Bicycle Transportation Plan - Jun 2016
––
City of Cupertino
2016 Bicycle Transportation
Plan
June 2016
Chapter 1: Existing Conditions and Planning & Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | i
Table of Contents
1. About Cupertino ................................................................. 1-1
Land Use and Community Demographics ................................. 1-1
Transportation and Recreation Facilities and Programs.... 1-5
Community Resources .................................................................... 1-10
Bicycling Attractors and Generators .......................................... 1-11
2. Needs Analysis................................................................... 2-1
Collision History ................................................................................... 2-1
Collision Summary ............................................................................. 2-6
Community/Public Outreach ........................................................ 2-7
Bike Network Stress Test ................................................................ 2-11
Key Findings and Summary of Needs ...................................... 2-18
Vision Statement, Objectives, Goals & Policies .................... 2-19
Performance Measures .................................................................. 2-22
3.Infrastructure Recommendations................................. 3-2
Citywide Projects ............................................................................... 3-2
Bikeway Projects ................................................................................ 3-5
Spot Improvements, Projects for Coordination with Caltrans,
and Studies .......................................................................................... 3-19
4. Trail Feasibility Study ...................................................... 4-1
Trail Network Feasibility Study ..................................................... 4-1
5. Recommended Programs .............................................. 5-2
Education Programs ......................................................................... 5-2
Encouragement Programs .............................................................. 5-6
Enforcement Programs .................................................................. 5-10
Evaluation Programs ........................................................................ 5-11
6. Implementation Strategy ................................................ 6-1
Project Evaluation Strategy ............................................................ 6-1
Cost Estimate Assumptions ......................................................... 6-10
Projects Summary ............................................................................. 6-11
Priority Programs Summary ......................................................... 6-12
Funding Sources ............................................................................... 6-13
Appendix A. Plan and Policy Review .............................. A-1
Local Plans and Policies .................................................................. A-3
Regional Plans and Policies ........................................................... A-9
State Plans and Policies ................................................................. A-17
Federal Plans and Policies .......................................................... A-20
Appendix B. Past Bikeway Improvements .......................... 1
Appendix C. Community Input .......................................... C-1
Public Workshop #1 ........................................................................... C-1
Public Workshop #2 ......................................................................... C-8
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission ................................................. C-12
Appendix D. Bicycle Design Guidelines ......................... D-1
Caltrans Bikeway Classification Overview .............................. D-2
Bicycle Facility Guidance ............................................................... D-2
2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Class I Bike Path................................................................................. D-4
Class II Bike Lane ................................................................................ D-7
Class III Bike Route ........................................................................... D-11
Class IV Separated Bikeway ........................................................ D-13
Protected Intersection ................................................................... D-14
On-Street Bikeway Regulatory & Warning Signage ......... D-15
Wayfinding Signage ........................................................................ D-16
Bicycle Detection at Actuated Traffic Signals ..................... D-17
Bicycle Parking .................................................................................. D-18
Appendix E. Project Prioritization .................................... E-1
Project Scoring Criteria .................................................................... E-1
Appendix F. Project List ...................................................... F-1
Appendix G. ATP Compliance Table ................................ G-1
Appendix H. Signed Resolution......................................... H-1
––
Chapter 1:
Existing Conditions
Chapter 1: Existing Conditions and Planning & Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | 1-1
1. About Cupertino
Cupertino is located in the Heart of Silicon Valley in the San
Francisco Bay Area. Adjacent communities to the north are
Sunnyvale and Los Altos, Saratoga and Los Gatos are to the
south. San José and Santa Clara are to the east, and to the
west are foothills.
This chapter presents a review of the existing walking,
bicycling, and transit access conditions in the City of
Cupertino as part of the development of the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan Update. The foundation of a successful
Bicycle Transportation Plan is a comprehensive understanding
of the existing conditions including:
Land use and community demographics
Transportation and recreation facilities and programs
Activity generators
Commuter travel
A review of relevant plans and policies is provided in Appendix
A. Bicycle projects completed since 2011 are provided in
Appendix B.
1 http://www.deanza.edu/about/facts.html.
Land Use and Community Demographics
Land Use
Cupertino’s land use is based on a suburban model with
numerous single-family residential subdivisions with
commercial and employment centers separated from the
surrounding residential areas. Cupertino’s population is
housed in a mix of single family residential neighborhoods, as
well as higher density apartments and condominiums.
De Anza College — one of the largest single-campus
community colleges in the country with a fall enrollment
average of 23,000 students 1 — as well as retail, hotel, office
and industrial buildings are located along major transportation
corridors.
The city center includes mixed use, with multi-story buildings,
higher density apartments, and family dwellings located over
retail shops. The foothills are predominantly undeveloped;
however, the Lehigh/Hanson Southwest Cement Plant is
located in this area at the western end of Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Figure 1-1 shows the “Community Form” from the
Cupertino General Plan.
1-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Figure 1-1: Community form from the Cupertino General Plan: Community Vision 2040 (2014)
Chapter 1: Existing Conditions and Planning & Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | 1-3
Community Demographics
Age Distribution
According to the 2014 American Community Survey 5-year
estimates, Cupertino is home to almost 60,000 residents.
More than one-quarter of these are under 18 years old,
representing a large population of school-aged children in the
community. See Figure 1-2 for the age distribution of
Cupertino residents.
Figure 1-2: Age distribution
Access to Vehicles
Out of 20,643 households in Cupertino, just under four
percent (782 households) do not have access to a vehicle for
their daily transportation needs, as shown in Figure 1-3. An
additional 23.9 percent (4,928 households) have access to
only one vehicle. If one person in the household must take the
vehicle to work, other household members may rely on
walking, bicycling, transit, or other modes of transportation
for their daily needs.
Figure 1-3: Vehicles available by household
Under 18
27.4%
18-24
5.0%
25-34
8.6%
35-44
17.9%
45-54
17.7%
55-64
10.4%
65 and Over
13.0%
0
3.8%
1
23.9%
2
52.6%
3
14.7%
4+
5.1%
1-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Commuter Travel
Cupertino has an ideal setting to use bicycles for commuting,
utility, and recreational purposes. It has a mild climate with
daytime highs ranging from 45 degrees in January to 95
degrees in July. It has an annual rainfall of approximately 23.0
inches, little or no rain between May and October, and
relatively flat terrain. Table 1-2 shows that Cupertino has lower
rates of bicycling than nearby cities and the state, and that
many more Cupertino residents drive alone to work.
Table 1-1: Commute Patterns for Cupertino, Surrounding
Cities, and California (ACS)
Cupertino Santa
Clara
Mountain
View
San
Jose California
Drove alone 79.2% 77.3% 71.1% 77.5% 73.2%
Carpool 9.5% 9.8% 9.7% 11.3% 11.3%
Public
Transportation
2.5% 3.6% 5.2% 3.5% 5.2%
Walked 1.2% 3.3% 2.7% 1.7% 2.7%
Bicycle 0.7% 1.2% 5.0% 0.9% 1.1%
Other 7.0% 4.8% 6.4% 5.2% 6.5%
No Vehicle
Available
0.6% 1.7% 3.0% 2.2% 3.5%
Chapter Paper #1: Existing Conditions and Planning & Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | 1-5
Transportation and Recreation Facilities
and Programs
This section presents the current state of bicycling in
Cupertino as it relates to the Five Es:
Engineering includes bicycle facilities, bicycle
parking, sidewalks, crosswalks, as well as signage and
maintenance.
Education programs improve and build knowledge
and skills related to mobility. They may be delivered
in schools, through community programs, or provided
through non-profit organizations.
Encouragement programs such as bicycling maps
and Bike to School or Work days motivate people to
try bicycling.
Enforcement programs reinforce legal and respectful
driving, bicycling, and walking behaviors that can
make bicycling feel safer.
Evaluation programs provide a method for
monitoring improvements and informing future
investments
Figure 1-4 shows today’s bike network along with the existing
activity attractors and generators for existing or potential
bicyclists.
1-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Figure 1-4: Activity generators and existing bicycle network
Alta Planning + Design | 1-7
Engineering
Cupertino’s roadway network includes 160 miles of arterial,
collector, and local streets. The main arterials are laid out in a
traditional grid pattern, but the neighborhoods in between
have many loops and cul-de-sacs. Two highways pass through
Cupertino, SR-85 and I-280.
These corridors also present some connectivity challenges for
the local roadway network, along with the Union Pacific right-
of-way and three creeks: Calabazas Creek, Regnart Creek, and
Stevens Creek.
Existing Bicycle Network Inventory
Caltrans designates four ‘classes’ of bikeways that vary in the
level of separation from motor vehicles that they provide.
Table 1-2 shows the mileage of bikeway by classification. 25.5
percent of the roadway network has bikeways.
Table 1-2: Mileage of Bikeways in Cupertino
Bikeway Mileage
Class I 4.75
Class II 27.41
Class III 8.56
Class IV 0.00
Class I
A Class I Bicycle or Shared Use Path provides for bicycle and
pedestrian travel on a paved right-of-way completely
separated from streets or highways. Cupertino has
approximately five miles of Class I bikeways, most of which
parallel creek corridors in the community or runs through
open space.
One regional trail passes through Cupertino. The Stevens
Creek Trail is a six mile long discontinuous trail that runs
parallel to Stevens Creek. In Cupertino, the trail runs south
from Stevens Creek Boulevard to McClellan Road. The
Hammond Snyder Loop Trail connects Cupertino to several
regional trails in northwest Cupertino. The San Tomas Aquino
Creek Trail runs down the eastern-most city border.
Figure 1-5: A bicyclist uses Creekside Park Path, a Class I facility in
Cupertino
1-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Class II
Class II Bike Lanes provide a signed, striped and stenciled lane
for one-way travel on a roadway. Bicycle lanes are often
recommended on roadways where traffic volumes and speeds
are too high for comfortably sharing the travel lane.
Approximately 27 miles of Class II facilities currently exist in
Cupertino. They generally provide for bicyclist travel along
select arterial corridors. Some Class II bike lanes in Cupertino
are enhanced with green paint and/or buffer striping for an
increase in visibility or lateral separation from motorized
traffic. Figure 1-5 shows a bicyclist resting on a green bike lane
in Cupertino.
Figure 1-6: Green Class II bike lane on Bubb Road
Class III
Class III Bike Routes provide for shared travel lane use and are
generally only identified with signs, but some have sharrow
markings. Bike routes may have a wide travel lane or shoulder
that allow for parallel travel with automobiles. They may also
be appropriate on low volume, low speed streets.
Support Facilities
Bicycle parking in Cupertino is available at many shopping
centers, schools, and some parks. Most bicycle parking is
short-term bicycle racks. Figure 1-6 shows one of several
bicycle racks at The Oaks Shopping Center.
Figure 1-7: Bicycle racks at The Oaks Shopping Center
Alta Planning + Design | 1-9
Education Programs
Cupertino has two existing bicycle programs in place, both
aimed toward the families of school children.
Bike Rodeos
Bike Rodeos are offered every fall and hosted by either the
City or by Santa Clara County Sheriff’s School Resource
Officers. Bike Rodeos provide on-bicycle safety and handling
skills training with opportunities to practice on a short course.
Figure 1-8 is from a recent Bike Rodeo hosted by the City.
Figure 1-8: Bike Rodeo organizers next to the bike blender
Safe Routes to School
Six schools began a pilot Safe Routes to School (SRTS)
program in 2015: Lincoln Elementary, Sedgwick Elementary,
Hyde Middle, Kennedy Middle, Cupertino High, and Monta
Vista High. A few other schools such as Lawson Middle and
Regnart Elementary also participate in some program
activities, but are not officially part of the pilot.
Encouragement Programs
Encouragement Team
The SRTS Coordinator hosts “Encouragement Team”
meetings every month focused on publicizing the existence of
the City’s Safe Routes to School program community and
increasing participation. Program promotion has so far been
through school and district newsletter posts and email blasts,
school websites, the City website, Facebook, Twitter,
NextDoor.com, SRTS program flyers, and word of mouth. The
Team is also creating a promotional video for the Cupertino
SRTS program.
Figure 1-9: International Walk and Ride to School Day in Cupertino
Pedal for the Planet Family Bike Ride
In April 2016, the city hosted a family bike ride in honor of
Earth Day. The route chosen was six miles long and started
and ended at City Hall so participants could join the Earth Day
Festival activities following the ride. Prior to the event, minor
tune-ups and maintenance checks were provided by two local
bike shops.
1-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
International Walk and Bike to School Days
Five of the six pilot schools posted signs and sent information
out in their newsletter about International Walk and Ride to
School Day (October 7, 2015). Sedgewick Elementary School
tracked modes of transportation and rewarded students with
pencils and stickers. Figure 1-9 shows student participation.
Enforcement Programs
Targeted Enforcement
The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office handles enforcement
in Cupertino. The Cupertino Public Safety Committee, the
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission, and City staff consult with the
Sheriff’s office for targeted enforcement efforts.
Evaluation Programs
Parent Surveys and Student Hand Tallies
The SRTS Coordinator hosts “Evaluation Team” meetings as
part of the SRTS Program. The Evaluation Team collected in-
class student surveys and parent surveys from the six pilot
schools in Fall 2015 and Spring 2016.
Bike Rack Counts
Bike rack counts over a 4-6 month period are currently
planned, and will be used to create a “Data Report Card” for
each pilot school detailing site-specific mode split data,
trends, and recommendations to improve rates of active
transportation amongst school children.
2 http://www.mercurynews.com/san-jose-
neighborhoods/ci_15527951?nclick_check=1.
Dero
The City of Cupertino runs a Dero program that uses a tracking
device to count how many students walk and bike to school.2
The pilot program began with Lincoln Elementary and
Kennedy Middle schools. The program was run by the Public
Safety Committee and was recently transferred to the
Transportation Division.
The Dero system records walking and bicycling trips to school
with RFID tags that students scan when they arrive each
morning. Students can log into the Dero website with their
parents and see data on their trips. Schools can use the
program to track walking and bicycling by classroom, grade
level, or school, and often develop friendly competitions or
other incentives to encourage participation
Community Resources
Cupertino has several organizations that organize and work
within the community. In addition to regional groups such as
the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, the following groups are
focused in Cupertino and were included as stakeholders in this
Plan:
Walk-Bike Cupertino
(http://www.walkbikecupertino.org/)
Friends of Stevens Creek Trail
(http://www.stevenscreektrail.org/)
Cupertino Safe Routes to School Working Groups
(http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=1307)
Alta Planning + Design | 1-11
Bicycling Attractors and Generators
For a map of activity generators in Cupertino, see Figure 1-4.
Schools and Colleges
There are 15 schools and colleges in Cupertino that fall under the Cupertino Union School District or Fremont Union High School
District.
Collins Elementary School Garden Gate School Lincoln Elementary School
Cupertino High School Homestead High School Monta Vista High School
De Anza College Hyde Middle School Regnart Elementary School
Eaton Elementary School Kennedy Middle School Sedgwick Elementary School
Faria Elementary School Lawson Middle School Stevens Creek Elementary School
Parks
Cupertino has 24 parks of varying sizes. Many of the parks have picnic tables and children’s play areas, but some lack bicycle
parking. Linda Vista Park, Memorial Park, and Portal Park offer larger picnic areas and can be reserved through the city.
Blackberry Farm Hoover Park Portal Park
Cali Mill Plaza Park Jollyman Park Rancho San Antonio County Park
Canyon Oaks Park Linda Vista Park Sterling Barnhart Park
Creekside Park Mary Avenue Dog Park Stevens Creek County Park
Cupertino Civic Center Park Memorial Park Somerset Park
Cupertino Memorial Park McClellan Ranch Park Three Oaks Park
Deep Cliff Golf Course Monta Vista Park Varian Park
Franco Park Oak Valley Park Wilson Park
Major Shopping Centers
Cupertino has several shopping centers of varying sizes. The Oaks and Vallco are slated for redevelopment in the next several years.
Bottegas Shopping Center Homestead Square Cupertino Crossroads
Oakmont Square Shopping Center Idlewild Shopping Center Pacific Rim Shopping Center
Cupertino Village Shopping Center Loree Shopping Center Portal Plaza
Marina Food Shopping Center De Anza Center Stanley Square
De Anza Plaza Marketplace The Oaks Shopping Center Homestead Center
McClellan Square Vallco Shopping Center
1-12 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Public Buildings
City Hall Cupertino Service Center Cupertino Teen Center
Community Hall Cupertino Senior Center Quinlan Community Center
Cupertino Library Cupertino Sports Center
Employment
Top employers in Cupertino include the two school districts and major tech companies such as Apple, Inc., and Seagate Technology.
Affymax Inc Durect Corporation Ranch 99 Market
AMC 16 at Vallco Shopping Center Pegasystems Seagate Technology
Apple Computer ArcSight Sears
The Forum Retirement Community Corio, Inc. (IBM) Sugar CRM
Sunny View Retirement Community Hewlett Packard BJ’s Restaurant
City of Cupertino Hilton Garden Inn Symantec Corporation
Fremont Union High School District JC Penney Target
Courtyard by Marriott Lucky Supermarkets TGI Friday’s
Cupertino Inn Macy’s Trend Micro Cupertino Medical Center
Marina Foods Verigy Cupertino Union School District
Panasonic Research and Development Whole Foods Cypress Hotel
Foothill/De Anza Community College
District
Major Development Plans
There are currently two major developments in Cupertino that could vastly change the Cupertino landscape and the connectivity
around the city. Apple, Inc. is currently building a research and development campus called “Apple Campus 2” just north of the
Vallco Shopping District. The Oaks development proposes to rebuild The Oaks Shopping Center as a mixed-use housing and
shopping district. The Oaks is located along Stevens Creek Boulevard between Mary Avenue and I-280. More detail on these
development Plans can be found in Appendix A.
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-1
Chapter 2:
Needs Analysis
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-1
2. Needs Analysis
This chapter outlines a need for bicycling-related
improvements with an analysis of collision data, network
stress analysis, and community desires expressed through
public workshops and outreach.
This chapter is organized as follows:
Collision Analysis
Public Outreach
Bike Network Stress Test
Objectives, Goals and Policies
Final Synopsis and Vision Statement
Collision History
Analyzing bicycle-related collision data can help to identify
patterns and safety challenges across a city’s street network.
Along with identifying the collision locations, collision type,
severity, time of day, and weather were also reviewed to help
frame this Plan’s recommendations.
Data for 2009 to 2014 were drawn from the Crossroads
Software Traffic Collision database, a service widely used
across Santa Clara County.
Total Collisions & Crash Severity
Between 2009 and 2014, there were 4,315 total collisions in
Cupertino involving a motor vehicle. Of that number, 169 of
them involved a bicycle (3.9 percent). Compared to
Cupertino’s 0.7 percent bicycle mode share, the likelihood of
bicyclist collisions is out of proportion with the number of
bicyclists on the road.
Of the 169 bicycle-related collisions in Cupertino over those
six years, two were fatally injured, eight suffered severe
injuries, 86 had visible injury, and 47 had complaints of pain.
Table 2-1 shows the number and percentage of bicycle-related
collisions compared to the total number of collisions.
2-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Table 2-1: Number of Bicycle Related Collisions in
Cupertino from 2009-2014
Time Period
Total
Number of
Bicycle
Collisions
Injuries Fatalities
2009 33 25 1
2010 32 27 0
2011 26 18 0
2012 29 29 0
2013 22 17 0
2014 27 17 1
TOTAL 169 133 2
Bicyclist Fatalities
Between 2009 and 2014, two bicyclist fatalities took place in
Cupertino. In 2009, a 74 year-old bicyclist was killed on
Stevens Creek Boulevard just east of Highway 85 in a collision
with a vehicle while the driver was making a right turn into the
De Anza College parking lot. In 2014, a 15 year-old high school
student was killed on McClellan Road in a collision with a truck.
In both cases, the bicyclists were in existing bike lanes at the
time of the collision.
Since both collisions, the City of Cupertino has made
improvements to many intersection approaches with green
paint to alert users to conflict areas.
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-3
Primary Collision Factors
The most common collision factors were improper turning
(52), automobiles violating a bicyclist’s right-of-way (40) and
bicyclists riding on the wrong side of the road (27). Other
contributing factors included disobeying traffic signals and
signs, unsafe speed, and improper turning, as shown in Table
2-2.
Table 2-2: Bicycle-Related Collisions in Cupertino, by
Collision Factor
Primary Collision Factor Number of
Collisions
Percentage of Total
Bicycle Collisions
Unsafe Speed 7 4.14%
Auto Right-of-Way
Violation
39
23.08%
Improper Turning 51 30.18%
Wrong Side of Road 26 15.38%
Violating Traffic Signs or
Signals
14
8.28%
Other 32 18.93%
TOTAL 169 100%
The most common collision factor, improper turning, can be
addressed with education and infrastructure improvements.
Type of Collision
Table 2-3 shows the types of collisions involving a bicycle. By
far, the most common type of collision was a broadside
collision. In this type of collision, the auto and bicyclist are
often traveling at 90 degree angles to each other. This type of
collision typically occurs at intersections, driveways, or within
parking lots, many times when a driver is making a right turn
across a bicyclist’s path of travel. Sideswipes generally occur
when a car or bicycle fails to yield while changing lanes.
These types of collisions, broadside and sideswipe, can be
addressed with education and infrastructure improvements.
Table 2-3: Bicycle-Related Collisions in Cupertino, by
Type
Type of Collision Number of
Collisions
Percentage of Total
Bicycle Collisions
Broadside 103 60.95%
Not Stated 2 1.18%
Sideswipe 25 14.80%
Head On 2 1.18%
Rear End 13 7.70%
Vehicle Pedestrian 2 1.18%
Other 21 12.43%
TOTAL 169 100%
2-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Top Collision Locations
The three corridors with the highest number of reported
collisions were Stevens Creek Boulevard (25), Stelling Road
(18), and Homestead Road (22). Many of the collisions
occurred at the intersections of streets with bicycle facilities.
Stevens Creek Boulevard and Homestead Road, as the major
arterial east/west corridors in Cupertino, both have higher
volumes of auto traffic and vehicle speeds. East/west travel
across Cupertino is difficult without using one of these two
roadways, so it is not surprising to see collisions concentrated
there.
Stelling Road is a key north/south corridor through Cupertino.
The high number of collisions on Stelling Road may point to
bicyclists avoiding the parallel De Anza Boulevard, which has
higher volumes of automobiles and higher traffic speeds.
The intersection of Stevens Creek Boulevard at De Anza
Boulevard reported the most collisions (8). Figure 2-1 shows
the locations of all bicycle-related collisions during this time
period.
For key roadways essential to cross-city trips, greater
separation between bicyclists and drivers can help improve
safety.
Weather and Time of Day
84 percent of collisions occurred during daylight hours. 15
collisions were at night and 12 at dusk or dawn. Only one
collision occurred in rainy weather.
As weather and visibility were not a factor in the vast majority
of collisions, this instead suggests a need for improvements to
infrastructure and education of roadway users about their
rights and responsibilities on the roadway.
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-5
Figure 2-1: Bicycle-related collisions between January 2009 and December 2014
2-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Collision Summary
Many collisions involving bicyclists occurred along arterials or
at the intersections of arterials with existing bicycle
infrastructure during daylight hours.
Most reported collisions involving bicyclists were either
broadside or sideswipe collisions, many of them taking place
at intersections.
To address the risks leading to these collisions, the City should
take the following steps:
Improve education for drivers and bicyclists about
safely operating in and around intersections,
especially right turns.
Implement enhanced bikeway treatments at
intersections
Improve & enhance existing bikeways on the arterial
network
Prioritize the creation of alternative cross-city routes
that do not require travel on the arterial network
Ensure bicyclists have enough time to cross
intersections by reviewing signal timing standards
along key bikeways
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-7
Community/Public Outreach
A full list of community comments can be found in Appendix
C: Community Input
League of American Bicyclists: Bicycle-Friendly
Community Designation
Every two years, the League of American Bicyclists accepts
applications to their Bicycle Friendly Communities program.
The City of Cupertino was awarded Bronze designation in 2011
and applied for Silver designation in 2015. Cupertino was re-
issued a Bronze designation from the League and was
provided the following suggestions to reach Silver status in
future applications:
Adopt bicycle facility selection criteria that increases
separation and protection of bicyclists based on
levels of motor vehicle speed and volume.
Continue to increase the amount of high-quality
bicycle parking throughout the community,
particularly at bus stops and grocery stores.
Continue to expand the bike network, especially
along arterials, through the use of different types of
bicycle facilities that appeal to residents of all
ages/abilities.
Install a bicycle wayfinding system with distance and
destination information at strategic locations around
the community.
Expand the Safe Routes program to all schools.
Support more family-oriented bicycle events.
Encourage De Anza College to apply to the Bicycle
Friendly University program.
Expand City staff time dedicated to bike program
work
Adopt and implement the 2016 Bike Plan Update
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting #1
The Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) met on
November 18, 2015. The purpose of the BPC meeting was to
gather input on community priorities for the Bicycle
Transportation Plan Update. The meeting was attended by the
full commission as well as eight members of the public.
Input from the Commission regarding the Bicycle
Transportation Plan Update focused primarily on:
Safety for all roadway users
Easy and comfortable access to schools
Focus on routes to Vallco & Apple campuses
Bike networks that appeal to residents of all ages &
abilities
The Bicycle Pedestrian Commission also shared their recently
adopted mission statement, to be achieved by 2025:
Be a top five city in California for bicycling and
walking
Achieve Gold status as a Bicycle Friendly Community
Achieve 40 percent walk/bike mode share for middle
school & high school students
Achieve 20 percent walk/bike mode share for local
trips
Achieve 15 percent walk/bike mode share for
commute trips and trips to De Anza College
2-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Public Workshop #1
On December 1, 2015, Cupertino held a Bicycle Transportation
Plan Update community meeting in Cupertino City Hall. A
presentation was given to participants about the need for the
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update and next steps. Figure 2-2
shows this meeting.
Figure 2-2: Public workshop #1 presentation
Following the presentation, meeting attendees were broken
out into five groups to conduct a visioning exercise for the
future of bicycling in Cupertino. Feedback received on the
vision for bicycling in Cupertino included the following key
themes:
Roadways with dedicated bicycle facilities are
preferred by families with school-aged children
Stevens Creek Boulevard is the main east-west bike
route for Cupertino
Cupertino as an internationally-renowned city for
bicycle infrastructure
Following the visioning exercise, attendee groups were given
city maps and asked to mark areas where improvement is
needed. These maps inform areas of specific attention for
recommended infrastructure projects in the Bicycle
Transportation Plan Update. Figure 2-3 shows one such map.
Figure 2-3: A marked up map from Public workshop #1
Feedback received on specific infrastructure included the
following key themes:
Install enhanced bicycle facilities on Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Install secure bicycle parking at destinations
Create an official route through De Anza College
Construct a Class I trail along the UPPR right of way
Install separated bikeways on arterials
Create a Bike Boulevard network parallel to arterials
Install bicycle detection at traffic signals
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-9
At the end of the meeting, each group nominated a
spokesperson to share their vision with the room (see Figure
2-4).
Figure 2-4: Visions for bicycling in Cupertino is shared with the
room during public workshop #1
Public Workshop #2
On March 9, Cupertino held a Bicycle Transportation Plan
Update community meeting in Cupertino City Hall. A
presentation was given to participants about the progress
made since the first public workshop in December, and the
proposed recommendations for the Bicycle Transportation
Plan Update. The recommendations took the form of goals,
objectives, and policies; citywide infrastructure, site specific
infrastructure, and citywide programmatic recommendations.
Following the presentation, workshop attendees were broken
out into four groups to give detailed feedback on
infrastructure recommendations across the City. Each group
was led by a workshop facilitator. The workshop also solicited
feedback on proposed policies and programmatic
recommendations.
Feedback received on the plan recommendations included the
following themes:
Strong support for the Cupertino Loop Trail concept
in general, and the I-280 Path and the UPRR Trail in
particular
Strong support for the proposed Class IV facilities,
but some questions about driveway and intersection
conflicts
A strong desire for bike boulevard access to local
schools so students could stay off of arterial roads
A strong desire to create low-stress connections
across Stevens Creek, the Union Pacific Rail right of
way, Highway 85, and Interstate 280
A strong focus on education and safety programs for
students
Increased focus on improving the safety of
intersections where key bikeways cross arterial
roadways
At the end of the meeting, each group nominated a
spokesperson to share their group’s key comments on the
plan recommendations.
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission Meeting #2
The Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) met on
March 16, 2016. The purpose of the BPC meeting was to review
the draft Bicycle Transportation Plan Update and provide
comments on recommended infrastructure, policies, and
programs. The meeting was attended by the full commission
as well as nine members of the public.
Input from the Commission regarding the Bicycle
Transportation Plan Update focused primarily on:
School commute safety should be the #1 priority for
the bike plan recommendations
Access and continuity of cross-city bike routes
2-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Greater attention at key intersections for bikeways
crossing major arterials
Strong support for the Cupertino Loop Trail concept
Input on programmatic elements, especially
education and ticket diversion courses
Interest in reviewing cost estimates and prioritization
of projects
Support for Class IV facilities
Draft prioritization and cost estimates were provided to the
BPC at their April meeting. Comments made by BPC
Commissioners was included with City Staff feedback.
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-11
Bike Network Stress Test
Background
The Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update measured
the quality of the existing bike network according to the Bike
Network Stress Test.
This analysis system, first used in the Google Bike Vision Plan,
measures the amount of stress potential bicyclists would
experience when traveling to a given destination along the
best available route. Understanding the amount of stress a
potential bicyclist is likely to experience helps to identify
potential projects that will ensure all residents feel safe and
comfortable riding a bicycle for local trips.
The Bike Network Stress Test is based on academic research
that quantifies the amount of stress bicyclists experience on
different types of roads and different types of bicycle
infrastructure, as well as the willingness of potential bicyclists
to travel out-of-direction to utilize a lower-stress route
compared to a higher-stress direct route.
The Average Route Stress metric measures the overall
experience of a potential bicyclists for the best route they
could be expected to take from anywhere within Cupertino to
a given destination. The Average Route Stress metric, from
very low average stress to very high average stress, can
roughly correlate to the likelihood that regular residents of
Cupertino will be willing to ride a bicycle when trying to reach
a key destination.
Bike Network Stress Test Scenarios
For the Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Update, four
scenarios of the Bike Network Stress Test were identified for
analysis. Because the Bike Network Stress Test analysis is
based on the routes chosen to reach a specific destination (or
set of destinations) it was important to analyze the routes
chosen to various locations within Cupertino to accurately
identify the strengths and weaknesses of the bike network.
Also, residents take trips for varying reasons, be it trips to
work, shopping, school, or recreation. Measuring network
quality for different types of trips is as important as achieving
geographic balance.
The following trip scenarios were selected for analysis in
Cupertino:
Access to Major Business Centers - with
destinations in the north east at the two Apple
campuses and the Vallco Shopping Center
Access to Civic Center – with destinations in the
center of Cupertino at City Hall and the main branch
of the library
Access to West Cupertino – with destinations at
schools on the west side of Cupertino
Access to Tri-School East – with destinations at
schools on the east side of Cupertino
Comparing the average route stress for residents of Cupertino
across these scenarios helps identify corridors of low-stress
bicycle travel, and areas in need of improvement.
2-12 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Scenario #1: Access to Major Business Centers
For scenario #1, the Bike Network Stress Test used destination
points at the Apple Campus on De Anza Boulevard, the Apple
2 Campus on the north side of Interstate 280, and at the Vallco
Shopping Center on the corner of Wolfe Road at Stevens
Creek Boulevard, as shown in Figure 2-5.
For access to jobs and retail, only areas of southern and
eastern Cupertino had routes in the medium stress range.
Most other locations in Cupertino saw higher stress routes
when traveling to northeastern Cupertino, especially those
coming from Western Cupertino. The few medium stress
routes coming from west of Highway 85 came via the buffered
bike lanes on Stelling Road.
De Anza Boulevard acts as a key barrier to access for routes
starting north of Stevens Creek Boulevard. While areas around
the Vallco Mall and the Apple 2 Campus show the highest
average stress for routes, these areas will also be subject to
bike network upgrades as part of redevelopment ongoing in
this area of Cupertino.
Scenario #2: Access to Civic Center
For scenario #2, the Bike Network Stress Test set a single
destination point at the Cupertino Civic Center, which houses
City Hall and the Cupertino Library, as shown in Figure 2-6.
Bike route access to the Civic Center is fairly uniformly
medium stress across most of central Cupertino, with the bike
lanes on Torre Avenue and Rodrigues Avenue providing
lower-stress access to the north, east, and west – especially to
eastern Cupertino via the Creekside Park bike path.
Stevens Creek Boulevard and De Anza Boulevard both act as
significant barriers to bicycle access to these destinations,
with locations on the far side of both boulevards much more
likely to have higher stress bike routes. The only area nearby
the Civic Center seeing the highest stress routes are bounded
by De Anza Boulevard and McClellan Road.
Western Cupertino also saw higher stress routes to the Civic
Center, with the Union Pacific rail right-of-way and Highway
85 limiting the number of network connections to the east.
Stelling Road is the only street to extend medium stress routes
west of the freeway.
Access from northeastern Cupertino along Wolfe Road and
Tantau Avenue also show up as high-stress routes.
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-13
Figure 2-5: Scenario #1: Access to Major Business Centers
2-14 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Figure 2-6: Scenario #2: Access to Civic Center
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-15
Scenario #3: West Cupertino
For scenario #3, the Bike Network Stress Test set destination
points at Monta Vista High, Lincoln Elementary, JFK Middle,
Regnart Elementary, and the Stevens Creek Rim Trail
trailhead.
Low stress routes to the Tri-School area are limited to the
streets around Bubb Road as shown in Figure 2-7. Medium
stress routes are concentrated in southwestern Cupertino and
far eastern Cupertino. While the eastern Cupertino locations
show up as lower-stress (because the average route stress is
evened out over this relatively longer trip), the map shows
significant barriers of stress along the route in between.
Connectivity to the east and lower-stress corridors are limited
by the Union Pacific rail right of way and Highway 85. This is
especially apparent for routes to Regnart Elementary. Even
the benefit provided by the bike lanes on Stelling Road is
offset by the higher-stress Rainbow Road that routes are
forced to use because of the limited railroad crossings.
The areas west of Stevens Creek also see high route stress
scores, primarily due to routes needing to use the higher-
stress Foothill Boulevard or McClellan Road to reach
destinations to the north or to the east.
Scenario #4: Tri-School East
For scenario #4, the Bike Network Stress Test set destination
points at the three schools in eastern Cupertino: Cupertino
High, Sedgewick Elementary, and Hyde Middle School.
Figure 2-8 shows that medium stress routes expand across
southern Cupertino to these schools, with access on
neighborhood streets provided across Calabazas Creek by the
Creekside Park path. The neighborhood around the Creekside
Park path is the only area with lower-stress routes. Utilizing
neighborhood streets south of Stevens Creek Boulevard
allows medium-stress routes to expand westward past
Highway 85 and into Western Cupertino via Stelling Road and
McClellan Road.
This analysis provides the starkest contrast yet for Stevens
Creek Boulevard. The vast majority of routes in the highest
two categories for route stress come from north of Stevens
Creek Boulevard or must use Stevens Creek Boulevard for part
of their trip eastward.
Nearby these Eastern Cupertino schools, routes along Tantau
Avenue, Miller Avenue, or Prospect Road show up with much
higher average stress.
2-16 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Figure 2-7: Scenario #3: Access to West Cupertino
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-17
Figure 2-8: Scenario #4: Access to three east Cupertino schools
2-18 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Key Findings and Summary of Needs
Based on the evaluation of Cupertino’s safety, existing bicycle
networks, bicycle network stress analysis, and community-
identified needs, the following key themes were identified.
Plan a Low
Stress Bicycle
Network
Access to key
destinations across
Cupertino is limited
by the arterial
roadway network.
Even when major
roads have bike
lanes, they don’t
appeal to all
potential bicyclists
in Cupertino. In
addition to
improving existing
arterial bike lanes,
a low-stress bicycle
network should be
prioritized,
including paths &
low-stress streets.
C onstruct a
Trail along the
Union Pacific
Right of Way
Developing the
natural and long-
standing Union
Pacific corridor
into a trail could
transform the path
into a community
gem. Creating
accessible routes
to the trail and
upgrading the trail
surface will
significantly
improve the
bicycling and
walking in
Cupertino.
Improve
Intersections
Many of the
collisions in
Cupertino occurred
at, or near,
intersections along
the bikeway
network. Improving
intersections, and
approaches to
intersections, may
result in significant
reductions in
collisions.
Provide
Bicycle
Parking
A bicycle network
isn’t complete
without secure,
convenient bike
parking at the end
of a trip. Cupertino
has a few scattered
bicycle racks, but a
comprehensive
bicycle parking
program would
increase bicycling
by making
residents confident
they’ll have a safe
place to leave their
bike when they
arrive at their
destination.
Expand the
SRTS Program
While Cupertino
has a pilot SRTS
Program many of
the schools do not
yet participate.
Expanding the
program could
educate families
about the benefits
of bicycling to and
from schools and
help create a
healthier
Cupertino.
Provide
Education for
Bicyclists and
Drivers
In addition to a
need for
education on
rights and
responsibilities of
all road users,
Cupertino
residents
expressed
concerns over the
negative view
many drivers have
about bicycling.
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-19
Vision Statement, Objectives, Goals &
Policies
This Bicycle Transportation Plan Update will guide the
development and implementation of improving the City’s
bicycling environment for years to come. The foundation for
recommendations and implementation strategies are directly
informed by this Plan’s Vision, Goals, and Objectives.
A vision is a broad inspirational statement for the desired
future state.
Goals are general statements of what the City and residents
hope to achieve over time.
Objectives are more specific statements that mark progress
towards the goal.
Policies are actions that guide the City to achieve the
objectives and goals.
This Plan reviewed existing plans, existing conditions, the bike
network stress test, collision analysis, and community input to
frame this Plan’s goals, objectives and policies in order to
advance bicycling in Cupertino. Specific goals, objectives, and
policies are listed on the following pages.
Vision Statement
The City of Cupertino envisions an exceptional
bicycling environment that supports active living
and healthy transportation choices, provides for
safer bicycling, and enables people of all ages and
abilities to access jobs, school, recreation, shopping,
and transit on a bicycle as a part of daily life.
2-20 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Programs
Increase awareness and value of bicycling
through encouragement, education,
enforcement, and evaluation programs.
Objective 1.A: Identify and support educational opportunities
for those who drive, bicycle, and walk about their rights and
responsibilities.
Policy 1.A.1: Support and expand the City of Cupertino Safe Routes
to School program.
Policy 1.A.2: Partner with the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition to offer
routine adult and family bicycle education classes in
Cupertino.
Objective 1.B: Identify and support encouragement programs
that promote bicycling as an ordinary form of transportation.
Policy 1.B.1: Incorporate messaging in all City media that promotes
the benefits of active lifestyles and raises awareness of
walking and bicycling facilities in the community.
Objective 1.C: Incorporate active transportation into
promotion of tourism and economic development.
Policy 1.C.1: Partner with tourism and economic development
agencies to promote Cupertino as a destination for
active recreation and active lifestyles.
Policy 1.C.2: Create a Bicycle Friendly Business program to
recognize and promote bicycle-friendly businesses in
Cupertino.
Policy 1.C.3: Collaborate with county and regional partners to create
bikeway connections to the local tourism generators,
and to promote active recreation in the region.
Objective 1.D: Identify and support enforcement to support
improved safety.
Policy 1.D.1: Work with Santa Clara County Sherriff’s Office to review
collision locations and ‘close-call’ reports and identify
locations for increased enforcement of motorist and
bicyclist behavior.
Objective 1.E: Identify and support evaluation programs that
measure how well Cupertino is progressing to meet this Plan’s
goals.
Policy 1.E.1: Review the Bicycle Transportation Plan performance
measures at regular intervals to review progress and
update priorities as necessary.
Policy 1.E.2: Conduct bicycle counts citywide on regular intervals to
better understand the profile of residents bicycling in
Cupertino as well as measure the impacts of newly
implemented infrastructure & programs.
GOAL
1
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-21
Safety
Improve bicyclist safety through the design
and maintenance of roadway improvements.
Objective 2.A: Reduce the number and severity of bicycle
related collisions, injuries, and fatalities.
Policy 2.A.1: Annually review the number, locations, and contributing
factors of bicycle related collisions to identify and
implement ongoing improvements at collision locations
throughout the transportation network.
Policy 2.A.2: Identify opportunities to reduce bicyclist exposure by
reducing locations or lengths of conflict areas with
vehicles or by providing dedicated and separated
facilities where feasible.
Policy 2.A.3: Adopt a Vision Zero policy to eliminate traffic fatalities
by 2026.
Policy 2.A.4: Study the need for 15 mph School Zone speed limits
and adopt in appropriate locations by 2020.
Policy 2.A.5: Develop a City policy for the regular documentation of
bike facility quality and maintenance of bicycle facilities
throughout the City.
Mobility
Increase and improve bicycle access to
community destinations across the City of
Cupertino for all ages and abilities.
Objective 3.A: Plan, design, construct, and manage a complete
bicycle network that accommodates the needs of all mobility
types, users, and ability levels.
Policy 3.A.1: Implement the recommendations from this Bicycle
Transportation Plan Update.
Policy 3.A.2: Integrate bicycle facilities as part of the design and
construction of upgrades or resurfacing of all existing
roadways.
Objective 3.B: Work to eliminate barriers to bicycle travel.
Policy 3.B.1: Create a low-stress network in parallel to the arterial
bikeway network, providing an alternative that is
appealing to residents of all ages and abilities.
Policy 3.B.2: Upgrade and improve the existing arterial bikeway
network to increase bicyclist comfort and lower barriers
for more risk-averse users.
Policy 3.B.2: Improve or add bicycle crossings of Highway 85,
Interstate 280, the Union Pacific railroad corridor, and
creeks.
Policy 3.B.3: Develop a city-wide wayfinding system, providing
access to appropriate locations such as employment
centers, schools, and commercial centers.
Policy 3.B.4: Prioritize the installation of bicycle parking in the public
right-of-way at key commercial and retail destinations.
GOAL
2
GOAL
3
2-22 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Performance Measures
Performance measures monitor the progress made towards
achieving the goals of this Bicycle Transportation Plan Update.
The measures outlined in Table 2-4 should be reviewed and
updated on a regular basis.
The performance measures include target dates. 2026 targets
assume a 10 year time frame from Plan adoption and a
reasonable expectation of ability to meet the measure.
Table 2-4: Performance Measures
Goal Objective Performance Measure Programs Objective 1.A: Identify and
support educational
opportunities for those who
drive, bicycle, and walk about
their rights and
responsibilities.
Objective 1.B: Identify and
support encouragement
programs that promote
bicycling as an ordinary form
of transportation.
Objective 1.C: Incorporate
active transportation into
promotion of tourism and
economic development.
Objective 1.D: Identify and
support enforcement
programs to support
improved safety.
Objective 1.E: Identify and
support evaluation programs
that measure how well
Cupertino is progressing to
meet this Plan’s goals.
Measure 1.A: Work with the
Fremont Union High School
and Cupertino Union School
Districts to have SRTS
programs implemented in all
schools by 2020.
Measure 1.A.1: Work with the
Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition to offer adult
bicycle education courses in
Cupertino by 2020.
Measure 1.B: Support an
Open Streets event in
Cupertino by 2020.
Measure 1.C: Include
promotion of bicycling in all
City promotional materials by
2018.
Measure 1.D: Develop a
memorandum of
understanding with the Santa
Clara County Sheriffs to
prioritize enforcement on key
bicycling corridors.
Measure 1.E: Institute a bi-
annual citywide bicycle
counts program by 2020.
Chapter 2: Needs Analysis
Alta Planning + Design | 2-23
Goal Objective Performance Measure Safety Objective 2.A: Reduce the
number and severity of
pedestrian and bicycle
related collisions, injuries, and
fatalities.
Measure 2.A.1: Adopt a Vision
Zero policy by 2017.
Measure 2.A.2: Reduce the
number of bicycle related
collisions & injuries by 50
percent from 2013 levels by
2026.
Measure 2.A.3: Reduce the
number of bicyclist fatalities
to zero by 2026.
Measure 2.A.4: Study 15 mph
School Zone speed limits at
appropriate school locations
by 2020. Mobility Objective 3.A: Plan, design,
construct, and manage a
complete bicycle network
that accommodates the
needs of all mobility types,
users, and ability levels.
Objective 3.B: Work to
eliminate barriers to bicycle
travel.
Measure 3.A: Endorse the
NACTO Urban Bikeways
Design Guide by 2018.
Measure 3.B.1: Implement 50
percent of this Plan’s planned
bikeways by 2026.
Measure 3.B.2: Achieve Gold
Bicycle Friendly Community
status by 2026.
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-1
Chapter 3:
Infrastructure Recommendations
3-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
3. Infrastructure Recommendations
The following chapter presents recommended bicycle
infrastructure projects to support and promote bicycling in
Cupertino. Many of these recommendations came from public
input, city staff, and collision analysis.
The recommendations in these chapters set the foundation for
improving safety for those who currently bicycle and to
encourage more trips by bicycle within Cupertino and
connecting to regional destinations.
Citywide Projects
Bicycle Wayfinding Program
A high quality bicycling environment includes not only bicycle
facilities, but also an easily navigable network. Bicycle
wayfinding assists residents, tourists and visitors in finding key
community destinations by bicycle. Signs may also include
“distance to” information, which displays mileage to
community destinations, as seen in Figure 3-1.
The City of Cupertino currently has signage installed alerting
bicyclists to the presence of bike routes on upcoming cross-
streets, but it has not been deployed in a comprehensive
manner to date. Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
provides more information about wayfinding.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the development of a comprehensive
bicycle wayfinding program that offers guidance to key
destinations including schools, parking, regional trails,
landmarks, and civic buildings.
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-3
Standard Bikeway Wayfinding
Enhanced Wayfinding
Figure 3-1: Wayfinding
Bicycle Detection
Detection of bicyclists at actuated (not timed) traffic signals
is important for safety of bicyclists and motorists. The
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA
MUTCD) requires all new and modified traffics signals be able
to detect bicyclists with passive detection (rather than having
to push a button). Details regarding detection are provided in
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends Cupertino adhere to this requirement
by ensuring passive detection of bicyclists at all signalized
intersections.
Bicycle Parking
Available bicycle parking in Cupertino is scarce, and many
instead lock their bikes to street fixtures such as trees,
telephone poles, and sign poles. Additionally, many existing
bike parking facilities do not meet current bicycle rack
standards. Specifically, many racks are not designed for two
points of contact with the bicycle frame, which allow for the
both the wheels and the frame to be securely locked.
Recommended Types of Bicycle Parking
Bicycle parking can be categorized into short-term and long-
term parking. Bicycle racks are the preferred device for short-
term bike parking, serving people who leave their bicycles for
relatively short periods of time, typically for shopping, errands,
eating or recreation. Bicycle racks provide a high level of
convenience and moderate level of security.
Long-term bike parking includes bike lockers, bike rooms, or
secure enclosures. Long-term parking serves people who
intend to leave their bicycles for longer periods of time and
are typically found in multifamily residential buildings, transit
stations, and commercial buildings. These facilities provide a
high level of security but are less convenient than bicycle
racks.
The City should also consider the needs of electric bicycle
users in any study of the provision of bike parking. The needs
of e-bike users are different than typical bicyclists, including
capabilities for charging bicycle batteries and enhanced
safety/anti-theft options.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City update the existing bike
parking ordinance (code 19.124) requiring all new major
development to provide bicycle parking in accordance with
the rates specified in Table 3-1.
3-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Table 3-1: Guidelines for Bicycle Parking Location and Quantities
Land Use or
Location Physical Location Quantity
Parks Adjacent to restrooms,
picnic areas, fields, and
other attractions
8 bicycle parking
spaces per acre
Schools Near office and main
entrance with good
visibility
8 bicycle parking
spaces per 40
students
Public Facilities
(libraries,
community
centers)
Near main entrance
with good visibility
8 bicycle parking
spaces per
location
Commercial,
retail and
industrial
developments
over 10,000
square feet
Near main entrance
with good visibility
1 bicycle parking
space per 15
employees or 8
bicycles per
10,000 square
feet
Shopping
Centers over
10,000 square
feet
Near main entrance
with good visibility
8 bicycle parking
spaces per
10,000 square
feet
Transit Stations Near platform, security
or ticket booth
1 bicycle parking
space or locker
per 30
automobile
parking spaces
Multi-Family
Residential
Near main entrance
with good visibility
1 short-term
bicycle parking
space per 10
residential units
AND
1 long-term
bicycle parking
space per 2
residential units
Consistent with Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle
Professionals (APBP), this Plan also recommends the City and
private developers only install bicycle parking that provide
two points of contact to support the bicycle frame, and that
allow the frame and at least one wheel to be secured with a
standard U-lock. The racks shown in Figure 3-2 are the
recommended standard rack types. Long-term bike parking
should provide some weather protection and greater security
than bicycle racks. Long-term parking should be a secure
room, locker or enclosure.
U-Rack Post &
Loop
Horseshoe Wheelwell
Secure
Figure 3-2: Types of bicycle racks
It is also recommended the City study existing bicycle parking
locations and identify non-recommended parking types in
need of replacement. The study could include where bike
racks are needed (currently not installed) and where existing
bike parking should be expanded.
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-5
Driveway Lip Standards
The lip between driveways and the gutter pan are useful for
appropriately directing stormwater flow, but excessively
vertical lips can be a significant hazard to bicyclists exiting the
roadway via a driveway.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends Cupertino develop special driveway
standards on key bicycle corridors throughout the City for
new development that allow an easier transition to and from
the roadway for bicyclists.
Bikeway Projects
The recommendations on following pages include a number
of treatments that are described below in greater detail and
shown in Figure 3-7.
Class I Shared Use Paths
A Class I Bicycle or Shared Use Path provides for bicycle and
pedestrian travel on a paved right-of-way completely
separated from streets or highways. These recommended
facilities can be popular for recreational bicycling as well as
for commuting.
Figure 3-3: Class I shared use paths
Class II Bike Lanes
Class II Bike lanes provide a signed, striped and stenciled lane
on a roadway. Bicycle lanes are often recommended on
roadways where traffic volumes and speeds are too high for
comfortably sharing the travel lane.
Figure 3-4: Class II bike lanes
Bicycle lanes can be further enhanced by green paint (which
highlights areas of potential conflict) and paint buffers
(providing greater lateral separation from either travel lanes
or parking lanes).
3-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Class III Bike Routes
Class III Bike Routes provide for shared travel lane use and are
generally only identified with signs. Bike Routes are
appropriate on low volume, low speed streets.
Figure 3-5: Class III bike routes
Bicycle Boulevards, a subset of Class III bike routes, include
traffic calming features, interventions to reduce total vehicle
volumes, and enhanced wayfinding & signage.
Class IV Separated Bikeways
Class IV separated bikeways are a new class of bicycle facility.
Caltrans recently released design guidance for communities
wishing to implement Class IV Bikeways. Generally, Class IV
bikeways are on-street bicycle facilities that are separated
from vehicle traffic by some kind of physical protection—
including a curb, on-street parking, flexible bollards, or
concrete planters. Separated bikeways are often referred to
as cycle tracks or protected bike lanes.
Figure 3-6: Class IV separated bikeways
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-7
Retrofitting the Bicycle Network
Cupertino today boasts a significant existing system of arterial
bike lanes and neighborhood bike routes. This Plan is focused
on enhancing and expanding that system to support riding by
community members of all ages and abilities.
This Plan recommends more than 50 miles of new and
upgraded bicycling facilities of all types throughout the City
of Cupertino. The recommendations below will culminate in a
series of overlapping networks that residents can use
according to their preference when making trips across and
through the City.
Cupertino Loop Trail
As further detailed in the Trail Feasibility Study subchapter,
this Plan recommends a series of Class I shared use paths.
When joined together with low-stress on-street facilities, this
would form the “Cupertino Loop Trail”, providing access
around Cupertino, largely separated from vehicle traffic. This
network primarily supports recreational riders and long-range
bicycle trips. A map of the Cupertino Loop Trail is show in
Figure 3-8.
Separated Bikeways Network
This Plan recommends converting bike lanes on Stevens Creek
Boulevard, Stelling Road, McClellan Road, Blaney Avenue, and
Finch Avenue to a network of Class IV separated bikeways.
This network will provide a connected east/west and
north/south spine of direct bike routes for residents wanting
to quickly reach key destinations throughout Cupertino. This
network will provide better bicycle access for De Anza College
students, commuters, and residents making local shopping
trips. A map of the Separated Bikeways Network is shown in
Figure 3-9.
Bike Boulevard Network
In parallel to the Cupertino Loop Trail and the Separated
Bikeways Network, this Plan recommends a network of Bike
Boulevards. These enhanced bike routes will provide
neighborhood-friendly alternatives parallel to bike network
options on major City streets. This network supports families
and young students wanting to reach schools, parks, and
community amenities on quiet streets with low-traffic
volumes. A map of the Bike Boulevard Network is shown in
Figure 3-10.
The mileage of recommended bikeway projects are
summarized by bikeway class in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2: Recommended Bikeway Mileage by Class
Bikeway Class Proposed Miles
Class I 7.73
Class II 1.59
Class II (Buffered) 13.70
Class III 8.19
Class III (Bike Blvd) 8.63
Class IV 10.86
TOTAL 50.70
A map of the recommended improvements is shown in Figure
3-7 and the complete list of bikeway projects is in Table 3-3.
3-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Figure 3-7: Bikeway projects
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-9
Figure 3-8: Cupertino loop trail
3-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Figure 3-9: Separated bikeway network
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-11
Figure 3-10: Bike Boulevard projects
3-12 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Note: Bike routes and bike boulevards are grouped into corridors comprised of multiple individual street segments, since the utility
of these bike routes and bike boulevards becomes tangible only when the entire corridor is implemented as a whole. The indented
rows below each corridor detail the individual street segments. Additionally, each bike route and bike boulevard corridor has been
assigned a number for easier reference.
Table 3-3: Bikeway Projects
Location Start End Class Length
(miles) Notes
Blaney Ave Homestead Rd Bollinger Rd Class IV 1.91 Study parking removal to accommodate Class IV.
Buffered bike lanes also possible.
Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Lawrence Expy Class II 2.00 Study lane reduction to update existing by adding
buffer
Bollinger Rd De Foe Dr Westlynn Wy Class II 0.18 Narrow lane width to accommodate buffered bike
lanes
Bollinger Rd to Stevens Creek Bike Route (Bike Route #1) 0.84
Stern Ave Tilson Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Class III 0.43
Wunderlich
Dr Johnson Ave Barnhart Ave Class III 0.19
Johnson Dr Bollinger Rd Wunderlich Dr Class III 0.22
Bubb Rd Stevens Creek Blvd McClellan Rd Class II 0.53 Study removal of one southbound travel lane to
accommodate buffered bike lanes
Campus Dr/
Stevens Creek
Blvd Connector
Campus Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd Class II 0.11 Contra-flow bike lane
Carmen Rd Stevens Creek Blvd
- south side
Stevens Creek
Blvd - north side Bridge 0.02 Study bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Stevens Creek
Blvd
Civic Center to Creekside Park Bike Route (Bike Route #2) 1.24
Torre Ave Rodrigues Ave Pacifica Dr Class III 0.20
Pacifica Dr Torre Ave Farallone Ave Class III 0.11
Farallone
Ave Pacifica Dr Suisun Dr Class III 0.05
Suisun Dr Blaney Ave Farallone Ave Class III 0.22
Clifford Dr Blaney Ave Estates Dr Class III 0.30
Estates Dr Clifford Dr Creekside Path Class III 0.36
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-13
Location Start End Class Length
(miles) Notes
Civic Center to Jollyman Park Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #1) 0.86
Rodrigues
Ave De Anza Blvd Terry Way Class III 0.09 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Terry Way Rodrigues Ave Shelly Dr Class III 0.05 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Shelly Dr Terry Way Westacres Dr Class III 0.20 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Westacres Dr Shelly Dr McClellan Rd Class III 0.19 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Kim St McClellan Rd Kirwin Ln Class III 0.14 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
De Foe Dr Bollinger Rd Jollyman Park Class III 0.18 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Civic Center to Sterling Barnhart Park Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #2) 1.41
Rodrigues
Ave Blaney Ave Wilson Park Class III 0.13 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Wintergreen
Dr Portal Ave Cold Harbor Ave Class III 0.09 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Cold Harbor
Ave Wintergreen Dr Vicksburg Dr Class III 0.09 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Vicksburg Dr Cold Harbor Ave Estates Dr Class III 0.10 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Estates Dr Vicksburg Dr Creekside Park
Path Class III 0.03 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Calle de
Barcelona Miller Ave Finch Ave Class III 0.16 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Tilson Ave Finch Ave Wunderlich Dr Class III 0.54 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Wunderlich
Dr Tilson Ave Barnhart Ave Class III 0.05 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Barnhart Ave Wunderlich Dr Sterling Blvd Class III 0.22 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Cristo Rey Dr 150 feet East of
Cristo Rey Pl Roundabout Class II 0.57
Bike lane only in uphill direction, sharrows downhill.
Connects to existing bike lanes 180 ft. east of King
Way
De Anza Blvd Homestead Rd Bollinger Rd Class II 1.75
Study reconstruction of medians and/or lane
reduction in both directions to accommodate
buffered bike lanes; coordinate with City of San Jose
& VTA. See Studies section.
Deep Cliff Golf
Course Trail McClellan Rd Linda Vista Dr Class I 0.45 Easement and study needed
Finch Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Phil Ln Class IV 0.45 Two-way Class IV on east side of street, requires
study of parking removal
3-14 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Location Start End Class Length
(miles) Notes
Foothill Blvd Bike Route (Bike Route #3) 0.81
Palm Ave Scenic Blvd Foothill Blvd Class III 0.25
Voss Ave Foothill Blvd Lockwood Dr Class III 0.25
Lockwood Dr Voss Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Class III 0.31
Foothill
Blvd/Stevens
Canyon Rd
I-280 Off-ramp Rancho Deepcliff
Dr Class II 1.74
Narrow lane widths to accommodate buffered bike
lane, some areas constrained south of Stevens Creek
Blvd
Foothill to Stevens Creek Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #3) 0.99
Starling Dr Foothill Blvd Chace Dr Class III 0.10 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Chace Dr Starling Dr Hartman Dr Class III 0.04 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Hartman Dr Chace Dr Ainsworth Dr Class III 0.16 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Ainsworth Dr Hartman Dr Varian Way Class III 0.25 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Varian Way Ainsworth Dr Varian Park Class III 0.06 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Amelia Ct Varian Park Crescent Rd Class III 0.08 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Crescent Rd Amelia Ct Hillcrest Rd Class III 0.10 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Hillcrest Rd Crescent Rd Cupertino Rd Class III 0.09 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Cupertino Rd Hillcrest Rd Carmen Rd Class III 0.06 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Carmen Rd Cupertino Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd Class III 0.04 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Golden Gate Elementary to Memorial Park Bike Route (Bike Route #4) 0.42
Ann Arbor
Ave Greenleaf Dr Lauretta Dr Class III 0.20
Lauretta Dr Ave Arbor Ave Ann Arbor Ct Class III 0.01
Ann Arbor Ct Lauretta Dr End of Street Class III 0.06
Memorial
Park Christensen Dr Alves Dr Class III 0.16
Homestead Rd Mary Ave Bridge Tantau Ave Class II 0.51 Study buffered bike lanes, may only be feasible in
some sections. Coordinate with City of Sunnyvale.
Hwy 85 to Stevens Creek Blvd Bike Route (Bike Route #5) 0.19
Peninsula
Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Grand Ave Class III 0.09
Grand Ave Peninsula Ave Alhambra Ave Class III 0.10
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-15
Location Start End Class Length
(miles) Notes
Hyde Avenue Bike Route (Bike Route #6) 0.24
Hyde Ave Shadygrove Dr Bollinger Rd Class III 0.24
I-280 Channel
Bike Path Meteor Dr/Mary Ave Vallco Pkwy Class I 2.94
Requires study & coordination with Caltrans and
Santa Clara Valley Water District; alignment along
the south side of I-280
Jollyman Park Stelling Rd Dumas Dr Class I 0.15 Update path through park to Class I
Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd Class II 0.09 Buffered bike lanes
Mary Ave Meteor Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd Class II 0.71 Study buffered bike lanes or 2-way Class IV on west
side
Mary Ave to Portal Ave Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #4) 1.51
Meteor Dr Mary Ave Castine Ave Class III 0.23 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Castine Ave Meteor Dr Greenleaf Dr Class III 0.10 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Greenleaf Dr Castine Ave Beardon Dr Class III 0.53 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Beardon Dr Greenleaf Dr Greenleaf Dr Class III 0.03 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Greenleaf Dr Beardon Dr End of street Class III 0.14 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Merritt Dr End of street Portal Ave Class III 0.47 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Mary Ave to Vallco Mall Bike Route (Bike Route #7) 1.78
Memorial
Park Mary Ave Alves Dr Class III 0.20
Alves Dr Anton Way Bandley Dr Class III 0.53
Bandley Dr Alves Dr Lazaneo Dr Class III 0.10
Lazaneo Dr De Anza Blvd Randy Ln Class III 0.32
Randy Ln Lazaneo Dr Chavoya Dr Class III 0.05
Chavoya Dr Randy Ln Carol Lee Dr Class III 0.05
Carol Lee Dr Chavoya Dr Wheaton Dr Class III 0.09
Wheaton Dr Carol Lee Dr End of street Class III 0.43
McClellan Rd Byrne Ave De Anza Blvd Class IV 1.43 Short-term Class II from Bonny Dr to De Anza Blvd.
Study conversion to Class IV.
Miller Ave Bollinger Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd Class II 0.87 Buffered bike lanes
Oaks
Development
Bike Path
Stevens Creek Blvd Mary Ave Class I 0.13
3-16 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Location Start End Class Length
(miles) Notes
Pacifica Dr De Anza Blvd Torre Ave Class II 0.16 Study parking removal and lane reconfiguration and
intersection to accommodate Class II
Perimeter Rd I-280 Channel Trail Stevens Creek
Blvd Class I 0.59 Study bike path as part of Vallco Mall
redevelopment
Portal Ave Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #5) 0.69
Portal Ave Merritt Dr Wintergreen Dr Class III 0.69 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Prospect Rd Stelling Rd De Anza Blvd Class II 0.42
Narrow travel lanes east of Galway to accommodate
buffered bike lanes; study parking lane or turn lane
removal west of Galway to accommodate buffered
bike lanes
Rainbow Dr Upland Wy Stelling Rd Class II 0.50 Study roadway widening to accommodate Class II
facilities
Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd De Anza Blvd Class II 0.57
Study removal of center turn lane to accommodate
buffered bike lanes. Remove buffers to add turn
pockets at key intersections. Study in tandem with
pedestrian improvements.
Regnart Creek
Trail Pacficia Dr Estates Dr Class I 0.82 Study implementation of Class I pathway along
creek access road
Rose Blossom/Huntridge Bike Route (Bike Route #8) 0.41
Rose
Blossom Dr McClellan Rd Huntridge Ln Class III 0.32
Huntridge Ln Rose Blossom Dr Stelling Rd Class III 0.09
San Tomas-
Aquino Creek
Trail
Stevens Creek Blvd Sterling Barnhart
Park Class I 0.50 Study extension of existing trail
SR-85 Crossing Grand Ave Mary Ave Bridge 0.13 Study bicycle/pedestrian bridge over SR-85
Stelling Rd Homestead Rd Prospect Rd Class IV 3.02
Study Class IV, requires parking removal, lane
reconfiguration, and median removal in some
locations.
Stevens Creek
Blvd Foothill Blvd Tantau Ave Class IV 3.43
Study Class IV, coordinate project with VTA plans
for BRT. Upgrade bike lane buffers & striping where
possible as interim measure.
Stevens Creek
Blvd Cupertino City Limit Foothill Blvd Class IV 0.62 Study Class IV, separate from VTA BRT study.
Chapter 3: Infrastructure Recommendations
Alta Planning + Design | 3-17
Location Start End Class Length
(miles) Notes
Stevens Creek Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #6) 1.12
San
Fernando
Ave
Orange Ave Stevens Creek
Trail Class III 0.30 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Scenic Cir Scenic Circle Path Scenic Blvd Class III 0.19 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Scenic Blvd Scenic Cir Carmen Rd Class III 0.26 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Carmen Rd Scenic Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd Class III 0.17 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Janice Ave Carmen Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd Class III 0.25
Tantau Ave Homestead Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd Class II 1.00
Partly Apple 2 Campus mitigation measures.
Continue buffered bike lanes south to Stevens Creek
Blvd
Tantau Ave Bike Route (Bike Route #9) 0.41
Tantau Ave Bollinger Rd Barnhart Ave Class III 0.41
Tri-School East/West Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #7) 0.66
Linda Vista
Dr McClellan Rd Hyannisport Dr Class III 0.19 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Hyannisport
Dr Linda Vista Dr Bubb Rd Class III 0.47 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Tri-School North/South Bike Blvd (Bike Blvd #8) 0.76
Santa Teresa
Dr Hyannisport Dr Terrace Dr Class III 0.55 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Terrace Dr Santa Teresa Dr Bubb Rd Class III 0.32 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Union Pacific to Hwy 85 Bike Route (Bike Route #10) 1.48
September
Dr McClellan Rd Festival Dr Class III 0.28
Festival Dr September Dr Orogrande Pl Class III 0.34
Orogrande Pl Festival Dr Stelling Rd Class III 0.03
Squirewood
Way Stelling Rd Scotland Dr Class III 0.13
Scotland Dr Squirewood Way Kingsbury Pl Class III 0.22
Kingsbury Pl Scotland Dr Gardenside Ln Class III 0.06
Gardenside
Ln Kingsbury Pl Rainbow Dr Class III 0.18
3-18 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Location Start End Class Length
(miles) Notes
Poppy Way Rainbow Dr Plum Blossom Dr Class III 0.21
Plum
Blossom Dr Poppy Way Jamestown Dr Class III 0.04
Jamestown
Dr Plum Blossom Dr Prospect Rd Class III 0.25
Union Pacific
Trail Stevens Creek Blvd Prospect Rd Class I 2.10 Study rail-with-trail along Union Pacific ROW
Vallco Pkwy Perimeter Rd Tantau Ave Class II 0.30 Narrow travel lanes to accommodate buffered bike
lanes
Varian Park Path Amelia Ct Varian Wy Class I 0.05
Vista Dr Forest Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Class II 0.24 Study parking removal on west side of street
West Cupertino North/South Bike Bld (Bike Blvd #9) 0.63
Orange Ave Mann Dr McClellan Rd Class III 0.55 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Fort Baker Dr Presidio Dr Hyannisport Dr Class III 0.08 Consider Bike Blvd treatments
Westlynn/Fallenleaf Bike Route (Bike Route #11) 0.37
Westlynn
Way Bollinger Rd Fallenleaf Ln Class III 0.28
Fallenleaf Ln Westlynn Way De Anza Blvd Class III 0.09
Wilson Park Rodrigues Ave Wilson Park Path Class I 0.03 Study Class I facility along northern edge of park
Wolfe Rd Homestead Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd Class II 1.00 Study buffered bike lanes accommodation
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 3-19
Spot Improvements, Projects for
Coordination with Caltrans, and Studies
Spot Improvements
Spot improvements are designed to address locations where
there are specific biking challenges identified through the
planning process. Recommended spot improvements are
listed in Table 3-4. Examples for some treatments are shown
in Figure 3-11 on the following page.
Table 3-4: Spot Improvements
Location Improvement
Bubb Rd & McClellan Rd
at Union Pacific ROW
Coordinate bicycle crossing for future
rail trail with nearby traffic signals
Carmen Rd at Stevens
Creek Blvd
Study bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
Stevens Creek Blvd
De Anza Blvd at I-280 Add green paint to freeway on-ramps
and off-ramps approaches, stripe bike
lane through intersection crossings,
coordinate with Caltrans
De Anza Blvd at SR-85 Add green paint to freeway on-ramps
and off-ramps approaches, stripe bike
lane through intersection crossings,
coordinate with Caltrans
Greenleaf Dr/Mariani Ave
at Bandley Dr
Reconfigure wall to allow for bicycle
access
Highway 85 at Grand
Ave/Mary Ave
Study bicycle/pedestrian bridge over
Highway 85
Imperial Avenue at
Alcazar Ave
Remove fence on Imperial Ave cul-de-
sac to allow through bicycle travel
Mary Ave at Homestead
Rd
Reconfigure intersection so
northbound bicyclists can safely filter
from the pathway to the roadway
Mary Ave Bridge Add signage and striping to better
delineate bicycle & pedestrian space
on the bridge
McClellan Rd at De Anza
Blvd/Pacifica Dr
Reconstruct intersection to facilitate
easier east/west bicycle travel
Location Improvement
McClellan Rd at Rose
Blossom Dr
Facilitate north/south bicycle travel at
intersection
McClellan Rd at
Westacres Dr/Kim St
Study peanut roundabout to facilitate
north/south bicycle travel
Merrit Dr/Infinite Loop Improve signage/striping to delineate
bike/ped space in connector
Portal Ave at Wheaton Dr Study conversion to roundabout
Rainbow Dr at Stelling Rd Study removal of slip lanes; study
protected intersection
Stelling Rd at Alves Dr Study improved crossing treatments
for bicycle traffic on Alves Dr
Stelling Rd at McClellan
Rd
Study protected intersection
Stevens Creek Blvd at SR-
85
Enhance freeway crossing, coordinate
with Caltrans
Stevens Creek Blvd at
Stelling Rd
Study protected intersection
Stevens Creek Blvd at De
Anza Blvd
Add bike lane striping though
intersection to improve visibility
Stevens Creek Blvd at
Wolfe Rd
Study removal of slip lanes/pork chop
islands
Wheaton Dr at Blaney
Ave
Enhance bicycle crossing along
Wheaton Dr
Wheaton Dr at Perimeter
Rd
Connect bike boulevard to proposed
bike path
Wolfe Rd at I-280 Add green paint to freeway on-ramps
and off-ramps approaches, stripe bike
lane through intersection crossings,
coordinate with Caltrans
3-20 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Peanut roundabouts create low-stress bicycle connections at offset
intersections
Protected intersection, which uses physical separation to offer a
refuge for waiting bicyclists. See Appendix D for more information
Figure 3-11: Example spot improvements
Projects for Coordination with Caltrans & VTA
Cupertino has several state and interstate routes that travel
through the city. These state routes are important for local and
regional mobility, but also provide a challenge for walking and
bicycling. The projects described in Table 3-5 (repeated from
Table 3-4) are intended to address community identified need
and will require collaboration with Caltrans & VTA.
Table 3-5: Projects for Coordination with Caltrans & VTA
Location Start End Description
I-280
Channel
Bike Path
Mary
Ave
Bridge
Tantau
Ave
Class I along the south side of I-
280
Saratoga
Creek
Trail
Extension
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Study creek trail extension,
requires coordination with VTA,
County, and Caltrans (at I-280
undercrossing)
SR-85
bridge
Mary
Ave
Grand Ave Study bicycle/pedestrian bridge
over SR-85
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Foothill
Blvd
Tantau
Ave
Study Class IV separated bike
lanes, coordinate with VTA for
future BRT
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 3-21
Project for Coordination with Union Pacific Railroad
The Union Pacific Railroad Trail cuts through the western part
of Cupertino. In 2001, The Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority (VTA) commissioned a study for the
implementation of rail-with-trail along the Union Pacific right
of way between Cupertino and Los Gatos, which was
subsequently adopted by the VTA board.
This Plan recommends the City coordinate with UPRR to
provide a formal Class I trail between Stevens Creek
Boulevard and Prospect Road, as shown in Figure 3-4. Further
discussion of opportunities and constraints along this rail
corridor are discussed in Chapter 4: Trail Feasibility Study.
Studies
A number of improvements intended to address bicycling
mobility will require further study including projects which
require parking lane removal or a road diet to accommodate
the recommended treatment. These projects are listed in
Table 3-6 (repeated from Table 3-3) and shown on Figure 3-4.
Table 3-6: Projects for Study
Location Start End Description
Blaney Ave Homestead
Rd
Bollinger
Rd
Study parking
removal on one side
of street for Class IV
facility
Bollinger Rd De Anza
Blvd
Johnson
Ave
Study 4-3 road diet
to add buffers to
bike lane;
coordinate with San
José
Bubb Rd Stevens
Creek Blvd
McClellan
Rd
Study reducing one
southbound lane to
accommodate
buffered bike lanes
Carmen Rd Stevens
Creek Blvd
-- Study bicycle/
pedestrian bridge
over Stevens Creek
Blvd
De Anza Blvd Homestead
Rd
Bollinger
Rd
Study
reconstruction of
medians and/or
lane reduction in
both directions to
accommodate
buffered bike lanes;
coordinate with City
of San José & VTA
Deep Cliff Golf
Course Trail
McClellan
Rd
Linda Vista
Dr
Class I trail,
easement needed
Finch Ave Stevens
Creek Blvd
Phil Ln Study two-way
Class IV on east
side. Requires
parking removal &
bicycle signal phase
at Stevens Creek
Blvd
3-22 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Location Start End Description
Homestead Rd Swallow Dr Stevens
Creek
Coordinate with
Sunnyvale to
reconfigure
Homestead,
accommodating
buffered bike lanes
McClellan Rd Byrne Ave Stelling Rd Study Class IV,
removal of center
turn lane to
implement
McClellan Rd Stelling Rd De Anza
Blvd
Study Class IV, may
require limited
roadway widening
to implement
Pacifica Ave De Anza
Blvd
Torre Ave Study parking
removal & lane
reconfiguration to
accommodate Class
II
Rainbow Dr Bubb Rd Stelling Rd Study roadway
widening to
accommodate Class
II
Rainbow Dr Stelling Rd De Anza
Blvd
Study removal of 2-
way turn lane to
accommodate
buffered bike lanes.
Add turn pockets at
Stelling & at
Gardenside/Poppy
& at De Anza by
removing buffers;
coordinate with
pedestrian crossing
improvements
Location Start End Description
Regnart Creek
Trail
Pacifica Dr Estates Dr Study conversion of
SCVWD access
road to Class I path
San Tomas
Aquino/Sarato
ga Creek Trail
Ext.
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Study Class I Trail
extension
SR-85 bicycle
& pedestrian
bridge
Mary Ave Grand Ave Study bicycle &
pedestrian bridge
crossing over SR-
85; may require
easement from The
Oaks
Stelling Rd Homestead
Rd
Alves Dr Study Class IV,
implementation
possible within
existing roadway
Stelling Rd Alves Dr McClellan
Rd
Study Class IV,
requires removal of
median to maximize
roadway
reconfiguration
Stelling Rd McClellan
Rd
Prospect
Rd
Study Class IV,
removal of center
turn lane or parking
lanes to implement
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 3-23
Location Start End Description
Stevens Creek
Blvd
Foothill
Blvd
Tantau Ave Study Class IV as
part of future Bus
Rapid Transit.
Short-term
improvements -
study lane width
reductions for
enhanced buffers
where possible.
Coordinate with
VTA
Stevesn Creek
Blvd
Cupertino
City Limit
Foothill
Blvd
Study Class IV, with
median removal
and/or road
widening potentially
necessary.
Coordinate with
study of West
Cupertino UPRR
Crossing project.
Union Pacific
Trail
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Prospect
Rd
Class I trail-with-rail
Vista Dr Lazaneo
Dr/Forest
Ave
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Study parking
removal on west
side of street to
accommodate Class
II bike lanes
West
Cupertino
UPRR Crossing
Hammond-
Snyder Trail
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Study
bicycle/pedestrian
crossing of UPRR
ROW
Location Start End Description
Wolfe
Rd/Miller Ave
Homestead
Rd
Bollinger
Rd
Study roadway
reconfiguration and
median removal to
accommodate
buffered bike lanes
with minimal lane
reduction
Chapter4:
Trail Feasibility Study
Chapter 4: Trail Feasibility Study
Alta Planning + Design | 4-1
4. Trail Feasibility Study
Trail Network Feasibility Study
From the outset of the outreach process for this Plan, interest
in a trail network throughout Cupertino has been a regular
concern for many stakeholder groups. This chapter provides a
preliminary feasibility study for potential off-street trail
networks in Cupertino.
Off-street trail systems can serve a number of purposes when
implemented correctly. They can serve as a recreational
amenity, a low-stress alternative to on-street bicycle trips, a
commute corridor for longer bicycle trips, and a
neighborhood amenity that increases adjacent property
values and improves quality of life.
Recommendation: Cupertino Loop Trail
This feasibility study recommends the implementation of a
loop trail through central Cupertino. This would be
accomplished by implementing Class I trails along Regnart
Creek, along the I-280 flood control canal, and along the UPRR
rail right of way. These trail segments would be connected to
each other by a series of low-stress on-street bikeways
recommended in this Plan.
Figure 4-1 shows potential alignments for the Cupertino Loop
Trail, as well as other potential locations to implement off-
street trail infrastructure within the City. Table 4-1 provides
brief descriptions of each recommended trail section and brief
descriptions.
Further study will be required to pursue construction of a trail
network. This feasibility study presents a roadmap for future
study & prioritization of a trail network for Cupertino.
Recommendation: Study Saratoga Creek-to-Cupertino
Loop Trail Connector
While outside of Cupertino City Limits, the freeway frontage
along the Agilent Technologies campus could potentially
connect an extension of the Saratoga Creek Trail with the
proposed Cupertino Loop Trail. The City should encourage to
the City of Santa Clara to consider such a connector if both
trails are built out.
Stevens Creek Trail Extension
In 2009, a coordinated Stevens Creek Trail planning effort was
undertaken between the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos,
Mountain View and Sunnyvale. An advisory body composed
of council members from each city (the Joint Cities Working
Team (JCWT)) was installed, and a trail consultant engaged
to assess the feasibility of potential route options. The
consultant subsequently published a Feasibility Study in
March 2015. It identified three route options through
Cupertino, but made no specific recommendation. These
options were:
Mary Avenue to Stevens Creek Blvd, utilizing the Don
Burnett Pedestrian Bridge
Foothill Blvd to Stevens Creek Blvd
Construction of a new pedestrian bridge across I-280
connecting Cupertino’s Homestead Villa and Oakdell
4-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Ranch neighborhoods. A tunnel under I-280 was found to
be infeasible.
A series of public outreach events then followed, intended to
gauge public reaction to the study. After considering both the
feasibility study and public input, the JCWT issued its
recommendation to the four cities in September 2015. No
specific route recommendation was made for Cupertino.
However, the JCWT did recognize the need for a long term
trail vision, and that should circumstances change regarding
the availability of land in the area that further studies be
undertaken to identify a feasible route. For further
information, refer to the Four Cities Coordinated Stevens
Creek Trail Feasibility Study (September 2015 final version).
Table 4-1: Recommended Trail Network Segments
Location Start End Description
Bike/Ped
bridge over
UPRR
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Hammond-
Snyder
Loop Trail
Identified in 2015
BTP Update
Deep Cliff Golf
Course
McClellan
Rd
Linda Vista
Dr
Identified in 2015
BTP Update
Carmen Rd
Bridge at
Stevens Creek
Blvd
-- -- Bicycle &
pedestrian bridge
over Stevens Creek
Blvd connecting
Carmen Rd
Location Start End Description
I-280 Canal
Bike Path
Mary Ave
Bridge
Vallco
Pwky
Access road on
south side of canal
Regnart Creek,
Phase 1
Pacifica
Dr
S Blaney Dr Access road on
north side of creek
Regnart Creek,
Phase 2
S Blaney
Dr
Estates Dr Access road on
south side of creek
SR-85
bike/ped
bridge
Mary Ave Grand Ave Bicycle &
pedestrian bridge
over SR-85
San Tomas
Aquino Creek
Trail Extension
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
Identified in 2015
BTP Update
The Oaks Path Mary Ave Stevens
Creek Blvd
West side of
proposed
development
Union Pacific
ROW
Stevens
Creek
Blvd
Prospect
Rd
Trail-by-Rail on
west side of ROW
Vallco West
Pathway
I-280
Canal
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Identified in South
Vallco Connectivity
Plan
West
Cupertino
UPRR Crossing
Hammond
-Snyder
Trail
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Identified in 2015
BTP Update
Wilson Park Rodriguez
Ave
Portal Ave Identified in 2015
BTP Update
Chapter 4: Trail Feasibility Study
Alta Planning + Design | 4-3
Figure 4-1: Recommended trails & Cupertino Loop Trail alignment
4-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Cupertino Loop Trail Recommendations
Regnart Creek, Phase 1
Limits: Pacifica Drive to S Blaney Avenue
Length: 0.479 mi
Type: Multi-use path
Partners: Water District
Utility: High
Feasibility: High
Priority: High
Regnart Creek, from Pacifica Drive to South Blaney Avenue,
has right of way available for a multi-use path on an access
road on the west/north side of the creek. While available right
of way exists on Regnart Creek south of Pacifica Drive, it
terminates at the back a strip mall fronting on De Anza
Boulevard. Even were an alignment through the strip mall
parking lot created, there are no feasible crossings of De Anza
Boulevard to continue an off-street trail further to the west.
This trail section would require an enhanced crossing when
transitioning to the south side of Regnart Creek east of South
Blaney Avenue. This trail section could also offer connections
to the Cupertino Civic Center, Rodriguez Avenue, and De
Palma Lane.
To connect with the Cupertino Loop Trail alignment to the
west, an on-street connection is recommended along Pacifica
Drive, McClellan Road, Stelling Road, and Rainbow Drive.
Connections to the Union Pacific Rail/Trail segment can take
place at either McClellan Road or Rainbow Drive. If
recommendations in this plan are implemented, the majority
of these on-street route connections will be made via
protected bike lanes.
To the east of this segment, the Cupertino Loop Trail could
either continue on the southern side of Regnart Creek to
Creekside Park or travel north on South Blaney Avenue.
Connecting through a recommended pathway through Wilson
Park, on-street routes could connect this segment to a
proposed trail along the western side of the Vallco shopping
center.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 4-5
Regnart Creek, Phase 2
Limits: S Blaney Avenue to E Estates Drive
Length: 0.340 mi
Type: Multi-use path
Partners: Water District
Utility: Medium
Feasibility: High
Priority: High
Regnart Creek, from South Blaney Avenue to East Estates
Drive, has right of way available for a multi-use path on an
access road on the south side of the creek. Additional design
consideration would be needed at South Blaney Avenue
where the proposed trail alignment would transition from the
north side of the creek to the south side of the creek.
At East Estates Drive, this segment would connect to the
existing Creekside Park pathway, connecting across
Calabazas Creek east to Miller Avenue.
Further study is needed for an appropriate link to the
Cupertino Loop Trail to the northeast. Routes via the Vallco
Mall are possible, but may not be ideal.
Vallco West Pathway
Limits: Stevens Creek Boulevard to I-280 Canal
Length: 0.57 mi
Type: Multi-use path
Partners: Private Developers
Utility: Medium
Feasibility: High
Priority: Medium
As part of the South Vallco Connectivity Plan, a pathway was
recommended along the western edge of the Vallco parcel,
following the route of Perimeter Road. A gravel right of way
currently runs alongside Perimeter Road that could be
converted to a Class I pathway.
Such a pathway could connect at the northern end with the
I-280 Canal recommended alignment. To the south, the
pathway alignment would connect with Stevens Creek
Boulevard. The last block of Perimeter Road before Stevens
Creek Boulevard would need a significant reconfiguration to
accommodate a Class I pathway.
The Vallco West Pathway could have added utility by
enhancing connectivity with the neighborhoods to the west,
allowing a connection to a proposed bike route in this Plan.
4-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
I-280 Canal
Limits: Vallco Parkway to Mary Avenue Bridge
Length: 2.88 mi
Type: Multi-use path
Partners: Water District, Caltrans
Utility: High
Feasibility: Medium
Priority: High
The Interstate 280 canal runs east/west along the southern
side of the freeway from Highway 85 to Calabazas Creek. For
the majority of its length, the canal is faced on either side by
sound walls. This alignment could provide a high level of utility
for bicyclists traveling east/west across Cupertino.
Segments of the canal access road may require retrofitting to
accommodate a 12’ multi-use path cross section. Coordination
with both the water district and Caltrans would be required to
implement a multi-use trail on this alignment.
At Wolfe Road, the trail alignment could take advantage of an
existing undercrossing of the roadway within the Vallco
development. The current sidewalk appears wide enough for
use as a multi-use trail in this undercrossing.
Some roadway right-of-way acquisition may be necessary at
the Blaney Avenue overcrossing to accommodate a trail
alignment alongside a 300 foot-long section of Lucille Avenue
where the access road briefly ends.
De Anza Boulevard and Stelling Road, both have at-grade
crossings with the canal. A crossing at De Anza Boulevard
would either need a re-designed intersection with the freeway
off-ramp to accommodate through bicycle traffic or a
bicycle/pedestrian bridge would need to be built at this site.
At Stelling Road, a study would need to be conducted for
whether a controlled or uncontrolled trail crossing is
warranted. An undercrossing is infeasible at both locations
due to the proximity to the flood control channel.
Special attention should be paid to trailhead connections at
Vallco Parkway, Wolfe Road, Lucille Ave, De Anza Boulevard,
Stelling Road, and the Mary Avenue Bridge.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 4-7
The Oaks Pathway
Limits: Mary Avenue to Stevens Creek Boulevard
Length: 0.12 mi
Type: Multi-use path
Partners: Private Developers
Utility: Low
Feasibility: Medium
Priority: Medium
The Oaks Pathway is a proposed public benefit offered by the
development team engaged in the redevelopment of The
Oaks Shopping Center. This pathway would run along the
western side of The Oaks property between Mary Avenue and
Stevens Creek, nearby the on-ramp to Highway 85.
This pathway could serve as part of a mostly on-street
connector between the I-280 Canal and the Union Pacific rail
right of way. From terminus of the I-280 Canal alignment at
the Mary Avenue Bridge, the on-street route would travel
south on Mary Avenue to The Oaks Pathway, then travel west
on Stevens Creek Boulevard (or along the proposed bike/ped
bridge over Highway 85) to a proposed trailhead at the Union
Pacific rail right of way.
The Plan recommends Mary Avenue be studied for conversion
to a “complete street,” which may include either removal of
the center turn lane or conversion of the angled parking to
parallel parking in order to accommodate either buffered bike
lanes or a protected bike lane. Stevens Creek Boulevard, in this
stretch, is also recommended for a protected bike lane,
pending further study and coordination with VTA plans for
BRT.
This segment is the least essential to the Cupertino Loop Trail,
as there is also the potential to continue enhanced on-street
bike facilities on Mary Avenue southeast to its intersection at
Stevens Creek Boulevard. This segment may carry greater
utility if a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Highway 85
immediately to the north is deemed infeasible.
4-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Bridge over SR-85 at Stevens Creek Boulevard
Limits: Mary Avenue to Alhambra Avenue
Length: 0.11 mi
Type: Bicycle & Pedestrian Highway Overcrossing
Partners: Private Developers
Utility: High
Feasibility: Medium
Priority: High
A dedicated bicycle & pedestrian overcrossing of Highway 85
may be possible about 600 feet north of Stevens Creek
Boulevard, from Mary Avenue in the east to approximately the
intersection of Grand Avenue and Alhambra Avenue to the
west.
The desire for a separate bicycle & pedestrian crossing at this
location has been a priority voiced by members of the
community at every opportunity for outreach during this plan
process. Increasing opportunities for east/west connections
across Cupertino, especially those that can appeal to residents
of all ages and abilities, is a high priority for this Plan.
Siting a bicycle & pedestrian crossing approximately 600 feet
north of Stevens Creek Boulevard will allow for a crossing not
significantly raised from the roadway, as Highway 85 is in a
trench at this location. Depending on the exact siting for the
overcrossing, an easement may be required from the adjacent
Oaks development. On the western side, a break in the
freeway sound wall would be required to create a trailhead at
Grand Avenue.
A potential facility here would not only enhance east/west
connectivity across Cupertino, but could also facilitate
regional north/south mobility. A bridge at this location would
provide a low-stress crossing between facilities on Mary
Avenue, the potential Union Pacific Trail, and the Stevens
Creek Trail.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 4-9
Union Pacific Rail Right of Way
Limits: Stevens Creek Boulevard to Prospect Road
Length: 2.10 mi
Type: Rail-with-Trail Pathway
Partners: Union Pacific Railroad, PG&E, Water District
Utility: High
Feasibility: Low
Priority: High
In 2001, VTA commissioned and adopted a plan for the
construction of a rail with trail multi-use path along the Union
Pacific right of way running from Cupertino to Los Gatos. In
the intervening years, projects have moved forward along this
corridor in Saratoga. When VTA formally adopted the
conversion study, they committed to providing matching
county funds for any future projects along this corridor.
The Cupertino Loop Trail alignment recommends a rail trail
from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Prospect Road within the
City of Cupertino, following the recommendations of the 2001
VTA study. To the north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, rail berm
height, right of way constraints, and a lack of viable trailhead
connections to the street network make a rail trail more
infeasible.
Between Stevens Creek Boulevard and Prospect Road, an
access road runs along the western side of the rail ROW,
approximately 50 feet from the rail center line to the edge of
the right of way. This would allow for the minimum 25 foot
setback from rail required by Union Pacific.
A few constraints exist on this segment, including the need for
a new bridge at Regnart Creek, potential oak tree removal,
and complex intersection crossings at Bubb Road, McClellan
Road, and Rainbow Road.
Coordination would be needed not only with Union Pacific, but
also PG&E and the water district as both have utilities running
along or through portions of this alignment.
The Cupertino Loop Trail alignment would connect back to
proposed trail segments on Regnart Creek either via McClellan
Road or Stelling Road. Final alignment for the Cupertino Loop
Trail should be partly based on which on-street sections the
City is able to implement.
4-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Additional Recommended Trail Segments
West Cupertino Union Pacific Rail Overcrossing
Limits: Stevens Creek Boulevard to Hammond-Snyder Loop
Trail
Length: 0.10 mi
Type: Bicycle-Pedestrian Bridge
Partners: Union Pacific Railroad, Santa Clara County
Utility: Medium
Feasibility: Low
Priority: Medium
Constructing a grade-separated bicycle & pedestrian bridge
over the Union Pacific rail right of way between Stevens Creek
and the Hammond-Snyder Loop Trail in western Cupertino
was identified as a high-priority project in the 2015 Cupertino
Bike Plan Update.
This proposed project would help connect northwestern
Cupertino to Stevens Creek Boulevard and improve access to
the many recreational facilities like the Permanente Creek Trail
and Mora Trail.
Any potential crossing of the rail right of way at this location
would also require sidewalk construction along Stevens Creek
Boulevard to connect the facility to existing sidewalk further
to the east. Depending on the touchdown location on Stevens
Creek Boulevard, the City may need to extend the current
terminus of the bike lanes on Stevens Creek Boulevard
westward to join the two facilities in a continuous route.
Stevens Creek Trail Extension at Deep Cliff Golf Course
Limits: McClellan Road to Linda Vista Drive
Length: 0.44 mi
Type: Multi-use path
Partners: Deep Cliff Golf Course
Utility: Low
Feasibility: Medium
Priority: Medium
Extending the Stevens Creek Trail south of its current terminus
at McClellan Road to the parking lot for Linda Vista Park was
identified in the 2015 Cupertino Bike Plan Update. This
alignment would require an easement along the edge of the
Deep Cliff Golf Course.
While this segment would be an attractive recreational
amenity, it provides low utility for bicycle commute trips.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 4-11
Saratoga Creek Trail Extension
Limits: Sterling Barnhart Park to Stevens Creek Boulevard
Length: 0.33 mi
Type: Multi-use path
Partners: Water District, Santa Clara County
Utility: Medium
Feasibility: Medium
Priority: Medium
An extension of the Saratoga Creek Trail was identified as a
low-priority project in the 2015 Cupertino Bike Plan Update.
The northerly portion of this alignment has significant right-
of-way constraints between Calvert Drive and Stevens Creek
Boulevard. Reaching Stevens Creek Boulevard, however,
would significantly increase the utility of this corridor for
bicycle trips.
This extension of the Saratoga Creek Trail could have greatly
improved utility if it is able to connect to the Cupertino Loop
Trail. This could be possible via Agilent Technologies campus
along I-280 in the City of Santa Clara. This would allow an
extension of the path from Stevens Creek Boulevard to Tantau
Avenue, where it could re-cross I-280 to reach the Cupertino
Loop Trail. This project would need to be explored by the City
of Santa Clara.
Trail Segments Not Recommended
Calabazas Creek Trail in Central Cupertino
Limits: Miller Avenue to Sorenson Avenue
Length: 0.12 mi
Type: Multi-use path
Partners: Santa Clara Valley Water District
Utility: Low
Feasibility: Medium
Priority: Low
The majority of Calabazas Creek through Cupertino, in
contrast to Regnart Creek, has no viable access roads that
could easily be converted to multi-use paths. The one
exception is a short segment between Miller Avenue and
Sorenson Avenue on the southern side of the creek bed.
This segment is not recommended for implementation
primarily due to its limited utility for bicycling trips. The
segment creates no significant new network connections, as
Calle de Barcelona to the south provides a through connection
between Miller Avenue and Finch Avenue. The access road
dropping into the creekbed north of Sorenson Avenue
precludes a through connection along the creek to Stevens
Creek Boulevard. A trailhead at Miller Avenue would also be
problematic for southbound bicyclists, as the raised median
precludes left turns from this location.
4-12 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
If implemented, the two-way separated bikeway proposed for
Finch Avenue provides a superior bike network alternative
between Creekside Park and Stevens Creek Boulevard.
A trail alignment on the north side of Calabazas Creek may be
possible between Miller Avneue and Stevens Creek Boulevard,
but further study would be required. It also appears that such
an alignment would require the removal of a significant
number of trees along the creek. Were such a trail alignment
to be pursued, significant work would be needed on both ends
of the trail to ensure adequate and safe transitions to the
roadway and/or nearby intersections.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-1
Chapter 5:
Recommended Programs
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-1
5. Recommended Programs
The following chapter presents recommended bicycle related
program recommendations. The recommendations are
organized in four E’s:
Education programs are designed to improve safety
and awareness. They can include programs that teach
students how to safely ride or teach drivers to expect
bicyclists. They may also include brochures, posters,
or other information that targets bicyclists or drivers.
Encouragement programs provide incentives and
support to help people leave their car at home and try
biking instead.
Enforcement programs enforce legal and respectful
bicycling and driving. They include a variety of
tactics, ranging from police enforcement to
neighborhood signage campaigns.
Evaluation programs are an important component of
any investment. They help measure success at
meeting the goals of this plan and to identify
adjustments that may be necessary.
Education Programs
Education programs are important for teaching safety rules
and laws as well as increasing awareness regarding bicycling
opportunities and existing facilities. Education programs may
need to be designed to reach groups at varying levels of
knowledge and there may be many different audiences: pre-
school age children, elementary school students, teenage and
college students, workers and commuters, families, retirees,
the elderly, new immigrants, and non-English speakers. The
programs listed in this chapter are not exhaustive and will be
further detailed when designed and implemented.
Rail Safety Education
The Union Pacific rail spur to the Permanente Quarry presents
safety challenges for bicyclists across western Cupertino. Rail
safety education and messaging can help address these
challenges.
The Federal Rail Administration has partnered with Operation
Lifesaver on a national program designed to end collisions,
deaths and injuries related to rail crossings. Information can
be found at: http://oli.org/ and shown in Figure 3-1.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City seek funding to develop and
implement rail safety education.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-2
Figure 3-1: Operation Lifesaver offers education tools
StreetSmarts Campaign
On a citywide scale, the City could start a StreetSmarts media
campaign, similar to those in San José, Marin County, Davis,
and other California cities. Developed by the City of San José,
StreetSmarts uses print media, radio spots, and television
spots to educate people about safe driving, bicycling,
skateboarding, and walking behavior. More information about
StreetSmarts can be found at www.getstreetsmarts.org.
Outreach conducted during this planning effort identified a
need to raise public awareness of bicycling and walking as
viable forms of transportation, and to combat negative
stereotypes about people who choose to walk or bicycle.
Local resources for conducting a StreetSmarts campaign can
be maximized by assembling a group of local experts, law
enforcement officers, businesspeople, civic leaders, and
dedicated community volunteers. These allies could assist
with a successful safety campaign based on the local concerns
and issues. It may be necessary to develop creative strategies
for successful media placement in order to achieve campaign
goals.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City consider implementation of a
public awareness program such as StreetSmarts.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-3
Figure 3-2: Davis, CA Street Smarts Campaign Posters
Adult Bicycling Skills Classes
Most bicyclists do not receive training on safe bicycling
practices, the rules of the road, and bicycle handling skills.
Adult education programs were identified as a need by the
community through the survey and public workshop.
Bicycling skills classes can address this education gap. The
League of American Bicyclists (LAB) offers classes taught by
certified instructors. Information can be found at:
http://www.bikeleague.org/. The Silicon Valley Bicycle
Coalition (SVBC) offers adult bicycle education classes
periodically and at the request of local jurisdictions. More
information can be found at: http://bikesiliconvalley.org/.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City support adult bicyclist skills
classes. Of the City’s largest employers, those listed below
may consider offering classes for employees:
Apple, Inc.
City of Cupertino
Verigy
Seagate Technology
Foothill/De Anza Community College District
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-4
Student Bicycle Traffic Safety Education
Student education programs are an essential component of
bicycle education. Students are taught traffic safety skills that
help them understand basic traffic laws and safety rules.
Bicycle education curriculum typically includes two parts:
knowledge and skills. Knowledge lessons are typically in-class,
while skills are practiced on a bicycle. Lessons can include
helmet and bicycle fit, hand signals, and riding safely with
traffic.
Benefits
Student bicycle traffic safety education can benefit the
Cupertino community by:
Improving safety by teaching children about lifelong
safety skills
Create awareness with students and parents
Encourage families to consider bicycling to school on
a more frequent basis
The City in partnership with school districts is currently
piloting an education program for six schools:
Cupertino High
Hyde Middle
Kennedy Middle
Lincoln Elementary
Monta Vista High
Sedgwick Elementary
A few other schools such as Lawson Middle and Regnart
Elementary also participate in some program activities, but
are not officially part of the pilot. Figure 3-3 shows a safety
assembly held at a Cupertino middle school in 2015.
Figure 3-3: A County Safety Resource Officer presents to a group
of Cupertino middle school students
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City continue its pilot education
program and expand it to include all Cupertino schools.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-5
Encouragement Programs
Everyone from young children to elderly residents can be
encouraged to increase their rates of bicycling or to try
bicycling instead of driving for short trips.
Back-to-School Encouragement Marketing
Families set transportation habits during the first few weeks
of the school year and are often not aware of the multiple
transportation options and routes available to them. Because
of this, many families will develop the habit of driving to school
using the same congested route as everyone else.
A back-to-school encouragement marketing campaign can
promote bus, carpool, walking, and bicycling to school. The
marketing campaign can include suggested route maps,
safety education materials, volunteer opportunities, event
calendars, and traffic safety enforcement notices. It can also
include an illustrative guide that includes the Suggested
Walking and Biking to School maps.
Objectives
The event’s objectives are to:
Share information about the Cupertino Safe Routes to
School Program activities, classes, and events
throughout the year.
Encourage families to plan out their routes at the
beginning of the school year to consider alternatives
to driving alone as a family.
Promote Safe Routes to School to encourage families
to try walking, bicycling, and carpooling to school as
well as participating in Safe Routes to School
activities and events.
Benefits
Back to school encouragement marketing can benefit the
Cupertino community by:
Informing families about ways to walk and bicycle to
school
Informing families about school support for walking
and bicycling to school
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City continue its pilot education
program and expand it to include all Cupertino schools.
Employer-Based Encouragement Programs
Though the City cannot host these programs, it can work with
or provide information to employers about commuting by
bicycle. Popular employer-based encouragement programs
include hosting a bicycle user group to share information
about how to bicycle to work and to connect experienced
bicyclists with novice bicyclists. Employers can host bicycle
classes and participate in Bike to Work day.
Employers can also set up a National Bike Challenge
(https://nationalbikechallenge.org/) account so that
employees can log their hours and set up an internal contest
for who logs the most hours.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City collaborate with employers to
implement bicycle related programs.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-6
Bicycle Friendly Community
LAB recognizes communities that improve bicycling
conditions through education, encouragement, enforcement,
and evaluation programs. Communities can achieve diamond,
platinum, gold, silver, or bronze status, or an honorary
mention. Bicycle friendliness can indicate that a community is
healthy and vibrant. Like good schools and attractive
downtowns, bicycle friendliness can increase property values,
spur business growth, and increase tourism.
Cupertino applied for Bicycle Friendly Community status in
2015 and received a Bronze designation.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City reapply for a higher Bicycle
Friendly Community status after implementation of the
priority projects identified in this Plan. This Plan is a valuable
resource for completing the LAB application efficiently.
More information and application steps:
http://www.bikeleague.org/programs/bicyclefriendlyamerica
/communities/
Bicycle Helmet Giveaway
The California Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant program
can fund bicycle helmets for giveaways to children at schools
or children observed bicycling without wearing helmets.
Typically this type of program is a partnership with the Police
Department.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City seek an OTS grant and
conduct helmet giveaways for children.
Open Streets Events
Open Streets events, sometimes called “Ciclovia,” celebrate
walking and bicycling by closing key streets to vehicle traffic
for a set amount of time and opening them up for walking,
bicycling, and other community activities. These events can
create opportunities for people to try walking or bicycling
away from the potential stresses of adjacent vehicle traffic.
Open Streets events of comparable size in California have
ranged in cost from $50,000 to $200,000. These events
require a high level of coordination between various city and
county departments, and it is recommended the City find a
partner non-profit organization to lead the event planning and
logistics work
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City work with local community
groups to host Open Streets events on a semi-annual basis.
Bike to Work Month and Day
Bike Month (http://bikeleague.org/bikemonth) is a regional
event to promote bicycling to work and is typically held in
May. SVBC organizes Bike Month and provides ideas for
events. The Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
sponsored an Energizer Station on Bike to Work Day in 2015.
Popular events include:
Bike to Work Day (typically the 3rd Thursday of the
month)
Bike education classes
BikePools or Bike Trains (group rides)
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City consider sponsoring a Bike to
Work Day event. The event can include a Bike to Work Day
celebration with Pedal Pools (group rides), raffles and prizes,
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-7
and speeches from Council Members or the Mayor. The type
of events held can be developed through community input.
Walk & Roll Days
Walk and Bike to School Days are events to encourage
students to try walking or bicycling to school. The most
popular events of this type are International Walk to School
Day (held in early October) and Bike to School Day (held in
early May). Many communities have expanded on this once a
year event and hold monthly or weekly events such as Walk
and Roll the First Friday (of every month) or Walk and Roll
Wednesdays (held every Wednesday).
Holding weekly or monthly Walk & Roll to School Day
promotes regular use of active transportation and helps
establish good habits. Events can take on a wide range of
activities, with some schools choosing to make them weekly
rather than monthly, such as with a “Walk & Roll Wednesday.”
Benefits
Participation in Monthly Walk & Roll Days can benefit the
Cupertino community by:
Building community
Saving parents’ money by not using a car
Reducing traffic congestion around the school
Recommendation
It is recommended the City, school districts, schools, PTAs,
and parent champions work together to expand Walk and
Bike to School days to be held on a weekly basis.
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains
A Walking School Bus is an organized group of students who
walk to school under the supervision of a parent/adult
volunteer. Bike Trains are similar to Walking School Buses,
with students bicycling together. Parent champions take turns
walking or bicycling along a set route to and from school,
collecting children from designated “bus stops” along the way.
Schools and parent champions can encourage parents to form
Walking School Buses or Bike Trains at the back-to-school
orientation or other fall events. The school districts can
provide safety vests or marked umbrellas to indicate the
leader(s). Incentives for the parent volunteers can include
coffee at the school or gift cards for coffee shops.
Benefits
Walking School Buses and Bike Trains benefit the Cupertino
community by:
Improving safety - Children are in walking groups,
accompanied by an adult
Saving parents’ money by not using a car
Saving parents’ time when they aren’t leading the bus
or train
Reducing traffic congestion around the school
Recommendation
This Report recommends the City work with school districts,
schools and parent champions to develop a Walking School
Bus and Bike Train program.
Example outreach materials:
Michigan Safe Routes 2 School’s Walking School Bus
program: http://saferoutesmichigan.org/wsb
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-8
Sonoma Safe Routes to School’s Walking School Bus
Basics:
http://sonomasaferoutes.org/resources/walking-
school-bus-basics.pdf/view
Sonoma Safe Routes to School’s Bike Train Guide for
Volunteers:
http://sonomasaferoutes.org/resources/bike-train-
guide-for-volunteers.pdf/view
Marin County Safe Routes to Schools’ SchoolPool
Marin materials: http://www.schoolpoolmarin.org/
Suggested Walking and Biking Routes to School Maps
Suggested Walking and Biking Routes to School Maps can
help parents overcome fears related to traffic and/or lack of
knowledge of family friendly routes to school. These types of
maps show stop signs, traffic signals, crosswalks, paths,
overcrossings, crossing guard locations, and similar elements
that can help parents make decisions about choosing the
route that best fits their family’s walking or biking needs.
Figure 3-4 shows an example of these maps. Cupertino has
Suggested Walking and Biking maps for all elementary and
middle schools.
Recommendation
This plan recommends the City update the Suggested Walking
and Biking Routes to School maps for the six SRTS schools. It
is recommended to update these maps for each Cupertino
school as they are incorporated into the SRTS Program. These
maps should be reviewed and updated every four years to
reflect improvements as they are implemented in the
community.
Figure 3-4: Marysville has Suggested Routes to School Maps for
three schools
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-9
Enforcement Programs
Enforcement programs enforce legal and respectful use of the
transportation network. These programs will help educate
motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians about the rules and
responsibilities of the road.
Bicycle-Related Ticket Diversion Class
Diversion classes are classes offered to bicyclist offenders of
certain traffic violations, such as running a stoplight.
California Assembly Bill 209, signed by Governor Brown on
September 21, 2015 allows for such programs for violations not
committed by a driver of a motor vehicle. This program is a
good way to educate bicyclists about rights and
responsibilities. Similar programs existing throughout
California. More information:
www.marinbike.org/Campaigns/ShareTheRoad/Index
.shtml#StreetSkills
http://www.cityoflivermore.net/citygov/police/ops/tr
affic/bikesafety/diversion.asp
The Santa Clara Sheriff’s Office offers ticket diversion classes
to juveniles. No classes are currently offered to those 18 years
of age or older.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City continue to encourage the
Sheriff’s Office to offer juvenile diversion classes, further
encourage the Sheriff’s Office to offer classes to all age
groups. It is recommended to give warnings to first time
offenders then offer diversion classes on the second offense.
Vision Zero Targeted Enforcement
Cities that adopt Vision Zero policies, such as San Francisco
and San José, have adopted enforcement goals targeting the
vehicle code infractions most likely to result in injury collisions
or fatalities. Law enforcement officers are then tasked with the
goal of a certain percentage of their traffic stops be related to
these high-risk infractions.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends that, if a Vision Zero policy is adopted,
the City coordinate with the Sheriff’s Department to
implement targeted enforcement within the City of Cupertino.
Targeted enforcement goals will be determined following
comprehensive study of historical collision data in Cupertino.
Revision of E-Bike Regulations
New legislation in California at the state level has provided
new guidance for the operation of electric bicycles, while still
providing latitude for local jurisdictions to more closely
regulate their operations. As electric bicycle use grows, it will
be important to craft regulations meeting the needs of
Cupertino’s residents.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City of Cupertino work with the
Sheriff’s Office and Santa Clara County to adopt e-bike
regulations for their use in Cupertino.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-10
Evaluation Programs
Evaluation programs help the City measure how well it is
meeting the goals of this Plan and the General Plan and
evaluation is a key component of any engineering or
programmatic investment. It is also a useful way to
communicate success with elected officials as well as local
residents.
Semi-Annual Citywide Bike Counts
Conducting regular citywide bike counts can be an important
source of information on non-commuting bicycle trips.
Regular count data can also help the city track annual trends
in bicycle travel and measure the impact of newly built parts
of the bike network. Counts should be conducted in
accordance with the National Bicycle & Pedestrian
Documentation Project.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City conduct semi-annual bike
counts throughout Cupertino. If possible, the City should seek
a partnership with SVBC or WalkBikeCupertino when
conducting counts to defray costs. Count locations should be
determined in collaboration with WalkBikeCupertino and
major employers to ensure the likeliest routes for bicycle use
are incorporated. Prioritizing count locations where bicycle
infrastructure is planned for future implementation can
establish a baseline for bicycle travel and allow for accurate
measurement of project impacts over time.
Annual Collision Data Review
Reviewing bicycle and pedestrian related collisions and near-
misses on an annual basis can help the City identify
challenging intersections or corridors. This review should
include an assessment of the existing infrastructure to
determine whether improvements can be made to reduce the
number of collisions in the community.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City and Santa Clara County
Sheriff’s Department review bicycle and pedestrian related
collision data on an annual basis to identify needed
improvements.
Bike Rack Counts
Bike rack counts at schools over a 4-6 month period are
currently planned, and will be used to create a “Data Report
Card” for each pilot school detailing site-specific mode split
data, trends, and recommendations to improve rates of active
transportation amongst school children.
Recommendation
This Plan recommends the City and school districts continue
to conduct bike rack counts every 4-6 months. This Plan also
recommends Cupertino begin a full citywide bike rack
inventory and update when new racks are installed.
Parent Surveys
The National Center for Safe Routes to School provides a
standard parent survey, collecting information on modes of
travel, interest in walking or biking to school, and challenges
to walking and bicycling to school. The information gathered
from the parent surveys can help craft programs that are
attractive to parents and measure parent attitudes and
changes in attitude towards walking and biking to school.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the City of Cupertino and school
districts work together to conduct annual or bi-annual parent
surveys.
Chapter 5: Recommended Programs
Alta Planning + Design | 5-11
Manual Student Walking and Biking Counts
Student hand tallies are one way to count the number of
students who walk, bicycle, take transit or carpool to school.
The National Center for Safe Routes to School provides the
standard tally form.
Recommendation
It is recommended the Cupertino Union School District and
Fremont Union High School District conduct student tallies on
an annual basis.
Electronic Student Walking and Biking Counts
The City of Cupertino assists in managing a program that uses
a tracking device to count how many students walk and bike
to school through a company called “Dero.” Students can log
into the Dero website with their parents and see data on their
trips. Schools use the program to track walking and bicycling
by classroom, grade level, or school. More information can be
found at www.derozap.com.
Recommendation
It is recommended the City and school district expand the
Dero program to all Cupertino schools.
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-1
Chapter 6:
Implementation Strategy
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-1
6. Implementation Strategy
This chapter presents a prioritized list of the individual
infrastructure improvements, including the evaluation criteria
and scoring method, project cost estimates, and a list of
prioritized projects.
Project Evaluation Strategy
All of the proposed infrastructure projects are evaluated
against the criteria described in Table 6-1 , which was
developed jointly with City staff and the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission. Projects are sorted into short, mid, and long-
term priority tiers based on a logical breakdown of scores and
complexities of implementation. Appendix A to this Working
Paper provides the full evaluation criteria breakdown.
The intent of evaluating projects is to create a prioritized list
of projects for implementation. As projects are implemented,
lower ranked projects move up the list. When implementing
sections of the Bike Boulevard network, the City should
consider the removal of parallel existing bike routes where
they prove to be duplicative or potentially confusing to
bicyclists. This should also be coordinated with the
recommended Citywide Wayfinding Study.
The project list and individual projects to be included in this
Plan are flexible concepts that serve as a guideline. The high-
priority project list, and perhaps the overall project list, may
change over time as a result of changing walking and bicycling
patterns, land use patterns, implementation constraints and
opportunities, and the development of other transportation
improvements.
Table 6-1: Project Evaluation Criteria
Criteria Description Max
Score
Safety Addresses a location with a history of
bicycle collisions.
20
Stress Test
Analysis
Projects identified along a high or
medium-high stress route
5
Travel Routes
to/near
Schools
Connects to a school. 20
Network
Connectivity
Projects that closes gaps in the
bikeway network.
15
Low-Stress
Network
Improvements
Projects that add or upgrade an
existing bikeway facility to a low-stress
facility
20
Trip Generators
and Attractors
Connects to employment centers,
retail/business centers, transit,
community services, parks and
recreation facilities and/or City
facilities.
10
Feasibility/
Ease of
Implementation
The ease of implementing the project
within a five year timeframe, taking
into consideration outside agency
approval.
10
Total Possible Score 100
After scoring, projects were organized into three tiers. Tier 1 is
comprised of the projects that received 67 points or more
representing projects that should begin implementation
within five years. Tier 2 projects scored between 47 and 65
points and are intended to be implemented within five to 15
years. Tier 3 projects scored below 47 points and are intended
for implementation within twenty years. It should be noted
that projects in Tiers 2 & 3 can be initiated sooner, but that
their implementation will likely be delayed.
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Table 6-2 shows the scores and cost estimates for all
recommended project improvements. Appendix B shows the
full breakdown of scores.
Table 6-2: Recommended Projects by Tier
Project Location Start End Notes Miles
Total
Score
Rounded
Cost
Tier 1
Class IV Protected
Bikeway
Stevens Creek
Blvd Foothill Blvd Tantau Ave -- 3.43 91 $4,120,00
Class IV Protected
Bikeway McClellan Rd Byrne Ave De Anza Blvd -- 1.43 80 $286,000
Configure
Intersection
Stevens Creek
Blvd Stelling Rd --
Study protected
intersection in coordination
with proposed Class IV 0 75 $550,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Tri School
East/West Bike
Blvd (#7)
Linda Vista Dr at
McClellan Rd
Hyannisport Dr at
Bubb Rd --
0.66 75 $33,000
Grade Separated
Crossing Study
Highway 85
Crossing Grand Ave Mary Ave -- 0 71 $300,000
Class I Path Union Pacific Trail Prospect Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd -- 2.10 71 $1,678,000
Configure
Intersection McClellan Rd Stelling Rd --
Study protected
intersection in coordination
with proposed Class IV 0 70 $550,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Portal Ave Bike
Blvd (#5)
Portal Ave at
Merritt Dr
Portal Ave at
Wintergreen Dr -- 0.69 70 $35,000
Class IV Separated
Bikeway Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens Creek
Blvd -- 0.45 69 $545,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
West Cupertino
North/South Bike
Blvd (#9)
Orange Ave at
Mann Dr
Fort Baker Dr at
Hyannisport Dr --
0.63 69 $32,000
Configure
Intersection McClellan Rd Westacres
Dr/Kim St --
Study peanut roundabout
to connect off-set
north/south bike routes
across McClellan 0 68 $200,000
Class I Path I-280 Channel
Bike Path
Mary Ave/Meteor
Dr
Tantau
Ave/Vallco Pkwy -- 2.87 61 $2,293,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Civic Center to
Sterling Barnhart
Rodrigues Ave at
Blaney Ave
Sterling Barnhart
Park -- 1.41 67 $70,000
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-3
Project Location Start End Notes Miles
Total
Score
Rounded
Cost
Park Bike Blvd
(#2)
Tier 2
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane De Anza Blvd Homestead Rd Bollinger Rd -- 1.73 65 $242,000
Class IV Separated
Bikeway Stelling Rd Prospect Rd 250 South of
McClellan Rd -- 1.45 65 $290,000
Class IV Separated
Bikeway Stelling Rd 250 South of
McClellan Rd Alves Dr -- 0.71 64 $857,000
Class IV Separated
Bikeway Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Homestead Rd -- 1.91 64 $383,000
Class IV Separated
Bikeway
Stevens Creek
Blvd Foothill Blvd St Joseph Ave -- 0.62 63 $124,000
Class IV Separated
Bikeway Stelling Rd Alves Dr Homestead Rd -- 0.84 63 $124,000
Class I Path Amelia Ct/Varian
Way Connector Amelia Ct Varian Way -- 0.05 63 $100,000
Grade Separated
Crossing Study Carmen Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd - South Side
Stevens Creek
Blvd - North Side -- 0 62 $300,000
Configure
Intersection
Stevens Creek
Blvd De Anza Blvd -- Bike lane striping through
intersection 0 62 $10,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Mary Ave to
Portal Ave Bike
Blvd (#4)
Mary Ave at
Meteor Dr
Portal Ave at
Merritt Dr -- 1.51
60 $75,000
Class II Bike Lane Vista Dr Forest Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd -- 0.24 60 $15,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Tri-School
North/South Bike
Blvd (#8)
Santa Teresa Dr
at Hyannisport Dr
Terrace Dr at
Bubb Rd -- 0.76
59 $38,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Lawrence Expy -- 2.00 56 $278,000
Configure
Intersection De Anza Blvd McClellan Rd --
Rebuild intersection to
facilitate safer east/west
travel between McClellan
and Pacific 0 56 $200,000
Configure
Intersection Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd -- Study removal of slip lanes
and/or porkchop islands. 0 55 $100,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Mary Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Meteor Dr -- 0.71 55 $100,000
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Project Location Start End Notes Miles
Total
Score
Rounded
Cost
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Miller Ave Bollinger Rd Calle de
Barcelona -- 0.48 54 $67,000
Configure
Intersection Infinite Loop Merritt Dr --
Improve signage/striping
to delineate bike/ped
space in connector 0 54 $2,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Homestead Rd Mary Ave Wolfe Rd -- 1.97 52 $276,000
Reconfigure
wall/fence Greenleaf Dr Mariani Ave --
2015 Bike Plan Update,
create gap in wall to
connect bike routes 0 52 $25,000
Class III Bike
Boulevards
Civic Center to
Jollyman Park
Bike Blvd (#1)
Rodrigues Ave at
De Anza Blvd Jollyman Park --
0.86 52 $43,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Prospect Rd De Anza Blvd Stelling Rd -- 0.42 49 $59,000
Configure
Intersection McClellan Rd Rose Blossom Dr -- Facilitate through bike
travel to De Anza 0 49 $20,000
Trail Crossing Homestead Rd Mary Ave --
Redesign intersection of
Homestead at Mary to
better facilitate bicycles
exiting Mary Ave bridge
path 0 49 $10,000
Class III Bike Route Hyde Ave Bike
Route (#6)
Hyde Ave at
Shadygrove Dr
Hyde Ave at
Bollinger Rd -- 0.24 49 $500
Configure
Intersection Stelling Rd Alves Dr -- Enhance east/west bike
route crossing for Alves Dr 0 48 $50,000
Class I Path Regnart Creek
Path Pacifica Dr Estates Dr -- 0.83 48 $664,000
Reconfigure
wall/fence Wheaton Dr Perimeter Rd --
Connect bike blvd to
proposed bike path on
Perimeter road, requires
creating gap in existing
wall 0 47 $10,000
Tier 3
Class II Bike Lane Rainbow Dr Bubb Rd Stelling Rd -- 0.50 46 $33,000
Class I Path Perimeter Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
I-280 Channel
Bike Path -- 0.59 44 $470,000
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-5
Project Location Start End Notes Miles
Total
Score
Rounded
Cost
Class III Bike Route
Mary Ave to
Vallco Mall Bike
Route (#7)
Memorial Park End of Wheaton
Dr -- 1.77
44 $4,000
Class III Bike Route Tantau Ave Bike
Route (#9)
Tantau Ave at
Bollinger Rd
Tantau Ave at
Barnhart Ave -- 0.41 44 $500
Class III Bike Route
Rose Blossom/
Huntridge Bike
Route (#8)
Rose Blossom Dr
at McClellan Rd
Huntridge Ln at
De Anza Blvd -- 0.41
43 $1,000
Class I Path Wilson Park Rodrigues Ave Wilson Park Path -- 0.03 42 $50,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Stevens Creek
Bike Blvd (#6)
San Fernando
Ave at Orange
Ave
Carmen Rd at
Stevens Creek
Blvd
-- 1.12
42 $47,000
Configure
Intersection Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr -- Enhance bicycle crossing
across Wheaton 0 41 $50,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd McClellan Rd -- 0.55 41 $77,000
Configure
Intersection Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr --
Study removal of slip lanes,
study potential for
protected intersection 0 40 $20,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Homestead Rd Wolfe Rd Tantau Ave -- 0.49 40 $69,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
I-280 Channel
Bike Path -- 0.40 39 $56,000
Class I Path Jollyman Park Stelling Rd Dumas Dr -- 0.15 39 $119,000
Reconfigure
wall/fence Imperial Ave Alcazar Ave -- Create gap in fence to
connect bike routes 0 39 $20,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd I-280 N Offramp -- 0.96 39 $135,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Foothill to
Stevens Creek
Bike Blvd (#3)
Foothill Blvd at
Starling Dr
Carmen Rd at
Stevens Creek
Blvd
-- 0.99
38 $50,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd -- 0.09 38 $13,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Wolfe Rd Perimeter Rd Homestead Rd -- 0.62 38 $86,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Bubb Rd McClellan Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd -- 0.53 37 $74,000
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Project Location Start End Notes Miles
Total
Score
Rounded
Cost
Grade Separated
Crossing Study
UPRR West
Cupertino
Crossing
Hammond Snyder
Loop Trail
Stevens Creek
Blvd --
0 37 $300,000
Bike/Ped Bridge
Enhancement
Mary Ave Ped
Bridge I280 --
Improved signage/striping
to delineate bike/ped
space on Mary Ave bridge 0 37 $20,000
Class I Path
Oaks
Development
Bike Path
Stevens Creek
Blvd Mary Ave --
0.13 35 $102,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Miller Ave Calle de
Barcelona
Stevens Creek
Blvd -- 0.39 35 $54,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Tantau Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Pruneridge Ave -- 0.65 35 $91,000
Trail Crossing McClellan Rd Union Pacific
Railroad Path -- Coordinate crossing with
signal. 0 34 $10,000
Class II Bike Lane Pacifica Dr De Anza Blvd Torre Ave -- 0.17 33 $11,000
Freeway
interchange
enhancement
Wolfe Rd I-280 Overpass --
Add green paint to
interchange approaches,
stripe bike lane through
interchange intersection 0 30 $40,000
Class I Path
San Tomas-
Aquino Creek
Trail
Sterling/Barnhart
Park Calvert Dr --
0.37 30 $294,000
Class I Path
San Tomas-
Aquino Creek
Trail
South of I280 Stevens Creek
Blvd --
0.17 30 $138,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Vallco Pkwy Tantau Ave Perimeter Rd -- 0.30 30 $42,000
Class II Bike Lane
Campus
Dr/Stevens Creek
Blvd Connector
Campus Dr Stevens Creek
Blvd --
0.11 30 $7,000
Class III Bike Route
Hwy 85 to
Stevens Creek
Blvd Bike Route
(#5)
Grand Ave at
Alhambra Ave
Peninsula Ave at
Stevens Creek
Blvd
-- 0.19
30 $1,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd Stelling Rd -- 0.57 28 $79,000
Class III Bike Route Bollinger Rd to
Stevens Creek
Johnson Ave at
Bollinger Rd
Stern Ave at
Stevens Creek
Blvd
-- 0.84
28 $1,500
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-7
Project Location Start End Notes Miles
Total
Score
Rounded
Cost
Blvd Bike Route
(#1)
Class III Bike Route
Civic Center to
Creekside Park
Bike Route (#2)
Torre Ave at
Rodrigues Ave
Estates Dr at
Creekside Park
Path
-- 1.24
28 $3,000
Class III Bike Route
Garden Gate
Elementary to
Memorial Park
Bike Route (#4)
Ann Arbor Dr at
Greenleaf Dr Memorial Park -- 0.42
26 $1,500
Freeway
interchange
enhancement
De Anza Blvd Hwy 85 Overpass --
Add green paint to
interchange approaches,
stripe bike lane through
interchange intersection 0 26 $40,000
Trail Crossing Bubb Rd Union Pacific
Railroad Path -- Coordinate crossing with
signal. 0 25 $10,000
Freeway
interchange
enhancement
Stevens Creek
Blvd Hwy 85 Overpass --
Add green paint to
interchange approaches,
stripe bike lane through
interchange intersection 0 25 $40,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Tantau Ave Pruneridge Ave Homestead Rd -- 0.37 25 $52,000
Freeway
interchange
enhancement
De Anza Blvd I-280 Overpass --
Add green paint to
interchange approaches,
stripe bike lane through
interchange intersection 0 24 $40,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane
Stevens Canyon
Rd McClellan Rd Rancho Deep Cliff
Dr -- 0.23 24 $33,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Bollinger Rd 200 feet East of
Westlynn Way De Foe Dr -- 0.18 24 $26,000
Class I Path
Linda Vista
Park/Deep Cliff
Golf Course
Linda Vista Park
Parking Lot off
Linda Vista Dr
McClellan Rd --
0.46 24 $366,000
Class II Buffered
Bike Lane Pruneridge Ave Tantau Ave City Limits - East -- 0.07 22 $9,000
Configure
Intersection Portal Ave Wheaton Dr --
2015 Bike Plan Update,
study roundabout
conversion 0 20 $150,000
Class II Bike Lane Cristo Rey Dr 150 feet East of
Cristo Rey Pl Roundabout -- 0.57 19 $37,000
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Project Location Start End Notes Miles
Total
Score
Rounded
Cost
Class III Bike Route
Westlynn/
Fallenleaf Bike
Route (#11)
Bollinger Rd at
Westlynn Way
Fallenleaf Ln at
De Anza Blvd -- 0.37
18 $1,000
Class III Bike Route Foothill Blvd Bike
Route (#3)
Palm Ave at
Scenic Blvd
Lockwood Dr at
Stevens Creek
Blvd
-- 0.81
16 $1,500
Class III Bike Route
Union Pacific to
Hwy 85 Bike
Route (#10)
September Dr at
McClellan Rd
Jamestown Dr at
Prospect Rd -- 1.48
13 $5,000
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-9
Cost Estimate Assumptions
Table 6-3 presents the 2016 planning level cost assumptions
used to determine project cost estimates. Unit costs are
typical or average costs informed by Alta Planning + Design’s
experience working with California communities. While they
reflect typical costs, unit costs do not consider project-
specific factors such as intensive grading, landscaping, or
other location-specific factors that may increase actual costs.
For some segments, project costs may be significantly
greater.
Table 6-3: Unit Cost Assumptions
Treatment Unit Cost
Shared-use path/Class I* MI $800,000
Bike/pedestrian bridge EA $6,000,000-
$10,000,000
Class II bike lanes (two sides) MI $65,000
Contra-flow bike lane (one side) LF $20
Green paint in existing bicycle
lane (one side) LF $55
Buffered Bicycle lane (two sides) MI $140,000
Bike Boulevard** MI $50,000
Shared-lane markings EA $250
Bike Route signage/wayfinding EA $300
Traffic calming study EA $20,000
Protected Intersection*** EA $400,000-$800,000
Wall cut-through - cut through wall
at end of cul-de-sac to allow for
bike/pedestrian access
EA $10,000-$20,000
Treatment Unit Cost
Convert 4-way stop sign to
roundabout EA $150,000
Class IV (on street, protected, one-
way, both sides of street) MI $200,000-$2,000,000
Class IV (on street, protected, two-
way) MI $130,000-$1,500,000
Bicycle rack EA $300
Studies EA Varies
Striping LF $4
* does not include easement costs
** assumes 3 new traffic calming devices & 1 new traffic control device per
mile
*** cost includes curb extensions and new traffic signal heads
One-way Class 4 bikeway can be $200,000/mile for flex post separation
and $1,200,000/mile for raised concrete separation, and up to $2M for
landscaped median separation. Assumes both sides of street
Two-way Class 4 bikeway can be $130,000/mile for flex post separation
and $650,000/mile for raised concrete separation, and up to $1,500,000 for
landscaped median separation.
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Projects Summary
Table 6-4 presents a cost summary by tier and project type.
Table 6-4: Priority Projects and Costs
Tier/Project Type Estimated
Cost
Tier 1 Projects
Class I Path $3,971,000
Class III Bike Boulevard $170,000
Class IV Separated Bikeways $4,701,000
Configure Intersections $1,300,000
Grade Separation Crossing Study $300,000
Total for Tier 1 $10,442,000
Tier 2 Projects
Class I Path $764,000
Class II Bike Lane $15,000
Class II Buffered Bike Lane $1,024,000
Class III Bike Boulevard $156,000
Class III Bike Route $500
Class IV Separated Bikeways $1,823,000
Configure Intersections $382,000
Reconfigure Wall/Fence $35,000
Trail Crossing $10,000
Grade Separation Crossing Study $300,000
Total for Tier 2 $4,509,500
Tier 3 Projects
Bike/Ped Bridge Enhancement $20,000
Tier/Project Type Estimated
Cost
Class I Path $1,539,000
Class II Bike Lane $88,000
Class II Buffered Bike Lane $896,000
Class III Bike Boulevard $97,000
Class III Bike Route $20,000
Configure Intersections $220,000
Freeway Interchange Enhancement $160,000
Reconfigure Wall/Fence $20,000
Trail Crossing $20,000
Grade Separation Crossing Study $300,000
Total for Tier 3 $3,380,000
Grand Total $18,331,500
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-11
Priority Programs Summary
Recommended programs from Working Paper #3 received a
qualitative review based on how well they met the vision and
goals of this Plan (from Working Paper #2). The three
identified prioritized programs are below.
1. StreetSmarts Campaign
On a citywide scale, the City could start a StreetSmarts media
campaign, similar to those in San José, Marin County, Davis,
and other California cities. Developed by the City of San José,
StreetSmarts uses print media, radio spots, and television
spots to educate people about safe driving, bicycling,
skateboarding, and walking behavior. More information about
StreetSmarts can be found at www.getstreetsmarts.org.
Outreach conducted during this planning effort identified a
need to raise public awareness of bicycling and walking as
viable forms of transportation, and to combat negative
stereotypes about people who choose to walk or bicycle.
Local resources for conducting a StreetSmarts campaign can
be maximized by assembling a group of local experts, law
enforcement officers, businesspeople, civic leaders, and
dedicated community volunteers. These allies could assist
with a successful safety campaign based on the local concerns
and issues. It may be necessary to develop creative strategies
for successful media placement in order to achieve campaign
goals. This Plan recommends the City consider
implementation of a public awareness program such as
StreetSmarts.
2. Weekly Walk & Roll Days
Walk and Bike to School Days are events to encourage
students to try walking or bicycling to school. The most
popular events of this type are International Walk to School
Day (held in early October) and Bike to School Day (held in
early May).
Holding weekly Walk & Roll to School Day promotes regular
use of active transportation and helps establish good habits.
It is recommended the City, school districts, schools, PTAs,
and parent champions work together to expand Walk and
Bike to School days to be held on a weekly basis.
3. Vision Zero Targeted Enforcement
Cities that adopt Vision Zero policies, such as San Francisco
and San José, have adopted enforcement goals targeting the
vehicle code infractions most likely to result in injury collisions
or fatalities. Law enforcement officers are then tasked with the
goal of a certain percentage of their traffic stops be related to
these high-risk infractions.
This Plan recommends that, if a Vision Zero policy is adopted,
the City work with the Sheriff’s Department to implement
targeted enforcement within the City of Cupertino. Targeted
enforcement goals will be determined following
comprehensive study of historical collision data in Cupertino.
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-12 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Funding Sources
This chapter presents potential funding sources that the City
of Cupertino may seek to implement the recommendations in
this Plan. It is broken down by Federal, State, Regional, and
Local sources.
Federal Sources
The Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act)
The FAST Act, which replaced Moving Ahead for Progress in
the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2015, provides long-term
funding certainty for surface transportation projects, meaning
States and local governments can move forward with critical
transportation projects with the confidence that they will have
a Federal partner over the long term (at least five years).
The law makes changes and reforms to many Federal
transportation programs, including streamlining the approval
processes for new transportation projects and providing new
safety tools. It also allows local entities that are direct
recipients of Federal dollars to use a design publication that is
different than one used by their State DOT, such as the Urban
Bikeway Design Guide by the National Association of City
Transportation Officials.
More information: https://www.transportation.gov/fastact
Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP)
The Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBGP)
provides states with flexible funds which may be used for a
variety of highway, road, bridge, and transit projects. A wide
variety of bicycle and pedestrian improvements are eligible,
including trails, sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, pedestrian
signals, and other ancillary facilities. Modification of sidewalks
to comply with the requirements of the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) is also an eligible activity. Unlike most
highway projects, STBGP-funded pedestrian facilities may be
located on local and collector roads which are not part of the
Federal-aid Highway System.
Fifty percent of each state’s STBGP funds are sub-allocated
geographically by population. These funds are funneled
through Caltrans to the MPOs in the state. The remaining 50
percent may be spent in any area of the state.
STBGP Set-Aside: Transportation Alternatives Program
Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) has been folded
into the Surface Transportation Block Grant program (STBG)
as a set-aside funded at $835 million for 2016 and 2017, and
$850 million for 2018, 2019, and 2020. Up to 50 percent of the
set-aside is able to be transferred for broader STBGP
eligibility.
Improvements eligible for this set-aside fall under three
categories: Transportation Enhancements (TE), Safe Routes
to School (SR2S), and the Recreational Trails Program (RTP).
These funds may be used for a variety of pedestrian and
streetscape projects including sidewalks, multi-use paths, and
rail-trails. TAP funds may also be used for selected education
and encouragement programming such as Safe Routes to
School.
Non-profit organizations (NGOs) are now eligible to apply for
funding for transportation safety projects and programs,
including Safe Routes to School programs and bike share.
Complete eligibilities for TAP include:
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-13
1. Transportation Alternatives. This category includes
the construction, planning, and design of a range of
pedestrian infrastructure including “on–road and off–
road trail facilities for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other
active forms of transportation, including sidewalks,
bicycle infrastructure, pedestrian and bicycle signals,
traffic calming techniques, lighting and other safety–
related infrastructure, and transportation projects to
achieve compliance with the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990.” Infrastructure projects and
systems that provide “Safe Routes for Non-Drivers” is
still an eligible activity.
2. Recreational Trails. TAP funds may be used to
develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-
related facilities for both active and motorized
recreational trail uses. Examples of trail uses include
hiking, in-line skating, equestrian use, and other active
and motorized uses. These funds are available for both
paved and unpaved trails, but may not be used to
improve roads for general passenger vehicle use or to
provide shoulders or sidewalks along roads.
Recreational Trails Program funds may be used for:
Maintenance and restoration of existing trails
Purchase and lease of trail construction and
maintenance equipment
Construction of new trails, including unpaved trails
Acquisition or easements of property for trails
State administrative costs related to this program
(limited to seven percent of a state’s funds)
Operation of educational programs to promote safety
and environmental protection related to trails (limited
to five percent of a state’s funds)
3. Safe Routes to School. There are two separate Safe
Routes to School Programs administered by Caltrans.
There is the Federal program referred to as SRTS, and
the state-legislated program referred to as SR2S. Both
programs are intended to achieve the same basic goal
of increasing the number of children walking and
bicycling to school by making it safer for them to do
so. All projects must be within two miles of primary or
middle schools (K-8).
The Safe Routes to School Program funds non-
motorized facilities in conjunction with improving
access to schools through the Caltrans Safe Routes to
School Coordinator.
Eligible projects may include:
Engineering improvements. These physical
improvements are designed to reduce potential
bicycle and pedestrian conflicts with motor vehicles.
Physical improvements may also reduce motor
vehicle traffic volumes around schools, establish safer
and more accessible crossings, or construct walkways
or trails. Eligible improvements include sidewalk
improvements, traffic calming/speed reduction, and
pedestrian crossing improvements.
Education and Encouragement Efforts. These
programs are designed to teach children safe walking
skills while educating them about the health benefits
and environmental impacts. Projects and programs
may include creation, distribution and implementation
of educational materials; safety based field trips;
interactive pedestrian safety video games; and
promotional events and activities (e.g., assemblies,
walking school buses).
Enforcement Efforts. These programs aim to ensure
that traffic laws near schools are obeyed. Law
enforcement activities apply to cyclists, pedestrians
and motor vehicles alike. Projects may include
development of a crossing guard program,
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-14 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
enforcement equipment, photo enforcement, and
pedestrian sting operations.
4. Planning, designing, or constructing roadways
within the right-of-way of former Interstate routes
or divided highways. At the time of writing, detailed
guidance from the Federal Highway Administration on
this new eligible activity was not available.
405 National Priority Safety Program
Approximately $14 million annually (5 percent of the $280
million allocated to the program overall) will be awarded to
States to decrease bike and pedestrian crashes with motor
vehicles. States where bike and pedestrian fatalities exceed 15
percent of their overall traffic fatalities will be eligible for
grants that can be used for:
Training law enforcement officials on bike/pedestrian
related traffic laws
Enforcement campaigns related to bike/pedestrian
safety
Education and awareness programs related to
relevant bike/pedestrian traffic laws
Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP)
The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) provides
$2.4 billion nationally for projects that help communities
achieve significant reductions in traffic fatalities and serious
injuries on all public roads, bikeways, and walkways. Non-
infrastructure projects are no longer eligible. Eligible projects
are no longer required to collect data on all public roads.
Pedestrian safety improvements, enforcement activities,
traffic calming projects, and crossing treatments for active
transportation users in school zones are examples of eligible
projects. All HSIP projects must be consistent with the state’s
Strategic Highway Safety Plan.
The 2015 California SHSP is located here:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/shsp/docs/SHSP15_Upd
ate.pdf
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ)
The Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement
Program (CMAQ) provides funding for projects and programs
in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone,
carbon monoxide, and particulate matter which reduce
transportation related emissions. These federal dollars can be
used to build pedestrian and bicycle facilities that reduce
travel by automobile. Purely recreational facilities generally
are not eligible.
To be funded under this program, projects and programs must
come from a transportation plan (or State (STIP) or Regional
(RTIP) Transportation Improvement Program) that conforms
to the SIP and must be consistent with the conformity
provisions of Section 176 of the Clean Air Act. States are now
given flexibility on whether to undertake CMAQ or STBGP-
eligible projects with CMAQ funds to help prevent areas within
the state from going into nonattainment.
In the Bay Area, CMAQ funding is administered through the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) on the local
level. These funds are eligible for transportation projects that
contribute to the attainment or maintenance of National
Ambient Air Quality Standards in non-attainment or air-quality
maintenance areas. Examples of eligible projects include
enhancements to existing transit services, rideshare and
vanpool programs, projects that encourage pedestrian
transportation options, traffic light synchronization projects
that improve air quality, grade separation projects, and
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-15
construction of high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. Projects
that are proven to reduce direct PM2.5 emissions are to be
given priority.
Partnership for Sustainable Communities
Founded in 2009, the Partnership for Sustainable
Communities is a joint project of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and the U.S. Department of
Transportation (USDOT). The partnership aims to “improve
access to affordable housing, more transportation options,
and lower transportation costs while protecting the
environment in communities nationwide.” The Partnership is
based on five Livability Principles, one of which explicitly
addresses the need for pedestrian infrastructure (“Provide
more transportation choices: Develop safe, reliable, and
economical transportation choices to decrease household
transportation costs, reduce our nation’s dependence on
foreign oil, improve air quality, reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, and promote public health”).
The Partnership is not a formal agency with a regular annual
grant program. Nevertheless, it is an important effort that has
already led to some new grant opportunities (including the
TIGER grants).
More information: https://www.sustainablecommunities.gov/
State Sources
Active Transportation Program (ATP)
In 2013, Governor Brown signed legislation creating the Active
Transportation Program (ATP). This program is a
consolidation of the Federal Transportation Alternatives
Program (TAP), California’s Bicycle Transportation Account
(BTA), and Federal and California Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) programs.
The ATP program is administered by Caltrans Division of Local
Assistance, Office of Active Transportation and Special
Programs.
The ATP program goals include:
Increase the proportion of trips accomplished by
biking and walking,
Increase safety and mobility for non-motorized users,
Advance the active transportation efforts of regional
agencies to achieve greenhouse gas reduction goals,
Enhance public health,
Ensure that disadvantaged communities fully share in
the benefits of the program, and
Provide a broad spectrum of projects to benefit many
types of active transportation users.
The California Transportation Commission ATP Guidelines
are available here:
http://www.catc.ca.gov/meetings/agenda/2014Agenda/201
4_03/03_4.12.pdf
Eligible bicycle and Safe Routes to School projects include:
Infrastructure Projects: Capital improvements that will
further program goals. This category typically
includes planning, design, and construction.
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-16 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Non-Infrastructure Projects: Education,
encouragement, enforcement, and planning activities
that further program goals. The focus of this category
is on pilot and start-up projects that can demonstrate
funding for ongoing efforts.
Infrastructure projects with non-infrastructure
components
The minimum request for non-SRTS projects is $250,000.
There is no minimum for SRTS projects.
More information:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/atp/
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) Grants
Office of Traffic Safety Grants are supported by Federal
funding under the National Highway Safety Act and
SAFETEA-LU. In California, the grants are administered by the
Office of Traffic Safety.
Grants are used to establish new traffic safety programs,
expand ongoing programs or address deficiencies in current
programs. Eligible grantees are governmental agencies, state
colleges, state universities, local city and county government
agencies, school districts, fire departments, and public
emergency services providers. Grant funding cannot replace
existing program expenditures, nor can traffic safety funds be
used for program maintenance, research, rehabilitation, or
construction. Grants are awarded on a competitive basis, and
priority is given to agencies with the greatest need. Evaluation
criteria to assess need include potential traffic safety impact,
collision statistics and rankings, seriousness of problems, and
performance on previous OTS grants.
The California application deadline is January of each year.
There is no maximum cap to the amount requested, but all
items in the proposal must be justified to meet the objectives
of the proposal.
More information: http://www.ots.ca.gov/
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-17
Regional & Local Sources
Metropolitan Transportation Commission OneBayArea Grant
(OBAG)
The Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
OBAG program is a funding approach that aligns the
Commission's investments with support for focused growth.
Established in 2012, OBAG taps federal funds to maintain
MTC's commitments to regional transportation priorities while
also advancing the Bay Area's land-use and housing goals.
OBAG includes both a regional program and a county
program that targets project investments in Priority
Development Areas and rewards cities and counties that
approve new housing construction and accept allocations
through the Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA)
process. Cities and counties can use these OBAG funds to
invest in:
Local street and road maintenance
Streetscape enhancements
Bicycle and pedestrian improvements
Transportation planning
Safe Routes to School projects
Priority Conservation Areas
In late 2015, MTC adopted a funding and policy framework for
the second round of OBAG grants. Known as OBAG 2 for
short, the second round of OBAG funding is projected to total
about $800 million to fund projects from 2017-18 through
2021-22.
More information: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/our-work/fund-
invest/federal-funding/obag-2
Regional Active Transportation Program
A portion of the statewide ATP program is distributed to local
CMAs and MPOs for distribution locally. The Regional ATP
targets projects that increase walking, improve safety, and
benefit disadvantaged communities. In the Bay Area, regional
ATP funding is distributed through MTC.
Regional ATP applications are generally the same as the
application for the statewide program, with a few additional
questions. Applications not funded in the statewide program
are no longer automatically considered for the regional
program. Applicants must complete the additional questions
and apply separately.
More information: http://mtc.ca.gov/our-work/invest-
protect/investment-strategies-commitments/protect-our-
climate/active-transportation
Developer Impact Fees
As a condition for development approval, municipalities can
require developers to provide certain infrastructure
improvements, which can include bikeway projects. These
projects have commonly provided Class II facilities for
portions of on-street, previously-planned routes. They can
also be used to provide bicycle parking or shower and locker
facilities. The type of facility that should be required to be built
by developers should reflect the greatest need for the
particular project and its local area. Legal challenges to these
types of fees have resulted in the requirement to illustrate a
clear nexus between the particular project and the mandated
improvement and cost.
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-18 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Roadway Construction, Repair and Upgrade
Future road widening and construction projects are one
means of providing improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
To ensure that roadway construction projects provide these
facilities where needed, it is important that the review process
includes input pertaining to consistency with the proposed
system. In addition, California’s 2008 Complete Streets Act
and Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 require that the needs of all
roadway users be considered during “all phases of state
highway projects, from planning to construction to
maintenance and repair.”
More information:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/complete_street
s.html
Utility Projects
By monitoring the capital improvement plans of local utility
companies, it may be possible to coordinate upcoming utility
projects with the installation of bicycle and pedestrian
infrastructure within the same area or corridor. Often times,
the utility companies will mobilize the same type of forces
required to construct bikeways and sidewalks, resulting in the
potential for a significant cost savings. These types of joint
projects require a great deal of coordination, a careful
delineation of scope items and some type of agreement or
memorandum of understanding, which may need to be
approved by multiple governing bodies.
Cable Installation Projects
Cable television and telephone companies sometimes need
new cable routes within public right-of-way. Recently, this has
most commonly occurred during expansion of fiber optic
networks. Since these projects require a significant amount of
advance planning and disruption of curb lanes, it may be
possible to request reimbursement for affected bicycle
facilities to mitigate construction impacts. In cases where
cable routes cross undeveloped areas, it may be possible to
provide for new bikeway facilities following completion of the
cable trenching, such as sharing the use of maintenance roads.
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-19
Estimated Bicycle Trips
Bicycle counts from a variety of sources provide a snapshot of
bicycling activity in Cupertino. The US Census American
Community Survey (ACS) commute data, discussed in
Chapter 1, is a consistent source for tracking long-term
journey-to-work commute trends. However, the Census only
collects data on the primary mode that Cupertino residents
use to travel to work, and does not count residents who use a
bicycle as part of their commute (linking to a longer transit
trip, for example); nor does the Census count trips made for
recreation, to run errands, or to commute to school. Census
data, therefore, only tracks a portion of the total bicycle trips
in Cupertino.
To provide a more accurate estimate of total bicycling in
Cupertino, a bicycle demand calculation was run using
additional Cupertino-specific travel data from the ACS and the
Santa Clara County Safe Routes to School Program. The
demand model inputs are outlined below, and the results and
full list of data sources are shown in Table 6-5.
Number of bicycle commuters, derived from the ACS
Work at home bicycle mode share
Number of those who work from home and likely
bicycle (derived from assumption that five percent of
those who work at home make at least one bicycle
trip daily)
Bicycle to school mode share:
o Number of students biking to school, derived
from multiplying the K-8 student population
by the Santa Clara County bicycle to school
average rate of four percent
Number of those who bicycle to transit:
o Number of people who bicycle to VTA or
Caltrain, assuming that eight percent of transit
patrons use bicycles to access the station
and/or their destination
Based on this model, there are an estimated 1,361 total daily
bicycle transportation trips made by Cupertino residents.
This number includes people who bike for work, errands,
personal trips, and school trips. It does not account for purely
recreational trips. This analysis can be used to track citywide
bicycle use and demand in Cupertino over time.
Table 6-5: Estimated Daily Bicycle Transportation Trips
Variable Figure Calculation and Source
Existing number
of bike-to-work
commuters 178
(Existing employed population) x
(Existing bike-to-work mode
share)
Existing bike-to-
work mode
share 0.70% 2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates
Existing
employed
population 25,380 2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates
Existing number
of work-at-home
bike commuters 72
Assumes 5% of population
working at home makes at least
one daily bicycle trip
Existing work-
at-home mode
share 5.70% 2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates
Existing
employed
population 25,380 2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates
Existing transit
bicycle
commuters
41 Employed persons multiplied by
transit mode share. Assumes 8%
of transit riders access transit by
bicycle (Average of VTA and
Caltrain bike access volumes)
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
6-20 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Variable Figure Calculation and Source
Existing transit-
to-work mode
share 2.00% 2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates
Existing
employed
population 25,380 2014 ACS, 5-Year Estimates
Existing school
children bike
commuters 390
School children population
multiplied by school children bike
mode share
Existing school
children
bicycling mode
share 4.0% Santa Clara County SR2S Program
Existing school
children, ages 5-
14 (grades K-
8th) 9,745 2014 ACS, S0101 5-Year Estimates
Existing total
number of bike
commuters 680
Total bike-to-work, school, and
utilitarian bike trips. Does not
include recreation or college.
Total daily
bicycling trips 1,361
Total bicycle commuters x 2 (for
round trips)
This is an order-of-magnitude estimate based on available American
Community Survey data and does not include recreational trips, nor does
it include trips made by people who live in other cities and work or attend
school in Cupertino. It can be used as a secondary analysis method to
track bicycle usage estimates over time.
Chapter 6: Implementation Strategy
Alta Planning + Design | 6-21
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-1
Appendix A. Plan and Policy Review
Table A-1 provides a list of existing plans relevant to bicycling in Cupertino. Cupertino is compliant with all state and Federal laws
and policies regarding bicycles. A review of these plans is included on the following pages.
Table A-1: Relevant Plans and Policies
Plan Date Adopted
Local Plans
Cupertino General Plan 2014
Cupertino Municipal Code -
Heart of the City Specific Plan 2014
North Vallco Master Plan 2008
South Vallco Master Plan 2008
South Vallco Connectivity Plan 2014
Joint Cities Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study 2015
Apple Campus 2 Development Plan 2013
Regional Plans
Santa Clara County General Plan 1994
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Countywide Bicycle Plan 2008
VTA Valley Transportation Plan 2040 2014
VTA Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study 2001
MTC Regional Bicycle Plan 2009
PlanBayArea 2013
State Plans and Policies
Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions 2006
Assembly Bill 1358: Complete Streets 2008
Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities 2009
Assembly Bill 417: Environmental Quality: CEQA: Bicycle Transportation Plan 2013
Assembly Bill 2245: Environmental quality: CEQA: Exemption: Bicycle Lanes 2015
Senate Bill 743: Environmental Quality: Transit Oriented Infill Projects, Judicial Review Streamlining for
Environmental Leadership Development Projects, and Entertainment and Sports Center in the City of
Sacramento
2013
Assembly Bill 1193: Bikeways 2014
A-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Plan Date Adopted
Assembly Bill 1371: Vehicles: Bicycles: Passing Distance 2013
Senate Bill 99: Active Transportation Program Act 2013
California Transportation Plan 2025 2006
Caltrans Complete Streets Policy 2001
Deputy Directive 64 2008
Federal Policies
US DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations 2001
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-3
Local Plans and Policies
Cupertino General Plan (2014)
The Cupertino General Plan Mobility Element provides
excellent direction for transportation planning and bicycle
access. Figure A-1 shows the 2014 existing and proposed
bicycle network. The goals and policies seek to further
improve and enhance the bicycling environment through
capital improvement projects, development review, and
retrofitting existing facilities within older commercial areas
and neighborhoods. The mobility element also seeks to reduce
reliance on automobile level of service (LOS) by shifting to
multi-modal LOS or vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as a measure
of impacts to traffic.
Complete Streets
Goal: Promote Improvements to City Streets that Safely
Accommodate All Transportation Modes and Persons of All
Abilities.
Policies:
1. Street Design. Adopt and maintain street design
standards to optimize mobility for all transportation
modes including automobiles, walking, bicycling and
transit.
2. Connectivity. Promote pedestrian and bicycle
improvements that improve connectivity between
planning areas, neighborhoods and services, and foster
a sense of community
3. Community Impacts. Reduce traffic impacts and
support alternative modes of transportation in
neighborhoods and around schools, parks and
community facilities rather than constructing barriers
to mobility. Do not close streets unless there is a
demonstrated safety or over-whelming through traffic
problem and there are no acceptable alternatives since
street closures move the problem from one street to
another.
Walkability and Bikeability
Goal: Support a Safe Pedestrian and Bicycle Street Network
for People of All Ages and Abilities.
Policies:
1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan. Adopt and
maintain a Bicycle and Pedestrian master plan, which
outlines policies and improvements to streets,
extension of trails, and pathways to create a safe way
for people of all ages to bike and walk on a daily basis.
2. Enhance pedestrian and bicycle crossings and
pathways at key locations across physical barriers such
as creeks, highways and road barriers.
3. Preserve and enhance citywide pedestrian and bike
connectivity by limiting street widening purely for
automobiles as a means of improving traffic flow.
4. Plan for improvements to pedestrian and bicycle
facilities and eliminate gaps along the network
pedestrian and bicycle as part of the City’s Capital
Improvement Program.
5. Require new development to provide public and
private bicycle parking.
6. Actively engage the community in promoting walking
and bicycling through education, encouragement and
outreach on improvement projects and programs.
A-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Figure A-1: Current (2014) and Proposed Bicycle Network from
General Plan
Safe Routes to Schools
Goal: Ensure Safe and Efficient Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
to Schools While Working to Reduce School-Related
Congestion.
Policies:
1. Promote Safe Routes to Schools programs for all
schools serving the city.
2. Ensure that bicycle and pedestrian safety
improvements include projects to enhance safe
accessibility to schools.
3. Connect schools to the citywide trail system.
4. Support education programs that promote safe
walking and bicycling to schools.
Transportation Impact Analysis
Goal: Review and Update TIA Policies and Guidelines that
Allow for Adequate Consideration for All Modes of
Transportation Including Automobiles, Walking, Bicycling, and
Transit.
Policies:
1. Consider adopting a Protected Intersection policy
which would identify intersections where
improvements would not be considered which would
degrade levels of service for non-vehicular modes of
transportation. Potential locations include
intersections in Priority Development Areas (PDAs)
and other areas where non-vehicular transportation is
a key consideration.
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-5
Transportation Infrastructure
Goal: Ensure that the City’s Transportation Infrastructure is
Well-Maintained for All Modes of Transportation and that
Projects are Prioritized on Their Ability to Meet the City’s
Mobility Goals.
Policies:
1. Develop and implement an updated citywide
transportation improvement plan necessary to
accommodate vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle
transportation improvements to meet the City’s needs.
2. Integrate the financing, design and construction of
pedestrian and bicycle facilities with street projects.
Build pedestrian and bicycle improvements at the
same time as improvements for vehicular circulation.
Cupertino Municipal Code
The Municipal Code establishes the Cupertino Bicycle
Pedestrian Commission (BPC) and states the bylaws for the
BPC. It also details the type and sizing of bicycle parking which
can be installed for each land use designation. Lastly, it
provides details on bicycle registration and how to receive a
new bicycle license.
Heart of the City Specific Plan (2014)
The Heart of the City refers to Stevens Creek Boulevard and
the areas immediately surrounding Stevens Creek Boulevard.
See Figure A-2 for the area map. The purpose of the specific
plan is to guide the future development and redevelopment of
the corridor in a manner that creates a greater sense of place
and community identity in Cupertino.
Policies:
1. Proposed developments shall be expected to continue
the implementation of the City’s streetscape plan.
2. High quality site planning, architectural design, and on-
site landscaping are expected for all developments.
3. Subdivision of commercial and mixed use parcels is
strongly discouraged.
4. Plans for the new projects should include pedestrian
and bicycle pathways, incorporating the City’s existing
network.
Figure A-2: Heart of the City Area and Special Centers Map
A-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
North Vallco Master Plan
The North Vallco Master Plan was built on conversations and
partnerships between the North Vallco neighbors and
industries as well as the larger community, developing a vision
for the study area. Principles were developed to ensure, “that
new development contributes to the creation of a beautiful
and functional city district.” One of the principles calls for
better walkability and connectivity and states that any new
development in the area will, “Provide connectivity for all
modes, pedestrian and vehicular – including automobile,
bicycle, shuttle and Segway.” The Master Plan also states that,
“Future development should consider providing more
through-streets to Pruneridge, Wolfe and Tantau to foster
walking and bicycling between in-district destinations,” as the
current street network is composed of superblocks which
discourages people to walk or bike. This Plan was never
officially adopted by the Cupertino City Council.
South Vallco Master Plan
The South Vallco Master Plan, much like the North Vallco
Master Plan, provides a vision for the future of the area by
analyzing existing and future land uses, vehicular circulation
patterns, and pedestrian circulation patterns. Figure A-3
shows the South Vallco’s current land uses. The Plan also
recommends the creation of streetscape & crosswalk
enhancements, landscaping, lighting, wayfinding, signage, and
street furniture. The Plan outlines several objectives and
policies in order to improve and enhance the circulation and
connections for bicyclists and other active transportation
users including implementing traffic calming, develop
consistent pedestrian and bicycle friendly streetscape
improvements, and establish a network of shared-use paths,
especially along the Calabazas Creek. This Plan was never
officially adopted by the City Council.
Figure A-3: South Vallco planning area and land uses
South Vallco Conceptual Connectivity Plan
In 2014, Cupertino adopted the South Vallco Conceptual
Connectivity Plan, an advisory document that identifies broad
goals, objectives, concepts, and design guidelines to help City
staff, property owners, developers and the community better
understand future desires for improved connectivity, safety,
and aesthetics within the South Vallco area. In addition to
detailed existing travel conditions, the Plan outlines several
connectivity goals and objectives for the area’s circulation to
ensure improved automobile, truck, bike, pedestrian, and
transit connection within South Vallco and to adjacent areas.
This Plan was never officially adopted by the Cupertino City
Council. Figure A-4 shows improved connectivity for the
South Vallco area with a district redesign.
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-7
Figure A-4: Improved circulation of the South Vallco area with better bicycle access
A-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Joint Cities Stevens Creek Trail Feasibility Study
In 2015, a Feasibility Study was published for the cities of
Sunnyvale, Cupertino, Los Altos, and Mountain View as well as
the Santa Clara Valley Water District which explores the
potential for extending the Stevens Creek Trail. The study
determined that a variety of routes and facility types are
feasible through the four cities, but challenges are associated
with each alignment. Although the study does not give a final
recommended alignment, it does devote an entire chapter to
the bicycle and pedestrian paths which minimize roadway
crossings and most closely approximate the trail user
experience present in the constructed sections of the trail in
Mountain View and Cupertino.
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-9
Regional Plans and Policies
County of Santa Clara General Plan (1994)
The General Plan includes policies that support bicycling
throughout the County and cities in the County. It encourages
coordination with local and regional agencies in completing a
connected bikeways network. The Santa Clara County General
Plan was last adopted in 1994. The most relevant section of
the General Plan is the Circulation Element, which is currently
being updated.
Transportation Policies
C-TR 6: Increase the proximity between housing and
major employment areas to reduce commute distances
and automobile-dependency by encouraging
developers to provide pedestrian and bicycle paths that
connect housing and employment sites so as to
encourage walking and bicycling.
C-TR 8: Urban design concepts and site development
standards which facilitate use of transit and other travel
alternatives should be adopted and implemented by
local jurisdictions, to provide adequate pedestrian and
bicycle pathways and facilities, both on and between
individual sites.
C-TR 22: The use of existing railroad rights-of-way for
transit and alternative transportation (i.e., bicyclists and
pedestrians) should be encouraged.
C-TR 34: Bicycling and walking should be encouraged
and facilitated as energy conserving, non-polluting
alternatives to automobile travel.
C-TR 35: A bicycle transit system should be provided
that is safe and convenient for the user and which will
provide for the travel needs of bicyclists.
C-TR 36: Facilities should be provided to make bicycle
and pedestrian travel more safe, direct, convenient and
pleasant for commuting and other trips to activity
centers and to support the use of other commute
alternatives.
C-TR 37: All available funding options, including ISTEA
funds, should be pursued for bicycle and pedestrian
facility improvements.
Transportation Implementation Policies
C-TR(i) 16: Continue to develop convenient and
effective transit alternatives, HOV, bicycle, and
pedestrian facilities to provide the infrastructure TDM
programs require to succeed.
C-TR(i) 29: Build attractive transit facilities, such as:
passenger waiting shelters, major transit transfer
stations, park and ride facilities, bicycle storage facilities
at major transit stops and expand passenger facilities to
support new routes (park-and-ride lots, bus shelters).
(Implementers: County Transit District, Employers,
Developers)
C-TR(i) 31: Add bike racks to bus routes where heavy
passenger loads prohibit bringing bicycles on board the
bus.
C-TR(i) 45: Continue to accommodate non-collapsible
bicycles on Caltrain.
C-TR(i) 37: Continue to maintain and improve the width
and quality of the surface of the right-hand portion of
existing roads so that they are suitable for bicycle travel,
regardless of whether or not bikeways are designated.
A-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
C-TR(i) 38: Provide secure bicycle storage facilities at
employment sites, public transit stations and schools.
(Implementers: Employers, County, Cities, Peninsula
Commute Joint Powers Board, Schools)
C-TR(i) 39: Design all future roads, bridges, and transit
vehicles and facilities to accommodate non-motorized
travel. Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities into
future projects including:
o Development of new travel corridors such as
rail transit and road projects.
o Development of non-transportation corridors
including utilities and river/creek rights of way.
o Improvements to existing transportation
corridors such as expressway, interchange,
intersection and Commuter Lane projects.
C-TR(i) 40: Add and improve bicycle facilities on
already existing roads, bridges and transit vehicles and
within rail rights-of-way to accommodate non-
motorized travel. (Implementers: Caltrans, County,
Cities).
C-TR(i) 42: Maintain and implement the Santa Clara
County Bicycle Plan and subregional bicycle network.
C-TR(i) 43: Provide for foot and bicycle travel across
existing barriers, such as creeks, railroad tracks and
freeways. (Implementers: Cities, County, State)
C-TR(i) 44: Establish and maintain bicycle advisory
committees and confer with representatives of
recognized bicycle clubs/associations for a “needs list”
of necessary bicycle safety improvements.
(Implementers: Cities, County)
C-TR(i) 46: Implement the County policy to maximize
bicycle access on expressways.
C-TR(i) 47: Incorporate bicycle and pedestrian facilities
(e.g., bicycle and pedestrian access routes, showers,
secure bicycle storage facilities) in site designs.
Parks and Recreation Implementation Policies
C-PR 7: Opportunities for access to regional parks and
public open space lands via public transit, hiking,
bicycling, and equestrian trails should be provided. Until
public transit service is available, additional parking
should be provided where needed.
C-PR 49: Hiking, bicycling, and horseback riding trails
should be provided along scenic roads where they can
be provided safely and without significant adverse
environmental impacts. Bicycling facilities should be
provided by edge marked shoulders and improved
surfaces on paths.
C-PR(i) 4: Provide public transit service to major
regional parks, and develop hiking, bicycling, and
equestrian trails to provide access to regional parks from
the urban area to provide alternatives to private
automobiles for access to recreation. (Implementers:
County, Cities, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space
District, State of California, Santa Clara Valley Water
District)
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-11
Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan (2008)
The purpose of this Bicycle Plan is to assemble in one
document all the pertinent elements of past bicycle plans and
working papers, identify the final cross-county bicycle
corridor network (see Figure A-8 for Cupertino area),
including gaps and needed projects, and include other
elements to help local agencies responsible for projects to
secure funding and plan effectively for the future. Relevant
policies are listed below.
Figure A-5: Cross county bicycle corridors in southeast Santa Clara
County
Transportation Planning and Programming
Plan and implement a seamless bicycle and pedestrian
travel network that is continuous across city boundaries
and county boundaries.
Include bicycle and pedestrian facilities in applicable
transportation plans, programs, and studies.
Coordinate with other federal, state, regional, county
and local agencies to, fund and implement bicycle
projects in Santa Clara County.
Fully integrate bicycle access to and within the transit
system.
Utilize multi-modal transportation demand models that
are based on person-trips and that can forecast bicycle
trips, pedestrian trips and transit trips in addition to
motor vehicle trips.
A-12 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Land Use / Transportation Integration
Encourage existing developments to provide
bicycle/pedestrian connections to link neighborhoods
and residential areas with schools, commercial services,
employment centers, recreational areas and transit
centers.
Encourage new developments to include bicycle and
pedestrian facilities such as trails and bicycle lanes.
Encourage new developments to provide mobility for
pedestrians and bicyclists by providing non-motorized
connections and access ways such as cul-de-sac
connections, pathways and other short-cuts to schools,
transit centers and other adjacent destinations.
Ensure that existing bicycle facilities and access are
maintained and preserved.
Local Ordinances and Guidelines
Provide policy guidance.
Establish guidelines that encourage:
o bicycle parking ordinances
o bicycle parking facilities
o showers and commuter clothing lockers in new and
renovated developments
o mileage reimbursement when bicycles are used on
official business when travel time is equivalent to
an automobile trip
Encourage Transportation Demand Management
programs to include bicycle and pedestrian components.
Design and Construction
Ensure that Member Agency construction or
rehabilitation projects incorporate best practice for
bicycle and pedestrian facilities when and where
applicable
Implement proactive strategies to identify and remove
obstacles and hazards to bicycle travel.
Consider roadway designs to enhance traffic safety.
Establish guidelines for and encourage the use of
bicycle-safe and friendly roadway design.
Complementary Policies that Encourage Bicycling
Increase institutional encouragement of non-motorized
travel within VTA
Encourage inter-jurisdictional cooperation in the
development and implementation of non-motorized
projects.
Promote bicycle planning and engineering training
programs for Member Agency staff.
Promote Public Awareness through Education & Positive
Enforcement Programs.
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-13
Valley Transportation Authority: Valley Transportation
Plan 2040
The Valley Transportation Plan 2040 is Santa Clara County’s
long-range planning document that feeds into MTC’s Regional
Transportation Plan (RTP) 2040 and incorporates specific
needs identified by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
and individual cities, including Cupertino. The VTP 2040
considers all travel modes and addresses the linkages
between transportation and land use planning, air quality, and
community livability. Consistent with MTC’s RTP, the VTP
2040 includes projects and programs with anticipated funds
and provides a framework for investments in transit and
maintenance of the existing roadway network, including
upgrades to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. VTA regularly
updates the plan approximately every four years coinciding
with the update of the RTP.
Bicycle Expenditure Program
The Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) was first adopted in
2000 by the VTA Board of Directors as the funding
mechanism for countywide bicycle projects. Approximately
every four years, VTA updates the BEP Project List, which is a
list of bicycle projects that can be funded over the next 25
years within the constraints of anticipated bicycle funding.
The BEP project list is incorporated into the Valley
Transportation Plan 2040, Santa Clara County’s Long Range
Transportation Plan, as the bicycle element of that plan. The
funds programmed towards BEP projects come from a
combination of funding programs. As part of VTP 2040, VTA
dedicated $808 million for 155 bicycle projects around the
County.
VTA Bicycle Technical Guidelines
The Bicycle Technical Guidelines (BTG) was first adopted by
the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
in 1999. In December 2007, and again in 2012, VTA
significantly expanded and re-adopted the BTG. The BTG
manual is a set of optimum standards and best practices for
roadway and bikeway design. They are intended to help
Member Agencies in providing optimal bicycle
accommodation and ensuring that bicycle planning as well as
roadway planning remains consistent countywide. The BTG is
the complementary companion to the Countywide Bicycle
Plan (CBP) and the Bicycle Expenditure Program (BEP) and
should be used as a resource by both roadway and bikeway
planners and designers.
A-14 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
VTA Union Pacific Rail Trail Feasibility Study (2001)
In 2001, VTA published a feasibility study on the conversion of
the 8.7 mile Union Pacific Rail corridor to a trail. According to
the study, “The trail would link to the Los Gatos Creek Trail,
connecting the two most heavily used parks in the Santa Clara
County: Rancho San Antonio County Park and Vasona County
Park. VTA has committed to funding a substantial portion of
the cost of developing the trail.”
The purpose of the study was to document existing
conditions, identify the future Trail users and their needs,
identify constraints and solutions to trail development,
develop alternative alignments and design standards, and
provide implementation details on liability, safety,
landscaping, and other items. The study found that it is ideal
to construct the trail in phases due to budgetary and other
constraints. In Cupertino, the recommended trail alignment is
on-street north of Stevens Creek Boulevard, then runs in the
rail right-of-way through Cupertino to the Saratoga border.
Figure A-9 shows this alignment.
Figure A-6: Proposed Union Pacific rail trail alignment and vicinity
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-15
MTC Regional Bicycle Plan (2009)
The Regional Bicycle Plan, produced by MTC, identifies
regional bikeway connections in the San Francisco Bay Area
and strategies to fill gaps in the regional bikeway network
(RBN). The RBP’s principle goal is “to ensure that bicycling is
a safe, convenient, and practical means of transportation and
healthy recreation throughout the Bay Area, including in
Priority Development Areas (PDAs); to reduce traffic
congestion and risk of climate change; and to increase
opportunities for physical activity to improve public health.”
The policies of the plan include directing local jurisdictions to
collaborate with transit agencies to ensure bicyclists are
accommodated within one mile of transit stations, adopt
ordinances requiring new developments to include sheltered
bicycle parking and end-of-trip accommodations, maintain
Bicycle Advisory Committees and conduct bicycle surveys
using the National Bicycle and Pedestrian Documentation
Project. The most relevant policies are listed below.
Policy 1.1: Ensure that all transportation projects funded
by MTC consider enhancement of bicycle transportation,
consistent with MTC Resolution 3765, Caltrans Deputy
Directive 64 R1, Assembly Concurrent Resolution 211 and
the Complete Streets Act of 2008. Policy 2.1: Develop a
cohesive system of regional bikeways that provide
access to and among major activity centers, public
transportation and recreation facilities.
Policy 2.2: Ensure that the RBN serves bicyclists with
diverse ability levels who are bicycling for a range of
transportation and recreational purposes.
Policy 2.5: Encourage coordination of cross
jurisdictional bicycle way-finding signage.
Policy 3.3: Encourage local jurisdictions and other
agencies and organizations to utilize MTC’s online Safety
Toolbox.
Policy 3.2: Support local government efforts to improve
bicyclist safety by encouraging enforcement of the
California Vehicle Code for motorists and cyclists alike.
Examples include diversion training programs and
reduced fines for errant cyclists so police officers will be
more willing to cite them. (Diversion training allows
motorists and cyclists who break traffic laws to avoid
having citations documented in exchange for attending
traffic safety classes.)
Policy 5.3: Foster collaboration between local
jurisdictions and regional transit agencies to improve
bicycle access to transit stations in the last mile
surrounding each station. Improvements to ease, speed,
convenience and safety of bicycle access, including by
means of signage and bikeways, should be considered.
Policy 6.2: Encourage local jurisdictions to adopt
ordinances requiring bicycle parking and storage and to
offer incentives to employers that provide enclosed,
sheltered bicycle parking for their employees and, when
feasible, their customers.
A-16 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Policy 6.3: Encourage local jurisdictions to provide
shower and locker facilities, or to make arrangements for
access to local health clubs, for all new developments
and major redevelopments.
Policy 6.4: Continue to require cities and counties to
form and maintain bicycle advisory committees, and to
develop and update comprehensive bicycle plans, as a
condition for receiving Transportation Development Act
(TDA) funds.
Policy 8.7: Encourage jurisdictions to consider adopting
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) standards
that rigorously analyze project impacts to bicyclists and
pedestrians.
PlanBayArea (2013)
Adopted by the Association of Bay Area Governments
(ABAG) and the Metropolitan Transportation Commission
(MTC) in 2013, this long-range transportation and land
use/housing plan addresses the requirements set forth in
Senate Bill 375 (See State Policies and Plans below), including
the requirement that each Metropolitan Planning Organization
adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy. The plan identifies
regionally significant transportation projects for the next 20
years and directs investment into Priority Development Areas
across the Bay Area. Priority Development Areas are areas
identified by local communities and ABAG/MTC as targets for
sustainable transportation investments and housing
development to produce walkable, bikable, and livable
communities.
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-17
State Plans and Policies
Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions (2006)
The Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32) laid out specific
actions to reduce emissions, including increasing motor
vehicle and ship yard efficiency and other strategies involving
refrigerants, landfills and consumer products. The goal of AB
32 is for California to reach 1990 greenhouse gas emission
levels by 2020.
Assembly Bill 1358: Complete Streets (2008)
Beginning January 1, 2011, all California Cities and Counties
must include accommodation for all street users (pedestrians,
bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, children, persons with
disabilities, and elderly persons) in circulation element
updates, as required by the Complete Streets Act (AB 1358).
Senate Bill 375: Sustainable Communities (2009)
The Sustainable Communities Act (SB 375) links land use
planning with greenhouse gas emissions, requiring
metropolitan planning organizations to develop land use plans
to meet emission reduction goals set by the State Air
Resources Board. In the Bay Area, the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission has addressed the Sustainable
Communities Strategy through various mechanisms within
PlanBayArea, the long-range housing/land use and
transportation plan for the nine county region.
Assembly Bill 417: Environmental Quality: CEQA: Bicycle
Transportation Plan (2013)
Assembly Bill 417 provides a narrow exemption for bicycle
transportation plans from CEQA for urbanized areas. Prior to
determining that a bicycle plan is exempt, the lead agency
shall do both of the following: (1) Hold properly noticed public
hearings in areas affected by the bicycle transportation plan
to hear and respond to public comments, and (2) Include
measures in the bicycle transportation plan to mitigate
potential bicycle and pedestrian safety and traffic impacts.
This bill would sunset on January 1, 2018.
Assembly Bill 2245: Environmental quality: CEQA:
Exemption: Bicycle Lanes (2015)
This law exempts the restriping of roadways in urbanized
areas to include bicycle lanes from the CEQA process given
that the restriping is consistent with a prepared bicycle
transportation plan. A lead agency would be required to take
specified actions with regard to making an assessment of
traffic and safety impact and holding hearings before
determining a project is exempt.
A-18 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Senate Bill 743: Environmental Quality: Transit Oriented
Infill Projects, Judicial Review Streamlining for
Environmental Leadership Development Projects, and
Entertainment and Sports Center in the City of
Sacramento (2013)
In 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB 743 into
law that would eliminate auto delay, level of service (LOS),
and other similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic
congestion as a basis for determining significant impacts in
many parts of California (if not statewide). Further, parking
impacts will not be considered significant impacts on the
environment for select development projects within infill areas
with nearby frequent transit service. According to the
legislative intent contained in SB 743, these changes to
current practice were necessary to more appropriately
balance the needs of congestion management with statewide
goals related to infill development, promotion of public health
through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions.
Assembly Bill 1193: Bikeways (2014)
Assembly Bill 1193 adds a fourth classification of bikeway to
the Caltrans bikeway classifications. This bill categorizes cycle
tracks or separated bikeways, as specified, as Class IV
bikeways. It requires the Department and local partners, by
January 1, 2016, to establish minimum safety design criteria for
the planning and construction of each type of bikeway and
roadways where bicycle travel is permitted. The Act also
allows local agencies to use alternative design criteria such as
the National Association of City Transportation Officials
(NACTO) “Urban Bikeway Design Guide” for bikeways outside
of the state highway right-of-way.
Assembly Bill 1371: Vehicles: Bicycles: Passing Distance
(2013)
AB 1371 enacts the Three Feet for Safety Act, which requires
the driver of a motor vehicle overtaking and passing a bicycle
that is proceeding in the same direction on a highway to pass
in compliance with specified requirements applicable to
overtaking and passing a vehicle. The bill would prohibit, with
specified exceptions, the driver of the motor vehicle that is
overtaking or passing a bicycle proceeding in the same
direction on a highway from passing at a distance of less than
three feet between any part of the motor vehicle and any part
of the bicycle or its operator. A violation of these provisions is
punishable by a fine.
Senate Bill 99: Active Transportation Program Act
(2013)
The Active Transportation Program was established by this
legislation in 2013, and serves as the mechanism for
distributing federal funds for local and regional efforts to
promote walking and bicycling. It specifies goals that the
funding will be disbursed to help meet, including increasing
the mode shares of biking and walking trips, increasing safety
for non-motorized users, and providing support to
disadvantaged communities to promote transportation
equity.
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-19
California Transportation Plan 2025 (2006)
The California Transportation Plan 2025 seeks to provide for
mobility and accessibility of people, goods, services, and
information throughout California. It encourages
consideration of bicycle and pedestrian facilities in capacity
improvement projects, and promotes integration of active
transportation into modeling and projection efforts.
The Plan also speaks to the public health benefits of active
transportation, urging better education of youth on personal
health and air quality impacts of making trips by bicycle or on
foot.
Caltrans Complete Streets Policy (2001) and Deputy
Directive 64 (2008)
In 2001, the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) adopted Deputy Directive 64, “Accommodating
Non-Motorized Travel,” which contained a routine
accommodation policy. The directive was updated in 2008 as
“Complete Streets – Integrating the Transportation System.”
The new policy includes the following language:
The Department views all transportation improvements as
opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all
travelers in California and recognizes bicycle, pedestrian, and
transit modes as integral elements of the transportation
system.
The Department develops integrated multimodal projects in
balance with community goals, plans, and values. Addressing
the safety and mobility needs of bicyclists, pedestrians, and
transit users in all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in
these objectives. Bicycle, pedestrian and transit travel is
facilitated by creating “complete streets” beginning early in
system planning and continuing through project delivery and
maintenance operations.
The directive establishes Caltrans’ own responsibilities under
this policy. The responsibilities Caltrans assigns to various
staff positions under the policy include the following:
Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit interests are
appropriately represented on interdisciplinary planning
and project delivery development teams.
Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit user needs are
addressed and deficiencies identifies during system and
corridor planning, project initiation, scoping, and
programming.
Ensure incorporation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit
travel elements in all Department transportation plans
and studies.
Promote land uses that encourage bicycle, pedestrian,
and transit travel.
Research, develop, and implement multimodal
performance measures.
In part to address these issues, Caltrans adopted the
Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan in 2010. The
plan sets forth actions under seven categories to be
completed by various Caltrans districts and divisions within
certain timelines to institutionalize complete streets concepts
and considerations within the department. The action
categories include updating departmental plans, policies, and
manuals; raising awareness; increasing opportunities for
training; conducting research projects; and actions related to
funding and project selection. As one of its implementation
activities, Caltrans updated the Highway Design Manual in
large part to incorporate multi-modal design standards.
A-20 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Federal Plans and Policies
US DOT Policy Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian
Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations
(2010)
The United States Department of Transportation (US DOT)
issued this Policy Statement to support and encourage
transportation agencies at all levels to establish well-
connected walking and bicycling networks. The following
Policy Statement and actions are relevant to the Marysville
Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan.
Policy Statement
The DOT policy is to incorporate safe and convenient walking
and bicycling facilities into transportation projects. Every
transportation agency, including DOT, has the responsibility
to improve conditions and opportunities for walking and
bicycling and to integrate walking and bicycling into their
transportation systems. Because of the numerous individual
and community benefits that walking and bicycling provide –
including health, safety, environmental, transportation, and
quality of life – transportation agencies are encouraged to go
beyond minimum standards to provide safe and convenient
facilities for these modes.
Recommended Actions
The DOT encourages States, local governments, professional
associations, community organizations, public transportation
agencies, and other government agencies, to adopt similar
policy statements on bicycle and pedestrian accommodation
as an indication of their commitment to accommodating
bicyclists and pedestrians as an integral element of the
transportation system. In support of this commitment,
transportation agencies and local communities should go
beyond minimum design standards and requirements to
create safe, attractive, sustainable, accessible, and convenient
bicycling and walking networks. Such actions should include:
Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other
transportation modes: The primary goal of a
transportation system is to safely and efficiently move
people and goods. Walking and bicycling are efficient
transportation modes for most short trips and, where
convenient intermodal systems exist, these
nonmotorized trips can easily be linked with transit to
significantly increase trip distance. Because of the
benefits they provide, transportation agencies should
give the same priority to walking and bicycling as is
given to other transportation modes. Walking and
bicycling should not be an afterthought in roadway
design.
Appendix A: Plan and Policy Review
Alta Planning + Design | A-21
Ensuring that there are transportation choices for people
of all ages and abilities, especially children: Pedestrian
and bicycle facilities should meet accessibility
requirements and provide safe, convenient, and
interconnected transportation networks. For example,
children should have safe and convenient options for
walking or bicycling to school and parks. People who
cannot or prefer not to drive should have safe and
efficient transportation choices.
Going beyond minimum design standards:
Transportation agencies are encouraged, when possible,
to avoid designing walking and bicycling facilities to the
minimum standards. For example, shared-use paths that
have been designed to minimum width requirements will
need retrofits as more people use them. It is more
effective to plan for increased usage than to retrofit an
older facility. Planning projects for the long-term should
anticipate likely future demand for bicycling and walking
facilities and not preclude the provision of future
improvements.
Integrating bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on
new, rehabilitated, and limited-access bridges: DOT
encourages bicycle and pedestrian accommodation on
bridge projects including facilities on limited-access
bridges with connections to streets or paths.
Collecting data on walking and biking trips: The best way
to improve transportation networks for any mode is to
collect and analyze trip data to optimize investments.
Walking and bicycling trip data for many communities
are lacking. This data gap can be overcome by
establishing routine collection of nonmotorized trip
information. Communities that routinely collect walking
and bicycling data are able to track trends and prioritize
investments to ensure the success of new facilities.
These data are also valuable in linking walking and
bicycling with transit.
Setting mode share targets for walking and bicycling and
tracking them over time: A byproduct of improved data
collection is that communities can establish targets for
increasing the percentage of trips made by walking and
bicycling.
Improving nonmotorized facilities during maintenance
projects: Many transportation agencies spend most of
their transportation funding on maintenance rather than
on constructing new facilities. Transportation agencies
should find ways to make facility improvements for
pedestrians and bicyclists during resurfacing and other
maintenance projects.
Appendix B: Past Bikeway Improvements
Alta Planning + Design | B-1
Appendix B. Past Bikeway Improvements
Table B-1 shows the bikeway improvements that have occurred since the 2011 Plan was adopted.
Table B-1: Bicycle Improvements since 2011
Location Description Cost Completion
Anne Arbor Ct. at Christensen Dr. Reconfigure cul-de-sac to allow for bicycle
access. Add curb ramps for bicycle access
to Cupertino Memorial Park
$6,500
Spring 2016
Bollinger Rd. between Hyde Ave. and Miller
Ave. (westbound)
Green bike lanes $20,000 Summer 2015
Bollinger Rd. between Westlynn Wy. and De
Anza Blvd
Narrow vehicle lanes to add accommodate
lanes
$20,000 Winter 2015
Bubb Rd. between McClellan Rd and Rainbow
Dr
Green and buffered bike lanes $81,000 Summer 2015
Byrne Ct. Remove gate, install bollards and
reconstruct end of cul-de-sac
$6,500 Spring 2016
De Anza Blvd. approaching Stevens Creek
Blvd., I-280, and Homestead Rd. (northbound)
Green bike lanes $86,000 Fall 2016
De Anza College vicinity Green and buffered bike lanes $95,000 Spring 2016
Finch Ave. between Cupertino High School
and Stevens Creek Blvd. (northbound)
Green bike lanes (intermittent) $24,000 Summer 2015
Foothill Blvd. at Stevens Creek Blvd. Bike lane extension through intersection $3,500 Fall 2013
Forest Ave. at Randy Ln. Reconfigure concrete divider for bicycle
throughput
$8,000 Summer 2015
Homestead Rd. between Mary Ave. and
Noranda Dr. (eastbound) Near Homestead
High School
Green bike lanes and buffered bike lanes $33,000 Summer 2015
Hyde Ave. between Bollinger Ave. and Shady
Grove Dr.
Class III sharrows $5,000 Summer 2015
McClellan Rd. between Byrne Ave. and 300’
east of Stelling Ave.
Green bike lanes (intermittent) $92,200 Summer 2015
Appendix B: Past Bikeway Improvements
B-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Location Description Cost Completion
McClellan Rd. between Foothill Blvd. and
Byrne Ave.
Class III sharrows $26,000 Winter
2014/Summer
2015
Miller Ave. between Stevens Creek Blvd. and
Calle de Barcelona
Class III sharrows $7,000 Fall 2015
Olive Ave. Reconfigure cul-de-sac to allow for bicycle
access
$6,500 Spring 2016
Orange Ave. at Granada Ave. Reconfigure cul-de-sac to allow for bicycle
access
$6,500 Spring 2016
Rainbow Dr. between Stelling Ave. and Bubb
Rd.
Class III sharrows $8,000 Summer 2015
Rodrigues Ave. between De Anza Blvd. and
Blaney Ave.
Class II bike lanes $16,000 Summer 2012
Stelling Ave. between 85 Fwy. and McClellan
Rd.
Green and buffered bike lanes, and
crosswalk striping
$45,000 Fall 2015
Stevens Creek Blvd. between Foothill Blvd. to
SR-85
Green bike lanes (intermittent) $92,000 Summer 2014
Stevens Creeks Blvd. between SR-85 and De
Anza Blvd.
Green bike lanes $93,000 Spring 2014
Stevens Creek Blvd. between De Anza Blvd.
and Wolfe Ave.
Buffered bike lanes $17,000 Fall 2015
Stevens Creek Trail Reach 2 between
McClellan Rd. and Stevens Creek Blvd.
Class I bike path $11.4 M* Summer 2014
Tantau Ave. between Bollinger Rd. and
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Class III sharrows $13,000 Summer 2015
Torre Ave. between Rodrigues Ave. and
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Road diet, relocate bike lane to the left of
right-turn lane
$5,000 Winter 2013
Vista Dr. approaching Stevens Creek Blvd. Bike signal and dedicated bike lane $6,000 Summer 2015
Vista Dr. at Forest Ave. Reconfigure concrete divider for bicycle
throughput
$8,000 Summer 2015
*Cost includes a clear span bridge, fencing, amenities, crosswalk, connections to bus stop, and parking modifications
Appendix C: Community Input
Alta Planning+ Design | C-1
Appendix C. Community Input
Public Workshop #1
A public workshop was held on December 1, 2015. Workshop
attendees were asked to provide their vision for bicycling in
Cupertino, then presented with maps of existing conditions
and invited to share challenges and opportunities for
improving bicycling in in the city. Comments received at this
workshop are listed in the tables below.
Vision Comments – Public Workshop #1
Vision Comments
No more cars, more bikes, or bike-like transportation. Streets
should feel safe for everybody with different bike skills more of
trails, Type I Bike Path.
Bike network should be regional, plan beyond city boundaries.
Like the City of Portland/ Eugene biking & walking should be
comfortable. Continuous connections. Widen bike lanes on
SCB/other streets.
Use public R.O.W. offered pathways that will provide access
around city.
Having bicycle clubs at schools for education to encourage.
More signs/striping to enhance safety.
Increase bikers that commute for errands and day to day tasks.
#1 Bike City in U.S. in 2035
Minimize stops. E.g. @ stop signs
More biking to schools.
Unsafe large intersections/280 interchange- community
priorities.
Wow! City (Holland, Portland)
Wider bike lanes
Vision Comments
Educated bikers and motorists
Bikes = more convenient
Bike parties on Stevens Creek Boulevard
Biking is promotion of health
“Bicycle-only” streets (wow!)
East-West cycling connection across county
Open wall around Vallco
Deputies on bikes
Tickets to cars and bike offenders
Better way-finding signage
Where to bike: UPPR
Where to bike: schools
Steven’s creek main artery (East-West cycling connection)
“Take % of asphalt away from cars and given to bikes by 2025”
Stevens Creek Boulevard to be a bicycle corridor! $ boost
economy
Side by side bicycling permitted (widened lanes, social time)
Also on school routes so families can bike together
Where to bike: to green spaces
Where to bike: Foothill Blvd. at Stevens Creek Boulevard
C-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Map Community Comments – Public Workshop #1
Topic Location Cross St A Cross St B Comment
Bike-Friendly
Future
Car traffic will always be a reality
Bike-Friendly
Future
Wider bike lanes (Rainbow Dr., etc.)
Using rail lines
Bike-Friendly
Future
Stoplights that recognize bikers
Bike-Friendly
Future
Lighted crosswalks
Bike-Friendly
Future
Illuminated solar night bikeways
Bike-Friendly
Future
Schools and companies provide vests and bike
lights
Bike-Friendly
Future
Create connection between Foothill and Union
Pacific
Bike-Friendly
Future
Weatherproof/ covered bike parking
Bike-Friendly
Future
Bike lanes in middle of Expressway (City of
Sparks, Nevada)
Blackberry Farm
Park wide pass
Bubb Rd. allow route thru De Anza
Challenging Areas McClellan
Challenging Areas Rainbow Dr.
Challenging Areas SCB
Challenging Areas Foothill
Challenging Areas Wolfe
Challenging Areas Freeway interchanges
Challenging Areas Rainbow Dr.
Challenging Areas McClellan
Challenging Areas SCB & 85
Challenging Areas De Anza & 280
Challenging Areas Wolfe over freeway
Appendix C: Community Input
Alta Planning + Design | C-3
Topic Location Cross St A Cross St B Comment
Challenging Areas No trucks on De Anza Blvd. And school areas!
Challenging Areas Over freeways
Challenging Areas Wolfe & SCB “pork chop” is dangerous for bikes
Challenging Areas Lawrence expressway turning route on Bollinger
Southbound
Challenging Areas Cars should not have eminent domain over bikes
(mindset)
Community
Priorities
Cannot Bike on SCB, Bike lane stops at SJC.
Community
Priorities
De Anza Blvd. - from Prospect Ave. to SCB to the
main St./Vallco Area.
Community
Priorities
Stevens Canyon Road, no bike lanes. Look at
speed limit on Foothill Blvd., lower speed. Enforce
speeding.
Community
Priorities
SCB and De Anza favored routes but unsafe at
driveways going into Target and other
commercial.
Community
Priorities
No right turns @ De Anza and SCB.
Community
Priorities
South of Round-a-bout @ Choker Areas @ Portal
Ave.
Community
Priorities
Intersection of Blaney and Bollinger, unsafe
because of signal.
Community
Priorities
Bike on McClellan to the library from N. Sterling
Rd.
Community
Priorities
Blaney Ave. @ Lawson, Create a path along the
channel up to the “Apple” wall. Make Blaney Safer
for kids going to school.
Community
Priorities
Bicycle parking at commercial establishments are
missing/bike rack not adequate to lock bikes.
Community
Priorities
City should have standards for bicycle racks.
Community
Priorities
Section of UPRR between Rainbow and McClellan
should be improved for bikes.
Community
Priorities
Put bike racks where it is visible and in a location
which is secure.
C-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Topic Location Cross St A Cross St B Comment
Community
Priorities
Location of bike push button not convenient at
McClellan and De Anza/Sedgwick Elementary @
Tantau Ave. (Ped Crossing)
Community
Priorities
IRWL. Make it visible at night.
Community
Priorities
Buffer feels safer than green.
Creekside Park park bike/ped traffic crowded
De Anza by Apple hole in fence
Focus Areas schools (no cars near schools)
Focus Areas Covered bike corrals
Focus Areas Build bike bridge parallel to Wolfe instead of
widening lanes
Focus Areas Closing certain streets for rec. riding on certain
days
Focus Areas Redesign onramps on freeways to 90 degrees
(cars have to slow)
Future Street area closures to cars
Future Bike clubs
Collaboration with bike shops and ride-share
services
Future Less and slower cars, more bikes
Future Vision zero (no deaths!)
Future Parking meters for cars
Global All ages! School children à retirees
Global Connectivity (safe!) to where community wants to
go
Library/community center
shopping/Vallco
Offices
Global Safer crossings with smart lighting and signal
detection
Global Outreach to the “interested but concerned”
Appendix C: Community Input
Alta Planning + Design | C-5
Topic Location Cross St A Cross St B Comment
Global Safety improvements to existing infrastructure
(SC)
Global Integrate Mary Ave. Bridge
o Complete SCT
Global Rails to Trails!
Global School Routes
Global Bike Share
Global Education for all roadway users
Schools
Local companies
Delivery drivers
Regular drivers
Bicyclists
Global Residents making the conscious choice to ride à
providing right environment
Global More shared-use paths
Global Class IV on major arterials
Global Better connectivity to community destinations
Global Bicycle Highways/ super highways
N-S
E-W
Global Minimize conflict between bike and peds (esp.
trail)
Global Address challenge @driveways
Global Bike boulevard
Global Send kids to school without concern
Global Cupertino should be a city where you don’t need a
car
Global Consider e-bikes
Global Bike Share
Global Other device in bike lane (skateboard)
Global Improve safety
Global Vision zero traffic fatality
C-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Topic Location Cross St A Cross St B Comment
Global Better training and understanding re: collisions-
PD
Cause- root cause
Global Lockers @ shopping
Global Kids- feel good about kids biking
Global Standard bike lane widths
Global Trash bins in lanes
Global More green lanes @intersections
Global Timed lighting
I-85 I-85 Homestead Rd. burnout
Mary Ave. Mary Ave. I-280 bike lane stops
Mary Ave. Mary Ave. I-280 great opportunity to connect to SCT
Mary Ave. Mary Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. connect through Oaks a lot
Mary Ave. Mary Ave. Stevens Creek Blvd. Bad!
McClellan Ranch
bike route Class II - narrow
McClellan Ranch
Preserve continue trail
McClellan Rd. Sterling Rd. De Anza Blvd. can't move bike lanes, big tree in road
McClellan Rd. Orange St. Class IV
McClellan Rd. Orange St. lots of driveways
McClellan Rd. Orange St. chaos during school traffic
Miller Miller Bollinger Miller is a challenge
N. Foothill N. Foothill Grant Rd. shopping center driveway
N. Foothill N. Foothill UPPR needs improvement
N. Foothill N. Foothill I-280 Improve 8B. Caltrans Rail to Trail.
Salem Ave. west of
N Foothill Hwy. Enhance/improve; especially median.
Serves All cyclists, skill-levels, age groups
Serves Visitors to explore the city
Serves All people should say, “Wow, biking here is
incredible”
Appendix C: Community Input
Alta Planning + Design | C-7
Topic Location Cross St A Cross St B Comment
Serves Visitors
South of I-280 N Sterling Rd N De Anza Blvd. Trail?
Stevens Creek Blvd
at Peninsula/ Bubb Bad!
Stevens Creek Blvd. N Sterling Rd N De Anza Blvd. Class IV whole route
Stevens Creek Blvd. N Sterling Rd N De Anza Blvd. better bike parking
Stevens Creek Blvd. folks like the bike lanes on Stevens Creek
Boulevard
Stevens Creek Blvd. how can folks get to Stevens Creek trail?
Stevens Creek Blvd. more signs than sharing
Stevens Creek Blvd. vote sharrows
Stevens Creek Blvd. Stevens Creek Blvd. Peninsula/Bubb Please improve
The Oaks Shopping
Center bike parking needed
Torre Torre Rodrigues avoid Torre
Torre Torre Rodrigues by library
and City Hall better access
UPRR rail w/trail
UPRR UPPR Heney Creek CIP project
UPRR UPPR Heney Creek Bike/ped neighborhood connections at cul de sacs
UPRR right of way rails to trails
UPRR right of way Railroad and freeway crossing improvements
UPRR right of way negotiate with private owners for row for
separation
Varian Park steep steps
William Faria
Elementary N Sterling how to get access?
C-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Public Workshop #2
A public workshop was held on March 16, 2016. Workshop
attendees were asked to provide feedback on proposed goals,
policies, infrastructure, and programs for the bike plan update.
Comments received at this workshop are listed in the tables
below.
Map Community Comments – Public Workshop #2
Topic Location Cross St A
/Intersection
Cross St B Comment
Infrastructure Permanente Rd/
Stevens Creek Blvd
Hammond Snyder
Loop Trail
high priority
Infrastructure Starling Dr.
Foothill Blvd.
connect Starling Dr bike blvd to Cristo Rey Dr bike
lanes
Infrastructure Mary Ave.
Homestead Rd.
Tough crossing of Homestead
Infrastructure Homestead HS Bike racks needed
Infrastructure Palm Ave.
Stevens Canyon Rd.
Proposed bike route (Palm) needs a sign on
Stevens Canyon Rd (wayfinding)
Infrastructure Mary Ave.
Bubb Rd. at Stevens
Creek Blvd Mary Ave at The
Oaks
Connect (bike route from proposed Hwy 85
bike/ped bridge to Stevens Creek Blvd at Bubb Rd)
Infrastructure Campus Dr
McClelan Rd.
Show existing connection between Campus Dr
and McClellan Rd near Hooshang Ct
Infrastructure Greenleaf Dr.
N Stelling Rd.
Important to connect students living west of De
Anza Blvd to Lawson Middle School (via Greenleaf
Dr)
Infrastructure Union Pacific Trail
Bubb Rd The Oaks Access and connectivity important between Union
Pacific Trail and east of Highway 85
Infrastructure McClellan Rd.
N De Anza Blvd.
Improve crossing of DeAnza
Infrastructure Stevens Creek Blvd.
N De Anza Blvd.
Improve crossing of DeAnza
Infrastructure N. Portal Ave.
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Dangerous crossing
Infrastructure I-280
N Wolfe Rd.
Access to Apple Important
Appendix C: Community Input
Alta Planning + Design | C-9
Topic Location Cross St A
/Intersection
Cross St B Comment
Infrastructure Love the Cupertino Loop Trail, coolest thing, make
it a priority
Infrastructure Stevens Creek Trail Scenic Circle Unsure if gate to Stevens Creek Trail is open or
closed to the public
Infrastructure Stevens Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Tantau Ave Strong support for Class IV on Stevens Creek Blvd
Infrastructure Lane on east border
of Lincoln
Elementary School
Show bikeway through school parking lot, but
available only to students and only open during
school hours (existing)
Infrastructure Lane on east border
of Lincoln
Elementary School
Wolfe over freeway
Infrastructure I-85
Rainbow Dr.
De Anza Blvd Very uncomfortable freeway crossing
Infrastructure McClellan Rd
De Anza Blvd Bicyclists have to push the pedestrian button to
cross De Anza Blvd, needs passive detection
Infrastructure Mariani Ave.
Infinite Loop
Connect proposed bike blvd to Tantau Ave &
Santa Clara
Infrastructure Vallco Mall
Stevens Creek Blvd.
Needs intersection improvements around Vallco
Mall
Infrastructure N Tantau
Homestead Rd Stevens Creek Blvd Connection needed
Infrastructure Calle de Barcelona Miller Ave Finch Ave Connection needed
Infrastructure Calle de Barcelona Miller Ave Finch Ave Route is well used today
Infrastructure Phil Lane Creekside Park Tantau Ave Kids don’t use this route
Infrastructure Phil Lane Finch Ave Intersection not controlled
Infrastructure Global Streets need more repaving
Infrastructure Stevens Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd Make Stevens Creek and De Anza 2 lanes in each
direction for cars, use the third lane for bikes
Infrastructure Agelant Campus Coordinate with City of Santa Clara Agelant
Campus plan to connect bikeways in northeast
Cupertino
C-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Topic Location Cross St A
/Intersection
Cross St B Comment
Infrastructure Sterling Barnhart
Park
Lawrence
Expressway
Is a bicycle/pedestrian bridge over Lawrence
Expressway feasible at this location?
Infrastructure UPRR ROW Stevens Creek Blvd Need to connect trails across blocked fences
Infrastructure Trail through
Canyon Oaks Park
This is a neighborhood bikeway
Infrastructure Foothill Blvd I-280 Improve Foothill bike lanes at on ramps and off
ramps
Infrastructure Carmen St bike/ped
bridge
Stevens Creek Blvd This is great!
Infrastructure Scenic Blvd Carmen St Stevens Creek Add bike blvd signage (wayfinding)
Infrastructure UPRR Look at using UPRR ROW to get under I-280
Infrastructure Scenic Circle Scenic Blvd San Fernando Ave Connect across Stevens Creek Trail
Infrastructure Jollyman Park Is a creek trail feasible here?
Infrastructure Global I-280 Pathway is a great idea
Infrastructure Hwy 85 bike/ped
bridge
Mary Ave Grand Ave Excellent project
Infrastructure Bubb Rd Stevens Creek Blvd Please improve intersection
Infrastructure UPRR ROW November Dr Please add crossing of creek & railroad for bikes
Infrastructure Greenleaf Dr Bandley Dr Curb cut improvement needed
Infrastructure De Anza Blvd Class IV needed on De Anza
Infrastructure McClellan Rd East of Stelling Rd Remove pine tree to build bike lanes
Infrastructure De Anza Blvd McClellan Rd Please improve intersection
Infrastructure Regnart Creek De Anza Blvd Can Regnart Creek Trail extend across De Anza?
Infrastructure Merritt Dr Larry Way Make crossing clear for bikes & peds
Infrastructure Rodrigues Ave De Anza Blvd Blaney Ave Can you make bike lanes buffered?
Infrastructure Blaney Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Left turns are hard here
Infrastructure N Wolfe Rd I-280 Can there be a bike path here?
Infrastructure Perimeter Rd Path Vallco Mall Can this path connect to the I-280 path?
Infrastructure Stevens Creek Blvd Portal Ave Fixing this intersection will be great for kids
traveling to school
Infrastructure Miller Ave Stevens Creek Blvd Phil Lane Bike lanes are needed badly here
Appendix C: Community Input
Alta Planning + Design | C-11
Topic Location Cross St A
/Intersection
Cross St B Comment
Infrastructure Bollinger Rd Alderbrook Lane De Anza Blvd Current bike lanes are in door zone, can bike lane
be separated from parked cars?
Infrastructure Calle de Barcelona Miller Ave Finch Ave This is the preferred bike route for students
Programs Global Please have bike riders in single file in residential
areas. Also, don’t have headphones in both ears
for safety.
Programs Global Bicycle ticket diversion programs should not ticket
bicyclists for a 1st infraction. 1st time should be a
warning, 2nd time should be a ticket or diversion
program
Programs Global Add E-bikes bike lockers
Global Global VTA supposed to support UPRR trail
Global Global Desires maps showing implementation of plan in 5,
10, 15, and 20 year increments
Global Global Show Connections from Neighborhoods to schools
explicitly on maps
C-12 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission
November 18, 2015 Meeting
The Cupertino Bicycle Pedestrian Commission (BPC) met on
November 18, 2015. The purpose of the November BPC
meeting was to gather input on community priorities for the
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update. The meeting was
attended by the full commission as well as eight members of
the public.
The following list are notes taken from the meeting.
The BPC has already developed a vision statement for
bicycling in Cupertino - the vision statement for the
bike plan should reflect that
The top priority for the BPC is focusing on safety and
access to schools
The plan should emphasize an 8-to-80 focus on bicycle
networks and access for all residents
The plan should seek to inspire and/or grab attention
of the public and the council - provide something they
can tout when supporting more funding for projects
The plan should provide equal focus on
education/encouragement, not just infrastructure
Providing safe, comfortable routes to Apple locations
and to the future Vallco development will be key in
increasing rates of bicycling
In addition to Vallco & Apple, consider also the future
impacts of The Oaks development
Make sure items from the BPC Items Catalog are
considered in bike plan recommendations
Make sure the school commute programs administered
by the Public Safety Commission are documented in
the plan
Consider activity generators outside of Cupertino (but
still nearby) when crafting recommendations
Consider schools outside of Cupertino that have
enrollment boundaries within the City
Confirm parameters of the Bike Network Stress Test
through City before analysis is run
Review VTA plans for BRT in Cupertino for compliance
with the bike plan recommendations
Review traffic mitigation plans for Apple & Vallco for
incorporation of bicycle network improvements into
bike plan
Review concept plans for bike path on the southern
side of I-280 ROW - a proposed transportation
investment via Vallco/Apple
Review the Joint Cities study for the Stevens Creek
Trail extension and incorporate review into existing
conditions analysis
January 20, 2016 Meeting
The BPC also met on January 20, 2016 and discussed the
Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan. While no formal action
was taken, general agreement was expressed on the following
tenets to ensure inclusion in the Plan.
Tenet #1
To achieve the commission’s goals for intra-city bike
commutes will require a safe, on-street bicycle network. This
will be achieved by implementing a Class IV protected
bikeway network including the following major arteries:
Appendix C: Community Input
Alta Planning + Design | C-13
Stevens Creek Boulevard from Foothill Boulevard to
Wolfe Road (East-West)
Stelling Road from Rainbow Drive to Stevens Creek
Boulevard (North-South)
Wolfe Road from Homestead Road to Stevens Creek
Boulevard (North-South)
McClellan Road from Byrne Avenue to Stelling Road
(East-West)
Tenet #2
More Class I bike/walkways are needed for off-street travel.
This must include:
A path parallel to the Union Pacific RR railroad tracks
from Stevens Creek to Saratoga Sunnyvale Road
The inner-city bikeway (as proposed by Gary Jones)
Tenet #3
We need to provide connectivity to the Stevens Creek Trail.
This will require significant improvements to the major feeder
routes providing access to the Stevens Creek Trail. They are
Foothill Boulevard and Mary Avenue.
Tenet #4
We need to provide better and safer routes to schools. That
will include enlarging/improving smaller roads including
Rainbow Drive.
March 16, 2016 Meeting
The BPC met on March 16th to consider the draft bicycle plan.
At this meeting, commissioners and members of the public
provided input on the recommended infrastructure projects,
programs, and plan policies in the draft Bicycle Plan Update
document.
The following list are notes taken from the meeting.
Commissioners were very supportive of the plan’s
general recommendations and approach
The Mary Avenue bicycle/pedestrian bridge over I-280
should allow electric bicycles
4 cul-de-sacs were recently opened for through
bicycle access, and should be shown in the plan
(Appendix B has subsequently been updated)
The City is organizing a “Pedal for the Planet” event on
Earth Day, April 30th
Stronger language should be used in the plan for the
prioritization of streets for Class IV separated bikeways
or for buffered bike lanes
The intersection of McClellan Rd at De Anza Blvd needs
additional focus for improvement & prioritization
Better access is needed to parks in West Cupertino
from neighborhoods in the east
Include coordination with City of Sunnyvale for
Homestead Road
Include coordination with City of San Jose for Bollinger
Rd and De Anza Blvd
Commissioners asked about the feasibility of a center-
running bike lane on De Anza Blvd
Some commissioners state a preference for Class IV
separated bikeways on De Anza Blvd
Commissioners asked if a grade-separated
bicycle/pedestrian crossing of De Anza Blvd was
feasible
There was a request for more detailed or updated
costs for Open Streets events in Cupertino
SVBC was recommended as a partner for ticket
diversion safety classes
C-14 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Commissioners asked for strong coordination with the
Sherriff’s Department for a potential Vision Zero policy
Commissioners expressed interest in a “use case map”
of the Bike Network Stress Test, focused on a single
school, measuring the impacts of the bike plan
recommendations.
Show schools and libraries on all maps in the plan
document
More detailed written analysis was requested for the
Bike Network Stress Test analysis in the Needs
Assessment chapter
Commissioners wanted to know how collision history
& analysis impacted project recommendations
Commissioners asked that collision results be more
clearly quantified and compared to collision history in
nearby cities
More detail was requested for the education section of
programmatic recommendations
BPC requested project cost estimates and project
prioritization be sent to BPC at their April meeting
Improvements to freeway interchanges needed to be
prioritized
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-1
Appendix D. Bicycle Design Guidelines
The sections that follow serve as an inventory of bicycle design
treatments and provide guidelines for their development. These
treatments and design guidelines are important because they
represent the tools for creating a bicycle-friendly, safe,
accessible community. The guidelines are not, however, a
substitute for a more thorough evaluation by an engineer upon
implementation of facility improvements.
The design guidelines presented in this appendix are a
combination of minimum standards outlined by the California
Highway Design Manual’s design guidelines, recommended
standards prescribed by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Guide for the
Development of Bicycle Facilities, National Association of City
Transportation Officials (NACTO) Urban Bikeway Design Guide,
and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Additional design guidance and details can be found in the
following documents:
California MUTCD (2014):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/engineering/mutc
d/ca_mutcd2014rev1.htm
Caltrans Highway Design Manual (2014):
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/hdm/hdmtoc.htm
Caltrans Design Information Bulletins:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/dibprg.htm
Caltrans Standard Plans:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/esc/oe/project_plans/HTM/
06_plans_disclaim_US.htm
NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide (endorsed by
Caltrans, April 2014):
http://nacto.org/publication/urban-bikeway-design-
guide/
This appendix is not intended to replace existing state or
national mandatory or advisory standards, nor the exercise of
engineering judgment by licensed professionals.
This Appendix includes the following guidelines:
Caltrans Bikeway Classification Overview .................................. D-2
Bicycle Facility Guidance ................................................................... D-2
Class I Bike Path ..................................................................................... D-4
Class II Bike Lane ................................................................................... D-7
Class III Bike Route............................................................................... D-11
Class IV Separated Bikeway ........................................................... D-13
Protected Intersection ....................................................................... D-14
On-Street Bikeway Regulatory & Warning Signage ............. D-15
Wayfinding Signage ........................................................................... D-16
Bicycle Detection at Actuated Traffic Signals ........................ D-17
Bicycle Parking ..................................................................................... D-18
D-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Caltrans Bikeway Classification Overview
Caltrans has defined four types of bikeways in Chapter 1000 of
the Highway Design Manual and in Design Information Bulletin
89: Class I, Class II, Class III, and Class IV. Minimum standards for
each of these bikeway classifications are shown below.
Bicycle Facility Guidance
Selecting the best bikeway facility type for a given roadway can
be challenging, due to the range of factors that influence
bicycle users’ comfort and safety. There is a significant impact
on cycling comfort when the speed differential between
bicyclists and motor vehicle traffic is high and motor vehicle
traffic volumes are high.
Facility Selection Table
As a starting point to identify a preferred facility, the chart
below can be used to determine the recommended type of
bikeway to be provided in particular roadway speed and
volume situations. To use this chart, identify the appropriate
daily traffic volume and travel speed on the existing or
proposed roadway, and locate the facility types indicated by
those key variables.
Other factors beyond speed and volume which affect facility
selection include traffic mix of automobiles and heavy vehicles,
the presence of on-street parking, intersection density,
surrounding land use, and roadway sight distance. These
factors are not included in the facility selection chart below, but
should always be considered in the facility selection and design
process.
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-3
D-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Class I Bike Path
In order to accommodate both bicyclists and pedestrians, Class
I paths should be designed to the minimum Caltrans standards
shown below. In locations with high use, or on curves with
limited sight distance, a yellow centerline should be used to
separate travel in opposite directions. High use areas of the
pathway should also provide additional width (up to 12 feet) as
recommended below. Lighting should be provided in locations
where evening use is anticipated or where paths cross below
structures.
Summary of Standards
Eight feet (2.4 meters) is the minimum width for Class I
facilities.
Eight feet (2.4 meters) may be used for short
neighborhood connector paths (generally less than one
mile in length) due to low anticipated volumes of use.
Ten feet (3.0 meters) is the recommended minimum
width for a typical two-way bicycle path.
Twelve feet (3.6 meters) is the preferred minimum width
if more than 300 users per peak hour are anticipated,
and/or if there is heavy mixed bicycle and pedestrian
use.
A minimum 2-foot (0.6 meter) wide graded area must
be provided adjacent to the path to provide clearance
from trees, poles, walls, guardrails, etc. A 2% cross slope
is optimum. On facilities with expected heavy use, a
yellow centerline stripe is recommended to separate
travel in opposite directions.
Paths should be constructed with adequate subgrade
compaction to minimize cracking and sinking, and
should be designed to accommodate appropriate
loadings, including emergency vehicles.
A 2% cross slope shall be provided to ensure proper
drainage.
Stopping sight distance should conform to the California
Highway Design Manual.
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-5
Additional Considerations
Multi-use path facilities that serve primarily a recreation rather
than a transportation function, and will not be funded with
federal transportation dollars, may not be required to be
designed to Caltrans standards. However, state and national
guidelines have been created with user safety in mind, and
should be followed. Wherever any multi-use pathway intersects
with a street, roadway, or railway, standard traffic controls
should always be used.
Class I bike path crossings of roadways require
preliminary design review. Generally, bike paths that
cross roadways with average daily trips (ADTs) over
20,000 vehicles will require signalization or grade
separation. Consider using bicycle signal heads at
locations where paths meet signalized intersections.
Landscaping should generally be low-water-consuming
native vegetation and should have minimum debris.
Lighting should be provided where commuters will use
the bike path during hours of darkness. Illumination
should be no less than 0.17-foot candle average
maintained. Lighting should be spaced at a maximum
of every 100 feet.
Barriers at pathway entrances should be clearly marked
with reflectors and be ADA accessible (minimum five
feet clearance).
Bike path construction should take into account
impacts of maintenance and emergency vehicles on
shoulders, as well as vertical and structural
requirements. Paths should be constructed with
adequate subgrade compaction to minimize cracking
and sinking.
The width of structures should be the same as the
approaching pathway width, plus minimum two-foot
wide clear areas.
Where feasible, provide two-foot wide unpaved
shoulders for pedestrians/runners, or a separate
treadway.
Direct pedestrians to the right side of the pathway with
signing and/or stenciling.
D-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Class I Bike Path Bollards
Minimize the use of bollards to avoid creating obstacles for
bicyclists. Bollards, particularly solid bollards, have caused
serious injury to bicyclists. The California MUTCD explains,
“Such devices should be used only where extreme problems are
encountered” (Section 9C.101). Instead, design the path entry
and use signage to alert drivers that motor vehicles are
prohibited.
Bollards are ether fixed or removable and may be
flexible or rigid. Flexible bollards and posts are
designed to give way on impact and can be used
instead of steel or solid posts. Bollards are typically
installed using one of two methods: 1)The bollard is set
into concrete footing in the ground; and 2) the bollard
is attached to the surface by mechanical means
(mechanical anchoring or chemical anchor).
Where removable bollards are used, the top of the
mount point should be flush with the path’s surface so
as not to create a hazard. Posts shall be permanently
reflectorized for nighttime visibility and painted a
bright color for improved daytime visibility.
Striping an envelope around the post is recommended.
When more than one post is used, an odd number of
posts at 1.5m (5-foot) spacing is desirable. Wider
spacing can allow entry by adult tricycles, wheelchair
users and bicycles with trailers.
Barrier Post Striping
Flexible Bollards
Source: Lighthouse Bollards. Source: Andian Sales
Removable Bollards
Source: Reliance Foundry Co. Ltd
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-7
Class II Bike Lane
On-street bike lanes (Class II Bikeways) designate an exclusive
space for bicyclists through the use of pavement markings and
signage. The bike lane is located directly adjacent to motor
vehicle travel lanes and is used in the same direction as motor
vehicle traffic. Bike lanes are typically on the right side of the
street, between the adjacent travel lane and curb, road edge or
parking lane.
Summary of Standards
Bicycle lanes shall be one-way facilities, running with
the direction of traffic. Where on-street parking is
allowed, bicycle lanes must be striped between the
parking area and the travel lanes.
Width of bicycle lane:
Without an existing gutter, bicycle lanes must be a
minimum of four feet wide.
With an existing gutter, bicycle lanes must be a
minimum of five feet wide measured from the curb face
(within the bike lane, a minimum width of three feet
must be provided outside the gutter).
Where on-street parking stalls are marked and bicycle
lanes are striped adjacent to on-street parking, bicycle
lanes must be a minimum of five-feet wide.
Where on-street parking is allowed but stalls are not
striped, bicycle lanes must be a minimum of 12-feet
wide measured from the curb face. Depending on the
type and frequency of traffic, wider bicycle lanes may
be recommended.
Bicycle lane striping standards:
Bicycle lanes shall be comprised of a six-inch solid
white stripe on the outside of the lane, and a four-inch
solid white stripe on the inside of the lane.
Class II Bikeway - Additional Design Recommendations:
Intersection and interchange treatment—Caltrans provides
recommended intersection treatments in Chapter 1000
including bike lane “pockets” and signal loop detectors. The
City should develop a protocol for the application of these
recommendations, so that improvements can be funded and
made as part of regular improvement projects.
Bike lane pockets (min. four-feet wide) between right
turn lanes and through lanes should be provided
wherever available width allows, and right turn volumes
exceed 150 motor vehicles/hour.
D-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Word and symbol pavement stencils should be used to
identify bicycle lanes, as per Caltrans and MUTCD
specifications.
Buffered Bicycle Lanes
Buffered bike lanes are conventional bicycle lanes paired with a
designated buffer space, separating the bicycle lane from the
adjacent motor vehicle travel lane and/or parking lane.
Typical Application
Anywhere a conventional bike lane is being considered.
On streets with high speeds and high volumes or high
truck volumes.
On streets with extra lanes or lane width.
Appropriate for skilled adult riders on most streets.
Design Features
The minimum bicycle travel area (not including buffer)
is 5 feet wide.
Buffers should be at least 2 feet wide. If buffer area is 4
feet or wider, white chevron or diagonal markings
should be used. (CAMUTCD 9C-104)
For clarity at driveways or minor street crossings,
consider a dotted line.
There is no standard for whether the buffer is
configured on the parking side, the travel side, or a
combination of both.
Colored Bicycle Lanes
Colored pavement within a bicycle lane may be used to increase
the visibility of the bicycle facility, raise awareness of the
potential to encounter bicyclists, and reinforce priority of
bicyclists in conflict areas.
Typical Application
Within a weaving or conflict area to identify the
potential for bicyclist and motorist interactions and
assert bicyclist priority.
Across intersections, driveways and Stop or Yield-
controlled cross-streets.
Design Features
Typical white bike lanes (solid or dotted 6” stripe) are
used to outline the green colored pavement.
In exclusive use areas, color application should be solid
green.
In weaving or turning conflict areas, preferred striping
is dashed, to match the bicycle lane line extensions.
The colored surface should be skid resistant and retro-
reflective. (CAMUTCD 9C.02.02).
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-9
Class II Bike Lane at Intersection with Right Turn Only
Lane
A bicyclist continuing straight through an intersection from the
right of a right turn lane would be inconsistent with normal
traffic behavior and would violate the expectations of right-
turning motorists. Specific signage, pavement markings and
striping are recommended to improve safety for bicyclists and
motorists.
The appropriate treatment for right-turn only lanes is to place a
bike lane pocket between the right-turn lane and the right-most
through lane or, where right-of-way is insufficient, to drop the
bike lane entirely approaching the right-turn lane. The design
(right) illustrates a bike lane pocket, with signage indicating
that motorists should yield to bicyclists through the merge area.
Dropping the bike lane is not recommended, and
should only be done when a bike lane pocket cannot
be accommodated.
Travel lane reductions may be required to achieve this
design.
Some communities use colored bicycle lanes through the
conflict zone.
D-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Bike lane next to a right turn only lane
Colored bike lanes used to designate a conflict zone
Bike lane next to a right turn only lane separated by a raised
island
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-11
Class III Bike Route
Bike routes, or Class III bicycle facilities—(Caltrans designation)
are defined as facilities shared with motor vehicles. They are
typically used on roads with low speeds and traffic volumes,
however can be used on higher volume roads with wide outside
lanes or with shoulders. Bike routes can be established along
through routes not served by shared use paths (Class I) or bike
lanes (Class II), or to connect discontinuous segments of
bikeway. A motor vehicle driver will usually have to cross over
into the adjacent travel lane to pass a bicyclist, unless a wide
outside lane or shoulder is provided.
Bicycle routes can employ a large variety of treatments from
simple signage to complex treatments including various types
of traffic calming and/or pavement stenciling. The level of
treatment to be provided for a specific location or corridor
depends on several factors as shown below.
Summary of Standards
Class III bikeways provide routes through areas not
served by Class I or II facilities or provide connections
between discontinuous segments of Class I or II
bikeways.
Class III facilities can be shared with either motorists on
roadways or pedestrians on a sidewalk (not advisable).
Bicycle routes on local streets should have vehicle
traffic volumes under 1,000 vehicles per day. Traffic
calming may be appropriate on streets that exceed this
limit.
Bicycle routes may be placed on streets with outside
lane width of less than 15 feet if the vehicle speeds and
volumes are low.
Bicycle route signage standards:
The D11-1 (CA) bicycle route sign shall be placed along
the roadways at decision points, where users can turn
onto or off the bikeway.
Standard signage is shown in Chapter 9 of the 2012
California MUTCD.
D-12 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Shared Lane Markings
The primary purpose of this shared use arrow is to provide
positional guidance to bicyclists on roadways that are too
narrow to be striped with bicycle lanes. Markings may be placed
on the street to inform motorists about the presence of cyclists
and also to inform cyclists how to position themselves relative
to parked cars and the travel lane. The 2012 California MUTCD
has approved the Shared Lane Marking for use in California
jurisdictions on streets with or without on-street parallel
parking.
Typical Applications
Bicycle network streets that are too narrow for
standard striped bicycle lanes.
Bicycle network streets that have moderate to high
parking turnover.
Areas that experience a high level of "wrong-way"
riding.
Guidelines
Shared lane markings should be installed in conjunction
with “share the road” signs.
Shared lane markings should be spaced approximately
250 feet center to center, with the first arrow on each
block or roadway segment placed no further than 100
feet from the nearest intersection.
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-13
Class IV Separated Bikeway
A separated bikeway (also called protected bike lane or cycle
track) is an exclusive facility for bicyclists that is located within
or directly adjacent to the roadway and that is physically
separated from motor vehicle traffic with a vertical element.
Standards and specifications for this bicycle facility depends on
the design (one- or two-way) and can be found at
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/oppd/dib/dib89.pdf.
Typical Application
To provide an on-street connection along a bicycle
freeway alignment.
Appropriate for high bicycle volumes and speeds when
designed with appropriate dimensions
Along streets with high motor vehicle volumes (9,000-
30,000 ADT) and relatively high speeds (>25 mph).
Along streets with high truck traffic (10% of total ADT).
Suitable in areas of high parking turnover.
Guidelines
Desired width of the bicycle travel area is 10 feet in
areas with high bicycle volumes or uphill sections to
facilitate safe passing behavior.
Vertical separation treatments such as parking,
movable planters or raised curbs or raised grade
separation may be used. Buffer type may impact cost,
drainage, bicyclist operating width, and aesthetics of
the protected bike lane.
Minimum buffer area width is 3 feet adjacent to parked
cars to accommodate open doors, or 1.5 feet adjacent
to travel lanes.
Channelizing devices should be placed in the buffer
area (CAMUTCD 3H.01).
If painted buffer area is 4 feet or wider, white chevron
or diagonal markings should be used.(CAMUTCD
9C.04)
D-14 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Protected Intersection
A protected intersection uses a collection of intersection design
elements designed to maximize user comfort within the
intersection and promote a high rate of yielding to through
bicyclists. The design is based on a setback bikeway crossing
using physical separation within the intersection to define the
turning paths of motor vehicles, slow motor-vehicle turning
speed, and offer a comfortable refuge for bicyclists waiting
within the intersection at a red signal.
Typical Application
At signalized intersections along streets with protected
bicycle lanes.
Along crossings of minor streets with stop controlled
approaches.
May be compatible with conventional bicycle lanes or
neighborhood bikeway facilities by transitioning the
bikeway into separated bike lanes just upstream of the
intersection.
Guidelines
Setback bicycle crossing of 20 feet allows for one
passenger car to queue while yielding. A larger setback
desired in high speed areas (> 35 mph). Smaller
setback distance possible in slow-speed, space
constrained conditions
Corner safety island with a 15-20 foot corner radius
desired to slow motor vehicle speeds. Larger radius
designs may be possible when paired with a deeper
setback or a protected signal phase.
A forward stop bar should indicate the area for
bicyclists to wait at a red signal
If a permissive left turn is allowed, a median island
extending into the intersection should be used to
channelize and direct left turning motor vehicles.
Intersection crossing markings should be used to
identify the bicycle crossing. Consider green pavement
to highlight the crossing area.
Further Considerations
Colored pavement may be used within the corner refuge area
to clarify use by bicyclists and discourage use by pedestrians or
motorists.
Intersection approaches with high volumes of right turning
vehicles should provide dedicated right turn only lane paired
with a protected signal phase to separate the right turn
movements from through bicycle movements.
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-15
On-Street Bikeway Regulatory & Warning
Signage
Signage for on-street bikeways includes standard BIKE LANE
and BIKE ROUTE signage, as well as supplemental signage such
as SHARE THE ROAD, BIKE MAY USE FULL LANE, and warning
signage for constrained bike lane conditions. The CA MUTCD
provides further guidance on bikeway signage.
Typical Applications
Various situations, specific to each site.
The City should install SHARE THE ROAD signs along
all Class III Bike Routes in addition to standard BIKE
ROUTE signage.
SHARE THE ROAD signs may be installed at one-half
mile intervals along the designated route.
Guidelines
Signage should be installed on existing signposts if
possible, reducing visual clutter along the path or
roadway.
Bike route and bike lane signs should be placed at
decision points.
Where there is significant distance between decision
points, bike route and bike lane signs should be
repeated at regular intervals to confirm the route.
D-16 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Wayfinding Signage
Wayfinding signage acts as a “map on the street” for bicyclists
and is an important component of a bikeway network. Caltrans
D11-1 and D-1 signage should be used on all designated bikeways
at decision points, where users can turn onto or off the bikeway
such as at an intersection.
Typical Applications
Confirmation Signs
Placed every ¼ to ½ mile on off-street facilities and
every 2 to 3 blocks along on-street bicycle facilities,
unless another type of sign is used (e.g., within 150 ft of
a turn or decision sign).
Should be placed soon after turns to confirm
destination(s). Pavement markings can also act as
confirmation that a bicyclist is on a preferred route.
Turn Signs
Near-side of intersections where bike routes turn (e.g.,
where the street ceases to be a bicycle route or does
not go through).
Pavement markings can also indicate the need to turn
to the bicyclist.
Decision Signs
Near-side of intersections in advance of a junction with
another bicycle route.
Along a route to indicate a nearby destination.
Guidelines
Signage should be installed on existing signposts if
possible, reducing visual clutter along the path or
roadway.
Where there is significant distance between decision
points, wayfinding signage should be located at
intervals of one-mile.
Each sign should have a maximum of three
destinations.
Signage should be focused on major destinations such
as cities and counties; transit stations; and community
centers such as parks, schools and recreation centers.
Example Decision Wayfinding Sign
Example Confirmation Wayfinding Sign
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-17
Bicycle Detection at Actuated Traffic
Signals
Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06, issued August 27,
2009 by Caltrans modified CA MUTCD 4D.105 to require
bicyclists to be detected at all traffic-actuated signals on public
and private roads and driveways. If more than 50 percent of the
limit line detectors need to be replaced at a signalized
intersection, then the entire intersection should be upgraded so
that every line has a limit line detection zone. Bicycle detection
must be confirmed when a new detection system has been
installed or when the detection system has been modified.
The California Policy Directive does not state which type of
bicycle detection technology should be used. Two common
types of detection are video and in pavement loop detectors.
Push buttons may not be used as a sole method of bicycle
detection.
Typical Applications
At signalized intersections within bicycle lanes or
general purpose travel Lanes
At signalized intersections within left turn lanes used
by bicyclists
At signalized intersections within separated bike lanes.
In conjunction with active warning beacons and
pedestrian hybrid beacons.
Guidelines
Type A, C, or D loop detectors should be used.
Pavement markings should identify proper cyclist
position above the loop detector.
Loop detectors should provide adequate time for
cyclists to cross the intersection, keeping in mind the
slower travel speed (10-15 mph) of bicyclists.
Bicycles must be detected with 95% accuracy within
the 6-foot by 6-foot Limit Line Detection Zone.
Where Limit Line Detection Zones are provided,
minimum bicycle timing shall be 14.7 feet per second,
plus a 6-second start-up time.
D-18 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Source: Traffic Operations Policy
Directive 09-06
Bicycle Parking
Secure bicycle parking is an essential element of a functional
bicycle network. Bicycle racks are a common form of short-term
secure bicycle parking and can be installed in various locations,
including sites adjacent to retail such as parking lots, as well as
in the public right of way in the furnishings zone of the sidewalk.
Racks are appropriate for locations where there is demand for
short-term bicycle storage. Bicycle lockers provide secure and
sheltered bicycle parking and are recommended in locations
where long-term bicycle storage is needed, such as transit
stations.
Typical Applications
Bicycle parking should be installed throughout Cupertino with
priority given to significant destinations such as parks, schools,
shopping centers, transit hubs, and job centers.
U-Rack Post and
Loop
Horseshoe Lightning
Bolt™
Or Varsity
Rack™
Recommended types of bicycle parking
Appendix D: Bicycle Design Guidelines
Alta Planning + Design | D-19
Guidelines
Bicycle parking should be a design that is intuitive and
easy to use.
Bicycle parking should be securely anchored to a
surface or structure.
Bicycle parking spaces should be at least six feet long
and two-and-a-half feet wide. Overhead clearance
should be at least seven feet.
The rack element (part of the rack that supports the
bicycle) should keep the bicycle upright by supporting
the frame in two places. The rack should allow one or
both wheels to be secured.
A standard U-Rack is a simple and functional design
that takes up minimal space on the sidewalk and is
easily understood by users. Avoid use of multiple-
capacity “wave” style racks. Users commonly
misunderstand how to correctly park at wave racks,
placing their bikes parallel to the rack and limiting
capacity to one or two bikes.
Position racks so there is enough room between
parked bicycles; if it becomes too difficult for a
bicyclist to easily lock their bicycle, they may park it
elsewhere. Racks should be situated on 36-inch
minimum centers.
A five-foot aisle for bicycle maneuvering should be
provided and maintained beside or between each row
of bicycle parking
Empty racks should not pose a tripping hazard for
visually impaired pedestrians. Position racks out of the
walkway’s clear zone.
Racks should be located close to a main building
entrance, in a lighted, high-visibility, covered area
protected from the elements. Long-term parking
should always be protected.
Additional Considerations
All bicycle parking should be in a safe, secure area visible to
passersby. Commuter locations should provide secure indoor
parking, covered bicycle corrals, or bicycle lockers. Short term
bicycle parking facilities, such as bicycle racks, are best used to
accommodate visitors, customers, messengers and others
expected to depart within two hours. They are usually located
at schools, commercial locations, and activity centers such as
parks, libraries, retail locations, and civic centers. Bicycle
parking on sidewalks in commercial areas should be provided
according to specific design criteria, reviewed by merchants
and the public, and installed as demand warrants. The following
table provides recommended guidelines for bicycle parking
locations and quantities.
Recommended Guidelines for Bicycle Parking Location
and Quantities
Land Use or
Location Physical Location Quantity
Parks Adjacent to restrooms,
picnic areas, fields, and
other attractions
8 bicycle
parking spaces
per acre
Schools Near office and main
entrance with good
visibility
8 bicycle
parking spaces
per 40 students
Public Facilities
(libraries,
community centers)
Near main entrance with
good visibility
8 bicycle
parking spaces
per location
Commercial, retail
and industrial
developments over
10,000 square feet
Near main entrance with
good visibility
1 bicycle parking
space per 15
employees or 8
bicycles per
10,000 square
feet
Shopping Centers
over 10,000 square
feet
Near main entrance with
good visibility
8 bicycle
parking spaces
per 10,000
square feet
Transit Stations Near platform, security
or ticket booth
1 bicycle parking
space or locker
per 30
D-20 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Land Use or
Location Physical Location Quantity
automobile
parking spaces
Multi-Family
Residential
Near main entrance with
good visibility
1 short-term
bicycle parking
space per 10
residential units
AND
1 long-term
bicycle parking
space per 2
residential units
Appendix E: Project Prioritization
Alta Planning+ Design | E-1
Appendix E. Project Prioritization
This appendix presents the project scoring criteria as well as the full list of projects and their ranking. All of the proposed
infrastructure projects were ranked against the criteria described in Table E-1 and then tiered into short, mid, and long-term tiers
based on a logical breakdown of scores and complexities of implementation. The intent of evaluating projects is to create a
prioritized list of projects for implementation. As projects are implemented, lower ranked projects move up the list. The project list
and individual projects to be included in this Plan are flexible concepts that serve as a guideline. The high-priority project list, and
perhaps the overall project list, may change over time as a result of changing walking and bicycling patterns, land use patterns,
implementation constraints and opportunities and the development of other transportation improvements.
Project Scoring Criteria
Table E-1 gives the scoring criteria each project was ranked against.
Table E-1: Project Scoring Criteria
Prioritization Criteria Max Score
Safety 20
(Max 20 Point) Projects are scored on a scaled ranking from zero to twenty with locations with the most collisions
receiving the maximum score.
Stress Test Analysis 5
(5 Points) Routes which were identified as high stress in the Bicycle Network Stress Test.
(2 Points) Routes which were identified as medium-high stress in the Bicycle Network Stress Test.
Travel Routes to/near Schools 20
(20 Points) Directly connects to school(s) OR within 1/4 mile of the school.
(10 Points) Connects to a bikeway that directly connects to a school and is located within 1/4 mile of the school.
E-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Prioritization Criteria Max Score
(0 Points) Project does not connect to a school.
Network Connectivity 15
(15 Points) Closes gap between two Class I trails OR creates a new connection across a major barrier such as a
freeway, creek, arterial, or rail road tracks.
(7 Points) Closes gap between two on-street bikeways OR extends a Class I trail OR enhances an existing arterial
crossing.
(1 Point) Extends on-street bikeway.
Low-Stress Network Improvements 20
(20 Points) Upgrades an existing bikeway to a low-stress bikeway (Bicycle Boulevard, Class I Multi-Use Path, or
Class IV Separated Bike Lane).
(10 Points) Adds a new bikeway that is defined as a low-stress bikeway (Bicycle Boulevard, Class I Multi-Use Path,
or Class IV Separated Bike Lane).
(5 Points) Upgrades an existing bikeway to a lower-stress bikeway (bike lanes or buffered bike lanes).
Trip Generators and Attractions 10
(10 Points) Directly connects to employment centers, retail/business centers, transit, community services, parks and
recreation facilities and/or City facilities.
(5 Points) Projects that directly connect to an existing facility that connects to an activity generator.
(O Points) Project does not connect to an activity generator.
Feasibility/Ease of Implementation 10
(10 Points) Projects that can be implemented within a one-to-five-year time frame, that do not require outside
agency approval.
(5 Points) Projects that can be implemented within a one-to-five year time frame, that require outside agency
approval.
Appendix E: Project Prioritization
Alta Planning+ Design | E-3
Prioritization Criteria Max Score
(1 Point) Projects that cannot be implemented within a one-to-five year time frame, that do not require outside
agency approval.
(0 Points) Projects that cannot be implemented within a one-to-five year time frame AND that require outside
agency approval.
TOTAL SCORE (Max. = 100 points) 100
E-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix F: Project List
Alta Planning+ Design | F-1
Appendix F. Project List
This appendix presents a complete list of recommended infrastructure projects, including project evaluation results and planning-level cost
estimates. Table F-1 shows the bikeway projects and spot improvement projects.
Table F-1: Bikeway Project Scores and Cost Estimates Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Tier 1
Class IV
Separated
Bikeway
Stevens
Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd Tantau Ave -- 3.43 20 5 20 15 20 10 1 91 $4,120,000
Class IV
Separated
Bikeway
McClellan Rd Byrne Ave De Anza Blvd -- 1.43 9 5 20 15 20 10 1 80 $286,000
Configure
Intersection
Stevens
Creek Blvd Stelling Rd --
Study protected
intersection in
coordination
with proposed
Class IV
0 7 2 20 15 20 10 1 75 $550,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Tri School
East/West
Bike Blvd
(#7)
Linda Vista Dr at
McClellan Rd
Hyannisport
Dr at Bubb
Rd
-- 0.66 1 5 20 7 20 10 10 73 $33,000
Grade
Separated
Crossing
Study
Highway 85
Crossing Grand Ave Mary Ave -- 0 20 5 10 15 10 10 1 71 $300,000
Class I Path Union Pacific
Trail Prospect Rd Stevens
Creek Blvd -- 2.10 0 5 20 15 20 10 1 71 $1,678,000
F-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Configure
Intersection McClellan Rd Stelling Rd --
Study protected
intersection in
coordination
with proposed
Class IV
0 2 2 20 15 20 10 1 70 $550,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Portal Ave
Bike Blvd
(#5)
Portal Ave at
Merritt Dr
Portal Ave at
Wintergreen
Dr
-- 0.69 1 2 20 7 20 10 10 70 $35,000
Class IV
Separated
Bikeway
Finch Ave Phil Ln Stevens
Creek Blvd -- 0.45 0 2 20 7 20 10 10 69 $545,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
West
Cupertino
North/South
Bike Blvd
(#9)
Orange Ave at
Mann Dr
Fort Baker Dr
at
Hyannisport
Dr
-- 0.63 2 2 20 15 10 10 10 69 $32,000
Configure
Intersection McClellan Rd Westacres
Dr/Kim St --
Study peanut
roundabout to
connect off-set
north/south
bike routes
across
McClellan
0 0 2 20 15 20 10 1 68 $200,000
Class I Path
I-280
Channel Bike
Path
Mary
Ave/Meteor Dr
Tantau
Ave/Vallco
Pkwy
-- 2.87 2 5 20 15 10 10 5 67 $2,293,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Civic Center
to Sterling
Barnhart
Park Bike
Blvd (#2)
Rodrigues Ave at
Blaney Ave
Sterling
Barnhart
Park
-- 1.41 3 2 20 7 20 5 10 67 $70,000
Tier 2
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
De Anza
Blvd Homestead Rd Bollinger Rd -- 1.73 15 2 20 7 10 10 1 65 $242,000
Appendix F: Project List
Alta Planning+ Design | F-3 Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Class IV
Separated
Bikeway
Stelling Rd Prospect Rd 250 South of
McClellan Rd -- 1.45 2 2 20 15 20 5 1 65 $290,000
Class IV
Separated
Bikeway
Stelling Rd 250 South of
McClellan Rd Alves Dr -- 0.71 3 5 10 15 20 10 1 64 $857,000
Class IV
Separated
Bikeway
Blaney Ave Bollinger Rd Homestead
Rd -- 1.91 4 2 20 7 20 10 1 64 $383,000
Class IV
Separated
Bikeway
Stevens
Creek Blvd Foothill Blvd St Joseph
Ave -- 0.62 1 2 10 15 20 5 10 63 $124,000
Class IV
Separated
Bikeway
Stelling Rd Alves Dr Homestead
Rd -- 0.84 5 5 20 7 20 5 1 63 $169,000
Class I Path Varian Park
Path Amelia Ct Varian Way -- 0.05 0 2 20 1 20 10 10 63 $100,000
Grade
Separated
Crossing
Study
Carmen Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd - South Side
Stevens
Creek Blvd -
North Side
-- 0 6 5 20 15 10 5 1 62 $300,000
Configure
Intersection
Stevens
Creek Blvd De Anza Blvd --
Bike lane
striping through
intersection
0 20 5 0 7 10 10 10 62 $10,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Mary Ave to
Portal Ave
Bike Blvd
(#4)
Mary Ave at
Meteor Dr
Portal Ave at
Merritt Dr -- 1.51 1 2 20 7 10 10 10 60 $75,000
Class II Bike
Lane Vista Dr Forest Ave Stevens
Creek Blvd -- 0.24 1 2 20 7 0 10 20 60 $15,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Tri-School
North/South
Bike Blvd
(#8)
Santa Teresa Dr
at Hyannisport
Dr
Terrace Dr at
Bubb Rd -- 0.76 0 2 20 7 10 10 10 59 $38,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Bollinger Rd De Anza Blvd Lawrence
Expy -- 2.00 4 0 20 7 5 10 10 56 $278,000
F-4 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Configure
Intersection
De Anza
Blvd McClellan Rd --
Rebuild
intersection to
facilitate safer
east/west travel
between
McClellan and
Pacific
0 5 5 0 15 20 10 1 56 $200,000
Configure
Intersection Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd --
Study removal
of slip lanes
and/or
porkchop
islands.
0 5 5 0 15 10 10 10 55 $100,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Mary Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd Meteor Dr -- 0.71 1 2 20 7 5 10 10 55 $100,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Miller Ave Bollinger Rd Calle de
Barcelona -- 0.48 0 2 20 7 5 10 10 54 $67,000
Configure
Intersection Infinite Loop Merritt Dr --
Improve
signage/striping
to delineate
bike/ped space
in connector
0 0 2 20 7 5 10 10 54 $2,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Homestead
Rd Mary Ave Wolfe Rd -- 1.97 9 0 20 7 5 10 1 52 $276,000
Reconfigure
wall/fence Greenleaf Dr Mariani Ave --
2015 Bike Plan
Update, create
gap in wall to
connect bike
routes
0 0 5 0 7 20 10 10 52 $25,000
Class III Bike
Boulevards
Civic Center
to Jollyman
Park Bike
Blvd (#1)
Rodrigues Ave at
De Anza Blvd
Jollyman
Park -- 0.86 0 5 5 7 20 5 10 52 $43,000
Appendix F: Project List
Alta Planning+ Design | F-5 Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Prospect Rd De Anza Blvd Stelling Rd -- 0.42 0 2 10 7 5 5 20 49 $59,000
Configure
Intersection McClellan Rd Rose Blossom Dr --
Facilitate
through bike
travel to De
Anza
0 5 2 20 7 5 0 10 49 $20,000
Trail Crossing Homestead
Rd Mary Ave --
Redesign
intersection of
Homestead at
Mary to better
facilitate
bicycles exiting
Mary Ave
bridge path
0 5 2 20 7 5 0 10 49 $10,000
Class III Bike
Route
Hyde Ave
Bike Route
(#6)
Hyde Ave at
Shadygrove Dr
Hyde Ave at
Bollinger Rd -- 0.24 1 2 20 1 5 10 10 49 $500
Configure
Intersection Stelling Rd Alves Dr --
Enhance
east/west bike
route crossing
for Alves Dr
0 1 2 0 15 10 10 10 48 $50,000
Class I Path Regnart
Creek Path Pacifica Dr Estates Dr -- 0.83 1 2 10 15 10 5 5 48 $664,000
Reconfigure
wall/fence Wheaton Dr Perimeter Rd --
Connect bike
blvd to
proposed bike
path on
Perimeter road,
requires
creating gap in
existing wall
0 0 2 0 15 10 10 10 47 $10,000
Tier 3
Class II Bike
Lane Rainbow Dr Upland Way Stelling Rd -- 0.50 2 2 20 7 5 5 5 46 $33,000
F-6 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Class I Path Perimeter Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
I-280
Channel Bike
Path
-- 0.59 0 2 10 7 20 5 0 44 $470,000
Class III Bike
Route
Mary Ave to
Vallco Mall
Bike Route
(#7)
Memorial Park End of
Wheaton Dr -- 1.77 1 2 20 1 0 10 10 44 $4,000
Class III Bike
Route
Tantau Ave
Bike Route
(#9)
Tantau Ave at
Bollinger Rd
Tantau Ave
at Barnhart
Ave
-- 0.41 1 2 20 1 0 10 10 44 $500
Class III Bike
Route
Rose
Blossom/
Huntridge
Bike Route
(#8)
Rose Blossom Dr
at McClellan Rd
Huntridge Ln
at De Anza
Blvd
-- 0.41 0 2 20 1 0 10 10 43 $1,000
Class I Path Wilson Park Rodrigues Ave Wilson Park
Path -- 0.03 0 0 10 7 10 5 10 42 $50,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Stevens
Creek Bike
Blvd (#6)
San Fernando
Ave at Orange
Ave
Carmen Rd
at Stevens
Creek Blvd
-- 1.12 0 0 10 7 10 5 10 42 $47,000
Configure
Intersection Blaney Ave Wheaton Dr --
Enhance bicycle
crossing across
Wheaton
0 1 5 0 15 10 0 10 41 $50,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd McClellan Rd -- 0.55 2 2 10 7 5 5 10 41 $77,000
Configure
Intersection Stelling Rd Rainbow Dr --
Study removal
of slip lanes,
study potential
for protected
intersection
0 2 2 0 15 20 0 1 40 $20,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Homestead
Rd Wolfe Rd Tantau Ave -- 0.49 1 2 10 7 5 5 10 40 $69,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Wolfe Rd Stevens Creek
Blvd
I-280
Channel Bike
Path
-- 0.40 0 2 10 7 5 5 10 39 $56,000
Appendix F: Project List
Alta Planning+ Design | F-7 Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Class I Path Jollyman
Park Stelling Rd Dumas Dr -- 0.15 0 2 0 7 20 0 10 39 $119,000
Reconfigure
wall/fence Imperial Ave Alcazar Ave --
Create gap in
fence to
connect bike
routes
0 0 2 0 7 10 10 10 39 $20,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Foothill Blvd Stevens Creek
Blvd
I-280 N
Offramp -- 0.96 2 5 10 7 5 5 5 39 $135,000
Class III Bike
Boulevard
Foothill to
Stevens
Creek Bike
Blvd (#3)
Foothill Blvd at
Starling Dr
Carmen Rd
at Stevens
Creek Blvd
-- 0.99 0 2 10 1 10 5 10 38 $50,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Lazaneo Dr Bandley Dr De Anza Blvd -- 0.09 1 0 10 7 5 5 10 38 $13,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Wolfe Rd Perimeter Rd Homestead
Rd -- 0.62 4 2 10 7 5 5 5 38 $86,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Bubb Rd McClellan Rd Stevens
Creek Blvd -- 0.53 3 2 10 7 5 5 5 37 $74,000
Grade
Separated
Crossing
Study
UPRR West
Cupertino
Crossing
Hammond
Snyder Loop
Trail
Stevens
Creek Blvd -- 0 1 5 0 15 10 5 1 37 $300,000
Bike/Ped
Bridge
Enhancement
Mary Ave
Ped Bridge I280 --
Improved
signage/striping
to delineate
bike/ped space
on Mary Ave
bridge
0 0 2 20 0 5 0 10 37 $20,000
Class I Path
Oaks
Development
Bike Path
Stevens Creek
Blvd Mary Ave -- 0.13 0 2 10 7 10 5 1 35 $102,000
F-8 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Miller Ave Calle de
Barcelona
Stevens
Creek Blvd -- 0.39 0 2 10 7 10 5 1 35 $54,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Tantau Ave Stevens Creek
Blvd
Pruneridge
Ave -- 0.65 1 2 10 7 5 5 5 35 $91,000
Trail Crossing McClellan Rd Union Pacific
Railroad Path --
Coordinate
crossing with
signal.
0 11 2 0 1 5 10 5 34 $10,000
Class II Bike
Lane Pacifica Dr De Anza Blvd Torre Ave -- 0.17 1 0 10 7 0 5 10 33 $11,000
Freeway
interchange
enhancement
Wolfe Rd I-280 Overpass --
Add green paint
to interchange
approaches,
stripe bike lane
through
interchange
intersection
0 8 5 0 7 5 0 5 30 $40,000
Class I Path
San Tomas-
Aquino
Creek Trail
Sterling/Barnhart
Park Calvert Dr -- 0.37 0 5 0 15 10 0 0 30 $294,000
Class I Path
San Tomas-
Aquino
Creek Trail
South of I280 Stevens
Creek Blvd -- 0.17 0 5 0 15 10 0 0 30 $138,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Vallco Pkwy Tantau Ave Perimeter Rd -- 0.30 0 2 10 7 5 5 1 30 $42,000
Class II Bike
Lane
Campus
Dr/Stevens
Creek Blvd
Connector
Campus Dr Stevens
Creek Blvd -- 0.11 1 2 10 7 0 5 5 30 $7,000
Class III Bike
Route
Hwy 85 to
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Bike Route
(#5)
Grand Ave at
Alhambra Ave
Peninsula
Ave at
Stevens
Creek Blvd
-- 0.19 1 2 10 7 0 0 10 30 $1,000
Appendix F: Project List
Alta Planning+ Design | F-9 Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Rainbow Dr De Anza Blvd Stelling Rd -- 0.57 1 0 0 7 10 0 10 28 $79,000
Class III Bike
Route
Bollinger Rd
to Stevens
Creek Blvd
Bike Route
(#1)
Johnson Ave at
Bollinger Rd
Stern Ave at
Stevens
Creek Blvd
-- 0.84 0 2 10 1 0 5 10 28 $1,500
Class III Bike
Route
Civic Center
to Creekside
Park Bike
Route (#2)
Torre Ave at
Rodrigues Ave
Estates Dr at
Creekside
Park Path
-- 1.24 0 2 10 1 0 5 10 28 $3,000
Class III Bike
Route
Garden Gate
Elementary
to Memorial
Park Bike
Route (#4)
Ann Arbor Dr at
Greenleaf Dr
Memorial
Park -- 0.42 0 0 10 1 0 5 10 26 $1,500
Freeway
interchange
enhancement
De Anza
Blvd
Hwy 85
Overpass --
Add green paint
to interchange
approaches,
stripe bike lane
through
interchange
intersection
0 4 5 0 7 5 0 5 26 $40,000
Trail Crossing Bubb Rd Union Pacific
Railroad Path --
Coordinate
crossing with
signal.
0 2 2 0 1 5 10 5 25 $10,000
Freeway
interchange
enhancement
Stevens
Creek Blvd
Hwy 85
Overpass --
Add green paint
to interchange
approaches,
stripe bike lane
through
interchange
intersection
0 6 2 0 7 5 0 5 25 $40,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Tantau Ave Pruneridge Ave Homestead
Rd -- 0.37 1 2 0 7 5 0 10 25 $52,000
F-10 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan Project Location Start End Notes Miles Safety Stress Test School Travel Network Connectivity Low Stress Trip Generator Feasibility Total Score Cost Freeway
interchange
enhancement
De Anza
Blvd I-280 Overpass --
Add green paint
to interchange
approaches,
stripe bike lane
through
interchange
intersection
0 2 5 0 7 5 0 5 24 $40,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Stevens
Canyon Rd McClellan Rd Rancho Deep
Cliff Dr -- 0.23 0 2 0 7 5 0 10 24 $33,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Bollinger Rd 200 feet East of
Westlynn Way De Foe Dr -- 0.18 0 2 0 7 5 0 10 24 $26,000
Class I Path
Linda Vista
Park/Deep
Cliff Golf
Course
Linda Vista Park
Parking Lot off
Linda Vista Dr
McClellan Rd -- 0.46 2 5 0 7 10 0 0 24 $366,000
Class II
Buffered Bike
Lane
Pruneridge
Ave Tantau Ave City Limits -
East -- 0.07 0 0 0 7 5 0 10 22 $9,000
Configure
Intersection Portal Ave Wheaton Dr --
2015 Bike Plan
Update, study
roundabout
conversion
0 0 2 0 7 10 0 1 20 $150,000
Class II Bike
Lane Cristo Rey Dr 150 feet East of
Cristo Rey Pl Roundabout -- 0.57 0 2 0 7 0 0 10 19 $37,000
Class III Bike
Route
Westlynn/
Fallenleaf
Bike Route
(#11)
Bollinger Rd at
Westlynn Way
Fallenleaf Ln
at De Anza
Blvd
-- 0.37 0 2 0 1 5 0 10 18 $1,000
Class III Bike
Route
Foothill Blvd
Bike Route
(#3)
Palm Ave at
Scenic Blvd
Lockwood Dr
at Stevens
Creek Blvd
-- 0.81 0 5 0 1 0 0 10 16 $1,500
Class III Bike
Route
Union Pacific
to Hwy 85
Bike Route
(#10)
September Dr at
McClellan Rd
Jamestown
Dr at
Prospect Rd
-- 1.48 0 2 0 1 0 0 10 13 $5,000
Appendix G: ATP Compliance Table
Alta Planning + Design | G-1
Appendix G. ATP Compliance Table
Subject Requirement Page(s)
Bicycle Trips The estimated number of existing bicycle trips in the plan area and the estimated
increase in the number of bicycle trips resulting from implementation of the Plan.
6-20 to 6-21
Safety
The number and location of collisions, serious injuries, and fatalities suffered by
bicycle riders in the Plan area, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of
all collisions and injuries, and a goal for collision, serious injury, and fatality
reduction after implementation of the Plan.
2-1 to 2-7
Land Use
A map and description of existing and proposed land use and settlement patterns
which must include, but not be limited to, locations of residential neighborhoods,
schools, shopping centers, public buildings, major employment centers, and other
major destinations.
1-1 to 1-2 and
Figure 1-4
Bikeways A map and description of existing and potential bicycle transportation facilities. 3-7 to 4-12
Bicycle Parking A map and description of existing and potential end-of-trip bicycle parking
facilities.
1-6, 1-8, and 3-2
to 3-4
Policies
A description of existing and proposed policies related to bicycle parking in public
locations, private parking garages and parking lots, and in new commercial and
residential developments.
2-20
Multi-Modal Connections
A map and description of existing and proposed bicycle transportation and
parking facilities for connections with and use of other transportation modes.
These shall include, but not be limited to, parking facilities at transit stops, rail and
transit terminals, ferry docks and landings, park and ride lots, and provisions for
transporting bicycle riders and bicycles on transit or rail vehicles or ferry vessels.
1-6, 1-8, and 3-2
to 3-4
Wayfinding A description of proposed signage providing wayfinding along the bicycle
transportation network to designated destinations.
3-1 to 3-2
Maintenance
A description of the policies and procedures for maintaining existing and
proposed bicycle facilities, including, but not limited to, the maintenance of
smooth pavement, freedom from encroaching vegetation, maintenance of traffic
control devices including striping and other pavement markings, and lighting.
2-20
G-2 | Cupertino Bicycle Transportation Plan
Subject Requirement Page(s)
Programs
A description of bicycle safety and education programs conducted in the area
included within the Plan, efforts by the law enforcement agency having primary
traffic law enforcement responsibility in the area to enforce provisions of the law
impacting bicycle rider safety, and the resulting effect on collisions involving
bicycle riders.
Chapter 5
Public Involvement A description of the extent of community involvement in development of the Plan,
including disadvantaged and underserved communities.
2-7 to 2-10 and
Appendix C
Regional Coordination
A description of how the active transportation plan has been coordinated with
neighboring jurisdictions, including school districts within the Plan area, and is
consistent with other local or regional transportation, air quality, or energy
conservation plans, including, but not limited to, general plans and a Sustainable
Community Strategy in a Regional Transportation Plan.
Appendix A
Prioritization
A description of the projects and programs proposed in the Plan and a listing of
their priorities for implementation, including the methodology for project
prioritization and a proposed timeline for implementation.
Appendix E
Funding
A description of past expenditures for bicycle facilities and programs, and future
financial needs for projects and programs that improve safety and convenience
for bicycle riders in the Plan area. Include anticipated revenue sources and
potential grant funding for bicycle uses.
Appendix F
Implementation
A description of steps necessary to implement the Plan and the reporting process
that will be used to keep the adopting agency and community informed of the
progress being made in implementing the Plan.
Chapter 6
Plan Adoption A resolution showing adoption of the Plan by the Council of Governments. Appendix H