HomeMy WebLinkAboutBPC 07-15-2026 Searchable PacketCITY OF CUPERTINO
BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
AGENDA
10185 North Stelling Road, Quinlan Conference Room and via Teleconference
Wednesday, July 15, 2026
7:00 PM
Regular Meeting
IN-PERSON AND TELECONFERENCE / PUBLIC PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
OPTIONS TO OBSERVE:
Members of the public wishing to observe the meeting may do so in one of the following
ways:
1) Attend in person at Quinlan Community Center, Conference Room, 10185 N. Stelling
Road.
2) Watch a live stream online at https://youtube.com/@cupertinocitycommission.
3) Attend in person at a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda.
OPTIONS TO PARTICIPATE AND COMMENT:
Members of the public wishing to address the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission may do so in
the following ways:
1) Appear in person at Quinlan Community Center, Conference Room, 10185 N. Stelling
Road:
A. During “Oral Communications”, the public may comment on matters not on the agenda,
and for agendized matters, the public may comment during the public comment period for
each agendized item.
B. Speakers are requested to complete a Speaker Card. While completion of Speaker Cards
is voluntary and not required to attend the meeting or provide comments, it is helpful for
the purposes of ensuring that all speakers are called upon.
C. Speakers must wait to be called and may begin speaking when recognized by the Chair.
Page 1
1
BPC 07-15-2026
1 of 125
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda July 15, 2026
D. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes each. However, the Chair may reduce the
speaking time depending on the number of people who wish to speak on an item. A
speaker representing a group of 2 to 5 or more people who are present may have up to 2
minutes per group member, up to 10 minutes maximum.
E. Please note that due to cyber security concerns, speakers are not allowed to connect any
personal devices to any City equipment. However, speakers that wish to share a document
(e.g. presentations, photographs or other documents) during oral comments may do so by:
a. E-mailing the document to bikepedcommission@cupertino.gov by 4:00 p.m. and staff will
advance the slides/share the documents during your oral comment.
2) Written communications as follows:
A. E-mail comments to bikepedcommission@cupertino.gov.
B. Regular mail or hand delivered addressed to the: Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission, City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
C. Comments addressed to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission received by 5:00 p.m. on the
day of the meeting will be included in written communications published and distributed
before the beginning of the meeting.
D. Comments addressed to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission received after the 5:00 p.m.
deadline, but through the end of the Commission meeting, will be posted to the City’s
website by the end of the following business day.
3) Teleconference in one of the following ways:
A. Online via Zoom on an electronic device (Audio and Video): Speakers must register in
advance by clicking on the link below to access the meeting:
https://cityofcupertino.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_LeHdlg07Rhepo7s3PefyeA
a. Registrants will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the
webinar.
b. Speakers will be recognized by the name they use for registration. Once recognized,
speakers must click ‘unmute’ when prompted to speak.
c. Please read the following instructions about technical compatibility carefully: One can
directly download the teleconference (Zoom) software or connect to the meeting in their
internet browser. If a browser is used, make sure the most current and up-to-date browser,
such as the following, is used: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+.
Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers, including Internet Explorer.
B. By Phone (Audio only): No registration is required in advance and speakers may join the
meeting as follows:
a. Dial 669-900-6833 and enter WEBINAR ID: 851 6283 1396
Page 2
2
BPC 07-15-2026
2 of 125
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda July 15, 2026
b. To “raise hand” to speak: Dial *9; When asked to unmute: Dial *6
c. Speakers will be recognized to speak by the last four digits of their phone number.
C. Online via the teleconferencing device (Audio and Video) being used to provide access
to the meeting from a remote Teleconference Location noticed pursuant to Gov. Code
54953(b)(2), which location, if noticed, would be stated on the cover page of this agenda.
a) Speakers are required to notify the City Clerk via email to cityclerk@cupertino.gov prior
to noon on the date of the meeting during which they plan to participate and comment from
the remote location noticed to ensure the City Clerk is prepared to accept their comment.
b) If the teleconferencing device malfunctions impeding access to the meeting from the
remote location, the speaker may alternatively participate via the other options for remote
participation provided above.
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Subject: May 20, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission minutes
Approve the May 20, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Minutes
A - Draft Minutes
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the Commission on any matter
within the jurisdiction of the Commission and not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3)
minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the Commission from making any decisions with respect
to a matter not on the agenda.
OLD BUSINESS
2.Subject: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (Schroeder)
Receive Update and Recommend City Council Adopt the
Cupertino Active Transportation Plan
A - Memorandum
B - Draft Active Transportation Plan
C - April 7, 2026 City Council Staff Report
3.Subject: Bicycle Facilities Improvements (Dullu)
Receive Update and Provide Direction for Bicycle Facilities
Improvements Work Plan Item
A - Proposed Bike Rack Locations
Page 3
3
BPC 07-15-2026
3 of 125
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Agenda July 15, 2026
NEW BUSINESS - None
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
4.Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All)
Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding
Recent Activities
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
5.Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend this
meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should
call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting to arrange for
assistance. In addition, upon request in advance by a person with a disability, meeting agendas and
writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate
alternative format.
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the members after publication of the agenda will
be made available for public inspection. Please contact the City Clerk’s Office in City Hall located at
10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014, during normal business hours.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal Code section
2.08.100 written communications sent to the City Council, Commissioners or staff concerning a matter
on the agenda are included as supplemental material to the agendized item. These written
communications are accessible to the public through the City website and kept in packet archives. Do
not include any personal or private information in written communications to the City that you do not
wish to make public, as written communications are considered public records and will be made
publicly available on the City website.
Page 4
4
BPC 07-15-2026
4 of 125
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: May 20, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission minutes
Approve the May 20, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/7/2026Page 1 of 1
5
BPC 07-15-2026
5 of 125
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 20, 2026
At 7:00 p.m. Chair Gerhard Eschelbeck called the Regular Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
meeting to order at the Quinlan Conference Room, 10185 North Stelling Road and via
teleconference.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Gerhard Eschelbeck, Vice Chair Munisekaran Madhdhipatla and Commissioners
Ilango Ganga (arrived at 7:04 p.m.), Hervé Marcy, and Joel Wolf. Absent: None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1. Subject: April 15, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the April 15, 2026 Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
Minutes
MOTION: Wolf moved and Madhdhipatla seconded to approve the April 15, 2026, Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission minutes. The motion carried with the following vote: Ayes:
Eschelbeck, Marcy and Wolf. Noes: None. Abstain: Madhdhipatla. Absent: Ganga.
POSTPONEMENTS – None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Vivek Dutta discussed vehicle speeds on Prospect Road and cyclist safety.
Changming Liu discussed vehicle speeds on Prospect Road.
Guiqiang Dong discussed vehicle speeds on Prospect Road.
OLD BUSINESS –
2. Subject: Bicycle Facilities Improvements (Dullu)
Recommended Action: Receive Update and Provide Direction for Bicycle Facilities
Improvements Work Plan Item
6
BPC 07-15-2026
6 of 125
Written communications included a staff presentation.
Assistant Engineer Prashanth Dullu gave a presentation.
Commissioners asked questions which staff responded to.
Chair Eschelbeck opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public
comment period.
Commission unanimously consented recommending that the proposed bike locations be split
up between them, and they would return to the next Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting
with recommendations.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Subject: Appointment of Cupertino Representative to VTA Bicycle Pedestrian
Advisory Committee (Staff)
Recommended Action: Appoint a Commissioner to represent Cupertino on the VTA
Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee
Transportation Manager David Stillman gave a verbal report.
Commissioners asked questions which staff responded to.
Chair Eschelbeck opened the public comment period and, seeing no one, closed the public
comment period.
MOTION: Ganga moved and Madhdhipatla seconded to recommend to the City Council to
appoint Commissioner Marcy to the Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Pedestrian
Advisory Committee beginning July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2028. The motion carried with
the following vote: Ayes: Eschelbeck, Madhdhipatla, Ganga, Marcy, and Wolf. Noes: None.
Abstain: None. Absent: None.
STAFF AND COMMISSION REPORTS
4. Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All)
Recommended Action: Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding
Recent Activities
Transportation Manager David Stillman reported that the Stevens Creek Boulevard cycling
7
BPC 07-15-2026
7 of 125
project is progressing, with major improvements anticipated by mid-July. However, the
Tantau/Wolfe Interchange Project has been delayed to comply with environmental
protections for nesting birds and wood rats. Additionally, Mr. Stillman announced a two-
year extension of the crossing guard contract and noted that citywide speed surveys will
be conducted in the near future.
Commissioner Wolf reported on the Bike to Work Day.
Commissioner Madhdhipatla reported on residents’ comments about construction on
Stelling Road and Bubb Road.
Commissioner Marcy reported on the Mayor’s Meeting.
FUTURE AGENDA SETTING
• Vision Zero next steps
• CIP (April 2026)
• Safe routes to school overall program and budget allocation.
• Speeding in the City issue (I.E. Prospect Road between De Anza Blvd and Stelling
Road crosswalk consideration)
• ATP (July 2026)
• Review and Input Bike and Pedestrian Facility on RISE Project.
Grants
• Know/Understand Fed Grant Funding with Caltrans on updated bike-ped
planning
• Understand/Educate on what funding standards are (Fed/State)
Studies / Plans
• Kennewick Drive/Homestead Road Study
o Stop Gap Measures/Temporary Solutions
• Study on McClellan Ave bike lanes in front of Monte Vista High School
• Examine Pedestrian Walkways for Safety
• Install Bollards at existing buffered bike lanes (Public Request)
• Path between Lincoln Elem and Monta Vista HS
• Speed Limits Studies
Projects
• Staff update on CIP Project updates (6 mo.)
• Tamien Innu
• Signaling Improvements
Education
• Adult Bicycle Education
• Impact of Semi-Rural Designation on Bike and Ped Projects/Priorities
8
BPC 07-15-2026
8 of 125
• Bicycle and pedestrian safety
Miscellaneous
• Review Progress toward BPC Objectives & Grant Applications (6 mo.)
• Bike Rack Feedback and Safety
• Sidewalk Robotic Vehicles
• Inventory of Traffic Lights (triggering traffic light from a detector) – Staff update
• Before and after data on separated bike lanes and major intersections for
improvement – Use of data for future decisions
o Combine this data with the data on safety (Muni/Marcy)
o De Anza before and after traffic data collection.
ADJOURNMENT
At 8:23 p.m., Chair Gerhard Eschelbeck adjourned the regular Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
meeting.
Minutes prepared by:
Lindsay Nelson, Administrative Assistant
9
BPC 07-15-2026
9 of 125
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Cupertino Active Transportation Plan (Schroeder)
Receive Update and Recommend City Council Adopt the Cupertino Active Transportation Plan
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/7/2026Page 1 of 1
10
BPC 07-15-2026
10 of 125
PUBLIC WORKS
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3403 •
CUPERTINO.GOV
BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
Date: July 14, 2026
To: Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
From: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Re: An Update on the Cupertino Active Transportation Plan
Background
Phase 1 & Phase 2 Summary
Phase 1 of the ATP, conducted between March and June 2025, focused on policy review,
technical analysis, and initial community outreach. The project team reviewed relevant local
and regional plans to ensure consistency with the City's existing goals, including the General
Plan Mobility Element and the Vision Zero Action Plan. Community input during Phase 1
identified safety, accessibility, maintenance, sustainability, multimodal balance, and fairness as
key priorities, with safety ranked as the top goal.
Phase 1 also included a needs assessment and existing conditions review to identify gaps,
barriers, and opportunities within the active transportation network. Technical analyses,
including Level of Traffic Stress and Active Trip Potential, helped identify locations where
existing short driving trips could reasonably shift to walking or biking if safer and more
comfortable facilities were provided. These analyses were paired with community feedback
about desired destinations, barriers to walking and biking, and general safety concerns.
Residents consistently emphasized the need to improve safety along the Vision Zero High-
Injury Network, strengthen connections between neighborhoods and schools, address stressful
intersections, and consider potential impacts to drivers when implementing bicycle
improvement projects. Together, the technical analysis and community feedback informed the
development of draft network recommendations and draft project prioritization criteria.
Phase 2, the Network Recommendations Phase, occurred between August 20 and November 30,
2025. During this phase, the City continued public engagement through eight pop-up events,
three public hearings, and an updated online webmap that allowed community members to
review and comment on draft project recommendations. Public feedback continued to highlight
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
July 15, 2026
Agenda Item #2
Attachment A
11
BPC 07-15-2026
11 of 125
concerns about intersection conflicts, right-turning vehicles, limited visibility, red-light running,
vehicle speeding, and bike-ped safety during commute periods. The intersections and corridors
most frequently identified included Stevens Creek Boulevard, Stelling Road, Bollinger Road, De
Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue.
In fall 2026, all Phase 1 materials, along with the draft project prioritization criteria, were
presented to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, the Planning Commission, and the City
Council. Both the Planning and Bicycle Pedestrian Commissions agreed that the ATP project
scoring should prioritize safety near schools and along the Vision Zero High Injury Network.
Additionally, both Commissions recommended that the criteria should rely on data-based
metrics, and that subjective metrics, such as “Fairness,” should be removed from the scoring
criteria. Lastly, the two bodies emphasized the need to improve future decision-making through
better data collection and that the ATP should place greater emphasis on transportation
technology.
Commission recommendations were presented to the City Council on November 4, 2026, and
based on Council direction, staff then revised the draft prioritization criteria by refining the
Safety metric, refining and increasing the max score for the School Proximity metric, adding
senior facilities to Destination scoring, creating a new transportation technology project
category, removing the Fairness metric, adding Cost Effectiveness as a metric, and
incorporating additional negative scoring for projects with impacts to Cupertino arterials.
Staff also developed additional guidelines to support future project delivery, including a Project
Impact Assessment Memo and a Project Effectiveness Memo. These documents are intended to
improve transparency, evaluate potential tradeoffs during project design, and establish a more
consistent approach to measuring the effectiveness of future ATP projects. Together, the work
completed in Phases 1 and 2 makes up the Draft Active Transportation Plan, which was
developed in Phase 3.
Phase 3 Commission Feedback & Council Direction on Project Scoring
Phase 3 was the Plan Development and Public Review Phase of the Active Transportation Plan.
This phase focused on consolidating the work completed during Phases 1 and 2 into a single
comprehensive document for public review. The Draft Active Transportation Plan incorporates
all materials previously reviewed by the City Council, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and
the Planning Commission, and its content reflects the direction provided by the City Council to
staff throughout the project.
Before preparing the Draft Active Transportation Plan, staff returned to the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission and Planning Commission to receive feedback on the Draft Project List. At the
February 10, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission discussed the challenge of
making incremental adjustments to individual scoring criteria, noting that changes to one
metric could unintentionally affect project rankings elsewhere. However, there was general
agreement that the Safety and School Proximity scoring should be refined to better elevate
Vision Zero-related projects.
12
BPC 07-15-2026
12 of 125
The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission also reviewed the Draft Project List on February 18, 2026.
Similar to the Planning Commission, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission expressed interest in
modifying the criteria to better support Vision Zero-related projects. Commissioners also
suggested that the School Proximity metric may be weighted too heavily.
This proposed adjustment was presented to the City Council on April 7, 2026, where the
Council conducted a straw poll directing staff to rescore the network recommendations using
the adjusted scoring approach. The project rankings shown in Chapter 7 of the Draft Active
Transportation Plan reflect the City Council’s direction from the April 7, 2026, meeting. These
project rankings are not intended to establish the order in which projects should be completed.
Rather, they are intended to guide future project selection and initiation through the City’s
Capital Improvement Program process. Future implementation will depend on multiple factors,
including funding availability, staff capacity, project readiness, grant opportunities, community
priorities, and opportunities to coordinate with other planned or ongoing City projects.
Phase 3 Draft Plan Public Comments and Responses
Following the April 7, 2026, City Council meeting, staff rescored the network recommendations
using the Council-directed adjusted scoring criteria. Staff then began preparing the Draft Active
Transportation Plan by organizing the materials developed over the past year into a single
document. The Draft Plan was circulated for public review from June 1 through June 30, 2026,
via an interactive PDF that allowed readers to submit comments, which were publicly viewable.
During this review period, staff received 19 comments on the Draft Plan, which are still
viewable at CupertinoATP.org. Most comments were either minor clarifications, project-specific
suggestions, unrelated concerns outside the scope of the ATP, or issues that had already been
heard and considered during earlier phases of community engagement. Additionally, the
comments largely reaffirmed themes from Phases 1 and 2, including general interest in safer
walking and biking conditions, improved school access, low-stress bikeway connectivity, and
careful consideration of potential neighborhood impacts. The primary substantive comment
was regarding the importance of e-bike safety, which led to some additional language in
Chapter 1 emphasizing the importance of e-bike and electric micromobility safety beyond what
was already stated in Chapter 6.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Approved for Submission by: Chad Mosley, Public Works Director
13
BPC 07-15-2026
13 of 125
City of Cupertino
Active Transportation Plan
FINAL DRAFT · JULY 6, 2026
14
BPC 07-15-2026
14 of 125
Acknowledgments
2025-2026 City Council
Kitty Moore
Mayor
Liang-Fang “Liang” Chao
Vice Mayor
J.R. Fruen
Councilmember
Sheila Mohan
Councilmember
R “Ray” Wang
Councilmember
2025-2026 Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission
Gerhard Eschelbeck
Chair
Munisekaran Madhipatla
Vice Chair
Ilango Ganga
Commissioner
Herve Marcy
Commissioner
Joel Wolf
Commissioner
2025-2026 Planning
Commission
Tracy Kosolcharoen
Chair
Steven Scharf
Vice Chair
David Fung
Commissioner
Seema Lindskog
Commissioner
Santosh Rao
Commissioner
City of Cupertino, Public
Works
David Stillman
Transportation Manager
Matthew Schroeder
Senior Transportation Planner
Consultant
Alta Planning + Design
HMH Engineers
2CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 15
BPC 07-15-2026
15 of 125
Contents
CHAPTER 1—PLAN OVERVIEW 7
• Why an Active Transportation Plan? � � � � � � �8
• What’s in the Plan? � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 11
CHAPTER 2—
VISION, GOALS, AND OBJECTIVES 12
• Goals � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 14
• Objectives � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 15
CHAPTER 3—CUPERTINO TODAY 18
• Building on the Past � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 19
• Community Profile � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 20
• Transportation Profile � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 21
• Walking and Rolling � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 22
CHAPTER 4—NEEDS ANALYSIS 31
• Components of the Needs Analysis� � � � � � � 32
• Safety � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 33
• Level of Traffic Stress Analysis � � � � � � � � � 35
• Active Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 39
• Stress-Adjusted Short Trips:
Gap Potential Analysis � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 45
CHAPTER 5—PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT 49
• Phase 1 Outreach � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 51
• Phase 2 Outreach � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 52
CHAPTER 6—PLAN
RECOMMENDATIONS 53
• Recommendation Selection Methodology � � � 54
• Pedestrian Network Recommendations � � � � 55
• Transportation Technology
Corridor Recommendations � � � � � � � � � � � 58
• Bicycle Network Recommendations � � � � � � 60
• Recommended Programs � � � � � � � � � � � � 63
CHAPTER 7—
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION 72
• Methodology � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 73
• Project Ranking and Cost Estimates � � � � � � 78
• Implementation Strategy� � � � � � � � � � � � � 90
• Project Delivery and Evaluation Commitments � 91
• Funding Sources � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 92
APPENDICES 94
3CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 16
BPC 07-15-2026
16 of 125
List of Figures
Figure 1—Bicyclists and e-scooter on McClellan Road
at Rose Blossom Drive � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 8
Figure 2—Woman riding an e-scooter on
Torre Avenue � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 9
Figure 3—Adult riding an e-mountain bike on Stevens
Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 9
Figure 4—Older adult riding a tricycle on Stevens
Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �10
Figure 5—ATP signage at Creekside Park � � � � � � �20
Figure 6—Cyclists waiting to cross De Anza
Boulevard at Stevens Creek Boulevard � � � � � � �20
Figure 7—Youth and Seniors as Share of Population in
Cupertino (Source: ACS 2023 five-year estimates) � 20
Figure 8—Commuter Mode Share
(Source: 2023 ACS 5-Year estimates) � � � � � � � �21
Figure 9—Three cyclists riding westbound on
Bollinger Road � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �22
Figure 10—Existing Pedestrian Network (2025) � � �22
Figure 11—Existing Sidewalk Network � � � � � � � �23
Figure 12—Cyclist approaching Rectangular Rapid
Flashing Beacon on McClellan Road � � � � � � � �24
Figure 13—Permanent crossing improvements on
Byrne Avenue � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �24
Figure 14—Existing Crosswalks � � � � � � � � � � � �25
Figure 15—VTA Route 23 on Stevens
Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �26
Figure 16—SV Hopper � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �26
Figure 17—Average Daily Transit Boardings
and Alightings � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �27
Figure 18—Person rolling on De Anza Boulevard at
Stevens Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �28
Figure 19—Existing Bike Infrastructure � � � � � � � �29
Figure 20—Pedestrians at the intersection of De Anza
Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard � � � � �33
Figure 21—Older adult in crosswalk blocked by a car
on Stevens Creek Boulevard � � � � � � � � � � � � �33
Figure 22—Cyclists on Bollinger Road at
Clifden Way � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33
Figure 23—High-Injury Network � � � � � � � � � � �34
Figure 24—Pedestrian Level of Traffic
Stress Categories � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �35
Figure 25—Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress � � � � �36
Figure 26—Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Categories �37
Figure 27—Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis �38
Figure 28—Woman riding a folding electric bike
on Homestead Road at De Anza Boulevard � � � �39
Figure 29—Active Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � �40
Figure 30—A screenshot of the Flowmap
showing short driving trips within Cupertino � �40
Figure 31—Active Trip Potential: All Trips Under
5 Miles� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �41
Figure 32—Walk Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � � �42
Figure 33—Bike Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � � �43
Figure 34—E-Bike Trip Potential � � � � � � � � � � � �44
Figure 35—Man crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard at
Finch Avenue to access Main Street Cupertino � �45
Figure 36—Woman cycling on Rodrigues Avenue
turning onto De Anza Boulevard � � � � � � � � � �45
Figure 37—Walk Gap Scores � � � � � � � � � � � � � �47
Figure 38—Bike Gap Scores � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �48
Figure 39—Presentation at Community
Workshop #1 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �50
Figure 40—Silicon Valley Fall Festival � � � � � � � � �50
Figure 41—Cupertino Block Leader Meeting � � � � �50
Figure 42—Students and parents at Collins
Elementary School Walk and Roll Day � � � � � � �51
Figure 43—Cupertino Senior Center � � � � � � � � � �52
Figure 44—Recommended Pedestrian Network � � �57
Figure 45—Recommended Transportation
Technology Corridors � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �59
Figure 46—Recommended Bikeway
Facilities (miles) � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �60
Figure 47—Rider on McClellan Road � � � � � � � � �60
Figure 48—Recommended Bike Network � � � � � �62
Figure 49—Pedestrian Network Recommendations
with Project Rankings� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �75
Figure 50—Transportation Technology Network
Recommendations with Project Rankings � � � � �76
Figure 51—Bicycle Network Recommendations
with Project Rankings� � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �77
Figure 52—Rodrigues Avenue buffered bike
lanes installed as part of the City’s pavement
maintenance program � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �90
Figure 53—Sharrow installation on Pacifica Drive� �91
4CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 17
BPC 07-15-2026
17 of 125
List of Tables
Table 1—
Student mode share in Cupertino (2024)� � � �21
Table 2—
Engineering Program Recommendations � � � 63
Table 3—
Encouragement Program Recommendations � 66
Table 4—
Education Program Recommendations � � � � 68
Table 5—
Enforcement Program Recommendations � � � 70
Table 6—
Evaluation Program Recommendations � � � � 71
Table 7—
Pedestrian Facility Improvements
Prioritization Metrics � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �73
Table 8—
Transportation Technology Corridors
Prioritization Metrics � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �74
Table 9—
Bicycle Facility Improvements
Prioritization Metrics � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �74
Table 10—
Consolidated Project Ranking � � � � � � � � � �78
5CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 18
BPC 07-15-2026
18 of 125
CHAPTER 1
Plan Overview
19
BPC 07-15-2026
19 of 125
Plan Overview
The Cupertino Active Transportation
Plan will guide future multimodal
transportation investments that
improve safety, connectivity, and
access throughout Cupertino.
The Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is a
comprehensive plan that identifies infrastructure
improvements, policies, and programs to make it easier
for people to walk, bike, and roll in Cupertino� The ATP
builds on Cupertino’s previous initiatives to improve
mobility, including the 2024 Vision Zero Action Plan,
the 2023 Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP), the 2018
Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and the 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan� The ATP integrates insights
and achievements from these earlier efforts and
reaffirms the City’s commitment to its long-term active
transportation goals� The project team collaborated
with residents, community groups, City departments,
and other stakeholders to identify local needs and
develop recommendations to make active travel
more accessible, comfortable, and convenient for all
Cupertino residents and visitors�
The plan is rooted in safety needs, funding
opportunities, state policy, and the City’s Council-
adopted environmental and community goals�
Together, these factors underscore the importance of
planning for a transportation system that is accessible,
balanced, and safe for all roadway users�
PHASE 1
Needs Assessment and
Existing Conditions
• Review of local, regional,
and state policies and plans
• Analysis of Cupertino
demographics, land
use, existing/planned
infrastructure, safety, and
other relevant inputs
• Community input on
network barriers and
needs, as well as plan
vision and goals
PHASE 2
Project
Recommendations
• Development of draft
recommendations
• Community input on draft
recommendations
• Prioritization of
infrastructure
improvements
and programmatic
recommendations
• Financial analysis and
implementation strategy
PHASE 3
Draft Plan Review and
Final Adoption
• Preparation and public
review of draft ATP
• Public input on draft ATP
• Adoption of final ATP
based on community input
and official approvals
Active transportation is the movement of people or
goods using nonmotorized methods powered by human
activity� Forms of active transportation include walking,
biking, or rolling (e�g�, skateboarding, riding a scooter, or
using a mobility device).
7CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 20
BPC 07-15-2026
20 of 125
Why an Active Transportation Plan?
State Requirements and
Policy Context
Active transportation planning in California is strongly
supported by state legislation and policy� Cities
in California are required to update their citywide
bicycle, pedestrian, or active transportation plans
every five years to remain eligible for certain funding
sources� The California Active Transportation Program,
established through Senate Bill 99 and Assembly Bill
101, encourages the increased use of walking and
biking as a means to improve safety, public health, and
environmental outcomes�
Having an adopted active transportation plan is
considered best practice and is often necessary to align
with state and regional goals, including greenhouse
gas reduction targets established under Senate Bill
375� State and regional guidance emphasizes that
local agencies should develop comprehensive bicycle
and pedestrian plans to identify needs, prioritize
improvements, and demonstrate project readiness
for implementation� This planning process ensures
that projects are data-driven, community-shaped,
and consistent with statewide transportation and
climate policies�
Grant Funding Eligibility
One of the primary reasons cities develop active
transportation plans is to remain competitive for
federal, state, and regional funding� Programs such
as Safe Streets and Roads for All (federal), the Active
Transportation Program (state), or One Bay Area
Grant (regional) are significant sources of funding for
building and maintaining transportation infrastructure
in Cupertino� Most competitive grant programs are
heavily oversubscribed, making an adopted active
transportation plan essential for cities wanting to
successfully compete for grant funding� Active
transportation funding can support a wide range of
improvements such as sidewalks, bikeways, safe routes
to school programs, and traffic safety enhancements.
By developing an active transportation plan, the
City of Cupertino can leverage local funds as a
multiplier for external funding to implement
Council-approved projects�
Figure 1: Bicyclists and e-scooter on McClellan Road at Rose Blossom Drive
8CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 21
BPC 07-15-2026
21 of 125
Improving Safety
Safety is a central motivation for active transportation
planning� Statewide goals for active transportation plans
include increasing the safety and mobility of nonmotorized
users� The 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan
identified safety improvements for people walking and
biking as a critical implementation action because they are
the most vulnerable roadway users� This ATP provides
the framework to turn the High Injury Network locations
identified in the Vision Zero Action Plan into possible
projects for future implementation�
By proactively addressing safety, Cupertino can reduce
traffic-related injuries and fatalities, improve comfort for all
users, and support a Safe Systems Approach: eliminating
fatal and serious injuries for all road users by designing
a forgiving transportation system that accommodates
inevitable human mistakes� It moves beyond traditional
safety by accepting that humans are vulnerable, and that
proactive, shared responsibility is required�
Since adoption of the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and
2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, new micromobility
trends have emerged, including e-scooters, e-bikes,
and emotos� While these technologies have expanded
transportation options and increased the convenience of
micromobility, they also present unique safety challenges
that require proactive attention.
The ATP recommends e-bike and micromobility
education, with a particular focus on school-age riders,
as a shared community-wide responsibility is required to
ensure these new options can be used safely while also
supporting City active transportation goals�
Figure 2: Woman riding an e-scooter on Torre Avenue
Figure 3: Adult riding an e-mountain bike on
Stevens Creek Boulevard
9CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 22
BPC 07-15-2026
22 of 125
Figure 4: Older adult riding a tricycle on Stevens Creek Boulevard
Benefits of Walking, Biking,
and Rolling
In addition to safety and environmental benefits, active
transportation also provides public health, economic,
and community advantages� These include:
• Public Health: Walking, biking, and rolling increase
physical activity, helping reduce chronic diseases
such as obesity, heart disease, and diabetes�
• Equity and Accessibility: Active transportation
networks provide affordable mobility options for
people of all incomes, including those who cannot or
choose not to drive�
• Economic Vitality: Improved pedestrian and
bicycle infrastructure can support local businesses
by increasing foot traffic and improving access to
commercial areas�
• Quality of Life: Walkable and bikeable communities
promote social interaction, reduce noise, and create
more vibrant public spaces�
• Connectivity: Active transportation infrastructure
improves access to schools, parks, jobs, and transit,
strengthening the overall transportation network�
These benefits support Cupertino’s vision for a livable,
healthy, and sustainable community�
Climate Action
Plan Alignment
Active transportation is a key strategy for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and advancing local,
regional, and state climate goals� Cupertino’s largest
source of emissions comes from private vehicle travel;
the ATP advances the City’s Climate Action Plan
(CAP) by encouraging mode shift and reducing vehicle
miles traveled� Investments in walking and biking
infrastructure make it easier for residents to choose
sustainable transportation options for short trips,
school trips, commutes, and connections to transit�
The ATP directly supports Chapter 9 of the Climate
Action Plan, “Connecting Communities,” which
identifies transportation as a key component of
Cupertino’s climate strategy. The CAP specifically calls
for the development and implementation of an Active
Transportation Plan to help achieve a 15 percent active
transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent by
2040� By identifying projects that close network gaps,
improve safety, and create more comfortable facilities
for people walking and biking, the ATP provides an
implementation mechanism for these CAP goals�
10CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 23
BPC 07-15-2026
23 of 125
What’s in the Plan?
The ATP is organized in the following chapters:
CHAPTER 2
VISION, GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Presents the ATP’s guiding vision statement with
associated goals and policies�
CHAPTER 3
CUPERTINO TODAY
Offers an overview of Cupertino’s current demographic
context, travel modes, transit systems, active
transportation infrastructure, and progress made on
past plans�
CHAPTER 4
NEEDS ANALYSIS
Provides analysis of safety on Cupertino’s streets;
which streets are most comfortable for walking, biking,
and rolling; where there’s the most potential for new
walking, biking, and rolling trips; and where future
ATP investments might yield the largest benefits.
CHAPTER 5
PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Shares the public participation process from 2025
to 2026 and summarizes what we heard from
the community�
CHAPTER 6
PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS
Presents recommendations for investments to the active
transportation network, along with recommended
policies and programs to achieve Cupertino’s long-
range vision for active transportation�
CHAPTER 7
PROJECT PRIORITIZATION
Presents the results of prioritization scoring for
recommended projects, cost estimates for project
implementation, an overview of available funding
sources, and guidelines for measuring project
effectiveness and proactively assessing potential
impacts to traffic operations.
11CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Overview 24
BPC 07-15-2026
24 of 125
CHAPTER 2
Vision, Goals,
and Objectives
25
BPC 07-15-2026
25 of 125
Vision, Goals and Objectives
The vision, goals, and objectives were developed to reflect and reinforce the City of
Cupertino’s adopted plans and policies� They were developed by consolidating similar and
overlapping statements from existing Cupertino plans and then refined using input gathered
during Phase 1 outreach to also reflect today’s community needs and concerns.
The City of Cupertino will be a place where people of all ages
and abilities can easily, comfortably, and safely walk, bike, and
roll to get where they want to go. A robust active transportation
network will enhance mobility options for all, creating a safe
and connected multimodal City.
Vision Statement
Vision is a broad aspirational statement for the desired
future state of walking, biking, and rolling in Cupertino.
Goals are general statements of what the City hopes to
achieve for active transportation over time.
Objectives further define how and what actions are part
of meeting these goals.
13CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 26
BPC 07-15-2026
26 of 125
Goals
Each goal provides a guiding framework that was applied throughout
the development of this plan.
SAFETY
Consistent with the Vision Zero Action
Plan, pursue an active transportation
network that reduces the number of
serious and fatal crashes involving
people walking, biking, or rolling to zero�
Enact measures to anticipate human
error and minimize the impact of traffic
crashes for all roadway users�
ACCESSIBILITY
Provide a well-connected multimodal
transportation network that offers
comfortable and convenient walking and
biking options to key destinations for all
residents and visitors in Cupertino�
MAINTENANCE
Active transportation needs should be
considered and integrated in all City
roadway maintenance activities�
SUSTAINABILITY
Advance environmental quality and
economic prosperity for the City by
providing inviting active transportation
facilities that encourage frequent use
and improve adoption of all non-vehicle
modes of travel, resulting in a reduction
in vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse
gas emissions�
MULTIMODAL BALANCE
Consider multimodal priorities and
project impacts to improve sustainable
transportation options throughout the
City� Limit impacts to all other modes
whenever possible, including transit and
personal vehicles�
FAIRNESS
Provide a multimodal transportation
system that is equally distributed across
all neighborhoods in Cupertino�
14CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 27
BPC 07-15-2026
27 of 125
Objectives
Objectives represent concrete actions that the City can take to achieve each goal
and transform the vision into a reality.
Safety
1.A Prioritize improvement projects in the City’s
Capital Improvement Program that are along the Vision
Zero High-Injury Network (HIN).
1.B Design the transportation system to accommodate
vulnerable road users, especially youth� Integrate
Vision Zero principles into all City projects and
departments, with a focus on eliminating all traffic
fatalities and severe injuries on City roadways�
1.C Provide separation between users. Reduce conflicts
between people walking and biking by separating
active transportation users in space (such as separated
bikeways) or in time (such as separate signal phases).
1.D Prioritize school safety improvements, working
with Cupertino Union School District and Fremont
Union High School District, focused on roadway safety
improvements and safety education efforts.
1.E Conduct education with vulnerable road users to
improve safety awareness, especially among youth,
seniors, and residents with a disability�
1.F Work with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office
to identify and prioritize “hot spot” enforcement for
traffic infractions most likely to lead to serious or
fatal injuries�
Accessibility
2.A Increase access and comfort by designing the
network for all ages and abilities in line with the
best available research and design standards� Ensure
the active transportation network complies with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
2.B Prioritize regional connectivity by implementing
active transportation projects that connect to
surrounding cities or are identified as countywide
corridors in the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Countywide Bicycle Plan�
2.C Address gaps to establish an active transportation
network that is more complete, connected, sustainable,
and better integrated with public transportation.
2.D Expand short-term and secure long-term bicycle
parking capacity in public spaces and through new
housing and commercial development requirements�
2.E Improve access to transit stops and stations for
people biking and walking�
2.F Expand and improve wayfinding signage for people
walking and biking�
2.G Expand and connect the trail network throughout
Cupertino, to act as an alternative to the street network
for people walking and biking�
15CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 28
BPC 07-15-2026
28 of 125
Sustainability
3.A Reflect sustainable priorities in the City’s Capital
Improvements budget and other operating programs�
3.B Support a culture of active and transit mode choice
through incentives, programs, and initiatives that focus
on reaching families, women, and seniors�
3.C Support and expand education and encouragement
through the Safe Routes to School program�
3.D Reduce vehicle miles traveled and greenhouse
gases through investments in the active transportation
network that support a shift in behavior from driving a
car to walking, biking, rolling, and transit�
3.E Facilitate multi-jurisdictional commute trips
by prioritizing implementation of trail/shared-use
path projects and VTA Cross County Bicycle
Corridor projects�
3.F Accommodate and plan for a wider range of
mobility devices, such as electric scooters and bicycles�
Maintenance
4.A Continue and expand the use of the Cupertino 311
online portal for community reporting of damaged or
malfunctioning active transportation infrastructure�
4.B Prioritize street sweeping and maintenance
activities on streets with separated bikeways�
4.C Adopt design standards for new infrastructure that
prioritize lower maintenance costs�
4.D Work with private property owners to ensure
sidewalks are maintained and repaired, especially
around schools and other major destinations�
4.E Continue to maintain a citywide database on active
transportation infrastructure�
16CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 29
BPC 07-15-2026
29 of 125
Multimodal Balance
5.A Develop a Complete Streets Study Guideline for
evaluating the potential impacts of separated on-street
bikeways, including parking loss, congestion impacts,
or transit efficiency.
5.B Consider bicycle and pedestrian safety and comfort
for all City traffic studies and impact analysis.
5.B Prioritize projects that generate multimodal
benefits, such as transit enhancements or roadway
safety improvements�
5.C Prioritize the implementation of projects with a
high degree of project readiness and known impacts on
traffic operations.
5.D Prioritize the needs of vulnerable road users, such
as seniors, youth, and residents with a disability, when
approaching design for new projects�
5.E Track and report to the public the utilization of
active transportation facilities through regular bicycle
and pedestrian counts�
5.F Pursue innovative solutions and traffic technology
as appropriate to advance multimodal priorities�
Fairness
6.A Prioritize improvements in areas of the City
that are lacking active transportation infrastructure,
particularly sidewalks and crosswalks�
6.B Conduct robust community engagement and
establish collaborative stakeholder partnerships
when designing and implementing active
transportation infrastructure�
6.C Prioritize projects in proximity to schools or along
designated school travel routes�
6.D Provide regular updates to the public on ATP
implementation progress�
6.E Sponsor and support community events
that use active transportation in neighborhoods
across Cupertino�
17CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Vision, Goals, and Objectives 30
BPC 07-15-2026
30 of 125
CHAPTER 3
Cupertino Today
31
BPC 07-15-2026
31 of 125
Cupertino Today
To develop the ATP, the project team considered previously identified needs and issues and
evaluated the present state of the transportation system to improve safety and comfort for
people walking, biking, and rolling. Staff reviewed the transportation system from different
perspectives including demographics, safety data, and user comfort. This approach helped the
team better understand what motivates or deters people in the travel choices that they make.
CITY OF CUPERTINO TIMELINE OF PLANS
Building on the Past
The project team reviewed 10 local plans and 4 regional
plans related to active transportation and mobility
from the past 20 years to ensure the ATP advances the
transportation goals and actions identified by prior
efforts. The insights and lessons learned from the
previous planning efforts provided the context for the
ATP vision and goals�
2016 2018 2022 2023 2024 2024
Bicycle Transportation
Plan
Pedestrian
Transportation
Plan
Climate Action
Plan
Local Roadway
Safety Plan
Vision Zero
Plan
General Plan
Mobility
Element
In 2015, the City first adopted the General Plan –
Mobility Element, which established the City’s goal
to make alternative modes of transportation attractive
options� This goal aims to reduce the strain on the
transportation network and improve health and quality
of life for residents and businesses� The element was
updated in 2024�
In 2024, the City adopted the Vision Zero Action Plan –
affirming the City’s long-term commitment
to safety by recommending both infrastructure and
non-infrastructure programs that advance the goal
of eliminating multimodal traffic fatalities and
serious injuries�
The City adopted its most recent Bicycle Transportation
Plan in 2016 and its Pedestrian Transportation Plan
in 2018� Also in 2018, Cupertino adopted a Complete
Streets Policy to create an integrated transportation
network that promotes safe and convenient travel
for all� The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
Countywide Bicycle Plan (2018), VTA Bicycle
Superhighway Implementation Plan (2025), and Santa
Clara County Active Transportation Plan (2025) also
informed regional connectivity between Cupertino and
the surrounding communities in Santa Clara County�
These documents lay the foundation of Cupertino’s
active transportation network�
See Appendices for the complete Plan Review�
19CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 32
BPC 07-15-2026
32 of 125
Community Profile
The City of Cupertino is in western Santa
Clara County in the San Francisco Bay Area,
with a population of 58,886 residents� It is
the ancestral home of the Muwekma Ohlone
tribe and the Tamien Nation indigenous
peoples� Throughout the late 19th and
early 20th centuries, Cupertino was home
to a robust agricultural industry� The City
formally incorporated in 1955, with much of
the City subsequently developing in a post-
war suburban layout� The City has a history
of innovation in Silicon Valley, serving as the
headquarters for Apple Inc�
Nearly 72% of Cupertino residents identify
as Asian, with 30% of the total population
identifying as Chinese and another 30%
identifying as Asian Indian or South Asian�
About 20% of Cupertino residents identify
as White, and 3% identify as Latino� Among
the 63% of Cupertino households that speak
a language other than English at home, 43%
speak Asian and Pacific Islander languages,
17% speak other Indo-European Languages,
and less than 2% speak Spanish�
Approximately 40% of Cupertino residents
are either under 18 (26%) or over 65 (14%).
Youth and seniors have a varied profile of
trip patterns and access to vehicles, with
far more of their trips being local compared
to working age adults who often commute
longer distances to work� Cupertino has a
large potential pool of demand for local,
non-commuting trips within the community
that may require options beyond driving�
Figure 5: ATP signage at Creekside Park
Figure 6: Cyclists waiting to cross De Anza Boulevard
at Stevens Creek Boulevard
Figure 7: Youth and Seniors as Share of Population in
Cupertino (Source: ACS 2023 five-year estimates)
59.9%
25.7%
14.3%Youth
Senior
Other
20CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 33
BPC 07-15-2026
33 of 125
Transportation Profile
Commute to Work
Commute to work is measured by the American
Community Survey (ACS), which provides five-year
rolling estimates of mode choices for travel� It should
be noted that ACS mode share data only captures the
primary mode of travel used during work-related trips�
Across the City, 3�5% of residents travel to work
either by walking or biking, while another 28% work
from home� Transitioning more local trips to active
modes has the potential to reduce congestion for those
residents who must drive to work�
School Trips/
Safe Routes to School
One-third of youth in Cupertino today travel to
school by walking, biking, or rolling.
Since 2015, Cupertino has collected school travel data
as part of its Safe Routes to School (SR2S) initiative,
using an in-class survey method developed by the
National Safe Routes to School Partnership� Capturing
school travel mode is particularly important as one-
quarter of the Cupertino population is under 18� The
data collected also informs program planning and
supports grant applications by tracking mode share
trends across all grade levels�
See Appendix B for the complete Existing
Conditions Memo�
Figure 8:
Commuter Mode
Share (Source:
2023 ACS 5-Year
estimates)
Drove alone
62.1%
Taxi
1.0%
Carpooled
4.0%
Public
transportation
1.1%
Bicycle
0.7%
Walked
2.8%
Worked from
home
28.3%
Table 1: Student mode share in Cupertino (2024)
MODE OF TRAVEL ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS MIDDLE SCHOOLS HIGH SCHOOLS CITYWIDE
Family Vehicle - Alone 56%54%54%55%
Family Vehicle - Carpool 12%14%6%11%
Public Transit 0%0%3%1%
School Bus 1%1%0%1%
Bike/E-Bike/Other 6%12%18%11%
Walk 26%19%19%22%
Across the City,
3.5% of residents
travel to work by either walking or biking
21CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 34
BPC 07-15-2026
34 of 125
Walking and Rolling
Cupertino, with its mild weather, flat terrain, and compact size, is a suitable
location for all forms of walking and rolling—including biking, scooting, or other
personal mobility devices.
Figure 9: Three cyclists riding westbound on Bollinger Road
Pedestrian Network
SIDEWALKS
Cupertino has a relatively well-developed sidewalk
network, particularly in the areas around its denser
centers and southern residential neighborhoods� In
areas near the Cupertino Village Shopping Center,
Main Street, and schools, such as Cupertino High
School, sidewalks are common and well-maintained�
In the more central parts of Cupertino, especially
near major intersections and public facilities like the
Cupertino Library and Community Center, there is also
a higher density of sidewalks�
A substantial portion of local streets, particularly
in western Cupertino, have incomplete sidewalk
networks or sidewalks on only one side of the street�
In many cases, this is due to voluntary neighborhood
classification as “semi-rural,” which exempts these
areas from sidewalk construction requirements�
Figure 10: Existing Pedestrian Network (2025)
10314
30
6
Shared Use Path
Sidewalk (one side)
Sidewalk (both sides)
Missing/incomplete sidewalk
MILEAGE
22CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 35
BPC 07-15-2026
35 of 125
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
EXISTING SIDEWALKS
OTHER PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Shared-Use Path
EXISTING SIDEWALK NETWORK
Complete (both sides)
Incomplete (one side)
No sidewalk
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 11: Existing Sidewalk Network
23CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 36
BPC 07-15-2026
36 of 125
CROSSINGS
The quality and frequency of roadway crossings
for pedestrians in Cupertino vary, with a mix
of well-designed crossings in higher-density
areas and gaps in infrastructure in lower-
density, residential areas� In denser commercial
zones, such as along major roads like De Anza
Boulevard and Homestead Road, crosswalks are
generally well-marked� Areas with higher foot
traffic, such as near Cupertino High School, the
Cupertino Library, and the Cupertino Village
Shopping Center also have enhanced crosswalks,
including use of Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) at uncontrolled intersections
(shown in Figure 12).
Cupertino has implemented many crosswalk
improvements near schools� Figure 13 shows
an example of a concrete curb extension project
that shortens the pedestrian crossing distance,
improves visibility, and encourages slower
turning movements�
Crosswalks can be sparse in some residential
or less-developed areas, especially in western
Cupertino, requiring pedestrians to walk further
to find a safe crossing point. In these areas, the
lack of consistent crosswalk infrastructure can
create challenges for pedestrians�
Figure 14 shows the City’s existing pedestrian
crossings and locations of RRFB crossings�
Figure 12: Cyclist
approaching Rectangular
Rapid Flashing Beacon
on McClellan Road
Figure 13: Permanent
crossing improvements
on Byrne Avenue
24CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 37
BPC 07-15-2026
37 of 125
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
EXISTING CROSSWALKS
EXISTING CROSSWALKS NETWORK
Crosswalk
Rectangular Rapid-Flashing Beacon
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 14: Existing Crosswalks
25CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 38
BPC 07-15-2026
38 of 125
Transit Network
Cupertino’s transit network provides vital connections
to neighboring cities and regional hubs in the broader
Silicon Valley and San Francisco Bay Area� The City
is served by 13 VTA bus routes, which provide local
transit options and also connect to VTA Light Rail
and regional transit such as Caltrain� Most bus routes
connect to central Cupertino along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, and buses are equipped with bike racks
that can accommodate up to three bicycles� VTA bus
ridership is highest in central Cupertino, near De Anza
College� Figure 17 shows the City’s average daily
boardings and alightings at VTA bus stops�
In addition to VTA transit service, Cupertino
(in partnership with City of Santa Clara) offers
microtransit service through the Silicon Valley (SV)
Hopper program� The City of Cupertino manages the
program, offering rideshare service to designated stops
through a dedicated app for Cupertino, Santa Clara,
and a few specific destinations beyond Cupertino City
limits� These stops are typically the closest street corner
to trip origins or destinations, though individuals with
disabilities can receive door-to-door service� Youth
aged 13 and older are permitted to use SV Hopper
independently with parental consent�
Figure 15: VTA Route 23 on Stevens Creek Boulevard
Figure 16: SV Hopper
26CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 39
BPC 07-15-2026
39 of 125
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FOOTHILL
BLVD
MILLER
AVE S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
AVERAGE DAILY BOARDINGS
AND ALIGHTINGS (2024)
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools
Parks
City Boundary
AVERAGE DAILY BOARDINGS +
ALIGHTINGS (2024)
Fewer than 50
50 to 100
100 to 200
More than 200
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
a
n
d
V
T
A
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 17: Average Daily Transit Boardings and Alightings
27CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 40
BPC 07-15-2026
40 of 125
Biking and Rolling
Network
Cupertino has an existing network of 51�2
miles of bikeways� The bicycle facility types
are defined in the Bicycle Facility Toolbox�
Much of the recent growth of the bikeway
network has been informed by the 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan, which envisioned
three separate but complementary networks
for transportation:
• The Loop: a series of shared-use paths
(Class I), connected by low-stress separated
bikeways (Class IV)
• A backbone network of separated bikeways
(Class IV) and buffered bike lanes (Class IIB)
on major streets
• A network of calm neighborhood bike routes
(Class III), which travel through residential
areas where traffic is less dense and provide
students with direct access to schools
Figure 19 shows the City’s existing bicycle
network�
6.5
Shared-Use Path
CLASS I
7.1
Buffered Bike Lane
CLASS IIB
6.5
Bike Boulevard
CLASS IIIB
18.5
Bike Lane
CLASS II
8.2
Bike Route
CLASS III
4.4
Separated
Bikeways
CLASS IV
51.2 MILES OF
EXISTING BIKEWAY FACILITIES
Figure 18: Person rolling on De Anza Boulevard at
Stevens Creek Boulevard
28CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 41
BPC 07-15-2026
41 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
STELLING
RD
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
ORANGE
AVE
FINCH
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MILLER
AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MARYAVE
WO
L
F
E
R
D
EXISTING BIKE NETWORK
EXISTING BIKE INFRASTRUCTURE
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Neighborhood Bike Route
Separated Bikeway
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 19: Existing Bike Infrastructure
29CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 42
BPC 07-15-2026
42 of 125
Recent Progress
As of 2025, the City has completed 34 active
transportation projects since the adoption of the 2018
Cupertino Pedestrian Transportation Plan and the 2016
Cupertino Bicycle Plan� Recent projects include:
• The Regnart Creek Trail, a shared-use path that runs
between Pacifica Drive and East Estates Drive. This
trail was awarded “Project of the Year” in 2022 by
the American Public Works Association (APWA)
Silicon Valley Chapter�
• Separated bikeways on Stevens Creek Boulevard,
from Tantau Avenue in the east to De Anza
Boulevard in the west� These bikeways incorporate
protected bicycle traffic signal phasing at Wolfe
Road and De Anza Blvd�
• Separated bikeways on McClellan Road and Pacifica
Drive, from Torre Avenue in the east to Imperial
Avenue in the west� This project also includes a
reconfigured intersection at De Anza Boulevard.
• Separated bikeways on Bubb Road from Stevens
Creek Blvd to McClellan Road, and parking-
separated bikeways on Mary Avenue north of
Stevens Creek Blvd�
• Many “quick-build” crosswalk improvements
adjacent to schools across Cupertino, shortening
crossing distances and increasing visibility of
pedestrians�
Regnart
Creek Trail
McClellan Rd Class IV
Stevens Creek Blvd
Class IV
Quick-Build Improvement at Cupertino City Hall
30CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Cupertino Today 43
BPC 07-15-2026
43 of 125
CHAPTER 4
Needs Analysis
44
BPC 07-15-2026
44 of 125
Needs Analysis
Cupertino has a long and proud history as a leader and innovator for data-driven analysis
and decision making� Needs analysis assesses what the underlying conditions of the
transportation system are, where safety improvements should be prioritized, what the
demand for active transportation is within Cupertino, and where future investments in the
active transportation network might result in the largest benefits. This analysis helped to
directly inform the recommendations developed for the ATP�
Further detail on the needs analysis can be found in Appendix C�
Components of the Needs Analysis
1 This analysis relied on reported collisions; not all collisions involving people biking, walking, and rolling are reported to authorities�
Furthermore, near-miss crashes were not included as they are typically not reported�
2 Based on trip distances from the 2022 National Household Travel Survey�
Safety
Adopted July 9, 2024, the 2024 Cupertino Vision Zero
Action Plan identifies key trends among traffic crashes
resulting in people being killed or seriously injured
between 2012 and 2021� Bicycle- and pedestrian-
involved collision data provides further insight into
specific locations and roadways that tend to have
higher rates of collisions in Cupertino�1 This plan
developed a High-Injury Network (HIN) network
which identifies streets with high rates of traffic injuries
or fatalities�
Active Trip Potential
Active trip potential measures the proportion of all
driving trips that may reasonably be made by active
modes, such as walking, biking, rolling, or e-bikes and
e-scooters� For this analysis, the reasonable distances
for vehicle trips that could be replaced by walking,
biking, rolling, and e-micromobility are:2
• Less than 1 mile: walking
• 1 to 3 miles: biking
• 3 to 5 miles: e-bikes or scooters
Level of Traffic Stress
Level of traffic stress (LTS) scores for the pedestrian
and bicycle networks were determined by roadway
characteristics that affect a user’s perception of safety
and comfort� These analyses helped identify segments
that represent the highest barriers to walking, biking,
and rolling based on users’ ability and comfort level�
Stress-Adjusted Short Trips
The stress-adjusted short trips analysis identifies the
locations where the most new trips could be generated
by closing existing high-stress gaps in the pedestrian
and bicycle network� This is accomplished by
overlaying active trip potential and LTS analysis, then
accounting for how high-stress gaps in the network
affect perceived travel time and willingness to walk
or bike�
32CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 45
BPC 07-15-2026
45 of 125
Safety
Vision Zero is an international effort to eliminate
all fatal and serious injury traffic crashes. The 2024
Cupertino Vision Zero Action Plan guides policies and
planning for the City of Cupertino with the goal of
eliminating fatalities and severe injuries on Cupertino
roadways by 2040�
The Vision Zero Action Plan developed a High-Injury
Network (HIN) map both for street corridors and for
intersections, identifying the seven City streets where
more than 72% of serious and fatal crashes take place
within Cupertino� While most collisions take place on
the arterial roadways in Cupertino, there are a few
smaller residential streets that account for part of the
HIN� By focusing on these high-risk areas, the City can
more effectively prioritize safety improvements and
allocate resources where they will have the greatest
impact�
Figure 20: Older adult in crosswalk blocked by a car on Stevens Creek Boulevard
Figure 21: Pedestrians at the intersection of De Anza
Boulevard and Stevens Creek Boulevard
Figure 22: Cyclists on Bollinger Road at Clifden Way
33CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 46
BPC 07-15-2026
46 of 125
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
HIGH-INJURY NETWORK (HIN)
HIN Intersections
Highest Priority Intersection
Other Intersection
HIN Corridors
Highest Priority Corridor
Other Corridor
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 23: High-Injury Network
34CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 47
BPC 07-15-2026
47 of 125
Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
The level of traffic stress (LTS) analysis evaluated
how comfortable Cupertino’s transportation network
is for the average person walking, biking, or rolling�
The more comfortable a walking, biking, or rolling
facility is, the more accessible it becomes for a larger
segment of the population, regardless of age or ability�
Pedestrian level of traffic stress (PLTS) and bicycle level
of traffic stress (BLTS) analyses help identify the streets
that are least comfortable for people walking, biking,
and rolling� The PLTS and BLTS scores are based on
specific characteristics (detailed in Appendix C); they
are not meant to reflect subjective experiences of road
users, and are just one of many factors used to inform
ATP recommendations�
Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
PLTS analysis showed that many major roadways
represent high-stress environments for people walking�
Some specific examples of higher-stress roadways
include Wolfe Road, De Anza Boulevard, Homestead
Road, and where Stevens Creek Boulevard crosses State
Route (SR) 85.
A substantial portion of local streets, particularly
in western Cupertino, have incomplete sidewalk
networks or sidewalks on only one side of the street�
In many cases, this is due to voluntary neighborhood
classification as “semi-rural,” which exempts these
areas from sidewalk construction requirements�
The Regnart Creek Trail and the Stevens Creek Trail
provide essential low-stress routes for pedestrians,
connecting to community destinations like the
Cupertino Library� Areas which have received new
development, such as Homestead Road or Stevens
Creek Boulevard (both between Wolfe Road and Tantau
Avenue), have a low level of pedestrian traffic stress
(PLTS 2) due to the broad setback from the roadway,
landscaped buffers, and wide sidewalks.
PLTS measures the perception of safety and comfort
for a person walking, using data including sidewalk
presence and width, sidewalk buffer width and
type, posted speed limit, and number of travel
lanes� PLTS scores classify road segments into one
of four levels of traffic stress, with lower scores
corresponding to high comfort, as shown below�
Figure 24: Pedestrian
Level of Traffic
Stress Categories
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
INCREASING LEVEL OF COMFORT, SAFETY, AND INTEREST FOR PEDESTRIANS IN TRANSPORTATION
PLTS 3
Moderately uncomfortable
roadways, where most
able-bodied adults would feel
uncomfortable but safe.
PLTS 4
High trac stress experienced
and would be used only by
able-bodied adults with limited
route choices.
PLTS 1
Roadways where people of all
ages and abilities would feel
comfortable walking and
require little attention to trac.
PLTS 2
Slightly less comfortable
roadways that require more
attention to trac and are
suitable for children over 10,
teens and adults.
LOW COMFORT HIGH COMFORT HIGH COMFORTLOW COMFORT
35CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 48
BPC 07-15-2026
48 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
EXISTING PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF TRAFFIC
STRESS
PLTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
PLTS 2
PLTS 3
PLTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 25: Pedestrian Level of Traffic Stress
36CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 49
BPC 07-15-2026
49 of 125
Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress
Bikeways are considered low-stress when they involve
minimal traffic interactions, either due to low vehicle
speeds and volumes—such as a shared neighborhood
street—or because there is a greater degree of physical
separation between the bikeway and the traffic lane,
like a separated bikeway on a major roadway� The BLTS
analysis results showed that most major roadways in
Cupertino, shown in orange and red (BLTS 3 and 4,
respectively), represent high-stress environments for
people biking, despite the presence of Class II bike
lanes on many roadways� For example, Homestead
Road, De Anza Boulevard, Wolfe Road, and Stevens
Creek Boulevard, all arterial streets with existing Class
II bike lanes, include a posted speed of 35 miles per
hour (mph) or higher, which negates the presence of
the bicycle facility and contributes to higher-stress for
most people biking� Similarly, major collector roadways
such as Bollinger Road, Miller Avenue, or Foothill
Boulevard also display a high level of traffic stress.
Another high-stress area is freeway interchanges� De
Anza Boulevard, Wolfe Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard,
and Foothill Boulevard all show BLTS 4 conditions
where they cross freeway on- and off-ramps.
Local roads provide more comfortable travel within
neighborhoods (BLTS 1 and 2), shown in blue and
teal, while shared-use paths such as the Regnart
Creek Trail provide separation and low-stress east-
west alternatives to higher-stress roadways� The lack
of connected low-stress corridors in parts of the City
means that many trips require traveling on high-stress
streets or stitching together indirect routes on low-
stress streets� This increases travel times and may
inhibit biking�
BLTS is an estimate of the level of comfort for
people biking on a given roadway segment� BLTS
was determined by roadway factors including
posted speed limit, number of travel lanes, presence
and width of parking lanes, as well as the presence
and type of bicycle facility� The combination of
these criteria classifies a road segment into one of
four levels of traffic stress.
Figure 26: Bicycle
Level of Traffic
Stress Categories
LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
INCREASING LEVEL OF COMFORT, SAFETY, AND INTEREST IN BICYCLING FOR TRANSPORTATION
LTS 4
No bike lane on a busy street
LTS 3
Narrow bike lane or shoulder
on a busy street
LTS 2
Buffered bike lane on a calm street
LTS 1
Separated bike lane
BICYCLE LEVEL OF TRAFFIC STRESS
37CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 50
BPC 07-15-2026
50 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
BICYCLE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
EXISTING BICYCLE LEVEL OF
TRAFFIC STRESS
BLTS 1 (Most Comfortable)
BLTS 2
BLTS 3
BLTS 4 (Least Comfortable)
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
Parks
City
Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 27: Bicycle Level of Traffic Stress Analysis
38CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 51
BPC 07-15-2026
51 of 125
Active Trip Potential
When considering the potential for new trips by
active modes, trip length is one of the most crucial
factors� Active trip potential measures the proportion
of all driving trips that may reasonably be made by
active modes:
Walking active trip potential:
Driving trips under 1 mile
Biking active trip potential:
Driving trips under 3 miles
E-bike active trip potential:
Driving trips of 3 to 5 miles
The active trip potential analysis uses data from
Replica Places, visualizing motor vehicle trips under
5 miles that either started or ended within Cupertino�
The project team developed an interactive Flowmap
webtool (shown in Figure 30 on the next page)
of potential active-trip flows between origin and
destinations� A graphic explainer of active trip potential
is shown on the next page in Figure 29�
As shown in Figure 31, areas of high active-trip
potential are concentrated in central Cupertino, and
active-trip potential steadily declines west of SR 85�
Analysis revealed particularly high numbers of short
trips in and around the Stevens Creek Boulevard
corridor, spanning from Tantau Avenue in the east
to SR 85 in the west� The area around Apple Park
headquarters in northeast Cupertino also shows the
lowest potential for active trips, likely due to the high
number of commuters traveling to and from work from
outside the City�
Active-trip potential for walking, biking, rolling,
and e-bike/micromobility trips is shown in Figure
32 through Figure 34� These areas of high active-trip
potential indicate a potential need for more connected
walking, biking, and rolling facilities�
Across Cupertino, 30% of all vehicle trips that start or stop
within the City limits are considered short enough to easily
shift to active trips.
Figure 28: Woman riding a folding electric bike on Homestead Road at De Anza Boulevard
39CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 52
BPC 07-15-2026
52 of 125
Active Trip Potential
Alta Civic Analytics Explainer
Fewer ATP Trips
More ATP Trips
Percent of trips by zone that are of
appropriate length for a given active
tranportation mode
ATP TRIPS
% of Trips less than or equal to 3mi
Park/Open Space
LEGEND
Walk Trip Potential
(0-1mi)
Bike Trip Potential
(1-3mi)
E-Bike Trip Potential
(3-5mi)
Drive and Transit Trip
Potential (>6mi)
Fewer ATP Trips
More ATP Trips
TRIP POTENTIAL
Percent of trips by zone that are of
appropriate length for a given active
tranportation mode
ATP TRIPS
% of Trips less than or equal to 3mi
Park/Open Space
LEGEND
Walk Trip Potential
(0-1mi)
Bike Trip Potential
(1-3mi)
E-Bike Trip Potential
(3-5mi)
Drive and Transit Trip
Potential (>6mi)
0 1 2
0 1 2
STARTLOCATION
Transit/Driving Route
1 Mi 3 Mi 6 Mi
>6 Mi
ATP Zonal Summary
When we look all the activity
occurring within a zone, we
scrutinize both the estimated
number of trips in the zone and their
lengths. Locations with high
percentages of short trips relative to
all trips are good candidates for
active transportation investments.
Active Trip Potential (ATP)
Identifies trips whose distances are
short enough to be accommodated
by walking or biking.
Our evaluation of ATP includes
looking at the number of trips less
than five miles.
Different modes are suitable for
different trips based on the
transportation options that
support them.
Figure 30: A screenshot of the Flowmap showing short driving trips within Cupertino
Figure 29: Active Trip Potential
40CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 53
BPC 07-15-2026
53 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
City Boundary
SHARE OF VEHICLE TRIPS <5 MILES
41-50%
36-40%
31-35%
26-30%
21-25%
20% or under
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
,
a
n
d
H
3
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
ACTIVE TRIP POTENTIAL
Figure 31: Active Trip Potential: All Trips Under 5 Miles
41CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 54
BPC 07-15-2026
54 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
City Boundary
NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS 0-1 MILE
High Trip Count
Low Trip Count
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
,
a
n
d
H
3
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
WALK TRIP POTENTIAL
Figure 32: Walk Trip Potential
42CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 55
BPC 07-15-2026
55 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
City Boundary
NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS 0-3 MILES
High Trip Count
Low Trip Count
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
,
a
n
d
H
3
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
BIKE TRIP POTENTIAL
Figure 33: Bike Trip Potential
43CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 56
BPC 07-15-2026
56 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
City Boundary
NUMBER OF VEHICLE TRIPS 3-5 MILES
High Trip Count
Low Trip Count
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
R
e
p
l
i
c
a
,
a
n
d
H
3
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
1
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
E-BIKE TRIP POTENTIAL
Figure 34: E-Bike Trip Potential
44CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 57
BPC 07-15-2026
57 of 125
Figure 35: Man crossing Stevens Creek Boulevard at
Finch Avenue to access Main Street Cupertino
Figure 36: Woman cycling on Rodrigues Avenue
turning onto De Anza Boulevard
Stress-Adjusted Short Trips: Gap Potential Analysis
Through the combination of BLTS/PLTS scores and
active trip potential analysis, the stress-adjusted short
trip analysis identifies where there is strong latent
demand for walking and biking trips that is currently
uncomfortable, stressful, or indirect�
Stressful street segments have been shown to be
perceived as longer than they are, increasing the
perceived travel time of a walking or biking trip�
This analysis demonstrates where people walking
and biking would choose alternative routes to avoid
particularly stressful street segments or crossings, and
how much it deters their willingness or walk or bike for
that trip�
WALKING GAP SCORES
For walking distances (under 1 mile), shown in Figure
37, high gap scores were clustered along Stevens
Creek Boulevard and along Homestead Road, both in
proximity to Stelling Road� The presence of De Anza
College and Homestead High School may contribute to
the high demand for shorter walking trips in each area�
BIKING GAP SCORES
For biking distances, shown in Figure 38, high gap
scores were clustered along Stevens Creek Boulevard
in the west near SR 85 and in the east near Wolfe
Road� The eastern border of Cupertino, adjacent to the
Lawrence Expressway, also has a high gap score for
biking trips�
The “Gap Scores” on the following maps
show where the closing of gaps in the
active transportation network would
generate the largest potential for new
walking and biking trips.
45CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 58
BPC 07-15-2026
58 of 125
Feels like
more than
one mile
Higher-Stress Roads Feel Longer to Bicyclists and Pedestrians
Feels like
one mile
1 MILE = ACTUAL DISTANCE
High Tra c Stress
Low Tra c Stress
LTS 4
LTS 3
LTS 2
LTS 1
BLTS Score
BLTS 4: All ages and abilities
BLTS 3: Average adult
BLTS 2: Confident adult
BLTS 1: Fearless adult
More trips Less Trips Closer Farther
Evaluating Gap Potential
Identify Short Trips OD Pairs
Using mobile trace or an activity-based model, short trips
are identified across the regions between origins and
destinations. These trips encompass a vast array of
potential activities such as traveling to home, schools, jobs,
restaurants, or recreational activities.
Route Trips Between Short Trip Pairs
Trips are routed along the network along routes that balance
providing the direct shortest path and avoiding high-stress
facilities. The routing analysis adjusts for traffic stress based
on the travel costs assigned to each street or path.
Compute Gap Scores
The stress-adjusted shortest paths are compared to
crow-fly distances between pairs. This is used to create
a gap score based on the following formula:
Alta Civic Analytics Explainer
Gap Potential is a measure of the magnitude of
potential demand measured by short trips that is
likely suppressed due to the tra c stress
encountered between an origin and destination.
Identify Travel Costs of Network
Level of Traffic Stress is used to assign travel costs to the
network. More stress is more perceived travel time.
These gap scores represent the degree latent demand are likely suppressed
given the lack of direct and comfortable paths to destinations.
Gap Score = ST – (ST * )Straight Line Travel Time
Stress Adjusted Travel Time
ST = Short trip count
1
2
3
4
46CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 59
BPC 07-15-2026
59 of 125
Figure 37: Walk Gap Scores
47CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 60
BPC 07-15-2026
60 of 125
Figure 38: Bike Gap Scores
48CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Needs Analysis 61
BPC 07-15-2026
61 of 125
CHAPTER 5
Public Engagement
62
BPC 07-15-2026
62 of 125
Public
Engagement
Throughout the development of the City of
Cupertino ATP, staff gathered a broad range of
input from residents and community members to
better identify and understand needs, challenges,
and priorities regarding the active transportation
network� Feedback focused on key challenges,
safety concerns, areas needing focus, and
appropriate facilities to connect people to local
destinations by walking or biking�
This chapter summarizes the overall engagement
approach, identifies who was engaged, and
highlights the insights gained during each phase�
Outreach activities were structured to reduce
barriers to participation, with multiple ways to
share input� In-person outreach was supported
by online workshops, a project website, online
survey, and two rounds of an interactive webmap�
For a more comprehensive breakdown of the
public participation activities, please refer to
Appendix D�
Public Engagement
by the numbers
• 4 Community Workshops
• 17 Pop-Up Events
• 4 Public Hearings
• 2,000 People Engaged With
• 240 Online Surveys Completed
• 3,939 Webmap Interactions
Figure 39: Presentation at Community
Workshop #1
Figure 40: Silicon Valley Fall Festival
Figure 41: Cupertino Block Leader Meeting
50CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Engagement 63
BPC 07-15-2026
63 of 125
Phase 1 Outreach
Phase 1 of the Cupertino ATP took place during the spring of 2025� Outreach activities included nine pop-ups at
existing community events and a workshop at the Cupertino Community Hall� In-person outreach was supported
by an online community meeting, a project website, an interactive webmap, and an online survey� The project team
promoted outreach with lawn signs, banners, and signs on A-frames distributed throughout Cupertino, as well as
messaging through Nextdoor, Facebook, and City channels�
What We Heard
Safety and Accessibility First:
Traffic safety and improving access to local destinations
were the highest community priorities among proposed
ATP goals�
Focus on Major Corridors:
Beyond bicycle and pedestrian improvements,
participants want speed management and safety
solutions for major corridors that cross Cupertino, such
as Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard�
Dynamic signal technology and automated camera
enforcement were two ideas brought up to help manage
speeding on major streets�
Focus on Pedestrians:
Participants felt past projects had been heavily focused
on bikes, and that projects prioritizing pedestrians
should be elevated�
Balance Benefits and Tradeoffs:
Future projects should be evaluated for potential
operational tradeoffs such as parking and lane
removals; projects should strive to balance those needs
while advancing safety, accessibility, and connectivity
benefits.
Close Gaps and Reduce Barriers:
Projects should focus on closing high-stress gaps in
the network that interrupt otherwise low-stress routes
across Cupertino�
Safe Routes to Schools:
Projects should improve access and safety for school
walking and biking trips�
What We Asked
During Phase 1 outreach, staff asked participants
to provide input on:
• Routes they most often use for walking
and biking
• Destinations they would like to reach by
walking or biking
• Locations that are challenging for walking and
biking, or areas where they have safety concerns
• Areas where they are concerned about future
impacts to parking or congestion
• Feedback on ATP goals – and which were most
important them
Participants provided input through outreach
poster boards, an online webmap, and a survey�
The map on the following page shows comment
locations, as well as participant sentiment on each
location� Phase 1 public input by location is shown
in Appendix D�
Figure 42: Students and parents at Collins
Elementary School Walk and Roll Day
51CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Engagement 64
BPC 07-15-2026
64 of 125
Phase 2 Outreach
Phase 2 of the Cupertino ATP took place in the fall of 2025 to gather feedback on bicycle and pedestrian
network recommendations� Outreach activities included an interactive webmap and 13 events, engaging
over 600 residents and soliciting over 2,000 comments from the public� Materials shared results of Phase
1 outreach, results of past analysis, and recommendations for the active transportation network�
What We Heard
Support for Shared Use Paths:
Participants expressed the strongest support for shared
use paths, like the Tamien Innu Trail and the Union
Pacific Trail. There is strong support for creating safe off-
street spaces for walking and biking trips�
Make the Network More Connected:
Participants focused their comments on improvements
for both the bicycle and pedestrian networks on major
streets, seeking to close the gaps that exist today for
making low-stress trips�
School Connections:
The most-supported recommendations off major
corridors were near schools or along existing school
walking and biking routes�
Concern about Impacts:
Many participants expressed concerns about the impacts
bike projects may have on street parking or congestion,
and a desire for the City to measure potential impacts as
part of the decision-making process�
Safety Innovation for Major Corridors:
The full range of safety solutions need to be considered
for major corridors like Stevens Creek Boulevard or De
Anza Boulevard� Participants expressed interest in red-
light cameras, speed-responsive signal technology, and
other speed-management solutions�
Understanding Success:
Participants wanted to better understand what success
would mean for implemented bicycle and pedestrian
projects� This would include an assessment of safety
impact, as well as utilization of facilities by future
walking and biking trips�
What We Asked
During Phase 2 outreach, we asked participants to
provide input on:
• Recommendations for the pedestrian network,
including new sidewalks, shared-use paths,
and intersection crossing improvements
• Recommendations for bicycle network,
including bike facilities and intersection
improvements for bicycle crossings
Phase 2 public input by location is shown in
Appendix D�
Figure 43: Cupertino Senior Center
52CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Public Engagement 65
BPC 07-15-2026
65 of 125
CHAPTER 6
Plan Recommendations
66
BPC 07-15-2026
66 of 125
Recommendation Selection Methodology
Recommendations were developed in a multi-stage
process that incorporated review and input from City
staff, the public, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission,
the Planning Commission, and the City Council� The
recommendations development process (detailed in
Appendix E), was driven by four primary criteria:
• State and Federal Guidance: Documents including
Caltrans DIB-94, the CA MUTCD, City of Cupertino
Streets Standards, and the NACTO Urban Bikeways
Design Guide were applied when considering
interventions for specific locations.
• Past Plans: All projects identified in previously
adopted City, county, and regional plans were
assembled and reconsidered for inclusion in
network recommendations�
• Data Analysis: Key areas of focus were identified,
through analysis outlined in Chapter 3�
Recommended projects were considered against
Gap Scores and Level of Traffic Stress to assess
their suitability�
• Public Input: Public input from Phase 1 and Phase
2 of outreach was leveraged to understand areas
of focus and where projects should be modified to
better reflect public sentiment.
Plan Recommendations
Data Analysis Public Input
Past Plans
State & Federal Guidance
Projects
Network Recommendations
The recommendations included in this chapter
focus on enhancing and expanding the existing
active transportation network� These network
recommendations were informed by public feedback
and best practices for the development of bicycle
and pedestrian infrastructure (see Appendix E
for more details). This chapter presents network
recommendations for walking, biking and rolling,
safety technology corridors, as well as programmatic
recommendations supporting active travel choices�
Recommendations are considered planning-level,
meaning they should be used as a guide when
implementing projects. In some cases, traffic impact
analysis and more detailed design analysis will be
required to evaluate specific site conditions and
develop designs that reflect conditions and
constraints� This is further addressed in Chapter 7:
Project Prioritization�
54CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 67
BPC 07-15-2026
67 of 125
Pedestrian Network Recommendations
Recommendations for people walking include new and
upgraded shared-use paths, sidewalks, and crossing
improvements� Together, these recommendations
aim to create a safer, more comfortable, and better-
connected network for those who walk or use mobility
devices in Cupertino�
This plan recommends 3�6 miles of new sidewalks,
primarily focused on closing existing gaps in the
network near key destinations like schools and parks�
The plans also recommend 6�3 miles of new shared-
use paths, which will provide pedestrians with off-
street alternatives when making trips and create more
convenient connections for people making walking trips�
This plan also recommends 115 intersection
improvements across Cupertino� Crossing locations
were prioritized along the High-Injury Network
(HIN), near schools and transit stops, and at other
key destinations� This plan provides a range of
potential infrastructure recommendations for City
staff to consider based on general design guidance and
best practices� The locations of pedestrian crossing
improvements may be subject to change based on
corridor-level study and will require additional design
and engineering judgment� The Pedestrian Facility
Toolbox (see next page) provides a list of potential
infrastructure recommendations, divided into three
categories, that will be considered for each
crossing location�
6.3 miles
9.9 MILES OF
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK RECOMMENDATIONS
SHARED-USE PATH
1.3
SIDEWALK ON 2-SIDES
2.3 miles
SIDEWALK ON 1-SIDE
55CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 68
BPC 07-15-2026
68 of 125
Pedestrian Facility Toolbox
Advanced Stop/Yield Bar
Advanced stop or yield
bar markings are placed
in advance of a crosswalk
to discourage drivers from
encroaching on the crosswalk�
In-Street Crossing Sign
In-street crossing signs
reinforce the driver
requirement to yield the
right of way to pedestrians
at designated pedestrian
crossing locations�
High-Visibility Crosswalk
High-visibility crosswalks
are marked with thick bars,
drawing additional attention
and awareness to the crossing�
In school zones, these crossings
are yellow instead of the
standard white color�
Visibility Improvements
Effective street lighting at
pedestrian crossing locations
increases vehicle operators’
ability to see crosswalk and
pedestrian users�
Median Refuge Islands
Median refuge islands help improve
access for people walking by
increasing visibility and allowing
pedestrians to cross one direction
of traffic at a time. Improve ease of
crossing at mid-block locations�
Curb Extensions
Curb extensions minimize exposure
for people crossing the street by
shortening crossing distance and
giving them a better chance to see
and be seen before committing
to crossing�
Curb Ramp
Curb ramps provide access between
the sidewalk and roadway for
people using wheelchairs, strollers,
walkers, hand carts, bicycles,
and for people who have trouble
stepping up and down high curbs�
Leading Pedestrian Interval
Leading Pedestrian Intervals
(LPIs) give a walk signal to
pedestrian before the traffic
signal turns green for vehicles�
This allows pedestrians to enter
the crosswalk before drivers start
moving, increasing pedestrian
visibility to turning drivers�
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacon
Rectangular Rapid Flashing
Beacons (RRFBs) are a type of
active warning beacon used at
unsignalized crossings� They are
designed to increase motor vehicle
yielding compliance on multi-
lane or high-volume roadways�
Activated with a push-button.
GROUP A—CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS
GROUP B—GEOMETRIC CHANGES
GROUP C—TRAFFIC CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS
56CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 69
BPC 07-15-2026
69 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVE
CLIFFO
R
D
D
R
RAINBOW DR
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
GREENLEAF DR
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
VALLCOPKWY
MARY
A
VE
WO
L
F
E
R
D
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.5 1 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PLAN
OTHER PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Existing/Recommended
Shared-Use Path
SIDEWALK RECOMMEDATIONS
New Sidewalk on One Side of the Street
New Sidewalk on Both Sides of the Street
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools Parks City
Boundary
INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Group A - Crossing Improvements
Group B - Geometric Changes
Group C - Traffic Control Improvements
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK
RECOMMENDATIONS
Figure 44: Recommended Pedestrian Network
57CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 70
BPC 07-15-2026
70 of 125
Transportation Technology
Corridor Recommendations
Recommended transportation technology corridors
consist of technology improvements along major
roadways to better manage vehicular traffic and active
transportation while improving safety for all modes�
The tools utilized for Transportation Technology
Corridors include, but are not limited to, dynamic
signal technology to manage travel speeds, red-light
camera enforcement, speed camera enforcement (if the
current pilot program is legalized for use statewide),
passive detection of people walking and biking or
signal priority, leading pedestrian intervals, audible
pedestrian detection, and other measures�
Corridors were selected by reviewing signalized
intersection recommendations which overlap with
the Vision Zero High-Injury Network� Following
this exercise, staff analyzed collision data to identify
corridors with higher collision rates where “unsafe
speed” is listed as the primary collision factor, or
where collisions occurred due to traffic signal or sign
violations� Lastly, corridors and the intersections were
screened for implementation feasibility to determine
appropriate Technology Corridors� This process helped
staff select five corridors that would benefit most from
transportation technologies�
There are 11�2 miles of recommended transportation
technology corridors shown in Figure 45�
Speed
camera
Red light
camera
Leading Pedestrian Interval signal at Stelling Rd
58CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 71
BPC 07-15-2026
71 of 125
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MILLER
AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
RECOMMENDED
TRANSPORTATION
TECHNOLOGY NETWORK
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY CORRIDORS
Transportation Technology Corridor
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools Parks City
Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
1
8
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 45: Recommended Transportation Technology Corridors
59CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 72
BPC 07-15-2026
72 of 125
Bicycle Network Recommendations
The recommended bike network emphasizes the
following:
• Improving the safety and comfort of local,
neighborhood routes for biking (especially along
routes to schools)
• Expanding the network of shared-use paths across
Cupertino
• Providing greater separation (whether through
paint buffers or physical separation) along major
roadways
• Managing potential project tradeoffs to minimize
potential impacts to other modes
This plan recommends 36�5 miles of new or upgraded
bike facilities� Recommendations also include eight
bike intersection improvements to facilitate crossings
at major roadways and two new grade-separated
crossings (the Carmen Road Bridge and McClellan
Road Undercrossing Feasibility Study). The Bicycle
Facility Toolbox (on the following page) defines the
recommended bicycle facilities, which include shared
use paths, neighborhood bike routes, bike lanes,
separated bikeways, and upgraded bike lanes�
Figure 47: Recommended Bikeway Facilities (miles)
Shared Use Path (Class I)
Bike Lane (Class II)
Buffered Bike Lane (Class II)
Neighborhood Bike Route (Class III & IIIB)
Separated Bikeway (Class IV)
5.6 6.3
0.5
915.1
36.5 miles
of new or upgraded
bike facilities
Figure 46: Rider on McClellan Road
60CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 73
BPC 07-15-2026
73 of 125
Bicycle Facility Toolbox
Shared-Use Path
Paved paths shared by people walking and rolling completely
separated from motor vehicle traffic. Comfortable for people of all
ages and abilities
Example: Regnart Creek Trail
Buffered Bike Lane
A conventional bike lane paired with a buffer space that separates
the bike lane from adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or
parking lane
Example: De Anza Boulevard south of Stevens Creek Boulevard
Separated Bikeway
An on-street bike lane that is separated from motor vehicle traffic
by a vertical barrier such as bollards, raised medians, planters, or
parked cars
Example: Stevens Creek Boulevard at Wolfe Road
Bike Lane
Dedicated lane for bicycle travel adjacent to traffic. Separated
from motor vehicle traffic or parking by painted line.
Example: McClellan Road west of De Anza Boulevard
Neighborhood Bike Route
Signed bike route, sharing the roadway with motor vehicles on
quiet neighborhood streets Includes signs, street markings, and
substantial traffic calming.
Example: Price Avenue at Portal Avenue
Most
Separation
Least
Separation
61CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 74
BPC 07-15-2026
74 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DR
STELLING
RD
GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
ORANGE
AVE
FINCH
AVE
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MILLER
AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MARYAVE
WO
L
F
E
R
D
RECOMMENDED BIKE NETWORK
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools Parks City
Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
EXISTING/RECOMMENDED BIKE NETWORK
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Neighborhood Bike Routes
Separated Bikeway
0 0.5 1 MILES
Bike Intersection Improvement
New Bridge
New Undercrossing (Feasibility Study)
CUPERTINO ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 48: Recommended Bike Network
62CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 75
BPC 07-15-2026
75 of 125
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Existing
Vision Zero Policy The City adopted a local Vision Zero Action Plan to better understand
local collisions and collaborate across City Departments to improve safety
for walking and rolling in Cupertino�
Safety
Complete Streets Policy The City adopted a local Complete Streets policy to ensure streets are
designed to enable safe, convenient, and comfortable travel for users of all
ages and abilities, regardless of their mode of transportation�
Accessibility
Multimodal
Balance
Online Information and
Service Requests
The City currently operates a telephone, app, and online service request
system (Cupertino311), which allows residents to submit an issue
or request for a specific service for traffic signals, roadway issues, or
sidewalk obstructions�
Accessibility
Maintenance
Wayfinding Wayfinding signage provides important destination, distance, and
navigation information to roadway users. Specific wayfinding signs
designed for people walking, biking, and rolling can be expanded
and improved at key locations across the City to further support
active transportation�
Accessibility
Table 2: Engineering Program Recommendations
Recommended Programs
Making Cupertino more walkable and bikeable requires not only new infrastructure investments,
but also ongoing programs that support and encourage those who rely on active travel and
those who choose it for convenience� Developing new initiatives and enhancing existing ones is
crucial for Cupertino to effectively invest in success for active transportation. This section outlines
recommended policies and programs meant to achieve the Plan’s vision and goals� Additional
details can be found in Appendix F�
Engineering
Pedestrian and bicycle support facilities provide increased comfort and convenience for individuals
who use active modes to get around� Table 2 summarizes existing and proposed engineering policies
and programs in the City that work in conjunction with existing infrastructure to improve the user
experience� Infrastructure improvements should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit stops,
medical centers, senior centers, City services, commercial areas, and the High-Injury Network�
63CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 76
BPC 07-15-2026
76 of 125
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Recommended
Pedestrian-Scale Lighting Pedestrian-scale streetlights are designed at a lower height and intensity
to enhance visibility, safety, and comfort for people walking in urban
or public spaces� By increasing visibility, it improves safety and reduces
crime outcomes� It also enhances the walkability and aesthetic appeal
of public spaces, encouraging more foot traffic and fostering a sense of
community� LED lights can be used to reduce energy costs, and shields
can be used to minimize night sky pollution or limit light pollution on
adjacent private property�
Safety
Crossing Facility
Improvements
The City may improve crossing facilities by implementing high-visibility
crosswalks, advance stop or yield markings, pedestrian refuge islands,
and raised crosswalks or intersections� These enhancements would make
people walking and rolling more visible to drivers�
Safety
Evaluate Right Turn on Red
Restrictions
Evaluate intersections to limit vehicles from turning right at a red-light
signal on a case-by-case basis, when traffic operations analysis indicates
that the restriction can be implemented without creating unacceptable
vehicle delay�
Safety
Leading Pedestrian Interval
(LPI)
The City may consider LPIs at signalized intersections, with a plan
moving forward to update key intersections� Safety
Active Detection at
Intersections for People
Walking and Rolling
Develop an inventory of signalized intersections without active
detection for people walking and rolling and create a way forward for
standardization and inclusion at signal heads� Establish a standardized
approach for integrating reliable detection technologies—such as passive
infrared, video, or radar sensors—ensuring they are accurately placed
along built and desired routes�
Safety
Accessibility
Curb Extensions at
Intersections
Consider additional curb extensions at school-zone intersections and
mid-block crossings to reduce vehicle speeds and improve overall
transportation safety�
Safety
Sidewalk and Curb Cut
Improvement Program
The City may develop a sidewalk and curb cut improvement program
with a dedicated funding stream to close sidewalk gaps and add curb
ramps at key locations� This program would allow the City to be
more responsive to local citizen complaints for sidewalk and curb cut
enhancements�
Safety
Fairness
Maintenance
End-of-Trip Facilities End-of-trip facilities such as bike parking, water stations, kiosks, and fix-it
stations help encourage people to bike more by providing the amenities
they need at the end of their trip� These facilities are typically most
suitable in City right-of-way areas with high concentrations of walking
and rolling, such as the Cupertino Library�
Accessibility
Sustainability
Lower Speed Limits Reduce speeds where appropriate along arterial and collector roadways
based on the CA Manual for Setting Speed Limits. Lowering the speed
limits on streets may lessen the severity and frequency of crashes�
Safety
Lower School Zone Speed
Limits
Per California Vehicle Code Section 22358�8, the City may consider
reducing speed limits around School Zones, which may be lowered to 15
mph on all two-way residential streets within 500 feet of schools, and 25
mph up to 1,000 feet from schools�
Safety
Accessibility
64CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 77
BPC 07-15-2026
77 of 125
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Quick Build Project
Implementation
Quick Build projects typically include less expensive materials such
as paint, thermoplastic, and bollards/delineators (or other sturdy but
removable materials). These improvements share many of the same safety
benefits as their permanent counterparts, but can be implemented more
quickly and cost-effectively, allowing the City to be responsive to safety
concerns while still planning for long-term funding and implementation�
The City should consider implementing Quick Build projects identified in
completed school walk audits, in addition to other priority areas�
Safety
Maintenance
Expand the City Tree Canopy Consider planting shade trees and other greening elements along
corridors where people may be walking and rolling, and within school
zones� Caltrans considers street trees to be traffic-calming elements as
they are often attributed to a perceived narrowing of the roadway, a
sense of rhythm and human scale created by framing the street, and the
perception that the driver is in a place where they are more likely to
encounter people walking or rolling and cross-traffic.
Sustainability
Fairness
Update Street Design
Standards
Review and update all relevant policy and design standards regarding
bikeway facilities, path and sidewalk design and materials, and
supporting amenities to be consistent with the most recent best practices
and state and federal standards for bicycle and pedestrian facilities and
in compliance with the latest ADA Standards for Accessible Design and
Public Right-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG).
Accessibility
Maintenance
Multimodal
Balance
Maintenance Program Maintenance is deeply tied to the usability and lifespan of these
engineering recommendations� The City may consider developing
more detailed protocols for regular street sweeping and debris removal
on bikeways—particularly Class IV protected lanes and Class I multi-
use paths—to maintain comfort and reduce risks� Expanded, detailed
vegetation management can address overgrowth that obstructs visibility
at intersections, encroaches onto sidewalks and paths, and blocks
signage. The 311 reporting system for issues like potholes, flooding, or
obstructions should be widely promoted and integrated into existing
municipal apps and customer service portals�
Accessibility
Maintenance
65CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 78
BPC 07-15-2026
78 of 125
Encouragement
Encouragement programs help to create a lasting active transportation culture and can encourage
overall mode share shifts� Table 3 provides an overview of existing and recommended walking
and rolling encouragement programs�
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Existing
Safe Routes to School (SR2S)The City should continue the existing Safe Routes to School Program and
continue to place emphasis on working with school districts to address
on-site circulation and spillover traffic.
Safety
Accessibility
Fairness
Bike to Work/ Wherever Days The City can continue to sponsor Bike to Work/ Wherever Day events in
support of regional efforts. Accessibility
Adopt-a-Trail Program The existing Santa Clara County program provides individuals, groups,
businesses, and clubs the opportunity to adopt a section of trail on an
annual basis. Each sponsor supports their Adopted Trail with financial
contributions and volunteer trail work�
Maintenance
Recommended
Open Streets Open Street events promote and celebrate walking, biking, and rolling
and encourage participation from neighborhoods� Accessibility
Sustainability
Social Walks/Rides Support City departments and local organizations in hosting social rides
or walks, like Bike for Boba� Accessibility
Sustainability
Walking School Buses and
Bike Trains [SR2S]
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains are organized groups of students
walking/biking to school under the supervision of a guardian, teacher,
or adult volunteer� These groups follow predetermined routes and can
operate on an occasional or daily basis, depending on the interest from
families�
Accessibility
Fairness
Bike Parking Inventory Map existing racks in the City and upload them to the open data portal�
Develop and publish a public-facing guide that outlines various types of
secure micromobility parking infrastructure, such as bike corrals, covered
racks, and lockers (like Oonee Pods).
Accessibility
Maintenance
Fairness
Bike Rack Program Consider establishing a Bike Rack Installation Program to provide secure,
convenient bicycle parking that supports everyday biking and reduces
parking barriers�
Accessibility
Bicycle Parking at Large
Events
Revise Cupertino Municipal Code regarding event permits to include
“Conditions for Issuance” to require events expected to draw more
than 5,000 attendees must provide secure, attended bicycle parking for
attendees at no charge.
Accessibility
Table 3: Encouragement Program Recommendations
66CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 79
BPC 07-15-2026
79 of 125
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Electric Micromobility
Expansion
Cupertino has an opportunity to lead in sustainable transportation by
developing a forward-thinking policy that actively encourages the use of
electric micromobility devices—such as personal e-bikes, e-scooters, and
other small electric vehicles—in line with state and regional standards�
This policy can define appropriate use on bike lanes, multi-use trails, and
low-speed streets, with safe speed limits that prioritize both comfort and
safety� The City can encourage electric micromobility use and discourage
illegal devices and modifications through public education, safe riding
guidance, and improved infrastructure, such as secure parking with
charging options�
Accessibility
Fairness
Trail Steward Volunteers Engage with volunteer organizations to regularly maintain and address
community safety concerns around vegetation and debris on shared-
use paths� Events can be opportunities for volunteers to help their
community�
Maintenance
TDM Implementation Plan Develop a Transportation Demand Management Implementation Plan or
Ordinance to increase support for commuters walking, biking, or rolling
to work� This may include identifying additional metrics for businesses to
count active transportation-supportive policies towards their own TDM
plans and goals�
Sustainability
Multimodal
Balance
Walk and Roll Ambassadors Walk and Roll Ambassadors are trained community volunteers who
promote safe walking and rolling, especially among students and
families� They engage in outreach, education, and encouragement
activities to foster active transportation and build a culture of mobility
and safety� These roles are particularly important in communities where
English is not the first language. This role can be integrated with the
City’s own SR2S parent champion program�
Safety
Accessibility
Partner with Bicycle
Organizations
The formation of strong relationships with local bicycle advocates and
bicycle clubs will encourage mutually beneficial collaboration and help
the City reach its plan goals� The City is encouraged to partner with
organizations in the area�
Accessibility
Partner and Coordinate with
County Agencies
Coordinate with representatives from various County agencies, including
County Public Health and VTA, for project and program implementation� Accessibility
Maintenance
Bicycle Friendly Business
Program
Similar to the Bicycle Friendly Community designation, the Bicycle
Friendly Business program recognizes businesses for their efforts to
encourage a more bicycle-friendly atmosphere� This requires businesses
to implement various strategies to cater to the diverse needs of customers
and employees� The City of Cupertino Civic Center Plaza has Gold
award status�
Accessibility
Sustainability
67CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 80
BPC 07-15-2026
80 of 125
Education
Walking and rolling education programs help individuals interested in active transportation feel
more comfortable, safe, and confident navigating streets and shared-use paths. Table 4 outlines
existing educational programs in the City as well as potential program expansion�
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Existing
Safe Routes to School (SR2S)The existing SR2S Program provides education and resources for school
site administrators, parents, and children on bicycle safety, pedestrian
awareness, and traffic concerns.
Safety
Accessibility
Fairness
Walking and Rolling Safety
Campaign
Create a City-sponsored outreach campaign to encourage all road users
to abide by local laws and be courteous to other users� This campaign
may be targeted at a single user type (e.g., cyclists) or at multiple users.
Safety campaigns should be prioritized near schools, parks, transit stops,
commercial areas, and at high collision corridors�
Safety
Accessibility
Bicycle Rodeos [SR2S]The City of Cupertino SR2S Program offers bicycle rodeo programming at
Cupertino schools, providing a blacktop training course on bicycle safety� Safety
Recommended
“New Infrastructure”
Education Campaign
Often, when infrastructure changes occur, there is a missing education
component to the community about how to interact with the new design
or feature� Education materials and messaging can be developed during
the installation of infrastructure, which the general public may be
unfamiliar with, such as unique interchanges/roundabouts, two-stage
turn boxes, or advisory shoulders�
Safety
Multimodal
Balance
Driver Education Program Establish a citywide driver education program that focuses on improving
awareness and promoting safe interactions with people walking, biking,
and rolling, incorporating best practices from Vision Zero and Safe
Systems approaches� The program could include modules on recognizing
vulnerable road users, crosswalk laws, yielding at intersections, safely
passing cyclists, and navigating areas with high activity or limited
visibility� The curriculum can be conducted in partnership with local
school districts and SR2S coordinators�
Safety
Bicycle Safety Education for
Adults
Partner with local organizations to provide classes for adults to learn
bicycle safety� Support growth by advertising and providing meeting
space in Cupertino�
Safety
Accessibility
Electric Micromobility
Education
With the proliferation of e-bikes and other electric micromobility devices,
people may not understand or be misinformed about how to use these
modes safely and legally� An education campaign can be targeted at
e-mobility, especially among students who may be excited about the
increased travel opportunities offered by such devices.
Safety
Accessibility
Table 4: Education Program Recommendations
68CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 81
BPC 07-15-2026
81 of 125
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Waste Bin Placement Provide clear instructions on the City website and in utility bills about
the proper placement of waste bins� Where on-street parking exists, bins
should be placed near the curb, within the parking aisle� Residents should
be instructed to place bins against the curb where no on-street parking
exists to minimize intrusion into the bicycle lane� Collaborate with waste
management companies to add reflective markings to waste bins to
increase their visibility at night and reduce the risk of bicycle collisions
with misplaced bins� The City could also work with management
companies to stencil “Do Not Place In Bicycle Lane” on the waste bins to
remind residents of proper placement�
Maintenance
Multimodal
Balance
Mini Main Street Education
Events [SR2S]
Host Mini Main Street safety education events and install permanent
traffic gardens at select schools. Mini Main Streets and traffic gardens
provide safe environments for children to practice roadway safety�
Safety
69CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 82
BPC 07-15-2026
82 of 125
Enforcement
Enforcement programs help to institutionalize safe walking and rolling transportation systems�
By prioritizing relationships between law enforcement and individuals who walk and roll,
these programs help create a safe environment for all users� Table 5 below lists the proposed
enforcement programs for the City�
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Recommended
Traffic Ticket Reduction Help develop a partnership program with the Santa Clara County Sheriff
and a bicycle education provider to offer bicycle education as a traffic
court option� People who receive a citation/infraction on a bicycle for
California Vehicle Code violations would be permitted to attend a Basic
Street Skills class to reduce or waive fines.
Safety
Fairness
Bike Patrol Program Partner with the County Sheriff to develop a program that provides
routine patrolling on bicycles� The program would enable increased
community engagement and promote bicycle safety�
Safety
Fairness
Targeted Enforcement Target enforcement of vehicular violations at locations with a high
incidence of red-light running and HIN/high-injury intersections� Safety
Fairness
Table 5: Enforcement Program Recommendations
70CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 83
BPC 07-15-2026
83 of 125
Evaluation
Programs to help evaluate and track progress toward reaching the Plan’s goals are essential for
long-term success and effective project implementation. Table 6 lists proposed programs that help
identify what’s working, what’s not working, and where additional efforts are needed following
the completion of the plan�
POLICY/PROGRAM DESCRIPTION PLAN GOAL
Existing
Active Transportation Online
Portal
Update and maintain the GIS portal to display recent and ongoing active
transportation project planning and status, as well as annual statistics on
pedestrian and bicycle-involved collisions� This portal may also include
links to other active transportation resources throughout the City�
Safety
Accessibility
Recommended
School Walk Audit Reports
[SR2S]
Update reports with new safety assessments at each school to
identify specific barriers and challenges faced by students who walk
or roll to school and develop countermeasures to address the
identified deficiencies.
Safety
Annual Walking and Rolling
Collision Reports
Annual reviews of collisions involving vulnerable roadway users with
the County Sheriff will help the City assess traffic safety issues and track
progress towards a safer community for people walking and rolling�
Safety
Walking and Rolling Count
Program (Manual and
Automated)
Conducting regular walking and rolling counts can help the City
understand how travel behavior is changing over time� This would
include manual and automated data collection� When combined
with models that predict where walking, biking, and rolling would
be expected, count data can also identify locations where people are
expected to travel by these modes but do not, often due to a lack of
infrastructure� Coordinate with regional planning and transit agencies
and adjacent municipalities to ensure consistency in methodologies
(e.g., same time periods, equipment calibration, and data formats) and
include metadata on count conditions (e.g., weather, construction, events)
for context�
Maintenance
Multimodal
Balance
Walking and Rolling Count
Program (Aggregated Data)
To complement physical counters and enhance citywide data coverage,
the City could purchase or subscribe to aggregate mobility datasets from
companies like StreetLight Data and Replica, which provide insights
derived from anonymized GPS, cellular, and location-based services
data� These datasets can provide a broader understanding of walking
and biking patterns, helping to identify underserved neighborhoods
or emerging trends in travel behavior� Conduct regular validation of
aggregated data against manually collected data�
Safety
Maintenance
Multimodal
Balance
Table 6: Evaluation Program Recommendations
71CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Plan Recommendations 84
BPC 07-15-2026
84 of 125
CHAPTER 7
Project Prioritization
85
BPC 07-15-2026
85 of 125
Project Prioritization
GOAL CRITERIA METRIC MAX SCORE GOAL MAX SCORE
Safety Collision History Roadway segment is near an HIN
corridor
30 40
Stress Level Max score from pedestrian level
of stress analysis
10
Access School Proximity Project is located along a
suggested route to school
10 20
High Frequency Transit
Proximity
Presence of major transit stops
along the roadway
5
Parks & Other
Destination Proximity
Parks or other key destinations
located nearby
5
Sustainability Active Trip Potential Roadway has high active
pedestrian trip potential
5 10
Stress-Adjusted Short
Trip Walk Gap Score
Project is within a high walk gap
score area
5
Cost
Effectiveness
Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10 10
Table 7: Pedestrian Facility Improvements Prioritization Metrics
Methodology
Focusing public investment into the areas of greatest
need helps to leverage the greatest benefits from
scarce public dollars for improvements to traffic
safety, connectivity, and accessibility for active modes�
Prioritization criteria were developed to align with
the vision and goals of the ATP; criteria were vetted
publicly through the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission,
Planning Commission, and City Council before final
scores were developed. Staff worked with these bodies
to adjust both criteria and scoring weighting to best
reflect prioritization in order to reflect the values of the
Cupertino community (see Table 7, Table 8, and Table
9). A full description of prioritization methodology can
be found in Appendix G�
Figures 43-45 present prioritized ATP projects with
associated rankings� Rankings are not intended to
reflect an order in which to complete projects, but
rather a guide for future project selection a guide for
future project selection to be considered in the context
of other factors, including but not limited to funding
availability, availability of staffing resources, and
opportunities for economies of scale resulting from
integration with other ongoing projects�
Prioritizing the implementation of recommended
improvements included in this ATP must consider what
is realistic given anticipated funding levels and staffing
capacity, while still providing Cupertino with the
flexibility to respond to changing conditions and new
opportunities as they arise� Prioritization results are
flexible and intended to serve as guidelines to assist in
project selection and initiation�
73CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 86
BPC 07-15-2026
86 of 125
GOAL CRITERIA METRIC MAX SCORE GOAL MAX
SCORE
Safety Collision History Includes an intersection identified as
an HIN intersection
20 40
Collisions per mile with a cause of
"unsafe speed"
5
Collisions per mile with a cause of
"traffic signals and signs"
5
Level of Traffic Stress Average Pedestrian LTS for the
corridor
10
Access School Proximity % of corridor length on a Suggested
Route to School
20 30
Parks & Other
Destinations
Parks or other key destinations
located nearby
10
Sustainability Active Trip Potential Average bicycle/e-bike trip potential
along the corridor
10 20
Gap Score % of corridor length within high gap-
score areas
10
GOAL CRITERIA METRIC MAX SCORE GOAL MAX
SCORE
Safety Collision History Roadway segment is near an HIN
corridor
30 40
Stress Level Max score from bicycle LTS analysis 10
Access Schools Project is located along a suggested
route to school
10 20
High Frequency Transit Presence of major transit stops along
the roadway
5
Parks & Other
Destinations
Parks or other key destinations
located nearby
5
Sustainability Active Trip Potential Roadway has high bicycle trip
potential or high e-bike trip potential
5 10
Bike Gap Score Project is within a high bike gap score
area
5
Balance General Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or
parking removal
10 20
Arterial Roadway
Impact
Potential need for lane reduction or
parking removal
10
Cost
Effectiveness
Fiscal Responsibility Project cost 10 10
Table 8: Transportation Technology Corridors Prioritization Metrics
Table 9: Bicycle Facility Improvements Prioritization Metrics
74CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 87
BPC 07-15-2026
87 of 125
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
LAZANEO DR
ST
E
L
L
I
N
G
R
D
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFORD D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MI
L
L
E
R
A
V
E
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
VALLCO PKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
82
101
108
96
12
19
8
76
189
186
158
151
149
190
130
203
133
5657
160
44
13
127
200
123
157
150
64
135
175
36
105
147
32
145
95
46
198
517
18 23
31
4
1
3
6
39
43
60
35
90
15 87
51
169
178
164
11 166
20
136
107 49 50
41
141
37
29
33
55
58
38
2 1499
188
181
182
199193
165
179
63
119
30170
168
124
128
172177
144
174
176 197
194
152 120 22
67
27
167 192
184 155
125
112
159
10
7
21
53
59
75 66
9
47
52
25
121
70
86
73
126
102
201
195
191
180139
131
109 137
138
103
28
85 153
48
16
156
132
40
122
106
100
26
202
204
42
115
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.5 1 MILES
PEDESTRIAN NETWORKPRIORITIZATION
OTHER PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Existing/Recommended
Shared-Use Path
SIDEWALK RECOMMEDATIONS
New Sidewalk on One Side of the Street
New Sidewalk on Both Sides of the Street
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools Parks City
Boundary
INTERSECTION RECOMMENDATIONS
Group A - Crossing Improvements
Group B - Geometric Changes
Group C - Traffic Control Improvements
Prioritization Rank#
CUPERTINO ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 49: Pedestrian Network Recommendations with Project Rankings
Rankings are not intended to
reflect an order in which to
complete projects, but rather a
guide for future project selection
based on a variety of factors.
75CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 88
BPC 07-15-2026
88 of 125
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!!
!
!
!Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
OR
A
N
G
E
A
V
E
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD GREENLEAF DR
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
FO
O
T
H
I
L
L
B
L
V
D
MILLER
AVE
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MA
R
Y
A
V
E
WO
L
F
E
R
D
113
142
111
117
34
TRANSPORTATION
TECHNOLOGY NETWORK
PRIORITIZATION
TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY CORRIDORS
Transportation Technology Corridor
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
!Schools Parks City
Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
6
/
2
2
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.25 0.5 MILES
Prioritization Rank#
CUPERTINO ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 50: Transportation Technology Network Recommendations with Project Rankings
Rankings are not intended to
reflect an order in which to
complete projects, but rather a
guide for future project selection
based on a variety of factors.
76CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 89
BPC 07-15-2026
89 of 125
82
104
45
116
134
146
108
187
77
79
24
143 97
183
88
65
101
89
83
72
114
68
118
110
54
62
92
71
129
93
96
12
91
140
84
98
74
69
94
80
78
19
8
Ä85
¥280
PROSPECT RD
PALM AVE
S
B
L
A
N
E
Y
A
V
E
RAINBOW DR
MERRITT DR
HOMESTEAD RD
BOLLINGER RD
LAZANEO DRSTELLING
RD
BU
B
B
R
D
MCCLELLAN RD
ORANGE
AVE
FI
N
C
H
A
V
E
STEVENS CREEK BLVD
BARNHART AVECLIFFO
R
D
D
R
MILLER
AVE
GREENLEAF DR
FOOTHILL
BLVD
S
T
A
N
T
A
U
A
V
E
DE
A
N
Z
A
B
L
V
D
VALLCOPKWY
MARYAVE
WOLFE
RD
25232818641107
55
BIKE NETWORKPRIORITIZATION
EXISTING/RECOMMENDED BIKE NETWORK
Shared-Use Path
Bike Lane
Buffered Bike Lane
Neighborhood Bike Routes
Separated Bikeway
DESTINATIONS + BOUNDARIES
Schools
Parks
City Boundary
Da
t
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
.
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
:
N
:
\
S
h
a
r
e
d
\
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
\
2
0
2
4
\
2
0
2
4
.
2
5
1
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
,
C
A
A
c
t
i
v
e
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
\
G
I
S
\
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
\
2
4
-
2
5
1
_
C
u
p
e
r
t
i
n
o
_
B
a
s
e
m
a
p
.
a
p
r
x
.
D
a
t
e
s
a
v
e
d
:
5
/
1
3
/
2
0
2
6
.
0 0.5 1 MILES
Bike Intersection Improvement
Prioritization Rank#
CUPERTINO ACTIVETRANSPORTATION PLAN
Figure 51: Bicycle Network Recommendations with Project Rankings
Rankings are not intended to
reflect an order in which to
complete projects, but rather a
guide for future project selection
based on a variety of factors.
77CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 90
BPC 07-15-2026
90 of 125
Project Ranking and Cost Estimates
The Cupertino ATP recommends $43,518,000 in linear
projects for people walking, biking, and rolling� This
cost estimate does not include pedestrian intersection
improvements or Transportation Technology
Corridor improvements� It does include construction
of new and upgraded facilities, including bicycle
intersection improvements� For further detail on project
descriptions, refer to the Pedestrian Facility Toolbox
and Bicycle Facility Toolbox in Chapter 6�
Cost estimates were calculated using 2026 dollars and
are likely to rise over time� Detail on cost estimates and
costing methodology can be found in Appendix G�
The consolidated list of ranked projects is presented
below in Table 10�
Table 10: Consolidated Project Ranking
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
1 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A De Anza Blvd Lazaneo Dr 89�57 $
2 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd Rodrigues Ave 89�31 $
3 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Pepper Tree Ln 87�95 $
4 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd Mariani Ave 83�32 $
5 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Stelling Rd Alves Dr 81�7 $
6 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd Stelling Rd 81�14 $$$
7 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Vallco Pkwy Wolfe Rd 79�72 $
8 Bike Network Shared-Use Path Tamien Innu Vallco Pkwy Don Burnett
Bridge 79�63 $$$
9 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave John Dr 78�49 $
10 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Alves Dr De Anza Blvd 78�21 $
11 Bike Network Crossing
Stevens Creek
Undercrossing
(Feasibility
Study)
McClellan Rd Stevens Creek
Trail 78�09 $
12 Bike Network Shared-Use Path
San Thomas
Aquino/
Saratoga Creek
Trail Extension
(Lawrence Mitty)
Stevens Creek
Blvd Barnhart Ave 77�83 $$
13 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Jollyman Ln Lilac Way 75�4 $
14 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave Rodrigues Ave 75�29 $
$ = Project cost under $500,000
$$ = Project cost $500,000 to $2,000,000
$$$ = Project cost over $2,000,000
78CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 91
BPC 07-15-2026
91 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
15 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Miller Ave Phil Ln 75�21 $
16 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Miller Ave Calle De
Barcelona 75�21 $
17 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Creek
Blvd Cupertino Rd 75�01 $
18 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd De Anza Blvd 74�81 $$$
19 Bike Network Shared-Use Path Union Pacific
Railroad Trail Prospect Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd 74�45 $$$
20 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B McClellan Rd Clubhouse Ln 74�42 $
21 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Richwood Dr Miller Ave 74�04 $
22 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr 73�59 $
23 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd Blaney Ave 73�59 $$$
24 Bike Network Bike Lane Mariani Ave Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 73�09 $
25 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd Portal Ave 73�01 $$$
26 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Stevens Creek
Blvd Phar Lap Dr 72�85 $
27 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Stelling Rd Huntridge Ln 72�82 $
28 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Stevens Creek
Blvd Torre Ave 72�76 $$$
29 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Stelling Rd Hazelbrook Dr 72�45 $
30 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Bubb Rd McClellan Rd 72�41 $
31 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Homestead Rd De Anza Blvd 72�39 $$
32 Sidewalks 1 side of street Bubb Rd
230' South of
Stevens Creek
Blvd
1,200' North of
Results Way 71�35 $
33 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Gardena Dr 71�31 $
34
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Miller Ave/
Wolfe Rd Foothill Blvd 71�06 $$
35 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Columbus Ave 70�99 $
36 Sidewalks 1 side of street McClellan Rd Byrne Ave Orange Ave 70�64 $
37 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A September Dr McClellan Rd 69�5 $
79CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 92
BPC 07-15-2026
92 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
38 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd I-280 69�12 $
39 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Bollinger Rd Miller Ave 68�9 $
40 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Hyde Ave 68�9 $$
41 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Bubb Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd 68�84 $$$
42 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Stevens Creek
Blvd Bandley Dr 68�56 $
43 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr 68�53 $
44 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek
Blvd Tantau Ave Judy Ave 68�35 $
45
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Bonny Dr Pepper Tree Ln McClellan Rd
68�05
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Terry Way Rodrigues Ave Shelly Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Rodrigues Ave De Anza Blvd Terry Way $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Pepper Tree Ln Stelling Rd Bonny Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Shelly Dr Terry Way Bonny Dr $
46 Bike Network Crossing Carmen Rd
Bridge Carmen Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd 67�98 $$
47 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Forest Ave Blaney Ave 67�96 $
48 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A N Portal Ave Merritt Dr 67�96 $$
49 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C SR 85 Stevens Creek
Blvd 67�7 $$
50 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C SR 85 Stevens Creek
Blvd 67�7 $$
51 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Calvert Dr Loree Ave 67�42 $
52 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Blaney Ave Pear Tree Ln 67�39 $
53 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Miller Ave Greenwood Dr 67�22 $
54 Bike Network Bike Lane Miller Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
Calle De
Barcelona 66�99 $
55 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Stelling Rd Homestead Rd 66�78 $$$
56 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr 360' East of
Stelling Rd
520' West of
Beardon Dr 66�74 $
80CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 93
BPC 07-15-2026
93 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
57 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr Stelling Rd Glencoe Dr 66�74 $
58 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C De Anza Blvd I-280 66�62 $
59 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Clifden Way 66�55 $$
60 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 66�05 $
61 Sidewalks 1 side of street Greenleaf Dr Ann Arbor Ave Flora Vista Ave 66�03 $
62
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway N Blaney Ave Homestead Rd Beekman Pl
65�34
$
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane N Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Beekman Pl $
63 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, C Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd 64�46 $$
64 Sidewalks 1 side of street Bubb Rd Edward Way Vai Ave 64�32 $
65 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Wheaton Dr N Portal Ave Carol Lee Dr 63�56 $
66 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Bollinger Rd Blaney Ave 62�58 $
67 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stelling Rd Orion Ln 62�03 $
68
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane N Stelling Rd Garden Gate Dr Gardena Dr
61�32
$
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway N Stelling Rd Homestead Rd Gardena Dr $
69
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway
Stevens Creek
Blvd SR 85 Foothill Blvd
61�11
$$$
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway
Stevens Creek
Blvd De Anza Blvd SR 85 $$
70 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Bollinger Rd Estates Dr 60�99 $
71 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Forest Ave Blaney Ave De Anza Blvd 60�78 $
72 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Vista Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd Forest Ave 60�76 $
73 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Lance Dr Bollinger Rd 60�44 $
74 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd 59�9 $
75 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Martinwood
Way Bollinger Rd 59�74 $
76 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Echo Hill Ct 65' South of
Echo Hill Ct 59�39 $
77 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd 58�72 $
81CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 94
BPC 07-15-2026
94 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
78 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Bollinger Rd Harland Dr Westlynn Way 58�49 $
79
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Shadygrove Dr Hyde Ave Stendhal Ln
57�92
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Phil Ln Finch Ave Stendhal Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Stendhal Ln Shadygrove Dr Phil Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Hyde Ave Shadygrove Dr Bollinger Rd $
80 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane S Stelling Rd Prospect Rd Orogrande Pl 57�12 $
81 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Catalano Ct Orion Ct 56�78 $
82
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Festival Dr September Dr Festival Dr Dead
End
56�6
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Orogrande Pl Stelling Rd Festival Dr $
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Festival Dr Festival Dr Festival Dr Dead
End $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route September Dr McClellan Rd Festival Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Festival Dr Stelling Rd Festival Dr Dead
End $
83
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway N Wolfe Rd Pruneridge Ave 300 ft� South of
Perimeter Rd
56�41
$
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane N Wolfe Rd Homestead Rd Pruneridge Ave $
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane N Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
300 ft� South of
Perimeter Rd $
84 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Bandley Dr Valley Green Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd 55�75 $
85 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Torre Ave Pacifica Dr 55�56 $
86 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Alderbrook Ln Bollinger Rd 54�76 $$
87 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Johnson Ave Tilson Ave 54�36 $
88 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Prince Ave Blaney Ave Portal Ave 54�01 $
89 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Portal Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Wintergreen Dr 54�01 $
90 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Bollinger Rd Farallone Dr 52�91 $$
82CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 95
BPC 07-15-2026
95 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
91
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route
San Fernando
Ave Orange Ave Blackberry Farm
52�79
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route
Carmen Rd -
Scenic Blvd
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Scenic Cir
Pathway $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Janice Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Carmen Rd $
92 Bike Network Separated
Bikeway Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek
Blvd 52�44 $$
93
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Fort Baker Dr Hyannisport Dr Presidio Dr
52�36
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Linda Vista Dr McClellan Rd Hyannisport Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr Bubb Rd $
94 Bike Network Separated
Bikeway Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd Homestead Rd 52�18 $
95 Sidewalks 1 side of street Scofield Dr Western Dr De Anza Blvd 52�01 $
96
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Alves Dr Anton Way Bandley Dr
51�59
$
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Memorial Park
Bike Path Memorial Park Alves St $$
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Memorial Park
Bike Path Christensen Dr Mary Ave $$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr Lauretta Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Ann Arbor Ct Christensen Dr Ann Arbor Ave $
97
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr Bollinger Rd
50�93
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Wunderlich Dr Barnhart Ave Johnson Ave $
98 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd Santa Lucia Rd 50�85 $
99 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Terry Way Rodrigues Ave 50�68 $
100 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Bonny Dr Sola St 50�68 $
101
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kim St Bollinger Rd De Foe Dr
50�48
$
Bike Network Bike Path Kim St Kirwin Ln Bollinger Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kim St McClellan Rd Kirwin Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Westacres Dr McClellan Rd Shelly Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route De Foe Dr Kim St Dumas Dr $
83CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 96
BPC 07-15-2026
96 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
102 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Stendhal Ln Phil Ln 50�42 $
103 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Forest Ave Randy Ln 50�04 $
104
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kentwood Ave Tiptoe Ln City Limits
(South)
49�8
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Tuscany Pl Heatherwood
Dr Jollyman Park $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Colony Hills Ln Heatherwood
Dr Fallenleaf Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Huntridge Ln Rose Blossom
Dr Stelling Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Tiptoe Ln Kentwood Ave Colony Hills Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Rose Blossom Dr McClellan Rd Huntridge Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Heatherwood Dr Tuscany Pl Colony Hills Ln $
105 Sidewalks 1 side of street Mary Ave 500' South of
Lubec St
160' North of
Point Reyes Ter 48�81 $
106 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Bixby Dr Portal Ave 48�59 $
107 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd 48�46 $$$
108
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Cupertino Rd Foothill Blvd Carmen Rd
48�3
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route
Crescent Rd -
Hillcrest Rd Amelia Ct Cupertino Rd $
Bike Network Shared-Use Path Varian Park Path Varian Way Amelia Ct $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Amelia Ct Varian Park Crescent Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Varian Way Ainsworth Dr Varian Park $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr Varian Way $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Hartman Dr Chace Dr Ainsworth Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Chace Dr Starling Dr Hartman Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Starling Dr Foothill Blvd Chace Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Carmen Rd Cupertino Rd Dead End $
109 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Merritt Dr Larry Way 47�88 $
84CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 97
BPC 07-15-2026
97 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
110 Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Alderbrook Ln Creekside Park Bollinger Rd 47�66 $
111
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
Stelling Rd Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr I-280 47�33 $$
112 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Granada Ave Orange Ave 47�01 $
113
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
Wolfe Rd/Miller
Ave
Wolfe Rd/Miller
Ave
Calle de
Barcelona Homestead Rd 46�35 $$
114
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Lockwood Dr Voss Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
46�05
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Voss Ave Lockwood Dr Foothill Blvd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Palm Ave Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd $
115 Pedestrian
Intersections A, B, C Torre Ave Town Center Ln 45�56 $$
116
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Erin Way Stelling Rd Kirwin Ln
45�22
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kirwin Ln Erin Way Kim St $
117
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
De Anza Blvd De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd Homestead Rd 45�21 $$
118
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Linda Vista Dr Hyannisport Dr Santa Teresa Dr
45�14
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Santa Teresa Dr Rae Ln Terrace Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Terrace Dr Santa Teresa Dr Bubb Rd $
119 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Hyannisport Dr Linda Vista Dr 45�14 $
120 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Ann Arbor Ave Greenleaf Dr 44�55 $
121 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Wheaton Dr Portal Ave 44�1 $
122 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Hyde Ave Willowgrove Ln 43�9 $
123 Sidewalks 1 side of street S Tantau Ave Anne Ln Stevens Creek
Blvd 43�88 $
124 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Palo Vista Rd Janice Ave 43�76 $
125 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Saich Way Alves Dr 43�64 $
126 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Alderbrook Ln Atherwood Ave 43�4 $
85CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 98
BPC 07-15-2026
98 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
127 Sidewalks 1 side of street Flora Vista Ave Greenleaf Dr Lavina Ct 43�3 $
128 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Foothill Blvd Voss Ave 43�28 $
129
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd Bubb Rd
42�62
$
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd De Anza Blvd $
130 Sidewalks 1 side of street Beardon Dr Dunbar Dr Greenleaf Dr 42�25
131 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stern Ave Tilson Ave 41�9 $
132 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Sterling Ave Barnhart Ave 41�86 $
133 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Beardon Dr Fargo Dr Dunbar Dr 41�74 $
134
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Plum Blossom Dr Primrose Way Jamestown Dr
41�4
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Scotland Dr Squirewood
Way Kingsbury Pl $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Jamestown Dr Plum Blossom
Dr Prospect Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Kingsbury Pl Scotland Dr Gardenside Ln $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Squirewood Way Scotland Dr Stelling Rd $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Poppy Way Rainbow Dr Plum Blossom
Dr $
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Gardenside Ln Kingsbury Pl Rainbow Dr $
135 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Alves Dr Stelling Rd 680' East of
Stelling Rd 41�15 $
136 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr 41�15 $
137 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Randy Ln Merritt Dr 41�05 $
138 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Merritt Dr Vista Dr 41�05 $
139 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Barnhart Ave Wunderlich Dr 40�76 $
140 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane
Stevens Creek
Blvd Foothill Blvd Permanente Rd 40�68 $
141 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: C Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr 40�48 $
142
Transportation
Technology
Corridors
Homestead Rd Homestead Rd Tantau Ave De Anza Blvd 39�96 $$
86CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 99
BPC 07-15-2026
99 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
143 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Kim St 39�72 $
144 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Lockwood Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd 39�38 $
145 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Palm Ave S Foothill Blvd Scenic Blvd 39�26 $$
146
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Primrose Way Waterford Dr Plum Blossom
Dr 38�98
$
Bike Network Neighborhood
Bike Route Waterford Dr Stelling Rd Primrose Way $
147 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Kirwin Ln Lonna Ln De Anza Blvd 38�92 $
148 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Ann Arbor Ave Grenola Dr Hazelbrook Dr 37�72 $
149 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Carmen Rd Janice Ave Scenic Blvd 37�33 $
150 Sidewalks 1 side of street Foothill Blvd
170' South of
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Rancho Ventura
St 37�31 $
151 Sidewalks 1 side of street Forest Ave 260' East of
Randy Ln
110' West of
Toni Ct 37�24 $
152 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Mary Ave Lubec St 36�36 $
153 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Pacifica Dr Whitney Way 35�88 $
154 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek
Blvd Silver Oak Ln Camino Vista Dr 35�8 $
155 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Kirwin Ln Felton Way 35�67 $
156 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A San Fernando
Ave Orange Ave 35�09 $
157 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Foothill Blvd Cristo Rey Dr Vista Knoll Blvd 34�88 $
158 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Stevens Creek
Blvd
200' East of
Lockwood Dr Prado Vista Dr 34�76 $
159 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Imperial Ave Olive Ave 33�95 $
160 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stelling Rd Squirehill Ct Rainbow Dr 33�86 $
161 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek
Blvd Lockwood Dr 160' East of
Lockwood Dr 33�2 $
162 Sidewalks 1 side of street Stevens Creek
Blvd Lebanon Dr 170' East of
Lebanon Dr 33�2 $
163 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Stevens Creek
Blvd
170' East of
Lebanon Dr Lockwood Dr 33�2 $
164 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Creek
Blvd
California Oak
Way 33�12 $
165 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Regnart Rd 32�91 $
87CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 100
BPC 07-15-2026
100 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
166 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Hyannisport Dr Fort Baker Dr 32�08 $
167 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Kirwin Ln Erin Way 32 $
168 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A 100' East of
Scenic Ct Cir Pathway 31�84 $
169 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave 30�78 $
170 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Scenic Blvd Palm Ave 30�7 $
171 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Foothill Blvd 170' South of
Voss Ave Palm Ave 30�49 $
172 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Merriman Rd Voss Ave 29�64 $
173 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Orion Ln Stelling Rd Hunterston Pl 29�56 $
174 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B Ainsworth Dr Bahl St 29�22 $
175 Sidewalks 2 sides of street Gardena Dr Stelling Rd Gardena Ct 28�94 $
176 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr 28�65 $
177 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Lockwood Dr Voss Ave 28�5 $
178 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stevens Canyon
Rd Riverside Dr 28�4 $
179 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Santa Teresa Dr Columbus Ave 28�29 $
180 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Johnson Ave Wunderlich Dr 27�7 $
181 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Stelling Rd Seven Springs
Pkwy 27�41 $
182 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Stelling Rd Waterford Dr 27�41 $
183 Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Rainbow Dr 26�33
184 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Kim St Bollinger Rd 24�52 $
185 Sidewalks 1 side of street Foothill Blvd Santa Paula Ave Kinst Ct 24�24 $
186 Sidewalks 1 side of street Foothill Blvd Walnut Cir
314' South of
Rancho Ventura
St
24�24 $
187
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Homestead Rd S Bernardo Ave Stelling Rd
23�6
$
Bike Network Separated
Bikeway Homestead Rd El Sereno Ave S Bernardo Ave $
Bike Network Buffered Bike
Lane Homestead Rd Crist Dr El Sereno Ave $
88CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 101
BPC 07-15-2026
101 of 125
PROJECT
RANK
CATEGORY PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
LOCATION CROSS STREET A CROSS STREET B FINAL
SCORE
PROJECT
COST
188 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, C De Anza Blvd Prospect Rd 23�35 $$
189 Sidewalks 2 side of street McClellan Rd
250' East of
Stevens Canyon
Rd
90' West of San
Leandro Ave 22�4 $
190 Sidewalks 1 side of street Orion Ln Derbyshire Dr Hunterston Pl 21�1 $
191 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Prospect Rd Stelling Rd 19�56 $$
192 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Kim St Kirwin Ln 19�41 $
193 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B Bubb Rd Rainbow Dr 19�36 $
194 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Dempster Ave Fitzgerald Ave 18�3 $
195 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Wildflower Way De Anza Blvd 18�24 $
196 Sidewalks 1 side of street Alcalde Rd Merriman Rd Foothill Blvd 17�99 $
197 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Dempster Ave Stokes Ave 16�02 $
198 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Rainbow Dr Gardenside Ln 15�47 $$
199 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A Weymoth Dr Rainbow Dr 14�91 $
200 Sidewalks 2 sides of street De Anza Blvd Rainbow Dr Wildflower Way 14�6 $
201 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: B, C Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd 14�18 $$
202 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, B, C Via Roncole Prospect Rd 10�85 $$
203 Sidewalks 1 side of street Alcalde Rd Avenida Ln Alicia Ct 9�65 $
204 Pedestrian
Intersections Typology: A, C Canyon Oak
Way Cristo Rey Dr 6�25 $$
89CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 102
BPC 07-15-2026
102 of 125
Implementation Strategy
Capital Projects
Include the projects of this Plan in the annual
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Identify additional
opportunities for coordination among projects in the
CIP that advance the Plan and the City’s goals�
Identify Quick-Build Projects
Quick-build projects are implemented using relatively
low-cost materials compared to long-term capital
projects� Quick-build projects not only are faster
and less costly to implement, but they also create an
opportunity to pilot a project design or treatment for
community feedback and observation� Quick-build
projects can also more quickly respond to safety
concerns, compared to long-term capital improvements�
Where feasible, the City should identify specific
network improvements or packaged improvements
that can advance on an accelerated timeline through
quick-build implementation�
Flexible Project Delivery
The City will need to work internally and across City
departments to find flexibility within any existing
processes and how projects are implemented�
Remaining flexible will help reduce hurdles typically
faced in project delivery and streamline decision-
making� Recommended projects could require ongoing
evaluation and pivoting within an annual work plan
and project development�
As conditions change, the City should review projects
periodically, considering new needs, the impact of
implemented projects, and available funding� The City
should evaluate this Plan’s project list every five years
and update as needed�
Cross-Departmental
Opportunities
Interdepartmental City staff coordination is key to the
success of the Plan project implementation� Aligning
with existing or future projects across City departments
will promote a shared understanding that Plan project
delivery is a priority across the City� Aligning across
City departments is also an opportunity to share the
need for the proposed improvements and how all the
City’s networks interact�
Project implementation requires a thoughtful
strategy and exploration of innovative approaches�
The strategies explored below are opportunities that
the City can leverage to support the implementation
of this Plan’s programs, network recommendations,
and goals and objectives over time�
Figure 52: Rodrigues Avenue buffered bike lanes installed as part of the City’s pavement maintenance program
90CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 103
BPC 07-15-2026
103 of 125
Project Delivery and Evaluation Commitments
Project Impact Evaluation
Guidelines
Some of the proposed projects for the bicycle network
may generate impacts to parking or congestion,
by requiring either the removal of a vehicle lane or
removal of on-street parking� Because projects for
the ATP were developed at a conceptual level, they
have only identified the potential for impacts, but
not the scale—as further design detail is required to
understand the extent of impacts�
Under the Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines,
City staff will assess the potential for impacts across
a range of criteria at the 30% design stage and report
those findings to City Council. The City Council will
determine whether a project should then undergo a
detailed impacts analysis or can move forward with
approval for detailed design and construction� This will
ensure thorough public vetting of all potential impacts
and trade-offs before a project is fully committed to,
allowing for as-needed design modifications to limit
impacts when determined to be too severe�
Impact evaluation will include traffic data collection
for all modes, traffic operations analysis, and parking
impact analysis� For further details, see Appendix I.
Project Effectiveness
Guidelines
For new Class II and Class IV bike network projects
from the ATP, the City will conduct before- and after-
evaluation counts to more clearly understand the effect
of new projects on generating new walking and biking
trips� Before-evaluation data will be collected during
the project design process, while after-evaluation data
counts will be conducted a suitable amount of time
after the new facility opens to account for changes in
travel patterns and behaviors. Evaluation will also
consider changes in collision rates� The City will report
the results, ensuring transparency and accountability
around active transportation projects�
For further details, see Appendix J�
Projects recommended in the ATP are at the
conceptual level and will require further design
and analysis to determine their feasibility for
implementation� In the interests of providing a
higher level of certainty to the public and decision-
makers around how projects will be developed and
implemented, this ATP outlines City commitments
for the project development and delivery process,
as well as how active transportation projects will be
evaluated for effectiveness in the future.
Figure 53: Sharrow installation on Pacifica Drive
91CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 104
BPC 07-15-2026
104 of 125
Funding Sources
Potential Funding Sources
While the City does not currently have a dedicated
funding source for the implementation of all the
activities recommended in this ATP, there are a variety
of funding sources available to support planning,
design, and construction of all recommended projects�
The following represents a list of potential funding
sources available�
FEDERAL
• Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage
Development (BUILD) Grants
• Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with
Disabilities
• Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
• Land and Water Conservation Fund Program
• Recreation Trails Program
• Surface Transportation Program
• Safe Streets and Roads for All (SS4A)
• Surface Transportation Block Grants
STATE
• Active Transportation Program
• Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities
Program (AHSC)
• California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank
• California Office of Traffic Safety
• California Transportation Commission Local
Partnership Program (LPP)
• Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Planning Grants
• Clean Mobility Options
• State Highway Operation and Protection Program
(SHOPP)
• State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
• Transformative Climate Communities (TCC)
• Transportation Development Act Funds (TDA)
• Urban Greening Grant Program
LOCAL
• Transportation Development Act Article 3
• Transportation Fund for Clean Air
• Measure B
• Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of
1982
• One Bay Area Grant
• Regional Measure 3
• Transit-Oriented Communities & Climate Program
Implementation Grants
It is crucial for the City to identify and secure
funding for programs and infrastructure projects to
advance the goals established in this Plan� A variety
of sources exist to fund bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure programs, projects, and studies�
These sources include local, regional, state, and
federal funding opportunities�
92CUPERTINO ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Project Prioritization 105
BPC 07-15-2026
105 of 125
106
BPC 07-15-2026
106 of 125
APPENDICES
Appendix A: Plan Review
Appendix B: Existing Conditions Memo
Appendix C: Needs Assessment Memo
Appendix D: Public Participation Summary Report
Appendix E: Development of Recommendations
Memo
Appendix F: Recommended Policies and Programs
Memo
Appendix G: Prioritization Methodology Memo
Appendix H: Complete Streets Policy Review Memo
Appendix I: Active Transportation Plan Impact
Evaluation Guidelines
Appendix J: Project Effectiveness Guidelines
Appendix K: Bicycle & Pedestrian Count Technology
White Paper
107
BPC 07-15-2026
107 of 125
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-5732
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354
CUPERTINO.GOV
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Date: April 07, 2026
Subject
An update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan, including a summary of Phase
2, explanations of plan edits, revised scoring criteria, and next steps.
Recommended Action
Receive an update on the development of the Active Transportation Plan and provide feedback
on the agenda packet attachments.
Executive Summary
The City of Cupertino is developing an Active Transportation Plan (ATP) to update and
consolidate the 2016 Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
The ATP is a City Work Program project and fully funded through TDA Article 3 funds, a state
funding source for bicycle and pedestrian improvements. Phase 1 of the project established the
technical foundation for the Plan, which included a Needs Assessment and Existing Conditions
Review that applied methods such as Active Trip Potential and Level of Traffic Stress to identify
where walking and biking are most challenging and where short vehicle trips could realistically
shift to active modes. Community input validated the analysis and emphasized strong support
for improving safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network (HIN), connectivity to schools,
designing for all ages and abilities, and balancing project tradeoffs for drivers.
Phase 2 advanced the Plan through continued engagement and produced clear priorities for both
pedestrian and bicycle networks. The ATP and the draft prioritization criteria were presented to
Commissions and Council in fall 2025, where there was strong consensus and feedback
converged on prioritizing safety (especially near schools and on the HIN), using objective metrics
to score projects, and elevating technology solutions. These comments led staff to revise the
scoring frameworks and create a new project category, Transportation Technology Corridors.
Staff also developed a new set of guidelines to address comments on potential project impacts
and on how to measure project effectiveness. Next steps are to release a draft ATP for public
review in spring, incorporate revisions, and return to City Council for adoption in late June or
early July.
108
BPC 07-15-2026
108 of 125
Background
With substantial progress made on implementing the recommended projects from the 2016
Bicycle Transportation Plan and the 2018 Pedestrian Transportation Plan, a new, comprehensive
Active Transportation Plan (ATP) is being developed that will build on those successes and
address evolving community needs. Additionally, this unified, citywide plan will align bicycle
and pedestrian initiatives while accounting for the needs of motorized vehicles. This coordinated
approach ensures consistency across policies and projects, avoids duplication, and addresses
overlapping concerns.
The City Council approved the FY 24/25 City Work Program on April 3, 2024, with the ATP
included as an approved project. City staff then identified Transportation Development Act
Article 3 (TDA3) funds as an external funding source to wholly fund the Plan's development. On
December 3, 2024, the City Council authorized the City Manager to award a contract to Alta
Planning + Design, Inc., for development of an ATP.
Phase 1 Summary
Phase 1 of the ATP occurred between March and June 2025. It included policy review, community
outreach, and technical analysis to develop data-driven project recommendations. The first step
of Phase 1 was to develop a Plan Review Memo to ensure the ATP is consistent with and supports
local and regional policies, including Cupertino plans like the General Plan’s Mobility Element
and Vision Zero Action Plan, the Countywide Active Transportation Plan, and other relevant
documents.
Phase 1 also resulted in a Vision, Goals, and Objectives Memo. This document captured the
shared vision that Cupertino should be a community where walking, biking, and rolling are easy,
safe, and comfortable for everyone. The ATP’s vision, goals, and objectives were developed by
consolidating similar and overlapping statements from existing Cupertino plans and refining
them using input gathered during Phase 1 outreach to also reflect today's community needs and
concerns. The community ranked these goals in order of importance, as shown below:
1. Safety: Consistent with the Vision Zero Action Plan, pursue an active transportation
network that reduces the number of serious and fatal crashes involving pedestrians,
bicyclists, and other active transportation users to zero. Enact measures to anticipate
human error and minimize the impact of traffic crashes for all roadway users.
2. Accessibility: Provide a well-connected multimodal transportation network that offers
comfortable and convenient walking and biking options to key destinations for all
residents and visitors in the City.
3. Maintenance: Active transportation needs should be considered and integrated in all City
roadway maintenance activities.
4. Sustainability: Advance environmental quality and economic prosperity for the City by
providing inviting active transportation facilities that encourage frequent usage and
improve adoption of all non-vehicle modes of travel, resulting in a reduction in Vehicle
Miles Traveled (VMT) and Greenhouse Gas Emissions (GHGs).
109
BPC 07-15-2026
109 of 125
5. Multimodal Balance: Consider multimodal priorities and impacts of all projects to
improve sustainable transportation options throughout the City. Limit impacts to all other
transportation modes whenever possible, including transit and personal vehicles.
6. Fairness: Provide a multimodal transportation system that is equally distributed across
all neighborhoods in Cupertino.
During Phase 1, the project team also conducted a Needs Assessment and an Existing Conditions
Review. These documents examined the City’s transportation network in detail, identifying
where walkers and bikers feel stressed or disconnected. Analyses such as Active Trip Potential
and Level of Traffic Stress were applied to determine areas in the City where existing short
driving trips could realistically shift to walking or biking. Together, these analysis methods
established a clear picture of where gaps are greatest and where investments could potentially
yield the greatest community benefits.
In parallel with the analysis task, staff reached out to the community to learn which destinations
they want to travel to and what barriers prevent them from walking or biking. Residents
consistently expressed concerns about safety on the Vision Zero High-Injury Network (HIN), the
need for improved connectivity between neighborhoods and schools, the need to consider
potential project impacts on drivers, and the importance of designing facilities for people of all
ages and abilities. Feedback from the community helped validate the technical analysis, and
together, these two sources, along with state and federal design guidance documents such as the
Caltrans Design Information Bulletin Number 94 and the Federal Highway Administration
Bikeway Selection Guide, were leveraged to develop draft network recommendations.
Draft project prioritization criteria that align with the Plan goals were established to assist in
ranking the draft network recommendations. The scoring metrics were selected to be consistent
with community goals and VTA Measure B funding requirements. These criteria were presented
to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (August 20, 2025), Planning Commission (September 9,
2025), and City Council (November 4, 2025) for review and public comment. These draft project
prioritization criteria included the following metrics to rank recommended projects:
• Collision History
• Stress Level
• School Proximity
• High Frequency Transit Proximity
• Parks & Other Destination Proximity
• Active Trip Potential
• Roadway Impact
• Public Input
Phase 2 Summary
Following Phase 1, the project transitioned to the Network Recommendations Phase (Phase 2).
All Phase 1 documents can be referenced on the project webpage at www.cupertino.gov/atp. This
information was included in the staff report (Attachment A) for the November 04, 2025, City
Council meeting. During this phase, public engagement continued, with the community
110
BPC 07-15-2026
110 of 125
encouraged to review and comment on the draft network recommendations. Phase 2 ran from
August 20 to November 30 and consisted of eight pop-up events and three public hearings. The
online input webmap was also updated to allow community members to review and comment
on the project recommendations using the project webpage.
Phase 2 public outreach once again highlighted repeated concerns about intersection conflicts,
particularly with right-turning vehicles, limited visibility, red light running, and speeding
through major intersections. For pedestrian projects, respondents strongly supported the
proposed Class I shared-use facilities (Tamien Innu, Union Pacific Trail, and Lawrence Mitty
Trail). For the Lawrence Mitty Trail, the community specifically noted the value of extending the
shared-use path northward and into Santa Clara to improve school access. There was also broad
support for the recommended sidewalk projects. Participants noted that safety issues at
intersections become more pronounced during commuting hours due to the high volume of
traffic. The intersections most frequently mentioned were those along Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Bollinger Road, Prospect Road, Stelling Road, De Anza Boulevard, and Blaney Avenue. The
community’s preferred pedestrian projects (the top-voted projects online and on outreach boards)
were:
• Tamien Innu (Shared Use)
• Lawrence Mitty Trail (Shared Use)
• Blaney Ave and Stevens Creek Blvd (Typology A, B, C Intersection)
• Union Pacific Trail (Shared Use)
• Pacifica Dr and Torre Ave (Typology A Intersection)
For bicycling, popular projects included upgrading bike lanes on corridors such as Homestead
Road and Blaney Avenue, and addressing intersection safety issues along Stevens Creek
Boulevard, especially near Highway 85 and De Anza College. The community’s preferred bicycle
projects (the top-voted projects online and on outreach boards) were:
• Stevens Creek Blvd (Separated Bike Lanes)
• Blaney Ave (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Homestead Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
• Bollinger Rd (Buffered Bike Lanes)
• Stelling Rd (Buffered and Separated Bike Lanes)
Overall, participants expressed support for enhanced network connections to schools and
requested that some of the proposed buffered bike lanes be upgraded to separated bikeways to
improve safety due to high-speed traffic. The corridors that received the most feedback included
the recommended shared-use paths, as well as Homestead Road, Stevens Creek Boulevard,
Blaney Avenue, and Bollinger Road. Many participants favored the suggested shared-use paths,
expressing that they would provide safe alternatives to major roadways and intersections.
Concerns about speeding and unsafe intersections along Stevens Creek Boulevard were
highlighted, particularly near Highway 85 and De Anza College. Separated bikeways were
supported on Foothill Boulevard, Stelling Road, and Wolfe Road. Most unique comments were
regarding the recommended neighborhood bike routes, with overall support for the enhanced
neighborhood network serving schools.
111
BPC 07-15-2026
111 of 125
Across both pedestrian and bicycle projects, recurring priorities were improving safety for
students travelling to schools (Lincoln Elementary, Monta Vista High, and Cupertino High were
referenced the most), implementing traffic calming and speed-reduction measures on local streets
(speed tables, RRFBs, and when legally permissible implementing automated speed enforcement
measures), strengthening connectivity between parks, schools, and neighborhoods, and
improving intersection safety.
Commission and Council Feedback - Fall 2025
Following Phase 1, the ATP was taken to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, Planning
Commission, and City Council to solicit feedback on the ATP and the draft project prioritization
criteria. Based on the Council's direction and the Commissions’ feedback, staff revised both the
draft prioritization criteria and draft programmatic recommendations to address comments from
the three bodies. Additionally, staff prepared two new guideline documents to accompany the
ATP, which will be applied to new ATP projects to better evaluate potential project impacts and
project effectiveness.
A review of the Commission and Council feedback showed clear consensus among the
Commissions and the Council regarding each body’s comments on the ATP and the draft project
prioritization criteria. These areas of agreement were:
• Safety should be prioritized, especially near schools and on the Vision Zero HIN.
• Scoring criteria should emphasize objective, data-based measures, and Fairness should be
removed as a criterion.
• Support for improving future decision-making with more robust data collection.
• Technology solutions need greater emphasis.
Specifically, on August 20, 2025, the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission provided the following
comments to staff:
• The Commission emphasized considering road maintenance before approving new
projects.
• Concerns were raised about including public likes and dislikes in the evaluation process,
and it was suggested that they be treated cautiously.
• Calls were made to ensure decisions are based on data, and to avoid penalizing projects
that involve parking or lane removal, as those decisions should be left to the City Council.
• There was strong support for prioritizing safety, with extra points suggested for projects
near schools and along high-injury corridors.
• The evolving nature of the City was acknowledged, with a push to ensure plans address
both current and future needs, particularly in growing residential areas.
On September 9, 2025, the Planning Commission provided feedback to staff through the
following motion:
112
BPC 07-15-2026
112 of 125
• Access Criteria: Award fifteen points if within one-half mile of a school and include senior
housing and senior facilities in the “Parks & Other Destinations Proximity” definition.
• Sustainability/Connectivity Criteria: Rename “Sustainability” to “Connectivity” and
award ten points for being within one-quarter mile of a trail or low-stress facility, raising
the section maximum to twenty points.
• Balance Criteria: Subtract five points if five or more regularly used parking spaces are
removed and subtract fifteen points if a car lane is eliminated for ten percent or more of
the project length.
• Fairness Criteria: Delete this criterion as it is subjective, unmeasurable, and likely to
increase community divisiveness.
• Additional ATP Recommendations: Improve high-injury intersections with cameras,
evaluate adaptive right-turn-on-red technology, conduct baseline bike counts, and partner
with multiple providers for routine bike education.
On November 4, 2025, the City Council provided the following feedback to staff through the
following motion, during which Vice Mayor Moore made a friendly amendment to add grant
funding (Mayor Chao and Councilmember Wang accepted the friendly amendment).
• Drop “Public Input” from ranking criteria since it’s not objective and unreliable.
• Remove Fairness as a ranking criterion, as the CIP adoption process will address that.
• Add “Cost-efficiency (user impact)” to ranking criteria - low cost, high impact projects
should have high priority; and grant funding.
• Add impact to vehicular traffic to arterial streets as a ranking criterion to subtract points.
• Add and prioritize technology solutions such as sensor-driven pedestrian and bicyclist
detection
o Safe driving technology – speed feedback signs, red light cameras
• Need input from drivers on dangerous points.
• School crossing - needs traffic management too, in addition to bike and ped infrastructure.
• Need data:
o Longer trip data from cell phone data, in addition to short trip data
o Project list generated
o Data for De Anza Buffered Bike Lane collected so far.
o Hopper data
o TDM data from Apple
Responses to Commission and Council Feedback - Fall 2025
Staff addressed the comments specifically related to the draft prioritization criteria by:
• Modifying the scoring for the HIN and High Injury Intersections (HII) to give greater
consideration to projects along the HIN/HII or locations in close proximity.
• Modifying School Proximity scoring so that Suggested Routes to School is the chosen
metric, rather than a distance-based proximity score for schools. This is more precise and
appropriate, as it specifically addresses safety on known walking and biking routes to
school.
• Adding senior facilities to the Destinations proximity for scoring.
• Creating a new project category for transportation technology.
113
BPC 07-15-2026
113 of 125
• Removing the Fairness criterion so that all metrics are based on objective data.
• Adding additional negative scoring for projects that impact Cupertino arterials.
• Adding cost effectiveness as a scoring criterion.
Staff revised the criteria tables, which are included in Attachment B, and the draft project scores
based on the revised criteria are listed in Attachment C.
Staff addressed general comments on the ATP by creating a new project category for technology,
developing two guideline documents to apply to the new ATP network recommendations during
project delivery, and making minor revisions to the programmatic recommendations
(Attachment D). These changes include:
• The creation of a new project category for transportation technology, so that technology
solutions are grouped into corridors and equally ranked against traditional network
recommendations, not just listed as programmatic recommendations. This new project
category is titled Transportation Technology Corridors.
• A Project Impact Evaluation Memo (Attachment E), which lays out the approach for
comprehensively assessing project impacts and a path for project delivery when the full
extent of parking or roadway impacts is discovered during design.
• A Project Effectiveness Memo (Attachment F), which describes how the City can better
evaluate long-term project effectiveness.
• Minor edits to the programmatic recommendations to better reflect the character of
Cupertino and address comments received during public hearings.
The first major revision to the ATP following the last Planning Commission review in September
was the addition of a new project category, Transportation Technology Corridors. This new
category addresses the community’s desire and the Council's direction to prioritize technology.
To achieve this, transportation technologies were added to the ATP network recommendations
as standalone corridor projects rather than as programmatic elements as previously identified.
Staff began by reviewing Typology C intersection recommendations (intersection signal and
control changes) located at Cupertino-owned signalized intersections and evaluated their overlap
with the Vision Zero HIN. Following this exercise, staff analyzed collision data to identify
corridors with higher collision rates where “unsafe speed” is listed as the primary collision factor,
or where collisions occurred due to traffic signal or sign violations. Lastly, corridors and the
intersections along them were screened for implementation feasibility to determine appropriate
Technology Corridors. This process helped staff select five corridors that would benefit most from
transportation technologies, based on collision history and the City’s ability to control and
implement different technologies. These corridors are:
• De Anza Blvd: From Homestead Rd to Prospect Rd
• Stevens Creek Blvd: From Foothill Blvd to Wolfe Rd
• Homestead Rd: From De Anza Blvd to Tantau Ave
• Wolfe/ Miller Rd: From Homestead Rd to Calle de Barcelona
• Stelling Rd: From I-280 to Rainbow Dr
114
BPC 07-15-2026
114 of 125
Technology solutions in this project category could include red-light cameras, speed-enforcement
cameras (when legally permissible), adaptive detection for vehicles, pedestrians, and bicyclists,
and audible pedestrian detection. Transportation Technology Corridor projects will be treated
the same as traditional network recommendations, and their scores will be normalized against
bicycle, pedestrian intersection, and sidewalk projects. Technology Corridors will be ranked in
the final project list alongside all other project types.
The next notable change is the addition of two new guideline documents to be presented to
Council for consideration. These guidelines aim to address two commonly heard themes from
the community, Commissions, and Council related to the need to better consider project tradeoffs
before construction and to collect more data on ridership resulting from bicycle improvement
projects. These two memos (Attachments E and F) describe the approach that staff will follow for
new ATP network recommendations.
For evaluating project impacts, the Project Impact Evaluation Memo (Attachment E) states that
following the Council-approved initiation of any new ATP project, and when parking or traffic
impacts are identified during the preliminary engineering (30% design) phase, staff will return to
the City Council to present the 30% design, identified impacts, and potential trade-offs. At that
meeting, the Council will determine whether the project should undergo a detailed impact
analysis tailored to its specific impacts. This level of analysis requires a degree of design detail
that is available only once the 30% design phase has been completed.
A 30% level of design is necessary to evaluate traffic and parking impacts with technical accuracy
because traffic analysis tools, such as Synchro, TransCAD, Cube, or Inrix-based models, require
defined lane assignments, turn pockets, signal phasing, parking layouts, and other project
features to produce meaningful estimates of delay, queues, diversion patterns, and parking
utilization. Additionally, tying the analysis to the identification of parking or traffic impacts at
30% ensures that funding is focused on projects that clearly reveal meaningful operational or
parking impacts, rather than expending significant resources on every concept in the ATP,
regardless of its risk profile. A description of the potential scope and cost estimates for that work
is included in Attachment 4.
The second draft guideline document (Attachment F) describes the process by which the City will
use data to measure the success of new network recommendations in the ATP. This approach
exclusively applies to Class II (striped bicycle lane), Class IIB (buffered bicycle lane), and Class
IV (protected bicycle lane) bicycle facilities. The goal of this approach is to ensure that
transportation projects identified in the ATP and completed through the City’s Capital
Improvement Program (CIP) are successful in furthering the City’s stated goals.
The ATP advances City objectives for traffic safety and reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
consistent with the Council-adopted Vision Zero Action Plan and Climate Action Plan. The City’s
Vision Zero Action Plan calls for eliminating serious and fatal collisions by 2040, and the Climate
Action Plan seeks to reduce vehicle trips and their associated emissions in part by shifting short
driving trips to walking, biking, and transit.
115
BPC 07-15-2026
115 of 125
To demonstrate progress toward these objectives, staff must track the number of people using
new facilities and the safety of those facilities over time. This proposed evaluation approach will
allow the City to answer basic but important questions, such as whether these projects encourage
the use of active transportation modes, whether collision rates are decreasing even as ridership
increases, and, potentially, which types of improvements deliver the greatest benefits.
Historically, due to the costly nature of this work, city staff has relied on occasional spot counts
or project-specific traffic studies, which provide only short snapshots of bicycle and pedestrian
volumes. To fully measure the effect of new ATP projects, staff proposes establishing an approach
that combines a one-time citywide baseline count effort along with project-specific before-and-
after counts for certain bikeway projects. This effort will require the purchase or lease of bike-ped
counting equipment and, potentially, the associated analytics software, so bicycle and pedestrian
activity can be measured in a repeatable way.
Staff recommends that the first action of the ATP should be to conduct a comprehensive snapshot
baseline bicycle and pedestrian count at ATP priority project locations. This initial effort would
record how many people are currently biking (and walking, where feasible). Following
completion of the baseline count, for individual bikeway projects approved by the Council, staff
proposes a before-and-after evaluation approach for Class II, Class IIB, and Class IV bikeways.
Upon Council approval of project initiation, staff would begin a pre-construction data collection
period at the project site. This establishes a clear pre-project picture of both ridership and safety.
After the project is constructed, staff would then repeat this process for post-construction. With
these two datasets, staff can calculate changes in average daily and peak-period bicycle volumes,
as well as changes in collision rates. The key metric will not just be the number of collisions, but
collisions relative to the number of bicyclists or pedestrians. A successful project would be one in
which more people use the facility while the collision rate per bicyclist or pedestrian 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.
These draft guidelines are intended to improve transparency and accountability around new
active transportation projects. It also provides Council with a way to compare projects and project
types, allows designs to be refined based on what works best in practice, and creates a feedback
loop between adopted policy goals and real-world outcomes. By committing to these approaches,
the City can signal that success is defined not only by miles of bikeway delivered, but by
thoughtful design and quantifiable improvements in safety and mode shift toward sustainable
transportation.
Commission and Community Feedback - Winter 2026
After incorporating the requested Commission and Council changes, the ATP was brought back
to the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission to gather feedback on the
updated draft project list and draft guidelines.
A summary of the comments provided by the Planning Commission on February 10, 2026, and
the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission on February 18, 2026, is included below.
116
BPC 07-15-2026
116 of 125
At the Planning Commission, the Commission noted that making small adjustments to individual
scoring criteria could create a “whack-a-mole effect”, where changes unintentionally shift project
rankings elsewhere. That said, there was general agreement that the Safety and School criteria
could be refined to better elevate Vision Zero–related projects. Following prioritization, the
discussion shifted to emergency response times and the design of Class IV separated bike lanes.
Commissioners acknowledged the importance of this issue but did not agree that these facilities
universally worsen response times and concluded that the topic should be addressed through the
Programmatic Recommendations in the ATP.
The Planning Commission provided comments on the ATP through the following individual
straw polls:
Chair Kosolcharoen conducted a non-binding straw poll to have Council and staff consider
the ways in which public safety response time can be incorporated into the project
prioritization criteria. (Rao in favor; none opposed; no abstentions)
Commissioner Lindskog conducted a non-binding straw poll to revisit the scoring system and
put less weight on school routes and less weight on cost-effectiveness criteria to balance things
out, and put more weight on intersections in High Injury Network, particularly the top twenty,
and increase the ranking on Foothill Blvd. (Scharf, Kosolcharoen, Fung and Lindskog in
favor; Rao opposed; no abstentions)
Chair Kosolcharoen conducted a non-binding straw poll to support incorporating emergency
response times into programmatic recommendations. (Kosolcharoen, and Rao in favor; Scharf
Fung, and Lindskog opposed; no abstentions)
Commissioner Fung conducted a non-binding straw poll to reinstate proximity to parks in
addition to proximity to schools. (Kosolcharoen, Scharf, Fung and Lindskog in favor; Rao
opposed; no abstentions)
Commissioner Rao conducted a non-binding straw poll to discard the criteria proposed and
use the feedback provided at Council. (Rao in favor; Fung and Lindskog opposed;
Kosolcharoen and Scharf abstained)
At the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, a consistent theme was that the updated project
prioritization criteria could be refined to elevate Vision Zero-related projects. Commissioners
emphasized the importance of accounting for the High Injury Network, specifically by adding
consideration of KSI locations or Intersections and Corridors of Concern (the top 7 intersections
and corridors listed in the Vision Zero Action Plan). Many felt the School Proximity criteria may
be over-weighted, and there was interest in shifting from individual project thinking toward
clustering or zone strategies for future project delivery. Commissioners also noted that having to
normalize scores due to the Balance criterion might cause confusion when reading the table, and
this type of scoring could be simplified. Overall, the Commission was supportive of the presented
Plan documents and agreed that the scoring system could be adjusted to elevate Vision Zero
Corridors and Intersections of Concern in the project list.
117
BPC 07-15-2026
117 of 125
The BPC provided formal comments through the following motion:
MOTION: Chair Gerhard Eschelbeck moved, seconded by Vice Chair Munisekaran
Madhdhipatla, to approve the ATP draft materials as presented today, with the following set of
modifications.
1. Address the inequality or imbalance between the ranking of projects in the ATP and the
Cupertino Vision Zero high injury network by reducing the max score for being on a safe
route to school to 10 for all three matrices, reducing the goal max score for access from 30
to 20 and increase HIN max scoring to 30.
2. Eliminate 1.25 modifier by making balance in bicycle matrix to a negative score.
3. Consider ATP project clustering as appropriate for future ATP updates.
Responses to Commission Feedback - Winter 2026
As both the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission and Planning Commission felt that the Safe
Routes to School scoring may be overweighting certain projects, staff informally rescored
projects by adding an additional 10 points to projects located on the Vision Zero High
Injury Network (for a new Max of 30 points) and limiting the max score for School
Proximity to 10 points rather than the previous 20 points.
Since the two edits are directionally opposed, projects that score high on both criteria remain
comparatively stable, while projects that rely disproportionately on only one of those criteria see
the largest shifts. The results demonstrated that the strongest positive movement is concentrated
among projects that received only the Vision Zero adjustment. These projects generally gained
about 10 points and rose significantly on the list. The greatest negative movement concentrated
among projects that received only the SR2S adjustment. Those projects generally lost about 10
points and fell substantially in rank, showing that reducing SR2S from 20 to 10 points has a
stronger downward effect when it is not offset by a Vision Zero increase. Projects that received
both edits tended to stay closer to their prior position and typically changed by less than 1 point,
indicating that the +10 Vision Zero adjustment and the -10 SR2S adjustment largely offset one
another.
Responses to Community Questions - Winter 2026
Following Commission review, staff also received community questions about how the
recommended network facilities are defined and what construction treatments are
envisioned for Neighborhood Routes (Class III) and Separated Bike Lanes (Class IV).
Where the ATP references Neighborhood Routes (shown on the map in Attachment H, in
purple), these are envisioned as Class III bikeways that rely on wayfinding, speed tables,
and other context-appropriate treatments rather than bike lane striping that is typically
used on larger streets. An example of a Neighborhood Route would be Price Ave near
Wilson Park or Greenleaf Dr between Stelling Rd and Beardon Dr. Creation of a
Neighborhood Route would generally not require the removal of any on-street parking.
An ATP is a planning-level document that identifies project concepts and, for separated
bike lanes, does not prescribe a single divider type to be used citywide, nor does it state
118
BPC 07-15-2026
118 of 125
that separated bikeways must only use concrete as the divider. The appropriate separation
treatment (flexible delineators, raised median, planters, curb, or parking-protected
design) is determined during subsequent project development and design, based on site-
specific context and constraints such as available right-of-way, drainage, driveway and
intersection conditions, cost, and community and Council input.
As described in the attached Visual Glossary (Attachment H; also available on the project
webpage and previously shared with the public during Phase 2 outreach), a separated
bike lane is defined as “an on-street bike lane that is separated from motor vehicle traffic
by a vertical barrier such as bollards, raised medians, planters, or parked cars.” The
Recommendations Map illustrates bikeway classification and not its design features.
Similarly, intersection recommendations in the ATP are presented as conceptual
typologies. Specific treatments at individual intersections will be selected and refined
during design through engineering analysis and public engagement. The Visual Glossary
provided during Phase 2 outreach remains the clearest summary of the pedestrian and
bicycle improvement types that are referenced in the ATP.
What Comes Next?
Next steps for the ATP will include preparing a draft report for public review in the spring. After
the public review period, staff will incorporate any needed revisions and bring the Draft Plan to
the City Council for adoption in late June or early July.
Sustainability Impact
The Cupertino ATP will have positive sustainability impacts because the Plan will develop
infrastructure improvement recommendations that increase safety and accessibility for all non-
motorized roadway users. Additionally, the ATP will include mode shift strategies to promote
walking and bicycling to reduce personal automobile dependency, which will reduce local
greenhouse gas emissions and improve air quality. Overall, the ATP will help create a healthier,
more sustainable community. The development and implementation of an Active Transportation
Plan is a Transportation Measure (TR-1) in the Climate Action Plan (2022).
• Measure TR-1: Develop and implement an Active Transportation Plan to achieve 15
percent of active transportation mode share by 2030 and 23 percent by 2040
Fiscal Impact
The ATP project is fully funded through the City's TDA3 direct allocation.
City Work Program (CWP) Item/Description
Yes, FY 24-25
Active Transportation Plan: This is a consolidation of existing and new transportation efforts that
aim to further the goals outlined in the City’s Vision Zero Initiative, including:
18.1 Review and update bike plan
18.2 Review and update pedestrian plan
119
BPC 07-15-2026
119 of 125
18.3 Review current Complete Streets Policy and propose adjustments to create a better interface
between all modes of transportation
Council Goal:
Transportation, Environmental Sustainability
California Environmental Quality Act
The project is not subject to CEQA.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Matthew Schroeder, Senior Transportation Planner
Reviewed by: Chad Mosley, Public Works Director
David Stillman, Transportation Manager
Approved for Submission by: Tina Kapoor, City Manager
Attachments:
A – November 04, 2025, City Council Staff Report
B – Revised Project Prioritization Criteria
C – Draft Prioritized Project List
D – Revised Program and Policy Recommendations
E – Draft Project Impact Evaluation Guidelines
F – Draft Project Effectiveness Guidelines
G – Draft Network Recommendations Maps
H – Visual Glossary
120
BPC 07-15-2026
120 of 125
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Bicycle Facilities Improvements (Dullu)
Receive Update and Provide Direction for Bicycle Facilities Improvements Work Plan Item
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/7/2026Page 1 of 1
121
BPC 07-15-2026
121 of 125
Joel Wolf 1 Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and Tantau Ave.NO NO YES
Ilango Ganga 2 East of Stevens Creek Blvd and Lazy Dog driveway.YES YES YES
Joel Wolf 3 West of Stevens Creek Blvd and Lazy Dog driveway.NO NO YES
Joel Wolf 4 Northeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and Main St.NO NO YES
Ilango Ganga 5 300 feet East of Wolfe Rd/Vallco Parkway. (19800 Vallco Pkwy)YES YES YES
Joel Wolf 6 Southeast corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and Torre Ave.YES YES NO
Ilango Ganga 7 Northwest corner of Stevens Creek Blvd and De Anza Blvd.YES YES YES
Gerhard Eschelbeck 8 West of Stevens Creek Blvd and Whole foods driveway.NO NO YES
Ilango Ganga 9 Southwest corner of De Anza Blvd and Rodrigues Ave.YES YES YES
Bike Rack Installed in Fall 2025 10 In front of Caffe Lattea - West of Stevens Creek Blvd/Main St.YES YES YES YES
Herve Marcy 11 East of Stevens Creek Blvd and Whole foods driveway.YES YES YES
Bike Rack Installed in Fall 2025 12 Cupertino Library Park. YES YES YES YES
Gerhard Eschelbeck 13 Town Center Ln.NO NO YES
Herve Marcy 14 Northwest corner of Wolfe Rd and Apple Parkway.NO NO YES
Gerhard Eschelbeck 15 Northeast corner of De Anza Blvd and Bollinger Rd, near the bus stop.NO NO YES
Herve Marcy 16 Northeast corner of De Anza Blvd and Civic Park Ln.YES YES YES
Gerhard Eschelbeck 17 Southeast corner of De Anza Blvd and Town Center Ln.YES YES YES
Munisekaran Madhdhipatla 18 Southwest corner of De Anza Blvd and McClellan Rd. (north of Bus Stop)NO NO YES
Bike Rack Installed in Fall 2025 19 McClellan Ranch Parking Lot.YES YES YES YES
Munisekaran Madhdhipatla 20 Jollyman Park.YES YES YES
Munisekaran Madhdhipatla 21 Wilson Park.NO YES YES
Herve Marcy 22 Portal Park.YES YES YES
Bike Rack Installed in Fall 2025 23 Memorial Park.YES YES YES YES
Munisekaran Madhdhipatla 24 On Stevens Creek Blvd Infront of Starbucks near the post office.YES YES YES
Completed?Commissioners
Proposed Bike Racks Locations
#Locations
Criteria # 1:
Bike racks should be
where the public right of
way begins, but no further
than 30 to 35 feet away
from the front door of the
business.
Criteria # 2:
Bike racks
should be
visible from
the front
door of a
business
Criteria # 3:
Popular
locations
around the
City of
Cupertino
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
July 15, 2026
Agenda Item #3
Attachment A
12
2
BPC 07-15-2026
122 of 125
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Staff Update and Commissioner Activity Report (All)
Receive Updates from Staff and Commissioners Regarding Recent Activities
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/7/2026Page 1 of 1
123
BPC 07-15-2026
123 of 125
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Agenda Item
Subject: Upcoming Draft Agenda Items
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 7/9/2026Page 1 of 1
124
BPC 07-15-2026
124 of 125
BICYCLE PEDESTRIAN COMMISSION
UPCOMING DRAFT AGENDA ITEMS
August 19, 2026
-2026 Cupertino Fall Bike Fest Coordination
- E-Bike/E-Moto Safety
-Safe Routes to School FY2026-27 Budget
Subject to Change. Chair and Staff Liaison will set the Commission agendas.
125
BPC 07-15-2026
125 of 125