Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSSF-2013 Draft Pedestrian Master Plan South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan The work upon which this publication is based was funded in whol Growth Council. Disclaimer The statements and conclusions of this report are those of the City of South San Francisco and/or PMC and not necessarily those of the Strategic Growth Council or of the Department of Conservation or its employees. The Strategic Growth Council and the Department make no warranties, express or implied, and assume no liability for the information contained in the succeeding text. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO Table of Contents Chapter 1: Planning Context ............................................................... 1.1 Citywide Plans................................................................................................................ I-2 1.2 County Plans.................................................................................................................. I-6 1.3 Regional Plans................................................................................................................ I-9 1.4 Statewide Initiatives and Plans..................................................................................... I-11 1.5 Federal Initiatives.......................................................................................................... I-13 Chapter 2: Existing Pedestrian Environment ...............................................................II-1 2.1 South San Francisco Today...........................................................................................II-1 2.2 Pedestrian Collision Reports..........................................................................................II-5 2.3 Existing Programs, Policies and Practices Benchmarking Analysis..............................II-10 Chapter 3: Existing Conditions ...............................................................III-1 3.1 Pedestrian Needs.........................................................................................................III-1 3.2 Walking in South San Francisco...................................................................................III-2 3.3 Pedestrian Environment................................................................................................III-5 3.4 Identification of System Gaps.....................................................................................III-12 3.5 Summary of Opportunities and Constraints................................................................. III-17 Chapter 4: Recommended Improvements ...............................................................IV-1 4.1 Introduction...................................................................................................................IV-1 4.2 Citywide Project Recommendations..............................................................................IV-1 4.3 Site-Specific Recommendations...................................................................................IV-5 Chapter 5: Concept Plans ............................................................... 5.1 Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure Project......................................................................... V-1 5.2 Neighborhood Retail Corridor........................................................................................ V-4 5.3 BART Station and El Camino High School Access Improvements................................. V-6 i CLIMATE ACTION PLA AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN Table of Contents 5.4 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Improvements.............................................. V-8 5.5 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Improvements............................................ V-10 5.6 Complete Streets/Gateway Improvements................................................................... V-12 5.7 Centennial Way Access Improvements........................................................................ V-15 5.8 Prototypical Arterial intersection Improvements............................................................ V-17 Chapter 6: Policy Framework ...............................................................VI-1 6.1 Goals & Objectives.......................................................................................................VI-1 Chapter 7: Funding and Implementation ...............................................................VII-1 7.1 Planning Implementation..............................................................................................VII-1 7.2 Funding......................................................................................................................VII-12 7.3 Implementation Steps................................................................................................VII-20 Chapter 8: Support Programs ...............................................................VIII-1 8.1 Existing Programs.......................................................................................................VIII-1 8.2 Recommendations......................................................................................................VIII-3 Appendix A: South San Francisco Pedestrian Design Guidelines ............................................................... Complete Streets................................................................................................................. A-1 Streets and Sidewalks......................................................................................................... A-2 Crosswalk Installation Guidelines....................................................................................... A-10 Uncontrolled Intersections and Mid-block Crossing Treatments......................................... A-10 Controlled Crossing Treatments / Intersection Design....................................................... A-23 Resource Documents........................................................................................................ A-34 Appendix B: Ranked Projects ............................................................... Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates ............................................................... ii SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 1 Planning Context Chapter 1: Planning Context This chapter summarizes the policies in existing planning docume South San Francisco, and summarizes how future infrastructure in pedestrian conditions. The existing plans have been grouped into-wide plans, County Plans, Regional Plans, State Plans and Federal Initiatives. Table 1 lists the existing pl documents that are addressed in this chapter. Table I-1: Summary of Relevant Plans and Policies Statewide City-wide Federal County Plans Regional Plans Initiatives and Plans Initiatives Plans City of South San San Mateo County San Francisco Bay Caltrans’ Department of Transportation Francisco General Comprehensive TrailComplete Streets Policy Statement on Plan Bicycle and Policy Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan Pedestrian Accommodation South San South San Grand Boulevard California Regulations and Francisco El Francisco/San Plan Complete Streets Recommendations Camino Real Bruno Community-Act Master Plan Based Transportation El Camino Real / MTC Complete Assembly Bill 32 Plan Draft Chestnut Avenue Streets and Routine and State Bill 375 Area Plan Accommodation Policy South San Regional Ferry Plan Assembly Bill 1581 Francisco Bicycle and Caltrans’ Master Plan Policy Directive 09-06 Caltrain Station High Speed Rail Area Plan Plan (forthcoming) East of 101 Area Strategic Growth Plan Council Health in All Initiative Traffic Calming Plan MTC Walking and Bicycling Training, South San Francisco El Camino Real Signal Timing Program CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-1 1 Planning Context 1.1 Citywide Plans A number of local and regional plans and studies address the pedestri Francisco. This section discusses adopted plans and policies tha Francisco. These documents set precedent for how the City plans for and manages its walking infrastructure. City of South San Francisco General Plan (General Plan, October Vision Pedestrian facility improvements will improve safety for pedestr also encourage the use of alternative modes Improve pedestrian connections across Hwy 101 Establish pedestrian routes between and through residential neighborhoods, and to transit centers Guiding Policy Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards. Accept LOS E or F if the uses resulting in the lower level of se clear, overall public benefit As part of redesign of South Linden Avenue, provide continuous sidewalks on both sides of the street, extending through the ent stretch of the street from San Bruno BART Station to Downtown. The General Plan recommends locations for traffic calming as par development in Lindenville or East of 101: require project propo provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improveme new development and redevelopment projects. The General Plan recommends improvements to pedestrian connectio between the rail stations and the surroundings: install handicap ramps at all intersections as street improvements are being installed; construct wide sidewalks where feasible to accommodate increased pedestrian use; providing intersection “bulbing” to reduce walki distances across streets in Downtown, across El Camino Real and Road, and other high use areas; continue with the City’s current policy of providing pedestrian facilities at all signalized intersections; landscaping that encourages pedestrian use. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO I-2 1 Planning Context South San Francisco El Camino Real Master Plan (ECRMP, July 2006 Existing Many El Camino Real intersections within the corridor are betwee conditions and 140 feet in width, and pedestrians must cross three lanes of traffic to reach a median Between Arlington Drive and Hickey Blvd there are guardrails on side and no pedestrian amenities There are a limited number of street trees adjacent to sidewalks Pedestrian amenities are present within the corridor, but not co Planned and Arlington Drive to Hickey Blvd – streetscape improvements, improved Proposed signage, pedestrian links to Hickey Blvd, and improved safety of Streetscape at El Camino and Arlington Drive improvements Hickey Blvd to BART – improved signage to BART station, landscaping and street trees, street furniture such as bus shelter BART to Arroyo Drive – sidewalk extension, infill planting in median and adjacent hillside, unified median and streetscape design Arroyo Drive to West Orange Avenue – improve street trees, install barriers to prevent midblock pedestrian crossings, improve cross safety at intersection of El Camino Real and Westborough Blvd, install signalized intersection at Southwood Drive West Orange Avenue to Francisco Drive – traffic calming near the high school, sidewalk and curb repair/improvement and installation wh necessary, marked pedestrian crossings and accessibility at Francisco Drive, improve aesthetics of median barrier Francisco Drive to Noor Avenue – create pedestrian connections to San Bruno BART station ½ mile to the south, improve transitions sout Spruce, add landscaping and gateway marking, address large setbacks on private property with public art or other streetscape improve Design Goals and Improve streetscape aesthetics Objectives Increase pedestrian circulation and safety: provide accessible s throughout the corridor; expand sidewalks at intersections to re crossing length; install additional signaled crosswalks; provide bus shelters; install pedestrian barriers along medians to disco unsafe midblock crossing; buffer sidewalks with parking and vegetation Increase the use of the public transit system with more visibili pedestrian amenities Recapture vehicular right of way in areas in excess of current C standards for pedestrian facilities and traffic calming Create an identifiable streetscape that focuses on South San Francisco’ unique character CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-3 1 Planning Context Design Concept Throughout corridor – install street trees and remove billboards to Descriptions improve pedestrian environment; install bus shelters. Arlington Drive to Hickey Blvd – ADA compliant sidewalks on north east side of El Camino Real; 5’ sidewalk with a retaining wall on wes prune trees and remove billboard to improve visibility; provide street trees, and street furniture. Hickey Blvd to BART – install median from corner of Hickey to Costco Drive; reduce lane widths and widen sidewalks on both sides; ins wayfinding signage to BART station; require landscaping frontage improvements for development and permit applications. BART to Arroyo Drive – install sidewalk from Greedridge stairs to Arroyo Drive; remove on street parking between BART and the north entra Kaiser to install expanded sidewalks and street trees; encourage maintain planting area; create plaza on El Camino Real frontage road. Arroyo Drive to West Orange Avenue – install street trees and low screen fence along Buri-Buri parking lot; install street trees on west side from West Borough St to 1st Ave; install four-way signalized intersection at 1st Ave; install sidewalk bulb-outs on east side of 1st Ave intersection; widen sidewalk and add street trees on west side from 1st Ave to mid-block. West Orange Avenue to Francisco Drive – widen sidewalk on east side from West Orange Ave to Ponderosa Dr; install sidewalk on east side along high school and from Cortez Ave to Francisco Dr; Provide b- outs at intersection of Country Club Rd. Francisco Drive to Noor Avenue – remove parking and widen sidewalk along See’s Candies; create dense canopy of trees, accent nosing signage on both sides of street at city gateway; widen sidewalks on sides of gateway. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO I-4 1 Planning Context El Camino Real / Chestnut Avenue Area Plan (ECR/CAP, July 2011) Vision for El Higher density residential development and additional retail, of Camino corridor public space from SSF BART Increase pedestrian focus station to Increase commercial activity for both destination and neighborho Chestnut Ave serving retail Add continuous green space along Centennial Way and along BART r of way, to serve as a connector Create pedestrian connections along Mission Road and El Camino R Existing Pedestrians have access to BART station from El Camino Real conditions for El Camino corridor from SSF BART station to Chestnut Ave East of 101 Area Plan (July 1994) The East of 101 Area Plan focuses on the unique character and econom 101. The plan outlines circulation goals for future development minimizing vehicular impact, encouraging transportation modes other than single occupancy vehicles, and promoting use of public transit and shuttles to and within the area. The plan also includes a design element and policies that identify the need fo streets and encourages campus planning (e.g. Genentech Master Pl South San Francisco Bicycle Master Plan (2011) A detailed Bicycle Master Plan was adopted by the City Council i improvements and will eventually be adopted as an amendment to tty of South San Francisco General Plan Transportation and Circulation Element. Downtown Station Area Plan (forthcoming) The Downtown South San Francisco Station Area Plan will focus on improving ac between the station, the downtown area near Grand Avenue and Air centers east of U.S. 101. Traffic Calming Plan The City of South San Francisco has established an ongoing Traff a local Traffic Calming Plan. This program was developed to provide policies and procedures that will act as guidelines to address traffic complaints related to exces-through traffic, and high vehicular volumes while maintaining pedestrian and vehicula provides a toolkit for implementing solutions, however the City h implementation at the present time. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-5 1 Planning Context MTC Walking and Bicycling Training, South San Francisco (present A series of trainings with a focus on improving the Pedestrian and Bicycle environments was presented to practicing transportation, urban planning, engineer South San Francisco and adjacent jurisdictions. The presentation tools and design innovations that may increase pedestrian safety and mobil These include: scramble treatments at intersections to allow for pedestrian signals to give pedestrians a head start on turning v pedestrian crossings to improve visibility from approaching vehi Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) to alert approaching vehicl intersections; split pedestrian crossover to reduce crossing distance and improve visi confusing intersections; and ADA innovations and updates at push El Camino Real Signal Timing Program South San Francisco and MTC have developed optimized signal timing plans for seven intersections along El Camino Real, and three intersections along Chestnut Ave Camino Real. The project goal was to develop signal coordination-day and PM peak periods to improve timing and reduce vehicle delay. Pedestrian signal timing adjusted to accommodate a slower walking speed, and the new sign time on the corridor. 1.2 County Plans This section describes the plans and policies related to pedestr San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan (SM C 2011) The San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan ( City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) and the Sa Transportation Authority (SMCTA) in September 2011. This plan ad funding and implementation of bicycle and pedestrian projects ofcance by updating the 2000 San Mateo County Comprehensive Bicycle Route Plan, and adding a pedestrian component. The City’s Bicycle Master Plan and the forthcoming Pedestrian Plan provide more up-to-date and accurate network maps and policies. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO I-6 1 Planning Context Existing The largest population and employment densities in the county ar Conditions for all concentrated along the El Camino Real corridor of San Mateo A Class I path has been constructed between South San Francisco County San Bruno BART as part of the Colma-Millbrae Bikeway Project Employment density around SSF Caltrain station is high on the ea of the freeway Multi-use paths (Class I facilities) are in place along the bay shorel between the South San Francisco and San Bruno BART stations, butre is less coverage extending beyond the transit centers and limite opportunity given the development pattern Goals to improve Goal 1: A Comprehensive Countywide System of Facilities for Bicy active and Pedestrians transportation Goal 2: More People Riding and Walking for Transportation and Recreation Goal 3: Improved Safety for Bicyclists and Pedestrians Goal 4: Complete Streets and Routine Accommodation of Bicyclists Pedestrians Goal 5: Strong Local Support for Non-Motorized Transportation The vision most relevant to South San Francisco will be implement Boulevard Initiative, a regional collaboration dedicated to revi through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties (see Regional Plans, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-7 1 Planning Context South San Francisco/San Bruno Community-Based Transportation Plan Draft (SSF-SB CBTP, January 2011) Existing The east portion of South San Francisco is not well served by pu Conditions in transit South San Several major employers are located east of Hwy 101; major retai Francisco mostly located along the El Camino Real and BART corridors Residents need increased sense of security while walking and mor pedestrian amenities and streetscape improvements Transportation Improve transit stops and amenities; and improve transit afforda Strategies low income users Implement improvements such as pedestrian count down signals, additional crossing time, sidewalk and accessibility improvement lighting, benches, and median refuges Link Caltrain station to Grand Avenue and downtown South San Francisco with pedestrian connections Specific locations Across U.S. Route 101 from downtown South San Francisco to the S for Traffic San Francisco Caltrain station and east of U.S. Route 101 (South San Calming Francisco) Westborough Boulevard between Camaritas Avenue and Junipero Serr Boulevard El Camino Real from Hickey Boulevard to Serramonte Boulevard Across U.S. Route 101 from downtown South San Francisco to the South San Gaps in the Francisco Caltrain station and east of U.S. Route 101 (South San pedestrian Westborough Boulevard between Camaritas Avenue and Junipero Serr environment Boulevard El Camino Real from Hickey Boulevard to Serramonte Boulevard SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO I-8 1 Planning Context 1.3 Regional Plans The Plans summarized in this section affect jurisdictions throug including the City of South San Francisco. San Francisco Bay Trail (Ongoing) The Bay Trail is a planned continuous multi-use trail that, when complete, will encircle San Francisco and San Pablo bays. Approximately 500 miles long, the trail’s planned alignment connects the bay shoreline of all nine Bay Area counties, links 47 cities, and crosses all the toll bridges in the region. The alignment includes a continuous “spine” along or near the shoreline and many short “spurs” to the waterfront itse coordinated by the nonprofit San Francisco Bay Trail Project, a f Bay Area Governments. To date, approximately 290 miles of the Bay Trail alignment have-street paths or on-street bicycling lanes or routes. South San Francisco’s bay wate section of the Bay Trail, running between San Bruno Point and Oy Francisco has completed its portion of the Trail with the except Access Road. The City will review the Bay Trail within areas sub Grand Boulevard Initiative (ongoing) The Grand Boulevard Initiative focuses on encouraging multimodal and a boulevard street environment along El Camino Real in both Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Street Design Guidelines for str improvement projects promote the basic elements of the Grand Boulevard vision, with common Design Issues and accompanying Recommendatio Vision for San Mateo County Grand Boulevard Initiative is a regional collaboration dedicated to dramatically intensifying the development within portions of the El Camino Real corridor through San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-9 1 Planning Context Signalized mid-block and/or median- Shorter blocks with median-obstructed obstructed crossings in node areas should be crossings are more common in San Mateo installed to provide for a maximum distance County between crossings of approximately 660 feet (1/8 mile), or a 3.5-minute walk. In addition to traffic and countdown pedestrian signals, sidewalk bulb-outs, advanced stop lines, safety lighting, and special paving treatments should be provided to encourage walking. At signalized crossings 80 feet long or Pedestrian crossing distances on SR 82 are greater, or at un-signalized intersection relatively long crossings, pedestrian refuge islands should be installed as local conditions allow. New and re-development projects along the Existing sidewalks throughout the SR 82 corridor frontage should provide a 10-foot or corridor are generally too narrow to support greater setback as needed to create a the “boulevard” street environment required to minimum 18-foot frontage sidewalk. promote investment in transit-oriented mixed- use and infill residential development Sidewalks should be configured to reflect the Sidewalks provide a linear through-circulation three basic sidewalk functions note above, route for pedestrians, “spillout” space, and area with a 4-foot spillout zone adjacent to for boulevard amenities frontage buildings, a minimum 8-foot through walking zone, and a 6-foot amenity zone adjacent to the curb line for street trees, street lighting, and spillout area for curbside parking. Pedestrian-oriented street lighting should be Lighting conditions do not encourage installed throughout the corridor, with pedestrian circulation, support investment in supplemental highway-type lighting located frontage properties, or promote the boulevard at intersections if required. image desired for the corridor A minimum setback of 2 feet 6 inches is recommended to allow for curbside parking door swing and/or frontage visibility. MTC’s Complete Streets/Routine Accommodation Policy “Routine accommodation” refers to the practice of considering th habitually in the planning, design, funding and construction of Complete streets” is a related concept that describes roadways designed a access by all users, including bicyclists, pedestrians and trans In June 2006, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission—the regional transportation planning agency for the Bay Area—adopted a complete streets/routine accommodation policy for the The policy states that projects funded all or in part with regio accommodation of bicycling and walking facilities, as described in Caltrans Deputy Directive 64” (see below) in the full project cost. The policy requires that sponso—including the City of South San Francisco—complete a project checklist for any project submitted for funding to SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO I-10 1 Planning Context MTC that has the potential to impact bicycle or pedestrian use n ensure that project sponsors evaluate the need for bicycling and planning—ideally at the earliest stage—and accommodate such facilities in the design and budget of their projects. Regional Ferry Plan (September 1992) This plan outlines goals for Ferry service in the San Francisco reduction on single occupancy vehicle dependence. A new ferry te South San Francisco waterfront at Oyster Point, and pedestrian a employment destinations in the East of 101 Area will be very imp South San Francsico is maintained by the Water Emergency Transporattion Age operates ferry service throughout the bay. 1.4 Statewide Initiatives and Plans Caltrans is responsible for building and maintaining state-funded transportation infrastructure. Within the City of South San Francisco, Caltrans maintains El Camino ReUS 101, Interstate 280, and Interstate 380. The following policies affect strategic conjunction with Caltrans, the State has also passed legislation that affects all streets in South San Francisco. Caltrans’ Complete Streets Policy In 2001, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) policy for the state in the form of Deputy Directive 64, “Accommodating Non-motorized Travel.” The directive was updated in 2008 as “Complete Streets—Integrating the Transportation System.” The new policy reads in part: The Department views all transportation improvements as opportun and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes bicy as integral elements of the transportation system. The Department develops integrated multimodal projects in balanc, and values. Addressing the safety and mobility needs of bicyclis all projects, regardless of funding, is implicit in these object travel is facilitated by creating “complete streets” beginning e continuing through project delivery and maintenance and operatio The directive establishes Caltrans’ own responsibilities under t that Caltrans assigns to various staff positions under the policy are: Ensure bicycling, pedestrian, and transit interests are appropri interdisciplinary planning and project delivery development team Ensure bicycle, pedestrian, and transit user needs are addressed system and corridor planning, project initiation, scoping, and p CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-11 1 Planning Context Ensure incorporation of bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel transportation plans and studies. Promote land uses that encourage bicycle, pedestrian, and transi Research, develop, and implement multimodal performance measures California Complete Streets Act Assembly Bill 1358, the “California Complete Streets Act of 2008 a city or county, upon any substantive revision of the circulation eleme the circulation element to plan for a balanced, multimodal trans needs of all users [including] motorists, pedestrians, bicyclist seniors, movers of commercial goods, and users of public transpo goes into effect on January 1, 2011. The law also directs the Go Research to amend its guidelines for the development of circulation elements so as counties in meeting the above requirement. Assembly Bill 32 and State Bill 375 Senate Bill (SB) 375 is the implementation legislation for Assemires the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) by 28 percent by the year 20 2050. GHGs are emissions – carbon dioxide chief among them – that accumulate in the atmosphere and trap solar energy in a way that can affect global climate patterns. The largest source of these emissions related to human activity is generated by combustion-powered machinery, internal combustion vehicle engines, and equipment used to generate power metropolitan and regional planning agencies with achieving GHG r or Metropolitan Transportation Plans. The reduction of the use t method for reducing GHG emissions. This can be achieved through automobile, such as walking, bicycling, or using transit. Assembly Bill 1581 and Caltrans Policy Directive 09-06 Assembly Bill (AB) 1581 provides direction that new actuated tra modifications to existing traffic signals include the ability to calls for the timing of actuated traffic signals to account for has issued Traffic Operations Policy Directive 09-06, which has proposed modifications to Table 4D- 105(D) of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devic Devices Committee is considering the proposed modifications. High Speed Rail Plan A statewide high speed rail system is in the concept phase, and recommends that rail a corridor connecting San Francisco and San Jose run through South San Fran design changes involving a shared rail system. Studies are curre across the tracks and potential local traffic impacts. Caltrain is developing a list of improvem specific accommodations for the local pedestrian environment wil implementation are developed. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO I-12 1 Planning Context Strategic Growth Council Health in All Initiative California’s Health in All Policies Task Force was established in 2010, Strategic Growth Council (SGC). The Task Force was charged with strategies for State agencies to improve community health while SGC. The policy recommendations address two strategic directions Pedestrian Master Plan: Building healthy and safe communities with opportunities for act affordable housing; places to be active, including parks, green space, ability to be active without fear of violence or crime; and acce Finding opportunities to add a health lens in public policy and increase collaboration across agencies and with communities. 1.5 Federal Initiatives The United States Department of Transportation has issued the fo and bicycling activity and planning. Department of Transportation Statement on Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodation Regulations and Recommendations In 2010, the United States’ Department of Transportation (DOT) announced a policy directive to demonstrate the DOT’s support of fully integrated active transportation networks by incorporating walking and bicycling facilities into transportati projects. The statement encourages transportation agencies to go beyond minimum standards in the provision of the facilities. The DOT further encourages agencies to adopt policy statements that would affect bicycling and walking, such as: Considering walking and bicycling as equals with other transportation modes Ensuring availability of transportation choices for people of all ages and abilities Going beyond minimum design standards Integrating bicycling and pedestrian accommodations on new, reha bridges Collecting data on walking and biking trips Setting mode share for walking and bicycling and tracking them o Removing snow from sidewalks and shared use paths Improving non-motorizes facilities during maintenance projects CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN I-13 1 Planning Context SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO I-14 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Chapter 2: Existing Pedestrian Environment The City of South San Francisco, incorporated in 1908, is locate Francisco Bay, in northern San Mateo County. The City is built u foothills of the Coastal Range, and the El Camino Real and Union position as a hub of economic activity. The City became a significant regional shipbuilding hub during the two World Wars, the population boomed after World War II, an areas developed. Now it is home to major transportation corridor.S. 101, Interstate 380 and Interstate 280, Caltrain, BART, and airport related industries. Genentech moved to the East of 101 business area in the 1970s and introduced the biotechnology sector to the region, and there are now more than 30 biotech companies locatedThe City encompasses 9.63 square miles and has a population of approximat swells to approximately 75,000 during the day due to an influx of workers in the admistrative, biotechnical and industrial sectors. 2.1 South San Francisco Today South San Francisco is already home to many great walking enviro well connected street network complete with sidewalks, commercia amenities. Multi-use shared paths along the waterfront and connecting the San Bru Francisco BART stations have already been built, and a number of-road bikeway projects were recommended in the South San Francisco Bicyle Mast already been implemented, or are simply a conversion from a reco lane. Long-term implementation of bikeway projects will depend on availabil opportunities presented by future development. The Caltrain station is adjacent to the downtown, and the forthcoming Station Area Plan will identify key pedestrinnections and opportunities. The Grand Boulevard Initiative provides guidelines and priorities to and human-scale street. All of these assets can contribute to a vibrant st life. The City of South San Francisco has identified the impotrance of defines the Downtown, the City’s historic commercial center, as The area includes City Hall, small commercial retail businesses, area. Figure 2-1 illustrates these existing activity generators throughout South well as schools, major employers, other commercial districts, parks, South San Francisco includes a variety of land uses and walking corridor along El Camino Real, to the industrial development east of US 101, the scale and pedestrian level of service vary greatly. Many of the residential streets i the west of U.S. 101, are well suited for walking, but some busy-oriented streets such as El Camino Real, Junipero Serra, South Spruce, South Linden Avenue, Westborough B U.S. 101 have gaps in the sidewalk network, and highways and som Serra Boulevard and Westborough Boulevard create pedestrian barr employment destinations. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-1 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment In recent years, there has been a focus on transit oriented deve Francisco and San Bruno BART stations, and local parks and bicycle and pedestrian facilities have been completed. For example, Centennial Way Park, a 2.85 mile linear -use path connects many of the destinations and amenities between the two BART stations. The City has recently received grant funding to develop a detailed land use plan for the Downtow Station Area, and is completing a land use plan for the northern portion of th South San Francisco and San Bruno collaborated with the San Matey Transit District to develop a Community Transportation Plan (CMP) for a portion of tSouth San Francisco west of US 101 (along with northern San Bruno). In addition to the commercial corridors and neighborhood servingols are a primary walking destination. The South San Francisco Unified School Dist three middle schools, and three high schools; South San Francisc elementary schools and one private high school. All of these sch destinations. Table II-1 shows the population age groups for South San Francisco compar jurisdictions. School age children make up a 22% of the local po Table II-1: Population Age Groups San Mateo City of San City of South Age Group San Francisco County Mateo San Francisco < 18 years 13% 22% 21% 22% 20 – 64 years 73% 64% 65% 65% 65+ years 14% 14% 14% 13% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey Walking to Work Knowing how many people walk, and for what purposes, can help So effective and targeted programs to better service residents and -employees. A common term used in describing travel demand is “mode-split.” Mode split refers to the form of transportation a person chooses to take, such as walking, bicycling, public trans evaluating commuter alternatives such as walking, where the obje of people selecting an alternative means of transportation to th-occupant (or drive-alone) automobile. Table II-2 presents Census data for the commute mode split for the City of South San Francisco, compared to the United States, California, San Mateo County, and the City of San Mateo. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-3 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-2: Existing Journey to Work City of United San Mateo City of San Mode California South San States County Mateo Francisco Drive Alone 76% 73% 71% 72% 67% Carpool 11% 12% 11% 11% 14% Transit 5% 5% 8% 8% 11% Bicycle <1% 1% 1% 1% .5% Walk 3% 3% 3% 3% 3.5% Other 5% 6% 6% 5% 4% Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2006-2010 American Community Survey As shown, driving alone is the predominant means of commuting inSouth San Francisco, though at a slightly lower share compared to county, state, and national lev than county, state, and national levels. However, bicycle and wa national levels, representing only four percent of work trips in Journey-to-work mode share is not always an accurate indicator of overall w commute trips only represent a portion of all trips taken by reswalking trips when traveling between their home and transit, or between their journey-to-work data does not represent the trips South San Francisco resid to school, or to social activities. This should not be misinterpreted as the non-motorized mode share of all trips for several reasons: Journey-to-work data only represents commute trips, which tend to be longer school, recreation, and other trips, and therefore less compatibwith active transportation. Journey-to-work data does not account for commuters with multiple modes of work, such as commuters who walk to a bus stop before transferri their journey to work. No separate accounting of shopping, school, or recreational trips is made in make up more than half of the person trips on a typical weekday portion on the weekend. These trips also tend to be short to med very well suited to walking. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-4 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Journey-to-work reports information for adult work trips, but does not requ trips, which are much more likely to be walking trips because sc-aged individuals cannot drive until the latter half of their high school years. The Federal Highway Administration and U.S. Department of Transp National Bicycle & Walking Study: 15 Year Status Report. The age report in 1995 and household survey data collected in 2009, walk all trips to 10.9 percent of all trips. Meanwhile, the total num 22.3 percent, from 5,638 1993 to 4,378 in 2008. Estimates of pedtrian injuries fell approximately 17.8 percent, from 84,000 in 1995 to 69,000 in 2008. Future walking trips will depend on a number of factors such as -connected facilities; appropriate education and promotion programs designe location, density, and type of future land development. The 2010 Year Status Report found correlation between funding for bicycli number of walking and bicycling trips. With appropriate walking facilities in place and implementation the number of people walking to work, school, or to shop could i By setting aggressive goals and implementing the recommendations in this plan, South San Francisco could substantially increase the number of daily walking trips, and recommendations are directed at people who would mostly like those making trips that are under one mile, workers who work within Francisco, school children, and transit riders. Estimating and projecting how many people walk for all trips, in-work trips, in a targeted study area is difficult, but Bay Area Travel Survey (BATS) provides a baseline. recent BATS data, walking represented 9.3 percent of all Bay Are can achieve success similar to other cities and national goals, e walk travel mode share could double to nearly 20 percent of all trips taken. 2.2 Pedestrian Collision Reports Data on collisions and a brief analysis of collision reports mai Traffic Records System (SWITRS) show trends in vehicle-pedestrian collisions in South San Francisco, and help planners and decision-makers identify specific locations and support programs. While t collisions can affect anyone, they have a disproportionate impac the most vulnerable users on the road. Figure 2-2 identifies the locations of pedestrian-involved collision reports between 2005 and 2010. Pedestrian-involved collisions make up 5.5 percent of all collisions in South San Francisco during this period. Among all collisions with injuries recorded during this period, 12.2 percent are pedestrian-involved collision. The collision reports identify crash locations; however, many fa not location-specific, such as time of day, weather conditions, condition of the driver, degree of sobriety and attention, and age of parties involved. For example CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-5 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment collisions take place during p.m. peak travel hours (38 percent ace between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m.) than during a.m. peak (only 16 percen place between 6 a.m. and 10 a.m.). Furthermore, collisions that typically get recorded in the SWITRS database. Collision on off-street trails and shared-use paths often go unreported as well. Therefore, a small number of data points specific location. While the collision locations identified in this section help iduld not be assumed to be the most hazardous or risky locations. For a more would need to be adjusted for the number of pedestrian or bicycl best, a group of data points at a single location reveals that there is a tendency for collisions to occur relative to the number of pedestrians or bicyclists in the area. Route 82) has more pedestrian-involved collision reports than other areas of South San Francisut it is a primary corridor for shopping, transit, school, and empl walkers the more residential areas of the City. Absent a complet volumes, there is no reliable way to adjust for exposure and relative safety. Thus, the data in the following section is presented for informational purposes only, certain location as unsafe. Collision data includes the roadway where the incident occurred.s” can be used to target collision reduction programs. Table II-3 summarizes the 12 streets that were reported most frequently in the 2005 to 2010 pedestrian-involved collision data. These corridors include the entire leng streets that are within the South San Francisco city boundaries. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-6 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-3: Top 12 Pedestrian-Involved Collision Corridors – 2005 to 2010 Collisions Collisions Street Street Reported Reported El Camino Real/ Rt 82 21 Miller Ave 7 Grand Ave 16 Baden Ave 7 Spruce Ave and South 12 West Orange Blvd 7 Spruce Ave Maple Ave 11 Airport Blvd 6 Arroyo Dr 9 Callan Blvd 5 Linden Ave 9 Hickey Blvd 5 Source: SWITRS, 2005 - 2010 Almost all collisions are assigned to the nearest intersection, defined as the combination of primary and secondary roadway; incidents as far away as half the distanc be so assigned. Table II-4 summarizes the intersections that were reported most frequentle 2005 to 2010 pedestrian-involved collision data. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-8 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-4: Top Pedestrian-Involved Collisions by Intersection – 2005 to 2010 Collisions Collisions Street Street Reported Reported Rt 82/El Camino Real and Hickey Blvd and Junipero 6 3 Arroyo Dr Serra Blvd Rt 82/El Camino Real and 2 Linden Ave and Miller Ave 3 Country Club Cr Rt 82/El Camino Real and Linden Ave and California 2 2 Hickey Blvd Ave Rt 82/El Camino Real and Myrtle Ave and Spruce or 2 2 Mc Lellan Dr South Spruce Ave Rt 82/El Camino Real and Myrtle Ave and West Orange 2 2 Noor Ave Ave Rt 82/El Camino Real and Alida Way and Country Club 2 2 Southwood Dr Dr Rt 82/El Camino Real and Antoinette Ln and Chestnut 2 2 Spruce Ave Ave Grand Ave and Spruce or 3 Maple Ave and Miller Ave 2 South Spruce Ave Grand Ave and Airport Blvd 3 Callan Blvd and Carter Dr 2 Grand Ave and Linden Ave 2 Gellert Blvd and Westboro Dr 2 Grand Ave and Magnolia 2 Mission Rd and Evergreen Dr 2 Ave East Grand Ave and Grand Ave and Maple Ave 2 2 Dubuque Ave Spruce Ave and Commercial Baden Ave and Maple Ave 4 2 Ave Keoncrest Dr and San Felipe Baden Ave and Airport Blvd 2 2 Ave Source: SWITRS, 2010 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-9 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Locations with multiple pedestrian collisions indicate dangerous may not include multiple collisions, but indicate conditions that may lead to locations should be closely analyzed and considered for interven South San Francisco from 2005 to 2010. These were located at the following intersections: Route 82/El Camino Real and Hickey Boulevard Myrtle Ave and Spruce or South Spruce Avenues Callan Boulevard and Carter Drive (two fatalities within the sam Oyster Point and Eccles Avenue Commercial and Chestnut Avenues Collisions are due to a wide variety of unsafe conditions and beha reported pedestrian-involved collisions a motorist failed to yield to a pedestrian w Pedestrians who cross outside a crosswalk must yield to vehicles; in approximately 35 percent of these collisions a pedestrian failed to yield to a motorist with the r speeding, or turning unsafely were responsible for approximatelys, and nearly 3 percent were due to a motorist driving under the influe collision factors are used to evaluate and prioritize improvemen 2.3 Existing Programs, Policies and Practices Benchmarking Analysis The City of South San Francisco has already made significant inv friendlier to pedestrians. The following section summarizes the programs, and practices. The City’s current operations were revi1 that compares the City’s policies, programs, and practices with benchmarking analysis categorized the City’s programs, practices Key strengths – areas where the City is exceeding national best practices Enhancements – areas where the City is meeting best practices Opportunities – areas where the City appears not to meet best practices (often t staff resources) 1 National Best Practices are defined in the California Pedestrian Safety Assessment Program: http://www.techtransfer.berkeley.edu/pedsafety/psa_handbook.pdf SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-10 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-5: Summary of Benchmarking Analysis Category Key Strengths Enhancements Opportunities ADA Transition Plan Design Standards Complete Streets Policy Overcoming Institutional Barriers Crosswalk Policy Policies Climate Action Plan Speed Surveys/Speed General Plan Limits Safe Routes to Transit Transportation Demand Warrants for Traffic Management Control Devices Collision History and Bicycle Facility Inventory Pedestrian Volumes Data Reports Collection Sidewalk Inventory Trails and Paths Inventory Trip and Fall Reports Safe Routes to School Pedestrian, Bicycle and Program TDM Coordinator Programs Walking Audits Traffic Calming Program Pedestrian Education Pedestrian-Oriented Enforcement Involving Enforcement in Enforcement Shared Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety Course Design Enforcement Traffic Safety Officers Coordination with Health Agencies Promotional Economic Vitality Promotion Giveaways Signage and Wayfinding Public Involvement Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, d by Fehr & Peers 2012 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-11 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-6: Existing Policies and Benchmarking Analysis Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy Response Improvements Key Strength The City of South San Francisco Ensure that the Climate Action Plan is currently developing a recommendations made in the A Climate Action Plan is Climate Action Plan. Climate Action Plan comprised of policies and complement those made in the measures that address Pedestrian Master Plan climate change. Climate Action Plans often work in tandem with other policies and plans, including the General Plan, Circulation Element, Bicycle Master Plan, Pedestrian Master Plan, and transit-related plans. Policies in Climate Action Plans often address greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), including enhancing local transportation options, energy efficiency and green building, open space, low-impact development, waste, and natural environmental features. Enhancement The City does not currently Design Standards have a Streetscape Master Plan, Streetscape and/or Landscape Design policies and but a set of streetscape Architecture Master Plan for the development standards guidelines is included in the El City. can improve the walking Camino Master Plan. The East experience, encourage of 101 Area Plan identifies the trees policy for the City. walking, enhance need for Streetscape Plans, but economic vitality, and the City has yet to develop any. offer funding program for the City. See San The City Council has adopted opportunities for walking Francisco’s program as a best the Grand Boulevard improvements. practice example: Landscape Plan for El Camino http://sfpavementtoparks.sfplan Real. Also, the City’s parking ning.org/ ordinance designates the number of driveway curb cuts update, include goals and allowed in residential areas and actions for new development limits the amount of paving standards and guidelines for allowed in front yards. Curb walking friendly development. cuts in commercial areas are decided on a case by case basis, but the City is sensitive to pedestrian needs when making decisions. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-12 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Enhancement The City of South San Overcoming Francisco coordinates between to collaborate with Caltrain, Institutional Barriers departments and external SamTrans and BART to improve Numerous agencies have agencies and is currently personal and walking safety jurisdiction over coordinating with Caltrain, around transit hubs. components of the South C/CAG and other agencies on San Francisco High Speed Rail and on a the Cities of San Bruno, Colma, transportation network, Caltrain Station Area Plan. The Daly City, Pacifica, Brisbane and including Caltrain, BART, City identified the following C/CAG on walking SamTrans, BCDC, obstacles to overcome: improvements and safety Caltrans, neighboring measures beneficial to the communities, and SFIA. jurisdictions. (i.e., Caltrans standards) Institutional coordination associated with multiple to collaborate with Caltrans to agencies is necessary agencies or jurisdictions identify and improve walking because of non-local regarding high speed rail safety along El Camino Real, control of right-of-way coordination freeway interchanges and other and differing policies Caltrans right-of-way. regarding walking developing better pedestrian accommodation. For Recent Context Sensitive and bicycle access example, Caltrans policies Solutions and Routine e of trained staff (for have historically Accommodations policies bicycling and walking issues) discouraged proposals within Caltrans (refer to the for bulbouts, wider revised Deputy Directive 64: pedestrian facilities sidewalks, and other www.calbike.org/pdfs/DD-64- -uniform walking-oriented R1.pdf ) now require the agency traffic calming improvements. to consider multimodal needs and engage in collaborative economic benefits of increased community planning. These walking and reduced minimum new policies may reduce parking requirements by the institutional challenges, and the residents and business City should continue to work community with Caltrans and other agencies and neighboring communities to identify new opportunities for joint transportation facilities planning. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-13 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Enhancement In South San Francisco, speed Speed Surveys and surveys are conducted every when setting speed limits and Speed Limits five years by a registered civil employ traffic calming Pedestrian fatality rates engineer, following MUTCD strategies in locations where increase exponentially guidelines. Speed limits are speed surveys suggest traffic with vehicle speed. Thus, occasionally reviewed in speeds are too high for walking reducing vehicle speeds response to citizen requests. areas. in walking zones may be The default speed limit in the one of the most city when no sign is posted is school zones during school bell important strategies for 25mph, even near schools. times, as was recently enhancing walking Speed limit signs are not implemented in San Francisco: safety. posted in these areas unless http://www.sfmayor.org/index.a there is a demonstrated need spx?page=537 for a sign. The City has adopted a Traffic Calming Policy that design speeds in walking areas justifies improvements on local do not contribute to a routine streets or residential collectors need for traffic calming. where City-conducted speed surveys show that the 85th percentile speed is in excess of the posted speed limit by more than 10mph. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-14 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Key Strength The City has a citywide TDM Implement Citywide TDM Transportation Demand program. Any project policies (per SSFMC 20.400). Management expected to generate greater Transportation Demand than 100 ADT over the previous Citywide TDM Coordinator Management (TDM) use is required to prepare a position and potentially programs encourage TDM plan, implement the plan combine with a Pedestrian and multi-modal travel by for the life of the project, and Bicycle Coordinator. incentivizing non-auto conduct on-going monitoring. options. As new The city provides shower and Transportation Management development occurs, the locker facilities and secure Association (TMA) for key TDM program can be bicycle parking at most commercial and business areas expanded and locations. Many employers to coordinate parking, transit, strengthened. within the city provide TDM and other TDM strategies and policies. programs. Genentech operates a comprehensive TDM The City provides free parking program, including to employees and does not complementary shuttle service have a parking cash-out connecting to transit stations, program. Consider establishing alternative commute a parking cash-out program. incentives such as parking cash-out and incentives for carpooling, and offers guaranteed ride home services. The City has a guaranteed ride home program and a commuter check program. The City belongs to the Congestion Management Alliance and works with the Alliance on TDM review. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-15 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Opportunity The City does not currently ADA Plan have an ADA Transition Plan for Plan that includes public rights- An ADA Transition Plan Municipal Facilities. Such a plan of-way (intersections and sets forth the process for is required by Federal Law. sidewalks especially). bringing public facilities However, the City does provide into compliance with ADA upgrades such as curb items such as directional curb ADA regulations. An ADA ramps in conjunction with ramps and audible pedestrian Transition Plan addresses other projects such as road signals. The San Francisco public buildings, resurfacing projects and some Better Streets Plan can be seen sidewalks, ramps, and new developments. These are as a best practice example: other walking facilities. typically funded with gas tax http://www.sf- An ADA Coordinator is money. planning.org/ftp/BetterStreets/i typically responsible for ndex.htm administering a City’s ADA Transition Plan. Plan provides an inventory, Compliance with the prioritization plan, and funding Americans with Disability source for improvements. Act (ADA) guidelines is The Standard Drawings for the important not only to City of Sacramento include best enhance community practices for directional curb accessibility, but also to ramp design (see drawing T-77 improve walking http://www.cityofsacramento.or conditions for all g/utilities/pubs/stdspecs/Transp pedestrians. ortation.pdf). SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-16 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Key Strength The City of South San Francisco Complete Streets Policy Update the City’s Street Design adopted a Complete Streets Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter Routine Policy in October 2012. 19.20) to reflect the adopted Accommodations or Complete Streets Policy and Complete Streets Policies incorporate the design accommodate all modes recommendations included in of travel and travelers of the Pedestrian Master Plan. all ages and abilities. The following cities have established practices for “Complete Streets and Routine Accommodations,” and may serve as models for South San Francisco: and Air Quality Collaborative Best Practices for Complete Streets: www.completestreets.org/docu ments/FinalReportII_BPComplet eStreets.pdf Department of Public Health’s Pedestrian Quality Index: www.sfphes.org/HIA_Tools/PEQ I.pdf Transportation Authority’s Multi-modal Impact Criteria: www.sfcta.org/images/stories/Pl anning/CongestionManagemen tPlan/2007%20- %20appendix%2005%20- %20tia.pdf CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-17 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Opportunity The City of South San Francisco Consider creating a crosswalk Crosswalk Policy does not have a formal toolbox that reflects best A formal policy for crosswalk policy beyond practices and recent research crosswalk installation, installing crosswalks on all with respect to the installation, removal, and approaches of signalized removal, and enhancement of enhancement provides intersections. Decisions crosswalks, including criteria for transparency in decision- regarding installation, removal installing crosswalk making and adopts best and enhancements for enhancements, such as flashing practices in pedestrian uncontrolled crosswalks are beacons, in-roadway warning safety and made on a case by case basis lights, or in-roadway pedestrian accommodation. and are generally complaint signs. Crosswalk policy resources include: driven. Crosswalk removal requires a long process and is Sacramento Crosswalk Policy: extremely rare; only one www.cityofsacramento.org/tra crosswalk has been removed in nsportation/dot_media/engine the past several years. The er_media/pdf/PedSafety.pdf general practice is to not install Stockton Crosswalk Policy: midblock crossings except www.stocktongov.com/public under extreme circumstances, works/publications/PedGuideli such as the one recently nes.pdf installed near El Camino High school across from the BART Federal Highway station. Administration Study on Marked versus Unmarked Crosswalks: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped _bike/docs/cros.pdf SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-18 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Opportunity The City of South San Francisco During the next General Plan General Plan General Plan: Circulation update, the City could consider Planning principles Element (1999) describes the including the following items in contained in a city’s existing bicycling, walking, its Circulation Element, or other General Plan can provide transit riding, and driving sections, of the Plan: an important policy facilities within the City and context for developing establishes the goals and priority walking areas in the City walking-oriented, policies for future through specific plans, where walkable areas. Transit- transportation needs. Transit-varied densities and mixed-uses oriented development, oriented development (TOD) is could accommodate or attract higher densities, and addressed in the General Plan. pedestrian activity. mixed uses are important A TOD currently exists around planning tools for the South San Francisco BART opportunities for mixed-uses walking-oriented areas station and a station area plan with new development, is being developed for the particularly in walking A city’s General Plan is a South San Francisco Caltrain districts/nodes and transit-rich key opportunity to Station. areas. Consider opportunities establish the framework for density bonuses in walking El Camino Real is considered an for walking orientation. friendly areas. important pedestrian corridor The Circulation Element and pedestrian of the Plan typically walking districts with special accommodation is considered assigns roadway walking-oriented guidelines, in the South San Francisco El typologies, which can such as adopting multi-modal Camino Real Master Plan include a layered network level of service practices (2006). approach with prioritized (perhaps in combination with a corridors for transit, layered network approach), and pedestrian, bicycle, and prioritizing sidewalk auto travel. improvement and completion projects. Opportunity The City of South San Francisco Apply for grant funding, Safe Routes to Transit has not been awarded any Safe particularly for projects Safe Routes to Transit is a Routes to Transit Grants. mentioned in the San grant program that Bruno/South San Francisco awards funds to projects Community-Based that make it easier to Transportation Plan (January walk and bike to transit 2011). throughout the Bay Area http://transformca.org/campaig Region. n/sr2t CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-19 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Opportunity The City of South San Francisco The new California Manual on Traffic Signal Warrants / follows Caltrans warrants for Uniform Traffic Control Devices Traffic Control Devices traffic signals. (CA-MUTCD) was adopted by Best practices include: the California Department of Transportation in January 2012. of three instead of five The most significant changes for collisions based on pedestrians are: routine underreporting fic volume walking speed (used to calculate thresholds based on traffic signal pedestrian latent demand clearance intervals) from four feet per second to 3.5 feet per for school second children/pedestrians and traffic speeds retrofit signals should have pedestrian countdowns signal heads Allowance of the HAWK pedestrian beacon at mid-block locations has been included in the national MUTCD and is likely to be included in the CA-MUTCD shortly. Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI) provide pedestrians with a “head start” signal timing before vehicles on the parallel street are allowed to proceed through an intersection. A 2000 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that the LPI reduces conflicts between turning vehicles and pedestrians by enhancing the visibility of the pedestrian in the crosswalk. within a GIS database inventory of signs, markings and signals. monitoring program for traffic control devices. Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-20 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-7: Existing Data Collection Practices Benchmarking Analysis Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy Response Improvements Key Strength The Police Department has Geo-coding and comprehensive Collision History and access to collision data by monitoring using Crossroads Reporting location. Injury accident reports software would allow for more are routinely pulled. The police proactive walking safety department has the ability to projects and best practices check if a collision involved a implementation, such as crash pedestrian or bicycle, but this is typing for countermeasure a manual process and this selection. A field inventory of information is not generally collision locations and walking accessed unless it’s asked for. volume counts could enhance Statewide Integrated Traffic comprehensive monitoring. Records System (SWITRS) data With sufficient walking volume on collisions will be analyzed in data, the City could prioritize the PMP to create a GIS collision locations based on shapefile of pedestrian collision collision rates (i.e., locations throughout the city collisions/daily walking volume), between 2005-2010 as well as a practice that results in a more an analysis of the locations with complete safety needs the highest pedestrian collision assessment. Treatments could rates.then be identified for each location and programmatic funding allocated in the City’s Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Key Strength The Department of Public Works Include these records as a sub- Trip and Fall Reports maintains a database of trip category within the sidewalk hazard removal projects inventory in order to better including the location of the prioritize improvement areas. hazard, the project status and the cost for repairs. Enhancement The South San Francisco Bicycle Update current bicycle facility Bicycling Facility Master Plan includes a map of GIS shapefile. Add signs, Inventory existing and proposed bicycle markings and loop detectors to facilities, and these networks are inventory and create GIS available in GIS format, however shapefiles of these features. parts of the layer may be out of date. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-21 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment BenchmarkSouth San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Enhancement The City of South San Francisco Ensure that the current sidewalk Sidewalk Inventory currently has an inventory of inventory includes both existing A GIS-based sidewalk missing sidewalks in list form. and missing sidewalks and is inventory enables project available in GIS format. Expand identification and the sidewalk inventory to prioritization, as well as include informal pathways and project coordination with key pedestrian opportunity new development, areas in the City. roadway resurfacing, etc. City sidewalks should be evaluated for age and condition, slope, and a data base established and maintained as part of the pavement management program. Coordinate the data base with Encroachment Permits issued for sidewalk repairs and replacement. Opportunity The City does not currently Pedestrian Volumes conduct pedestrian volume walking and bicycling volumes Pedestrian volume data is counts and new developments by requiring them to be important for prioritizing are not required to take bicycle conducted in conjunction with projects, developing or pedestrian counts. Some manual intersection counts, collision rates, and bicycle counts are being such as those conducted for determining appropriate conducted as part of the bicycle transportation impact analyses infrastructure master plan. and area plans and include in an annual report. -code walking volume data with GIS software along with other data such as pedestrian- involved collisions. Opportunity The City does not currently Update the existing inventory to Trails and Paths maintain an inventory of trails, include all pedestrian paths and Inventory but does have an inventory of trails and create a GIS-based bicycle facilities which includes map of existing and proposed combined walking and biking off-street paths and trails within paths. the City. Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-22 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-8: Existing Programs Benchmarking Analysis Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy Response Improvements Key Strength Sixteen walking audits were Consider establishing a program Walking Audits conducted in 2012 as part of of conducting regular walking Walking audits provide the PMP. These audits focused audits and establishing a an interactive on positive practices, issues Citywide pedestrian safety opportunity to receive and opportunity areas, and program to include during feedback from key possible recommendations to regular walking audits by City stakeholders about the address pedestrian safety staff and an annual reporting study area as well as concerns. program. discuss potential solutions and their feasibility. They can be led by city staff, advocacy groups, neighborhood groups, or consultants. Enhancement The City recently won a Safe Safe Routes to School Routes to School grant for funding; apply for non- Safe-Routes-to-School pedestrian infrastructure infrastructure as well as programs encourage investments on West Orange infrastructure projects. children to safely walk or Street and C Street. However, bicycling to school. The the City and school district citywide Safe-Routes-to-School Marin County Bicycle (SSFUSD) do not have an program that encourages Coalition was an early- ongoing safe routes to school walking to school and highlights adopter of the concept, program. preferred walking routes. Marin which has spread County’s program is considered nationally (refer to best a best practice example: practices at http://www.saferoutestoschools www.saferoutestoschools .org/ .org). Safe-Routes-to- ering committee for School programs are the program (or each school) important both for comprised of City staff, BPAC, increasing physical SSFUSD staff, PTA leaders, activity (and reducing County Health Services and childhood obesity) and other stakeholders. Consider for reducing morning scheduling regular ongoing traffic associated with meetings to maintain school drop-off. Funding stakeholder involvement, for Safe-Routes-to-School determine level of interest, and programs and/or projects identify areas with the highest is available at the need regional, state, and federal levels. Smarts” program, such as those developed by the City of San Jose or Marin County: http://www.getstreetsmarts.org / CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-23 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Enhancement The City of South San Francisco Identify a dedicated funding Traffic Calming has a traffic calming program source and implementation Program and established policy for plan for the traffic calming Traffic Calming Programs addressing traffic calming program. and Policies set forth a concerns; however, no funding consensus threshold on source is dedicated to this neighborhood requests program. and approvals, as well as standard treatments and criteria for traffic calming Opportunity The City does not have a full-With a population of Pedestrian/Bicycle time Bicycle or Pedestrian approximately 64,000, and over Coordinator Coordinator on staff, though 45,000 jobs, South San Francisco In a sampling of walking- several staff assist on bicycle or should consider employing a oriented California cities, pedestrian related projects. A City Pedestrian and Bicycle a full-time part- or full-time coordinator Coordinator and combining the pedestrian/bicycle could be tasked with position with TDM coordination coordinator is typically convening the Bicycle and when resources become provided at a ratio of one Pedestrian Advisory available. Such a staff member per 100,000 population. Committee and implementing could be involved in activities many of the recommendations such as outreach, included in this report. interdepartmental coordination, inter-agency coordination, grant writing, project management, and staff liaison to the Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the C/CAG BPAC, local non-profits and advocacy groups, and local schools. Opportunity The City does not offer any Consider creating an education Pedestrian Education classes or programs to provide program to provide information information or instructions to residents andemployers about pedestrian laws or about pedestrian laws and ordinances. ordinances. Consider providing traffic education curriculum to schools, community centers, and/or senior centers. Establish a BPAC webpage to provide an electronic media outlet for outreach and education. Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepar SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-24 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-9: Existing Enforcement Programs Benchmarking Analysis Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy Response Improvements Key StrengthThe police department is Maintain regular contact with Involving Law occasionally consulted on law enforcement during the Enforcement in facility design, usually through design of new facilities, Design/Operation of the Traffic Advisory Committee. especially those that might not Facilities The police department has a include typical roadway design Walking and bicycling liaison working closely with the features. facility design is planning division on constantly evolving. development review, focused Having officers primarily on security and traffic understand how specific safety concerns. facilities operate is essential knowledge for them to know how to enforce laws. EnhancementThe Community Assisted Implement sustained Pedestrian-Oriented Reactive (CARE) program can enforcement efforts and involve Enforcement Activities include pedestrian issues. the media. Use enforcement as (crosswalk stings, focused Through the Traffic Accident an opportunity for education by school drop-off Reduction Plan (TARP), officers distributing walking safety enforcement, etc.) review collision data in order to pamphlets in-lieu of, or in Enforcement of determine high accident areas addition to, citations. pedestrian right-of-way and enforcement is increased laws and speed limits is in these areas. The police The Miami-Dade Pedestrian an important department participates in the Safety Demonstration Project complement to GRADE program, which provides a model for the role of engineering treatments provides education in schools, media in the sustained and education programs. particularly kindergartens, effectiveness of enforcement. about “stranger danger.” Information is available at: http://www.miamidade.gov/MP O/docs/MPO_ped_safety_demo _eval_report_200806.pdf. EnhancementThe City currently shares Consider working with the San Shared Pedestrian pedestrian related police Bruno or Colma Police Enforcement with Other resources and data with Departments to organize Jurisdictions neighboring cities on request pedestrian related enforcement Sharing officers with for DUI enforcement as part of activities. specific bicycling and the OTS grant process. walking focus with other jurisdictions can help the Police Department increase service without needing to budget for a new officer. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-25 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Enhancement The City does not have a traffic Identify a key traffic safety Traffic Safety Officers safety officer dedicated to officer that dedicates a These officers focus on pedestrian issues. The meaningful percentage of his enforcing pedestrian- department has a responsive time to walking and bicycling involved violations. approach: when a pedestrian issues. safety complaint is made, an Work with Police Department officer will go out to check the staff to identify particular complaint. violation types that officers might have difficulty enforcing. The Sunnyvale police department has a Traffic Safety Unit whose objective is to ensure the safe and orderly flow of pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular traffic: http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Depart ments/PublicSafety/DPSDivision s/PoliceandTechnicalServices.as px#traffic%20safety%20unit Opportunity Officers do not participate in a Create a workshop for officers Pedestrian Safety course specific to pedestrian that discusses the specific Course for Law issues. pedestrian safety and right-of- Enforcement way issues. A sample guide Oftentimes, laws related book for such a course was to pedestrian right-of- prepared by the Florida Bicycle way issues are Association: misunderstood, or worse, http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety not known. These courses /ped_bike/brochures/pdf/Pedes are designed to educate trian%20LEGuide-08.pdf officers about specific issues related to pedestrian safety and laws. Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, 2012; Prepared b SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-26 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Table II-10: Existing Promotion Programs Benchmarking Analysis Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy Response Improvements Coordination Health Key Strength The City has a good Continue to seek opportunities Agencies relationship with Kaiser for technical collaboration and Involving non-traditional Permanente and the San funding with public health and partners such as Mateo County Health Services health care professionals. Work Emergency Medical Agency, which provides public proactively with the County Service personnel, public health programs, and is looking Health Services Agency to health agencies, for opportunities to partner on ensure policies reflect good pediatricians, in the community or public health health. Establish a Health planning or design of programs. The City is also a Agency liaison to facilitate walking facilities may partner in the League of communication and create opportunities to California Cities’ HEAL Initiative coordination efforts to improve be more proactive with Campaign (Healthy Eating walking opportunities and walking safety, identify Active Living) public information. walking safety challenges The Santa Clara County Public and education venues, Health Department has and secure funding. organized the Traffic Safe Under-reporting of Communities Network (TSCN), a pedestrian-involved collaborative of traffic safety collisions could be a stakeholders aimed at reducing problem that may be motor vehicle crashes and partially mitigated by improving bicycle and involving the medical pedestrian safety: community in walking http://www.sccgov.org/sites/scc safety planning. phd/en- us/Partners/TrafficSafety/Pages/ default.aspx The Pedestrian Plan recommendations should support the Strategic Growth Council’s Health in All Initiative Key Strength The City has partnered with the Continue seeking partnerships Promotional Giveaways Alliance on congestion relief with local organizations willing (maps, pedometers, etc.) and Bike to Work Day and to sponsor safety item partnered with Kaiser giveaways to encourage Permanente to create a walking and other alternative walking and biking map for transportation modes. South San Francisco which is distributed to residents at various locations and events. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-27 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Key Strength The City as well as C/CAG Coordinate outreach with Public Involvement currently both have a Bicycle neighborhood advocacy Responding to public and Pedestrian Advisory groups. Consider organizing concerns through public Committee (BPAC). neighborhood groups that feedback mechanisms Additionally, citizens can call identify street needs, including represents a more the public works department greening and traffic calming. proactive and inclusive with complaints. The Provide information and approach to bicycling department has a system to conduct outreach in multiple and walking safety document complaints and languages. compared to a send an automatic response to Proactively, work with schools conventional approach of the person who made the and employers, residents, reacting to pedestrian- complaint when the issue is neighboring communities and involved collisions. resolved. C/CAG to facilitate public Advisory committees involvement and more closely serve as important coordinate efforts to improve sounding boards for new pedestrian facilities. policies, programs, and practices. A citizens’ Establish a BPAC webpage to bicycling and walking facilitate access to pedestrian advisory committee is information. also a key component of proactive public involvement for identifying bicycling and walking safety issues and opportunities Opportunity The City has an active Chamber Encourage the creation of BIDs Economic Vitality of Commerce.in commercial areas of the City Improving walking safety and apply funds towards The City has an on-going and walkability can walking-related improvements. façade improvement program. enhance economic vitality. Similarly, enhancing economic vitality through innovative funding options such as Business Improvement Districts (BIDs), parking management, and façade improvement programs can lead to more active walking areas and encourage walking SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-28 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment Benchmark South San Francisco Opportunities for Plan or Policy ResponseImprovements Opportunity The City does not have specific Develop wayfinding signage Signage/Wayfinding wayfinding signage. There are with South San Francisco- some signs along Centennial specific graphic design. The Way directing traffic to the signage program should be BART station and some Bay consistent with other locally Trail signage. used design standards, so that pedestrians and motorists are familiar with different sign types. Example signage programs include the City of Berkeley (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/C ontentDisplay.aspx?id=6684), and the West Contra Costa Transportation Advisory Committee (WCCTAC) Wayfinding Plan, which will add pedestrian and bicycle signage throughout west Contra Costa County: http://www.wcaccesstransit.co m/wayfinding/ Source: Survey Completed by City of South San Francisco staff, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN II-29 2 Existing Pedestrian Environment SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO II-30 3 Existing Conditions Chapter 3: Existing Conditions This chapter documents the existing pedestrian conditions, issue Francisco. 3.1 Pedestrian Needs A well-connected pedestrian network is a vital component to livable com multimodal travel for all roadway users, regardless of age or ab equal accessibility for the young and old, disabled and not, and pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and transit riders. Designing streets for our most vulnerable populations means that they are safe and accessible for everyone important aspects of good design include providing a pleasant an obstructions and room for pedestrians to walk side-by-side. However, pedestrians with special needs require additional considerations. By designing streets for the Francisco can provide an environment that will be comfortable an describes different pedestrian types and considerations for each Children Children have special needs in the pedestrian realm and thus hav unique considerations to accommodate their sensitive demands. This becomes apparent in school zones (particularly for the th Kindergarten through 6grade population) where a safe pedestrian environment is vital. Young children are often too s to be in the line of sight of drivers, so without proper designs streets surrounding schools may not be safe for these young pedestrians. In addition, children walk slower than adults and not be able to gauge the amount of time needed to cross an intersection. When streets surrounding schools have inadequate pedestrian facilities, parents may be reluctant to allow their children to walk to school, and will decide to drive children to school for even short distances. Accommodating children and other vulnerable populations requires special provisions to remove barriers to pedestrian travel. Source: Dan Burden These special provisions include measures such as reducing vehic speeds and enhancing street crossings around schools. Reduced speed zones near schools, using striping patterns and colors to within a school zone, and traffic calming measures can facilitat crossing lengths through bulb-outs, special crosswalk striping, and median refuges provide sh crossings for children. Technical assistance and funding to im done through Safe Routes to School programs. Adequate sidewalk particularly important to separate children from vehicle traffic children walk and ride their bicycles. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-1 3 Existing Conditions Seniors Poor sidewalk and crossing conditions may foster isolation with limited opportunities for seniors’ mobility; they need travel options other than driving, whether it be walking or taking transit. Seniors have slower walking speeds and reaction times, and may have other impairments that restrict their mobility, vision, and hearing. Sidewalks and street crossings should be sensitive to these barriers and how they affect the aging population. Opportunities to orient streets to provide senior mobility include: shortening street crossings with Source: Dan Burden median refuges, sidewalk bulb-outs and adequate curb ramps; installing sidewalk furniture to make walking more comfortable by providing places to rest; and adjusting signal timing to account for slower walking speeds. Treatments like pedestrian refuge islands are particularly important to help seniors cross a street since they tend to walk at slower speeds; if they are unable to make the crossing during the available signal time, a refuge provides a separated place to wait. Source: Dan Burden Persons with Disabilities The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) protects the rights of public entities to develop transition plans to bring existing pu component to adequate ADA provision includes plans to improve curb people with disabilities to access public accommodations and com sidewalks and unpaved surfaces can prove frustrating to disabled pedestrian crossings may not address the needs of those with poo- tactile enhancements. Creating a comfortable and well-connected pedestrian network is important for addressing the needs of users with disabilities. A key recom development of an ADA Transition Plan, which will evaluate South these standards. 3.2 Walking in South San Francisco Walking as a form of transportation is enjoyable, energizing, environmentally friendly and free. Walking is part of virtually every trip a person takes; however, vulnerable roadway users. Although a fundamental form of any tr infrastructure has only recently been given much attention by transportati SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO III-2 3 Existing Conditions In particular, walking to and from destinations less than ½ mile quickest and most efficient way for a person to travel in an urbommunity like South San Francisco. For the purposes of this memo, the City has been divided into fi distinctive character, and pedestrian related themes are general Downtown: The Downtown area is the civic and commercial center of the City. It is also the most walkable area of South San Francisco. The street network is a traditional grid network with narrow street widths. The main streets, such as Grand Avenue and Linden Avenue, are fronted by commercial uses, and have many pedestrian amenities including street furniture, decorative brick crosswalks, landscaping, and street trees. Side streets primarily have residential uses and some landscaping. The Caltrain station is located just to the east of Downtown, on the east side of Highway 101. The pedestrian Grand Avenue features many excellent pedestrian amenities connection between the station and Downtown has several issues, including difficult crossings at Airport Boulevard and E. Grand Avenue, hi-speed traffic, and generally lacks a feeling of personal security due to poor lighting and obstructed sightlines. Lindenville: The area immediately south of Downtown, identified in the City’s General Plan as Lindenville, is primarily an industrial employment area. It is the only industrial area of the City west of US 101. The San Bruno BART station is located immediately south of the area. Walking conditions are difficult in the area. Many sidewalks are missing, and where they do exist, cars are frequently parked on sidewalks and block pathways. Walking audit in Lindenville CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-3 3 Existing Conditions East of Hwy 101: The area east of Hwy 101 is primarily comprised of industrial parks. The area is home to several of the City’s major employers Columbus Manufacturing Inc., Onyx Pharmaceuticals Inc., and a Coo retail store,. In addition, the South San Francisco Conference Center, many large and medium and the Oyster Point Ferry Terminal are located here, and the San Francisco Int immediately south. Due to these types of land uses, missing sidewalks throughout the area are problematic. The Bay Trail is located along the shoreline, but walking conn other parts of the City are limited. Highway 101 is a major barrier between this area and the rest of the City; limited pedestrian access points exist across the highway. A few mixed use pathways exist, particularly in the northwest corner of the area, however, these pathways often have cracks or other obstacles and are not maintained by the City. Block sizes are large in this area, so often walking paths cross through private campuses. Since it is the responsibility of each property owner to maintain pathways on their land, the Multi-use path in east of 101 area quality of these paths varies. El Camino Real: El Camino Real, or SR 82, runs north-south through South San Francisco. The route was originally developed parallel to the former Southern P continues to be an important regional route through the Peninsula. The corridor includes a diverse mix of land uses including hotels, restaurants, both small and large scale retail, the Kaiser Permenente Medical Center, civic buildings, two BART stations and both of South San Francisco’s public high schools. Despite these diverse land uses along the corridor, the walking environment along El Camino Real can be challenging. Sidewalks are narrow and limited buffers exist between the sidewalk and moving traffic. Florist shop on El Camino Real Crossing distances are extremely wide, with few pedestrian refuges. Since traffic speeds can be high along t uncomfortable environment for pedestrians. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO III-4 3 Existing Conditions Residential Areas: The rest of the City is primarily residential with localized commercial uses, schools and parks. For the most part, traffic speeds and volumes are lower in these areas than along the major arterials. Landscaping or on-street parking frequently serve as a buffer between the sidewalks and travel lanes. However, in many areas with rolled curbs and no landscaping, cars park on the sidewalks, blocking the pedestrian path of travel. Another common issue is vehicles parked in driveways and blocking the sidewalk. This is common in older neighborhoods where garages and driveways were not built to accommodate larger vehicles. In addition, vehicles were observed driving at higher speeds on several Residential neighborhood in South San Francisco residential collector streets that had few speed control measures, signals or stop signs. Higher speeds can discourage walking trips, particuarly for children, seniors, and people with disabilities. 3.3 Pedestrian Environment In order to evaluate walking conditions and collect inventory data throughou walking audits were conducted over the course of a week in May, were selected to cover a range of neighborhood and street types to target areas of concern. The list of sites are illustrated in Figure 3-1. Four walking audits were conducted per day on May 1, 3, 4 and 6, 2012. City staff, City Council members, BPAC members and number of the audits. This section provides an overview of the citywide pedestrian net based on the audit findings. Where appropriate, concerns specific to the five area While there are many components that contribute to a great walki focuses on following key elements: Sidewalks and Pathways Intersection Crossing Treatments ADA Access High Speed Traffic Linear Barriers CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-5 3 Existing Conditions Sidewalks and Pathways Sidewalks provide pedestrians with a separated travel path from vehicles on the road. Within an urban area, sidewalks should be provided where feasible, but especially around schools, transit stops, parks, and along mixed-use commercial corridors. In the case of schools, safety considerations are a primary concern when families make the decision whether children should walk (or be driven) to school. Transit stops are also locations of high pedestrian activity, as every transit rider is a pedestrian both before and after taking a trip by transit. Commercial areas should not only accommodate pedestrian travel but also serve as gathering places for pedestrians. Providing The Centennial Way Trail is a great pedestrian amenity sidewalks will increase the safety and convenience of pedestrian travel for all users. South San Francisco’s pedestrian network consists of a system of sidewalks and off-street pathways and trails. Sidewalks are included on both sides of streets throughout most of the City with a few exceptions, particularly in the area east of Highway 101 and in Lindenville, as well as portions of El Camino Real, Westborough Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Gellert Boulevard, King Drive and Carter Drive. Filling these sidewalk gaps is important to the safety and comfort of all roadway users. Off- street pathways and trails provide additional pedestrian connections through the City, including short-cuts within large blocks and accessible routes Missing sidewalk across barriers such as freeways and railroad tracks. South San Francisco features two extensive off-street pathways: the Centennial Trail and the Bay Trail. The majority of sidewalks in South San Francisco are typically five feet wide or less. Sidewalks less than five to six feet wide make it difficult for people to walk side-by-side, and can often be difficult for persons with mobility impairments to navigate, particularly when additional barriers are blocking the route, such as parked vehicles, street furniture or utility poles. Ensuring that pathways are clear from obstructions is important for assuring access to all users. There are several locations throughout the City Vehicles often parkon sidewalks CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-7 3 Existing Conditions where utility poles are located in the middle of the sidewalk, l and potentially prohibiting wheelchair users from passing. Furth have issues with cars blocking the sidewalk either by parking in vehicle blocks the sidewalk, or from cars parallel parking on th sidewalk and two wheels on the road. This is particularly a problem in areas with rolled curbs, such as West Orange, Spruce and Alta Loma Avenue. Buffers between the sidewalk and the roadway can help to increas Common buffers include: Landscaping or street trees, which have been applied on several streets in downtown South San Francisco, including Grand Avenue. Parallel or angled parking, which has been applied on most stree Striped bike lanes, which have been installed along sections of Sidewalks in several neighborhoods of the City could be further moving traffic, as discussed in the following chapter. Intersection Crossing Treatments Well-designed street crossings are vital for improving pedestrian mobility and connecting neighborhoods. Well- marked, high visibility pedestrian crossings accomplish dual goals. They prepare drivers for the likelihood of encountering a pedestrian, and they create an atmosphere of walkability and accessibility for pedestrians. As with sidewalks, street crossings are particularly important near schools, transit stops, parks, a where there are many pedestrians. The addition of new street crossings may be most effective where there are existing safety deficiencies and a high demand for street crossings. In California, it is legal for pedestrians to cross any street, except at unmarked locations between immediately adjacent signalized crossings or where crossing is expressly prohibited. Marked crossings reinforce the location and legitimacy of a crossing, and are essential links in a pedestrian network. Common practice in Decorative brick crosswalk across Grand California is to Avenuewith in-pavement flashers place crosswalks on all four legs of an intersection, otherwise the crossing should be closed with a barrier at the curb. South San Francisco does not have an established crosswalk policy for when, where and how to mark SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO III-8 Pedestrian actuated flashing beacon on Miller Avenue 3 Existing Conditions crossings, however the City typically uses two parallel white li treatments are used along the downtown commercial area of Grand several crosswalks within school zones and other high activity ladder design crosswalks. Several intersections were observed with pedestrians crossing attions, typically where crosswalks were marked on some, but not all, legs of the interse crossing locations (where drivers are required to yield to pedes crosswalk creates ambiguity for pedestrians and drivers about who has the right-of-way. Consistent marking of crosswalks is important to both increase driver awareness of the pedestrian right-of-way and to improve safety. Most signalized intersections in South San Francisco are pedestrian actuated, meaning the pedestrian must push a button to trigger the walk phase. A few signals throughout the City have pedestrian countdown timers, which let the pedestrian know how much crossing time is left in the signal phase. Pedestrian countdown signals are now required to be installed whenever signals are upgraded. The City has also installed a number of traffic control devices at Family crossing the street on Spruce Avenue at an unmarked crossing location unsignalized locations. In-pavement flashers are installed along Grand Avenue, Orange Avenue and other locations throughout the City. A flashing beacon with pedestrian signage at the intersection of Miller Avenue and Cypress Avenue also helps to improve visibility of pedestrians. Diagonal curb ramp without tactile domes ADA Access The United States Access Board is the federal agency in charge of accessibility for persons with disabilities. The Board develops and maintains design criteria for the built environment, transit vehicles, telecommunications equipment, and for electronic information technology. The Board is currently developing an amendment to its Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines. These include standards for sidewalks, street crossings, and other elements of the roadway. The Guidelines CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-9 Accessible bi-directional curb ramp with tactile domes 3 Existing Conditions include clarifying the placement of detectable warnings, and lim roundabouts and channelized turn lanes to crossings of two lanes of tr Board Guidelines and the 2009 Manual of Uniform Traffic Control setting pedestrian signals based on a maximum of 3.5 feet/secondking speed (rather than 4.0 feet per second). All new facilities that have any federal funding mu In addition, when any physical changes are made to an existing f to the Access Board’s current standards. South San Francisco does not have an established policy for timing pedestrian signals. The pedestrian crossing time at many signals thoughout the City is shorter than what is recommended in the ADA guidelines.This can lead to certain pedestrians not having enough time to cross the street during the pedestrian signal phase, making them vulnerable to oncoming traffic once the light turns green. According to ADA guidelines, sidewalk curb ramps should have both a ramp and detectable warnings (also known as truncated domes) to ensure access between the sidewalk and street for people with disabilities. The majority of curbs throughout South San Francisco have curb ramps; areas lacking curb ramps are difficult for those with mobility Cars blocking sidewalk ona residential street impairments to navigate. Few curb ramps in the City have truncated domes which alert those with visual impairme street. Ideally, curb ramps should be bi-directional and guide pedestrians into the marked crossings, rather than diagonally across an intersection. While the sidewal of curb ramp, bi-directional ramps are the best practice and should be installed Audible pedestrian crossing signals also help those with visual cross the street. South San Francisco has audible signals at a f Many residential areas in the City, particularly in older areas, have garages that do not accommodate larger cars. However, many people park in driveways, blocking the sidewalk. There is likely a lack of knowledge that the sidewalk is public right- of-way and blocking it with a vehicle is illegal. “Friendly” enforcement of this issue is needed to reduce this problem. Additionally, the City’s driveway standards should be reviewed and potentially updated to ensure that they meet ADA standards. High Speed Traffic Speeding traffic can negatively affect the pedestrian experience, and is a primary indicator for the severity of a pedestrian injury as the result of a collision. Arterial streets Cars parked on sidewalks with rolled curbs SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO III-10 3 Existing Conditions such as El Camino Real, Airport Boulevard, Westborough Boulevard designed for higher vehicle speeds. On streets such as these it sidewalk and moving traffic in order to protect pedestrians and maxim landscaping or street trees, bike lanes, or parked cars. In addi pedestrians can occur at crossing locations. At these locations, vehicle speeds should be controlled through design measures and signal timing to reduce the number a Residential streets are not meant to accommodate vehicles at hig speeds were noted on several residential streets throughout the Spruce Avenue and Del Monte Avenue, which have long stretches wispeed reduction measures or stop signs. These areas also have rolled curbs. In these loca sidewalks, likely a result of wanting to avoid getting hit by sp increase the ease of parking on sidewalks. However, this limits are sometimes completely blocked by vehicles. Linear Barriers Highway 101, Interstate 280, El Camino Real, and the Caltrain railroad tracks physically separate different parts of the City, and present obstacles to walking between neighborhoods. Pedestrian paths across these barriers are provided in limited locations, forcing pedestrians to travel longer distances to reach their destinations, and are often unpleasant places to walk due to the narrow pathways, high-speeds and high volumes of vehicles, and lack of pedestrian amenities. Pedestrian connectionon Grand Avenue under Hwy101 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-11 3 Existing Conditions 3.4 Identification of System Gaps Pedestrian infrastructure gaps were inventoried across South San Francisco during the walking audits. Addressing these gaps is an important component in developing a safe and accessible walking environment. Missing Sidewalks Figure 3-2 shows sections of South San Francisco where sidewalks are missing; this inventory is a comprehensive list of sidewalks throughout the entire City. While most of the areas with missing sidewalks are located in the area east of Highway 101, other areas with significant gaps include several streets in Lindenville, as well as portions of El Camino Real, Westborough Boulevard, Hickey Boulevard, Junipero Serra Boulevard, Gellert Boulevard, Chestnut Avenue, Hillside Boulevard, King Drive and Carter Drive. Filling these sidewalk gaps is important to the safety and comfort of all roadway users. Discontinuous sidewalk segment Missing Curb Ramps Curb ramps were also inventoried across the City. While the missing sidewalk inventory includes the entire City, curb ramps were only inventoried in the areas where walking audits were conducted. Figure 3-3 shows the locations of all of the intersections where a curb ramp inventory was conducted. Each intersection has four corners; ideally curb ramps with tactile domes would be included at each corner. Each circle on the map represents one intersection, with each quarter of the circle representing one corner. Each circle is color-coded to show the status of the corner among the following options: Missing curb ramp in Lindenville neighborhood Curb ramp with tactile domes Curb ramp without tactile domes Missing curb ramp SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO III-12 3 Existing Conditions The downtown area generally has curb ramps at each of its intersections, but without tactile domes. Lindenville has a mix; while some curb ramps have tactile domes, some intersections are missing curb ramps altogether. The surveyed areas east of 101 generally have curb ramps without tactile domes, wherever sidewalks exist. Intersections along El Camino Real generally ha curb ramps and some have tactile domes. The quality of curb ramp varies in the residential areas. In the Sunshine Gardens neighborhood, near the South San Francisco BART station, many intersections have curb ramps with tactile domes, however some corners are missing curb ramps. Curb ramps are also missing in sections of the Westborough, Avalon, and Paradise Valley Pedestrian walkingat unmarkedcrossing location at neighborhoods. A more comprehensive inventory of missing curb Chestnut Avenue and Mission Road ramps is needed. Curb ramps and tactile domes should be installe at any intersection where they currently do not exist. Missing Crosswalks The presence of crosswalks was also inventoried at intersections along the walking audits. It is generally recommended to locate marked crosswalks across all four legs of an intersection. Where crosswalks are not marked, a barrier should be placed to discour pedestrians from crossing. Figure 3-4 shows, for the intersections inventoried, which intersections have no crosswalk gaps, and whi intersections have at least one leg missing a marked crosswalk. Crosswalk gaps exist in all areas of the City. At some intersect gap only exists at one of three legs, but at some intersections no legs are marked with a crosswalk. Marking crosswalks is important to demonstrate both to vehicles and pedestrians where the pedestria right-of-way exists. At several locations throughout the walking audits pedestrians were observed crossing the street at unmarked Fencing barrier where pedestrian crossing is prohibited crosswalk locations, despite uncomfortable conditions. Marking crosswalks is important for improving safety of all roadway user CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-13 3 Existing Conditions 3.5 Summary of Opportunities and Constraints The following table summarizes the opportunities and constraints in the previous sections. OPPORTUNITIES CONSTRAINTS Complete sidewalk gaps The pedestrian right-of-way is physically constrained in some areas, Provide buffers/barriers such as limiting opportunities to provide new landscaping or bike lanes sidewalks Consider an encouragement or Sidewalk gap projects will require an enforcement program to reduce ongoing funding source, such as parking on sidewalks in residential private development and Capital neighborhoods Sidewalks Improvement Project funds New sidewalks and/or types of buffers may require some on street parking to be removed Parking enforcement requires coordination with the Police Department Implement crossing Intersection crossing improvements improvements such as marked may affect auto vehicle operations in crossings on all intersection legs, high volume areas signal countdowns, and increase Crossing improvements may require Pedestrian pedestrian signal lengths at high- coordination with other agencies such Crossings priority intersection locations as Caltrans, Caltrain, City of Daly City Develop a crosswalk policy to and City of San Bruno guide the installation of marked crosswalks Develop an ADA Transition PlanImprovementswill require a dedicated funding, ongoing funding source Install curb ramps with detectable warnings Parking enforcement requires ADA Access Review and revise driveway design coordination with the Police standards as needed Department Increase parking enforcement Fund Traffic Calming Program Enforcement requires coordination High Speed Perform enforcement activities at with the Police Department high-priority locations Traffic Traffic Calming Program will require an ongoing, dedicated funding source Enhance crossings at linear Crossing improvements may require Linear barriers coordination with other agencies such Barriers as Caltrans, Caltrain, City of Daly City and City of San Bruno CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN III-17 3 Existing Conditions SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO III-18 4 Recommended Improvements Chapter 4: Recommended Improvements The pedestrian improvements recommended in this chapter are aime safety and circulation within South San Francisco. 4.1 Introduction This section documents the recommended pedestrian improvements t closing the key pedestrian network gaps, programmatic improvemen improvements. Projects were selected based on review of previous findings from the walking audits. 4.2 Citywide Project Recommendations The Existing Conditions chapter identified key issues and gaps i issues reoccur throughout the City. Recommended improvements for these citywide issues are divided into five categories, each of which is identified and di Sidewalks Intersection Crossing Treatments ADA Access Speed Reduction Measures Linear Barriers Sidewalks Two types of sidewalk improvements are recommended: those that fill in the gaps where sidewalks do not currently exist, an those that improve existing sidewalks that do not meet ADA standards. Sidewalk gaps are areas in South San Francisco where there are either no sidewalks on a street or where sidewalks onl exist on one side of the street, as shown in Figure 3-2. The Downtown area has a complete sidewalk network, but there are many sidewalk gaps in the East of 101 area and the western side of the City. Completing sidewalk gap closures will be an ongoing effort by the City and will require a sustained funding source. Sidewalk gaps that have been previously approved and those on private streets in residential subdivisions may remain unchanged, but future development should require sidewalks Grand Avenue sidewalk in Downtown South San Francisco on both sides of the street to maximize connectivity to existing and future pedestrian facilities. The Implementation Chapter of this plan will address prioritization and funding of these proje CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN IV-1 4 Recommended Improvements Sidewalks should be installed in all areas of the City where they are currently missing. ADA accessible curb ramps should be included with any new sidewalk construction. Many existing sidewalks in the City are narrow and some are blocked by obstacles such as utility poles, which are a major barrier to pedestrians with visual impairments. New developments should be required to install ADA accessible sidewalks as a requirement for development approval. A recommended minimum sidewalk width for new residential development is six feet. Sidewalks in existing residential developments may remain at current widths (city Example of bulb out with curb ramp and tactile domes approved minimum of 48 inches, or 4 feet) unless a substantial new development of multifamily dwelling units is planned. ADA sidewalk regulations specify thahan 1.525 meters (60 inches, or 5 feet) of clear width must provide passing space at reasonable intervals not exceeding 61 meters (200 feet), and be provided where turning or maneuvering is necessary. At locati sidewalk, the obstacles should either be removed, or the sidewal sufficient width for ADA access. In some cases, such as around uis may require a curb extension or bulb out. Sidewalks along arterials should h moving traffic. Buffers may include landscaping or street trees, bike lanes. Intersection Crossing Treatments Intersections should be designed to enable access for all users. Best practices include providing uniform crosswalk markings, providing high visibility crossing treatments at high risk unsignalized crossings, providing pedestrian countdowns at signalized intersections, and providing pedestrian islands or median tips. Intersection crossing enhancement projects will be an ongoing effort by the City. Potential funding sources for these projects will be discussed in the Implementation chapter. Crosswalks should be marked across all legs of an intersection. The walking audits inventoried the Ladder crosswalk and ADA accessible curb ramp with locations of crosswalk gaps at some intersections, as tactile domes shown in Figure 3-4 of Chapter 3. However, a thorough citywide inventory is recommended. A uniform crosswalk policy should be implemented across the City, which is useful for building future crosswalks sites. A citywide inventory can be used to identify priority loc the City provides crosswalks in the form of two whiteparallel lines at most intersections. This could be SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IV-2 4 Recommended Improvements designated as the default treatment. At stop controlled intersec crossings marked with a stop bar and the word “STOP” and replace treatment identified by the City. At signalized intersections, a marked. If the City chooses not to mark a crosswalk, the crossin a barrier and signage directing them to the closest legal crossing. High visibility crosswalks, such as ladder striped crosswalks, should be considered at unsignalized crossings with high pedestrian volumes. One uniform high visibility crossing treatment should be used throughout the City. Crossings near schools should be marked in yellow to designate that they are located in a school zone. Additional crossing treatments may be applied in school zones to ensure safe crossing of students or a other unsignalized crossings designated as high risk areas. This may include advanced yield lines, commonly referred to as “sharks teeth”, advanced stop bars, pedestrian signage, or flashing beacons. These treatments are described in detail in the Design Guidelines (Appendix A). Pedestrian countdown signal In order to ensure that pedestrians are aware of the remaining crossing time, pedestrian countdowns should be installed at all requires that countdown signals be installed whever signal contr pedestrian actuated crossings, one pedestrian push button should b ramp. Pedestrian push buttons for separate directions should not audible pedestrian signals at corners of signalized locations wh provided, the pushbuttons should be separated by a distance of a between the audio sources. Many arterial streets in South San Francisco have medians which alk, partially blocking the crosswalk. These medians should be trimmed back so crosswalk, and a median tip or “thumbnail” should be added on t provide additional pedestrian protection. Pedestrian refuge islands can also be installed to provide pedestrians with a protected place to wait between walk signals while crossing a long intersection. ADA Access Pedestrian facilities should be designed to accommodate pedestrians with mobility impairments and should meet Americans with Disability Act guidelines. Best practices include upgrading curb ramps, providing adequate pedestrian clearance intervals, providing accessible pedestrian signals, and removing obstacles on sidewalks. It is recommended A mobility assisted pedestrian waits to cross the street that the City develop an ADA Transition Plan that CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN IV-3 4 Recommended Improvements comprehensively addresses these issues. Many intersections throughout the City are either missing curb r missing truncated domes. The walking audits inventoried missing at some intersections, as shown in Figure 3-3 of Chapter 3, but a thorough curb ramp inventory of the entire City conducted in order to identify priority locations for periodic c provide a tactile signal to the visually impaired as they transition between walking paths or si and conflict areas such as intersections. Bi-directional curb ramps (i.e., two ramps per corner) are preferred whenever possible, to direct pedestrians into a crosswgonally into the intersection. Curb ramps should be provided at all intersection order to provide an accessible pedestrian network. This is impor disabilities, but for people with strollers, children and seniors. As mentioned in Chapter 3, both the Access Board Guidelines and Control Devices (MUCTD) recommend setting pedestrian signals b feet/second walking speed (rather than 4.0 feet per second). All new facilities that have any federal funding must meet the Access Board’s guidelines. In addition, wh an existing facility, the facility must be upgraded to the Accesg crosswalks throughout the City at signalized intersections shoul based on a 3.5 feet/second walking speed to ensure that pedestri intersection. Accessible pedestrian signals communicate information about crossings to pedestrians with visual impairments with audible tones or vibrating systems. These acce placed with guidance from the Accessibility Disability Commissio Cars parked in driveways, or on rolled curbs, blocking the sidewalk is a common obstacle in neighborhoods in South San Francisco. Education programs can hel sidewalk is public right-of-way and blocking it with a vehicle is illegal. Enforcement and encouragement efforts should be implemented to help alleviate th start with “friendly” warnings to alert violators, followed by t the City’s driveway standards should be reviewed and potentially ADA standards. Speed Reduction Measures High vehicle speeds were noted in many areas of the City, both on arterials and in residential neighborhoods. The City currently has a traffic calming program with specific standard treatments. These treatments should be used to reduce vehicle speeds in neighborhoods of concern. Measures included in the traffic calming program are divided into three categories: education and enforcement, speed reducing tools, and cut- through traffic reducing tools. Education and An edgeline demarcates the parking lane & edge of travel lane to reduce vehicle conflicts enforcement tools include neighborhood speed watch programs, neighborhood pace car programs, and SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IV-4 4 Recommended Improvements targeted police enforcement. Speed reducing tools include high v pavements, in-pavement flashers, signage, radar display units, edgeline stripi traffic circles, raised crosswalks and raised intersections. Cut-through reduction tools include turn restrictions, median barriers, and channelizing barriers. Refer Calming Program for details about these measures and their imple neighborhoods with high vehicle speeds also have rolled curbs. A on the sidewalk to avoid getting hit by oncoming vehicles, however this blocks the sidewalk fo pedestrians. One simple measure included in the traffic calming the roadway. Edgelines have the apparent effect of narrowing thecourage drivers to drive more slowly. Painting edgelines with sufficient sidewalk would also encourage vehicles to park on the street, ra and enforcement measures can also be cost effective solutions, e to volunteer for programs to address issues on their own streets Linear Barriers Linear barriers physically separate different parts of the City neighborhoods. Four major transportation routes create linear barriers in S Highway 101, Interstate 280, El Camino Real, and the Caltrain ra presents a linear barrier through part of the City. Crossings at improve pedestrian comfort and safety. This can include bridges, sidewalks, and removing obstacles. 4.3 Site-Specific Recommendations This section provides recommendations for site-specific projects within the City. Some of the citywide themes discussed above are reiterated in this project list, incl sidewalk, curb ramp and crosswalk gaps, particularly when these pedestrian improvement opportunities. These recommendations were walking audits and from input from the City and BPAC members. Th comprehensive citywide list, but rather is focused on key pedesth are located throughout the city and represent a range of neighborhoods and i The project table includes a project ID, which is the walking au number within that walking audit. The location column describes segment. The issue column describes issues or opportunities note recommendations column summarizes the recommended improvements f column provides a concept-level cost estimate (forthcoming). The notes column lists additional considerations involved in implementing the recommendatiosn. The recommendations are divided into five color coded categories Construction of pedestrian right-of-way (sidewalk, bulb-out, curb ramp, median island, etc.) Traffic control measures Striping CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN IV-5 4 Recommended Improvements Signage Other measures including enforcement and amenities The organization of the table will help to facilitate grouping o projects, since projects in the list can either be grouped by location or project type. Projects may be funded through grants, new development and other capital improve Project prioritization and funding is discussed in detail in the section outlines a set of eight conceptual plans, which provide a com recommendations for eight geographic areas of the City. These co sheets for the purpose of pursuing grants. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO IV-6 5 Concept Plans Chapter 5: Concept Plans This chapter outlines eight concept plans to provide site-specific recommendations based on assessments of pedestrian facilities and field work completed du plans include corridors, large intersections, sections of neighb nodes. These plans can be applied to the specific locations desc guide for similar settings as the City finds opportunities for pditional locations. 5.1 Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure Project Missing sidewalks Closure of sidewalk gaps throughout the City will provide basic opportunities for pedestrian trips between existing and future d This is especially effective in the near-term through areas with high pedestrian demand, as the investmen relevant by providing pedestrian access between existing origins switch to pedestrian mode. Pedestrian demand was evaluated in the San Mateo County Pedestri analysis using a number of variables in a GIS model. The built e demographics, and street design were all considered. The built e population and employment density, as well as land use mix. The parks, transit, commercial centers, and employment, Demographics vehicle ownership, thereby incorporating need-based demand in the analysis. Street design factors include intersection density and street connectivity. The facto each street segment in South San Francisco has a total Pedestria These scores were grouped according to natural breaks to great t medium priority, and long-term sidewalk gap closures. Professional judgment and proximity recorded pedestrian collisions were taken into consideration whe- off point. High priority sidewalk gaps, shown on the figure in r highest demand scores, which are primarily streets near the down residential neighborhoods and adjacent to major transit hubs. Medium priority on the figure in yellow, are located on segments with the mid-range scores, which are primarily streets that connect to residential development or economic activity, an slated for near-term future development. Long-term sidewalk gap closures, show on the figure in green, are located on street segments with low pedestrian demand depending on future development and transportation patterns, and in conjunction with development, at a reduced cost to the City, CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN V-1 5 Concept Plans There are gaps in the sidewalk network throughout the City, especially outside of Downtown Issues and Opportunities Many of these sidewalk gaps overlap with areas of high pedestrian demand, or intersections with recorded pedestrian collisions Develop a prioritization system to systematically close Proposed Improvements sidewalk gaps and identify development opportunities to close additional gaps TBD Cost Costs will vary depending on project SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO V-2 5 Concept Plans 5.2 Neighborhood Retail Corridor Linden Avenue Improvements Linden Avenue between Aspen Street and Grand Avenue in downtown secondary commercial corridor connecting to the busier Grand Ave Linden Avenue is a key transit corridor and presents opportuniti and pedestrian connections to nearby destinations, including small parks, schools, City buildings, local businesses and the walkable residential neighborhoods of this pa Issues and Opportunities Opportunity to improve pedestrian amenities, encourage economic development and enhance access to transit stops along corridor Proposed Improvements Relocate bus stop at Miller Avenue to far side of intersection Add bus stop shelters at Miller Avenue and Aspen Avenue Install bus bulbs at Miller Avenue and Aspen Avenue bus stops Install traffic calming treatments such as curb extensions at the corners of crossings along Linden Avenue Install median pedestrian refuge islands at yield controlled crossing (Lux Avenue), and advanced stop bars at stop-controlled crossings Install advanced pedestrian signage at key unsignalized crossings. Update curb ramps Install high visibility crosswalks Estimated Cost $543,440 construction costs $326,064 soft costs* Total cost: $869,504 *Soft costs include the following: Traffic control (5%) Design and Environmental Review (20% Mobilization (5%) Construction Management (10%) Contingency (20%) SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO V-4 Install bus bulb with seating, shelter, real-time transit information and other amenities at transit stop Install bulb-out Install crosswalks on east and west legs; install advanced stop bars on all approaches Consider active uses and public space treatments such as parklets, murals, landscaping and green stormwater Install bulb-outs and management along Linden Avenue advanced stop bars and in alleyways. Install ADA accessible ramps at all pedestrian crossings Install high visibility ladder crosswalks, median pedestrian refuge islands, advanced yield lines and signage at uncontrolled crossings. Add advanced stop bars on stop-controlled approaches Relocate bus stops to far side of intersection LEGEND Install bulb-out at Install bus bulbs; evaluate removal of Sidewalk Expansion southwest intersection right-turn lane on Miller Avenue to install bulb-out Landscaping ADA Curb Ramps N Not to Scale SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan 5 Concept Plans 5.3 BART Station and El Camino High School Access Improvements Mission Road Corridor Mission Road between El Camino High School andMcLellan Drive at the north and Holly Avenue at the south is a key transit access corridor with a variety of loc BART station, related transit oriented development, El Camino Hi scattered local-serving commercial uses and residential development are all loca Mission Road. Side streets also connect to a neighborhood elemen commercial development and El Camino Real. Issues and Opportunities Multiple opportunities to improve pedestrian access to the BART station and High School Proposed Improvements Consider reducing Mission Road to one lane in each direction by removing outside lanes and either widen sidewalks, add corner bulb-outs, or add a median to narrow the vehicle right of way and create pedestrian refuge islands at Mission Road crossings At Sequoia Avenue install curb extension, especially at northeast and southeast corners to reduce the turning radii and pedestrian crossing distance At Sequoia Avenue add all-way stop control, or install sharks teeth and advanced pedestrian crossing signage if roadway is reduced to a single lane in each direction At Holly Avenue straighten crosswalk at east leg to shorten crossing distance, consider adding curb extensions to northeast and southeast corners, add crosswalk to south leg and install advance stop bars at north and south legs Estimated Cost $559,758 construction costs $335,854 soft costs* Total Cost: $895,612 *Soft costs include the following: Traffic control (5%) Design and Environmental Review (20% Mobilization (5%) Construction Management (10%) Contingency (20%) SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO V-6 SOUTH SECTION NORTH SECTION Match Line McLellan DrMcLellan Dr Reduce Mission Road to one travel lane in each direction. Add median with pedestrian refuges. Sequoia AveSequoia Ave El CaminoEl Camino High SchoolHigh School Curb extensions and Install advance stop bars on realign crosswalk to Mission Road approaches reduce crossing distance Evergreen DrEvergreen Dr Holly AveHolly Ave Install bulb-outs Install curb extension at crosswalk Match Line LEGEND Sidewalk Expansion Landscaping ADA Curb Ramps N Not to Scale SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan 5 Concept Plans 5.4 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Improvements Sunshine Gardens Residential streets connecting Sunshine Gardens Elementary School, El Camino High School and Mission Road, including Holly Avenue, Crestwood Drive and Evergr opportunities to implement neighborhood traffic calming improvem schools and residential neighborhoods to the nearby BART station and the Boulevard, to the north. The current configuration allows for hi controlled intersections and some blocks stretching more than 90 typical downtown residential blocks. Traffic calming improvement intersections, key crossings and along the length of blocks can neighborhoods in South San Francisco. Issues and Opportunities High speed vehicles cutting through the neighborhood at dangerous speeds No buffer between sidewalks and vehicles (other than occasional on-street parking) Proposed Improvements Install traffic calming treatments along collector streets; consider small traffic circles, edge lines to visually narrow roadway, speed humps, or other speed reduction measures Mark northeast leg of crosswalk at Baywood Avenue entrance to El Camino HS on Evergreen Drive Install stop sign or sharks teeth/advance pedestrian crossing signage at Baywood Avenue and Evergreen Drive intersection (check stop sign warrant) Estimated Cost $64,280 construction costs $38,568 soft costs* Total cost: $102,848 *Soft costs include the following: Traffic control (5%) Design and Environmental Review (20% Mobilization (5%) Construction Management (10%) Contingency (20%) SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO V-8 Mark edgelines Mark edgelines Sunshine GardensSunshine Gardens Elementary SchoolElementary School Consider reducing speed limit to 15 mph through school zone Miller AveMiller Ave Install traffic circles or other traffic Mark high-visibility yellow calming elements at key inter- crosswalks on all legs sections to slow through-traffic Mark high-visibility yellow ladder crosswalks on all legs Baywood AveBaywood Ave Evaluate intersection for stop sign warrant; otherwise install advanced yellow lines El CaminoEl Camino High SchoolHigh School LEGEND Sidewalk Expansion Edgelines ADA Curb Ramps N Mission RdMission Rd Not to Scale SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan 5 Concept Plans 5.5 Residential Neighborhood Traffic Calming Improvements Spruce Avenue The residential neighborhood along Spruce Avenue north of Downtown, from Lux Avenue to Maple Avenue represents typical residential streets in the older north streets present opportunities for strong pedestrian connections Francisco Caltrain station is located within approximately one mile or less from most points corridor. Issues and Opportunities High speed vehicles Vehicles parked on the sidewalk instead of in the roadway, blocking the already narrow pedestrian right of way Proposed Improvements Install edge line striping to reduce traffic speeds and encourage vehicles to park on the street rather than the sidewalk; consider parking restrictions on one side of the street or converting Spruce to one-way traffic in order to maintain adequate travel way widths. Note that while narrow lane widths may require two-way traffic to slow and pass very carefully, this will have only a very minor impact on local residential streets Consider adding staggered landscaped bulbs on alternating sides of the street Extend existing traffic calming medians between Beech Avenue and Hemlock Avenue Install crosswalk striping at Maple Avenue and Hemlock Avenue intersection Estimated Cost $54,447 construction costs $32,668 soft costs* Total cost: $87,115 *Soft costs include the following: Traffic control (5%) Design and Environmental Review (20% Mobilization (5%) Construction Management (10%) Contingency (20%) SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO V-10 MarinMarin ElementaryElementary SchoolSchool Install high visibility crosswalk treatment with pedestrian actuated flashing beacon; or consider all-way stop Install median refuge at control wide intersection Stripe edgline along corridor; preserve 10-11 for each travel lane Install staggered sidewalk bulbs on alternating sides to reinforce edgeline Pine AvePine Ave Install ADA accessible ramps at all crossings California AveCalifornia Ave Spruce ElementerySpruce Elementery Mark high visibility, yellow Lux AveLux Ave SchoolSchool crosswalk on south leg LEGEND Sidewalk Expansion Miller AveMiller Ave Landscaping Edgelines ADA Curb Ramps N Not to Scale SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan 5 Concept Plans 5.6 Complete Streets/Gateway Improvements South Spruce Avenue South Spruce Avenue from Victory Avenue to El Camino Real, connecting the El to Downtown South San Francisco through the industrial neighborh a primary gateway between El Camino Real and Downtown. It is alsdustrial corridor, linking El Camino Real with the industrial and office park uses south of represent part of the South San Francisco employment base, and c related commercial and truck traffic. The Centennial Way Trail crosses South Spruce Avenue along this segment, and the nearby shopping districts downtown and on El Ca additional pedestrian activity. Issues and Opportunities Pedestrian crossing at Victory Avenue is dominated by local truck traffic and high speed South Spruce Avenue traffic Heavy truck traffic encroaches on sidewalk at southeast corner of Spruce Avenue and Victory Avenue intersection Major opportunity for stronger gateway identity Narrow pedestrian right of way and wide street Spruce is a designated bike route but there is no infrastructure in place Short pedestrian signal timing and high pedestrian exposure at corners and medians crossing at El Camino Real SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO V-12 5 Concept Plans Proposed Improvements Remove pork chops, relocate signals to corners and update crosswalk alignment accordingly at Victory Avenue Install ADA curb ramps at the Victory Avenue crosswalks Consider median treatment and road diet on the entire corridor to calm traffic and narrow pedestrian crossings Install bike lanes, buffered when possible, on Spruce, to establish bike way and connect to Centennial Trail Widen sidewalk on southeast side between Myrtle Ave and Centennial Way Trail, or update to underground utilities to address utility pole and ADA accessissues; the existing street right-of-way is wide enough to accommodate one traffic lane and one buffered bike lane in each direction and a center median through the length of the corridor – the median could be narrowed along this section where the sidewalk expansion takes over a portion of that right-of-way Consider striping crosswalk at northeast leg at Huntington, or close crosswalk Increase pedestrian crossing time at all signals on El Camino Real intersections Install median tips at El Camino Real crossings Estimated Cost $949,585 construction costs $569,751 soft costs* Total Cost: $1,519,336 *Soft costs include the following: Traffic control (5%) Design and Environmental Review (20% Mobilization (5%) Construction Management (10%) Contingency (20%) CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN V-13 SOUTH SECTION NORTH SECTION Match Line Add crosswalk to north leg with ADA curbramps Remove porkchop islands from east corners and relocate signal poles to corners. Add ADA curb ramps Add ADA compliant curb ramps and crosswalks Buffered bike lanes and landscaped median S Spruce Ave corridor Install median treatment on S Spruce Ave corridor Widen sidewalk or by reducing the total move utilities number of lanes underground to provide ADA accessible path Install buffered bike lanes on S Spruce Ave corridor Widen sidwalk at corner Add median tips to crossings at existing medians Add ADA curb ramps Buffered bike lanes connect to Centennial Trail Increase pedestrian crossing time at all signals Existing Centennial Way Trail for El Camino Real/ S Spruce Ave crossing Match Line LEGEND Sidewalk Expansion Landscaping Bike Lanes ADA Curb Ramps Not to Scale SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan 5 Concept Plans 5.7 Centennial Way Access Improvements Centennial Way Trail through Chestnut Avenue crossing Centennial Way Trail crosses Chestnut Avenue at the intersection 175 feet east of El Camino Real. This section of the Centennial Way trail is immediately adjacent to a few commercial developments on Chestnut Avenue, including a rest of strip development on El Camino Real. Beyond these blocks, thetly residential on both sides of El Camino Real. The lot adjacent to Chestnut Avenue is currently being used as a construction stagin opportunities for realigning the current link between trail sect Avenue. Note that a traffic analysis will be necessary to evalua have on eastbound traffic at the Antoinette Lane/Chestnut Avenue Issues and Opportunities Crosswalk gap along Centennial Trail Utility pole blocking sidewalk Proposed Improvements Extend Centennial Trail along sidewalk alignment on west side of Antoinette Lane, south to intersection. Prohibit on-street parking through this segment to provide right of way for pathway extension; by shifting travel lanes on Antoinette Lane, the same number of on-street parking spaces can likely be maintained with angle-in parking on the east side of the street Install a staggered crosswalk across western leg of Chestnut Avenue to connect Centennial Trail Extend median islands on both legs of Chestnut Avenue and include median tips to provide pedestrian refuge and improve safety Install bulb-out on southeastern corner to provide access around utility pole Consider consolidating driveway access of property on the SE corner of Chestnut Ave and El Camino Real to reduce pedestrian and bicycle conflicts with vehicles. (Will require coordination with property owner) Update curb ramps Estimated Cost $228,334 construction costs $137,000 soft costs* Total Cost: $365,334 *Soft costs include the following: Traffic control (5%) Design and Environmental Review (20% Mobilization (5%) Construction Management (10%) Contingency (20%) CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN V-15 Existing Centennial Way TrailExisting Centennial Way Trail Provide ADA accessible connection between Centennial Way Trail and Mission Road Incorporate widened sidewalks at new development site to connect to existing Centennial Way Trail at north side of cul-de-sac Remove parallel parking from east side of street Install curb extension to and shift travel lanes east to accommodate widened align new west leg of sidewalk. Provide diagonal parking on west side. crosswalk at 90 degree angle Install curb extension to reduce crossing distances Install staggered crosswalk on west leg to provide direct trail connection and reduce crossing distances across diagonal cross-section Install curb extension around utility pole to provide ADA access and realign crosswalk LEGEND Sidewalk Expansion ADA Curb Ramps Existing Centennial Way TrailExisting Centennial Way Trail N Not to Scale Existing Centennial Way TrailExisting Centennial Way Trail SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action PlanSF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan 5 Concept Plans 5.8 Prototypical Arterial intersection Improvements Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevard The intersection of Hickey Boulevard and Junipero Serra Boulevar Camino Real represents a number of arterial intersection challen San Francisco. The signalized Junipero Serra Boulevard approach incl turn lane in each direction, and a separated stop controlled rig signalized Hickey Boulevard approach includes also includes two left turn lane in the eastbound direction, and separated stop co direction. This configuration creates long pedestrian crossing ds intersection was selected for development of prototypical improv can be repeated at many other arterial intersections. Issues and Opportunities Challenging pedestrian crossing conditions Limited visibility and short sight distance for oncoming traffic approaching pedestrian crossing Opportunity for a physically separated bicycle and pedestrian pathway Proposed Improvements Extend curb and move crosswalk back at pork chop on north leg of intersection (northwest corner) Install advanced pedestrian crossing signage at north leg of intersections Install median tip and pull median back (out of crosswalk) at west leg Install “close crosswalk” signage at east leg Install remaining sidewalk to Colma City limits; there are grading and drainage issues present on the north side of Hickey Boulevard that lead to sidewalk installation challenges Consider physically separated bikeway and/or Class I shared use pathway on Junipero Serra Boulevard where traffic volumes are low and excessroad capacity exists Estimated Cost $52,333 construction costs (does not include Junipero Serra Blvd bikeway or sidewalk gap projects) $31,400 soft costs* Total Cost: $83,733 *Soft costs include the following: Traffic control (5%) Design and Environmental Review (20% Mobilization (5%) Construction Management (10%) Contingency (20%) CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN V-17 Complete sidewalk Install advanced yield lines and gap to city limits high-visibility ladder crosswalk Add crosswalk to east leg or close Consider installing a physically crosswalk by installing signage separated bikeway or Class I shared use path along Junipero Serra Blvd Extend curb and realign crosswalk at pork chop island to improve visibility from southbound traffic on Junipero Serra Boulevard. Use high visibility crosswalks. Remove shrubbery and Junipero Serra BlvdJunipero Serra Blvd landscaping to further improve sightlines at corner Add median tips at all crosswalks and pull median islands back to provide accessible crosswalks Install advanced yield line and pedestrian signage at approach and Yield to Pedestrians signage at right turn Advance pedestrian signage Realign north and west legs at necessary to match up with new pork chop islands Longford DrLongford Dr LEGEND Sidewalk Expansion Landscaping Bike Lanes ADA Curb Ramps Not to Scale SF11-0594 South San Francisco Pedestrian and Climate Action Plan 6 Policy Framework Chapter 6: Policy Framework This chapter lays out the policy framework for the South San Fra. The Pedestrian Master Plan framework provides a set of seven overarching goals designed to long-term vision for walking in South San Francisco over the next 10 by an objective designed to gauge progress in achieving the goals. Goals are typically implemented through policies and implementation measures dealing with more s chapters of the include recommendations, implementation tasks and next steps Pedestrian Master Plan that are even more specific. 6.1 Goals & Objectives Goal 1 Promote and Encourage Walking Objective: Double the number of walking trips in South San Franc Goal 2 Improve Pedestrian Safety Objective: Reduce the rate of pedestrian-involved collisions by 25% by 2023. Goal 3 Improve Pedestrian Access Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestri Goal 4 Identify and Pursue Funding Sources to Construct and Maintain Pe Facilities Objective: Identify and secure funds for pedestrian projects annually. Goal 5 Maintain Pedestrian Facilities Objective: Track and evaluate maintenance of pedestrian faciliti Goal 6 Periodically Review the Pedestrian Master Plan and Keep It Relev Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestrian pr Goal 7 Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed Objective: Meet or exceed 75 percent of the BPAC Action Plan goa CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VI-1 6 Policy Framework Goal 1: Promote and Encourage Walking Objective: Double the number of walking trips in South San Franc Policy 1.1: Integrate pedestrian facilities and planning into all of the Cit review and construction activities, legitimizing walking as a tr mode. Implementation Measures: 1.1-1All development projects shall be required to conform to the Pedestrian Master Plan goals, policies and implementation measur 1.1-2All public and private street projects shall incorporate pedestr improvements and amenities. Policy 1.2: Reduce reliance on travel by single occupant passenger vehicles. Implementation Measures: 1.2-1 All major developments shall be required to establish and mainta Transportation Demand Management Plan as prescribed in the South San Francisco Municipal Code Title 20 Zoning Regulations. 1.2-2 All developments with approved Transportation Demand Management Plans shall be required to prepare periodic reports a prescribed in the SSFMC Zoning Regulations. 1.2-3 As part of the review of the Pedestrian Master Plan stated in Goal 6, the BPAC shall review and make recommendations on the effectiveness local TDM Plans in supporting walking as a transportation mode. Policy 1.3: Encourage residents and employees to walk for journeys to work, school and recreation. Implementation Measures: 1.3-1 Sponsor and/or support at least one local annual event promoting walking such as Streets Alive. 1.3-2 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District and pr schools to implement programs and events to support walking SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VI-2 6 Policy Framework including regular contests, and challenging students to walk to 2 school. 1.3-3 Develop and implement incentive based walking programs to encourage and increase walking. 1.3-4 Maintain, update and publish a City Pedestrian Map. Goal 2: Improve Pedestrian Safety Objective: Reduce the rate of pedestrian-involved collisions by 25% by 2023. Policy 2.1: The BPAC and City staff shall continually seek to improve pedest Implementation Measures: 2.1-1City staff, assigned to support the BPAC, shall establish and maintain a current pedestrian data base. The data base shall include, but n limited to, an annual pedestrian volume count, analysis of pedes collision rates and locations, and a review of facility conditio 2.1-2Focus pedestrian safety improvements measures at hot spot collision locations, and around schools and senior facilities, as children and seniors are disproportionately represented in pedestrian collisi 2.1-3Identify an annual funding source for the City’s Traffic Calming Program. 2.1-4City staff shall establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to dissem walking information and elicit community input. 2.1-5The BPAC shall annually review efforts to improve pedestrian saf and make recommendations for improving pedestrian safety, maintaining existing pedestrian facilities, and constructing new pedestrian facilities especially ADA accessible ramps. Encouraging students to bicycle can be implemented and funded th 2 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VI-3 6 Policy Framework Policy 2.2: Enforce pedestrian related traffic laws to maintain and improve Implementation Measures: 2.2-1 The Police Department shall enforce the vehicle code for pedestrians. 2.2-2 Provide pedestrian safety training to police officers and pursue enforcement activities such as pedestrian stings and speeding campaigns. 2.2-3 The BPAC webpage shall be utilized to provide public information pertaining to laws regarding walking. Policy 2.3 Provide security on pedestrian paths. Implementation Measure 2.3-1The city shall establish and maintain a security program for rem paths including the Bay Trail, Centennial Path and future conversion of former rail spur tracks. 2.3-2Expand the Police Department Bike Patrol to include pedestrian p and evaluate other methods to improve security such as establish Citizen Bike Patrol, installing cameras and lighting on pedestri Goal 3: Improve Pedestrian Access Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestri Policy 3.1: The city shall expand the existing pedestrian network and improv throughout the community with a special emphasis on connections to places of work, transit, commercial centers and community amenities and accessibility. Implementation Measure: 3.1-1 Construct pedestrian facilities in accordance with a prioritized facilities. 3.1-2 Adopt a citywide ADA Transition Plan. 3.1-3 Update the City’s Street Design Ordinance (SSFMC Chapter 19.20) reflect the adopted Complete Streets Policy and incorporate the design recommendations included in the Pedestrian Master Plan. Policy 3.2: Pedestrian facilities and amenities should be provided at schools, parks and transit stops, and shall be required to be provided at private d SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VI-4 6 Policy Framework including places of work, commercial shopping establishments, pa community facilities and other pedestrian destinations. Implementation Measure: 3.2-1 Amend the City’s Transportation Demand Management Ordinance to clarify and quantify the requirements for pedestrian amenities a facilities within individual development projects and access to destinations. (i.e. connections to transit, safe crossing treatments for pedestrians, and continuous sidewalks). 3.2.2 Work with the South San Francisco Unified School District and pr schools to provide and improve pedestrian facilities at schools provide safe access to schools. Policy 3.2: Install pedestrian amenities including street furniture, street trees and wayfinding and destination signage in commercial areas, transit other major destinations. Implementation Measure: 3.2-1 Establish a pedestrian wayfinding program in key commercial, historic and transit hub locations. 3.2-2 Install pedestrian wayfinding and destination signage on all pub paths and require that privately sponsored path projects impleme the same type of signage. 3.2-3 Establish a citywide street tree program. 3.2-4 Establish a street furniture ordinance. Goal 4: Identify and Pursue Funding Sources to Construct and Maintain Pedestrian Facilities Objective: Identify and secure funds for pedestrian projects annually. Policy 4.1: City sponsored pedestrian facilities shall include, to the extent feasible and available, Federal, State and/or local grant funding to augment Implementation Measures: 4.1-1City staff shall establish and maintain a data base of funding s support planning, design, construction and maintenance of pedestrian facilities. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VI-5 6 Policy Framework 4.1-2Pedestrian improvement and maintenance projects shall be include City’s Capital Improvement Plan. Goal 5: Maintain Pedestrian Facilities Objective: Track and evaluate maintenance of pedestrian facilities annually. Policy 5.1 Maintain sidewalks, marked crossings, pedestrian traffic control paths as a high priority. Implementation Measures: 5.1-1 Establish a regular maintenance program including pavement, pede traffic control devices, marked crossings, signs and lighting to pedestrian facilities in good condition. Policy 5.2 The BPAC shall conduct regular evaluations of the pedestrian fac Implementation Measures 5.2-1 Conduct an annual review of the pedestrian maintenance program and make recommendations to improve maintenance. 5.2-2 The BPAC, with the assistance of city staff, shall conduct and document a regular review of pedestrian surface conditions. Policy 5.3 Keep the City’s Sidewalk Management Plan relevant to pedestrian transportation. Implementation Measure: 5.3-1 The city staff shall revise the City’s Sidewalk Management Plan pedestrian facilities, pavement marking, signage and lighting ma a high priority. Goal 6: Periodically Review the Pedestrian Master Plan and Keep It Re Objective: Design and construct at least three priority pedestri Policy 6.1 Maintain the Pedestrian Master Plan and the implementation schedd keep the plan current and relevant. Implementation Measure 6.1-1BPAC shall conduct an annual review of the Pedestrian Master Pla achievement of the goals and policies, effectiveness of the impl measures, the progress of implementation and the efficient use of local resources. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VI-6 6 Policy Framework 6.1-2The BPAC shall make recommendations to improve the plan, achieve the goals and policies, and its implementation. 6.1-3As part of the annual review, the BPAC shall prioritize pedestri improvements and identify external funding sources. 6.1-4 Make recommendations to undertake periodic pedestrian planning s update the plan and achieve greater effectiveness. Policy 6.2 Maintain a focus on pedestrian issues. Implementation Measures 6.2-1 The BPAC shall adopt an annual work program to guide its efforts walking and to focus on pedestrian issues, programs and projects progress of implementation. 6.2-4 Make recommendations to the City Council on all public and priva sponsored pedestrian/development projects. Goal 7: Encourage Public Participation and Stay Informed Objective: Meet or exceed 75 percent of the BPAC Action Plan goa Policy 7.1 Promote public awareness of walking and increase public particip Implementation Measure: 7.1-1 Establish and maintain a BPAC webpage to disseminate information community input. 7.1-2 Notify the community of BPAC meetings and encourage public atten the meetings through various media including the city website. Policy 7.2 Develop a BPAC Action Plan to establish goals and activities on basis. Implementation Measures: 7.2-1 Establish and maintain a community data base of BPACs, intereste and organizations. 7.2-2 Establish and maintain contact with BPACs within San Mateo County, bicycle organizations, SamTrans, BART, Caltrain and FHWA, interested cit businesses. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VI-7 6 Policy Framework 7.2-3BPAC shall conduct a periodic joint meeting with the neighboring communities, including Daly City, Colma, Brisbane, Pacifica and San Bruno BPAC’s, and local bicycle groups to review establishing better c between bikeways and programs to improve walking, coordinating improvements and co-sponsoring joint projects. 7.2-4BPAC shall propose joint meetings with the C/CAG and all local community BPACs within San Mateo County to discuss walking issues includin coordinating bicycle projects and have more voice in pedestrian 7.2-5Work with other City Boards and Commissions to coordinate effort implement the plan and improve pedestrian facilities. Policy 7.3 BPAC shall take a proactive approach to stay informed on best pr pedestrian and bicycle planning. Implementation Measure 7.3-1Participate in regional pedestrian conferences and increase awar knowledge and technical pedestrian expertise. On an annual basis least one public event including pedestrian fairs and/or conferes to establish and maintain connections with the larger walking and t planning communities. Attend regional and national walking relat conferences, such as the California Walks “Peds Count” Conferenc 7.3-2Take an active leadership role by directing the planning, implem maintenance of pedestrian improvements and programs. 7.3-3Monitor and review pedestrian demonstration and cutting edge projects and programs in other communities. 7.3-4BPAC shall keep current on advancements, walking information and pending Federal and State pedestrian legislation. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VI-8 7 Funding and Implementation Chapter 7: Funding and Implementation Implementation of the proposed pedestrian improvements included in from local, state, and federal sources and coordination with mul chapter presents a method of prioritizing local pedestrian impro estimates for the proposed improvements, a brief overview of fun implementation strategies. 7.1 Planning Implementation Prioritization The proposed projects outlined in the Recommended Improvements c pedestrian experience, safety and access throughout South San Fr were scored and ranked in order to prioritize their implementati Francisco may find opportunities to implement a number of projects through resurfacin conjunction with other street improvements regardless of project identifies projects with the greatest potential to impact the peby scoring each project according to several factors. The prioritization scoring method outlined below was developed s Francisco with special consideration given to local priorities wtrian plans. Pedestrian demand, designated pedestrian focus areas, and priority factors in the C/CAG San Mateo County , and have Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan been included in the prioritization methodology for South San Fr county-wide priorities this prioritization considers gap closures and p All projects receive a score between 10 and 100 based on the fol Existing pedestrian demand (10-30 points) Each project was assessed according to its location and correspo demand is based on a number of geographically-based factors that are considered indicators for pedestrian activity. These include housing and employment densit vehicle ownership, proximity to recreation, proximity to commerc schools. During the development of the C/CAG , each street segment in Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan South San Francisco was assigned a pedestrian demand value, which is illustratein Figure 7-1. The following points were assigned to each pedestrian project: Projects located primarily within the red and orange street segm received 30 points Projects located within the yellow street segments are considered t received 20 points CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-1 7 Funding and Implementation Projects located within the green street segments are considered received 10 points Access to key destinations (0-20 points) Additional points were assigned to projects located within a Pri provide direct access with frontage on schools, parks, commercia destinations: 15-20 points for direct access to two or more key destinations 5-10 points for direct access to one key destination 0 points for no access to key destinations Closure of a critical gap (0-20 points) Additional points were assigned to projects that close a gap in the pedestrian network, including sidewalk gaps, improved pedestrian access across interchanges or access to the Centennial Way Trail: 15-20 points for directly closing a gap 5-10 points for improving access and reducing the impact of a gap 0 points for no gap closure Immediate safety need (0-20 points) Additional points were assigned to projects in areas where pedes including proximity to recent pedestrian collisions and streets exposure to high volumes of traffic: 15-20 points for locations near pedestrian collisions high speed/high volume streets AND 5-10 point for locations near pedestrian collision high speed/high volume streets OR 0 points for locations where collisions and traffic speed/volume are not a co Overall feasibility (0-10 points) Finally, additional points were assigned to projects with potent 10 points for projects that are both feasible (in terms of engin political support) and fundable (strong contenders for grant opp new development opportunities, or are relatively affordable and annual CIP program) CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-3 7 Funding and Implementation 1-9 points for projects with some degree of political and financial support ( 0 points for projects with no support and not associated with fu As an example, recommended Project # 10-1, located on Linden Avenue from Grand Avenue to Aspen Avenue, was scored in the following way: Table VII-1: Project 10-1 Priority Scoring Scoring Criteria Assessment of Project 10-1 Score Pedestrian demand High Demand - Linden Avenue from Grand to Aspen is 30 entirely within red street segments Access to key destinationsLinden and Grand is the center of Downtown, a 20 gateway between Downtown and East of 101 and provides access to transit stops along the corridor Closure of critical gap No critical gap at this location 0 Serves immediate safety need High incidence of pedestrian collisions at this 10 intersection; no high speed traffic noted Feasibility Recommendations are not capital intensive (most 10 related to curb ramp and pavement markings) and located within the Downtown Improvement District Total 70 Each recommended project was scored according to these criteria, priorities. Projects with the same score are ranked according to projects are ranked higher.) The resulting ranked list is not in opportunities for funding and improved access will emerge. Howev point for determining project priorities and implementation. Unible 2. Table 3 provides a list of the top tier ranked pedestrian projec included in Appendix B. More details about the recommended project list can be found i Recommended Improvements Chapter. Cost of New Facilities A list of unit costs was developed based on recent projects and Area, and input from the South San Francisco Engineering Divisio basis for total cost estimates for each recommended project. Table 2 provides a unit cost summary for the construction of pedestrian, bicycle and traffic calming faci SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-4 7 Funding and Implementation Table VII-2: Unit Costs Item Assumptions Unit Cost/Unit Wayfinding/Destination Sign Each $500 Standard Class I Path Mile $800,000 Class II Bike Lanes (Both Roadway Includes $2.50 LF striping, $150 Mile $29,120 Sides) marking (8 per mile), $250 sign (8 per mile) Curb extension/ Bulb-Out Each $50,000 Sidewalk Square Foot $30 Remove concrete sidewalk Square Foot $3 Curb and Gutter Linear Foot $52 Signal Modification/New Signal Each $250,000 Slurry Seal 70 ft paved width Mile $184,800 Advance Stop Bars Each $400 Advance Yield Lines Each $400 Crosswalk Striping Linear Foot $7 High Visibility Crosswalk Restriping Linear Foot $5 Solid Edge Line Linear Foot $4 Remove Thermoplastic Lane Striping Linear Foot $1 Speed Table Each $30,000 Median Includes vertical median concrete surface to fill, depending on dimensions Vertical Median Linear Foot $22 Concrete Surface Square Foot $11 New Pedestrian Signal with Each $1,000 Countdown Pedestrian Push Buttons Each $2,000 Upgrade to Pedestrian Countdown HeadsEach $1,000 Pedestrian Barricade and signs (close Each $1,000 crossing) ADA Curb Ramps Each $5,000 HAWK Beacon Each $120,000 Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon Includes installationEach $27,000 New Signage Each $700 New Sign on Existing Post Each $500 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-5 7 Funding and Implementation Item Assumptions Unit Cost/Unit Relocate Sign and Post Each $400 Remove and Salvage Sign and Post Each $150 Traffic Circle Includes $52/LF for curb and Each $5,000 gutter, $8/SF for landscaping, 10 FT diameter and $700 sign (4 per intersection) Lighting Each $10,000 Bus Shelter Each $6,500 Paint Curb Linear Foot $10 For the purposes of this , construction cost estimates for the proposed Pedestrian Master Plan improvements were based on the following assumptions: Sidewalk paving does not include demolition costs and new sidewa dimensions are required due to site specific constraints Relocation of utility poles and fire hydrants does not include d Detailed cost estimates based on the unit costs and assumptions developed for all recommended projects included in this Pedestri cost estimates for all recommended projects is included in Appendix C. Projects with the highest prioritization scores (51 to 100 points), or First Tier Projects- to medium-term projects that typically provide access to existing pedestrian-generators and are more easily constructed, such as gap closures in already developed areas. If the City meets the goal of constructing at least three of the and 6), then this Tier 1 project list could be completed within completed much more rapidly if additional projects are construct mechanisms are pursued more aggressively, or the City can commit 1 projects are lower-cost improvements that could likely be implemented more immediat funding allows. For example, ten of the top 11 projects could be was secured for the improvement. First Tier recommended projects, priority scores, and associated summarized in Table VII-3. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-6 7 Funding and Implementation Table VII-3: South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan First Tier Priorit ID # Location McLellan Drive from Mission 1-2 $154,900 30 20 10 10 5 75 Road to El Camino Real Chestnut Avenue and 11-1 $228,300 20 20 10 15 5 70 Antoinette Lane Spruce Avenue between Lux 12-1 $15,300 30 15 0 15 5 65 Avenue and Maple Avenue Grand Avenue and Airport 9-1 $19,50030 10 0 15 10 65 Boulevard Westborough Boulevard 13-1 from Callan Boulevard to $368,40020 15 10 15 5 65 Gellert Boulevard East Grand Avenue and 9-4 $13,80030 15 0 15 1 61 Dubuque Avenue Airport Boulevard and Miller 10-3 $50030 15 0 10 5 60 Avenue E Grand Avenue between 14-3 Grand Avenue and Dubuque $1,400 30 10 0 15 5 60 Avenue McLellan Drive and Mission 1-1 $14,000 30 20 0 0 10 60 Road Pedestrian crossing under 9-3 Hwy 101 along East Grand $20,00030 10 0 15 5 60 Avenue Airport Boulevard at Pine 10-2 $137,200 30 15 0 10 5 60 Avenue Linden Avenue from Grand 10-1 $543,400 30 15 0 10 5 60 Avenue to Aspen Avenue Del Monte Avenue from 6-1 Arroyo Drive to Alta Loma $40,000 20 15 5 15 1 56 Drive Mission Road from McLellan 2-1 $197,900 30 20 0 5 1 56 Drive to Holly Avenue CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-7 7 Funding and Implementation ID # Location Grand Avenue between 9-2 Airport Boulevard and $275,900 30 15 0 10 1 56 Walnut Avenue School Street and Olive 12-3 $20,000 30 10 0 10 5 55 Avenue Oyster Point Boulevard from 16-1 Eccles Avenue to driveway $35,700 10 15 10 15 5 55 immediately east School Street and Maple 12-2 $39,100 30 10 0 10 5 55 Avenue Mission Road and BART 2-2 $50,000 30 20 0 0 5 55 entrance Grand Avenue and Spruce 12-4 $204,00030 10 0 10 5 55 Avenue Holly from Mission Road to 2-5 $346,000 30 10 0 10 1 51 Crestwood Drive Crestwood Drive from Holly 2-6 $10,000 30 10 0 10 1 51 Avenue to Evergreen Drive El Camino Real and McLellan 1-3 $900 20 20 0 10 1 51 Drive S Airport Boulevard and 15-3 $91,600 20 5 15 10 1 51 Highway 101 off-ramp Mission Road and Sequoia 2-3 $209,700 30 20 0 0 1 51 Avenue El Camino Real from 8-1 Hazelwood Drive to $271,40010 15 10 15 1 51 Ponderosa Road SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-8 7 Funding and Implementation Additional soft costs for design, environmental review, mobilization and contingency must also be taken into consideration when developing practical cost estimate following table summarizes these cost increases. Table VII-4: Design and Construction Costs CategoryIncrease (as a percentage of construction cost) Traffic Control 5% Design and Environmental Review 20% Mobilization 5% Construction Management 10% Contingency 20% Maintenance costs should also be incorporated into project budge pedestrian facilities require maintenance for long-term function, including cleaning, resurfacing, re- striping, repair, drainage, trash removal, and landscaping. Thes incorporated into larger infrastructure maintenance routines and periodically to keep expenses down. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-9 7 Funding and Implementation Table VII-5: Total Costs for Recommended Projects First Tier: Short-Term Projects (51-100 Points) Construction Costs $2,997,600 Additional Soft Costs: Traffic Control 5% $149,880 Design and Environmental Review 20% $599,520 Mobilization 5% $149,880 Construction Management10% $299,760.00 Contingency 20% $599,520 Total First Tier Costs $4,796,160 Second Tier: Medium-Term Projects (41-50 points) Construction Costs $2,175,000 Additional Soft Costs Traffic Control 5% $108,750 Design and Environmental Review 20% $435,000 Mobilization 5% $108,750 Construction Management10% $217,500 Contingency 20% $435,000 Total Second Tier Costs $3,480,000 Third Tier: Long-Term & Opportunistic Projects (0-40 points) Construction Costs $2,855,600 Additional Soft Costs Traffic Control 5% $142,780 Design and Environmental Review 20% $571,120 Mobilization 5% $142,780 Construction Management10% $285,560 Contingency 20% $571,120 Total Third Tier Costs $4,568,960 Total Cost for All Projects $12,845,100 Many of the recommended projects include site-specific sidewalk gap closure projects. These sidewalk costs are incorporated in the project level cost summaries. The Citywide Sidewalk Gap Closure Project (Chapter 5, Concept Plan 5.1) also provides a comprehensive inve SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-10 7 Funding and Implementation gaps throughout the City were mapped, ranked according to priori-priority, medium-priority and long-term sidewalk gap closures. The costs of each sidewalk gap closu depending on the specifics of the project. A conceptual-level cost estimate for completing these closures is summarized below. As there is some overlap with site-specific recommendations, these citywide costs should not be double counted. Table VII-6: Sidewalk Gap Closure Projects Cost Estimate Summary First Priority Sidewalk Gaps – 54,037 linear feet Construction Costs $9,726,660 Additional Soft Costs: Traffic Control 5% $486,330 Design and Environmental Review 20% $1,945,330 Mobilization 5% $486,330 Construction Management10% $972,670 Contingency 20% $1,945,330 Total First Tier Costs $15,562,656 CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-11 7 Funding and Implementation Second Priority Sidewalk Gaps – 63,111 linear feet Construction Costs $11,359,980 Additional Soft Costs Traffic Control 5% $568,000 Design and Environmental Review 20% $2,272,000 Mobilization 5% $568,000 Construction Management10% $1,134,000 Contingency 20% $2,212,000 Total Second Tier Costs $18,175,968 Third Priority Sidewalk Gaps – 5,802 linear feet Construction Costs $1,044,360 Additional Soft Costs Traffic Control 5% $52,220 Design and Environmental Review 20% $208,870 Mobilization 5% $52,220 Construction Management 10% $104,440 Contingency 20% $208,870 Total Third Tier Costs $1,670,976 Total Cost for All Citywide Sidewalk Gaps – 122,950 feet $35,409,600 7.2 Funding Past Funding Strategies and Expenditures in South San Francisco South San Francisco can build on funding sources and strategies that have pedestrian expenditures. These include a variety of local and re Capital Improvement Program – The South San Francisco Capital Improvement Program (CIP) outlines planned local infrastructure improvements for the upcoming fis reviewed by the Planning Commission and approved by the City Cou projects for the 2012-13 Fiscal Year will improve the pedestrian environment in South San Francisco, including: – Pedestrian crossing improvements at El Camino High School – Annual Street Rehabilitation Program SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-12 7 Funding and Implementation – Gateway Assessment Improvement Projects. Private Development – Current property owners and developers are required to include sc upgrades and additional pedestrian infrastructure, such as sidew projects. Grants – a variety of grant funding sources have been used in South San F – San Mateo County’s Measure A Sales Tax – A local sales tax increase to fund for transportation improvements designated in the Transportation Exp described in greater detail below. – Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) – The South San Francisco CDBG program is designed to address four specific core areas: Basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing and legal services Senior services Youth services Housing and/or community rehabilitation These funds have been used in the past to provide ADA accessible improve pedestrian accessibility. – Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds have been p described in greater detail below. Gas tax revenue has been used as a funding source for curb ramp overlay projects. Public Works Operating Budget – The South San Francisco Department of Public Works is responsible for maintenance of the city’s streets, vehicles, inf The Public Works Department creates and carries out the CIP. Funding Sources There are numerous funding sources at the federal, state, region potentially available to the City of South San Francisco to impl . Below is a description of the most promising funding programs available for Pedestrian Master Plan the proposed projects. Most of these sources are highly competit extensive applications. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-13 7 Funding and Implementation Federal Funding Sources st Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21Century (MAP-21) The new federal transportation bill, MAP-21, was signed into law in July, 2012 and will be in effect from October 2012 through September 2014, funding surface transportat and 2014. A new program, (TA), consolidates pedestrian and bicycle programs Transportation Alternatives formerly funded under the Transportation Enhancements program (p-LU, the previous transportation bill authorized in 2005). Funding through TA is l states may opt out of funding. There are six eligible categories for funding under Alternatives, including: Safe Routes for Non-Drivers – the former Safe Routes to School program is no longer a stand-alone program with dedicated funding, but is still eligible under the Safe Routes for Non-Drivers program. On-road and Off-road Trail Facilities - construction, planning, and design of pedestrian infrastructure is eligible. This includes a Recreational Trails levels through 2014. Abandoned Railroad Corridors for Trails - conversion of rail corridors for pedestrians and bicyclists, or other non-motorized transportation users is eligible. Environmental Mitigation and Community Improvement Activities – improvements related to stormwater management, landscaping, and rights-of–way improvements, including historic preservation, and vegetation management and erosion control are The TA program falls under the general provisions for federal sh-interstate system projects at 80%, with the remaining 20% being local match fundin MAP-21 funds, available money may be lower than estimated based on f-21 is authorized for two years, and the specifics of the funding pr of FY 2014. Transportation Enhancements Program (TE) Unlike the previous federal legislation, MAP-21 does not provide funding specifically for Transportation Enhancements. Instead, TE activities will be elig other programs as part of the new TA program. Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ) The CMAQ program is continued in MAP-21 to provide a flexible funding source to State and local governments for transportation projects and programs to help mee SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-14 7 Funding and Implementation Act. Funding is available to reduce congestion and improve air q National Ambient Air Quality Standards for ozone, carbon monoxidrticulate matter (nonattainment areas) and for former nonattainment areas that ar areas). Safe Routes to Schools Unlike the previous federal legislation, MAP-21 does not provide funding specifically for Safe Routes to School (SRTS). Instead, SRTS activities will be eligible to compete for programs, including the Transportation Enhancements program and part of the new TA program. Statewide Funding Sources Safe Routes to School (SRTS) California’s Safe Routes to Schools program (SRTS) is a Caltrans-administered grant-funding program established in 1999 (and extended in 2007 to the year 2013). Eli crosswalks, traffic signals, traffic-calming applications and other infrastructure projects that improve the safety of walking and biking routes to elementary, middle an education, enforcement and encouragement activities. Planning pr eligible. For funding Cycle 10, fiscal years 2011/12 and 2012/13 available in grant funding. Caltrans Safe Routes to School program: www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoutes/saferoutes.htm Transportation Development Act (TDA), Article 3 TDA Article 3 is perhaps the most readily available source of lobicycle projects. TDA funds are derived from a statewide quarter-cent retail sales tax. This tax is returned to the county of origin and distributed to the cities and county on 3, two percent of each entity’s TDA allocation is set aside for this generates approximately $3 million in the Bay Area annually. Eli construction of walkways and safety education programs. Accordin projects must be included in an adopted general plan or bicycle by the relevant city or county bicycle advisory committee. MTC’s Procedures and Project Evaluation Criteria for the TDA Art www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/STA-TDA/RES-0875.doc Highway Safety Improvement Program The Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) program was establ-LU in 2005 to implement infrastructure-related highway safety improvements to significantly reduce traffic fatalities and serious injuries on public roads. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-15 7 Funding and Implementation Caltrans expects the available funding apportioned to local agen Transportation Improvement Program (FSTIP), which is a four-year funding cycle from 2012/13 through 2015/16, to be approximately $100 million for the four-year HSIP plan. Highway Safety Improvement Program: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/hsip.htm Regional Funding Sources Transportation for Livable Communities (One Bay Area) MTC created the Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC) pro assistance and funding to cities, counties, transit agencies and projects and community-based planning that encourage multimodal travel and the revitali town centers and other mixed-use neighborhoods. The program funds projects that improve bicyc to transit stations, neighborhood commercial districts and other major activity centers. One Bay Area (OBA) grants are now an umbrella for the previous MTC grant prog Transportation for Livable Communities, Bicycle, Local Streets a Routes to School for the FY 2012-13 through 2015-16 funding cycles. This program is administered by MTC and awards funding to counties based on progress toward achi-use and housing policies. Cities and counties can still use OBA funds for projehese programs. MTC’s TLC program: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/onebayarea/ Climate Action Program In partnership with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District Commission and the Association of Bay Area Governments, MTC is s- oriented Climate Action Program, designed to reduce mobile emiss including a grant program. The grant program will provide fundin Safe Routes to School and Safe Routes to Transit programs, with approximately $400 million. This funding will be in addition to School programs and MTC’s existing Safe Routes to Transit progra Safe Routes to Transit (SR2T) SR2T is a grant-funding program that emerged out of the Bay Area's Regional Meas instituted a $1 toll increase on the Bay Area's seven state-owned toll bridges. Through the SR2T program, up to $20 million is to be allocated through 2013 on a planning efforts and capital projects designed to reduce congest bicycling and walking access to regional transit services that serve toll-bridge corridors. Funds can be used for safety enhancements and system-wide transit enhancements to accommodate pedestrians. The SR2T program is administered by two nonprofit organizations, Coalition, with MTC serving as the fiscal agent. Regional Measure 2 provides $20 mill SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-16 7 Funding and Implementation program, to be distributed over five funding cycles with $4 mill year 2011/12 was the fourth of five funding cycles. The final cyl occur in fiscal year 2013/14. Bay Area Safe Routes to Transit funding program: www.transformca.org/campaign/sr2t Bay Trail Grants The San Francisco Bay Trail Project—a non-profit organization administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments—provides grants to plan, design, and construct segments of the B amount, and even availability, of Bay Trail grants vary from yea-pending on whether the Bay Trail Project has identified a source of funds for the program. In recent years, g made using funds from Proposition 84, the 2006 Clean Water, Park however, this is a limited-term source of funds. Bay Trail grants: www.baytrail.org/grants.html Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) TFCA is a grant program administered by the Bay Area Air Quality The purpose of the program, which is funded through a $4 surchar the Bay Area, is to fund projects and programs that will reduce awards are generally made on a first-come, first-served basis to qualified projects. A portion of TFCA revenues collected in each Bay Area county is returned to that c agency (CMA) for allocation (The City/County Association of Gove County). Applications are made directly to the CMAs, but must al TFCA County Program Manager Fund: http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Strategic- Incentives/Funding-Sources/TFCA/County-Program-Manager-Fund.aspx Surface Transportation Program The Surface Transportation Program (STP) block grant provides fu including pedestrian projects. This program is administered by Mize projects for RSTP funding. MTC program information: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/funding/STPCMAQ/ Measure A San Mateo County’s Measure A sales tax increase of one-half of one percent was approved by San Mateo County voters in 1988 to fund transportation improvements Expenditure Plan. This measure was reauthorized in 2004 to exten the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (SMCTA), and funds a wide variety of transportation projects, including pedestrian projects. SMCTA program information:http://www.smcta.com/about/About_Measure_A.html CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-17 7 Funding and Implementation Local Funding Sources A variety of local sources may be available for funding pedestrian improvement often dependent on political support. New Construction Future road repaving, widening and construction projects are met pedestrian facilities. To ensure that roadway construction projects provid needed, it is important that the review process includes a revie project list. Planned roadway improvements in South San Francis facilities consistent with the in the City. Typically, new development projects Pedestrian Master Plan are required to install sidewalks or bus pullouts. MTC provides a typical routine accommodations checklist that describes the items that the City should look for when reviewing project MTC Routine Accommodations Checklist: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/Routine_Accom Capital Improvement Plan The South San Francisco CIP outlines planned needed infrastructu community. The program funding only includes Fiscal Year 2012-2013 and the projects in the future years will be appropriated in future budget cycles. The CIP shal a resolution at a noticed public hearing. The City may use the C not preclude “opportunistic projects,” such as a street resurfacing or development project. Opportunistic projects are unanticipated projects where the City even if the projects occur out of sequence. Assessment Districts Different types of assessment districts or special improvement districts can be established to provide finding for specific public improvement projects within the dist are assessed for the improvements, and can make payments immedia years. Street pavement, sidewalk repair, curb ramps and streetlights ar assessment districts. Business Improvement Districts in commerci 1982 California State Legislature Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act allows communities to establish districts for special property tax assessments. Impact Fees Another potential local source of funding is developer impact fe and traffic impacts as a result of proposed projects. Open Space District SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-18 7 Funding and Implementation Local Open Space Districts may float bonds that go to acquiring may also provide for some improvements to the local trail system Other Funding Sources Local sales taxes, developer or public agency land dedications, private donations, and fund-raising events are other local options to generate funding for pedestria Permanente Community Health Initiatives grants are available to increased physical activity in San Mateo County. Creation of these potenti local support. Funding Strategy Grant funding is highly competitive and the following options sh pursuing the funding necessary to complete the proposed improvements: For multi-agency and cross-jurisdictional projects, prepare joint applications with other l regional agencies, such as the Cities of Daily City, Colma and S local and regional park and open space organizations. Joint appli competitiveness of projects for funding; however, coordination a jurisdictions is often challenging. The City should act as the with a strong emphasis on coordination between participating jurisdictions and agencies BART and Public Health organizations) on important projects to e quickly as possible. Use existing funding sources as matching funds for State and Federal funding. Include pedestrian projects in local traffic impact fee programs traffic improvement mitigations are proposed to address level of pedestrians at the intersection should be considered. If pedestrians wil reason to override traffic improvement mitigations. Continue to require construction of pedestrian facilities, such marked crossings, as part of new development. Continue to include proposed pedestrian improvements as part of widening, overlays, or other improvements. The City should also take advantage of private contributions, ife proposed system. This could include a variety of resources, suc construction, right-of-way donations, or monetary donations towards specific improvemen associated with improving pedestrian access near private develop Projects should be funded opportunistically. If funding becomes a priority project before a First Tier priority project, the fundi should be funded before larger construction projects, especially CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-19 7 Funding and Implementation First Tier projects. All pedestrian project implementation moves the goals of the . Pedestrian Master Plan 7.3 Implementation Steps To fully achieve the vision set forth in this Plan, close coordination among City agencies a neighboring jurisdictions will be required. Recommended projects Citywide recommendations Site-Specific recommendations Citywide Recommendations Citywide recommendations include basic pedestrian upgrades to ra sidewalks throughout the City. All curb ramps should be upgraded crosswalks should be marked according to the criteria outlined i, and Design Guidelines sidewalk gaps should be filled and sidewalks should be enhanced standards. These citywide improvements should be made as funding improvements and property development provide an opportunity to construct new curbs and sidewalks. Opportunities to implement sidewalk and street improvements incl Projects list should be included in street reconstruction projec management model. recommendations and issues related to the pedestrian environment Pedestrian Master Plan San Francisco are part of the local planning fabric and can be a land use plans, public health education and outreach efforts. Site-specific Recommendations Site-specific recommendations have been outlined in the Concept Plans List. These have been evaluated according to the prioritization chapter and cost estimates are provided. Site-specific recommendations can be implemented according to the three tiers of project priorities and as funds associated with other infrastructure projects. Concept plans can be used in grant applications to illustrate how funding will be used for site specific and corridor specific recommendations. In addition, the potential loss of on-street parking related to new bulb outs, traffic circles and med has presented challenges to building local support for past proj the planning process when site-specific recommendations are considered, and residents, merchant SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-20 7 Funding and Implementation and property owners should be engaged and informed about design benefits as part of the process. Broad proactive public outreac solutions and to be prepared for changes. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VII-21 7 Funding and Implementation SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VII-22 8 Support Programs Chapter 8: Support Programs This chapter outlines existing programs and recommendations for successful implementation of the Pedestrian Master Plan. 8.1 Existing Programs Education is a critical element for a complete and balanced appr Education campaigns should include residents of all ages, especisizing safe walking habits to school children where habits may be instilled as lifelong les and/or coordinates the following walking education initiatives a Safe Routes to School Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Involving Law Enforcement in Design/Operation of Facilities Promotional Giveaways, including a Citywide Walking & Bicycling and the Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance (the Allian Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School (SRTS) programs promote safe walking or bi SRTS programs are important both for increasing physical activit and for reducing morning traffic associated with school drop-off. Funding for SRTS programs and projects is available at the regional, state, and federal levels District Board has officially adopted a SRTS policy, and provide biking to school online: http://www.ssfusd.org/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1296916223887 The City of South San Francisco recently received a SRTS grant award for pedestrian infrastructure investments on West Orange Avenue and C Street, including speed feedback signs, bulbouts and new crosswalk paint. The City and school district (SSFUSD) do not ha but the City often receives letters of support for SRTS projects consider the following SRTS program enhancements as part of the Consider developing a citywide SRTS program that encourages walk preferred walking routes. Local best practices include Marin County’s program: http://www.saferoutestoschools.org/. Form a steering committee for the program (or each school) compr staff, PTA leaders, County Health Services and other stakeholders. Cons ongoing meetings to maintain stakeholder involvement, determine areas with the highest need. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VIII-1 8 Support Programs Consider developing a “StreetSmarts” program, such as those deve http://www.getstreetsmarts.org/. Marin County: Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee Advisory committees serve as important sounding boards for new policies, programs, and practices, and many smaller and medium-sized communities form advisory committees that jointly consider pedestrian and bicycling issues.. A citizens’ bicycling and walk component of proactive public involvement for identifying walking safety issues and opportu South San Francisco and C/CAG currently both have a Bicycle and (BPAC). A citywide Pedestrian Coordinator on the City staff would typicae for implementing and monitoring the status of this plan, as well as other pedestr that support the goals of this plan. Often, this position is a j The City does not have a full-time Pedestrian Coordinator, though several staff within the City’ Engineering and Planning Divisions assist with pedestrian-related projects. With 64,000 residents and over 45,000 jobs, South San Francisco should consider employing cycle Coordinator. A part- or full-time coordinator would be tasked with convening the Bicycle and Committee and implementing many of the recommendations included member could be involved in activities such as outreach, interde- agency coordination, grant writing, project management, and staf Pedestrian Advisory Committee, the C/CAG BPAC, local non-profits and advocacy groups, and local schools. This position could also be a joint TDM coordinator that oversees the City’s e- related ordinances and assists projects developing TDM plans. Involving Law Enforcement in Design/Operation of Facilities Having officers understand how specific facilities operate is es how to enforce laws related to pedestrian and bicyclist movement pedestrian right-of-way issues are misunderstood, or worse, not known. Walking and b design is constantly evolving beyond basic crosswalk and bicycle lane righ-of-way. Maintaining regular contact with law enforcement during the design of new fa not include typical roadway design features, will ensure more sussful implementation and adaptation to the new facilities. The South San Francisco Police Department is occasionally consul through the Traffic Advisory Committee. The Police Department hawho works with the Planning Division on development review, providing feedback about both personal safety for pedestrians and potential compliance issues for motoristst. Pede enforcement are designed to educate officers about specific issu pedestrian safety and laws so that the Police Department responds to changes in the pe supports personal safety and security. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VIII-2 8 Support Programs Promotional Giveaways The City has partnered with the Alliance to promote alternative congestion relief and Bike to Work Day. The City has partnered with Kaiser Permanente to create a walkin Francisco, which includes walking and biking trails, as well as transportation, public art sites and tips on safe bicycling and walking in both Eng Spanish. Maps are available at most City buildings, at various special ev online: http://www.ssf.net/index.aspx?NID=481 The City should continue to teamwith local organizations willing that encourage walking and other active transportation modes. 8.2 Recommendations Support programs are important tools for increasing the safety, and viability of capital infrastructure projects, such as new crosswalks, bulbouts, and s support and administer a range of programs and activities relate promotion and law enforcement as a way to complement their infra a list of programs and activities that have been effective in ot South San Francisco could choose to offer. Education and Encouragement Street Smarts Program Street Smarts (http://www.getstreetsmarts.org/) is a safety program first designed and implemented by the City of San Jose, California and launched in November 200 botha media and a community relations campaign. It uses education to problem behaviors that contribute to traffic crashes and aims to Behaviors addressed by the campaign include: red-light running, speeding, stop sign violations, school zone violations, and crosswalk violations. In addition to relations campaign is conducted, working with schools, neighborh community organizations to create a public forum to address this community issue. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VIII-3 8 Support Programs One part of this program is use of electronic message boards to safety hot spots. Messages on the signs were changed regularly a locations routinely to increase their exposure to different drivers a Street Smarts campaign in San Jose has received positive feedbac is being copied in other jurisdictions throughout California, in Ramon, City of Cupertino and City of Santa Rosa. The Street Smarts program has the following advantages: The program provides multiple messages using a single tool The high-quality campaign materials were designed to be used regionally by any public agency Media campaigns use a wide variety of communication tools, inclu elementary schools, lawn signs, safety presentations at the work activities. The Street Smarts campaign materials are designed for use by any public agency for community and are available from the City of San Jose. Materials and Vietnamese. Graphic materials are available from the City of San José for $3 Although the Street Smarts campaign requires staff resources, the SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VIII-4 8 Support Programs Brochures and Pamphlets Brochures and pamphlets are helpful to educate residents and visitors on topics such as (1) how traffic signals work for pedestrians and the best way to be detected at intersections, (2) pedestrian rights and responsibilities when sharing the road, (3) motorists’ rights and responsibilities when sharing the road. They can be distributed at locations with high volumes of pedestrians and on the City’s website, as part of a general education campaign. One limitation to this approach is that the materials may not reach a wide audience. Brochures are available from the Federal Highway Administration, Traffic Safety Administration: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped_bike_order/ http://www.aaafoundation.org/products http://www.nhtsa.gov/Pedestrians Public Service Announcements Public service announcements (PSAs) can provide accurate and cur public access television or online web channels (such as YouTube. PSAs are valuable as they are versatile and can reach a large audience on walking issues, educ challenge is that PSAs can require great effort and may not reac approach may not be as effective as using a public relations firm and purchasing advertising time targeted to a specific audience. ), a monthly television series, promotes awareness Perils for Pedestrians (http://www.pedestrians.org/ of issues affecting the safety of people who walk and bicycle. Many cities i Berkeley and Davis, are already taking part through cable statio consists of interviews with walking and bicycling advocates, pla international public officials. They talk about important issues walking hazards, infrastructure, bicycles, transit, and more. Th and international issues through a common form of interface. Walking Mascot Bellevue, Washington has a great example of an encouragement pro This elementary school campaign is conducted in conjunction with mascot, called PedBee, is on school safety signs and makes personal appear days. Safety days include local staff from the City’s Transporta are taught bicycling, walking, and traffic safety basics, such arossing the street safely. Children are CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VIII-5 8 Support Programs also given traffic safety workbooks that provide guidance with h-on activities such as coloring and safety procedure quizzes. Educational Signs for Pedestrian Signal Indications Educational signs can be installed above pedestrian push buttons or integrated into the push butt housing to improve understanding of pedestrian signal indication understanding of pedestrian signal indications and encourage ped Signs should be considered where ten or more pedestrian crossing with a high concentration of multilingual or non-English speaking households, non-word intensive or multilingual signs in common languages should be considered. The cost of a sign is approximately $200 plus installation. Walk Wise, Drive Smart Nationally and regionally, the number of senior citizen pedestri is a program in North Carolina aimed to improve the walking environment not only for senior adults, but for all residents and visitors. It is a community program th audits, and feedback surveys. Activities are aimed at senior cit location comfortable to the participants, but are open to all. More infor . Hendersonville, NC develops and implements this model is availabhttp://www.walk-wise.org/ Trip Reduction Incentive Programs South San Francisco, like many cities, has single occupancy vehi transportation. In San Mateo County the Alliance sponsors a rang programs, including the Carpool Incentive Program, the Vanpool I Incentive Program, free transit tickets for new transit riders, for new vanpool participants. These programs are provided at no Mateo County, and include gas card incentives for carpooling, employer incentive p rewards, online guides to transit alternatives, rideshare matchi information, just to name a few. http://www.commute.org/programs Wayfinding Signage People are more likely to consider walking when they know that a City of South San Francisco could develop wayfinding signage wit-specific graphic design and consistent with other locally used design standards so that pedestrian different sign types. Typically, these wayfinding programs are m multiple destinations within a reasonable walking distance, such as around transit stations, downtown commercial districts, or job centers. This example shows a bili Chinatown, providing pedestrians with directional information fo destinations. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VIII-6 8 Support Programs Example signage programs include the City of Oakland, which has established design standards (http://www2.oaklandnet.com/oakca1/groups/pwa/d ocuments/report/oak025118.pdf), and the City of Berkeley (http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id =6684 ). These examples focus on bicycle wayfinding, but the information about distances and connections between key destinations is also very helpful for pedestrians. The City of Portland, OR has established a pedestrian focused wayfinding program. Examples of the signs and design standards can be found online: http://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/40500 In South San Francisco wayfinding signage can be used to direct as the BART station and to corridor destinations such as El CamiReal. Signs should be placed within walking distance of pedestrian destinations, and spaced out fur connecting to destinations (for example, a range of ¼ mile to 2 miles). Pedestrian Flag Program The purpose of a pedestrian flag program is to make pedestrians more visible as they cross Hand-held flags are located in containers at both sides of the crossw pedestrians as they cross the street. The brightly colored flagsns more visible to drivers and alert drivers to the presence of pedestrians. Depend involved, start-up costs for this type of program are relatively low. This progr implemented at other cities in the U.S., including Kirkland, Was Lake City, Utah. Billboards and Electronic Message Boards Billboards and electronic message boards promote safety in the c bicycling and walking safety programs, and provide feedback on the program’s effects. StreetSmarts is one example of a public education campaign targeted toward chang bicyclist behavior to improve safety on city streets. Law Enforcement Enforcement tools have been demonstrated to be very effective in However, some programs can require a significant investment from enforcement tools like red-light running cameras and radar “wagons” can minimize the amount time required for local law enforcement agencies. Increased Fines An increase in traffic fines has been shown to discourage driver crosswalks. For example, in Salt Lake City, Utah, fines were inr CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN VIII-7 8 Support Programs violations against pedestrians in crosswalks. A lowering of fin also implemented. Variations on this include double fines in sc Pedestrian Sting Operations Pedestrian sting operations target motorists who violate the right-of-way of pedestrians crossing the street, and especially motorists who do not stop for the pedestr (same direction of travel) lane have stopped on multi-lane roads. Such operations can also target pedestrians who make unsafe crossings. Stings are most effectiv high walking volumes, such as on Grand Avenue or other Downtown Pedestrian stings increase drivers’ awareness of pedestrians at is not an ongoing operation, changes in motorist behavior can be-term. The cost of the program could range from $3,000 to $5,000 for a six-week operation and includes the cost of police officer staffing time. Pedestrian Safety Course for Law Enforcement Oftentimes, laws related to pedestrian right-of-way issues are misunderstood, or worse, not known. These courses are designed to educate officers about specific is safety and laws. Create a workshop for officers to discuss the specific ped-of-way issues. A sample guide book for such a course was prepared by the Florida http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/brochures/pdf/Pedestr-08.pdf Photo Red Light Enforcement Programs Activated by loops in the pavement, red light cameras photographd sometimes the driver of any vehicle entering an intersection after the sig can be sent to offenders. Speeding and double-parking can be discouraged with similar measures. Red light cameras are appropriate for locations with speeding or red-light-running issues. Fines from citations help pay for the red-light camera system. While the threat of a ticket prevents deli traffic violations, the program is repeatedly tested in court. Tattletale Lights To help law enforcement officers catch red-light runners safely and more effectively, a “rat box” is wired into the backside of a traffic signal controller and allow downstream to identify, pursue, and cite red-light runners. Warning signs may be set up along with the box to warn drivers about the fine for red-light violations. Rat boxes are a low-cost initiative (approximately $100 to install the box), but do require police o SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO VIII-8 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Appendix A: South San Francisco Pedestrian Design Guidelines A well-connected pedestrian network is a vital component to livable com multimodal travel for all roadway users, regardless of age or ab needs of not just motor vehicles in roadway design, but the need transit users as well. The primary goal of the Pedestrian Design San Francisco in creating streets that accommodate pedestrians t practices that enhance the walkability of all streets within the make decisions about the preferred application of pedestrian tre Streets and Sidewalks Uncontrolled Intersections / Mid-block Crossing Treatments Controlled Intersections The pedestrian enhancements described throughout these guideline practice guidance, which can enhance the safety, convenience, and mobility for pedestrians. In particular, they provide guidance on appropriate treatments for throughout South San Francisco, including downtown districts, ac areas, school zones, barrier crossings, and the El Camino Real c each of these areas include different design options for streets multimodal connections and community vitality. Complete Streets The pedestrian enhancements described throughout these guideline practice guidance, which can enhance the safety, convenience, an particular, they provide guidance on appropriate treatments for the various pedestrian improvements throughout South San Francisco. Potentia these areas include different design options for streets/sidewal connections and community vitality. Complete streets practices improve the pedestrian realm because they encou streets with well-connected and comfortable sidewalks, traffic calming measures to speeds and enhanced pedestrian crossings. Streets without accomodations for transit, pedestrians and cyclists can be a barrier, particularly for people with disa, who may not travel by car. CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-1 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Streets and Sidewalks Streets and sidewalks should support the activities and pedestri the street. Streets should be well-connected to ensure that destinations are within walking distanc be wide enough to support the expected pedestrian volumes. South specifies a 10 foot sidewalk width in the downtown, and a minimum sidewalk width of four feet elsewhere. In addition, several adopted Specific Plans have spec recommends a minimum width of six feet for the pedestrian pathwa wide enough for two people to walk side by side, and can be navigated b impairments and meets current ADA requirements. Sidewalks in existing residential developments may remain at current widths (city approved minimum of 48 inches, or 4 feet) unless a substantial new development of multifamily dwelling units is planned. ADA sidewalk regulations specify that routes with less than 1.525 meters (60 inches, or 5 feet) of clear width must provide passing spaces at least 1.525 meters (60 inches) wide at reasonable intervals not exceeding 61 meters (200 feet), and a 5 feet by 5 feet turning space should be provided where turning or maneuvering is necessary. This section provides guidelines to the design of sidewalk widths that meet walking demand and provide buffer space between motor vehicle lanes and sidewalks and space for walking, sitting, and lingering. Typical Sidewalk Cross Section and Layout that Provides Space fo Different Walking Oriented Activities Source: Creating Livable Streets, Portland Metro SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-2 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-1: Street Connectivity Discussion A well-connected street network has seamless connections for pedestrian continuous sidewalks and pedestrian crossings. A grid-like street network is easy for pedestrians to navigate and distributes traffic evenly. In such and short block lengths result in high connectivity. Travel time pedestrians decrease with connected streets because there are mo direct paths of travel. Design Example Design Summary Internal street connectivity provides connections between street while external connectivity provides connections to other neighb pedestrian paths can increase pedestrian activity by creating better connect possible, cul-de-sacs should be avoided. However, if dead ends are unavoidable, t alternatives to provide pedestrian connections. Pedestrian Pathways- Connects a pedestrian routes to a building entrance when a direct connection is lacking. Cul-de-sac connectors- Pathways where streets dead-end to connect people on foot or bicycle to other streets or land uses. Avoid large blocks- Buildings on “superblocks” are less connected to the street. Connectivity is important along the street as well as between bu density of at least 150-400 intersections per square mile is recommended for pedestrian- friendly blocks and street networks. Image Source: http://www.saferoutesinfo.org CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-3 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-2: Traffic Calming Discussion High vehicle speeds reduce pedestrian comfort and increase injur Controlling speeds is a critical element to ensure the pedestria in a sidewalk or within a crosswalk. Traffic calming treatments are physical elem alter the streetscape to manage vehicle speeds. As a result, dri increases, and the improvements may have an effect on slowing sp Design Example Speed Table Traffic Circle Chicane Design Summary Speed tables/ raised crosswalk - An elevated surface above the travel lane attracts the attention of the driver and encourages lower speeds. It is useful in areas with high pedestrian activity by essentially raising the road surface over Traffic Circles - Traffic circles are located in the middle of an intersection to Generally 10-20 feet in diameter, they typically have landscaping in the middle that reduces sight length down the street to slow vehicles. Traffic c by forcing vehicles to drive around them. Traffic circles are ty existing intersection and do not require any physical modifications to the roadway beyond the installation of the circle itself. Traffic circles differ from modern roundabouts in that they are often stop controlled and do not have splitter islands approaches. Pedestrians cross at the intersection in the same way they would at a typical SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-4 Appendix A: Design Guidelines side street or all-way stop controlled intersection.Unlike a roundabout, installation of a neighborhood traffic circle does not require modification to the and can be installed on streets as narrow as 24’-36’. Pedestrian Bulb-outs - Extend sidewalks into the street to create shorter crossing distances for pedestrians and smaller vehicle turning radii at i be found in the Intersections Section. Refuge Islands - Provide a space in the middle of an intersection for pedestrian comfortably wait until traffic clears and they can finish crossi detail may be found in Intersections Section. Image Source: (Speed Table and Chicane): Valley Transportation Authority Pedestrian Technic Diego Street Design Manual CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-5 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-3: Sidewalk Zones Discussion The sidewalk zone is the portion of the street right-of-way between the curb and building front. Within this zone, there are four distinct areas that serv purposes (see below for more detail about how these apply to dif Design Example Edge Furnishings Throughway Frontage Design Summary These designs are recommended minimums, and ideally sidewalks wi volumes should be 16 to 18 feet wide, and could include wider la and a half to 11 foot wide pedestrian pathway, and / or vegetative strips along the building face, Edge/ Curb Zone - At a minimum, such as in areas with lower pedestrian activity, t should be a 6-inch wide curb. Other areas, such as downtowns, should have at l extra foot to accommodate car doors to not conflict with the sid Furnishing/Landscape Zone - This area acts as a buffer between the curb and throughway zone. This is the areas where trees should be planted SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-6 Appendix A: Design Guidelines be located. Any sidewalk amenities should be located within thisand should not interfere with the throughway zone. Streets with higher speeds s furnishing zones. Throughway zone - The minimum width of this zone should be at least 6 feet or wide for higher volume areas. See sidewalk width discussion above (page A-2) for exceptions and details about ADA compliance. Frontage Zone - This area borders the building façade or fence. The primary purp this zone is to create a buffer between pedestrians walking in t from people entering and exiting buildings. It provides opportunities for shops to place signs, planters, or chairs that do not encroach into the t Some zones are more important in specific settings; for example, will not include a frontage zone and will only include a furnishing/landscape zone on streets with higher speeds. Only the curb and throughway zone ha specified, so there are no implications for residential areas. Image Sources: Valley Transportation Authority Pedestrian Technical Guidelines; Chula Vista Pedestrian Master P CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-7 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-4: Pedestrian Amenities Discussion Providing amenities for pedestrians along their route makes for comfortable walking experience, thus encouraging more walking. T aspect of street infrastructure which makes pedestrians a priori These elements serve as functional aspects for walkers while enh the street. Design Example Wayfinding and Signage High Quality Street Furniture Pedestrian Scale Lighting Design Summary Wayfinding & Signage - Wayfinding signage should cater to both vehicles and pedestrians, particularly in districts where there are high levels of walking activity. Signs and routes that direct pedestrians to specific destination adequate way finding for pedestrians. Street Furniture - Street furniture is normally placed on a sidewalk in the Frontag Zone to provide additional comfort for pedestrians and enhance place making withi the pedestrian realm. Street furniture makes pedestrians feel we important that they do not conflict with the pedestrian travel p include benches, specially designed newspaper racks, fountains, garbage/recycling containers, etc. Street Trees - Street trees are an important aspect of the pedestrian realm as increase the comfort for pedestrians, providing shade and a buff ultimately enhancing the streetscape. Stormwater practices such a vegetated swales, planters, rain gardens, pervious paving, storm and green gutters to streets should also be considered. Lighting - Pedestrian scale lighting provides a better-lit environment for pedestrians while improving visibility for motorists. Sidewalks with frequen activity should have pedestrian lighting. Pedestrians tend to ob SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-8 Appendix A: Design Guidelines the street environment since they travel at a slower pace than vehicles, and thus pedestrian scale lighting should have shorter light poles and sh posts. A height of 12- 20 feet is common for pedestrian lighting. The level of lighting should reflect the location and level of pedestrian activity. Image Source: Fehr & Peers CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-9 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Crosswalk Installation Guidelines Candidate crosswalk locations are initially identified by unders places people would like to walk). A person’s decision to walk i schools, parks, commercial establishments, etc.) and the locatio This information forms a basis for identifying pedestrian crossi such improvements, thereby creating a convenient, connected, and Once candidate crosswalk locations are identified, the second st for people to cross. Of all road users, pedestrians have the highest risk because they are the least protected. National statistics indicate that pedestrians represe fatalities while walking accounts for only three percent of tota often when a pedestrian is attempting to cross the street at an unc-block 3 location. Uncontrolled Intersections and Mid-block Crossing Treatments Uncontrolled intersections are locations without a stop sign or -block crossings are locations where there is marked crosswalk in between intersectio traffic, uncontrolled locations and mid-block crossings require unique treatments to ensure that pedestrians are visible within the roadway. A crosswalk’s primary function is to channelize pedestrians. Wel-marked pedestrian crossings prepare drivers for the likelihood of encountering a pedestrian, and cre walkability and accessibility. Marked crossings reinforce the location and legitimacy of a crossing. However, the California Vehicle Code requires vehicles to yield -of-way to pedestrians at any 4 Crossing between adjacent, intersection where crossing is not prohibited (regardless of mar signalized intersections or anywhere crossing is prohibited, is conside. jaywalking Pedestrians tend to walk in the path that provides the shortest too far apart, mid-block crossings may be necessary to accommodate these paths. Streets with lower speeds and volumes and narrower cross-sections are better suited for marked crosswalks than multi- lane, high volume streets. Marking a crosswalk helps to identify the pedestrian to find their way across the street. However, crosswalks need to be marked pro and placed in a location with proper sight lines. In order to id uncontrolled location, the following conditions should occur: 3 Pedestrian Crash Types, A 1990’s Information Guide, FHWA; This paper analyzed 5,076 pedestrian crashes that occurr 1990’s. Crashes were evenly selected from small, medium, and laralifornia, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, and Utah. http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.ed 4 More information on the California Vehicle Code sections related-of-way is available at . http://www.walksf.org/vehicleCodes.html SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-10 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Sufficient demand exists to justify the installation of a crosswalk The location has sufficient sight distance (as measured by stopp and/or sight distance will be improved prior to crosswalk markin Safety considerations do not preclude a crosswalk Mid-block crossings must provide adequate sight distance so pedestrians can be clearly viewed by motorists, and vice versa. Additionally, it is important to consider challenges of “multipl threat” collisions in designating crosswalk locations and treatments.Multiple threat collisions occur on multi-lane roadways where a vehicle in the adjacent lane blocks the view of a crossi pedestrian from an approaching driver. South San Francisco has areas that are likely to have multiple-threat conflicts, including freeway interchanges, such as at the Highway 101 ramps at Grand Multiple Threat Risk on a Multi-lane Street Avenue, and multi-lane arterials, like Airport Boulevard. Source: FHWA Street design should minimize conflict points with pedestrians. reduce these conflicts by warning drivers that they are within a (described within the Section) can create a buffer between the areas where the vehicle Intersections has to wait and the pedestrian crossing area. Other design strat pedestrian bulb outs and restricting parking at corners, such as visibility between motorists and pedestrians. The Federal Highwa research on the safety effects of marking crosswalks at uncontrolled locations (summarized in the following table). This research provides a framework for local j guidelines for installing new crosswalks to facilitate pedestria CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-11 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-5: Generalized Crosswalk Installation Guidelines Discussion: FHWA Guidance on Crosswalk Installation These guidelines include intersection and mid-block locations with no traffic signals or stop signs on the approach to the crossing. They do not apply to- way center turn lane is not considered a median. Crosswalks shou locations that could pose an increased safety risk to pedestrian poor sight distance, complex or confusing designs, a substantial other dangers, without first providing adequate design features devices. Adding crosswalks alone will not make crossing safer, n result in more vehicles stopping for pedestrians. Whether or not installed, it is important to consider other pedestrian facility median, traffic signal, roadway narrowing, enhanced overhead lig-calming measures, curb extensions), as needed to improve the safety of t general recommendations; good engineering judgment should be use for deciding where to install crosswalks. ** Where the speed lim km/h) marked crosswalks alone should not be used at unsignalized locations. C= Candidate sites for marked crosswalks. Marked crosswalks must and selectively. Before installing new marked crosswalks, an eng to determine whether the location is suitable for a marked cross study, a site review may be sufficient at some locations, while -depth study of pedestrian volume, vehicle speed, sight distance, vehicle mix, etc., may be needed at other sites. It is recommended that a minimum of 20 pedestrian crossings per peak hour more elderly and/or child pedestrians) exist at a location befor the installation of a marked crosswalk alone. P= Possible increase in pedestrian crash risk may occur if crosswalks are added without other pedestrian facility enhancements. These locations should b enhanced with other pedestrian crossing improvements, if necessa marked crosswalk. N= Marked crosswalks alone are insufficient, since pedestrian crash risk may be i SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-12 Appendix A: Design Guidelines due to providing marked crosswalks alone. Consider using other t traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals with pedestrian signals wher substantial crossing improvement to improve crossing safety for pedest. Image Source: FHWA CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-13 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-6: Identifying Uncontrolled Crosswalk Placement Discussion Recommendations for ideal crosswalk spacing are different depend (e.g. 300 – 600 ft in high/medium demand areas and rural town centers; at ke locations elsewhere). Providing a more direct path of travel may accommodation and decrease jaywalking. Areas with low street net benefit from the use of a mid-block crossing to help pedestrians take the most direct path. Sight distance and vehicle speed are two important factors to co mid-block crossing. If speeds are more than 40 mph or volumes higher,000 vehicles per day, mid-block crossings may not be the most suitable treatment. The two charts below provide guidance for the feasibility of crosswalks - block locations. Design Summary Potential Selection Process for Uncontrolled and Mid-Block Crosswalk Locations SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-14 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Feasibility Analysis for Treatments at Uncontrolled Locations Design Examples The City of Sacramento currently has adopted Pedestrian Safety G incorporates the framework described in the flow charts. It can http://www.cityofsacramento.org/transportation/dot_media/enginee ety.pdf The City of San Mateo is also currently in the process of develorian Master Plan, part of which will include Crosswalk Installation G Image Source: Fehr & Peers CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-15 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-7: Median Island / Pedestrian Refuge Discussion Refuge islands provide a designated space in the middle of a cro pedestrians to wait halfway between crossings. Refuge islands are raised center of a roadway that separate opposing lanes of traffic with accessible pedestrian path. They reduce pedestrian exposure to mw a pedestrian to cross a roadway in two stages. Their application traffic volume areas that have four-lane or wider streets or when crossing distances exceed 60 feet. Design Example Pedestrian Refuge Island Split Pedestrian Cross-Over Design Summary The minimum recommended width for a median island is 5-8 feet based on the average roadway speed, as shown in the table below. This minimum width a bicyclists. In different contexts, the refuge island can be extended if there are higher amounts of pedestrian activity or additional travel lanes. SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-16 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Recommended Median Widths Speed Width 25-30 MPH 5 Feet 30-35 MPH 6 Feet 35-45 MPH8 Feet A special application of the median island is the two-stage crossing where the crosswalk is staggered such that a pedestrian crosses the street halfway and towards the direction of traffic to reach the second half of the channelization effect, typically described as a split-pedestrian cross-over, allows for the pedestrian to easily view traffic while completing the second pa Pedestrian Pathways- Connects a pedestrian routes to a building entrance when a direct connection is lacking. Cul-de-sac connectors- Pathways where streets dead-end to connect people on foot or bicycle to other streets or land uses. Avoid large blocks- Buildings on “superblocks” are less connected to the street. Connectivity is important along the street as well as between bu density of at least 150-400 intersections per square mile is recommended for pedestrian- friendly blocks and street networks. Image Source: www.tfhrc.gov, www.flickr.com/photos/luton CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-17 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-8: High Visibility Crosswalk Striping Discussion In areas with high pedestrian volumes and where land uses may ge pedestrian activity (at least 15 ph), high visibility striping is a tool that brings attention to pedestrians crossing typically at an uncontrolled or mid-block location and helps to direct pedestrian traffic to specific locations. It should be used in c treatments, like refuge islands, bulb-outs, and other active device enhancements for roadways with more than four lanes or speeds over 40 mph. Design Example Example Crosswalk Types Approved by FHWA Continental Crosswalk High Visibility Ladder Crosswalk (school zone) Design Summary The use of high visibility striping is recommended at uncontrollations, and other locations as traffic volumes, speeds, and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts require. There are several treatments for high visibility markings, including t zebra designs. Continental, zebra and ladder striping are often sensitive pedestrian crossing areas as the designated high visibCommunities should choose a preferred style to use in these circumstances so The City of Sacramento, for example, developed its own standard high visibility striping treatment for uncontrolled locations called the triple-four. The City has implemented this treatment citywide, involving three four-foot segments, two dashed lines on the outside with a clear space in the center to direct pedestrian traffic. Image Source: FHWA, Fehr & Peers SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-18 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-9: In-Street Pedestrian Crossing Signs Discussion This tool involves placing regulatory pedestrian signage in the centerline, either in front or behind the crosswalk. It is MUTCD-approved and assists to remind road users of laws regarding to the right of way at unsig crossings. Design Example Design Summary Signs may be placed on the roadway centerline directly, as in thareful placement is necessary to avoid maintenance issues with vehicles One option is to temporarily place the sign during specific time school is in session. Another option is to put the sign within aedian or place in- pavement raised markers around the sign. They can be placed either at mid-block locations or intersections with significant pedestrian activity, or schools. Image Source: FHWA, Fehr & Peers CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-19 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-10: Enhanced Uncontrolled Crossing Treatments Discussion At uncontrolled locations, enhanced treatments beyond striping a needed for candidate marked crosswalk locations under the follow Multi-lane streets (three or more lanes); or Two-lane streets with daily traffic volumes (ADT) greater than 12,00 osted speed limit exceeding 30 miles per hour P Design Example In-Pavement Flashers Overhead Flashing Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon HAWK Signal Mid-Block Pedestrian Signal SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-20 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Image Source: Chula Vista Pedestrian Master Plan,tti.tamu.edu; Fehr & Peers Design Summary In-Pavement flashers This enhanced treatment helps to improve the visibility of pedesncontrolled crosswalks. In-pavement markers are lined on both sides of a crosswalk, often c an amber LED strobe light. They can either be actuated by a push-button or using remote pedestrian detection. Flashing Beacons This treatment enhances driver visibility of pedestrians by inst either overhead or on a post-mounted sign before a vehicle approaches the crosswalk or at the crossing. Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon (RRFB) The RRFB, also known as a stutter flash, enhances the flashing beacon by replacing the slow flashing incandescent lamps with rapid flashing LED lamps. activated either by a push-button or with remote pedestrian detection. This treatment is included in the 2009 Federal MUTCD, and has received interim approval for use in California. There are also versions with LED lights placed withi the pedestrian crossing sign. High- Intensity Activated Crosswalk (HAWK) This enhanced signal treatment is used in circumstances where thehicle speeds as well as a high demand for pedestrian crossings. It com with a traffic control signal to generate a higher driver yield activated and will display a yellow indication to warn vehicles,a solid red light. While pedestrians are crossing, the driver sees a flashing red light i pedestrian clearance phase has ended, then returns to a dark sig included in the 2009 Federal MUTCD and 2012 CA MUTCD. Mid-Block Pedestrian Signal A pedestrian signal may be used to provide the strictest right-of-way control at a pedestrian crossing. Warrants for placement are defined within t is provided in the 2009 Federal MUTCD). CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-21 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-11: Grade Separated Crossing Discussion A grade-separated pedestrian crossing provides a complete separation of vehicles through a pedestrian-only overpass or underpass (generally bicycles are permitted as well). Grade separations are a tool to help overcom pedestrians connect to sidewalks, off-road trails and paths. It should be used where topography is supportive and no other pedestrian facility is ava Design Example Design Summary Grade separated crossings should be constructed within the most direct path of a pedestrian. They should have visual appeal and entrances that ar feel safe and not isolated from others. Because they can be costly (typically from $2M to $8M or more), grade separated crossings be used in instances where there are u volumes or no convenient substitute for the pedestrian. Image Source: Fehr & Peers, http://www.walkinginfo.org/library/details.cfm?id=2882, http://www.opacengineers.com/features/BerkeleyPOC SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-22 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Controlled Crossing Treatments / Intersection Design Pedestrian treatments at signalized locations throughout South S Improve the visibility of pedestrians to motorists and vice-versa Communicate to motorists and pedestrians who has the right-of-way Accommodate vulnerable populations such as people with disabilit Reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles Reduce vehicular speeds at locations with potential pedestrian conflicts Improving Pedestrian Visibility – Shorten Crossing Distance Intersections should be as compact as possible to minimize pedes crossing distances ultimately reduce the exposure time of pedestwithin the roadway and are easier to navigate. Consequently, compact intersections are more improve visibility between motorists and pedestrians. Reducing turning radii is one tool to foster compact intersectio improve sight distance, in which dimensions of the curb at the intersection directly affect A large turning radius (generally 30 feet or greater) allows veh the radius forces approaching vehicles to slow down while still reducing the frequency and severity of pedestrian collisions at - street parking and bicycle lanes can allow for smaller curb radi curb radius. Note that on-street parking should be restricted in advance of crosswalks, to visibility for pedestrians. Free right turns should be restricted whenever possible as they and present a challenging uncontrolled crossing for pedestrians. When strategies can enhance the pedestrian crossing and improve visib streets (illustrated below). CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-23 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Source: Fehr & Peers Improving Pedestrian Visibility – Reducing Sight Distance Barriers Compact intersection design can also improve pedestrian visibili distance, including parked cars, roadway geometry, terrain, vege setbacks, inadequate roadway lighting, poor signal visibility, s cluttered signage. Improving sight distances gives motorists a c allowing the pedestrian to observe and react to any hazards. Fre lefts are two situations that often create conflicts with pedest between pedestrians and vehicles can decrease the rate and severedestrian- vehicle collisions. Removing barriers to sight distance requires careful design when vehicles approach other vehicles and pedestrians. Design elements should be considered at intersections as well as mid-block crossings. Designers must particularly consider the needs of those pedestrians with special needs, including older adults, children, and people with disabilities. For example, children and people using wheelchairs have a lower eye height than standing adults. Source: Sacramento City Pedestrian Master Plan SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-24 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-12: Pedestrian Bulb-Outs Discussion Also known as curb extensions, bulb-outs increase driver awareness of pedestrians and help slow traffic. They provide a larger space for pedestrians t intersection and prevent cars from parking near the crosswalk. B-outs are highly beneficial in downtown or transit station areas, which generate activity. They may also be beneficial in school zones or neighbo vulnerable pedestrians, such as children or older adults that wo enhanced treatment that reduces crossing distances. Design Example Design Summary Bulb-outs involve extending the curb space into the street to create crossing. They should not extend into the bicyclist line of travel to avoid impeding bicyclists and motorists. This can be achieved by designing the -out width to be the same as the adjacent on-street parking (7-8’ for parallel parking, or wider as necessary at locations with angled parking).They may also require removal of on street parking. Landscaping within bulb-outs, as depicted at right, can further enhance the character an comfort of the pedestrian realm. Bulb-outs may also create space for pedestrian amenities or bicycle parking. Bulbouts typically range in cost from between $10,-50,000 per corner. Image Source: Dan Burden (top left), Fehr & Peers (top right an CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-25 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-12: Special Paving Treatments Discussion Special paving treatments include adding texture to surfaces or coloring pavement to distinguish the sidewalk or crosswalk. This treatment enhances t pedestrian environment. The rougher roadway surface may also slo more attention to the pedestrian realm. Design Example Brick Pattern Streetprint Design Brick, P Decorative Streetprint Design Summary Types of special paving treatments typically include: Colored concrete Stamped asphalt or concrete painted to resemble bricks. Pavement stencils Designers must be careful to not confuse the visually impaired a people with disabilities. Surfaces should be adapted to accommod wheelchairs. A standard white stripe is recommended on either si when special paving treatments are used to enhance the contrast and the roadway. Image Source: Fehr & Peers (top left and top right), http://w SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-26 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-13: Standard Crosswalk Striping Discussion Crosswalks should be marked on where feasible to delineate space for all approaches pedestrians to cross. While heavy vehicle volumes may present an discouraged and should only be considered when all other options to accommodate motor vehicle demand have been considered. At intersections, crosswalks are essentially an extension of the extends to the intersection, proper striping should continue to other side of the intersection. Advanced stop bars are another standard crosswalk treatment to d encroaching into the crosswalk. They may be useful at signalized controlled intersections with multiple lanes. A yield line shou at uncontrolled intersections. Design Example Standard Crosswalk Crosswalk with Advance Stop Bar Design Summary Standard dual while lane stripes are recommended for pedestrian crossings at signalized intersections. These bars should be one foot wide and extend fro ramp. Advanced stop or yield limit lines solid white lines extending t communicate to drivers where they should stop. MUTCD requires th feet before the crosswalk, although placement at greater distanc pedestrian visibility and vehicle reaction times. Image Source: Fehr & Peers (above), Sacramento City Pedestrian CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-27 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-14: Curb Ramps Discussion Pedestrians with mobility impairments, such as people using whee canes, need curb ramps to safely access a sidewalk. Design Example Design Summary The appropriate curb ramp design depends on the geometry of the intersection. Recommended practices for various sidewalk conditions are shown the illustration, directional ramps are preferred over diagonal access to each crosswalk. Curb ramps should be ADA compliant to accommodate mobility and visually impaired pedestrians. Detectable warnings are requi Accessibility Guidelines with any new curb ramp or reconstructio for raised truncated domes of 23 mm diameter and 5mm height. Cur in the direction of the crosswalk and have enough clear space be pedestrian is not drawn right into the line of traffic. Image Source: Valley Transportation Authority Technical Pedestrian Guidelines, SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-28 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-15: Pedestrian Friendly Signal Treatments Discussion There are several innovative treatments that enhance the visibil pedestrian crossings at traffic signals. These treatments can bety of contexts depending on the pedestrian demand and vehicle movement streetscape. Design Example Leading Pedestrian Interval Coun Scramble Phasing Design Summary Leading Pedestrian Intervals An enhanced pedestrian treatment that gives pedestrians a walk i other approaches are red to prevent advancing. Crossing with thi pedestrians to be more visible to motorists approaching an inter Should be used at locations with heavy right turn vehicle volumes as pedestrian crossings. Vehicles are stopped for 2-4 seconds while pedestrians are allowed to begin crossing. May require restricting right-turn on red at some locations. Countdown signals Displays a “countdown” of the number of seconds remaining for th crossing interval. Information about the amount of time left to cross is particular multi-lane arterials. Can improve pedestrian compliance while reducing the number of pedestrians CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-29 Appendix A: Design Guidelines “dashing” across an intersection. Scramble Phasing This enhanced crossing treatment allows pedestrians to walk in a vehicle approaches have a red phase. Pedestrians may cross the sogonally or diagonally, providing a direct and efficient walking route. Audible Signal Pedestrian phases are typically difficult to recognize for those MUTCD 2003, Section 4A.01 specifies that signals that communicatans in a non-visual way can include verbal messages or vibrating surfaces. Should be implemented on a separate pole close to the crosswalk placed on the same corner, they should be 10 feet apart to disti directions. Speaker on top of the signal can give a bell, buzzer, speech message dur interval or vibrate when walk signal is on, or a personal indivi communicate by infrared or LED to the signal. Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing See “Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing” below. Image Source: http://www.walkinginfo.org, Fehr & Peers, www.streetswiki.wikispaces.com SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-30 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-16: Pedestrian Friendly Signal Timing Discussion Signal timing typically favors vehicle travel. However, in areasdestrian activity, there are methods to alter signals to better meet the needs of p interval of a pedestrian phase is, at a minimum, four to seven s pedestrian clearance interval, called the “flash don’t walk” (FD phase. The FDW phase uses a standard rate to determine the amount of time provided fo an intersection. It is determined by dividing the width of an in walking speed. The solid “Don’t Walk” sign typically coincides with the yellow vehicle signal. The pedestrian timing is an important element to traffi time for cars might not be sufficient for pedestrians to cross a Design Example Design Summary The standard for walking speeds at signalized intersections has changed from second to 3.5 feet per second to more accurately reflect the ave speed and aging population. The 2009 Federal MUTCD requires this the change has not yet been adopted in California. A slower walking rate of 2.8 feet per second (MUTCD 4E.10(CA)) i with a high number of children, older adults, or disabled pedest-timed signals may warrant a longer walk phase in order to accommodate pedestrians. This should ultimately be at the discretion of the local agency’s tra Image Source: Dan Burden CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-31 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Table A-17: Pedestrian Friendly Signal Phasing Discussion Left- and right-turning vehicles are required to yield to pedestrians in the crosswalk. Different signal phasing sequences accommodate pedestrian crossi Protected left turns allow vehicles turning left an exclusive ph eliminating conflicts between pedestrians in the crosswalk; left-turning vehicles will never cross at the same time as the pedestrian signal. Split phasing, allows each intersection approach to receive a de Pedestrian phases for parallel crosswalks will be activated at dmes. This phasing can reduce intersection capacity. Permitted left turn phasing, where vehicles turning must yield t pedestrians, can reduce pedestrian delay and improve traffic ope minimizing the impact of pedestrian timing through allowing two pedestrian crossings at once. Other types of pedestrian signal phasing, including “scramble” p pedestrian intervals, are described in the “Pedestrian Friendly above. Design Example Example of a Pedestrian Signal Head Mounted on a Signal Pole SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-32 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Design Summary In urban or downtown settings where pedestrian volumes are high, phasing is generally preferred because it reduces pedestrian delrban settings, providing protected left-turn phasing to eliminate pedestrian-vehicle conflicts is recommended where feasible. At intersections with heavy vehicle traffic volumes, providing c pedestrian crossings must be balanced with the need to maintain intersection capacity and operations for automobiles. In these instances, it is import additional treatments to enhance pedestrian visibility, such as a permitted left turn phase is used, the traffic and pedestrian signal should be located next to each other on the corner pole (as depicted in the picture) to Image Source: Fehr & Peers CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN A-33 Appendix A: Design Guidelines Resource Documents Federal Standards and Resource Documents: American Association of State Highway and Guide to the Development of Pedestrian Facilities, Transportation Officials, 2000 , Federal Highways Administration, December 2009. Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices , American Association of State Highway and Transportation Geometric Design of Highways and Streets Officials, 2004. (ADAAG). United States Access Board. Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines California Standards and Resource Documents: , Caltrans, January 2010. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices , California Department of Transportation. Highway Design Manual Other Guidelines and Resource Documents: Washington TCRP Report 112/NCHRP Report 562: Improving Pedestrian Safety at D.C.: TCRP and NCHRP, 2006. , Pedestrian Technical Guideilnes: A Guide to Planning and Design Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, October 2003. , Metropolitan Transportation Routine Accommodations of Pedestrians and Bicyclists in the Bay Commission, Available: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/routine_accom, 2006. , Metropolitan Transportation Commission Regional Pedestrian Pedestrian Safety Resource Guide Committee, Available: , 2004. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/bicyclespedestrians/PEDSAFETYRESO , San Mateo Countywide San Mateo County Sustainable Green Streets and Parking Lots Desi Water Pollution Prevention Program, First Edition: January 2009, http://www.flowstobay.org/ms_sustainable_guidebook.php SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A-34 Appendix B: Ranked Projects Appendix B: Ranked Projects CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN B-1 South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects Pedestrian Access to Key Closure of Serves Safety Feasibility (0- ID #LocationCostDemand Destinations Critical Gap Need Total Points 10) (30/20/10)(20/15/10/5/0)(20/15/10/5/0)(20/15/10/5/0) First Tier: Short-Term Projects (51-100 Points) McLellan Drive from 1-2Mission Road to El Camino $154,961302010105 75 Real Chestnut Avenue and 11-1$228,334202010155 70 Antoinette Lane Spruce Avenue between 12-1Lux Avenue and Maple $15,31230150155 65 Avenue Grand Avenue and Airport 9-1$19,517301001510 65 Boulevard Westborough Boulevard 13-1from Callan Boulevard to $368,360201510155 65 Gellert Boulevard East Grand Avenue and 9-4$13,75030150151 61 Dubuque Avenue Airport Boulevard and 10-3$50030150105 60 Miller Avenue E Grand Avenue between 14-3Grand Avenue and $1,40030100155 60 Dubuque Avenue McLellan Drive and 1-1$14,04230200010 60 Mission Road Pedestrian crossing under 9-3$20,00030100155 Hwy 101 along East Grand 60 Avenue Airport Boulevard at Pine 10-2$137,23230150105 60 Avenue Linden Avenue from 10-1Grand Avenue to Aspen $543,44030150105 60 Avenue Del Monte Avenue from 6-1$40,00020155151 Arroyo Drive to Alta Loma 56 Drive Mission Road from 2-1McLellan Drive to Holly $197,9233020051 56 Avenue Grand Avenue between 9-2Airport Boulevard and $275,85030150101 56 Walnut Avenue School Street and Olive 12-3$20,00030100105 55 Avenue Oyster Point Boulevard 16-1from Eccles Avenue to $35,695101510155 55 driveway immediately east School Street and Maple 12-2$39,13530100105 55 Avenue Mission Road and BART 2-2$50,0003020005 55 entrance Grand Avenue and Spruce 12-4$204,00030100105 55 Avenue Holly from Mission Road to 2-5$34,60030100101 51 Crestwood Drive Crestwood Drive from 2-6$10,00030100101 Holly Avenue to Evergreen 51 Drive El Camino Real and 1-3$87520200101 51 McLellan Drive S Airport Boulevard and 15-3$91,55820515101 51 Highway 101 off-ramp Mission Road and Sequoia 2-3$209,6653020001 51 Avenue South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects Pedestrian Access to Key Closure of Serves Safety Feasibility (0- ID #LocationCostDemand Destinations Critical Gap Need Total Points 10) (30/20/10)(20/15/10/5/0)(20/15/10/5/0)(20/15/10/5/0) El Camino Real from 8-1Hazelwood Drive to $271,404101510151 51 Ponderosa Road Second Tier: Medium-Term Projects (41-50 points) Cypress Avenue from 10-4California Avenue to $17,2803015005 50 Grand Avenue Hazelwood Drive from El 5-5Camino Real to Pinehurst $24,14020105105 50 Way Produce Avenue and S 15-1$45,01230001010 50 Airport Boulevard E Grand Avenue from 14-2Forbes Boulevard to $66,850201001010 50 Gateway Boulevard Mission Road and Oak 11-4$93,61020100155 50 Avenue Mission Road and Holly 2-4$102,1703015005 50 Avenue El Camino Real from 5-7Brentwood Drive to Noor $213,30020100155 50 Avenue Westborough Avenue and 11-2$258,70820100155 50 Camaritas Avenue Hickey Boulevard and El 3-4$4,8862050201 46 Camino Real Chestnut Avenue from 4-4Miller Avenue to Sunset $161,7243050101 46 Avenue El Camino Real and Kaiser 1-4$57720100510 45 entrance S Airport Blvd btwn Airport 15-2$6,8163000105 45 Blvd and Gateway Blvd Arroyo Drive between 1-8Camaritas Avenue and El $54,40020100105 45 Camino Real Grand Avenue and Oak 4-2$122,3403000105 45 Avenue/ Aldenglen Drive Chestnut Avenue and 4-3$131,0133000105 45 Miller Avenue Mission Road and 11-3$348,46220100105 45 Chestnut Avenue Evergreen Drive from 2-7Crestwood Drive to $19,68020100101 41 Mission Road Victory Avenue and South 5-2$503,9812000201 41 Spruce Avenue Third Tier: Long-Term & Opportunistic Projects (0-40 points) El Camino Real and Arroyo 1-5$1,2142010055 40 Drive El Camino Real and 1-6$2,0682010055 40 Chestnut Avenue South Linden Ave and 7-1$7,3202001505 40 Railroad Ave Mission Road and Grand 4-1$53,1362010055 40 Avenue Forbes Boulevard from 14-1Corporate Drive to E Grand $62,57520100010 40 Avenue El Camino Real from 1-7$229,6802010055 40 Mission to Chestnut South Linden Ave from 7-3South Canal St to Tanforan $256,2002001505 40 Ave South San Francisco Pedestrian Master Plan: Prioritized Projects Pedestrian Access to Key Closure of Serves Safety Feasibility (0- ID #LocationCostDemand Destinations Critical Gap Need Total Points 10) (30/20/10)(20/15/10/5/0)(20/15/10/5/0)(20/15/10/5/0) Hickey Boulevard at 3-1$261,1332005105 40 Junipero Serra Boulevard Ponderosa Road from El 8-2Camino Real to Alhambra $557,89010151005 40 Road South Spruce Avenue and 5-4$1,03410100151 36 El Camino Real Brentwood Dr from 5-6Pinehurst Way to El $1,4002010005 35 Camino Real Gellert Boulevard from 13-2Westborough Boulevard $3,8342000105 35 to Marbella Drive S Airport Boulevard and 15-4$33,7272000105 35 Marco Way El Camino Real and Costco 3-5 $42,640205055 35 Warehouse driveway Hickey Boulevard and 3-3$158,885205055 35 Hilton Avenue South Spruce Avenue 5-3from Victory Avenue to El $444,57010100105 35 Camino Real South Linden Avenue at 7-2North Canal Street and $26,88020155151 56 South Canal Street Oyster Point Boulevard at $3,2781015005 16-2 30 Oyster Point Park Junipero Serra, south of 3-2$640,000200005 25 Hickey Boulevard Victory Avenue and South 5-1$5,532100005 15 Maple Avenue South Linden Avenue and 7-4San Mateo Avenue/ $62,579100005 15 Tanforan Avenue Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates Appendix C: Detailed Cost Estimates CLIMATE ACTION PLAN AND PEDESTRIAN MASTER PLAN C-1