Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 04-07-2026 Item No. 1 Active Transportation Plan_Staff PresentationCC 4-07-2026 #1 Active Transportation Plan Presentation Active Transportation Plan City Of Cupertino City Council Meeting April 07, 2026 Sample Title For This Section Short description about this section Commission and Council Comments Revisions and New Scoring from Fall 2025 Commission Comments The ATP was presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission following Phase 1. •Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – August 20, 2025 •Planning Commission – September 9, 2025 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 needs greater emphasis. Council Comments The ATP was also presented to the City Council following Phase 1. City Council – November 04, 2025 Direction to Staff on Prioritization •Use objective metrics for prioritization. •Add Cost to the ranking criteria. •Add impact to vehicular traffic on arterial streets as a criterion. •Add and prioritize technology solutions. 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 Revised Criteria Scoring Network Projects Takeaways: ●Top Projects: -School-related -Vision Zero-related -Low cost ●Scoring also prioritizes implementable projects with fewer tradeoffs and less delivery complexity. Type Description Location Cross St Cross St Score 1 Pedestrian A Intersection De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 90 2 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 89 3 Pedestrian A Intersection Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 88 4 Pedestrian C Intersection De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 83 5 Pedestrian B Intersection Stelling Rd Alves Dr 82 6 Pedestrian B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Stelling Rd 81 7 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Vista Dr Stevens Creek Blvd Forest Ave 81 8 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 81 9 Shared Use Crossing Stevens Creek Undercrossing (Feasibility Study) Stevens Creek Trail Linda Vista Trail 80 10 Pedestrian C Intersection Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 80 11 Bicycle Neighborhood Route Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek Blvd 80 12 Shared Use Trail Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett Bridge 79 13 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave John Dr 78 14 Bicycle Neighborhood Route From Stelling Rd to De Anza Blvd via Pepper Tree Ln/ Bonny Dr/ Shelly Dr/ Terry Way/ Rodrigues Ave 78 15 Shared Use Trail Lawrence Mitty Trail Stevens Creek Blvd Barnhart Ave 78 16 Pedestrian Sidewalk (1 Side)Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 75 17 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 75 18 Pedestrian A Intersection Miller Ave Phil Ln 75 19 Pedestrian C Intersection Miller Ave Calle De Barcelona 75 20 Pedestrian A, B Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd Cupertino Rd 75 Project Type Pedestrian Bicycle Shared Use Pedestrian Network Map Top 5 Projects 1) De Anza Blvd/ Lanazeo Dr: A 2) De Anza Blvd/ Rodrigues Ave: C 3) De Anza Blvd/ Mariani Ave: A 4) Stelling Rd/ Alves Dr: B, C 5) Stevens Creek Blvd/ Stelling Rd: B, C Bicycle Network Map Top 5 Projects 1) Vista Dr, Class III 2) Forest Ave, Class III 3) Stevens Creek Undercrossing Feasibility Study 4) Tantau Ave, Class III 5) Tamien Innu, Trail 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. Commission Comments Recommended New Scoring from Winter 2026 Commission Comments The ATP was presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission following Phase 2. •Planning Commission – February 10, 2026 •Bicycle Pedestrian Commission – February 18, 2026 Areas of Consensus •Safety should be prioritized for the Vision Zero HIN •School scoring is overweighted and should be reduced Recommended Adjustment •Subtract 10 points from Schools and apply 10 to Vizion Zero HIN Commission Comments Key Takeaways •Top projects remain unchanged. Most Neighborhood Routes decrease in rank since they rely most heavily on School scoring. •Projects on the HIN that are not also Suggested Routes to School increase. This is especially true for Pedestrian projects on: •Bollinger Rd, De Anza Blvd, Stelling Rd, and Homestead Rd. Project Type Location Rank Change Intersection: A, B, C Intersection Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd 78 to 39 +39 Intersection: A, B, C Intersection Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd 62 to 24 +38 Bike Lane Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Calle De Barcelona 87 to 66 +21 Intersection: A, B Intersection Bollinger Rd Clifden Way 108 to 71 +37 Intersection: A Intersection Torre Ave Pacifica Ave 49 to 97 -48 Sample Title For This Section Short description about this section Next Steps Document Development & Public Review What Comes Next Prepare Draft Report •Compile the different elements of the Plan and address any comments from Council. •Organize the elements and prepare a Draft Plan document for public review, which will be open for 1 month. Summer 2026 •The Draft Plan will be brought to the City Council for adoption consideration.