved the FY 24/25 CWP, including the ATP as an approved item. June 26, 2024:The City Council adopted Resolution 24-063, requesting that the Metropolitan Transportation Commission allocate FY 24/25 TDA3 funding for the development of an Active Transportation Plan. December 3, 2024:The City Council approved a contract with Alta Planning + Design, Inc. for the development of an ATP. What is an Active Transportation Plan? The ATP aims to make it easier for people to walk and bike in Cupertino. •Identify gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle networks. •Perform community outreach and different data analysis techniques to develop network recommendations that are data- driven and based on community input. •Develop network recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle projects, while also balancing the needs of motorized vehicles. Project Schedule Commission and Council Feedback The ATP was presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council following Phase 1. •Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – August 20, 2025 •Planning Commission – September 9, 2025 •City Council – November 4, 2025 Staff received comments at each of these meetings and this presentation explains how staff addressed those comments. Sample Title For This Section Short description about this section Preferred Network Recommendations What we Heard in Phase 2 Network Recommendations Process Description •Community feedback helped validate the technical analysis, and together, these two sources, along with state and federal design guidance documents, were referenced to develop draft network recommendations. Network Recommendations Following Local, State, and Federal Guidance and Standards •The Caltrans Design Information Bulletin #94, FHWA Bikeway Selection Guide, and other design manuals served as references to ensure consistency with state and federal design guidance. Network Recommendations Categories •Intersection projects were grouped into typologies to allow for greater flexibility with future project delivery. Phase 2 Community Feedback Summary of Engagement •8 pop-up events, 2 community workshops, and 3 public hearings Pedestrian Network Recommendations Summary of Input •Strong support for shared-use paths •Intersection projects at major intersections along: •Stelling Rd •De Anza Blvd •Stevens Creek Blvd •Bollinger Rd •Blaney Ave Bicycle Network Recommendations Summary of Input •Shared-use, off-street paths remain popular •Upgrade bike lanes on major roads: •Stevens Creek Blvd •Homestead Rd •Blaney Ave •Bollinger Rd •Focus on projects that improve safety for students •Support for new traffic calming neighborhood routes that would connect destinations, especially schools Preferred Network Recommendations The community’s preferred pedestrian projects were: •Tamien Innu •Lawrence Mitty Trail •Blaney Ave and Stevens Creek Blvd (Typology A, B, C Intersection) •Union Pacific Trail •Pacifica Dr and Torre Ave (Typology C Intersection) The community’s preferred bike projects were: •Stevens Creek Blvd (Separated Bike Lanes) •Blaney Ave (Buffered Bike Lanes) •Homestead Rd (Buffered/ Separated Bike Lanes) •Bollinger Rd (Buffered Bike Lanes) •Stelling Rd (Buffered/ Separated Bike Lanes) Sample Title For This Section Short description about this section Updated Criteria Revisions and New Scoring Council and Commission Comments Areas of Consensus •Safety should be prioritized, especially near schools and on the Vision Zero HIN •Scoring criteria should emphasize objective, data-based measures •Technology solutions need greater emphasis New Bicycle Network Criteria Revisions: ●Greater consideration to projects either on or near the HIN ●More points and precision for school scoring ●New arterial impacts ●Added destinations for seniors ●Removed Fairness criterion ●Added Cost- Effectiveness as a criterion Goal Criteria Metric (Source)Max Score Safety Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN)20 Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10 Access School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20 High Frequency Transit Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5 Parks & Other Destination Proximity Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway 5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5 Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5 Balance Roadway Impact Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal 10 Potential need for lane reduction or parking removal on a City arterial 10 Cost Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10 New Pedestrian Network Criteria Revisions: ●Greater consideration to projects either on or near the HIN ●More points and precision for school scoring ●Added destinations for seniors ●Removed Fairness criterion ●Added Cost- Effectiveness as a criterion Goal Criteria Metric (Source)Max Score Safety Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN)20 Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10 Access School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20 High Frequency Transit Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5 Parks & Other Destination Proximity Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway 5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5 Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5 Cost Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10 New Sidewalk Network Criteria Revisions: ●Greater consideration to projects either on or near the HIN ●More points and precision for school scoring ●Added destinations for seniors ●Removed Fairness criterion ●Added Cost- Effectiveness as a criterion Goal Criteria Metric (Source)Max Score Safety Collision History Roadway is on or near the High Injury Network (HIN)20 Stress Level Max score from bicycle level of traffic stress analysis 10 Access School Proximity Project is located along a SR2S suggested route to school 20 High Frequency Transit Proximity Presence of major transit stops 5 Parks & Other Destination Proximity Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway 5 Sustainability Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle or e-bike trip potential 5 Roadway is within a high SAST gap score area 5 Cost Effectiveness Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10 New Transportation Technology Corridors A New Project Category: ●The Council and community requested that transportation technologies be given greater consideration. ●Corridors created by analyzing collision history, reviewing pedestrian intersection recommendations, and assessing the City’s ability to control and implement projects. Goal Criteria Metric (Source)Max Score Safety Collision History The corridor includes an intersection identified as a VZAP High Injury Network Intersection 10 Collision History # of collisions with a cause of "unsafe speed" per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero Dashboard Data) 10 Collision History # of collisions with a cause of "traffic signals and signs" per mile (according to Cupertino Vision Zero Dashboard Data) 10 Level of Traffic Stress Average PLTS for the corridor 10 Access School Proximity % of corridor length on Suggested Route to School 20 Parks & Other Destination Proximity Presence of parks, the library, senior center/facilities and shopping centers along the roadway 10 Sustainability Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike short-trip share intersecting the corridor 10 10SAST Gap Score % of corridor length within high SAST gap-score areas Sample Title For This Section Short description about this section Draft Project List Scored Projects Using Updated Criteria Ranked Network Projects Takeaways: ●203 total projects ●Top Projects: -School-related -Vision Zero-related -Low cost ●Scoring also prioritizes implementable projects with fewer tradeoffs and less delivery complexity. Project Type Description Location Cross St/Start Cross St/End Score 1 Pedestrian A (Signage & Striping)De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 90 2 Pedestrian C (Signal Controls & Changes)De Anza Blvd Rodriguez Ave 89 3 Pedestrian A (Signage and Striping)Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 88 4 Pedestrian C (Signal Controls & Changes)De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 83 5 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 81 6 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 80 7 Trail Shared-Use Path Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett Bridge 80 8 Bicycle Neighborhood Route De Anza Blvd to McClellan Rd via Rodrigues Ave, Terry Way, Shelly Dr, and Dr 77 9 Pedestrian A, B Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 75 10 Pedestrian C (Signal Controls & Changes)Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona 75 11 Pedestrian A Miller Ave Phil Ln 75 12 Pedestrian A, B Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd 75 13 Pedestrian A, B McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln 74 14 Pedestrian A, B, C Stevens Creek Blvd Blaney Ave 74 15 Pedestrian A, B Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr 74 16 Bike Network Bike Lane Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 73 17 Crossing Grade Separated Linda Vista Trail Stevens Creek Trail 73 18 Bike Network Separated Bikeway Phil Ln Stevens Creek Blvd 72 19 Pedestrian A (Signage and Striping)Stelling Rd Gardena Dr 71 20 Technology Transportation Technology Corridor Miller Ave/Wolfe Rd Foothill Blvd 71 21 Pedestrian A, B Bubb Rd Columbus Ave 71 22 Bicycle Neighborhood Route 71 23 Pedestrian Neighborhood Route Stevens Creek Blvd Forest Ave 71 24 Pedestrian A (Signage and Striping)September Dr McClellan Rd 70 25 Pedestrian Sidewalk Byrne Ave Orange Ave 69 Sample Title For This Section Short description about this section Proposed New Guidelines Project Impact Assessment and Effectiveness Project Impact Assessment Guidelines Why? •Based on Council, Commission, and community requests for project-specific comprehensive traffic operations analysis. What? •Present the preliminary engineering phase (30% design) to Council to determine whether the project should undergo a detailed analysis tailored to its specific impacts. Project Effectiveness Guidelines Why? •Council, Commission, community, and staff’s desire to collect more data on bicycle and pedestrian volumes, both generally and for pre- and post-construction analysis. What? •A successful project will be one in which more people use the facility while the collision rate remains the same or decreases. This will be referred to as the Safety Plus Mode Shift (SPMS) rate, which aligns with Vision Zero and Climate Action Plan objectives. Sample Title For This Section Short description about this section Next Steps Document Development & Public Review What Comes Next Commission and Council Meetings •Planning Commission (February 10) •City Council (February 19) Prepare Draft Report •Compile the different elements of the Plan and address any comments from Council and Commissions •Organize the elements and prepare a Draft Plan document for public review, which will be open for 1 month June 2026 •The Draft Plan will be brought to the City Council for adoption consideration