Mountain View
Active Transportation
Plan
Mountain View’s 2026 plan for walking, bicycling, and active transportation — what it proposes, how it changed, and what happens next.
- Status
- Adopted
- City’s ATP page
- View City ATP page
- Full ATP PDF
- Link pending Awaiting a verified URL
Adopted by City Council
- April 2026
Draft Plan - June 16, 2026
City Transportation Commission (CTC) - August 2026
Revised ATP - August 31, 2026
CTC - September 22, 2026
City Council
September 22, 2026 · Council adoption
Council adopts the 2026 ATP
Mountain View City Council adopted the 2026 Active Transportation Plan on September 22, 2026.
Before adoption, a coalition of local organizations and residents requested amendments addressing design standards, greening, performance measures, walkability, traffic calming, bicycle facilities, and smaller-scale safety improvements.
Staff responded to those requests during the Council meeting, and Council gave direction on several of them.
Explore the Council decisionWhat does the ATP envision?
The MVATP is built around a Vision Statement and five Guiding Principles, developed with the ATPAC, TAC and BPAC and approved by City Council. Together they set the standard against which every recommendation in the plan — and every recommendation on this page — is measured.
“Mountain View leads the region with an Active Transportation Plan that defines a series of connected, low-stress, and green corridors that invite active transportation. The corridors include shade, wildlife habitat, and public open spaces. The plan enables the City to intentionally support a culture of walking and biking, enhance biodiversity, and reduce climate change impacts.”
MVATP Vision Statement, Chapter 1
The five guiding principles
- Safety & Comfort
- Access & Equity
- Mobility & Connectivity
- Sustainability & Biodiversity
- Innovation & Action-Orientation
The first four also organize the project scoring criteria below (plus a separate Feasibility category that isn’t tied to a guiding principle). Same colors, same categories, everywhere on this page.
From network to priority projects
The MVATP began with a citywide walking, bicycling and rolling network and identified more than 100 potential infrastructure projects. Projects were screened for feasibility and scored using the MVATP Scoring Criteria Framework: 17 criteria worth 100 points across five categories. City staff then reviewed the 24 highest-scoring projects, advancing 20 for concept development; four others already had plans underway or were substantially within Caltrans right-of-way. Detailed concepts for 16 priority projects are included in Appendix B.
- 01Long-term network
- 100+Potential projects
- 17Criteria scoring
- 24Highest-scoring
- 20Advanced
- 16Detailed concepts
MVATP Scoring Criteria Framework
Mountain View Active Transportation Plan · 100 points · 17 criteria · 5 categories
Mountain View uses this framework to score and prioritize potential pedestrian and bicycle projects. More than 100 projects were evaluated, with the highest-scoring projects informing the ATP’s priority project list.
-
This category includes 4 criteria
- 9Addresses community concernsReflects the volume of community input received about the project area.
- 14Addresses existing (historic) crash patternsPrioritizes areas with a history of fatal or severe injury crashes.
- 4Improves pedestrian network densityShortens excessively long pedestrian block lengths.
- 5Reduces pedestrian crossing distanceShortens the distance pedestrians must cross at intersections.
-
This category includes 3 criteria
- 14Supports lower income residentsBenefits residents in lower- and low-income census tracts.
- 6.5Fills a gap in existing sidewalk networkCloses gaps in the pedestrian sidewalk network.
- 6.5Fills a gap in the AAA bicycle networkCompletes low-stress connections for people of all ages and abilities.
-
This category includes 3 criteria
- 9Supports school childrenFronts, or lies on a suggested route to, a school.
- 9Supports other key destinationsConnects to commercial centers, parks, trails, and senior facilities.
- 4Improves first/last mile connection to transitConnects people to nearby bus or rail transit stops.
-
This category includes 5 criteria
- 2Order of Magnitude CostFavors lower-cost projects that are easier to deliver.
- 2Interagency CoordinationFavors projects needing less cross-agency coordination.
- 2Practical Implementation TimeframeFavors projects deliverable on a shorter timeline.
- 2Opportunity To Leverage Existing Planned ProjectFavors projects that build on already-planned work.
- 2Alignment With Funding Sources/OpportunitiesFavors projects aligned with available funding programs.
-
This category includes 2 criteria
- 4.5Reduces impervious surface areaReduces paved surface area to support stormwater and habitat goals.
- 4.5Provide Plantable SpaceCreates space for ground cover plantings and shade trees.
Where are the 100 points?
The City evaluates projects using 17 criteria across 5 categories, for a total of 100 points.
Based on Table 5 in the 2026 ATP.
5 of the 17 criteria account for 55% of the possible score.
Top 5 = 55 points
Key takeaway: Nine of the 17 criteria account for 77.5% of the total possible score; the top five alone account for 55%.
What the prioritization produced
The selected projects include bikeway, pedestrian and intersection improvements. For the priority bikeway projects, the ATP estimates resurfacing costs for 17 project segments covering 14.04 miles. Most of that proposed mileage is Class IV separated bikeway.
Priority Bikeway Projects by Class
Source: Mountain View Active Transportation Plan (August 2026), Table 8. Costs are in 2025 dollars and are expected to increase over time.
Physically separated from motor traffic, such as by posts, curbs, parking or other barriers.
- West Middlefield RoadMoffett Blvd → Old Middlefield Way2.00 mi10,560 ft$8.0$758
- Whisman RoadFairchild Dr → East Dana St1.43 mi7,550 ft$5.7$755
- Evelyn AvenueBush St → South Bernardo Ave1.35 mi7,128 ft$5.4$757
- California StreetSouth Shoreline Blvd → Showers Dr; Showers Dr → Del Medio Ave1.38 / 0.50 mi7,286 / 2,640 ft$5.5 / $2.0$755 / $758
- South Shoreline BoulevardMontecito Ave → El Camino Real1.10 mi5,808 ft$4.4$757
- Dana StreetBush St → Moorpark Way0.85 mi4,488 ft$3.4$758
- Sylvan AvenueMoorpark Way → El Camino Real0.60 mi3,168 ft$2.4$758
- Miramonte AvenueEl Camino Real → Marilyn Dr0.50 mi2,640 ft$2.0$758
- Phyllis AvenueEl Camino Real → Grant Rd0.50 mi2,640 ft$2.0$758
- Rengstorff AvenueGarcia Ave → Leghorn St0.40 mi2,112 ft$1.6$758
- Showers DriveCalifornia St → El Camino Real0.32 mi1,690 ft$1.3$769
Bikes and motor vehicles share the travel lane; may include traffic calming, markings and signs.
- Class III shared-route segmentsSee Table 8 corridor and segment schedule2.51 mi13,253 ft$7.5M$566
A designated bike lane separated by striping, which may include a painted buffer.
- Class II painted-lane segmentSee Table 8 corridor and segment schedule0.60 mi3,168 ft$2.9M$915
Policies & programs
“Infrastructure changes are not the only ‘tool in the toolbox’ to improve the travel experience for people who walk, roll, and ride in Mountain View.” Table 7 lists 23 policies and programs — aligned with the MVATP vision and guiding principles — that support active transportation alongside capital projects.
Explore the policies and programs by category below. This is the full list from Table 7 (23 actions, unranked).
-
- No Right Turn on Red PolicyPilot to prohibit right turns on red at selected signalized intersections to improve safety, comfort and confidence for pedestrians and cyclists.
- Leading Pedestrian Interval PolicyGive pedestrians a head start entering the crosswalk at intersections evaluated and recommended by staff.
- Upgrade Pedestrian Signals to Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)Provide non-visual information — auditory tones, messages and/or vibrations — about when to cross the street.
- Improve Visibility at Intersections (Daylighting)Implement and enforce California’s Daylighting Law (AB 413), prohibiting parking within 20 feet of a crosswalk approach (15 feet with a curb extension) to improve visibility for everyone.
- Evaluation of Speed Limits and Speed ZonesExamine speed-limit reductions allowable under the California Vehicle Code, informed by post-project or district/zone engineering and traffic surveys.
- Enforcement of School Zone Speed LimitsPromote driver awareness and caution in areas where youth are gathered.
- Managing and Enforcing the Transportation System of All Road UsersEnforce space allocated to each mode — no parking or stopping in bicycle lanes, managing sidewalk space — to reduce modal conflict and crash risk.
- Road Safety EducationRoad safety education for all modes and road users to increase awareness of rules of the road and traveler responsibilities.
-
- Update Bicycle Parking StandardsSimplify and add flexibility to municipal code bicycle-parking standards to allow more high-quality bicycle parking.
- Education and Enforcement on Use of Personal Electric Micromobility DevicesPublic education and safety training, through Safe Routes to School and other outlets, on legal and appropriate e-bike/e-scooter use.
- Bicycle Friendly Community DesignationPursue the League of American Bicyclists’ designation, opening up resources supporting bicycle infrastructure and policy.
-
- Consideration of Pedestrian Connectivity via Paseos in Property DevelopmentNarrow pedestrian-only paths between buildings, alleys or public staircases that provide safe walking and biking connections across neighborhoods.
- Walk Safe DesignationPursue America Walks’ Walk Safe Community designation and related Community Change grants.
-
- Expansion of Safe Routes ProgramsAdd Safe Routes to Parks and Safe Routes to Transit alongside the existing Safe Routes to School program.
- Social Walks/RidesRegularly scheduled, community-promoted walk or bicycle tours focused on encouragement, training for new users, and road-safety awareness.
-
- Updated Design Standards to be Informed by Best PracticesUse best-practice guidance and standards (Caltrans, FHWA, AASHTO, U.S. Access Board, NACTO, ITE) to inform transportation project design for roadway users of all ages and abilities.
-
- Transportation Demand Management (TDM)Reduce automobile dependency through policy and programs, supporting infrastructure investments by making walking and biking more feasible. Mountain View’s TDM ordinance took effect in June 2026.
-
- Staff Continuing EducationContinuing education on the Vision Zero Action Plan, Local Road Safety Plan, defensive driving, the Safe Systems Approach and safety countermeasures.
-
- Greening / Tree Canopy ImprovementsIncorporate greenery and street trees into infrastructural improvements along roadways — serving environmental and planning goals and safer street design alike. See Green Complete Streets below.
-
- Maintenance of Active Transportation FacilitiesFund and program regular maintenance — bicycle lane sweeping, sidewalk cleaning and repair — to uphold safety and comfort.
- Waste Bin Policy and MaintenancePlace waste bins conspicuously throughout Mountain View to promote proper disposal.
-
- Evaluation of Infrastructure ProjectsMonitor whether built projects achieve their intended safety and travel-behavior impact, including pre/post counts required by funding programs like the CTC’s Active Transportation Program. See Measuring Progress below.
- Develop Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to Measure Active Transportation ProgressCity staff develop KPIs to measure and report annual overall progress toward the ATP Guiding Principles. See Measuring Progress below.
From Plan Goals to Real Streets
The ATP contains many of the ingredients of a Green Complete Street. The question is how well these goals are integrated when projects are designed, funded and built.
Mountain View’s Active Transportation Plan goes beyond traditional transportation planning. It addresses safe walking and bicycling, accessibility, trees and shade, biodiversity, stormwater management and equity. Some of these elements are core project-prioritization criteria; others enter through connections to plans like the Biodiversity and Urban Forest Plan (BUFP).
This section reviews how the ATP addresses each of these elements and examines where integration happens — and where there are opportunities to strengthen the connection from plan to implementation.
A Green Complete Street works as a system.
Safe and useful for people, healthy for the environment, and equitable in who benefits.
Streets are more than travel corridors. They are public spaces that move people, support ecosystems and strengthen communities.
What makes a Green Complete Street?
A Green Complete Street integrates people, environment and equity. These elements work together — not in isolation — to create streets that are safe, comfortable, green and useful for everyone in Mountain View.
Safe + Useful
for People
Move, connect and belong.
- Walking and bicycling networks
- Safe crossings and intersections
- All-ages accessibility
- Connections to transit, parks and services
- Comfort and a high-quality public realm
Climate + Ecology
Healthy, resilient and regenerative.
- Shade and urban forestry
- Biodiversity and habitat
- Stormwater management
- Heat resilience
- Green infrastructure in the right-of-way
Equity
Fair access and shared benefits.
- Who has access and who benefits
- Geographic and demographic prioritization
- Investments in underserved communities
- Inclusive engagement
- Affordability and anti-displacement considerations
Green Complete Street
Safe + comfortable · green · equitable
These elements are designed and delivered together — not as separate transportation, forestry, stormwater and equity projects.
How the ATP addresses these elements
The ATP addresses each part of the Green Complete Streets framework differently. Expand a row to see where it appears in the plan, how it enters implementation, and where connections or gaps remain.
-
What the ATP does
Safety & Comfort carries the single highest scoring weight in project prioritization and is reinforced by concrete Table 7 policy actions and an external crash-monitoring mechanism that closes the loop back to measurement.
Where it appears- PRIORITIZATION·Table 5, Safety and Comfort scoring criteria (32 of 100 points)p. 41–42
- ACTION·Table 7 — No Right Turn on Red Policyp. 48
- ACTION·Table 7 — Improve Visibility at Intersections (Daylighting)p. 49
- PLAN CONNECTION·VZAP/LRSP, CC-8 — “Monitor crash data on a scheduled basis to measure progress toward VZ goals”Appendix D
- EXISTING CONDITIONS·563 crashes 2015–2022 (11 fatal, 52 severe injury); 73% of FSI collisions on arterials ≥35 mphp. 27
How it gets to the street- Goal
- Prioritization
- Design
- Delivery
- Measurement
ReadingSafety & Comfort is the only element with an unbroken chain from goal to measurement. Its scoring weight is real, its Table 7 actions are concrete and already assigned to departments, and — uniquely — an external plan (VZAP/LRSP) supplies the ongoing measurement the ATP’s own KPI language leaves undefined.
-
What the ATP does
Mobility & Connectivity carries the second-largest infrastructure scoring weight and is backed by an already-enacted TDM ordinance, but has no connectivity-specific design standard of its own.
Where it appears- PRIORITIZATION·Table 5, Mobility and Connectivity criteria (22 of 100 points)p. 42–43
- ACTION·Table 7 — Transportation Demand Management (TDM)p. 53
- ACTION·Table 7 — Update Bicycle Parking Standardsp. 49
- NETWORK·Holistic Bicycle Network, Figure 27p. 35
- ACTION·Table 7 — Evaluation of Infrastructure Projectsp. 53
How it gets to the street- Goal
- Prioritization
- Design
- Delivery
- Measurement
ReadingMobility & Connectivity is well-anchored at both ends of the chain — a substantial scoring weight and a real, already-enacted TDM ordinance — but the middle thins out: nothing in Table 7 sets a connectivity-specific design standard, so the criteria that decide which projects score well don’t map onto a design requirement that shapes how they get built.
-
What the ATP does
The plan’s AAA bicycle network is a genuinely integrated planning input, but accessibility for people with disabilities depends on an ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan the ATP itself says is still underway — two different evidentiary stories under one row.
Where it appears- NETWORK·All Ages and Abilities (AAA) bicycle network, 2021 AccessMV analysisp. 22–24
- PRIORITIZATION·Table 5 — Fills a gap in AAA bicycle network / existing sidewalk networkp. 41
- PLAN CONNECTION·“The City is currently undertaking an ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan that will provide detailed data on accessibility”Appendix E, p. 36
- ACTION·Table 7 — Upgrade Pedestrian Signals to Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS)p. 49
- DESIGN·Sidewalk maintenance “to meet Title II ADA requirements” noted as a byproduct of resurfacing, not a designed-in featureAppendix B
How it gets to the street- Goal
- Prioritization
- Design
- Delivery
- Measurement
ReadingThis row holds two findings that shouldn’t be flattened into one. The AAA bicycle network is a real planning input carried through scoring and network design — that part looks integrated. But accessibility for people with disabilities is a different, weaker story: the ATP names the document that would actually govern this and says outright that it isn’t finished yet. Reading the row as fully accessible would overstate what the plan itself claims.
-
What the ATP does
Trees & Shade has the most complete non-safety chain in the plan: a named BUFP linkage, a real scoring criterion, and standardized design typologies already appearing in individual project cutsheets.
Where it appears- ACTION·Table 7 — Greening / Tree Canopy Improvementsp. 50
- PLAN CONNECTION·BUFP Actions 1, 10, 17 (named directly)p. 50
- PRIORITIZATION·Table 5 — Provide Plantable Space (up to 4.5 of 9 points)p. 43
- DESIGN·Standardized green-street typologies (tree wells, planting strips), Figure 34p. 66–67
- EXISTING CONDITIONS·Canopy reported as 17.7% (2022 Tree Technical Manual) and, elsewhere, as 19.5% — both against the same 22.7% goalp. 49, p. 66
How it gets to the street- Goal
- Prioritization
- Design
- Delivery
- Measurement
ReadingTrees & Shade is carried further into implementation than any element except Safety & Comfort — the BUFP linkage is explicit and specific, the scoring criterion is real, and priority-project cutsheets already show tree additions at named locations. One inconsistency worth surfacing plainly: the plan reports two different current-canopy percentages (17.7% and 19.5%) against the same stated goal, which reads as either a drafting inconsistency or two data vintages cited without reconciliation.
-
What the ATP does
Biodiversity shares its Table 7 action and BUFP cross-references with Trees & Shade, but the ATP’s own scoring criteria reward impervious-surface reduction and plantable space generically — nothing rewards native species selection or habitat value specifically.
Where it appears- ACTION·Table 7 — Greening / Tree Canopy Improvements (same action as Trees & Shade)p. 50
- PLAN CONNECTION·BUFP Actions 1, 10p. 50
- GOAL·“Green Streets = Active Transportation + Biodiversity + Green Infrastructure”p. 66; Appendix E, p. 46
- EXISTING CONDITIONS·237 street tree species; shift from monoculture described as the BUFP’s approachAppendix E, p. 51–54
- PRIORITIZATION GAP·Table 5’s Sustainability & Biodiversity criteria score impervious surface and plantable space only — no native-species or habitat-value criterionp. 43
How it gets to the street- Goal
- Prioritization
- Design
- Delivery
- Measurement
ReadingBiodiversity is named consistently and its goal language is genuine, but the mechanism that would carry it forward — prioritization scoring — doesn’t measure biodiversity at all; it measures generic green-infrastructure proxies that Trees & Shade and Green Infrastructure already claim. What’s substantively about biodiversity — native planting, habitat corridors, moving away from monoculture — is consistently attributed to the BUFP rather than operationalized by ATP-specific mechanisms.
-
What the ATP does
Green Infrastructure has a real scoring criterion and a genuine external compliance driver (MRP 3.0), with design guidance that’s more developed than its low scoring weight would suggest.
Where it appears- PRIORITIZATION·Table 5 — Reduces impervious surface area (up to 4.5 of 100 points)p. 43
- REGULATORY DRIVER·Green infrastructure required for Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit 3.0 compliancep. 66; Appendix E, p. 47
- DESIGN·“Standardize designs… corner curb extensions with bioretention, mid-block rain gardens, and permeable parking lanes”p. 67
- ACTION·Table 7 — “include green infrastructure in updated standard details” (stated as not yet complete)p. 50
- EXISTING CONDITIONS·Neighborhood impervious-surface range, 46–68%, Figure 48Appendix E, p. 63
How it gets to the street- Goal
- Prioritization
- Design
- Delivery
- Measurement
ReadingGreen Infrastructure’s evidence is real but concentrated almost entirely in the design stage — a genuine regulatory driver has produced actual standardized typologies. But the scoring weight that would push projects toward those typologies is small, and the plan is explicit that folding green infrastructure into standard details is still future work, not something already delivered.
-
What the ATP does
Equity has the most developed existing-conditions analysis of any social criterion and a substantial scoring weight, but its most concrete delivery mechanism — folding equity into the capital improvement program — belongs to the VZAP/LRSP rather than being an ATP-specific commitment.
Where it appears- PRIORITIZATION·Table 5 — Supports lower income residents (max 14 of 27 points, Census FPL data)p. 41
- EXISTING CONDITIONS·Appendix E, dedicated section “4. Access and Equity”p. 38–44
- PLAN CONNECTION·VZAP/LRSP, SR-2 — “Prioritize capital projects on the HIN, school routes and equity priority locations as part of the capital improvement program (CIP) process”Appendix D
- PROJECT-LEVEL·Priority-project cutsheets flag specific projects serving “a disadvantaged community area of Mountain View”Appendix B
- ACTION·Table 7 — Walk Safe Designation, Road Safety Education, Leading Pedestrian Interval Policy (dual-tagged Access & Equity)p. 49–51
How it gets to the street- Goal
- Prioritization
- Design
- Delivery
- Measurement
ReadingEquity’s goal and prioritization stages are unambiguously strong and ATP-owned. But its path into actual capital delivery runs through SR-2, which lives in the VZAP/LRSP rather than the ATP’s own Table 7 — the plan aligns with that mechanism rather than owning it. That is a meaningfully different claim than “the ATP delivers equity,” and the evidence supports the more limited one.
-
What the ATP does
Heat & Climate Resilience never appears as its own concern in the ATP — it is consistently a stated co-benefit of tree-canopy and green-infrastructure investment already counted under those rows.
Where it appears- PLAN CONNECTION·BUFP “Heat Mitigation Strategy Zone” and “Cooling Zone” — named, never mapped or defined in the ATPp. 50
- CO-BENEFIT·“Street trees and impermeable surfaces reduce heat island effects”Appendix E, p. 47
- CO-BENEFIT·“More impervious surfaces mean higher surface temperatures”Appendix E, p. 62
- DESIGN·Planting strip described as “Replaces heat-absorbing pavement,” Figure 34p. 67
- GOAL·2021 City Council Sustainability & Climate Resiliency strategic priority, underlying the BUFPp. 30; Appendix E, p. 45
How it gets to the street- Goal
- Prioritization
- Design
- Delivery
- Measurement
ReadingOf the eight elements, this is the one where no ATP mechanism treats heat as its own concern — no scoring criterion, no design standard, no Table 7 action, no KPI. It rides entirely on the coattails of tree-canopy and green-infrastructure investment. That is a legitimate co-benefit, but it means heat reduction has no independent claim on prioritization or delivery: if canopy or impervious-surface work stalls for unrelated reasons, nothing in the ATP specifically protects heat outcomes.
Measuring progress
Table 7 names two distinct kinds of measurement — one project-level, one citywide:
Evaluation of Infrastructure Projects
Monitors whether an individual built project achieved its intended impact on travel behavior and safety for multiple modes. Funding programs such as the CTC’s Active Transportation Program require pre- and post-project counts of walking, bicycling and vehicles.
Develop KPIs to Measure Active Transportation Progress
City staff develop key performance indicators to measure and report annual overall progress toward the ATP Guiding Principles — a citywide measure, distinct from any single project’s evaluation.
The ATP doesn’t yet specify what those KPIs are. What Green Complete Streets thinks should be measured — and how — is planned as a later addition to this section.
Read the full MVATP
Explore the four chapters of the Mountain View Active Transportation Plan and its supporting technical appendices.
The plan
-
Introduction
How the plan was developed, who participated, and the vision and principles guiding it.
Read Chapter 1 -
What’s it like to walk, bicycle and roll in Mountain View today?
Existing conditions, networks, safety, equity, and opportunities for the future.
Read Chapter 2 -
Recommendations
Projects, policies, and programs proposed to make walking, bicycling, and rolling safer and more connected.
Read Chapter 3 -
Let’s Roll! Implementing the MVATP
Costs, phasing, funding, collaboration, and how recommendations can move from plan to implementation.
Read Chapter 4
Technical appendices
-
Project Prioritization
How projects were scored and ranked.
View Appendix A -
Project Cutsheets
Concept designs and alternatives for priority corridors.
View Appendix B -
Recommended Improvements
Complete list of recommended bicycle and pedestrian improvements.
View Appendix C -
Vision Zero Recommendations
Programs and policies supporting safer streets.
View Appendix D -
Existing Conditions + Needs
Analysis of Mountain View’s transportation network, safety, equity, sustainability, and biodiversity.
View Appendix E